Yea, opposing contraception is like opposing leukemia coverage

[sirs]

Fluke oudoes even herself

On MSNBC this afternoon, Sandra Fluke truly outdid herself, attempting to argue that the people who disagree with the contraception mandate on religious freedom grounds are in the same category as people who oppose insurance coverage for leukemia. Just...watch:

Sandra Fluke: Opponents to Contraception Mandate Have 'Very Extreme Ideas About Religious Freedom'

What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny their employees particular types of healthcare. Now if you take a step back and think about that, that's--you konw, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions, or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to. So the folks who are still objecting have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee healthcare in this country.

Fluke attended Georgetown Law, but it's not clear that she's particularly skilled at her craft: she's not making a terribly logical argument, and it's based on a false comparison anyway. Contraception is "preventative care," in that it's intended to head off a pregnancy, which--although at times inconvenient for the couple in question--is not a disease at all, but instead the result of a decision to have sex.
Leukemia is cancer, a life-threatening illness, which requires prohibitively expensive treatment and most decidedly does not result from a decision about how to conduct one's romantic relationship.

By now, we're all aware of the faith community's reasoning for its position on the matter--including that of secular, but nonetheless faith-infused businesses such as Hobby Lobby--which is rooted more in moral teachings than the basic proceedings of logic. But honestly, even if I wasn't on the opposite side of the morality aisle from Fluke, I would find her argument severely lacking. I did, however, enjoy watching her beclown herself, and I invite you to take the opportunity to do the same. Happy Friday!

[kimba1]

tangent
pregnancy is not a disease,but pro-lifers all agree it`s life threatning. if not ,then why the expensive hospital stay with doctors? maybe if childbirth was less than 2k cost without insurance this would  be less an issue. economics has always been a factor but never been a front issue.

[sirs]

tangent
pregnancy is not a disease,but pro-lifers all agree it`s life threatning.

...actually not just life threatening, but downright deadly to the unborn child. 

To be honest though, I really don't think its the cost of having the child that deters a mother from keeping the child....more so the cost, financially, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and sociologically that's involved in raising the child, that is far more a motivation for killing the child vs simply putting it up for adotion

IMHO

[kimba1]

very true

[Xavier_Onassis]

Pregnancy is mildly life-threatening, slightly more so than clinical abortions.

A woman should have the personal right to birth control as well as abortion.

If the government paid for abortions, it would save money, because there would be fewer unwanted children on the dole.

The Catholic Church has no right to meddle in a woman's choices.

[BT]

tangent
pregnancy is not a disease,but pro-lifers all agree it`s life threatning. if not ,then why the expensive hospital stay with doctors? maybe if childbirth was less than 2k cost without insurance this would  be less an issue. economics has always been a factor but never been a front issue.

I am unaware of any pro-life doctrine that requires hospital stays to deliver said baby. I am aware of efforts by the AMA to thwart licensing of midwifery, which services could easily lower costs for the market kimba is talking about.

[sirs]

Good point

[kimba1]

not saying require,but pointing out here in america it`s a common method for childbirth. you do bringup a very goodpoint about mibwives as a alternative. by all rights AMA has not rights stopping midwives since alot of places outside of america gives birth without the aid of a doctor or hospital. remember the expression"hospital are for sick people not childbirth"

I think it was in the movie gypsy king.

alot of women in my life had complication during childbirth,so a doctor is important. so my question is why is american women losing thier abilty to give birth without help?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that women have the right to have or not have children as they wish.

I certainly have nothing against competent childbirth clinics or midwives.

The BBC has a series called "The Midwives" about the British National Health Service's first years of providing midwives and prenatal care. This was back in the 1950's. The midwives in the series were in Liverpool, I think, and were issued bicycles to make home visits.

A great series and a good way to learn a bit about the history and culture of that time and place.

[sirs]

I think that women have the right to have or not have children as they wish.

And yet you'll not find one anti-abortionist advocating that a woman does not have a right to have or not have a child.  That's a deflective ploy      The issue becomes when a child IS involved.  Until that point, the woman has a right do do anything she wants with however many guys/gals she wants, but pay for your own damn birth control

[BT]

alot of women in my life had complication during childbirth,so a doctor is important. so my question is why is american women losing thier abilty to give birth without help?

I'm not sure american women have lost the ability to give birth without a hospital admission. The process has been the same for thousands of years. But midwives and hospitals do mitigate risk to both the mother and child.

[BSB]

So my insurance pays for all my medications. I make a $5.00 co payment. But they shouldn't pay for contraception? Go back to the middle ages with the Taliban.

BSB

[sirs]

CONTRACEPTION IS NOT MEDICATION FOR SOME INJURY LIKE LOSS OF LIMB, OR FOR SOME MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS LIKE LEUKEMIA, OR EVEN A MIGRAINE       

[BT]

So my insurance pays for all my medications. I make a $5.00 co payment. But they shouldn't pay for contraception? Go back to the middle ages with the Taliban.

BSB

If you choose to have a policy that covers contraceptives, that is great. I assume you are free to choose any policy you want and tailor it to your particular needs.

The issue is not having coverage that covers contaceptives the issue is being forced to provide a policy that covers contraceptives: a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the taliban, other that both the taliban and the us government seem to be saying my way or the highway.

[BSB]

Well I don't agree. I would say the US Government is about allowing for choice and that organizations like the Roman Pedophile Church are saying my way or the highway. I wonder if their priests use condoms when they're buggering little boys?

BTW, the Taliban is also known for its pedophile activities.

BSB