“This contraception fight in particular was illuminating. It was like being in a time machine,” Obama told the crowd, many of whom had purchased tickets that cost $1,000 to attend. “Republicans in Congress were going so far as to say an employer should be able to have a say in the health care decisions of its female employees. You know, for a party that prides itself on being rabidly anti-regulations of almost any kind, for folks who claim to believe in freedom from government interference and meddling, it doesn’t seem to bother them when it comes to a woman’s health.” [Via Gateway Pundit]
Well let’s get into a time machine Mr. President.
First off we could rock it old school.
Or go all flux capacitor at 88 mph.
Now we can travel back to the founding of our country. A country largely founded to escape religious persecution. The colonists didn’t get it all down as far as religious rights were concerned, but by the founding of this country the understanding of right to freedom of worship had coalesced. It is no coincidence that the first right enumerated was “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. This means that even if you disagree or think outdated somebodies belief, Congress still can not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It doesn’t matter if you think opposition to contraception, sterilization, and abortion quaint. An actual human right such as free exercise of religion predates any government and does not change just because Tuesday has lapsed unto Wednesday to paraphrase Chesterton.
Mocking Catholics for their opposition to contraception, sterilization, and abortion as if they were some throwback to some phony idea of medieval times is rather a low thing to do. The violation of human rights is now a talking point on the campaign trail. Something to be bragged about in front of picked friendly groups. “I’m responsibly for killing Osama bin Laden and I am laying some kick-ass on Catholic to boot!” Funny though how careful the administration was with religious sensitivity in burying Osama while going on to have no sensitivity at all to the concerns of faithful Catholics.
Getting back into our time machine of choice we will find that in the history of Christendom that opposition to contraception was universal. Even the Protestant reformers described it in terms of mutual-masturbation and virtual sodomy. It was the Anglican Lambeth conference in 1930 that first opened up the “morality” of contraception in regard to married couples. Soon pretty much most of Christendom had fallen to this novelty and either the Catholic Church is the most pigheaded of all institutions ever, or she truly is being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Now as we use our time machine to survey the founding of this country I don’t think we have to worry too much about time paradoxes and repercussions of affecting time. After all what might be the worst that could happen – 60 million unborn children killed, assisted suicide, and the other emanations of the Culture of Death? Instead of the killing your grandfather paradox we have the kill your own children paradox which is quite a paradoxical thing for a parent to do. Though by redefining the vocabulary you don’t get rid of the paradox, you just make it easier to swallow.
“Republicans in Congress were going so far as to say an employer should be able to have a say in the health care decisions of its female employees.”
No, they were saying employers should have a choice in what kind of health care plan they provide based on their right to freedom of religion. No employer should be forced to abide by somebodies else’s conscience, they should be able to abide by their own. Employees can buy for themselves any kind of health care coverage they want that is not provided. Sure everybody always wants somebody else to pay for something, but that is a preference not a right. An employer not providing healthcare benefits does not prevent the employee doing so. Sure there are costs involved – but really if you need birth control pills you can buy them at target for $9 a month unless you have the shopping sense of Sandra Fluke. There is just no right to employer subsidized healthcare insurance. Employer subsidized healthcare was originally a perk to attract people – unfortunately it attracted the government.
But I guess listening to the President is illuminating and like being in a time machine harkening back to every government that curtailed religious freedom for their own reasons.
65 comments
Time for strawmen, misquates, & gold old fashion anti-catholicicsm…
The Left’s primary healthcare mission remains the creation a “single-payer” government-run system, hence their use of their perennial tactic of placing employees (and their healthcare “needs”) against employers (who “must” pay for them). Knowing the latter may be unable to either stay in business or true their consciences by accepting employee demands (now called “mandates”), the hoped-for change is that the argument for a government-only system grows stronger among the alleged 99%.
>Mocking Catholics for their opposition to contraception, sterilization, and abortion as
Ah yes, when your argument is weak feigning offence is a good tactic. He wasn’t mocking Catholics for their superstitions and sexual repression he was pointing out that all this nonsense is from the 50s. Perhaps he’s worried that you lot will start screaming about Elvis’ pelvis next.
And ha! Ha! Yes! Because insurance companies will cover contraception you have no religious freedom! That’s what religious freedom is, when you don’t like something you have the right to make sure that other people who think differently can’t have it!
“That’s what religious freedom is, when you don’t like something you have the right to make sure that other people who think differently can’t have it!”
That is a flat-out lie. They can have all the contraception they want, so long as they pay for it themselves.
“Because insurance companies will cover contraception…”
Really? Insurance companies are just going to pay for these things and in no way, shape or form pass the cost on to the purchaser?
So what about the Diocese of New York? They self insure and last I heard would be required to provide these services.
Note: the Lambeth conference that first permitted contraception was in 1930, not 1920.
>That is a flat-out lie. They can have all the contraception they want, so long as they pay for it themselves.
>Really? Insurance companies are just going to pay for these things and in no way, shape or form pass the cost on to the purchaser?
Yes, contraception is super expensive and will raise the rates so height that the Diocese won’t be able to afford their victim settlements.
I love how it goes from FFREEEDDOM! to $$$$$$ in a blink of an eye, you guys are just so much like Jesus!
Be careful salvage, Catholicism can be catching.
No Jes, I’m safe, having the ability to critically think coupled with an understanding of history, mythology and anthropology has left me pretty much immune to all forms of theism.
Even without it Christianity makes very little sense, a god sacrifices itself to itself so it would be angry for its creation for behaving exactly how it knew it would behave?
C’mon!
Yes, please fix the date… it was as late as 1930, not 1920, that the Anglicans were the first to cave.
“You know, for a party that prides itself on being rabidly anti-regulations of almost any kind, for folks who claim to believe in freedom from government interference and meddling…” Of course, without ObamaCare, this kerfuffle wouldn’t exist. Which reminds me of a favorite quote of mine; “Hypocrite: the man who murdered both his parents… pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan. ~Abraham Lincoln”
God has always expected, and always expects, good behavior—beginning with faithful obedience. God’s wrath and punishments are always just. God alone, saves.
>God has always expected, and always expects, good behavior
But your god is all knowing right? It can see what’s going to happen so how can it expect anything other than what it knows is going to happen?
As for its wrath, what does it do to Jews, Muslims and others for rejecting Jesus? From what I understand it throws them into Hell to be tortured forever and ever, does that seem just?
God’s justice applies, and His mercy is available, to everyone (cf. Ezekiel 33:11-20).
…and, John 3:17.
salvage { 04.29.12 at 8:51 am } >Mocking Catholics for their opposition to contraception, sterilization, and abortion as….
Ah yes, when your argument is weak feigning offence is a good tactic. He wasn’t mocking Catholics for their superstitions and sexual repression he was pointing out that all this nonsense is from the 50s. Perhaps he’s worried that you lot will start screaming about Elvis’ pelvis next. And ha! Ha! Yes! Because insurance companies will cover contraception you have no religious freedom! That’s what religious freedom is, when you don’t like something you have the right to make sure that other people who think differently can’t have it!
Very good salvage deal indeed!
Listen here Victor! Just cause you were born in the year of the dog doesn’t mean that your spiritual reality cells have made you, your soul and/or spirit their sheep dog. Does “IT”? Although that be a LOT easier to believe than Humans being made in God’s Own Image.
The next think you so called Christian Catholics will want U>S (usual sins) to believe is that angels really are invisible to U.S human alien transhumanistic gods cause that’s how Your God Old Dad (GOD) created “IT” in the beginning.
Victor! Victor! Victor! Why drag this out any more than “IT” need be cause we sins who owns 97% of your salvaged 3% Jesus so called brain cells of this so called human body Mass of yours who can’t even fight their own battles? If this GOD of yours is so powerful, why can’t Jesus speak for himself? It’s weird that a god needs human spokesmen.
The next thing that you skitsos and imaginary friends will be telling U>S , is that “IT” is wrong to tell people that they shouldn’t also be doing things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fme7uwd1X6w&feature=player_embedded
Victor! Victor! Victor! Why can’t you salvage some of your sane brain cells remining and just mind your own business before “IT” is too late for ya? 🙂
Peace?
He wasn’t mocking Catholics for their superstitions and sexual repression he was pointing out that all this nonsense is from the 50s.
We agree at least Catholicism is from the first century. As for we having superstition, I wonder what Aquinas’ deal was. As far as we having sexual repression, then why are there so many of us?
>We agree at least Catholicism is from the first century.
Well sort of, parts of it are much older, the bits from the Bible stretch back obviously but some of the rituals are from Egyptian “mystery cults” and those are even older.
>. As for we having superstition, I wonder what Aquinas’ deal was
I have no idea but ignorance about the natural world I suspect.
>As far as we having sexual repression, then why are there so many of us?
I said repressed not sterile but if you think Catholicism has a healthy attitude to sex you haven’t been paying attention.
For instance is okay for an unmarried woman to have sex?
(((For instance is okay for an unmarried woman to have sex?)))
Let them have “IT” Jack cause why can’t woman freely bait their master reality cells just like most guy’s bait their peter cells? Between sinner vic, his so called imaginary skitsos who agrees with you also that if they, these holi-er-than-thow ignorant so called aquinas’allowed men’s peter to worship their Annoying Super Sunners in marriage then we wouldn’t be having this disgusting humanless big gets subject. If this nice jesus who lived over 2012 years ago of these imaginary catholic human cells really existed, then some of their cells wouldn’t be crying on the cross, stuff like my god, my god, why have you forsakened u>ssssssssss., cause these katholic’s would have listen to jesus when he told his peter to get behind him and allow men to marry men. Forgive these j.a. cause they wouldn’t know god if he was right beside them having sex with another man while blessing “IT”.
I hear ya sinner vic! Careful that their so called god does not pass gas cause I’ve heard that his cells are so big that if any of them farted we wouldn’t need http://v-forvictory.blogspot.ca/.
cause only his followers would remain standing after that action.
What a bunch of ignorant so called saint cells these human being followers are and their gods wants U>S to accept an unborn child who is not even human yet to live here backward! Right salvage?
What next! Satan and his spiritual army really does exist? 🙂
Really NOW!
Piece
“Yes, contraception is super expensive and will raise the rates so height that the Diocese won’t be able to afford their victim settlements.
I love how it goes from FFREEEDDOM! to $$$$$$ in a blink of an eye, you guys are just so much like Jesus!”
Salvage, you are quite right – contraception is cheap. Then it doesn’t need to be covered by insurance.
Again: Salvage, you are quite right – contraception is cheap. Then the issue clearly isn’t the cost, but the being forced to pay.
> – contraception is cheap. Then it doesn’t need to be covered by insurance.
It’s even cheaper if it’s bought in bulk via medical insurance. See that’s the key, medical, contraception are a medical health thing.
You do know that sex is natural right?
>God’s justice applies, and His mercy is available, to everyone (cf. Ezekiel 33:11-20).
That’s nice, does that mean that Muslims get to go to Heaven with you along with Jews, Hindus, atheists and Protestants?
Salvage what you can sinner vic cause GOD is the only “ONE” who can safely look into our hearts so quit while you’re still a head! 🙂
Peace
>That’s nice, does that mean that Muslims get to go to Heaven with you along with Jews, Hindus, atheists and Protestants?
No man is beyond the mercy of God but those who really want to be.
>Well sort of, parts of it are much older, the bits from the Bible stretch back obviously …
Yes!
> … but some of the rituals are from Egyptian “mystery cults” and those are even older.
You make the claim. You have burden of proof.
… if you think Catholicism has a healthy attitude to sex you haven’t been paying attention.
Healthy I’d define as “lacking disease.” Having one mate for life would seem to be a good way to avoid sexual diseases.
Spiritually or psychologically healthy I’d define as “lacking obsession.” I would point out that you brought up sex first. I would also note that only a man obsessed with sex would consider it the highest good. I would not do you the slander of supposing you believe sex the highest good.
In my experience, the Catholic view of sex is that it is one good among many, and that there are higher goods. Seems to me that’s a pretty healthy way of placing things in order.
>Healthy I’d define as “lacking disease.”
The word is a wee bit broader than that and I’ve had more than one “mate” in my life and yet somehow remain STD free as do most.
>I would point out that you brought up sex first.
Uh… the post is about contraception? Do you know what that’s all about?
>In my experience, the Catholic view of sex is that it is one good
Not really, there seems to be this bizarre fear and loathing of it.
Tell me is it wrong for an unmarried woman to have sex?
> No man is beyond the mercy of God but those who really want to be.
That’s nice, does that mean that Muslims get to go to Heaven with you along with Jews, Hindus, atheists and Protestants?
It’s actually a yes or no question so if you can answer it that’d be cool.
> … but some of the rituals are from Egyptian “mystery cults” and those are even older.
> You make the claim. You have burden of proof.
https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=-XueT-STOcvogge9vu31Dg&ved=0CBgQvwUoAA&q=Christianity+egyptian+mystery+cults&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=cd205f5ee1312dca&biw=1920&bih=950
Religion is like war; it was created by the ones that came before it.
Or do you think that all your rituals were invented whole cloth by Jesus and his disciples directed by your god? You really think Catholicism original?
You also practice Roman pagan rituals (veneration of saints, eating your god and the whole praying to statues things) along with the Egyptian stuff.
It’s not surprising, Roman culture was like that, they would harvest other cultures for bits and pieces to adopt and adapt to. It’s how they beat Carthage and when out of arrogance and laziness they stopped learning the decline began.
Probably a lesson there.
(((Probably a lesson there.)))
Ya! DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!!!
WHO SAID THAT? 🙂
Peace
“Yes, contraception is super expensive and will raise the rates so height that the Diocese won’t be able to afford their victim settlements.
I love how it goes from FFREEEDDOM! to $$$$$$ in a blink of an eye, you guys are just so much like Jesus!”
Afraid you set up a false dicotomy there Salvage.
As to your “FFREEEDDOM! to $$$$$$” remark, the issue is that we are being made to spend our $$$$$$ in violation of our FFREEEDDOM!
I am pointinting out that even IF the administration’s so called compromise pushes the cost off to the insurance companies BECAUSE of our religious objection to funding something we see as a grave evil, the companies will have to raise their rates and pass the cost back to us anyway. Thus we end up paying for, wait for it, something we consider a grave evil.
You also side stepped my question about self-insured entities.
>we are being made to spend our $$$$$$ in violation of our FFREEEDDOM!
No an insurance company pays it.
>the companies will have to raise their rates an
No they don’t. An insurance company sets its rate to what the market can afford and contraception is a medication so they already cover it.
See, from an insurance stand point it’s all pills, they don’t care what they do. This one is singled out because SEX! SEX! WOMEN HAVING SEX!!!
For reasons that baffle me women having sex seems to make some people a bit crazy.
>You also side stepped my question about self-insured entities.
Did I? What was it?
That would be the 2 lines after what you cut and paste from my original post
Oh.
>So what about the Diocese of New York? They self insure and last I heard would be required to provide these services.
I did answer this, I said:
Yes, contraception is super expensive and will raise the rates so height that the Diocese won’t be able to afford their victim settlements.
At any rate doesn’t the diocese hire only Catholics? And Catholics don’t use contraception so what’s the problem?
Oh. Wait. No, they do. A lot of them.
If you have medical insurance than you have medical insurance and contraception is part medical care as sex is a natural bodily function.
I know, I know, sex is filthy and unnatural unless before you have it a priest performs a ritual signalling your god’s approval.
Or something.
In the case of the diocese the question wasn’t about cost, it is about conscience. My mistake if I didn’t make myself clear on this.
BTW, I don’t believe the diocese only hires Catholics, I may be mistaken on this.
Also, I question “An insurance company sets its rate to what the market can afford”. Most are for profit. If they offer x services and then offer another, they either drop something else, take a cut in profits or raise the price.
>In the case of the diocese the question wasn’t about cost, it is about conscience.
Yes, well I think the diocese of New York have far more to deal with conscience wise then their insurance company covering pills.
I’m not even sure what they’re talking about, people having sex for reasons other than procreation? That bothers them? Really? Keeps them up all night? Agonizing over the dollars spent on unauthorized orgasms?
Child, please.
>BTW, I don’t believe the diocese only hires Catholics, I may be mistaken on this.
Well then what their employees do with their medical needs is none of their damned business. They have health insurance, contraception is covered and if it’s such a terrible sin your loving god of mercy will throw them into Hell for some infinite torture so it’ll all come out in the wash.
> If they offer x services and then offer another, they either drop something else, take a cut in profits or raise the price.
You really don’t understand, most insurance companies already covered it, there was even a Catholic university that did but then stopped when all this caterwauling started. The Bishops serving their GOP masters have tried to make this into a political issue and they’ve succeeded but not in the way they thought. I don’ t know if you’ve seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E&feature=youtu.be
But it looks like the Dems are embracing insurance companies paying for contraception rather boldly as an issue.
A pleasant surprise.
So unmarried women, having sex bad or good?
So unmarried women, having sex bad or good?
Let me try to find it in the Catechism!
2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Nope. That’s not it.
2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
2334 “In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.” “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God.”
Why is this so hard to find?
2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. … blah, blah, blah … The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.
BORING. I’m going to have to skip ahead a few pages.
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
There it is! You think the Catechism wouldn’t bury the lede like that.
You better be careful, salvage. You might learn what the Church actually teaches.
[…] “It was Like Being in a Time Machine”, Obama’s Mocking of Catholics – The Curt Jester […]
“It’s even cheaper if it’s bought in bulk via medical insurance. See that’s the key, medical, contraception are a medical health thing.”
As far as I know, medical insurance is not about buying in bulk; it’s about pooling risk. Still, the idea has merit. Why don’t those who are contracepting get together and form a nationwide contraception co-op? That would really be buying in bulk, plus there would be no huge overhead of paperwork as there is with insurance.
Of course. From Wikipedia:
“Sexual reproduction is the creation of a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms…
“The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle. The first fossilized evidence of sexually reproducing organisms is from eukaryotes of the Stenian period, about 1 to 1.2 billion years ago. Sexual reproduction is the primary method of reproduction for the vast majority of macroscopic organisms, including almost all animals and plants…
“Evolutionary thought proposes several explanations for why sexual reproduction developed out of former asexual reproduction. It may be due to selection pressure on the clade itself—the ability for a population to radiate more rapidly in response to a changing environment through sexual recombination than parthenogenesis allows. Also, sexual reproduction allows for the ‘ratcheting’ of evolutionary speed as one clade competes with another for a limited resource.”
Clearly, for over a billion years, and for hundreds of thousands of species of plant and animal, sex and reproduction have been inextricably linked. Only an egregiously whacked-out animal like Homo sapiens would ever think otherwise.
>Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul.
Oh nonsense, sometimes it’s just blowing your load before the game starts. I do get a kick out of the way you lot try and infuse the supernatural into every little thing. Guess it makes you feel special or something.
But Popes and the others, they don’t have sex so how could they know what it is much less comment.
>Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.
AS LONG AS IT’S NOT GAY!!! Then you need to bury those filthy Satanic feelings deep and pray to Jesus every day to take the gay away.
>” “Man is a person, man and woman equally so,
As long as the woman knows her place she is equal.
>Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.
So… sex is bad unless a priest says magic words and give permission for them to bang.
Because why?
> It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.
No, I’m not seeing the cause and effect here. Priest’s pagan ritual grants dignity? Children of unmarried unions can’t learn?
Do you ever give any of this nonsense any sort of thought?
> Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
Yeah, but you threaten the victims with Hell for talking about it / tell them they’re liars / blame the hippies and the 60s and hire an army of lawyers and Bill Donahue you can crisis manage the worst of it and when that doesn’t work you can set up some payment schemes and cry crocodile tears until the cameras are off.
>You better be careful, salvage. You might learn what the Church actually teaches.
Oh please, I know what your church teaches; fear, loathing and ignorance. I know more about the history of your religion than you do and I say this because if you truly did? You wouldn’t be a member of such a vile cartel of greed.
Or did I miss the bit in the Bible where Jesus tells Peter to build a bank?
That’s one of the things that just kills me about the Vatican and the sheep that bleat its defense, the bank. Which has a scandal every 10 to 15 years involving the mob. The latest one is hysterical:
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/vatican-faces-flak-over-burying-mobster-1.1286492
Yes, these are the men who would lead you to some sort of holy purity! Why they’re so much like Jesus I can’t tell the difference! How many gold rooms did Jesus have again? And what was his cut on the money changer’s action? I assume at least five points on the vig.
You are the one who needs to learn but you won’t because your church has beaten you well into submission leaving you so terrified of your god you’ll let them get away with anything.
As far as I know, medical insurance is not about buying in bulk; it’s about pooling risk.
…
>Still, the idea has merit. Why don’t those who are contracepting get together and form a nationwide contraception co-op?
Because there already are such things, they are called insurance companies.
You are good at understanding things.
> Only an egregiously whacked-out animal like Homo sapiens would ever think otherwise.
Yeah, but we can control our reproduction… uh what is your point here? Because animals have sex for reproduction insurance companies shouldn’t cover contraception because Catholics don’t like it?
Congratulations Salvage ! You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that most if not all bizarre anti-catholic atheists are Obama supporters. One more reason to vote for somebody else. Thanks!
If you’re having sex and you don’t want babies, then you’re having sex for Fun. Sex, stripped of its reproductive capabilities, is mere Entertainment. Why should I have to pay for your entertainment?
>If you’re having sex and you don’t want babies, then you’re having sex for Fun. Sex, stripped of its reproductive capabilities, is mere Entertainment.
Well it certainly is entertaining but it’s also very healthy both physically and mentally.
Sex is natural right?
I know your Church teaches you that it’s filthy and must be purified by a guy in a goofy hat but that of course is very silly.
Just as silly as married couples only having sex for procreation, they don’t of course.
But what if they already have a couple of kids and don’t want anymore? I know, I know that makes your god angry, it wants more worshippers!
>Why should I have to pay for your entertainment?
Well once again you fail to understand the situation, you won’t be paying for anything, it’s the insurance companies that already pay for medication.
And you understand how oral contraception works right? It’s not like they take the pill before sex and that even if a woman is not having sex there are other reasons to take them, all health related.
But let’s expand on your whine, overeating, eating junk food, sitting on the couch not getting any exercise. These are all “entertainment” that are subsidized by health insurance, people who over indulge in that sort of thing always require more medical attention and expense.
So their insulin shouldn’t be covered?
I know, I know, don’t feed the trolls. But it’s so much fun to watch them make fools of themselves.
Not really, there seems to be this bizarre fear and loathing of it.
Obviously, this statement proves you are completely ignorant of Church teaching. Why am I not surprised?
Sex is natural – I agree. Contraception is not, particularly hormonal pills. I bet you eat organic? But somehow, pumping your body full of synthetic crap to supress a natural process is “natural”? Learn some non-contradictory arguments and then come back when you’ve grown up (if that’s possible).
Dude – you think insurance companies are non-profit or something? You are an idiot.
But what if they already have a couple of kids and don’t want anymore?
I know this takes a lot of secret scientific knowledge to understand, but if you don’t have sex, you won’t have kids.
>I know, I know, don’t feed the trolls. But it’s so much fun to watch them make fools of themselves.
Ha! Ha! Yes! I am a fool because I think woman should have the final say on their bodies and that a fetus is not a person.
>Obviously, this statement proves you are completely ignorant of Church teaching. Why am I not surprised?
I love it when theists tell me that I don’t know their religion yet they never point out what I’m wrong about.
>Sex is natural – I agree. Contraception is not, particularly hormonal pills.
Wow. You are smart! Really? Contraception not natural?!?! GTFOH!!!
> I bet you eat organic?
Uh… yes? My digestive system doesn’t handle inorganic materials very well. Are you a robot?
>But somehow, pumping your body full of synthetic crap to supress a natural process is “natural”?
So, you’ve never taken an aspirin? Any medication? Antibiotics? And yes they “pump” their bodies with it! That’s why it’s so expensive, like tictacs the slutty slut sluts gobble ’em up.
> Learn some non-contradictory arguments and then come back when you’ve grown up (if that’s possible).
I know! The way you’ve put me in my place by pointing out that that pills aren’t natural! You are the smartest thing on the Internet.
>Dude – you think insurance companies are non-profit or something? You are an idiot.
I know! Here I was talking about how insurance companies are charities and how they don’t set their prices to the market! I am such an idiot!
>I know this takes a lot of secret scientific knowledge to understand, but if you don’t have sex, you won’t have kids.
You got me again, I thought that gods impregnated women! Of course only a moron would believe that.
So that’s what you tell couples who have all the children they want / afford? Don’t have sex? Genius! Absolute genius!
Well Professor I hope you’re running for public office because society needs your high intelligence to lead the way.
You know salvage, the modem, the laser, the internal pacemaker, and the microchip were all invented in the ’50s. Speaking dismissively about a time period as if that alone says everything, since nothing that came out of it could possibly be good, is intellectually lazy. A shortcut that spares you the effort of having to work out what actually is allegedly wrong with the thing in question. But please, by all means, don’t let that get in the way of your delusions of superior intellect.
As for contraception, it either is prohibitively expensive or laughably inexpensive — you don’t get to have it both ways. One of the gauges of freedom is the extent to which we exercise autonomy in decisions over the fruits of our own labor, i.e. money. That does not make us cheap or greedy.
“For instance is okay for an unmarried woman to have sex?”
Fornication as litmus test for deciding whether a person has a “healthy” attitude about sex — as defined by you? I find myself having difficulty distinguishing whether you are begging the question or using circular reasoning, but if it is not a little of both then it is certainly one or the other.
“You do know that sex is natural right?”
So is arsenic. I wouldn’t recommend it for purposes other than that for which it is indicated, especially not internal consumption. So is fire, but I would recommend keeping it in your fireplace and not setting a blaze in the middle of your living room floor.
“Not really, there seems to be this bizarre fear and loathing of it.”
Seems being the key word…but only to the uninformed.
Why do you keep pressing these not-particularly-relevant questions? And insisting you are some sort of champion of logic in spite of some very obvious fallacies? That’s what is bizarre.
“No they don’t. An insurance company sets its rate to what the market can afford and contraception is a medication so they already cover it.”
What the market can afford! That’s rich! If it was so affordable then why the desperate need for reform?
“If you have medical insurance than you have medical insurance and contraception is part medical care as sex is a natural bodily function.”
There is absolutely nothing natural about having sex and expecting not to conceive. That’s kinda what it is designed to do.
“I know, I know, sex is filthy”
No actually, it’s quite a beautiful and awesome thing in its proper context, and some of us hate to see it misused — like a Stradivarius being used for a tennis racket.
That’s all I have to say, for the benefit of any lurkers who may be watching. Somebody else can indulge your ridiculous arguments, not to mention your condescension and grossly unjustified superiority complex.
Racquet, not racket. Mea culpa.
Good sir, I’m starting to believe you’re missing the point. There are long, long stretches of the Catechism that do not talk about sin. Sin is the diagnosis. Catholicism is far more interested in the cure. Perhaps the best illustration is in the 2:1 ratio of cure to diagnosis in the sexuality section. If you’re actually interested, the whole thing is worth a read.
I’d be interested to see where “pray the gay away” is written anywhere in the Catechism.