UGH

monkeysip

Agape--PM back at you

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:69fa3028-6967-41ba-aab4-16642a20ec10">UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]This just makes me so angry. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43972446/ns/health-health_care/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43972446/ns/health-health_care/</a> CN: Legislation has been passed now that more or less says no woman will have to pay a co-pay for BC anymore.. it comes out of Uncle Sam's pocket instead.  AKA we are paying for other women's birth control.  I mean.. not as bad as us paying for women's abortions.. but this still makes me mad. We debated this on SB a couple weeks ago.  Last time I checked we just narrowly avoided default.  Where does this country get off spending so much money on stuff that is not necessary to live.  No BC: Not life threatening.  No food: slightly more life threatening. We need to focus on needs vs wants soo much more now. ETA: I am a huge fan of them covering paps and other preventative care.  But calling BC preventative haelthcare makes it sound like a baby is a disease.
Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]

While I agree with you, we all have to remember that Catholics make up just under 25% of the US population.


Since this a democracy, the only way to make your feelings know is to do it through your representative to Congress or your Senator.

Sorry, but this is unfortunately the big bad truth here.  Vote against those who are pro abortion.  That's about your only way of making yourself heard.  


This is, unfortunately, your only option if you disagree with the current decisions

Meg1036

Riss - I totally understood what you meant in context - that it would be nice to be able to choose where your money goes. 

I do disagree that the wars and PP are different arguments, though.  Some wars must be fought, and that is why we have a military.  It was argued earlier in the thread that because PP does some things considered immoral, the whole thing is immoral (including pap smears, etc.)  Why would the same rationale not apply to the military?

On the flip side, there are many who disagree with federal funds being used for absitenence-only education, etc.  So I actually wonder if everyone "choosing" where their money goes would really change the end distribution of money.  Its actually a thing that would be really interesting to find out.

Riss91

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:cfaa03b5-c22d-4e99-aeed-8922e94f0e4d">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]Riss - I totally understood what you meant in context - that it would be nice to be able to choose where your money goes.  I do disagree that the wars and PP are different arguments, though.  Some wars must be fought, and that is why we have a military.  It was argued earlier in the thread that because PP does some things considered immoral, the whole thing is immoral (including pap smears, etc.)  Why would the same rationale not apply to the military? On the flip side, there are many who disagree with federal funds being used for absitenence-only education, etc.  So I actually wonder if everyone "choosing" where their money goes would really change the end distribution of money.  Its actually a thing that would be really interesting to find out.
Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I see your point. It would mean we would have to somehow have input on which wars were fought, and how they were fought. And similarly, what our funding to PP is used for. But if you think about it, any funding - even if it is specified for x, y, z purpose only - still assists in helping the causes we're against, simply because they can free up funds they were going to use for x, y, z and put it towards the "immoral" acts. This is why I'd rather only support organizations that only partake in assistance that I feel is morally sound.

It's definitely a struggle!

Meg1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:74eb1856-d550-4e4e-9373-0987ee368048">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: UGH : Yeah, I see your point. It would mean we would have to somehow have input on which wars were fought, and how they were fought. And similarly, what our funding to PP is used for. But if you think about it, any funding - even if it is specified for x, y, z purpose only - still assists in helping the causes we're against, simply because they can free up funds they were going to use for x, y, z and put it towards the "immoral" acts. This is why I'd rather only support organizations that only partake in assistance that I feel is morally sound. It's definitely a struggle!
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

Well, that's it then.  We'll just have to shut down the government.  <img src="http://cdn.cl9.vanillaforums.com/downloaded/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />

Riss91

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:e082ae8b-acc6-4062-abd0-e167be95fc36">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: UGH : Well, that's it then.  We'll just have to shut down the government. 
Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]

lol - I'd be pretty happy with a complete government overhaul!!  No joke.
<img src="http://cdn.cl9.vanillaforums.com/downloaded/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />

Bec20

Honestly, this is something I never would have thought of as being "bad".  I think anything that the US does that brings it closer to having universal health care is a good thing.  I think that it is probably safe to assume that the correlation between teens having easy access to birth control if they are on thier parents' insurance in Canada ($0.35 to have a prescription filled) and a declining teen pregnancy and teen abortion rate.

I think that saying it is bad simply because it opposes one's religion-based morals is not truly an argument in a case like this, because otherwise there would constantly be religious groups opposing medical procedures.  There are some things that some religious groups believe should be covered (ex. circumcision) or should not be covered (ex. organ transplants) simply because it contradicts what their religion has taught them to believe.  Forcing that to take place is impossible if church and state are separated.

monkeysip

But I think pps have made good point about the fact that easier access to contraception really hasn't helped much in the past.  If at all.  To me, it has only furthered the culture of death in this country.  

And It's not just an issue of religion, but natural law.  If a nation's laws are not based on some kind of basic morality, then they are based purely on the desires of the people ruling.  That's tyranny.  

Also, I'm a supporter of universal healthcare.  But I would want the universal healthcare to exclude contraception unless a person had evidence from a doctor that they had a medical disorder that required hormonal birth control as a treatment.  Otherwise, pregnancy isn't a disease, so contraception isn't healthcare.

Bec20

Well, I think it walks the same line that circumcision does in regards to health care.  It isn't truly necessary, but it is a choice that people make regarding their health.

In Canada at least, sex education and availability of contraception has resulted in a decline of teen pregnancy rate by 36.9%, which I think is quite significant.  (Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/canadas-teen-birth-and-abortion-rate-drops-by-369-per-cent/article1581673/)  I think that the fact that the much-more-conservative USA has more than double the teen pregnancy rate as both Canada and Sweden shows that something positive is happening in the latter two countries.

monkeysip

Well, I don't think circumcision should be covered by public healthcare either (or universal).  Private can do what it wants.

Also, there's more to your article than you stated.

First, the article says it's not just contraception and sex ed, but "shifting social norms."

Second, it says,“The United States has large, well-entrenched pockets of inner city poverty and that clearly is linked to higher teen pregnancy rates."  I think there's much truth to this.  It's the urban, uneducated, disadvantaged teens that are struggling the most with this.

Third, it says that Sweden's rates are dropping partially due to increased abortions.  So the PREGNANCIES are not decreasing as much, but the born children are.

And lastly, on a side note, I don't view a drop in pregnancies necessarily as a positive if it doesn't correlate to a drop in premarital sexual activity.  I don't view an unmarried person having sex and using contraception as better than an unmarried person having sex and not using contraception and having a baby.  I'd rather one mistake than two.

Riss91

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:6ddcf88c-c7dd-478b-9630-6a91b4aba06f">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]Honestly, this is something I never would have thought of as being "bad".  I think anything that the US does that brings it closer to having universal health care is a good thing.  I think that it is probably safe to assume that the correlation between teens having easy access to birth control if they are on thier parents' insurance in Canada ($0.35 to have a prescription filled) and a declining teen pregnancy and teen abortion rate. I think that saying it is bad simply because it opposes one's religion-based morals is not truly an argument in a case like this, because otherwise there would constantly be religious groups opposing medical procedures.  There are some things that some religious groups believe should be covered (ex. circumcision) or should not be covered (ex. organ transplants) simply because it contradicts what their religion has taught them to believe.  Forcing that to take place is impossible if church and state are separated.
Posted by Bec20[/QUOTE]

I don't think there is anything wrong with religious groups protesting anything that goes against their beliefs. Especially if the government is using their money to fund it.

The concern here is not just that is goes against the Church. It's that it isn't necessarily the best thing for women's health and for society.