Originally Posted by Deb C

And I respect your views. No one should tell others what to believe.

Nobody can live what you just said consistently. If you don't believe a person who says there is a cliff in front of you that you are driving toward you might die. Now others can't make someone believe something they don't, but it doesn't mean that it is not in someone's best interest to believe whatever the heck they want.
I'm have the same DNA as I did when I was conceived that in the very least makes prenatal a gray area as far as human life is concerned and we should err on the side of preserving life. It's funny the left claims to champion the rights of the weak while stomping all over the rights of the weakest of all, the unborn. Notice none of my arguments were religious in nature BTW. If you think killing babies is ok I get make you believe it isn't, but that doesn't mean we are both right.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Nobody can live what you just said consistently. If you don't believe a person who says there is a cliff in front of you that you are driving toward you might die. Now others can't make someone believe something they don't, but it doesn't mean that it is not in someone's best interest to believe whatever the heck they want.
I'm have the same DNA as I did when I was conceived that in the very least makes prenatal a gray area as far as human life is concerned and we should err on the side of preserving life. It's funny the left claims to champion the rights of the weak while stomping all over the rights of the weakest of all, the unborn. Notice none of my arguments were religious in nature BTW. If you think killing babies is ok I get make you believe it isn't, but that doesn't mean we are both right.

I actually don't think she is a fan of the idea, here. She's a fan of choice, more like it.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No one is forcing anyone, Catholic or otherwise, to get an abortion or to use contraception. This argument about "forcing people to pay for it" just does not wash in an age where people's tax dollars and private donations don't always go where you'd like them to go. Just imagine how many gifts to the Catholic Church may have gone to defend outrageous behavior by priests and bishops over the years.

And once again, you seem to forget that I am a Christian and that there are many others like me who are on the Left and care about the rights and dignity of women.

Would you have a moral issue if the government wrote a law that forced your church to go or operate against its beliefs? Oh, you'd have an issue and I would have an issue too.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

SITF is on my ignore list, but I looked at that post, and I'm glad I did--because of the data.

It's incredible.

What we see here is that the advanced Latin, Catholic countries are dealing with the issue of teen sex responsibly and sanely, while the Anglo-Saxons. . .it's pathetic. Truly pathetic.

I think I was really lucky to grow up when I did. When I was 14 premarital sex was taboo and dangerous, there was essentially no birth control available, and abortion was illegal. By the time I was 21 and started having sex (yes, I know, rather late), contraception was freely available and we accepted that you could learn about sex first, then get married, then, when you wanted to, have kids. And that's exactly what I did. It seems so fucking obvious, if you'll pardon the expression, that that's the sensible way to do it, that I really despair of the insanity of the substantial minority of my countrymen and women who want to pretend that they can stop teens from having sex, which of course, they can't. Other advanced countries, obviously, have figured it out.Why can't we?

Sex isn't the issue. The idea of having sex at a younger age isn't the issue. The issue is responsibility and the lack of responsibility. Who pays for the idiots who engage in irresponsible sex? We pay for the idiots. I didn't knock chicks up because I didn't want to pay for it one way or another for the rest of my life.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

SITF is on my ignore list, but I looked at that post, and I'm glad I did--because of the data.

It's incredible.

It is, isn't?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

What we see here is that the advanced Latin, Catholic countries are dealing with the issue of teen sex responsibly and sanely, while the Anglo-Saxons. . .it's pathetic. Truly pathetic.

I think I was really lucky to grow up when I did. When I was 14 premarital sex was taboo and dangerous, there was essentially no birth control available, and abortion was illegal. By the time I was 21 and started having sex (yes, I know, rather late), contraception was freely available and we accepted that you could learn about sex first, then get married, then, when you wanted to, have kids. And that's exactly what I did. It seems so fucking obvious, if you'll pardon the expression, that that's the sensible way to do it, that I really despair of the insanity of the substantial minority of my countrymen and women who want to pretend that they can stop teens from having sex, which of course, they can't. Other advanced countries, obviously, have figured it out.Why can't we?

Fear…fear of becoming too Catholic, too socialist, too European, too prone to give up rights to government. They are all fallacious slippery slope arguments designed to to keep people in state of controllable fear and learned helplessness. People will get over it...

P.S. Your secret of reading my posts is safe with me ::wink::

Best...

Originally Posted by Odin

Actuallyu, it is productive. countries with smaller gaps between rich and poor are, in general, happier that countries with large wealth gaps. Large wealth gaps in developed countries are also correlated to religiousness, egalitarian countries tend to be less religious.

...Which explains the differing reactions to abortion/contraception in France as opposed to US.

Cheers.

Here is an interesting response from a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog at the Daily Beast about requiring Catholic hospitals, etc., to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-do-ctd-1.html

An excerpt:

Critics frame the issue as forcing the church to violate its theological stance on contraception. I have never seen this theological claim carefully defended. Yes, Catholics believe that individuals commit sin when those individuals use contraception. However, it has never been the theological position of the church that individuals and organizations have a moral requirement to coerce others to not use contraception. A good Catholic business owner who buys insurance for his workers is not expected to confess as a sin the fact that this insurance covers contraception. He is expected to confess if he or she uses contraception.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So we should be MORE like the Catholics??!!

More like the lapsed Catholics, evidently.

Originally Posted by annla899

Here is an interesting response from a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog at the Daily Beast about requiring Catholic hospitals, etc., to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-do-ctd-1.html

An excerpt:

I think that's the first time Andrew Sullivan and I have ever agreed on anything.

Originally Posted by pizal81

It's funny the left claims to champion the rights of the weak while stomping all over the rights of the weakest of all, the unborn. Notice none of my arguments were religious in nature BTW. If you think killing babies is ok I get make you believe it isn't, but that doesn't mean we are both right.

If the Catholic hierarchy wasn't so determined to discourage contraception, there would be fewer abortions in the first place. It isn't healthy to force women to have more children than they can handle either physically or economically. I just don't think the hierarchy has the best interests of women in mind.

Originally Posted by annla899

Here is an interesting response from a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog at the Daily Beast about requiring Catholic hospitals, etc., to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-do-ctd-1.html

An excerpt:

Thoughtful and nuanced comments. Much appreciated.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Then I stand corrected. This is not about the Church of Misogyny. It's about undermining President Obama...yet again.

Cheers.

And there is that, too.

CNN did a whole (albeit exaggerated) segment on it.

But my Child of Socrates, you really should have added the latter part of this quote...

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you NOT to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. -- Marianne Williamson

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by annla899

Here is an interesting response from a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog at the Daily Beast about requiring Catholic hospitals, etc., to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-do-ctd-1.html

An excerpt:

Thoughtful and nuanced comments. Much appreciated.

Ditto.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So we should be MORE like the Catholics??!!

And less like Protestants? Apparently so...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I imagine Obama might have to back off of his contraceptive rules for Catholic hospitals. I don't agree, but politics might have to rule. Catholics are important to the Democrats, and so are Jews. We'll see how it plays out though.

Right now, Romney's Facebook missives (which my wife subscribes to) are framing this as a religious liberty issue.

I consider it as much a matter of religious liberty as the Catholic pharmacists who sued their employer a few years ago, claiming the right not to be required to dispense birth control. My answer to that is to find another line of work. When I was working as a cashier at Roy Rogers a couple of decades ago, there is no way I could have refused to ring up coffee and kept my job.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If the Catholic hierarchy wasn't so determined to discourage contraception, there would be fewer abortions in the first place. It isn't healthy to force women to have more children than they can handle either physically or economically. I just don't think the hierarchy has the best interests of women in mind.

Yeah, I disagree with the Catholics as far as contraception goes. I don't really understand the logic. I know they believe some falsehoods about sex being inherently evil thus celibate priests are somehow less sinful. The contraception fallacy must steam from that.

Originally Posted by James50

This is not my belief. It is the belief of the Catholic church.

Obama's dictum is not about freeing or restricting anyone's reproductive freedom. It is about forcing people of deep belief to fund something contrary to their moral conscience. This is a huge and important distinction.

James50

You keep conflating rights, granted solely to people, with beliefs, also held solely by people, with the implied rights and beliefs of the Catholic Church, which is an institution not a person. Institutions have no Consitutional rights. That a church chooses to own non-religous properties is a decision outside the domain of the Billof Rights. Keep your associations in mind when you link A to B.

Originally Posted by Odin

Actuallyu, it is productive. countries with smaller gaps between rich and poor are, in general, happier that countries with large wealth gaps. Large wealth gaps in developed countries are also correlated to religiousness, egalitarian countries tend to be less religious.

The country with one of the largest rich poor gaps in the world is also one of the most atheistic. You did keep the modifier speaking only of developed countries though. So I don't think what you actually said was a falsehood, but may lead to a false conclusion if misunderstood. Also I don't know how you harmonize that with America's rich/poor gap growing as we lose our religion.
I usually don't like to lump religious all together anyway because religion is diverse in and of itself. I don't know who does it, but the perspectives seems to be from an atheist point of view to lump them all together.
I will say this though. The human tendency to take what they believe and use it as an excuse to hate and even attack others is universal in all religions. I don't think that human tendency disappears when religion is absent though.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

More like the lapsed Catholics, evidently.

Or more like the South Koreans (which is a Christian, predominately Protestant, nation) and has the lowest teen pregnancy rate of the OECD nations. Or more like the Germans (whose plurality leans Protestant) and they have the lowest teen abortion rate of the OECD nations. So you had it right, it's the Anglo-Saxons that raise the red flag. But seeing as the Anglo-Saxons beat the Latins in women's suffrage, this appears to be a progressive dancing game of sorts that Anglo-Saxons are on the rebound from.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Yeah, I disagree with the Catholics as far as contraception goes. I don't really understand the logic. I know they believe some falsehoods about sex being inherently evil thus celibate priests are somehow less sinful. The contraception fallacy must steam from that.

I think that the position of the Catholic Church on birth control has always been clear( see below for example). While I do not agree with this, but I do oppose the killing of unborn babies.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Or more like the South Koreans (which is a Christian, predominately Protestant, nation) and has the lowest teen pregnancy rate of the OECD nations. Or more like the Germans (whose plurality leans Protestant) and they have the lowest teen abortion rate of the OECD nations. So you had it right, it's the Anglo-Saxons that raise the red flag. But seeing as the Anglo-Saxons beat the Latins in women's suffrage, this appears to be a progressive dancing game of sorts that Anglo-Saxons are on the rebound from.

Cheers.

You may like these statistics even better:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/re...gion-religions
South Korea: Christian 26.3% (Protestant 19.7%, Roman Catholic 6.6%), Buddhist 23.2%, other or unknown 1.3%, none 49.3%

Originally Posted by radind

You may like these statistics even better:

Those were the statistics I used. Of the religions in South Korea, Christianity is the dominant one. And if you know anything about South Koreans, they are extremely evangelical. So it is a rising number (as opposed to the declining number in Western countries who are non-religious or affiliated only in name).

Best...

Originally Posted by pizal81

Yeah, I disagree with the Catholics as far as contraception goes. I don't really understand the logic. I know they believe some falsehoods about sex being inherently evil thus celibate priests are somehow less sinful. The contraception fallacy must steam from that.

Contraception is against "God's plan."

But in regard to that other affront to "God's Plan," my priest is going to have to pry my Viagra from my cold flacid hand!

But he knows better than to mess with me; I gotta 6-pack!

except for the religion of None

President Obama’s approval numbers are creeping toward positive territory. Polls from Rasmussen and WaPo/ABC had him at 2 and 4 points net approval this morning.

And the President’s numbers against Romney seem to be tracking up too.

...

The current TPM Poll Average shows Obama 6.2 percentage points ahead of Romney.

..

These numbers come as Romney’s favorability numbers are moving down rapidly. And this morning’s WaPo/ABC poll shows that by a 2 to 1 margin, the more people find out about Romney the less they like him.

Maybe it's those 75% of Catholics that oppose their Church's position on contraceptives?