Senate Abortion

Except, that's not necessarily a fair comparison.

First of all, medications aren't simply covered or not covered by insurance. They are covered for specific uses, not necessarily for every use. In general, insurance will cover drugs that are intended to correct a dysfunction (something not behaving normally), but will not cover drugs that are considered preventative. Many of the insurance plans that you mention will cover the use of contraceptives to correct hormonal imbalances (which is correcting a dysfunction), but not for contraceptive purposes (which is considered elective, preventative, or recreational). When used for the former purpose, they are covered "without a qualm", but when used for the latter, they are not covered.

That makes for a very big difference, because the two are not directly comparable.

 

I know health insurance is complicated in the US but it seems silly to me that insurers wouldn't cover medications which are preventative. Providing cover for condoms (no pun intended) is a seriously good investment and potentially avoids a range of future claims and payouts which may naturally arise from unprotected sexual activity, from pregnancy to the large range of STDs. In Australia, some car insurers are now handing out free mobile phone holders for the car as a way of avoiding claims arising from accidents caused by people holding their phone and talking whilst driving. That small investment probably saves them millions in future claims.

 

I'm pretty sure that in the case of birth control it isn't usually the insurers but rather the employers who pay for the policies (e.g., the Catholic church) that don't want it covered.

 

Is the contraceptive pill on the Pharmacutical Benefits Scheme? I don't know if it is, but it might be. It's not a whole lot. $20-$40 for three months supply, depending on the brand and pharmacy.

How much is it over there?

 

Which is why it's kind of stupid to have employers so tied up with insurance in the first place.

I was thinking today that one solution both sides might like would be a tax funded program designed specifically for people who don't have financial access to birth control. It would require the reallocation of tax dollars already collected i.e. make cuts somewhere else...say...defense...and spend that same money on something more...here and now, like birth control. Then again, Republicans probably would hate that....but this doesn't really involve the government specifically telling businesses how they need to spend their money i.e. Catholic institutions.

The thing is, as I already pointed out--birth control is already pretty darn cheap. If a man and woman split the cost, then that's like 5 dollars a piece. Moreover condoms, if they're not free, literally cost like...2 bucks....

 

Thanks, maybe I should start with things like that first before discussing the principles of natural rights and where consumer products like birth control fit into that (morally and economically).

 

$2 each would be very expensive for condoms.

 

Direct abortion, that is, the killing of a distinct human organism, from when it is a zygote to when it is a late-term fetus, is immoral and equal to murder.

Acting in order to prevent implantation, which is different than directly attacking an embryo, is also immoral. It's like failing to feed a starving person when you have plenty of food, and they die. It's murder by negligence.

Preventing the creation of a human being during the act of sex by placing a physical barrier between the gametes, which are human cell, and unite to become distinct human organisms, is murder by prevention.

They are all gravely immoral.

I'm dating a girl who is from a Catholic family of nine children. At their parish, everyone leaves that specific pew open for them, even if they're out of town that Sunday.

And as for the idea of every act of sex being open to pregnancy? We're both for it. Good possibility I may end up marrying her, and we would probably have around the same number as our parents (my parents have nine as well).

The meek will inherit the earth? More like the fecund.

 

I'm saying that unlike you, I, and women I have dated, can wrap our heads around it.

 

Yeah, it would be

 

A guy who goes to my parish said when he was young, he would buy condoms in Jersey and sell them for 50 cents to a buck in the City. Mind you, this was like $4 to $8 back then.

 

Let me see if I understand this correctly: your contention is that by preventing gametes from uniting, you are murdering a person through prevention. Would it be fair to say, then, that you consider masturbation to be murder as well, given that the expelled gametes are also prevented from forming a human life? Or am I misinterpreting your stance?

 

Let me put it to you like this.

 

You're missing out.

 

I just find the idea disturbing because it seems to imply that "wasting" sperm is equivalent to murder (or, at least, highly immoral).

 

"Every Sperm is Sacred" is probably one of the best songs Monty Python ever did, and I am completely on the opposite side of the fence from OZK on every conceivable issue regarding human reproduction. You are, in fact, missing out.

That said, the song's intended ironically in its original context. The point is he considers wasting sperm to somehow be more immoral than selling his children for scientific experiments.

 

The video is a segment from a Monty Python film.

EDIT: Goddammit.

 

On Monty Python's The Meaning of Life--it's awesome