Should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage from Catholic institutions?

[interestedman]

So there is a lot of talk about the mandate making Catholic institutions cover birth control for employees. This is because Catholicism views birth control as a sin. Having a child outside of wedlock is also a sin, so should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage? What about treatments for STI’s or other sexual related diseases? What about ED medicine for people that are not married?

If you say that birth control should be denied but illegitimate children should be covered, why? What is the distinction? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Ridgerunner]

So there is a lot of talk about the mandate making Catholic institutions cover birth control for employees. This is because Catholicism views birth control as a sin. Having a child outside of wedlock is also a sin, so should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage? What about treatments for STI’s or other sexual related diseases? What about ED medicine for people that are not married?

If you say that birth control should be denied but illegitimate children should be covered, why? What is the distinction? Where do you draw the line?

Nothing in Church teaching condemns illegitimate children. Nothing in Church teaching considers their existence sinful. On the contrary, they are considered children of God and entitled to treatment as would any human being be. Perhaps you are confused in thinking the Church considers “having a child” out of wedlock is a sin. Having intercourse outside of marriage is considered a sin. Giving birth to a child is not, regardless how the child was conceived.

STDs may or may not be contracted as a consequence of sin. But having a disease is not, itself, a sin, regardless of how it was contracted.

Undoubtedly, someone wanting medication for erectile dysfunction but who is not married intends to use the medication for a sinful purpose. Or, at least, I am unaware of any medical use for it other than enhancing erections for the purpose of intercourse. So, if there is some exception, I am not aware of it.

 

[TimothyH]

So there is a lot of talk about the mandate making Catholic institutions cover birth control for employees. This is because Catholicism views birth control as a sin. Having a child outside of wedlock is also a sin, so should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage? What about treatments for STI’s or other sexual related diseases? What about ED medicine for people that are not married?

If you say that birth control should be denied but illegitimate children should be covered, why? What is the distinction? Where do you draw the line?

Having a child outside of wedlock is not a sin. Conception, pregnancy and birth are not sins. People are not sins.

A child is a person. Person’s are not sins or is giving birth to a person ever a sinful act.

-Tim-

 

[Rence]

So there is a lot of talk about the mandate making Catholic institutions cover birth control for employees. This is because Catholicism views birth control as a sin. Having a child outside of wedlock is also a sin, so should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage? What about treatments for STI’s or other sexual related diseases? What about ED medicine for people that are not married?

If you say that birth control should be denied but illegitimate children should be covered, why? What is the distinction? Where do you draw the line?

I don’t think they can. You can be sure that someone out there would do it if they could.

I don’t know if religious institutions could legally get away with barring coverage for illegitimate children, that’s discriminating and it would result in lawsuits that the employer would lose.

And I know that they can’t have certain coverage for one set of emplyees, and deny another set of employes the same coverage benefits, so they couldn’t deny coverage of ED medicine for unmarried men but approve it for married men.

However, they can deny certain coverage. They can eliminate women’s health services altogether and some businesses have done that. One of my employers had women’s health services, but not prenatal benefits. That would have cost extra. So an employer would have to either cover ED medicines and treatments, or not cover it. They would cover ABCs or not cover it. Or they can choose to cover contraceptives linked with certain diagnosis (like endometriosis, heavy bleeding, acne, whatever). But they couldn’t link a service to a sex or marital status and offer it to some employees but not others.

They probabaly could eliminate STD treatment coverage…but why would they do that? Its’ not a sin to contract an STD…even married people have contracted STDs…

 

[Rence]

Having a child outside of wedlock is not a sin. Conception, pregnancy and birth are not sins. People are not sins.

A child is a person. Person’s are not sins or is giving birth to a person ever a sinful act.

-Tim-

While that is very very true, until abortion became legal and more widely used, most women and their illegitimate children were shunned and discriminated against in most of the world. They lost jobs, got kicked out of school, shunned by neighbors and peers, brought shame to themselves and their family, etc. Teenage girls were sent away to have their children, in secret, and came back as if nothing happened, after giving up their baby for adoption – or their parents woud kick them out. Nice.

 

[salusanimarum17]

While that is very very true, until abortion became legal and more widely used, …

From this, I gather that you think legal abortion caused a change in the way children born out-of-wedlock were treated? Interesting. In modern society, the acts that produce children as well as the children themselves are not worth any special consideration, for better or worse.

As far as the OP, to actually ask “what’s the distinction between birth control and a child” is rather surprising.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

While that is very very true, until abortion became legal and more widely used, most women and their illegitimate children were shunned and discriminated against in most of the world.

Are you suggesting that all of this judgmental behavior ceased when abortion became legal?

 

[fix]

So there is a lot of talk about the mandate making Catholic institutions cover birth control for employees. This is because Catholicism views birth control as a sin. Having a child outside of wedlock is also a sin, so should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage? What about treatments for STI’s or other sexual related diseases? What about ED medicine for people that are not married?

If you say that birth control should be denied but illegitimate children should be covered, why? What is the distinction? Where do you draw the line?

Part of the problem is that you are confusing authentic medical care with inauthentic medical care.

Using medication to treat an illness is fine. Using medication to supress a naturally functioning system is not.

Starting with this premise you can answer your own questions.

 

[Rence]

From this, I gather that you think legal abortion caused a change in the way children born out-of-wedlock were treated? Interesting. In modern society, the acts that produce children as well as the children themselves are not worth any special consideration, for better or worse.

Yes, I think that people started realizing that if there weren’t changes in the lack of support to pregnant women, and they way they and their families were being treated, that abortion would continue to go up.

As far as the OP, to actually ask “what’s the distinction between birth control and a child” is rather surprising.

It’s not surprising though. I have no idea why you think it’s so suprising. It’s completely line with how pregant unmarried women were (and still are) treated. It was always a big huge shame to be pregnant out of wedlock, and still is today. It’s kind of silly to deny that’s what happened (and still happens). It’s just a little bit better now with a lot of support. But there is still the social stigma, especially among more religious – except that they have to be more careful. After all, you can’t berate someone for being pregnant out of wedlock anymore and still be prolife because if you turn their indescretion into a big sin, it will push them towards abortion. Now we have to find a balance between ‘preaching the truth’ and being supportive to someone who may or may have not blatanly disregarded moral law and got pregnant before (or outside of) marriage, without being too judgemental, but being honest at the same time. The more support given to the baby is through the mother, and can be misconstrued as a ‘reward’ for poor behavior by some.

 

[Rence]

Are you suggesting that all of this judgmental behavior ceased when abortion became legal?

No way. But it did get better. When my grandmother grew up and when my mother grew up, no one they knew kept a child out of wedlock. They “disappeared” and when they returned, their child did not come with them.

Today, more unwed mothers are raising their children and even though people chatter behind their backs, and they do chatter, there is a LOT more support. And I don’t think it got better because abortion became legal. I think it got better because people realized that they were going to have to change their behavior to be more supportive of these women.

 

[Rence]

Part of the problem is that you are confusing authentic medical care with inauthentic medical care.

Using medication to treat an illness is fine. Using medication to supress a naturally functioning system is not.

Starting with this premise you can answer your own questions.

Part of the problem is when a group or subset of people decides they want to define what is authentic medical care and what is not, and it doesn’t really matter unless those who actually are involved in the decisions come to the same conclusion. The fact is, the medical world collectively by a large majority include birth control methods as part of preventative health care services. If it wasn’t a legitimate medical treatment, there would be no billing insurance, and of course, there would be no payment. But there is. Like it o not, birth control is part of women’s healthcare. One can disagree with it all they like, but at the end of the day, the medical community decides what is medical care and what is not.

 

[fix]

Part of the problem is when a group or subset of people decides they want to define what is authentic medical care and what is not, and it doesn’t really matter unless those who actually are involved in the decisions come to the same conclusion. The fact is, the medical world collectively by a large majority include birth control methods as part of preventative health care services. If it wasn’t a legitimate medical treatment, there would be no billing insurance, and of course, there would be no payment. But there is. Like it o not, birth control is part of women’s healthcare. One can disagree with it all they like, but at the end of the day, the medical community decides what is medical care and what is not.

No they do not. The moral law determines this. Direct abortion is not medical care as one example. If your position were correct then Nazi physicians were correct in all they did.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And I don’t think it got better because abortion became legal. I think it got better because people realized that they were going to have to change their behavior to be more supportive of these women.

Indeed, perhaps the only true positive that came out of it …

 

[TimothyH]

While that is very very true, until abortion became legal and more widely used, most women and their illegitimate children were shunned and discriminated against in most of the world. They lost jobs, got kicked out of school, shunned by neighbors and peers, brought shame to themselves and their family, etc. Teenage girls were sent away to have their children, in secret, and came back as if nothing happened, after giving up their baby for adoption – or their parents woud kick them out. Nice.

That has nothing to do with the question you asked. In fact, denying insurance to children born out of wedlock is turning back toward this type of behavior.

Ripping the arms and legs off and decapitating a child with wires without anesthesia and then using a vaccume to suck their body parts into a jar is not an improvement.

-Tim-

 

[Ridgerunner]

From this, I gather that you think legal abortion caused a change in the way children born out-of-wedlock were treated? Interesting. In modern society, the acts that produce children as well as the children themselves are not worth any special consideration, for better or worse.

As far as the OP, to actually ask “what’s the distinction between birth control and a child” is rather surprising.

I don’t think illegitimate children were treated badly before abortion. After all, everybody knew that nearly every adopted child was illegitimate, and adopted children were not stigmatized.

It is interesting to note that the rate of illegitimacy bears a direct relationship to the rate of abortions performed at any given point in time. So, as a cure for illegitimacy, abortion has certainly not been one.

 

[Stephen168]

The court system, not the medical system, decided birth control was medical care. Medical care is maintaining the body to operate as designed. This definition held until viagra came to market. Then the legal system decided having sex without babies was also medicine.

If government support for women raising children without fathers changed for the better due to abortion, it quickly changed for the worse due to lack of political support.

 

[salusanimarum17]

It’s not surprising though. I have no idea why you think it’s so suprising. It’s completely line with how pregant unmarried women were (and still are) treated…

Pregnant, unmarried women are not part of the issue. The question I found surprising was “what’s the distinction between a child and birth control.” If you think that’s a run-of-the-mill question, fine.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If it wasn’t a legitimate medical treatment, there would be no billing insurance, and of course, there would be no payment. But there is.

A fairly significant “non sequitur”. Might as well say that if contract murder was not legitimate, there would be no hit men willing to take the money. Just because somebody pays for something does not make it legitimate.

 

[Rence]

No they do not. The moral law determines this.

The only laws that matter in this world are the laws that govern the medical community, and those laws protect contraceptives and give people easier access to them. One cannot obligate another person to follow laws dicated by one’s relgion, at least not in this world. And there is no way to enforce them anyway. The only way to conform the laws to this world, to the laws in the next world, is by changing them, not denying they exist. One can cover their ears, close their eyes and ignore something or someone, but be assured, someone or somethingis still there So saying they’re not, just makes it silly, not real.

 

[benjammin]

I know people are mentioning the horror stories about how badly illegitimate children were treated before abortion, but a lot of times it was catholic hospitals and orphanages that took care of these babies who were usually abandoned (other groups i’m sure did so as well). I understand the women were treated worse (they shouldn’t have been), but it wasn’t because of roe v wad that they were treated better. Honestly if anything, those mothers who had emotional scars from out of wedlock kids are the equivalents of the mothers who had abortions. Both things are terrible, which is why we need to emphasize chastity and family