Why should anyone be forced to pay for the abc of others?

[St_Francis]

I have asked this question a few times and haven’t received an answer, so I thought I’d ask it separately.

Artifical birth control and elective sterilizations are not medically treating anything. Pregnancy resulting from sexual activity shows the body is functioning well, not badly. Thus abc and elective sterilizations are not fixing anything, because nothing is wrong.

And the point of abc and elective sterilization is to allow people to have sex without children. In effect then, we are paying so people can have sex without having children.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

Why on earth should we be expected to pay for other people’s abc and elective sterilizations so they can have sex?!?!?!? Even a person who sees no moral problem with either should have a problem with that. Are we next going to start giving out gift certificates to romantic restaurants and flowers? If some prefers playing video games to having sex, should we pay for that?

I am not advocating making abc and elective sterlization illegal. For the purposes of this discussion, I am fine saying that what people do in private between consenting adults is not any of my business. I just don’t see why other people should have to pay to make it possible without children. The participants should pay for it themselves.

 

[Joe_5859]

Of course, the proponents of contraception and “women’s health” would certainly not choose to articulate it that way, but really, that is what it comes down to: people have a constitutional, God-given right to have sex without consequences.

This, to them, seems to be the fundamental right upon which all others are based. Try to think of any other health service that people have a “right” to completely free of charge. I cannot think of any. If I get sick or I break a bone or I get cancer or appendicitis, even with health insurance, I have to pay out-of-pocket costs: copays, deductibles, etc. But if I want to be able to have sex without consequences, well why should I have to pay a dime for something so critically important?

I agree. Morality of the issues aside, I cannot fathom how anyone would think this is okay.

 

[Roy5]

Agreed. Catholic institutions should not have to finance birth control or any other practices that are opposed to the teaching of the Church.

  You're articulating the point of view of millions of non-Catholics who oppose tax money going to support Catholic projects. They see school vouchers, for example, as underwriting Catholic doctrine as taught in parochial schools - doctrines not held by non-Catholics. Yet, the hierarchy keeps pushing for such underwriting.

   I've read that most of the financing for US Catholic Charities, both at home and for its work overseas, comes from public funding (tax monies). Catholic hospitals and universities receive major support from public funds - certainly medicare and medicaid, special research projects, etc. I''ve even read that many nuns who never paid into Social Secutiry receive Social Security. Church-related institutions, of course, don't pay property taxes. 

   In a word, the picture is very complicated and there are major glitches when it comes to church-state separation. For centuries the Church insisted on favoritism for the Church in countries where that could be achieved. Other religions faced serious restrictions. Go back far enough and heretics were routinely persecuted, often executed. Even Thomas Aquinas wanted the state to execute heretics. 

   In a word: careful. The Church needs to be careful not to be seen as overreaching, demanding special privileges. I detect a strong underlying resentment of Catholicism in the USA, perhaps especially pronounced among ex-Catholics. 

  On this issue, however, the Church is right. While I think the Church is wrong when it blanketly condemns 'normal' birth control (the sort that may cause an abortion is a different question), the Church should not have to pay for it in violation of its principles.

 

[St_Francis]

Agreed. Catholic institutions should not have to finance birth control or any other practices that are opposed to the teaching of the Church. …

I’m not talking about the issue wrt the Church; I’m talking about why *anyone, *Catholic or not, should be expected to pay so that others can ensure that they can have sex whenever they want without having to worry about the natural consequence of this activity?

If Ms Jane Doe decides she doesn’t want to have children right now but she wants to continue to have sex, why should anyone else, Catholic, non-Carholic, whatever, pay for this?

 

[Melchior_1]

Artifical birth control and elective sterilizations are not medically treating anything. Pregnancy resulting from sexual activity shows the body is functioning well, not badly. Thus abc and elective sterilizations are not fixing anything, because nothing is wrong.

I’ve been saying this for a bit now, you worded this quite well!

 

[jlhargus]

Agreed. Catholic institutions should not have to finance birth control or any other practices that are opposed to the teaching of the Church.

  You're articulating the point of view of millions of non-Catholics who oppose tax money going to support Catholic projects. They see school vouchers, for example, as underwriting Catholic doctrine as taught in parochial schools - doctrines not held by non-Catholics. Yet, the hierarchy keeps pushing for such underwriting.

JL: School vouchers could be used by Protestants as well as Catholics. I think you are missing the point. Ceasar is free to do with Ceasars’ tax revenues as Ceasar sees fit. Even paying for abortion. We may not like it and can voice our disapproval and work to change it. In the case of Obama Care people of faith are to violate their concience using thier revenue not Ceasars to directly pay and provide those things found contrary to their faith. Ceasar should pay and provide for those things if that’s what Ceasar wants.

I've read that most of the financing for US Catholic Charities, both at home and for its work overseas, comes from public funding (tax monies). Catholic hospitals and universities receive major support from public funds - certainly medicare and medicaid, special research projects, etc.

JL: I would be surprised if it was most funds. Yes the Government does give money to religious groups Catholic and Protestant and non religious humanitarian groups as well. It benefits both as the government doesn’t have to set up and pay a bureaucracy to distribute and maintain those services. Religious groups are already there doing the work anyway. The problem, I see, those groups become dependent on those funds and can be manipulated by the Government.

I’'ve even read that many nuns who never paid into Social Secutiry receive Social Security. Church-related institutions, of course, don’t pay property taxes.

JL: I have never heard of this. I know every year there is a collection for retired religious who did not pay into SS. If what you say is true. Then I bet the same is done for non-Catholics.

In a word, the picture is very complicated and there are major glitches when it comes to church-state separation. For centuries the Church insisted on favoritism for the Church in countries where that could be achieved. Other religions faced serious restrictions. Go back far enough and heretics were routinely persecuted, often executed. Even Thomas Aquinas wanted the state to execute heretics.

JL: The same could be said for some Protestant faiths such Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, Puritans, Quakers. etc.

In a word: careful. The Church needs to be careful not to be seen as overreaching, demanding special privileges. I detect a strong underlying resentment of Catholicism in the USA, perhaps especially pronounced among ex-Catholics.

  On this issue, however, the Church is right. While I think the Church is wrong when it blanketly condemns 'normal' birth control (the sort that may cause an abortion is a different question), the Church should not have to pay for it in violation of its principles.

JL: I think you are right on being careful but some will try to spin it as the Church demanding special privleges. My opinion if the Government gets away with this violation of the Constitution it will open the door wide for the future. I guess this is what we can expect when a bill is passed before it is read.

 

[St_Francis]

I’ve been saying this for a bit now, you worded this quite well!

Thank you, Melchior. Maybe I got the idea from one of your posts!

 

[Roy5]

When it comes to violations of the Constitution, there always has been considerable debate. That debate, among other things, led to that disastrous Civil War 150 years ago.

The original Constitution had some major flaws. Slavery was accepted. Women were not permitted to vote. Those were two. I am a patriotic American, but I worship God and not a document from our history which was rather badly stained, certainly by our treatment of Blacks and Native Americans. 

 Bear in mind, that the Declaration of Independence was signed by 55 men, 54 of whom were those notorious, nasty 'heretics' (up until Vatican II) known as Protestants. Fortunately, John XXIII (bless his name) redesignated them as 'separated brothers and sisters'.

 

[Melchior_1]

Thank you, Melchior. Maybe I got the idea from one of your posts!

Maybe! Either way, I like how you worded your question here. The same can also be said for abortion; it’s an elective procedure, why should all of us have to pay for it?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Agreed. Catholic institutions should not have to finance birth control or any other practices that are opposed to the teaching of the Church.

  You're articulating the point of view of millions of non-Catholics who oppose tax money going to support Catholic projects. They see school vouchers, for example, as underwriting Catholic doctrine as taught in parochial schools - doctrines not held by non-Catholics. Yet, the hierarchy keeps pushing for such underwriting.

   I've read that most of the financing for US Catholic Charities, both at home and for its work overseas, comes from public funding (tax monies). Catholic hospitals and universities receive major support from public funds - certainly medicare and medicaid, special research projects, etc. I''ve even read that many nuns who never paid into Social Secutiry receive Social Security. Church-related institutions, of course, don't pay property taxes. 

   In a word, the picture is very complicated and there are major glitches when it comes to church-state separation. For centuries the Church insisted on favoritism for the Church in countries where that could be achieved. Other religions faced serious restrictions. Go back far enough and heretics were routinely persecuted, often executed. Even Thomas Aquinas wanted the state to execute heretics. 

   In a word: careful. The Church needs to be careful not to be seen as overreaching, demanding special privileges. I detect a strong underlying resentment of Catholicism in the USA, perhaps especially pronounced among ex-Catholics. 

  On this issue, however, the Church is right. While I think the Church is wrong when it blanketly condemns 'normal' birth control (the sort that may cause an abortion is a different question), the Church should not have to pay for it in violation of its principles.

Nuns – or anyone else – who did not pay into Social Security can’t collect Social Security benefits. To be eligible for benefits, one has to have paid into the system for a specific length of time. I don’t know the requirements for SSI for the disabled.

You are correct that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in America. One can’t say anything negative about Blacks, Jews, Moslems, or any other group – except the Catholic Church. The Church is fair game for any calumny. That’s because of the vast amount of ignorance in the U.S. propagated by Protestants and ignorant, embittered ex-Catholics.

Every Christian organization forbade contraception until the Anglican/Episcopal Lambeth Conference of 1930. You prefer not to reveal your denomination (why?), so assuming it existed in 1930, it would have been among those teaching that artificial contraception is sinful. But your denomination – like the rest of Protestantism, and now even the Orthodox – caved in to the pressures of the culture and joined the Episcopalians/Anglicans, who started this epidemic of iniquity. Either that, or your denomination was born since 1930. Flip flop, flip flop, artificial contraception was a sin, but now it’s not, flip flop. God changed His Mind; He told all of the man-made ecclesial communities, but not His Own Church.

You make charges against the Church without giving sources. Please document your allegations. “I read . . .” is not a sufficient basis for stating what you allege to be facts.

The Church has never executed anyone.

It is not a “special privilege” to demand that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution be enforced. Obama has violated it. The attorneys general of 12 states have initiated a lawsuit against the administration over this mandate and the “accommodation,” and they expect many more states to join the battle.

School vouchers would be for anyone who wishes to send their children to any private school, not just Catholics.

The U.S. Constitution does not say a word about “separation of church and state.”

This is a good forum for Protestants to get educated about Catholicism. Is that why you came here?

Peace be with you.

Jim Dandy
Former ignorant Protestant, agnostic, atheist

 

[Joe_5859]

I like Mark Shea’s “succinct” evaluation of the whole thing:

If what goes on in someone’s bedroom is none of my business, then don’t make me pay for their supplies or consequences.

Conversely, if somebody is going to force me to pay for their supplies and consequences, don’t tell me it’s none of my business.

 

[St_Francis]

I like Mark Shea’s “succinct” evaluation of the whole thing:

If what goes on in someone’s bedroom is none of my business, then don’t make me pay for their supplies or consequences.

Conversely, if somebody is going to force me to pay for their supplies and consequences, don’t tell me it’s none of my business.

Oh, that is perfect! Thank you!

 

[Nate13]

I like Mark Shea’s “succinct” evaluation of the whole thing:

If what goes on in someone’s bedroom is none of my business, then don’t make me pay for their supplies or consequences.

Conversely, if somebody is going to force me to pay for their supplies and consequences, don’t tell me it’s none of my business.

 

[jlhargus]

Every Christian organization forbade contraception until the Anglican/Episcopal Lambeth Conference of 1930. You prefer not to reveal your denomination (why?),

JL: Jim if memory serves me Roy is Congregationalist.

 

[Iowa7681]

I have asked this question a few times and haven’t received an answer, so I thought I’d ask it separately.

Artifical birth control and elective sterilizations are not medically treating anything. Pregnancy resulting from sexual activity shows the body is functioning well, not badly. Thus abc and elective sterilizations are not fixing anything, because nothing is wrong.

And the point of abc and elective sterilization is to allow people to have sex without children. In effect then, we are paying so people can have sex without having children.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

Why on earth should we be expected to pay for other people’s abc and elective sterilizations so they can have sex?!?!?!? Even a person who sees no moral problem with either should have a problem with that. Are we next going to start giving out gift certificates to romantic restaurants and flowers? If some prefers playing video games to having sex, should we pay for that?

I am not advocating making abc and elective sterlization illegal. For the purposes of this discussion, I am fine saying that what people do in private between consenting adults is not any of my business. I just don’t see why other people should have to pay to make it possible without children. The participants should pay for it themselves.

Assuming you are taking the moral issue aside, I think there is a certain logic to providing free or low cost birth control.

Again, following the OPs pretense, this is a fiscal question only.

You are assuming that there is a cost associated with providing birth control (there is) AND that this cost is greater than not providing it. I would be very interested to see if this is true, but I would bet it is not. Providing birth control to a woman is quite cheap, whether it is condoms or one of the many generic variation of the pill (they have been off-patent for a long time). Compare the average medical cost of a child to having a woman on some sort of birth control. I would guess that the cost of one child would offset hundreds, if not many hundreds of womens birth control. Just from a financial proposition, it makes sense. (I am kind of assuming that the plan, once implemented, would focus on the many cheap options of birth control, and not offer new, overpriced options, based on fiscal common sense. Yeah, its a stretch!)

You ended with:

For the purposes of this discussion, I am fine saying that what people do in private between consenting adults is not any of my business. I just don’t see why other people should have to pay to make it possible without children. The participants should pay for it themselves.

While this is true, by the same logic, I should not be forced to pay for the family with 10 children, correct? “The participants should pay for it themselves.” Still stand behind that statement?

 

[Iowa7681]

I like Mark Shea’s “succinct” evaluation of the whole thing:

If what goes on in someone’s bedroom is none of my business, then don’t make me pay for their supplies or consequences.

Conversely, if somebody is going to force me to pay for their supplies and consequences, don’t tell me it’s none of my business.

Similar to what I just posted above, they why should I pay for a resultant large family? Its a consequence, correct?

Again, fiscal, not moral point.

 

[Nate13]

Similar to what I just posted above, they why should I pay for a resultant large family? Its a consequence, correct?

Again, fiscal, not moral point.

Your correct, when you have all these social programs every decision a person makes becomes societies business because every decision they make now affects society. State sponsored healthcare is the straw that basically brings in every decision we make to the public square. Whats going to stop them from regulating what you eat?

The only reason having a large family affects society though is because of parts of the social safety net that are in place. Its very convenient for liberals to bring up that point though considering it was their policy in the first place that created the conflict…

 

[Iowa7681]

Your correct, when you have all these social programs every decision a person makes becomes societies business because every decision they make now affects society. State sponsored healthcare is the straw that basically brings in every decision we make to the public square. Whats going to stop them from regulating what you eat?

2 points. One, I think this question was cost specific, not how big government is taking over. Two, if anything this opens up more options for healthcare users, not less, as you alluded to. You are free to disagree on moral grounds of course, which is a thread repeated here many times over. But I hardly view this as restrictive, in a medical sense only of course.

The only reason having a large family affects society though is because of parts of the social safety net that are in place. Its very convenient for liberals to bring up that point though considering it was their policy in the first place that created the conflict…

Trying to stay on point, the issue I was raising is that is in fact FAR more costly to have the freedom to have a large (by modern standards) family than to provide birth control. Again, limiting the cost to the medical community/insurance. In the context of this thread, the question is why would one support paying for birth control, morality aside. My point is that it may in fact be cheaper.

 

[Dawnia]

You are assuming that there is a cost associated with providing birth control (there is) AND that this cost is greater than not providing it. I would be very interested to see if this is true, but I would bet it is not. Providing birth control to a woman is quite cheap, whether it is condoms or one of the many generic variation of the pill (they have been off-patent for a long time). Compare the average medical cost of a child to having a woman on some sort of birth control. I would guess that the cost of one child would offset hundreds, if not many hundreds of womens birth control. Just from a financial proposition, it makes sense.)

You are correct that the one time cost of giving birth is considerably more expensive than preventing children. But children are an investment which has a long term monetary return. A society’s only asset is it’s people.

 

[Nate13]

2 points. One, I think this question was cost specific, not how big government is taking over. Two, if anything this opens up more options for healthcare users, not less, as you alluded to. You are free to disagree on moral grounds of course, which is a thread repeated here many times over. But I hardly view this as restrictive, in a medical sense only of course.

Actually I was alluding to nothing. Your right there are tons of options, they are just all dictated by the government. Its like trying to say a slave has options because you give him a choice to work in the wheat field, the corn field, in the shop, or chopping down trees. He has options but hes a slave lol!

Its also restrictive from the point of view that its a monopoly. Monopolies are always restrictive which is why the government works to break them up and prevent them from occurring. Monopolies are always the worst solution and only make sense in very rare occasions when creating a free market is impossible. A free market for healthcare is very possible, if the government would get its hands out of it and allow it to actually be a free market. We haven’t had a free market system since Medicare and Medicaid were started, which have ballooned prices.

I’ll give you an analogy using the most fundamental natural monopoly the government has which is National Security and our military. How often do you agree with the government’s National Security policy? How much control do you have over the governments National Security policy? That’s what you get to look forward to. National Security is something that has to be handled by the federal government and we just have to deal with it the best we can. Healthcare most certainly is not. I have to think this is an analogy liberals could relate to.

Trying to stay on point, the issue I was raising is that is in fact FAR more costly to have the freedom to have a large (by modern standards) family than to provide birth control. Again, limiting the cost to the medical community/insurance. In the context of this thread, the question is why would one support paying for birth control, morality aside. My point is that it may in fact be cheaper.

Of course a large family is expensive for the family, but its only expensive for the government because it made it so! That is my point. Its disingenuous for you to use that as a basis for your argument considering you support the policies that made that problem in the first place… Big government works that way though in that it feeds on itself.