Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What is morally (un)acceptable?

Page 2 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

18 Apr 2014, 12:11 am

sonofghandi wrote:
What I find amusing is that only 7% of Americans find contraception immoral, and despite this fact it tends to be a central political issue for the Republican party.


It does? I don't follow politics as closely as some. Who exactly is trying to ban contraception?

I find the wording of the poll odd. What does it mean to say that a given activity is "unacceptable"? I consider marital infidelity morally wrong, as a rule, but that doesn't mean that it should be illegal, nor that someone who has had an affair is automatically 100% evil.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2014, 1:28 am

luanqibazao wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
What I find amusing is that only 7% of Americans find contraception immoral, and despite this fact it tends to be a central political issue for the Republican party.


It does? I don't follow politics as closely as some. Who exactly is trying to ban contraception?

I find the wording of the poll odd. What does it mean to say that a given activity is "unacceptable"? I consider marital infidelity morally wrong, as a rule, but that doesn't mean that it should be illegal, nor that someone who has had an affair is automatically 100% evil.


There have been far right Republicans running for office who have had banning contraceptives - or at least, federal coverage for contraceptives for poor women - as a campaign plank while running for office. This includes the likes of that mental giant, Rick Santorum. Thankfully, even in red states so far, these cretins don't get very far when it comes down to the popular vote.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

18 Apr 2014, 2:03 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
There have been far right Republicans running for office who have had banning contraceptives - or at least, federal coverage for contraceptives for poor women - as a campaign plank while running for office.


Ah, well, there's a vast chasm between "Nobody should be forced to pay for somebody else's use of X" and "Nobody should be permitted to have X". I don't think a single penny of my hard-earned should be forcibly taken in order to supply Sandra Fluke with pills, condoms, lube, porn, or anything else, but I wouldn't stop her from buying her own stuff, nor prevent you from buying her those things if you are so inclined.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2014, 2:13 am

luanqibazao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
There have been far right Republicans running for office who have had banning contraceptives - or at least, federal coverage for contraceptives for poor women - as a campaign plank while running for office.


Ah, well, there's a vast chasm between "Nobody should be forced to pay for somebody else's use of X" and "Nobody should be permitted to have X". I don't think a single penny of my hard-earned should be forcibly taken in order to supply Sandra Fluke with pills, condoms, lube, porn, or anything else, but I wouldn't stop her from buying her own stuff, nor prevent you from buying her those things if you are so inclined.


But that's only part of it. There are in fact religious zealots like Rick Santorum who want to deny contraception to everyone.
As for denying contraception to poor women under the banner of tax payers rights - well, what's cheaper, paying for birth control pills or condoms, or paying for medical, food, and housing for a child a woman might not yet be ready to have?
As for Sandra Fluke - Fatso Limbaugh got a lot of mileage out of slandering this woman for defending federal coverage, by making her out to be a whore and a slut. Thankfully, it blew back in his chubby face.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 Apr 2014, 7:58 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for denying contraception to poor women under the banner of tax payers rights - well, what's cheaper, paying for birth control pills or condoms, or paying for medical, food, and housing for a child a woman might not yet be ready to have?


Don't forget prison. We have greatly increased odds of having to pay for prison for that child as well.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

18 Apr 2014, 9:42 am

luanqibazao wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
What I find amusing is that only 7% of Americans find contraception immoral, and despite this fact it tends to be a central political issue for the Republican party.


It does? I don't follow politics as closely as some. Who exactly is trying to ban contraception?


This is mostly being done at the state level in states where Republicans hold majorities. It is a matter of passing state as many regulations prohibiting or allowing it to be forbidden as many ways as possible without actually making it completely illegal across the board (which would be struck down by state supreme courts even in the most conservative states).

It is currently a strong talking point at the national level, but no actual action from the federal level Republicans other than specifically trying to legally allow employers to deny insurance that would cover it in any form whatsoever (even "birth control" pills that are prescribed for other medical reasons). This is more of a recent development, as in the last 4-6 years the Republican Party has shifted from a primarily fiscally conservative focus to a primarily christian morality conservative focus.

luanqibazao wrote:
I find the wording of the poll odd. What does it mean to say that a given activity is "unacceptable"? I consider marital infidelity morally wrong, as a rule, but that doesn't mean that it should be illegal, nor that someone who has had an affair is automatically 100% evil.


For contraception, here is the specific question as it was worded (copy/paste):
Quote:
Q84a Do you personally believe that a. Using contraceptives is morally acceptable, morally
unacceptable, or is it not a moral issue?

So the 7% are those who do NOT find contraception morally unacceptable or who believe it is not a moral issue.

The wording for each category is the same.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

18 Apr 2014, 1:36 pm

This man is an embarrassment.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01 ... en-libido/


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2014, 3:06 pm

Misslizard wrote:
This man is an embarrassment.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01 ... en-libido/


Absolutely.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,881
Location: On a planet where I don't belong.

18 Apr 2014, 4:32 pm

Depends on where you live... well DUH, I've known for decades people have different ideas in different parts of the world what's right and wrong. Americans think it's bizarre that I don't bring a gun with me when I go to the mall. People in the middle east think my going out at all without a man is criminal. According to my religion any exposed flesh on my body, even when there's a heat wave and everyone is wearing shorts and tank tops, will automatically send me to hell. :roll: And of course there are people with their own individual beliefs and ideas. And that's why the planet is a train wreck. People will never be able to tolerate each others' differences, will always try to force them on everybody else, and anyone who disagrees may as well be dead. :x



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Apr 2014, 7:43 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for denying contraception to poor women under the banner of tax payers rights - well, what's cheaper, paying for birth control pills or condoms, or paying for medical, food, and housing for a child a woman might not yet be ready to have?

Deny them both, then. I don't see why John Q. Taxpayer should be on the hook for careless promiscuity of people that know they can't afford to be carelessly promiscuous. What happens in today's system is they never learn and have whole litters that we get stuck with the tab for. That's just plain wrong.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2014, 7:48 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As for denying contraception to poor women under the banner of tax payers rights - well, what's cheaper, paying for birth control pills or condoms, or paying for medical, food, and housing for a child a woman might not yet be ready to have?

Deny them both, then. I don't see why John Q. Taxpayer should be on the hook for careless promiscuity of people that know they can't afford to be carelessly promiscuous. What happens in today's system is they never learn and have whole litters that we get stuck with the tab for. That's just plain wrong.


Well, then you can look those starving children in the eye, and explain why they have to starve.
And just why can't poor people enjoy sex as much as the well off? Or is it only promiscuity when the poor do it?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Apr 2014, 8:00 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As for denying contraception to poor women under the banner of tax payers rights - well, what's cheaper, paying for birth control pills or condoms, or paying for medical, food, and housing for a child a woman might not yet be ready to have?

Deny them both, then. I don't see why John Q. Taxpayer should be on the hook for careless promiscuity of people that know they can't afford to be carelessly promiscuous. What happens in today's system is they never learn and have whole litters that we get stuck with the tab for. That's just plain wrong.


Kraichgauer wrote:
Well, then you can look those starving children in the eye, and explain why they have to starve.

Let thier mother explain why. It's so typical of a liberal to put it all back on the taxpayer.

Quote:
And just why can't poor people enjoy sex as much as the well off?

Same as anything else that costs money; you can either afford it or you can't.
Rubbers arent that expensive = f*****g is not that expensive.

Quote:
Or is it only promiscuity when the poor do it?

It's about being able to afford what you're doing.

I swear, even if we gave them all a house with enough rooms for all of their illegitimate pups and two cars it wouldnt be enough.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2014, 8:16 pm

Raptor wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As for denying contraception to poor women under the banner of tax payers rights - well, what's cheaper, paying for birth control pills or condoms, or paying for medical, food, and housing for a child a woman might not yet be ready to have?

Deny them both, then. I don't see why John Q. Taxpayer should be on the hook for careless promiscuity of people that know they can't afford to be carelessly promiscuous. What happens in today's system is they never learn and have whole litters that we get stuck with the tab for. That's just plain wrong.


Kraichgauer wrote:
Well, then you can look those starving children in the eye, and explain why they have to starve.

Let thier mother explain why. It's so typical of a liberal to put it all back on the taxpayer.

Quote:
And just why can't poor people enjoy sex as much as the well off?

Same as anything else that costs money; you can either afford it or you can't.
Rubbers arent that expensive = f***ing is not that expensive.

Quote:
Or is it only promiscuity when the poor do it?

It's about being able to afford what you're doing.

I swear, even if we gave them all a house with enough rooms for all of their illegitimate pups and two cars it wouldnt be enough.


If we are in fact a Christian country, as conservatives insist, then we have to actually live by Christian morality and care for those who don't have enough, or have made mistakes in their lives. And that means that mother and her children.
And as the tax burden is shared by literally millions of Americans, I seriously doubt the tax payer is going to suffer all that much by providing birth control.
And by the way, while I don't know what your position on abortion is, but the fact is, more birth control means far less abortions, regardless of some on the far right might claim (yes, they say birth control leads to abortion :roll:).


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Apr 2014, 8:38 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
If we are in fact a Christian country, as conservatives insist, then we have to actually live by Christian morality and care for those who don't have enough, or have made mistakes in their lives. And that means that mother and her children.
There's a difference between charity for those in actual NEED and those that take advantage.

Quote:
And as the tax burden is shared by literally millions of Americans, I seriously doubt the tax payer is going to suffer all that much by providing birth control.

It's the principle of it.

Quote:
And by the way, while I don't know what your position on abortion is, but the fact is, more birth control means far less abortions, regardless of some on the far right might claim (yes, they say birth control leads to abortion :roll:).
It's not about birth control itself.
It's about who's paying for it and personal responsibilities; two concepts that seem to always elude liberals.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

18 Apr 2014, 9:11 pm

There are free spay and neuter clinics for low income people with pets,why can't there be one for humans?
Birth control is cheaper in the long run,and should be mandatory for some.
Was just told about a lady here who won't give up her drug habit,but she did give up both her kids to the state.Why should she be allowed to have more?


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 Apr 2014, 9:45 pm

People get really freaked out and upset if you talk about stuff like that, probably because history.

Free birth control and good education will solve the problem, save money for taxpayers within one generation, and benefit the economy in the long run as well.

Othering makes people feel good, though, so I don't know if such a simple, reasonable, and practical idea will get people on board. The participants in the abortion thread universally ignored the research that I posted on the topic.