tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626292304461574111.post7683956184065038392..comments2023-12-27T19:24:48.254-05:00Comments on Tell me why the world is weird: Blogaroundperfectnumber628http://www.blogger.com/profile/10303683510076315803noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626292304461574111.post-60689406837855691902012-11-15T15:22:37.626-05:002012-11-15T15:22:37.626-05:00First, the "spot the
difference" one mad...First, the "spot the<br />difference" one made me lol :)<br /><br />Second, I have to seriously disagree with Slacktivist's take on the ACA. Before<br />I even tackle the "contraception reduces abortion" argument, it's<br />crucial to mention a couple of points that Slacktivist completely ignored.<br /><br />1) The ACA, with the mandate for institutions to provide contraception for<br />employees via mandatory healthcare insurance, violates freedom of conscience.<br />Setting aside the fact that hormonal contraception often causes very early<br />abortions, and whether you (collective "you") believe that<br />contraception is sinful or not, the fact remains that there are thousands of<br />Catholic, Christian, Orthodox, and other religious hospitals, schools, small<br />businesses, and the like that are being required to provide a service that<br />directly contradicts their moral and religious beliefs. Let's say for the sake<br />of the argument that contraception does in fact drastically reduce abortions<br />and that it would do a lot of good to the society. However, the government still<br />cannot step in and demand that the employers at the Catholic hospital down the<br />street, who believe in the sinfulness of contraception and therefore cannot in<br />good conscience purchase a healthcare plan that would provide free<br />contraception for its employees, provide this anyway. It does not take a<br />constitutional scholar to recognize that this is a blatant affront on the right<br />of people of faith to freedom of conscience. If the government can't force Jews<br />to purchase or sell non-Kosher items, it certainly cannot force other people of<br />faith to provide something that contradicts their beliefs.<br /><br />2) In 2014, certain provisions in the ACA will go into effect that force people<br />enrolled in certain healthcare plans to pay an abortion premium from their own<br />pocket, irrespective of their religious or moral convictions. So basically,<br />people objecting to abortion will have to go find another healthcare plan that<br />doesn't contain this premium. This hardly seems an attempt to reduce abortion.<br />This is one of numerous articles that I found from back in the spring when this<br />premium was finalized: http://www.bdfund.org/obamacareincourt<br /><br />Even if both of these points didn't matter, Slacktivist's article makes a moot<br />point, because contraception has not helped to reduce abortion in this country.<br />Although I could explain why myself, it's more economical to simply link you to<br />this post:<br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/does-contraception-reduce-the-abortion-rate.html.<br />I'm not linking it because this guy is Catholic - it's excellent simply for the<br />logical and factual evidence he presents as to why contraception should not and cannot be used as a means to reduce abortion. I'd like to add one stat that I<br />don't think he mentions in this article. There is a report by Edin and England<br />(“Unmarried Couples with Children”) that shows that since the introduction of<br />"family planning" (i.e. contraception) in the U.S. via Title X,<br />nonmarital births were 5.3 % in 1960, 11 % in 1970, 18% in 1980, 28% in 1990, 33% in 1999, and 41% today. If contraception limits pregnancy rates, we should not see this enormous explosion of extramarital births since the introduction of the pill.allienoreply@blogger.com