Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

By Vacamion, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Benguin

Benguin

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough - I can certainly understand the economic argument (though in the long term surely more accessible contraception would cost less than unwanted pregnancies). What gets my goat here is that it is female only contraception being limited in this, and the reasons given to opt out are religious in nature. That has no place in modern legislation.

In terms of whether something can be done, for example abortions or gay marriage, I completely take the liberal line. But people being forced to do things contrary to their religious beliefs, within reason, is wrong and I'd say that this is something we don't want to see in modern legislation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

In terms of whether something can be done, for example abortions or gay marriage, I completely take the liberal line. But people being forced to do things contrary to their religious beliefs, within reason, is wrong and I'd say that this is something we don't want to see in modern legislation.

If supplying people with the medication they need is against your religious beliefs then you need new beliefs, so **** em - your rights from your beliefs end the moment they impact on others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Benguin

Benguin

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

If supplying people with the medication they need is against your religious beliefs then you need new beliefs, so **** em - your rights from your beliefs end the moment they impact on others.

Oh no don't misrepresent what I said. People who refuse too provide medical care for someone who desperately needs them, on the grounds of religious beliefs, are arseholes. 

 

I'm talking about nonessential things or this that can be easily sourced elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Oh no don't misrepresent what I said. People who refuse too provide medical care for someone who desperately needs them, on the grounds of religious beliefs, are arseholes. 

 

I'm talking about nonessential things or this that can be easily sourced elsewhere.

And in a few cases, this bill is going to do exactly that. Even the argument about the essentialness of contraceptives aside, at the very least this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by making access to essential drugs for some women much much more difficult (on grounds of affordability).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Oh no don't misrepresent what I said. People who refuse too provide medical care for someone who desperately needs them, on the grounds of religious beliefs, are arseholes. 

 

I'm talking about nonessential things or this that can be easily sourced elsewhere.

Thing is it's about the funding to get it - America isn't like the UK with prescription fees, you just get shafted instead. My fiancee takes birth control on prescription after periods that lasted 3 weeks then a week off (completely the wrong way round)- huge difference between being able to afford the sub ten pound prescription and drug costs in 'Murcia if your employer and health insurance provision thinks you shouldn't have it because they have faith in some possibly fictional desert-dweller from two millenia ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Benguin

Benguin

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And in a few cases, this bill is going to do exactly that. Even the argument about the essentialness of contraceptives aside, at the very least this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater by making access to essential drugs for some women much much more difficult (on grounds of affordability).

No it's not. There are countless organisations in the states that give out free contraceptives. 

 

Like I said, I don't know enough about the situation to form an opinion on the bill. That said I firmly believe that forcing someone to do something contrary to their religious beliefs, out with the scope of necessity, is not a modern ideology and certainly something I would not support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Benguin

Benguin

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Thing is it's about the funding to get it - America isn't like the UK with prescription fees, you just get shafted instead. My fiancee takes birth control on prescription after periods that lasted 3 weeks then a week off (completely the wrong way round)- huge difference between being able to afford the sub ten pound prescription and drug costs in 'Murcia if your employer and health insurance provision thinks you shouldn't have it because they have faith in some possibly fictional desert-dweller from two millenia ago.

But the world doesn't work like that. Health insurance providers will be queuing up to provide suitable cover as they know that by distancing themselves from this bill, they will have far more business. 

 

Insurance providers who refuse contraceptives on religious grounds will realise an extremely detrimental effect on their business. But it should be their prerogative to do so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Benguin said:

But the world doesn't work like that. Health insurance providers will be queuing up to provide suitable cover as they know that by distancing themselves from this bill, they will have far more business. 

 

Insurance providers who refuse contraceptives on religious grounds will realise an extremely detrimental effect on their business. But it should be their prerogative to do so.  

If your coverage is coming through your employer you don't really get a choice of which provider

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Benguin said:

No it's not. There are countless organisations in the states that give out free contraceptives. 

 

Like I said, I don't know enough about the situation to form an opinion on the bill. That said I firmly believe that forcing someone to do something contrary to their religious beliefs, out with the scope of necessity, is not a modern ideology and certainly something I would not support. 

And are these organizations accessible to everyone who might need them? If not, then the point still stands. I'm sure in the cities on the coast it's an easier thing to find, but elsewhere I'm not so sure.

 

I guess it comes down to who you think is doing the forcing here, but this seems like state allowing church to impose its own rules and is unconstitutional.

 

20 minutes ago, Benguin said:

But the world doesn't work like that. Health insurance providers will be queuing up to provide suitable cover as they know that by distancing themselves from this bill, they will have far more business. 

 

Insurance providers who refuse contraceptives on religious grounds will realise an extremely detrimental effect on their business. But it should be their prerogative to do so.  

This is, of course, depending on your employer choosing those health insurance companies and (if they don't) choosing a different company is actually affordable.

 

I have doubts that, if a company wants to make a stand based on religious grounds, that they would deal with such insurance companies in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest FriendlyRam

Guest FriendlyRam

Posted
Posted (edited)

I dunno what he has to do to be removed tbh,, hes literally threatening genocide on tw*tter a lot now aswell. I think we're stuck with him until 2020,, and I wouldnt be shocked if he was re-elected.

Edited by FriendlyRam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, FriendlyRam said:

I dunno what he has to do to be removed tbh,, hes literally threatening genocide on tw*tter a lot now aswell. I think we're stuck with him until 2020,, and I wouldnt be shocked if he was re-elected.

Threatening genocide? Have you got an example of this tweet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Know this is coming a bit out of left field but what's your view on the Charlottesville stuff, Webs? I'd be interested to hear it.

You're asking me, yet again, whether I support neo nazis? No I don't and I'm a bit disappointed that you keep asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're asking me, yet again, whether I support neo nazis? No I don't and I'm a bit disappointed that you keep asking.

Oh, definitely not my intent and I apologise for the lack of clarity there that made you think that.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of how you think it would best be resolved as it's a tricky one IMO - should have put that in the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bellend Sebastian

Bellend Sebastian

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lionator said:

He's challenging SoS Rex to an IQ test contest too, what an absolute to55er Donald is. If anything a secretary of state needs to be more intelligent than the president himself but of course Donald would never admit inferiority.

It's a bizarre challenge from someone who on the face of it seems to be as thick as pigshit

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest FriendlyRam

Guest FriendlyRam

Posted
Posted

Hed probably be too thick to realise hes been beat

 

Anything like that involving donald will be like the billy maddison quiz test scene,, donald being billy maddison

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...