We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, July 7. 2014
The Obamacare rules do not require coverage for cosmetic surgery, at least not yet. Somebody will lobby for "Sagging Jowl Syndrome," you can be certain, in the future. When government gets involved with medicine, medicine becomes politicized and "diseases", "disorders", and "dysfunctions" proliferate.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Sex and pregnancy may not be diseases, but a baby is punishment. They don't say from whom and since most are atheists, they may not think it is from God.
Perhaps it is punishment from the Sperm god. No, that can't be right. In religion, it is normally a good thing to open yourself up and take god inside you. Maybe it is the punishment of the evil Penis Devil. The price for dancing with the Devil without the talisman of Contraception?
For some people a baby is indeed punishment.
Those are people who got pregnant as a result of being raped and couldn't get an abortion because it's illegal where they live.
It's people where the mother died giving birth.
It's couples giving birth to a seriously handicapped baby, or a terminally ill one, with no support from anyone to take care of the child and a lot of people accusing them of all kinds of terrible things "because God would never have punished you like that for no good reason" and other things like that.
It's people who're too poor to take care of a baby and see it whither and starve because they couldn't afford to feed it properly until CPS takes it away and arrests them for child abuse.
All but the last of them did not choose to have that happen.
The last chose, but chose irresponsibly. And even then not always, it's quite possible to fall on hard times during that 9 month period between conception and birth.
So you raise a miniscule share of birth experience to make what point exactly? I would guess that the number of couples who desire children but cannot conceive them is greater than the sad examples you make.
For the vast majority birth is not one of these things, it is either a consequence of a choice made to have sex where that consequence wasn't desired or it is a happy result of a couple intending to bring a new life into the world.
a.) rape is a horrible crime, but why blame the child that may result?
b.) Prior to perhaps 1900, one of the MAJOR killers of young women was "dying during childbirth;" I suppose you view that as fault of the "patriarchy" or something?
c.) it is indeed terrible for any couple to have to suffer the terrible premature death of their child. I have experienced (from a distance I admit) the birth of a Downs syndrome child, who has brought much love to her family; is that an example of a severely handicapped child that you speak of?
d.) It has been true throughout humanity's history, that a couple must struggle (sometimes severely) to clothe feed and care for their child.
In each of these cases that you cited, the love and support of a family, especially an extended family (aunts/uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc.) can help a great deal and provide the difference between surviving and perishing.
J.T,. are you listing these examples to try to prove that in ANY of these cases, the government would somehow assist the woman / couple BETTER than their family?
I heard it in Hollywood; people DIE from not being able to have sex.
Birth control is an elective drug/device. I don't think many people had any expectation for it to be covered by a medical insurance policy prior to Obama and the Age of Dependence.
It is also widely available and very inexpensive which is a good or bad thing depending on your world view.
It is absolutely not required nor has anything to do with medical insurance.
I was "OK" with the decision but I think it simply didn't go far enough. Everyone should be equal and treated equally under the law. No business owner or corporation should be foreced to provide health care or a specific level of health care. It seems to me that the trend is that the congress and administration (not just Obama but for decades now) pass legislation that carves out a special right for a special interest group and when the SCOTUS finally gets around to ruling on it they rule so narrowly or so ineffectually that it makes it far worse. Then down the road some other special interest group uses the confused and inadequate ruling to convince some friendly judge to extend it where it was never meant to go.
Here's my take on special interest legislation that would maybe do some good and end some disgusting trends: All federal health care (lawmakers, bureaucrats, veterans,the president, etc.) must be equal. That is if the veterans have to wait 6 months for an appointment then congressmen and presidents must waith 6 months too. And of course if congressmen have the best health care with specialists and no waiting then veterans should get the same.
Hobby Lobby's health insurance plan covers Viagra and vasectomies.
You okay with that?
Viagra treats impotence a actual medical illness. Impotence is the biggest cause of suicide in middle aged to older men. It is thought that Ernest Hemingway committed suicide because of impotence.
Vasectomies are like tubal ligation. So are they the same as the moring after pill? Either way it's OK with me if a health insurance policy choose to not cover both of them. But if they choose to cover one and not the other that could be sexist.
I would prefer that Hobby Lobby had choosen to not provide insurance and that SCOTUS ruled on that and not the morning after pill. I make my grandchildren a snack at 10am and 2:30 pm everyday. Could the U.S. government mandate that hobby lobby and every other business make their employees morning and afternoon snacks? Is there anything that they cannot mandate? In my opinion Obamacare is the federal government acting outside the constitution. They are taxing Peter to buy Sandra the morning after pill. By what right do they do this? Where is everypone's concern for the person who has to pay for all this?
Back in the day, in various Communist countries, an employer was required to provide a mid-day meal. By the time I visited Slovakia, this requirement (Slovakia was not that many years removed from Communist rule), the requirement had been relaxed so employers could, instead of providing the meal, give the employees cash for same. I inadvertently ordered one of those meals: it was gross.
A child takes a couple decades to raise. A lot can happen in that time. Abortion is only an option for pregnant women, although some have argued for being able to euthanize a baby up to two if the parents so decide. If my healthy ten fingers and toes kid doesn't turn out the way I dreamed, I'm kind of stuck continuing to raise it for years, so not all women have the right to abortion: only those of child bearing age who are pregnant.
I find that arguments that a couple may be too poor to bring a child into the world shortsighted, in that there is an alternative, adoption, or that fortunes can change. As far as a baby born with deformaties, there is a risk that damage or death can happen to any child or adult during their life that makes it difficult for someone to care for them.
During the Great Depression, people gave their children to relatives, or orphanages to raise when they couldn't.
The idea that the world will end if a woman's employer does not pay for her birth control is overstated. I believe the pill is more affordable than tattos, and more important.