Automoderated users, edit
298
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − == Writing Homework Five Student 2 == − Why Obama is Not a Doctor(or a priest): Women's Health and the Contraceptive Mandate − − America has always been a country of religion, from the Puritan settlers of New England to the Quaker settlers of Pennsylvania continuing America's great religious history with the 19th century founding of churches such as the Seventh Day Adventist and Mormon churches. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his "Democracy in America" about the importance religion had in American society. Similarly, America has been instilled with a strong belief in religious freedom: many of the colonies were founded to escape religious persecution, the Constitution's first amendment specifically underlines freedom of religion, and Thomas Jefferson (although his personal religious beliefs are not fully understood) supported religious freedom whenever the issue came to his attention. These two tenets may seem paradoxical, having a strong belief in your own religion while accepting all other religions, but that is the American attitude, and it has formed a strong basis for the personal freedoms retained by citizens since America's inception. I mention this to preface my comments on Obama's contraception mandate, and his unprecedented attack on personal and religious freedom, as well as on America's religious nature. − − Let me explain his mandate first: Obama's health care mandate will force employers to pay for the contraceptives of their employees in their health-care plans. − − I mentioned that the contraception mandate offended America's religious nature, let me explain. The dominant religions in America are Judeo Christian, and government-sanctioned contraception offends (to varying levels) any Judeo-Christian religion. This is because the Bible, the basis of these religions, teaches believers to respect sexuality and not to freely have intercourse. − − One interpretation, which the Roman Catholic Church postulates, is that sex shall be confined to marriage, and (I will discuss this second part later), that all intercourse should be open to procreation. Although the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs on the subject are the most demanding, no church believes that sex should be such a casual issue that women should have to pay large amounts of money to cover their cost of contraception. Unfortunately, as President Obama brings to front promiscuous women like Sandra Fluke, who say that they are having more sex than they can afford, and thus women in general need their intercourse to be covered in health insurance, the majority of American religious people are offended. − − The Bill spits the hardest, however, in the face of the Catholic Church. This Church has taught in its encyclical, Humanae Vitae, that − − “ Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.” − − The bill, however, forces Catholic employers to fund the contraception of their employees. This is like making a Jewish deli sell non-kosher meat, and it could be argued to be even worse, because the Catholic Church asserts that no-one should use Contraceptives, while the Jewish dietary policy only applies to Jews. Nancy Pelosi, a professed Catholic, supports the bill even though it directly contradicts the Church in which she pretends to be a member. She explains that some people just need to understand "birds and bees" better. Others like Sister Carol Keehan, a major figure in the order of the Sisters of Charity, are cited by Obama in their support of the Mandate. But the Church is a hierarchical church and Keehan and Pelosi have no place trying to create religious dogma; the papacy has spoken in Humanae Vitae, and the actions of Keehan and Pelosi are insulting to any religious Catholic. − − Even in secular society, an atheist can understand that this mandate is flawed. The mandate is supposed to protect "Women's Health" but what does anyone even mean by that? Since when is pregnancy a disease? Or maybe the mandate means to address women who die in childbirth? That number is minute. So the only other option is prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs for short). In fact, the rate of STDs should increase after the government enacts these measures. Except for condoms, no contraceptive actually prevents anything besides pregnancy. What "free" contraception will do is encourage women to have sex, and as you have more intercourse, the risk of contracting an STD increases. Oh, and I should also mention that contraceptives themselves many times have side effects that damage a "Woman's Health". − − So the Obama administration, if anything, is trying to make people less healthy. But I will finally explain how on a purely financial basis, this mandate is offensive. It will make insurance companies subsidize their clients' vanity. People don't enjoy having heart surgery, and unless they need it, they will not get it, the same is true for anything a health insurance company covers. Ever notice how they don't subsidize breast implants, reductions, plastic surgery or gender changes? It's because their clients will buy their insurance and then use their health insurance to feed off of the system. They will satisfy their wants rather than needs. This is why it is not economically feasible to sell beer "insurance". − − In the circumstance of contraception, it is clear that people do not "need" to have sex, and thus they do not need contraception, rather they "want" both. Furthermore, who is paying for the vanity of these buyers of health insurance, but other people who use the same insurance company? Essentially how health insurance functions is by everyone paying the same price for their plan, and then the few people who need to use their plan having high-cost procedures, covered by all those who pay for the plan. Now people are having their sex-lives covered by all those who buy health care. Now as your employers are forced to pay for contraception in their employees' healthcare plans, part of your salary is going to pay for the higher cost of contraception-funding healthcare. So next time you get your diminished paycheck, you can think of all of the lascivious women that aren't pregnant, because of your money. − − "Women's Health?" This mandate promotes nothing healthy; rather it promotes an unhealthy, un-American agenda.
Talk:Writing Homework Five Student Answers (view source)
Revision as of 17:42, March 8, 2012
, 17:42, March 8, 2012Blanked the page