levgre posted:

---

So Christians are going crazy because Hospitals, Schools, Colleges, etc. are being mandated to have their health insurance cover contraception, despite religious objections. The reasoning is a judgement by the Institute of Health, which states "...birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary “to ensure women’s health and well-being.”"

Yet 98% of sexually active Christians in the US use contraceptives, so who's religion exactly are they fighting for?

Not to mention Birth Control and other contraceptives are not only used to prevent unwanted births.

"One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?_r=1

I could see not covering abortion because so many Christians are opposed to it. But in the case of contraception, you have a few higher ups in the church refusing basic medical access to the majority, both Christians and non-Christians alike.

---

ikkoikki posted:

---

Yeah well 98% of Christians aren't Christians at all, they're faux-Christians who only pretend to be Christians when its convenient but sin like crazy whenever the they fancy.

My work colleague never has sex, and has a girlfriend who he won't live with and won't have sex with until they're married. THAT'S a christian.

---

levgre posted:

---

Primates didn't use toothbrushes or treat infections, either. Using even the 19th century as a measurement of what is "medically necessary" is retarded.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

What does that have to with birth control? Their statement doesn't make sense given the fact that only abstinence can guarantee no bodily fluid exchange. And again, how is it that for millions of years primates advanced their species to the point of being the dominate species on the planet without contraceptives if sex is so dangerous?

Here is the simple politically incorrect fact, contraceptives are a luxury. You can only elevate them to a requirement if the goal is causal sex on demand that is reduced risk of consequences. If you accept their claim that it is a medical necessity for women then the same rational holds up for men who have a requirement for sex for their health and well being.

---

levgre posted:

---

*This post would like those scientists who developed the tech and theory and an early working model for the internet before it was confiscated and used by government

---

levgre posted:

---

The Bible does not contain scripture which bans the use of birth control. Nor could the writers have foreseen and taken into account (effective) condoms and birth control pills back then.

---

Genesis 38:9-10 posted:

---

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

---