Welcome to Gaia! ::

You can read about here

What are your thought about this?

Do you think contraception mandate for the church is a good thing?

man's right to get chemically enhanced erections free of charge more than they care about a woman's right to be treated for painful ovarian cysts?

I wish Rush was off the air. He really mislead people.
Limbaugh has lost nearly two dozen advertisers since his attack on Sandra Fluke, which is great.

Which I don't understand is it's OK for men to have viagra and they are not label anything. But a women asking contraception is label a "slut".

What are your thought about this?

I support the covering of ALL contraceptives for women and I don't just support, but I acknowledge a woman's right to complete control of, and over, her own body in its entirety; The fact that this is even questioned in our day and age, especially in a first world country, is just wrong, plain and simple.

What I don't think the Catholic Right understands about this situation is that Religious Freedom means people don't have to be Catholic to work for them and that Catholics can work without fear of being discriminated against for being Catholic; So by refusing to cover contraceptives for their employees, they're essentially imposing their Religious beliefs on them, which is, in turn, a violation of their employee's Religious Freedom (which is as much a freedom from Religion as it is a freedom to be part of a Religion that allows contraceptives).

As a side note, I am glad to know the Senate has done something right this year cat_stare

Do you think contraception mandate for the church is a good thing?

Yes!

Man's right to get chemically enhanced erections free of charge more than they care about a woman's right to be treated for painful ovarian cysts?

I think this comparison makes sense, but is, well, the wrong way to address this issue cat_rolleyes
Let me explain... To begin with, binary oppositions are, for the most part, bad and should never be relied upon for justifying something, because than it becomes a "Well, men do this" or "Women do this" kind of debate that gets so caught up that it evolves into some inane, misguided war of the genders, where each side is being pitted by the worst kind of sexist, and heterosexist, slough that can be thrown at each other, while those who don't fit into these not-so-neat-yet-sadly-biased-succinct categories suffer the brunt of the damage (such as the Transgendered, etc).

In a situation like this, it should never be about what men do or don't do, because it needs to be about making sure women can, are allowed, and are able to do the right thing, which is take care of their body in the best possible way available to them as they see fit. The issue of men should not even matter, because it doesn't. We're talking about a woman and her body, which is not the domain of any man ever and the only exception, if there can even be one, is with regard to the man/men she wishes to have input from and if she wishes none, then that is that.

As a side note to above conversation, I really loathe Rush Limbaugh cat_stressed

Well, I agree with you that Congress' panel was certainly not fair, even less ideal, but I suppose, at the very least, we can all be glad the Senate did the right thing (even though anything less than that would have been completely unacceptable).

As for the use of Viagra, well, the problem stems, largely, from the Catholic "Consistent Life Ethic" which has, more often than not, been misused, repeatedly, by the Right and Right-leaning, of whom are almost always male, as being justified in the sense that it helps promote life. Although, the point of the "Consistent Life Ethic" is to prevent loss of life, it has often been used to support the creation of life, thereby posing a serious, albeit misguided, justification to bar contraceptives, which includes condoms (amazingly), while encouraging Viagra and fertility drugs. Of course, the best argument, actually, against proponents of this "Consistent Life Ethic", especially if they're against contraceptives for women (and or men too), is to hit them where it counts: Under "Consistent Life Ethic" one MUST be opposed to Economic Injustice (aka Capitalism, Late Capitalism, Globalization, Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, etc, etc). If said Catholic adherent will not stand opposed to Economic Injustice, one need not acknowledge any other facet of their "Consistent Life Ethic" because they themselves are not practicing what they preach (i.e. their "Life Ethic" is anything but "Consistent"). At least, this is the popular route taken by members of the Catholic Left, such as Luke Timothy Johnson and Sister Helen Prejean, when dealing with their Right-wing brethren. And, funny enough, many on the Catholic Left often see the use of contraceptives as being in line with the "Consistent Life Ethic" on the grounds that, with contraceptives, abortions can be prevented (at least, that is their argument for contraceptives).