Catholic mother admits she has questioned her faith — and believers respond by heaping abuse on her

First topic message reminder :

Sonia Guizar used to attend mass regularly and teach at a Catholic school. But her Catholic employer’s refusal to cover birth control brought her an ill-timed pregnancy and a child with developmental challenges that stretch her family thin. When she publicly shared her experience and questioned Church teachings in a Washington Post story, what she got was a heap of abuse from fellow Catholics whose urge to defend religious dogma and authority trumped their kindness and compassion. Guizar’s story may be a very distant echo of the horrendous slaughter being perpetrated by Jihadis shouting “Allahu akbar!”—but it is an echo nonetheless. One of religion’s most heinous characteristics is that it elevates defense of faith above compassion, inspiring mean and aggressive behavior in the names of gods.

The American Supreme Court is considering a “religious freedom” claim by a Catholic charity, the Little Sisters of the Poor, that wants to deny contraception coverage to employees in their chain of nursing homes—mostly working poor women who can ill afford either out-of-pocket birth control costs or a surprise pregnancy. They further want to block the same employees from gaining access to free contraception via an “opt out” mechanism, a religious exemption already established under Obamacare. With the case making news and drawing protests, Guizar shared her own experience of needing birth control that she and her husband couldn’t afford. Fearing she would be fired by her Catholic employer if she tried to get the IUD recommended by her doctor, Guizar and her husband tried to make do with “natural family planning” and ended up pregnant. Their son, born from that pregnancy, has developmental delays and requires therapy multiple times weekly; and the whole ordeal has caused her to question her faith.

Her story is both ordinary and heartbreaking, and most people reading it would ache for her. But in dozens of comments, Catholic defenders of the faith saw fit to instead question either the legitimacy of her devotion, or her strength or integrity:

This is such an obvious hit piece–no catholic would ever say “I no longer celebrate mass” every catholic knows that only a priest can celebrate a mass. [not true]

You couldn’t afford birth control? Really? That’s ridiculous [not true] . . . . And you call yourself a ‘devout’ Catholic and NOT following their doctrine? Again, you don’t know what either devout and/or Catholic means. —Angie Sharp

Then you really were not a Catholic to begin with. Now you just write really dumb stuff! Congratulations you are progressing. I’m sure God will forgive your idiotic apostasy.—Wasachnorth [See No True Scotsman Fallacy]

The Apostle Paul was shipwrecked, tortured and thrown in different jails. You? Well you were told to not use birth control and your faith crumbled. —Give-me-Liberty

The amazing and great thing about America is that you can change your employment! Yes, I know it sounds incredible, but it can be done! If The Church has a tenet that you do not agree with, and it does, then you can adopt a creed more to your liking or get another job. Problem solved. —Steve Fotos

Go find another job. You signed an employment agreement. —Robert PS

I can’t believe this lady ever was a devout Catholic, she may have though she was, but it is obvious she has little understanding of faith and a great understanding of the secular world. . . . If she were really a devout Catholic she might try to follow the example of Mary in saying yes to God, instead of the example of Eve who said no to God and yes to the Snake! —Yvonne Yadler Bean
#
Natural planning is just as effective as any other birth control method. [not true—1 in 4 annual pregnancy rate vs 1 in 2000.] . . . . If you really are devout catholic, you should known what the church teaches and if you don’t like it work somewhere else. —pattyanna

Sonia is missing the boat as a “devout” catholic. She says she would have as many children as God intended but cant afford??????????? If her faith in God is solid, then he will take care of the financial “burden” that comes with having kids. As a fellow Catholic . . . .—Hannah Pharis

Perhaps you should read the bible again. JOB would have loved to have been hit with the issue of contraception as opposed to having this faith tried by the loss of his entire family! But you are devout? —Jane1000

If you don’t like your faith because your employer doesn’t pay for contraceptives, than you’ve never had one in the first place. Go demagogue somewhere else.—Pete r Gray



There are many morals or themes that could be drawn from Sonia’s story: The enormous human cost of the Vatican’s anti-contraception stance, especially when it leaves families struggling to care for children with developmental issues (think Zika). The fact that a modern IUD or implant (both of which have bonus health benefits) can be life changing for a woman and her family. The crass dishonesty of any person or institution claiming to be a friend to the poor (or “Little Sister of the Poor”) while denying poor families the means to delay or limit childbearing. The fascinating psychology of religion that compels people to lie to themselves and others once they accept a dogma. The fact most American Catholics follow their own conscience and use modern contraception at some point despite Papal edict. The fact that Catholic tradition itself is conflicted about individuals making this decision.

But during a month of jihadist violence—executions in Ivory Coast, a bombing in Brussels and a bombing in Istanbul, all by people who see themselves as defending the one true faith–what strikes me most about Sonia’s story is the mundane cruelty of her detractors, the fact that even on a topic as ordinary as family planning or a setting as minor as a Washington Post comment thread, religious belief has the power to trump humanity’s deepest shared ethic—the Golden Rule—and our most cherished moral emotion: compassion. I have written in the past about “religion’s dirty dozen,” twelve really bad religious ideas that have made the world worse. The idea that religious beliefs themselves matter more than love and kindness, more than our shared humanity, should be at the top of the list.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel. Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/catholic-mother-admits-she-has-questioned-her-faith-and-believers-respond-by-heaping-abuse-on-her/


Hence why again religion does little good and is hugely damaging

Ben_Reilly wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE whole issue is a "storm in a teacup"...

THE great majority of companies, and health insurance providers, in the great majority of countries do NOT provide cover for contraception...

NOR is there amy sane and rationale why they should !
(After all, the woman is living in the US; not Africa or India..).

Contraception is not a general health issue, anyway..
It is a lifestyle choice --  it is also discriminatory, pure  and simple...
IF an employer is to cover womens' lifestyle choices, then why don't they provide the same cover for men ?
After all, no doubt there's a few women out there who would prefer that their husbands took the initiative..

AS both Rag's and LF have pointed out, it was this woman's choice to still take this job, knowing what health cover she was getting...

THIS whole thread reeks of nothing more than yet another infantile effort on the l'il ol' Dodgers part to bait and stir up some of the Christian and more level headed/clearer thinking elements on here..

It's a real issue. In the U.S., more than half of women who take birth control pills take them for health reasons other than preventing pregnancy: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

For a health insurance company not to cover a needed treatment is clearly unfair.

I think that's very unwise, unless they have a really serious reason to take them. They are not without side effects and health risks. Taking them merely to be able to put a date on the calender isn't a very good reason.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

It's a real issue. In the U.S., more than half of women who take birth control pills take them for health reasons other than preventing pregnancy: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

For a health insurance company not to cover a needed treatment is clearly unfair.

I think that's very unwise, unless they have a really serious reason to take them. They are not without side effects and health risks. Taking them merely to be able to put a date on the calender isn't a very good reason.

Why not actually listen to someone who knows the situation in the US and most of all again is blatant discrimination by the company based on again religious myths.

Why is it will allow some religions the ability to discriminate.

I mean its a good thing we do not have the Aztec religion anymore, as do you think companies would allow sacrificial heart removal from employees?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that's very unwise, unless they have a really serious reason to take them. They are not without side effects and health risks. Taking them merely to be able to put a date on the calender isn't a very good reason.

Why not actually listen to someone who knows the situation in the US and most of all again is blatant discrimination by the company based on again religious myths.

Why is it will allow some religions the ability to discriminate.

I mean its a good thing we do not have the Aztec religion anymore, as do you think companies would allow sacrificial heart removal from employees?

I gave you a link to the situation re health insurance in the US. Try reading it.

I don't think Ben's an expert in women's menstrual health anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why not actually listen to someone who knows the situation in the US and most of all again is blatant discrimination by the company based on again religious myths.

Why is it will allow some religions the ability to discriminate.

I mean its a good thing we do not have the Aztec religion anymore, as do you think companies would allow sacrificial heart removal from employees?

I gave you a link to the situation re health insurance in the US. Try reading it.  

I don't think Ben's an expert in women's menstrual health anyway.

You know next to nothing compared to an actual American, as any idiot can google

Again its discrimination

Can you not even see that, or do you back discrimination based off things that cannot be proven?

Its a could thing doctors do not act with such stuipdiity

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I gave you a link to the situation re health insurance in the US. Try reading it.  

I don't think Ben's an expert in women's menstrual health anyway.

You know next to nothing compared to an actual American, as any idiot can google

Again its discrimination

Can you not even see that, or do you back discrimination based off things that cannot be proven?

Its a could thing doctors do not act with such stuipdiity

You know nothing about it either, and Ben doesn't know anything that isn't available publically.

I'm afraid that doctors do act with stupidity sometimes.

I'm not really interested in your relentless bigotry against those with religious faith. Take it up with Congress.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THE whole issue is a "storm in a teacup"...

THE great majority of companies, and health insurance providers, in the great majority of countries do NOT provide cover for contraception...

NOR is there amy sane and rationale why they should !
(After all, the woman is living in the US; not Africa or India..).

Contraception is not a general health issue, anyway..
It is a lifestyle choice --  it is also discriminatory, pure  and simple...
IF an employer is to cover womens' lifestyle choices, then why don't they provide the same cover for men ?
After all, no doubt there's a few women out there who would prefer that their husbands took the initiative..

AS both Rag's and LF have pointed out, it was this woman's choice to still take this job, knowing what health cover she was getting...

THIS whole thread reeks of nothing more than yet another infantile effort on the l'il ol' Dodgers part to bait and stir up some of the Christian and more level headed/clearer thinking elements on here..

It's a real issue. In the U.S., more than half of women who take birth control pills take them for health reasons other than preventing pregnancy: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

For a health insurance company not to cover a needed treatment is clearly unfair.

I think that's very unwise, unless they have a really serious reason to take them. They are not without side effects and health risks. Taking them merely to be able to put a date on the calender isn't a very good reason.

Put a date on the calendar? I would hardly call that the main reason women take birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes. How can you just gloss over prevention of migraines, cancers and PCOS?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that's very unwise, unless they have a really serious reason to take them. They are not without side effects and health risks. Taking them merely to be able to put a date on the calender isn't a very good reason.

Put a date on the calendar? I would hardly call that the main reason women take birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes. How can you just gloss over prevention of migraines, cancers and PCOS?

Did you read the article?

It can make your periods more regular. With the pill, you'll know when you'll have your period.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Well, yeah.   I'm not sure why she's blaming everyone else for her pregnancy.   She could have purchased her own contraception surely?   Saying The Church Made Me Do It these days is just ridiculous.

And that shows how little you understand not only Catholicism and the hold it has on people, the fact also not everyone in the US has loads of money and again excusing the hate directed at her, or the fact this company is discriminating based on religious grounds

But hey you only seem concerned at LGTB inequality

Let me let you into a secret, all inequality is wrong

So far as you're concerned, nobody on this forum has the brain capacity you do, the vast understanding of all things, the mighty intellect of a God or a DIY psychology degree.  The reality is you sound like an old cracked record bleating on and on about yourself and your Wiki references and cut and paste.  Boring as fuck.

If you seriously think that someone can blame anyone else for the fact that they had sex, then you've wasted that five bob on your pretendy degree.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:




You know next to nothing compared to an actual American, as any idiot can google

Again its discrimination

Can you not even see that, or do you back discrimination based off things that cannot be proven?

Its a could thing doctors do not act with such stuipdiity

You know nothing about it either, and Ben doesn't know anything that isn't available publically.

I'm afraid that doctors do act with stupidity sometimes.

I'm not really interested in your relentless bigotry against those with religious faith. Take it up with Congress.

I know far more than you and again you still fail to recognise discrimination again based off religious bullshit

Again this is the most fundamental point and again you defend prejudice and discrimination

Quelle surprise

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

And that shows how little you understand not only Catholicism and the hold it has on people, the fact also not everyone in the US has loads of money and again excusing the hate directed at her, or the fact this company is discriminating based on religious grounds

But hey you only seem concerned at LGTB inequality

Let me let you into a secret, all inequality is wrong

So far as you're concerned, nobody on this forum has the brain capacity you do, the vast understanding of all things, the mighty intellect of a God or a DIY psychology degree.  The reality is you sound like an old cracked record bleating on and on about yourself and your Wiki references and cut and paste.  Boring as fuck.

If you seriously think that someone can blame anyone else for the fact that they had sex, then you've wasted that five bob on your pretendy degree.

So nothing to counter my points but prove you are a grown person with the mentality of a 2 year old, only able to offer immature views of me

Where you then contradict yourself, claim I am boring and you continually reply to me?

Guess you are not the brains in your family lol

Again you still miss the point on inequality here and clearly know very little about the cost of health in the US, which shows why your views are born from ignorance

Lord Foul wrote:It does have to be said, that given she is catholic, it seems reasonable that she aught to have been aware that a catholic employer would not approve of birth control....

How would anyone know she and her partner would use a condom?   Or any other means of birth control?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You know nothing about it either, and Ben doesn't know anything that isn't available publically.

I'm afraid that doctors do act with stupidity sometimes.

I'm not really interested in your relentless bigotry against those with religious faith. Take it up with Congress.

I know far more than you and again you still fail to recognise discrimination again based off religious bullshit

Again this is the most fundamental point and again you defend prejudice and discrimination

Quelle surprise

You're defending stupidity, lack of self-control, and personal irresponsibility. No surprise there.

Anyone can see that you don't really give a shit - you started off bleating on about the comments allegedly made to the woman, and slagging off religion - as usual. Now you're changing your stance to bleat on about inequality.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:It does have to be said, that given she is catholic, it seems reasonable that she aught to have been aware that a catholic employer would not approve of birth control....

How would anyone know she and her partner would use a condom?   Or any other means of birth control?

Exactly. This appears to be about money yet again IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I know far more than you and again you still fail to recognise discrimination again based off religious bullshit

Again this is the most fundamental point and again you defend prejudice and discrimination

Quelle surprise

You're defending stupidity, lack of self-control, and personal irresponsibility. No surprise there.

Anyone can see that you don't really give a shit - you started off bleating on about the comments allegedly made to the woman, and slagging off religion - as usual. Now you're changing your stance to bleat on about inequality.

So a company discriminating child birth control based off Catholicism doctrine, not anything Jesus taught is sense to you now is it?

Please explain how in anyway that is sensible and equality for me please where many people struggle to pay health care in the US?

Again quelle surprise you back discrimination and prejudice by those religious

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're defending stupidity, lack of self-control, and personal irresponsibility. No surprise there.

Anyone can see that you don't really give a shit - you started off bleating on about the comments allegedly made to the woman, and slagging off religion - as usual. Now you're changing your stance to bleat on about inequality.

So a company discriminating child birth control based off Catholicism doctrine, not anything Jesus taught is sense to you now is it?

Please explain how in anyway that is sensible and equality for me please where many people struggle to pay health care in the US?

Again quelle surprise you back discrimination and prejudice by those religious

I never said I agree with the Catholic stance. However, it is their stance, she knew it, and she signed a contract knowing it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So a company discriminating child birth control based off Catholicism doctrine, not anything Jesus taught is sense to you now is it?

Please explain how in anyway that is sensible and equality for me please where many people struggle to pay health care in the US?

Again quelle surprise you back discrimination and prejudice by those religious

I never said I agree with the Catholic stance. However, it is their stance, she knew it, and she signed a contract knowing it.

You are defending it with every post

You are thus defending prejudice and discrimination because it is a Christian organisation

What did I say rightly was so dangerous about religion?

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So far as you're concerned, nobody on this forum has the brain capacity you do, the vast understanding of all things, the mighty intellect of a God or a DIY psychology degree.  The reality is you sound like an old cracked record bleating on and on about yourself and your Wiki references and cut and paste.  Boring as fuck.

If you seriously think that someone can blame anyone else for the fact that they had sex, then you've wasted that five bob on your pretendy degree.

So nothing to counter my points but prove you are a grown person with the mentality of a 2 year old, only able to offer immature views of me

Where you then contradict yourself, claim I am boring and you continually reply to me?

Guess you are not the brains in your family lol

Again you still miss the point on inequality here and clearly know very little about the cost of health in the US, which shows why your views are born from ignorance

change the record, Didge, you're wearing out the groove!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that's very unwise, unless they have a really serious reason to take them. They are not without side effects and health risks. Taking them merely to be able to put a date on the calender isn't a very good reason.

Put a date on the calendar? I would hardly call that the main reason women take birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes. How can you just gloss over prevention of migraines, cancers and PCOS?

Did you read the article?

It can make your periods more regular. With the pill, you'll know when you'll have your period.

Apparently I read it better than you!

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I never said I agree with the Catholic stance. However, it is their stance, she knew it, and she signed a contract knowing it.

You are defending it with every post

You are thus defending prejudice and discrimination because it is a Christian organisation

What did I say rightly was so dangerous about religion?

I'm defending common sense. The woman knew the score when she went to work for them. It's up to her to provide her own contraception or find another job where the insurance will cover it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

It's a real issue. In the U.S., more than half of women who take birth control pills take them for health reasons other than preventing pregnancy: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

For a health insurance company not to cover a needed treatment is clearly unfair.

I think that's very unwise, unless they have a really serious reason to take them. They are not without side effects and health risks. Taking them merely to be able to put a date on the calender isn't a very good reason.

It's a terrible reason and can play havoc with the body long term.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are defending it with every post

You are thus defending prejudice and discrimination because it is a Christian organisation

What did I say rightly was so dangerous about religion?

I'm defending common sense. The woman knew the score when she went to work for them. It's up to her to provide her own contraception or find another job where the insurance will cover it.

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are defending it with every post

You are thus defending prejudice and discrimination because it is a Christian organisation

What did I say rightly was so dangerous about religion?

I'm defending common sense. The woman knew the score when she went to work for them. It's up to her to provide her own contraception or find another job where the insurance will cover it.

What common sense when you have no conception of the lack of health care in the US or the costs.

Again this is about discrimination by the company which again you keep excusing at every level based on you being a Christian and nothing more.

Again you also have no conception on what is drummed in to Catholics growing up either on this whole issue

That is your first and biggest failing on this

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm defending common sense. The woman knew the score when she went to work for them. It's up to her to provide her own contraception or find another job where the insurance will cover it.

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

And you would know this not living there or understand what she was paid or money she had to live on and Catholic upbringings?

Nothing worse when people spout ignorance

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Did you read the article?

Apparently I read it better than you!

You clearly didn't read that bit, or the bit of my post where I said that it was OK for serious reasons.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm defending common sense. The woman knew the score when she went to work for them. It's up to her to provide her own contraception or find another job where the insurance will cover it.

What common sense when you have no conception of the lack of health care in the US or the costs.

Again this is about discrimination by the company which again you keep excusing at every level based on you being a Christian and nothing more.

Again you also have no conception on what is drummed in to Catholics growing up either on this whole issue

That is your first and biggest failing on this

The common sense of actually knowing what you're signing, and not complaining later because she failed to keep her legs together or buy some condoms.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm defending common sense. The woman knew the score when she went to work for them. It's up to her to provide her own contraception or find another job where the insurance will cover it.

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

Exactly. I think there's an ulterior motive to her complaint.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


What common sense when you have no conception of the lack of health care in the US or the costs.

Again this is about discrimination by the company which again you keep excusing at every level based on you being a Christian and nothing more.

Again you also have no conception on what is drummed in to Catholics growing up either on this whole issue

That is your first and biggest failing on this

The common sense of actually knowing what you're signing, and not complaining later because she failed to keep her legs together or buy some condoms.

What gibberish, because again it fails to understand catholic upbringing where the company has no right in the first place within its contract to deny a person birth control based on religious mumbo jumbo, the point you keep missing and what if this was the only job she could get?

Or has the levels of unemployment eluded you by any chance

Again you excuse a company being prejudiced and discriminating more than a woman trying to earn a living

That is disgusting

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are defending it with every post

You are thus defending prejudice and discrimination because it is a Christian organisation

What did I say rightly was so dangerous about religion?

I'm defending common sense. The woman knew the score when she went to work for them. It's up to her to provide her own contraception or find another job where the insurance will cover it.

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

She's not trying to buy condoms (which aren't covered by any insurance), she was recommended to get an IUD by her physician, which can cost up to $1,000 without insurance.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

And you would know this not living there or understand what she was paid or money she had to live on and Catholic upbringings?

Nothing worse when people spout ignorance

You're really condoning this woman's claim that the Church are to blame for her having sex?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


And you would know this not living there or understand what she was paid or money she had to live on and Catholic upbringings?

Nothing worse when people spout ignorance

You're really condoning this woman's claim that the Church are to blame for her having sex?

Where did I say they were to blame for her having sex?

So now you are saying poor people should not have sex, when denied contraceptives by their company when they are discriminating against them

What a bigot you are

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

She's not trying to buy condoms (which aren't covered by any insurance), she was recommended to get an IUD by her physician, which can cost up to $1,000 without insurance.

An IUD is no  guarantee of not getting pregnant.  Condoms are 98 percent effective.  IUD 99 percent.  So, she's angling to sue the Church?

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You're really condoning this woman's claim that the Church are to blame for her having sex?

Where did I say they were to blame for her having sex?

So now you are saying poor people should not have sex, when denied contraceptives by their company when they are discriminating against them

What a bigot you are

I'm saying that people can't blame others for their own choices.  

Are you saying she's the immaculate conception?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

She's not trying to buy condoms (which aren't covered by any insurance), she was recommended to get an IUD by her physician, which can cost up to $1,000 without insurance.

An IUD is no  guarantee of not getting pregnant.  Condoms are 98 percent effective.  IUD 99 percent.  So, she's angling to sue the Church?

Beggars belief

The point is she should not be denied having the choice of treatment based on religious gibberish

How many more time will you fail to grasp that?

Seriously or do you just hate poor people?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Where did I say they were to blame for her having sex?

So now you are saying poor people should not have sex, when denied contraceptives by their company when they are discriminating against them

What a bigot you are

I'm saying that people can't blame others for their own choices.  

Are you saying she's the immaculate conception?

That is just bull

Again the company is denying her the right of health care, because of religious bullshit and you are defending that

That is inequality

Can you not grasp that?

Your last sentence really proves why you are an idiot

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The common sense of actually knowing what you're signing, and not complaining later because she failed to keep her legs together or buy some condoms.

What gibberish, because again it fails to understand catholic upbringing where the company has no right in the first place within its contract to deny a person birth control based on religious mumbo jumbo, the point you keep missing and what if this was the only job she could get?

Or has the levels of unemployment eluded you by any chance

Again you excuse a company being prejudiced and discriminating more than a woman trying to earn a living

That is disgusting

It's not gibberish. I can't be doing with this trend whereby people blame everyone and everything except themselves when they fail to control themselves, or when they fail to sort out their own issues. If she didn't want another kid, she should have bought some condoms instead of blaming an organisation she had worked for for years, knowing that they wouldn't pay for contraception.

Nobody forced her to work for that organisation.

Your view that nobody is to blame for their own failures is disgusting.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

She's not trying to buy condoms (which aren't covered by any insurance), she was recommended to get an IUD by her physician, which can cost up to $1,000 without insurance.

It's not an uncommon recommendation, but there's no reason she couldn't have got some condoms instead.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


What gibberish, because again it fails to understand catholic upbringing where the company has no right in the first place within its contract to deny a person birth control based on religious mumbo jumbo, the point you keep missing and what if this was the only job she could get?

Or has the levels of unemployment eluded you by any chance

Again you excuse a company being prejudiced and discriminating more than a woman trying to earn a living

That is disgusting

It's not gibberish. I can't be doing with this trend whereby people blame everyone and everything except themselves when they fail to control themselves, or when they fail to sort out their own issues. If she didn't want another kid, she should have bought some condoms instead of blaming an organisation she had worked for for years, knowing that they wouldn't pay for contraception.

Nobody forced her to work for that organisation.

Your view that nobody is to blame for their own failures is disgusting.

Its gibberish because again the company is denying certain health care based off religious bull

At every turn you are defending inequality

You are saying now that people in love have to restrain themselves having sex?

That shows you have never been in a loving relationship

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

She's not trying to buy condoms (which aren't covered by any insurance), she was recommended to get an IUD by her physician, which can cost up to $1,000 without insurance.

An IUD is no  guarantee of not getting pregnant.  Condoms are 98 percent effective.  IUD 99 percent.  So, she's angling to sue the Church?

This is what I'm wondering too.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not gibberish. I can't be doing with this trend whereby people blame everyone and everything except themselves when they fail to control themselves, or when they fail to sort out their own issues. If she didn't want another kid, she should have bought some condoms instead of blaming an organisation she had worked for for years, knowing that they wouldn't pay for contraception.

Nobody forced her to work for that organisation.

Your view that nobody is to blame for their own failures is disgusting.

Its gibberish because again the company is denying certain health care based off religious bull

At every turn you are defending inequality

You are saying now that people in love have to restrain themselves having sex?

That shows you have never been in a loving relationship

If they don't want a kid, and are too lazy or mean to buy some condoms, yes. The choice was their own, and now they want to blame someone else.

Don't bother getting personal - you know where that leads.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its gibberish because again the company is denying certain health care based off religious bull

At every turn you are defending inequality

You are saying now that people in love have to restrain themselves having sex?

That shows you have never been in a loving relationship

If they don't want a kid, and are too lazy or mean to buy some condoms, yes. The choice was their own, and now they want to blame someone else.

Don't bother getting personal - you know where that leads.

Again which shows you think people in love now have to stop having sex because they are poor.
They should be given birth control, and the fact it even cost money is criminal

Bigotry at its best

Again you have no conception of love, if you did, you would not even come out with the above crap that you did

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

$5.99 for a packet of 12 condoms in the US.   I'm damned sure she could afford that.   As pointed out, she knew when she took the job what the insurance paid out on or not.

She's not trying to buy condoms (which aren't covered by any insurance), she was recommended to get an IUD by her physician, which can cost up to $1,000 without insurance.

An IUD is no  guarantee of not getting pregnant.  Condoms are 98 percent effective.  IUD 99 percent.  So, she's angling to sue the Church?

IUDs are more like 99.2 to 99.8 percent effective.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they don't want a kid, and are too lazy or mean to buy some condoms, yes. The choice was their own, and now they want to blame someone else.

Don't bother getting personal - you know where that leads.

Again which shows you think people in love now have to stop having sex because they are poor.
They should be given birth control, and the fact it even cost money is criminal

Bigotry at its best

Again you have no conception of love, if you did, you would not even come out with the above crap that you did

I told you - don't get personal, unless you want to discuss why your wife left you.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

An IUD is no  guarantee of not getting pregnant.  Condoms are 98 percent effective.  IUD 99 percent.  So, she's angling to sue the Church?

IUDs are more like 99.2 to 99.8 percent effective.

Is that a good reason not to use condoms instead?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again which shows you think people in love now have to stop having sex because they are poor.
They should be given birth control, and the fact it even cost money is criminal

Bigotry at its best

Again you have no conception of love, if you did, you would not even come out with the above crap that you did

I told you - don't get personal, unless you want to discuss why your wife left you.

Its relevant because if you understood love you would not come out with such bullshit

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I told you - don't get personal, unless you want to discuss why your wife left you.

Its relevant because if you understood love you would not come out with such bullshit

It's not relevant. If you think it is, let's discuss why you're so full of hatred shall we?

Raggamuffin wrote:
I told you - don't get personal, unless you want to discuss why your wife left you.

Is this a thread about people cheating on their partners???????????????????????????????????????????

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its relevant because if you understood love you would not come out with such bullshit

It's not relevant. If you think it is, let's discuss why you're so full of hatred shall we?

lol so where I am defending love, the poor, equality is full of hate to you



Classic

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

An IUD is no  guarantee of not getting pregnant.  Condoms are 98 percent effective.  IUD 99 percent.  So, she's angling to sue the Church?

Beggars belief

The point is she should not be denied having the choice of treatment based on religious gibberish

How many more time will you fail to grasp that?

Seriously or do you just hate poor people?

I've been poor.   Very poor.   And guess what?   I ensured I only ever had one child.    

I think you and I agree that religion is a pile of steaming shit.   I don't subscribe to it.   However, if someone is stupid enough to slavishly let it dictate their most private and intimate lives and choices,  do what this woman and her partner has, then serve her right for being so fucking stupid.   

So, no, I don't have any sympathy for her.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

An IUD is no  guarantee of not getting pregnant.  Condoms are 98 percent effective.  IUD 99 percent.  So, she's angling to sue the Church?

IUDs are more like 99.2 to 99.8 percent effective.

Is that a good reason not to use condoms instead?

Yes, if you have a high risk of having a child with serious birth defects, which she did.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not relevant. If you think it is, let's discuss why you're so full of hatred shall we?

lol so where I am defending love, the poor, equality is full of hate to you



Classic

You're not defending love, you're defending irresponsibility and lack of self control. You'd say anything if it meant that you can slag off religion. If this woman had praised the Catholic Church, you'd be calling her all sorts.