The contraception debate...what people have missed.

a. Ordinary means vs. extra-ordinary means. (or the use there of)

i. The ordinary means is to prevent the conception of a child from birth. There are many reasons behind this, that's not the point of this blog entry. The word literally means against conception. Science has acknowledged that human life begins at conception. Why? It is not possible for anything other than a human being to be formed by a human egg and human sperm. (Though those of you with little kids would probably beg to differ). In this particular scenario, it is the INTENT of the person that is using contraception to not have a child. It is this use which the Church condemns. The denial of life. This is a Catholic blog, so I'm writing from a Catholic perspective. Children are a gift from God regardless of the circumstances that surround the situation. Even in the cases of pre-marital sex, rape, etc, where sin abounds, grace abounds that much more. The 3 conditions of a mortal sin are 1. Grave matter, 2. Knowledge that what you're doing is grave matter, and 3. The intent to do the sin anyway. In this case, why should anyone pay for someone elses' sin? Forget the whole religious freedom thing, this just doesn't make regular old sense. Should I have to pay for your groceries? Should I have to pay for your gas? Why would you want me to directly influence the decisions that you make for you and your family? It's really as simple as "If you want to play, you have to pay." (Not that I'm condoning such behaviour...) If someone wants condoms, or the pill, they can BUY IT THEMSELVES! No insurance company should have to cover things that are easily available over the counter.

ii. The extra-ordinary means is used for various womens' issues. Thanks be to God I'm not a woman, and will never have to deal with these issues. (I don't want them, I'm happy enough). In this situation, the INTENT is not for Birth Control; but to deal with a medical issue...(such as excessive bleeding, or a few things, I'm not all up to date on Biology. I'm a Physicist ;)). The un-intended consequence of using this medication is a result that makes conception less likely to happen. In this situation CONTRACEPTION is not being used for its intended purpose. It is being used for medical means with a secondary effect. Normally in this situation, these pills are not available OTC, but only by Rx means. The question of whether insurance companies should cover this situation. I again do not think they should have to cover this situation either. Why? The modern concept of insurance has effectively driven up costs because no longer are people required to directly participate in the market place for a good or service (more on that point later). Competition and choices bring down prices. It's why you can buy cereal and most groceries for cheap. There are varieties forcing competition. As far as the moral situation goes for the extra-ordinary situation, the intention is what saves this from being a mortal sin. One way to look at it, is if there was a surgery on a pregnant woman. Let's say the surgeon botched the job they were supposed to do, and resulted in killing the baby. It was not the intent of the doctor or the woman to kill the baby. It was a freak accident. Not exactly ideal, but things like that do happen. The Church is the hospital of mercy, not house of condemnation. (Though obviously the Church needs to call a spade a spade, and a sin a sin). These particular circumstances have ALWAYS been understood by the Church, and have always been understood as non applicable in their situations. An easy example. The normal posture for receiving Communion in the Roman Catholic Church is kneeling and on the tongue. Obviously if someone can't kneel, that person does not have to kneel, a bit of common sense needs to be applied by those on the right and the left to this situation.

b. The problem with the mandate....


i. The people (us) are being forced against our will to pay for someone elses' activities. Some of you are going to mention car insurance I'm sure. Besides for the fact that owning a car is not a right, the 2nd thing is that if you don't have a car, you don't need insurance. So that particular situation is different than this mandate. What this mandate does is effectively force you to buy insurance or face a fine. Unlike auto insurance, where if you don't have car, insurance on it is not necessary. This mandate would effectively mean that the government can force you do to what it wants...regardless of your opinion. Michelle Obama on her "fat crusade" wants Candy Bars to be smaller...now the government could in theory make you buy certain foods. It's all for your best interest of course. Since you don't have your own best interest in mind. By mandating health insurance it's effectively the reverse of what some on the left accuse the right of doing. Forcing their own beliefs about insurance, contraception, whatever it happens to be down someone's throat.

c. Fortunately, there's a solution.

The key to understanding this is MANDATE. No one should be forced to do something that they don't want to do.

It is an entirely different proposition if one person out of their OWN free will offers their insurance company a few extra dollars so that contraception can be covered. The initiative comes from the consumer of the product. Most insurance companies I'm sure would gladly take a few extra dollars from your own pocket books to cover this for you. Why? You're covering your own expenses, it's as simple as that.

The original intent of insurance (or rather, what insurance should be) is to cover catastrophic events, or things that endanger one's life. Unfortunately, in modern times, basically health insurance and healthcare have been equated to the same exact thing. How many of you actually know how much your medicines and various things cost? The vast majority of people do not pay for doctor's visits out of pocket. (My mom worked in medicine, so I never had to see how much these things actually cost)...Don't you think that's a problem? That you get a service, and you DO NOT know how much it costs? All you do know is that you pay x amount for your insurance each month, and all things are covered. It'd be like McDonald's taking away the prices from the menu, and saying order what you want, we'll bill your grocer and you'll never see the bill.

Another thing to consider, how often do we even use the service? Someone as young as myself doesn't as often go to the doctor, as say someone who is older than me, or even younger than me. Why do you keep paying for something that you don't use that often? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay for something when you need it? Rather than always anticipating the cost? Of course being fiscally sound is very important, and it'd require you to actually be responsible, but isn't that what we're supposed to be?

What about those that don't have insurance, yeah, yeah, I know...Think about this...with you paying for more things out of pocket rather than with the insurance company, that frees up capital for said insurance company can use to help those that don't have insurance. In other words, you become a smaller risk to the insurance company, thus allowing the insurance company to take greater risks on those that don't have insurance. Also, along with that point, I remember back in the good old days we actually used to help our neighbour out of our own good will, and their sake. When you give of your income YOURSELF without coercion it is much more meaningful.

What are your thoughts?