zapatos

I suppose it is quite easy for life to start if the conditions are right. And that it is quite difficult if the conditions are wrong. A better question might have been "How difficult is it for the right conditions for life to exist?" Or "How difficult is it to determine what the right conditions for life are?"

Is it true that the only thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it was hotter and denser than it is now?

I think time moves along at one second per second. I don't know what it means to 'break' speed so I don't know how to answer the question of whether or not things will go faster if speed is broken.

What I'm not getting is an answer to my question.

Sorry if I seem rude, but you have got to be kidding. How long do you think a Catholic hospital will be in business if they suddenly drop health insurance for all of their nurses? What would happen en masse is the nurses heading for the door.

Those posts were all before my time. And something did the trick as talking to you and looking at your profile picture gave me absolutely no hint of the things you've talked about in this thread. Assuming that was how you hoped to present yourself, I have to say, Nicely Done!

The question of how 'certain' you can know about something that happened 14 billion years ago aside, my primary issue with your statement was the assertion that "the only real thing scientists know for certain about the early universe is that it appears to become hotter and denser". Are you suggesting all of the other descriptions of what was happening in the early universe are false, or that there is zero doubt about the 'hotter and denser' issue and some non-zero doubt about everything else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

In my opinion it is reasonable and supported by the Constitution that houses of worship not be required to supply contraception to their employees via health plans. People seeking employment at such institutions were well aware of what type of organization they were applying to. I also believe it is reasonable and supported by the Constitution that religious based institutions such as Catholic hospitals be required to supply contraception to their employees via health plans. Religious based organizations seeking to create public businesses were well aware they would be required to follow laws regarding wages and work hours; safety and health standards; health benefits, retirement standards and workers compensation; and other workplace standards. These laws are in place to protect workers and neither religious organization nor any other group should be allowed to impose those own standards to the detriment of those standards set by law. This country is based on the rights of the individuals, not the rights of religious institutions. If people do not want to be required to abide by a religion then they should not join that religion or work at that church. If religious institutions do not wish abide by laws governing public institutions then they should not create public institutions. If I am a Muslim and do not believe women should be allowed to drive cars, it is not reasonable of me start a cab company and expect that I can refuse to hire women simply because of my religion. It is not acceptable. My religious beliefs do not and should not overide laws regarding child labor, minimum wage, safety, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnzyzsOqMOY

I question whether this statement is accurate also. Seems to me scientists know much more than that, although I'm not sure the use of the word 'certain' is appropriate in any case.

You first.

HAR!! It's hard to take anything seriously once the MP boys explain it to you!

Yes, if I read it correctly, the compromise stated that instead of the institution paying the insurer to provide contraceptives, the insurer would instead offer contraceptives directly to the employee, free of charge, payment coming out of the pocket of the insurer instead of from the religious organization. Some religious institutions feel this is simply a sleight of hand, arguing that the insurance company still has to pay for the contraceptives. Since the insurance company is getting their money from the religious institution in the first place, the religious institution is leary of the claim that they are not paying for it. It appears though that this compromise may please enough people to bring an end to the issue. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/womens-groups-give-new-contraception-rule-stamp-of-approval.php

Xittenn -- Yesterday you were one of my favorite people on this site. Today you stand alone in the number one position on my list of favorites. I cannot adequately express the respect and admiration I have for you. I hope my kids can turn out to be as strong as you are. I'm proud to be able to say "I have this friend on SFN named Xittenn...". As for those who have ever made even the slightest move toward doing you wrong, fuck them. If you ever decide it would be fun to, say, cancel their classes at school, glue their car doors shut, hide a dead fish in their garage, etc., count me in. One event a week for the next year might be fun. I'm there for you, in any way I can be.

Yes, I shouldn't have ignored it. My blood is up. As it came right after you told me how disgusted you still were with me, I just glossed right past it. I appreciate your accepting my explanation of what I meant by my "shocked" comment.

Ok, I left one out. When I say "you sound like you have an axe to grind" what I mean is it sounds like you... http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/174000.html As in, if we are talking about one issue, such as what to compare contraception to, and you make a statement about how women are held to a different standard and make a sarcastic comment about firing men for using Viagra, it sounds to me like you have a dispute to take up with someone... And considering I didn't make the comment to you, and consisdering I apologized for coming across as offensive, and considering I said I'd work to improve my communication skills, you might understand how I'm not too concerned that you still have a bad taste in your mouth. Try being more forgiving and a little less judgemental. Maybe then it won't taste so bad.

Huh? How can an insurance company justify not paying for a medically necessary treatment just because the drug has other uses? For some reason I get the feeling that I am being viewed as a jackass on this issue. I try real hard to be precise in what I am saying because people only have my words to work with. No one gets to see any body language or hear my tone of voice. So my intent is to have the words, and the words only, convey what I mean. When I say that I believe comparing contraception to preventive medicine is a better argument than comparing contraception to Viagra, what I mean is that I believe comparing contraception to preventive medicine is a better argument than comparing contraception to Viagra. I don't mean that women aren't held to a different standard, or that women's equality issues should be dismissed. When I say "Wow. I am truly shocked.", what I mean is "Wow. I am truly shocked." I don't mean "Who gives a shit." or whatever you think it is I meant that indicates I'm being such a dick. I would be better understood if people took what I said at face value. Or if I was asked to clarify if it was suspected I meant something else. I think I've shown that I'm happy to clarify and expand on my position. So, no sarcasm, nothing between the lines, this is what I think. Women are not treated as equals to men. I think this is wrong and I hope they are treated as equals in the future, the sooner the better. While there are issues that make comparing contraception to Viagra reasonable, I believe the issues comparing contraception to preventive medicine make for a better argument in favor of health plans paying for contraception. I believe that religious based institutions such as Catholic hospitals, although not churches, should be required to offer contraception to their employees as part of the health insurance they offer. I am not a Catholic. I believe the Church is wrong on its stand against contraception. My wife and I have used contraception, including prior to marriage. I told my two sons (before they were sexually active) that if they did not use condoms every time they had sex then they were not responsible enough to have sex. Neither are married. I keep trying to explain my position in this thread and I think that the perception people have of me is going to color everything I say. Therefore I'm just going to move on to other topics. Sorry for the offense I caused people as that was not my intention. I'll try to work on my communication skills.

There is the issue. Religious based institutions feel that being forced to provide contraception prohibits their free exercise of religion. They are not saying everyone should live like Christians (well, maybe they are, but not in this instance). They are not objecting to non-religious based institutions providing contraception.

Wow. I am truly shocked. Yes, the only point of Viagra is to get an erection. Yes, the only reason to get an erectioin is to have sex. No, the religious right would not also think it's appropriate to limit Viagra to only those who need it for procreation. The church is not opposed to sex (in marriage). The church is not opposed to sex when there is no desire to get pregnant. The church is not opposed to couples actively trying to avoid pregnancy. The church believes that sex in marriage is good whether the couple wants to get pregnant or not. The church, and thus the religious right, are opposed to artificial forms of birth control such as the pill and condoms. They are not opposed to the rhythm method. This is why, IMHO, there is no double standard. They oppose the pill for women, and they oppose condoms for men. They have no intention of paying for either. It is obviously more of an issue to women than to men, because women bear the brunt of pregnancies. The issue is contraception. The issue is not sex. I accept that wasn't your point at all. However, when I read the following, I took that to mean since viagra wasn't only being used to help men procreate, then if they can fire women...they should also fire men. My mistake. No, ED is not physically painful. No, it does not kill men. It just stops them from getting an erection, or a full erection, or an erection all the time. I agree that the pill and Viagra reduce sexual choices. I agree there is an argument to be made. But I also believe that they are different in important and fundamental ways, and that if you want to win the argument to allow contraception, you will have a hard time doing it (no pun intended) by arguing "it's not fair, because you already allow Viagra". Agree completely. But I don't think winning over the religious right will do it for you anyway. The left is already on board, probably most of the middle too. It is the Christian ladies (and to a lesser extent men) who are concerned about women's health and women's issues that you can win over with the preventive medicine argument. Yes. Yes, and I could have been more subtle, and I should also have considered where your mindset is overall. I just reacted that way because I supported all the points you, Moon, and iNow made, but only suggested there was a better argument to be made elsewhere. It seemed to me that by making the lack of equality issues to me that you were putting me in the crosshairs for a part of the overall issue that I hadn't even addressed, much less argued against. Sure I can understand, and I in no way meant to say you shouldn't have an axe to grind. It just seemed to me that you got it out and aimed it in my direction (maybe because of past a-holes), when we were still working on the "which comparison to contraception is better" argument.

I still don't buy it. 1. Contraception as used for birth control does not address a medical problem in women. I recognize it has uses that do address medical problems in women. I don't believe the use of contraception for medical need is an issue with anyone. Not me, you, Rush, the Church. For example, the Church does not oppose hysterectomies for medical need even if it prevents the woman from getting pregnant. The issue is contraception's use for birth control. I am only guessing here, but I'd be surprised if an insurance company that did not cover contraception, would refuse to pay for contraception for a woman to address a medical issue. 2. Viagra as used to treat ED does address a medical problem in men. I recognize that the drug is abused. I don't believe the use of Viagra to treat a medical issue is an issue with most people. Not me, the Church, or anyone with ED (Although after this thread I am now not so sure of that). The issue I see with Viagra is only when it is abused. Same for Xanax, pain killers, etc. 3. In my opinion, to suggest that it is fair to cut out Viagra for someone who has a medical issue because someone else is abusing the drug is ludicrous. It is my opinion the same as an insurance company not paying for pain killers for a person with chronic pain because someone somewhere is abusing pain killers. 4. If there is problem with drug abuse, you punish the abusers, not the ones who have a legitimate need. I know this analogy is really going far, but it reminds me of God punishing me because an ancient ancestor of mine did something wrong in a garden. That one always did piss me off. 5. In my opinion, the only reason the two issues are being connected is because both have to do with sex. Pain killers for men with testicular cancer are probably abused (assuming they are the same pain killers subscribed for other pains). Perhaps if we are not going to pay for birth control for women we should not pay for pain killers for men with testicular cancer. How is this analogy different? I believe I'm stacking the deck by looking at the issue more closely than you. I agree the real problem is that the religious right has a problem with the intended use of birth control. For both men and women. Women seem to be the focus because most birth control is aimed at women (and because women are still held to different standards). Rush did not say to pay for it for men but not women. And I'd love to see you support your assertion that the religious right does not have a problem with drug abuse, whether Viagra or any other drug. Of course it cannot account for it all. Everyone knows it is being abused. Not that I feel it matters, (due to my previously stated position that you don't punish the patient because someone is misusing your drug), but what is the percentage that is abused? You statement makes it sound like it is a lot. Sure, it makes sense if you put it that way. One could also say health insurance is paying to fix a medical problem for men, and the issue in the new laws is not wanting to pay for a non-medical intervention for either men or women. All depends on how you word it. I can see you can make an argument for equating the two, but I don't find it to be a strong argument. If, on the other hand, you compared contraception to other forms of preventive medicine that are already covered, I think it would be harder to dismiss. They still would because it is also a moral issue for some, but at least then the arguments can go head to head. No need to be sorry. But I do find it interesting that you (and at least two others) did see it that way. In my first post on this topic I suggested contraception/viagra was not a good comparison but that contraception/preventive medicine was and quickly went over why. Moon, jeskill and iNow then questioned my assertion, and I responded by saying I agreed with them all and at least in part discussed it in my first post. jeskill then directed at me: 1. The point that women are not treated fairly. 2. If women are treated unfairly, rather than fix that error we should instead create another error targeting men. 3. Read into my posts something I did not say. 4. And finally, directed a rant to me, not about contraception vs. Viagra, but about how women are treated unfairly. Thus leading to my final response of, "I'm happy to discuss anything you wish, but if you are going to direct your anger and frustration at me regarding sexual inequality just because I question how you've linked two issues, then I'll be moving on." So anyway, you may still think that response was over emotional, but now you know what I was thinking.

Yes, the Right wants to make it about religion, but why do they get to decide? The debate needs to be about health and economics, and if we want to win the debate we need to move it away from morals. First, I should probably clarify something I said earlier. The church does not object to recreational sex inside marriage. I think even the religious right backed away from what Rush had to say.

Yes, you found the standard regarding why the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception. Well, in 'this day and age' since most of the world's women are not yet treated as equals of men, I am not really surprised that women are still held to a different standard than men when it comes to sex. However, I agree that it is very frustrating and look forward to the day when that inequality is gone. I never said that you shouldn't be bothered by it. I said you were treating two different issues as if they were the same thing. I am not implying anything. I am saying that contraception is a separate issue from erectile dysfunction. I'm happy to discuss anything you wish, but if you are going to direct your anger and frustration at me regarding sexual inequality just because I question how you've linked two issues, then I'll be moving on.

Which is why NO ONE assumes that. So why bring it up? Recreational sex is not frowned upon by the Catholic Church. Contraception is. Erectile dysfunction is a medical issue. Contraception is not. Conflating the issues is not going to get you anywhere. Now you just sound like you have an axe to grind because women are held to a different standard when it comes to sex. Which topic do you wish to discuss? What the Right is doing on the contraception issue, or how women have to worry about their reputation and men don't?

Sure, that might work. And to Moon's comment, the center of a large tree (the heartwood) is not living. You'll often find living trees with rotted out cores. If you want to kill a standing tree you girdle it. That is, cut through the thin layer of cells just beneath the bark, all the way around a tree.

Which is exactly the point I was making when I said it should probably be compared to preventive medicine instead of Viagra. Which is why I said "Viagra is for a medical problem while contraception (as generally being discussed) is not." I haven't heard any opponents of covering contraception talking about its use for medical issues. It is generally being discussed in terms of its use for birth control. And I feel that the fact that Viagra is sometimes used for recreation is beside the point. Lots of drugs are. You can't block the valid use of a drug just because it can also be misused. There is no moral objection from the church to erections. There is a moral objection to contraception. Viagra is primarily for medical problems. Contraception is not. If you try to compare contraception to a drug for medical problems, no one who is arguing with you is going to let you stay on the "both help to have sex" topic. They will not let go of the stand the church has on contraception. Again, this was the reason I made the point of how contraception is generally being discussed. Basically I agree with what all of you have pointed out, but I still contend that it is more appropriate, and would be a more effective argument, to make the comparison of contraception to preventative medicine instead of Viagra, primarily because of all the issues you've just pointed out.