tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post7275162761508267941..comments2024-03-28T09:54:55.115-05:00Comments on Dad29: The Feds: Madness and Methods of ObamaCareDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-86345196961411899002009-08-11T07:59:31.034-05:002009-08-11T07:59:31.034-05:00The question is not about the moral acceptability ...The question is not about the moral acceptability of Viagra (it is most certainly allowed), but whether it should be covered under insurance.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01194200955033642204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-52556992643927273462009-08-10T18:46:29.121-05:002009-08-10T18:46:29.121-05:00I'm not arguing that there is a right, though....I'm not arguing that there is a right, though. I'm trying to understand if there is a moral argument against Viagra, as opposed to against contraception or abortion. <br /><br />If not, the Church still may not wish to be forced to provide the drug because it is expensive, and unnecessary, and they may rightly argue that there are better places to spend the money they have to spend. Still, if there is no theological reason why Viagra is bad, it's not a first-amendment issue. If there is no <i>religious</i> objection, it's a practical rather than a religious/1A question.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-58023190041338469342009-08-10T15:49:39.928-05:002009-08-10T15:49:39.928-05:00Grim, there is no 'right' to sexual congre...Grim, there is no 'right' to sexual congress between married couples--any more than there is a 'right' to natural progeny.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-15550276615434909382009-08-10T15:15:16.336-05:002009-08-10T15:15:16.336-05:00It may well be a losing battle, but let's not ...It may well be a losing battle, but let's not roll over on this. Take it to the courts, and if we go down, go down fighting all the way.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01194200955033642204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-61027096683520537592009-08-10T14:39:10.982-05:002009-08-10T14:39:10.982-05:00What's wrong with Viagra, from a Catholic pers...What's wrong with Viagra, from a Catholic perspective? St. Thomas Aquinas holds that sex is a positive good, if it accomplishes three things:<br /><br />1) A greater sense of union between man and wife,<br /><br />2) Physical pleasure, <br /><br />and,<br /><br />3) Hope of procreation.<br /><br />As to that last, I suppose you could argue that men who need Viagra are past the age when they should hope to procreate; but Abraham was quite old, wasn't he? <br /><br />You could also argue that their wives are likely to be too old to procreate at all, but Sarah was old as well; so one could honorably hope for a miracle.<br /><br />If Viagra allows older couples to engage in sex that meets St. Thomas' three conditions, I would think the Church would approve of it. <br /><br />I can think of several good policy reasons not to provide funding for Viagra -- I'm not advocating that the government should provide it to people at taxpayer expense. However, I'm not clear on why the Church would have a moral objection to Viagra in the way that it does to contraception.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.com