Science Contradicts Itself

Science contradicts itself all the time.  This is especially true of medical science that is used to affect humans' health, liver function, pancreatic function, cardiovascular function, kidney function, among others.  Medical doctors constantly switch around their dietary dictates, recommendations medical procedures, dietary supplements, and prescription pharmaceuticals.

Butter is bad for you.  Use margarine.  But then more recently, it turns out that, wait nope, margarine, i.e., hydrogenated oil, is bad for you.  Butter is still bad for you, though.

They were saying that all fat is bad.  But then, nope, it turns out that some fats are good for you.  Avocado fat, walnut and pecan and almond fat.

Eggs are good for you because they are not red meat.  But then, nope, the cholesterol in egg yolks is bad for you.  Cholesterol is bad for you.  Oh, wait, nope.  It turns out that the brain and nervous system need quite a lot of cholesterol to function properly. 

I have thought that these doomsayers averting us away from the perils of cholesterol were strange ever since high school when I learned that cholesterol is a large component of the brain and nervous system.

The Schwann cell is a flat little cell that wraps around a neuron's tail (axon) several times like a burrito.  The Schwann cell has to be thin and flat enough to be able to wrap around the neuron-tail easily.  The only way it can do this is if it is made up almost entirely of cell membrane, and cell membrane is all fat molecules and cholesterol molecules.  Several Schwann cells line up next to each other and wrap around said neuron's tail, each one occupying its spot, and together they are known as the myelin sheath for that neuron.  This ominous foreboding is slightly misguided.

Barbecuing foods causes cancer or whatever.  Some foods cause cancer or whatever.  Okay, so that's a broad oversimplification, but you get the idea.

This week the news reports will be ablaze with stories of how a certain food is good for you.  And next week the news will be saying, "oh no, sorry, we were wrong last week, you are going to die if you eat that food."

Bacteria is baaadddd!  Oh wait no, it turns out that some bacteria is good for you.  Good bacteria that lines the inside of your large intestine helps your digestive system.  Good bacteria on your skin and in your throat works as a barrier that keeps bad bacteria from proliferating and making you sick.  Use antibacterial soaps to wash your hands, it will cure you of all bacteria!!  Wait, nope.  It turns out that antibacterial soaps only get rid of standard non-virulent bacteria.  This leaves stronger antibacterial-resistant bacteria alive, allowing them to multiply and pass on their stronger antibacterial-resistant genes.  Oh, wait.  If you work in the clinical medical setting, then go ahead and use antibacterial soap anyway, just in case.

It gets to the point where people just grow weary and bored with these conflicting scientific discoveries that keep popping up and zigging and zagging around common knowledge.  I have become rather jaded and cynical upon encountering these "breakthroughs."  I usually can be found rolling my eyes and saying, "Oh, give me a break."  What's the point in paying attention to any of them if they are just going to stumble upon something contradictory in a few months?  There is no point in taking any of them seriously, nor in adapting my life to revolve around the TV news' suggestions.

Oh, forget it.  I'm not going to heed those idiotic "new scientific breakthroughs" any more.  I'm just going to use my own common sense which has served me very well over the years.

An odd application of observations made about the natural world

This weird idea that because humans know intricate details of physics, chemistry, biology, and other disciplines, that this somehow disproves the existence of god.

News flash, hon.  Knowledge of the natural world does not disprove the existence of an ultimate creator.  So you think that because you discovered the mechanism, this somehow proves that the source does not exist?  This somehow disproves the existence of the source?

No, that's your atheist liberal interpretation.  Liberals think that because we have discovered the vastly complex ways that life arose, that somehow because we discovered it, that this proves there is no god.

Do you have any idea how elaborate, complex and intricate this is?  This did not just happen spontaneously.

-- I got news for ya.  That's not science either.
-- science cannot make any claims as to[[____hmmm thnk thk__ any extrapolations, interpretations___ [[cannot lay dogma beyond the scope of its purpose__]]]]
-- so you think you have us.  You think that because science has not thus far proven the existence of a deity, this conclusively proves there is no deity.  Sorry, but nope.  Failure to prove a positive does not prove a negative.  That’s not how science works.

Atheists try to claim that there should have been some non-physical evidence, or at least something that defies the laws of physics that should have happened.  So, your argument is that the universe works, and this is your proof positive that there is no god?

The atheist asks, "so why can't you just pray to god and miraculously make this healing of a sick person happen?"

Guffaw.  God didn't do it that way.  What makes you think we can?  Like atheists have said before.  The only thing to them that would prove there is a god is if some natural occurrence happens that defies the laws of physics, of nature, of the universe.

Oh, you're kind of superstitious, aren't you?  You have given evidence that you are in fact more superstitious than those religious folks you make fun of.

--in rebuttal:  so religious types have conviction and feel definite about something.  And you atheists think this is a weakness?  We know that god did it.  And here's how god did it.  We have studied this extensively.

Nature has decreed that activation energies be present to prevent chemical reactions from spontaneously combusting (heh).  but nature has also fashioned catalysts to push along a reaction in case a particular co-mingling is in fact needed to sustain biological life.

Such a delicate, teeter-tottering balance betwixt ->progressing towards more organization, advancing towards highly specialized and "skilled" compartments, and ->entropy/chaos.  That is how the enzyme-substrate dynamic emerged.  E.g., because H2O versus nonpolar hydrophobic aliphatic groups.  Therefore substrate and enzyme had to move closer to each other, thereby bridging the gap between two nonpolar entities.  Releases free H2O from its hydro-repelling cage around oil.  And yet at the same time, enables more complex chemical reactions.  And you still think there is no intelligent design?

Atheists Touting Their Appreciation For Logic And Science

This is my comparison of "intellectuals smarmy academic" types-- who wax babble nonstop incessant on empty philosophical garbage.  This is only because they are too proud to oh so ever and ever accept themselves, humble themselves enough to do manual labor or skilled labor work, such as cleaning, nursing assistant, construction, factory work.  But at the same time, they are not intelligent enough to do truly higher critical thinking work.  Such as engineering.  Biochemistry research.  Medical school.  Computer programming.

This brings to the surface another topic:  that of science.  This word is so misused through the entertainment and the news media constantly.  (Let's be honest, the distinction between these two media sources grows narrower and fuzzier every day.)  Most laypersons probably think that because they paused for ten seconds in front of the TV store while it was broadcasting a news channel report on global warming, on the layperson's way to the indie coffee shop, this means they are scientifically literate.

What is most troubling is that with all the talk of "evolution" and "climate change" in the manner these are depicted by the media, people are misled to believe that all that cute little fluffy fluff is genuine science.

I am afeared that the universities themselves, the very places that are supposed to clear up any misconceptions about these subjects, are the ones perpetuating this vast misunderstanding.

Genuine science does not do this.  Genuine science does not posit the notion that just because someone managed to hack up a pseudo-original or rebellious thought, does not mean he/she is right.  Re: atheists thinking they are smart for being rebellious and unprecedented and unseen in prior human history.  And re:  everyone is special in their own way; there is no right or wrong answer, what matter is what you feel like not what the right answer is.
I remember being surprised and relieved to see that this nonsense was not parroted in real science courses.

Atheists think that simply by dint of being atheists, this automatically registers their IQs a couple of points higher.  They think this automatically puts them in a higher quotient bracket.

They think that simply because they have a particular opinion, this somehow makes them smarter.___   yes, atheism IS an opinion no different from religiosity.  Oh, posh.  The only difference is that you like this book "on the origin of species" and dislike this book "bible."  Whereas religious types like this book and dislike this book.  This is a strange parallel between middle-class white kids who study Philosophy Of Art History -- and atheists.

Go on, one of you atheists.  if you are truly so smart
Then they will inevitably produce a diagram of an evolutionary tree, thinking smugly that this proves them smart. 

Erm, let's back up and begin with the fundamentals.  You think that because you can read a goddamn tree, this somehow makes you scientifically literate?  Anybody can look at one of these macroevolution diagrams and easily understand it.  Let us be honest-- the ability to read a family tree does not require extensive cognitive capacity.  I did a family tree project back when I was in fifth or sixth grade.  This was a class assignment.  It was a lot of fun.

Do me a favor.  Don't whip out a picture of a family tree.  Guess what.  Uber-religious types can also read a tree.  They can trace the lineage of Abraham, down to Yeshua, and Moses, and Joseph.  Being able to see a tree does not make you any smarter than those people you love to think you are better than.

If you are as smart as you say you think you are, then you should have no trouble explaining this:  thermodynamics.  Don't forget to mention Gibbs free energy, [[[[use excerpts fom my bright pink sticky note.]]]]]

Hmm, maybe that is not your area of expertise.  Try another one:  physics-based calculus.

Let's go for a simpler one -- that trusty old stalwart, The Periodic Table.  Describe using chemistry explanations of electronegativity, ion strength, and atom size why water is so unique and powerful a chemical.  This is especially when compared to hydrides of the other Group 6 elements.

Or, here's a good one.  Since you like evolution so much, why don't you try explaining an interesting phenomenon to your eagerly waiting-with-bated breath audience?  The second law of thermodynamics states the presence of entropy.  The universe is slowly moving towards chaos, toward disorganization, towards particles becoming more and more randomly scattered throughout the universe.  Yet evolution indicates progress, species moving forward, beneficial mutations.  More complex aggregates of interacting atoms and molecules, and then cells, and then multi-cellular organisms.  How can both of these seemingly conflicting laws of nature occur simultaneously in the same universe?  How can randomly, effortlessly dissipating atomic particles be reconciled with beneficial mutations giving some species a competitive edge over other species?

Perhaps you should start off with explaining the central dogma of biochemistry.  Do you know what that is, first of all?

You cannot, can you?  Didn't think so.

You see, these critical industries of the physical, natural, and applied sciences are absolutes.  They are facts.  They are definites.  *But at the same time* they are complex, complicated, intricate, detailed.  They require a very discerning eye as well as the ability to keep all this enormous amount of information neatly organized in the mind.  Most people, yes that includes atheists, simply do not have the capacity for this neurological demand.

The reason that so many atheists glomp onto evolution is that evolution is actually pretty easy to understand.  On a rudimentary summarized level, before delving into the molecular basis for this theory, it is not a difficult concept to grasp in the minds of average people that are "comfortably ensconced in the middle of the bell curve."  (Hehe, "Sabrina the Teenage Witch.")  Anyone with an IQ of roughly 100 can understand evolution as it is presented in pop culture and pop media.  This includes self-proclaimed "atheists" who most likely also have an IQ of around 100.

It is easy to feel smart and superior with a no-brainer such as macroevolution.  Atheists' opinion of macroevolution is that they like it.  Atheists love to talk about how they approve of evolution, and macroevolution is technically categorized as science, so this allows them to feel smart.

Again, this is simply a matter of an *opinion* that atheists exploit in an attempt to demonstrate that they are smarter.  "Oh evolution is totally science!  And since I approve of teaching a type of science [even though this particular branch of science is not difficult], that must mean I am smarter than my small-town hole in a hovel [family including parents] that I am trying to rebel against!"

Debunking Various Atheist//Liberal Claims vis a vis Science vs. Religion

The biggest grievance atheists have against religious types is that naive assumption forms the very foundation of the livelihood of religion.  Namely, it is that all these people have agreed on the giant assumption that a mythical, imaginary, hypothetical supreme being exists.  Ingrained into this complaint is the assumption (heh) that math and science could not possibly do this.

Science and math do not involve pre-held assumptions or superstition?  WRONG.

It is silly that atheists/liberals automatically assume this is not true of math or science. 

Norms and constants in science that everyone simply agrees on, which are arbitrarily decided due to history and custom, and not because of material evidence.

360 degrees to a circle.  Hearken back to high school algebra.  This unit circle is the [[[foundation on which we derive trig functions-- remember sine, cosine, tangent, the other ones.  360 degrees round.  But why 360°?  Why not 350°?  Or 300°?  We are told it is 360° and we are not allowed to question this assertion.  Anyway. 
--we [[[derive]]] because we assume that the unit circle [[consists of___]]]  And yet this *same* Cartesian coordinate plane is the [[springboard, foundation]]] on which to plot a wave function representing the oscillating angles of the unit circle.

Which leads me into the next one.

Cartesian Coordinate plane system.  This one is a whopper.
All mathematics subtopics at higher degrees of difficulty than basic algebra are built on the previously agreed-upon assumption that such a concept exists.  Higher algebra, trigonometry, calculus -- they are all predicated on the assumption that such an imaginary, theoretic manner of organization exists.
they [[[function___, rely upon ]]]] if and only if all [[[[operators, perpetrators,_____]]]]] agree that such a

The definite integral in calculus -- finding the space below a curve function.  This is but one application of the coordinate plane.

Conic sections.  Why do we assume that it is a double cone, not just a single cone?  Answer:  because without this double-decker structure, one major conic section function, the hyperbola, would not exist.  Yet the other major conic sections could go about their merry ways just fine without the existence of the double cone.  So why must we invent the existence of an imaginary inverted cone, simply to satisfy the needs of an imaginary conception?

it would break down
The foundation of all these so-called scientific academic disciplines would crumble if even one person pipes up and says, “Wait a minute.  This thing does not actually exist.  Why are we all just accepting without question that it does?”

Does the Cartesian coordinate plane exist in nature?  Nope.  Is it something tangible we can see or touch or feel?  Nope.  Was it discovered out in nature by a curious individual exploring a previously uncharted land territory?  Nope.  Was it invented?  Yup.  It came out of somebody’s corpus callosum.

This entire revelation, by the way, is a shot right in the kisser for me.  Because I always [[[[have upheld____preached]]]]]] the notion that math and all branches of science are distinct, concrete absolutes.  And that all the sub-branches of math are also absolutes and are not abstract or theoretical, never ever ever besties forever and ever.

***
Next atheist concern:  religious types follow authority blindly and just assume that "authority" knows best.
Well, what about the fact that religious scholars say that oh, just because they are the authority, we all have to shut up and believe it.  We all have no choice but to simply take their word for it.

Answer:  Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is true of a lot of disciplines.

Medicine -- the general populace believes anything that doctors tell them.  this is because we know that medical doctors have the expertise, they studied [[the rigorous]]]] languid

We rely on electricians to ensure that electrical wiring is [[assembled__]]] up to code
to make sure we don't all fry when we go to turn on the lights.

you might not be familiar with the [[[vast network_____ vast complex system in place for screening and vetting original research in peer reviewed scientific research journals
--you do know t
this means that they are well-aware that their own re-creation of the experimental methodologies are not going to work equally successfully for everybody.  they factored this in.


****
Next atheist concern.  How come it works better for some people and not for others?  Why do only some people get to benefit and bask in God's glory while others are stuck in the dark?

This is not so farfetched.  Witness kids in high school and middle school.  One kid's lab experiment of putting a peanut into a metal calorimeter cup and setting said peanut on fire might work superbly,  and another kid’s attempt will not.  It works better for some people and not so great for other people.

To which the atheist might reply, "so what are you saying?  Are you implying that 'GOD' or whatever divinity of choice, will choose to reveal himself/herself to some people and not to others?"

But a scientific experiment with all its controlled conditions could be recreated by anyone else on earth, theoretically.  This is not the case with religion.  Some people supposedly feel God's "inner light" filling their soul, yet other people are deprived of it.  The same conditions cannot be recreated by everyone.  This proves that it is arbitrary, is a matter of perception, and does not actually exist.  How come some people are better at it than others?


Yep, maybe.  That might very well be the case.  More importantly, just because God did not choose to reveal Herself to you, is no reason for me to deny myself the peace of knowing spirituality.  There is a certain calmness and tranquility that I can achieve by [[[[ allowing myself to bask in the realization????? awareness???? revelation

"That’s not fair."
No, it's not.  Just like the rest of life.
"bb bb bBut that's not fair.  Why should those people be allowed to revel in God's glory if other people can't?"
Erm, why shouldn't they?  Just because you were not gifted with being happy, doesn’t mean other people should have to pay with their happiness out of some misguided notion of "equality."  I'm sorry it sucks to be you.

This is a throwback to another thing I don’t like about liberals.  Just because they are wallowing in self-pity and feeling sorry for themselves, they think everyone else has to also.  Just because they are unhappy, they think everyone else should be forced to be unhappy also.

And now we conclude by pulverizing, smashing, and taking apart the final smug, self-satisfied argument that atheists have against religious people.
"Well, what actual proof are these blessed few going on, if any, that God truly exists?  There is no solid, incontrovertible proof.  Aren’t they then only going by their own experiences?"

To which I respond:  Isn't that all that anyone has?  All that anyone has to go on, including atheists, is their own life experience, their own human story.

Atheists defend their stance by saying that, all that the religious Christians have to go on -- to base their belief on god -- is their own experience.  Their own perception.  Their own psychology.  Certain experiences that they have had, and this lends credence to the notion that god exists.  This is the only thing that religious people have to go on.  These small anecdotal stories and firsthand accounts manage to convince them that god exists.  That is all they are basing their belief and spirituality on.  "electrical signals interpreted by their brain."

The atheist was saying something to the effect of, "Christians can never know anything other than own experience."  Nothing beyond their own first-hand anecdotal experiences.  Or others' second-party stories/accounts told in secondhand style.

Well, isn't the same true for atheists?  Don't they also have only their own experiences to rely on?  and nothing else?  All they can go on is their own experiences.  Their own electrochemical signals interpreted by their sense organs, and then their brains.

Liberals And Science Education

Liberals want students to learn science?  Wrong.

They want social promotion.  They want to praise only effort and not results.  They like to say, "it's totally okay!  It's okay that the black person didn't actually master the concept, what's important is that you tried your best!"

This is especially true of liberals' attitudes regarding complex-yet-simultaneously-absolute subjects like science.

I used to think that liberals were completely in favor of sound science and mathematics education.  Recall that head-shaking debacle of the Kansas state educational system from a few years ago, in which the state school board tried to ban any inclusion of evolution in public school curriculum.   Liberals were so vehemently opposed to this ruling, and managed to get it overturned, that I thought they wanted kids to be well-grounded in these logic-based disciplines.  Now I am seeing that that is not quite true.

Let us get to the root of the problem.

In order to understand thermodynamics, a student must already have a thorough comprehension of algebra.  In order to understand algebra, a student must have working knowledge of basic arithmetic.  Science and math courses all have prerequisites-- this is common sense.  The foundations of math should have been imparted to the child in elementary school.

But let us look at a math textbook that was published recently.  this here text talks about all manner of social injustices, [[[_____]]]]  [[completely skewed up __ehhhhmention of, the conveying of straight math to children.]]]]
Erm, this is great and all. But what the hell does this have to do with math?

Guess what?  Religious conservatives did not do any of that.  This is the handiwork of forward-thinking, progressive liberals.

Some extreme liberals are of the opinion that "patriarchy" is the reason women are bad at math. "Patriarchy negates women's self-esteem; it reminds women that traditionally women have not been able to enter math and science fields."  They claim that men purposely create a hostile environment to discourage women from pursuing math and science studies. And this is the reason women are bad at math.

"A black person can't understand trigonometry?  That's okay, she tried her best."
"And they are still reeling from civil rights violations and slavery, I think we should be proud of them for wanting to study science in the first place,, isn't it enough that they <want> to study science?  I think we should reward them for having the right attitude, it is such a huge improvement for them that they have a good attitude."

Growing up in public schools, I always saw that black students were rude, noisy, disruptive, disrespectful to the teacher.  This was especially true in math and science classes.  They HATE science.  They hate the concept of complicated academia.

Science is a difficult subject.  You have to study the subject matter, you have to memorize to some extent.  It is time-consuming.  You have to put forth effort.  In short, one must work very hard.  Remember, blacks are lazy as anything.  So they hear the words "study" and "work hard" and they say "forget it."  Plus, you have witnessed how violent they are.  They are too busy thinking about who they are going to beat up next.  They are too busy getting into fistfights to care about homework.  They are too busy disrupting class and being disciplinary problems to care about education.  They are busy-busy causing behavioral disturbances rather than planning for their future.
observed

"A Latino person can't understand thermodynamics?  That's okay, he tried his best.
"And besides, English is not their native language, Spanish is their first language, there is a language barrier, oh you're being so racist and Eurocentric when you expect them to be able to understand both English and physics."

This is regarding how liberals and in turn atheists luuurrvveee puffy-chested and self-proclaiming that they promote teaching science.  They think that because they approve of evolution, this indicates that they are in favor of all science stuff.  (and yet;; here I am taking them to task; [but they magically] /the fact that they ignore performance of blacks and Latinos in almost every conceivable academic category. ~2004 heated debate days. they ignore all the innate racial differences that are very obvious to anyone wi two working eyes and a fully functioning brain.

they always conveniently ignore the fact that girls have become woefully lazy abt ensuring their own medical and reproductive health [enforcing birth control]]; and they keep doing dangerous, irresponsible stuff___ and then they keep expecting the sexist oppressive men, i.e., govt/other people's paid insurance/welfare checks/etc. to come bail them out.  they screech “misogynism!!!” any time anyone asks them something along the lines of, ‘‘why didn’t you take all necessary precautions?’’  I hate referencing this analogy even if vaguely, but please do not abuse the “misogyny” whistle.

science.  oh you mean gathering facts?? and then deriving a reasonable intelligent conclusion from said facts?

you want to talk about science?  let's talk about science.
evidence?
facts?
STD rates-- promiscuity, homosexuality, and broken down by race, gender
high school dropout rates
unwanted pregnancies rates.
single mothers on welfare rates
voluntarily terminating pregnancies rates

The Scientific Method is Not the Same as the Religioustific Method

Religious faith or belief is not generally formed in the same way as the scientific method.  And guess what -- it is not supposed to be.

The scientific method?  Well, that is not the point of faith or belief in a deity of some sort.  You really should not apply scientific principles to something that is not science.

I am not necessarily saying people absolutely must believe in a deity.  I am simply taking issue with this one notion -- the notion that because it cannot be scientifically proven that there is no god, that therefore this proves incontrovertibly that there is no supreme being.

As an analogy, consider the subject of history.  For a very long time, we did not have any actual PROOF that any of those legendary historical events happened.  No, we truly did not.  Look back carefully, this time with a critical eye, and comb through what we know about historical events.  What we have are written documents, hearsay, secondhand accounts.  Written accounts are not proof of large events that should have left behind a lot of physical evidence.  No actual solid proof.  Nobody alive today witnessed any of it firsthand.

This includes everything -- family genealogies, the Gettysburg Address, the civil war, the revolutionary war, the Greco-Roman approach to government and politics.  This includes the black plague taking place across Europe; the Hindu-Arabic scientists and their Al-chemy attempts; Copernicus and the other great scientists of yore.  This includes horrible weather catastrophes or natural disasters that took place in the times before sophisticated weather pattern tracking equipment (e.g., Pompeii).

Did we have actual proof of any of that?

Until we had archeological evidence or perhaps video and audio footage, absolutely nothing that ever took place could be truly proven.  Video footage helps give concrete, incontrovertible evidence that an event occurred .  This is a horrifying example, but look at the assassination of JFK.  We have that on video.  That is as good as scientific evidence.  Also nowadays we do have biochemical assays, and nuclear assessments such as carbon dating.  That is definitely scientific evidence.  But those things were not invented until about the 1950s.

Psychology is also not necessarily arrived at through the scientific method.  It is conjecture, interpretations -- and a great deal of personal opinion.  I'm sure you must have heard the postulate that a person's own experiences and personality greatly influence their so-called impartial, unbiased philosophical conclusions.  A lot of people probably take issue with this theory.

However all the greats are subject to this -- Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Confucius, Nietzsche, Marxes (Karl, Groucho, and Richard), Freud, Jung, Kinsey, all of them.  Much as they would vehemently insist that their own personal life experiences had nothing to do with their opinions and that they successfully remained professional and unbiased.  They probably thought they drew and formulated their opinions based on rational observations.  Can you imagine the psychosocial theories we would be studying if poor Edgar Allen Poe decided to become a psychologist?  However, personal experiences very much color one's philosophical leanings, including those involving religion.

Liberals' Personal Private Business

Liberals need to stop forcing me into their personal business. stop forcing me into their private life. don't make me pay for their birth control.

no one is saying they can't have sex.  if they want to have sex, then great.  that's their decision to have sex with their own bodies.  whatever.  but don't make others subsidize it.

also, no one is "denying" anyone birth control.  aren't condoms available in every supermarket and corner drug store?  how much do they cost, like fifty cents per condom?  people need to grow up and pay for their own damn birth control.

More Spoiled Grown-Up Complaints- Birth Control Edition

There is a new trend on the internet about this particular complaint.  They say that people are being "denied" birth control.

Erm, no one is denying you jack schitt, sweetie.  Expecting someone to pay for goods and products and services is not "denying" anyone anything.

A lot of people are trying to use the argument that birth control is a medical necessity, therefore patients should not have to pay a penny of it out of pocket and insurance should cover absolutely 100 percent of it, ad nauseum.

First of all, no, it is really not a medical necessity.  It truly is not.  Birth control answers a query that is a matter of behavior.  This query is one hundred percent a matter of voluntary, free-will, free-choice behavior that a person can choose to engage in if they wish.

And they also have the free-will, free-choice, completely voluntary option of choosing not to engage in this behavior if they wish.  It is their choice of whether or not to engage in all the sex they want as long as both parties are consenting adults.  
Have as much sex as you want, it's your life.  But then you also have to pay for your own damn birth control yourself.  The world has zero responsibility to pay for your birth control.

Secondly, Yes, there are some genuine documented medical conditions for which hormone-regulating pharmaceuticals are a feasible solution.  But just because birth control might be considered vital medicine does not automatically excuse the patient from having to pay for it.

Patients also have to pay for other medicines such as diabetes medicine, cholesterol medicine, blood pressure medicine, diabetes testing supplies, treatments such as kidney dialysis, medicines for all the body systems, etc.  They might have insurance that covers the cost.  They might have to pay for some of it out-of-pocket.  Either way, the patient has to pay for it.  SO if patients have to pay for other medical needs, why should they not have to also pay for birth control?

Look how ridiculous that logic is if applied to other situations.  If the grocery store expects you to pay for food, does this mean they are "denying" you food?  If your landlord expects you to pay your rent, does this mean they are "denying" you a place to live?

The fact is that emotionally solvent, psychologically stable people do not allow themselves to be this careless.  grown-up adults do not reach an age of full emotional maturity and then still expect that other people will pay for, worry about, and tend to all of the grown-up's whims and fancies.

You are consciously, voluntarily choosing to have sex of your own free will.  It's your body, do whatever you want.  You want to have a laissez-faire attitude and bon temps rouler approach to your life? Go right ahead.  It's your medical health, it's your physical health, and it's your own reproductive health that you can't be bothered to act cautiously about.  It's your life, fine, whatever.  Screw it up beyond repair all you want.

Then naturally and logically, YOU need to make sure you take any and all necessary precautions.  That is your job and your job alone.  That is your responsibility and your responsibility alone.  It is not justifiable morally nor philosophically that anyone else must shoulder the burden of your actions.

It is no other human being's responsibility on this green earth to make sure that YOU don't have to suffer the consequences of for YOUR desires.  It is no one else's responsibility nor duty to provide for a cushioning buffer against your actions, which you chose to engage in of your own volition.