Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

WOW. Civil conversation with you is certainly a challenge.

You yourself stated earlier that you hoped you never had to make such an agonizing decision, but if you knew you could not properly care for a child, then abortion would be the right choice for you.

Separating emotion from it, that is a choice of convenience. Maybe you'd like a different word?

By "goal", I'm talking about career goals. A baby would get in the way of those goals.

I know that the "20's" is also the most sexually active and adventerous demographic, and that contributes to the rate as well, but it doesn't change the fact that many women in their 20's choose an abortion over delivery because of it's impact on her career, and/or her perceived ability to find a mate. You think I'm just making that up? C'mon. If so, it's not me hiding under the rock. The cold hard facts of this issue are very unpleasant, from many different viewpoints.

I wonder what the baby in the video I posted was experiencing as the forceps crushed it's skull? I guess the only consolation is that it's suffering didn't last a lifetime, it just snuffed a lifetime out.

While I might not know anything about what it's like to experience an abortion from personal experience, I have certainly listened to many that have. What I do have experience with is the agonizing 7 month long wait, hoping your wife lives, after the doctors told her at 8 weeks, "We need to abort this baby". I loved my wife more than that baby. My wife would not consider it.

Oh what a beautiful young woman that baby is turning out to be.

There's one difference I have with the staunchest of the anti crowd. I could never tell a woman who has been told "For your own survival, we need to abort", that she could not do it. I could not force her to give up her own life, for the potential life of her baby. My wife is different. She is a no abortion for any reason person. All i can say is she practiced what she preaches and was willing to accept the consequences. It was a hard 7 months for me.

So I'm not allowed to get emotional, but you can post that awful video, and then say things like "I wonder what the baby in the video I posted was experiencing as the forceps crushed it's skull?" Would like to be the pot or the kettle? Because where I'm coming from you're being just as emotional about this subject as I am.

You seem to think that women get abortions in the same fashion as ordering a fast food meal...that there isn't a lot of though or emotion put into the decision, and that anyone woman who has an abortion has done so without thinking about the situation fully. I can not express to you how wrong you are about this, and I don't care how many doctors, or people you've talked to that know women who had abortions...if they think the same as you, then they're wrong too. I know women who have had abortions, I am friends with women who have had abortions. I've been there for them in the moments before and after, and it is one of the most emotional things I've witnessed. It's emotional because its difficult, but sometimes, for some women, its the right choice.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

I know that the "20's" is also the most sexually active and adventurous demographic, and that contributes to the rate as well, but it doesn't change the fact that many women in their 20's choose an abortion over delivery because of it's impact on her career, and/or her perceived ability to find a mate. You think I'm just making that up? C'mon. If so, it's not me hiding under the rock. The cold hard facts of this issue are very unpleasant, from many different viewpoints.

And this is exactly why if men got pregnant, abortion would have been legal a century ago. If men got pregnant, and being pregnant effected them from being able to get a mate, there would be do it yourself abortion kits available in your local 7-11 store.

Do some women get abortions because of a baby's impact on her career, sure...is it the norm...no. And why is that such an awful thing if she did. Maybe she already has children, maybe she's a single parent, maybe she needs to keep working to raise the children she has and can't afford to take off any time at all. Not all pregnancies can the mother work up until the last few weeks...one girl I used to work with was put on bed rest a 6 months! Adoption isn't always an option, being pregnant is still somewhat of a health risk (as you mentioned) and it will effect your job and life. Look, I'm not in support of that 1 in a million woman who uses abortion over and over again as a method of birth control because she's too lazy to stupid to take birth control, but single mistakes do happen, contraceptives do fail, and women do get raped and forcibly impregnated. If abortion is a better option for them, they should have that right to choose it. If you don't believe in it, thats your right and I respect it, but it doesn't change the fact that everyone needs to decide whats best for themselves.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

And why is that such an awful thing if she did. Maybe she already has children, maybe she's a single parent, maybe she needs to keep working to raise the children she has and can't afford to take off any time at all. Not all pregnancies can the mother work up until the last few weeks....

That would be all well and good if you didn't rub everyone else's face in your "CHOICE," but instead, in your spirit of tolerance and diversity, accept that some people believe this is human life, and they're not going to change their minds (nor should they!) any more than you are. AND, most importantly, stop trying to make EVERYONE participate in your "CHOICE." What you want to do is force a doctor to commit what he sees as murder, and make people pay for what they see as murder. Please no rant about how it's not murder. You will not convince anyone, nor should you try, any more than you want them in your face. YES, both sides need to be more tolerant, but tolerant doesn't mean "MY WAY!"

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Look, I'm not in support of that 1 in a million woman who uses abortion over and over again as a method of birth control because she's too lazy to stupid to take birth control,.

Oh how I wish it was one in a million! The one in a million are the hypotheticals people always pull out to justify any and every thing.


p.s. no logic to that "if men could get pregnant nonsense. If men could get pregnant, all things would be different..

I'm a bit lost here, what does flying kites or building model train landscapes have to do with abortion?

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...

Sure. If you can't/won't discuss the issues, resort to silly personal attacks instead.

Says the guy labeling people he disagrees with racists.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


The contraceptive mandate itself was added after the law was passed, and not even by the president, but by the Secretary of HHS!!

And it wasn't the point of the hobby lobby case or at issue at all. And that wouldnt serve to support the OPs original argument that Obama breaks the law.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


Sorry, man. You did not READ my posts!
AND, that's not just the baseless name calling those without facts engage in. I gave you the REASONS for my conclusions!
Those who persist in calling themselves ""pro-CHOICE"" only stand for THEIR OWN choice.
What if a doctor wouldn't administer botox, because he perceived it as harmful?? Would you compel him/her to do that?????????????

(sorry but, after reading your post again, I'm actually chuckling about how poorly you read my points, and how your logic just stumbles all over itself.)

btw, your perception of who's allowed to participate in a capital trial is oversimplified, but I'm not here to give you a civics lessons. BUT, IF your principle of not being allowed to participate if you don't believe it's right were applied to abortion, much of my argument would be rendered moot!

Good, I'm glad you're not here to give me a civics lesson. I'm sure I don't need it from you.

I read your post just fine. You made sweeping generalizations about a large group of people and then said that they engage in "nazism." Which is all I said as to your post. Calling or comparing people you don't agree with to nazis is something that happens in nearly every political discussion on the web when people start to participate. And it's ridiculous every time.

But to this last post of yours, you misconstrue or misunderstand what it means to be pro-choice. Pro-choice folks have no problem with people who would never have an abortion themselves in any scenario. That's the whole point about the choice. You can make that decision for yourself. Pro-life is about only standing for their own choice and forcing that belief on the rest of the population.

And all of this is irrelevant anyway, since people are not forced to have or perform abortions.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dronetek

...
Says the guy labeling people he disagrees with racists.

Two points, and they're simple so I trust you'll keep up.

(1) I haven't said anything about race at all, and have hardly called anyone a racist is implied that anyone is a racist. You're responding to the wrong person.

(2) The person you are trying to respond to also didn't call anyone a racist or imply that they were. Someone argued that the GOP is tolerant because they nominated the first black Supreme Court justice, and other similar things. And the response was that this is the equivalent of saying it's impossible for someone to be racist because they have a black friend. Clearly, you can have one black friend and still be a racist towards minorities. That one fact doesn't prove that you are or hat you aren't.

Bustmall, I appreciate your posts more when I read those from other folks on your side of this case.

But I find it interesting you don't see this as a religious issue. Or are you taking this case to be one about abortion (which it isn't), rather than one about religious beliefs (which is the entirety of the case)? The case is about the freedom of religion provided in the first amendment, rather than "right to life" matter or any other rhetoric being forwarded by conservatives.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...
Besides making a stupid comment that twist my context beyond comprehension, and implies I said "Everything should be like it always was", which I didn't say, is there a point to this?

You said exactly the same thing I did. Back before the 20th century it was LEGAL for Samurai to kill lower cast people that offended them for no other reason. Then politics changed and a lot of people wanted to make it illegal and thus it was.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...
...Your "argument" actually bolsters my case. Up until a certain point in time, abortion was not legal. Then enough people liked the idea that it became legal. Now some are starting to wonder. Some may/are challenge(ing) that. The law may change. It's back to that see-saw I have mentioned.... civil society... the way things work. Regardless of political persuasions, we all have the right to challenge.

This reads exactly the same. Something used to be illegal (abortion in this case), it was later changed to become legal because a lot of people wanted that. What is so hard to comprehend about that?

On another note, when I think people are entitled to choose about abortion, about drinking, about running, about a lot of things... I'm suddenly "ignorant" "a crazy liberal" while somebody that want to force THEIR beliefs on everybody else, thus removing choice, they are "sane" "level headed" "tolerant"?

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


That would be all well and good if you didn't rub everyone else's face in your "CHOICE," but instead, in your spirit of tolerance and diversity, accept that some people believe this is human life, and they're not going to change their minds (nor should they!) any more than you are. AND, most importantly, stop trying to make EVERYONE participate in your "CHOICE." What you want to do is force a doctor to commit what he sees as murder, and make people pay for what they see as murder. Please no rant about how it's not murder. You will not convince anyone, nor should you try, any more than you want them in your face. YES, both sides need to be more tolerant, but tolerant doesn't mean "MY WAY!"

Would you like me to define the word CHOICE for you? Its pretty simple, and one you should have learned in elementary school.

Quote:

Choice: [noun] an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

I've said over and over again in this thread, if you don't believe in abortion, fine...then don't get one, I don't give a shit. If you want to give your baby up for adoption, go for it. If you have to quit your job and go on welfare, go for it...I don't care. The woman has to do whatever she feels is best for her....period. If you believe its a human life, and you're pregnant, then don't get an abortion, you have that choice. I don't want to make anyone participate who doesn't want to; women and doctors included. If a doctor doesn't want to do abortions...fine, I don't care. There will be some doctors who will do them...just as only some doctors preform heart surgery; and they should be able to work without fear of having their brake lines cut by some pro life wacko who calls him or her a baby killer every day.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

YES, both sides need to be more tolerant, but tolerant doesn't mean "MY WAY!"

The only side doing this is the pro life side. All they say is that it abortion should not be allowed...period. They want to push their beliefs (mostly religious) on to people that do not share that same belief, and deny them what they feel if best for them. They want it so there is no choice, its their way...which is no way at all. Pro life on the other hand says you can have an abortion, or not have an abortion...do what you feel is best.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

p.s. no logic to that "if men could get pregnant nonsense. If men could get pregnant, all things would be different..

Yep...agreed. Different because there wouldn't be any debate about this. Men would have had abortions long before women had any rights, they would have been made legal, and it would have been law for the last century or more. Women wouldn't have even been able to debate it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
The only side doing this is the pro life side. All they say is that it abortion should not be allowed...period. They want to push their beliefs (mostly religious) on to people that do not share that same belief, and deny them what they feel if best for them..

Bullshit! When one says any doctor should be forced to participate, that is NOT ""CHOICE""!! When one wants to compel people who believe it's wrong to PAY, that is not ""CHOICE""!!
I am done here. Can't debate people who have no sense of logic!
POINT is, there would be a lot less backlash if people paid for their own CHOICE, and shut up about it! DO NOT expect me to tell you it's right and good, and DO NOT expect me to PAY for it!!!

My tax money pays for a whole bunch of things I would never choose to pay for.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


Bullshit! When one says any doctor should be forced to participate, that is NOT ""CHOICE""!! When one wants to compel people who believe it's wrong to PAY, that is not ""CHOICE""!!
I am done here. Can't debate people who have no sense of logic!
POINT is, there would be a lot less backlash if people paid for their own CHOICE, and shut up about it! DO NOT expect me to tell you it's right and good, and DO NOT expect me to PAY for it!!!

I just said that I don't expect every doctor to preform abortions...just as I don't expect every doctor to perform open heart surgery. Just as doctors specialize in any one of a hundred areas, some will chose to specialize in abortions...its their choice too.
And what was bulshit about my statement? You are proving my case for me when you say "When one wants to compel people who believe it's wrong to PAY, that is not CHOICE"
The pro-life side tries to compel people all the time...they yell profanities at people entering abortion clinics, they threaten their lives, and they show people sensationalized films like BMA posted, all because they don't want women to have a choice, they want an end to abortion period....no choice, just end it.
As for your argument about not wanting to pay for it, its the oldest one in the book, and its irrelevant...you're not paying for any abortions, just as I'm not paying for your heart medications, insulin, flue medication....or whatever ailments you have. you are paying for your own personal healthcare, its just that some peoples needs extend beyond their contributions, and others don't. You can't pick and chose what you pay for, or the system collapses.

Health insurance is simply a form of compensation for services performed. Employers should not be allowed to dictate what people buy with their compensation, whether it's cash in their paycheck or payment in kind in the form of health insurance. If it's wrong to say that an employee can't buy certain things, it's likewise wrong that they can tell employees what they can purchase with their other forms of compensation.

Here's a primer on the most common nonsense that is trotted out to defend this decision. It covers many of the arguments people here have made, and explains why they're misleading, to be generous: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a28069/hobby-lobby-lies/

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Health insurance is simply a form of compensation for services performed. Employers should not be allowed to dictate what people buy with their compensation, whether it's cash in their paycheck or payment in kind in the form of health insurance. If it's wrong to say that an employee can't buy certain things, it's likewise wrong that they can tell employees what they can purchase with their other forms of compensation.

Here's a primer on the most common nonsense that is trotted out to defend this decision. It covers many of the arguments people here have made, and explains why they're misleading, to be generous:[Link]

I hadn't really thought about it from a compensation standpoint. But that's a great point.

I guess I was too caught up in the other aspects of the decision that are questionable, at best.

SP, there was nothing emotional about me posting that video, or the question I asked. Those were real world questions, and I did not resort to calling you names, or hiding with a "It makes you look like..." I just don't understand your first paragraph AT ALL.

And regarding this "You seem to think that women get abortions in the same fashion as ordering a fast food meal...that there isn't a lot of though or emotion put into the decision, and that anyone woman who has an abortion has done so without thinking about the situation fully. I can not express to you how wrong you are about this, "

You're right, you cannot express how wrong I am about this, because I'm not wrong about that. I never implied it, and I don't think it. But because it is so emotionally damaging, I believe all should know exactly what they are doing."

And lastly, you said "Do some women get abortions because of a baby's impact on her career, sure...is it the norm...no. And why is that such an awful thing if she did."

Ya know, I'll come down on the woman's rights every time, until those rights infringe on another. I guess that's just the part you don't get about my argument, or don't agree with. The day you prove to me that Life-Begins-At-X, I will support abortion up until X.

Nuff said. I think I'll move on. (after I read the next 2 pages anyway)

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Health insurance is simply a form of compensation for services performed. Employers should not be allowed to dictate what people buy with their compensation, whether it's cash in their paycheck or payment in kind in the form of health insurance. If it's wrong to say that an employee can't buy certain things, it's likewise wrong that they can tell employees what they can purchase with their other forms of compensation.

Here's a primer on the most common nonsense that is trotted out to defend this decision. It covers many of the arguments people here have made, and explains why they're misleading, to be generous:[Link]

Thank you for bringing a little bit of sanity to the discussion. I think that your point is exactly the issue at hand. Sadly, it was a point that was completely ignored in the Alito opinion, which focused on the rights of corporations.

Quote:

Originally posted by Althalus

...
You said exactly the same thing I did. Back before the 20th century it was LEGAL for Samurai to kill lower cast people that offended them for no other reason. Then politics changed and a lot of people wanted to make it illegal and thus it was.
...
This reads exactly the same. Something used to be illegal (abortion in this case), it was later changed to become legal because a lot of people wanted that. What is so hard to comprehend about that?

On another note, when I think people are entitled to choose about abortion, about drinking, about running, about a lot of things... I'm suddenly "ignorant" "a crazy liberal" while somebody that want to force THEIR beliefs on everybody else, thus removing choice, they are "sane" "level headed" "tolerant"?

It wasn't your point I took exception to. It was the implication you tried to put in my mouth. What I said was our system is a see-saw. Some rules progress, some regress.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

Bustmall, I appreciate your posts more when I read those from other folks on your side of this case.

But I find it interesting you don't see this as a religious issue. Or are you taking this case to be one about abortion (which it isn't), rather than one about religious beliefs (which is the entirety of the case)? The case is about the freedom of religion provided in the first amendment, rather than "right to life" matter or any other rhetoric being forwarded by conservatives.

I know I have written a lot, and it's probably asking too much that each word be read closely... Seriously. I'm not saying that to be a smart ass. Long posts are only easy to comprehend as written, when you wrote them.

With that said, I'll summarize again. I can't separate my faith from my actions, and tell you it has nothing to do with my position. But I don't believe it does. I would like to believe that I would still be the type that fights for the underdog (I was that type before my faith), and that I would still hold as a primary belief that abortion of a living being is wrong. As I told SP, if it were proven that life begins at any specific point, I'll support abortion up to that point. Without that, I er on the side of caution by starting at conception. I feel sorrow for the woman that is pregnant and doesn't want to be, but I don't believe that gives her the right to kill another that had no choice in their creation, or control over their situation.

Regarding compensation:

employers have the right to choose their compensation levels, whether is out of the goodness of heart, what the market will bear, what is needed to attract workers, whatever... as long as they meet minimum requirements, ie: Minimum Wage.

Employment contracts are negotiated every day, all over this country. There is no law that states you must offer health insurance, and you must include... If I want to drop health insurance as a benefit to my employees, I am in my right to do so, within the confines of any existing contract between worker and employer. If I want to set guidelines on what may and may not be used as an investment vehicle within our 401K, I am within my right to do so, and the examples could go on.

The argument made is nonsense. The ruling is about a company saying the government CANNOT force us to pay for this, and as the court so ruled, they were right.
Within the confines of a contract, or even a signed employee handbook, you might damned well be surprised at just how many limitations an employer can place on the action, both on and off company time, of an employee. Because workers have the right to leave and seek other employment, there is quite a bit of latitude in this regard.