By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Editor
Washington (CNN) - By Friday, Hobby Lobby would have racked up $14.3 million in fines from the Internal Revenue Service for bucking Obamacare. But in keeping with the great American tax tradition, they may have found a loophole.
The company is facing $1.3 million a day in fines for each day it chooses not to comply with a piece of the Affordable Care Act that was set to trigger for them on January 1. The craft store chain announced in December that, because of religious objections, they would face the fines for not providing certain types of birth control through their company health insurance.
The penalty was set to go into effect on the day the company's new health care plan went into effect for the year.
Peter M. Dobelbower, general counsel for Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. said in a statement released through the Becket Fund that, "Hobby Lobby discovered a way to shift the plan year for its employee health insurance, thus postponing the effective date of the mandate for several months."
The statement continued that "Hobby Lobby does not provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in its health care plan. Hobby Lobby will continue to vigorously defend its religious liberty and oppose the mandate and any penalties."
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Last month Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected the company's appeal for a temporary relief from the steep fines while their case made its way through the lower courts.
Hobby Lobby announced a day after the ruling that it "will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs."
In September, Hobby Lobby and affiliate Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain, sued the federal government for violating their owners' religious freedom and ability to freely exercise their religion.
The lawsuit says the companies' religious beliefs prohibit them from providing insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. As of August 2012, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, requires employer-provided health care plans to provide "all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity," according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Churches and houses of worship are exempt from the regulation and a narrow exemption was added for nonprofit religious employers whose employees "primarily share its religious tenets" and who "primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets."
The Internal Revenue Service regulations now say that a group health care plan that "fails to comply" with the Affordable Care Act is subject to an "excise tax" of "$100 per day per individual for each day the plan does not comply with the requirement." It remains unclear how the IRS would implement and collect the excise tax.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment on the high court's move last month.
White House officials have long said they believe they have struck an appropriate compromise between religious exemptions and women's health. The White House has not commented specifically on the Hobby Lobby case.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
The Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby chain has more than 500 stores that employ 13,000 employees across 42 states, and takes in $2.6 billion in sales. It is still privately held by CEO and founder David Green and members of his family.
"The foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with biblical principles," a statement on the Hobby Lobby website reads, adding that one outgrowth of that is the store is closed on Sundays to give its employees a day of rest.
MORE BACKGROUND: Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare
The Hobby Lobby case is just one of many before the courts over the religious exemption aspects of the law. The case represents by far the biggest for-profit group challenging the health care mandate.
Part of the reason Sotomayor rejected their appeal to the Supreme Court she wrote was because their case is still pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
A spokesperson for the Becket Fund said on Friday a date has yet to be set for the case to be heard in the 10th Circuit.
Way to go hobbylobby. Now find a way around Prez hussein's attempts to take away our guns ultimately, step by step
The reason people give about having a gun is because they fear a tyrannical govt. Prior to the last election Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin just to name three, tried to suppress the vote. That would have been a perfect time for you to make your argument about tyranny in the country. Yet, I didn't hear one word from f00ls like you. You're to miserable to enjoy yourself, so you believe in conspiracy theories. You are pathetic.
The fact that religionists dominate politics in this country is enough reason to cling to your guns. No one's rights are safe in a country where the majority of the population subscribes to mass delusion These religionists can force any civil rights violations justified by their book of myths through the legislature. Lord knows they've done it before, and they're still trying. As for me, I maintain a sizable ar-sen-al, just in case.
@gir...............I see your point. The real whack jobs that think the govt. is going to get them don't realize the ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES, SPEC OPS, NAVY SEALS could kill us without issues. They still have more guns than us. In addition the u.s. could use chemical weapons and blame terrorists for it.
Just some advice, don't say things like "Prez hussein". It only serves to give people on the other side of the argument ammo (ironic as that may be).
If your case has merit, why not state it and let it stand on its own? Instead you hurl insults, call names, make assumptions. "too miserable, pathetic, whack job"? Real nice. Also, given the things that history has taught us (not that they really teach history in public schools anymore), how is his concern not valid? The forefathers of this country were extremely careful people when they wrote the Consti.tution. Nazi Germany really was not that long ago. Or maybe we should talk about more modern examples like Omar al Bashir, dictator of Sudan, whose policies of genocide have killed more than 3 million Sudanese? Because that kind of thing could NEVER happen today, right?
Not that I agree with @Teapatriot, but there is a distinction between crowd control (unarmed) and rebellion/revolt/insurrection (armed). It is much easier for the government, at any level, to engage in crowd control. The possibility of causing an armed rebellion may have a deterrent effect on government action.
...even if that rebellion would ultimately be easily put down.
@logic.....First of all teapatriot is lying. The president is not taking away your gun. If you already own a banned gun, it would be grandfathered. You mention tyranny that has happened in OTHER COUNTRIES. We have political turnover in this country. We vote people out. Currently the president cant get a job bill through congress. Yet they're going to get together to take over the country? Yeah right. In addition people having guns wont stop the govt. The govt. has chemical weapons. The govt could kill millions in a heart beat. Then blame terrorism. And ya know what, we would believe them. Teapatriot is spreading whack job conspiracy theories because he/she is miserable and don't know what to do with themselves.
"You mention tyranny that has happened in OTHER COUNTRIES. We have political turnover in this country. We vote people out."
Germany _ELECTED_ the national socialist party (NAZIs) and brought Adolf Hitler to power, and supported his plans and programs to "cleanse" Germany of the impure humans (Jews, the disabled, etc.). “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill
"In addition people having guns wont stop the govt."
You are making the as.umption that every soldier would support the tyrant. Not a chance.
"The govt. has chemical weapons. The govt could kill millions in a heart beat. Then blame terrorism. And ya know what, we would believe them. Teapatriot is spreading whack job conspiracy theories because he/she is miserable and don't know what to do with themselves."
A government of the people left unchecked could easily lead to corruption. That's why our government was set up with a system of checks and balances, both within the government itself, and with the people it governs. Government _OF THE PEOPLE_.
@logic..................For once YOU proved what I am saying.
A government of the people left unchecked could easily lead to corruption. That's why our government was set up with a system of checks and balances, both within the government itself, and with the people it governs. Government _OF THE PEOPLE_.
This is why tyranny WON'T HAPPEN.
"In addition people having guns wont stop the govt."
You are making the as.umption that every soldier would support the tyrant. Not a chance.
Another reason why TYRANNY WON'T HAPPEN
"You mention tyranny that has happened in OTHER COUNTRIES. We have political turnover in this country. We vote people out."
Germany _ELECTED_ the national socialist party (NAZIs) and brought Adolf Hitler to power, and supported his plans and programs to "cleanse" Germany of the impure humans (Jews, the disabled, etc.). “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill
AS I STATED. OTHER COUNTRIES.
Thank you for helping me make my point.
Wow, not in the slightest, Ken. It is precisely because we have rights like the one to bear arms that tyranny is kept away. Disarm your people (hello? Germany?) and then the Government becomes decidedly more powerful than the people. GERMANY ELECTED HITLER AND THE NAZI PARTY. They had elections there, just like we have here. Gee, look what happened.
@logic.................Let other readers figure out who is correct. You and I will just go around in circles.
I'm a Christian.. This whole thing is opening the door for Islam to sue our Government over having to pay taxes, get driver license, Etc. This world is beyond repair, within 4 years of Obamas presidency we have backed up 25 years.....................
You're a nutty christian. No wait, you're a paranoid nutty christian.
I won't be shopping at Hobby Lobby anymore.
your an idiot
Thank you, Snow. I'm actually quite happy to see you say that, rather than start hurling insults. Indeed, this is supposed to be a free country, where you can decide to take your business elsewhere if you choose to do so. I'm actually switching to Hobby Lobby for precisely the reason you're choosing not to shop there, so we have effectively cancelled out each other. But at least we did it in a civil manner.
I won't be either. It isn't just their position on it, but that as illustrated in the last article about this, they don't even understand the drugs they don't want to cover; they think some are "abortion pills" when they in fact, aren't.
See my post below for details on RU-486 and its abortifacient properties.
Its abortifascient properties? It's an abortion pill, you witless moron. That is its purpose. It is NOT the same as Plan B, which does NOT cause abortion, but prevents pregnancy.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
I am SPECIFICALLY referring to when it is used as a morning after pill. If you would take the time to read and UNDERSTAND what I said, you would have caught that. When used as a morning after pill (which it STILL IS in Europe and China), it prevents implantation. And grow up. Adults can have CIVIL debates about topics on which they disagree.
You are using the "it's LEGAL" argument when it suits your purpose and disparaging it when it undermines your point. Hypocrite.
I most certainly am not.
You most certainly ARE. You really are dishonest to the core.
I most certainly am not. I will absolutely use just laws to my fair and legal advantage wherever necessary (as I would expect anyone would), and I will also fight injustice, including not obeying unjust laws if that's what is called for (as I would also expect anyone would). I would think that you would do the same.
@logic............I can understand your frustration, there are some laws and rulings I don't like either. My problem with people who think like you is if the ruling went the other way YOU would expect us to respect the law. Also you contradict yourself constantly. You're pro life, but you complain about others not trying to do their best. Or you complain about taxes being used to take care of them. As I have said in other posts. When you are pro life ALL CHILDREN, good and bad have to be taken care of. If you want them here , then YOU have the duty to help. You cant quote the bible before their born and then forget the bible after. "What happened to "But for the grace of God go I" quote. If you see someone not as lucky as you hold your hand out and help them. Don't criticize.
A person who thinks it is "just" for him to go out and murder prost itutes (or some other segment of the population) could use your argument quite nicely. How certain are you that your rationale is good? Are you sure that you are in favor of people disobeying whatever laws they feel are unjust? Should people (and organizations) who disobey "unjust" laws be fined and punished by the law? If Hobby Lobby shouldn't be punished by the law for refusing to follow the laws set forth, then neither should the killer described in my first sentence---by your reasoning, that is.
"I can understand your frustration, there are some laws and rulings I don't like either. My problem with people who think like you is if the ruling went the other way YOU would expect us to respect the law."
First off, Ken, thank you for responding in a civil way. I seriously appreciate that. Now, I actually don't agree with that. I want people to respect a "just" law. That includes laws about things I may not like. Injustice sucks. I don't wish it on my worst enemy, or my best friend alike.
"Also you contradict yourself constantly. You're pro life, but you complain about others not trying to do their best."
When did I complain about others not trying to do their best, and how is this in opposition to being pro-life? I am pro-live and I am trying to do my best. I do not contradict my religious beliefs. I try _VERY_ hard not to do something that wrongs someone else. My religious beliefs specifically oblige me to be charitable, even when the person or people I'm dealing with aren't. That means giving the benefit of the doubt a whole lot! But it doesn't oblige me to be stupid. If somone is clearly treating me with malice, I will defend myself. (Oh, and not saying that you are treating me with malice, just trying to give you more insight into what makes me tick.)
"Or you complain about taxes being used to take care of them."
I'm not complaining about the taxes being used to take care of them. I said before that I home-school my kids, despite the taxes I pay that would cover their public schooling. I don't ask for a voucher (not like one exists) and I do see a legitimate reason for a system of public education (and other public services).
"As I have said in other posts. When you are pro life ALL CHILDREN, good and bad have to be taken care of.
We're in agreement about this. This is why I donate time and money to homes for unwed and homeless mothers, doctors that provide free services to the poor or needy, etc. Why talk the talk if you don't walk the walk? (not you specifically, just people in general)
"If you want them here , then YOU have the duty to help. You cant quote the bible before their born and then forget the bible after. "What happened to "But for the grace of God go I" quote. If you see someone not as lucky as you hold your hand out and help them. Don't criticize."
Why is the assumption that I don't? I'm right there in the trenches. Join me!
@logic................I've read a few of your posts. Trust me. you're not thrilled with the taxes you pay out. I don't doubt your charitable contributions. But you support a party (republicans) That want to cut programs people need to survive. On top of that, with this obsession to stop birth control, You're ADDING more children we cant take care of. The world is overpopulated as it is. Even Mother Nature cant support all these people.
"I've read a few of your posts. Trust me. you're not thrilled with the taxes you pay out."
Of course I'm not thrilled. A half BILLION tax dollars ($542 million to be exact) was given to Planned Parenthood last year alone. And there are plenty of other things that the government does that I'm not happy with at all. Add government waste and the bass ackwards GSA Schedule program, and I'm just livid. This stuff can be fixed, but it doesn't seem like either side of the aisle is getting it done. Plus, if waste can be cut, taxes can be lowered without cutting good government programs. Then I can use more of my money to donate to other charities.
"I don't doubt your charitable contributions."
Note that most of my "contributions" are in services and/or cash donations that I do not account for on my taxes. I'm not looking for a freebie, I'm looking to help people. Sometimes it just isn't worth the time to get receipts and ask for a discount from the IRS.
"But you support a party (republicans) that want to cut programs people need to survive."
I only support the Republican party because they support pro-life causes in general, as well as don't support many things that are incompatible with my Catholic faith. I don't want them to cut good programs that actually help people. I do want them to clean up the programs and cut the waste, fraud and corruption though, because that's not acceptable. Plus, I cannot support the Democratic party, specifically because they include full support for a woman's right to choose (choose what? abortion! call it what it is) and oppose "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." Then they include: "At the core of the Democratic Party is the principle that no one should face discrimination on the basis of... religion..." I am being discriminated against. I cannot faithfully practice my religion (Catholocism) under the Affordable Care Act. Plain and simple.
"On top of that, with this obsession to stop birth control, you're ADDING more children we cant take care of. The world is overpopulated as it is. Even Mother Nature cant support all these people."
I'm not stopping people from using NFP (_as effective_ as the pill), or abstinence. I'm not stopping people from being responsible human beings that think carefully before performing an act that has such high stakes. I'm not stopping people from getting and staying married and taking care of the children that come from that union. If you can't take care of a child that you might cause to exist, why should you be allowed to do the thing that causes it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
@logic...........Lets use some logic. Suppose a young couple in their 20's. Want to have only 2 kids. By the time they are 28, they have those 2 kids and DO NOT want any more. Do you expect them to NEVER have s3x again? How long do you think that marriage will last?
Planned parenthood provides health services for poor women. A women cant have a healthy baby if she isn't healthy.
As far as practicing your religion. Does the ACA stop you from praying or going to church? You mentioned the money going to planned parenthood. Why that hasn't sopped you from practicing your religion? The only difference I see between planned parenthood and ACA is a black man created the affordable care act.
Mitt Romney wasn't into cutting the waste, he wanted to cut the programs period. Sorry for a person that loves babies, you're a hypocrite.
"Lets use some logic. Suppose a young couple in their 20's want to have only 2 kids. By the time they are 28, they have those 2 kids and DO NOT want any more. Do you expect them to NEVER have s3x again? How long do you think that marriage will last?"
NFP doesn't require you to never have se.x again. It is _clinically proven_ to be _as effective_ as the pill. Why do I have to be a broken record about this?
"Planned parenthood provides health services for poor women. A women cant have a healthy baby if she isn't healthy."
There are THOUSANDS of other organizations, federally funded and otherwise, that provide health services for poor women, WITHOUT performing abortions. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood will not shut them down. Unfortunately they are _very_ profitable.
"As far as practicing your religion. Does the ACA stop you from praying or going to church?"
My religious beliefs effect the core of my existence. That does not stop when I leave the church or finish praying. That is the cornerstone of my moral values for how I am to live my entire life, every last part of it. The ACA requires me to go against those beliefs to comply. That is not something that I can morally do. I'm not sure what you think my religous beliefs are about, but how I live my faith affects whether or not I spend _eternity_ in heaven or suffering in hell.
(pardon the split-up messages, the bad-word filter is not playing nice)
"You mentioned the money going to planned parenthood. Why that hasn't stopped you from practicing your religion? The only difference I see between planned parenthood and ACA is a black man created the affordable care act."
Sigh... You had to whip out the race card. Fine, I'll play it. On average, of the 3,300 babies aborted EVERY DAY in the United States, approximately 1,876 of them are black. That's almost 57%! How convenient that the majority of Planned Parenthood's abortion facilities are located in the exact same places where poor black women live. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger. Have a look at some of her quotes (with sources):
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless bree.ders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Ne.gro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
Then let's talk about the Democratic "Southern Bloc" of 18 Democrats and one Republican that tried to stop the passage of the equal rights bill in 1964.
But I'm a racist. Right. Funny thing, I never mentioned what race I was. Are you assuming that because I'm a Catholic that I'm white?
"Mitt Romney wasn't into cutting the waste, he wanted to cut the programs period. Sorry for a person that loves babies, you're a hypocrite."
Wrong, and wrong. But that's OK, because I'm a racist, right?
@logic.................The natural method we'll never agree on. No need to play that record again. Like I said before the difference between planned parenthood and ACA is the affordable care act was designed by a black man. Both use money from the public, both provide abortion services but only the ACA prevents you from practicing your religion. hmmmm.......
Look I'm not trying to change your mind. I know others read what is written. My goal is to tell the truth and hopefully get them on my side of the debate. My guy won back to back terms. Democrats gained seats in the house and senate. So I'm wining. Michelle Bachmann tried again to repeal ACA. NO ONE JOINED HER. As time passes the ACA is gaining in popularity. In addition there is a bill pushing for a public option to take it to the next level. So unfortunately for you, you're losing this battle.
@Logic, Is your argument that every organization founded by someone about whom there are questions of morality should forever be condemned? If that's so, a lot of organizations, including the United States, are pretty much toast. If not, why is Sanger relevant? As for where planned parenthoods are located, they go, like any industry, where there is demand for the service. Rich people are more likely to have access to planning services through a private provider.
@logic...........You sure do quote a lot of people I never heard of. No you never mentioned your race, just like i haven't mentioned mine. I just put two and two together. As far as blacks having abortions. This is a problem because of kids having kids. If kids got COMPLETE s3x education and access to birth control you wouldn't have as many abortions. The problem is lack of education.
I have a question no one has answered. If premarital s3x is a sin? And children are a gift from GOD. Why do unmarried couples have children? You would think GOD would keep unmarried couples from conceiving? right?
Again with the race bait. Because, Ken, there is a difference between being indirectly and directly complicit in immoral acts. One is permissiable sometimes, the other is never permissible.
As for popularity, it does not equal truth. Just because you get more people to like item A, doesn't mean that item B is not the objectively better, or specifically correct answer or choice.
"Is your argument that every organization founded by someone about whom there are questions of morality should forever be condemned?"
If that organization celebrates that person every year and does not distance themselves from that person's statements and actions, then yes.
"You sure do quote a lot of people I never heard of. No you never mentioned your race, just like i haven't mentioned mine. I just put two and two together."
So you "know" that I'm white? I haven't confirmed it either way.
"As far as blacks having abortions. This is a problem because of kids having kids. If kids got COMPLETE s3x education and access to birth control you wouldn't have as many abortions. The problem is lack of education."
Statistics contradict that, quite clearly.
"I have a question no one has answered. If premarital s3x is a sin? And children are a gift from GOD. Why do unmarried couples have children? You would think GOD would keep unmarried couples from conceiving? right?"
Does God keep us from sinning? No. We have free will. We can choose to accept Him and His rules, or we can choose to turn away from them. That also means that our actions have consequences. Children are a possible outcome of performing the se.xual act. If you're not married and have se.x, there's a chance you'll have a baby.
And it seems funny to say "complete" se.x education, when often (almost always) things like abstinence are specifically left out.
@Logic, the first city I checked was New York and it has abstinence all over the program:
I've never heard of a program that leaves it out. On the contrary, in many programs this is all that's taught.
(I had to add a quote in the link in se'x)
@logic............ there is a difference between being indirectly and directly complicit in immoral acts. One is permissiable sometimes, the other is never permissible. Frankly that's a load of crap. You can say the same thing about the morning after pill. You are NOT DIRECTLY giving the woman money or the pill.
Why would god allow people to benefit from a sin? If a child is a gift. That gift is given with one's blessing. Are you now saying god is ok with premarital s3x?
S3x ed in school does contain abstinence, My daughter gets s3x ed in school and I know for a fact abstinence is on the curriculum,
Here's a point:
In Islam there is no: Abortions, birth control, gay rights, divorce, stem cell research, total devotion by it's followers and very little divorce. How happy are the people in middle east? Are they more blessed than Christians? NO. Are they happier, NO.
Which is why your constant referral to your beliefs are met with scorn. If Muslims follow those rules and they aren't happy, why should we?
Sorry, I said divorce twice.
"Frankly that's a load of crap. You can say the same thing about the morning after pill. You are NOT DIRECTLY giving the woman money or the pill."
The ACA _REQUIRES_ that all health plans provide coverage at no cost (including deductibles and co-payments) for all contraceptives approved by the FDA as part of preventive health services for women, and also requires coverage for sterilizations. The employee is not paying for it, that's what the law says. Well then, who IS? ME.
"Why would God allow people to benefit from a sin? If a child is a gift. That gift is given with one's blessing. Are you now saying god is ok with premarital s3x?"
You clearly have NO understanding of the Bible and God's laws. We have free will. That means we can choose to do what we want (look, God is pro-choice! HAH!), but NOT without consequences (d'oh!). If you choose to do what God wants, you get to go to Heaven and live in paradise for eternity. If you choose not to, then He loves you so much that he won't force you to do what you don't want to do. If God forced everyone to do his will, LOVE COULD NOT EXIST (you can't force someone to love you). Life itself is a gift from God. That includes babies. The natural consequences of se.x is babies. That does not make babies any less of a gift, it just makes the circu.mstances of his or her conception unfortunate. God is in no way ok with premarital se.x. LIFE ITSELF IS INHERENTLY VALUABLE.
"S3x ed in school does contain abstinence, My daughter gets s3x ed in school and I know for a fact abstinence is on the curriculum,"
Covered this below.
"In Islam there is no: Abortions, birth control, gay rights, divorce, stem cell research, total devotion by it's followers and very little divorce. How happy are the people in middle east? Are they more blessed than Christians? NO. Are they happier, NO.
Which is why your constant referral to your beliefs are met with scorn. If Muslims follow those rules and they aren't happy, why should we?"
Just because Muslims have some similar rules to Christians does NOT make Islam the same as Christianity. It's not the same at all.
@logic.......Birth control is not an additional cost. EMPLOYEE and employer pay into the system. It's not free, free. It's not an additional cost.
You mentioned you covered abstinence below. I couldn't find it. I don't know about your kids school. I spoke to my daughter and she told me it is covered. One of the first things they teach you.
"Why would God allow people to benefit from a sin? If a child is a gift. That gift is given with one's blessing. Are you now saying god is ok with premarital s3x?"
You are right I don't know much about the bible. No offense, but It was written by man. I believe it's fiction. I would as,sume god uses common sense. If not, he's no better than people. He's god, he should be perfect. I find it hard to believe that according to religious people that god would give the give of life to people committing sins. He's rewarding you for sins. That doesn't make sense.
As far as the comparison to ISLAM. The things YOU believe in very strongly are in ISLAM. YOU cant ignore he similarities.
If Muslims are not happy practicing the very same things you're practicing and preaching. It makes you wonder about the truth of it all.
God created this universe, and created the Earth including the human race. Please follow the rule of your creator, Your body is sacred and temple of god.ion is eternal and no one can destroyed. No human is capable to destroy god creation.
Good grief! Another one!
@logic..................It's natural for a woman to want a child. At the same time you cannot deny the risks. Which is the reason why women should have the right to choose. Because they can DIE giving birth. You mentioned doctors. Women that do not have healthcare usually don't go to doctors to have their cycles figured out so they cant get pregnant. That is why universal healthcare is so important to the mothers health as well as the child.
Don't schools teach about womanly cycles in health classes?
Apparently not, LLUMP, since you don't know anything about them. Oh, wait, you never went to school, did you?
If you did, you should sue your alma mater for malpractice, since you couldn't even read the information ABOUT the issue that was posted for you.
I'll try to put it in terms even a boob like you can figure out: If 100 couples use the "woman's cycle" (I use this because you're too stupid to understand what it's called in the chart I posted for YOU) as required, perfectly, FIVE of the women will get pregnant. IF 100 couples use such methods as the average person does, the number of pregnancies is HIGHER.
You are a mental case.
Guess it pays to talk to a Attorney..... They should give the man a hell of a tip..
Our whole system needs a revamp Top to Bottom.
If they can dodge health care costs and not pay in while every other company has to pay, that is just screwed.
In the for what is worth dept.... We should be taxing the boody hell out of these religious organizations... just for the human toll they take every year.... Scam Artists they are ..one and all.
First, if there's a _legal_ way to avoid paying taxes, fines, or other fees, exactly what is the problem with that? It's "LEGAL".
Second, Hobby Lobby isn't a "religious organization", they're a hobby and craft store, run by people that live their religious beliefs.
Third, the human toll? For example, the Catholic Church is the world's largest charitable organization, providing tremendous assistance to the poor, hungry, sick, and needy around the world. What have you done lately?
I _NEVER_ said that I was opposed to laws in general. There is a big difference between an _unjust_ law (slavery for example) and a _just_ law (required license to operate an automobile). It doesn't appear to me that you're interested in a conversation or debate though, just retort and insults.
OOoooh, so who decides the law is "unjust"? YOU? Please don't make me laugh.
I don't give a rat's patootie how anything appears to you, Logic. You are a hypocrite, pure and simple. Abortion is legal. Nothing unjust about it. There's nothing unjust about the ACA, the SCOTUS has already decided that, too.
Where is your information that refutes the statistics I posted from Guttmacher, Logic? You claim you have them, but they don't appear to be forthcoming. If you and your wife have 4 kids, then how much of her reproductive years thus far is she spending trying NOT to get pregnant?
learn to read.... my comment about religious organizations being taxed was directed at churches, you know...the same ones that this company's views are based on?
And do you really want to use the Catholic Church as an example of charity? the Catholic church that created alot of the problems the they now provide charity for? – just look at the 'charitable'work they are doing in Africa today...calling contraception a sin, a place riddled with AIDS.....
oh and the Catholic church is NOT the largest charitable organization, They are not even in the top 10 worldwide, (google is your friend). as far as comparing me to the Catholic Church ...id say the world would be Far better off with my contributions to the world compared the their 'contributions'.
But you'd be wrong:
Christian charities made up nearly a quarter of the 100 best nonprofit groups for financial integrity in the United States, according to a leading nonprofit management magazine.
Twenty-two Christian organizations were ranked in the 2007 Top 100 list by The NonProfit Times. Notably, three groups – Catholic Charities, USA, The Salvation Army, and Habitat for Humanity International – were among the top 10 best charities.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-charities-rank-high-in-top-100-u-s-nonprofits-30411/#T4QQrrD83H8raXA0.99
@ Bill Deacon
Oh how nice ..a christain site.... try the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation they ve been the top for several years now...Followed by the various Red Cross offices in several nations around the world... the United Way and Salvation Army
Followed by several Individual endowment funds... the only one in the top 10 that i could see tied to a major church was the joint Anglican/UK government fund. Go to charitynavigator.org ...non biased and more truthful
Several years now? Awesome dude. Only 20 more centuries of influencing mankind to go.
You say that as if those 20 centuries were a positive..... Ever wonder what the world would have been like without Judaism and its offshoots? we would have been free of the obstructionism, murder ,lies and supersti tion that STILL plague us today. We might have actually progessed past today's technological point in say, the 1800s... religion is not, in anyway a positive....
Catholic Charities is only a small part of the charitable organizations and programs of the Catholic Church. But let's start in America alone. When you combine Catholic Charities, Food for the Poor, Catholic Relief Services, and the Catholic Medical Mission Board, you get donations of over 3.1 billion dollars, with an efficiency rate average of about 95%. That's just for those four organizations. Add in the thousands of other smaller charities, soup kitchens, food banks, homeless shelters, hospitals, clinics, etc., plus the many thousands of parishes and other charities around the globe, and the numbers are just astounding. Bill and Melinda don't even come close.
The Catholic Church is a cult.
I have several friends who tried that "natural planning stuff" Eventually either she got her tubes tied or he had a vasectomy.
What exactly is natural planning?
This appeared out of order. The person I was replying to referred to natural planning.
Ken, my husband and I have used natural family planning for over 20 years. We have had great success and love the closeness it brings us in every facet of our marriage, most especially in encouraging communication. I'm sorry your friends have not had success. I also know many, many couples who have used natural family planning with great success for years. We chose it for religious reasons; many more couples today are choosing it for health reasons. They prefer organic foods, healthier lifestyles, and nothing artificial. There is a lot of great information out there about natural family planning. One place to start is at http://www.ccli.org.
Barb, bully for you. Out of 100 couples, statistics show that even if used with care, NFP will result in 5 pregnancies within a year.
Tom 5 out of 100 which is less than the condoms failure rate. IUDS occasionally a live birth occurs. What most don't know is the IUDS cuts the baby up in the early days. So it is actually causes an abortion.
You're kidding right?
Way to go, Barb. Nobody is talking about the IUD. You are telling me that if 5% of women get pregnant in a year on NFP, IF they are truly following EVERY step required, that it's no big deal because that's better than the rate for rubbers?
What a dope. That's 5 women who didn't want to get pregnant, did everything right, and STILL ended up with an unplanned pregnancy.
Studies show that the STM (sympto-thermal method, the one that my wife and I use) is _at least as effective_ as the pill, if used correctly (and it can be used correctly).
Also, in an extensive clinical trial study, featuring 662 women with the IUD and 992 women using the Billings ovulation method of NFP, NFP had a failure rate of 0.5% (that's zero point five), while IUD had a 2% (two percent) failure rate.
Sure sounds ineffective to me...
Hello Logic................ You refer to several studies you've read. I don't know if they are true or not. My point is each woman is different. What may work for your wife may not work for others. Women are more than stats on paper. Which is why the healthcare law is so important for women's health. People need a primary care physician to tailor treatment specifically for them. ALL options have to be on the table. Birth control and abortion are and should be included in the options.
"You refer to several studies you've read. I don't know if they are true or not. My point is each woman is different. What may work for your wife may not work for others. Women are more than stats on paper."
Straw man. I never said women were all the same and to do so would be ignorant of me.
"Which is why the healthcare law is so important for women's health. People need a primary care physician to tailor treatment specifically for them. ALL options have to be on the table. Birth control and abortion are and should be included in the options."
Says you. Killing babies is not healthcare. Forcing someone to choose between compliance and their faith is not just. Removing abortion and birth control from the ACA does not prevent people from obtaining EITHER of those, including at NO COST. And yet the President and head of HHS still refuse to even provide an exception to people morally opposed to these.
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." – August 11, 2009 – President Barack Obama
No Mr. President, I cannot. Now who's the liar?
@logic........YOU Choose not to keep it. That's not the prez. fault.
I don't have the option to keep it. The policy MUST change under the ACA law. YES, the PRESIDENT'S FAULT.
@logic.....You have mentioned that your family has some medical issues. Are you saying you would drop your family's coverage because of birth control? Birth control you don't practice? Even though their is NO CONFIRMATION of the woman's pregnancy? Man, you got it bad.
Based on his posts, Logic is a nut-job.
I would venture to predict that eventually, Logic's little house of cards will completely collapse. NFP will fail and he and his little wife will end up with more children than they can support. Or there will be a financial disaster and their business will go under. Logic makes his life sound idyllic, but I would bet his wife and kids and even he won't always feel that way. And when the collapse comes, it will be very sad for his kids and his wife, and possibly for him, too. People who tout the enormous success they enjoy because THEY do things the RIGHT way, like Logic, often get a very unpleasant wake-up call.
@Tom Tom........................Logic's morality will not only put him in the poor house, but leave his family medically vulnerable. He spoke of the "risks" HE took when his wife was pregnant. This risk is ridiculous. This is one risk his ENTIRE family will take if he drops his insurance. I'll bet he'll understand why we need universal coverage if he drops his insurance and a member of his family end up in the hospital!
"You have mentioned that your family has some medical issues. Are you saying you would drop your family's coverage because of birth control? Birth control you don't practice? Even though their is NO CONFIRMATION of the woman's pregnancy? Man, you got it bad."
Whether I use it or not does not matter, immoral is still immoral. Whether there is confirmation of pregnancy does not matter, pregnancy is still pregnancy whether you know or not. And if it's something that is completely morally unacceptable, then yes, I have NO CHOICE but to drop the insurance. Eternity is forever. God never promised life here on earth was going to be easy, especially life as a Christian.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
"I would venture to predict that eventually, Logic's little house of cards will completely collapse. NFP will fail and he and his little wife will end up with more children than they can support. Or there will be a financial disaster and their business will go under. Logic makes his life sound idyllic, but I would bet his wife and kids and even he won't always feel that way. And when the collapse comes, it will be very sad for his kids and his wife, and possibly for him, too. People who tout the enormous success they enjoy because THEY do things the RIGHT way, like Logic, often get a very unpleasant wake-up call."
Wow, my life is idyllic? Maybe you think I live in some McMansion somewhere in the suburbs with a bunch of expensive cars or something. Not the case at all. We live in a little house built in 1978, we have one running vehicle, we don't go on vacations, we don't have multiple TVs, no cable TV, and often buy our stuff used or refurbished. We have no Wii, no Playstation, no motorcycles for the kids, nothing like that. We almost lost our home more than once. And yet the kids are happy with the few gifts they get at Christmas (not a single bit of whining), birthdays, etc. Does that sound like "enormous success" to you? Well guess what, it does to us. We define success as doing what God wants us to do. And I used to have LOTS more of that kind of stuff, long before I decided to start practicing my religion. I am MUCH MUCH happier now.
"Logic's morality will not only put him in the poor house, but leave his family medically vulnerable. He spoke of the "risks" HE took when his wife was pregnant. This risk is ridiculous. This is one risk his ENTIRE family will take if he drops his insurance. I'll bet he'll understand why we need universal coverage if he drops his insurance and a member of his family end up in the hospital!"
I already explained elswhere that the woman's health risks during pregnancy (abortion is SEVERAL times more risky, btw) are significantly higher than the risks I take (losing her for me and my kids is NOT inconsequential). And we already know the price that has to be paid for turning away from God. FAR bigger than the price to pay for out-of-pocket medical costs. Plus, I've already said that I am not necessarily against a system of universal healthcare, or other government-provided services. So HAY, enough straw men please (insert rimshot here).
@logic............You have to do what's best for your family. Good luck to you on that. Please keep in mind, when Obamacare is fully implemented, you'll have to pay a fine for not having health insurance. (How ironic)
As you have read I'm not a religious person. I don't worry about eternity. I haven't figured this life out yet. My responsibility (like you) is to provide for my wife and kids. Health insurance is a big part of that. I would think god would give me credit for providing for my 2 kids. That has to be worth something.
With all due respect, Ken, indeed, I do have to do what's best for my family. That mean's I'm, obliged to educate my conscience and figure out what "best" is.
As for the fine for not having insurance, interesting, isn't it? If I refuse to buy insurance that is contrary to my religious beliefs, the government will FINE me, forcing me to pay for insurance that is contrary to my religious beliefs. And to think the President had the gall to declare January 16 "Religious Freedom Day".
I am not free to practice my religion in the United States of America.
"As you have read I'm not a religious person. I don't worry about eternity. I haven't figured this life out yet. My responsibility (like you) is to provide for my wife and kids. Health insurance is a big part of that. I would think god would give me credit for providing for my 2 kids. That has to be worth something."
Ken, regardless of our differences, I wish you the best. I want people to be really happy. So much of what you have said is so similar to how I used to think and what I used to say. I wish someone had convinced me earlier to take a serious look at the meaning of life and how it affected me. I've worn out my keyboard trying to provide information and a sincere and frank look into why I believe what I believe. You know a lot more about me and my family than I know about you now. So I just want to say one more thing. Life isn't forever, eternity is, do you really want to gamble on something that will certainly happen to you some day? (that is to say, you'll die some day, and at that point, one way or another, you'll know what eternity holds)
Peace be with you.
A textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives a list of the basic characteristics of life. This list can be found in many other textbooks and from many other sources (and no, not all "pro-life" ones).
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
Once conception (also defined as "fertilization", when the sperm meets the egg) happens, "the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species)." Non-living things don't do this. And at that moment, the being has its own unique DNA, featuring characteristics of both parents, but not being the same as either of them. Again, this is what science says, not a church or the pope or some other guy off the street. Also, the living being is human. It will not continue to develop as a chicken, a lobster, a frog or any other living being. Also, as early as three days after conception, the s-e-x of the _baby_ can be determined (if not a baby, then why does it have a s-e-x?). So, if life begins at conception, anything done to that living being to stop it from continuing to develop is ending the life of that being (specifically, that human being).
Some forms of birth control work by changing the environment of the uterus, creating a hostile environment for the fertilized egg, thereby preventing its implantation. Again, this isn't something just pulled from a pro-life website somewhere, this information comes from the federal government's National Insti.tute of Health (NIH). Therefore, if a form of birth control prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, it is in fact causing a medicine-induced abortion.
Now, a hypothetical situation. Say a demolition company has an order to implode a building. All of the explosives have been installed, fences have been up, signs have been posted saying "No trespassing, building to be demolished, WARNING". They're ready to throw the switch but nobody has taken the final walk-through to make sure that there are no people left in the building and area immediately surrounding it. The demolition company is already a bit behind schedule and they've got more work to do. Should they just throw the switch? Now let's say that you are inside that building, but you tripped and got your leg caught, and you're in a part of the building where you can't be directly seen or heard without going inside the building. Should they just take a chance and throw the switch, or should the benefit of the doubt be given to the possibility that there's someone alive in there that could be killed by doing so? Think honestly about it.
Life is not the issue. Life was never the issue. Bodily autonomy is the issue. At no other time is a person required to give up bodily autonomy to act as a life support system, to their own possible detriment, for any other person. Why should this be the one exception?
Exactly Hawaii. If the life is able to adapt to it's environment as you have stated, let's just remove the embryo from the body it is invading and watch it adapt to it's environment like we do all other humans. Problem solved.
So Jen, would you suggest putting born babies outside on their own, too? Babies (born AND unborn) are vulnerable, just like the young offspring of any other life.
Ah but after birth, the mother has the ability to give the child up for adoption, or other such options. She is not forced by law to keep the child. Anyway, I need to go so I won't be able to see your response.
Born babies can be cared for by anyone. A mother can give the baby away for adoption if she does not want to care for it. An unborn baby can only receive care from one person. And by receiving care it drains the physical resources of that person and potentially puts that person in a life threatening situation (many women still die in pregnancy and childbirth). Slight difference.
@Logic, You are assuming that we all think the same way you do and value the same things. My ethical system has as an end maximizing the greatest conscious well being. I therefore care about both humans and animals, and believe the conscious life of a fully developed cow is worth more than a few cells at conception that don't have a single neuron between them. If creating a new human will decrease the conscious well being of the earth, I think it should not be done. Protecting humans with well developed neural systems and experience is another matter, not only to protect those particular humans, but because protecting even the weak and injured among us brings us all a sense of security as members of a society.
To convince me that there was a problem with abortion you would have to argue from within my ethical system. You would have to prove to me that aborting an embryo fetus with less consciousness than a chicken was damaging to the conscious well being of society in a way that doesn't involve Christians feeling guilty over it because their religion tells them it's a proble, because that is quite arguably the variable that needs to change. And unless you're a vegetarian, you'd have to convince me of why you are willing to torment living creatures for years, yet are arguing that even when the embryo is equivalent to a worm it must be protected.
I don't even think it's worth debating Logic. Based on what he states below. He doesn't care what your beliefs are Saraswati. He thinks his beliefs trump yours and that if you are female he can impose those beliefs on you by forcing you (if you are female) to carry the clump of cells. I, of course, would never attempt to force him to do anything he doesn't believe in, but yet he somehow still thinks that his beliefs are being violated if he can't force them upon anyone he wants to.
hawaiiguest & Jen et al,
Creation of a humane being is via the adaptation of conceptual needs taking place by two consenting 'adults' and even two hormonal hungry adolescents. So than, does societies' pro-modernized stances upon abortive measuring stimulus means dare to justly delegate reverences of the feminine genders to be the last straw before and even after conceptions, leaving abortive techniques up to the carriers of conceptions beginning moments destroying the adaptations of conceptions rights? Is conceived Life just a pre-eminent formation for justifiable disposal systems of abortion managed commonwealths?
Logic is only about a half-step ahead of LL. They're both inane. And one of them's insane.
It seems your limited intellectual mind cannot fathom my wordage usage, I will repost one simpler question, "Is conceived Life just a pre-eminent formation for justifiable disposal systems of abortion managed commonwealths?"
Intellectual? Aren't you on social security and living with your brother??
Still don't know what you are asking. Oh...and don't care either.
Hey, Jen, last night the ass was calling women - ALL women-too stupid to avoid getting pregnant. Before that, he called teenage girls who had s#x "tramps."
Then why did you throw me a bone to gnaw on?
My bad LL. Won't happen again. I can never figure out what you're talking about so it's pretty pointless (plus you say some pretty offensive things about women).
Lionly, nobody can comprehend your "wordage usage." Get lost.
Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
By this definition, every food (vegetarian or non-vegetarian_ you eat was once a living thing. Why do you kill a living thing then to fulfil your appeti.te?
Tom et al,
Gotta luv your misquotes! Did you fail to mention that I said parents ought to be held more responsible for their teenaged adolescents engagements in the dirty deeds? Should not parents who allow their teenagers to engage in s e x u a l activities bee shunned and scorned for their teens actions? Or is it due that your teens are doing just what their parents did? Like mother is the daughter in deeded acts and actions. Only a tramp can make another tramp! Grow up you deeded tramps and put your foot down upon your teens s e x u a l tendencies instead of allowing teenaged children their wantonness to be like you once were!
Ok. Let's assume you're right, human *life* starts at conception. Given they're over 500,000 miscarriages every year just in USA, and a miscarriage is really nothing more than a spontaneous abortion, then this makes God the *biggest* abortionist in the entire world since it was God's will for these miscarriages to happen! Be careful of what you wish for ... you might just get it.
@Hawaii "...At no other time is a person required to give up bodily autonomy to act as a life support system,..."
@chad "you seem to be forgetting that after ~20 weeks, abortions are illegal and the mother IS in fact legally required to act as a life support system. .
@Saraswati" If creating a new human will decrease the conscious well being of the earth, I think it should not be done."
@Chad "I certainly hope that doesnt mean what it appears to mean on the surface.
@Saraswati" "To convince me that there was a problem with abortion ..."
@Chad ""well, of course there is a problem with abortion, it is illegal after ~20 weeks.
Question for you: why are you ok killing a child at 19 weeks, but not at 21?
@ruemorgue "Given they're over 500,000 miscarriages every year just in USA, and a miscarriage is really nothing more than a spontaneous abortion, then this makes God the *biggest* abortionist in the entire world ..."
@Chad "I see that nonsense a lot.
millions of people and those newly conceived children die as a result of natural causes every day.
There is a pretty large difference between dying of natural causes, and being killed by another human.
why do you post like that? you take a straight forward post and flip it around.... nice
just out of curiosity, would be interested if you could spell out how the post was "flipped around"..
or, let me guess.. If I'm to stupid to figure it out for myself, you wont tell me.. ?
And then theres that..... putting words in peoples' mouths..... reduce somebody's statement down to something you can dismiss w/o actually addressing their actual words... what do you call that?
and Stupid isnt the first word id use for you... troll maybe...but not stupid.
ive seen a number of your posts on different topics – you reword what they said slightly..and try to pass it off as what the person actually said...and follow it up by rewording it in YOUR own words.. and then dismiss it...
Why not Just do @ persons name – and say what it is YOU want to say, like everyone else does...??
you wouldnt happen to be employed by a religious organization would you?
"By this definition, every food (vegetarian or non-vegetarian_ you eat was once a living thing. Why do you kill a living thing then to fulfil your appeti.te?"
Because as a Christian, I believe that God gave humans dominion over the world. I am not commanded not to kill animals and plants, only not to murder other humans.
Miscarriage is a natural death, not one brought on by the action of another human being. Serious difference there.
Chad, it's absolutely fine in my state to have an abortion at 19 weeks AND 21 weeks. I don't think there is anything wrong with setting a time limit. The whole point of setting a limit is to give the woman the CHOICE to make a decision. The time limits coincide with the ability to obtain as much information as possible about the baby's health (from CVS and amnio) in order to make an an informed decision. Makes perfect logical sense to me. I don't hear anyone complaining about only being allowed to have abortions until 24 weeks along (unless the mother's life becomes at risk or they become aware of a health issue with the baby, and then of course there is nothing wrong with having an abortion later either). The whole issue people have with laws against late term abortions is the Republicans trying to ensure that ALL late term abortions are banned. For some reason they have no problems watching women die in pregnancy.
Perhaps when tests become better, the number of weeks a woman has to decide to abort will decrease. Being pro choice, I wouldn't have a problem with that (again, as long as late term abortions are allowed for at risk women).
If you don't believe that abortion is wrong, then I completely agree with you. If there's nothing wrong with killing an unborn baby (or if it's not a baby at all) then abortion should be legal no matter how long it's been in there. Completely logical, and I'm glad that your beliefs line up with your thought process. But babies are being born as early as 20-21 weeks and surviving and living without problems these days, and that is getting earlier and earlier with the advancement of medical knowledge and technology. At what point does that baby become an individual person, with rights of their own? When they're born naturally? C-section? When they can feel? When they have their own heartbeat? Brain? Hands? Feet? Who gets to make that decision and by what authority?
I'm not a republican, but I vote with them because the democratic party includes, among other things, full support for abortion rights, something that I absolutely cannot agree or cooperate with. And I don't just want late-term abortion outlawed, I want human life to be realized as human life with an individual right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This, by the way, does _not_ mean that I am against doing what is necessary to save the life of the mother of an unborn baby, including if the side effect of the means might risk the life of the unborn baby. There's a difference between intended and unintended effect.
"Perhaps when tests become better, the number of weeks a woman has to decide to abort will decrease. Being pro choice, I wouldn't have a problem with that (again, as long as late term abortions are allowed for at risk women)."
Now this is the part that confuses me. Why? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why decrease the number of weeks/days/hours/minutes? I'm truly perplexed by this.
Last month, a baby girl widely considered the most premature European baby ever to survive left a German hospital and headed home. Frieda Mangold was born more than four months early, at 21 weeks and five days. She weighed a smidge over a pound.
You liar. Babies born at 21 weeks RARELY survive.
Keep it up, you moron.
"Now this is the part that confuses me. Why? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why decrease the number of weeks/days/hours/minutes? I'm truly perplexed by this."
You're confused because you refuse to realize that that's when the fetus can survive outside the woman's uterus. YOu also know so little about biology that you don't realize that the age at which this occurs will not continue to decrease indefinitely–the lung tissue of the fetus will not sufficiently support it before a certain point. Furthermore, babies are NOT being born at 21 weeks with "no problems." When you have to lie to make a point, you have no point.
Babies born around 37 weeks can have breathing problems and require ventilation. But the extremely serious complications occur at much younger gestations: infants born before 26 weeks are at greatest risk for significant disabilities — cerebral palsy, perhaps, or deafness or mental retardation.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/27/baby-born-at-21-weeks-survives-how-young-is-too-young-to-save/#ixzz2I42XsmeV
Do you know ANYTHING about late-term abortion, Logic? Doesn't look like it. To read your posts, women just skip on down to the local PP and they're out in an hour. Read about what a late-term abortion entails. Then read about the reasons why they are done. They're done when a woman will die or be serious injured mentally or physically if the pregnancy continues. They are done when the much-wanted fetus is suffering from gross abnormalities like a Trisomy. They are done when the fetus has NO chance of survival for more than a brief time and will suffer pain while it's alive.
You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
"seriously", not "serious".
And your little story about the building is sickening. You're not in charge of someone else's body or the contents thereof.
Why are you perplexed at my position? I'm not the one of us that contends that it is a baby at any point during gestation – you are. I think it should have laws to protect it when it can survive outside the womb. Unfortunately that varies from fetus to fetus – but somewhere between 21.5-30 weeks of pregnancy (when I say that I don't mind the law becoming less than 24 weeks keep in mind I'm not saying it should be before 21 weeks). Because it is variable from fetus to fetus, the line must be drawn somewhere. Rarely is that before 24 weeks. It's NEVER at 20 weeks as you contend. And it will never be before 20 weeks anytime soon as Tom Tom says (until the womb can be artificially replicated which will not happen in my lifetime if
This is all pointless discussion anyway. Try to find a doctor that will perform an abortion at 19 weeks just because a woman didn't get around to having one. Won't happen, even though it is legal. They will perform one for a woman who just got the results of an amnio showing severe abnormalities, or a woman who has developed serious pre-eclampsia. Both situations are reasonable.
What isn't reasonable – telling someone that they can't have a morning after pill because it will possibly kill a 'baby'. If you think it's a baby – great. Don't take the morning after pill. Simple solution.
Thank you for the correction, I am capable of making mistakes remembering things, just like any human being, and I'm interested in the actual truth. What I meant to say was that babies are being born as early as 21-22 weeks, surviving, and being able to live without problems later in life. I had also meant to include a disclaimer about the obvious problems that premature babies face and the tough time they have until they're more mature. The survival rate of babies born that early is quite low, but it is going up, and survival was virtually impossible as little as a decade ago. Now with scientists working on a machine that closely mimics the environment of a woman's womb, that rate is _very likely to increase_.
"You're confused because you refuse to realize that that's when the fetus can survive outside the woman's uterus."
Maybe 15 years ago, that was later. So your premise is that you can kill a baby as long as it cannot survive outside the womb? So abortion after that time is wrong? What about a baby that is born at full term, but is unlikely to survive outside the womb due to a genetic defect (Trisomy-13 for example)? Is it OK to kill them, too? If abortion isn't wrong, what's the problem with doing it at any time?
"YOu also know so little about biology that you don't realize that the age at which this occurs will not continue to decrease indefinitely–the lung tissue of the fetus will not sufficiently support it before a certain point."
And you are apparently unaware of the medical breakthroughs of the past few years where a doctor is capable of using medicines and/or in-utero surgery to correct defects and ripen systems like the lungs faster if there is a risk to the baby or mother.
I did not lie to make a point, I made a mistake. I'm grown-up enough to accept a correction, even from someone who does not seem to care in the slightest whether I do or not.
Which brings me to another question. Why do you so rabidly support abortion, TT? You're not even a woman (I think). Is it possible that maybe you have an interest in keeping abortion legal? Perhaps you want to continue to be able to "have your fun" without the responsibility that goes with it? I'm asking these questions because I wasn't always on this side of this argument. I sincerely wish someone had found a way to get me to be open to examining my beliefs earlier than I did. I don't want others to have regrets (no, I did not have an abortion, obviously, nor did I procure one for someone else, but the way I was living my life, it was very likely to happen).
@Jen re: artificial womb:
"The first successful pregnancy by IVF was accomplished over 50 years ago, essentially creating a multi-billion dollar industry. Many scientists are trying to take it one step farther with a 100% test tube baby brought to term in an artificial womb. 'Cornell University's Dr. Hung-Ching Liu has engineered endometrial tissues by prompting cells to grow in an artificial uterus. When Liu introduced a mouse embryo into the lab-created uterine lining, "It successfully implanted and grew healthy," she said in this New Atlantis Magazine article. Scientists predict the research could produce an animal womb by 2020, and a human model by early 2030s."
The 2030s isn't in your lifetime?
Why are you so rabidly against abortion Logic? You're not even a woman (works both ways).
And Tom Tom is a woman.
You forgot the part that none of the mice have managed to survive in these experiments (but hey – why let little details like that interfere with your argument). I'm not holding my breath. First IVF was 50 years ago? That's funny – I did not know it's been 50 years since 1978.
Seriously, stop trying to make your arguments using quick Internet searches. It makes you look foolish.
First IVF _pregnancy_ (1953), not first test-tube baby (1978). Pregnancy can be successfully achieved even if the baby does not make it out alive.
And I am rabidly against "abortion logic" because I completely believe that it is in fact a human life that is being murdered when an abortion happens. I am a human being with compassion for other human beings. You don't need to be a woman to care about babies. And last I checked, babies come about when the sp.erm (from the _man_) meets the egg (from the _woman_). Takes two to tango. And if you thought of a baby as the result of a contractual partnership, then I have an equal interest in that baby (it doesn't matter that one partner in a partnership works harder than the other, the contract at the start spells out the percentage stake), and an equal say about his or her life. Otherwise, I guess we can get rid of things like child support and paternity suits, right?
I am sincerely trying to understand your point of view (part of it I know from my own experience on your side of the argument before I changed my opinion, part of it I don't know). Try to consider mine. If you really thought it was a baby being killed, wouldn't you try to help him or her?
Also, Tom Tom is a woman? OK. I didn't know and the nickname is obviously confusing. I am a man, if I haven't made that clear yet.
Well I'm pretty sure no one is going to be putting embryos in artificial wombs just to watch then die right after birth (call me crazy). Again, doubtful in my lifetime.
There's your problem. 'I believe it is in fact'. There's no such thing. Beliefs and facts are two different things. I know facts, I don't believe in them. I don't believe 2 plus 2 equals four. I KNOW IT.
I do understand your belief. I have no problem with your belief, though some of them are untrue (not facts). It is a fact that you can't end a pregnancy by taking the morning after pill. It is a fact that you are not committing murder by taking the morning after pill (part of the definition of murder is ceasing brain activity – a pre embryo does not have any brain activity).
Again, I understand your belief. I would never be okay with someone forcing your wife to take a morning after pill. I do not believe a pre embryo is a baby. My two month old nursing right now? All baby. He has cognitive ability, feels pain, etc etc. A clump of cells does not. I don't believe it is wrong to take the morning after pill to get rid of a clump of cells. You can't enforce your beliefs on me and I can't enforce my beliefs on you. Seems fair to me.
"Well I'm pretty sure no one is going to be putting embryos in artificial wombs just to watch then die right after birth (call me crazy). Again, doubtful in my lifetime." Oh yes, because that's why they're spending all of that time and money, to see babies die right after birth. There couldn't possible be a great amount of money to be made, or good to be done (helping premature babies, for example) driving this research, right?
"There's your problem. 'I believe it is in fact'. There's no such thing. Beliefs and facts are two different things. I know facts, I don't believe in them. I don't believe 2 plus 2 equals four. I KNOW IT."
believe (verb, transitive) – To accept as true.
You would not "know" that 2 plus 2 equals four if you did not believe that mathematics is true. I believe in facts. I have showed that scientists define a living thing using certain criteria, and that a fertilized egg (zygote) meets that criteria. Why is the scientific criteria (that I did not come up with) ignored in this situation?
"I do understand your belief. I have no problem with your belief, though some of them are untrue (not facts)."
I don't accept beliefs that are untrue, to do so is silly. I have no problem with your belief that that gun is incapable of killing me right now if you pull the trigger with the barrel against my head. Right...
"It is a fact that you can't end a pregnancy by taking the morning after pill. It is a fact that you are not committing murder by taking the morning after pill (part of the definition of murder is ceasing brain activity – a pre embryo does not have any brain activity)."
murder (noun) – The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Nothing about brains in there. As for it being a fact that you can't end a pregnancy by taking the morning after pill, if your definition of pregnancy begins with implantation, you might have a case. If it begins with conception (zygote) you're incorrect.
"Again, I understand your belief. I would never be okay with someone forcing your wife to take a morning after pill. I do not believe a pre embryo is a baby. My two month old nursing right now? All baby. He has cognitive ability, feels pain, etc etc. A clump of cells does not. I don't believe it is wrong to take the morning after pill to get rid of a clump of cells. You can't enforce your beliefs on me and I can't enforce my beliefs on you. Seems fair to me."
Babies in the womb have been shown to have cognitive ability, feel pain, etc. etc. Not a clump of cells. You have no problem with killing babies that have those abilities (21-24 months, remember?). That "clump of cells" is a zygote with unique DNA (if they can use it to identify a murderer, why not a baby?) and chromosomes and meets the criteria for a living thing (a human one, for that matter). And the baby will have someone's beliefs enforced on him or her, yet he or she is unable to defend against it. Sound fair? No.
Wow, so now you are saying that I'm okay with killing 21-24 month old babies? What a liar. A baby has even born (look up the definition of baby), and I certainly don't think it's okay to kill a 21 MONTH OLD BABY. What an immoral person you are to say it (not that I'm surprised).
Again, I do not believe a loaded gun is capable of killing me. I KNOW IT. Apparently you don't know it. Look up the definitions of belief and fact. I assure you they are different. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp (I know you are from somewhere really backwards like Virginia or something, but come on).
Again, this discussion is off track. The article is about the morning after pill. Are you seriously arguing that a pre embryo is more than a cluster of cells? Seriously? Good luck proving that.
As for later abortions (not the point of this thread), I do believe they are okay if the baby has a serious defect (and yes, the mother gets to decide as she is raising the baby – not me). Again, tell me of doctors allowing later abortions for no reason. It doesn't happen. You of course ignore the fact that the overwhelming number of abortions are performed in the first trimester. And again, the woman's rights over her body trump that of an embryo's 'rights'. She can't be forced to risk her health for your 'beliefs'.
And where did I dispute the scientific definition of living things? I didn't. But you keep disputing the scientific definition of pregnancy by calling it 'my definition'. I guess you only use science when it helps your cause, and then dispute it when it doesn't. Tom is right – HYPOCRITE.
Logic, you stupid ass. I AM female, a fact of which I've made no secret. You are such a clueless boob. I suppose you think that someone who's straight doesn't care about gay rights, either.
First of all, YIKES! I _TOTALLY_ meant to say weeks there. I used to make that mistake all the time when talking about the ages of my toddlers. Very sorry, I absolutely did not mean to say that you would be ok with killing 21-24 month old babies. This was a direct reference to where you said that you "don't mind the law becoming less than 24 weeks keep in mind [you're] not saying it should be before 21 weeks..."
"Again, I do not believe a loaded gun is capable of killing me. I KNOW IT. Apparently you don't know it. Look up the definitions of belief and fact. I assure you they are different. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp (I know you are from somewhere really backwards like Virginia or something, but come on)."
"to accept something to be true or honest"
"to accept something as true"
"to accept the word or evidence of"
At one point you did not know what math was. You had to be taught about math, and in order to "know" that 2+2=4, you had to believe that mathematical formulae were true. Did you research the history and basis for mathematical formulae when you were a little kid? Were you qualified to perform that research in an acceptable manner at that age with the amount knowledge you had?
"Again, this discussion is off track. The article is about the morning after pill. Are you seriously arguing that a pre embryo is more than a cluster of cells? Seriously? Good luck proving that."
Indeed, the discussion went deeper than the original article, but this was necessary as background information to explain why Hobby Lobby's owners believe what they do in regards to the "morning after pill". I am going to argue that the "clump of cells" has its own DNA, its own chromosomes, and fits all of the characteristics of a living thing (one that will continue to develop as a human being). The question remains, when does "human life" begin (remember murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another)? Scientists point out that the single-celled zygote is capable of developing (self-directed) into a fully grown human being with only a suitable environment and nutrition (just like human beings at _any_ stage). This is what distinguishes a zygote from a "clump of cells". (sources: Lars.en’s Human Embryology, O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology, Persaud’s The Developing Human, and many other _standard biology textbooks_ used by medical students studying to be doctors) Prove otherwise. And if you can't, then why doesn't life get the benefit of the doubt?
Or are you defining when someone becomes a person?
person (noun) – a human being (source: Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary)
"As for later abortions (not the point of this thread), I do believe they are okay if the baby has a serious defect (and yes, the mother gets to decide as she is raising the baby – not me)."
Oh, you "believe" it, but you don't know it? The stakes are very high here, are you sure you don't want to rephrase that? And why does anyone have the right to kill someone ("the baby") if he or she has a serious defect? By what authority from whom? (yes, the law, but what gave them the right to pass such a law, that is what determines whether or not a law is just) And again my question, why does the mother alone get to decide the fate of a baby that took both a mother _AND_ father to create?
"You of course ignore the fact that the overwhelming number of abortions are performed in the first trimester."
No I didn't, show me where.
"And again, the woman's rights over her body trump that of an embryo's 'rights'."
If the baby is a living human person, it isn't part of "her body". If a human being has rights, human beings start to exist at conception (fertilization). What makes one person's rights more important than another's?
"She can't be forced to risk her health for your 'beliefs'."
Correct, and she should not be. It should be based on the _complete unbiased truth_, not what some joe schmoe says in a combox. That is what I am talking about. This is important stuff. Don't take my word for it, don't settle for propaganda or hearsay, be CERTAIN. Think of the consequences (for you, the baby, others involved) if you're wrong. Creating a new human being is worth the effort.
The definition of pregnancy is neither here nor there if human life begins at conception/fertilization. If a unique human life is terminated by an abortion, the definition of the word "murder" is fulfilled.
"Logic, you stupid ass. I AM female, a fact of which I've made no secret. You are such a clueless boob. I suppose you think that someone who's straight doesn't care about gay rights, either."
Point number 1: I had no idea you were female, nor did I claim you tried to hide it. Nothing in the messages that I read stated that you are a female. This is the first time I've really gone through the combox on this blog so I'm not familiar with you or your history, and I've only read the later pages of the comments on this thread.
Point number 2: Your name-calling is very immature and rude. If you want to have a grown-up conversation with another adult, act like one.
Point number 3: You seem to be a very angry person. That can't be fun, or particularly healthy. I'm just some person on the combox. Is it really worth all of this anger and bitterness?
Regardless, I do hope that you aren't always this angry and wish you the best.
Logic, I feel like you think you have some sort of shot at trying to sway me to your beliefs. You don't (and I have no misconception that I will sway you to mine). I have done a lot of thinking about it. I'm probably older than you (we don't have our kids in our teens and early twenties like you guys in the backwoods do). Throughout my adult years – obtaining my MBA, spending over a decade building a high paying career, and now taking some time off to raise my three children, I have become more PRO CHOICE than I was 20 years ago. What does that tell you? I've been pregnant three times and realized how difficult it can be. I don't want someone else making my health decisions for me. At one point in my last pregnancy I was so ill that I took strong narcotics for about a week. Nobody had the right to tell me that I had to 'suck it up' for the health of the baby. I was in agonizing pain. I suspect if your wife was in that situation you would have discouraged her from taking any drugs that might risk the baby's health. That's why I'm not married to someone like you. I'm smart enough to weigh the risks and benefits on my own. I don't pretend to understand what other people are going through. I haven't walked in their shoes. I have a friend that had post partum psychosis so severe that she had to be admitted to a mental hospital. I, for one, would not tell her what to do if she had another accidental pregnancy. That's not my place. Just like it's not my place to tell someone that has just found out that her child has a serious defect that she is selfish for not raising the baby. I'm not the one that is going to be going to literally hundreds to thousands of specialist appointments, paying her huge out of pocket health costs, the list goes on.
The woman is the one that gets to make the decision. I'm sure about that. The law is just in my opinion. You say that the zygote is not part of a woman's body. BS. That was my uterus my children were living in, those were my nutrients that my children were draining, that was my pancreas and kidney that my children damaged. And if the zygote is not part of the woman's body, then let's just remove it. Oh wait....
I don't think it's fair that the father doesn't get a say. It's definitely not fair. But it's not fair that I had to endure all the health risks (yes we are talking about HEALTH risks when we are talking about abortion and birth control). I threw up, I went to the hospital, I worked until midnight to make up the time I was at my thrice weekly doctors' appointments. My husband, though the best dad ever, was not an equal partner in my pregnancy (nor were you in your wife's no matter what you like to think). Life's not fair sometimes. And issues are not black and white like you think they are.
Like abortion for example. Tell me, why did you apologize for accidentally accusing me of thinking it's okay to kill 21-24 month old babies. Haven't you been saying all along that a zygote and a 21 month old are the same thing? But yet your response indicates that you think that it's worse to kill a toddler than a zygote.
Which makes perfect sense. That toddler is a highly functioning cognitive being, that feels emotion and pain. The zygote does not. I am perfect willing to admit that I value a frog over a spider, a cat over a frog, etc, etc. That I feel much worse for a woman that has lost a 6 week old infant than for a woman that had a miscarriage at 6 weeks. So do most people. There's a reason for that.
Again, not expecting to change your beliefs. I just wish that rabid pro life people could keep things in perspective. Nobody is pro abortion. Let's work together to lower the number of abortions. Let's not condemn people that use birth control and tell them that it is morally wrong to do so. If you think there is something wrong with the fact that I just had a tubal ligation...well...we are definitely never going to agree on anything.
P.S. Look up when the majority of abortions are performed. Even the crazy right wing Fox 'News' will confirm that over 90% are performed in the first trimester.
I'll just jump in and say that I'm almost 45.
"I suspect if your wife was in that situation you would have discouraged her from taking any drugs that might risk the baby's health. That's why I'm not married to someone like you. I'm smart enough to weigh the risks and benefits on my own."
OK, now here's a problem. Your comment about being "smart enough..." is insulting. Either A) you're calling my wife stupid, B) you're incredibly uncareful with your words, or C) you're not smart enough to know that that statement is insulting my wife. Which is it?
"The woman is the one that gets to make the decision. I'm sure about that."
How are you sure? Not legally speaking, since laws can be unjust, but how are you morally certain (you don't have to be religious to be morally certain)?
"The law is just in my opinion. You say that the zygote is not part of a woman's body. BS. That was my uterus my children were living in, those were my nutrients that my children were draining, that was my pancreas and kidney that my children damaged. And if the zygote is not part of the woman's body, then let's just remove it. Oh wait...."
So you say that a human body can have 2 uniquely different DNA? The human body can have two different sets of chromosomes? Really? You earned an MBA? Scientifically impossible. The zygote isn't part of your body, nor is the embryo, fetus, baby.
"I don't think it's fair that the father doesn't get a say. It's definitely not fair."
Glad we agree.
"But it's not fair that I had to endure all the health risks (yes we are talking about HEALTH risks when we are talking about abortion and birth control). I threw up, I went to the hospital, I worked until midnight to make up the time I was at my thrice weekly doctors' appointments. My husband, though the best dad ever, was not an equal partner in my pregnancy (nor were you in your wife's no matter what you like to think). Life's not fair sometimes. And issues are not black and white like you think they are."
I am fully aware about the "fairness" of life. Men and women are different. You're the ones that can have babies. We're the ones that can provide you with the other necessary part to allow you to have babies.
"Like abortion for example. Tell me, why did you apologize for accidentally accusing me of thinking it's okay to kill 21-24 month old babies. Haven't you been saying all along that a zygote and a 21 month old are the same thing? But yet your response indicates that you think that it's worse to kill a toddler than a zygote."
No, it is specifically because of what _you_ beleive. You think it's a clump of cells. A 21-month old is clearly not a clump of cells. Regardless of my position/understanding/beliefs, your perception matters when I'm talking to you. That is worthy of an apology.
"Again, not expecting to change your beliefs. I just wish that rabid pro life people could keep things in perspective. Nobody is pro abortion. Let's work together to lower the number of abortions. Let's not condemn people that use birth control and tell them that it is morally wrong to do so. If you think there is something wrong with the fact that I just had a tubal ligation...well...we are definitely never going to agree on anything."
If you are pro-choice, that "choice" is an "abortion". I am continuing to do whatever I can to reduce the number of abortions, and will continue the fight to abolish abortion once and for all. And I'm not condemning people that use birth control, I'm condeming a government that says I have a Consti.tutional right to "the free exercise" of my religion, yet makes a law that prevents just that.
"P.S. Look up when the majority of abortions are performed. Even the crazy right wing Fox 'News' will confirm that over 90% are performed in the first trimester."
Straw man. I never said otherwise and am fully aware of that. Implantation happens in the first trimester, too.
After reading some of the responses here, I'm convinced we need to totally revamp the education system in this country! It's no wonder we rank in the 20's in science and math! If religion can make people ignorant of the facts, I'm glad it's losing it's influence.
How can the morning after pill be the same as abortion, when you don't even know if the woman is pregnant?
How can people argue AGAINST health care? That's like arguing against breathing!
Do you realize that if adults don't have health care, then their children don't.
What parent wouldn't want health care for their kids?
THE TAXPAYER pays for hospitalized individuals without health care. So if you get rid of Obamacare you'll
STILL pay for it.
Do you realize EVERY CHILD BORN cost everybody money. You have to RAISE taxes to provide the services
for the child including services as they age.
Despite what you pay in taxes for public assistance, children still go to bed hungry, homeless and without
healthcare. Where is that money coming from?
No matter your beliefs we have to look at things realistically if were going to solve OUR issues. There isn't
enough money and praying hasn't worked.
How can the morning after pill be the same as abortion, when you don't even know if the woman is pregnant?
– If a woman is taking the morning after pill, it is because she did what is necessary to get pregnant. If you're not sure whether or not someone is alive, you assume that they are. This is how doctors operate in EVERY other situation, except when a woman might be pregnant, then all of the sudden it's "oh, her choice is paramount". If indeed the woman is pregnant, the morning after pill makes her uterus into a hostile environment for the fertilized egg, preventing implantation (or possibly causing implantation where it shouldn't be, risking the life of the baby AND the mother), thereby causing the living being (see a biology textbook for the definition of a living being) to die.
How can people argue AGAINST health care? That's like arguing against breathing!
– Hobby Lobby isn't arguing against health care, nor am I. Killing babies is not health care.
Do you realize that if adults don't have health care, then their children don't.
– Actually, not true. In my state, my children can have state health insurance even if my wife and I have none.
What parent wouldn't want health care for their kids?
– This parent wants health insurance/care for his kids. This parent does NOT want his health insurance/care to include things that are contrary to our religious beliefs. The law is forcing ALL insurance companies to cover what we consider to be immoral. We cannot "keep it", as President Obama promised in his campaign speeches.
THE TAXPAYER pays for hospitalized individuals without health care. So if you get rid of Obamacare you'll
STILL pay for it.
– I'm not completely against a healthcare system that provides for those without insurance, AND I think that the insurance industry needs a serious overhaul. What we had didn't work, what we have now doesn't either.
Do you realize EVERY CHILD BORN cost everybody money. You have to RAISE taxes to provide the services
for the child including services as they age.
– I am providing for my children. I am not using contraception to avoid having more, nor have we ever. And my wife has not ever even considered having an abortion, much less had one. My wife and I run our own company, earn money to care for our family, and pay our share of taxes to pay for any government services that might be used, even though we don't use some of them and are unable to opt out of the taxes.
Despite what you pay in taxes for public assistance, children still go to bed hungry, homeless and without
healthcare. Where is that money coming from?
– If the government would stop taking money out of our pockets, maybe we could give more to charity (we already give a lot, despite the small amount we make each year) or directly to the poor. Government controlled and enforced charity ends up getting people in a "I gave at the office" atti.tude, making it less and less likely that they'll help _actual people_ who are in immediate need. That's what I do, how bout you?
No matter your beliefs we have to look at things realistically if were going to solve OUR issues. There isn't enough money and praying hasn't worked.
– "No matter what your beliefs". My beliefs say that killing an unborn baby is a grave sin and is completely immoral. I would sooner cut off my own finger than be involved in such an activity. But nevermind my "beliefs" because yours trump them, right? How are you so certain that praying hasn't worked if you don't believe in the one to whom I am praying? And as for the money issue, maybe if liberals weren't spending so much time using legal loopholes to avoid paying "their fair share" (hello Senator Kerry and your boat docked in another state?), maybe there would be a lot more money to help. And maybe if the spending insanity was cut off, maybe there would also be more money to help people that really need it.
Wow Logic, shouldn't you make it through third grade before attempting to post? The morning after pill must be used within 72 hours of intercourse. It takes a minimum of SIX days to become pregnant after intercourse. An abortion ends a pregnancy. You can't have an abortion when you were never pregnant to begin with. This is simple science. Try to keep up.
Jen, I did my research, where's yours? See my post above (which you already have) and refute anything said in it. Sperm can reach the fallopian tube in as little as 30 minutes, and sperm can have a life span of up to 5 days maximum (if they're healthy – source Discover Health website). The WebMD website says that at the moment the sperm burrows into the egg "...your baby's genes and se.x are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl." Baby. That egg now has a se.x, and now has its own DNA, different from the father and the mother.
Abortion, condoms pills and the like are BAD for my business....If I run outa gullibles to fill my tray on sunday and well...do the dirty work i need done, how, do tell me how am I going to maintain my third chin?
People need to SEE how the Lord blesses me..... If they see a rail thin stick of a man up there, they might think im just scrapping by... not good in my line of work. Besides, While the adults dont matter, watching to children respond to my Indictrination...errr i mean sermons is priceless..... no if i can only funnel a bit more cash to the right people and I can get Prayer into the schools, and that would make my job much easier....
Oh gee, is that how I have two daughters and a son? Those x and y chromosomes? Thanks Mr. Science.
I have not even read your entire post and there are already errors. You say that if the woman is pregnant, the morning after pill can prevent implantation. How can a woman be pregnant if IMPLANTATION HAS NOT YET OCCURRED? Look up the definition of pregnancy. You will see that a woman is not pregnant until implantation has occurred. You can't have an abortion if you aren't pregnant.
Also, while you're at it, look up the definition of baby. I can assure you that a fertilized egg is not included in that definition. Stop trying to pretend that you are spouting any kind of factual information.
Jen, Logic is one of those nuts who, like the Duggars, ascribe to the "Quiver-full" movement. The more children, the better! Never too many!
He's a nut. Pure and simple. Emphasis on the simple.
@Logic, can I assume you either send your children to private schools or pay enough in taxes to cover the (at least where I live) $13,000 pluss a year for public school? You also reject tax breaks for you children and have a few million saved that you'd use to care for your child if he or she ever became mentally disabled and would not be able to care for him or herself or hold a job?
Funny, Saraswati, I was thinking about some of the same questions, particularly the one about public schools.
This is the life cycle of a human being: http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
That's from a biology reference website (again, not some random pro-life website). Included in the life cycle of a human being is the fertilized egg. The argument here seems to be that you believe that life begins at implantation (what you are calling pregnancy). But if a fertilized egg is the beginning of the human life cycle (scientific definition), then how does your version compute? If I'm wrong, please prove me wrong. I want to convince you because I hope you really care about the truth (for the sake of argument, let's say that you really care about the real truth about everything in the world and don't want to live a lie. And no, I'm not saying that you are, or that you do want that.)
Logic, you made the claim that the statistics I posted regarding contraceptives were completely inaccurate. I see you have yet to produce any cites for your claims at all. Where are they? Or do you just do what it appears you do-make up crap to suit your beliefs?
Illogic, by your measure, life begins with the sperm. Therefore, if you do not use every one of yours, you are killing a potential life.
You doofus. Every medical dictionary defined pregnancy as beginning with implantation. LIFE begins long before fertilization or even s3x. So what? That isn't the issue. What IS the issue is when pregnancy begins and it doesn't begin until implantation. You can stomp your feet and wail all you want, you moron, but you're simply incorrect. If you don't want to use contraceptives, fine. Don't. You and HL do not have the right to deny anyone else coverage for them. That's all there is to it. If you don't like the law, you can try to change it. Good luck with that.
Actually I home-school my children, I don't get any kind of voucher so I pay taxes that pay for other children to go to public schools, all of my children (other than the youngest) score in the high to highest percentiles in the standards of learning tests each year, including an autistic child that does not receive state or federal assistance money, and I am prepared to work and take care of any of these children if that became necessary. I don't have millions saved up, but I put my money where my mouth is.
Logic – the collection of cells you say is a human being has no: brain , or nervous system ... CANNOT feel, think, it is simply a collection of cells. Just come out a say what your agenda really is....
and dont give me that garbage about caring.....If you cared you wouldnt take the position you are taking.
I wonder what you'll do if one of your kids happens to be gay or gets pregnant, Logic. I grew up around some friends who came from families like yours. Two of them got pregnant in high school. The third had two abortions before she turned twenty. All 3 from Bible-thumper families.
If you want to have a conversation/debate about this topic, I'm glad to do it. But continuing to go into name calling is no way to have a civilized debate. No, life does not begin with a sperm. A human life begins when that sperm meets an egg. Science books say that. Not propaganda, science books.
It's not 'my version' of when pregnancy begins. It's scientific fact. Look it up. It does not say 'jen's definition of pregnancy'.
The point of this discussion is whether the morning after pill causes abortions. It does not.
When does life begin? Is it conception? At what point during conception? Conception itself is a process. It's irrelevant to me. An ant has a life but I don't feel too guilty when I step on one. To me, a fetus becomes a person when it can be supported outside the womb. That is my opinion and you are welcome to yours. However my opinion just so happens to coincide with the law. Lucky me :)
And I personally believe having lots of kids like the duggers is irresponsible in an overpopulated world. But that's my opinion. I wouldn't tell someone they can't keep popping out as many as they want. See how I would never enforce my beliefs on you? You may want to try it.
I also think homeschooling turns kids into unsocialized weirdos. Just my opinion. I wouldn't try to enforce that opinion by trying to get you to enroll your kids in public school. Isn't freedom to make your own choices great?
@logic...........................This is not about "assumption" You know what happens when you "assume". Bottom line NOBODY KNOWS IF SHE IS PREGNANT. That like arresting someone because you "assume" they will mug you.
If you have been reading this blog, there are a ton of people against Obamacare. They say it INFRINGES on their rights.
You didn't say what state you're in. I'm in NY. I know adults without healthcare, so their kids are out of luck.
Medicare isn't an option for everyone.
Please grow up. Birth control is not an abortion. NO PREGNANCY, NO ABORTION
Spare me your phony crooked christian morals crap. You are the same person that supported mutt romney. The man that wanted to cut and gut programs parents and kids need to survive.
You know why the govt takes money out of your pockets? To provide for the programs that support kids. YOU want to ADD MORE KIDS that we cant take care of.
YOUR beliefs don't work. I bet you prayed for mutt romney to win. How did that work out for ya?
I meant to say MEDICAID. Medicaid is for the poor.
Ken, bottom line, if _nobody knows if she is pregnant_, then why, unlike just about any other situation involving a human life, is the acceptable thing to do to not give the benefit of the doubt that there is a life? As for my state, Virginia. And I'm taking care of my kids, with my money, even though the government takes money to pay for the public schooling that they don't use.
@logic..................It's not ironic a MAN would be against birth control. You don't have any risks while SHE is pregnant. You don't state how many kids you have. How do you keep your lady from getting pregnant if you are having s3x on a regular basis? Share your secret. We can pass this on to the prez. and maybe get that birth control thing changed!
Ken, 4 children, married over a decade, natural family planning.
@logic................You just proved my point. If their are MORE KIDS, you'll have to pay more taxes to school those kids. Just like money is an issue for you, money is an issue for woman who takes birth control or has an abortion. She cant afford the kids!
And I don't have any risks while she is pregnant? These are my children, too. This is my wife. I have to care for her and them, no matter what happens. That's what I signed up for. That's what I'm sticking around to do.
YOUR RISKS! WOMEN HAVE DIED GIVING BIRTH> PLEASE TELL ME HOW MANY MEN HAVE DIED GIVING BIRTH!
Ken, I'm taking care of those 4 children with the money I work hard to earn. I accept that responsibility, as does my wife. As for the other women, they can also choose to abstain, or use natural family planning. It does work, it has for us and others, and clinical research shows that both of those work MUCH better than birth control.
@logic.............You still didn't explain YOUR risks. If natural family planning works. Why does birth control exists? Why is this even an issue? Please stop with the "work hard" We all work hard. I'm at work now. That doesn't make you better than anyone else! I mean no harm. But life is not a bunch of roses for everyone, including those that go to church. Sometimes things don't work the way we planned and we have to make a decision, that's all. WE deserve the right to make that decision for ourselves. Not you or the church.
If having babies is so dangerous, why do so many people risk their lives (or the lives of their loved ones) doing the thing that causes babies (that's what se.x does, regardless of whether you like the outcome or not)? Birth control is not 100% effective. Abortion has very serious risks. People die every year from botched abortions (no, not just "back alley" abortions), infections, drug reactions, etc. People also die from unnecessary c-sections, often brought on by doctor or hospital policies that only "allow" a woman x number of hours to have her baby before they _require_ surgical birth. A c-section is serious abdominal surgery, that carries the all the risks of other major surgical procedures. Yet the doctors or hospitals keep letting it happen, pretty clearly due to convenience and/or the ability to make more money.
Natural family planning works for us, and works for very many people. If doctors can understand a woman's cycles enough to help her get pregnant, a woman can know her own cycles well enough to know when she is and is not likely to get pregnant and avoid having se.x during those times.
.................It's natural for a woman to want a child. At the same time you cannot deny the risks. Which is the reason why women should have the right to choose. Because they can DIE giving birth. You mentioned doctors. Women that do not have healthcare usually don't go to doctors to have their cycles figured out so they cant get pregnant. That is why universal healthcare is so important to the mothers health as well as the child.
Ken, risking losing my wife, and the mother of my children is something that I do not take lightly. She is risking her life. I am risking losing the person I signed up to spend the rest of my life with. And there is also a certain amount of risk for the baby. That all comes with the territory. Human life cannot continue without procreation. Somebody has to take the chance, or that's it, game over. But, people have been having babies since the beginning of time. And without doctors, hospitals, or any of the modern amenities, for MOST of that time.
As for the comment about hard work, my apologies, I also meant and mean no harm. And I too am at work. I am self-employed and thankfully get to work at home most of the time, which allows me to help my wife and kids directly quite often. Life is no bunch of roses for me either (raising an autistic child, caring for a wife recently diagnosed with a neurological disease, downturn in the economy, increase in taxes, etc.) and I'm very familiar with life not going as I planned it. I make my decisions based on my life situations and what my religious beliefs say is and is not OK to do. Question though, if not from God, then from whom do you get the "right" to make a decision for yourself? (or rephrased: "what is the basis for your morality/ethics?")
This is a serious question, one I asked myself some 14 years ago, and it changed how I saw everything. I used to say all of the things you are saying to me. After LOTS of research, I simply can not accept them as true anymore. You don't have to answer this question, though. But if you don't, then how does everything else add up? Why are some things "just wrong"? (Like something you might say "oh, that's just plain wrong" about, for contextual clarity)
@logic................As far as abortions being dangerous, You've heard the saying, "all surgeries have risks" People have died from heart surgery. Yet their still is heart surgery. You have to weigh the odds, not ignore them.
@logic.............You like me read some tough stuff in these blogs. Some compliment some sting. My position is this. What does the least harm. Letting a woman take birth control to prevent pregnancy, forcing a woman to have a child she cant take care of or her having a abortion. Birth control is the less of the three evils I guess.
Gotta go home. good luck to you and your family and get home safe.
Ken, people can die doing many things. You weigh the risks, you take the chances that are prudent. That's how life works. As for figuring out your menstrual cycles (well, not yours, but you understand, heh), I can give a woman a brochure that explains it in just a few short pages, including diagrams, a chart and photos. It's not rocket science. When a woman is not taking birth control pills, she usually will have regular cycles with specific signs that identify where she is in that cycle. It is extremely effective if practiced correctly (i.e. done as instructed, not just "oh whatever"). Brochure cost? Free. I donate money to pay for the printing and distribution of such things.
I'm not specifically for or against the concept of universal healthcare. But, I disagree that abortion and contraception count as healthcare. Killing an innocent life isn't healthcare.
extremely accurate and well articulated points. well done!
Ken, abortion has been linked to a high risk of breast cancer (source http://www.apocpcontrol.org/paper_file/issue_abs/Volume13_No5/2179-84%204.17%20Che%20Yanhua.pdf), as well as many other physical and psychological problems. Having a baby is _very significantly_ safer than having an abortion. As for what does the least harm, harm to whom? The baby is a whom. The baby can't speak up or defend his or her self. Who then will stand up to defend the defenseless, vulnerable and innocent? I do, and will continue to do so. They deserve it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Thanks for being willing to have a civil conversation about this topic. We may still disagree, but it's nice to at least be able to have a dialogue. I work at home, so I'm already here, but thanks for the thought and you be safe, too.
Nope, no link between breast cancer and abortion. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
Nice try. As well, many more women suffer from psychological and physical problems from pregnancy thaen from abortion. I am one of the ones that has ongoing physical issues from being pregnant. And though I've never had psychological issues beyond baby blues, 10 PERCENT of women suffer from pre and post natal depression. That number is huge. Looks like no one should be getting pregnant.
As for natural family planning, that is a TERRIBLE birth control method. Do you know that the MAJORITY of women do not have regular cycles? That makes natural family planning impossible. Even trying to track your fertile signs (cervical mucus, position of cervix, etc) is subjective at best. Works for you? Great. The pulling out method worked 100 percent of the time for my husband and I as well. Doesn't mean I would recommend it as a birth control method.
Logic, please stop trying to educate people on women's cycles. You have no idea about what you are talking about beyond your own experience (well not even yours – your wife's) and copying and pasting from web md. It's laughable.
Brava, Jen. Don't you love Chard's little cheerleading act?
I notice Logic didn't answer my question. I asked him to provide statistics that show that what I posted from Guttmacher was inaccurate. He couldn't do so. He claims he and his wifey use NFP. If that's the case, and they have 4 kids, then how much of the time has SHE spent trying NOT to get pregnant by avoiding s#x when she might conceive? And I'll bet at least one of those kids wasn't in the "plan."
Logic is also unable to refute the fact that sperm and eggs are alive. Life begins long before a pregnancy occurs. Both are alive. Deny it all you will, Logic, but you are wrong. The issue is NOT whether there is "life" but whether there is a pregnancy. There isn't one before implantation. And no matter what you believe, those are facts.
And Logic? Your link, as well as your information, doesn't work.
A study done recently of a very large group of women found that those who'd had abortions were no more likely to suffer mental illness than those who didn't. Too bad you choose to ignore information that doesn't fall in line with your myopic views and you'll pretend you never saw this post.
S-ex always leads to babies? I must have a lot of invisible kids running around.
I'm sure Tom that if you do get an answer it will not actually answer your question but just be some cut and paste from web md about what happens during conception (even though unlike Logic I didn't have to go to web md as I already know how conception works). He also didn't answer my question about what point during conception 'life' begins? (as he incorrectly assumes conception is a single moment in time rather than a process in itself). Is it when the sperm starts to burrow? When it's head makes it in? The tail? that's okay. Chad wasn't able to answer the question either. You would have to know what you are talking about to answer that question.
As for a man taking the 'risk' of pregnancy, I find that extremely offensive. You'll have to excuse me if my husband's welfare wasn't the utmost concern on my mind while I was bleeding out during my first labour, or while I was losing consciousness while my blood pressure dropped during my second c-section. Call me selfish, but I think he got the raw end of the deal, being that..you know, if the worst happened he gets to stay alive and all.....
I mean did 'not' get the raw deal
"Nope, no link between breast cancer and abortion." Not like a government website or agency has ever ever been wrong, right?
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/09/05/eurpub.cks107.abstract (This December 2012 study from Denmark points to a significant increase in earlier mortality among women that have single or multiple abortions compared to those that have babies)
Also, my wife also has post-pregnancy related physical issues (damage to the abdominal muscles caused diastasis recti and abdominal hernias).
"As for natural family planning, that is a TERRIBLE birth control method." Studies show that the STM (sympto-thermal method, the one that my wife and I use) is at least as effective as the pill, if used correctly (and it can be used correctly). If that is terrible, then why the huge deal about paying for the pill?
"Do you know that the MAJORITY of women do not have regular cycles? That makes natural family planning impossible." Not true. Sympto-thermal method uses both temperature shift _and_ cervical mucus/position information and has proven in many studies to be very effective (I known from personal experience, not one of our four children came from a time when we were looking to postpone pregnancy). As for the pulling out method working for you, you gambled and won. But research most certainly does not support it as a reliable method of not getting pregnant (glad you wouldn't recommend it). Plus that option is not one that I can morally use.
I will continue to try to educate women on women's cycles (hmmm, lots of male ob/gyns out there, huh?) because I know how it works from actual experience (I don't have to be a woman to know if it worked).
Page 6 the Guttmacher study you quoted shows that 11 percent of the women in the study reported that they used no birth control at all, and 2 percent reported using only natural family planning. 99+11+2 does not equal 100%. And that's not the only inconsistency in that report. Again, Guttmacher was formed by Planned Parenthood, the LARGEST ABORTION PROVIDER in the US. Chance of bias there?
Spe.rm and eggs are living things, but they are not living people. A spe.rm cannot grow up to be a human being. An egg cannot grow up to be a human being. Only the combination of the two can become an individual human life. Living cells does not equal a human life. But a fertilized egg with chromosomes (that make it male or female) and unique DNA does. This is scientific.
And I don't need to cut and paste from WebMD to know what I know, I have many years of knowledge and use sources like WebMD to back up what I'm saying. When the spe.rm makes it all the way into the egg, the egg changes (cortical reaction) and no other spe.rm is able to get inside. At that same time, the egg changes into a zygote, the first phase of human life. That is when the egg and spe.rm have changed into something that specifically meets the characteristics of a living thing. That living thing will not grow up to be a chicken, a pancreas, a flower, or anything else. It is human.
"S-ex always leads to babies? I must have a lot of invisible kids running around."
Nobody ever said that se.x _always_ leads to babies. It IS in fact how babies are made, though. Shaking hands doesn't get you pregnant. That's one of the reasons se.x exists (procreation).
But your website is right? So the research is inconclusive. The research about the risks of pregnancy is not. In fact, my life is most likely going to be shortened due to my pregnancies. You agree then that I should have aborted right? You don't? Well that's hypocritical to say the least.
Well considering you believe the pulling out method is immoral (yikes), you and your wife probably don't have s-x anywhere near ovulation (as you can still sometimes get pregnant before egg white cervical mucus shows up and basal body temperature doesn't really help – only shifts AFTER ovulation), you probably wouldn't have any failure. Unfortunately that means abstaining almost a week before ovulation. For those of us that don't want to have a terrible s-x life by having to schedule it, we will pick a better birth control method (also, nature makes sure that s-x feels best for women during ovulation, so NFP is unfair to women anyway).
Men who advocate NFP wold probably be shocked to find out how many women secretly use birth control pills to regulate fertiltiy.
@Jen...................I was surprised when logic said he was taking a "risk". You know a lot more about a woman and pregnancy than ANY man would. There isn't enough schooling in world to make up that knowledge. You carried the argument 10x better than I ever could. I wonder if logic's wife knows what he is blogging?
What friggin' "risk" does Logic take when his wife is pregnant or gives birth?
I swear, this guy is just as much a lying sack as Chard, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were one and the same.
I think you had some great points Ken. It baffles me that Logic creates brochures for natural family planning (really weird for a man to be trying to instruct a woman on how to 'track her cycles'). And you're right. Women know a lot more about their bodies then men do. That's why my OB gyn is a female, who has a true understanding of what pregnancy is about. Logic states that most women have regular cycles. NOT TRUE. Most women do not get their periods every 28 days (or 30 days, etc). So he is misinforming people as well. I know why NFP works for him and his wife. They wait until after ovulation each cycle. That's at least half a month (usually more) of abstaining. No thanks on the boring s-x life.
Also (and I'm just speculating), Logic's wife is probably a pretty repressed woman (I'm thinking a Michelle Duggar type). If you think pulling out is immoral, you're pretty far from mainstream. I'm guessing they have a 'traditional' marriage where he is head of household, she gets to stay home and cook and clean, the kids are home schooled to keep them from the 'evils' of public school, etc, etc. Aka, my worst nightmare.
First, did I say that the risks were equal? No. Does risking losing my wife amount to anything at all? Yes. Of course the woman takes the higher health risk when having a baby. Despite your insult-hurling, I'm not an idiot.
So, losing your wife isn't a risk? I guess if you don't care about them for anything more than free access to se.x, that makes sense. My kids would just be fine if mommy died, wouldn't have any negative effects on them at all. Right... (that was sarcasm, in case you weren't able to figure that out)
"You agree then that I should have aborted right? You don't? Well that's hypocritical to say the least."
How on earth is it hypocritical? I do not believe that there is _any_ justification for abortion. Period. No hypocracy there.
"Well considering you believe the pulling out method is immoral (yikes),"
I practice my religion faithfully. Pulling out is removing the procreative part of se.x. NFP is open to procreation, that's why it's not wrong. God didn't say anywhere that we are required to have se.x every time the wife is fertile, just to be open to life whenever we do. And there's nothing wrong with having se.x when the wife is not fertile.
"... you and your wife probably don't have s-x anywhere near ovulation (as you can still sometimes get pregnant before egg white cervical mucus shows up and basal body temperature doesn't really help – only shifts AFTER ovulation), you probably wouldn't have any failure. Unfortunately that means abstaining almost a week before ovulation."
So for about three weeks out of an average cycle (my wife has a _very_ regular 29 day cycle, which appears to be right in line with the statistical average I see listed all over the place), there's nothing in the way of us having se.x at any time, as many times as we'd like (assuming children ever fall asleep, that's what we get for having two dominant night owl genes...).
"For those of us that don't want to have a terrible s-x life by having to schedule it, we will pick a better birth control method."
NFP has _proven_ in clinical trials to be _as reliable_ as the pill (about 1.8 per 100), so the question does not seem to be a "better" birth control method, but simply you wanting to do it while fertile with no consequences. Right now, we don't do it when she's fertile specifically because she was recently diagnosed with MS and the medications are not compatible with pregnancy (serious likelihood for birth defects or miscarriage).
"(also, nature makes sure that s-x feels best for women during ovulation, so NFP is unfair to women anyway)."
Yes, "nature" did make sure that it feels good when you're fertile. Maybe "nature" is telling you something? Like "I want you to have babies"?
"Men who advocate NFP wold probably be shocked to find out how many women secretly use birth control pills to regulate fertiltiy."
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some women that do that, but my wife doesn't. We both truly believe what our religion tells us and live our lives based on that. My wife also doesn't lie.
"I swear, this guy is just as much a lying sack as Chard, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were one and the same."
I don't even know who "Chard" is. And real nice how often you like to make accusations and hurl insults. Show me where I've done the same.
"It baffles me that Logic creates brochures for natural family planning (really weird for a man to be trying to instruct a woman on how to 'track her cycles'). And you're right. Women know a lot more about their bodies then men do. That's why my OB gyn is a female, who has a true understanding of what pregnancy is about."
I'm not going around trying to instruct women on how to track their cycles, that's what the brochure does. I donate money to organizations that do the research, print the brochures, and distribute them to women so they can learn how to do it. These were researched by both men _AND_ women. And I'm 100% in agreement with you about female OB/GYNs, I think they're the obvious better choice. (WOW, we agree about something!)
"Logic states that most women have regular cycles. NOT TRUE. Most women do not get their periods every 28 days (or 30 days, etc). So he is misinforming people as well."
Show me the data to back that up. All I can find, and what I know from my wife and other NFP users like her, is that "usually" people have "regular" cycles (roughly every X number of days). She sure does. I see plenty of references saying that about 30% of women have irregular cycles during their reproductive years. Wouldn't that mean that about 70% have regular cycles? Good thing I "believe" in math.
"I know why NFP works for him and his wife. They wait until after ovulation each cycle. That's at least half a month (usually more) of abstaining. No thanks on the boring s-x life."
No, actually less than half a month of abstaining, and our se.x life continues to not be boring, even after almost 12 years. And the Catholics are supposedly the ones that are obsessed with se.x?
"Also (and I'm just speculating), Logic's wife is probably a pretty repressed woman (I'm thinking a Michelle Duggar type)."
HAH! She's a New Yorker. Guess again.
"If you think pulling out is immoral, you're pretty far from mainstream."
Devout Catholics cannot pull out. Plain and simple, it's immoral. Despite how many Catholics are non-practicing, there are A WHOLE LOT of practicing Catholics out there.
"I'm guessing they have a 'traditional' marriage where he is head of household, she gets to stay home and cook and clean, the kids are home schooled to keep them from the 'evils' of public school, etc, etc. Aka, my worst nightmare."
Lots of assumptions. I am indeed the "head of the household" (again, in line with my religious beliefs) but I do ALL of the cooking AND cleaning AND diaper changing AND laundry AND driving AND much more. My wife is disabled. I gladly do all of these things for her and our family. She does most of the home-schooling, though I am involved in the parts that best fit my skill sets (technology, science *gasp*, crafts, tools, etc.), and she helps to run our business. That's what Love is all about. Selfless giving, not just some "feelings".
Anyway, I have tried to remain very civil, answer questions, ask more, and offer information with sources from my side of the debate. In return though, I have been called names, insulted, accused of lying, and treated quite rudely. And now you start insulting my wife. I truly believe that you should treat someone as you would have them treat you. Is this how you like to be treated?
I never insulted you or your wife. Saying that I think you have a boring s-x life is not an insult (and if you are telling the truth about when you have s-x it means you are having it while she is getting her period – I don't know any religion that is okay with that – plus it's gross). And I don't care where your wife is from, she is repressed. Any woman that does not get an EQUAL say in decisions made in the household is repressed. My husband and I discuss issues and compromise when needed. THAT is real LOVE. REAL LOVE is not when someone is superior in the relationship by getting the final say. That is the opposite of love.
'Roughly' is NOT a regular period. If you have a 28 day cycle one month and a 29 day cycle the next, you are not getting regular cycles. And that is how most women are (including EVERY SINGLE woman I know). And we all know that all it takes is being off ONE DAY to get pregnant.....
My husband is a practicing Catholic and neither of us have ever met a Catholic that does not use birth control. 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control...so no....you're not mainstream....sorry. Also a woman being submissive (i cant even type that without getting the creeps thinking about it) to her husband...not mainstream unless you live in the year 1800.
"I never insulted you or your wife."
Calling her a repressed "Michelle Duggar" type wasn't an insult? And yet the life she lives is your "worst nightmare"? Whether you specifically meant it as an insult or not, it was taken as insulting. Your intentions do not erase the effects of your actions.
"Saying that I think you have a boring s-x life is not an insult (and if you are telling the truth about when you have s-x it means you are having it while she is getting her period – I don't know any religion that is okay with that – plus it's gross)."
I didn't take that part as an insult, actually, just an incorrect statement. I don't know what floats your boat, nor do you about me, so who are you to say what's boring? Purely subjective matter. As for se.x during menstruation, it isn't a sin for Catholics, period (insert rimshot here... couldn't resist). And again, what bothers you isn't the same as what bothers me.
"And I don't care where your wife is from, she is repressed. Any woman that does not get an EQUAL say in decisions made in the household is repressed. My husband and I discuss issues and compromise when needed. THAT is real LOVE. REAL LOVE is not when someone is superior in the relationship by getting the final say. That is the opposite of love."
I'm guessing you've never heard the term "spiritual head of the household"? My wife and I share EQUALLY the responsibilities of decision making in our house. Financial, education, you name it. But, when we can't come to a final decision or compromise on some things, she willingly submits to my decision. Submission is _not_ repression. She is not being forced to do it, she willingly submits to her husband. That is love. That is also a LOT of RESPONSIBILITY on my part, specifically the responsibility to treat her fairly and make good decisions on her and my family's behalf. I accept that responsibility and am _obliged_ not to let her and them down.
"'Roughly' is NOT a regular period. If you have a 28 day cycle one month and a 29 day cycle the next, you are not getting regular cycles. And that is how most women are (including EVERY SINGLE woman I know). And we all know that all it takes is being off ONE DAY to get pregnant....."
Your definitions of "regular" and "irregular" don't seem to be in synch with everything else I've seen out there. Some sources would be helpful.
"My husband is a practicing Catholic and neither of us have ever met a Catholic that does not use birth control. 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control...so no....you're not mainstream....sorry. Also a woman being submissive (i cant even type that without getting the creeps thinking about it) to her husband...not mainstream unless you live in the year 1800."
Number 1: You haven't "met" me, but neither I nor my wife use "birth control", so now you know of two.
Number 2: 98% of Catholic women do not use birth control. Source please.
Number 3: Submission does not equal obedience (blind or otherwise). My mission as a husband is to love my wife as Christ loves the Church. That means my job is to do whatever I can to get her (and my family, btw) to heaven, even at the cost of my life. We're also called to "submit to each other in reverence to Christ". Her part is to submit (be "under the mission", namely my mission) to me, and let me love her (not talking about se.x, talking about _love_). This isn't some por.nographic movie.
And if your husband is a practicing Catholic and using contraception, he is committing grave sins. Same thing with supporting abortion, also gravely sinful. If he doesn't believe me, he can check the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM) for himself (_ALL_ Catholics are _bound_ to the laws in the Catechism, no exceptions). I'm not saying this as some sort of zinger, his soul is in danger. I don't want anyone to end up suffering eternally for their sins. That's why I have these debates.
Why the morning after pill is not abortion......
Because the morning after pill prevents ovulation. That's it'. Nothing else.
It does not induce abortion of a fertilized egg. It does absolutely nothing if an egg has already been released.
All it does....is prevent ovulation. No egg.....not even an unfertilized egg.
So for those who think the morning after pill is an abortion pill...tell me again how an abortion can occur if there is no egg to begin with?
Well I apologize if I offended you, but I would hate to be in your wife's shoes. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it's the truth. The way you describe her willingly submitting to your decision when you disagree reminds me of a parent child relationship. So far from equal. I'm sure your wife is a nice person (and I'm sorry she has MS – that's a terrible disease), but if all women were like her we still would not have the vote, we wouldn't be CEOs of large corporations, etc etc.
You are right about the menstruation thing, even though the bible is quite clearly against it (oh well, don't want to start a bible debate here).
And you and I are talking about two different things when discussing cycles. You are thinking of cycles under 21 days and over 35, and I'm talking about something different. My point is that most women can't use what day she is in her cycle for NFP. She has to do things that are a pain in the -ss in my opinion.
98 percent of women (some argue it is only 89 percent – huge percentage either way).
My husband is aware of Catholic doctrine. He doesn't buy all of it. That's fine that you think he's not going to be saved. If you are having these debates to try to save people, you should be using your time more wisely. Btw, I'm agnostic, and I'm totally fine with you thinking that I'm going to burn in h-ll. Doesn't bother me in the least.
@jen..............I told logic in another post that I'm not trying to change his mind. I want to get other bloggers on my side. You'll never see eye to eye on birth control or abortion. You and I are winning this war. the ACA is more popular. And a bill was put up to add an public option. My guy won 2 terms, dems gained in the house and senate. In short there are more that see things your way than logic's way.
@geo..............My argument is you never know if she is pregnant. There's no confirmation. She has her period as if she had no s3x at all.
"Well I apologize if I offended you, but I would hate to be in your wife's shoes. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it's the truth. The way you describe her willingly submitting to your decision when you disagree reminds me of a parent child relationship. So far from equal. I'm sure your wife is a nice person (and I'm sorry she has MS – that's a terrible disease), but if all women were like her we still would not have the vote, we wouldn't be CEOs of large corporations, etc etc."
I'm too tired to argue with you anymore about this, so I'll just leave it at you don't understand and you don't seem interested in trying to understand, but you're wrong anyway. But it does take a tremendous amount of honesty and trust for _both_ of us.
"You are right about the menstruation thing, even though the bible is quite clearly against it (oh well, don't want to start a bible debate here)."
Well, since you're an agnostic, have you spent any time reading the "entire" bible? Taking parts out of context does not equal understanding something "quite clearly". Se.x during "the menses" (menstruation) was indeed sinful, in the _Old Testament_. The New Testament changed a lot of that (seeing as how the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Saviour was born and all that), and therefore we are not bound by Old Tesatement laws that have been replaced or removed (Jesus had the power to remove or replace those laws, seeing as how He is God, and He had the authority to name Peter the first Pope, and bestow the right to set the rules and lead the Church). Debate finished.
"And you and I are talking about two different things when discussing cycles. You are thinking of cycles under 21 days and over 35, and I'm talking about something different. My point is that most women can't use what day she is in her cycle for NFP. She has to do things that are a pain in the -ss in my opinion."
Your opinion doesn't change the results of several clinical trials that prove the effectiveness of NFP to be as effective as the pill. These trials weren't with a handful of women that were special. One trial alone tested just shy of 1000 women. As for "pain in the you-know-what", here's the STM in a nutshell:
– take your temp each morning (wow, so complicated, especially considering the chunk of change you must have with your MBA and all... no problem buying one of those fancy thermometers that you swipe across your forehead, not that they're particularly expensive anyway...)
– chart it (I help with this part, maybe your husband might help you? Or forget that, just get an app!)
– check your mucus and chart that (not complicated at all)
– review your chart and look for the patterns described in the instructions
You got an MBA and THIS is a pain?
"98 percent of women (some argue it is only 89 percent – huge percentage either way)."
Here's a _very serious_ clarification. The report says "...have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point." That is VERY differnt than "use". VERY MISLEADING.
"My husband is aware of Catholic doctrine. He doesn't buy all of it."
A "practicing Catholic" has to "buy all of it", or else why bother? Neither you, nor I, nor he can redefine what is the Catholic Church's to define.
"That's fine that you think he's not going to be saved. If you are having these debates to try to save people, you should be using your time more wisely. Btw, I'm agnostic, and I'm totally fine with you thinking that I'm going to burn in h-ll. Doesn't bother me in the least."
Using my time trying to convince people to seriously consider the Truth (capital T intentional) is a wise use of time. Praying for those people is also a wise use of that time, and regardless of our differences and what you and your husband may think, I'll keep praying for you. Every soul is worth the effort.
"Because the morning after pill prevents ovulation. That's it'. Nothing else."
E. Beaulieu, the inventor of RU 486 (the morning after pill) said "interruption of pregnancy after fertilization can be regarded in the same way as abortion" ("Il punto sull'RU486", JAMA—Italian ed., 2 , p. 12). A product which prevents implantation is therefore abortifacient. Do you think that he is pro-life or something?
"I told logic in another post that I'm not trying to change his mind. I want to get other bloggers on my side. You'll never see eye to eye on birth control or abortion. You and I are winning this war. the ACA is more popular. And a bill was put up to add an public option. My guy won 2 terms, dems gained in the house and senate. In short there are more that see things your way than logic's way."
51% of Americans say that they think abortion is morally wrong, compared to only 38% that think it's acceptable.
Also, 50% of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, while 41% identify as pro-choice.
Agreed Ken! We are winning. I think it is hilarious that people think the Republicans plan to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not going to happen. Why do you think Bush never did it? Even after appointing right wing conservatives? The Republican presidential candidate dangles the abortion issue like a carrot every election and people fall for it hook, line and sinker every time. It's ingenious. Meanwhile the Republicans that would actually spend their entire terms to overturn Roe vs. Wade (the super crazy Todd Akin and Richard Mourdouck come to mind), can't even get elected in their conservative red states. Why? Because most people don't want Roe vs. Wade overturned (see survey that was just published that is on this belief blog). Including 63 percent of Catholics. What Logic fails to admit (and what all research supports) is that the majority of people identify themselves as both pro choice and pro life. And trying to inst.itute a system where abortion is only legal in certain cases like r-pe would be impossible (how is a woman that can't prove she was r-ped because she was too ashamed to report it going to get an abortion?). That's why reasonable people don't want it overturned.
And Logic, I understand exactly what the the Bible says about women. It's the reason why women have continued to be treated like second class citizens for the last 2000 years. Women are nothing more than property in the bible (but hey, Jesus says to love said property so that makes it all okay). And I also know how the Christian religions love to cherry pick the Old Testament (all the anti-gay stuff in it is perfect fine), and then provide illogical and unreasonable arguments for cherry picking. I believe a marriage where only one of the adults is 'spiritual' head of household is immoral. And hey, if I believe it's immoral then it's true! I obviously can't believe things that aren't true!
Thanks again Mr. Science on how basal body temping works (once again you seem to think as a woman that I have no knowledge of how my body works even though I have given COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE otherwise – and you wonder why I have come to the conclusion that you think your wife is unintelligent – because you continue to treat me as unintelligent). It is a pain in the _ss. I did it for my first pregnancy. When my baby needs to be fed or my toddler is crying first thing in the morning, the last thing I have time to do is sit really still and take my temperature (plus my toddler removes the things off my nightstand regularly – so looking for a thermometer every night under someone's bed or couch is not something I'm interested in doing). And if someone like me is too lazy to do it, so are the majority of other women (why do you think that women are now going for birth control shots rather than taking the pill – part of that is sheer laziness). And sorry, but the NFP 'success' stories are not typical college educated women. Less than 2% of women use NFP. The majority that use it are people that actually believe they are going to burn in h-ll if they use a condom for s_x. Very far from your average woman. And the 98% of Catholic women using birth control is accurate. Who cares how many times they have used it? They aren't regretting and repenting for it because they think there is nothing wrong with it (these are the Catholics that I hang out with). If they haven't repented for using it....well we know where they are going right?
I don't want your prayers but you can do whatever you want. It's a free country (not that you want it to be). One more thing:
RU 486 IS NOT THE MORNING AFTER PILL. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED A LIAR THEN STOP LYING!!!!!
Just a little tip from me to you :)
From the Plan B One Step website:
3. How does Plan B® One-Step work?
Emergency contraception is similar to a birth control pill, and works primarily by:
– Preventing ovulation
– Possibly preventing fertilization by altering tubular transport of sperm and/or egg
– Altering the endometrium, which may _inhibit implantation_
Also from their website (the manufacturer):
How does Plan B One-Step® work?
Plan B One-Step® is one pill that has a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for several decades. Plan B One-Step® works in a similar way to help prevent pregnancy from happening. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of the sperm with the egg) or by _preventing attachment (implantation)_ to the uterus (womb).
Thanks for just confirming you are a liar by posting that Plan B is the morning after pill. RU 486 is not.
"RU-486 was first promoted as a "morning after pill" to be used after unprotected inter.course."
So now we're clear that both RU-486 (the abortion pill, and first "morning after pill") and Plan B (the current "morning after pill") BOTH prevent implantation.
Keep ignoring the FACTS Jen, but the truth doesn't change.
I'm not cherry picking from the Bible, but you said you didn't want a Bible debate. You clearly do not understand "exactly" what it says in the Bible, and you've shown through your words and actions that you do not care what it says. I can back up my position, how bout you?
"Thanks again Mr. Science on how basal body temping works (once again you seem to think as a woman that I have no knowledge of how my body works even though I have given COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE otherwise – and you wonder why I have come to the conclusion that you think your wife is unintelligent – because you continue to treat me as unintelligent)."
If I, a MAN, can figure out basal temperature, then surely a woman can figure it out. Next, I do not think my wife is unintelligent, in fact I am certain that she is more intelligent than I am (with clinical testing to prove it). You, on the other hand, have an MBA and keep posting things that defy logic.
"It is a pain in the _ss. I did it for my first pregnancy. When my baby needs to be fed or my toddler is crying first thing in the morning, the last thing I have time to do is sit really still and take my temperature (plus my toddler removes the things off my nightstand regularly – so looking for a thermometer every night under someone's bed or couch is not something I'm interested in doing)."
Been there, done that. And why do you leave potential chokable items in the reach of a toddler?
"And if someone like me is too lazy to do it, so are the majority of other women (why do you think that women are now going for birth control shots rather than taking the pill – part of that is sheer laziness)."
Thanks for admitting what I had suspected but could not find a nice way of asking. Nevertheless, just because you're lazy does not mean that others are. Laziness doesn't excuse responsibility. "Wahhhh, I was too lazy to use birth control and now I'm pregnant, SO UNFAIR!" Garbage.
"And sorry, but the NFP 'success' stories are not typical college educated women."
I'm not even sure what you're saying here. Is it that you think people that are using NFP are less educated or more educated?
"Less than 2% of women use NFP. The majority that use it are people that actually believe they are going to burn in h-ll if they use a condom for s_x. Very far from your average woman."
Number of users does not change effectiveness. The studies I've seen that show NFP as effective as the pill had MORE NFP users in the data pool than pill users. Skewed statistics? I think not.
"And the 98% of Catholic women using birth control is accurate. Who cares how many times they have used it? They aren't regretting and repenting for it because they think there is nothing wrong with it (these are the Catholics that I hang out with). If they haven't repented for using it....well we know where they are going right?"
Wow. Here's an example of what you just said. I am a Catholic male and I "have ever used birth control" within the statistical age group mentioned in that study (yes, I'm male, doesn't matter for my point). BUT, 15 years ago I actually decided to think about my mortality and the meaning of life and started to practice my religion (repentance, forgiveness, change). Since then I have NOT used ANY birth control, only abstinence and NFP. THAT IS IT. Considering many Catholics don't know that all forms of artificial contraception are immoral (due to things like the lack of or bad catechesis, misinformation, some priests that don't know or care, etc.) or the ones that "don't buy all of it", that's a lot of Catholics that are committing sins whether they know it or not (it's purely objective, though if they're misinformed or are unaware, their culpability is certainly reduced). I changed, I've met MANY people that changed. And my guess is that the "Catholics [you] hang out with", if they're friends of your husband (that "doesn't buy all of it"), might also not buy all of it, or might be misinformed, or might even not know. The Catechism and Code of Canon Law exist and the rules are in there. That doesn't mean that people will bother to check (maybe they're lazy, too? I certainly was!). Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE.
"It's a free country (not that you want it to be)."
I'm the one that is not "free" as defined in the Consti.tution of these United States of America.
'we used to think the world was flat. Therefore, it's not wrong to continue to say the world is flat.'. Hilarious.
Of course I'm sure you read that it is no longer a morning after pill because it was discovered that it DOESN'T WORK THE MORNING AFTER. But let's still call it the morning after pill. And let's keep saying the world is flat. Thats not a lie right?
And you accuse me of ignoring facts – another lie. I've never said that the morning after pill can't cause implantation to occur – I know it can keep them from occurring. You are the one that keeps calling the morning after pill an anti abortifacient. You're the liar.
But keep on lying Logic. Your true character continues to shine through.
Oh, and no response to Saraswati calling you out on your boldface lie that abstinence is almost never taught in schools? Even though it is taught (actually promoted) in about 86 percent of schools. Well that's almost never right? And we all know how the abstinence-only education is working out down in the south. All those teens must be getting pregnant because of the lack of religion down there. Oh wait.....
And the lies just keep coming.....
@Jen........You go girl. I'm standing back. I don't want to get trucked by all your wisdom. Please feel better and make sure you tell your kids that Ken said they are lucky to have you as a mom. I know your little girls will grow up to be strong, independent, intelligent women. Those are the qualities I'm instilling in mine.
Awwww...thanks Ken. I was just complimenting you on the other thread before I wrote this (I went a tad bit off on Yeah over there after he called me an idiot about 5 times). Your wife and kids are very lucky to have a husband and father like you!
Now if you excuse me I have to go remove that non-existent thermometer off my nightstand before my toddler chokes on it.....
"Of course I'm sure you read that it is no longer a morning after pill because it was discovered that it DOESN'T WORK THE MORNING AFTER. But let's still call it the morning after pill. And let's keep saying the world is flat. Thats not a lie right?"
It's still used in Europe and China as a morning after pill.
"And you accuse me of ignoring facts – another lie. I've never said that the morning after pill can't cause implantation to occur – I know it can keep them from occurring. You are the one that keeps calling the morning after pill an anti abortifacient. You're the liar."
The FACTS I'm referring to are that Science has come up with the 5 (sometimes more) characteristics of a living thing. A zygote meets those characteristics. If a morning after pill prevents implantation, it is preventing a LIVING THING (a HUMAN one, no less) from continuing to live.
"Oh, and no response to Saraswati calling you out on your boldface lie that abstinence is almost never taught in schools? Even though it is taught (actually promoted) in about 86 percent of schools. Well that's almost never right? And we all know how the abstinence-only education is working out down in the south. All those teens must be getting pregnant because of the lack of religion down there. Oh wait....."
First of all, what I was referring to was federal abstinence programs, and I indeed misremembered what I was thinking of. I apologize for the mistake. BUT, what I had been trying to remember was when President Obama eliminated ALL federal abstinence education funding, meanwhile increasing funding for contraceptive-only education. If this is about "CHOICE", abstinence is a choice (it is the ONLY _100% PERFECT_ way to avoid unwanted pregnancy). You can chime in that "abstinence education doesn't work", and in fact, I would have to agree with you for the most part, specifically because these kids are being given many options in an environment full of peer pressure, and quite often, their main examples for life (their parents) do not practice what they preach. That is clearly a recipe for failure. Now, what I did not know was that the Congress was able to reinstate federal matching-grant funding for abstinence education at the end of 2011. My bad, sorry for missing that.
"And the lies just keep coming....."
Not lies, errors, and I'm willing to admit when I make a mistake.
"Now if you excuse me I have to go remove that non-existent thermometer off my nightstand before my toddler chokes on it....."
For example, I misread what you wrote about the thermometer and your nightstand. Again, my bad, and I'm sorry.
Why is this specific instance a big deal, when Hobby Lobby can just eat a $6/day fine for not providing healthcare coverage at all?
Only for the new members of this blog:
Condoms are available over the counter and cost less than 50 cents/ea. Make the Pill (type dependent on doctor’s evaluation) available over the counter and there will be no more debate. Planned Parenthood can offer deep discounts for those who say they cannot afford said protection.
Or better yet, put a pack of condoms and a box of Pills in cereal boxes. Unfortunately, that would not ensure the condoms and/or Pills would be used. Based on Guttmacher Insti-tute data, said condoms and/or Pills are currently not being used as they should. (one million abortions/yr and 19 million cases of S-TDs/yr because either the daily Pill was not taken or a condom stayed in the pocket.)
Maybe selling Pill-enriched sodas??? Hmmm?
Condom-fitted briefs for men?? Hmmm?
Currently, a perfect contracptive/STD barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, mono-ma-sturbation or mutual ma-sturbation are highly recommended for hete-rose-xuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the se-x drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?
The door is open for other ideas!!!
Environmentally, hormones are not a long-term ideal solution.
Birth control is cheaper than children for everybody. CNN/Money reported that it cost over $230,000 to raise a child from birth to eighteen. Anyone that has children knows kids are expensive and only get more expensive as they get older for everyone. We need to educate our kids in school not just about the physical aspect of s3x, but the financial toll also. Finally we need to grow up. S3x is natural. That is why "god" gave us s3x organs. That is why boys have wet dreams and girls have periods. That is "gods" way of saying go at it.
Next thing you know, the government will mandate that all employers provide Bibles to their employees!
You said, "Next thing you know, the government will mandate that all employers provide Bibles to their employees!"
If there was a scientifically supported benefit of doing so, and it could be done without violating the US Constitution, a case could be made to mandate that. Since neither is the case, I doubt they will.
LinCA, off-topic, but I can't seem to find that whole string of posts between Bob and Gir et al from last night. Bloob was discussing (if you can call it that ) Higgs. It was pretty funny. I can't recall where it was. Do you know?
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
I recall the conversation, but I don't remember which thread it was on. Since I didn't participate, I don't have a reference for you. Sorry.
You said, "Test"
Having trouble getting your comments to post?
CNN uses WordPress blogs for their opinion pieces, and they use automated censoring that looks for words, or fragments of words, that are considered offensive. If your post doesn't show up, it most likely had a forbidden word in it.
On the Belief Blog, repeat posts, even those that were previously censored and not displayed, will show a message stating that you posted it before.
The following words or word fragments will get your post censored (list is incomplete):
arse as in Arsenal
cock as in cockatiel
coon as in cocoon
cum as in circumstance
homo as in homosexual
rape as in grape
sex as in homosexual
spic as in despicable
tit as in constitution or title
vag as in vague
To circumvent the filters you can break up the words by putting an extra character in, like: consti.tution (breaking the oh so naughty "tit").
If you are going for analogy then you should have said "Next thing you know, the government will mandate that all employers help defer the cost of Bibles to their employees! You don't have to buy one, but if you do the government should help you pay for it." I honestly don't think very many Christians would have a problem with that mandate...
although defendant expected to lose initial case, he plans to take "corporate personhood" to the Supreme Court
in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."  This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
This is a Corporate Personhood test issue and not a religious one.
Coporations want to push the envelope on their "rights" for the sake of increased profits. They have little to no concern for the well being of their employees.
Corporate personhood should be abolished and has had backlash against it in recent years.
However, corporations are now using religion as an effective masqe to their true intentions.
What better way to garner supporters than to recruit fundies like Bill Deacon to your cause? They are easy to manipulate and will rally in loud voices. They have limited intelligence and cannot understand the ramifications of allowing corporations to be treated and protected like citizens instead of umm protecting your actual citizens.
corporations are people my friend
And yet they don't do jury duty or military service or ......
That's a good one, because one of my initial thoughts was... maybe Hobby Lobby is, in their own way, acting AS A Church, and should have all of the benefits and regulations that come with that label.
They're running their business "beliefs" through their employees the same as a recognized church would.
What else might that imply? Tax-free operation, too?
Very insightful Santa. No one has posted that response before. The truth is that while corporations are granted equal protection under the 1are not privileged, nor burdened with the full complement of citizenship. So where is the line? I suspect this is the vehicle which will drive this case to the SCOTUS and my money is on the protection of corporate beliefs as an inalienable right.
mistyped. Should be 14th
And if it were a Jehova Witness refusing any insurance that covers blood transfusions, or what if the religious belief of the owner is that only Homeopathic "medicine" should be covered? Would you still be supporting this?
The BOR that protect religious freedoms were written to ensure that individuals had such rights under the law. They (BOR) do not apply to a corporation. Yes, corporations consist of people – with varying political, religious, etc.... ideology. This is a very simple issue. If you want to operate a for-profit business in the US then you have to follow the same laws and regulations that all other businesses are required to follow. If you personally don't believe in birth control, or that certain forms of birth control are abortive in nature (which Plan B does not appear to be), then don't use them.
What happens if the corporation files taxes as an individual?
Peter – filing as an S-corp does not alter the make-up of your workforce. Filining in that manner you are paying taxes for your income, and phantom income held as retained earnings. Those have nothing to do with employee benefit packages, which ARE considered part of any employee's compensation – ergo premiums for insurance are actually part of employee pay.
Agreed thoth – individual rights!!!!!! not corporate rights. Common sense doesn't seem all that common with the religious right.
Then what is the incentive for Hobby Lobby to keep providing health insurance to its employees?
Isn't Hobby Lobby a privately held family company?
Peter – the law. Even though insurance is treated as part of employee compensation it is also required by law (depending on size of company).
@Peter – public vs private has nothing to do with health insurance plan. In the US you must (depending on # of employees) offer a plan. You can require employees to pay for it directly, but you must offer a plan, and that plan must include certain coverages required by the Fed. That's just the law. If you choose not to offer a plan then you must pay a per employee fine. Some companies will elect to do that because it will cost them less – initially. Down the road those fines will likely grow. As a business owner I'm in favor of ending all employer based insurance – it costs a lot in admin time and money. But what HL is trying to do is only cover what it wants to. What if I only believed in holistic medicine and only offered plans limited to such? What if I believed eveything is god's will and refused to offer insurance plans for that reason? I would have a huge advantage in my industry. The point of these regs is to both protect individuals, and keep the playing field (somewhat) level.
in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."  This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since
" As a business owner I'm in favor of ending all employer based insurance – it costs a lot in admin time and money." Absolutely!! Which is why we need Universal healthcare so that all the employers can dump their health care plans. Anyone who opposes universal healthcare either doesn't understand the proposed system and the health savings it would produce or is just a partisan in the pocket of the health care companies or has been deceived by one.
I suspect that would at least be a more honest system. General tax revenue could be used to fund a national insurance fund. Then conscientious objectors to specific provisions would have no more ground than pacifist do towards military spending. The only issue is that the American people don't want nationalized health care. So, the administration made their best approximation and just barely got it by the Supremes. Now it is in jeopardy of coming unraveled one law suit at a time, one state at a time.
Corporations cannot operate without people. People have beliefs (religious or otherwise) and cannot decide not to believe what they believe when they get to an office. So, you're suggesting that anyone with religious (or otherwise) beliefs should not be allowed to operate a business? Preposterous. This is "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
@Logic, where do you see anyone arguing that no one with religious beliefs should operate a business? The only argument is that they must do so within the law. This is no different from a law in India that prevents employers from firing Dalit or low caste members for religious reasons. It's not a free-for-all or we'd have people defending any action they want on 'religious' grounds.
If the Federal Government requires that all businesses either implement an immoral health plan (which they cannot do if they practice a religion that is morally opposed to what's in it), OR pay a crippling fine, then that business cannot reasonably or fairly continue to exist. This is a law that "prohibits the free exercise" of religion. The government could allow for an exemption for businesses operated by people that are morally opposed, but they don't and have said that they won't.
@Logic, by you're logic we could not have any absolute laws regarding business. Your relgion says the world will end soon and long term environmental concerns show lack of faith – you don't have to obey. Hell, I could start a religion that says women were reincarnated as lower life forms to be punished for sins and harrassing them or banning them from the workplace was part of my religion...can't ban it. You're just giving a preferred position to this one issue because you support it. Or are you really arguing that there should be no absolute laws regulating business at all?
The ACA cannot be applied fairly as it places undue burden upon businesses owned and operated by people with religious beliefs that are morally incompatible with the law, while others are unaffected. The religious beliefs that are incompatible with the law predate the existence of the United States, its Consti.tution, and any law created thereafter. Simply coming up with a new religion out of the blue would certainly be suspect, wouldn't it?
@Logic, OK, so you are saying your religious beliefs are special and you are not saying this would apply to other beliefs.
And there are already religions that think the world will end in 1, 5 and 10 years out there.
" The religious beliefs that are incompatible with the law predate the existence of the United States, its Consti.tution, and any law created thereafter. "
I take it no exceptions for Mormons then.
Mormonism was started almost 200 years ago. If you started a religion AFTER a law was passed, I don't doubt that the courts would see right through to the obvious purpose for the creation of a new "religion". Christianity and the rules that go with it CLEARLY have NO bias based on rules that have come up 2,000 years later.
How birth control works: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/how-do-birth-control-pills-work
Definition of abortion: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Please tell me how providing birth control goes against the religious beliefs of those in question? Birth control does not abort any type of pregnancy, but stops an egg from dropping (eliminating the possibility of becoming fertilized). I am betting that at some point in these peoples lives they have used condoms. Hobby Lobby just needs to get with the program.
Once upon a time, God commanded a man named Onan to impregnate his sister-in-law.
They did the nasty dance on several occasions, but Onan kept pulling out at the critical moment and spilled his seed on the ground. For this offense, God killed him.
And that, boys and girls, is the Biblical reason for opposing birth control.
No kidding they need to figure this out.
Heaven is 'a fairy story,' scientist Stephen Hawking says – CNN ...
May 17, 2011 – By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor The concept of heaven or any kind of afterlife is a "fairy story," famed British scientist Stephen ...
You do know that the Bible was written by man dont you? Not only that, but there have been many versions watered down over the years of its existence.... so how do we know these are the words of God? But back to the subject. How is it that millions of people all over the words have used the pull out method or used condoms but have lived happy & healthy lives?
Forgot to mention that birth control is also used by many Americans not to prevent birth, but to help with certain deseases (ie. Endometriosis)
There is a thing called natural family planning where a woman figures out the 100 hours she is fertile and along with her husband, they make the decision to abstain from intercourse during those 100 hours a month if they do not want to expand their family. It is actually the healthiest option since you are not chemically altering a woman’s healthy reproductive system. Also, no religious groups that I know of are protesting the purchasing of birth control for endometriosis.
Peter, NFP is a cop-out. The church teaches that all intercouse includes the opportunity to procreate. NFP is an attempt to trick god.
Peter, look at the statistics for all methods of contraception. NFP, even if practiced assiduously, results in 5 pregnancies per 100 women within a year. When used as the average person, there are even more.
Hardly fail-proof and not even CLOSE to the pill.
Natural Family planning isn't God's will.
God commands human to be fruitful and multiply. As the story of Onan shows us, spilling one's seed in any way that doesn't allow for pregnancy to occur angers God.
To purposely countermand God's will to breed like rabbits is to lie to the Holy Spirit in the same way that Ananias and Saphira did in Acts 5 : 1-11 when they held back a portion of their gift to God – and guess what happened to them?
@Peter....................How many children do you have? Do you have s3x on a regular basis? If that works for you, either you are the luckiest person on earth or you have reproductive issues!
Hobby Lobby is just crying about their "religious rights" for scoring political points and trying to push their extreme beliefs onto as many people as possible. Hobby Lobby prior to the mandate being announced, had not only covered all forms of birth control including emergency contraceptives and elective sterilizations, but also covered all elective abortions in their healthcare insurance. They had been covering all those things for YEARS. Obama mandated that given the massive amounts of evidence that birth control including emergency contraceptives and sterilizations are routine and necessary parts of women's healthcare and the legal precedents in the majority of States requiring religious organizations especially those operating businesses used by the secular public receiving taxpayer funds to cover all birth control including emergency contraceptives as part of standard healthcare insurance for women. Only after Obama's mandate did
Hobby Lobby and other conservative religious people decide that allowing employees to have healthcare insurance that met the decade's old legal precedents suddenly was trampling on their "religious freedom". Only after Obama gave the mandate did all these businesses with very loose association of being religious or that has no religious association at all start to demand an exception from the mandate, and suddenly began looking over the healthcare insurance plans to see if that they had been providing insurance that they claim is against their religious beliefs for years. Suddenly all these "deeply religious" people and businesses had to switch to insurance plans that were in line with their religious beliefs by a certain deadline (which most failed to do) or face financial consequences for not adhering to federal law. Obama even gave an extension to the mandate's deadline, expanded who could qualify for exemption, and worked out a deal with healthcare insurance companies so religious employers didn't have to pay for the contraceptives while giving the employees access to free contraceptives.
Hobby Lobby failed to change their insurance plans by the extended deadline, failed to meet the overly generous criteria of a religious based organization or business, and now after their repeated failures by trying to use their business as a piece in their political agenda are trying to avoid the penalties for blatantly going against federal law.
why is it the right fringe wants smaller and less gov. in thier lives but wants to out law abortions and anything else they don't like.. the battles they pick is the reason they lost the election 2012,and who are we ...the american tax payers who think its ok for a bunch of male's in congress to make these desions? why is it the priority of the gop to say yes or no to med procedures for women? as for hobby lobby, i uded to bring the kids there once a month, and i don't recall asking them to take up this fight on my behalf, so now they have lost a customer.....they are real american ( hobby lobby ) 99% of the product on there shelves is from so. east asia....OR CHINA, and 2 billion a year in sales, and the best thing could be is the real ammericans who believe in liberty would stop shopping there, and let them try and go make 2 billion in china. BOYCOTT HOBBY LOBBY, AND THEN MORE AMERICAN JOBS WILL COME.
The reason they can do this is because even the women of our government are all under a different insurance plan which covers these items and will not be denied any medical procedure when needed. The government needs to abide by the same laws and regulations its citizens are expected to so that they can make better decisions for everyone instead of just for themselves.
The owners of Hobby Lobby certainly have the right to their beliefs. But if we let an employer dictate birth control options for their employees based on those beliefs, how long until an anti-gun employer begins to dictate an employee's ownership of a firearm? Are we really willing to become a society that allows employers to dictate how we live our lives when we aren't on the job?
Lucy, nobody at Hobby Lobby is dictating birth control options for their employees. They can go into a store and purchase them any time they want. Why do you feel that someone has a right to free (i.e.- someone else paying for it) birth control?
Are you aware that the United Nations recently declared access to birth control a basic human right?
I am aware that the United States is notorious for completely ignoring the UN, but does it not strike any kind of chord with you that the rest of the world recognizes the importance of free access to contraception?
Good point. Medical insurance is compensation, just like and in addition to, your paycheque. Hobby Lobby isn't in the insurance business and have no right to dictate how any employee uses it any more than they can tell you how to spend your money. Objectors of faith are perfectly entitled to NOT personally avail themselves of services they oppose. They just don't get to decide that for others.
The owners of Hobby Lobby are not dictating options for birth control for employees. They are saying that if they provide your insurance they will not pay for birth control. If you want birth control get your own insurance or buy it straight up. Read the article before you throw our your individualist liberal comments. Dictate means full control. If you have the option to get you own insurance then that is far from dictating. Its people like you that make people step away from what our founding fathers establed and start to do things on their own, and look at this country now when you let people decide what they think is great instead of what god say's is great.
Well there's the rub? What you THINK your god thinks is mindless superstitious nonsense to many Americans. If Hobby Lobby objects to providing comprehensive insurance if favor of selective insurance based on religious beliefs then they either become a church, a religious charity or get out of business. We don't see them arguing about and refusing to pay taxes directed at things they oppose. Oh wait...they are. The mandate was decided by The Supreme Court to pass because it was declared a tax.
First of all, the US is not the UN and the UN does not control the US. Furthermore, just because the UN has declared something, doesn't make it true. Since when did the UN become the basis for all morality?
Adolf Hitler, someone that rose to power through the German party election system, declared Jews to be less than human and set forth to eradicate them, killing over 6 million during the war. Was that right? After all, he had the overwhelming support of the citizens of Germany, right?
Logic, it ISN'T free. The employees pay premiums for their coverage, and that coverage is part of their compensation–the owners aren't paying for birth control.
First, Hobby Lobby actually IS in the business of health insurance (they run their own insurance company). Second, they are not telling their employees what they can do and what healthcare options they can take, nor are they even requiring their employees to take their insurance, they can opt out and get their own insurance, and they can use their own money (from their paycheck) to buy and do whatever they want. Nobody, short of the law, is stopping them from doing so. And nobody working at Hobby Lobby was forced or coerced to take a job there. They knew what they were getting into when they applied, and they chose to work there anyway.
As for the question of whether or not there is a God, the FACT is that either there IS or there ISN'T. People's opinions don't change the actual truth. 99% of the people of a country could believe that Jimi Hendrix was God, but it wouldn't change the actual truth (regardless of what that truth is).
If insurance is provided as a benefit of employment, then the "provider" is the employer and they are buying that insurance. If it is provided as part of a compensation package, rather than the employer giving the money to the employee to spend as they wish, then the employer is still buying it for the employee. It is pretty rare for an employee to pay 100% of the insurance premium and I suspect that many people would steer clear of situations such as that.
You really don't read well. I didn't say the employer OR the employee paid for the entire package. Insurance coverage is NOT paid for solely by the employer. The employee pays premiums and health coverage is part of his/her compensation. It isn't FREE to her/him.
Furthermore, your insistence that birth control is not part of basic health care is extremely ignorant. If someone, as most women do, takes a medication for 75% of the years between 18 and 55 to avoid becoming pregnant, it most certainly IS basic. If spacing of children and limiting the size of families leads to better education and economics for individuals AND the countries in which they live, it IS basic.
Read the facts.
And what part of this don't you get? This is the law. It doesn't matter a whit if HL likes the law or doesn't, nor does it matter what YOU think of it. It is law, and if the company doesn't want to abide by it, the owners should pay the fine or relocate elsewhere. It's as simple as that. They don't get to decide that they aren't going to obey the law. That they had to find a dishonest way to avoid it says a lot about their real motives for doing so.
You've chosen a rather ironic moniker.
Your Third Reich analogy isn't relevant. Have you forgotten what the majority of the world did when Hitler went a-conquering and implementing the "final solution"? If memory server me correct, there was some minor opposition to it...
And again, I know that the American Empire doesn't take the opinion of the rest of teh world into account.
Look at what happened when the World Court found the US guilty of war crimes in Nicaragua. Instead of ceasing hostilities, the US drastically increased their destructive efforts.
So I guess you've answered my question – it doesn't matter one whit to you that the international consensus is that "When a woman is able to exercise her reproductive rights, she is more able to benefit from her other rights, such as the right to education. The results are higher incomes, better health for her and her children and greater decision-making power for her, both in the household and the community."
Religious groups are deeply opposed to ending unwanted pregnancies with abortion, and yet they don’t want women to have access to contraception that could prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and therefore prevent abortions.
“Addressing the unmet need for family planning worldwide would avert 54 million unintended pregnancies and result in 26 million fewer abortions,” the UN report says. “Research also shows that where family planning supplies, information and services are widely available, abortion rates are lower.”
But of course, in your head, the overwhelming majority of social scientists the world over are simply wrong. If they ain't 'Murican, their studies and facts don't count – especially if they don't put The Ineffable Will of God as Interpreted by American Evangelicals into the equation.
Logic wants to use logic to bolster his god claim.
Sure there either IS or ISN"T a god. But do you really believe that's a 50/50 proposition? Of all the 1000's of gods conceived of by man how would you apply odds to YOURS being correct? After all the consequences for being wrong are dire, correct? If there were only 10 gods ever conceived you still would only have a 10% chance of being right. Christians think they have a lock on the truth but in reality they have nothing more to back up what they believe than a collection of man made ancient miraculous stories. The Bible is no more or less credible than Greek, Roman, Egyptian or any other texts or stories of a deity/deities. Despite centuries of effort god/gods remain mysteriously hidden to all except in the minds of believers. Indistinguishable in fact from the situation where there is no God beyond the concept or idea of one. It's a much safer bet to believe none of them are correct until such time as it becomes clear what the truth actually is.
What if I'm wrong?
I'll take my chances. Scott Clifton said it better than I could.
Hmmm...Let's try that video link again.
Correct TT, it's not FREE, it's not paid for solely by the employee, but ALSO by the employer. Statistics don't support the rest of what you said in that comment.
As for "the law", shall I direct you to the "law" that made slavery legal here in the USA? Should the people kept enslaved by that law just have sucked it up and dealt with it? What about the Jim Crowe laws? The late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. most certainly disagreed with your statement, and so do I.
You are correct, it took WWII to stop Hitler and Nazi Germany from carrying out that plan. My point PRECISELY! The _majority_ of Germany accepted and supported Hitler's plans. That _majority_ was wrong. Just because a majority in a situation agrees about something, doesn't make it right.
Hypothetical situation: It's the end of the world, there are only 7 people left on the planet. Those 7 people all know the world is coming to an end. 6 of the 7 really dislike the 7th one, so they get together and decide that they're going to kill #7. It's a clear majority, no doubt about it. Is it right? Explain your answer.
Shall I remind YOU, you witless wonder, that slavery was outlawed? If this law can be legally overturned then fine. Go do it. Otherwise, you nincompoop, your argument is moot.
You are also full of crap as far as my statistics are concerned. Ninety-nine percent of married women spend MOST of their reproductive years trying NOT to get pregnant. MOST women would prefer to limit the size of their families and control the spacing of their children.
What part of that is incorrect? And how would you have a clue?
"Shall I remind YOU, you witless wonder, that slavery was outlawed? If this law can be legally overturned then fine. Go do it. Otherwise, you nincompoop, your argument is moot."
If you really believe all of the things you believe, why don't you want to change my mind? Instead you choose to call me names. Also your logic fails. The law allowing slavery in the US was overturned _BECAUSE_ people stood up to it to get it changed. Same with the Jim Crowe laws.
You can't even read. I just said that if you think it's bad law, go get it changed. Your side lost that battle already, but so what? If you are convinced, you're welcome to try to overturn the ACA. And I might remind YOU, Illogical, that I don't have to try to change your mind (if you even have one) because the representatives that were duly elected are enacting the laws that I happen to favor. That includes the right to choose-which ALSO used to be illegal.
Your side lost. The inauguration is coming up. Time to get over it.
And it's "JIM CROW" not "CROWE." You must be watching too many movies.
It is not simply a case of "majority rules".
In your hypothetical scenario, the sole reason for the majority to execute the minority is "dislike".
Now let's say that prior to the destruction of teh human race, person number 7 had been found guilty in a court of law of a heinous crime that affected everybody else – including the 6 who remain. The reams of evidence against that person is still available for evaluation and leaves no doubt as to the 7th person's guilt.
You speak as if the UN declared ex cathedra that access to birth control is a basic human right. That is not the case. Extensive study by mutiple groups of researchers in various fields of study contributed to the consensus.
Why not read the report for yourself.
By Logics logic I should be able to disregard any law I disagree with and anyone who tries to make me pay federal income tax or obey speed limits or register my car or buy State mandated auto insurance can go fvck themselves. Apparently by his "Logic" I am the law unto myself.
No one is forcing anyone to use or buy birth control or contraceptives. We as a democracy have however found that birth control and contraceptives save lives and make the society healthier as a whole so we have decided they should be a basic health care right which all should have affordable access to. We have decided that a fetus is not a "human" due human rights until it is able to live outside the womb, usually at about 22 weeks. You may decide something different for yourself and so you can live your faith all you want, but you don't get to stop paying your taxes even when they are used for programs you disagree with. I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq, however I didn't see the opt out box on my tax form so I had to pay for a war I didn't agree with. So where is your "logic" now?
"According to the Guttmacher Inst itute, by the time a woman with two children is in her mid-40s she will have spent only five years trying to become pregnant, being pregnant, and not being at risk for getting pregnant following a birth. But to avoid getting pregnant before or after those two births, she would had had to refrain from s3x or use contraception for an average of 25 years. Almost all American women (99 percent), ages 15-44, who have had s3xual intercourse use some form of birth control."
I love it that Logic keeps referring to Jim Crowe (sic) laws and comparing bus and lunch counter sit-ins with this issue. If that "logic" holds any water, then HL can go ahead and protest. It can refuse to abide by the law. If its owners had any REAL convictions, that's what they'd have done, and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, the ball-less wonders found a legal loophole. How brave!
It's only fair to point out that the Guttmacher Insti.tute was founded by Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the USA... no chance of any bias there, right?). Also, the Consti.tution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". How is this law not violating that amendment right in Hobby Lobby's case?
Tom’s top ten reasons for abortion
10. She had one so it must be okay
9. Some old white guys said she had the right
8. Women have rights that men and children don’t
7. A human being isn’t a person until she says so.
6. Commitment? Pshaw!
5. Hey, she already had a life.
4. Stopping white trash is good for the environment.
3. Pro-life people use bad grammar
2. You’re an idiot
1. Neener! Neener!
Post by 'Bill Deacon' is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
Bill's top ten reasons for banning abortion
10. "She" had one so it must be wrong.
9. Some old white guys said she shouldn't have one
8. Women have wombs that men and children don’t
7. An embryo is a human being when my religion says so
6. Forced Commitment? Pshaw!
5. Hey, she had se.x.
4. Stopping unwanted pregnancies must be bad for the environment or something.
3. Pro-Choice people use bad grammar when explaining why they don't want old white guys invading their privacy.
2. You’re an idiot and you cannot make competent decisions for your own body so you should let a bunch of religious white guys make them for you...
1. Neener! Neener!
@Logic, If Hobby Lobby can refuse to provide birth control they can refuse to provide cancer treatment if they so choose. Are you really so ignorant of the economic situation of most Americans that you think they could just go out to the store to buy cancer treatment for their kid if the company decided to drop that coverage next year?
As for who pays the insurance, it's not partially the employee and partially the company as the paperwork makes you believe. Every penny of benefits is money deemed earned by the employee or or the company wouldn't be paying it. These aren't charitable gifts from shareholders, but a payment for value added to the corporation by the employee.
@Billy: I've never had an abortion, which is more than can be said for your wife.
I notice that neither Bad Logic nor Billy the Bad Father can refute the statistics I posted. No facts of their own at all. What a surprise.
Logic, you know what? Women are having abortions even as you sit on your ass. You don't have a say in it. That you deny all women the right to avoid abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancy is a testament to your ignorance.
Thank goodness you're part of an extremely small minority and have no impact on the law.
Already posted this elsewhere in the thread, but reposting here.
Here's EXACTLY what that report says:
"Among all women who have had se.x, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among se.xually experienced Catholic women."
That is VERY different than "use". AND THAT IS VERY MISLEADING. But you call me the LIAR?
The Bible says quite clearly that Mankind has dominion over all the plants and animals of the Earth.
Everything is here for our use as humans are the predilect objects of creation.
The idea of paying "environmental taxes" goes against my religious convictions and I therefore refuse to pay them.
Furthermore, I will not provide any employees this ridiculous "family and medical leave".
An honest day's work for an honest day's pay, I always say. If you or your kids are so sick as to keep you from working, you've nobody but yourself to blame for not saving up your wages against such a possibility.
You dont' get money for nothing!
I also refuse to have any kind of unnatrual refrigeration device on my business property! If the good lord wanted you to freeze your food, He would have made it winter all year round.
You guys are idiots if people at hobby lobby dont like that they cant get the abortion pill they can get another job. No lets screw with a employer maybe they will prove there point and make the fines stick and hobby lobby will go out of buisness that would be awsome 13,000 more jobs lost then they will be unemployed and can get there pills free courtesy of our wonderful lord OBAMA good thinking folks
What abortion pill are you talking about?
So you’re what they mean when they speak of a zealot. I'll bet you own an assault weapon, or 3, with large clips as well. BTW, you should read your posts prior to posting, so besides the statement, your grammar and lack of punctuation won't make you look so ignorant.
What part of the phrase "morning after" is not comprehended? A little research tells you that the morning after pill can only be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex, there is no possible way a women would even know she is pregnant that quickly. Not that it much matters anyways, what a woman does with her personal body is strictly not the business of you or anyone else. Hobby Lobby does not represent the belief's of all employee's, if they wish to be treated with the same rights a church has, they should register as a church....until then they follow the only laws that apply-the laws set out by the government and not your imaginary friend!
I never cease to be amazed by the ignorance of the religious zealots and right-wing-nuts who post this drivel. They can't write, they obviously can't read, and they LIKE being "country-dumb."
The "idiot" here is you, you nincompoop. There is NO abortion pill being discussed. The morning-after pill PREVENTS any need for an abortion, by preventing pregnancy. How stupid can you be, that you don't know the difference?
you write like an imbecile
Just because you don't know you're pregnant, does not mean that you are not.
A pregnancy officially starts when the fertilized egg implants on the uteran wall, and the morning after pill prevents this from happening. It is classified as an emergency contraceptive, not an abortifacent. The religious zealots who want everyone to follow their religion just love to redifine whatever they need to in order to push their agenda. The ID movement and Behe trying to redifine science, the anti-choice crowd wanting to redifine abortifacent, murder, and personhood all without actually thinking of the rest of it.
It's pathetic, arrogant, and dangerous to civilization.
When "pregnancy" officially starts makes no difference if LIFE starts with conception. If a zygote is a living individual human being, then when an unnatural process prevents that life from continuing, that life has been exterminated. The "morning after pill" (both of them, actually, SEE ABOVE FOR PROOF from the makers of the drugs) prevents implantation. That means that if the zygote is a living immature human being (see above for scientific reasoning backing up this statement), then preventing the natural implantation of that zygote is preventing it from surviving. Ending a human life is murder. But who's pushing an agenda? How about Planned Parenthood, that stands to make BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on contraception and abortion? Drug companies that stand to do the same? And the "anti-choice" crowd (I cannot prevent ANYONE from making a "choice", legal or otherwise) have not redefined abortifacient (SEE ABOVE FOR PROOF FROM THE MANUFACTURER OF PLAN B), murder (the premeditated unlawful ending of a human life), or personhood (a human being). Nor have we failed to think of the rest of it. It does seem that the other side of this debate has PLENTY of reasons to not think of "the rest of it".
And speaking of the redefining of "personhood", shall we talk about slavery? The Jews in Nazi Germany? What's happening in Sudan? All of these things featured "redefining the personhood" of the people that were oppressed and/or murdered.
And when life starts is not the issue, and never has been the issue. The issue is personhood, and bodily autonomy. Extending the definition of person and the rights that come with it to include a zygote, whose rights then usurp the rights of the woman to not be used as a life support system against her will is the issue.
The morning after pill is not an abortifacent, and the definition of an abortion is a termination of a pregnancy, so when the pregnancy starts is highly significant.
And if you haven't failed to think of the rest, then here's a new line of questions.
1) Do you support the death penalty?
2) If you get your theocratic way, and abortion becomes illegal and classified as murder, then would you charge and punish those women who survive the back alley procedure that will still happen (increasing the death rate as well) as murderers, thereby increasing the number of women in prison, putting more strain on the prison system?
And for all those extra children, then what. After the poor who cannot afford kids have them, then what? An increase in the amount for MedQuest, welfare, WIC, and foodstamp costs. An increase into an already highly full adoption services that are already having trouble finding homes for children. Then theres the increase of an already bloated public school system in which teachers are already underpaid and underworked dealing with too many children already?
When life starts is most certainly the issue. The zygote is ONE OF THE PHASES of HUMAN LIFE. Just like the blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and adult. No redefinition, this comes from SCIENCE books. Webster's dictionary defines "person" as "a human being". No redefinition there. Reducing the definition of a human person to something like a subhuman (slaves, Jews, etc.) is not the direction I'm heading in.
As for bodily autonomy? Usurping the rights of the woman? What, her "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Those rights? If the zygote is a living immature human being, humans ALL have those same rights. Why do the mother's rights trump the baby's rights? Why does wanting to have se.x any time you feel like it not come with the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the action?
"The morning after pill is not an abortifacent, and the definition of an abortion is a termination of a pregnancy, so when the pregnancy starts is highly significant."
E. Beaulieu, the inventor of RU 486 (the morning after pill) said "interruption of pregnancy after fertilization can be regarded _in the same way as abortion_" ("Il punto sull'RU486", JAMA—Italian ed., 2 , p. 12). A product which prevents implantation is therefore abortifacient ACCORDING TO THE INVENTOR OF ONE OF THE PILLS THAT DOES JUST THAT! Do you think that he is even remotely pro-life? He's the SCIENTIST with the credentials to back it up. Where are yours?
"1) Do you support the death penalty?"
I do not support the death penalty in a non-third-world country like the US. BUT, I can see a morally acceptable reason for a country without the resources to restrain, contain or otherwise prevent someone from taking the lives of others. Should they be allowed to run free killing at will because the authorities are _incapable_ (emphasis added for a reason) of preventing that?
"2) If you get your theocratic way, and abortion becomes illegal and clas.sified as murder, then would you charge and punish those women who survive the back alley procedure that will still happen (increasing the death rate as well) as murderers, thereby increasing the number of women in prison, putting more strain on the prison system?"
"Keep it legal because people are going to do it anyway"? Should we keep rap.e legal? Robbery? Statistics back up that laws work to prevent crime.
"And for all those extra children, then what. After the poor who cannot afford kids have them, then what?"
Maybe if people are forced to think more about the consequences of their actions, they'll be less likely to do IRRESPONSIBLE things. Your as.sumption is that they have the right to have se.x any time they want with no consequences.
"An increase in the amount for MedQuest, welfare, WIC, and foodstamp costs. An increase into an already highly full adoption services that are already having trouble finding homes for children. Then theres the increase of an already bloated public school system in which teachers are already underpaid and underworked dealing with too many children already?"
"Why do the mother's rights trump the baby's rights? Why does wanting to have se.x any time you feel like it not come with the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the action?"
And I can ask the same question of you. Why does the unborns rights trump the mothers to decide what happens within her own body? As for the natural consequences, so what? Do you feel you have the right to force young women to put their health on the line because they didn't conform to what you think they should or shouldn't do? And along that line, if you wnat to talk natural consequences, let's keep them from putting the kids up for adoption. If they made the choice to have sex, then they should live with the natural consequences right?
". Beaulieu, the inventor of RU 486 (the morning after pill) said "interruption of pregnancy after fertilization can be regarded _in the same way as abortion_" "
So the guy who made the pill said something. So what? He doesn't get to decide what it's classified as, that's the job of other people. Under your definition, then that would mean every backwards law that puts off abortion as long as possible would apply to it, which it doesn't. What Beaulieu said is completely irrelevant.
""Keep it legal because people are going to do it anyway"? Should we keep rap.e legal? Robbery? Statistics back up that laws work to prevent crime."
Straw Man argument and a slippery slope fallacy. Try again.
"I do not support the death penalty in a non-third-world country like the US. BUT, I can see a morally acceptable reason for a country without the resources to restrain, contain or otherwise prevent someone from taking the lives of others. Should they be allowed to run free killing at will because the authorities are _incapable_ (emphasis added for a reason) of preventing that?"
So kill em if you can't pay to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives, got it.
"Maybe if people are forced to think more about the consequences of their actions, they'll be less likely to do IRRESPONSIBLE things. Your as.sumption is that they have the right to have se.x any time they want with no consequences."
Sex before marriage is not "irresponsible". What's irresponsible is abstinence only sex education that has been proven to not work one single bit, and has a correlation with and increase in abortion rates, and the spread of stds, teen pregnancies, and high school dropouts as a result of the teen pregnancies. Perhaps if you weren't on your high horse, you'd realize that reality does not support your thought process.
"And I can ask the same question of you. Why does the unborn's rights trump the mothers to decide what happens within her own body?"
Because that's SOMEONE ELSE (another HUMAN) in her body. Both people have rights. The right to LIFE is included in those rights. The right to LIFE trumps the right not to be inconvenienced. Pregnancy is not always fatal or dangerous, and is only a temporary situation. Abortion, on the other hand, ALWAYS kills the baby. Permanently.
"As for the natural consequences, so what?"
Excellent, so dump all of that green eco business out the window, right? No more pollution controls, don't need em. Or maybe we should eat spoiled food, or walk in front of buses. Natural consequences don't matter any more. No responsibility necessary for one's actions, right? Obviously not.
"Do you feel you have the right to force young women to put their health on the line because they didn't conform to what you think they should or shouldn't do?"
I'm forcing them to put their health on the line? They don't have to have se.x. That's them exercising their real choice. If they can get pregnant by having se.x, and pregnancy has obvious health risks (not to mention se.xually transmitted diseases/infections/whatever they're calling it today), and so does abortion (statistically proven to be several times more dangerous than having the baby), then how is it a wise thing to do? Birth control is NOT 100% effective. These young women are taking that risk right now! I'm not forcing a single thing on them. Furthermore, I never said they can't go buy their own contraception with the money they take home from their jobs (or get it free from some place that wants to give it to them) or that they can't go get an abortion (like defunding Planned Parenthood is going to put them out of business, yeah right!). The point is why do I have to pay for it? I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, but you ARE. You are demanding that I violate my conscience by paying for contraception and abortions. If you want an abortion, in this specific instance, I'm not doing something that prevents you from having one. And that is NOT to say that I don't want abortion abolished entirely, because I CERTAINLY DO. And in THAT case, I want to protect the LIFE of another HUMAN BEING, the same right we ALL have.
"And along that line, if you wnat to talk natural consequences, let's keep them from putting the kids up for adoption. If they made the choice to have se.x, then they should live with the natural consequences right?"
Welcome to the land of Oz, STRAW MAN! I fully support adoption, and I support those services with my money and time. What are you doing to help? You're fully behind supporting women in whatever choice they choose to make, right?
"So the guy who made the pill said something. So what? He doesn't get to decide what it's clas.sified as, that's the job of other people."
The "guy who made the pill" is a SCIENTIST and despite what someone clas.sifies a drug as, does NOT change what it ACTUALLY IS AND DOES. A Swiss Army knife is clas.sified as a tool, but that doesn't change that it has a knife that is capable of cutting, and even killing someone.
"Straw Man argument and a slippery slope fallacy. Try again."
So, when you asked what I would do about the "women who survive the back alley procedure that will still happen", you did not mean to say that you think abortion should be kept legal and safe? Then what on earth did you mean to say?
"So kill em if you can't pay to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives, got it."
Not at all, I specifically said that if a country (NOT THE USA or ANY OF THE NON-THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES) had NO OTHER MEANS (which is why I _UNDERLINED_ "incapable") to restrain, contain or otherwise prevent someone from killing other innocent people, then I can see a morally acceptable reason to use capital punishment. And I VERY SPECIFICALLY MEAN "INCAPABLE", not some half-bottomed "well, it'll be expensive or somethin, so let's kill him now and save a buck." Taking another human life is wrong, but defending the lives of others is not.
"Se.x before marriage is not "irresponsible".
I never said it was, though I certainly believe that it is.
"What's irresponsible is abstinence only se.x education that has been proven to not work one single bit, and has a correlation with and increase in abortion rates, and the spread of stds, teen pregnancies, and high school dropouts as a result of the teen pregnancies. Perhaps if you weren't on your high horse, you'd realize that reality does not support your thought process."
Actually, there have been at least 10 scientific evaluations that show that _real_ abstinence-only (i.e.- no contraceptives) education programs are effective:
– Virginity Pledge Programs.
– Not Me, Not Now.
– Operation Keepsake.
– Abstinence by Choice.
– Virginity Pledge Movement.
– Teen Aid and Se.x Respect.
– Family Accountability Communicating Teen Se.xuality (FACTS).
– Postponing Se.xual Involvement (PSI).
– Project Taking Charge.
– Teen Aid Family Life education Project.
That's hardly "proven".
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.