 |
|
|
|
|
December 27th, 2012
07:20 PM ET
Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking ObamacareBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor Washington (CNN)– Craft store giant Hobby Lobby is bracing for a $1.3 million a day fine beginning January 1 for noncompliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare. The company opposes providing some contraceptives to employees through its company health care plan on religious grounds, saying some contraceptive products, like the morning after pill, equate to abortion. After failing to receive temporary relief from the fines from the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby announced late Thursday through its attorneys 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. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter "All they're asking for is a narrow exemption from the law that says they don't have to provide drugs they believe cause abortions," Hobby Lobby attorney Kyle Duncan, a general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNN affiliate KFOR in November. "Our basic point is the government can't put a corporation in the position of choosing between its faith and following the law." 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 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." In the face of that opposition, the Department of Health and Human Services tweaked its original rule in February to require health insurers, not employers, to cover the cost of contraception coverage, reasoning that would prevent religious groups from having to finance such coverage. Critics have argued that exemption for nonprofits is far too narrow and a host of nonprofit religious groups have sued the administration over the regulations. 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. The Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 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. The company's attorneys say January begins a new health care plan year for Hobby Lobby and that excise tax from the IRS would amount to $1.3 million a day. Hobby Lobby is owned 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. Each year the company also takes out full-page ads in numerous newspapers proclaiming its faith at Christmastime and on Independence Day. The store is not formally connected to any denomination, but the Green family supports numerous Christian ministries and is behind the Green Collection, one of the largest private collections of biblical antiquities in the world. The family plans to permanently house the collection in Washington at a museum set to open in 2016. On Friday, attorneys for Hobby Lobby petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and provide temporary relief from the the fines until the case was decided by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Wednesday evening, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit Court, said the company failed to meet "the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief," and that it could continue to pursue its challenge in lower courts and return to the higher court, if necessary, after a final judgment. "Hobby Lobby will continue their appeal before the 10th Circuit. The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time," Duncan said in a statement. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment on the high court's move. 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. "It's just so sad that Hobby Lobby is facing this choice. What company, even a successful family owned business like Hobby Lobby, how can they afford the government $1.3 million in fines every day? It's just really absurd that government is not giving on this," said Maureen Ferguson, a senior policy adviser for the Catholic Association. Religious liberty groups like hers are watching the Hobby Lobby case closely. "I am optimistic that these cases will eventually snake their way back up to the Supreme Court and given a full hearing on the merits of the case, I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of religious liberty," Ferguson said. "But in the meantime there is serious damage being done to businesses like Hobby Lobby and nonprofit charitable organizations." 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. After this piece of the law went into effect in August, religious nonprofits were given "safe harbor" of one year from implementing the law. "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, said in January when the administration announced the move. Dolan's New York Archdiocese won a victory this month in its legal battle against the administration and the mandate. In May it sued the government in federal court in Brooklyn over the mandate, saying it "unconstitutionally attempts to define the nature of the church's religious ministry and would force religious employers to violate their consciences." The government moved to have the case dismissed. On December 4, Judge Brian M. Cogan denied the government's motion to dismiss the case, saying the government's promise of changes to how it will implement the law were not enough to merit dismissal. "There is no, 'Trust us, changes are coming' clause in the Constitution," Cogan wrote in in his decision to let the case proceed. |
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
I know how to solve this once and for all. Why doesn't the maker of plan b have an obviously pregnant woman take the morning after pill? If no abortion occurs, it proves IT'S NOT an abortion pill.
Are you just unaware that the morning after pill does not have any effect once implantation on the uteran wall occurs?
That's my point. We've stated that plan b does not occurs abortion. Nobody listens. So let them see it for themselves on TV live before their eyes!
@Ken
It's not about facts for them. It's about the rhetoric, and control. Presenting even clear cut, undisputable evidence won't matter.
@hawaii...........I know facts don't mean anything to them. But just maybe they'll believe their eyes. If they cant believe what they see. How do they function as human beings?
I hate playing devil's advocate. It makes me feel like I'm losing IQ points as I type, but here it goes.
1) She obviously wasn't pregnant.
2) They didn't give her the actual pill, merely a sugar pill.
3) She already had the baby but still had the bump so she looked like she was pregnant.
4) It was a fluke.
Just a few things I could see them saying before my head exploded from trying to think like that.
Yeah that's true. Call me naive, I'd like to give people some benefit of the doubt. Where are we going as an society when you cant believe what you see?
Honestly, our law makers need to grow a fucking spine and tell these fringe morons to shut the fuck up. our government needs to enforce the constitution correctly and to not kowtow to the persecution complex of the incurably stupid.
Ha ha. Perfect example below. Really-o posted some reputable studies below that show the morning after pill doesn't even interfere with implantation, but of course that study is biased because the organization is not anti-abortion.
Of course I'm sure the Catholic Church never puts out anything that is biased, upstanding and ethical organization that it is.
Politicians ultimately do what the voters want. So it boils down to the voters and fringe groups have the right to vote also. fortunately they are in the minority. The citizens united ruling by the supreme court is really going to give the fringe the "staying" power to be a pain in the AZZ.
Hello Jen. I have a point on the next page. I respect your opinion. Please tell me what you think.
No, I think most politicians are just to stupid to realize that louder does not equal representing more of the population. And justices are more a reflection of the president who put them into office. Look at Alito and Roberts.
Roberts did vote for the affordable care act. So I have to be fair. I think it goes back to schooling. We need to educate our kids to logically find solutions to problems instead of hoping witchcraft will solve them for us.
Unfortunately, kids are more likely to listen to their parents with regards to beliefs like that, and if the standards were proper then home schooling among those people would become the norm, and home schooling has absolutely no practical or real oversight in place at this point, and any effort to get those things in place would be another huge battle of the rational vs. the stupid people.
Logic, you really should change your moniker. You are blind to the fact that slavery was made illegal because it was recognized that it was an infringement of the rights of people to be enslaved. Abortion was legalized because it was recognized that it was an infringement of the rights of women to require them to continue a pregnancy against their will.
In Roe vs Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun said "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." The problem with this statement in the ruling is that without answering that question definitively, we cannot know that a person's rights are not being infringed upon (that being the baby). If life is "recognized" to start at conception (for example, through advancements in science's ability to know about things like DNA, etc.), then the law would be an infringement on the rights of the people being aborted.
When life begins is irrelevant. When rights do is what matters. Rights do not begin at conception. You would like them to, but until you can show how a woman's rights can be preserved, your opinion is irrelevant.
And the DNA argument? Also irrelevant to the issue.
You mistake "life" for "personhood," Logic, something thumpers do as a habit. It's alive; it is not a person with rights. A woman is.
You think the law should recognize all life as sacred. It doesn't. Your personal religious beliefs about the sancti ty of life are not the basis for law and do not govern others' lives. No woman should be held hostage to your religious convictions-this isn't a theocracy and you don't get a say in how others live if it doesn't infringe on your rights or the rights of others. And the fetus has no rights. Justly so. It is not a person equal to a born person.
@Logic, we don't assign rights to "life" or flatworms would be voting. We don't even give rights to all conscious walking human life...or 4 year olds would have the right to vote. A one celled organism is not considered a "person" by most adult, conscious humans. If a single celled "dog" were given all the rights of a dog you'd be talking about sending people to jail if they"beat" a fertilized egg from a dog. Can you at least agree that would be ridiculous, or do you want us to apply animal welfare rights to the cells sitting in petri dishes awaiting fertilization?
We can make clones from cells in our bodies. These are every bit as unique as identical twins. If I cut off the tip of my finger does that mean that tip now has "rights" because it could be developed into another individual as unique as my twin? Does the tip of my finger already have its own rights? My mammary glands? (ala Dolly). Do you see where this becomes ridiculous?
@Logic
Perhaps you should change your moniker.
50/50 share no longer applies after insemination the reason being is: the woman's body must supply the nutrients that make cell division possible within her womb.
Your 50% contribution of semen becomes diminished immediately as cell division begins and becomes less than a 1% contribution after the pregnancy comes to term, i.e; the woman contributes more than 99% of the responsibility to the cell divisions that occur during gestation.
...
and Jesus said render unto ceasar what is ceasars....not, render unto ceasar what is ceasars if you agree with what he does with the money. ...........besides I have been to hobby lobby and most of their staff are beyond child bearing years.
Just like taking "judge not" out of Biblical context, the "Render unto Caesar" quote is not complete unless you factor in that as Christians, we are not allowed to disobey God's laws. So if Caesar levies a tax that requires payment for immoral products or services (directly), we are not allowed to obey that law. Note that this is not the same as a general tax levied on all citizens that pays for all of the services of the government, even if some of those services are immoral.
Furthermore... "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson
"An unjust law is not law at all." – St. Augustine
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science.
Then let HL disobey and suffer the consequences of that choice, Logic.
Hobby Lobby is doing just that, Tom, and they're using their own money to fight it through the legal system. The case has not been yet decided in SCOTUS and enough higher court judges believe that the merits of this and similar cases have a significant chance of winning.
Fine by me. That's how the case here should be decided. Just like the issue of abortion.
Funny how you love the law when it supports your position and deem it unjust when it doesn't.
Since when are you the arbiter of what's "just"?
And if and when this law is changed, what then will be your opinion, Tom? I am not the arbiter of what is and is not just, nor are you. That does not mean that we are incapable of realizing whether a law is or is not just. And the simple fact of a majority opinion does not equal a just law. Slavery was legal. That law was unjust. It took many years and lots of people standing up to change that law for the unjust law to be struck down.
It took many years for laws against abortion to be struck down and for women to be recognized as equal citizens.
You can view the right to choose as "unjust" all you want, Logic. Doesn't make it so. I don't view abortion as "immoral" or "wrong." Nor do I view it as "unjust." You can lobby as you wish to try to force women to continue pregnancy against their will, but if you think you can do so without infringing on their rights, you'll need to show how you're going to do it. As of yet, you have been completely unable to articulate any such thing.
That's because it cannot, as of now, be accomplished. Do you really think women are going to allow the courts to remove their rights or abrogate them in favor of the fetus?
What Illogic fails to grasp is the fact that women are anti tled to the same rights men have. No male is required to donate an organ or give so much as a drop of blood, even if doing so would save the life of another born person. Why would the moron think that women should be required to do so?
That's why they can't be compelled to continue a pregnancy against their will. The "right to live" of one person doesn't supersede the right of another to be secure in one's person. Logic, you cannot be forced to give up your extra kidney for someone who faces certain death without it. The principle is EXACTLY the same.
The principle is not the same at all. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of a choice almost _always_ (more than 99% of the time) made by the woman. And even in the instance of a rap.e, the choice is simply being illegally made by the rap.ist. The natural consequence still exists either way. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't perform the act that causes pregnancy. Otherwise you are responsible for your actions (just like men are responsible for theirs, equally).
Says who? You? You don't get to make the rules, Logic. You don't get to decide what the "consequences" are. The woman does. She has the choice. Don't like it, lump it.
It's not your body. It's not your life. It's not your decision.
The principle is EXACTLY the same. That's why the law recognizes a woman't right to choose.
Your argument that having s3x is a choice and that the woman must therefore "suffer the consequences" of pregnancy that results from said choice is absurd beyond belief. Drinking in excess can result in cirrhosis of the liver resulting in death. Does that mean that someone with cirrhosis must "suffer the consequences" by being denied treatment? Women do not have to carry a pregnancy to term simply because you happen to think they should, and abortion is one of the choices they can make. Doesn't matter whether you approve of the choice. Nobody gives a ripe fvck about your opinion of someone else's pregnancy.
No Tom, it is a _NATURAL_ consequence. Pregnancy is caused by se.x, otherwise you wouldn't need a _CONTRACEPTIVE_ would you? When you perform the act that causes babies, you are accepting that the result may be a baby. You are choosing to make yourself pregnant. That's your option, NOBODY made you do it (other than the fraction of a percent of cases of rap.e, where the rap.ist is illegally stealing your choice). Are you going to argue that se.x is not where babies come from? Pregnancy is the natural consequence of having se.x. If you choose to do something that has a natural consequence you don't like, it's not someone else's fault, certainly not that of the human life that is created. And nobody is suggesting that a mother not get treatment for being pregnant. Nor is anyone arguing _current_ law (which you keep trying to use to justify the existence of the current law). If the baby is a human life and you did something _optional_ to create that human life, you have chosen a situation where the natural condition of pregnancy is necessary to incubate that developing baby until it can come out on its own. You have chosen to bring the baby into existence. I am arguing that once alive, a person now has his or her own rights. If you decide that those rights begin, as RvW did, at the point of viability (24 weeks), and scientific advancement causes that date to move earlier, then how is this nothing more than discrimination based on age and situation of the person?
And to clarify something that you said, it's not "suffer the consequences _of_ pregnancy", it's suffer the consequence that _IS_ pregnancy. Your choice has a consequence, and that is the possibility of pregnancy.
Nope. No one is required morally or legally to continue a pregnancy simply because she chose to have s3x. You have your beliefs; that's all they are. They have no bearing on anyone's rights. Women are not required to suffer the consequences of choosing to have s3x by giving birth.
How many times will you bring up the existence of the law as your reason that the law exists? You are correct that in the US, women can legally have an abortion. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT. I'm arguing that the law is unjust as it violates the rights of another human being.
The fetus has no rights. It simply doesn't. You can argue that it should, but you've been completely at a loss as to how it can have rights under law without causing a born woman to lose hers. I don't see that you've come up with an answer to the scenario I posted concerning the impossibility of affording the fetus "special" or "equal" rights without infringing on those of the woman.
You can't do it because it can't be done.
What rights? It has no rights. You want to claim you're arguing against the laws that exist but you continue to use the word "rights" as though they are determined by you. They are not. They are determined by an agreed-upon set of laws. You don't like the law. Tough sh!t.
There you go again, saying that the law is the law, therefore it's the law. Tell me why the law is the law? Who says it's correct? And by what authority, given by whom? So, slaves and those that stood up for them were wrong to do so. Anyone that helped the Jews escape Nazi Germany were bad people. Every law passed by the Republicans is perfect and right? Not buying it.
Now as for your scenario from before, you do realize that the system of laws in this country says it is LEGAL to FORCE a woman to have a Cesarean to remove a baby if the baby's life is in danger, despite the right of the woman not to be forced to have surgery, right?
Do tell, you idiot. Can she be forced to do so before the fetus is viable outside her body? No, of course not. I have never argued that abortion rights have limits, you dishonest twit.
Keep on digging that hole, honey. You're already in over your head.
I love it when zealots bring up slavery and the Nazis as an argument against a woman's right to choose.
Are you unable to distinguish a born slave or a born Jew from a fetus?
Yes, because of an _existing law_ (RvW) has set that point of viability, a date that is creeping lower and lower, as scientific knowledge and advancements improve. Are you arguing the right to kill someone because they _might_ die?
And likewise, I find it awful that people want to redefine someone as sub-human because of differences (race, color, number of weeks of existence).
If it's dependent on the body of another, and cannot survive outside it, then it is indeed the right of the woman carrying it to kill it.
You're welcome to find something abhorrent. Your opinion is not the basis of the law.
Why? A born baby cannot survive outside the womb without support and care (proper environment and nutrients).
How did I know you'd resort to this asinine argument? Because every dumbfvck anti-choice zealot tries it. You moron, a baby that is born can be fed by ANYONE. It doesn't require the body of its mother to feed it, or to clothe it, or to shelter it. Idiots who use this canard are just too dumb to bother with.
Do you think a baby whose mother dies in childbirth can't be fed by its father?
Now try this on: can a fetus be fed by its father?
Get back to me when you figure out how to make a point.
You really should drop the pretense that you are in any way "logical." You want women to be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want, AND you don't want them to be able to easily prevent such a pregnancy from occurring by giving them access to contraception through their health insurance provider. You even, irrationally, continue to insist that a woman whose regular form of contraception fails not be permitted the use of Plan B to prevent pregnancy. Then you want to force a woman whom you've hamstrung in regard to preventing pregnancy to give birth? Are you even in your right mind? What kind of stupid reasoning is that? To you, it's her just desserts for having s3x. What a crock of idiocy.
"You want women to be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want, AND you don't want them to be able to easily prevent such a pregnancy from occurring by giving them access to contraception through their health insurance provider."
No, I want women that don't want to be pregnant to not get pregnant, and I want people that have a moral objection to paying for things like contraception and abortion to not be unjustly forced to pay for such things. Nobody is forced to work anywhere in this country. Hobby Lobby isn't a government agency or program, it's a private business. If you don't like the insurance they provide, don't work there. Plain and simple. Exercise your choice ahead of time.
"You even, irrationally, continue to insist that a woman whose regular form of contraception fails not be permitted the use of Plan B to prevent pregnancy."
Also untrue. I am arguing that it is unjust to make me pay for something that violates my conscience and prohibits the free exercise of my religion. If you want to use contraception and Plan B, you pay for it. Take your hard-earned money and buy it, or get a job at a company that doesn't have a moral objection to it. Hobby Lobby does not hide it's Christian values. Nobody was duped into working there, and nobody is being prevented from leaving their employment.
"Then you want to force a woman whom you've hamstrung in regard to preventing pregnancy to give birth? Are you even in your right mind? What kind of stupid reasoning is that? To you, it's her just desserts for having s3x. What a crock of idiocy."
Getting pregnant is a choice made by a man and a woman. In the case of a rap.e, the man is illegally taking that choice away from the woman, but that happens in a fraction of 1% of all pregnancies. See above, I am not arguing to prevent anyone from getting or using contraception, despite my moral objections to such things. I am arguing that forcing me to pay for it is a direct violation of my Consti.tutional right to freely exercise my religious beliefs. By doing so, people like you are forcing your "religous-like" (as in deeply held) beliefs on me. Nobody here is arguing that insurance companies should not be allowed to provide contraception, just that they shouldn't be forced to include it.
Which is why we have a judicial system. Because your moral convictions and mine differ. That's why we don't base our laws on the bible. We have the rule of law. The courts will decide whether or not HL is within its rights. Not you. Not I. And that's as it should be, just as the courts have decided on the rights of women to choose.
You don't want a woman to get pregnant? Then do your part and keep it in your pants. That's the extent of your say in the matter.
Logic is confusing a potential human being with a human being.
It would seem by their definition that a fertilized egg is a human being, but that is just making up one's own definition.
Actual human consciousness is normally defined as being around 24th week of gestation.
Likewise a person that experiences brain death, but has a body that is pumping blood is also no longer a human being. They were, but not any longer, as what made that person a unique personality is gone.
Calling something a human being before that time is normally an emotional response, and people have their right to their emotions, but should just not require that others share the same emotional feeling on things.
tom tom the sewers son let's start with you. keep your junk in your pants! why should HL pay for contraception of your girl friend or wife?
it is another question for another day as to who will want to make out with am ugly person like you anyway?
Blob, you moron, I'm female.
Do you have dementia?
Logic – I don't know about you, but I'm beginning to think this "investigation" may take extra-long in the hopes that all the hoopla dies down and the story is forgotten.
Actually, I'm inclined to believe quite the opposite. The new Archbishop of Denver is renowned for his strong pro-life activism and as a faithful Catholic, he needs to make sure that he "judges properly", as the Bible instructs us to do. Regardless, I'll be right here with you watching and waiting. Thanks for not getting unnecessarily ugly here, I certainly appreciate adult conversation, even on topics on which we have differing opinions (like that I prefer north east corridor railroads from the early diesel era).
I hope you are correct, but I will not be holding my breath – either for a quick resolution, or a satisfactory outcome. I guess we will have to "stay tuned".
Hey. Logicless, are you still "working on a response?" Best give up. A fetus cannot have equal rights. if a fetus has special rights then the woman carrying it becomes a second-class citizen who has lost the rights guaranteed to her under law. Under what circ umstances does that ever happen to a man?
Thanks for your patience, I've been in and out of the hospital and recovering so I'm still catching up. Starting with the point of rights and equality. If the fetus has rights because it is a person, its rights _must_ be equal to that of any other person. But that does not mean that all of the individual rights we each have are of the same level of importance. Some rights are more fundamental than others. One right that sits at the top of that list is life itself, for without that right, no other rights can be realized. Can someone be free if they're not alive? No. Can someone vote if they're not alive? No. Can someone even exercise their "right to choose" if they are not alive? No. Therefore when comparing rights in this situation, it is only fair to compare the rights on their proper fundamental levels.
In the case of a pregnant woman, her condition, despite any "potential" health risks, illness, pains, costs, or other inconveniences, the condition of being pregnant is at most a temporary condition. It is also both a natural condition and one chosen by the mother, either by willingly attempting to get pregnant, risking pregnancy by having se.x (intention not to get pregnant when using methods that are not certainly 100% effective is no excuse, the choice was made to take the existing risk), or even in the case of rap.e, where although the mother certainly _did not_ make the choice, the rap.ist illegally made it for her.
An abortion, on the other hand, is a permanent condition. It immediately ceases the baby's first fundamental right to life. Possibilities do not trump certainty. The right not to be inconvenienced (temporary) does not trump the right not to be killed (permanent).
This is precisely what our system of law in this country is supposed to do. For example, let's say you have a person driving a car down a public roadway. The person is a licensed driver, travelling the speed limit for this stretch of road (45MPH), heading to a meeting or appointment or something similar. Meanwhile, up the road a bit is a pedestrian crossing the road. The law says the driver has to stop and wait until the road is clear before he can proceed. Both people have equal rights, but the pedestrian gets to continue and the driver _must_ stop. Does this mean that the driver is a second-clas.s citizen? No. It means that the law recognizes that the right not to get run over and injured or killed is greater than the right not to be inconvenienced by having to wait for the pedestrian.
As for your scenario, I'm still working on a complete answer. Not sure if you came up with that yourself, but it's a very interesting question that has brought up lots more questions for me to ponder. I'll post as soon as I can, thanks.
The fact that the fetus dies is not relevant to the issue, Logic. It does not have rights. It has no rights because it is dependent on another's body for its survival. The reasons for abortion are as varied as the women who have them. And none of those reasons are any of your business. They don't matter in the slightest because the woman is the only one that can decide what is best for her. Not you. Not the government.
Our laws are based on the preservation of individual freedoms and on the protection of our rights. The fetus does not have a "right to life." Women do have a right to choose. If you think you can take that right away from them without infringing on the freedoms they are guaranteed by law, you'd better be able to show us how.
And the scenario I described? If you can't figure out how to solve the problem, then you have proved my point.
Your analogy sucks, too.
Are you seriously attempting to pretend that driving is a "right"? That being on time is a "right"? Simply ludicrous.
You really are terrible at this.
No Tom, driving is a privilege. The specific right that both the driver and the pedestrian are exercising is their right to travel freely (the right to go _where they want, when they want_). But in the scenario I have outlined, the driver's right to travel freely is limited because the pedestrian's right not to be killed is greater than the inconvenience that would be suffered by the driver. No second clas.s citizen there, just a hierarchical application of rights by the law.
That is such a ridiculous argument I can't believe even YOU would make it.
The driver is compelled to stop because not to do so would cause death or serious injury to the pedestrian, you mindless bot. Such an action would infringe on the rights of the pedestrian.
There is NOTHING in this scenario that even remotely relates to the issue of the right to privacy.
You have no argument, Logic.
"The driver is compelled to stop because not to do so would cause death or serious injury to the pedestrian, you mindless bot. Such an action would infringe on the rights of the pedestrian."
You seem to agree with exactly what I just said. The driver is LEGALLY REQUIRED to stop (a limitation of his _right_ to travel freely) because the pedestrian's _right_ to life (not get killed) is greater than the right to travel freely. If the driver does not stop, he can face legal prosecution, even if the pedestrian is not killed or injured. Just the possibility of the bad outcome is enough.
"There is NOTHING in this scenario that even remotely relates to the issue of the right to privacy."
Um, who ever said anything about privacy? Stick to the point.
You moron. The right to privacy–that is, the right to be secure in one's person–is the foundation of R v W.
You really are getting worse.
You continue to whine about your argument being based on the "unjust" nature of the law, and then moan when I explain to you that the law is based on the principles laid out by the founders.
The right to be secure in one's person can not exist without life. If you are not alive, there is no possibility of security. Hierarchy is simple, and a required part of the due process of law.
Then go argue that in front of the SCOTUS. I'm sure they are just dying to hear from a legal whizkid like yourself.
If you are not born, you are not endowed with rights. The fetus has no "right to life." A woman does. And she also has the right to do with her body and its contents as she sees best. What you think of her decisions is simply not important.
Logic must still be "working on a response" to my post. I see it's taking a long time. Funny, he seems to be quite prolific except for that particular sticking point.
It doesn't matter whether PP performs abortions as a large percentage of its services. It does so because it is a lower-cost option for women and they know if they go there they won't have some zealot waving signs with faked photos of aborted fetuses in their faces. They know they won't have some nut-job telling them what their "baby" looks like. They won't have some man yapping about the "sancti ty of life" and trying to make them feel like dirt.
It doesn't matter what you say about abortion, Logic. The choice is an should remain solely that of the woman who is pregnant. It's her body. It's her decision. It's none of your business.
Yes, abortion is up to women, but if a company don't believe in abortion due to its religion then a company should not be forced to provide abortion benefits. Have the government provide it to the women who wants to abort. Just like everything else have the government give it to you or Planned Parenthood supply the service and bill the government 10 times its value.
@Mr Need to get an education.................Plan b does not cause abortions. It helps to prevent them. The govt. CANNOT provide ANY abortion medication by law. The INSURANCE CO. is providing the contraceptives. NOT the employer.
I have a situation. What if a young girl in her twenties, poor, pregnant, single, boyfriend died in a drug deal. She wants a abortion. How would the pro life person convince her NOT to have an abortion?
The replies by the pro lifers were very very generic. Information you can be given to you while riding the subway. As WASP pointed out. How many people have they helped? Where's the money coming from? etc. Bill Deacon as usual didn't know the answer and Logic spit out a lot of nonsense.
I was looking for specifics. Oh little things like healthcare, food, shelter, education. What about help for the mother during pregnancy? job training, s3x ed, healthcare, a job so maybe she can keep the baby. Bill and logic showed their true feelings for women. They only look at them for producing kids. No more, no less. If you guys and others like you think you're going to be standing before the gates of heaven with the garbage you promote. I got news for you, you wont even see the mailbox in front of the gate.
I feel like pro lifers like to push adoption as the only alternative to abortion. Not that I'm anti adoption, but they offer to pay costs during pregnancy, all the while reminding the mother she is not 'fit' to be a mother, because she is single, poor, etc, pushing her to give away the baby. Of course there is no problem covering the costs, because the adoptive parents will pay anything for a newborn. Often they don't provide the mother the option or financial support to try parenting her child herself, because the same adoptive parents that would pay anything for that newborn would have zero interest in taking that child in when it gets older. So I'm not all that impressed by those that try to 'help' mothers choose adoption.
@Ken
Oh, you mean like this place:
http://www.maggiesplace.org/
They've been providing food, shelter, clothing, job training, job placement assistance, affordable housing assistance, etc. for the past 13 years in Arizona and now Ohio.
@Jen
My link above is evidence to the contrary. That organization (and MANY more like them) provides helpful support regardless of which option the mother chooses (adoption or keep the baby).
I said often Logic, not always.
Plus I do not think highly of an organization that trades services in exchange for pushing their religious garbage on people.
And where do you get this impression of "often" from, Jen? I happen to know this one personally through volunteer and monetary support and while they make no secret that they are a Christian organization, they in no way trades services for anything, much less "pushing religious garbage". From their site:
"Please note: while the house is rooted in the Catholic traditions, the moms come from a wide variety of religious background and participation in spiritual opportunities is by invitation, not expectation."
So how do you get along with your "practicing Catholic" husband with all of this animosity towards religion, anyway?
Why? Because a lot (again, not all) of pro lifers say, 'why not just give the baby up for adoption instead?'. A pro lifer JUST SAID IT on the other hobby lobby thread.
I have no animosity towards any religion. I have animosity towards evangelism. My husband believes religion is a private matter, something that you don't shove in other people's faces.
I love how you put practicing Catholic in quotations. I guess you don't practice one of the most important lessons from your religion – don't judge. I'll take my husband's religious views over yours any day. His make him a kind and decent person.
@logic..................I checked out Maggies Place. Very nice. Very good work that they do. There are some issues though.
A pregnant woman cannot come there WITH her other children. Have more than one child. Too bad.
Not fleeing domestic violence. Spousal abuse. too bad.
Have to be over 18. 15, 16, 17 year old, don't bother.
Cannot have a drug or drinking problem. So if you're TRYING to get clean. TRY somewhere else.
While I can respect what they are doing. They have the same problem other pro lifers have.
THEY DON'T HELP EVERYBODY. PRO LIFE MEANS YOU HELP EVERYBODY. YOU CANNOT LEAVE SOMEONE BEHIND.
THE LIFE YOU TURN AWAY IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE ONE YOU HELP. IT"S A TOUGH BURDEN. BUT YOU ASKED FOR IT. SO YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. SORRY.
I love how people go on about how a woman will regret having an abortion but don't talk about the much larger number of women who regret giving their children up for adoption or the even larger number who report a plunge in quality of life trying to raise a kid alone or with inadequate resources. The only people who regret abortions are either influenced by religion, or the same people who would regret not having children whether they'd been pregnant ever or not. Numerous studies show now psychological harm from having an abortion and the metanalyses support their validity.
We all know women who've had abortions. None of the women I know who had abortions ever regretted it. The only tears I ever saw were from a woman who was told she'd have to wait two weeks to gether abortion because access was so reduced...that's what the pro-lifers did, pushed back abortions in the area to later gestation by making women queue up for them. Nice move.
People like Logic and BD like to think that every woman, or even that most women, are consumed with guilt and sadness after abortion, but statistics say otherwise. A very large study done recently showed that women who have abortions are no more likely to suffer depression or any other mental illness than those who don't have an abortion and carry the pregnancy to term.
Regret? Who doesn't regret a single decision one has made? Should we outlaw marriage because some people regret having married? Every choice can result in regret, even if the outcome is still good. That's life.
And the fact that a woman may regret having had an abortion is no reason to make the choice illegal.
http://www.cwa.org/
That's the link to Christian World Adoption. When I googled Christina adoption agencies the list was too long to copy and paste so I choose the worldwide organization. No responses returned for atheist adoption.
It's not pro-life advocates that tell women they are unfit to be mothers. To the contrary, it is abortion advocates who instill fear of starvation and inadequacy into young women as a motivation for abortion. A pro-life person won't tell a young mother that life will be easy be they will tell them there is a way and there is hope and there is help should they choose to give birth.
That is such BS Bill. No one is pro abortion. You act like members of PP are roaming the streets seeking out women trying to talk them into abortion. Doesn't happen. Unlike pro lifers who DO stand outside of PP trying to guilt women into making a decision that might not be right for them. It is called pro choice for a reason. I respect a woman's choice to adopt, abort or keep her baby. And I support the political party that believes in social safety nets and health care for those that do keep their babies.
And their are many secular adoption agencies.
'there'
Tell that young girl to keep her legs crossed in the first place.
@MrNeed..............Why is the onus on the woman? Why cant a man control himself? Do you keep women locked up in your basement to keep them in their place?
MrNeedstomindhisownbusiness: Shove it. Girls don't get pregnant by themselves, fvcktard.
"While I can respect what they are doing. They have the same problem other pro lifers have.
THEY DON'T HELP EVERYBODY. PRO LIFE MEANS YOU HELP EVERYBODY. YOU CANNOT LEAVE SOMEONE BEHIND.
THE LIFE YOU TURN AWAY IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE ONE YOU HELP. IT"S A TOUGH BURDEN. BUT YOU ASKED FOR IT. SO YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. SORRY."
So, what you're saying, in essence, is that if you are unable to help 100% of people, then help nobody. That's crap, Ken. Planned Parenthood cannot help everyone that walks through their door either, that's why they do adoption referrals (though VERY few of them). And Maggie's Place does help by redirecting people that it cannot help for whatever reason (not equipped, not funded, potential risks to others, etc.) to other services that are better equipped to do so.
Also, since you might have missed my message before:
Slavery was legal, too. Are you saying that the people that stood up to that obvious injustice were wrong for doing so?
"I DID SEE VARIOUS PHOTOS. THE FETUS LOOKS LIKE A TADPOLE."
This is a tadpole:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Tadpole_(baby_frog).jpg
This is the baby at 8 weeks gestation:
http://www.i-am-pregnant.com/img/week8-fetus-in-amnionic-sac.jpg
And again, your answer was evasive. Did you look at the photos I linked, or not? And if not, why not?
@Jen
"I have no animosity towards any religion. I have animosity towards evangelism. My husband believes religion is a private matter, something that you don't shove in other people's faces.
I love how you put practicing Catholic in quotations. I guess you don't practice one of the most important lessons from your religion – don't judge. I'll take my husband's religious views over yours any day. His make him a kind and decent person."
I specifically put "practicing Catholic" in quotations for two reasons. 1) You said it, and 2) you went on to define your husband as someone who doesn't buy all of it. A "practicing Catholic" cannot choose to not buy all of it. It's all or nothing, plain and simple.
As for judgement, if you looked more thoroughly into what the Bible actually says, you'd see that in Matthew 7:1-5, it continues by making it quite clear that if we are to judge, that we do so properly. Later on, Jesus tells the Jews "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). Clearly the Bible and our religious views do not say that we cannot judge (and there are plenty more examples where those came from).
I hope that the owners of Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, and all of the other religious bigots go under.
Hobby Lobby just opened their 500th store
Chik-Fil-A reprots 12% sales growth in 2012
Dominos Pizza expects their international business to surpass domestic in 2013
Values pay!
Bill – it's more like profits pay. Max out your employees production, limit bathroom breaks. Now about Jesus and those moneychangers, ha ha ha
@Bill
Oh yes "values" is the reason they have a lot of money. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are greedy fucks who would rather have only part-time employees and fire them when they get sick instead of investing in their employees health and loyalty. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they pay their employees absolute shit, yet give their CEO's 6-7 figure salaries while bitching and complaining when people call them on it.
Oh yes, those greedy Christians over at Hobby Lobby. How dare they pay their part time employees a starting pay of $9/hour and full-time employees $13/hour (both over the minimum wage of $7.25/hour). SUCH GREED!
Oh, and I'll add that those starting wages have gone UP EVERY YEAR for the PAST FOUR YEARS, despite the economic downturn. Yep, spreadin' the greed around...
@Bill – LOL, the only value they see is in revenues. Dominos values selling pizzas, and has avoided taking any religious political position directly through Dominos. Chic is safe because is caters primarily to the bible belt. HL, also a bible belt original, will make adjustments based on revenue. They are grandstanding and I hope the fines are applied and it closes their doors. Notice none of these has any problem selling products to anyone – ergo they worship the almighty dollar first.
Also, how can a company with 13k employees honestly claim to represent the values of each individual employee? The BOR was written for individuals and does not, nor should it apply to corporations.
Well in any case, it doesn't appear that any of them are about to close up shop though according to our liberal friend honey badger that would be "progress"
Actually ANU that is the central question of the ACA. I argue that corporations are entiitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment. Others disagree with Tom Tom going so far as to say she believes Justice Sotomayor has already formed her opinion before the case has reached the SCOTUS. I know it drives liberals mad to hear that corporations are people, but dating back to the mid 1800's teh court ha ruled that they are, in fact individuals as far as the legal description applies.
@Logic
1) Cite sources that support that.
2) I notice you took one point and one company. I wonder why that is.
Dont worry. Citizens United (what a misnomer if there ever was one) will be overturned in the next 4 years.
There goes the basis for the entire GOP. Oh noez, what will we do now?
@Bill
And abortion is legal according to the supreme court. Guess you can't say anything about it now.
@hawaiiguest
1) http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2012/04/16/hobby-lobby-increasing-the-minimum-pay.html
http://newsok.com/hobby-lobby-raises-minimum-wage-to-13hour/article/3666871
http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2012/04/17/hobby-lobbys-new-minimum-wage-is-13-per-hour/
want more? Oh, and it's 15,300 employees, not 13,000.
2) Duh, page up?
@Logic
1) Good so we know that you actually know how to back things up.
2) That in no way address what I pointed out.
so 1/2, a lot better than your usual tripe.
So if something is legal there can be no discussion of it. Some one tell the Confederacy! Does that mean if something is illegal it can't be talked about? What will NORML do?
@hawaiiguest
1) That's because I'm interested in the complete truth.
2) Yes it does. I specifically spoke of Hobby Lobby's pay practices because it was related to the story on which everyone here is commenting. I do not have the pay and benefits information for the other two employers listed by Bill, though I will tell you that I have yet to have a negative experience with any employee of Chick-fil-A. They always seem very sincerely happy, which is a lot more than I can say for employees of other fast-food chains.
As for my "usual tripe", I post backup all the time. (Oh, abstinence-only "which has been shown, incontrevertibly, to not work at all." Right?)
Bigotry pays
@Logic
1) Could have fooled me.
2) The thread started with a mention of three companies. I spoke about those three with multiple points. And you came back with a single point for a single company. So no, your "but, but, hobby lobby does this", addresses a part of my post, but not the rest, which is what I was calling you out on. You say you have info on the other places, but didn't post it.
As for the end of your post, yes one of the things was abstinence only education, you claimed that "right" abstinence only education was needed, but never actually said what that is.
hawaiiguest
1) Go through my posts and prove it.
2) I posted information that I knew and could back up. "You say you have info on the other places, but didn't post it." No, I said I "didn't" have that information, which is why I didn't post it.
"As for the end of your post, yes one of the things was abstinence only education, you claimed that "right" abstinence only education was needed, but never actually said what that is."
Page down and read my reply to your angry post where I did "actually" say what that is (that doesn't qualify as "never").
The below post at 11:16 pm where you talk about the (non existent) abortifacient qualities of the morning after pill. Complete lie. The lie that you keep posting over and over again.
@Jen
"The below post at 11:16 pm where you talk about the (non existent) abortifacient qualities of the morning after pill. Complete lie. The lie that you keep posting over and over again."
First, I specifically referred to the "arguments about the abortifacient qualities" since it's obviously not something on which there is agreement. I also didn't post that Planned Parenthood alone has distributed over 1.4 million of them each year over the past several years. If indeed the morning after pill has abortifacient qualities (which also would have to be based on an as.sumption that the zygote is a human person enti.tled to the same rights as all humans, and yes, _I KNOW IT DOES NOT HAVE THOSE RIGHTS RIGHT NOW_), then the number of abortions performed by or caused by Planned Parenthood has the potential of being much higher.
Second, why did you post your "gotcha" up here, Jen? Wouldn't it have made more sense in the same thread?
Just responding to your ridiculous post that you are interested in the complete truth. You quote science over and over regarding when life begins but when science is quoted regarding what an abortion is and when pregnancy begins and all of a sudden science no longer applies. You disingenuously called the actual definition of pregnancy and abortion 'my' versions. Not even close to the complete truth. Plan b being an abortion drug is not even remotely close to true.
Also, you probably have stumbled across the studies that show that plan b does not prevent implantation. Those studies show that plan b does not create a hostile environment and women taking the drug that already ovulated get pregnant at the same rate as those that haven't. I'm also sure that HL is aware of this, but hey – why let the truth interfere when you are trying to make a political statement?
@Logic –
The current probability of the evidence indicates that levonorgestrel (Plan B One-Step) is not an abortifacient. This was the conclusion of a March, 2011 review of the evidence performed by the International Federation of
Gynecology & Obstetrics. You can read FIGO's "Emergency Contraception Statement" here –
http://www.figo.org/files/figo-corp/MOA_FINAL_2011_ENG.pdf
Do we know with certainty that emergency contraceptives never allow fertilization and prevent implantation? – no; but science deals with probabilities, not absolutes. Absolutes are reserved for dogma. If you're rational and honest, you'll stop stating that emergency contraceptives cause abortion.
preg·nan·cy (Noun)
– The condition of a woman or female mammal from _conception until birth_
Source: The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007
– The period from _conception to birth_.
Source: Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008
– The gestational process, comprising the growth and development within a woman of a new individual from _conception through the embryonic and fetal periods to birth_.
Source: Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009
And my point was that I know there are other definitions of pregnancy out there:
– The state of gestation; the period of time from confirmation of implantation of a fertilized egg within the uterus–presumptive signs of pregnancy include missed menses or a positive pregnancy test until the fetus has entirely left the uterus–ie, been delivered.
Source: McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002
So, again, under the first three definitions, if a drug should happen to prevent implantation, it is, in fact, terminating a pregnancy, i.e.- causing an abortion. As for Plan B being an abortifacient, indeed I have seen the recent studies that point to the likelihood that it does not prevent implantation. What you don't understand is that I would very much like for it to be proven not to. This would mean that for all of the pills distributed (past, present, and future), that it wasn't likely causing tons of abortions, and it was just being another contraceptive. The problem though is that there are several studies out there, some that demonstrate the prevention of implantation, some that dont, and none of them has been strong enough to irrefutably prove that it doesn't. And adding to that problem is that no faithful Catholic can be involved in directly researching this, nor can they procure such a thing, as doing so risks causing abortion (a grave sin), so we're limited to the studies that others perform.
As Really-O's example shows, a study from the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception, part of Family Care International, an organization devoted to making sure "all people are able to enjoy their se.xual and reproductive health and rights" is hardly what I would consider free from the likelihood of bias. Catholics do not need perfect certainty to proceed, only moral certainty, and the existing batch of research does not add up to that. For that matter, the reason that Plan B's own website _still says_ that it "may also work by preventing... attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)" is because the FDA is not yet convinced that it doesn't do that. So we have no choice but to consider it to be possibly an abortificient drug until much more conclusively proven otherwise.
(Oh, and Jen, I realized after posting my previous post here why it made sense for you to post it in this thread, I've just been down for the count recovering so hadn't come back to acknowledge it.)
@Logic –
The link I provided was for a position paper from The International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics, not The International Consortium for Emergency Contraception. The International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics is a professional medical NGO which aims to "promote the well-being of women and to raise the standard of practice in obstetrics and gynecology". The Federation's credibility is beyond reproach.
First, the position paper was released as a joint statement from both organizations. Second, since FIGO has also released a joint statement to the United Nations that includes recommendations including a "call to _immediately decriminalize abortion_, ensure access to a full range of modern contraceptive methods, and facilitate access to full, complete, and accurate information on se.xual and reproductive health," (source: http://www.figo.org/files/figo-corp/Joint%20NGO%20statement%20SR%20RTH%20crim%20GA%20crim%20report%20final%20251011_0.pdf) my concerns about the potential for bias most certainly have some basis.
@Logic –
Re: "joint statement from both organizations". You are correct.
Re: "bias". I would call it ethical consistency, not bias. If you believe an international consortium of physicians is involved in some kind of conspiratorial bias that betrays their ethical foundations, I'd ask you if you also believe in the illuminati.
@Bill
"My point is that the girls' faith is irrelevant to the fact of the value of the life she carries."
That is not entirely true. People assign value based on their own metrics which are often tied to religious belief.
Not sure what you're getting at Anu. Point being, one doesn't have to have to be a Christina to not kill their baby.
@Bill – true, one does not need religion to value a fertilized egg. Perhaps that was your intended point. Still, your statement is not accurate because you claim "the girl's faith is irrelevant to the 'fact' of the value of the life...." I argue that is untrue because faith, for many, would be extremely relevant; and you are of the opinion that the embryo represents viable life – also subjective, not 'fact'. According to your bible, not until it takes a breath....and actually, as the bible is so good at as signing value, the child has no value even after it's born until it is of a certain age if memory serves.
Feel free to post Scripture supporting your thesis. If you know me at all, you know I argue from the catechism of the Catholic Church which states that life begins at conception and is sacred until natural death.
Post all the scripture and other hocus pocus that you want. Same old same old. Go burn dem goats or nice god get angry mit you and roast you reeeeeal gooooood for long time and you scream scream.
Isn't there another board for third graders?
That we have to suffer through posts by idiots like Bill Deacon is evidence that there isn't a benevolent, actively involved god.
Bill Deacon, what is a fossil?
What is a whelp?
What is a Bill Deacon.
What is a faux Chad?
Bill Deacon is an aux whelp.
I have a situation. What if a young girl in her twenties, poor, pregnant, single, boyfriend died in a drug deal. She wants a abortion. How would the pro life person convince her NOT to have an abortion?
Well, if Logic is the one convincing her, he'll tell her that pregnancy is just temporary and no big deal.
He'll tell her she should just suck it up.
@Tom...................LOL
A friend of mine was in the habit of protesting in front of Planned Parenthood. One day a young lady came up to her and said "Fine, what will you do for me instead." My friend was convicted on that day to the point she started a faith based adoption agency which has now been in operation over ten years. I think a pro-life person would tell your young mother to be that regardless of her fears, regardless of her doubts and regardless of her lack of faith that the life within her was a precious and valuable human person who has the right to life and possibilities which we cannot see in our limited vision and that there are other options.
Bill Deacon, what is a blastocyst?
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
You said, "He'll tell her she should just suck it up."
Too late for that. She's already pregnant. 😉
The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early development of vertebrates. It is preceded by the morula. It possesses an inner cell mass (ICM), or embryoblast, which subsequently forms the embryo, and an outer layer of cells, or trophoblast, which later forms the placenta. The trophoblast surrounds the inner cell mass and a fluid-filled blastocyst cavity known as the blastocoele or the blastocystic cavity. The human blastocyst comprises 70-100 cells.
Blastocyst formation begins at day 5 after fertilization in humans, when the blastocoele opens up in the morula, a process known as hatching.
Bill Deacon, what is a copy buffer?
Amy, what is a diictionary?
@bill: now the most important question about your friend that openned the "adoption agency".
how many people have they helped?
where are the children this agency took in?
how many of those people were just brought in told how bad they were for thinking of ending a pregnancy and then kicked back into the streets; now with guilt issues to go with their pregnancy?
whom is funding this great organization? is it tax funded, donations or do they sell things to keep it running?
whom is on the review board to insure they are playing nice with everyone and not excluding people based on race,creed, etc etc etc?
Bill Deacon, what is sarcasm?
Wasp, I don't know all the answers to those questions. I do know that her church funds the agency. I suspect a good number of children have found homes through her offices and I would imagine that there is government oversight as there is with all adoption agencies. I am relating the story as an example of how some people are putting their life where their beliefs are. Are you simply looking for chinks in the armor?
Pizza – Sarcasm is from the Greek meaning "to tear flesh." Appropriate in a discussion about abortion don't you think?
Tearing (and burning) of flesh is something Christians should be expert at, Bill, having done so much of it in their sordid, vicious history. Hey, shall we meet up at your bloody sacrificial altar today? What animal will you be burning to please your skyboy this time?
HAHA yeah, because non-Christians never hurt anybody, ever. I will be at mass at 5:30. You are welcome but I suspect you might want to visit the reconciliation room first.
Today's reading:
Reading 1 Heb 10:19-25
Brothers and sisters:
Since through the Blood of Jesus
we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil,
that is, his flesh,
and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,”
let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust,
with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience
and our bodies washed in pure water.
Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope,
for he who made the promise is trustworthy.
We must consider how to rouse one another to love and good works.
We should not stay away from our assembly,
as is the custom of some, but encourage one another,
and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.
I'm surprised no one caught this little backhand from Bill
"I think a pro-life person would tell your young mother to be that regardless of her fears, regardless of her doubts and regardless of her lack of faith". Making the stealth equivocation that only atheists would get an abortion. How sad reality is for Bill.
By the way, pro-life is the wrong label. It's anti-choice, unless you're against the death penalty and against provisions for justifiable homicide, things like that.
Not backhanded at all Hawaii. Regardless of the girls faith or lack thereof, the child she carries is still valuable. Yes, the Catholic teaching is against the death penalty. I use pro-life because that is the term Ken used. Everyone is well acquainted with the efforts on both sides to frame the dialogue as pro-this, anti-that. It doesn't serve the dialogue to hammer on it as a debate point though does it?
@Bill
Ah but you didn't say "faith or lack thereof" did you? Only now, when someone is actually calling you out on it, you're attempting to change what you actually wrote. How's your Romnesia doing?
As for the label name, I think it's highly relevant when you're claiming some kind of moral highground to dig in and take a look at possible hypocrisy. I notice you didn't say anything about the justifiable homicide point as well.
"the child she carries is still valuable"
.
Outside of the mother's choice, that is a moot point.
@hawaiiguest
If a Catholic was considering getting an abortion, it is very reasonable that they are demonstrating a lack of faith in what their Church (and God) teaches. Same goes for many Christians.
And Bill beat me to it, but I would also do whatever I could to help this person know that there were places that can and will help, even if she's "poor" or doesn't believe in God.
Post by 'Bill Deacon' is an instance of the Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
@Logic
Spinning the bible is easier than spinning words whose meaning is clear and hasn't undergone multiple translations over thousands of years. Why don't you stick to that.
I think you are swatting at gnats as usual Hawaii in an effort to appear clever. My point is that the girls' faith is irrelevant to the fact of the value of the life she carries. She doesn't have to be Catholic to appreciate that so her faith is of no importance. No one is trying to convert her, only offer a CHOICE that eliminates he need to abort the baby. That was Ken's question
Fallacy you'd be correct only I am not using the two wrong tactic to make an argument. I am saying that manipulating the dialogue by labeling your opponent doesn't further discussion.
Post by 'Bill Deacon' contains an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Post by 'Bill Deacon' contains an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Fallacy Spotting's post is an example of the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.
(apparently it just takes Fallacy Spotting's annoying posts to put me on the same side as Bill...who'd have known)
@Bill
Yup, continue backing up more and more. Continue changing what you actually said instead of just owning up to it. And you still haven't addressed justifiable homicide.
That's what I like about you Sara. Even though we often disagree you're not a polarized bigot and you fight fair.
Here ya go Hawaii. If your question is do I support this philosophy, the answer is yes. If you think that disqualifies me as pro-life, well you are the only one on here I see arguing semantics:
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
That which is committed with the intention to kill or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circuumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it.
Always with the demanding answers. Oh well, I guess the best defense is a good offense huh?
Here's my question for you Hawaii. Do you think the girl in this scenario should have a choice? Should she be allowed the opportunity to speak with an adoption agency? Should she be encouraged to proceed with birth? Or should she just be funneled into an abortion mill, told that it is morally neutral and promised that she will not suffer any after effects of guilt or remorse?
@Bill
That's a whole lot of extra nonsense in an attempt to not seem hypocritical. If you accept that killing can be warranted, this is an admition that you put more value on the life of the person that you see as deserving to be killed. This is definitionally not pro-life. This isn't semantics you tool, this is proper definition and labeling. You are anti-abortion, not pro-life. I'm actually surprised you gave an answer, albiet one with a lot of dishonest twisting to try and discredit it.
If you also want to go with offense and defense, I guess for you the best defense is just crying and calling other people mean.
@Bill
Talk about a complete False Dichotomy. Your language is laced with all kinds of moronic rhetoric. "abortion mill"? Really? How moronic are you?
Here's what I think. The woman should have a choice without having to pass by a bunch of religious fuck nuggets attempting to GUILT her into changing her mind. I think she should be able to make a choice without going through the rigamarole of wondering whether the clinic will be standing or burned down when she goes there. I think that the religious fucks need to stop trying to force the choice they like on everyone.
You're not for people making a choice BIll, so don't try to pretend like you support peoples choices.
Even if God thinks abortion is wrong, why does he need to have stupid crazed inbred fucknuts opposing it instead of god showing some balls for a change and protesting abortion himself?
One more thing that says god doesn't exist.
Uh, Boris, bit much caffiene today?
@Boris
No it doesn't show that a god doesn't exist. It merely shows that if it does, then it's a lazy fuck.
I am absolutely anti-abortion. I think it is a blight on humanity. I deplore the conditions which even give rise to the thought of as a viable option. I am also pro-life. Being anti-abortion doesn't mean I am don't recognize the legal rights granted for women to do so. Being pro-life doesn't mean I don't recognize the concept of justifiable homicide. I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded and flexible. I've seldom seen such concrete thinking. But at least you've managed to steer the conversation away from how a girl with a difficult situation could be reasonably led to a pro-life choice by flaring up about what to call each other's camp.
Planned Parenthood's 2010 Annual Report shows that 91.2% (329,445) of the services they provided were abortions, while only 0.2% (841) were for adoption referrals. Sure sounds like they're trying really hard to help people plan parenthood. On a brighter note (for them), profits were up (gee, wonder why?).
Bill, it's your definition of abortion that is at issue. Most pro-choice persons accept the legal definition of when an embryo is considered a human and thus bearing human rights and all that entails. This is set at the point when the child is able to survive outside the womb or about 22 weeks. Most "pro-lifers" or "anti-abortionists" are those who feel that this should occur earlier, with many claiming they should get human rights at the moment the egg and sperm meet. The majority of those claiming this do so based on their religious belief that some invisible, undetectable and, even stranger, immortal spirit called a soul is created by their all powerful deity at the moment of conception and thus we have a responsibility to see that deities will through, regardless of whether it was conceived by r a p e or if that deities plan was to miscarry anyway. That is the crux of our issue.
@Bill
I notice that you didn't address what I said in response to your question. Also, you don't recognize anyones right to choose, and you know it. The only thing you recognize is your thought process of "My religion says this, so everyone MUST therefore abide by it". I've seen those people outside of clinics that provide abortions, and there's nothing about "choice" with those people. It's "God hates you you're an evil godless piece of shit and we're going to make your life hell because we love you". Don't make it seem like a nice friendly discussion, that's just a plain lie.
@Logic
A flat out lie.
@Logic, Personally, if I decided I did or didn't want to have a child I wouldn't want some health care provider counseling me about the decision unless I had health issues that were relevant. If I walk into Planned Parenthood for an abortion (not likely to happen, but theoretically), I would want an abortion, period. Do you want every pregnant woman to receive counseling about whether carrying that pregnancy to term is really a good idea? Do you want to be paying for that?
I always think it is interesting how pro lifers support ending the life of the fetus if the mother's life is at risk. How can you argue that the fetus' life is as important as the mother's, and then all of a sudden rank the mother's life as more important? For example, if a mother has pre-eclampsia, you can keep her alive in a coma while the fetus develops to live outside the womb. It will likely kill the mother, but the mother chose to take the risk of getting pre-eclampsia when she got pregnant, the fetus did not have a say. Doesn't the fetus have the chance to live the 16-40 years the mother already had to live?
It is beyond hypocritical to say their lives have the same value, and then pick the mother's life when both lives are in danger. By choosing the mother, you are inherently saying her life has more value (much the same argument with justifiable homicide).
@hawaiiguest
"A flat out lie"
Planned Parenthood's 2010 Annual Report summary (from their own site):
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
Page 2 at the bottom.
@Logic –
Did you read the Planned Parenthood document you used as a source? At the bottom of page 2:
ABORTION SERVICES — 3.0 PERCENT OF SERVICES IN 2010
...not "91.2%" as your previous post claims. Is that just a mistake or dishonesty?
@Saraswati
"Personally, if I decided I did or didn't want to have a child I wouldn't want some health care provider counseling me about the decision unless I had health issues that were relevant."
You don't think there's any value to a person understanding fully what they're going to do before they do it? If this is all about "choice", adoption and keeping the baby are both choices, too. And maybe you (in this hypothetical situation) walked in not knowing all of the facts, just what someone (or some website, or some brochure, etc.) told you. Wouldn't you rather have _all of the facts_ in front of you so you could make an educated decision about something so important as this?
"If I walk into Planned Parenthood for an abortion (not likely to happen, but theoretically), I would want an abortion, period."
Planned Parenthood markets itself as an organization that helps women make a choice, but the numbers certainly show they don't work hard at promoting anything but abortions (which also happens to be the largest revenue generator, being that it's a medical procedure and all) and distribution of the morning after pill (see elsewhere for arguments about the abortifacient qualities of that pill). And your theoretical self knows full well where to go for the abortion (the nation's largest provider of abortion services).
"Do you want every pregnant woman to receive counseling about whether carrying that pregnancy to term is really a good idea? Do you want to be paying for that?"
Yes. Present the facts, let her make a decision. Planned Parenthood vehemently disagrees and fights tooth and nail to prevent anything like this from happening, though. If abortion is legal and there's nothing wrong with the other "choices", why do you think they fight? Couldn't possibly be because they have a tremendous bias due to the profit potential of performing abortions, could it?
@Logic – "Yes. Present the facts, let her make a decision."
What facts should be presented?
@Logic, Just let me make sure that you understood my question and I understand your answer. Do you believe that every time a pregnant woman goes to her obgyn planning to have a baby the doctor should say "Wait a minute, let's consider all the options" and present her with the numerous studies indicating that people generally experience a decrease in happiness after having children and a presentation on the personal and global economic and environmental implications of her plans to carry a pregnancy to term?
@Logic – "Couldn't possibly be because they have a tremendous bias due to the profit potential of performing abortions, could it?"
Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit organization; hence, profit is not a driving force.
@Saraswati –
Clever.
Oops, thanks Really-O, meant to spell that out in my post. This is based on services specifically related to pregnancy, including prenatal services, adoption referrals, and abortions. The other services they provide are irrelevant to the purpose of my post in the context of this thread since we're discussing already-pregnant women. The numbers for each are:
– Abortions: 329,445 (91.2%)
– Prenatal Services: 31,098 (8.6%)
– Adoption Referrals: 841 (0.2%)
Thanks again for the fact-check, wasn't an intentional exclusion.
@Logic –
Thanks for the rectification.
@Saraswati
No. If she's pregnant and going to an OB/GYN "planning to have a baby", then she's planning to have a baby. The issue we've been discussing is the termination of pregnancies, not carrying it to term, so my as.sumption was that the female in the hypothetical situation was considering having an abortion. Note that this as.sumption was bolstered by the mention of Planned Parenthood in the next sentence, so I may very well have misunderstood your intended question. I would think the kind of counseling you suggest would make much more sense as part of se.xual education programs so they might consider those potential issues before getting pregnant (which is what they already do in both abstinence-only and other programs).
@Logic,
What I asked was "Do you want every pregnant woman to receive counseling about whether carrying that pregnancy to term is really a good idea? Do you want to be paying for that?" I was referring to women who were planning to carry a baby to term. If you are going to force those who want to terminate to assess their decision, you need to do the same with women who want to have babies, because it can't be assumed that they have made the right (knowledgable) choice.
A similar situation occurs when you allow parents to force their children to have babies if they are pregnant. By the same logic you must also allow parents to force their kids to have abortions.
I'm OK with you compromise of having the exposure in high school classes instead of either planned parenthood or the obgyn office, but the data needs to be presented using the full range of peer reviewed studies. And the reality is that if people knew the real data on how childrearing impacts quality of life, we'd have a fertility rate lower than Singapore's. There a reason no one wants to hear the facts.
@Really-O
"Can nonprofits make a profit?
Yes. Nonprofits can engage in revenue-generating activities that result in annual surpluses or profits. The distinction between nonprofits and for-profit companies is what happens to the surplus. For-profit businesses may distribute their gains to the owners or shareholders. Nonprofits must reinvest surpluses back into the organization and its tax-exempt purpose. Excess revenues may not be distributed to individuals affiliated with the organization."
(source: http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.115)
These profits (surpluses) most certainly drive non-profits, since it's how they continue their work, as well as fund promotion efforts, which have been shown (again from their own annual reports) to increase the number of abortions performed each year (by PP, specifically).
@Saraswati –
Daniel Gilbert, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University asserts that the data are in and are conclusive – parents are less happy than non-parents.
This harping on the fact PP mostly does abortions is pretty ridiculous. The only reason this continuesto be their primary function is that the christian terrorists scared everyone else out of the business in the 1980s. Planned Parenthood didn't start by providing abortions but has had to fill a void. And a good and honorable job they have done despite some very scary opponents.
@Really, yes Gilbert is a good source on the subject, and he was one of the few brave enough to say it in the popular sphere. There have been quite a few studies on the topic and generally what you see it a slight happiness bump for about 6 months, then a plunge below childless peers for about 18 years, and a return to the original happiness line when the kids leave home. I don't recommend quoting any of these stats at a dinner party with parents.
And the plus side is that there's some evidence grandchildren increase happiness...so as long as you can convince your own kids to take the 18 year hit themselves, you get payoff with the grandbabbies.
@Logic – regarding: "Can nonprofits make a profit?"
Valid points; however, your post seems to imply that organizations are cognizant, which they are not. It is common for profit to encourage individuals to betray their ethical foundations, but to suggest that profit motive leads individuals to behave unethically when they have no expectation of personal reward is unfounded. Mull it over.
@Saraswati
Almost 1.3 million abortions happen in the USA each year. Planned Parenthood (by far the largest provider of abortions in the US) performs only 330-something thousand of those, so other providers are doing the rest. That's almost a million abortions a year by the remaining providers. Hardly seems like the "christian terrorists scared everyone else out of the business".
@Saraswati
re: grandchildren
LOL
@Saraswati – re: Happiness stats.
Well, since my own son will be leaving for University next year, I hope you're correct – I'm looking forward to a nice happiness-bump come next fall.
Cheers
@Really-O
No, I'm implying that profit motive can lead the individuals that run a non-profit organization to behave unethically to advance their organization's purpose. More money, more ability to provide the service and promote it, including through things like misinformation. Also, since non-profits need to purchase supplies and services from other parties, there's always the potential for fraud through those transactions. You're not going to try and convince me that just because an organization is a non-profit that they're perfectly innocent, are you?
@Logic –
No, I'm certainly not implying that nonprofit status guarantees righteousness; that would be naive. What I am saying is that the profit motive (the economic principle) applies to individuals not institutions and organizations. If you're asserting that service providers within PPFA are violating their personal ethics to make more money for PPFA (the organization) so PPFA can increase their marketing and attract more "customers" so the service providers within PPFA can increase the instances of violating their personal ethics to make more money for PPFA...and so on...and so on – I'm asserting that is naive and is not supported by research in economics or psychology. Another possibility is that the players in PPFA may be value neutral with regard to the services PPFA provides and therefore see abortion as equable with adoption or any other family planning services offered. Assume the motives of those who disagree with you must be nefarious is problematic.
...equitable, not equable.
...and "Assuming the motives" not "Assume the motives". My proofreading skills are poor.
i think that the whole thing is ridiculous and even if obamacare is just following the rules i think that if its there way of doing things then it should be allowed.
Would you feel the same if for example the owner's religion prohibited blood transfusions, organ transplants (as some do) – would you that your employer can deny you those medical treatments?
Women forgot that they are more than just a pretty face, err Vegas showgirls........
"Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Well, that explains your misogyny - now if we only knew why you lie so much...
You have me confused with someone else. I don't miss ginny.
Agreed Midwest. That's why being religious and pro life go hand in hand. The bible clearly states that women are inferior – the above bible quote is crystal clear. Male pro lifers can't understand why all women don't act like the pieces of property the bible says they are and do ad they're told by men.
'as'
Jen, though your comment is filled with loaded words, I can tell you that Christina men and women are not at all confused about why some people act the way they do. Many of us recognize that it is often compelling for females to assert their independence and dominance while at the same time a man will often rather give in to her rather than risk confrontation and her wrath. The challenge for those who choose to live a Christian relationship is for the woman to respect the lead of the man and for the man to value the concerns of the woman. It's a delicate balance under which both are encouraged to explore their deepest humanity and bring the gifts of their comprehensive seexuality to the relationship. Neither owns the other. Rather each is given to the other.
Bill, as for "loaded words", talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you sexist jerk. You're a typical, deluded Christian male.
Actually, you're worse than most stupid Christians. Look at this phrase of yours: "the woman to respect the lead of the man": Bill Deacon, you are an ignorant, seexist pig. Take your pathetic, outmoded, misogeynistic religious delusions and shove them sideways where the sun don't shine.
Bill, as for "loaded words", talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you sexist jerk. You're a typical, deluded Christian male.
Actually, you're worse than most stupid Christians. Look at this phrase of yours: "the woman to respect the lead of the man": Bill Deacon, you are an ignorant, sexist pig. Take your pathetic, outmoded, misogeynistic religious delusions and shove them sideways where the sun don't shine.
Bill, as for "loaded words", talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you sexist jerk. You're a typical, deluded Christian male.
Actually, you're worse than most stupid Christians. Look at this phrase of yours: "the woman to respect the lead of the man": Bill Deacon, you are an ignorant, sexist pig. Take your pathetic, outmoded, misogynistic religious delusions and shove them sideways where the sun don't shine.
Whoa Sue................. You are spittin' mad. What you wrote is probably some of the tamer things people have been writing about Bill.
There's nothing loaded about my comments at all Bill. You just effectively agreed with what I said, no matter how 'eloquently' you tried to state it. I like how you equate a woman being dominant with her hurling wrath at her husband. So you have to agree that a 'Christian' relationship requires a woman dealing with a man's wrath. Sounds like an awesome relationship.
It is just ridiculous that anyone believes that a successful adult relationship requires a dominant and a subordinate. No one has those kinds of relationships with their other friends and families, so why would it be successful in a marriage? It isn't. No man can truly love or respect for a woman who has ultimately no say in a relationship, just like no woman can love a man that only takes her opinions into consideration. Take away the s-xual element, and you perfectly described the parent child relationship.
An equal relationship is the only relationship where there is true love. Real love takes maturity. Maturity is what is needed to compromise when there are disagreements. No rational person would actually think the dictator relationship you describe is better then one where two partners are able to discuss and solve all issues together. Your Christian marriage sounded awful. My marriage is amazing.
I am only telling that Christian philosophy aligns with Jungian psychology in this regard. There is an anima and an animus. They contain different characteristics. They are not equal, they are complimentary. One seeks respect and provides nurturing. The other provides comfort and seeks protection. The roles are not gender specific and may even be interchangable. I'm glad that you are enjoying your marriage but as a friend of mine said "Marriage isn't about our happiness, it's about our holiness." While my marriage may not have been the happiest, I'm content with the honor I paid the sacrament. While it may not apply to you Jen, too many people choose to leave marriages when the amazing part fades and the nitty gritty starts. I understand that you find this archaic and seexist. But it is not. This is what I meant when I said you were immersed in a feminist world view. Not that I am derogating you by that term but that you proceed from a feminist platform that seeks to "equalize" male and female identiity. I think that view, while politically popular is really just a rationalization for escaping from the Jungian dynamic into narcissism.
@bill: "While my marriage may not have been the happiest,"
you should have ended your comment there.
if your only stayed married because you feared god's wrath, then you have what you deserve.
if my marriage has more downs than ups, hell be dammed i'm getting away from that person.
why should i be miserable and make the other person miserable for the rest of our lives?
because we said "i do", well we can just as easily say i don't and part ways.
men and women are equals, with minor differences.
those minor differences mean absolutely NOTHING.
both genders are human and thus deserve to be treated off of that point only, nothing more.
Bill Deacon, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently. So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond. Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
Wasp, you are free to throw your sacred vow to the garbage any time. You are free to abort your children at will. You are free to deniigrate people who choose to live by traditional values. These are primary tenets of liberal feminism. Simply because a marriage presents challenges and periods of trial does not mean the marriage has no value. That has nothing to do with any fear of divine punishment. Simply because a child is inconvenient doesn't grant authority to end it's life. That is playing God. Simply because you are unwilling to observe traditional values doesn't mean they are corrupt or ignorant. That is bigotry.
Amy – you can use Jill's post as an example of cut and paste. The first 500 times she posted it it looked like stream of consciousness abstract poetry. It has lost its luster to me.
Bill Deacon, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.
Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.
Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.
Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
"if you only stayed married because you feared god's wrath, then you have what you deserve.
If my marriage has more downs than ups, hell be dammed i'm getting away from that person.
why should i be miserable and make the other person miserable for the rest of our lives?
because we said "i do", well we can just as easily say i don't and part ways."
Not just because we "fear God's wrath", but because we gave ourselves to each other, and PROMISED to "love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, in good times and bad, until death us do part". I took those vows and I meant them. If you say them and don't mean them then you're starting a marriage with a lie. Is that a good way to start off a mutually loving relationship?
"Men and women are equals, with minor differences. Those minor differences mean absolutely NOTHING."
Wait, being able to have babies is merely a minor difference that means absolutely nothing?
You know Jung's personality models are total crap right? Reputable companies (including the three large corporations I have worked for) no longer use the Myers Briggs model because of it's vast over simplification on the complexity of the human brain. You might as well default to Freud if you want to understand the human psyche (Jung was a big fan of his). Also, I don't know how you can make the leap from equality to narcissism. If anything is narcissistic, it's believing the roles in a marriage are similar to those in a company (and even successful companies value teamwork over hierarchy).
How sad that you think that happiness is not a requirement of marriage. My parents have been married 45 years so are long past the 'amazing' part. Happier than ever. I'm well past the amazing part too. Try dealing with the stress of three kids under four, a move to another country, a husband that works 13 hour days and three nightmare pregnancies. Of course
marriage takes effort and work. We constantly work on our marriage. But if we became miserable and we tried everything to rectify it, I would not lead a miserable life. You're not fulfilling the sacrament of marriage that way. Your marriage has failed whether you stay together or not. There's no difference (though you will screw your kids up more if you stay together).
Ridiculous to say that liberal feminism is responsible for divorce and abortion. Abortion rates have decreased as women have obtained more equality. And when women were forced to remain married there were just many more miserable people (sacrament was not fulfilled). I'm sure you think the times when men beat their wives into submission were better times because the divorce rate was lower; I do not.
Yes men and women are different. So are black people and white people. How does that make them unequal?
Obviously you are not in an equal marriage or else you would be working 13 hour a day. I'm not talking about a corporate hierarchy Jen. I suspect that our reference points are so exclusive of one another that we are having difficulty communicating. Certainly, if you think I advocate domestic violence as a pathway to marital commitment you are not seeing my perspective. I don't think you believe that about me. I think you are just incapable of not resorting to straw men. Point being, it seems as if you provide an environment for your husband that comforts him and enables him to do the work he does. I presume it was his career that led you to another country? At the same time, he provides security and economic stability to the family. Perhaps these roles are swapped around from time to time but narcissism occurs when one party demands all the rights. If I insist on all my feelings being met, all my motions being ministered to and all my thinking taking precedence, then I leave nothing for my spouse. The dynamic you describe to me of your marriage isn't equality, it's equability. His strengths compliment yours and vice versa. Congratulations on your success. You seem well on your way to a marriage like your parents which yields true happiness as a consequence of committed mutual support and dedication. That trumps the superficial self satisfaction of "what's in it for me" that typifies so many doomed marriages.
Again Bill Deacon the sexist male Christian pig presents his misogynistic, out of date worldview based on his sorry book of fictions and its horrid tall tales. What a surprise.
I guess I am having difficultty communicating with you because I don't know how what you just said (which I agree with), has anything to do with your initial post about the man being the lead in the family. You can't assume that the person working is taking the lead (that being men in most traditional Xtian families), as you admit those roles are interchangeable, and the person at home obviously takes the lead on other things.
Yes, my husband and I are in different roles right now. But there will come a time when we are in the same role. I will go back to work, we will hire people to clean, landscape, etc, and we will split childcare when we are both home. We both make enough money to support the family so completely equal. We were already doing this when we had only one child and it worked out great. No one ever takes the lead, and decisions are made together. Not sure how this is not equal.
@Bill, citing Jungian psychology is like doing surgery based on ancient Greek anatomy. The field of psychology has exploded since Jung...if you base your understanding of humanity on stuff like that you might as well be using Greek astronomy.
Shippensburg University, located in Harrisburg. Is selling PLAN B from a VENDING MACHINE. So you can buy soda, candy and plan b in a school vending machine now. The responses to this should be hilarious.
Hey Ken!
I saw that earlier. Of course SCIENCE says that plan b is not an abortion drug, but the pro lifers only use science when it furthers their agenda. Somehow science no longer applies when it doesn't work in their favour.
I agree with you about the eight week old embryo. I had an ultrasound at 8 weeks. It was a blob. It's still losing it's tail for
God's sake. If it resembles anything it's a tadpole.
Hello Jen, How are you doing? I think Logic is the only one sticking around. I haven't read Bill Deacon in a while. Bill and Logic are two different types of crazy. Bill is the intellectual one. Speaks very formal. Logic just throws stuff at you to see what sticks. In both cases, they misrepresent their "facts"
I'm waiting for logic's response to the question of who gave him the right to speak for the unborn. If no one has the right to speak for him, How does he get the right to speak for embryos and fetuses? That should be interesting.
Hey, you two. Hope all is well. Thanks for posting the info about Shippensburg, Ken. As a former Pennsylvania native, I'm impressed. Pennsyltucky is not known for its liberal views. I think Logic is stymied. He is certain the law is "unjust" but can't figure out how to make it more "just" without being "unjust" to women.
Bill Moyers had a great show on the issue. Did you watch it?
@Tom..............I don't get to see much TV. Work from 4:00 pm to 12:15am. Add 2 hours to get to and from work. I hardly have a chance to see the wife and kids!
What an awful commute! How do you stand it?
Simple Tom. I have this bad habit. I like to eat 🙂 My wife and kids have the same bad habit. And it's only getting worse!. Hey, there are a lot of unemployed people that would switch places with me in a heartbeat. I cant complain.
I keep hearing good things about that Moyers show. I'll have to check my guide.
It was really good, mama k. Moyers interviewed two women involved in reproductive rights. A lot about the history of the movement.
Do you think Logic and Bill Deacon will watch it?
Thanks, Tom Tom, I will make a note to watch it.
I don't watch tv
Bill Deacon
Your TV may be watching you!!!
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/14/tv-that-watches-you-2-tech-giants-are-patenting-a-creepy-future/
More accurately I don't own a tv.. Also, I speak formally, not very formal. I'm surprised TT didn't jump on you for grammatical errors.
Tom Tom, you are hilarious. 'no matter what monumental contribution you think your your j I z z was'. That was awesome. I'm nursing my baby in the middle of the night and he startled I started laughing so hard. Good thing I didn't wake up my husband. He's busy doing his 50/50 part while I breastfeed.....oh wait....
I didn't think it was possible, but I think these discussions have made me more pro choice.
Glad I made you giggle, Jen. Logic doesn't get it. He's still blathering on about what a woman may or may not do with her body and her pregnancy as if he has any say. Women aren't required to continue a pregnancy regardless of a fetus's DNA or resemblance to a human. Doesn't matter. Logic states things as if he were running the show. He isn't. No one is, except the woman who's pregnant. She isn't indebted to the man for his semen and she isn't required to give him any notice or consideration at all. If she does, it's her choice. He doesn't have to agree or approve. At all.
Logic is so simple-minded that he can't figure out that women don't give up their rights to make medical decisions about their bodies just because they're pregnant.
TT, nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested that the woman does not have these rights under the current laws. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the law itself is a just law. My argument is that it is not.
You lose either way. The law is perfectly just. It is not possible to give a fetus the rights of a person without taking rights away from the woman in whose body it resides. Unless you can find a way to force someone to continue a pregnancy against her will without infringing on her rights, you have no case. It would be unjust to force anyone to give up the rights guaranteed us by the Const union simply because she is pregnant.
You find a way to incubate a fetus and you'll have a say in the matter.
Tom, I think it's so hilarious that the zealots are almost always men. Of course there are many pro life women, but the ones that are the most obsessed with it are always men. They are also the psychos, like Akin and Mourdoch. Have you ever watched the segment Stephen Colbert does on those crazies? It's really funny. I love Colbert.
No kidding, Jen. It boggles my mind that these men are so obsessed with the "right to life" of the fetus and couldn't care less about the rights of women. And "zealot" is completely accurate for those like Logic, Chard, and Topher. They simply refuse to acknowledge that they will never be pregnant and will never face an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, and are therefore, not in a position to abrogate the rights of those who may very well have to deal with such events.
Absolutely ridiculous that they and many male legislators claim to be "protecting life" but in reality are attempting to put women "in their place" and take away rights they are guaranteed. These men would never stand for it if anyone tried to take away their right to refuse to donate a kidney or to give blood. The principle is the same. We don't force people in this country to do something medically that they do not wish to do.
"The principle is the same. We don't force people in this country to do something medically that they do not wish to do."
If the baby in the womb is a person (they are, according to science and the definition of person), then yes you do. They aren't choosing to be aborted. Thanks for making my point.
And the obsession with me continues. Somebody is VERY mentally imbalanced.
@Logic
And the woman wouldn't be choosing to put her health, and even life in some cases, on the line through her own choice. You would be forcing it on her. If you're going to talk about rights, then at least talk about all of them instead of only focusing on one. Or how about going into a more underlying problem. That being the moronic push for abstinence only education, which has been shown, incontrevertibly, to not work at all.
What you think science "says", Logic, is irrelevant to the issue. A fetus is not a person under our laws, no matter how much you would like it to be. It isn't and it shouldn't be. A woman is and should remain so even when pregnant. A fetus isn't "forced" to do anything. It doesn't have rights.
You cannot force a person to do something with her body she does not wish to do. A woman doesn't suddenly lose her right to her body and the decisions about it just because she becomes pregnant. It would be unjust to make a woman a lesser being than the fetus and that's what you're espousing. It won't happen.
@Jen
I replied to TT's posts, not yours.
@hawaiiguest
"And the woman wouldn't be choosing to put her health, and even life in some cases, on the line through her own choice. You would be forcing it on her. If you're going to talk about rights, then at least talk about all of them instead of only focusing on one."
Just because I'm focusing on one right, does not mean that I do not support the rights of ALL humans. I am not just a "pro-baby-life" person, I'm a _pro-life_ person, supporting the rights of ALL people from conception to a natural death. That includes the rights of the mothers EQUALLY.
"Or how about going into a more underlying problem. That being the moronic push for abstinence only education, which has been shown, incontrevertibly, to not work at all."
I'll just as.sume that you either forgot or didn't get to read my reply to you when you posted this before. I responded by listing TEN scientific studies that, in fact, are evidence that _real_ abstinence only education works. I'll add to that a federally funded study released in the beginning of 2010 by the University of Pennsylvania that found that abstinence_only education "can persuade a significant proportion to delay se.xual activity." Only about a third of participants had started having se.x compared to over half of the participants that were taught only "safe se.x." That is NOWHERE NEAR "shown, incontrevertibly, to not work at all."
@TT
"A fetus is not a person under our laws..."
Nobody is arguing what rights a fetus doesn't have under the current laws. Duh.
"You cannot force a person to do something with her body she does not wish to do. A woman doesn't suddenly lose her right to her body and the decisions about it just because she becomes pregnant. It would be unjust to make a woman a lesser being than the fetus and that's what you're espousing. It won't happen."
Oh good, we agree about this. You're absolutely right, it would be unjust to make a woman a lesser being than the fetus (which is not at all what I'm espousing). Neither party can have greater rights than the other, they must be EQUAL. But, in the case of the woman, despite any potential risks, pregnancy is at most a temporary condition, while abortion ALWAYS intends to END THE LIFE of an unborn baby. Risk verses certain death, which is worse?
@TT
"A fetus is not a person under our laws..."
Nobody is arguing what rights a fetus doesn't have under the current laws. I've already said this.
"You cannot force a person to do something with her body she does not wish to do. A woman doesn't suddenly lose her right to her body and the decisions about it just because she becomes pregnant. It would be unjust to make a woman a lesser being than the fetus and that's what you're espousing. It won't happen."
Oh good, we agree about this. You're absolutely right, it would be unjust to make a woman a lesser being than the fetus (which is not at all what I'm espousing). Neither party can have greater rights than the other, they must be EQUAL. But, in the case of the woman, despite any potential risks, pregnancy is at most a temporary condition, while abortion ALWAYS intends to END THE LIFE of an unborn baby. Risk verses certain death, which is worse?
@Logic
What the hell are you talking about "real" abstinence only education? All that is is "HEY, don't have sex." ALL DONE YAY WE'RE DOIN THE WORK OF JEEEEZUS.
Post these supposed 10 studies. They're probably all by fucktards like the AFA with the worst methodologies and sample sizes of like 100.
They cannot be equal, Logic. If the fetus has rights, the woman loses hers. The fetus has no rights now and shouldn't have any except those the woman carrying it gives it.
Picture this scenario, Logic: Suppose a woman who is pregnant is told that the fetus requires surgery in utero. The woman does not want to have this surgery. If a fetus had "equal rights," then can the woman be forced to have surgery against her will? If she refuses, then the "equal rights" of the fetus are infringed upon.
It doesn't work that way in this country. A fetus is not, nor should it be, a person under the law, because when it is deemed a person with special rights, the woman carrying it becomes a second-class citizen.
For someone who calls himself Logic, you really don't think things through.
@hawaiiguest
"What the hell are you talking about "real" abstinence only education? All that is is "HEY, don't have se.x." ALL DONE YAY WE'RE DOIN THE WORK OF JEEEEZUS.
Post these supposed 10 studies. They're probably all by ***tards like the AFA with the worst methodologies and sample sizes of like 100."
Why do you have to be so angry and offensive? If you're right, what's the point of that? Do you actually think it's helping your case? And are you saying that it would be bad if any of these programs actually helped kids not to have se.x, get pregnant, avoid STDs? Why? As for "Real" abstinence-only education, it means not including any information about condoms or other contraceptives whatsoever. And no, not one of these 10 studies (and one more, just for good measure) are from the AFA, nor does 600, 1,000, and 5,000, for example, equal "like 100".
Se.x Can Wait.
Heritage Keepers.
For Keeps.
Best Friends.
Not Me, Not Now.
Abstinence by Choice.
Stay SMART.
Teen Aid and Se.x Respect.
Delayed Se.xual Activity.
Life Outcomes in Young Adulthood.
STDs and Risky Se.xual Behaviors.
@TomTom
You know, that's the most polite response I've ever gotten from you. Seriously, thank you. I appreciate that. I'm working on a response, but I just got back from a night at the hospital and need to recuperate a bit first. Funny thing is I actually missed you people.
Anyway, thanks again.
Yeah, Logic, you keep on working on that response.
The fetus and the woman carrying cannot be equal. The fetus is dependent on another's body for its survival. It is therefore not equal, nor should it be.
Atheists = all liars all the time.
Yep.
Atheist, you liar! (ok, I couldn't resist that one)
Seriously though, I have met several atheists who are anything but liars. You don't need to believe in God to tell the truth. Statements like that don't help foster an adult conversation or debate on opposing points of view.
Nope.
I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
"Atheists = all liars all the time."
more lies from the xtians 164!
then you must be an atheist, tbt
My take is that those against birth control and abortion want the woman to have the child as a sense of "punishment" for wanting birth control or an abortion. The nerve of these women to have "s3x" for reasons other than breeding. The pro lifers don't even care if the mother gives the child away. They just want her to "pay" for her sins!
That pretty much sums it up. These idiots seem to think women get pregnant all by themselves. Men are absolved of any responsibility for birth control.
Good thing their opinions are irrelevant. Women have the right to do as they choose when they become pregnant. They do not lose the rights they have under law just because the religious right want them to.
@Tom.......................I think women should put more of the onus on men. Make the men wear a C0ND0M, Take the men to court to force them to care for their children. Remind men if birth control and abortion aren't available, That THEY also loose the right to choose. Men want women to have abortions for the same reasons women want them.
Wow Ken, that's one of the biggest piles you've let go here. So the four children that I take care of 90% of the time are some kind of punishment for my wife? Right.
@Ken
"I think women should put more of the onus on men. Make the men wear a C0ND0M, Take the men to court to force them to care for their children. Remind men if birth control and abortion aren't available, That THEY also loose the right to choose. Men want women to have abortions for the same reasons women want them."
Wow, will you look at that? We almost agree about something. Will wonders never cease? Men sticking around to to care for their children. It's almost like you're making a case for marriage before having se.x...
If you would stop selecting "parts" of my post to question. I referred to women that used birth control or wanted an abortion. Unless your wife wanted one of those, I was not referring to her.
You really see things written that no one else does. 🙂 My wife and I had a child before we got married. So I can't claim abstaining until marriage. I do think though that in some circu-mstances, a women should look at marriage more as a business, than love. In the sense that it gives them more rights in cases of divorce. It may sound cold. But I've seen too many situations of people having children out of wedlock, The couple breaks up, and the mother struggling to raise the child without the needed financial support from the father. That's the truth.
Sorry Ken, I see where you said that (easily cancelled out since it was almost the same phrase as earlier in the sentence), but the rest of your post doesn't add up. "Those pro lifers" wouldn't refer to women that want to use contraception or have abortions. Plus, pro-lifers are more likely to support adoption than someone that supports abortion (I do, how about you?).
@logic.................I'm not sure where you're going in the beginning. At the end you said "support adoption" Which is the same as me saying give the child away.........I support whatever the mother wants to do. That's why I'm pro choice. Choose to keep it. Fine. Choose abortion. Fine. Her life not mine.
Man, that really is cold. So instead of a loving relationship, the woman and man are entering into a contract to make sure they get theirs if (when) it fails. No wonder divorce rates are so high. But if it's the woman's choice and the man has no say-so, then why does he have to pay? And no, I'm not saying he shouldn't have to care for his kid (he most certainly should), just why is it "her body and the contents thereof to do with as she pleases" until the baby is out, then he's on the hook too. Sounds very selfish, rather than selfless and giving. 🙁
"Til death us do part" doesn't mean anything in a marriage like this...
In that case, Ken, your sentence structure could really use some help. Strange though that it's her life, again, the man gets off the hook, unless there's a paternity suit or child support in question...
You know what, Logic? You don't get a say. You don't have a voice in this matter. If you aren't the woman who's pregnant, your opinion doesn't amount to spit. The fact is that women get to decide what they will or won't do about a pregnancy. You don't.
Unless and until you figure out how to force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will without infringing on her rights, you're out of luck. Suck it up, buttercup.
First of all, TT, women can't have babies without the man's part added. That means that the baby is not all "hers". If we take Ken's little concept of a "contract" and apply it to a pregnancy, it would appear that there is a 50/50 split deal here (not that people OWN other people... slavery anyone?). But if it is entirely the woman's property, then forget paternity suits, child support, any of that. "Not mine, not my problem, lady." Is that what you want? I seriously doubt you'll find much support for that line of thinking.
@Tom.......You made a good point. Maybe the man's lack of "choice" in the matter is the reason why some men have a strong opinion on the matter.
@Logic........It'll be a 50/50 when a man has a baby through his penis. OUCH! Holding her hand and yelling PUSH isn't 50/50!
Logic, you idiot, I really hate to break it to you, but you're full of sh!t. Once a woman is pregnant, it is HER choice. YOU have no say in it. It's not your body and it's not your decision.
The extent of your say in that matter is to wear a rubber. That's all.
Women have a right to decide what they will do with their bodies. Unless and until you figure out how to force a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want against her will without violating her rights, you're just sh!t out of luck.
And here's another little surprise for you, you supercilious twerp: I am not in favor of child support. If a woman chooses to continue the pregnancy, she's on her own.
Like I said, azzwipe, suck it up.
You "seriously doubt" I'll find much support for that line of thinking? Guess what, sweet cheeks? I don't need any "support" for it. The fact is that under the law, you don't get to have a say as to what a woman does with her body. That includes her pregnancy. Don't like it? Don't impregnate anyone. It would be a real blessing.
@Ken:
The baby CAN NOT EXIST without the man's part. Those cells WILL NOT DIVIDE without the man's part. Every cell that splits after that is half hers, half his. Plain and simple science here. The DNA supports this. If you started a company (general partnership, for example) with someone else and both put in equal starting capital, it doesn't matter one lick who works harder, the government sees you as equal partners. Plus, if the man is going to stick around and care for and support his wife (partner, etc.) through the pregnancy (you tell me 9 months of pregnancy is hard, but it's not harder without someone to help out?), as well as after the baby is born, that counts for zip?
@logic.......Paternity and all the stuff that follows is 50/50. I look at marriage for what it is. There's almost nothing I can do married that I cant do single. I'll use my nephew as an example. He went to school.(college) Got a girl pregnant. Never got married. Eventually broke up with the girl. (He does support the child) Met another girl. Got her pregnant. They are currently still together. If I was the second girl, I would have made him "put a ring on it" To ensure a stronger commitment from him than he had in last relationship. Keep in mind there's still no guarantee. But in case of separation. She'll have more rights. That's what I mean by some circ-umstances. Not all.
Jesus Christ on a Triscuit, you're inane. It isn't a company, you ass. It's her body and her say. She is the one who has the right to do with her body as she sees fit, no matter WHAT monumental contribution you think your j i zz was. Women don't lose their rights when they become pregnant. They have the same rights to do with their bodies what they choose as you have with your own body.
Too bad if you can't figure that out, you twit.
"The baby CAN NOT EXIST without the man's part. Those cells WILL NOT DIVIDE without the man's part."
Apparently, you are rather ignorant, Logic. Women can and do get pregnant without any contact with a man. Artificial insemination–ever hear of it? Women don't need your assistance to have a baby. In fact, considering your contributions here, any woman would be better off without it.
I have to say it makes me laugh how Logic thinks that because his sperm was involved, he should have an equal say.
Here's the deal, Logic: The day you carry the fetus for nine months and give birth, you have all the say you want. Until then, kiss my ass.
@logic...............Hey trust me, If the woman lets the man talk her into having the child. I would wish them the best. But she MUST have the ultimate choice even if she is married. She can have an abortion and have the right not to tell him. (especially if he isn't the dad! 🙂 ) Of course in stronger relationships his opinion will carry some weight. But ultimately it's her decision.
"Apparently, you are rather ignorant, Logic. Women can and do get pregnant without any contact with a man. Artificial insemination–ever hear of it? Women don't need your assistance to have a baby. In fact, considering your contributions here, any woman would be better off without it."
Um, exactly what do you think they are being inseminated with? A tadpole maybe? I didn't say "contact with a man", I said with the man's part (meaning the sperm).
You really are desperately dumb, aren't you? Do you think sperm donors are in any way supporting the children they've "contributed" to? Do you think they have any parental rights just because they shot some juice into a cup?
What part of this don't you get, Logic? Men don't bear the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. They don't have a say in abortion. And for good reason. Why should they? And you can rail on about it and whine about it till you turn blue, dear, but the facts are these: the decision rests with the woman because SHE'S the one whose body is affected. Yours is not.
As I said before, if you don't approve of abortion, wear a rubber. The world will thank you for not contributing any more of your inferior genes to the pool.
You really have a laughably exalted opinion of your value, Logic. And an exalted opinion of your opinion, too.
I feel sorry for your wife.
"I have to say it makes me laugh how Logic thinks that because his sperm was involved, he should have an equal say."
If you give the argument that the "clump of cells" that's in a woman's body (which very quickly becomes a recognizable human baby even before 8 weeks) is hers to do with as she pleases, then science already supports that the clump of cells isn't solely hers (the DNA doesn't match). Shall we just do away with DNA testing?
Recognizable baby after 8 weeks? I don't know about that?
Logic fail:
LOL, the bacteria in your gut doesn't have your dna either, nor do the millions of parasites that live in and on your body. What, you can't take a shower, now? Silly christard.
Excuse me, Moby, but the DNA in the "clump of cells" is CERTAINLY UNIQUELY HUMAN. Find me ANY science book that supports otherwise.
Logic, do people have the right to do what they wish with things in or on their body that do not share their dna or not? You can't argue one way one minute and the other way the next minute. Yes or no?
Moby, bacteria does not equal a human life. The only thing that the "clump of cells" needs to thrive is the proper environment (in this cae, the womb) and nutrients. That's it, nothing else. Just like any human being at ANY stage in life. Bacteria will not grow up to be a human being. The "clump of cells" will not grow up to be a chicken, a frog, a monkey, or anything else but a human (assuming you don't kill it first).
Nope. Answer the question.
Can a person do what they like with living things on or in their body that do not share their dna. You can NOT argue both ways, dummy. Either drop the argument or use it one way only. Do you understand how logic works? I dont think you do.
@logic.............What about cancer cells? Should we have the right to remove them?
@Moby Schtick
"Answer the question."
It's a straw man, moby. I never said "living things", I said a human life (unique, individual). The clump of cells is both a living thing, and quite specifically human. That makes it a human life. The bacteria isn't. Do you understand how science works? I think not.
(hit enter too soon)
And that human life has its own DNA, unique from both the father and mother, but clearly traceable to both. It also has its own chromosomes that identify it as a male or female human being. Are you arguing that a human being can be simultaneously both a man and a woman?
Ken, cancer cells do not have DNA uniquely different from the mother. Cancer cells will also not grow up to be another individual human being.
@Logic
I'm arguing about logic, not science, but yes, I understand how science works much better than you do. Your argumentation is too convoluted to be logical, and as such, is rejected. Had you been able to make a sensible statement, applicable to ALL life that lives in and on a human but does not share its dna, I would have considered what you have to say, but you are too busy defining the terms so narrowly that only your position applies, and that's not logical.
Good evening.
Almost a full quarter of fertilized embryos do not "grow up to be a living human being" but are aborted by the body's natural processes-–most of the time without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. We're nowhere near on par with god's percentages until we start having a lot more abortions.
@logic.............DNA, Cells, clumps no matter what you call them. The mother still has the choice.
As you stated earlier "The "clump of cells" will not grow up to be a chicken, a frog, a monkey, or anything else but a human (assuming you don't kill it first).
You are finally admitting it is not a human (Therefore not a baby). It will GROW into one. So if women have the abortion before "it grows into one" They are not killing a baby.
gosh people are still arguing about clumps of cells?? I coughed up something really nasty the other day (I had a bad cold) – it was huge. but it WAS part of me. Was I killing it by letting it go down the drain? I mean I don't even think it could understand me – did you want me to try to call it back to me? what would I do sing G A F F(octave lower) C?
@Moby Schtick
The argument is whether or not the "clump of cells" in a woman's body that comes from the fusion of a sperm and egg is a unique individual human life, not the mother's or father's material, but its own living being. A textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives a list of the basic characteristics of all living things:
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. Furthermore, as early as three days after conception, the se.x of the _baby_ can be determined.
Nobody is arguing that it is wrong to kill any living thing, so your argument is moot. Stick to the subject.
"Almost a full quarter of fertilized embryos do not "grow up to be a living human being" but are aborted by the body's natural processes-–most of the time without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. We're nowhere near on par with god's percentages until we start having a lot more abortions."
And that is a _natural death_, NOT an abortion. Again, no moral issue here. Stick to the subject.
Nobody is arguing that it is wrong to kill _any_ living thing, so your argument is moot. Stick to the subject.
(meant to underline any)
@Ken Margo
"DNA, Cells, clumps no matter what you call them. The mother still has the choice."
The mother only has the choice because the law is in her favor. If the law is unjust, it should not be a law. Do you disagree with that basic premise? Plus, stop defending the existing law with itself. That's like defining car by saying "a car is... a car".
"You are finally admitting it is not a human (Therefore not a baby). It will GROW into one. So if women have the abortion before "it grows into one" They are not killing a baby."
Wrong again, a zygote is one part of the HUMAN life cycle. Same with fetus, embryo, infant, toddler, etc. I am using the term "clump of cells" to make a point about how pro-choice people want to define it as not human. In no way does that equal me saying that it is not human.
@Ken Margo
"Recognizable baby after 8 weeks? I don't know about that?"
Look at these photos:
http://www.i-am-pregnant.com/pregnancy/calendar/week/8
Eyes, nose, mouth, hands with fingers, feet with toes, umbilical cord, even a brain.
This isn't from some pro-life propaganda website.
You are clueless, Illogical. It's human. I've never said otherwise. It is not a person with rights under law that trump those of a born human.
Too bad for you.
Unless you can figure out a way to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will without infringing on her rights under law, you're out of luck. Women will continue to do what they must regardless of your convictions. The law supports their right to do so.
Your "shoulds" and "oughts" are irrelevant. You cannot deprive a woman of her rights in order to give the fetus rights.
@logic...............I've seen some pictures."Recognizable baby" is a bit of a stretch. The fetus is about the size of marble. Comparing it to a full grown 8 pound baby is ridiculous. The zygote is a part, just like the embryo is a part. The key is IT ISN'T THE WHOLE BABY. Does the embryo have a choice NO IT SHOULDN'T. It is not developed. It cant speak. The brain isn't developed. How CAN YOU SPEAK FOR THE embryo. What gives YOU the right to speak for the embryo. WHO DIED AND MADE YOU BOSS?. YOU don't have the right to speak for me, JEN, TOM TOM or anyone else. So why should you be able to speak for someone that isn't even here yet?
I didn't present an argument, Logic, I merely said that yours wasnt one, and it still isn't. Again, had you made the least bit of sense I would have considered what you have to say. As it is, you're just being circular: "Oh yes it's a human and therefore it's wrong because it's a human and therefore it's wrong!" You aren't presenting logic, you're presenting your viewpoint. Boring.
@Ken Margo
"I've seen some pictures."Recognizable baby" is a bit of a stretch. The fetus is about the size of marble. Comparing it to a full grown 8 pound baby is ridiculous."
Nobody said anything about a "full grown 8 pound baby" (as if all babies are 8 pounds anyway, ever heard of a premie?) So, you need to be a certain size to be a human? Be honest with yourself Ken, those photos (did you actually look? because you said "I've seen _some pictures_") clearly show a tiny human being.
"The zygote is a part, just like the embryo is a part. The key is IT ISN'T THE WHOLE BABY."
And which part is the zygote? Where on my body is this zygote? I have an embryo on my nose? My elbow, maybe? And what if a baby is born missing a limb? Are you saying that baby wouldn't be a "whole baby", and therefore wouldn't deserve the same rights?
"Does the embryo have a choice NO IT SHOULDN'T. It is not developed."
So, someone that is born with an underdeveloped organ isn't a person/shouldn't have rights?
"It cant speak."
Now mutes aren't people?
"The brain isn't developed."
Mentally reta.rded people aren't people either? These are the kinds of things that Nazi Germany used to "cleanse" the population of over 6 MILLION Jews.
"How CAN YOU SPEAK FOR THE embryo. What gives YOU the right to speak for the embryo. WHO DIED AND MADE YOU BOSS?. YOU don't have the right to speak for me, JEN, TOM TOM or anyone else. So why should you be able to speak for someone that isn't even here yet?"
First of all, someone is definitely "here" (in there). Second, you are correct, I don't have the "right" to speak for you. But I do have the responsibility to defend the defenseless. Do you have the "right" to speak for the over 100,000 children each year that are victims of se.x trafficking? No. Does it mean you have to walk away from that issue? Absolutely not. Or what if you saw some man beating a child (not a spa.nking, I'm talking visible injury stuff), do you have the right to defend that child? Yes you do. And if you just walked by and did nothing, how could you look your self in the mirror or sleep at night? Unborn babies are the _MOST INNOCENT_ human lives that are the _LEAST ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES_. Slaves didn't have equal human rights in this country. People had to stand up _for them_ to change that. "Who died..."? How about Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., etc.?
@Moby
That's right, you didn't present an argument, you tried to redefine mine. Human life is not the same as living organisms. Catholics and Christians (for the most part) don't believe that killing an animal/plant/bacteria/etc. is morally wrong.
@Logic......The things you mentioned below are ILLEGAL, ABORTION IS NOT. THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE NO REASON TO SPEAK FOR ANYONE.
First of all, someone is definitely "here" (in there). Second, you are correct, I don't have the "right" to speak for you. But I do have the responsibility to defend the defenseless. Do you have the "right" to speak for the over 100,000 children each year that are victims of se.x trafficking? No. Does it mean you have to walk away from that issue? Absolutely not. Or what if you saw some man beating a child (not a spa.nking, I'm talking visible injury stuff), do you have the right to defend that child? Yes you do. And if you just walked by and did nothing, how could you look your self in the mirror or sleep at night? Unborn babies are the _MOST INNOCENT_ human lives that are the _LEAST ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES_. Slaves didn't have equal human rights in this country. People had to stand up _for them_ to change that. "Who died..."? How about Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., etc.?
BABIES ARE BORN DIFFERENT SIZES. I JUST PICKED 8LBS. PICK ANY NUMBER YOU WANT. I DID SEE VARIOUS PHOTOS. THE FETUS LOOKS LIKE A TADPOLE.
"I've seen some pictures."Recognizable baby" is a bit of a stretch. The fetus is about the size of marble. Comparing it to a full grown 8 pound baby is ridiculous."
Nobody said anything about a "full grown 8 pound baby" (as if all babies are 8 pounds anyway, ever heard of a premie?) So, you need to be a certain size to be a human? Be honest with yourself Ken, those photos (did you actually look? because you said "I've seen _some pictures_") clearly show a tiny human being.
THE KEY WORD IN YOUR RESPONSE BELOW IS "BORN" FETUS ARE NOT BORN. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE.
"Does the embryo have a choice NO IT SHOULDN'T. It is not developed."
So, someone that is born with an underdeveloped organ isn't a person/shouldn't have rights?
"It cant speak."
Now mutes aren't people?
"The brain isn't developed."
@Ken
Slavery was legal, too. Are you saying that the people that stood up to that obvious injustice were wrong for doing so?
" I DID SEE VARIOUS PHOTOS. THE FETUS LOOKS LIKE A TADPOLE."
This is a tadpole:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Tadpole_(baby_frog).jpg
This is the baby at 8 weeks gestation:
http://www.i-am-pregnant.com/img/week8-fetus-in-amnionic-sac.jpg
And again, your answer was evasive. Did you look at the photos I linked, or not? And if not, why not?
Logic, I know this is off topic from your current convo, so I apologize for butting in – I was wondering, however, if you've seen any response yet from the church regarding the story in Colorado ?
@midwest rail
Not yet, but as I said before, an investigation can take time. Everyone involved still has the right to a fair assessment of their part and culpability in this situation. And while I agree with Bill Deacon that according to the law, the widower didn't have a case, the more important question is whether it was specifically used as the defense in the case, and who decided to defend the case based on that. Plus, since I don't happen to know the merits of the rest of the case, it's hard to comment on what other remedies they might have had available. Nevertheless, hypocrisy and scandal should not be tolerated by anyone, so I'll be waiting and watching to see what happens.
@Logic, By having se'x the law assumes that a man (who is assumed to know the law) has implicitly agreed to responsibility for any child produced. This is purely a matter of reality. We can't be allowing a man to have a woman tied down for surgical procedures and we can't say "well the man should carry the baby". Some things just aren't options and are unfair....cramps, prostate cancer, balding, pregnancy and having no say over pregnancy. There are simple biological differences that mean that everything won't be fair in exactly the way you want it to be.
What the fetus "looks like" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. The woman carrying it is the only one who should have a say in what she will do with it. Not you, Logic, not the government, not the church. The woman. She is the one who is pregnant. It's her say.
PS: I did not misunderstand you at all. You and the RCC want it both ways. Obey the law when it suits your dogma and oppose any law that does not fit your beliefs? Religion over state law, dogma over freedom, money and power over ethics or did you miss the whole religious protests and reformation? Bill, stop already, just escape your delusion, unless I guess it is how you make your daily bread. I forgive you, for what that is worth.
How condescending of you. Make an unsubstantiated charge against me then confer forgiveness by your largesse. As near as I can understand your inanity is that you not only think that religious people should not be allowed to canvass for legislation they support but that they should be somehow subject to a different set of laws than the rest of the population. What exact law is it that you think the hospital is guilty of?
Ok, my guess is "none" Now accuse me of running away.
Bill Deacon, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.
Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.
Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond. Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.