home
RSS
December 27th, 2012
07:20 PM ET

Hobby Lobby faces millions in fines for bucking Obamacare

By 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.

UPDATE: Hobby Lobby's $1.3 million Obamacare loophole

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Church and state

soundoff (5,627 Responses)
  1. Quincy Baeza

    For some women, breast health tops the list of women's health concerns. What's the best way to do a breast self-exam? What should you do if you find a breast lump? What's the best way to treat breast pain? ..;^*

    My own webpage
    http://www.healthmedicinedigest.co/index.php

    August 12, 2013 at 4:59 am |
  2. Frida Weninger

    Antihistamines work well to relieve symptoms of different types of allergies, including seasonal (hay fever), indoor, and food allergies, but they can't relieve every symptom. To treat nasal congestion, your doctor may recommend taking a decongestant. Some drugs combine an antihistamine and decongestant.:;:'

    Take a look at the most up-to-date article on our very own blog site
    <http://calaguastourpackage.com

    June 7, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
  3. Science

    Free speech helps educate the masses................POLITICIANS too !

    Where do morals come from?

    By Kelly Murray, CNN

    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/where-do-morals-come-from/#comments
    Gravity is not up for debate !

    BY the way ...................Splat goes a fairy in the sky !...............bye bye tinker bell !

    Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet..............................E = mc2..........(U–Pb).................two math formulas.

    Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

    Hey James Madison................religion has none it looks like.............with the comments on this blog.

    The Big question is ETHICS ! does religion have any ?

    The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species

    Apr. 8, 2013 — At some point, scientists may be able to bring back extinct animals, and perhaps early humans, raising questions of ethics and environmental disruption.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408165955.htm

    April 30, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |

    May 1, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |

    Dinosaur Egg Study Supports Evolutionary Link Between Birds and Dinosaurs: How Troodon Likely Hatched Its Young

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130418104324.htm

    And NO ANGELS the pope KICKED them OFF the TEAM last year !

    From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

    the wrong path is Adam and Eve !

    Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought

    Mar. 4, 2013 — The discovery and analysis of an extremely rare African American Y chromosome pushes back the time of the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage tree to 338,000 years ago. This time predates the age of the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm

    No god(s) needed or required to graduate from public schools in the US

    Remember : Adam had to POKE himself hard with his OWN BONE to create Eve.

    No god(s) needed................... Old. DNA works..................also catches crooks !

    Ancient DNA Reveals Europe's Dynamic Genetic History

    Apr. 23, 2013 — Ancient DNA recovered from a series of skeletons in central Germany up to 7,500 years old has been used to reconstruct the first detailed genetic history of modern Europe.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423134037.htm

    Ca-nabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) – National Cancer Insti-tute

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/.../page4

    Mar 21, 2013 – [1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. ... have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. ... In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to ...

    Good stuff !

    The fact...............the earth is to old for this nonsemse ! Time to EVOLVE !

    Ancient Earth Crust Stored in Deep Mantle

    Apr. 24, 2013 — Scientists have long believed that lava erupted from certain oceanic volcanoes contains materials from the early Earth's crust. But decisive evidence for this phenomenon has proven elusive. New research from a team including Carnegie's Erik Hauri demonstrates that oceanic volcanic rocks contain samples of recycled crust dating back to the Archean era 2.5 billion years ago. Their work is published in Nature.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424132705.htm

    For what...................... ? Make sure to read what the pope said !

    Where do morals come from?

    By Kelly Murray, CNN

    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/

    Learning is fun with facts.......................... and facts work when teaching children.

    Atheist Prof. Peter Higgs: Stop calling Higgs boson the ‘God particle’

    Professor Peter Higgs said recently that there is no God and so people should stop referring to the theoretical partial that
    bears his name as the “God particle.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/08/atheist-prof-peter-higgs-stop-calling-higgs-bosen-the-god-particle/

    Pope praises science, but insists God created world updated Thur October 28, 2010
    Stephen Hawking is wrong, Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday – God did create the universe. The pope didn't actually mention the world-famous scientist, who argues in a book published last month that the laws of physics show there is no need for a supreme... \

    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/28/pope-praises-science-but-insists-god-created-world/

    Science

    Heaven is 'a fairy story,' scientist Stephen Hawking says updated Tue May 17, 2011
    By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor The concept of heaven or any kind of afterlife is a "fairy story," famed British scientist Stephen Hawking said in a newspaper interview this week. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when...

    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/17/heaven-is-a-fairy-story-scientist-stephen-hawking-says/

    April 7th, 2012

    08:32 PM ET

    The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth

    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/comment-page-137/#comment-2281915

    Make sure to read comments

    April 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |

    Breaking News

    NASA: Three planets found are some of best candidates so far for habitable worlds outside our solar system.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/18/us/planet-discovery/index.html

    NASA: Mars could have supported life

    Star Dust we are

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWdU_px9ApE&w=640&h=360]

    Holy Hallucinations 35

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

    The ORIGIN story is bullsh-it...............so is the bible............... nasty !

    From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

    Scientists have unearthed the first direct signs of cheesemaking, at a site in Poland that dates back 7,500 years.

    Human Evolution

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevo.shtml

    BBC. Planet of the Apemen. Battle for Earth 1. Ho-mo Erectus

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUliLKSJ4bQ&w=640&h=360]

    BACKFILL on E =mc2.....

    Einstein letter, set for auction, shows scientist challenging idea of God, being 'chosen'

    By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

    Decades before atheist scientist and author Richard Dawkins called God a "delusion," one world-renowned physicist – Albert Einstein – was weighing in on faith matters with his own strong words.

    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/category/culture-science/

    May 4, 2013 at 6:47 am | Report abuse |

    Cheech & Chong's History of 420

    Cheech & Chong's History of 420 from CheechAndChong

    All cults...........creationists, ID believers and devil cults.................

    The fact...............the earth is to old ...........time to EVOLVE !.

    Ancient Earth Crust Stored in Deep Mantle

    Apr. 24, 2013 — Scientists have long believed that lava erupted from certain oceanic volcanoes contains materials from the early Earth's crust. But decisive evidence for this phenomenon has proven elusive. New research from a team including Carnegie's Erik Hauri demonstrates that oceanic volcanic rocks contain samples of recycled crust dating back to the Archean era 2.5 billion years ago. Their work is published in Nature.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424132705.htm

    Dover Trial Transcripts............................................. FACTS.

    Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

    http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

    Education works for children

    Earth From Space

    Detailed satellite images reveal the web of connections that sustain life on Earth. Aired February 13, 2013 on PBS

    Program Description

    "Earth From Space" is a groundbreaking two-hour special that reveals a spectacular new space-based vision of our planet. Produced in extensive consultation with NASA scientists, NOVA takes data from earth-observing satellites and transforms it into dazzling visual sequences, each one exposing the intricate and surprising web of forces that sustains life on earth. Viewers witness how dust blown from the Sahara fertilizes the Amazon; how a vast submarine "waterfall" off Antarctica helps drive ocean currents around the world; and how the sun's heating up of the southern Atlantic gives birth to a colossally powerful hurricane. From the microscopic world of water molecules vaporizing over the ocean to the magnetic field that is bigger than Earth itself, the show reveals the astonishing beauty and complexity of our dynamic planet.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html

    February 16, 2013 at 7:18 am | Report abuse |

    Peace

    May 5, 2013 at 6:07 am |
  4. Malik Giraldo

    The general meaning of ethics: rational, optimal (regarded as the best solution of the given options) and appropriate decision brought on the basis of common sense. This does not exclude the possibility of destruction if it is necessary and if it does not take place as the result of intentional malice.'*

    Please do pay a visit to our homepage
    <http://beautyfashiondigest.com

    May 4, 2013 at 1:34 am |
  5. Clemmie Mcmasters

    The release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (released as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States) took place in 2001. The story follows Harry, a young boy who learns he is a wizard and is sent to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to begin his education; gaining the help of friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) along the way. Radcliffe received a seven figure salary for the lead role, but asserted that the fee was "not that important" to him;;-

    Keep it up
    <http://healthmedicinentral.com

    May 2, 2013 at 2:23 am |
  6. longchamp uk

    The stars with this pool will be the comments and then the pictures will be secondary. Don¡ät comprise photos using only congrats in addition to praise. longchamp uk http://www.bagslongchampuk.info

    April 15, 2013 at 10:07 am |
  7. AmericanPatriot

    I'm glad Hobby Lobby is being fined. America could use the money.

    February 22, 2013 at 1:01 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      no fines have been levied or collected yet. So to date, all we have is the cost of funding the dept of justice staff of lawyers trying to enforce this debacle. No wonder America needs money.

      February 22, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, gee, why spend any money protecting workers?

      Idiot.

      February 22, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      I don't understand why people would think denying people insurance is a good thing? Haven't they figured it out yet that the taxpayer pays the bill for the uninsured? Denying birth control only raises the cost of insurance for everyone because more individuals will need to be covered. The govt. job is to provide services for the people. The more people the more services needed and therefor HIGHER taxes to provide those services? This isn't about liberal vs. conservative. This is plain math. The very same individuals that scream socialism also whine about higher taxes.

      February 22, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
  8. Science

    Creationist (RCC) are you the generated ghost this new device has created ?

    Engineering 'Ghost' Objects: Breakthrough in Scattering Illusion

    Feb. 19, 2013 — A team at the NUS Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering led by Dr Qiu Cheng-Wei has come out with an optical device to "engineer" ghosts.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130219090643.htm

    Peace

    February 21, 2013 at 8:48 am |
    • help me help YOU

      This is a religion blog , if you are so interested in science, you must be spending all these hours with your peers in the scientific community?
      Why would you be interested in engaging the believers here?

      There are creation scientists that will whip your behind with facts if you were truly interested.

      February 21, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, there aren't. Creation "science" isn't science at all. It's based on beliefs, not facts.

      February 21, 2013 at 10:21 pm |
    • Science

      help me help YOU

      A belief blog with facts will help you. go figure .

      Peace

      February 22, 2013 at 4:22 am |
  9. SoldierOfConscience

    Last post.

    see http://www.aaplog.org/

    these are doctors, mind you. telling you how dangerous getting between the mom and the baby is for the mom. Never mind the ethical issues I had raised before. I am going to send this site to my friends to use in their arguments.

    February 21, 2013 at 6:52 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      To TomTom – Plan B is not so benign. See http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/301980/itimesis-convolution-facts-abortifacients-donna-harrison#

      This is a MD doctor. not me speaking.

      February 21, 2013 at 6:55 am |
    • Science

      Separation of church and state

      New science standards created by 26 states (majority) for 2013 and beyond,, .. It is called Stem standards for public schools....

      No god(s) required
      By the way creatoin/ID LOST DEPUNKED at the Dover trial in 2005

      Peace

      No god(s) required for graduation n the US

      February 21, 2013 at 7:04 am |
    • Saraswati

      Yeah, because people will believe scientific arguments from a group that starts with a premise that life begins at conception. I wouldn't trust arguments posted exclusively on Plannned Parenthoods site either. If you can find people stupid enough to not know the difference between peer reviewed journals and propaganda sites go for it.

      February 21, 2013 at 7:21 am |
    • Jen

      It's not like soc has any idea of what he is talking about. He says that plan b aborts fetuses. It's not anywhere near the fetal stage (not even an embryo yet).

      February 21, 2013 at 9:00 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Jen,

      DR. Donna Harrison thinks so. Thats enough for me.

      February 21, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      This must be SoldierOfConscience ghost writing because the original SoldierOfConscience said he quit.

      February 21, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Does this organization that believes life begins at conception will offer any money to help these kids after they are born?

      February 21, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Fvcking moron, this isn't a neutral, unbiased source-it's a "pro-life" site.

      My god, you're so stupid it's beyond belief.

      February 21, 2013 at 7:57 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @tom............Were you really expecting an unbiased site?

      February 21, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Here is Dr. Donna Harrison's statement: "I am the President of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (“AAPLOG”), one of the largest special interest groups within the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
      4. AAPLOG members affirm the following Mission Statement:
      a. That we, as physicians, are responsible for the care and well being of both our pregnant woman patient and her unborn child.
      b. That the unborn child is a human being from the time of fertilization.
      c. That elective disruption/abortion of human life at any time from
      fertilization onward const itutes the willful destruction of an innocent human being, and that this procedure will have no place in our practice of the healing arts."

      SOC, you're as dishonest as Chard and dumber than a box of hair. This is a person who is obviously anti-choice and not unbiased at all.

      If you can't do any better than this, you're too lame to be any threat at all. No wonder you've run off with your tiny little tail tucked between yer ball.

      February 21, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Maybe we should call him Soldier Of Lost Conscience.

      February 21, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
  10. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    SOC COC probably hoped to see something along the lines of this:

    Oh, NOs! Don't go, SOC! You are the only true believer here!! Whatever will this blog do without you??

    February 20, 2013 at 10:08 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Did I read SOC correctly. Did he write that he and Saraswati were engaged? Saraswati wrote earlier that she wore a skirt at 16. That must have put SOC over the top. 🙂

      February 20, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Margo you cant read apparently. I thanked her/him for engaging me (which also means talking to someone). unlike name calling and foul mouth tom

      February 21, 2013 at 6:57 am |
    • Ken Margo

      @SOC.................... I was just kidding. Apparently god has also taken your sense of humor as well as your brain.

      February 21, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
  11. SoldierOfConscience

    I give up

    when explaining all the logical steps in my argument (that you dont agree with) suddenlt its not black and white

    then the abuse

    even if I do respond, accuse that I am not responding.

    Pointless.

    Saraswati, thanx for trying to engage me. Tom, No thanks. go to h-e-double-hockeysticks with your abuse

    so bye

    February 20, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, look, he's waving his lace hanky again and flouncing off into the sunset.

      Wait a couple of months and the azzwipe will be back, proclaiming that an impostor wrote this post.

      February 20, 2013 at 9:53 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      So long sucker. Keep donating at da church. Brainwashing is expensive.

      February 20, 2013 at 9:55 pm |
    • Zingo

      It's like watching Idi Amin fleeing to exile.

      February 20, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Zingo wins.

      February 20, 2013 at 10:02 pm |
    • Larry of Nazareth

      I would think that if you were going to do a self-righteous runaway post, you would at least try to write better than a second grader.

      February 20, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      That should be a clue that he can't.

      February 20, 2013 at 10:06 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      OK, Who's next!

      February 20, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Ooooh, the pain of it all.....goodbye, cruel world, you won't have SOC to kick around anymore" – SOC (translated)

      "HAAA-ha" – Nelson Muntz (direct quote)

      February 21, 2013 at 3:37 am |
    • End Religion

      I like the cross-posting of this. SOC thinks his leaving will have some impact other than the dramatic rise in average IQ here.

      February 21, 2013 at 3:52 am |
    • Akira

      SOC posted this on all of the articles...huh.
      Time to make up a new handle, I suppose.

      February 22, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
  12. Ken Margo

    A question for SOC and his ilk.

    If we could go back in time, knowing what we know today. Would you convince Osama Bin Laden's mother to use birth control?

    February 20, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    This just in (about 3 months ago, but SOC COK is slow): Plan B does not cause abortion.

    Get another schtick, fraud. You've been exposed as a phony. You don't even believe the sh!t you spew; you said so months ago when you bid all a big confessional sayonara and disappeared.

    February 20, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
  14. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Ah, I see the SOC puppet phony is pulling the same stunts yet again. Love how he pretends to ignore the difference between being dependent on others for care and being dependent on another's body for life, the stupid fvcktard.

    When it's your fetus, SOC COK, then you get to make the decision. Until then, fvck off.

    February 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Eliot's hand full of dust

      calm yourself down girl

      February 20, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm quite calm. I'm not impressed by you or your phony sock-puppet. Grow a set and get over it.

      February 20, 2013 at 7:48 pm |
    • Eliot's hand full of dust

      oh yes, you are most calm

      February 20, 2013 at 7:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Do you have a problem? What is it?

      February 20, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ya limp-dick. Pretty much what I expected.

      February 20, 2013 at 8:00 pm |
    • Eliot's hand full of dust

      No, I don't think I will screw you rotten you, although you need screwing, badly. That's what's wrong with you. You should be screwed and often, and by someone who knows how.
      Obviously that vibe of yours isn't cutting lately. Have a good night 😉

      February 20, 2013 at 8:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nice try at channelling Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. You're more like Dead Butthurt, honey.

      February 20, 2013 at 9:50 pm |
  15. Mass Debater

    How many Christians here celebrate the day they were concieved instead of the day they were born? Just curious.

    February 20, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Johnny Guitar

      Okay, you got a laugh out of me on that one!

      February 20, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Zingo

      Everybody sing!

      ♫ Happy parents fucked day to you!
      Happy sperm penetrated the egg day to you
      Happy Mom got knocked up day
      Happy darn the condom broke day
      Happy sperm day to you ♫

      February 20, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Saraswati

      These are the same people who are too dumb to realize the "unique DNA" argument doesn't work b/c we have twins, the "beating heart" argument doesn't work because we have lower life with beating hearts and the "potential human" argument doesn't work or we'd be saving every sperm and ovum just in case. Their focus on conception and the sancti’ty of 8 celled parasites is really what does them in and makes them look like simpletons, yet their absolutist black and white thinking won't allow for anything but a seemingly clean line, no matter how silly.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • End Religion

      I don't know much about the subject – is this twin DNS article relevant?
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html?_r=0

      February 20, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • End Religion

      DNS=DNA

      February 20, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • lol??

      You will regret the day you came out of the cabbage patch.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @End, I guess it could be if you were going to make the claim that if twins actually *did* happen to have truly identical genes then it would be OK to knock one of them off. But the whole thing just gets silly. Additionally, we have chimerism where one person doesn't even have unique DNA throughout their body, not to mention forms of cloning that could potentially create creatures, including humans, with absolutely identical DNA. The end story is that talking about "uniqueness" of DNA is just a silly waste of time.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • lol??

      Who's the bimbo sara debating with, her evil mutant twin?? bigot.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Nifty – even as a 16 year old sporting mini-skirts I don't believe anyone ever called me a "bimbo" so that's a new experience. Turns out its more comical than insulting, but maybe that has to do with being an educated professional in my 40s.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      lol never met a girl if she saw him coming first.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • End Religion

      Yes this will be incredibly messy in the coming generations. What is human? Why is it different or better than any other animal or even mechanical "life" (once machines can begin calculating choices as fast as humans). Cloning, anti-aging technology, human/mechanical intertwining, basic discoveries of science pushing god further into a gap, resource scarcity, will all make for some very interesting conversations about population control, pregnancy and abortion in the coming centuries.

      I personally find myself wondering, as silly as it is, about how we're going to deal with the next animals that speak or rather that we can communicate with intelligently. We already have this quandary of gorillas that can communicate via sign language and use iPads – back and forth intelligent communication. We are learning that dolphins are communicating with one another via language (apparently actually passing knowledge) even though we can't understand it yet.

      It's pretty easy to see my own dog communicating with me when something is wrong, either by a look or bark or actions. When does this become "speech" and then when do we need to consider conferring additional rights to these creatures? I see this as an odd sort of parallel to "when do we grant a fetus/child rights?" even though the human argument is more specifically about initial birth and the animal question is more about being "born into" a more humanist treatment.

      Certainly most animals like captive gorillas can't live in a society as our equal because they may be dangerous. But how do we cope with animals who may begin clearly communicating with us and us with them? What if we could actually communicate to a gorilla that if he controlled his temper we could let him out from his cage? What if he communicated that he understood? What if we let him out and he lived peacefully among us for 10 years, maybe in a group home for mentally challenged humans? When does he get "rights"?

      What if our gorilla got a job stocking WalMart shelves late at night? And what if once in his life on a bad day he beat someone up? Does he go back in a cage forever as a failed experiment or only for a short jail sentence? Don't most humans (typically males) get in a fist fight at least once in their lives, some humans many times? If one gorilla learns that controlling his rage equals freedom and a chance to get out of the jungle, and can pass this onto other gorillas, and they agree to become more docile, is that the "beginning of life" (the granting of rights) for gorillas, those we'd otherwise use for experimentation?

      OK, I will put my crack pipe away...

      February 20, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @End................Yes you are getting deep. But have no fear. Whatever decisions we make, we're sure to fvck things up. The NRA will protect the gorilla's 2nd amendment rights to shoot humans. Republican gorillas will be against healthcare and catholic gorillas will be against birth control. Liberal gorillas will want to legalize weed and so on and so on....

      February 20, 2013 at 7:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Paraphrasing someone: It is not yet written that we are the last and best species on this planet.

      February 20, 2013 at 7:40 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @tom...............With some of the decisions we make. We're trying to be the last species on earth!

      February 20, 2013 at 7:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, it isn't likely. We may make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, but another species may evolve and adapt to the sh1thole of an environment we leave behind.

      February 20, 2013 at 7:46 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Tom..............We'll see where the global warming fight goes. I think 2014 is the key. If democrats can get control of the house, maybe something can be done.

      February 20, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Even so, I doubt we're the end all and be all.

      February 20, 2013 at 7:54 pm |
  16. Sean

    Maybe after another three hundred years these Christians will be in the 21st century.

    February 20, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
  17. Snarkzilla

    Saddest excuse for a hobby shop I've ever seen. Serves em right.

    February 19, 2013 at 7:41 pm |
  18. Ken Margo

    @SoldierOfConscience..............This is your reply to me last week. You prove why you are a total moron.

    Ken Margo,

    I have no obligation to feed and clothe children produced by acts of omisson and comission by others.

    MY REPLY: SINCE YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION. IT ALSO MEANS YOU DON'T CARE. SO, MIND YOUR BUSINESS.

    Once they come into this world, they are unborn humans. It's then the responsibility of those who brought them in.

    MY REPLY: ONCE THEY ARE HERE THEY ARE UNBORN HUMANS? WHAT THE HE'LL IS THAT?

    To give you an analogy, if a coworker is reeeally slacking and i report him/her, he/she may lose the job. Then is it my responsibility to support the family? NO. the chain is slack -> lose job -> cant support family

    MY REPLY: YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT KIDS after KIDS ARE BORN. THIS IS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL.

    Similarly, here the chain is
    have s3x -> have baby.

    MY REPLY: DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE FARM ANIMALS? WE ARE MORE THAN S3X MACHINES.

    Natural consequences.

    Do not kill unborn humans to avoid natural consequences.

    MY REPLY: GO FU'CK YOURSELF. IF YOU WANT THEM HERE, PAY UP SCHMUUCKO.

    February 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Shouting wont help. Who is the moron is clear. I gave you logic. I was talking about b1rth c0ntrol that does so by killing fetuses (e.g. plan B). and about ab0rt1on.

      Shouting that I have to pay wont help. I laid out clear logic. just the way "slack at work -> leads to -> get fired", "have s3x -> leads to -> have baby (if pregnant)".

      let me educate you on what an unborn human is. Please answer TRUE Or FALSE (no arguments. anything other than FALSE will be taken to be TRUE)

      Q1 Fetus is alive? true or false

      Q2 Fetus is made of human cells and has a independent heart (however primitive)? true or false

      Q3 Except in case of twins or multiple birth, it has unique DNA? true or false

      Q4 in case of multiple births, except those individuals, nobody has their unique DNA? true or false

      Q5 As long as the baby is not impacting mom's health or her mental state by being product of inc3st or r@pe, baby is not harming anyone, mom or outside? true or false

      if it is true for all five, then it is a living unique human being who is hurting no one. An unborn human.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • Ronald

      The early embryo is not an individual. Until about 14 days after conception, the embryo can divide into two or more parts. Under the right conditions, each of those parts can develop into a separate fetus. This is the phenomenon known as "twinning." Twinning shows that adult human beings are not identical with a previously existing zygote or embryo. If that were true, then each pair of twins would be identical with the same embryo. This is a logically incoherent position. If A and B are separate individuals, they cannot both be identical with a previously existent entity, C.

      As the early embryo is not an individual, it cannot be the moral equivalent of an adult human. To claim that someone is harmed, there must be "someone" there. We do not and should not grant moral rights to mere groupings of cells.

      The potential of the embryo does not make it a human person. Those who rely on the potential of the embryo to support their claim that it is morally equivalent to an adult human conveniently ignore the important role that extrinsic conditions play in embryonic and fetal development. An embryo in a petri dish is going nowhere. An embryo needs nutrients provided by the mother through the placenta in order to develop into a fetus and beyond. These nutrients regulate the epigenetic state of the embryo. The embryo does not have the inherent capability of expressing its potential on its own.

      Additionally relevant to this discussion is the fact that embryos used in research are spare embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. In other words; they are embryos that are destined for the trash can, unless they are used in research. Therefore, they have no prospect of developing into a fetus. Their potential is no more than a theoretical construct.

      The claim that the embryo is the moral equivalent of a human person is implicitly rejected by everyone. One important fact about embryonic development that is often overlooked is that between two-thirds and four-fifths of all embryos that are generated through standard sexual reproduction are spontaneously aborted. If embryos have the same status as human persons, this is a horrible tragedy and public health crisis that requires immediate and sustained attention. Not only should we abandon stem cell research, but we should reallocate the vast majority of our research dollars from projects such as cancer research into programs to help prevent this staggering loss of human life. Interestingly, none of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research have called for research programs that might increase the odds of embryo survival. Their failure to address this issue is puzzling if the embryo deserves the same moral respect as human persons.

      Similarly, IVF, at least as currently practiced, would appear to be morally objectionable regardless of whether some embryos produced by this procedure are used in research. Those who utilize IVF intentionally create many embryos that they know will be discarded eventually. How can we accept a process that consigns entities that supposedly have the status of human persons to the rubbish bin?

      February 20, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Ronald

      "Q3 Except in case of twins or multiple birth, it has unique DNA?"

      1- DNA is chemical compound composed of chain of peptides and proteins strung together in a double helix formation that is like a blueprint in telling the organic chemistry in your body how to build cells, what kind of cells, and where to build them. And chemical compounds can not be considered as a living things, because in realty, all chemical compounds ( e.g enzymes, fats , lipids , proteins , ........... etc ) are non-living things. So, if we said DNA is living, we to say that all chemical compounds are living also.
      2- DNA is non-living, because it is a molecule not an organism, and this molecule is not sharing organisms in any property, even in replication process as it needs co-workers ( e.g. Enzymes, RNA co-factors ) to succeed its replication.
      3- DNA is non-living because it cannot maintain homeostasis on its own. And it does not have a metabolism of its own.
      4- Is water living or non-living? Water is the simplest example of something not living but responsible for maintaining life. So, DNA is not living but responsible for so many important functions related to life as it is the genetic material which control all the vital processes in the bodies of -almost all the organisms.
      5- DNA is non-living because it is not having any growth and it can't grow, and the process of replication is not growth, it is simply " Duplication ".
      6- Firstly, living things are made up of the living material or the protoplasm while non-living things are made up of dead material. And DNA is non-living because it is made up of dead material ( e.g Codons and nucleotides ), in additional to that all the structure of DNA composed of dead materials that are chemical components.
      7- If we defined growth as adding new material to our bodies, then DNA is living, because in the process of replication it add new sequences to its structure, but even in this case we have say it is non-living because DNA is not showing development which is the second part of growth, and simply development is the changes in structure living things undergo as it grow and age. So. no change in the structure occurring after replication process.
      8- Birth and death is one of the characteristics of living thing, DNA appeared in the living and it is not having birth point to have death point. So, DNA is non-living because it never dies.
      9- DNA is not living. It is a chemical – a large fragile molecule – in fact it is a FANTASTICALLY HUGE MOLECULE and for what it is, it is in fact remarkably robust. It contains a series of chemical bonds linked together in a chain, and since not all the links of the chain are the same, it is possible to store information there. Our modern computers use binary – a code made of two digits – 1 and 0 or ON and OFF or MAGNETIZED and NOT MAGNETIZED. DNA uses quaternary code – 4 digits represented by four proteins.
      10- It is non-living; there is no debate in the biological community about this. It is a relatively inert chemical that can now be synthetically made. Considering DNA as living is like considering protein to be living. DNA is part of a living cell, as are proteins, fats and a number of other organic molecules.

      Scientists said:
      DNA is not living thing; but it is essential part to all the living things. Without DNA the presence of life could not be. It is non-living as it carries the properties of non-living things most than carrying that of living things.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Ronald, thank you for the PhD thesis.

      DNA is used here as a marker of whether it is an individual or not. Why court system tests for DNA? they can uniquely identify perp.

      Show me where I said DNA itself is alive.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @SOC, Your arguments assume that everyone is using a simple rights based ethics where rights are handed out immediately at conception and calculations take place, weighing, in your view, the mother more heavily than the fetus. What you don't consider is that for most people rights are either not a part of the ethical equation, or one part among many. Two other vital components are consciousness or level of consciousness and impact on society as a whole. Immediately after conception we obviously have no consciousness since there isn't even a nervous system. As the embryo and then fetus grow we move through levels of potential consciousness that start out lower than a flatworm. If you want to equate such ent'ities to vital, mentally sharp elderly people who happen to need help due to parkinsons that's you, but it's pretty twisted. Even when we begin to lose or mental abilities we are still more aware than a fetus (and I volunteer with the elderly with dementia – NOT fetuses). Even when we are injured and severly brain damaged, there's a thrid consideration: impact on society. We are all as conscious actual living humans concerned about how we or our families may be treated and so we have laws to protest those of us who have been born )or made it to whatever reasonable line of consciousness we choose) for the sake of society as a whole, to prevent us from worrying about what might happen to us if... And we have laws that allow us to dictate the rules of how we want to be treated in the case of such injuries.

      If you assume that everyone is working of a simple rights-only ethical template you are addressing a very small minority with your argument.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Saraswati

      "Except in case of twins or multiple birth, it has unique DNA? true or false"

      Once you recognize twins there's no point in raising this "unique DNA" argument unless you somehow think aborting adult twins is OK. The unique DNA argument is waste of everyone's time.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      I'm not getting caught up in your phoney crooked christian Bu'll Sh'it quiz because none of It matters. The law says a woman can have an abortion. Period. I don't care about the status of the pregnancy. A woman should have the right to have an abortion from the first month to the ninth. I don't care about the heart beat, cells or DNA. The fetus could be doing taxes for all I care. As long as a birth hasn't happened the mother should have the right to an abortion.

      Why cant people like you admit that you really don't care the kids. Several times I've mentioned the money part concerning kids. You don't even acknowledge the financial toll children have on parents (and the public). I'm sure you're a republican. Probably voted for Mutt Romney. Mutt wanted to cut and gut every social program that babies (the ones you say you care about) need. No criticism for your boy Mutt Romney or the republican party.

      The catholic church influence is shrinking by the second. Catholic schools are closing by the second. Catholics ignore the church on everything. Catholics use birth control, divorce, have premarital s3x, are gay etc.. You know things are bad for the church when the pope gets tired of it. Fortunately you and your type are a dying breed. The sooner you're dead, the better off the world will be.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Aha, Ken, so you challenge me. Then you cut and run.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Ronald and Saraswati...........You guys are obviously a he'lluva lot smarter than me. I keep my message simple as you can see.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @soc.......cut and run? yeah right. You proved my last post correct. No mention of the financial toll on the parents. So sad.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Ken. financial toll. lets see. Someone buys a house. and then complains of teh financial toll of the mortgage.

      naah they dont have my sympathy. You made your bed now lie in it. Somehow provide for teh child!

      February 20, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Yeppers

      Q1 "Fetus is alive? true or false" Capable of independant life?" No.

      Q2 "Fetus is made of human cells and has a independent heart (however primitive)? true or false" Heart is not independant until third trimester. Being made of human cells irrelevant, as you can find Jesse James' human cells, and he isn't alive.

      Q3 "Except in case of twins or multiple birth, it has unique DNA? true or false" Irrelevant to the question of "is it alive", and twins stillhave unique DNA, you moron.

      Q4 in case of multiple births, except those individuals, nobody has their unique DNA? true or false" Again, irrelevant. If you are trying to prove they are alive, you are failing. If you think you are proving they are individuals, so what? Not relevant.

      Q5 "As long as the baby is not impacting mom's health or her mental state by being product of inc3st or r@pe, baby is not harming anyone, mom or outside? true or false" Deceptive: there are other cases such as economic hardship, drug addiction, societal pressure and shame on unmarried pregnants, and so forth that are very compelling. You must not be a parent, because I guarantee you that raising a child is a MAJOR impact on your life, and if a woman/family is not up to it, then you will have a miserable child and family in this overpopulated world.

      Your attempts to use "true or false" shows how sleazy you are. You don't want truth; you want your false argument to win. That is intellectually dishonest, something we have come to expect from you.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Yeppers, His attempt to narrow everything down to true or false questions is the same on Live4Him likes to use. I think they really do think the world is that simple – L4H has said as much.

      An interesting study result we see repeatedly finds this pattern of what amounts to lazy thinking among "conservatives":

      "Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases."

      February 20, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Saraswati –

      Interesting paper. Brings to mind "Jon Stewart v Sean Hannity".

      February 20, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O,

      I liked this one back in '03, it discussed how a variety of views, depending on context, could meet that "conservative" standard, ranging from Reagan to Stalin:

      http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

      February 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      SoldierOfConscience

      Ken. financial toll. lets see. Someone buys a house. and then complains of teh financial toll of the mortgage.

      naah they dont have my sympathy. You made your bed now lie in it. Somehow provide for teh child!

      You totally miss the boat. This applies to people that have the children. YOU want them to have the children, since YOU want them to have the children, YOU have to help pay for them.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:21 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Saraswati –

      Another good one, thank you; the conclusions seem so obvious (to me, at least). It's disheartening to see how political pundits have hijacked the word "liberal" and cloaked it in divisive garb.

      Cheers

      February 20, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Ken, you repeat yourself like a broken record. Also, you ignore proof presented to you about rights of the fetus. If it can be proven that the fetus growing in your stomach has rights then nobody has to pay for that fetus to survive. Its up to you to not have fetus inside your stomach.

      You have shown your true colors by saying that till teh day of delivery, the baby inside mom can be killed. I knew that all liberals believed that, deep down. Thank you for confirming it. What next? Euthenanasia?

      February 20, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Soldier

      You really enjoy showing how pathetic you are don't you. Your constant talk about liberals and Red Herrings really is telling. So, why did you run from
      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/20/vatican-pope-may-change-rules-to-allow-replacement-vote-sooner/
      Then again, you could ignore this and continue to demonstrate that I was right when I said you have no conscience, and that you're just a pathetic little zealot with zero integrity.

      February 20, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
    • Jen

      Oh soc is using slippery slope. So soc, you agree that if a woman is forced to carry a life to term then she will next be forced to donate a kidney to sustain life as well right? After all, the slippery slope doesn't just go one way.

      February 20, 2013 at 9:04 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Sorry SOC, Your definition of fetus rights don't cut the mustard because you say so. Why don't you move to the middle east? They don't have abortions or birth control there. You'll fit in perfectly. Show dem Muslims your christian values and I'm sure they'll respond by giving you a hair cut that starts and stops at your neck. Christianity and Islam have a lot in common. No abortions, birth control, gay rights, divorce or stem cell research. See How happy dem Muslims are? See how prosperous they are? All because they follow a made up super hero that only gets credit when things work and none of the blame when they don't, Just like Christians.

      February 20, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So SOC COC thinks the fetus grows in a woman's stomach??

      Yeah, I'll be sure to look to him for information. What a putz.

      February 21, 2013 at 10:28 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Tom............Damn, I'm surprised I missed that.

      February 21, 2013 at 11:51 pm |
  19. Is aborting a baby an ethical decision?

    Yes or No?

    February 19, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      No one aborts "babies", the abortion procedure is for fetuses and earlier.

      February 19, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
    • Is aborting a baby an ethical decision?

      I like the way your dance around the question!s aborting a fetus an ethical decision?

      Yes or No?

      February 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Sometime, yes. And it's not danceing, it's pointing out your use of a word that doesn't apply merely for shock value. A dishonest, and quite frankly a pathetic tactic used by those without any real argument to support your position.

      February 19, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      How do you abort a baby?

      February 19, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • Hubert

      Lets repharase that question, as it stands it's rather accusatory.

      Does the decision to have an abortion involve ethical reasoning?

      February 19, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      What about the ethical decision of taking care of the fetus/child?

      Obama Healthcare would help in prenatal care to ensure a healthy child. Republicans are against that.

      What about social programs like public assistance, to make sure the kid eats. Republicans are against that.

      What about investing in children education. Republicans are against that.

      Planned parenthood also provide screening for cervical cancer so women can have children. Republicans are against that.

      Since the "pro lifers" don't want to help the children AFTER the kids are born. Why do want them to be born?

      February 19, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Why do "you" want them to be born.

      February 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • Why's and the wherefore

      Why would we want an unwanted baby to survive?
      Why should the prisoners be fed?
      Why should the poor be given sustenance support?
      Why should the unemployed get any benefits?

      February 19, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      When you figure out how apostrophes work and how to make words plural, I might care what you think.

      As it is, you're another stupid fundy who has no business telling anyone else anything.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:02 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      You mean an unwanted pregnancy. NOT unwanted baby.
      Either feed the prisoners or let them go free.
      As pro lifers like to say "God wants them to be born" So god wants you to help them.
      Unemployed people paid into the system prior to unemployment. So the unemployed are only getting what is owed to them!

      February 19, 2013 at 7:05 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If the fetus isn't in your body, it's none of your business. At all.

      The only one who gets to decide is the woman who is pregnant.

      Are you pregnant?

      February 19, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • Why's and the wherefore

      Ken, none of the answers you've listed above make a strong case for/or against supporting the arguments listed. You have decided to apply selective reasoning as is convenient to your worldview. Bottom line , every decision as it relates to human life as to be weighed ethically.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not by you, it doesn't.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The unemployed are people with rights under the law.
      The prisoners are people with rights under the law.
      The poor are people with rights under the law.

      A fetus before it is viable outside a woman's body is not a person with rights under the law.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, yeah, and women are people with rights under the law. Those rights are not removed or reduced simply because the woman is pregnant.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
    • Why's and the wherefore

      You've missed the point completely. This is not about the rights it is about the ethics.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:47 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Yes, abortion is an ethical decision for the person who is making the decision; it is not and ethical decision for those who want to impose their ethics on the person making the decision. Simple.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The only person whose ethics matter, dearie, is, as Moby just told you, the woman who is pregnant. If it's in your body, then your ethics apply.

      Your ethics, regardless of what they are, do not apply to a fetus that isn't yours.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:57 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @why..............Tom Tom & Moby answered your questions a lot better than I did.

      February 19, 2013 at 7:59 pm |
    • Why's and the wherefore

      What is 'ethical ' consideration when it comes to human life?

      February 19, 2013 at 8:00 pm |
    • Why's and the wherefore

      Assuming none of you belong to a profession that demands ethical behavior, I can see where you are coming from.

      February 19, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Why's

      And now you've finally come to the area of disconnect, where you will make the assertion that as soon as fertilization occurs, it's a human life, and people point out the flaw in that.

      February 19, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Why..............Why do you concern yourself over a fetus that you don't know.

      You wont feed it
      You wont clothe it.
      You wont provide shelter.
      You wont provide healthcare.

      Where is the ethics in those positions?

      February 19, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @why............You mentioned profession that required ethics. What do you do for a living? I work for a bank. I'm required to pass tests/quizzes to ensure ethical behavior.

      February 19, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What part of "it's none of your business" do you fail to grasp? A fetus is human. It is alive. It is not a person with rights. It is dependent upon the body of another. If you find abortion unethical, then don't have one. Until you're the one who's pregnant, nobody gives a rat's ass about your ethics.

      February 19, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • Dippy's sub

      "Why's" is a contraction for "why is."

      February 19, 2013 at 9:15 pm |
    • Dennis

      Human beings are generally ethical creatures whether driven by culture or otherwise. Ethics is a choice, unfortunately not all human beings are capable of. How else do you explain criminal behavior?

      February 20, 2013 at 10:16 am |
    • Saraswati

      "Is aborting a fetus an ethical decision?"

      Yes, almost always it is done based on a decision that will help increase overall well-being of the earth's sentient beings.

      February 20, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Tom, in a civilized society we balance the mom's 'rights' against those of the unborn human inside her. he/she has rights too.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      paraphrasing Tom,

      "A fetus is human. It is alive. It is not a person with rights. It is dependent upon the body of another. If you find abortion unethical, then don't have one. Until you're the one who's pregnant, nobody gives a rat's ass about your ethics."

      replace fetus with 1 year old child. If you leave it out with no support it will die. So same applied to it. Heck same applies to any human who cant support themselves. Also "if you find X unethical dont have one" applies to thievery.. so dont steal. Dont go around putting thieves in jail.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • End Religion

      SOC, the moment my daughter was born she leaped from the doctor's arms and began foraging for food and constructing a shelter. Don't tell me she couldn't survive right after birth!

      February 20, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      So End, you support removing all "child endangerment" statutes from the books? since they can take care of themselves? yes or no please.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Saraswati

      SOC, rights are human constructs. Assigning them to an enti'ty without even a nervous system, which is what you life-at-conception types are talking about, is as silly as assigning the cells on the tip of my thumb equal rights to me. And yep, if I had the right equiptment I could clone little saraswatis from half the tissues in my body – do they all get the same rights? That mole I had removed?

      February 20, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      "A one year old is human. It is alive. It is not a person with rights. It is totally dependent upon another for food and shelter and income. If you find infanticide unethical, then don't have one. Until you're the one has the 1 year old, nobody gives a rat's ass about your ethics."

      translation : Only mom/dad of 1 year olds get to decide what is infanticide. Nobody else has a say.

      "A 85 year old sick person is human. he/she is alive. It is not a person with rights. It is dependent upon another for care. If you find euthenasia unethical, then don't have one. Until you're the one who's caring for an old person, nobody gives a rat's ass about your ethics."

      translation: only caretakers of old people have a say in whether euthenasia should be legalized. Nobody else can even vote on it.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • End Religion

      Life's questions can't always be answered Yes or No. To assume and answer must be only be such is a false dichotomy.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Sorry im so hard nosed about this. But think in terms of BLACK and WHITE. Think of the unborn human who came into this world. In my mind either remove all laws on ab0rt1on so that even the day before the delivery its ok to kill the poor child. OR, protect the unborn human from conception on. Your choice.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • End Religion

      I do understand your position SOC. Fortunately it isn't too often we determine law via lunatic opinion.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • ME II

      Until a fetus can survive or be expected to survive on its own outside of another person's body, meaning that it is not dependent on being inside another person in order to live, then it is not legally a person.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      Ken Margo, its on the people who brought the fetus into thsi world to feed it, clothe it, provide shelter and healthcare.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @SOC, Your arguments assume that everyone is using a simple rights based ethics where rights are handed out immediately at conception and calculations take place, weighing, in your view, the mother more heavily than the fetus. What you don't consider is that for most people rights are either not a part of the ethical equation, or one part among many. Two other vital components are consciousness or level of consciousness and impact on society as a whole. Immediately after conception we obviously have no consciousness since there isn't even a nervous system. As the embryo and then fetus grow we move through levels of potential consciousness that start out lower than a flatworm. If you want to equate such ent'ities to vital, mentally sharp elderly people who happen to need help due to parkinsons that's you, but it's pretty twisted. Even when we begin to lose or mental abilities we are still more aware than a fetus (and I volunteer with the elderly with dementia – NOT fetuses). Even when we are injured and severly brain damaged, there's a thrid consideration: impact on society. We are all as conscious actual living humans concerned about how we or our families may be treated and so we have laws to protest those of us who have been born )or made it to whatever reasonable line of consciousness we choose) for the sake of society as a whole, to prevent us from worrying about what might happen to us if... And we have laws that allow us to dictate the rules of how we want to be treated in the case of such injuries.

      If you assume that everyone is working of a simple rights-only ethical template you are addressing a very small minority with your argument.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @SoldierOfConscience – "Your choice."

      Promise you will never run for public office...or teach...or have children...or...oh, to hell with it – just promise you'll stay in your house, sitting at your computer, and having your groceries delivered. Please!

      February 20, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @SOC

      "Sorry im so hard nosed about this. But think in terms of BLACK and WHITE. Think of the unborn human who came into this world. In my mind either remove all laws on ab0rt1on so that even the day before the delivery its ok to kill the poor child. OR, protect the unborn human from conception on. Your choice."

      That's really your problem. You want the world to be simple and it isn't. You want the world to be black and white and it isn't. Your desire for this simplicity leads you to think that a blob or 4 cells is the same as a child when to most thinking beings it clearly isn't. IF you can't live in the real world you might want to consider the protection of a padded cell.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      me too, did you read what I wrote above about 1 year old humans?

      February 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • ME II

      @SoldierOfConscience
      Did you read what I wrote about dependence on being inside another person?

      February 20, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • SoldierOfConscience

      So one is to live in the "real world" and when a robber is caught, think "the thief has to feed his family, its not all black and white so let him go".

      same for a murderer?

      where does it stop?

      February 20, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @SOC

      "So one is to live in the "real world" and when a robber is caught, think "the thief has to feed his family, its not all black and white so let him go". ...same for a murderer?...where does it stop?"

      Again your thinking is way, way too simplistic. Of course I wouldn't let a murderer go under any normal circu mstances. Yes there was a "reason" he/she committed the crime, but we have a lot of reason's to put someone in jail other than revenge. We need to deter future crimes and we need to keep dangerous people off the street for a start. Those needs outweigh the enjoyment that murderer might get from being out on the street. We have made these calculations and adopted a legal system which puts murderers in jail. But the decisions weren't and aren't easy. The legal system is always changing and evolving. But just because it would be nice if things were simple doesn't mean we can make them so. This isn't a land of make-believe...it's real and it's messy and it's our job (at least as I see it) to do the best we can for the good of all.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
    • clarity

      The God of Israel could tell a believer to abort their child. It could even be several months along. And another believer has to understand this person based on faith alone. Sad perhaps, but righteous in the name of the Lord.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @soc

      Ken Margo, its on the people who brought the fetus into thsi world to feed it, clothe it, provide shelter and healthcare.

      My reply:

      You are correct. This answer applies to those WHO WANT TO HAVE THE BABY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL. People who use birth control don't want to bring children into this world.

      How many children do you have? Do you plan to have any more? If not, does that mean you are not having any s3x with your girl/wife. How does she feel about it? When you have a wet dream do you consider that murder since you "wasted" all that potential life?

      February 20, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Jen

      SoC, re infanticide and abortion. Since you see them as equal, let's provide the same solution. Any mother that does not want her one year old can give it up for adoption, and any mother wanting an abortion can have the embryo vacuumed out and also give it up for adoption. Since they are the same situation in your mind, they should have the same solution correct?

      February 20, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @jen..............How are you? It's been awhile. Playing devils advocate. The "vacuumed out" embryo would be tough because you'll need to find a "volunteer" to take the embryo and complete the pregnancy and adoption. When would the pregnancy start? With the original woman the embryo was taken from or when it's placed in the volunteer?

      February 20, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • Jen

      Hey Ken, I'm good, how are you? Just bring sarcastic. SofC is saying that infanticide and abortion are the same – just showing that's not the case (the embryo would die the second it was detached from the uterine wall).

      February 20, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Jen.................I'm good. Lets hear from a woman's perspective. Let's say your husband decided that yes, 3 kids are enough so you shouldn't have s3x again. forever. (I think you are in your late twenties or early thirties) Your marriage will last until you each are 100 years old. How would that work out?

      February 20, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
    • Jen

      Ken, I'm in my late thirties. I have had my tubes tied but there is a very small chance I could still get pregnant. If I did it would be ectopic and I would have to have an abortion. I would have no ethical problem with that. I definitely am done being pregnant. The people that think that I should stop having s-x with my husband to prevent possible abortions can go f-ck themselves. They can be abstinent and be in crappy marriages all they want. That's their choice.

      February 20, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @jen..................Power to you. At the end of the day, It's YOUR choice. Not others.

      February 20, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
  20. eyesopened

    @ JEN isnt it amazing how you not only were offended at positive and good constructive input but you also managed to recieve or comprehend what was said. so spelling really isnt whats bugging you. take courage

    February 16, 2013 at 12:48 pm |

    • Open you eyes some more and eventually you'll see a reply button.

      February 16, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Dippy's sub

      It's "receive."

      February 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • Jen

      Actually I have no clue what your post meant, nor was I offended by it.

      I before e except after c. A little second grade spelling lesson for you.

      February 16, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • small 'c' christian

      Jen- or when it sounds like "a" as in "either" and "neither".. (according to my 4th grade teacher)

      February 20, 2013 at 12:45 am |
    • Dippy

      Or when the word is "weird."

      February 20, 2013 at 9:22 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Advertisement
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.