home
RSS
Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battle
June 29th, 2014
08:19 PM ET

Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battle

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor

[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

Washington (CNN) – For the Greens, the Christian family behind the Hobby Lobby chain of stores, their battle with the Obama administration was never really about contraception. It was about abortion.

After all, the evangelical Greens don't object to 16 of the 20 contraceptive measures mandated for employer coverage by the Affordable Care Act. That puts the family squarely in line with other evangelicals, who largely support the use of birth control by married couples.

Like other evangelicals, however, the Greens believe that four forms of contraception mandated under the ACA - Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine devices - in fact cause abortions by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb. (The Obama administration and several major medical groups disagree that such treatments are abortions .)

“We won’t pay for any abortive products," Steve Green, Hobby Lobby's president, told Religion News Service. "We believe life begins at conception.”

Evangelicals as a whole may be relative newcomers to that view, but since the 1980s it has become nearly gospel. (The Pew Research Center has a helpful guide to other religious groups' stance.)

As Christianity Today editor Mark Galli has argued, evangelicals arrived at their current stand on life issues through a combination of factors, including biblical interpretation, moral accounting and political calculus. Others also add the influence of early architects of the religious right and the example of the Catholic Church, which has opposed abortion for centuries.

But given the importance of scripture to evangelicals, it's no surprise that groups like the National Association of Evangelicals cite the Bible in the second sentence of their policy stance on abortion:

And because the Bible reveals God's calling and care of persons before they are born, the preborn share in this dignity (Psalm 139:13).

You'll see that verse, Psalm 139:13, cited quite a bit when it comes to evangelicals and abortion. In it, the psalmist says to God, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."

(You'll also see that verse cited by many Mennonites, so it makes sense that a Mennonite business, Conestoga Wood Specialties, joined a companion challenge to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court.)

If God knew you in the womb, the thinking goes, then you must have been at some stage of personhood, and that provides biblical justification for the idea that life begins at conception, according to evangelicals and other Christians.

In addition to Psalm 139, you'll also hear evangelicals and Mennonites cite several other Bible passages that they believe affirm the sanctity of human life.

Genesis 1, for example, says that mankind is made in God's image; the Ten Commandments make murder a crime against God; and Job, the old Testament sufferer, frets about what would happen if he mistreats his servants because:

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

Again, you see the divine and womb interacting, which is why evangelicals like the Greens so strongly oppose contraception that prevents embryo implantation in the womb.

Still, those verses may not be on the Greens' minds after Monday's decision. Instead, Steve Green has said, they'll be thinking about Daniel 3:17-18

If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Belief • Bible • Bioethics • Christianity • Church and state • Culture wars • evangelicals • Health care • Obama • Politics

soundoff (2,278 Responses)
  1. observer

    kermit4jc,

    If your wife/sister/daughter/mother, etc. needed an abortion to save their life, would you say "tough luck" or do you SUPPORT ABORTION?

    July 2, 2014 at 3:00 am |
    • observer

      kermit4jc,

      Your HEARTLESS call to ban all abortions shows that your answer is "tough luck" for your family member. Looks like you don't have any that you truly love.

      July 2, 2014 at 3:15 am |
    • kermit4jc

      that's a whole new situation..because the REALITY is abortions due to helth of mother is extremely small within the over 2 million babies aborted every year! the MAJOROTY are killed due to "convinicne" not becauyse of helath of mom is t arisk..NOT because of in cest and ra pe...those are a FRACTION of 1 PERCENT of the abortions done every year!..in a sense it is a non issue at this point

      July 2, 2014 at 3:26 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      I heard this from Todd Friel once, and it seems to sum up the Christian's position very well.

      "No action should be legally permissible if its intent is to take the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, in recognition of the biological reality that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, the unborn child is ent.itled to the protection of the law under all circu.mstances and at every stage of pregnancy.

      In those rare instances in which the pregnancy poses an immediate and life threatening risk to the mother, she should be allowed to direct her physician to perform any medical procedure that is necessary to save her life, provided that in that effort, the physician must always do whatever is possible to save the lives of both the mother and the baby.

      If, as an unintended consequence of saving the mother’s life, her unborn child loses its life, that should be viewed as a profoundly, deeply sad, and regrettable, but lawful outcome."

      July 2, 2014 at 7:44 am |
      • igaftr

        "Therefore, in recognition of the biological reality that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, the unborn child is ent.itled to the protection of the law under all circu.mstances and at every stage of pregnancy. "

        So this guy states OPINION as if it were fact, and you think that carries weight? What he stated is what is disputed, so is nothing more than his opinion.

        July 2, 2014 at 8:32 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is correct, or even moral for that matter. For instance, it is perfectly legal to insult someone and be condescending to them, but it isn't right or moral.

          There are moral absolute truths. To say that there isn't is to make a self-defeating statement. To understand what I mean, answer this question: "Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?"

          Just because our legal system recognizes something as being legal, that has no bearing on the actual morality of the thing. For that, you need another test – one higher than the legal system.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • ausphor

          igaftr
          Theo loves stating others opinions as fact, he did so with Rush Limbaugh, of all people, yesterday. The poor fellow has lost all ability to think for himself.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:01 am |
        • igaftr

          "Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is correct, or even moral for that matter."

          I never said it was...simply pointed out that your use of the term murder is incorrect...by definition.

          also, we are on our own, since no one can show your god to exist, no one can show your "higher" authority to exist either.
          Counting on something that may or may not exist, and most likely does not is pretty senseless.
          We cannot make laws that recognize something that cannot be verified as an authority. Just because YOU believe in a "higher" authority, does not mean we have to recognize your belief in law.

          Argue all you want, but use the correct words. If you claim that abortion is murder, then you are also declaring your god to be a murderer.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:06 am |
        • kermit4jc

          We cannot make laws that recognize something that cannot be verified as an authority<–again sto making this as exclusively a religious idea....there are ATHEISTS whi oare against abortion and I was against it as well BEfozre I was Christian..if I was never Christian id STILL be against abortion!

          July 2, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          So do you admit then that there are absolute truths?
          Since there are absolute truths, you must ask how that can be. If indeed our universe is governed by chance alone, then how can there be any fixed rules such as the laws of physics by which the universe operates?

          July 2, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • igaftr

          "So do you admit then that there are absolute truths?"

          First, how did you leap to that from what I said, and
          second...define the term "absolute truths" since I know who I am dealing with, I know your definition is likely your own.

          "If indeed our universe is governed by chance alone,"
          Who said it was? We do not know what "governs" the universe...we are still seeking answers about that. That which we call dark matter..we don't even know what it is, only see the effects.

          Stop leaping to conclusions without enough information.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  2. Salero21

    King Obomo of the new kingdom of THE UNITED STATES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH lost another one with the Court!! Well, well what did you know!!

    Now, where are all the HO.MOS's of both genders who rabidly voted for him in 08 & 12? Gee they're NOT even joining the Military after the repeal of DADT. Well I don't blame them for not joining; Who in the right mind wants to join a gay Military? Who in the right mind wants to even join a Military anyways?

    Now; what else the SC will rule against King Obomo of THE UNITED STATES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH?

    July 1, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      So you're leaving then before fire and brimstone rain on your head right ?
      Or are you just being a teensy weensy over dramatic ?
      You know what they say about people that are over dramatic right ?
      Sally21, how long have you known you are gay ?

      July 1, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      When you get dressed up in drag Sally21, do you dress up as Cher or who is your favorite to dress up as ?

      July 2, 2014 at 12:07 am |
    • Reality

      And we still don't know what crazy cult Salero belongs to? And obviously, he is too embarrassed to disclose the name.

      July 2, 2014 at 12:11 am |
  3. dandintac

    Can we say what this is REALLY about? The perennial abortion issue?

    It’s not about human life. It's not about "paying for it." It’s not even really about choice.

    It’s about DIRTY FILTHY NASTY SE-X.

    It’s about the desire of religion to control our lives in the most intimate and profound manner possible, and the prudish att-itudes that seem to go hand-in-hand with this. Face it: a lot of Christians cannot stand the realization, that right at this very moment, thousands of young women are engaging in DIRTY FILTHY NASTY SE-X! (shudder)

    I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, there are certainly exceptions to this–there are Christians who walk the walk when it comes to "respect for life" I admit that. But, I find those who are often so much against abortion, are also against birth control, and public efforts to expand access for young single women with limited means. I find all too many people who are “pro-life” are also against se-x education, which is proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

    All too many “pro-lifers” also have no problem being pro-war, for which our pockets seem to be bottomless, yet complain about every dime spent on programs for family planning, support for single mothers such as day care assistance, Head Start, WIC, education–things that help young single mothers and their children.

    If you are absolutely convinced a fetus is truly the full moral equivalent of an extant human baby, then any political or ideological qualms you have about helping out with things like birth control and child care, or including se-x education in school classrooms. It would be a moral imperative to not only demand these things of your politicians, but also to pay the taxes for them.

    If you really, truly believed that abortion is murder, then s-ex education would be a blessing and handing out birth control pills and condoms would be a sacrament.

    Those who are sooo much against abortion should be the very first in line to adopt every black crack baby born. That's not what we see. Pro-life women should be lining up, offering to take embryos from mothers who don't want them, and pay the cost to have them implanted in themselves. Pro-lifers should be willing to pony up the money for it. It should be a moral imperative. We have the technology to do this. Where are the privately funded programs for this? Why doesn’t HL start a pilot program? Their pockets should be deep enough.

    This is why I don’t think most Christians who demand laws against abortion are sincere about it being about “respect for human life”. It’s really about DIRTY FILTHY NASTY SE-X.

    “What really bothers me is se-x without consequences!“ many of them will freely admit–although there’s a bit more of a shriek behind it.

    These sl-uts must be punished! And if they can’t be locked in the stocks, or perhaps burn a few of them as an object lesson, then at least they can be punished by forced parenthood Raise that screaming brat on your own for failure to keep your legs closed and engaging in DIRTY FILTHY NASTY SE-X!

    July 1, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      I disagree. It's the ultimate simplistic issue. Everything else "is complicated" It's THE ONE (final) issue that can be seen in a morally corrupt and "wishy-washy" world that can be seen in black and white terns. A life preserver for those that can't cope with the nasty complicated changing world. Something to obsess over for the obsessional.

      July 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      Excellent post.

      July 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
    • kenmargo

      So it's more about punishing the woman for having s3x. Not care for the baby. You've been reading my mind!

      PS guys sure get off easy. (I mean as far as punishment is concerned)

      July 1, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
    • Reality

      It is not complicated. Practice safe s-ex.

      July 2, 2014 at 12:13 am |
      • igaftr

        Does that mean we're supposed to be in the safe or on it...or with the safe?....such a confusing term...

        July 2, 2014 at 8:44 am |
      • kenmargo

        Reality has safe s3x by clipping his nails to prevent scratches.

        July 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
      • tallulah131

        It's not complicated for you, "reality". If contraception fails, it's not your problem or your body. You can easily walk away. The woman, however, is left with the "complication" and the need to decide how best to deal with it. Abortion is really, really none of your business, no matter how self-important you are.

        July 2, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  4. blessed137

    The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. Psalm 24:1.

    July 1, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      “Horton, the kangaroo has sent Vlad!'
      Vlad? I know two Vlads. One is a cute little bunny that brings me cookies. The other is bad Vlad. Which Vlad?'
      Which one do you think?'
      Bad Vlad?'
      Good call.”
      ― Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who!

      July 1, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
  5. Pro-Life[r] Atheist

    As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and being, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.

    July 1, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
    • tallulah131

      If you are morally opposed to abortion, don't have one.

      I am definitely pro-life. And I support the right of women to have abortions. A woman is the only person qualified to know exactly what is going on with her body and her life. She is the only one who can determine whether or not she can financially, emotionally and physically bear a child.

      A politician doesn't have that information. Neither does a priest or pastor or opinionated stranger. A woman has the right to determine what is best for her own body. The second she loses that control, she becomes tantamount to property of the state, and in this nation it's illegal for even the government to own slaves.

      So I'm pro-life. I'm pro the lives of women. Abortions should never be the first answer, but they should remain legal for the sake of women, and for the unwanted children who don't deserve to be born with devastating birth defects, or into poverty, ill health, violence and/or resentment. There is nothing pro-life about caring more for an embryo or fetus than for the woman or the eventual child.

      July 1, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
      • Pro-Life[r] Atheist

        Personally, my pro-life beliefs belong to the discoveries in science. While I am sympathetic to women’s rights and would even consider myself a Feminist as would any man who believes in gender equality, the right to life outweighs our personal discomforts. I will hesitantly concede that had I been born 10 years earlier I most likely would have considered myself pro-choice based upon the absence of scientific evidence within the pro-life movement at the time. More so, if science had proven that life began at birth I would have had no foundation for an anti-abortion belief. Thankfully for the pro-life movement, science has reemphasized the movement’s argument that abortion takes the life of an unborn child. Today, the movement has realized that science is much more likely to reach an audience which is increasingly looking for demonstrable evidence from which to base their position on social issues.

        July 1, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          You have not said what the science is you're talking about. A skin cell is "human life". The clumps of cells that form a zygote are no more a "person" than a human skin cell. So there's a big piece missing from your an'al ysis. The question is when do we "grant" legal "person-hood" to potential humans. A zygote is not a "person". It can grow into one. So can a (separated) sperm cell and egg cell.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
        • tallulah131

          You will never in your life fear that you are pregnant with a child that you cannot afford to carry or raise. You will never have to make that difficult decision. You simply want to force your personal belief upon the ONLY person qualified to make that choice. Only a woman who finds herself pregnant knows her situation and if she can afford – mentally, physically, and financially - to bear a child. Politicians are not qualified. Pastors and priests are not qualified. Amazingly enough, even you – a stranger who read some pro-life propaganda - are not qualified to force that most intimate choice upon a woman.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the FATHER has to worry..HES part of raising the child..at least those who are man enough to take responsibility for the life they created! but again...its all about convenience..not finances

          July 2, 2014 at 3:15 am |
        • dandintac

          PLA, if your "pro-life" stance is a result of your understanding of science, maybe you'll appreciate my argument , which I owe to the late Carl Sagan.

          Sagan and Druyan wrote a provocative articile in the late 80s on this issue that was published in Parade Magazine. I encourage you to Google it. I'll paraphrase them–hopefully without doing damage to their argument. They note that there is broad recognition in our culture that a person without a brain is not really a person. We do not hesitate to pull the plug when one of our loved ones is brain dead. They argue that if a embryo does not yet have a functioning brain, they do not yet exist as a person. They are not yet "brain-alive".

          The fact that an embryo or fetus as the potential to become alive is not persuasive. Every sperm or egg cell is a potential human being, indeed every normal human cell has this potential.

          It is our ability to think, reason, our self-awareness, our abiliity to take action that effects our entire biosphere–these are what distinguish us. So at what point does a fetus have a functioning brain where regular brain waves can be measured? Right around the beginning of the third trimester.

          So Roe Vs Wade draws the line at the right time, although the reasoning used is different. Understanding that our thoughts are what make us human however, helps to evaluate the issue on both scientific and moral grounds.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
        • redzoa

          "The question is when do we "grant" legal "person-hood" to potential humans."

          I would add to this, under what circ-umstances do we wish to empower the state to impose a duty upon one person to use their internal organs to directly sustain the life of another "person?" I've never seen a pro-lifer advocate for government-mandated kidney donations to save the life of an otherwise innocent person who will inevitably die absent the donation. Even if we concede legal personhood arises at some stage of development (my vote is external viability), we must still consider the legal and moral questions associated with state interference with personal bodily autonomy.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:31 am |
        • ausphor

          Pro..
          How do you address the procedure of in vitro fertilisation? It is totally up to the doctors/parents to decide whether the zygote will be implanted; is that not the same process that the morning after pill accomplishes, preventing implant? Yet one process is considered family planning and the other abortion by pro lifers, why?

          July 2, 2014 at 6:52 am |
      • kermit4jc

        I am definitely pro-life. And I support the right of women to have abortions<-wow.....just..wow...what an obvious contradiction....you are not a pro lifer......sorry...you are pretty shallow "pro lifer" by name only...as for the woman ebing theonly one qualified..sorry..that doesn't cut it....that's grsping at straws....killing the unborn is killing..no matter hwta kind of spin you put on it

        July 2, 2014 at 2:45 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Everyone is PRO-LIFE. It just depends if that is the life of the mother or fetus/embryo.

          The more accurate term is that you are anti-choice.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:54 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and that's ok by me...being anti choice.....I don't like allowing someone the choice to mURDER a baby.....

          July 2, 2014 at 3:22 am |
        • tallulah131

          Do you vote in support of social welfare so that these children you insist be born have a roof over their heads and food to eat, kermit? Do you vote for affordable healthcare so that these children have the opportunity to grow up healthy? Do you vote for improved education so that these children have the chance to escape the cycle of poverty? Do you vote to cut down on pollution so that the future generations of humans have water to drink and air to breathe? If not, then you are not pro-life. Responsibility does not end when a child is born, so why do so many christians who love the fetus but hate the child?

          July 2, 2014 at 3:40 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..i do vote for all those things..i don't stop caring for the human after they are born

          July 2, 2014 at 4:00 am |
        • tallulah131

          Good. But you DO stop caring about women once they become pregnant. Get off your high horse and put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

          This will never be an issue that men will decide; they will never face this choice. Even when it was against the law, women still had abortions. It was a hell of a lot more dangerous, but poverty, violence and poor health don't just disappear from a woman's life because laws change. Sometimes a woman has to make the choice to protect herself and her life. It's sad that you can't comprehend that. It's sad that you don't think that women deserve the right to protect themselves and their lives.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:18 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..at LEAST there were not nearly the numbers of abortions we have today..its Senseless killing! over 2 million abortions? outlawing wouldnot make it go away..sure..but at least not near the numbers we have today..and plus....there are laws against murder, yet people still murder, shall we repeal that too just because people still do it?

          July 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          "to mURDER a baby....."
          Like your god did? If people who have abortions are murderers, by the same definition , so is your god. Since abortion is legal, by definition, it is not murder.

          You really need to choose your words to something less inflammatory, more accurate...since every time you claim it is murder, you also claim your god murders.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:42 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOO not at all..thats nOT my logic..thats YOUR misinformed logic....You are not God..YUOare not Creator..YOU are not Judge..neither am I or any other humans...youre comparing apples to oranges..only GOD reserves thatright to take life..thus it is NOT murder

          July 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          If you are morally opposed to abortion, don’t have one. I am definitely pro-life. And I support the right of women to have abortions..

          GOOD FOR YOU TALLU......you sound totally rational to me....of course the religious will attack you as ....

          July 2, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • igaftr

          No kermit

          First, since no one can show this "creator" of yours to exist, you cannot claim it has any authority hatsoever.

          But I am referring to the definition of murder, which is the ILLEGAL taking of life...the loophole many so called christians use to excuse their god killing everyone and not calling it murder.
          Since abortion is not illegal it is NOT murder.
          If abortion is murder, then you deny that definition, thus making your god a murderer as well.

          The logic is quite sound, especially considering that you cannot produce this god of yours, so I cannot logically include whatever YOUR god wants or does as any authority.

          You are trying to argue the definition of words.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          double talk...then do NOT add thatGod is a murderer..IM using YOUR statement as for sake of argument...make up yojrmindok? YOU claim that by our logic that our God is a murderer..I am showing you the error of YOUR claim..whether God exists or not..I was showing you that error...so stop dancing around

          July 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Alias

          What's morally right and who tis legal may not always be the same thing.
          It would be a better discussion if you understood the legal reasons.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        A woman has the right to determine what is best for her own body.<-the baby is not the body of the woman..it is a Separate body..thus your argument is irrelevant...and shows the true colors of the self centeredness of women who abort...they think ONLY of their own body..screw the separate body that is inside them...always "me " "me" "me" screw the baby inside of me

        July 2, 2014 at 2:47 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Nonsense. Planned parenthood frequently considers the life of the child to be the most important. That's why many women abort fetuses that they can't give a good life to in order to have a baby later that will be given a much better life.

          July 2, 2014 at 2:51 am |
        • tallulah131

          It is none of your business what a woman does with her body, kermit. Your opinion just doesn't matter AT ALL to a woman who is more concerned that she can't afford - emotionally, physically and/or financially - to bear a child.

          What if she already has a child to support and can't afford prenatal care or to take time off when her pregnancy makes her too ill to work? What if she is in a violent home situation or lives in extreme poverty and can't be assured of her own health and safety, much less that of an embryo or child? Men don't have this physical ultimatum. Men can just walk away if they choose. Women are left with the tough decisions and the consequences, so you leave the decisions to them. It's not YOUR life.

          Every woman who ever had an abortion had their own story and reasons - ones that you refuse to acknowledge. Indeed you simply scoff at or ignorantly and unfairly marginalize the very real factors in these women's lives. You stupidly refuse to take into account the very real factors that enter into the decision, because you don't honestly care about the welfare of the children. You just want to boss people around and force them to do what you want them to.

          You want to make a difference for children? Fight for better education, better health care and better government support for the poorest among us. Fight to keep guns off the street. Fight for a cleaner environment. Worry about the half-million unwanted kids in foster care before you try to add to their numbers. Unless you are doing those things, you really don't care about children at all.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:08 am |
        • kermit4jc

          It is none of your business what a woman does with her body, kermit. Your opinion just doesn’t matter AT ALL to a woman who is more concerned that she can’t afford — emotionally, physically and/or financially — to bear a child IM sick and tired of hearing the womans body the womans body the womans body..thats sickening....the baby is NOT the womans body..how can you get not get that through your thick heads???? ALL it isis justifying killing babies and shirking responsibility! ANd I DO fight for all those other things....I never said I don't.....at the same time I WILL speak uip for those who cannot speak in defense for themselves..the BABY inside the mom...THEY had no choice

          July 2, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • redzoa

          "IM sick and tired of hearing the womans body the womans body the womans body . . ."

          I suspect your opinion would change if the suggestion was that the government should be able to force you to donate your kidneys to an otherwise innocent person who will die absent the transplant, or perhaps you're in favor of this sort of government power?

          July 3, 2014 at 12:51 am |
        • kermit4jc

          lol..red herring..a kidney is not a human being...bad argument red

          July 3, 2014 at 2:18 am |
        • hawaiiguest

          redoza

          I wouldn't expect a reply that actually addresses your point from kermit.

          July 3, 2014 at 1:10 am |
        • hawaiiguest

          I have an overwhelming urge to say: called it!

          July 3, 2014 at 2:54 am |
        • redzoa

          "lol..red herring..a kidney is not a human being...bad argument red"

          Actually, it's a rather obvious and applicable argument. Even if one concedes personhood to a pre-viable embryo/fetus, there remains the question of what level of state control a society is willing to grant over an individual's bodily autonomy. I suspect your reluctance to directly address this question is because at some level, you recognize a right to bodily autonomy . . .

          July 3, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          a fetus is nOT a bodily organ...a kidney can Never become human..its never a "potential" human as many of you say...a kidney is a bodily organ and nothing more...thus to compare it to a fetus is idiocy and a desperation to try to justify killing the unborn

          July 4, 2014 at 2:48 am |
        • redzoa

          @hawaiiguest – "I have an overwhelming urge to say: called it!" Indeed. I'll not be holding my breath waiting for any substantive response from kermit

          July 3, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • redzoa

          @kermit (aka "captain obvious")

          "a fetus is nOT a bodily organ...a kidney can Never become human..its never a "potential" human as many of you say...a kidney is a bodily organ and nothing more...thus to compare it to a fetus is idiocy and a desperation to try to justify killing the unborn."

          Of course I was not comparing a kidney to a fetus; I was referencing the power of the government to exercise control over a person's bodily autonomy, in particular, whether a government should be empowered to require a specific and direct application of one's organs for the purpose of sustaining another "person's" life. Whether a fetus is a person is irrelevant to this question. Your reference to "idiocy" is fitting, albeit, it appears only you were making the "idiotic" comparison . . .

          July 4, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        unwanted children who don’t deserve to be born with devastating birth defects, or into poverty, ill health, violence and/or resentment.<–tht is NOT pro life....yo are so shallow..UNWANTED? that's sick.....as for "devastating birth defects...who are we to speak for the child who wants to live? as for ill health and pverty and such..lets get rid of ALL children in the womb..this world is a terrible place anyways....my God you are such a pessimist....we can STILL have a good life despite those things....that shows me you base your life and value on outside things....

        July 2, 2014 at 2:50 am |
        • tallulah131

          Here's a nice example. Children who are born without brains (Anencephaly) don't want to live. They don't want anything. They don't DO anything. They are simply flesh with automatic responses that keep a malformed and empty body functioning. Children who are born without brains are not alive.

          Your argument is based on pure drama and emotion. It falls short in the area of fact. It is not your right to tell a woman what to do with her body. You will never discover that you are pregnant with breathing corpse. You as a man could simply walk away at any time, but a fetus is part of a woman's body. She doesn't get to walk away. She has to make the best choice she can. It's sad that you don't think that women don't have the right to defend their own body.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:30 am |
        • kermit4jc

          LMAO..YOURS is baed on drama! using examples (which are VERY FEW and LESS than 1 percent of abortions) you are trying to use that to justify wholesale slaughter of kids, those who do NOT have physical issues

          July 2, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
    • kenmargo

      First of all we need to grow up and call it what it is, a fetus. It's not a baby. Not a human. Would you want your child to look like a fetus when it's 2 years old? NO.

      Second The very same people that quote the bible before birth, don't give a rat's azz after birth. Want proof. Look at a republican budget as it cut/guts programs that the baby would need to survive.

      Three it's HER body. Why can't SHE do what she needs to do. I also never hear anybody offering a penny to help out. Your arms get mighty short when it comes to dollars.

      July 1, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
      • Pro-Life[r] Atheist

        Like myself and the thousands of other pro-life secularists, we need to recognize that science had demonstrably proven that life does exist before viability and therefore deserves proper acknowledgement from the pro-choice side.

        July 1, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Since you are soooooo pro life and care soooooo much for these babies. Lets raise YOUR taxes so you can pay for these kids when the parents can't. Put your money where your mouth is. Walk up to a woman that wants to have an abortion and tell her you will provide EVERYTHING she needs financially IF she's willing to have the baby.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          your argument is poor...most abortions are due to convinece..not due to finances..and plus..the problem is people abusing se x and shirking responsibility..se x is not for pro creation...correct..however..people for too long have used it recklessly and don't give a s*** about anyone else...sorry..but that's a lame excuse to justify murder

          July 2, 2014 at 3:00 am |
        • kermit4jc

          we doint have to raise taxes..just outlaw abortions and use the money that otherwise would have gone to abortions to caring of the "unwanted" baby..eventually people would see that cant get away with convinecne and take more responsibility for others (ie the unborn) and stop recklessly using se x

          July 2, 2014 at 3:01 am |
        • Pro-Life[r] Atheist

          I contribute to programs that offer alternatives to abortion. And also to programs that help women who have had abortions, because there are problems that exist for these women. Do you do anything to help those women?

          July 1, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I've done walk a thons to prevent birth defects. I'm also an registered organ donor. Hopefully when my time on this earth is over, They'll gut me like a fish so others can live on.

          Obviously I don't know what you give, I suspect it's more for a tax donation than actual care for the mother and father.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "Lets raise YOUR taxes so you can pay for these kids when the parents can’t."

          If I understand you correctly, if one can't afford the child, killing it is a better option?

          July 1, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
        • kenmargo

          If the parents can't raise the child. aborting the fetus is the way to go. I'll ask you the same question. Are YOU willing to raise YOUR taxes to help. Raise YOUR taxes and you won't have to worry about "killing" them.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          if they cannot raise the child..what are they doing in creating it in the first place????????? they don't give a darn....they will do each other and if a child is conceived...convenience...kill it and we can get back to pleasing ourselves..and you don't see the selfish hatred of life these people show????

          July 2, 2014 at 3:07 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "If the parents can’t raise the child. aborting the fetus is the way to go."

          Why wouldn't adoption be a better option than killing the child?

          When do you believe it becomes a child and why?

          July 1, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Maybe she doesn't want to go through the pain? Women have died giving birth. Maybe the boyfriend/husband ran off and she doesn't want to do it all by herself. What ever the reason it's HER business. MIND your business.

          You mentioned adoptions. There are thousands of kids waiting to be adopted. How many have you adopted?
          There are 1.4 MILLION people in NYC that go to bed hungry every night. How many do you feed?
          The homeless population is growing. How many beds can you spare?

          Please tell me how ADDING to the population is going to solve those issues? Praying sure hasn't worked.

          Maybe you like seeing people suffer.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Ken,

          "Maybe she doesn’t want to go through the pain?
          So killing the child is the best option as opposed to some pain?

          "Maybe the boyfriend/husband ran off and she doesn’t want to do it all by herself."

          So killing the child is the best option?

          "There are thousands of kids waiting to be adopted."

          Are you referring to babies when you say this? That is subject of this discussion.

          I noticed you didn't answer my earlier question. When do you believe a child becomes a child and why?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
        • kenmargo

          First it has to be a baby before it's child. Just like it has to be a zygote, then a fetus. My opinon doesn't matter. It's up to the mother. As long as the baby is inside her, It's her choice not anyone else.

          Once birth happens. It's a baby with full rights.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
        • kenmargo

          A little pain? I got an Idea. Why don't you push an 8 pound watermelon UP your AZZ! Tell me if that's a little pain?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "Once birth happens. It’s a baby with full rights."

          Why is it okay to kill the baby the last few seconds inside the mother and not the following seconds after the baby comes out? How has the baby changed that warrants this?

          "Tell me if that’s a little pain?"

          Is this supposed to justify killing the child?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
        • kenmargo

          You need to stop smoking crack. You're not making sense.

          80 – 90% happen in the first 3 months. It's a blob. Boogers are bigger. You're not killing a child.

          We need to have an abortion televised to show you what it really is instead of the brainwashed nonsense you've been told.

          The truth will not change your mind. Like a friend of mine once said "you can't reason with crazy"

          July 1, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "You’re not killing a child."

          You say this but you need to define. When do you believe a child becomes a child and why?

          "80 – 90% happen in the first 3 months. It’s a blob. Boogers are bigger. You’re not killing a child."

          So are you against abortion beyond three months? If not, you need to be able to answer questions such as: Why is it okay to kill the baby the last few seconds inside the mother and not the following seconds after the baby comes out? How has the baby changed that warrants this?

          By the way, do you really think it's a blob? You need to research the baby's development at three months.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "we doint have to raise taxes..just outlaw abortions "

          So you believe it's fine to let a mother suffer and die when an abortion could have saved her life.

          DISGUSTING. BARBARIC. Completely HEARTLESS.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          see my last post..a FRACTION of 1 percent are don't to save a womans life....at this point it is a non issue

          July 2, 2014 at 3:26 am |
        • kermit4jc

          problem is...since we have abortion available..they don't care....they want to please themselves..not prevent conception..and if a child is conceived..just kill it....pretty simple...uh huh....yep....very good argument

          July 2, 2014 at 3:08 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I never said IM against all forms of contraceptives

          July 2, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          I never said IM against all forms of contraceptives................

          I think being GAY is the best form of contraceptive....don't all of you?

          July 2, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        It's not a human? Seriously?

        July 1, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • kenmargo

          No it's not a human. If I saw it in the street I'd step on it.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yuare sick and have NO value of life whatsoever

          July 2, 2014 at 2:58 am |
        • noahsdadtopher

          1. How is it not a human? It has all the same genetics, DNA, chromosomes, etc, etc that you do at conception.

          2. You're disgusting.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • Pro-Life[r] Atheist

          Yea. That is a disgusting outlook.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I'm sitting here with a cold blowing snot out my nose by the gallon. It too has my DNA in it. Is it human too?

          My feces, urine and pimples have parts of me in them also. Are they human?

          July 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          only if the snot blowing out of your nose has a brain (parts of yours from being loosened up by idiotic reason and logic?) and your pimples and such..

          July 2, 2014 at 3:03 am |
        • noahsdadtopher

          No. But if left alone they won't grow into a child or eventually an adult.

          A "fetus" will.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I guess you've never heard of a miscarriage.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          miscarriage is not abortion..comparing apples to oranges..abortion is WILLFULL killing of the baby..miscrraige is not (unless it is brought on by violence from another person (ie one who hits the woman in the womb area causing injury to the baby) to bring in miscarriage shows lame attempts to side track the issue

          July 2, 2014 at 3:05 am |
        • noahsdadtopher

          What does that have to do with the willful removal of a baby?

          July 1, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • kenmargo

          A miscarriage is natures way of willful removal of a baby. Why does nature get to make a choice and the mother can't?

          July 1, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          lmao nature does not have a brain a soul or spirit...nature is not a person...it doesnot make decisions.....are you REALLY serious with this line of argument????

          July 2, 2014 at 3:09 am |
        • noahsdadtopher

          So your argument is that something terrible sometimes happens and that's justification for killing someone.

          So because someday you're going to die, it's OK if I kill you now?

          July 1, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • kenmargo

          So let me guess a "pro life" person now asking is it okay to kill? Shocking! Considering I'm 6'1" 215 I'm obviously not a fetus. You cannot age the fetus to fit your argument. Based on your logic a child mo'lester could age the child to make it a adult. Grow up, The only people that kill someone's baby is a republican in a state that does executions. Do you call that murder? No because you think the state should have a right to kill. but if a mother wants to have an abortion that's sinful!

          July 1, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          I never said you should be killed. I'm just fleshing out your stance. What you said is that because sometimes babies die naturally, you should be able to kill them unnaturally. That's your position, not mine. And by that reasoning, since we ALL will die, it should be OK to kill anyone you want without consequences.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          "No because you think the state should have a right to kill."

          So you are comparing an innocent, unborn baby to murderers and rapists?

          July 1, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • kenmargo

          You sound like a gun nut. you twist, avoid, run from questions when you don't have an answer. Lets keep it simple. MIND YOUR FVCKING BUSINESS. You don't care about the babies and never will care. You're just a phony christian conservative republican trying to push your phony values on anyone else. I hope a woman asks me for money for a abortion. i'll pay it with glee. As a matter of fact I'll make sure to make a donation at planned parenthood. I'll put my money where my mouth is.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          kenmargo

          "You sound like a gun nut."

          Nope. Don't own one. Don't care to.

          "you twist, avoid, run from questions when you don't have an answer."

          Like what?

          "Lets keep it simple. MIND YOUR FVCKING BUSINESS."

          Potty-mouthed childishness. I should mind my business on a blog's message board?

          "You don't care about the babies and never will care."

          Not true at all. I'm the one fighting for their chance at life. You're the one that wants to kill them.

          "You're just a phony christian conservative republican trying to push your phony values on anyone else."

          No. I just have an opinion, just like you.

          "I hope a woman asks me for money for a abortion. i'll pay it with glee."

          Disgusting.

          "As a matter of fact I'll make sure to make a donation at planned parenthood. I'll put my money where my mouth is."

          I'm SHOCKED you support them.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • kenmargo

          You really care about life? How about getting your republican friends to pass a gun law! 10,000 people die from gun violence every year. Can't get a law passed because of republicans. We can agree on one thing. Those are babies that are dying. Babies the mother wanted to have. Abortion never crossed her mind. More than happy to give birth. Some of them Christian conservatives just like you. Despite being god fearing, their children blown away. Why don't you start there with your pro life crusade and maybe you'll get some credibility!

          July 1, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Rabbit trail. One has nothing to do with the other.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I don't want to kill a baby. I have two myself. This is what I mean when I said you run and duck questions. It's not a child it's a fetus. at Least grow up on that level to cal it what it is.

          When I give money to planned parenthood i'll use your screen name in the donation field. Maybe reality will hit you then!

          July 1, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
        • kenmargo

          noahsdadtopher

          "Rabbit trail. One has nothing to do with the other."

          Oh I see. Gun violence. Pro life doesn't matter now. Typical GOP. Guns Over People.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          kenmargo

          "I don't want to kill a baby. I have two myself."

          Congrats. I have a 3-month-old.

          "This is what I mean when I said you run and duck questions."

          I haven't ran from or ducked anything you've said.

          "It's not a child it's a fetus. at Least grow up on that level to cal it what it is."

          It's a person. And if you don't kill it and if it is healthy, it'll be a human every time.

          "When I give money to planned parenthood i'll use your screen name in the donation field. Maybe reality will hit you then!"

          Well now, THAT will really give your side of the argument more validity.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          kenmargo

          "Oh I see. Gun violence. Pro life doesn't matter now. Typical GOP. Guns Over People."

          I agree gun violence is terrible. But we aren't talking about gun violence. We're talking about abortion. So it's a rabbit trail. And you're misrepresenting me by saying my position comes from the GOP. My position comes from the Bible.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          I'm taking off for the night. Have a good one.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Why pass on gun violence. Life is being taken just the same. Instead of taking a real stand. You hide behind the bible afraid of going against the GOP and your friends turning on you. You have a 3 month old. Congrats. If you really cared you'd do a little more to get guns off the streets. Bullets don't care. Don't believe me. Think about Sandy Hook and look at your child. Can you actually say to your child you did all you could do to protect him/her if you don't put pressure on repubs to pass gun control?

          July 1, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • weaslebrau

          So Topher where do you think aborted babies go. Heaven or hell. If heaven aren't we doing them a huge favor by aborting them. After all there is a chance they go astray in life and will burn in hell. Terms that they never had a chance to agree to. If they go to hell well lets just say that there is nothing more disgusting then worshiping a god that eternally tortures unborn babies.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
        • redzoa

          "How is it not a human? It has all the same genetics, DNA, chromosomes, etc, etc that you do at conception."

          For the same reasons that an acorn is not an oak tree.

          July 2, 2014 at 1:44 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      " one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb"
      ---------------------------------–
      Any viability is only possible (and at enormous expense to everyone else in the group health plan) with pregnancies >20 weeks.

      Before that, this argument is moot. The fetus is not yet developed into a baby that any medical capability

      I'm led to believe that the neo-natal ICU is the most expensive part of the hospital (on a per-patient basis). Patients admitted there spend weeks to months and incur and enormous cost. I support this the way I support any heath care cost, but critics of health care spending should do so with an understanding of where the costs are.

      I don't like the idea of late-term abortions though doubtless there are occasional cases where a continued pregnancy might endanger the mother. I don't subscribe to the idea that a first trimester abortion is 'baby killing' in any way.

      July 1, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Ooops – The fetus is not yet developed into a baby that any medical capability can sustain.

        July 1, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ot what defines a human at all..tats pretty shallow and a poor excuse to justify aborting the baby when the woman doesn't give a rats bum about it

          July 2, 2014 at 2:57 am |
      • Vic

        Medical science establishes that the first HEARTBEAT occurs somewhere during the first 21 to 28 days. I have no doubt in my mind, at that stage at least, that is a HUMAN/PERSON.

        July 1, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I don't know what science you are talking about. It's just a blob at that point. Women that have abortions actually have to wait until the second month because the fetus is so small to get. Since when does heartbeat become so important. It doesn't have any other body part to pump blood to.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • Vic

          What's more indicative than a heartbeat for a sign of life of a living being in the womb?!

          July 1, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • dandintac

          Vic,

          Brain waves, Vic.

          Quick. You are in a building that is on fire. There are two other people–but you have time to save only one of them.

          One of them is a baby born without a brain. Where there should be a cerebrum, there is only water. Healthy heartbeat though.

          The other is a thoughtful, curious child with nothing wrong with his brain, but their heart is basically non-functional. They have to be kept alive with an artificial pump that circulates their blood for them.

          You can only save one of them. Which do you choose?

          July 2, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • kenmargo

          85 – 90% of abortions happen within the first 3 months. It's just a blob then. Abortions that happen later usually are the result of complications for the mom and/or baby. You cannot seriously believe that within one month the fetus has everything developed.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:07 pm |
        • dandintac

          Vic,

          Why should a beating heart be the measure of when you have a person worthy of protection under the law? People who are brain-dead can be kept alive for years by machines and their heart beating. On the other hand, you can have a person who no longer has a heart, but only an artificial pump, but we are able to recognize them as a person and talk to them.

          It is a functioning brain that distinguishes us as a human being–a person–to be protected under the law and who has rights. Hearts do not have rights–it is the person (brain) that has rights.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      It depends entirely on when you are labeling it what. Fetuses are not viable until at least 20 weeks, and then they are born with serious impairments. It's not a "separate being" if it can't survive separately. It's a POTENTIALLY separate being. There are many clumps of living cells that are "potential". A clump of cells with no brain, no neural tube, and no nervous system is not a "being", any more than a paramecium is a "being".

      July 1, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
      • fintronics

        Yet nut jobs like Theo claim "murder" when it's just a fertilized egg.......

        ..... the sickness of religion...

        July 2, 2014 at 9:17 am |
  6. kermit4jc

    not necessarily a theocracy.....pro life is not exclusive to the religious only

    July 1, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
    • Pro-Life[r] Atheist

      No joke.

      July 1, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
    • tallulah131

      It's generally the domain of people who want to force their will upon women because they don't respect women and don't think that women deserve the right to determine what happens to their own body. It's generally the domain of people who care more about embryos and fetuses than they do about women and live children.

      July 1, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        that is BS women DO deserve to do with their own body what they choose to..the PROBLEM is the baby is nOT the womans body....that's such an idiotic and ignorant statement...just because the baby is INSIDE the woman does NOT make it HER body..the fetus IS alive as well..it is nOT dead..so thus your argument is very weak and poorly constructed...

        July 2, 2014 at 2:55 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          If the fetus is not part of a woman's body, just remove it and see how it does. No problem, right?

          July 2, 2014 at 2:58 am |
        • kermit4jc

          BAD logic..the baby inside the mom is a SEPERATE human being..it is nOT the mom it is a SEPERATE person with its OWN genes and DNA..the presoinality of the child is ALREADY determined and such..i...its just INSIDE the mom..your argument goes off track

          July 2, 2014 at 3:24 am |
        • tallulah131

          Kermit, until a fetus is capable of living outside of the womb, it is part of a woman's body.

          You are not qualified to tell a woman what to do with her own body, kermit. You are not that important. You are just a petty little man jumping up and down, making demands you have no right to make, shoving your misogynist nose in where it doesn't belong.

          July 2, 2014 at 3:50 am |
        • kermit4jc

          You are not qualified to tell a woman what to do with her own body, kermit. You are not that important.you have no right to make, shoving your misogynist nose in where it doesn’t belong. it has nOTHING to do with fact she is woman.I would STILL feel the same way if men carried it..so BACK OFF with the stupid ,isogynist argument and name calling ok? I care for the BABY..it has nOTHING dto do cause the woman is female..got it? keep the misogynist stuff to yourself

          July 2, 2014 at 4:03 am |
        • tallulah131

          It has EVERYTHING to do with the woman, Kermit. It is HER body. It is HER choice, no matter how much more valuable you believe an embryo to be. Any time you state you want to steal a woman's right to control her OWN body, you are acting as a misogynist, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          im tired of arguing with you..im tired of listening to selfi centerdness..its always the womans body you screw the babys body like you dont care! and it shows..you are ONLY concerned about the woman and no one else...thats how women come across too...they care ONLY for their body.not anyone else..even the baby inside them

          July 2, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          A group of cells is a potential baby, just like every sperm and egg. Potential babies are not babies. Not a tough concept to grasp, but because of your religious convictions, understandable.

          July 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HOW many frigging times do I have to tell yoyu..it is NOT excluively religious convictions???????? HOW many times do I have to tell you there are convictions that abortion is wrong OUTSIDE of religion??????????

          July 2, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....I was never going to reply to any of your posts again because you simply can not control your anger. But I thought I would try one more time. I see I was correct with my original thought. You are a complete p-rick and totally unworthy of my time. You need help.

          July 3, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • kermit4jc

          oh.so it is a bad thing to get angry..expecially when I made myself clear time and again and people still have to ask me such things like is se x for procrearion only? Imsorry you feel that anger is a bad thing..maybe you need help...maybe yo need to go and talk to someone about how its ok to be angry

          July 3, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....read my post again. I never said it was not ok to be angry. I myself am furious at the stupidity of people that in 2014 still believe in fairy tales of sky wizards, but you don't see me capitalizing every other word or triple exclamation points or berating people. You can't control your anger, much like people can't control their s-exual urges.

          July 3, 2014 at 10:01 am |
        • kermit4jc

          fine..if ya don't like it you don't have to respond to me...but I am controlling my anger...capitalizing doesnot mean IM out of control

          July 3, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Yes, it does. You are quite unable to look at yourself without bias, because if you were, you could easily spot your anger issues

          July 3, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • kermit4jc

          if you want to believe im against women..fine...believe in that stupid lie....Its patheticf to see that I care about the baby and value life..and someone calls me a woman hater for it....again..self cetneredness caring for no one but themself....

          July 2, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • fintronics

      pro life = anti-choice

      July 2, 2014 at 9:26 am |
  7. idiotusmaximus

    Like other evangelicals, however, the Greens believe that four forms of contraception mandated under the ACA – Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine devices – in fact cause abortions by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb. (The Obama administration and several major medical groups disagree that such treatments are abortions .).....

    The AMERICAN PUBLIC better wake up soon....those EVANGELICALS are slowly going to turn this country into a THEOCRACY....YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA HOW DEVIOUS AND UNDERHANDED THEY ARE using their army of 12 year olds...you better educated yourselves as to what they want...and are slowly getting.

    July 1, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Just make sure you vote. None of this will matter then.

      July 1, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
      • idiotusmaximus

        I always vote extremely liberal.

        July 2, 2014 at 10:02 am |
  8. Reality

    And why are there ~ one million abortions every year in the USA?

    The failure rate of unprotected s-ex in preventing a pregnancy? As per Guttmacher, 85%

    The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

    – (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
    – (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

    Followed by: (the two most widely used forms of contraception)

    The Pill, at 0.3 percent) (33,000 unplanned pregnancies)

    Male condom at 2.0 percent (138,000 unplanned pregnancies)

    So where is the problem?

    ACTUAL FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES – Guttmacher Inst-itute

    Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy

    Method……………..Typical

    Pill……… 8.7 (resulting in one million unplanned pregnancies- the Pill was not taken daily was the major reason for the high failure rate)

    Male condom ……….17.4 (resulting in one million unplanned pregnancies- the condom was available but was not used is the major reason for the high failure rate)

    All the numbers are posted on line by Guttmacher if you want to run the calculations.

    So again we see the BRUTAL EFFECTS OF STUPIDITY!!!!

    July 1, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Okay you want people to stop having s3x. for the millionth time you're against s3x. In this perfect world we would be androids, turn off emotions like a light switch. Maybe we can remove our blood and replace it with mercury.

      Now that you've convinced us you're not getting any. Please enjoy yourself using the methods you described in line 3 and 4.

      July 1, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
      • Reality

        How can you read the Brutal Effects of Stupidity and conclude I am against people having se-x??

        From page one of the commentaries:

        "The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic (now atheist am I) guy who enjoys intelligent se-x- "

        ". Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.-"

        July 1, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Because you go on and on about the FAILURE rate of various birth control. The one perfect birth control method to you? Abstinence and mastu'rbation.

          You want to stop Abortions. MAKE BIRTH CONTROL EASIER TO GET. Sorry pal were human. Unlike you we enjoy other people. I didn't know s3x organs had a limited use put on them. How about teaching total s3x ed in school. Talk about the cost of having children. CNN/Money has stated it cost over 230,000 to raise a child from birth to 18. I bet that would keep teens from having children. If you could get guys to stop ra'ping women that would help too. How about telling men to "man up" and be a father. Once some guys hear "I'm pregnant" They're gone.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
      • Reality

        Birth control easier to get? Give it a break!! Condoms are available OTC, on-line (two day delivery in packs of 50) and in every drug store.

        And the failure rates are published yearly by the Guttmacher Inst-itute in the their annual contraceptive guide. I recommend you read said reports to see the reasons for the Brutal Effects of Stupidity. Said Effects should be one of the first items covered by parents and teachers for their children and students.

        July 1, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Where did YOU get the name reality? Condoms do break! Birth control isn't one size fits all. (With the way the supreme court is going, birth control will probably be illegal soon.) Maybe if you'd meet someone (anyone) you'd realize things aren't as simple as you make it.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and when a condom breaks and the woman becomes pregnant..take responsibility and bear the child

          July 2, 2014 at 2:56 am |
        • kenmargo

          He's like the conservatives on the supreme court!

          July 1, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
        • tallulah131

          He's a man who has never once had to worry in his life if he will get pregnant. He is judgmental and seems to think that women who get do accidentally get pregnant should be punished for the audacity of making a mistake. It doesn't matter if the mistake was made at the condom factory. The woman must be punished.

          He's definitely a conservative, and I suspect he votes against any public aid at the very same time he votes against affordable contraception. I may be mistaken about the voting, but he certainly cares more for zygotes than he does for pregnant women or for the unwanted children who may be born with a devastating birth defects, or in extreme poverty, violence or ill-health.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:46 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          having to bear a baby when it was a "mistake" is a punishment? there we go folks! Again showing how people TRULY value life! they don't give a darnb about others! they are too into themselves to take care of another person...look out for number one.....that's what they do...so sad when people reduce the human baby (ok fetus) to nothing but a pest and an annoyance to another persons life

          July 2, 2014 at 3:13 am |
        • awanderingscot

          really? because he opposes abortion and supports contraceptives he's a "curmudgeon"? he appears to be more of a Christian than you who say you are. aren't you just the finger-pointing name-caller yourself!

          July 1, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • Reality

          It is not complicated. Practice safe s-ex. Again from an atheist who enjoys safe and intelligent se-x even at 73 years of age.

          July 2, 2014 at 12:18 am |
  9. noahsdadtopher

    I wish my town still had a Hobby Lobby.

    July 1, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      hey topher, ltns

      July 1, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Never hear of them. Now I'll be sure and never go there.

      July 1, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        that's ok..sounds like they do well without your business 🙂 I would certainly visit....

        July 1, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
      • tallulah131

        I'd never heard of it until this case. I go to Michael's. They have coupons.

        July 1, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Michaels is good, too.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Pearl Paint" is the real deal.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:37 am |
    • noahsdadtopher

      I'd go there for the smells and the PA music alone.

      July 1, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
      • Science Works

        Hey Topher – if you find one make sure to get the crafts needed to create a saddle , then maybe you could ride the beast onto the ark eh ?

        Editor's Choice from CNN/front page.

        A million years topher ?

        http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/us/triceratops-horns-evolution/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

        July 1, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          The beast as in the anti-Christ? I think you're confusing your books of the Bible.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • Science Works

          No topher – it could be Scalia as he believes the devil is real topher , do you?

          July 1, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Of course I do.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
        • Science Works

          And it resides where topher in hell ?

          The red hor-ny thingy ?

          July 1, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          He resides on Earth, not in Hell.

          And no, not the red thing. That's only in cartoons.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • Science Works

          Oh well topher

          Is that middle earth ?

          Can not post videos but this says it all..

          http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/hobby-lobby-hates-women-loves-jesus/

          Hobby Lobby Hates Women & Loves Jesus: The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of allowing Hobby Lobby to maintain the right to discriminate on others under the guise of “religious freedom”. I call bullsh-it!

          July 1, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          how does HL hate women?

          July 1, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
        • Science Works

          watch the video kermit

          July 1, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          cant get the video..give me the gist of it please

          July 1, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Science Works

          "Is that middle earth ?"

          What?

          "Hobby Lobby Hates Women & Loves Jesus: The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of allowing Hobby Lobby to maintain the right to discriminate on others under the guise of “religious freedom”."

          Who is being discriminated against? And how is it hating women?

          July 1, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Science Works

          same to you topher watch the video.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • Science Works

          hey Topher does it hide under your bed – the devil ?

          July 1, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          I'm beginning to think you're on the same meds as the fake Heaven Sent.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Tell you what ... I'll watch your video if you read this ...

          http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-scripture-clear-about-abortion-121777/

          July 1, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey topher – the rabbit hole eh?

          More than two-thirds of Americans support mandated coverage of birth control in health plans
          Date:
          April 22, 2014

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140422120954.htm

          July 1, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Science Works

          "Hey topher – the rabbit hole eh?"

          What rabbit hole? You present your view in the video. I present mine in the article. No rabbit hole involved.

          "More than two-thirds of Americans support mandated coverage of birth control in health plans"

          So what?

          July 1, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
        • Science Works

          It is the womans right topher.- not mine.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          It's a woman's right to murder?

          July 1, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • Science Works

          the rabbit ran in the hole and many came out topher.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          There you go sounding like the fake Heaven Sent again.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Does the woman have the same right to murder her newborn or toddler? Or her husband?

          July 1, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • Science Works

          Nope

          July 1, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • Science Works

          The nuts came out on this one topher – have a good night.

          Rick Santorum’s Hobby Lobby movie warns Christians that U.S. is becoming Nazi Germany

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/01/rick-santorums-hobby-lobby-movie-warns-christians-that-u-s-is-becoming-nazi-germany/

          July 1, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Why doesn't she?

          July 1, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "Murder" is a legal term. It's NOT "murder". There are many instances where fundie religionists think the taking of life is ok. Thus there is no absolute morality anywhere, (war, capital punishment). Are those "murder" ? Abortion is legal. It cannot be "murder".

          July 1, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Now THAT'S a rabbit trail. Are you paying attention, Science? haha

          July 1, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Why doesn't she?

          You can't be THAT stupid.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Why because you don't want birth control?

      July 1, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        The problem isn't with birth control.

        July 1, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          What they are objecting to are things that DO cause abortions. They aren't saying anything against things like condoms.

          July 1, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
        • fintronics

          A fertilized egg is not a "baby"......... ............ how the religious love to change word definitions to suit their delusion.

          July 2, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • kermit4jc

          how selfish people LOVE to change things to justify shirking responsibility and killing another human life

          July 2, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • evidencenot

          A fertilized egg is not a "human life" but not a surprise from someone that makes claims of the supernatural based on their imagination.

          July 7, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          not surprising to dismiss the fertilized egg as human..to those who have pretty shallow views on worth of humans.....just another way to mask the truth...

          July 8, 2014 at 2:27 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Let me ask you this..WHY is it a very "gut wrenching" decision for women to abort the fetus?..if it isn't human...if it isn't a baby..it should be VERY easy to simply abort it and do away with it like a piece of poop....

          July 8, 2014 at 2:28 am |
        • tallulah131

          Still beating your dead horse, kermit? We get that you hate women and love fetuses.

          July 8, 2014 at 3:03 am |
        • kermit4jc

          i hate no one...I am married to a woman.....so shove it

          July 8, 2014 at 3:06 am |
        • ssq41

          Oh, Kermsicle....you don't even know what it means to have your gut wrenched.

          How many women agonize over having to decide to have ONE or both of their breasts removed due to a cancerous growth? How many, male or female, agonize over having to have a kidney taken out due to disease?

          How many agonize over having to consider donating a kidney?

          For that matter, how many agonize over checking that block on their license to be an organ donor after they are dead?

          You don't think much do you?

          And you sure as hell know nothing of how women feel...and from all of your responses over the past months I question if you even know how to feel.

          And I can't stop laughing at your response to tallulah..."I hate no one...so shove it!"

          Kermy and his compassionate Christian life and witness for Jesus.

          July 8, 2014 at 3:23 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yeo..just a piece of felsh andnothing more....no value whatsoever....again my point..selfish people who care for no one but themselves and actually....others say it is gut wrenching in other ways.....the women know they are KILLING a human being....they cannot escpae the fact/

          July 8, 2014 at 3:27 am |
        • kermit4jc

          and here we go also..focus ONLY on the woman..screw the human inside her....denial

          July 8, 2014 at 3:28 am |
  10. realbuckyball

    Prove it. You have provided not one refernece. No real historian considers the "interpolation" in the 18th Chapter as authentic. It's in different ink, and a different handwriting,. It does not flow in the text from what is above it or below it. Clearly YOU have never read the book, as what I said is true. He WAS PAID to write it. His entire life was spent in subservience – willing servitude to Vespasian, and NO ONE doubts that. There is no "reference" to Jesus. Anyone who questions it, can go to the museum in Milan and SEE the forgery (by Christian monks) for themself. The ONLY reference that MIGHT be authenic is in Chapter 20, when he makes a passing comment about James, a "brother" of the Christ. Since ALL Christians were called "brothers" there is no way of knowing what he meant. CERTAINLY the forgery in Chapter 18 is a forgery. It is not simply something that "fits" in with the rest of the book, (which you have obviously never read). Take a history course. (But of course you can't as it would cause your "doubts" to get worse. You're a prisoner on your faith. And BTW, the correct word is "you're" wrong, not "your" wrong. Why would anyone listen to someone who has SO little education he can't even write a correct English sentence ? You also have not answered my rebuttal to the Samuel text. It was not "spirit" in Hebrew. It was a "god-like" ("divine") being. Are we to think someone who can't speak correct English knows Arcahaic Hebrew ?

    July 1, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      reply to awanderingscott re:Josephus

      July 1, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        "His entire life was spent in subservience – willing servitude to Vespasian, and NO ONE doubts that."

        just more of your believe what you want to believe, the fact is he was a Jewish rebel fighting the Romans until he was trapped and captured with other Jewish rebels in a cave. and the supposedly different writing, not proven in the original nor extant text, more of your revisionist propaganda. and concerning Samuel appearing to the medium the translation to English text is 'spirit' and not 'Elohim' or 'Adonai', Hebrew doesn't have the word 'spirit' and uses Elohim for the word we know as spirit because god or gods are spirit. Elohim or Adonai cannot fit when referring to Samuel's soul and only a likeness of Elohim is conferred. further proof that Elohim is "spirit" in a general sense can be found in the Book of Exodus Chapter 12 Verse 12 where it reads: "For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD." the Hebrew word for "gods" is el-o-heem. the Lord was referring to the spirit beings we know as demons and also of His execution of judgment upon those demons (spirit beings) worshipped in Egypt. those 'scholarly' books you read now cannot and never will provide proper exegesis. try actually reading and meditating on scripture sometime.

        July 1, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
  11. Science Works

    Hey Theo politics you say ?

    http://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/gops_contraception_mess_conservatives_worry_republicans_will_act_like_republicans/

    July 1, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
  12. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    There's battle lines being drawn
    Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
    Young people speaking' their minds
    Getting so much resistance from behind

    What a field day for the heat
    A thousand people in the street
    Singing songs and carrying signs
    Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

    We better stop
    Children, what's that sound?
    Everybody look – what's going down?

    July 1, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Tab Benoit did a GREAT version of that song!!

      July 1, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        I didn't recognize his name and had to look him up... I like blues, especially Delta blues. I didn't realize he was the guy who plays 'Shelter Me' for the show Sons of Guns

        July 1, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          If you like him, check out King Tyrone, John Hiatt, Trampled Under Foot, Jim Quick, and Boz Scaggs. I cut my teeth shagging to Carolina Beach music, and these guys are regulars these days on the Grand Strand.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          LET,
          Oh, yeah, don't forget Mike Zito, Taj Mahal, Delbert McClinton, The Subdudes, and Joe Bonamassa.

          Joe Bonamassa is SICK! In a good way. This guy is in his 30's and was a child prodigy! He began his career by opening up for B.B. King when he was 12 years old!!!

          July 1, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Who am I forgetting.... Oh, yeah, Beth Hart. She teemed up with Joe Bonamassa in the album "See Saw." That one is a MUST have.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Delta bottom blues from the 30's, 40's and 50's. Son House, Willie Brown, Blind Willie Johnson, Charlie Patton, etc.

        July 1, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
  13. neverbeenhappieratheist

    I think this whole debate can be answered with the answers to two questions: Are the health insurance benefits considered part of the employees income and do they contribute? Are the health insurance benefits provided by the company not part of the employees salary and thus considered charity by the company and totally not related to the work being performed by the employee?

    If the answer to question 1 is "Yes" then the SCOTUS made a grave error in allowing corporations to pay their employees less than they agreed to in the contract to provide health insurance coverage regardless of their faith in return for hours worked.

    If the answer to question 2 is "Yes" then the ruling is correct and the non-related benefits of the health insurance the company was giving their employees out of charity where the employee did not contribute is within their rights to modify and adjust based on any company policy whether it be faith based or just a CEO's whim.

    July 1, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
    • kenmargo

      It doesn't really matter. Birth control is a health issue NOT A MORAL ISSUE. Married, devoted women use birth control. Christian women (over 90%) use birth control. We CANNOT be the Duggans. We can't afford it.

      I mentioned this earlier. You never hear a pro-lifer say what they'll do for the child AFTER it's born. Why? Because they don't care about the kid PERIOD. Yet the same prolifers will complain about their taxes going up, calling people that get public as'sistance lazy, unmotivated and other names.

      July 1, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        yes..certain birth controls are ok.....not the ones that brings forth abortion

        July 1, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • kenmargo

          See my point. Kermit offered nothing to help these kids because he doesn't care.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I did offer some in other posts....tired of repeating myself..so please knock off with the false accusations..thanks..as for these kids....adoption or such....but then again the BEST thing is NOT make kids....se x is fun and good andnot exclusively used for procreation..yet pregnancy DOES come with the territory and thus se x must be handled respobly..not with reckless abandon like we see now a days....where people say oh..if I get pregnant I can get rid of it if I don't want it.....

          July 1, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Oh my, you obviously hate facts because it was well noted that the 4 HL opposed DO NOT cause abortion.
          You ranted about people ensuring they don't pregnant...what about the victim of incest or rape? Have you never had sex in the heat of the moment? While there are ways to prevent pregnancy, it can't always go that way.

          In response to your inept assumption about me...I'm not out there having abortions; I used common sense after bringing two children in to this world and decided to ensure I never got pregnant again-are you also against tubal ligation? After all that prevents a woman from getting pregnant?

          You have yet to answer where you would like the bills for all those 'unwanted' children sent to you at? You say you care about them but you don't....if you did you wouldn't risk them being brought in to a life of poverty or pain.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Let me help you Kermit. How about:

          Programs to help parents get jobs
          Pre k programs for children
          After school programs to keep kids out of trouble
          Affordable housing
          School lunch
          Increase school budgets for the arts and sports
          Summer job programs for children

          Those are some of the things society can do to HELP parents raise children. Unfortunately politicians (republicans/tea party) want to CUT/GUT these programs to increase the budget for prisons. SHAME.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I totally agree ken

          July 1, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..but miscarriage is not done purposefully by the parent (unless a person injures the mother in the womb area that would cause the death of a child) otherwise miscarriages are not done with the will of the human

          July 1, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          kermi: Do you agree that sex ed should be taught in school? You say you work with troubled youth, without giving details explain what the basic home life is...by this I mean is it: young, single Mom; didn't complete high school. My point is that if we want to find common ground on such a controversial issue, we need to start figuring out a solution and an education seems like a good start. You know that cycles of abuse, dysfunction...repeat themselves if not broken...so if we get to the youth soon enough, we can show them a different way and in time watch as numbers of unwanted pregnancies dwindle.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Se x ed in schools...kind of tough....maybe for like as one that is not required..but parents can be notified and can opt to have chidren take it or not...I believe ultimately the parents are responsible for teaching it to the kids. NOt the schools...if the parents are not teaching it, then what are they doing with the kids in first place? Like are they teaching them anything else? and what kind of se x ed? how much would they tech? what would they teach? from what viewpoint..liberal..or somewhere in the middle?

          July 1, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          but I do agree...got to stop the cycle and start with the kids

          July 1, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          asI understand...they only object to ones that relate to abortion..not ones such as con doms etc.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
  14. Reality

    One aspect of the cost of se-xual stupidity:

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

    And mostly preventable by the use of a 32 cent condom or by abstinence or by ma-sturbation.

    See also http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/health/bill-gates-condom-challenge

    July 1, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24
      ----------------
      My dad told my sisters once that the only birth control method that he would pay for is an aspirin. Put an aspirin between your knee caps and hold it there.

      July 1, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        Obviously that father was not very creative in bed.

        July 1, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I can excuse snarkiness because I do it myself a LOT, but let's stay away from the "yo' mamma" jokes (or in this case "yo' daddy" jokes) or you'll be caught with your immaturity showing.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          Not making fun of the father, but the analogy. There are plenty of positions in which the females knees can be touching.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Dude! That's my parent's we're talking about!!! I'm going to have to see a PIG getting SLAUGHTERED to get that image out of my head!

          July 1, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          My bad, Theo. Seriously though, no disrespect intended. I just remember the first time I heard that analogy from my high school spanish teacher. Shortly after I had some impure thoughts about a girl in the class.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Alias

      Telling everyone else to obstain from having sex is an attempt to control a behavior you seem to find immoral. You are overstepping your rights.

      July 1, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        So my dad was overstepping his bounds by telling his two daughters to abstain from s.ex until marriage according to the Biblical mandate?

        If that's what you're sayinf, then YOU are the one overstepping their bounds by trying to say how my dad should have raised his girls.

        July 1, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          plus..I see nowhere that you said s ex was immoral..as Alias seemed to have assumed

          July 1, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Did your dad wait until HE was married before he had s3x?

          How did your sisters turn out?

          July 1, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Did your dad wait until HE was married before he had s3x?
          --------------–
          No. He became a Christian later in life.

          How did your sisters turn out?
          ------------------
          Well... they didn't listen to him.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo
          THIS is why I usually ignore you.
          So obviously taken out of context.
          You are either an idiot or dishonest, and I dont think you're an idiot.
          Or are you saying you have the right to impose your morals onto everyone else?

          July 1, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Or are you saying you have the right to impose your morals onto everyone else?
          --------------–
          No, I'm saying that if a man wishes to raise his household under the doctrines of the Bible, then in this country, he is guarenteed that right. I am also saying that it is within a parent's perogative to raise his children in ways that will not permit them to make the same mistakes that he has made. My dad was also an alcohaulic before meeting my mother and her love cured him of that desire. And if there is any good to be found in such things as that, it is that you KNOW the dangers in it, and you KNOW that you need to keep your blood away from that.

          You know what I mean? We make some stupid mistakes in this life, and because we know how lastingly dangerous they can be, we do everything that we can to keep our kids as far away from those mistakes as possible.

          If we don't love our children or care anything for them, then we allow them to do the same crap that we did growing up. My dad wanted those under his charge to be BETTER than he was.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo,
          I was wrong. You are an idiot.
          It is not reasonable to apply comments made in the contest of laws governing business practices and apply thos comments to parenting.
          That was a very Stupid thing to do.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          And you think that Hobby Lobby is telling everyone to abstain from s.ex? While at the same time they are paying for 16 of the 20 FDA approved methods of birth control... You'll have to explain that one to me.

          You just like to insult people. Well, you'd best do THAT in front of a mirror, at least then you'll be speaking to someone who is amused by you.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I think this has gone off on an irrelevant tangent as what a father teaches his child until they are an adult is their choice as long as they don't break any federal or state laws when it comes to child abuse. A parent can teach their daughters to marry for money or to not marry at all. They can be involved or not. That is their right as a parent, again, within the bounds of the law.

          This Hobby Lobby issue is essentially giving those parental rights to an employer allowing them to be a moral arbiter over their employees. There is a very different relationship between and employer and employee vs child and parent.

          It is sad that many conservative parents try and teach abstinence only and don't have the addendum sane parents tack on of "...but if you are going to ignore my warnings and do it anyway, at least be safe and use protection...".

          July 1, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "...but if you are going to ignore my warnings and do it anyway, at least be safe and use protection...".
          -----------------
          My dad's admonition was more like "If you don't listen to me and you put that thing where it don't belong, I'm gonna break it off and stab you with it." He was USMC after all... Rough around the edges, but we love him.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          OR..how about "if yourenot going to take my warning and do it anyways..YOU WILL be held responsible for any child you bring forth!" and teach the kids..give them an idea what it entails to take care of a baby! get one of those dolls and take a week or so and have the kid "take care of it"

          July 1, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
  15. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Posting these videos makes Jesus cry...

    July 1, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
  16. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    I get up at seven, yeah
    And I go to work at nine
    I got no time for livin'
    Yes, I'm workin' all the time

    [Chorus:]
    It seems to me
    I could live my life
    A lot better than I think I am
    I guess that's why they call me
    They call me the working man

    They call me the working man
    I guess that's what I am

    I get home at five o'clock
    And I take myself out a nice, cold beer
    Always seem to be wonderin'
    Why there's nothin' goin' down here

    [Chorus]

    Well, they call me the working man
    I guess that's what I am

    July 1, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
    • Reality

      http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/workingman.html if you want sing along.

      July 1, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Theo said he was listening to Rush... and there is only one acceptable Rush to listen too

        July 1, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
  17. Theo Phileo

    I was just listening to Rush while I was on the road between offices, and he made an interesting point. The HL case does nothing more than to confirm the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Nov. 1993, which was a near unanimous decision among Democrats (3 dissenters) where the law protects folks' religious freedoms wherever they feel they are being violated.

    I suppose then my question is over how you draw the distinction between a "person" and a "corporation" since a corporation is made up of "persons." In this particular case, they did make that distinction by stating that this ruling (so far as corporations are concerned) affects only closely held corporations – essentially a family with a business.

    Looking at it that way, the SCOTUS merely upheld existing law, an existing law which Obama felt that he could overlook just because he wanted to, or felt he had the power to, which he doesn't.

    And now Hillary Clinton is speaking openly against RFRA??? Does she not remember that it was her husband who signed it into law with a near unanimous Democrat support???

    Ugh... I'm confused... This is why I don't get into politics... There's WAY too much politics involved.

    July 1, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
    • Doris

      "I was just listening to Rush while I was on the road "

      Oh my – why am I not surprised...

      July 1, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Yeah, yeah, say what you want about Rush, but it's the only talk radio station around here, and I refuse to listen to any modern music – all they ever talk about is promiscuity and alcoholism...

      The point is, at least on THIS case, Rush was absolutely RIGHT.

      July 1, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        "I was just listening to Rush"... "Ugh... I'm confused... "

        Yes, he does that to his listeners. I understand you don't get any other radio stations, but that is no reason to let that bafoon fill your head with chauvanistic racist nonsense. It's like saying "Hey, no one brought any games to the barbecue, I guess i'll just stick my hand on this hot gill..."

        July 1, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          ...grill...

          July 1, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I guess i'll just stick my hand on this hot gill..."
          --------------
          I saw something similar happen in a woodshop one time. (not me) It involved a joiner and someone saying "what would you do if I did this?" It ended up in the emergency room...

          July 1, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Isn't a "gill" a unit of money in the "Final Fantasy" games??? OK, now I feel weird that I know that one...

          July 1, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          Usually in FF its just "gil".

          July 1, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Oh my, now that explains why you're so ignorant. Rush is delusional.
      Hillary is well entitled to change her opinion on matters and kudos to her for doing so.
      Lets put it this way for you:
      I am a Jehovah's Witness, you want blood transfusions covered but yet due to my firmly held belief against them, I refuse to cover them. You can insert any religious organization...they all have restrictions of some form.
      The point is if you don't want your rights taken away, don't do it to someone else.
      This is a true bonus for the DEMS....they'll get a huge portion of the women's vote now.

      July 1, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        No, I'm ignorant of politics because I refuse to get involved, my blood pressure will only permit me to handle only one metanarrative, and that is theology.

        Do you agree though that this HL case was merely confirming established law – specifically, RFRA of 1993? And if this was such a bad law, then why was it never challened out of being law? Was it a law that was only "good" as long as no one ever used it?

        Was RFRA of 1993 merely Clinton and the Democrats caving to their const.ituency? I realize that they are representatives of the people (we live in a republic, not a democracy), but that doesn't mean that they get to pass "bad" laws just because the people want them to. And if that's the case, are ALL politicians THAT stupid??? That is, to pass "bad" laws just because it will win them more votes?

        July 1, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Remaining ignorant of politics-the very people who make the laws that you as a citizen are required to abide by tells us a tremendous amount about you. No-one wants to hear the negative but the you need to look around you and be able to imagine (for lack of a better word) how you would feel if it was you that was being directly affected.
          I personally believe that SCOTUS crossed a very dangerous line here, one that will put the republicans at risk of losing a large portion of the women's vote and we'll top that with the generation that is up and coming...so a wide range of women who are going to be rather displeased.
          Do you in all honesty believe that EVERY employee at Hobby Lobby is Christian? I'm wagering not, this opens another door...those employee's who aren't are having their religious freedom's stepped on also. Regardless, we still have places such as Planned Parenthood who will help those women, so in the end Hobby Lobby has done nothing more that prove they are not worthy of respect.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Remaining ignorant of politics-the very people who make the laws that you as a citizen are required to abide by tells us a tremendous amount about you...
          ------------------
          With respect, have you ever had a blood pressure of 210 over 110? I have. And it is very painful. And it is THAT reason that I choose not to get into politics.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          But there's 16 of the 20 available methods of contraception still available to employees. That's not exactly denying them anything. There's a LOT of blood pressure medications that my insurance won't pay for, does that mean that I have a case against them?

          July 1, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • Alias

          The vast majority of politicians will pass whatever laws will get them more votes.
          Look back at how the tobacco companies made huge 'donations' and got protected from being sued.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo
          What exactly are the 16 types of birth control that are covered?

          July 1, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          The vast majority of politicians will pass whatever laws will get them more votes.
          --------------------
          That's our problem... Too many politicians, not enough patriots. The one does the best they can to pad their wallets, the other does the best they can to better their nation.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          What exactly are the 16 types of birth control that are covered?
          ---------------
          I haven't got a clue. But HL's objection was only over 4 in a list of 20 FDA approved methods. It's not like they are refusing to pay for ANY methods, and unfortunately, there are some who believe that is just what they did.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          The RFRA Act simply states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

          The primary purpose of the act was in defense of native American lands which they considered sacred as well as the use of peyote in their religious rituals. Rush LimpBrain has made a connection where there really isn't one since no one is preventing the owners of Hobby Lobby from practicing their faith. This new ruling now allows them to force their faith on others. It would be as Rush claims if the RFRA forced anyone who came onto native lands to smoke some peyote first, but it doesn't.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • ausphor

          Phileo
          You do realize that HL provided all contraceptive coverage before the ACA came into effect, or don't you have a clue? This was just a conservative political weapon they could use against the democrats, target of opportunity. They, HL, didn't give a good god damn about the coverage until it became a political ploy, such hypocrisy from the Baptists is standard behaviour.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo
          I'm not sure I should try to offer an over simplified view of politics, but it is not necessarily a bad thing for the politicians to have to make people happy to stay in office. That is, in a very simplified way, their job.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          So... Clinton is now openly speaking out against RFRA. So that means that she was for it before she was against it. Are Democrats the only people permitted to change their mind on issues? So if HL provided coverage for these 4 methods that are now not provided for, are they not allowed to "change their mind" on religious grounds? After all, Clinton changed her mind on political grounds just so that she can get votes when she rund for Prez.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • ausphor

          Phileo
          Such twisted thinking, you do remember stating you are ignorant when it comes to politics until it suits you not to be? What a joke you really are.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Did you read 'neverhappier's' explanation of RFRA? Is a corporation a person? The RFRA does not specify corporations.
          I'm not sure what you're not comprehending here. HL's position is that the 4 drugs in question cause abortion, yet SCOTUS was shown evidence that they are wrong. SCOTUS misused RFRA's purpose.

          You mentioned about high blood pressure meds...the ones not covered...are they being denied on the basis that they go against a person's religious beliefs? That is a large part of the issue.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Such twisted thinking, you do remember stating you are ignorant when it comes to politics until it suits you not to be? What a joke you really are.
          --------------–
          If you can't eat with the adults, you're going to get sent back to the little table.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Did you read 'neverhappier's' explanation of RFRA? Is a corporation a person?
          ------------
          Yeah, and the way he worded his post, it seemed as though a corporation can actually be seen as a person at least in a legal sense.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • ausphor

          Phileo
          Is that the best you can do to cover up your hypocrisy, make a childish snide remark. I love it when the likes of you claim ad hominem comments are directed at you when you do exactly the same thing. You are a bad joke.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          ausphor,
          How in the world am I being a hypocrite??? All I have done here is to repeat what I HEARD ON THE RADIO today, and then ask you people if it was correct or not. I DONT get involved in politics. I can't get involved... And this is the very reason. One person says something that another doesn't agree with, so instead of having a mature conversation about it, they begin with ad hominem attacks. Please... Don't get involved in politics. It's people like you who are the problem.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • ausphor

          Phileo
          Lets see, you claim to know nothing about politics then in the very next comments begin stating someone did something for political motives, how do you jump from ignorance to judging political motives? Hypocrite.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          you claim to know nothing about politics then in the very next comments begin stating someone did something for political motives, how do you jump from ignorance to judging political motives?
          ----------------
          I'M not judging political motives, RUSH was. That was all in his radio show today, even the comment about Hillary, look the transcript up on his website if you don't believe me!!!

          July 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
        • ausphor

          Pkileo
          So you use hearsay from a radio host like Rush to make disparaging remarks that you don't know are true. Not surprising since your whole religious belief is based on a book of hearsay. Ever tried thinking for yourself.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Unbelieveable. The point in question is the old definition that a corporation IS leggally defined to BE a "person". Why am I not suprised Theo knows not even the BASICS that a 6th Grade Civics student is taught. JHF'ngC. Things start to become clear.

      July 1, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        The point in question is the old definition that a corporation IS leggally defined to BE a "person".
        ------------------
        So, if a corporation can be defined as a person, then what is the legal argument against the SCOTUS ruling? After all, there has been established law for 21 years that permits "persons" to have religious exemptions through RFRA.

        July 1, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Because it differentiates capriciously between "closely" held small "family" businesses which are NOT *corporations* (thus are NOT *persons*, and large "corporations" which ARE legal persons.

          July 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
    • ausphor

      Phileo
      How can anyone as erudite and logical (at least in your own mind) get confused? I presume listening to Rush will do that to a person.

      July 1, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Are you kidding me? I gave up on politics ever since I realized that politicians can vote themselve more money.

        July 1, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Because the concept of religious freedoms differ among people, often such that a person's religious ideas cause that person to try to influence the lives of others, it's important to examine what a person is calling a "religious freedom" for snares and poison for the rest of us. Employers with such ideas should be watched carefully and prevented from exercising their influence over the people who are, in some degree, depending on them.

      July 1, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        So you would be fine with religious exemptions should the business in question ONLY hire Christians, say, a Christian bookstore for instance. But should that small business be in a secular market, like a home builder, who hires folks other than Christians, then there should be no exemptions?

        July 1, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo;
          What are you trying to say?
          If I believe every word of the bible is perfect and the will of god, then enslaving peopel who are not of jewish ancestory and the wrong religion is my god given right!
          Who did that Lincoln person think he was to take my religious beliefs away from me?

          July 1, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Alias,
          What? Your misunderstanding of the context of scripture and covenant theology is not the point here.
          The fact that established law, created under the Clinton administration was upheld, and how it applies to "persons" and corporations who can be legally identified as "persons" are what we are talking about.

          The question needs to be raised as to why this even went to the Supreme Court in the first place. Did others before them wish to ignore established law? And if so, why?

          July 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo-
          I thought it was an obvious point. So where do you draw the line?
          What religious beliefs should be protected and which ones shouldn't?

          Please remember that I am not required to accept your interpretation of the bible, or even your religion at all.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Please remember that I am not required to accept your interpretation of the bible, or even your religion at all.
          ------------–
          Yes, I understand that. And you might be suprised that I actually think that large corporations who knowingly hire non-Christians shouldn't have religious exemptions. If there is a small business, family owned, who only hires Christians (say, their own family members, or friends, or if the business is in the Christian community like a Christian bookstore), then I think that religious exemptions most certainly should apply.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo – just one huge problem there
          It is illegal to hire based on religion. You want to make laws based on companies that openly discrininate, and reward that illegal behavior.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          It is illegal to hire based on religion
          ----------------–
          Actually, not in every case. For instance, a for-profit theological seminary cannot be forced to hire an atheist to teach their hermeneutics class.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • G to the T

          I think you are confusing "cannot be forced" with "cannot be allowed to discriminate".

          No one is forcing anyone to hire anybody, but if your reasoning is purely religious, then that is discrimination.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Akira, I'm not arguing over his character. I'm merely curious if what he said was true.

      July 1, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Given his honesty levels on other matters, probably not. I would hope one doesn't consider him a moral authority on anything besides Rush Limbaugh
        -----------------–
        I'm not claiming him as an authority on anything, BUT, if what he said was true, then the issue isn't over the man, but rather that this ruling was merely an affirmation of established law that was nearly unanimous among Democrats in the Clinton Administration.

        So the question needs to be asked as to why this even went to the SCOTUS in the first place. Were others before them not willing to uphold established law?

        July 1, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Akira,
        Corporate Personhood
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

        July 1, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • G to the T

        "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood"

        And thus we see what will really cause the downfall of America – treating money making vetures as if they had personhood.

        July 1, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
    • G to the T

      " where the law protects folks' religious freedoms"

      And here's the problem – the company isn't a person – there's no "religious freedoms" to defend at a corporate level.

      July 1, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
      • tallulah131

        It's astonishing that people just aren't getting that fact. It's even more astonishing that the Supreme Court ignored that fact.

        July 1, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
    • fintronics

      YYZ

      July 2, 2014 at 9:49 am |
  18. Salero21

    So... King Obomo of the new kingdom of THE UNITED STATES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH lost another one with the Court!! Well, well what did you know!!

    Now, where are all the HO.MOS's of both genders who rabidly voted for him in 08 & 12? Gee they're NOT even joining the Military after the repeal of DADT. Well I don't blame them for not joining; Who in the right mind wants to join a gay Military? Who in the right mind wants to even join a Military anyways?

    July 1, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I couldn't make sense of Salero21, so here's the Canadian Anthem. Cheers.

      O Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
      Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!

      Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
      Il sait porter la croix!

      Ton histoire est une épopée
      Des plus brillants exploits.

      Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
      Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

      Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

      July 1, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Don't go gettin' your panties in a bunch there Sally...your side has only temporarily won.
      There are mid-term elections coming up and a decent woman is smart enough to see what crap like this is...I'd say that you should look forward to a woman president who is democrat....this is going to kill the republitards.

      July 1, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
      • kenmargo

        As long as Hilary has the house and senate on her side, she'll be able to make changes.

        July 1, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
    • Reality

      And again, what evil cult of Christianity does Salero belong to?

      July 1, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        What difference does it make? They are all stupid... just at varying degrees.

        July 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • Salero21

        You're a DEMONstration of what I've been saying all along. Atheism/evolutionism/idolatry are all Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE. And atheist are extreme hypocrites, compulsive and pathological Liars.

        July 1, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
        • Reality

          And apparently Salero believes in Satan, the demon of the 21st century demented. Obviously, the cult he belongs to has made him the way he is. How very disturbing!!!

          July 2, 2014 at 7:12 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          . And atheist are extreme hypocrites, compulsive and pathological Liars.............

          LOLOL.....this the typical response of the RELIGIOUS FANATIC DESPERATE TO PROTECT THEIR FANTASY IN THE SKY.

          July 2, 2014 at 10:05 am |
  19. tallulah131

    Oh do go away. What is even the point of spamming this sh!t?

    July 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
  20. neverbeenhappieratheist

    This ruling reminds me of an old joke:

    A man sitting at a bar gets up and walks over to a table of four burly men drinking beers and says the the biggest one, "Hey, i'll bet you $50 I can p i s s in that empty beer bottle from here without spilling a single drop."

    The big guy says "Ha! Impossible! I'll take that bet!"

    So the man from the bar proceeds to whip it out and starts urinating in a stream onto the table and right into the top of the beer bottle, but after a second his aim goes awry and the urine starts splattering all over the table and the four burly men. At this the large guy laughs and stands up saying "Ha! You owe me $50 sucker!" so the man pulls out $50 and pays him.

    As he is walking away the big guy asks "So why would you make that bet anyway? It's impossible to do. So why?"

    The other man replies as he walks back over to the bar "Well you see, I had bet this barkeep $100 that I could go over to your table, whip out my johnson and pee all over you and your table and you'd be happy about it..."

    Barkeep = Hobby Lobby/Big Business
    Man = Republican party
    Big guy = conservative base

    They don't even realize when they are being micturated upon and it's sad. They will likely be the most hurt by this and they don't even know it, much like they are hurt by their partys stance on equal pay for women and their stance on the minimum wage. They are getting a full stream to the face and they stand there gargling "Is it rrraaaainingfff?" It would be funny to watch if it wasn't so sad and had real world consequences.

    July 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • tallulah131

      I agree entirely, but you forgot to say that the table is the Constitution.

      Also, points for using "micturated".

      July 1, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Doh, I missed a "golden" opportunity to add that analogy...

        July 1, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Johnson = SCOTUS?

      July 1, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        It is just above the SCROTUS right?...

        July 1, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      At risk of belaboring the metaphor:

      Bar keep: The GOP
      Man: Hobby Lobby
      Table: Const.itution
      Bottle: ACA
      Burly man: Democrats
      Other men at table: American people including Republican consti.tuents

      July 1, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        That pretty much sums it up.

        July 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      isn't it true that you are only here in an attempt to weaken someone's faith? isn't it true that you are a hateful individual with an evil heart who, although you have not ever been harmed by another person's faith, are here to spread hatred of people of faith?

      July 1, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Isn't it true that you are a liar? You don't have to answer. You've convicted yourself with your own words.

        July 1, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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.