9-0

[BedellBrave]

"The ruling isn’t just a win for evangelicals, like the Southern Baptist Greens. It’s a win for everyone. Here’s why. A government that can pave over the consciences of the Greens can steamroll over any dissent anywhere. Whether you agree or disagree with us about abortion, every American should want to see a government that is not powerful enough to set itself up as a god over the conscience."

Russell Moore

 

[57Brave]

The Supreme Court establishes presidence.

When talking slippery slope regarding SCOTUS it sometimes takes generations.

The least of this ruling is Birth Control in 2014

 

[weso1]

The Supreme Court establishes presidence.

When talking slippery slope regarding SCOTUS it sometimes takes generations.

The least of this ruling is Birth Control in 2014

Well, the good news is that you and I will both be dead when the **** hits the fan.

 

[50PoundHead]

I would hardly call this ruling, 20 years after the peyote ruling, a significant slippery slope instance. It's been 20 years and the only quasi negative impact from the ruling has been to take way 4 out of 20 birth control options for a very specific corporation type. So I'm sorry, but I would argue this fits my point more than it does yours. Again, the actual ruling itself is truly not very impactful on society.

And it's not all speculation. I'm arguing that the specificity of the ruling inherently dismisses the threat of significant slippery slope consequences. So I have reasoning to support my position.

And I have reasoning to support mine. The peyote decision was also quite specific.

Precedent is just that. Precedent. No one knows what this decision may mean down the road. But it now stands as a legitimate ruling from which new interpretations of other cases brought before the court may spring.

Bedell, thanks for the quote from Russell Moore, but I am still having a difficult time truly understanding his contention that there is a War on Religion by this or any other administration in the history of the United States. When I see chains on church doors, I'll start worrying about a War on Religion.

If individual conscience trumps all, we may as well shut the place down. As I said earlier, a crapload of my tax dollars goes towards programs that I find morally reprehensible. I think the same could probably be said of everyone who posts here. No one gets everything in a democracy or a republic (whatever it is we have).

 

[BedellBrave]

Doesn't that seem to be too late to you 50? I'm not going to use the inflammatory over the top language of a "War on Religion" in part because of my disdain for the phrase, "War on Women." Language like that doesn't get us anywhere in my opinion. It just enrages and keeps people from actually thinking through issues and honestly debating them.

As to ACA and it's contraceptives mandate, let it be frankly admitted that the legislators and the administration knew that such a mandate would be an imposition upon the consciences of many non-profits and closely-held (read family held) for-profits. And when other groups (like some unions) and businesses complained about certain debilitating characteristics of the law for their operations, the administration willingly and swiftly granted exemptions. But it did not do so in this case. What are folks in my position to make of that, but antagonism? Particularly in light of other ways to have handled it? I won't call it a war. I'll leave that to others. I will say that it shows that for many more secularly-minded politicos, sexual liberty and enforcement of broad coverage to facilitate that freedom, trumps what might be deemed as antiquated convictions.

As those with such antiquated convictions learn better how to engage and tolerate those with progressive sexual mores, I wish those with such sexual mores would be more tolerant of those who don't share their views. I wish we could accommodate one another better instead of having every thing turn into this ugly and fear-mongering rhetoric of "war" and intolerance.

I read a nice write up about Howard Baker yesterday and wish there were more like him.

Link.

 

[goldfly]

I don't even think Lena Headey can do an appropriate eye roll for this comment. Lawdie.

my sperm isn't a possible human?

 

[weso1]

Doesn't that seem to be too late to you 50? I'm not going to use the inflammatory over the top language of a "War on Religion" in part because of my disdain for the phrase, "War on Women." Language like that doesn't get us anywhere in my opinion. It just enrages and keeps people from actually thinking through issues and honestly debating them.

As to ACNA and it's contraceptives mandate, let it be frankly admitted that the legislators and the administration knew that such a mandate would be an imposition upon the consciences of many non-profits and closely-held (read family held) for-profits. And when other groups (like some unions) and businesses complained about certain debilitating characteristics of the law for their operations, the administration willingly and swiftly granted exemptions. But it did not do so in this case. What are folks in my position to make of that, but antagonism? Particularly in light of other ways to have handled it? I won't call it a war. I'll leave that to others. I will say that it shows that for many more secularly-minded politicos, sexual liberty and enforcement of broad coverage to facilitate that freedom, trumps what might be deemed as antiquated convictions.

As those with such antiquated convictions learn better how to engage and tolerate those with progressive sexual mores, I wish those with such sexual mores would be more tolerant of those who don't share their views. I wish we could accommodate one another better instead of having every thing turn into this ugly and fear-mongering rhetoric of "war" and intolerance.

I read a nice write up about Howard Baker yesterday and wish there were more like him.

Link.

So what you're saying is that there's a war on civility?

 

[BedellBrave]

Yeah, pretty much. And just common decency and respect. It's so easy to get caught up in the swirl. And there are folks that make their living off of swirl making.

Oh, and by "ACNA" I meant "ACA." Don't want to tar and feather the Anglican Church of North America.

 

[BedellBrave]

my sperm isn't a possible human?

Why would you think it was?

 

[goldfly]

Why would you think it was?

if people are telling me that the plan b/morning after pill is killing a baby/person

i don't see how you can say sperm aren't a person then

both are absurd points

 

[BedellBrave]

if people are telling me that the plan b/morning after pill is killing a baby/person

i don't see how you can say sperm aren't a person then

both are absurd points

So your point is that it is scientifically certain that "plan b / morning after" contraceptives don't ever prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus?

 

[50PoundHead]

Doesn't that seem to be too late to you 50? I'm not going to use the inflammatory over the top language of a "War on Religion" in part because of my disdain for the phrase, "War on Women." Language like that doesn't get us anywhere in my opinion. It just enrages and keeps people from actually thinking through issues and honestly debating them.

As to ACA and it's contraceptives mandate, let it be frankly admitted that the legislators and the administration knew that such a mandate would be an imposition upon the consciences of many non-profits and closely-held (read family held) for-profits. And when other groups (like some unions) and businesses complained about certain debilitating characteristics of the law for their operations, the administration willingly and swiftly granted exemptions. But it did not do so in this case. What are folks in my position to make of that, but antagonism? Particularly in light of other ways to have handled it? I won't call it a war. I'll leave that to others. I will say that it shows that for many more secularly-minded politicos, sexual liberty and enforcement of broad coverage to facilitate that freedom, trumps what might be deemed as antiquated convictions.

As those with such antiquated convictions learn better how to engage and tolerate those with progressive sexual mores, I wish those with such sexual mores would be more tolerant of those who don't share their views. I wish we could accommodate one another better instead of having every thing turn into this ugly and fear-mongering rhetoric of "war" and intolerance.

I read a nice write up about Howard Baker yesterday and wish there were more like him.

Link.

I just don't think that is what Moore is saying. I can see your point and respect that closely-held beliefs are, if not trampled on, certainly invited to an unwanted compromise in this whole debate. As I said earlier in this thread, I thought Hobby Lobby would win and not because of any slant that exists on the Supreme Court. Alito is correct in saying there are other ways to provide the coverage.

Where I have trouble with Moore's statement (and I realize that this was likely not a prepared statement and that the quote may lack context), but I don't think the government is trying to trump conscience here. They are trying to achieve a goal. The administration already backed down somewhat in providing an exemption for religious organizations. But if Moore is talking about conscience always taking precedent over the government, I have a problem with that. And it's not the people with consciences I worry about in that situation. It's the people whose brain is in their lower spinal column, but contend they are acting on conscience. Paraphrasing Madison, "If men were angels, we'd need no government." Again, I can only make a stab at Moore's intent from the words in the quote you supplied, but he seems to infer that all in his flock are angels and that the government routinely goes beyond its realm.

And, yes, Howard Baker was a truly great man. A truly great man.

 

[AerchAngel]

if people are telling me that the plan b/morning after pill is killing a baby/person

i don't see how you can say sperm aren't a person then

both are absurd points

sorry Bedell, I agree with Fly on that. A combination is not form instantaneously, unless medical hypothesis say otherwise. The DNA and Chromos have to bond before a being is created that is why people don't get pregnant every time that they are in heat (LOL!). If that is the cases we would have 25 bil on this world now. Most animals, not named human, have babies when they are in heat, almost always. That fail safe of lottery, which most poor people and those who do not need to be pregnant seems to win, is a way of controlling the population.

 

[AerchAngel]

So your point is that it is scientifically certain that "plan b / morning after" contraceptives don't ever prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus?

If they don't want a child, this is plausible, using science to prevent an oops is not wrong, killing an oops while pregnant is. Maybe it is God's way of controlling the population of undesirables, did you ever consider that? He works in mysterious ways. You are sounding like a Catholic, which scares me, that is why my wife never used birth control.

 

[BedellBrave]

sorry Bedell, I agree with Fly on that. A combination is not form instantaneously, unless medical hypothesis say otherwise. The DNA and Chromos have to bond before a being is created that is why people don't get pregnant every time that they are in heat (LOL!). If that is the cases we would have 25 bil on this world now. Most animals, not named human, have babies when they are in heat, almost always. That fail safe of lottery, which most poor people and those who do not need to be pregnant seems to win, is a way of controlling the population.

Then I'll ask you the same question: So your point is that it is scientifically certain that "plan b / morning after" contraceptives don't ever prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus?

 

[BedellBrave]

If they don't want a child, this is plausible, using science to prevent an oops is not wrong, killing an oops while pregnant is. Maybe it is God's way of controlling the population of undesirables, did you ever consider that? He works in mysterious ways. You are sounding like a Catholic, which scares me, that is why my wife never used birth control.

I'm not sure I actually understand what you are saying.

A sperm is not a human life. It's a living product of a living human being.

An egg is not a human life. It is a living product of a living human being.

A fertilized human egg is a distinctively new human life.

If you think that it is okay to stop that fertilized egg from implanting on the wall of the mother's uterus then you are saying that it is legitimate to take human life at that level of development. That's your conviction.

 

[AerchAngel]

Then I'll ask you the same question: So your point is that it is scientifically certain that "plan b / morning after" contraceptives don't ever prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus?

Think of it this way, pastor, as a pastor.

Do we heal the sick or God? Does God gives us the means to heal the sick. Both answer should be yes, we are a tool.

Who is to say that God gave us the means to prevent an oops from ever happening? Your line of reasoning is a Catholic way of thinking and you are not Catholic, nor am I, but they know enough to not battle me on religious principles. So if you really think about it, is morning after pills is a mechanism that God has planted to those who maybe in heat that a pregnancy is possible. Most women know they are in that period of possible having a child and they are still too stupid not to wait...human nature, so maybe a chemist developed this pill to counter this affect, maybe by God himself. You and I do not know that but it is possible.

If women are in heat and have sex, they should have kids all the time, but they don't, why is that? But you are going to harp on this pill because it prevents a pregnancy? I rather they do this then go 3 or 4 months and then murderl the baby, which is human and have a soul by then.

Think about it.

 

[AerchAngel]

I'm not sure I actually understand what you are saying.

The last post explain your two questions.

 

[BedellBrave]

I just don't think that is what Moore is saying. I can see your point and respect that closely-held beliefs are, if not trampled on, certainly invited to an unwanted compromise in this whole debate. As I said earlier in this thread, I thought Hobby Lobby would win and not because of any slant that exists on the Supreme Court. Alito is correct in saying there are other ways to provide the coverage.

Where I have trouble with Moore's statement (and I realize that this was likely not a prepared statement and that the quote may lack context), but I don't think the government is trying to trump conscience here. They are trying to achieve a goal. The administration already backed down somewhat in providing an exemption for religious organizations. But if Moore is talking about conscience always taking precedent over the government, I have a problem with that. And it's not the people with consciences I worry about in that situation. It's the people whose brain is in their lower spinal column, but contend they are acting on conscience. Paraphrasing Madison, "If men were angels, we'd need no government." Again, I can only make a stab at Moore's intent from the words in the quote you supplied, but he seems to infer that all in his flock are angels and that the government routinely goes beyond its realm.

And, yes, Howard Baker was a truly great man. A truly great man.

To be honest with you I wasn't really dissecting Moore's statement. But here's the broader context. Link. I should have provided the link earlier - sorry about that.

What I was addressing is this inflammatory language of "War on Religion" and "War on Women." It serves no good purpose in my opinion and the sooner we drop it the better.

Now, to Moore. He isn't a pastor. He serves as "the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination" and is a far better, choice for that position than his predecessor, Richard Land, imho. Course it's not my denomination. Anyway, I find him to be more measured and clear in his thinking than others.

Not surprisingly you give the administration more credit than I would. I think it is telling that the administration had to back down on non-profits earlier. Seems to make my point. Link.

 

[BedellBrave]

Think of it this way, pastor, as a pastor.

Do we heal the sick or God? Does God gives us the means to heal the sick. Both answer should be yes, we are a tool.

Who is to say that God gave us the means to prevent an oops from ever happening? Your line of reasoning is a Catholic way of thinking and you are not Catholic, nor am I, but they know enough to not battle me on religious principles. So if you really think about it, is morning after pills is a mechanism that God has planted to those who maybe in heat that a pregnancy is possible. Most women know they are in that period of possible having a child and they are still too stupid not to wait...human nature, so maybe a chemist developed this pill to counter this affect, maybe by God himself. You and I do not know that but it is possible.

If women are in heat and have sex, they should have kids all the time, but they don't, why is that? But you are going to harp on this pill because it prevents a pregnancy? I rather they do this then go 3 or 4 months and then murderl the baby, which is human and have a soul by then.

Think about it.

As I think I understand you, you are saying you are in favor of abortion up until the end of the first trimester. Is that right?

I don't think taking a human life is healing.

Nor do I think that the existence of an opportunity to take a life and the presence of tools for the taking of that life are de facto justification to take it.

Also, I'm not "harping" on this pill. It's just that it is one of the contraceptions in question as you know if you are following this discussion.