9-0

gold's posts were meant to ridicule the conviction of the owners of Hobby Lobby. My question to him was merely to try to make sense of their conviction. Agree with their conviction or not.

But the question isn't whether you agree with their conviction, the question is whether the government should tolerate it in regard to ACA. And SCOTUS has said, yes, it should.

My further point, is that I wish, the general populace would give a greater measure of latitude on this question. I don't see how it is beneficial to require uniformity of conviction. Seems very heavy-handed and intolerant.
 
BedellBrave said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would say this about ACA. The Republicans made a strategic decision not to seriously participate in the debate over ACA. There ploy was to "let it happen" and we'll reap the benefits politically. I've spent my entire adult life in politics and I can't say I wouldn't have employed the same strategy in their situation. But ideally, questions like those pertaining to Hobby Lobby could have possibly (I won't go as far to say probably) been worked out had there been two sides of the discussion other than "Yes" and "No." Access to the public option that was contained in the House bill could have avoided a lot of this by allowing employees to opt out of the employer-provided coverage, taking the contribution, and putting the money toward coverage provided under the public option. But the pro forces were really debating a ghost when ACA was going through and as a result, the courts were going to be busy.

I think the fact that Hobby Lobby provided access to a number of birth control measures was the difference here. Plus, as Alito pointed out, there is a role for government here if government deems access to the birth control methods they want to see provided as important as they seem to. But, as I stated above, that's where the House's public option may have proved valuable. Of course, the public option in and of itself isn't a slam dunk and it may have well created as many problems as it may have solved.

My larger concern with this decision and the on-going debate over the intersection of organized religion and secular life is probably fodder for an entirely different thread.
 
You make some good points and I know that what I'm about to write is political craziness - but imagine with me. What if the Dems and the administration, with or without the Rs, had of been sensitive enough, to not mandate things like this of organizations that it is patently obvious would be a violation of conscience? That is what I guess I'm getting at. There were ways around this as has been seen post ACA becoming law. Why couldn't they have put those on the front end? The Rs do the same thing, so don't read me wrong. But this is the kind of thing that's non-Bakerish, if I might coin the term. It's where highly partisan ideology gets in the way of good governance, imho.
 
BedellBrave said:
You make some good points and I know that what I'm about to write is political craziness - but imagine with me. What if the Dems and the administration, with or without the Rs, had of been sensitive enough, to not mandate things like this of organizations that it is patently obvious would be a violation of conscience? That is what I guess I'm getting at. There were ways around this as has been seen post ACA becoming law. Why couldn't they have put those on the front end? The Rs do the same thing, so don't read me wrong. But this is the kind of thing that's non-Bakerish, if I might coin the term. It's where highly partisan ideology gets in the way of good governance, imho.
Click to expand...

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem, of course, is interest group politics. My guess is the Administration and the Democratic majorities could have offered the kinds of things you mention (I think Stupak and a number of other pro-life House members worked that angle to some effect), but it wouldn't have been enough for the Rs and I think, at base level, no plan was going to be satisfactory to the Rs, so those promoting ACA had to get almost every single D vote. To do that, they had to create a 3,000 page bill with more nooks and crannies than any bill should rightfully have and the women's health lobby had to sign off on it to secure the votes necessary to pass. Too many lobbyists.
 
Yes, the Stupak amendment (I believe) was the very sort of Bakerish governance that we need. Too many lobbyists and too many ideologues that demand the "perfect." And it's getting worse as we go. Add that to the whipping-into-a-mad-frenzy nature of both social media and 24-hour news channels and radio, and you can get to dangerous crazy. It's an all or nothing world and every decent objection or caveat of an opponent will be put in the worse possible light. It's pretty sickening when you step back and see what's going on.
 
BedellBrave said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hell no. When you have sex and you think you might get pregnant that night and you have a pill to prevent, I am for it. That is what birth control pills do.

But if you wait a week or two and feel symptoms and do it, I am against it. You following me? When the sperm entwines the egg and it forms, that is life for me. It won't happen six hours after it attaches to the egg, not possible, it goes through stages.
 
AerchAngel said:
Hell no. When you have sex and you think you might get pregnant that night and you have a pill to prevent, I am for it. That is what birth control pills do.

But if you wait a week or two and feel symptoms and do it, I am against it. You following me? When the sperm entwines the egg and it forms, that is life for me. It won't happen six hours after it attaches to the egg, not possible, it goes through stages.
Click to expand...

Try this AA. Link.

And this. Link2

Basically 45 minutes to 12 hours for the sperm to reach the egg. 24 hours for the egg to be fertilized. So say 25 to 36 hours. This is what Planned Parenthood says about plan B:

"Levonogestrel pills, including the brands Plan B One-Step and Next Choice One Dose, are up to 89 percent effective when taken within 72 hours (three days) after unprotected sex. They continue to reduce the risk of pregnancy up to 120 hours (five days) after unprotected sex, but they are less effective as time passes."

Hence, the moral dilemma for some.

Most birth control pills prevent ovulation.
 
Do they have a soul then, are they a living being?

That is what I am questioning. I can't see a human being at 3 days, not possible.
 
50PoundHead said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem, of course, is interest group politics. My guess is the Administration and the Democratic majorities could have offered the kinds of things you mention (I think Stupak and a number of other pro-life House members worked that angle to some effect), but it wouldn't have been enough for the Rs and I think, at base level, no plan was going to be satisfactory to the Rs, so those promoting ACA had to get almost every single D vote. To do that, they had to create a 3,000 page bill with more nooks and crannies than any bill should rightfully have and the women's health lobby had to sign off on it to secure the votes necessary to pass. Too many lobbyists.
Click to expand...

"Congress can’t simply sit out a presidency and have the country sustain itself."
-E J Dionne
 
AerchAngel said:
Do they have a soul then, are they a living being?

That is what I am questioning. I can't see a human being at 3 days, not possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you believe in "souls" (as I do).

Then you don't believe that human life begins at conception (i.e., at the fertilization of the egg).

But nevertheless, others do, such as the Hobby Lobby folks. Again, hence, their dilemma with 4 out of the 20 mandated contraceptives.
 
If not mistaken there are religions that too believe in souls and conception is beside the point.
Or even better to my mind, the disagreements over one's judgement of where and when.
 
BedellBrave said:
Yes, if you believe in "souls" (as I do).

Then you don't believe that human life begins at conception (i.e., at the fertilization of the egg).

But nevertheless, others do, such as the Hobby Lobby folks. Again, hence, their dilemma with 4 out of the 20 mandated contraceptives.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the Bible says that. If that is the case, and please follow me.

Every time a man and a woman have sex when a women is ovulating at baby should occur. If not, why? Animals almost always have an offspring. Is it not conception?
 
AerchAngel said:
Nowhere in the Bible says that. If that is the case, and please follow me.

Every time a man and a woman have sex when a women is ovulating at baby should occur. If not, why? Animals almost always have an offspring. Is it not conception?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it did. That's my view though. I don't believe in ensoulment post conception (i.e. fertilization). You won't find a reference either way.

There are many reasons why sperm won't fertilize an egg.
 
57Brave said:
If not mistaken there are religions that too believe in souls and conception is beside the point.
Or even better to my mind, the disagreements over one's judgement of where and when.
Click to expand...

The where and when of conception isn't really up for much debate.
 
BedellBrave said:
I didn't say that it did. That's my view though. I don't believe in ensoulment post conception (i.e. fertilization). You won't find a reference either way.

There are many reasons why sperm won't fertilize an egg.
Click to expand...

Then I would say that morning after pills is a viable option, which I would never want to pay my taxes for.

Why should I pay a person a pill because they CHOOSE to have unprotected sex and not want to abstain from it and wait till marriage?

I do not like paying for birth control, both the male and female should know when the ovulation period begins and end and if you don't you are TO FVCKING STUPID to have kids.

Now those who have medical issues that need it, they can make alternative medicine that is not birth control but could ease their cramps, easy enough, but the Planned Abortionhood don't want that.
 
BedellBrave said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you by the way. The rhetoric has been and is way over the top from both sides. It hurts the debate.
 
plannedparenthood.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top