Contraception

140325-women-voters-employers-should-not-be-able-to-limit-birth-control-coverage.jpg


I agree with this point from twitter
...........................................................

The Rude Pundit ‏@rudepundit 2m

Just to be sure, @HobbyLobbyStore: Your god is cool with you buying stuff from China and helping fund forced abortions?
Expand
 
Of course there is a different point of view, it is a Supreme Court case.

Why not just call it knee jerk persecuted christians vs the 21st century?
Problem is, one Justice already has let the cat publicly out of the bag and said the case is about abortion. Or Gay Rights or "girls just wanna have fun" .............. or something.

"abortifacients" ------------------- really?
 
Not quite sure how you tried??

You injected the word "abortifacients" to a conversation.
When did that even become a part of our vocabulary.
How does "your shirts" get to throw around such loaded terms?
let alone lay these implications on people that have had this right for years then expect to use is as the basis for a negotiation.
The term implies an everyday woman uses contraception to knowingly kill a human.
Let's not let the details of how it is still up in the air when that fetus does become a human or let alone the details of white men imposing their terms of choice on women . As the chart shows, overwhelming numbers of women voters are not at all in favor of the Hobby Lobby Inquisition.
Honestly -- I do get it.


Wow, that takes stones.
////////////////////////////////////////

Now, on to the topic.
There is a lot of talk of slippery slopes on this board. Government interferes in HC or unions interfere with businesss blah blah blah.

How's bouts the slippery slopes that tag along should this suit go in Hobby Lobby's favor.
Suppose a company doesn't like the way a woman dress'. Can they deny her her rights? Whixh rights?
Suppose Islamics demand in the name of religion we all stop to pray to Allah x-number times a day and all business stops.

Suppose a company doesn't wish the serve black people based on their color (AA -you listening?) -- my readings tells me this give business unrestricted rights to deny anyone anything, Based on what?
Religion?
Does the Constitution allow you to impose your religion on me? Or the hypothetical Islamists to shut down economy? Or will we just seperate into 2 camps. The "abortifacients" vs those of us that assumed we were past the Salem Witch Hunts
 
AerchAngel said:
What did you expect? You are talking to a Dummicrat which has as much sense as a rock.
Click to expand...

Where do you get off referring those you disagree with as "Dummicrats" ?????
That is the way you have respectful conversations - in fist shaker land?

Yeah, y'all try.
My ass
 
57Brave said:
Not quite sure how you tried??

Suppose a company doesn't wish the serve black people based on their color (AA -you listening?) -- my readings tells me this give business unrestricted rights to deny anyone anything, Based on what?
Religion?
Does the Constitution allow you to impose your religion on me? Or the hypothetical Islamists to shut down economy? Or will we just seperate into 2 camps. The "abortifacients" vs those of us that assumed we were past the Salem Witch Hunts
Click to expand...

I could give two schits if they don't serve me. It has been done in a round about way more than once to me. If they don't want my business I go elsewhere. I am not a pussy and cry to media that I was not served and make a national spectacle out of it.
 
AerchAngel said:
I could give two schits if they don't serve me. It has been done in a round about way more than once to me. If they don't want my business I go elsewhere. I am not a pussy and cry to media that I was not served and make a national spectacle out of it.
Click to expand...

Because people before you struggled for your right to have that choice. Wasn't always the case.

In fact in my lifetime it hasn't always been the case
 
57Brave said:
Because people before you struggled for your right to have that choice. Wasn't always the case.

In fact in my lifetime it hasn't always been the case
Click to expand...

Yes, the Republican Party, the Dems did not want to give us that choice.
 
AerchAngel said:
Yes, the Republican Party, the Dems did not want to give us that choice.
Click to expand...

The parties have switched ideologies -- that Southern Stratagy thingy proposed by Roger Ailes and Kevin Phillips.
I'm sure you've never heard the story of LBJ saying (D) gave up the south the day he signed Civil Rights.

That is the same Roger Ailes that runs herd over Fox News. I'm sure you knew that too
 
sturg33 said:
57 - do you think men's health premiums should subsidize women's contraceptives?
Click to expand...

Do you know what all contraceptives for a woman's body?
With that knowledge, yes, i have no problem helping support contraception for women. Until of course a better system is in place
 
50PoundHead said:
Should healthy people's premiums subsidize unhealthy people's premiums?
Click to expand...

No.

In other words - I shouldn't be penalized for being healthy to subsidize the obese smoker.

I shouldn't be penalized in my health premiums because I'm a man. I don't need as much health care as women do. Why should I be paying for it?

I shouldn't need to subsidize contraception. If a woman wants to have sex - fine. Let her pay for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top