The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 95

Thread: Supreme Court Ruling on Contraception Mandate

  1. #71

  2. #72
    Senior Member Matt McKenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    FWIW. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, it creates a life form that has a different DNA makeup than either the father or the mother. So from a purely scientific perspective, you have life form that is genetically different from the mother at the point of conception. That cannot be argued. It is not a choice that she can make with "her body". We aren't discussing her body. We are discussing another entity that is inside her body. The morality of terminating that life form at various stages of development is what is open to discussion.
    If that life form exits the body of the mother, we call it murder. Prior to that, some see it as a "gray area" and some do not.
    Evidently the folks who own Hobby Lobby believe that if the egg is fertilized and then intentionally terminated, that is no different than terminating that pregnancy 3 months, 9 months, or 10 years later. From a biological perspective, I agree.
    Matt McKenzie

    "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." Henry Ford

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ppro View Post
    Sorry to jump in late and muddy the waters but I am confused at those who think plan b is an abortifacients and the monthly pack of pills cannot be used as such. Plan b is levonorgestrel at a dose of 1.5mg and some of the monthly pills contain levonorgestrel at 0.15mg. Hence 1 monthly pack contains enough drug to commit 2 abortions. I stand with those who either believe all pills go against their religion are that it is ok for all.
    Monthly pills are taken to not allow ovulation. Plan B is taken to abort a fertilized egg. Could people take 10 days of birth control pills and abort an human? Maybe, There may be other issues with the formulation. But the drug is not being used as directed.

    This argument is like saying Atomic bombs and Pump shotguns are basically the same thing because they can both be used to kill alot of people. Yes technically you are right,but logically you are off.

  4. #74
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,028

    Default

    To quote some well known liberal politicians...

    "What does it matter at this point anyway?"

    And... "It's settled law"

    Time to get over it.
    Bill Davis

  5. #75
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    ok I understand that, but if the SC found it burdensome then why would that not open the floodgates to all religious objections? If the SC would treat all Religious exceptions the same than why not have a less limited ruling. It seems to me that they are saying that all RO are not the same and that seems wrong to me.
    Using your logic that ALL religious exemptions should be treated the same, then honor killings are equal to rejecting abortion. If we allow some people to reject abortion, we should allow others to do honor killings? This is a basic and extreme comparison. Doesn't it go back to the basic that you are entitled to rights that do not interfere with other people's rights? Hobby Lobby is free to object to abortion. Others are free to disagree. Those who disagree with Hobby Lobby can still work there and receive all the same benefits as those who might agree with them.

    The govt required that Hobby Lobby pay $475 million for objecting to abortion. Hobby Lobby's employees who want abortion drugs might have to pay a few hundred bucks for a doctor visit and a scrip for an abortifacient drug out-of-pocket (and the doctor visit might have coverage?) Which of those is more burdensome?

    Nobody has yet objected to the fact that there is a conflict between a law which says the govt will not pay for abortion, and the fact that Obamacare plans do exactly that (using govt subsidies for those plans). Without making a judgment on abortion, pro or con, the fact is that one law is being superceded by the bureaucracy of regulation from another law. There is no mention of either contraception or abortion in ACA, but the bureaucracy has created its own law through regulation. If the prohibition on govt-paid abortion is not what the constituents want, then the law should be repealed. Doing so would not prevent people from rejecting abortion themselves personally.

    Why must a law be all or nothing? Liberals do not interpret such narrow rulings as "dangerous" when the rulings happen to favor a liberal cause.

    There are some who believe that it begins as soon as it draws breath. So at what point does abortion become murder? That is a 9 full months of gray area right there.
    Evidently, in some countries in Europe, more gray area than that. They are saying it's okay to euthanize a newborn, or even an older child ... for the greater good. Sounds a lot like primitive cultures where defective babies were left out in the harsh weather to die.

    Wouldn't it be kinder of us to send them lots of free birth control pills? Women in the ME can afford BC less easily than Sandra Fluke can.

    It strikes me as strange ... this administration thinks its okay for many humans to suffer by banning coal in the US (yes, pretty much that is what the regs are doing), but okay to send it to Africa so they can become more industrialized with the cheapest form of energy affordable to them. It's okay for some to suffer more so others will suffer less.

    Yup, my electric rate just went up another 10% over the past year. That's now about a 70% increase over what it was just 3 years ago. Good thing energy is not included in the inflation or COL indices. At least that's one promise Obama kept?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #76
    Senior Member roseberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    2,033

    Default

    hey, will aca pay for a vasectomy? a lot of the hullaballoo would be moot if them little swimmin', tadpole lookin, sperm critters couldn't ever get out in the first place!

    i had mine in '92 and if i woulda known the kind of peace of mind it provided, i woulda had it done in junior high school!
    john mccallie

  7. #77
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Using your logic that ALL religious exemptions should be treated the same, then honor killings are equal to rejecting abortion. If we allow some people to reject abortion, we should allow others to do honor killings? This is a basic and extreme comparison. Doesn't it go back to the basic that you are entitled to rights that do not interfere with other people's rights? Hobby Lobby is free to object to abortion. Others are free to disagree. Those who disagree with Hobby Lobby can still work there and receive all the same benefits as those who might agree with them.
    The court has already ruled that the use of such drugs is legal. The only objection is from the use of them coming into conflict with the Business Owners personal beliefs. So why would the belief over these drugs trump any other beliefs? Could not the same argument be made for immunization shots? If the BO truly believed that it was in conflict with their religion would they not be in the same moral crisis? To further the example would not the immunization shots still be available for purchase if the employee still wanted them? Same reasoning, same dilemma just a different objection.


    [/QUOTE]The govt required that Hobby Lobby pay $475 million for objecting to abortion. Hobby Lobby's employees who want abortion drugs might have to pay a few hundred bucks for a doctor visit and a scrip for an abortifacient drug out-of-pocket (and the doctor visit might have coverage?) Which of those is more burdensome? [/QUOTE]

    A fine is to gain compliance, it is like arguing that a speeding ticket ought to not be so expensive, because you can't afford to speed anymore. Fortunately they won and will not have to pay it, but the idea behind it was not to give them a loophole to buy out of the law.


    [/QUOTE]
    Why must a law be all or nothing? Liberals do not interpret such narrow rulings as "dangerous" when the rulings happen to favor a liberal cause. [/QUOTE]

    Because the government choosing what is a valid religious exception and what is not is a dangerous precedent. They either need to respect all beliefs or none at all. This I feel is at the very core of the first amendment. Give me an example of a ruling and I can comment on that. I normally feel that SC rulings ought to be sweeping otherwise it should have been handled in a lower court.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  8. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,916

    Default

    In fact, the ACA was not supposed to include abortions. That was one of the deals that collected the winning votes.
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy")
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge

  9. #79
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roseberry View Post
    hey, will aca pay for a vasectomy? a lot of the hullaballoo would be moot if them little swimmin', tadpole lookin, sperm critters couldn't ever get out in the first place!

    i had mine in '92 and if i woulda known the kind of peace of mind it provided, i woulda had it done in junior high school!
    More information than we want to know>>>!!!

  10. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt McKenzie View Post
    FWIW. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, it creates a life form that has a different DNA makeup than either the father or the mother. So from a purely scientific perspective, you have life form that is genetically different from the mother at the point of conception. That cannot be argued. It is not a choice that she can make with "her body". We aren't discussing her body. We are discussing another entity that is inside her body. The morality of terminating that life form at various stages of development is what is open to discussion.
    If that life form exits the body of the mother, we call it murder. Prior to that, some see it as a "gray area" and some do not.
    Evidently the folks who own Hobby Lobby believe that if the egg is fertilized and then intentionally terminated, that is no different than terminating that pregnancy 3 months, 9 months, or 10 years later. From a biological perspective, I agree.
    It is rather strange that the religious right, who tries to use the Bible to influence our decision making process, never uses the Bible's interpretation of when life starts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •