James Durfee BBQ pitmaster.
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.
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." Henry Ford
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.
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.
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 Without making a judgment on abortion, pro or con, the fact is that one law is being superceded by the bureaucracy of regulation from another law.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 If the prohibition on govt-paid abortion is not what the constituents want, then the law should be repealed.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.
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.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.
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?
"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.
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!
[/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.
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.
"Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray
In fact, the ACA was not supposed to include abortions. That was one of the deals that collected the winning votes.
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") ... as is her daughter
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