| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2012 03:52:37 PM · #951 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What, I'm confused. You are quoting the bill up for vote right? The text of your article sounds like there is ALREADY a bill that prevents such discrimination. Is the crossed out section another bill or is the new verbage an amendment to the bill?
I doubt a lot of things, but I will believe if you show me. You can count on that.
EDIT: So if I understand correctly, the vote is about an amendment to a current bill which included the language that "religious employers shall not discriminate..." (and would be removed under the amendment).
If that's the case, I was wrong. I still think such a clause is unconstitutional because it singles out religious employers and prevents them from doing something everybody else can do in an "at-will" state. The new amendment would, in essense, restore this right to the religious groups on an equal basis as everybody else.
Personally I think it would be wrong to fire someone for that reason. Personally I think it's rarely or never going to happen. |
Yes, it is for an Amendment to Health Insurance law. Not only that but if you look at the link which shows the whole text and the changes, you will notice that it appears that the company or organization does not even have to be a "religious entity" as the definitions have been struck out in the amendment:
"3. Subsection Z of this section, "religious employer" means an entity for which all of the following apply:
(a) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(b) The entity primarily serves persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(c) The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(2)(A) (i) or (iii) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended."
So exactly WHAT does that mean if there is no longer a definition of "religious entity"? Hmmmmmmmm? |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:15:37 PM · #952 |
I apparently am not smart enough to follow your thinking. You'll have to be more explicit.
Does it mean everybody now has the right to fire someone for using birth control? I don't follow.
Again, I think the problem is in the "at-will employment" not in some specifics of this bill. To quote employment loaw on the topic, "any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
It strikes me that an employer already has the right to fire someone for a crazy reason like using birth control.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 16:19:23. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:16:39 PM · #953 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... "homicide", a legal term, always denotes intent or at the least neglect (if we include things like involuntary manslaughter). A miscarriage, we all know, is nothing of the sort, so why even ask the question? It is non-sensical. |
Yes, I'm thinking negligent homicide would apply, say the woman goes on a trip and doesn't take her vitamins, or is poor and has a diet insufficient in protein and green veggies and dairy ... not just miscarriage, but all kids of birth defects and other problems are related to prenatal conditions. If you're going to make a woman legally liable for the health and safety of the fetus from conception (implantation?) onwards, you darned well better make sure she has access to medical care, food, shalter, etc. But let's not put them on welfare ...
I suppose taking a roller-coaster ride at ___ weeks would cross the line into manslaghter .... |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:20:11 PM · #954 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... "homicide", a legal term, always denotes intent or at the least neglect (if we include things like involuntary manslaughter). A miscarriage, we all know, is nothing of the sort, so why even ask the question? It is non-sensical. |
Yes, I'm thinking negligent homicide would apply, say the woman goes on a trip and doesn't take her vitamins, or is poor and has a diet insufficient in protein and green veggies and dairy ... not just miscarriage, but all kids of birth defects and other problems are related to prenatal conditions. If you're going to make a woman legally liable for the health and safety of the fetus from conception (implantation?) onwards, you darned well better make sure she has access to medical care, food, shalter, etc. But let's not put them on welfare ...
I suppose taking a roller-coaster ride at ___ weeks would cross the line into manslaghter .... |
Or falling down the steps if someone were to accuse you of doing it on purpose. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:20:36 PM · #955 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... "homicide", a legal term, always denotes intent or at the least neglect (if we include things like involuntary manslaughter). A miscarriage, we all know, is nothing of the sort, so why even ask the question? It is non-sensical. |
Yes, I'm thinking negligent homicide would apply, say the woman goes on a trip and doesn't take her vitamins, or is poor and has a diet insufficient in protein and green veggies and dairy ... not just miscarriage, but all kids of birth defects and other problems are related to prenatal conditions. If you're going to make a woman legally liable for the health and safety of the fetus from conception (implantation?) onwards, you darned well better make sure she has access to medical care, food, shalter, etc. But let's not put them on welfare ...
I suppose taking a roller-coaster ride at ___ weeks would cross the line into manslaghter .... |
If you can be charged with manslaughter for killing someone through secondhand smoke, then I guess you could be charged here. If not, then I don't think you need to worry...
Would the charge stick? Who even knows. I think it would be a tough case and one I'm not too concerned about.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 16:21:27. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:22:49 PM · #956 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A DOCTOR who never heard of a surrogate decision maker?!?! :-O |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:24:33 PM · #957 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I apparently am not smart enough to follow your thinking. You'll have to be more explicit.
Does it mean everybody now has the right to fire someone for using birth control? I don't follow. |
Neither do I. If there is no longer an explicit definition of what a "religious entity" is since all 3 of those qualifications to be a "religious entity" will be struck from that AZ law, does it mean that if a company or organization fulfilled any single one of those struck out qualification that that would allow a company or organization to call themselves a "religious entity"? I don't know. Maybe if you read the text, you can figure it out and let me know. :-D
ETA: This is NOT in their Employment Law this is Health Insurance law. If this passes, not only does a woman have to be a perfect employee to keep her job, she can not use any birth control that would require a prescription! She could probably buy it on the black market from a new kind of "Dealer". :-D
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 17:00:46. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:30:16 PM · #958 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by frisca:
Birth control is not related to abortion -- it PREVENTS a pregnancy from occurring, so even if fertilization is your standard for personhood, birth control is not abortion. This is how its manufactured, but I sense you will not be persuaded by logic, science or fact. |
That's wrong. Birth control prevents pregnancy when it works. When it doesn't work, abortion is used (See my findings from the Guttmacher Institute). |
Fire extinguishers, vaccines, life rafts and bear spray don't always work either, and on those rare occasions you may have to turn to more extreme measures. Discounting the benefits of largely effective preventative measures for that reason, however, is not sane. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:45:16 PM · #959 |
Originally posted by frisca:
This is how its manufactured, but I sense you will not be persuaded by logic, science or fact. |
Trying to argue with Nullix using facts, logic, science, or reason is like trying to teach a pig to sing.....
It wastes your time and annoys the pig....
|
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:49:16 PM · #960 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I apparently am not smart enough to follow your thinking. You'll have to be more explicit.
Does it mean everybody now has the right to fire someone for using birth control? I don't follow. |
Neither do I. If there is no longer an explicit definition of what a "religious entity" is since all 3 of those qualifications to be a "religious entity" will be struck from that AZ law, does it mean that if a company or organization fulfilled any single one of those struck out qualification that that would allow a company or organization to call themselves a "religious entity"? I don't know. Maybe if you read the text, you can figure it out and let me know. :-D |
Well, even better, I think I caught that it was no longer a "religious exception" but also a "moral objection". So it seems you don't have to have a religious ground anyway.
At the end of the day, if we think it's not fair to be able to fire people for things like this, we need to fight "at will employment". The news articles are sensational, in my view, because this "right" to fire people for crazy reasons has already existed in AZ. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:51:13 PM · #961 |
This got lost above in a swirl of much less important arguments. I'm just quoting again hoping Brennan will see it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Kelli:
if it can survive outside of the womb, it's a baby. Before that, it's a choice. |
The counter-argument to that belief is twofold.
On one hand even after a full term birth a child can not survive on it's own. Until roughly the age of three, a child is incapable of survival without constant attention. The ancient Greeks were the last western culture where "exposing" a newborn was not considered murder. So how is surgically removing a previable child any different than neglecting a newborn until it dies?
The second argument against late term abortions is that viability is constantly being lowered. The youngest surviving premature child is 21 weeks and five days, so survival minimum is now halfway through the second trimester. The fact that my now 18 year old daughter was born at 30 weeks and had no right by nature to survive, might bend my emotions away from my beliefs.
That said IMHO the whole question is complex enough that the state has no clear place in the decision, I just figured that I would jump in with the counter argument since Jason seems to be busy working or something frivolous like that. |
Thanks for filling in. Viability is, in my view, the next strongest argument for when the grant personhood. I'll outline my issues though which will reveal why I ultimately favor fertilization.
The weaker argument is the one Brennan described. The point of viability is getting lower and lower. At Roe v. Wade it was about 28 weeks, now it's around 23 weeks with rare exceptions down to 21-22 weeks. Practically speaking we are unlikely to continue to lower this date substantially without a large breakthrough. A baby's lungs are the last organ to develop fully and this is the specific limiting factor to viability at this age. We would need a new and superior way to oxygenate the baby if we expect the age of viability to drop substantially.
The stronger argument, to me, is that it seems to work "backward". The point of viability is generally determined to be good because of the burden on the woman before this time. She is the only and exclusive person that can keep the baby alive up to that point. To me that seems like a results-driven conclusion. We want to grant personhood at this point because of how it affects the mother. Way back in this discussion I tried to illustrate the point by prentending we had the technology to grow the baby in an artificial womb. At 23 weeks the baby could be removed from this artificial device and put in an incubator much like we see in our hospitals. If this were the state of things, why would this point of transition seem like an obvious point to grant human rights? To me, it isn't.
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. We can further illustrate the counterintuitive nature of this by constructing a scenario where an adult is entirely dependent on one person for care to live. My sense is we would not say that the caregiver now has complete control over whether or not to give or quit that care. The right to life might be strong enough to morally compel the caregiver to provide care.
Again, compare these issues with the simplicity and intuitive nature of considering all humans have human rights.
That's what goes through my head and that's what makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
03/16/2012 04:53:02 PM · #962 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A DOCTOR who never heard of a surrogate decision maker?!?! :-O |
A surrogate decision maker can never REMOVE a right, they can only choose not the exercise it (and hopefully within the previously expressed will of the patient). Big difference. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 05:05:30 PM · #963 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I apparently am not smart enough to follow your thinking. You'll have to be more explicit.
Does it mean everybody now has the right to fire someone for using birth control? I don't follow. |
Neither do I. If there is no longer an explicit definition of what a "religious entity" is since all 3 of those qualifications to be a "religious entity" will be struck from that AZ law, does it mean that if a company or organization fulfilled any single one of those struck out qualification that that would allow a company or organization to call themselves a "religious entity"? I don't know. Maybe if you read the text, you can figure it out and let me know. :-D |
Well, even better, I think I caught that it was no longer a "religious exception" but also a "moral objection". So it seems you don't have to have a religious ground anyway.
At the end of the day, if we think it's not fair to be able to fire people for things like this, we need to fight "at will employment". The news articles are sensational, in my view, because this "right" to fire people for crazy reasons has already existed in AZ. |
Just try and get THAT passed in AZ! Many states have "at will employment" laws but no where have I read that it would ever be linked with a woman's use of birth control!
So now it's a "moral objection"? ANY company can fire a woman for getting a prescription for birth control filled outside her insurance plan! That's NOT "even Better" as you state - that's "even worse"!
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 17:10:44. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 05:29:13 PM · #964 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A DOCTOR who never heard of a surrogate decision maker?!?! :-O |
A surrogate decision maker can never REMOVE a right, they can only choose not the exercise it (and hopefully within the previously expressed will of the patient). Big difference. |
There is no practical difference. Either way, the right to continue living is fully dependent upon that other individual, although the matter at hand involves control of one's own body and an undeveloped life. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 05:41:19 PM · #965 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
So now it's a "moral objection"? ANY company can fire a woman for getting a prescription for birth control filled outside her insurance plan! That's NOT "even Better" as you state - that's "even worse"! |
That's really what I meant... ;) "Even more incredible!" |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 05:49:19 PM · #966 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A DOCTOR who never heard of a surrogate decision maker?!?! :-O |
A surrogate decision maker can never REMOVE a right, they can only choose not the exercise it (and hopefully within the previously expressed will of the patient). Big difference. |
I'll just disagree and say at a fundamental level that is a HUGE difference. If you actually REMOVED the right, you couldn't change your mind again, could you? You cannot just declare "I have this right" and "I don't have this right" and it becomes so philosphically. The right must be grounded in something deeper. On the other hand, saying "I choose to exercise this right." and "I choose not to exercise this right." makes much more sense when one is flipping back and forth.
I'm sure you will disagree. That's fine.
Originally posted by Shannon:
There is no practical difference. Either way, the right to continue living is fully dependent upon that other individual, although the matter at hand involves control of one's own body and an undeveloped life. |
Let's take the underdeveloped bit out and look to my example in my post to Brennan. Two people, Jason and Shannon, are on a desert island (you decide how they got there). Shannon breaks a number of bones and cannot reach the ample source of water a quarter mile away without help from Jason. Morally speaking, is Jason free to decide not to get water for Shannon or does he have a moral compulsion to aid? My own answer is there is a moral compulsion to help. It would be wrong not to because Shannon's right to life trumps Jason's right to autonomy.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 17:51:57. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 05:55:20 PM · #967 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Two people, Jason and Shannon, are on a desert island (you decide how they got there). Shannon breaks a number of bones and cannot reach the ample source of water a quarter mile away without help from Jason. Morally speaking, is Jason free to decide not to get water for Shannon or does he have a moral compulsion to aid? My own answer is there is a moral compulsion to help. It would be wrong not to because Shannon's right to life trumps Jason's right to autonomy. |
But in that situation Jason's "right to autonomy is meaningless, because without Shannon around he'd have nobody to debate moral issues with whilst waiting for rescue...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2012 05:57:25 PM · #968 |
argh.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 17:59:16. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 05:59:34 PM · #969 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A DOCTOR who never heard of a surrogate decision maker?!?! :-O |
A surrogate decision maker can never REMOVE a right, they can only choose not the exercise it (and hopefully within the previously expressed will of the patient). Big difference. |
I'll just disagree and say at a fundamental level that is a HUGE difference. If you actually REMOVED the right, you couldn't change your mind again, could you? You cannot just declare "I have this right" and "I don't have this right" and it becomes so philosphically. The right must be grounded in something deeper. On the other hand, saying "I choose to exercise this right." and "I choose not to exercise this right." makes much more sense when one is flipping back and forth.
I'm sure you will disagree. That's fine.
Originally posted by Shannon:
There is no practical difference. Either way, the right to continue living is fully dependent upon that other individual, although the matter at hand involves control of one's own body and an undeveloped life. |
Let's take the underdeveloped bit out and look to my example in my post to Brennan. Two people, Jason and Shannon, are on a desert island (you decide how they got there). Shannon breaks a number of bones and cannot reach the ample source of water a quarter mile away without help from Jason. Morally speaking, is Jason free to decide not to get water for Shannon or does he have a moral compulsion to aid? My own answer is there is a moral compulsion to help. It would be wrong not to because Shannon's right to life trumps Jason's right to autonomy. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]I know of no other instance where human rights are dependent on the status of another individual. |
A DOCTOR who never heard of a surrogate decision maker?!?! :-O |
A surrogate decision maker can never REMOVE a right, they can only choose not the exercise it (and hopefully within the previously expressed will of the patient). Big difference. |
I'll just disagree and say at a fundamental level that is a HUGE difference. If you actually REMOVED the right, you couldn't change your mind again, could you? You cannot just declare "I have this right" and "I don't have this right" and it becomes so philosphically. The right must be grounded in something deeper. On the other hand, saying "I choose to exercise this right." and "I choose not to exercise this right." makes much more sense when one is flipping back and forth.
I'm sure you will disagree. That's fine.
Originally posted by Shannon:
|
Let's take the underdeveloped bit out and look to my example in my post to Brennan. Two people, Jason and Shannon, are on a desert island (you decide how they got there). Shannon breaks a number of bones and cannot reach the ample source of water a quarter mile away without help from Jason. Morally speaking, is Jason free to decide not to get water for Shannon or does he have a moral compulsion to aid? My own answer is there is a moral compulsion to help. It would be wrong not to because Shannon's right to life trumps Jason's right to autonomy. |
The thing is right or wrong, moral or not, Jason has the right not to go get the water and there wouldn't be a damn thing Shannon could do about it. Jason could go off with the best of intentions and get eaten at the water hole by the giant anaconda.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 18:00:01. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:00:14 PM · #970 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
The thing is right or wrong, moral or not, Jason has the right not to go get the water and there wouldn't be a damn thing Shannon could do about it. |
If you feel this way abortion makes perfect sense. I feel very differently and strongly enough that I feel a well functioning society should reject your statement above.
Har! I love your tweak on the nose Bear!
EDIT: EDIT the edit. This question will only confuse things.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 18:08:29. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:04:31 PM · #971 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by frisca:
Birth control is not related to abortion -- it PREVENTS a pregnancy from occurring, so even if fertilization is your standard for personhood, birth control is not abortion. This is how its manufactured, but I sense you will not be persuaded by logic, science or fact. |
That's wrong. Birth control prevents pregnancy when it works. When it doesn't work, abortion is used (See my findings from the Guttmacher Institute). |
Fire extinguishers, vaccines, life rafts and bear spray don't always work either, and on those rare occasions you may have to turn to more extreme measures. Discounting the benefits of largely effective preventative measures for that reason, however, is not sane. |
How often have you used a Fire extinguisher, a life raft, or bear spray? Once? Never? You can't compare these "once in a lifetime" uses with birth control.
Also, do the "benefits of preventative measures" out weigh the effects of abortion?
|
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:12:00 PM · #972 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Self-awareness is a point I haven't heard before, but I'm speculating that actually would come far after actual birth. |
Well if that was the case then nobody would support using self-awareness as the measurement for personhood because then that would mean having to actually see it before ending its life and we can't risk that now can we? No best to keep what you're killin' as far away from view as possible otherwise you might get attached to it, like you would naturally if you didn't have the ten foot pole.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 18:13:26. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:16:28 PM · #973 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll just disagree and say at a fundamental level that is a HUGE difference. If you actually REMOVED the right, you couldn't change your mind again, could you? You cannot just declare "I have this right" and "I don't have this right" and it becomes so philosphically. The right must be grounded in something deeper. On the other hand, saying "I choose to exercise this right." and "I choose not to exercise this right." makes much more sense when one is flipping back and forth. |
Again, there is no difference. You have basically asserted that neither a woman nor a surrogate decision maker should have the right to such a personal decision taken away.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's take the underdeveloped bit out and look to my example in my post to Brennan. Two people, Jason and Shannon, are on a desert island (you decide how they got there). Shannon breaks a number of bones and cannot reach the ample source of water a quarter mile away without help from Jason. Morally speaking, is Jason free to decide not to get water for Shannon or does he have a moral compulsion to aid? |
Your analogy fails on two counts. First, the freedom to decide is not a matter of morality, only the decision itself. Your precious free will means you have a natural right to make decisions regardless of whether they're moral or not. Second, it's unlikely that I would be the one with broken bones since only you would think you were protected by the gods when the tiger shark came around. However, as a human being I would go for the water if there was any hope of saving you, and if not, put you out of both our miseries for pretending to make the same argument after taking out the key issue. ;-) |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:19:30 PM · #974 |
This conversation keeps arguing whether abortion is moral, and keeps somewhat veering back to birth control. But that's not even the issue.
What we have here is the frog in boiling water. The support IS for keeping abortion legal. Try to make it illegal, there would be massive outcry. So the opposition is chipping away at it slowly, slowly, slowly, hoping no one will catch on. But we have caught on, it's just harder to rally support for smaller issues.
Bottom line is: Abortion is currently legal. Birth control is currently required to be covered on health insurance (or will be soon?)
Chip away at those rights, make more hoops and costs for people to jump through and who is affected? Those that are too poor to jump through the hoops, go to another state with laxer laws, find another employer who doesn't have some sort of misguided opposition to BC.
In other words, the harder you make access, the more the poor are effected, and the more poor children are brought into the world. The upper classes are not touched as much by these new changes.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 18:20:17. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:32:00 PM · #975 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Two people, Jason and Shannon, are on a desert island (you decide how they got there). Shannon breaks a number of bones and cannot reach the ample source of water a quarter mile away without help from Jason. Morally speaking, is Jason free to decide not to get water for Shannon or does he have a moral compulsion to aid? My own answer is there is a moral compulsion to help. It would be wrong not to because Shannon's right to life trumps Jason's right to autonomy. |
Depends on the circumstances. If you're climbing Mt. Everest and you're in the zone where the weather is always bad and the air thin, and you break a number of bones, don't expect your fellow mountain climbers to attempt a rescue because doing so will put their lives in jeopardy. |
|
