| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/16/2012 06:34:51 PM · #976 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
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. |
I've used all but the bear spray, and I certainly can make such a comparison. I note that you conveniently ignored vaccines. Does the preventative measure of vaccines outweigh the risk of a tiny percentage that might die from the vaccine itself? Absolutely. Can you deny me the right to use vaccines on religious grounds? Hell no... as demonstrated by Ethan Allen and declared by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), Brown v. Stone (1979), and about a half dozen similar cases. As noted in a related case before Arkansas' Supreme Court, "According to the great weight of authority, it is within the police power of the State to require that school children be vaccinated against smallpox, and that such requirement does not violate the constitutional rights of anyone, on religious grounds or otherwise. In fact, this principle is so firmly settled that no extensive discussion is required... In cases too numerous to mention, it has been held, in effect, that a person's right to exhibit religious freedom ceases where it overlaps and transgresses the rights of others." |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 06:48:09 PM · #977 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
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. |
I quite agree. If the action puts your life at direct risk, then the scenario changes. I'd never consider abortion not an option to save a mother's life. But if no such risk is obvious I think you are compelled to help. Even if it's a difficult hike.
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 18:51:13. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 07:13:25 PM · #978 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by nullix:
sex isn't necessary for survival. If $10 is too much, then maybe people should be focusing on improving their income before they have sex. |
Can you not see that birth control has many health benefits for women and thus many benefits for the healthcare system and society as a whole? |
Great, then it's worth the $10 isn't it? You pay for it, don't make me pay for it. |
I normally don't get upset with other people's views, but you truly have an unbelievably twisted logic of what is. No one is asking you to pay for it. You have kids right... and they probably go to some school that is paid by the general public. I will assume that you either drive a car on highways that are paid for by the public or take public transportation that is subsidized by public funds.
I would hope that you might understand the analogy but I fear that I am very much mistaken.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 07:24:21 PM · #979 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
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. |
I quite agree. If the action puts your life at direct risk, then the scenario changes. I'd never consider abortion not an option to save a mother's life. But if no such risk is obvious I think you are compelled to help. Even if it's a difficult hike. |
I've been meaning to ask, since you've been arguing that personhood ensues at conception, how you justify the use of the pill in your marriage? |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 07:46:29 PM · #980 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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... |
Maybe I missed this one... where did this happen?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Would the charge stick? Who even knows. I think it would be a tough case and one I'm not too concerned about. |
It most certainly would be a tough case. In criminal law... there are for the most part two facets to consider, namely strict liability offences or those that involve both the "Mens Rea" and "Actus Reus" components.
I would bet good money that any attempts to prosecute would in all probability not meet the criteria regarding the Mens Rea aspect of the case.
I could be wrong,
Ray |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 10:43:00 PM · #981 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the action puts your life at direct risk, then the scenario changes. I'd never consider abortion not an option to save a mother's life. But if no such risk is obvious I think you are compelled to help. Even if it's a difficult hike. |
Would you support a law requiring everyone to donate blood? That's less of a personal risk than your average pregnancy, and would undoubtedly save an enormous number of lives, so you should be compelled to help even if it tramples your personal liberty, right?
Anyhoo, the mandate now includes an exemption for religious schools and certain self-insured institutions provided the group has religious values as its purpose, employs or serves people who share those religious beliefs, and is a nonprofit. That's as far as you can go without directly imposing religious beliefs on others, so there should be nothing left to complain about... unless of course you're student or employee of such a place. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 10:51:57 PM · #982 |
Ray, there is no case I am aware of where someone was charged with homicide for second hand smoke. That was the point.
Shannon, the blood example is interesting. If you were the only person who could donate blood to save the life, I think you would have a moral obligation. If it's the more general case you speak of I think the moral obligation is spread evely among the population so how that plays out in the individual, I'm not sure.
Judith, there was a long portion of my marriage I had no clue it was even a possibility. Once I found out I read and researched it and decided the chances were theoretical rather than real. It is possible one day I will be held accountable for this decision. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 10:53:47 PM · #983 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Judith, there was a long portion of my marriage I had no clue it was even a possibility. Once I found out I read and researched it and decided the chances were theoretical rather than real. It is possible one day I will be held accountable for this decision. |
Does that come before or after the ladybug trials? :P
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 22:54:14. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 11:09:04 PM · #984 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon, the blood example is interesting. If you were the only person who could donate blood to save the life, I think you would have a moral obligation. |
A moral obligation or a forfeiture of your own rights in favor of someone else compelling you to donate blood? |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 11:44:36 PM · #985 |
...I wrote such a wonderful response before.... forgot to post it....
where IS that male birth control PILL?
Message edited by author 2012-03-16 23:44:54. |
|
|
|
03/16/2012 11:47:45 PM · #986 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...I wrote such a wonderful response before.... forgot to post it....
where IS that male birth control PILL? |
Do you really need the pill when you abort responses so easily? |
|
|
|
03/17/2012 12:25:10 AM · #987 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...I wrote such a wonderful response before.... forgot to post it....
where IS that male birth control PILL? |
Do you really need the pill when you abort responses so easily? |
Guess it wasn't viable. |
|
|
|
03/17/2012 08:56:37 AM · #988 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
How often have you used a Fire extinguisher |
That's one of those questions that though it's an exception rather than a rule, can catch you up. I've easily used a fire extinguisher more than two dozen times in my career......many more times than I've used the pill.....
Originally posted by Nullix:
Also, do the "benefits of preventative measures" out weigh the effects of abortion? |
Since the benefits to many women outside of preventative measures are verified and your statistics are speculation and extrapolation, yes.....
|
|
|
|
03/17/2012 12:18:57 PM · #989 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Holy crap folks this just in from Arizona. |
I see your Arizona and raise you a Utah, |
In the news today, the Utah bill was vetoed by the governor. |
|
|
|
03/19/2012 02:20:43 PM · #990 |
| "If they're going to decide on women's reproductive issues, I'm not going to vote for any of them. Women's reproduction is our own business." -- Iowa voter, evangelical Christian, and former Mitt Romney supporter Mary Russell, quoted in the New York Times, March 10, 2012 |
|
|
|
03/21/2012 04:44:45 PM · #991 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Right now, as we speak, 10% of health care in the US have exemptions for religious grounds and nobody's had a problem with it.
Now, the government is removing exemptions so there can be no religious exemptions. |
I think Monica's point was there was a compromise solution. Are you concerned about things after the compromise? before? It's confusing where people stand about things now. |
Compromise? Is that what you call it? I call it funny accounting to get around our conscience.
Sure, as an employor, you won't have to pay for birth control against their conscience. HHS will force the insurance company to provide it for free. You won't have to pay. We won't have to pay for it, but it'll be bundled up in our payments. That's funny accounting.
Also, what happens if you're a religious insurance company (they exists like the Archdiocese of Los Angeles), they'll be forced to provide birth control for free.
Now HHS is calling for a $1 surcharge for abortions. Yes, tax-payers won't be paying for abortions, just everyone employed.
How's that for funny accounting. |
|
|
|
03/21/2012 05:04:29 PM · #992 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
what happens if you're a religious insurance company (they exists like the Archdiocese of Los Angeles), they'll be forced to provide birth control for free.
Now HHS is calling for a $1 surcharge for abortions. Yes, tax-payers won't be paying for abortions, just everyone employed. |
These are neither true, nor mentioned outside of hysterical conservative fantasyland. |
|
|
|
03/21/2012 05:30:18 PM · #993 |
All the Obama administration has is funny accounting. I feel sorry for the next pres. He is going to have trouble cleaning up Obamas mess
|
|
|
|
03/21/2012 05:36:35 PM · #994 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
All the Obama administration has is funny accounting. I feel sorry for the next pres. He is going to have trouble cleaning up Obamas mess |
Really now...lemme see, this President inherited two wars and a shitload of screwed up financial troubles before he even started.
When one considers all of the factors that come into play, it is a wonder that the USA is doing as well as it is.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2012 05:39:26 PM · #995 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by nullix:
sex isn't necessary for survival. If $10 is too much, then maybe people should be focusing on improving their income before they have sex. |
Can you not see that birth control has many health benefits for women and thus many benefits for the healthcare system and society as a whole? |
Great, then it's worth the $10 isn't it? You pay for it, don't make me pay for it. |
I normally don't get upset with other people's views, but you truly have an unbelievably twisted logic of what is. No one is asking you to pay for it. You have kids right... and they probably go to some school that is paid by the general public. I will assume that you either drive a car on highways that are paid for by the public or take public transportation that is subsidized by public funds.
I would hope that you might understand the analogy but I fear that I am very much mistaken.
Ray |
Hey  Nullix... you never addressed this one.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2012 05:42:37 PM · #996 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
...Sure, as an employor, you won't have to pay for birth control against their conscience. HHS will force the insurance company to provide it for free. You won't have to pay. We won't have to pay for it, but it'll be bundled up in our payments. That's funny accounting.
Also, what happens if you're a religious insurance company (they exists like the Archdiocese of Los Angeles), they'll be forced to provide birth control for free.
Now HHS is calling for a $1 surcharge for abortions. Yes, tax-payers won't be paying for abortions, just everyone employed.
How's that for funny accounting. |
Well how about this then:
Paying for a pill is strictly a financial issue... the matter of morality rests exclusively with the person(s) taking the pill... and therein lies the difference between what the good Doc is advocating and my personal point of view"
The financial issue rests solely with the service provider and that which falls within the realm of morality rests solely between the user and her God.
Your views in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2012 06:49:16 PM · #997 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I normally don't get upset with other people's views, but you truly have an unbelievably twisted logic of what is.
I would hope that you might understand the analogy but I fear that I am very much mistaken. |
Hey Nullix... you never addressed this one. |
Nothing much I can do to address that one. Do you really care? My logic is twisted.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
...Sure, as an employor, you won't have to pay for birth control against their conscience. HHS will force the insurance company to provide it for free. You won't have to pay. We won't have to pay for it, but it'll be bundled up in our payments. That's funny accounting.
Also, what happens if you're a religious insurance company (they exists like the Archdiocese of Los Angeles), they'll be forced to provide birth control for free.
Now HHS is calling for a $1 surcharge for abortions. Yes, tax-payers won't be paying for abortions, just everyone employed.
How's that for funny accounting. |
Well how about this then:
Paying for a pill is strictly a financial issue... the matter of morality rests exclusively with the person(s) taking the pill... and therein lies the difference between what the good Doc is advocating and my personal point of view"
The financial issue rests solely with the service provider and that which falls within the realm of morality rests solely between the user and her God. |
It's not financial, it's moral. What I was trying to get at was, if it's only $10, why are you crushing my religious rights for $10/month? My moral rights are worth more than $10 a month.
Before February 2012, employors were able to choose insurance plans without much intervention from the government. In fact, some employors didn't even have health insurance plans. There are some employors who had medical plans with restrictions based on their religion.
Before Feb 2012, these employors existed and it wasn't a big deal. If you were employed by these companies and you wanted birth control that wasn't covered, people got by and paid the $10 a month for it.
After Feb 2012, then government now says every employor is required to provide health insurance. Now all religious employors are against women?
|
|
|
|
03/21/2012 07:00:25 PM · #998 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
After Feb 2012, then government now says every employor is required to provide health insurance. Now all religious employors are against women? |
No, actually, it's the CHURCH that seems to be "against women".
|
|
|
|
03/21/2012 07:23:04 PM · #999 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
if it's only $10, why are you crushing my religious rights for $10/month? |
You do not have the right, religious or otherwise, to restrict someone ELSE'S access to medical care. And give up already with the drivel of paying for it, you're not. If you insist on arguing over indirect costs, then you should start with the money spent killing people through wars, pollution, and AIDs allowed to run unchecked in Africa due in large part to a church prohibition on condoms.
Originally posted by Nullix:
After Feb 2012, then government now says every employor is required to provide health insurance |
Still not true no matter how many times you spew it. The proposal exempts for religious schools and certain self-insured institutions provided the group has religious values as its purpose, employs or serves people who share those religious beliefs, and is a nonprofit. |
|
|
|
03/21/2012 09:42:04 PM · #1000 |
Oh, Nullix.....
Have you noticed that this group of people who pretty much can't ever agree on anything seem to be on the same page when it comes to what you're trying to sell?
|
|
