Politics

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

According to the FDA, the drugs in question prevent fertilization. How is the removal of an unfertilized egg considered abortion? Corporations don't get their own science.

It doesn't affect:

• Most birth control pills

• Condoms

• Sponges

• Sterilization

It does affect:

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

Sadly, you don't get the science but you attempt to chastise others. Even if a drug's primary method of action is removal of an unfertilized egg, they often have secondary methods of action that are abortifacient. No matter how much you deny it, this was about demanding a companies to be complicit with immoral behavior.

 

[wizards8507]

I care!

Why? Why can't I do whatever the hell I want? You can also do whatever the hell you want. If you want to force me to do something against my will, the burden should be on YOU to explain why I must comply. Our system is so backwards that the person being forced to do something is the one who must comply unless he can argue in the court of law that he has a compelling reason not to. "Because I don't feel like it" should be a good enough reason in a free society.

 

[Domina Nostra]

According to the FDA, the drugs in question prevent fertilization. How is the removal of an unfertilized egg considered abortion? Corporations don't get their own science.

Here is the ACOG--granted, in contradiction to other assertions they make when convenient--stating that "personhood" statutes would limit available birth control methods, because they interfere with fertilized eggs:

". . .all attempt to give full legal rights to a fertilized egg by defining "personhood" from the moment of fertilization, before conception (ie, pregnancy/ implantation) has occurred. This would have wide-reaching harmful implications for the practice of medicine and on women's access to contraception, fertility treatments, pregnancy termination, and other essential medical procedures. . . . These "personhood" proposals, as acknowledged by proponents, would make condoms, natural family planning, and spermicides the only legally allowed forms of birth control. Thus, some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception, such as oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and other forms of FDA-approved hormonal contraceptives could be banned in states that adopt "personhood" measures."

that "http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2012/Personhood_Measures

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

1) What is your source for what is and isn't immoral? Under this logic, you could sell porn or buy a crack addict all the crack he wanted with a perfectly clean conscience. Even bartenders can get in trouble for continuing to sell a drunk person more drinks (in some cases). For Catholics, sex before marriage is a mortal sin. Unless ED drugs have some alternative purpose, the only use a single man would have for them is to commit a mortal sin. If you knowingly supply someone with the means for committing a moral sin, you may be culpable for that sin too.

2) Gore Vidal famously remarked that antibiotics really opened up the sexual horizons of men in New York-- talking about the bath house culture. If you are using medicine to allow you to engage in immoral behavior, that is very differnt than simply curing a disease. I am not saying you withhold the medicine, but the two situations are obviously different-- just like pain killers in a hospital or NFL locker room.

3) The pill is dual-use in that it treats certain conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy. If a person is using it to treat a conidtion, and then ends up using it for birth control, your assertion makes sense. However, providing a sailor in port with condoms, for example, is giving them the instrumentality for sinning. Same analysis as above.

I understand disagreeing with the argument, but do you really not understand it?

1. My source for what is immoral is irrelevant. The source for what is immoral in this case were varying faiths that didn't want to cover abortifacient drugs. The method of their action is immoral as described by the varying faiths represented. The drug, in it's purpose, is immoral. It's very essence is immoral. I'm not sure how else I can explain this. I can't sell porn, because it's very essence is immoral. Crack cocaine and other drugs are a completely different discussion and would derail this thread.

The ED drug, by it's method of action, is not immoral. How a person uses that drug creates the immorality you are suggesting.

2. Treating a disease can not be argued in any serious discussion. A disease is bad, we want people healthy so we treat it. We hope that those who engage in immoral behavior eliminate it from their life but it doesn't mean we stop treating the damaged and broken.

3. This pill was created to abort conceived children. The secondary methods of action are irrelevant in-so-much as they are able to be replaced by other medicines that are accessible so there is no problem and this argument holds no weight.

I understand what the argument purports but it fails on multiple levels as already discussed.

 

[ACamp1900]

BREAKING NEWS: if you paid for and used birth control yesterday, you can pay for it and use it today.

Bottom line.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Why? Why can't I do whatever the hell I want? You can also do whatever the hell you want. If you want to force me to do something against my will, the burden should be on YOU to explain why I must comply. Our system is so backwards that the person being forced to do something is the one who must comply unless he can argue in the court of law that he has a compelling reason not to. "Because I don't feel like it" should be a good enough reason in a free society.

I agree that we should allow a lot of freedom, but at some point our actions and policies ad decisions inevitably affect one another.

- Can a religious person keep their child from receiving antibiotics? Are you oppressing the parent, or aiding the child?

- Not all viewpoints are compatible. If you are a conservative Muslim or Jew and you have certain standards of modesty, you can't live in a city that allows public sexual acts. Somebody has to give, or you have essentially pushed one of those persons out of the public square. Does public modesty prevail, or does libertarianism prevail? Who gets to decide?

- The system has to decide who is a person. What you can or can't do (organ harvesting, stem-cell research, sexual relationships, ownership), depends on how the powers that be define personhood. Slaves, pre-born babies, and invalids all have to rely on people with actual strength.

- Who defines harm? We all agree that minors are harmed when an adult has a sexual realtionshop with them. 19 seems ok, what about 17? What about 16? Who decides?

- You have to pay taxes, and those taxes get spent on things like drone bombings, and Planned Parenthood outreaches, and scholarships to religious schools. Innocent people die when we attack foreign countries. Who decides what is right in wrong there?

 

[Domina Nostra]

The ED drug, by it's method of action, is not immoral. How a person uses that drug creates the immorality you are suggesting.

So it is always moral to buy a drunk a drink, or to suppply a hand gun to a felon?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

As colleagues have noted, the scientific consensus is against this idea, and it’s worth reviewing some basics here. Even without contraception, fertilized eggs often fail to implant naturally.

Intrauterine devices are not often discussed in the lay media. That doesn’t mean they are uncommon. More than 15 percent of all women worldwide who are married or living with a partner use IUDs at the primary measure of birth control. Use in North America is lower, at around 2 percent.

IUDs come in a number of forms. They can be inert, or have copper or hormones embedded within them. Most scientists believe that they interfere with the ability of sperm to get to an egg in time to fertilize it before they die.

Research does not support the idea that they prevent fertilized eggs to implant. The journal Fertility and Sterility published a study in 1985 that followed three groups of women for 15 months. One group had an IUD, one group had their tubes tied, and one group was trying to get pregnant. They then measured hormone levels to see if fertilization occurred. It did so only in the group trying to get pregnant.

Another study found that a telltale sign of fertilization — a surge of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin — occurred in only 1 percent of 100 cycles in women using IUDs. This would be consistent with the failure rate of IUDs in general. In other words, IUDs do not appear to work by aborting a fertilized egg.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/u...could-limit-access-to-birth-control.html?_r=0

 

[Wild Bill]

And every female hobby lobby employee who wants to use some legal forms of birth control has just taken a pay cut.

I feel their pain. I took a pay cut when the feds shoved the ACA down our throat.

 

[wizards8507]

- Can a religious person keep their child from receiving antibiotics? Are you oppressing the parent, or aiding the child?

Yes, and it doesn't have to be a religious person.

- Not all viewpoints are compatible. If you are a conservative Muslim or Jew and you have certain standards of modesty, you can't live in a city that allows sexual acts. Somebody has to give, or you have essentially pushed one of those persons out of the public square. Does public modesty prevail, or does libertarianism prevail? Who gets to decide?

I'm not saying there should be no governmental power, but it should be kept as locally as possible. States and (more importantly) towns will set their own standards and groups of people who want to live according to those standards will tend to congregate.

- The system has to decide who is a person. What you can or can't do (organ harvesting, stem-cell research, sexual relationships, ownership), depends on how the powers that be define personhood. Slaves, pre-born babies, and invalids all have to rely on people with actual strength.

Logic 101:

P1. A person or thing is living if and only if it is made of cells.
P2. Slaves, pre-born babies, and invalids are made of cells.
C1. Therefore, slaves, pre-born babies, and invalids are all living.

P3. All living things are either human or non-human.
P4. Neither slaves, nor pre-born babies, nor invalids are non-human.
P5 (from C1). Slaves, pre-born babies, and invalids are all living.
C2. Therefore, slaves, pre-born babies, and invalids are living humans.

- Who defines harm? We all agree that minors are harmed when an adult has a sexual realtionshop with them. 19 seems ok, what about 17? What about 16? Who decides?

No, we DON'T all agree that minors are harmed when an adult has a sexual relationship with them. I'm 100% okay with a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old, provided it is consensual. The age of majority is a societal construct that has nothing to do with whether a person has the capacity to consent.

- You have to pay taxes, and those taxes get spent on things like drone bombings, and Planned Parenthood outreaches, and scholarships to religious schools. Innocent people die when we attack foreign countries. Who decides what is right in wrong there?

Don't pay for those things with taxes, that's my entire point. Let me keep my taxes and I'll give money to those things that I deem "right" and not to those that I deem "wrong."

I feel their pain. I took a pay cut when the feds shoved the ACA down our throat.

My insurance went from $30 per pay period to $85 for worse coverage. Certainly much more than the cost of condoms.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

So it is always moral to buy a drunk a drink, or to suppply a hand gun to a felon?

I didn't realize buying a drink or supplying a hand gun was in the healthcare policy and is now up for debate.

We are equating alcholism and, I'm assuming, perpetual felons with sexual promiscuity? And you're point is that to buy a drink for a drunk (under federal policy) and provide hand gun to a felon (under federal policy) is the moral equivalent of covering condoms to someone (with sex addiction)?

There are so many holes, I doubt you could plug them all.

We are incapable of screening every person for their intention, nor would we want our government or corporations to possess the power to mandate that, therefore we require corporations to provide certain "healthcare" that doesn't force immorality on the employer.

The comparison of allowing condoms to be funded for a workforce vs. knowingly walking up to an alcoholic and giving him a drink isn't really going anywhere that I can see. The same with handguns.

One is to allow something to a crowd that isn't immoral in it's essence. The other is feeding an addiction knowingly.

 

[Domina Nostra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/u...could-limit-access-to-birth-control.html?_r=0

Well, if its a matter of grave importance, not sure an uncertain majority is enough to go on.

However I do like the idea that we put so much trust into research almost certinaly funded by GIGANTIC and impersonal pharmaceutical CORPORATIONS!

Whether it is funded by Exxon, Phillip-Morris, or GlaxoSmithKline, we can now finally all agree that corporate research is impartial...

 

[pkt77242]

It doesn't affect:

• Most birth control pills

• Condoms

• Sponges

• Sterilization

It does affect:

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

Sadly, you don't get the science but you attempt to chastise others. Even if a drug's primary method of action is removal of an unfertilized egg, they often have secondary methods of action that are abortifacient. No matter how much you deny it, this was about demanding a companies to be complicit with immoral behavior.

You are an ass. Do you actually read what you post? You just accused people who don't agree with you of not understanding science.

Also why don't you go read about Plan B. It can only stop an egg from dropping, prevent an egg from being fertilized or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. It can not cause an abortion of an I fertilized egg. Sorry. Why don't you go do your research. IUD's do not cause abortions either.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I didn't realize buying a drink or supplying a hand gun was in the healthcare policy and is now up for debate.

We are equating alcholism and, I'm assuming, perpetual felons with sexual promiscuity? And you're point is that to buy a drink for a drunk (under federal policy) and provide hand gun to a felon (under federal policy) is the moral equivalent of covering condoms to someone (with sex addiction)?

There are so many holes, I doubt you could plug them all.

We are incapable of screening every person for their intention, nor would we want our government or corporations to possess the power to mandate that, therefore we require corporations to provide certain "healthcare" that doesn't force immorality on the employer.

The comparison of allowing condoms to be funded for a workforce vs. knowingly walking up to an alcoholic and giving him a drink isn't really going anywhere that I can see. The same with handguns.

One is to allow something to a crowd that isn't immoral in it's essence. The other is feeding an addiction knowingly.

This isn't a debate about helthcare, it is a debate about morality! That is what all the controversy is over. The point is, supplying something that is morally neutral can, in fact, be immoral once the person's intention is known.

How deep do you really have to go to figure out the intention of a single man who is using ED drugs? (unless you can show me some legitimate alternative use)

And this isn't a debate about government or faceless public "corporations," it is about closely-held corporations.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

You are an ass. Do you actually read what you post? You just accused people who don't agree with you of not understanding science.

Also why don't you go read about Plan B. It can only stop an egg from dropping, prevent an egg from being fertilized or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. It can not cause an abortion of an I fertilized egg. Sorry. Why don't you go do your research. IUD's do not cause abortions either.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack me after my defense has been laid bare. You can attempt to some up my explanations as above, but I've clearly pointed out more than your paraphrasing above.

I've read about Plan B plenty, I have a few friends who are physicians/residents and we discuss this routinely.

But for your sake:

IUDs primarily work by preventing fertilization.[34] The progestogen released from the hormonal IUDs may prevent ovulation from occurring but only partially.[35][36] The hormone also thickens the cervical mucus so that sperm cannot reach the fallopian tubes. The copper IUDs contain no hormones, but the copper ions in the cervical mucus are toxic to sperm. They also cause the uterus and fallopian tubes to produce a fluid that contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins, a combination that is also toxic to sperm.[35] The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives implies they may also act by preventing implantation of the blastocyst.

As to the bolded, if there is even a debate about secondary or tertiary methods of action that are immoral, then it shouldn't be forced on someone to be complicit.

 

[Ndaccountant]

And every female hobby lobby employee who wants to use some legal forms of birth control has just taken a pay cut.

We don't know that for certain. Based on the case, I assume Hobby Lobby did not provide insurance for the contraceptives that are in question prior to Obamacare. If they were like many other Americans, their insurance premiums were most likely impacted last year. To what extent and in what direction is something I do not know. But, I strongly doubt that the inclusion or absence of the contraceptives in question had any impact on the premiums paid.

I didn't see a number of female employees impacted by this either. All I saw were number of female employees. The two are not the same. I know that whenever my wife drags me into that crappy store, the overwhelming majority of the women working there are very young, like still covered under your parents plan young.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack me after my defense has been laid bare. You can attempt to some up my explanations as above, but I've clearly pointed out more than your paraphrasing above.

I've read about Plan B plenty, I have a few friends who are physicians/residents and we discuss this routinely.

But for your sake:

IUDs primarily work by preventing fertilization.[34] The progestogen released from the hormonal IUDs may prevent ovulation from occurring but only partially.[35][36] The hormone also thickens the cervical mucus so that sperm cannot reach the fallopian tubes. The copper IUDs contain no hormones, but the copper ions in the cervical mucus are toxic to sperm. They also cause the uterus and fallopian tubes to produce a fluid that contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins, a combination that is also toxic to sperm.[35] The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives implies they may also act by preventing implantation of the blastocyst.

As to the bolded, if there is even a debate about secondary or tertiary methods of action that are immoral, then it shouldn't be forced on someone to be complicit.

This, I can agree with!

 

[IrishJayhawk]

We don't know that for certain. Based on the case, I assume Hobby Lobby did not provide insurance for the contraceptives that are in question prior to Obamacare. If they were like many other Americans, their insurance premiums were most likely impacted last year. To what extent and in what direction is something I do not know. But, I strongly doubt that the inclusion or absence of the contraceptives in question had any impact on the premiums paid.

I didn't see a number of female employees impacted by this either. All I saw were number of female employees. The two are not the same. I know that whenever my wife drags me into that crappy store, the overwhelming majority of the women working there are very young, like still covered under your parents plan young.

It probably wasn't my best argument.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

This isn't a debate about helthcare, it is a debate about morality! That is what all the controversy is over. The point is, supplying something that is morally neutral can, in fact, be immoral once the person's intention is known.

How deep do you really have to go to figure out the intention of a single man who is using ED drugs? (unless you can show me some legitimate alternative use)

And this isn't a debate about government or faceless public "corporations," it is about closely-held corporations.

Indeed, it's a debate of morality in healthcare. If the person's intention is known, then there are increased moral implications. But once again, you're relating a drug that is immoral in action to immorality in light of known intentions, which are much different.

Are you proposing that all companies should be required to force morality on others now? We are simply arguing that the hand of the employer should not be forced to be immorally complicit.

 

[GoIrish41]

It doesn't affect:

• Most birth control pills

• Condoms

• Sponges

• Sterilization

It does affect:

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

Sadly, you don't get the science but you attempt to chastise others. Even if a drug's primary method of action is removal of an unfertilized egg, they often have secondary methods of action that are abortifacient. No matter how much you deny it, this was about demanding a companies to be complicit with immoral behavior.

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on what was moral or immoral. They made a ruling stating that "closely held corporations," (nebulous and undefined) under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.’’ To me, this is an extension of the absurd idea that corporations are people. "Closely held corporations," as I understand their logic, employ about half of the employees in the country. Does this ruling allow all of those employers to opt out of the law on religious grounds? I think that it does. So, by extension, the law could apply to half of the population and not the other half. What sense does that make? This has nothing to do with morality ... this is about defining corporations as people, which is good for nobody except those who wish to allow corporations to have more and more control over the lives of average Joes.

 

[pkt77242]

I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack me after my defense has been laid bare. You can attempt to some up my explanations as above, but I've clearly pointed out more than your paraphrasing above.

I've read about Plan B plenty, I have a few friends who are physicians/residents and we discuss this routinely.

But for your sake:

IUDs primarily work by preventing fertilization.[34] The progestogen released from the hormonal IUDs may prevent ovulation from occurring but only partially.[35][36] The hormone also thickens the cervical mucus so that sperm cannot reach the fallopian tubes. The copper IUDs contain no hormones, but the copper ions in the cervical mucus are toxic to sperm. They also cause the uterus and fallopian tubes to produce a fluid that contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins, a combination that is also toxic to sperm.[35] The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives implies they may also act by preventing implantation of the blastocyst.

As to the bolded, if there is even a debate about secondary or tertiary methods of action that are immoral, then it shouldn't be forced on someone to be complicit.

More of pointing out how you post, you did it in the marriage thread and now in here where everyone who believes differently, acts differently or has different opinion than you, you find a need to put down in your posts.

Also, generally speaking preventing implantation is not considered abortion. Then you want to say that anything that might possibly be immoral, then you shouldn't be forced to comply? Where do you draw the line at? That seems like a way to abuse the system? Should a Jehovah Witness have to pay for a blood transfusion as part of their employees medical plans, should a Christian Scientist have to pay for any medical care for their employees?

I do agree that an individual should not have to pay for these items, but once you form a for profit corporation, it is now the corporation who is paying for it not the individual and that barrier is what makes the difference.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on what was moral or immoral. They made a ruling stating that "closely held corporations," (nebulous and undefined) under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.’’ To me, this is an extension of the absurd idea that corporations are people. "Closely held corporations," as I understand their logic, employ about half of the employees in the country. Does this ruling allow all of those employers to opt out of the law on religious grounds? I think that it does. So, by extension, the law could apply to half of the population and not the other half. What sense does that make? This has nothing to do with morality ... this is about defining corporations as people, which is good for nobody except those who wish to allow corporations to have more and more control over the lives of average Joes.

Disagree with 100% of what you just posted for reasons that have been discussed now ad nauseam.

There is no such thing as faceless corporations. We carry with us our moral obligations through all phases of life and allow those morals to inform us how to proceed in matters of importance. If I become a business owner and employ 5 people, I do not want to be forced to be morally complicit in the use of abortifacient drugs.

 

[pkt77242]

Disagree with 100% of what you just posted for reasons that have been discussed now ad nauseam.

There is no such thing as faceless corporations. We carry with us our moral obligations through all phases of life and allow those morals to inform us how to proceed in matters of importance. If I become a business owner and employ 5 people, I do not want to be forced to be morally complicit in the use of abortifacient drugs.

I would agree with you if you were a Sole Proprietorship but a corporation is a different legal entity and throughout history has been treated as such. So what you are really saying is that Corporations should get all the benefits of being a corporation along with some of the benefits of being an individual.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

More of pointing out how you post, you did it in the marriage thread and now in here where everyone who believes differently, acts differently or has different opinion than you, you find a need to put down in your posts.

Also, generally speaking preventing implantation is not considered abortion. Then you want to say that anything that might possibly be immoral, then you shouldn't be forced to comply? Where do you draw the line at? That seems like a way to abuse the system? Should a Jehovah Witness have to pay for a blood transfusion as part of their employees medical plans, should a Christian Scientist have to pay for any medical care for their employees?

I do agree that an individual should not have to pay for these items, but once you form a for profit corporation, it is now the corporation who is paying for it not the individual and that barrier is what makes the difference.

Please see the previous 2-3 pages of posts addressing your questions.

As to the put downs, that was definitely not my intention. I have been standing up for my faith and explaining why it can be defensed logically and consistently. You don't like it and throw disparaging remarks at me.

Who have I disparaged? Where did I devolve to insults?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I would agree with you if you were a Sole Proprietorship but a corporation is a different legal entity and throughout history has been treated as such. So what you are really saying is that Corporations should get all the benefits of being a corporation along with some of the benefits of being an individual.

No. I'm saying the owners of businesses should not be required to violate their conscience in order to do business in America.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Indeed, it's a debate of morality in healthcare. If the person's intention is known, then there are increased moral implications. But once again, you're relating a drug that is immoral in action to immorality in light of known intentions, which are much different.

Are you proposing that all companies should be required to force morality on others now? We are simply arguing that the hand of the employer should not be forced to be immorally complicit.

I think you are making a good distinction between the act and the intention, which is why I brought up the pill--a doctor could prescribe it for something that is not birth control. However, I am not sure if the act and intention can be separated for a ED drug, where there is no legitimate use of the thing for a young, single man (at least that I know of).

I am not sure if I think of companies and employment in such a way that an employer's denying to buy you birth control is somehow forcing thier morality. Can't it just as easily be said that the employees are forcing their morality on the ownership/management?

As far as what I am proposing, I think that is way overly-simplistic to pretend that every person (natural or corporate) can have a religious/conscience exemption to every law. (The Hobby Lobby case was obviously much more narrow). That is completely untenable in a country where everyone believes whatever they want. I also think it is horribly naive and totalitarian to pretend that science and/or health are neutral subjects that can provide guidance independent of morality.

What you need is some kind of moral consensus. Personally, I think that we are in for a real crazy ride because the country is splitting over basic moral issues, and as much as we like to pretend that everyone can co-exist, they can't. We used to get along because we shared more common assumptions. As we lose those, decisions are going to be made and one side is going to lose.

 

[pkt77242]

Here are your comments that are unkind.

"If Ginsberg's dissent is more compelling, then you either don't grasp what we've been discussing or you harbor prejudice against anyone with an active faith that they want to live out in all arenas of their life."

"Sadly, you don't get the science but you attempt to chastise others."

There was also the Marriage thread where you had some "interesting posts" that criticized other people who did things or would do things differently than you.

I guess I should clarify, I don't think you are an ass, you just sometimes post like it.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

1. I think you are making a good distinction between the act and the intention, which is why I brought up the pill--a doctor could prescribe it for something that is not birth control. However, I am not sure if the act and intention can be separated for a ED drug, where there is no legitimate use of the thing for a young, single man (at least that I know of).

2. I am not sure if I think of companies and employment in such a way that an employer's denying to buy you birth control is somehow forcing thier morality. Can't it just as easily be said that the employees are forcing their morality on the ownership/management?

3. As far as what I am proposing, I think that is way overly-simplistic to pretend that every person (natural or corporate) can have a religious/conscience exemption to every law. (The Hobby Lobby case was obviously much more narrow). That is completely untenable in a country where everyone believes whatever they want. I also think it is horribly naive and totalitarian to pretend that science and/or health are neutral subjects that can provide guidance independent of morality.

4. What you need is some kind of moral consensus. Personally, I think that we are in for a real crazy ride because the country is splitting over basic moral issues, and as much as we like to pretend that everyone can co-exist, they can't. We used to get along because we shared more common assumptions. As we lose those, decisions are going to be made and one side is going to lose.

1. There are additional drugs that can be prescribed other than the pill for all other maladies that need be treated. Act and intention needn't be separated for ED drugs, the drug's method of action is not immoral. Once again, you act as though the employer is monitoring how their healthcare policy is being used. We wouldn't want that. What we do want, is to not have our hand forced to pay for things that are deemed immoral.

2. I don't think I follow

3. I don't think science or health are neutral subjects, nor do I think they are capable of directing their own use. Obviously, this is where morality comes into play (or lack thereof).

4. I very much agree. I'm betting my side loses because the tides of relativism and modernity have been gaining momentum.

 

[pkt77242]

No. I'm saying the owners of businesses should not be required to violate their conscience in order to do business in America.

Really? How about a strongly religious person who doesn't want to hire a gay person due to religious reasons? Or doesn't want to sell their services to a gay couple? The problem with that is that where do you draw the line?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Here are your comments that are unkind.

"If Ginsberg's dissent is more compelling, then you either don't grasp what we've been discussing or you harbor prejudice against anyone with an active faith that they want to live out in all arenas of their life."

"Sadly, you don't get the science but you attempt to chastise others."

There was also the Marriage thread where you had some "interesting posts" that criticized other people who did things or would do things differently than you.

I guess I should clarify, I don't think you are an ass, you just sometimes post like it.

I still don't believe my posts, taken out of context, were unkind. There was claim of a scientific understanding and a chastisement of corporations for not understanding their own arguments. I rebutted and very clearly pointed out why that assertion was incorrect.

The first quote still stands on its own merit.

Feel free to bring up the issues in the marriage thread if they are so egregious you must call me out on the politics thread. We can discuss there.