The abortion thing

[siead_lietrathua]

Except I fully believe, as do others, that a person is defined as someone with a soul. And a child, even in the womb, has one.

this is something i never get, because i always hear it from christians. but christianity is based on judaism. and in judaism, the child doesn't obtain a soul until it leaves the womb and recieves 'the breath of life'. before that it's considered a limb of the mother in all ways. heck there used to be rituals where unwanted children were stabbed through the skull while crowning from their mothers, so they couldn't get their souls before being killed.

some preachers claim it's right at conception, but they need to back it up with holy text if they want to claim it's directed from god, and not just from leaders with an agenda.

plus, god loves abortions. 10-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, making god one of the biggest aborters on the planet. or, do the babies god aborts not have souls yet. were those souls created for the purpose of dying? and if so, were those souls doomed to burn in hell then? (since unbaptised and all)

edit: i forgot, there's even a bible prescribed abortion spell for women to take if their husband thinks the baby isn't theirs. and since prayer is required during it, the abortion would only happen if god-approved. (Numbers 5, start at 11) so... theres that too.

double edit: plus the passages where god enourgages soldiers to rip babies from the mother's womb in takeover battles. and the answering prayers in hosea that causes women to miscarry and become barren.

[Greenday]

Personally, I'd like to see evidence of these souls. Can someone describe the test to look at a person's soul? No? I guess that means no one can use that as a legit argument since there's no evidence they even exist in the first place.

After that, I'm just plain sick of religious people cramming religion down our throats. This is not a right provided by the First Amendment of the American Constitution. Stop treating it as such.

I have a far more extreme view of what an unwanted fertilized egg is: they are parasites. They leech off the human body providing no benefit to the host. Most people wouldn't think twice if asked if it's okay to kill off parasites. A fertilized egg somehow becomes special because it's from a human and not an insect? Sorry, it's not. To not cover contraception is morally disgusting. To not allow women to get rid of parasites IS a form of slavery since you are taking life choices away from them.

[Gravekeeper]

The majority of Canadians (60-80%, depending on whose numbers you believe) do not support unrestricted abortions - which is what we currently have.

This is misleading. While we do not have a legally defined term limit, no doctor or health service in Canada will perform an abortion past 20 weeks unless there is some damn good reason. Also, according to polls done by conservative groups such as Angus Reid it is, again, about half give or take a few points for the margin of error. Who support unrestricted access in all cases.

Furthermore, the reason we do not have any specific abortion laws is because adding such laws to the criminal code were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and in violation of a women's rights. This has survived a number of challenges and led to further rulings that basically amount to we cannot infringe on a woman's security and right to her own body. IE the rights of the woman outweigh that of a clump of cells.

The clump does not have rights and its "personhood" is not recognized legally or biologically. Only religiously; and even within religion, the opinion varies based on region, wealth, education, culture, etc. Christianity especially has a long and very nuanced history with abortion. While as I noted before, Judaism and Islam are accepting of it with term limits based on when each religion believes the soul enters the fetus.

I think there is room for change with the laws, over 1/2 of Canadians support mandatory counselling and education before making a decision, over 1/2 support laws to add a second charge of murder to someone accused of murdering a pregnant woman and well over half support adding some restrictions (like a time frame).

You're going to have to cite that one. Abortion in Canada has long been considered a private matter between a woman and her doctor and we have plenty of counselling and education available for people that need it. Mandatory counselling reeks of trying to convince rather than help.

[siead_lietrathua]

This is misleading. While we do not have a legally defined term limit, no doctor or health service in Canada will perform an abortion past 20 weeks unless there is some damn good reason.

just to add a note on this: the fetus is unable to feel things until nerves finish making their paths, which is around week 28. so the normal cutoff for abortion is well before the fetus would feel anything resembling pain.
it's around the time where it still looks more like a pig-fetus than a human-fetus.

(sidenote: i'm so glad to be a female in canada)

[Canarr]

And if you really want to get into it, please read what this Quaker has to say on the matter. And keep in mind their religion started conscience objections.

GET YOUR FAKE CONSCIENCE OBJECTIONS OFF MY LAWN

Damn, this is pretty awesome.

EDIT: less awesome is the fact that apparently, SCOTUS affirmed the Green family's belief. I suppose if the US Supreme Court confirms that it's okay to oppose contraceptions on religious grounds, abortion is just too far out to even contemplate.

[XanthusLane]

That's not even remotely what I was saying, cripes man. The Hobby Lobby thing is over access to birth control. Something which would minimize abortions. I find religious positions like that ( Against both abortion and birth control ) to be dangerously idiotic.

This is where I believe you misunderstand what he whole case was about. Most of the people that are upset about the decision are basing their opinions on less-than-clear facts on what the case details were.

These claims are all unabashedly dishonest because they fail to take into account two important points:

1) Hobby Lobby STILL covers birth control--just not all of the options out there.
2.) Whether any employer covers birth control or not, none are trying to stop women from accessing it.

The issue here is whether a private company should be forced to pay for birth control, not whether it should be allowed to sneak into your house at night and check to make sure you don’t have a bubble-pack of Microgestin in your purse.

If your boss is in your bedroom, call the police. Or stop inviting him in. When you ask him to pay for what you do in the bedroom, you are inviting him in. Want him out? Good. Then stop making your birth control into a national headline. Handle with it yourself, privately.

Somehow the American Left has recruited legions of followers by convincing them that they are being prevented from obtaining something as long as another private individual is allowed to refrain from providing it to them.
If you won’t give it to me, then I cannot have it. This is what a child might accurately say to his parents. However your employer is not your parent, and you are not a child.

Also to address the most recently posted objections:

Objection 1: Hobby Lobby still covers vasectomies and Viagra!
Reality: Erroneous.

The issue is whether a company can be forced to provide a product in spite of its religious convictions. So you think someone should be opposed to Viagra if they are opposed to the Morning After Pill?

Viagra and emergency contraception, or contraception in general, are not just different things — they’re practically opposites. Viagra mitigates a malfunction, whereas birth control hinders a function. You can’t really find two things more diametrically opposed. Viagra makes a broken thing work, while birth control makes a working thing not work.

Feel however you want about either, but you can’t deny that the two have very different designs.

Vasectomies, on the other hand, are pretty well in line with birth control. Still no contradiction, though, as Hobby Lobby covers most birth control already. I fail to see the issue here. They cover birth control pills, they cover vasectomies.

Objection #2: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that make abortion pills!

Reality: Erroneous. Irrelevant. Mostly untrue.

This is the kind of garbage that picks up steam in an era where people will make the most outlandish statements to prove their point, and back that up by linking to some article that, itself, only asserts things without citing them, and which they didn’t even read to begin with.

Someone sees the headline, “Hobby Lobby invests in abortion drugs!” and reposts it with glee, failing to even click on the link, and if they click on it, they fail to understand what they read, yet they pass it along anyway.

At issue here is the company 401k plan, which has investments that invest in some companies that also make abortion drugs. To understand this issue, you have to understand how 401Ks and mutual funds work.

I am not an expert in either but I know enough about the subject to smell the horse manure wafting off of this argument.

I also know enough to know that virtually every person who slams Hobby Lobby for this probably has a 401k that invests, in an indirect way, in companies that do things which they ideologically oppose.

How many of the critics out there have thoroughly researched their own 401k plans to weed out any unsavory investments?

What’s a fair estimate here? Oh, approximately none of them?

401k plans do not invest in company stock, they invest in mutual funds, and the options for those funds are primarily selected by 401k administrators, not Hobby Lobby.

Crucially, it’s the employees themselves who decide which mutual funds to invest in, and those mutual funds then invest in hundreds or thousands of different stocks. The employees don’t have the power to select individual companies, and Hobby Lobby especially does not have that power.

The point is, this smear attempt is obviously fallacious to anyone who has even a passing understanding of mutual funds and 401k plans. I barely understand all of the retirement financial workings of different plans and options, and even I’m not uneducated enough to fall for this pathetic attempt at a ‘gotcha’ moment.

It comes down to this: If you want a certain optional drug (yes, contraceptives are optional) that is NOT covered by your employer, pay for it yourself. No one is stopping you from accessing it at all.

What is even funnier, no one has mentioned that Hobby Lobby pays their FT employees an average of $14/hour starting. Surely if they really need something such as a Morning After pill that isn't covered, they can find the funds necessary to pay for it.

[crashhelmet]

And that's the problem with the issue. Employers like Hobby Lobby aren't paying for birth control. They're paying for medical coverage that pays for a wide assortment of preventative, corrective, and rehabilitative treatments.

Employers don't go into negotiations with an insurance provider and say "I'll pay for this, but I won't pay for that." They may make their decision based on what coverage is provided, like LASIK, disability, or cancer treatments, but they don't say I'm not going to pay for this surgery, but not that surgery. This procedure, but not that procedure. I'll pay for this antibiotic, but not that one.

This is just one of many attempts to stop the ACA

[Rageaholic]

Abortion is a heated issue because, unlike most moral dilemmas which typically only affect the person committing whatever they think is a sin, this is an action which people feel affects the life and soul of another human being. Agree with it or not, it's a belief that a lot of people hold, and simply dismissing all of them as crazy, bible thumping, lunatic, women-haters is insensitive and over-simplistic; and telling them they must purchase insurance to support these kinds of actions is a difficult pill for them to swallow, and many feel it's a trump on their religious rights.

This is why I'm so undecided about abortion. It all comes down to what criteria we use to determine human life. I doubt many people would be supporting abortion if they really believed that they were ending a human life, but even then it's tricky (should the mother be liable to what happens to the fetus? What if her life is at risk? Ect.) It's a really tricky question that I think is too often simplified by black and white thinking. (you either hate women or are a sadistic baby killer).

Though lately it seems like the worst arguments come from the pro life crowd.

[Gravekeeper]

This is where I believe you misunderstand what he whole case was about. Most of the people that are upset about the decision are basing their opinions on less-than-clear facts on what the case details were.

I understand what its about just fine and have already mentioned most of what you're ranting about.

1) Hobby Lobby STILL covers birth control--just not all of the options out there.
2.) Whether any employer covers birth control or not, none are trying to stop women from accessing it.

We already discussed this.

If your boss is in your bedroom, call the police. Or stop inviting him in. When you ask him to pay for what you do in the bedroom, you are inviting him in. Want him out? Good. Then stop making your birth control into a national headline. Handle with it yourself, privately.

That is so amazingly wrong I'm not sure where to start. If your employer provides health insurance it in no way, shape or form grants them any right whatsoever to interfere with your privacy. Especially not with your medical concerns and especially not based on their religious beliefs.

Somehow the American Left has recruited legions of followers by convincing them that they are being prevented from obtaining something as long as another private individual is allowed to refrain from providing it to them.

A company is not a private individual.

If you won’t give it to me, then I cannot have it. This is what a child might accurately say to his parents. However your employer is not your parent, and you are not a child.

And you say I'm the one misunderstanding the situation?

The issue is whether a company can be forced to provide a product in spite of its religious convictions. So you think someone should be opposed to Viagra if they are opposed to the Morning After Pill?

Again, a company is not a private individual. It does not have religious convictions. Thats what it means to do business in a secular society. Also, since you are misunderstanding the point again. When people point out viagra, etc, they are pointing out that men's reproductive health is fully covered and never called into question. Men have full rights over their own bodies.

Vasectomies, on the other hand, are pretty well in line with birth control. Still no contradiction, though, as Hobby Lobby covers most birth control already. I fail to see the issue here. They cover birth control pills, they cover vasectomies.

To use your own ridiculous logic against you: Vasectomies inhibit a function. Plan B inhibits a function.

I also know enough to know that virtually every person who slams Hobby Lobby for this probably has a 401k that invests, in an indirect way, in companies that do things which they ideologically oppose.

If you knew enough about 401ks you would also know that there are mutual funds that specifically exclude things you might ideologically oppose. Especially over contentious issues. There are plenty of 401ks that exclude investments in companies that have anything to do with birth control or abortion.

3/4th's of Hobby Lobby's investments are in companies that make everything its opposed to in addition to drugs used for medical abortions. They also have investments in health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions. Hobby Lobby also matches all of its employee's investments in their retirement plans.

Furthermore, Hobby Lobby DID cover emergency contraceptives up until 2012 when it stopped right before it launched this lawsuit. So when trying to clean up their back yard to avoid looking like hypocritical idiots, they missed their investments. Thus they still look like hypocritical idiots.

And finally, because they are god damn idiots, their entire lawsuit is based on their misunderstanding of how the contraceptives in question work. Their opposition is based on their belief that these contraceptives prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and thus are abortion pills. When that is not how the pills work at all. They're basing this belief on "Christian science" as opposed to actual science.

What is even funnier, no one has mentioned that Hobby Lobby pays their FT employees an average of $14/hour starting. Surely if they really need something such as a Morning After pill that isn't covered, they can find the funds necessary to pay for it.

Do you have any idea how profoundly stupid and offensive this statement is?

[siead_lietrathua]

i feel like i should quote everything GK wrote, and just put a "QFT" after it. lol.

but to me, the bottom line is, they're your employer. not your parent. not your nanny. Their job, as employer, is to provide healthcare that meets their patient's needs. their job is not to determine what of their employees needs are or are not valid because of a personal bias.

one of the better arguments i heard about this was (paraphrased) 'are jehovah witness employers allowed to refuse to insure their employees for blood transfustions now? or what if the employer beliefs in faith-healing, can they refuse ALL medical care?"
sure, it sounds slippery slope. but those scenarios are no less ridiculous than denying someone an IUD because you're a fucking dumbass that think it causes abortions.

[lordlundar]

this is just one of many attempts to stop the aca

dingdingdingding!!!!

We have a winner!!!!

[HYHYBT]

If I say killing people is bad, and the other side goes, yes, killing people is bad, but a foetus isn't a real person, than we can discuss something, much of the time the other side starts defending the position that a foetus is not people...

Still not what I asked. You have yet again "answered" a question about people dishonestly acting as if both sides agree that abortion is murder with an example of discussing that question as the point of disagreement. The question is too plain for you not to understand it, so why won't you answer it straight out instead of shifting each and every time?

That is so amazingly wrong I'm not sure where to start. If your employer provides health insurance it in no way, shape or form grants them any right whatsoever to interfere with your privacy. Especially not with your medical concerns and especially not based on their religious beliefs.

AMEN!

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

My main complaint about the Hobby Lobby decision is that, in my opinion, your health insurance is part of your compensation. Something you are given in exchange for doing your job, just like a paycheck.

Think about how silly it would be for a company to say that if you want to buy burgers with the money they pay you, you are to ONLY to get them at McDonald's or Burger King.

Stupid right? No one has a right to tell what you can spend your money on, yet I feel that's kind of what they're doing with this birth control mess.

[bex1218]

And to be honest, some women can only use the IUDs. They are expensive out of pocket. Even with Hobby Lobby's $14/hr pay. And sure they can get separate insurance outside of there, but that could be more expensive. Hobby Lobby and their ilk (because to be honest, its not just Hobby Lobby) should not say what you can and cannot have on YOUR insurance. None of those things that they are banning causes abortions. But either way, its none of their business as a secular company.

[the_std]

I found an excellent comment here that is a pretty accurate summary of my problem with the Hobby Lobby decision...

"Isolating women's clinical reproductive needs from the rest of their clinical needs essentializes women in biological terms and carves out one set of clinical needs (reproductive) as somehow different from other clinical needs when there is no basis for this distinction. This is inherently sexist, as men are not subject to the same essentializing treatment in terms of their clinical needs. Moreover, since the needs of women in this respect are invalidated and/or trivialized, the treatment then become misogynist."

Also, think of this: if men had to get a prescription for condoms, would we be seeing the same kinds of restrictions? Not bloody likely.