Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

[BigLutz]

Which brings me back to my original point. That might have actually aided institutions like these nuns who object on religious grounds, because they can simply spend fifteen minutes filling out paperwork, and they'll be exempt. But no, they have to use lawyers to challenge the whole law on a national level.

Did you ever stop to ask why they are not signing it? By signing it, the form automatically authorizes third party insurance companies to provide birth control to the employees if requested, thus by signing it they are complicit in the spread of birth control, something against their religious views. Furthermore the form they must sign has it's problems.

"However, the HHS definition of a church group in relation to the “compromise” is also at issue. That definition required the groups to primarily employ members of their own faith, and to primarily serve members of their own faith. The Little Sisters of the Poor do not discriminate in their service to the community, which is another issue that courts will have to decide. "

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/...bout-religious-fidelity-than-a-bunch-of-nuns/

 

[Maedar]

I know exactly why they are signing it.

Like everyone who voted for Mr. Obama, they are too egotistical to admit defeat, and will go broke before doing so, no matter how infinitesimally small their chances are, how much this is costing the GOP the women's and minority vote, and how foolish this is making the Republican Party.

They want to be seen as martyrs, even though in this day and age, that doesn't work. Like all ultra-conservatives, they were born in the wrong century, and think that changing the entire country is easier than trying to adapt themselves.

I'd call people like this old fashioned curmudgeons who refuse to accept the modern world, but the thing is, that also describes the Amish, and they're pretty nice people who pursue things the Republicans seem to reject: peace and tolerance.

And don't bring up the word "compromise". That's what the Republicans have been refusing to do since 2008. They're only screaming that they want it now because the ACA is working and they're losing.

 

[BigLutz]

I know exactly why they are signing it.

Like everyone who voted for Mr. Obama, they are too egotistical to admit defeat, and will go broke before doing so, no matter how infinitesimally small their chances are, how much this is costing the GOP the women's and minority vote, and how foolish this is making the Republican Party.

They want to be seen as martyrs, even though in this day and age, that doesn't work. Like all ultra-conservatives, they were born in the wrong century, and think that changing the entire country is easier than trying to adapt themselves.

I'd call people like this old fashioned curmudgeons who refuse to accept the modern world, but the thing is, that also describes the Amish, and they're pretty nice people who pursue things the Republicans seem to reject: peace and tolerance.

Yeah.. because when I think of Catholic Nuns who's sole purpose is to help the poor and elderly, I think of egocentric political trolls who reject peace and tolerance.

They're only screaming that they want it now because the ACA is working and they're losing.

Dude c'mon I am eating lunch here! Stop trying to make me laugh in a thread about abortion! That is just cruel!

 

[LDSman]

By the way, the ACA complainers have been denied one of their demands, at least for now. It doesn't deal with abortion, but it's close:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/obamacare-catholic-birth-control-mandate_n_4536754.html

"The same as Jews being forced to eat pork". Right. I've been hearing this debate since 2008 and THAT one is the lamest excuse yet! These people will say anything to keep the rich happy.

What were the ACA complainers denied? Seems like they got their temporary injunction.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the nonprofits a temporary injunction late Tuesday, just hours before the mandate was set to take effect, and asked the government to respond by Friday. It isn't clear when Sotomayor or the rest of the court will rule on whether to extend the injunction as the case is appealed.

Bolded and underlined relevant portion.

Do I have to repeat why they have no case again? I think I will:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It's there in black and white. And I saw it with my own eyes when I visited DC.

So to everyone who says that the religious institutions can defy federal law, I say, "Shut it."

Forcing birth control mandates on some people is a violation of the free exercise of their religion.

I know exactly why they are signing it.

Like everyone who voted for Mr. Obama, they are too egotistical to admit defeat, and will go broke before doing so, no matter how infinitesimally small their chances are, how much this is costing the GOP the women's and minority vote, and how foolish this is making the Republican Party.

Are you calling Obama supporters egotistical or did you leave a word out or use the wrong word?

They want to be seen as martyrs, even though in this day and age, that doesn't work. Like all ultra-conservatives, they were born in the wrong century, and think that changing the entire country is easier than trying to adapt themselves.

Same could be said of the liberals trying to make themselves into martyrs.

I'd call people like this old fashioned curmudgeons who refuse to accept the modern world, but the thing is, that also describes the Amish, and they're pretty nice people who pursue things the Republicans seem to reject: peace and tolerance.

Weren't some Amish put into jail for engaging in violence? And what was that you said about people trying to act as if one group was one big conglomerate?

And don't bring up the word "compromise". That's what the Republicans have been refusing to do since 2008. They're only screaming that they want it now because the ACA is working and they're losing.

Plenty of examples were given in the Politics thread about compromise attempts. And the ACA working? Really? What news sources are you reading?

 

[Maedar]

Forcing birth control mandates on some people is a violation of the free exercise of their religion.

It also gives us freedom from religion. That's the part most people miss. By trying to overturn this part of the law, rather than just signing the papers, they are trying to force their religion on us.

 

[BigLutz]

It also gives us freedom from religion. That's the part most people miss. By trying to overturn this part of the law, rather than just signing the papers, they are trying to force their religion on us.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that they want to overturn the law?

 

[LDSman]

It also gives us freedom from religion. That's the part most people miss. By trying to overturn this part of the law, rather than just signing the papers, they are trying to force their religion on us.

Not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control is forcing their religion on them? What did they do before this disaster of a bill?

And any response to the rest of my reply?

edit: Changed to be generic. Obviously some people had it covered under their insurance or didn't need it.

 

[Maedar]

Okay, here's the problem. You object to a law because it's against your religion. Do you:

A. Sign papers so that you'll be exempt from the law, costing you nothing.

OR

B. Hire lawyers, spend a fortune to take the U.S. Government to court and try to overturn the law of the land in a case you can't possibly win, and end up being forced to abide by the law after losing and wasting the fortune.

Most sane people would have chosen option A.

 

[BigLutz]

Okay, here's the problem. You object to a law because it's against your religion. Do you:

A. Sign papers so that you'll be exempt from the law, costing you nothing.

OR

B. Hire lawyers, spend a fortune to take the U.S. Government to court and try to overturn the law of the land in a case you can't possibly win, and end up being forced to abide by the law after losing and wasting the fortune.

Most sane people would have chosen option A.

Problem is you are not correctly portraying what A is

Option A: Sign the papers in which would allow any member to take said papers to a third party insurance agency and get birth control from them, thus making your signature a defacto gift of birth control.

It's like having a church hand out tickets that say "One free birth control from your drug store"

 

[Maedar]

So you admit that these nuns want to force their religious beliefs on their employees

Again, we return to the First Amendment. What they want is unconstitutional. Period.

 

[LDSman]

Okay, here's the problem. You object to a law because it's against your religion. Do you:

A. Sign papers so that you'll be exempt from the law, costing you nothing.

OR

B. Hire lawyers, spend a fortune to take the U.S. Government to court and try to overturn the law of the land in a case you can't possibly win, and end up being forced to abide by the law after losing and wasting the fortune.

Most sane people would have chosen option A.

Picking A means you are still a party to what you object to.

So you admit that these nuns want to force their religious beliefs on their employees

Again, we return to the First Amendment. What they want is unconstitutional. Period.

Did they apply to work at that job knowing what that job entailed? Are they required to join that religion?

They are not "forcing their religious beliefs on their employees." Their employees are still free to engage in whatever activity, buy whatever items they want, at their own expense, not their employers.

Still waiting on a response to the rest of the earlier post.

 

[BigLutz]

So you admit that these nuns want to force their religious beliefs on their employees

Again, we return to the First Amendment. What they want is unconstitutional. Period.

No, as by signing the paper and thus giving defacto release of abortion pills it is in violation of their faith, making the paper unconstitutional to sign. They are not forcing their religious beliefs on their employees, as birth control can be obtained easily outside of insurance provided by them. And seeing how Birth Control pills are so widely available the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should force the court to side with the nuns.

 

[Maedar]

And seeing how Birth Control pills are so widely available the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should force the court to side with the nuns.

Don't count on it.

 

[BigLutz]

Don't count on it.

The Supreme Court may disagree with me, but I cannot see how a religious organization not authorizing letting its employees get free or inexpensive insurance provided birth control is within the "furtherance of a compelling government interest" when Birth Control already is cheap if not free in many places on the market that they can go to with out insurance.

 

[LDSman]

The Supreme Court may disagree with me, but I cannot see how a religious organization not authorizing letting its employees get free or inexpensive insurance provided birth control is within the "furtherance of a compelling government interest" when Birth Control already is cheap if not free in many places on the market that they can go to with out insurance.

Sotomayer already granted an injunction. It's entirely possible that she'll rule in their favor.

 

[Maedar]

Sotomayer already granted an injunction. It's entirely possible that she'll rule in their favor.

The reason she won't is, we don't live in a theocracy, no matter how much the GOP would love that. And don't forget, Sotomayer voted in favor of the ACA and is an Obama Administration appointee.

So good luck.

You'll need it.

 

[LDSman]

The reason she won't is, we don't live in a theocracy, no matter how much the GOP would love that.

Since you are so positive that the GOP wants a theocracy, tell me, which church group will be in charge? And feel free to provide proof that the GOP wants a theocracy.

And don't forget, Sotomayer voted in favor of the ACA and is an Obama Administration appointee.

And Dems have been abandoning OCare for awhile now. How many times has the ACA been changed since it was passed? Finding a successful argument against a portion of it does not mean a judge, who supposed to be non biased, won't agree with the argument while still supporting the rest, nor does it mean they want this fictional theocracy to come to pass.

 

[BigLutz]

The reason she won't is, we don't live in a theocracy, no matter how much the GOP would love that. And don't forget, Sotomayer voted in favor of the ACA and is an Obama Administration appointee.

So good luck.

You'll need it.

How does granting religious organizations the ability to not sign the paper and still be out from Birth Control suddenly a theocracy? I mean that is reaching pretty freaking badly.

 

[Maedar]

How does granting religious organizations the ability to not sign the paper and still be out from Birth Control suddenly a theocracy? I mean that is reaching pretty freaking badly.

Lutz, I'm just saying that it all seems pretty foolish. They spent a fortune taking the government to court, and there are NOT going to win. They aren't going to get that money back. Somewhere down the road, they're going have to cancel several plans that might have actually helped the poor because they don't have the budget for it, and they're going to wonder if the money they threw away for people to say they're on the wrong side of history was truly worth it.

And they are. The reason people like Joan of Arc, St. Thomas Becket, Jerome of Prague, and Galileo are considered heroes today, even though they were condemned as criminals in their time, is because they were vindicated by history, so to speak. Society changed, and so did ideas. But those ideas that vindicated them - civil rights, attitudes towards individual freedom, and less reliance on the church in government - never reversed or even slowed down. Ultra conservatives who insist on clinging to old ways trying to make society change are going to fail, and will not be vindicated by history or seen as martyrs, because society will not do a 180. They'd have to undo centuries of social progress.

You might as well face facts. The Republicans have been trying and failing for decades to reverse Roe v. Wade. It's never going to happen.

Ultra conservatives who don't get with the times just don't get it. Know how Santorum's "traditional" fairy tale movie did? It bombed. Like I predicted, modern audiences just don't like that stuff anymore. Victorian-era audiences might have loved it, but this is 2014.

There's an old proverb that says, "The tree that doesn't bend, breaks." If a tree can't bend in a strong wind, the wind is going to blow it over. People like these nuns resist progress, refusing to bend, and like I said, a tree that doesn’t bend, breaks.

 

[BigLutz]

Lutz, I'm just saying that it all seems pretty foolish. They spent a fortune taking the government to court, and there are NOT going to win. They aren't going to get that money back. Somewhere down the road, they're going have to cancel several plans that might have actually helped the poor because they don't have the budget for it, and they're going to wonder if the money they threw away for people to say they're on the wrong side of history was truly worth it.

And they are. The reason people like Joan of Arc, St. Thomas Becket, Jerome of Prague, and Galileo are considered heroes today, even though they were condemned as criminals in their time, is because they were vindicated by history, so to speak. Society changed, and so did ideas. But those ideas that vindicated them - civil rights, attitudes towards individual freedom, and less reliance on the church in government - never reversed or even slowed down. Ultra conservatives who insist on clinging to old ways trying to make society change are going to fail, and will not be vindicated by history or seen as martyrs, because society will not do a 180. They'd have to undo centuries of social progress.

You might as well face facts. The Republicans have been trying and failing for decades to reverse Roe v. Wade. It's never going to happen.

Ultra conservatives who don't get with the times just don't get it. Know how Santorum's "traditional" fairy tale movie did? It bombed. Like I predicted, modern audiences just don't like that stuff anymore. Victorian-era audiences might have loved it, but this is 2014.

There's an old proverb that says, "The tree that doesn't bend, breaks." If a tree can't bend in a strong wind, the wind is going to blow it over. People like these nuns resist progress, refusing to bend, and like I said, a tree that doesn’t bend, breaks.

So instead of fighting for their religious belief they should just give up, allow the Government to force them to do what they believe is wrong, bend to the Government's will right? Because at the end of the day the Government's will trumps personal religious belief, no matter what the law says.