If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Erand7899]

Some idiotic cons don't think those children exist cause they're not itty bitty baybees.

...SO, unless you can kill older children now, abortion does nothing but reduce the population of "itty bitty baybees."

They only give a shit if it's in the womb or ittty bitty.

I think it's cause they relate to embryos.

Or it could be the desire to bond.

I know, you leftists just have a lust to kill, you don't grasp the whole bonding thingy...

What I am advocating is for you not to condemn a human being to a miserable life when there are alternatives.

So what do these babies become over time?? Do you have some magic substance that stops / slows aging till you can find a perspective parent??

What about the mother, it is her body, with your stance, you are using her as an incubation container against HER will ...
What about her psychological well being of her, either keep a baby she doesn't want or give it away and always have questions ...

So the way I am reading it now, you are subjecting 2 others to possible horrific misery based simply on your self serving ideology but yet you want to call others "scuzball"....

Yeah, I think I am about to get a real clear image of YOU ....

Your entire argument here is just as applicable to infanticide as it is to abortion. All of the same evils apply. The only difference, is that born babies are protected by the Constitution and unborn babies are not protected by the Constitution. Morally there is absolutely no difference between infanticide and abortion.

What I do find horrendous is your attempt to justify abortion as a favor to the child. I have never met a child, whatever their circumstances, that would rather not have been born.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NY won't answer when the questions get tough...maybe he's gotta get in touch with his feeeeeelings first....

libs are all about killing helpless innocent new life.....but suddenly get all 'concerned' when it comes to dealing with the one responsible for the heinous act....

.... If you outlaw abortion, more poor people will have babies....

?

So tell me, these "unwanted" children, what are we to do with them?? Will you send them home with a parent who not only does not want their new albatross but sees them as a burden / hindrance. A baby who will neither be wanted or loved in life by it's biological parents.

So will you put these children in an over burdened system and make them a responsibility of the government?? What type of life will they have? How many will be sexually / mentally / physically abused as they travel through a system fraught with sexual / financial predators who have little to no regard for human life.

Is this the life you would choose for these poor souls, aren't you the compassionate one ...

Will you sleep better at night knowing that some poor defenseless child is being victimized and that you were an integral part of it. No you did not participate but had you let the mother make a choice only SHE is capable of all that misery could be avoided. It is easy for you to sit in your ivory towers and envision a perfect world but at the end of the day it an an evil world full of evil people. You can claim you were unaware just as the Democraps do on a regular basis, but really would you rather come off as just plain wrong or totally ignorant.

I would have left this thread alone but your flippant attitude struck a nerve...

So your idea of compassion is "I think your life will suck, so I'm just going to kill you instead. You may thank me now"? The solution to child abuse is to kill the children so they won't be around to be abused?

I believe I'll pass on your "compassion".

 

[Uncensored2008]

What I am advocating is for you not to condemn a human being to a miserable life when there are alternatives.

Tell you what, Herr Mengele, find a foster child and ask them "Hey kid, you want to die? My party thinks you have a miserable life, and we want you dead - wouldn't that be swell."

See if the kid praises you, or instead runs away shrieking, as kids tend to do around you...

So what do these babies become over time??

Adopted - every time - despite the lies that your hate sites promote.

Do you have some magic substance that stops / slows aging till you can find a perspective parent??

99% of foster kids are removed from the home. Your bloodlust does nothing to keep momma from using crack and losing the kids, or keep baby daddy from moving on when he tires of her.

Virtually ZERO babies remain in the system - these slogans the left pumps out to promote abortion are such bullshit - just stupid shit.

What about the mother, it is her body, with your stance, you are using her as an incubation container against HER will ...

Yawn...

You fuckers are a one trick pony. This has nothing to do with your stupid Gutmacher talking points - your lie is that there are Victorian work house type orphanages that could be closed of ONLY the blood lust of the left were satiated with more abortions...

It's stupidity - rank idiocy. Abortion has ZERO impact on kids in foster care. Now I have little doubt that democrats would like nothing more than to be able to kill every child in foster care - but that isn't what is proposed here.

There is no problem placing infants, in fact there is such a shortage that people search the world for them.

What about her psychological well being of her, either keep a baby she doesn't want or give it away and always have questions ...

So the way I am reading it now, you are subjecting 2 others to possible horrific misery based simply on your self serving ideology but yet you want to call others "scuzball"....

Yeah, I think I am about to get a real clear image of YOU ....

What about the profits of abortionists... WAHHHH.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[SIZE="7"pay attention---HL is not objecting to any form of birth control, they are objecting to abortion causing drugs, nothing else. abortion is NOT birth control.[/SIZE]

Are you denying that Catholicism objects to ALL birth control? Are you denying that that is a core religious belief of a major branch of the Christian faith?

Are you aware that Conestoga Woods, the other firm that was part of the same case, is owned by Mennonites?

Totally irrelevant. The Little Sisters, the Catholic nuns who have also challenged the law, object to ALL artificial birth control.

BTW, do you even have a position on this case?

 

[NYcarbineer]

By the way, the fact that they are covered does not prove they are not abortifacient drugs, it just proves they are covered.

Unless, that is, you can prove that Obama has never in his life told a lie.

If they're abortion drugs, under the law, the Hyde amendment would prohibit them from being offered in the exchanges.

Apparently you missed the part of the debate where the Hyde amendment doesn't apply to Obamacare because it only prohibits direct spending on abortions.

Either that, or you are a lying sack of shit.

Why can Medicaid pay for IUDs?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you denying that Catholicism objects to ALL birth control? Are you denying that that is a core religious belief of a major branch of the Christian faith?

Are you aware that Conestoga Woods, the other firm that was part of the same case, is owned by Mennonites?

Totally irrelevant. The Little Sisters, the Catholic nuns who have also challenged the law, object to ALL artificial birth control.

BTW, do you even have a position on this case?

Nuns don't think they need birth control?

My only question for you is, why do you think they do?

By the way, that is a separate case, and actually is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If they're abortion drugs, under the law, the Hyde amendment would prohibit them from being offered in the exchanges.

Apparently you missed the part of the debate where the Hyde amendment doesn't apply to Obamacare because it only prohibits direct spending on abortions.

Either that, or you are a lying sack of shit.

Why can Medicaid pay for IUDs?

Because it can?

It also pays for abortions, so you can't argue that the fact that it pays for IUDs proves it doesn't cause abortions.

http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/abortion-under-medicaid/

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny how you love slippery slopes when they might come down you r way, but are totally contemptuous of them when they fall on top of you, isn't it?

Just to show you how stupid you are, according to the government, anyone that has a religious objection to health insurance can opt out and amply pay the $2000 per employee fine. That means that they can already opt out, so you can relax and stop predicting the end of the universe if people actually have rights.

Equivalents are not a slippery slope. Hobby Lobby is objecting to medical treatments, in this case certain forms of birth control.

Catholicism opposes all artificial birth control. There is no 'slippery slope' to the prospect that a business run by a Catholic could demand to be exempted from all birth control coverage in the insurance.

That is exactly what a slippery slope is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

From your own link, proving me right and you wrong:

"...usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Equivalents are not a slippery slope. Hobby Lobby is objecting to medical treatments, in this case certain forms of birth control.

Catholicism opposes all artificial birth control. There is no 'slippery slope' to the prospect that a business run by a Catholic could demand to be exempted from all birth control coverage in the insurance.

That is exactly what a slippery slope is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

From your own link, proving me right and you wrong:

"...usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question."

What, exactly, is your point? If you check through my posts you will see that I have repeatedly pointed out that the fact that an argument is a slippery slope is not proof that it is a fallacy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you aware that Conestoga Woods, the other firm that was part of the same case, is owned by Mennonites?

Totally irrelevant. The Little Sisters, the Catholic nuns who have also challenged the law, object to ALL artificial birth control.

BTW, do you even have a position on this case?

Nuns don't think they need birth control?

My only question for you is, why do you think they do?

By the way, that is a separate case, and actually is irrelevant to this discussion.

1. Are you too stupid to know that it isn't only nuns employed in that case? unbelievable.

2. The case is relevant to the claim that these claims of religious rights are only about abortion; as I have been pointing out repeatedly, that is idiocy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is exactly what a slippery slope is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

From your own link, proving me right and you wrong:

"...usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question."

What, exactly, is your point? If you check through my posts you will see that I have repeatedly pointed out that the fact that an argument is a slippery slope is not proof that it is a fallacy.

You accused me of making a slippery slope argument. You were wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Totally irrelevant. The Little Sisters, the Catholic nuns who have also challenged the law, object to ALL artificial birth control.

BTW, do you even have a position on this case?

Nuns don't think they need birth control?

My only question for you is, why do you think they do?

By the way, that is a separate case, and actually is irrelevant to this discussion.

1. Are you too stupid to know that it isn't only nuns employed in that case? unbelievable.

2. The case is relevant to the claim that these claims of religious rights are only about abortion; as I have been pointing out repeatedly, that is idiocy.

1. Are you too stupid to know that they are nuns? I assure you, everyone that works for them knows. Even Obama knows it, which is why he pretended to give them an exemption.
2. The case is irrelevant because Obama already admitted that them providing birth control is a burden on their religion and that they don't have to do so.

Maybe you should learn the facts before you start pretending you know the facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From your own link, proving me right and you wrong:

"...usually known under its fallacious form in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question."

What, exactly, is your point? If you check through my posts you will see that I have repeatedly pointed out that the fact that an argument is a slippery slope is not proof that it is a fallacy.

You accused me of making a slippery slope argument. You were wrong.

No I am not, it is a slippery slope. It is also a fallacy because the government already grants religious employers an exemption, and because no one is arguing that all corporations have a right to claim a religious exemption. All we are arguing is that, under some circumstances, some corporations do have rights. This is a stance even the government admits, which is why the only people that have a problem with this case are the idiots that don't understand the issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nuns don't think they need birth control?

My only question for you is, why do you think they do?

By the way, that is a separate case, and actually is irrelevant to this discussion.

1. Are you too stupid to know that it isn't only nuns employed in that case? unbelievable.

2. The case is relevant to the claim that these claims of religious rights are only about abortion; as I have been pointing out repeatedly, that is idiocy.

1. Are you too stupid to know that they are nuns? I assure you, everyone that works for them knows. Even Obama knows it, which is why he pretended to give them an exemption.
2. The case is irrelevant because Obama already admitted that them providing birth control is a burden on their religion and that they don't have to do so.

Maybe you should learn the facts before you start pretending you know the facts.

You're talking in incoherent circles.

Maybe this is a good time to remind everyone that you don't believe there should be any laws regulating business.

That might help people understand why what you post about this is so irrational.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[SIZE="7"pay attention---HL is not objecting to any form of birth control, they are objecting to abortion causing drugs, nothing else. abortion is NOT birth control.[/SIZE][/quote]

Are you denying that Catholicism objects to ALL birth control? Are you denying that that is a core religious belief of a major branch of the Christian faith?[/QUOTE]

this is not about what catholics believe or any other branch of Christianity. Its about what the owners of HL believe and [B][SIZE="3"]their right to live by their beliefs. [/SIZE][/B]
Its called freedom, dingleberry.

You say that now, but yesterday you said that they wouldn't have the right to refuse employment to someone because they were gay, even if that was contrary to their beliefs.

So which is it? Do they have the RIGHT to live by their beliefs, or can they be lawfully prevented from doing so,

in the interests to others' rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently you missed the part of the debate where the Hyde amendment doesn't apply to Obamacare because it only prohibits direct spending on abortions.

Either that, or you are a lying sack of shit.

Why can Medicaid pay for IUDs?

Because it can?

It also pays for abortions, so you can't argue that the fact that it pays for IUDs proves it doesn't cause abortions.

State Funding of Abortions Under Medicaid | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Federally funded Medicaid cannot be used for abortions except for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Do IUDs, if as you claim are abortions, fall into that category?

 

[Redfish]

Are you denying that Catholicism objects to ALL birth control? Are you denying that that is a core religious belief of a major branch of the Christian faith?

this is not about what catholics believe or any other branch of Christianity. Its about what the owners of HL believe and their right to live by their beliefs.
Its called freedom, dingleberry.

You say that now, but yesterday you said that they wouldn't have the right to refuse employment to someone because they were gay, even if that was contrary to their beliefs.

So which is it? Do they have the RIGHT to live by their beliefs, or can they be lawfully prevented from doing so,

in the interests to others' rights?

Hiring a gay person does not result in a death. your attempt at an analogy fails-------again.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That is exactly the issue, HL does not want their company provided insurance to cover abortion causing drugs------------that is the ONLY issue.

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

I have a nice list going if it happens, starting with pregnancy. There are too many kids in the world already. Let the games begin.

I'll donate a set of rusty bolt cutters to your castration!

 

[Uncensored2008]

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

I have a nice list going if it happens, starting with pregnancy. There are too many kids in the world already. Let the games begin.

I'll donate a set of rusty bolt cutters to your castration!

Meh, he's queer and not going to breed anyway - no point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. Are you too stupid to know that it isn't only nuns employed in that case? unbelievable.

2. The case is relevant to the claim that these claims of religious rights are only about abortion; as I have been pointing out repeatedly, that is idiocy.

1. Are you too stupid to know that they are nuns? I assure you, everyone that works for them knows. Even Obama knows it, which is why he pretended to give them an exemption.
2. The case is irrelevant because Obama already admitted that them providing birth control is a burden on their religion and that they don't have to do so.

Maybe you should learn the facts before you start pretending you know the facts.

You're talking in incoherent circles.

Maybe this is a good time to remind everyone that you don't believe there should be any laws regulating business.

That might help people understand why what you post about this is so irrational.

Because not pointing that out would mean that you would actually have to prove I am wrong? Tough shit, I can prove I am right.

The U.S. government said Friday that a Colorado congregation of Catholic nuns had no reason to seek and obtain an 11th-hour Supreme Court reprieve from an Obamacare rule that requires employers to insure contraception.
Justice Department attorneys filed court papers in the case, the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius, that say the plaintiffs get their insurance services from the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, a religiously affiliated administrator that is not required to facilitate contraceptive coverage.
“With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves the relief they seek from this Court — an exemption from the requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision — and the employer-applicants’ employees (and their family members) will not receive contraceptive coverage through the plan’s third-party administrator either,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote. “The application should be denied.”

White House urges Supreme Court to reject nuns' appeal for birth control exemption - Washington Times

Look at that, the government actually argued that they don't need an exemption because they already qualify for it. In other words, you were wrong.