|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 01 2014 02:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 02:15 Danglars wrote:
You're deliberately twisting arguments and pressing the limits of argumentation by analogy. When did government become destructive to religious freedom, and when did it start compelling for-profit business owners to believe and act like life does not begin at conception, contrary to rights preserved in HHS/HRSA law for non-profits and small businesses? When it works within a system that requires people to get healthcare from their employer. What this comes down to is people not getting the healthcare they need because of an insane hybrid system that makes the healthcare of a nation conditional upon the sincerely held fantasies of a small number of unqualified individuals. At the very least this decision shows that the current system is untenable, even if your refuse to improve it by removing the Sky Father from the equation. If I wanted to run a business in the US that refused to provide health insurance covering any genetic diseases because I believed that they were God's will, would I be able to do that? You and others that think like you are indeed welcome to try to eliminate the hybrid system (or make it into a less 'insane hybrid system') through legislation at the state or Congressional level. As it stands, under the current system, the employer's religious liberty rights were trod upon by regulations written by the HHS at the delegation of the power to do so under ACA. xDaunt has already responded in kind.
The rest of my unquoted post talks about the means for testing compelling government interests against religious freedom objections. I suggest you refer to that or the syllabus to the SCOTUS decision (even beyond that, you'd have enough to comprehend the argument before even reading past the first 20 pages). The reductio al absurdum argument stops with the court precedent and legal language of testing overlapping interests. I might remind you Kwark that the petitioners only objected to 4 of the 16 FDA-approved contraceptive options (those that might prevent fertilized eggs from implantation) taken up by the HRSA after their advicement. It doesn't really make sense to try to carry this to genetic disease and further considering how limited in scope the appeal of Hobby Lobby was.
|
On July 01 2014 02:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What the hell is the moral difference between exchanging work for insurance that gets one access to birth control and exchanging work for money to buy the birth control? Not much...
If I were to guess, it's the choice that does it. If the employer offers you insurance (and not, say, an insurance voucher), then they do not have to provide insurance that "puts a burden on their religious beliefs."
|
On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway.
If you can't afford a safe way to engage in the fullness of human experience you should remain merely a source of cheap labor power for those capable of employing you. If you are poor you should only be working more or watching tv, and in that way achieve the fullness of what you really are: a one-dimensional drone.
|
On July 01 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway. If you can't afford a safe way to engage in the fullness of human experience you should remain merely a source of cheap labor power for those capable of employing you. If you are poor you should only be working more or watching tv, and in that way achieve the fullness of what you really are: a one-dimensional drone.
Whoa! A poor person owns a TV?! They aren't really poor then! TAKE AWAY THEIR FOOD STAMPS!
|
What's to stop a jehovah witness owned business to not cover blood transfusions in their insurance? If there is such a clause in the ruling how could it be consistent?
|
In a landmark decision on Friday that could have far-reaching implications for federal coal leasing, a U.S. District Court judge ruled against the expansion of Arch Coal’s West Elk mine in Colorado for failure of federal regulators to consider the social cost of carbon in their environmental review.
The decision issued by Judge Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Colorado found that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service overlooked the costs of carbon emissions from the mining and combustion operations associated with the mine’s expansion even though the agencies acknowledged that expanding West Elk’s operations would likely result in greater greenhouse gas emissions.
Friday’s ruling is the result of a challenge brought by environmental groups contesting three agency decisions on the Colorado Roadless Rule and expansion of the West Elk mine in the Sunset Roadless Area. This region is a part of the treasured North Fork Valley backcountry in western Colorado which abuts the iconic West Elk Wilderness and is a destination for hikers and hunters and habitat for the threatened lynx.
The agencies’ decisions would have permitted Arch Coal to expand the West Elk Mine into 1,700 acres of the Sunset Roadless Area, the bulldozing of six miles of road, and the construction almost 50 well pads for the venting of methane from the mine expansion. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and the second-most prevalent GHG emitted in the United States after carbon dioxide.
According to the decision, the BLM and Forest Service initially found that the social cost of carbon associated with the expansion could be as high as $984 million, but the agencies arbitrarily scrapped this analysis from the final environmental impact statement. However the associated benefits of the project were still included in the agencies’ analysis. The court called this error “more than a mere flyspeck.”
The ruling goes on to acknowledge that agencies are required to analyze the effects of their actions on climate change. The court noted that the BLM and Forest Service “acknowledged that there might be impacts from GHGs in the form of methane emitted from mining operations and from carbon dioxide resulting from combustion of coal produced,” and “this reasonably foreseeable effect must be analyzed.”
Source
|
A bigger question is still why birth control isn't available OTC.
|
On July 01 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway. If you can't afford a safe way to engage in the fullness of human experience you should remain merely a source of cheap labor power for those capable of employing you. If you are poor you should only be working more or watching tv, and in that way achieve the fullness of what you really are: a one-dimensional drone.
Eh, my response was a purposefully flippant one. The point is that, given how cheap and available basic birth control like condoms are, there's no good reason to have the federal government either pay for it or force employers to pay for it.
|
On July 01 2014 03:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway. If you can't afford a safe way to engage in the fullness of human experience you should remain merely a source of cheap labor power for those capable of employing you. If you are poor you should only be working more or watching tv, and in that way achieve the fullness of what you really are: a one-dimensional drone. Eh, my response was a purposefully flippant one. The point is that, given how cheap and available basic birth control like condoms are, there's no good reason to have the federal government either pay for it or force employers to pay for it.
Or maybe since it's so cheap, it makes it a perfect candidate for the government and/or employers to pay for it
|
On July 01 2014 03:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway. If you can't afford a safe way to engage in the fullness of human experience you should remain merely a source of cheap labor power for those capable of employing you. If you are poor you should only be working more or watching tv, and in that way achieve the fullness of what you really are: a one-dimensional drone. Eh, my response was a purposefully flippant one. The point is that, given how cheap and available basic birth control like condoms are, there's no good reason to have the federal government either pay for it or force employers to pay for it.
Probably 90% of all diseases can be prevented by stopping to smoke, stopping to drink , and reducing your weight. Even cancer is predominantly caused by what you expose your body to. Following this logic basically nothing should be covered by the federal government, which is probably your wet dream anyway.
|
|
|
United States44203 Posts
On July 01 2014 03:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway. If you can't afford a safe way to engage in the fullness of human experience you should remain merely a source of cheap labor power for those capable of employing you. If you are poor you should only be working more or watching tv, and in that way achieve the fullness of what you really are: a one-dimensional drone. Eh, my response was a purposefully flippant one. The point is that, given how cheap and available basic birth control like condoms are, there's no good reason to have the federal government either pay for it or force employers to pay for it. Probably 90% of all diseases can be prevented by stopping to smoke, stopping to drink , and reducing your weight. Even cancer is predominantly caused by what you expose your body to. Following this logic basically nothing should be covered by the federal government, which is probably your wet dream anyway.
That's not fair, xDaunt has repeatedly spoken in favour of a public provision.
|
On July 01 2014 03:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2014 03:07 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway. If you can't afford a safe way to engage in the fullness of human experience you should remain merely a source of cheap labor power for those capable of employing you. If you are poor you should only be working more or watching tv, and in that way achieve the fullness of what you really are: a one-dimensional drone. Eh, my response was a purposefully flippant one. The point is that, given how cheap and available basic birth control like condoms are, there's no good reason to have the federal government either pay for it or force employers to pay for it. Probably 90% of all diseases can be prevented by stopping to smoke, stopping to drink , and reducing your weight. Even cancer is predominantly caused by what you expose your body to. Following this logic basically nothing should be covered by the federal government, which is probably your wet dream anyway.
That's right, he's a sociopath because he doesn't subscribe to your political beliefs.
Excellent ruling by the Court today, where people got the idea that they have the right to force others to subsidize terminating a pregnancy is a mystery to me. You would think people would have the common decency not to force others to pay for something they consider to be extremely morally repugnant, but when you're dealing with bigots it's not really a surprise that they'd have few moral qualms about it. After all, it's only because they believe in fantasies about spirits in the sky. So fuck 'em. We can ignore them or force them to do what we want as we prefer. They aren't good people like us so that means we can push 'em around as we see fit.
Treating people and their beliefs as idiots and idiocy to be ignored, mocked and trampled over has a blowback effect. Who would have guessed huh? Why can't they just accept their inferior status and stop resisting? And gosh darn it, there are still people and institutions with power in this country who don't subscribe to the idea that you can bulldoze anyone who doesn't agree with your obviously correct opinions and doesn't conform to them. What is to be done?
|
What I don't get is why we need to protect the religious belief of companies, not of people.
|
.. are you still talking to me? Because neither did I call him a sociopath nor did I claim any of the things you are ranting about.
But as you're already putting words in my mouth,
After all, it's only because they believe in fantasies about spirits in the sky. So fuck 'em. We can ignore them or force them to do what we want as we prefer.
Yes, that's sadly what it boils down to. It's not my problem that these people are ignorant and superstitious, and I don't need to tolerate intolerant people. If these people don't want so many abortions, why are they also fighting against making contraception medicine easily available? It makes no sense.
And it's the nature of things that tax payer money is used how the government(which the people elect) seems fit. They don't need everybody's consent for everything they do,because that would defeat the purpose of any kind of government spending, and they already have legitimisation through the votes the people gave them.
If you value religious feelings higher than women's rights you are always free to move to any country that values Sharia law very highly, because I don't see how having religious fundamentalists rule over other people can be okay in the United States.
|
On July 01 2014 04:01 corumjhaelen wrote:
What I don't get is why we need to protect the religious belief of companies, not of people.
One justice is a Corporate shill, the other is a religious zealot.
|
Breaking: Obama to take executive action on Immigration Policy.
|
On July 01 2014 03:15 RCMDVA wrote:
A bigger question is still why birth control isn't available OTC.
Just guessing this has something to do with it.
+ Show Spoiler +
1. Sex is 'sinful' unless it's to procreate with your spouse. God tells you everything you need to know about sex and he doesn't say anything about birth control pills. Birth Control just promotes riskier 'sinful sex'.
2. "The comparison isn't taking the pill or not taking the pill," Moore said. "It's taking the pill or not taking the pill and risking becoming pregnant."
Approximately 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned, a rate that hasn't changed much in the past 20 years, according to the Guttmacher Institute
We could reduce those unplanned pregnancies (potential abortions) by making it more available.
When nicotine patches and gum went on sale over the counter, attempts to quit smoking using those products nearly doubled, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.
Source
When faced with those two arguments for OTC BC enough people pick the first one to keep it from being OTC. (It's not the only opposition but it's enough to put it over the top in the localities where this is an issue [which prevent change on a national level])
This is despite the fact that they have no science to back their claims up and you can get plan B (one of the methods in contention and considered 'abortion-causing' by many [regardless of facts]) OTC
So just by having that available and not the pill we are actually pushing more women towards 'abortive' measures and away from preventatives.
The total lack of comprehension/shame of ignorance is too grandly gross to really encapsulate, but that's in a context where it's mere existence is hard for many to even imagine.
|
On July 01 2014 04:01 corumjhaelen wrote:
What I don't get is why we need to protect the religious belief of companies, not of people.
The ruling was made to protect the religious beliefs of people.
|
On July 01 2014 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 04:01 corumjhaelen wrote:
What I don't get is why we need to protect the religious belief of companies, not of people. The ruling was made to protect the religious beliefs of people.
That's certainly what it was made for, I doubt it is what it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iAgfT7J.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nUkdMyB.png)
