Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[Devil'sChild]

Wouldn't that be lovely?

Survival of the fittest.

 

[julybaby04]

Pregnant women don't say "I have a baby". They say "I'm expecting a baby", or "I'm going to have a baby".

That is EXACTLY what they say. They sure don't say they are expecting a fetus or an embryo or they don't say they are going to have a fetus or embryo. It is a baby!

 

[Devil'sChild]

That is EXACTLY what they say. They sure don't say they are expecting a fetus or an embryo or they don't say they are going to have a fetus or embryo. It is a baby!

Do you know for a fact that God forbids abortion or homosexuality? Or do you just believe everything you read?

 

[julybaby04]

Do you know for a fact that God forbids abortion or homosexuality? Or do you just believe everything you read?

I believe that the Bible is the inherent Word of God. I believe the Bible to be completely true, so yes I believe what I read in the Bible.

 

[Devil'sChild]

That is EXACTLY what they say. They sure don't say they are expecting a fetus or an embryo or they don't say they are going to have a fetus or embryo. It is a baby!

I believe that the Bible is the inherent Word of God. I believe the Bible to be completely true, so yes I believe what I read in the Bible.

I asked if you believe that God forbids abortion or homosexuality. Why can't you say yes or no? I do understand that you believe all that you read. The Internet must be ever so enlightening than.

 

[Bert_Fegg]

This has been an entertaining thread to follow - not always for good reasons. There have been some really idiotic arguments advanced. I really did laugh at the guy who suggested pregnancy wasn't a medical issue.

I could say lots about this, but let me throw this into the pot: There's no such thing as a religious belief. Religion is just a shield people throw in front of otherwise indefensible ideas they happen to hold.

Why do I say this? Having spent quite some time debating religious people of many faiths, I've realised this about Christians - There is no one belief that unites or defines them. The only thing that makes a person a Christian is that they have decided to call themselves one. I realise this is going to annoy quite a few believers on here, but the information I base my conclusion on has been provided by believers. Some Christians I've spoken to have been happy to deny the divinity of Jesus - others see it as essential. Some consider the Bible to be the infallible, inspired word of God - to others it's just a book. Some see Jesus and his dad to be one particular aspect of a divine being who is at the same time all the others - I could go on - the point is they all call themselves Christians and none of them can point to the bit of scripture that says they're right or anyone else is wrong.

About two and a half thousand years ago Socrates established that the reasons we consider an action moral or immoral have nothing to do with divine approval. [The Euthrypo - apologies if I've misspelled it]. Anyway, the great thing about truth is it doesn't get less true with time, which brings me on to my next point.

Things that God has approved of over the years have included slavery, incest, rape, child murder and genocide. These days most of us find these things morally questionable - Times change and so do ethics. Something that the Bible tells us does not change over time is God - ergo if a thing is morally right because God approves it and God does not change, it presents believers with a challenge - Either start lobbing rocks at the Sunday shift at your local hospital, or shut the fuck up about what the bible says is right or wrong.

Which brings me to the point I opened with: viz - there are no religious beliefs. What there are, are opinions held by people, that happen to be mentioned in scripture. If anyone in the US actually had deeply held Bible-based religious beliefs, then they'd be locked up, because some of that shit is insane. People believe what they choose to. They follow the word of their God insofar as their God agrees with them.

 

[norfolklad]

I believe that the Bible is the inherent Word of God. I believe the Bible to be completely true, so yes I believe what I read in the Bible.

Leaving aside the fact that there are conflicting aspects throughout the bible (how do you reconcile those or do you just pick the ones you prefer?), you are presumably reading a translated version of it unless you can read Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek, etc, never mind the language in which God, supposedly, wrote it in the first place - which was? Any translation involves interpretation, let alone the multiple translations through which the bible has passed.

 

[about_average]

That is a PERFECT example of why it is their religious beliefs that is driving this.

Your argument makes not sense. If it were for purely financial reasons, Hobby Lobby would the the FIRST and LOUDEST in support of these drugs and devices....it would benefit them.

But, not caring about the financial benefits, they are opposing on religious ground. You are giving a great example as to how values matter more than money!

Really? That's what you get from their actions, that it's for religious reasons?

HL doesn't want the contraceptives covered by insurance
HL is fine with earning income from the manufacture of the very same contraceptives they don't want covered by insurance.

And your position is that both situations are HL following their religious convictions.
Than means your belief is that hypocrisy is part of their religious convictions.
Interesting.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Kum-bah-ya

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1506846_273335966174680_480541175_n.jpg

 

[RobDownSouth]

Leaving aside the fact that there are conflicting aspects throughout the bible (how do you reconcile those or do you just pick the ones you prefer?), you are presumably reading a translated version of it unless you can read Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek, etc, never mind the language in which God, supposedly, wrote it in the first place - which was? Any translation involves interpretation, let alone the multiple translations through which the bible has passed.

Julybaby04 has a Very Special Bible...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1.0-9/10003494_270491496459127_647353181_n.jpg

 

[StrangeLife]

There have been some really idiotic arguments advanced. I really did laugh at the guy who suggested pregnancy wasn't a medical issue.

I wasn't advocating religion - I was advocating the proud principle of taking responsibility for your own actions.

Sex doesn't happen by "accident." It's a wilful conscious act of mutual pleasure by two horny people and it's potential biological conclusion is very widely known. It's your choice to have sex and I can recommend it heartily

But sex is not a condition for staying alive, like food, air and medication for instance. Birth control is like a seat belt - a piece of safety equipment you purchase in order to avoid the consequences of not using it.

Once you get pregnant however, it is a medical issue because of the high risk condition. I don't dispute that.

About two and a half thousand years ago Socrates established that the reasons we consider an action moral or immoral have nothing to do with divine approval.

Exactly

 

[Bert_Fegg]

I wasn't advocating religion - I was advocating the proud principle of taking responsibility for your own actions.

Sex doesn't happen by "accident." It's a wilful conscious act of mutual pleasure by two horny people and it's potential biological conclusion is very widely known. It's your choice to have sex and I can recommend it heartily

But sex is not a condition for staying alive, like food, air and medication for instance. Birth control is like a seat belt - a piece of safety equipment you purchase in order to avoid the consequences of not using it.

Once you get pregnant however, it is a medical issue because of the high risk condition. I don't dispute that.

Well - It's a condition of the species staying alive, which presumably counts for something.

Sex isn't always willful or conscious and christ knows it's often not particularly premeditated. There's also the fact that though it's an act that has biological consequences, these consequences are decidedly asymmetric. You talk about taking responsibility for your actions, which is an admirable sentiment, but typically it's not the guy who drops out of work or education to look after a baby when he gets his girlfriend pregnant. You paint a very pretty picture, which unfortunately doesn't correspond particularly closely to reality.

 

[Phelia]

Phelia , what I am arguing is that Hobby Lobby has the right to see if a law that was written is even constitutional. I would not support an incorporated company run by a person that believed in scientology who did not want to cover psychotropic drugs for his employees because it is against their beliefs. I would not work there either, but I would support their right to see if a law that was written was even constitutional. We have our government set up this way so that there are checks and balances.

I did not know until seeing the article I read here about Hobby Lobby's investments and I do see that as hypocritical. That is why I am participating in this discussion because I like to hear different perspectives and what is going on.

Having freedom is not easy. One of my favorite quotes (from a movie) is that freedom is acknowledging a man whose words make your blood boil who is advocating at the top of his voice something that you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. I think that what frustrates you is that I don't agree with you. I don't believe the ACA was as well thought out and scientific as you do.

It really bothers me that you think that I am being disingenuous. I am just sharing my thoughts on the topic.

Well, it really bothers me that you continue to be disingenuous. This "I'm just asking questions; I'm just trying to participate and learn" thing is getting old. You've done it in discussions of creationism vs. evolution, where you summarily dismissed mountains of evidence that were repeatedly and patiently provided to you.

You don't want a conversation. You want a platform where you can talk about your Christian beliefs and try to put down secular governance as unstable, unreliable, and unfairly attacking religious people. Which, while incorrect, is fine. You have every right to your opinion and you have every right to voice it, but if you're not honest about it, I'm going to accuse you of being disingenuous. To wit:

Phelia , what I am arguing is that Hobby Lobby has the right to see if a law that was written is even constitutional.

Okay. First, this is completely irrelevant. Hobby Lobby did not bring this case to court claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. You say that you know the facts, but that is clear that you don't care to understand the facts that contradict your beliefs. Hobby Lobby is arguing their case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Anyway, aside from the fact that you are advocating the rights of a CORPORATION above the rights of its tens of thousands of employees, you're not even making the constitutionality argument in this very thread. Out of sixteen posts you've made in this thread, precisely three of them mentioned the constitution, including the one I just quoted.

Your first post taking a real position was this:

If nobody ever disagreed with the law then laws would never be changed. I am not even talking about this issue. They are going through legal means to say that part of the "law" sucks in their opinion. How can it be embarrassing to discuss the issue and make a final ruling on it? It used to be thought that women had no place in government and shouldn't vote. It certainly wasn't seen as their right. Women challenged the reality of the day and said we need to make a change. This kind of challenge has been going on forever. What isn't liked is that it is a Christian perspective.

Whether or not a law "sucks" in someone's "opinion" is not quite the same as arguing its constitutionality. Your last sentence is far more telling.

Let me make this clear: there is no war on Christianity. I couldn't give two sparkly pink fucks about whether the perspective is Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Jedi. The problem is that it is straight up, without a whisper of a doubt, anti-scientific. The contraceptives in question are NOT abortifacients, no matter how much Hobby Lobby "believes" they are. This is a medically accepted fact. If Christians in the US seem to be getting a lot of flack these days, it's because a vocal number of them cling to beliefs that are absolutely absurd and divorced from reality, which I support as their right, until they insist on forcing the rest of the world to comply to their incorrect worldview.

But it's OK to force deeply held secular beliefs on someone else?

The problem I have is that if you take away all the religious beliefs of all the people, then you have secular beliefs. Some people just saying that this is the way it should be because I said so. Those that can say it the loudest win. That is really what I have trouble wrapping my head around. There are some people I really don't want to follow just because they said so.

My description does sound like secular humanism. I have to be honest I had to look the terminology up. It's just that somewhere, someone, has to have a belief in what is to be done or not done. If it is not a belief in higher power or a God then it has to be, to my thinking, secular which is without religious influence. So who get's to decide whose secular thinking is right and whose secular thinking is wrong? That's scary to me. Do you then have to be an athiest to voice an opinion or thought?

And here we have three substantial posts with nary a mention of the constitution and a lot of hand-wringing about these phantasmagoric "secular beliefs," which you can't (or refuse to) define.

"They're all just 'beliefs' anyway; therefore, mine is equally valid." WRONG. Who gets to decide? People who know what the fuck they're talking about! When it comes to medicine, that's doctors! And they agree that plan B, ella, and IUDs are contraceptives, not abortifacients. This is backed up with biological and physiological evidence. It's not a belief, and it's not a debate. Comparing that to a religious belief is ludicrous.

Oh, and the question "Do you then have to be an athiest to voice an opinion or thought?" strikes me as preeeeetty disingenuous, as does your repeated misrepresentation/misunderstanding of my points.

For example, when I mentioned that Hobby Lobby is perfectly within their legal rights to forgo providing insurance for their employees if they take moral opposition to what it covers and pay the penalty instead, you said:

So you'd rather them provide their employees no coverage?

As though I was twirling my mustache menacingly as I described how I would rather steal medicine from babies than let those darned Christians get their way. But when it comes to the employees:

Neither is anybody being forced to work at Hobby Lobby who wants those 4 types of birth control out of the 20 some that are would still be available on the plan. Choices. It's all about choices.

Oh, so you'd rather they quit, risking their families and livelihoods in an uncertain job market? Rather than protect their right to coverage for medications that they are, by law, entitled to, you would rather they quit, potentially disrupting their entire lives, potentially putting them on social welfare programs/medicaid, costing everyone more money. So "it's all about choices" unless we're asking the religious CORPORATE ENTITY to make a choice instead of the real, flesh-and-blood individuals who work there to feed themselves and their families?

WHAT?????

If you admit their actions are hypocritical, how can you possibly support this lawsuit in good conscience? Their rules don't apply to them, yet they should be able to fight for the right to break the law and trample the rights of their employees? And for what? Because some faceless corporate entity wants to pretend that it can have a religious "belief" that it doesn't even adhere to itself? It is repugnant.

So yeah, you bet I'm frustrated. At the form, contents, and tone of your arguments, and yes, that you disagree with me, because I honestly don't understand how anyone could support this in good conscience. I think those people are on the wrong side of history, and it is my sincere hope that one day they realize how ashamed they ought to feel. This is the worst kind of political, anti-intellectual dishonesty.

I just don't see how you can say these things and then talk about freedom like you're not trampling all over it.

 

[Phelia]

I just feel sorry for liberals. They want so much....want to give everyone everything ....want to allow anything and everything......

But darn it, that whole paying for things because they are not free, people choosing responsibility over handouts, and that crazy idea of morals just keeps getting in their way.

Poor things.....

Can you go feel sorry for us somewhere else, please? I break out in hives when I'm exposed to too much ignorance. It's for my health. Thank you!

Nice little exhibition of your stark bigotry there, Phelinazi...

...for it's also "worth noting" that opponents of the compromise were "largely Christian", too. And if they weren't "Christian", they were almost exclusively believers in a Creator.

And your subjective analysis of the compromise suggests you also hold at least a bit of ignorance for the subject, too.

The question of how many representatives each State would have in Congress was what the compromise was all about...

...those "Christians" and other God-fearing folk and secularists, too, who had stood for the outright ban of the importation of slaves by Great Britain ever since the Stamp Act, also campaigned for black slaves to be counted as 0/0ths of a person during the representatives debate. Sounds awfully racist and dehumanizing of those bastard "Christians" and Deists (and no doubt some secularists), eh Phelinazi?

It was the "Christian" and secular slave owners who debated that their slaves should be counted as a full person, so that their tyrannical states would then hold more sway in Congress in the form of more representatives.

The slave owners (regardless of their religious or atheist beliefs) wanted each of their slaves to be counted as 1 person...

...opponents of the continued importation of slaves (regardless of their religious or atheist beliefs) wanted each slave to count as 0 person.

As I've habitually stated on this Board, if I were a delegate to the Convention, I would've never compromised my position that slaves shouldn't be counted at all, unless the southern states agreed to the immediate halt of the importation of slaves and immediate freedom granted to all slaves then held in bondage against their will...

...then, of course, 1 would've been the onliest number.

Such an uncompromising position was surrendered during the Convention for an inane 3/5ths solution that only granted the southern states to continue their tyrannical business as usual, a compromise that's proven to be a literal dagger in the heart of America...

...if I remember correctly, only 3 delegates present on the day the Constitution was signed refused to sign it, but none of their reasons matches what would've made me happy to have been the fourth.

But, it's called a compromise for a reason, too, which means that the majority of the delegates (regardless if they were atheist or believer) settled on the 3/5ths resolution...

...thus, that being American historical fact, your "Christian" bigotry is undressed.
.
.

K.

*apologies to my darling Phelia for hijacking her thread *

Keep hijacking! We're in a race with amicus' thread. WE HAVE TO BEAT HIM.

Well - It's a condition of the species staying alive, which presumably counts for something.

Sex isn't always willful or conscious and christ knows it's often not particularly premeditated. There's also the fact that though it's an act that has biological consequences, these consequences are decidedly asymmetric. You talk about taking responsibility for your actions, which is an admirable sentiment, but typically it's not the guy who drops out of work or education to look after a baby when he gets his girlfriend pregnant. You paint a very pretty picture, which unfortunately doesn't correspond particularly closely to reality.

I like you, Bert

 

[julybaby04]

This has been an entertaining thread to follow - not always for good reasons. There have been some really idiotic arguments advanced. I really did laugh at the guy who suggested pregnancy wasn't a medical issue.

I could say lots about this, but let me throw this into the pot: There's no such thing as a religious belief. Religion is just a shield people throw in front of otherwise indefensible ideas they happen to hold.

Why do I say this? Having spent quite some time debating religious people of many faiths, I've realised this about Christians - There is no one belief that unites or defines them. The only thing that makes a person a Christian is that they have decided to call themselves one. I realise this is going to annoy quite a few believers on here, but the information I base my conclusion on has been provided by believers. Some Christians I've spoken to have been happy to deny the divinity of Jesus - others see it as essential. Some consider the Bible to be the infallible, inspired word of God - to others it's just a book. Some see Jesus and his dad to be one particular aspect of a divine being who is at the same time all the others - I could go on - the point is they all call themselves Christians and none of them can point to the bit of scripture that says they're right or anyone else is wrong.

About two and a half thousand years ago Socrates established that the reasons we consider an action moral or immoral have nothing to do with divine approval. [The Euthrypo - apologies if I've misspelled it]. Anyway, the great thing about truth is it doesn't get less true with time, which brings me on to my next point.

Things that God has approved of over the years have included slavery, incest, rape, child murder and genocide. These days most of us find these things morally questionable - Times change and so do ethics. Something that the Bible tells us does not change over time is God - ergo if a thing is morally right because God approves it and God does not change, it presents believers with a challenge - Either start lobbing rocks at the Sunday shift at your local hospital, or shut the fuck up about what the bible says is right or wrong.

Which brings me to the point I opened with: viz - there are no religious beliefs. What there are, are opinions held by people, that happen to be mentioned in scripture. If anyone in the US actually had deeply held Bible-based religious beliefs, then they'd be locked up, because some of that shit is insane. People believe what they choose to. They follow the word of their God insofar as their God agrees with them.

Your lack of belief is not more important than my reality of belief.

 

[StrangeLife]

Well - It's a condition of the species staying alive, which presumably counts for something.

But this is about subsidised birth control, which is "anti procreation."

You only need birth control for recreational sex (although I suppose you could make a case for "practice before the real event" )

Sex isn't always willful or conscious and christ knows it's often not particularly premeditated. There's also the fact that though it's an act that has biological consequences, these consequences are decidedly asymmetric. You talk about taking responsibility for your actions, which is an admirable sentiment, but typically it's not the guy who drops out of work or education to look after a baby when he gets his girlfriend pregnant. You paint a very pretty picture, which unfortunately doesn't correspond particularly closely to reality.

You can use the same philosophy to excuse pretty much everything.

The murderer had a rough childhood.... the rapist was abused as a child by an uncle.... the gang-banger never had a chance in school.... the drunk driver has a bad marriage and a shitty job... the bank-robber grew up poor... the white collar criminal had a over-achieving dad.... the drug dealer grew up in the streets... the abusive husband was beat every day himself as a child. And I feel bad for all of them, because it's most likely true.

But at some point you have to make people responsible for their choices. You can only blame life for so much.

 

[julybaby04]

Can you go feel sorry for us somewhere else, please? I break out in hives when I'm exposed to too much ignorance. It's for my health. Thank you!

Perhaps obamacare will pay for some sort of cream to help you out with your hives.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But this is about subsidised birth control, which is "anti procreation."

You only need birth control for recreational sex

That is entirely untrue and a complete lie spread by the same right wing retards that think "During real rape women can just shut that whole thing down." because they know EVERYTHING!! Because republicans are soooooo smart and those M.D.'s don't have a clue what the fuck they are talking about.

Perhaps obamacare will pay for some sort of cream to help you out with your hives.

Or she could still go the Reagan Socialized HC model and just hit an ER then give the bill the finger.....you Republicans are sooo responsible

 

[julybaby04]

I asked if you believe that God forbids abortion or homosexuality. Why can't you say yes or no? I do understand that you believe all that you read. The Internet must be ever so enlightening than.

Different standards for the internet.

WAY too much "information" clothed as "news" from way too many liberals!

The Bible is much more truthful!

 

[norfolklad]

You can use the same philosophy to excuse pretty much everything.

Not really. We were given an urge to have sex in order to ensure the survival of the species.

Non-believers say that this is a biological urge which occurs in animals of all types.

Believers will say that this urge was given to them by god but, since the urge isn't turned on only during the woman's ovulation, he must have decided that too.

I can live with the believers' view. If god wants me to have sex at regular intervals that's fine by me and I'll oblige him. But if he intended that a child should result from every time we have sex, then he made a bit of a mistake in deciding how big to make the earth, because he certainly didn't make room for all the billions more people there would be.

 

[Sean]

Different standards for the internet.

WAY too much "information" clothed as "news" from way too many liberals!

The Bible is much more truthful!

Why don't you just kill yourself and go and meet your god? That way your hatred, bigotry and ignorance won't be inflicted on the rest of humanity. I really do feel sorry for your kids.

 

[julybaby04]

Or she could still go the Reagan Socialized HC model and just hit an ER then give the bill the finger.....you Republicans are sooo responsible

Probably a better chance that she already has obamacare.

 

[julybaby04]

Why don't you just kill yourself and go and meet your god? That way your hatred, bigotry and ignorance won't be inflicted on the rest of humanity. I really do feel sorry for your kids.

Having a bad day already? That is sad.

 

[about_average]

Different standards for the internet.

WAY too much "information" clothed as "news" from way too many liberals!

The Bible is much more truthful!

So the bible says the 4 methods under discussion are really abortion, contrary to what science says (which you can find documented on the internet).
Wow, who knew?

 

[norfolklad]

Having a bad day already? That is sad.

I do wonder why you are here, given that you must realise that most people here will not agree with your views.

And, aren't you running a huge risk. When your god destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, he didn't pick out the good people for salvation. Indeed, he even turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she looked back at the destruction.