ddeacs98
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,338
- Reaction score
- 300
RJ seems somewhat frustrated in his head.
FIFY
RJ seems somewhat frustrated in his head.
Why don't you take a little break from posting on this thread, huh? You are revealing a stupid, a special kind of stupid, that transcendent kind of stupid, the likes of which make it impossible for those around you (because we all are human, after all) not to correct you at every turn, thereby engaging you in all of your manifest stupidity, thus making it again bubble to the surface and explode in a cacaphony of more nonesense, and, by even responding--nay, by even reading your posts--making themselves, and the world around them, a little more stupid.
So this is pretty much bullshit. Take a look at the number of executive orders issued by previous presidents.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html
The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.
You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.
The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.
You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.
923, better watch out. Saying this was an attack on women will get you a lot of shit here.
I'm not sure I know enough about the science of IUDs to understand the moral issue but isn't that their argument?
I hate to stop you when you are on a roll, but if you'd read the opinion, you would have seen that HL's objection was not to contraception generally. It was only to those forms of contraception that are abortifacients. I know that gets in the way of your talking points, but that strikes me as an important distinction, even if that objection is based on ancient texts that were written before the enlightenment.
I hate to stop you when you are on a roll, but if you'd read the opinion, you would have seen that HL's objection was not to contraception generally. It was only to those forms of contraception that are abortifacients. I know that gets in the way of your talking points, but that strikes me as an important distinction, even if that objection is based on ancient texts that were written before the enlightenment.
If that's true, then HL's objection is scientifically unsound. IUDs chiefly function by preventing fertilization.
Reference: Oritz ME, Croxatto HB (2007). "Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: biological bases of their mechanism of action". Contraception 75 (6 Suppl): S16–S30. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.01.020. PMID 17531610.
The bulk of the data indicate that if any embryos are formed in the chronic presence of an IUD, it happens at a much lower rate than in non-IUD users. The common belief that the usual mechanism of action of IUDs in women is destruction of embryos in the uterus is not supported by empirical evidence.
You're correct (although you should have said "that they believe are abortifacients, regardless of real scientific conflict over that issue"). However, there are pending lawsuits by Notre Dame and the Little Sisters of the Poor demanding relief from even signing the form to get the waiver, and they object to all forms of contraception. You can bet that for-profit businesses owned by Catholics and perhaps others will seek relief from all forms of contraception based on Hobby Lobby.
For the record, I made that change before I saw the above.
I know about the ND/LSOTP cases. Their argument is different from HL. I'm not sure why you insist on misrepresenting HL's position.
Which hits on a major issue in the opinion, which relies on HL's "sincerely held belief" that certain contraceptives destroy embryos. The opinion does not address the scientific validity of that belief. It would appear to open the door to corporate action under the shield of beliefs that directly contradict facts.
From the materials I've seen, the problem is that the science is inconclusive. HL should be permitted to make choices like this in gray areas without its sincerity being called into question.
http://m.theatlantic.com/health/arc...-lobby-thinks-iuds-are-like-abortions/284382/
I haven't read the briefs (and wouldn't understand much of it if I did), but was this brought up at all in the case? It's actually pretty mind-boggling if it wasn't.