VP pick named.

[Matata]

The hypocrisy (not talking about you as I don't know you) of (many of) the anti choice people is rich.

Some of these "pro life" folks are among those who refuse to wear masks during a pandemic and whinge about the impingement on the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. Some days I feel as though we are living full time in The Twilight Zone.

 

[missy]

Some of these "pro life" folks are among those who refuse to wear masks during a pandemic and whinge about the impingement on the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. Some days I feel as though we are living full time in The Twilight Zone.

Yup.


However, I feel as if we’re living in the Twilight Zone every single day since this pandemic struck.

 

[jaaron]

This isn't a good example. A Jehovah's witness believes it is a sin for THEM to have a blood transfusion. There isn't a cause for them to stop the procedure for others. While each believes the action is a sin for them, Pro-life proponents also believe abortion is murder....so yes they want to prevent others from committing murder and being murdered. Huge difference.

I was thinking about this response and wanted to come back to it. Actually, it is a good example, because either it's about the principle of employers being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on employees or it's not. The specifics don't really matter, you can't pick and choose which beliefs are acceptable. What if next year whoever runs the Jehovah's Witnesses set of beliefs (sorry, not as educated about the specifics as I could be) determines that on further reading, they now believe an employee with a blood transfusion is subverting God's will and they'll no longer allow for it in their coverage?

And to spin it out a bit further, religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. What about other first amendment rights. Suppose your employer is an aetheist zero population growth absolutist? Are those principles less valid or protected? Or can they impose those beliefs on employees? Could they mandate forced birth control or abortion? Take maternity coverage out of their health plan?

I don't know. It seems to me that the imposition of one person's beliefs on another's freedoms goes completely against the principles that Republicans spent decades espousing.

 

[Matthews1127]

I was thinking about this response and wanted to come back to it. Actually, it is a good example, because either it's about the principle of employers being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on employees or it's not. The specifics don't really matter, you can't pick and choose which beliefs are acceptable. What if next year whoever runs the Jehovah's Witnesses set of beliefs (sorry, not as educated about the specifics as I could be) determines that on further reading, they now believe an employee with a blood transfusion is subverting God's will and they'll no longer allow for it in their coverage?

And to spin it out a bit further, religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. What about other first amendment rights. Suppose your employer is an aetheist zero population growth absolutist? Are those principles less valid or protected? Or can they impose those beliefs on employees? Could they mandate forced birth control or abortion? Take maternity coverage out of their health plan?

I don't know. It seems to me that the imposition of one person's beliefs on another's freedoms goes completely against the principles that Republicans spent decades espousing.

THIS!!! ALL DAY LONG!!!

 

[1ofakind]

I was thinking about this response and wanted to come back to it. Actually, it is a good example, because either it's about the principle of employers being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on employees or it's not. The specifics don't really matter, you can't pick and choose which beliefs are acceptable. What if next year whoever runs the Jehovah's Witnesses set of beliefs (sorry, not as educated about the specifics as I could be) determines that on further reading, they now believe an employee with a blood transfusion is subverting God's will and they'll no longer allow for it in their coverage?

And to spin it out a bit further, religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. What about other first amendment rights. Suppose your employer is an aetheist zero population growth absolutist? Are those principles less valid or protected? Or can they impose those beliefs on employees? Could they mandate forced birth control or abortion? Take maternity coverage out of their health plan?

I don't know. It seems to me that the imposition of one person's beliefs on another's freedoms goes completely against the principles that Republicans spent decades espousing.

I guess you can randomly make up all sorts of examples that are not real if you think that makes some point.

But you didn’t answer the basic question. Can one be forced by government to participate in abortion when one considers abortion to be murder? The one who wants an abortion can still choose that option....their rights are not restricted...but can they make someone else participate in their choice?

 

[missy]

I guess you can randomly make up all sorts of examples that are not real if you think that makes some point.

But you didn’t answer the basic question. Can one be forced by government to participate in abortion when one considers abortion to be murder? The one who wants an abortion can still choose that option....their rights are not restricted...but can they make someone else participate in their choice?

Participate how? Doctors can refuse to perform abortions.

 

[missy]

I don't know. It seems to me that the imposition of one person's beliefs on another's freedoms goes completely against the principles that Republicans spent decades espousing.

Yes. That’s because many are hypocrites.

“

hyp·o·crite. Use hypocrite in a sentence. noun. The definition of a hypocrite is a person who pretends to have certain beliefs, attitudes or feelings when they really do not. An example of a hypocrite is a person who says they care about the environment, but are constantly littering.

“

 

[1ofakind]

Participate how? Doctors can refuse to perform abortions.

Missy we are taliking about employers being forced to pay for abortifacients and procedures which they believe are murder.
Pay = participation.

Right now Dr’s can refuse....but should they be able to if their personal religious convictions are driving that decision? How is that different than the employer who does not wish to participate?

 

[1ofakind]

It seems to me that the imposition of one person's beliefs on another's freedoms goes completely against the principles that Republicans spent decades espousing.

And you only see this going one way? Isn’t one person’s belief that abortion is a woman’s right (I am not arguing that point) an imposition on another’s freedom when they believe abortion is murder but yet are required to participate?

 

[missy]

Missy we are taliking about employers being forced to pay for abortifacients and procedures which they believe are murder.
Pay = participation.

Right now Dr’s can refuse....but should they be able to if their personal religious convictions are driving that decision? How is that different than the employer who does not wish to participate?

It’s completely different. The employer has no business in the personal (health and otherwise) choices the employee makes. As long as abortion is legal it’s legal. Period. And the physician performing it is a completely different example. He or she chose to provide the service for their female patients. And good for them.

 

[missy]

And you only see this going one way? Isn’t one person’s belief that abortion is a woman’s right (I am not arguing that point) an imposition on another’s freedom when they believe abortion is murder but yet are required to participate?

Again please provide an example. Other people need to stay out of our wombs.

 

[missy]

 

[jaaron]

I guess you can randomly make up all sorts of examples that are not real if you think that makes some point.

But you didn’t answer the basic question. Can one be forced by government to participate in abortion when one considers abortion to be murder? The one who wants an abortion can still choose that option....their rights are not restricted...but can they make someone else participate in their choice?

You can call it a random made up example that's not real if you want, but what it actually is, is the application of the principle to a hypothetical. That's how principles work. They aren't supposed to slither to one side or another based on whether or not you like the situation. For example, you can be against abortion, but as far as some of us are concerned, to apply that principle to a victim of rape or incest is as unbelievable (and extreme) as the hypothetical I raised above. Ten years ago, I would never have imagined the extremity of that.

 

[jaaron]

Missy we are taliking about employers being forced to pay for abortifacients and procedures which they believe are murder.
Pay = participation.

Right now Dr’s can refuse....but should they be able to if their personal religious convictions are driving that decision? How is that different than the employer who does not wish to participate?

The employer should provide health insurance or not (that's a whole other discussion). If they do, they should have no window into their employees' private medical decisions. Staying out of your employees' private lives is not comparable to doctors performing abortions.

And it's not just abortions, it's birth control in many cases, which is actually discriminatory-- do you see them trailing their male employees to make sure they're not buying condoms?

And I know I've said this before, but I would conceivably be a whole lot more sympathetic if these employers seemed to care about the children post-birth.

 

[jaaron]

Missy we are taliking about employers being forced to pay for abortifacients and procedures which they believe are murder.
Pay = participation.

Right now Dr’s can refuse....but should they be able to if their personal religious convictions are driving that decision? How is that different than the employer who does not wish to participate?

So by this logic--pay = participation--if you pay an employee and that employee buys an illegal firearm and kills someone, you're responsible?

 

[jaaron]

And you only see this going one way? Isn’t one person’s belief that abortion is a woman’s right (I am not arguing that point) an imposition on another’s freedom when they believe abortion is murder but yet are required to participate?

Quakers are pacifists with he blanket belief that all war is wrong. It goes against their moral and religious values and beliefs. Yet they are required to pay taxes, which, in part, fund the military and wars, because that's the law.

 

[1ofakind]

It’s completely different. The employer has no business in the personal (health and otherwise) choices the employee makes. As long as abortion is legal it’s legal. Period. And the physician performing it is a completely different example. He or she chose to provide the service for their female patients. And good for them.

Missy it is really a simply question that you seem unable or unwilling to answer.

So by this logic--pay = participation--if you pay an employee and that employee buys an illegal firearm and kills someone, you're responsible?

I give up. I can not reason with such absurdity.

 

[missy]

Missy it is really a simply question that you seem unable or unwilling to answer.

I answered it. You seem to be unable to or unwilling to comprehend that fact.

 

[1ofakind]

I answered it. You seem to be unable to or unwilling to comprehend that fact.

Well then please simply if for me because you think I can not comprehend
.
An employer should be forced to participate in what they believe is murderous act.

Keep your answer a simple Yes or No.

 

[missy]

Well then please simply if for me because you think I can not comprehend
.
An employer should be forced to participate in what they believe is murderous act. Yes or No.

The employer is *not* participating. What don’t you understand?


If the employer isn’t pro choice then he or she can decide not to have abortion for themselves. But it’s not their right to say others can’t decide for themselves. Abortion is legal and it’s not up to them to say someone can or cannot have it. It’s the individual’s choice. The individual’s right. Period.

 

[missy]

Well then please simply if for me because you think I can not comprehend
.
An employer should be forced to participate in what they believe is murderous act.

Keep your answer a simple Yes or No.

You edited your post. To answer yes or no. No. The employer shouldn’t have to perform the abortion themselves. First of all they’re not qualified. Second of all they’re not qualified.

That would be forcing them to “participate “.

 

[JPie]

@missy no one reasonable would think that you believe an employer should be forced to participate in murder. Anyone who persists in bad faith arguments like that isn't worth your time.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

It really is very simple.

America is a Constitutional Republic.
Your personal belief does not supersede the law of the land as enshrined in The Constitution and legal statutes.
America has spoken.

 

[Matata]

Abortion Is Not Murder

Conservatives are ignoring the facts when it comes to the abortion debate.

www.harpersbazaar.com

"There are a great many facts that conservatives feel comfortable ignoring when it comes to the abortion debate. They can pretend fetuses are indistinguishable from babies, despite the fact that medical evidence tells us fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with a respirator before 21 weeks. They can pretend they feel pain, even though scientific consensus tells us that until at least 24 weeks, a fetus cannot feel anything like pain because they do not yet have the brain connections to do so.

They can pretend that every fertilized egg is a human, ignoring the fact that the majority do not actually make it to birth and this does not seem to upset people overmuch. (Jill Filipovic, lawyer and author of The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness, has quite reasonably pointed out that, “There has been no concerted anti-abortion effort to demand research funding into why all of these fertilized eggs die, or to find a cure. Perhaps that’s because even the most active anti-abortion advocates know the truth is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a three-year-old, and they do not genuinely believe that it has the same right to life.”)"

 

[Matata]

In fairness to both sides of the debate, the science of embryology states that life begins at conception and that abortion is, in fact, murder. Under that assumption, Roe v Wade allows for sanctioned murder. The 2nd article is a simple explanation of the technical first article.

When Do Human Beings Begin?

www.princeton.edu

A Scientific View of When Life Begins - Lozier Institute

In this paper, Dr. Maureen Condic examines scientific evidence for the point at which it is evident that human life begins.

lozierinstitute.org

 

[jaaron]

Missy it is really a simply question that you seem unable or unwilling to answer.


I give up. I can not reason with such absurdity.

You made the argument. I simply applied the exact same to a different but equivalent situation. Any absurdity is yours.

I also give up. It's not possible have a reasonable conversation with someone who has such a limited and arbitrary understanding of principle.

 

[redwood66]

The employer should provide health insurance or not (that's a whole other discussion). If they do, they should have no window into their employees' private medical decisions. Staying out of your employees' private lives is not comparable to doctors performing abortions.

And it's not just abortions, it's birth control in many cases, which is actually discriminatory-- do you see them trailing their male employees to make sure they're not buying condoms?

And I know I've said this before, but I would conceivably be a whole lot more sympathetic if these employers seemed to care about the children post-birth.

There seems to be a disconnect in what the "pay" portion means. The employer is paying for the healthcare premium which has nothing to do with condoms that are not purchased through the healthcare coverage I'm assuming. None I've had ever covered them. If that employer has a religious objection to paying for a particular procedure then they have the right to not offer it. The employee can pay themselves or work elsewhere. No one is denying them the procedure. SCOTUS has ruled on this more than once.

Taxes are completely different and fall under the 16th Amendment but you know that.

 

[voce]

There seems to be a disconnect in what the "pay" portion means. The employer is paying for the healthcare premium which has nothing to do with condoms that are not purchased through the healthcare coverage I'm assuming. None I've had ever covered them. If that employer has a religious objection to paying for a particular procedure then they have the right to not offer it. The employee can pay themselves or work elsewhere. No one is denying them the procedure. SCOTUS has ruled on this more than once.

Taxes are completely different and fall under the 16th Amendment but you know that.

So is the argument that the employer shouldn't pay healthcare premiums? Or the employer shouldn't pay for a procedure not covered by the healthcare premiums? Where in the law do you see that employers are forced to cover the cost of abortion specifically outside of a healthcare premium?

What I find absurd is that one side is getting so upset debating a law that does not exist as law, only some ideas that are not really set in stone. I see no point in getting so worked up over something that has not happened. It's fine and smart to be worried and wary of when something like that gets introduced to Congress, but there's a long series of actions that would have to happen all according to your hypotheses before your imagined injustice becomes law.

I would say that it would be as ridiculous as me getting mad at how Trump turned the USA into a totalitarian society. Today. One, it hasn't happened. Two, a lot of things would have to happen in a specific way before my big fear actually becomes reality. So, the rational person would be right to be wary of what Trump might do, if he gets re-elected, but it's no reason to get hysterical right now, as the election hasn't happened.

 

[redwood66]

So is the argument that the employer shouldn't pay healthcare premiums? Or the employer shouldn't pay for a procedure not covered by the healthcare premiums? Where in the law do you see that employers are forced to cover the cost of abortion specifically outside of a healthcare premium?

What I find absurd is that one side is getting so upset debating a law that does not exist as law. I see no point in getting so worked up over something that has not happened. It's fine and smart to be worried and wary of when something like that gets introduced to Congress, but there's a long series to actions that would have to happen all according to your hypotheses before your imagined injustice becomes law.

I would say that it would be as ridiculous as me getting mad at how Trump turned the USA into a totalitarian society. Today. One, it hasn't happened. Two, a lot of things would have to happen in a specific way before my big fear actually becomes reality. So, the rational person would be right to be wary of what Trump might do, of he gets re-elected, but it's no reason to get hysterical right now, as the election hasn't happened.

The employer can decide what coverage to offer (not offer) because they pay for the premiums. This has been decided by SCOTUS.

 

[voce]

The employer can decide what coverage to offer (not offer) because they pay for the premiums. This has been decided by SCOTUS.

Under the employment laws in familiar with (admittedly, California), I would think the employer cannot cherry pick whether a health plan offers abortion coverage. I would think that all plans would offer abortions. I would think that a HDHP or HMO would work as well as a PPO for abortions, if the insurance companies, or abortion doctors themselves, are taking money from the government, which is my impression of what Harris was suggesting, through your link.

Thus I don't see the employer as having more involvement compared to the employer who pays an employee who then uses that money to buy a gun and commit a crime.