If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(STLToday)   Hobby Lobby says it is a ministry and should not have to pay fines under Obamacare   (stltoday.com) divider line 215
    More: Unlikely, Hobby Lobby, ministry, individual mandate  
•       •       •

10202 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2013 at 5:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-26 01:59:11 AM

Sir VG: I don't shop Hobby Lobby. Not by decision but because even if I wanted to, there isn't one anywhere near here.

But for a business to offer their employees insurance that deals with stuff like birth control/morning after pill isn't condoning it. If the employee shares your values, they simply won't use those methods.

Then again, "my religion is the only correct religion and my values are the only correct values and the rest of you can all suck it." This is the general mentality of way too many religious people in the US today and that's why I got out of organized religion. (But I'm not an atheist.)


Actually, I don't shop there because every one I've been in has been worthless. Never had any organization, or what I needed. Just a waste of time for me to try, when I can go elsewhere and get what I need quickly.
 
2013-05-26 03:59:02 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: MeanJean: Hasty Ambush

You are imposing your lifestyle on them by insisting they help finance your exchanging of bodily fluids with others.

Yeah, how dare I want my health insurance to cover the treatment of various debilitating hormone conditions that are treatable through hormonal birth control .

Would you be okay with a Scientology-owned business refusing to allow their employees to get psych meds? Or Jehovah's Witness owned busiensses refusing to cover blood transfusions?

If you want to argue that  they should have to cove the use of birth control pill sfor a medical purpose other than birth control fine but you know that is not the crux of what this argument is about.

If your employer feels drinking alcohol is sinful, should they have the right to ban you from spending your wages on beer? Should your employer have the right to require you to spend your paid vacation time on a missionary trip for their church?


Should a business have the right to ban you from smoking -ever?- Does a business have the right to stop you from eating greasy foods? The list goes on...
 
2013-05-26 04:02:57 AM

Ranger Rover: Uh, except for the fact that the article focuses on the morning after pill, and secondarily on IUDs.


The morning after pill and IUDs have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Both prevent fertilization, they do not abort a fetus.

Enemy of the State makes points at all. Just a strawman.
 
2013-05-26 04:50:27 AM

log_jammin: Ranger Rover: Uh, except for the fact that the article focuses on the morning after pill, and secondarily on IUDs.

The morning after pill and IUDs have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Both prevent fertilization, they do not abort a fetus.

Enemy of the State makes points at all. Just a strawman.


Did I say they had anything to do with abortion?
Do YOU understand what a strawman is? You might be trying hard to create one, with that little abortion trick. I didn't say a word about abortion; I just corrected someone who didn't seem to have read the article and was claiming that the issue here is hormonal birth control. The article doesn't, unless I overlooked something, have much if anything to do with hormonal birth control. Its primary focuses are the morning-after pill and IUDs.
Also, since you brought it up, your opinion is just that. Although unquestionably different from things like RU-486, any forms of emergency contraception that seek to block the implantation of a fertilized egg can definitely trigger arguments re definitions of abortion/life/etc - an admittedly intractable argument and one I'm not necessarily trying to start here (and don't even know how I feel about personally. In the overall category of "tough issues," this may be the toughest, so please don't think I'm coming at this from some super pro-life perspective. I'm simply not sure, and see compelling points on both sides).
Enemy of the State, if I recall correctly, pointed out that there are valid medical distinctions at issue here, and strong feelings of the part of many Americans, including American employers. How is that a strawman? Sometimes, on fark, I get the sneaking suspicion that "strawman" and "trolling" are just alternate labels for "an opinion that opposes mine and that I'm too lazy/under-educated/afraid of being wrong that I need to justify not engaging a decent point that someone else has made." There are real trolls, and real strawmen, but I can't see here how Enemy of the State has put one up.

You could prove me wrong, though, and I'd be delighted to continue the conversation. Seriously, I sometimes feel like the only person in America who doesn't know exactly how they feel about the contraception/emergency contraception/abortion debate.

 
2013-05-26 05:13:48 AM

Ranger Rover: Did I say they had anything to do with abortion?
Do YOU understand what a strawman is? You might be trying hard to create one, with that little abortion trick.


this here was in the comment you replied to

The bottom line is that things like abortion and the morning after pill are things that a majority of Americans are either opposed to on moral grounds, or don't wish to have to pay for on moral grounds, even if they're OK with a woman having her right to choose. That is not an unreasonable point of view, and we're not talking about the feelings or beliefs of some whacko fringe group.

Know who said that?  Enemy of the State. Know who you said had valid points? Enemy of the State.

Ranger Rover: The article doesn't, unless I overlooked something, have much if anything to do with hormonal birth control. Its primary focuses are the morning-after pill and IUDs.


which are not abortions, as  Enemy of the State was trying to equate them to. you know, the guy you said had "valid points".

Ranger Rover: Also, since you brought it up, your opinion is just that.


Yes, my opinions are just that, opinions. And I am entitled to mine just as much as you are entitled to yours. But the kicker is, you and EotS are not entitled to your own facts. and the fact is that "The morning after pill and IUDs have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. " despite his attempt to claim they are.

Ranger Rover: Enemy of the State, if I recall correctly, pointed out that there are valid medical distinctions at issue here, and strong feelings of the part of many Americans, including American employers. How is that a strawman?


then reread his comment instead of trying to remember it. He wasn't pointing out "valid medical distinctions". His argument was people object to abortion and don't ant their taxes to pay for it, therefore insurance should offer vouchers for people who want emergency contraception on their insurance so people who object "on moral grounds" to abortion don't have to pay for it.

emergency contraception is not abortion. so it is irrelevant what percentage of Americans are against it.

Ranger Rover: get the sneaking suspicion that "strawman" and "trolling" are just alternate labels for "an opinion that opposes mine and that I'm too lazy/under-educated/afraid of being wrong that I need to justify not engaging a decent point that someone else has made."


then you should probably have you "sneaking suspicion meter" repaired.
 
2013-05-26 05:48:16 AM

abb3w: Last I heard, only the latter can. The original research wasn't clear, but it's recently been shown that the morning after pill only works by preventing ovulation in the first place; when ovulation has already occured, it doesn't do a damn thing.


if you find a link to that data, please post it. If true that would certainly take some of the winds out of HL's case.

edit: nevermind -- found it myself.

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html
 
2013-05-26 05:54:35 AM

log_jammin: Ranger Rover: Did I say they had anything to do with abortion?
Do YOU understand what a strawman is? You might be trying hard to create one, with that little abortion trick.

this here was in the comment you replied to

The bottom line is that things like abortion and the morning after pill are things that a majority of Americans are either opposed to on moral grounds, or don't wish to have to pay for on moral grounds, even if they're OK with a woman having her right to choose. That is not an unreasonable point of view, and we're not talking about the feelings or beliefs of some whacko fringe group.

Know who said that?  Enemy of the State. Know who you said had valid points? Enemy of the State.

Ranger Rover: The article doesn't, unless I overlooked something, have much if anything to do with hormonal birth control. Its primary focuses are the morning-after pill and IUDs.

which are not abortions, as  Enemy of the State was trying to equate them to. you know, the guy you said had "valid points".

Ranger Rover: Also, since you brought it up, your opinion is just that.

Yes, my opinions are just that, opinions. And I am entitled to mine just as much as you are entitled to yours. But the kicker is, you and EotS are not entitled to your own facts. and the fact is that "The morning after pill and IUDs have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. " despite his attempt to claim they are.

Ranger Rover: Enemy of the State, if I recall correctly, pointed out that there are valid medical distinctions at issue here, and strong feelings of the part of many Americans, including American employers. How is that a strawman?

then reread his comment instead of trying to remember it. He wasn't pointing out "valid medical distinctions". His argument was people object to abortion and don't ant their taxes to pay for it, therefore insurance should offer vouchers for people who want emergency contraception on their insurance so people who object "on moral grounds" to abortion don't have ...


Enemy of the State said: Things like abortion and the morning after pill. Abortion AND the morning after pill. Doesn't seem to be a huge struggle to equate them - when you start by differentiating them. Conjunctions are fun and mean things!

Also, still haven't responded to the fact that you're wrong. IUDs and the morning after pill don't always prevent fertilization - they make implantation of a fertilized egg difficult, which changes the ballgame in terms of the "life" and "abortion" debate. (Furrow, et al., "Bioethics," "The Blurry Distinction Between Contraception and Abortion"; Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 492 U.S. at 561.)

Point taken in re-reading EotS's comment. I should have done that. I still do think, however, that you have a misunderstanding of the straw men phenomenon in logic; or if you don't (since you don't seem dumb or uneducated) you're intentionally twisting it. I don't know what I think of his voucher suggestion, but I don't think it is a "straw man" - which occurs when people intentionally misrepresent their opponent's argument in order to provide themselves with something more convenient to attack.
 
2013-05-26 06:09:28 AM

december: abb3w: Last I heard, only the latter can. The original research wasn't clear, but it's recently been shown that the morning after pill only works by preventing ovulation in the first place; when ovulation has already occured, it doesn't do a damn thing.

if you find a link to that data, please post it. If true that would certainly take some of the winds out of HL's case.

edit: nevermind -- found it myself.

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html


If this is true (and it seems it come from a good source) then log jammin, I'm operating under some older information regarding this particular issue, and have no problem admitting that. The better for new knowledge, and my apologies. At least on this issue....
 
2013-05-26 06:33:42 AM

Ranger Rover: Things like abortion and the morning after pill. Abortion AND the morning after pill. Doesn't seem to be a huge struggle to equate them - when you start by differentiating them.


Of course. So when I mention child molesters, rapists, Ranger Rover, and the mentally ill all together, I'm trying to differentiate them.  right? In no way would I ever list two things due to similarities, but differences. so when I say that society objects to child molesters, rapists, Ranger Rover, and the mentally ill because of their morality, then I'm  differentiating them.

Ranger Rover: Also, still haven't responded to the fact that you're wrong. IUDs and the morning after pill don't always prevent fertilization - they make implantation of a fertilized egg difficult, which changes the ballgame in terms of the "life" and "abortion" debate.


To make an informed choice, women must know that ECPs-like the birth control pill, patch, ring, shot, and implant,76 and even like breastfeeding77-prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium. However, women should also be informed that the best available evidence indicates that ECPs prevent pregnancy by mechanisms that do not involve interference with post-fertilization events.
ECPs do not cause abortion
78 or harm an established pregnancy. Pregnancy begins with implantation according to medical authorities such as the US FDA, the National Institutes of Health79 and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).80

Ranger Rover: Point taken in re-reading EotS's comment. I should have done that. I still do think, however, that you have a misunderstanding of the straw men phenomenon in logic; or if you don't (since you don't seem dumb or uneducated) you're intentionally twisting it. I don't know what I think of his voucher suggestion, but I don't think it is a "straw man" - which occurs when people intentionally misrepresent their opponent's argument in order to provide themselves with something more convenient to attack.



you seem to have a difficult time with words and things, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you again.
 
2013-05-26 01:10:34 PM
Ranger Rover

Uh, except for the fact that the article focuses on the morning after pill, and secondarily on IUDs.

Whoopsie. My bad. My fault for not actually reading the article. I thought this was the usual hissy-fit about hormonal birth control.
 
2013-05-26 03:05:33 PM

log_jammin: Ranger Rover: Things like abortion and the morning after pill. Abortion AND the morning after pill. Doesn't seem to be a huge struggle to equate them - when you start by differentiating them.

Of course. So when I mention child molesters, rapists, Ranger Rover, and the mentally ill all together, I'm trying to differentiate them.  right? In no way would I ever list two things due to similarities, but differences. so when I say that society objects to child molesters, rapists, Ranger Rover, and the mentally ill because of their morality, then I'm  differentiating them.

And I'm the one who has trouble with words.

Ranger Rover: Also, still haven't responded to the fact that you're wrong. IUDs and the morning after pill don't always prevent fertilization - they make implantation of a fertilized egg difficult, which changes the ballgame in terms of the "life" and "abortion" debate.

To make an informed choice, women must know that ECPs-like the birth control pill, patch, ring, shot, and implant,76 and even like breastfeeding77-prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium. However, women should also be informed that the best available evidence indicates that ECPs prevent pregnancy by mechanisms that do not involve interference with post-fertilization events.
ECPs do not cause abortion78 or harm an established pregnancy. Pregnancy begins with implantation according to medical authorities such as the US FDA, the National Institutes of Health79 and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).80


So, now, you attempt to argue with me by at least partially agreeing with my point? And what seems to be HL's biggest concern? Sweet, now we're getting somewhere. I guess you were just bored and wanted to stretch it out as long as possible. Well, welcome to the "facts" of people like me and EotS! It's nice to see you come around to the only point I was really trying to make, so readily, while still presenting it in the guise of an argument!

Ranger Rover: Point taken in re-reading EotS's comment. I should have done that. I still do think, however, that you have a misunderstanding of the straw men phenomenon in logic; or if you don't (since you don't seem dumb or uneducated) you're intentionally twisting it. I don't know what I think of his voucher suggestion, but I don't think it is a "straw man" - which occurs when peopl ...

Oh, no. Now you've also lost sight of the fact that I was trying to explain the concept to you, as you clearly misunderstood it, not the other way around. It's okay. You must need this pretty bad. I won't interfere any more.
 
2013-05-26 03:10:12 PM

MeanJean: Ranger Rover

Uh, except for the fact that the article focuses on the morning after pill, and secondarily on IUDs.

Whoopsie. My bad. My fault for not actually reading the article. I thought this was the usual hissy-fit about hormonal birth control.


Eh, I've done the same so many times I can't really fault it in others. :) Yeah, they're different arguments, at least to a certain extent, and I was just frustrated at people trying to conflate them and to use the logic of one for the other; that's why I jumped on you.
 
2013-05-26 05:40:49 PM
Linux_Yes:
seems to me that the best way to reduce poverty and have tax paying jobs is to stop sending them overseas because some stockholder/owner felt he didn't make enough money last year.

But the man on the radio told me that paying taxes is evil and the good companies are sending our jobs overseas so that americans don't have to deal with the burden of paying income taxes.
 
2013-05-26 05:43:24 PM

dittybopper: It's a Ministry?

CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!


Tell me something I don't know.
 
2013-05-26 07:47:54 PM

Mister Peejay: dittybopper: It's a Ministry?

CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!

Tell me something I don't know.


Commodity sodomy grants autonomy takes it all way

/You're lyin' through your teeth.
 
Displayed 15 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report