Religious Liberty?

[Joods]

Yes, yes you are

[Nay_Sayer]

Becca, he doesn't have the balls to do that. That's probably why he's not responding to you. Yes, he's a coward. To the core.

I realize this, but I'm tenacious

Which one? Jack or Kyle?  

[Joods]

I see what you did there.

[ohreally]

No that is a problem, that would be no different than denying health care to mixed couples because of your belief races should not mix. This is simply religious based sexism.

If one's religion forbade the mixing of races in marriage, then yes, you probably wouldn't want to be forced, for example, to pay for a mixed marriage.  And nobody is talking about denying anyone health care-- it's about what aspects of care an employer should be responsible for, and what aspects s/he should not.


You guys keep saying that employers are denying health care, as though the employer has a moral obligation to provide health care for workers.  I don't think this is a moral truth: the truth is that each of us has to find a way to provide for ourselves and our offspring.  America is now in the early stages of providing good health care to its citizens, and there are wrinkles to iron out.  One of them is the balance between the religious values of employers and the pragmatic needs of employees.


As I mentioned before, I think the best solution is to make ALL reproductive health care government-run, so that employers don't have to make a moral decision or a moral stand if they don't like those aspects of the health care system.

I understand the reasoning but I think you are leaving out the fact that a business is not a doctor and that a business doesn't write prescriptions nor make medical decisions.  If the business wants to offer health care then they should do that and if they don't want to offer health care then that is fine.  Cherry picking a patient/medical provider procedures or prescriptions based on how they feel is not sound.  This is based on me doing 5 min of research and not being able to find a plan that doesn't include contraception unless it has specially exempted, not sure if that even saved Hobby Lobby any money.

[rexbeccarox]

I realize this, but I'm tenacious

Which one? Jack or Kyle?  

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not going to let this go easily.

Hey Wooters, are you ever going to go back to this thread?

I chose to drop out of the conversation after post #61 for no other reasons than other topics seemed more interesting at the time, including a formal debate. I have no intention of returning after others have made 100 more posts. Please respect my freedom to choose the threads on which I contribute.

The offer to share my product development experience still stands. I promise not hold any previous insults against anyone.

[rexbeccarox]

I'm not going to let this go easily.

I chose to drop out of the conversation after post #61  for no other reasons than other topics seemed more interesting at the time, including a formal debate. I have no intention of returning after others have made 100 more posts. Please respect my freedom to choose the threads on which I contribute.

The offer to share my product development experience still stands. I promise not hold any previous insults against anyone.

So you're not going to admit you were utterly and horribly wrong about the whole thing? You haven't bothered to look into it further, despite the fact that you were SO adamant about it?

Like I said: intellectually dishonest. Also, no; I will not respect you for any reason, let alone your shallow one here. You deserve no respect from me, liar.

[bennyboy]

I understand the reasoning but I think you are leaving out the fact that a business is not a doctor and that a business doesn't write prescriptions nor make medical decisions.  If the business wants to offer health care then they should do that and if they don't want to offer health care then that is fine.  Cherry picking a patient/medical provider procedures or prescriptions based on how they feel is not sound.  This is based on me doing 5 min of research and not being able to find a plan that doesn't include contraception unless it has specially exempted, not sure if that even saved Hobby Lobby any money.

I think Christians don't generally see pregnancy as unhealthy, which is why they don't think preventing it belongs in a health care plan. They see reproduction as the natural outcome of the sexual act, and they don't want to be complicit in paying for attempts to thwart nature. What's worse, they see God's design in that nature, and it is clear in their religion that attempts to thwart it are sins. Surely, if their unwillingness to participate in the sins of others (as their religion has long seen it) is legislated against, then the separation of church and state has been broken, and the American constitution needs to be rewritten.

From this perspective, let me draw an analogy to another biological process whose purpose is set aside: eating. Let's say an employee wants access to stomach staples, special drugs that cause food to be undigested, etc. because they want to be thin. Should the health-care plan pay for this? Should the employee say, "Fuck you and your religious bullshit, who are you to tell me I can't eat a pizza when I choose to? Who are you to prevent me from living the life I want, and doing what I want with my body?" Nobody is preventing you-- but they expect you to shoulder the burden for the likely outcome of your actions. The predictable result of eating pizza is gaining weight-- so if you want to eat the pizza and stay thin, you'll have to arrange on your own dime to avoid that conequence.

That's the thing about pregnancy. It's the predictable outcome of a willful and deliberate act, not a virus or bacterial invasion or a genetic deficiency beyond people's control. That people want to have sex, but do not want to suffer its consequences, shouldn't really be a company's problem. Yes, I know the outrage will be there: "We NEED sex, it's an important part of a married relationship, it has an effect on brain chemistry, who are you to tell me what to do?" etc. But people can make those same arguments about almost any activity: eating, smoking, surfing, weekend orgies, playing Scrabble. Will you extend all those people extra benefits?

[bennyboy]

So you're not going to admit you were utterly and horribly wrong about the whole thing? You haven't bothered to look into it further, despite the fact that you were SO adamant about it?

Like I said: intellectually dishonest. Also, no; I will not respect you for any reason, let alone your shallow one here. You deserve no respect from me, liar.

Deliberately drawing on other threads in a clear ad hom attack is trolling. Are you going to follow the guy thread to thread, using quotes and links to make sure that his voice in new threads is silenced?

I think PMs and complaints to admins would be a more appropriate way of dealing with him if he's violating forum rules. If he's not, then I'm pretty sure you are. To be frank, if I was Chad, I would complain to admins-- though I doubt he will bother.

[rexbeccarox]

So you're not going to admit you were utterly and horribly wrong about the whole thing? You haven't bothered to look into it further, despite the fact that you were SO adamant about it?

Like I said: intellectually dishonest. Also, no; I will not respect you for any reason, let alone your shallow one here. You deserve no respect from me, liar.

Deliberately drawing on other threads in a clear ad hom attack is trolling.  Are you going to follow the guy thread to thread, using quotes and links to make sure that his voice in new threads is silenced?

I think PMs and complaints to admins would be a more appropriate way of dealing with him if he's violating forum rules.  If he's not, then I'm pretty sure you are.  To be frank, if I was Chad, I would complain to admins-- though I doubt he will bother.

To be frank, no one asked you.

ETA: how is it you're not doing exactly what you're complaining at me about?