U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:46 PM
 
12,089 posts, read 5,614,053 times
Reputation: 13605

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
NOT a fact. This kind of misinformation is ridiculous.

No intelligent, scientifically-educated person can argue against the fact that life begins at conception. You may choose to call it an unimportant life, a life not yet deserving any rights, a not-yet-human life, but it is life. The processes of mitosis (DNA replication) and cell division begin quite shortly thereafter. Those processes are occurring because the fertilized egg IS now alive.

So, if sex results in the fertilization of an egg (which can happen within 30 minutes), then a pill or device which causes that life-form to later die (which is what the morning after pill and IUD do), then that fits the definition of abortifacient....at least the definition that was in existence for decades. If someone has conveniently "changed the definition" to suit their agenda, that does not change the fact that the morning after pill and IUD cause a life-form to cease to be alive.

And while I personally don't have a moral conviction against such an action, I can understand and respect that many others do. It is an unconscionable form of abortion to many people, and I do not believe that anyone (even if they happen to have founded a large business such as Hobby Lobby) should have to violate their beliefs and pay for it.
Wow. A fertilized egg must implant in the uterus in order for it to be a viable pregnancy. Plan B prevents that from happening. That is not an abortion. It also delays ovulation. That is not an abortion. I'm sorry facts confuse you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,437 posts, read 41,684,911 times
Reputation: 47025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie View Post
It's certainly not as though, as MJ seems to imply, that Hobby Lobby went out and deliberately sought out companies that make abortifacients and invested in those companies.
But once this fact was known they should have divested immediately if their beliefs are sincere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:47 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,162 posts, read 6,349,742 times
Reputation: 12741
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal View Post
Contraception isn't killing. It's prevention.

I'm not going to get into the abortion debate, because THAT is a desperate measure for a desperate situation. Not my place to judge someone else's desperate actions, but if I was the fetus, I'd probably rather be aborted by parents that don't want me, rather than cooked to death in a car like the poor child who is being discussed in another active thread on this forum.

If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for contraception, they are supporting unplanned pregnancy.

If they don't want to pay for abortion, that is a whole 'nother topic, and my opinion is that they should not have to include that in their healthcare plan. I don't think most healthcare plans include abortion.
I imagine with their religious beliefs they'd advocate abstinence until such time as one can provide for a child. The feasability of this belief is in question, IMO, but that's another whole topic.

They aren't trying to prevent their employees from using the contraception of their own choice, they just don't believe they should be required to pay for free contraceptives against their religious beliefs.

And as they reportedly pay their employees fairly well and provide other benefits- also according to their religious/moral beliefs, perhaps those employees can afford to pay for their own contraception. They don't have to work for Hobby Lobby if they find that being responsible for their own contraception is an unacceptable hardship to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Cold Springs, NV
4,576 posts, read 9,093,206 times
Reputation: 4997
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
They MAY sometimes act in that way, but, depending on the timing of intercourse and ovulation, fertilization may very well have occurred prior to the taking of the morning after pill or the action of the IUD. When Mr. Sperm meets Ms. Egg, conception! Later, the m/a pill or IUD prevents long-term development of that microscopic life.

And while *i* have no moral qualms against such b/c, I understand why many people do.

I do have moral qualms against the kind of bullsh*t I've been reading since this SCOTUS decision.
Incorrect, neither the morning after pill, nor the IUD can terminate a pregnancy. It is a false construct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:49 PM
 
Location: A place that's too cold
4,096 posts, read 4,058,662 times
Reputation: 10088
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
It violates my moral beliefs to sacrifice nearly 5,000 of my fellow citizens, most of them young healthy men (to say nothing of the thousands of innocent civilians overseas) in a war started on a lie and continued while everyone knew we could never win. And I had no choice about paying for it with my tax money.

It is against my moral beliefs to subsidize religious organizations who build ridiculously opulent cathedrals, shield known child predators and buy luxury airplanes and mansions for their leaders to try to impress others into giving even more money to their organizations, pay for Pray Away the Gay camps and intimidate homosexuals and their families. And my tax dollars pay for it.
I'm with you on all of that. I wonder if anyone has gone to court to exercise their religious conviction against paying taxes for such things?

I think the big argument here is 1) do we really want to continue having employment and health insurance tied together? and 2) what does it mean for our citizens to have freedom of religion?

I am agnostic, but I do respect people's right to live according to their religious convictions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:51 PM
 
Location: A place that's too cold
4,096 posts, read 4,058,662 times
Reputation: 10088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWillys View Post
Incorrect, neither the morning after pill, nor the IUD can terminate a pregnancy. It is a false construct.
Well then you and I have a different definition of "terminate" and/or "pregnancy."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:56 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,751,269 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
That is very true. The majority of employer insurance includes a premium to be paid for by the employee. So in essence, that portion of the employee's OWN MONEY is paying for the contraceptive coverage. Can an employee do whatever they want with their wages? Apparently, not. Are "Morality Clauses" going to required for private for profit employees also? You can get FIRED if you employer considers you private behavior goes against THEIR religion, like using contraceptives? If you laugh, don't. There was a bill in Arizona a few years ago which would allow a private employer to fire an employee for using contraceptives (male too or only females???) if birth control was against the the employers religion.

Welcome back to the good old days (which I fully remember) when employers would not hire females of childbearing age.
What needs to happen, but won't, is Congress remove the tax subsidies to employers and employees for employer-provided healthcare. then, if health insurance costs a family $12,000, instead of having 2/3 or 3/4 (or whatever your company's ratio is) paid by the employer, and the rest by the employee, companies could just adjust your pay appropriately, and we can go buy our own health insurance from who we want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 02:07 PM
 
5,660 posts, read 3,204,284 times
Reputation: 6638
[quote=Mack Knife;35485715]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post

The "Pill" is the only solution to those medical issues? That is utter and complete nonsense.

You can get alternatives with the same active ingredients in other forms of medicine.

This does not go beyond birth control. Only the liberals who want to include everything into the narrowest agendas think like that.

No virgin young girl on this planet needs the birth control pill to regulate their periods. Reading comprehension, learn what need means. There are alternatives.

That is like saying you need to smoke pot to get the medicinal benefits of cannabis but leave it to the ill informed to proclaim just that.
Are YOU a doctor? Heavy periods? How do you stop that? Antibiotics? Hormones. The same ones that are in birth control pills. Do pregnant women get HEAVY PERIODS? They get NO PERIODS. So the Pill is given for menstruation problems because it "mimics" pregnancy and fools the woman's body into thinking it is already pregnant. Light, or non-existant periods. Breastfeeding a newborn does the same. Very OLD method of BC. Lactation hormones secreted to nurse prevent ovulation AND thickening of the uterine. IF ovulation should occur (baby not nursing as much due to illness), the hormones for milk production can also prevent implantation because no uterine lining build up. No PERIODS. Abortion? Oh, no, ban breastfeeding as an "abortificiant" too????????

So many MEN are clueless how women's bodies work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 02:10 PM
 
5,445 posts, read 4,408,460 times
Reputation: 14992
Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
But once this fact was known they should have divested immediately if their beliefs are sincere.

You replied before I could. This is exactly it. Let's go with the hypothetical situation that HL doesn't know about the companies they are invested in. As soon as it is brought to light what they are doing, you figure they would have pulled that funding right away. They didn't care to remove this investment because this investment was making them a lot of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 02:10 PM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,162 posts, read 6,349,742 times
Reputation: 12741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510 View Post
Are you insinuating women who take birth control lack personal responsibility?
My wife takes birth control to regulate her endometriosis, and would be left with painful, uncontrolled menstrual bleeding without it. Since the "Catholic" (in name only) hospital for which I work won't cover it through our crappy insurance plan, I pay $60/mo for what would probably be 10% of the cost through another employer. Do you think it's fair we should be unfairly burdened because of some Pope's edict on this medicine?
Sounds like your issue may be with the insurance company. One of the reasons that insurance companies would not pay for birth control pills prior to the "free birth control" Obamacare mandate, is when they're used to prevent pregnancy they aren't used for controlling or curing an illness or medical condition or abnormalities. In terms of their contracts with patients, these are the criteria used to determine if a drug is covered by health insurance. Before the advent of Obamacare, our insurance company didn't pay for BC pills, or any other form of birth control, and this was the reason they gave for not doing so. In that regard, they lumped birth control in the same category as cosmetic surgery.

In your wife's case (and in other women who use BC pills for medical reasons), it seems that the insurance company should pay for her BC pills in the same way that they cover medication for other medical conditions. What happens though, is that those claims get reviewed by bean counters who apply the one-size fits all rule- ie, BC not covered- period, and deny any payment for those pills even though they're used for a medical condition.

Perhaps an appeal, or a letter from your wife's doctor to the insurance company explaining why she's using those pills ( ie for a medical condition NOT birth control) might help? Just a thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top