What nonsense. There is no law stating the diocese, etc must USE the contraceptives; however as an employer they are mandated to OFFER contraceptives. It is quite hypocritical of any denomination to PRETEND to be offended by contraceptives. 99% of the congregants whether they by Southern Baptists or Catholics or Muslims or Jews regularly use contraception. Do we want a nation of Jim Bob Duggars. Something about the name – Jim Bob-not James Robert, but..Jim Bob – says it all..
Sorry Jim-Bob – I must have hit a nerve with you. I didn’t say I speak for all religions. I said MOST members – the overwhelming majority – of organized religions – whatever denomination – use contraception and want it available as a covered pharmaceutical under their employers’ health plans.
Actually, you said “99%.” Don’t claim to speak for 99% and then later state, in all caps, that you said MOST. What role of it is the govt to tell any private insurer what they must or must not offer as a product. Why shouldn’t I as a consumer be able to buy a product that I want?
If I am a Christian Scientist employer do I have the right to restrict my employees to CS physician’s?
I find it interesting that those in the persuasion business, when they can’t persuade, want to legislate.
No one has passed a law forcing women to use birth control, and no woman of any religion in the U.S. is ordered by law that she cannot use birth control. Approximately 98 – 99% of all women use birth control in the U.S. at some time, regardless of their religious affiliation, and I think that is what sticks in the craw of these religious leaders.
Its hard to keep religion out of government when the government was founded on religious principles and for religious freedom. Employees anywhere are free to find new employment if they don’t like the benefits or conditions of employment.
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THE PRO CHOICE PEOPLE DONT GET IT ABORTION IS MURDER FOR WHY DONT THE PRO CHOICE PEOPLE LOOK AT WHAT ABORTION CAN DO TO A CHILD STOP LIVING IN THE 1960S GROW UP YOU WILL ANSWER TO GOD ONE DAY. ROBERT
So then it’s okay with God if I beat my wife with a stick, as long as it’s no thicker than my thumb?
Cause, you know, that’s what your God says is okay. It’s right their in your completely arbitrary and approved-by-man bible. (That would be the Council of Nicea for the masses…)
Oh, and I can stone women too. Under certain prescribed conditions, of course.
Ooh! Wait–I can also have more than one wife! That’s allowed in teh bible–in fact how many wives did Solomon have? I think at least triple digits…
Oh, and unless you learn to speak/read ancient greek–I’m sure you’re reading the mis-translated word of God too.
Wait–do you celebrate Christmas? Because, you know that the Savior specifically told you not to, right?
I know, I know…critical thinking–not a very important part of a religious zealot’s repertoire…
Now–all that being said–there’s nothing wrong with a belief in God, Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, or whatever system of faith that helps improve your life.
However, when you blindly follow something to the point of zealotry, that’s where you become the problem.
Oh, and hey–you know that his name isn’t really Jesus, right? Right???
First you point out barbaric actions like beating your wife.
Then you point out how your train line of thought is just so much better, because you know, killing a living thing is totally acceptable and is not barbaric. Our bodies just naturally do abortions because they are so good for the body ya?
My dad is a medical engineer. Did you know that ALL not some ALL contraceptives have negative effects not just on the child? Did you know that if you look at the reflections of people who had abortions ALL not some who regretted it ALL said it was social pressure that caused them to do it or they thought they weren’t ready? And how many of them had kids later and realized they would never be “ready”? Well let’s do the math: What percentage of the population never has a kid? Under 10% for sure, I’d put it under 5%. But you know, it’s clearly such a responsible good natured thing that is good for your body to do to get an abortion, we should encourage it. And hey, it’s not like insurance lowers costs by taking unpaid premiums to grow the funds, so paying for something that is never unpaid (contraceptives) actually increases the cost since they cannot grow funds, and it’s not like economically this is a bad idea as well eh?
So in essence, you want to make a big man point here by saying “haaaayyy I’m so dem dere smart I kill muh babies because I don’t think I’m readdddyyy, and izz da dem dere same thing as how the bible says not to beat my wife that yuuu guyzzz ain’t letting meh kill muh babbbiieess.”.
Grow up. Moron. The adding of the contraceptives into this bill is wrong for society, wrong for business, and wrong for your thick head to be attacking religion.
When I found out I was having a kid, I made $72,000 a year. And I panicked. At 26 years old, living in Washington, making $72,000 a year I thought I couldn’t handle it. I’m a republican I might add and it scared me almost enough to have an abortion. If it affected me that much, and I realize now I was ready, then what the hell do you think is good about taking a woman, whose hormones which affect emotions are literally 10 times higher, and saying hey, you’re panicking, you need an abortion. You think that’s good? My @$$. I nearly aborted my kid due to morons like you. The pressure you create is far worse than religions who tell you to keep it. So get your stone age @$$ back in the cave man days. You aren’t ahead of the curve, you are leagues behind it.
Wow, personal attacks. How professional and rational.
You do know that contraceptives aren’t just the pill, right? I mean, with your dad being a medical engineer and all.
I was pointing out specific fallacies with Robert’s zealotry. Answer to God because you have an abortion…but it’s okay–according to the same religion–to beat your wife, engage in bigamy, and lets not forget murder–that’s okay under certain pretexts too.
Perhaps you should look into the mirror when calling someone “moron.” It may do you some actual good.
Ask a rape victim if she regrets aborting the rape pregnancy. I dare you.
In fact, I dare you to go to a rape victim, and tell her she can’t abort the fetus.
Having a kid scared the crap out of me too, but I love him more than I ever thought I could. I’m hoping to raise him in an environment that knows love, rationality, and freedom.
Which is why I’ll support keeping religion out of the government. Which, if you’re as true a Republican as you claim to be–you should be too.
However, since you seem to be blind to the “bad” parts of your religion–I’m guessing you’ll continue to wear blinders.
The amazingly idiotic irony of you calling me a “stone age @ss” when you’re the one spouting idiotic drivel is just…classic.
Jon: Nice twist. The irony is in the fact that the comment the guy made was that abortion was murder.
I pointed out that your comment about being able to beat your wife was unrelated. The a$$ was you. The irony was that you seem to miss that no matter which way you cut the cake, it is killing a life, whether it was rape or not. I hate to break it to you, I am not for the morning after pill for rape but I won’t get into it with you on that.
The guy you made your idiotic barbaric arguement to did not bring up wife beatings and compare it to abortions. You did.
And you do know that the guy you commented on, didn’t say anything implying he was against the types of birth control that didn’t kill a child right? Any birth control, including the pills, shots, and anything non condom oriented is bad for the body. I have to assume your condescending comment there was misplaced, and not thought out.
The personal attacks come from your outright bull crap you said to that other guy. And let me tell you, you deserve it.
June 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And further:
The arguement against businesses providing contraceptives is not a religious one.
The blinders on are your blinders. Religions of course fought back, as they were attacked. But this contraceptives arguement is not one of religion. It’s one of common sense. Which is why I, as a non-blinded SOB will always be against birth control being provided by employers, nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, and I will always know that the government’s attempt at being secular is the only reason it became a religious issue, and I, unlike you, will always fight against secular arguements just for the sake of being secular having any place in our government.
June 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh, and for the record, you semi-literate mouth-breather–I personally believe that abortions shouldn’t be the “go to” answer of choice. But I also don’t have the abject hubris to believe that I somehow have the right to decide what a woman should do with her body.
That puts you on par with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein (160). I would expect someone with an IQ above genius level to be a bit more logical and have a much better diction.
156 IQ?
Not with statements like this:
“haaaayyy I’m so dem dere smart I kill muh babies because I don’t think I’m readdddyyy, and izz da dem dere same thing as how the bible says not to beat my wife that yuuu guyzzz ain’t letting meh kill muh babbbiieess.”
“stone age @ss”
“Grow up. Moron.”
People with above genius level IQ’s also don’t use their “dad” as logical evidence.
About the *only* thing you have presented over this now-obnoxiously-overblown internet argument that smacks of “genius level” intellect is the arrogance that most geniuses have.
Unfortunately, you lack any other evidence to support that laughable statement.
And as for your post: “the child is it’s own body?”
Not until the child can live absent the physical connection from the mother. Until then, in the strictest, (and arguably the most heartless) sense, the fetus is a parasite-incapable of sustaining itself without feeding off the host organism.
NOW–let me be very clear I do not hold to that particular ideology–as I cannot be that clinically detached, but I have read several debates where just that argument is put forth.
Of course, if you had a 156 IQ,you should already have some knowledge of those particular debates.
And if you’re whole thought process about abortion/contraceptives has nothing whatsoever to do about religion, why are you even posting on this particular article?
June 13, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jon,
All your comments below are not independant thought. The baby is it’s own entity. I do not mean it can live on it’s own.
Any idiot knows the child is not the mom’s body, she cannot force it to move or terminate it herself. It’s inside her it relies on her, it’s not her.
My IQ was checked at 156, which is why I am so much more capable of thinking then you in all my comments. Being an asshole, and imitating your stupidity, is actually not stupidity.
June 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Sally Anne Fannymaker says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
An entire 100 people protested in the city of Pittsburgh? Sorry, not impressed.
The law requires that religious organizations provide to their employees something that is in direct violation of their religious beliefs.
It does not matter whether you agree with their beliefs or not, the US Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Forcing a religion to violate its core beliefs regardless of how out of touch with todays society those beliefs may be violates their rights.
Unfortunately for you, rights to birth control are not part of employment law.
Adding $25 dollars a month that every person has to pay in place of the people who are having the sex is ridiculous. Go buy your own birth control. It’s actually higher than $25 when you add it to an insurance policy.
If you are in insurance (as I am) you would know insurance companies have a cost. The way they overcome that cost is by investing non paid premiums to grow and pay toward paid out premiums. Birth control can never be a non paid premium. You can’t lower the cost of the users by adding it, other than by having other people pay for it, and even then you are adding the cost the insurance company has for having it on the policy on top of the costs, and then are making everyone else pay for it.
I would say that is unacceptable. Keep it so people buy it as they need it. It is a perfectly manageable cost. The non religious started this battle in an attempt to make religions look bad. It was a publicity stunt and an attack. It is what the secular left tend to like doing. Note I said “secular” left. I did not say “left”. You curse “religion” (foolishly) and are blind to a VERY obvious attack and indoctrination method on the “secular” left and then claim you are ahead of the curve and talk down to others?
How about I make something clear to you: Church : State : Separate, where did it come from?
If your answer is the constitution: DING DING WRONG.
Thomas Jefferson, a Christian who stated there should be a “wall of speration” between church and state in a letter he wrote centuries ago. Why did he write it? TO AVOID RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
Now that I have thrown out your terrible argument I feel the need to educate your pathetic @$$: Contraceptives being part of insurance provided by employers is not a religious issue. It is stupid through and through.
I took the morality argument because you took the morality argument against Robert and actually took swings at the church.
Idiot. I’m not a right wing zealot. The reasons I am against birth control have nothing to do with religion. At all. If you couldn’t tell by my examples, NONE were religion oriented. I said it was killing a child, did harm the body, and society as a whole has a pressure and vulnerability where we are causing more bad side affects allowing abortion than giving abortions. Crunch the numbers. It is undeniable. Based on that alone abortions should at least be limited. The idea in Kansas was pretty good about having a woman have to have an ultrasound and see the baby was a good one. You should not be able to abort a baby before you know the decision you are making.
And let me tell you: AFTER RAPE AND AFTER YOU GET PREGNANT IN GENERAL YOU DO NOT KNOW THE DECISION YOU ARE MAKING.
You say you respect the woman’s body, but you clearly do not respect how she feels in the long run.
June 12, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
should read “than stopping abortions”.
Pardon the mistake. And don’t comment on my intelligence. When one is angry they often make mistakes.
Your comments here are nothing short of unspeakable, and cause all the problems we have in this country on this issue.
June 12, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
To Bob – based on your about comments…I am curious….If I tell you that I have cancer and will most likely die within the next two years and I choose not to be treated for it at all by my doctors….do you think that my doctors should force me to be treated as the cancer is doing unthinkable damage to me and my body? It’s not about abortion, its not about contraception and its not about religon….so I am very interested in your opinion about my situation.
I’m going to reply to this one a second time to emphasize the comment I made before, I made a good comment but apparently some people here can’t apply what the comment means (again, you’ll see my IQ Jon when I make this comment)
Innaction – Getting pregnant and not getting an abortion. Not drinking. Not getting into a fight. Not getting treatment. Do we generally punish someone for innaction? No. Action: Having an abortion. Getting drunk. Assault and battery. Forcing treatment.
To compare someone being force to receive treatment, is entirely different as that is an action. A woman not getting an abortion is innaction. You are trying to argue that disallowing action is the same as forcing an action. Just as a generalized comment, as short as one can make it, philosophically and psychologically, no. Those are not the same. At all. You try to link it. This has to do with likely your age, or trying to feel you are a loving person. It is well intentioned but it is incorrect. A woman being force to carry the baby is not the same as forcing cancer treatment. That’s a factual statement. They are different. Innaction is not the same as forced action. That’s a fact.
Your point is null and void.
If ya’all including Jon wanted me to take the “stastical” “intelligent” debate tactic there you go. I can make you wrong on those terms as well. But I prefer to be you know, human. And human means sometimes applying a bit of common sense, and not shooting out irrelavent details.
Bad example Chris. Your example is forcing something to be done. While you think it is the same it is not. Allowing an action is different than forcing one.
If she doesn’t like the kid, give it up for adoption. We don’t allow people to get drunk in public. There are reasons. But we do not ever force someone to drink alcohol.
We should not allow people to have abortions until they know what they are doing. We should not force someone (and don’t) to have an abortion.
And further: We did not force the woman to get pregnant. That was her choice.
So if you come back trying to compare someone being forced to try and survive cancer as similar to someone being forced to live with a child I’m going to tell you that you’re a very pessimistic person. I chose the words “survive” and “live” very carefully in that phrase and wrote it very carefully. Think about it for about a few days. It’s deeper than it looks.
I love how liberals pretend they are for the woman when they aren’t.
Rape victims got pregnant, and in the trauma make even worse decisions. I never said it wasn’t bad. But all I said was that they need to know what they are doing when they have an abortion. It’s still not their choice. If their body had the ability to do it by their will it would do it. Clearly, it’s not their choice. Until they know the baby is NOT the rapist, they should not be allowed to have an abortion.
That’s nothing to do with hating them. It’s everything to do with loving the child and the relationship with the mother, and valuing that over focusing on the rape. Moron.
The baby being aborted will NOT change the trauma level.
So this whiny little drone act you’re playing on is insane. You got kicked on your ass, should you kick yourself in the balls too?
*rolls eyes*.
One emotional bad has nothing to do with another emotional event. The baby is still the woman’s who got raped. She still has an obligation to the child. If she’s so selfish that she can’t be pregnant for 9 months and give the child up for adoption if it makes her think of the rape then she’s the one in moral dissaray, not me for saying the baby’s life matters. I love how liberals try to pretend like they understand everyone, and they are looking out for the person.
Guess what? You’re not. You have not thought of and weighed the good and bad about abortions, and what makes my IQ 156 is the very fact that the arguments I made your mind HAS NOT thought about (don’t lie and say you have). It is not even a debate that allowing the abortions to go unregulated is bad, socially, morally, and for the baby in comparison to allowing them.
If you can’t make an argument for why something is better, and then say oh I’m just against women, I’m sorry that’s an emotional outburst. You might say my methods are the same but guess what? I’m $%@$%ing going off an an @$$ and I’ll talk to you as if you are one. Got it?
What nonsense. There is no law stating the diocese, etc must USE the contraceptives; however as an employer they are mandated to OFFER contraceptives. It is quite hypocritical of any denomination to PRETEND to be offended by contraceptives. 99% of the congregants whether they by Southern Baptists or Catholics or Muslims or Jews regularly use contraception. Do we want a nation of Jim Bob Duggars. Something about the name – Jim Bob-not James Robert, but..Jim Bob – says it all..
Just another person making it up as they go along. This person claims to speak for Baptists, Catholics, Muslims and Jews. Talk about a “Whack-Job”!
Sorry Jim-Bob – I must have hit a nerve with you. I didn’t say I speak for all religions. I said MOST members – the overwhelming majority – of organized religions – whatever denomination – use contraception and want it available as a covered pharmaceutical under their employers’ health plans.
Actually, you said “99%.” Don’t claim to speak for 99% and then later state, in all caps, that you said MOST. What role of it is the govt to tell any private insurer what they must or must not offer as a product. Why shouldn’t I as a consumer be able to buy a product that I want?
And, you know this how?
you are a fool
If I am a Christian Scientist employer do I have the right to restrict my employees to CS physician’s?
I find it interesting that those in the persuasion business, when they can’t persuade, want to legislate.
Careful now…you’re applying logic.
You know what happens then..
No one has passed a law forcing women to use birth control, and no woman of any religion in the U.S. is ordered by law that she cannot use birth control. Approximately 98 – 99% of all women use birth control in the U.S. at some time, regardless of their religious affiliation, and I think that is what sticks in the craw of these religious leaders.
Mainly, ‘celibate’ male religious leaders.
Unfortunately, the religious whackjobs are the ones protesting.
I’m sorry, but religion brings out the worst in many people–usually the most vocal and visible.
Like the doctor who refused the morning after pill to a young rape victim in Oklahoma. On grounds that it was against the doctor’s religion.
And then the doc refused to find another physician to assist the poor girl.
Maybe, just maybe, religious figures and politicians should all realize that they need to keep religion out of the government. Period.
Since when did our govt adopt atheism as it’s offical religion?
What country do you live in?
There is no “state religion” or “official religion” in the USA.
Its hard to keep religion out of government when the government was founded on religious principles and for religious freedom. Employees anywhere are free to find new employment if they don’t like the benefits or conditions of employment.
It’s not that hard. It wasn’t until the 1950’s that “under God” was added to the Pledge–and only then because of the “Red Scare.”
Even the Republican hero Ronald Reagan was against religious involvement in government.
It’s only since then that it’s gotten way out of hand.
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THE PRO CHOICE PEOPLE DONT GET IT ABORTION IS MURDER FOR WHY DONT THE PRO CHOICE PEOPLE LOOK AT WHAT ABORTION CAN DO TO A CHILD STOP LIVING IN THE 1960S GROW UP YOU WILL ANSWER TO GOD ONE DAY. ROBERT
So then it’s okay with God if I beat my wife with a stick, as long as it’s no thicker than my thumb?
Cause, you know, that’s what your God says is okay. It’s right their in your completely arbitrary and approved-by-man bible. (That would be the Council of Nicea for the masses…)
Oh, and I can stone women too. Under certain prescribed conditions, of course.
Ooh! Wait–I can also have more than one wife! That’s allowed in teh bible–in fact how many wives did Solomon have? I think at least triple digits…
Oh, and unless you learn to speak/read ancient greek–I’m sure you’re reading the mis-translated word of God too.
Wait–do you celebrate Christmas? Because, you know that the Savior specifically told you not to, right?
I know, I know…critical thinking–not a very important part of a religious zealot’s repertoire…
Now–all that being said–there’s nothing wrong with a belief in God, Vishnu, Buddha, Allah, or whatever system of faith that helps improve your life.
However, when you blindly follow something to the point of zealotry, that’s where you become the problem.
Oh, and hey–you know that his name isn’t really Jesus, right? Right???
I see some stupidity in your post.
First you point out barbaric actions like beating your wife.
Then you point out how your train line of thought is just so much better, because you know, killing a living thing is totally acceptable and is not barbaric. Our bodies just naturally do abortions because they are so good for the body ya?
My dad is a medical engineer. Did you know that ALL not some ALL contraceptives have negative effects not just on the child? Did you know that if you look at the reflections of people who had abortions ALL not some who regretted it ALL said it was social pressure that caused them to do it or they thought they weren’t ready? And how many of them had kids later and realized they would never be “ready”? Well let’s do the math: What percentage of the population never has a kid? Under 10% for sure, I’d put it under 5%. But you know, it’s clearly such a responsible good natured thing that is good for your body to do to get an abortion, we should encourage it. And hey, it’s not like insurance lowers costs by taking unpaid premiums to grow the funds, so paying for something that is never unpaid (contraceptives) actually increases the cost since they cannot grow funds, and it’s not like economically this is a bad idea as well eh?
So in essence, you want to make a big man point here by saying “haaaayyy I’m so dem dere smart I kill muh babies because I don’t think I’m readdddyyy, and izz da dem dere same thing as how the bible says not to beat my wife that yuuu guyzzz ain’t letting meh kill muh babbbiieess.”.
Grow up. Moron. The adding of the contraceptives into this bill is wrong for society, wrong for business, and wrong for your thick head to be attacking religion.
When I found out I was having a kid, I made $72,000 a year. And I panicked. At 26 years old, living in Washington, making $72,000 a year I thought I couldn’t handle it. I’m a republican I might add and it scared me almost enough to have an abortion. If it affected me that much, and I realize now I was ready, then what the hell do you think is good about taking a woman, whose hormones which affect emotions are literally 10 times higher, and saying hey, you’re panicking, you need an abortion. You think that’s good? My @$$. I nearly aborted my kid due to morons like you. The pressure you create is far worse than religions who tell you to keep it. So get your stone age @$$ back in the cave man days. You aren’t ahead of the curve, you are leagues behind it.
Wow, personal attacks. How professional and rational.
You do know that contraceptives aren’t just the pill, right? I mean, with your dad being a medical engineer and all.
I was pointing out specific fallacies with Robert’s zealotry. Answer to God because you have an abortion…but it’s okay–according to the same religion–to beat your wife, engage in bigamy, and lets not forget murder–that’s okay under certain pretexts too.
Perhaps you should look into the mirror when calling someone “moron.” It may do you some actual good.
Ask a rape victim if she regrets aborting the rape pregnancy. I dare you.
In fact, I dare you to go to a rape victim, and tell her she can’t abort the fetus.
Having a kid scared the crap out of me too, but I love him more than I ever thought I could. I’m hoping to raise him in an environment that knows love, rationality, and freedom.
Which is why I’ll support keeping religion out of the government. Which, if you’re as true a Republican as you claim to be–you should be too.
However, since you seem to be blind to the “bad” parts of your religion–I’m guessing you’ll continue to wear blinders.
The amazingly idiotic irony of you calling me a “stone age @ss” when you’re the one spouting idiotic drivel is just…classic.
Jon: Nice twist. The irony is in the fact that the comment the guy made was that abortion was murder.
I pointed out that your comment about being able to beat your wife was unrelated. The a$$ was you. The irony was that you seem to miss that no matter which way you cut the cake, it is killing a life, whether it was rape or not. I hate to break it to you, I am not for the morning after pill for rape but I won’t get into it with you on that.
The guy you made your idiotic barbaric arguement to did not bring up wife beatings and compare it to abortions. You did.
And you do know that the guy you commented on, didn’t say anything implying he was against the types of birth control that didn’t kill a child right? Any birth control, including the pills, shots, and anything non condom oriented is bad for the body. I have to assume your condescending comment there was misplaced, and not thought out.
The personal attacks come from your outright bull crap you said to that other guy. And let me tell you, you deserve it.
And further:
The arguement against businesses providing contraceptives is not a religious one.
The blinders on are your blinders. Religions of course fought back, as they were attacked. But this contraceptives arguement is not one of religion. It’s one of common sense. Which is why I, as a non-blinded SOB will always be against birth control being provided by employers, nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, and I will always know that the government’s attempt at being secular is the only reason it became a religious issue, and I, unlike you, will always fight against secular arguements just for the sake of being secular having any place in our government.
Oh, and for the record, you semi-literate mouth-breather–I personally believe that abortions shouldn’t be the “go to” answer of choice. But I also don’t have the abject hubris to believe that I somehow have the right to decide what a woman should do with her body.
Moron.
Not her body. The child is it’s own body.
By the by: My IQ is 156. Try again.
Bob: IQ 156?
Bull.
That puts you on par with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein (160). I would expect someone with an IQ above genius level to be a bit more logical and have a much better diction.
156 IQ?
Not with statements like this:
“haaaayyy I’m so dem dere smart I kill muh babies because I don’t think I’m readdddyyy, and izz da dem dere same thing as how the bible says not to beat my wife that yuuu guyzzz ain’t letting meh kill muh babbbiieess.”
“stone age @ss”
“Grow up. Moron.”
People with above genius level IQ’s also don’t use their “dad” as logical evidence.
About the *only* thing you have presented over this now-obnoxiously-overblown internet argument that smacks of “genius level” intellect is the arrogance that most geniuses have.
Unfortunately, you lack any other evidence to support that laughable statement.
And as for your post: “the child is it’s own body?”
Not until the child can live absent the physical connection from the mother. Until then, in the strictest, (and arguably the most heartless) sense, the fetus is a parasite-incapable of sustaining itself without feeding off the host organism.
NOW–let me be very clear I do not hold to that particular ideology–as I cannot be that clinically detached, but I have read several debates where just that argument is put forth.
Of course, if you had a 156 IQ,you should already have some knowledge of those particular debates.
And if you’re whole thought process about abortion/contraceptives has nothing whatsoever to do about religion, why are you even posting on this particular article?
Jon,
All your comments below are not independant thought. The baby is it’s own entity. I do not mean it can live on it’s own.
Any idiot knows the child is not the mom’s body, she cannot force it to move or terminate it herself. It’s inside her it relies on her, it’s not her.
My IQ was checked at 156, which is why I am so much more capable of thinking then you in all my comments. Being an asshole, and imitating your stupidity, is actually not stupidity.
An entire 100 people protested in the city of Pittsburgh? Sorry, not impressed.
The law requires that religious organizations provide to their employees something that is in direct violation of their religious beliefs.
It does not matter whether you agree with their beliefs or not, the US Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Forcing a religion to violate its core beliefs regardless of how out of touch with todays society those beliefs may be violates their rights.
Unfortunately for religious organizations, employment law also has to be taken into consideration.
And the fact that not all employees of a religious organization may be members of that religion.
It’s a more complex issue than that.
Unfortunately for you, rights to birth control are not part of employment law.
Adding $25 dollars a month that every person has to pay in place of the people who are having the sex is ridiculous. Go buy your own birth control. It’s actually higher than $25 when you add it to an insurance policy.
If you are in insurance (as I am) you would know insurance companies have a cost. The way they overcome that cost is by investing non paid premiums to grow and pay toward paid out premiums. Birth control can never be a non paid premium. You can’t lower the cost of the users by adding it, other than by having other people pay for it, and even then you are adding the cost the insurance company has for having it on the policy on top of the costs, and then are making everyone else pay for it.
I would say that is unacceptable. Keep it so people buy it as they need it. It is a perfectly manageable cost. The non religious started this battle in an attempt to make religions look bad. It was a publicity stunt and an attack. It is what the secular left tend to like doing. Note I said “secular” left. I did not say “left”. You curse “religion” (foolishly) and are blind to a VERY obvious attack and indoctrination method on the “secular” left and then claim you are ahead of the curve and talk down to others?
Yeah. Try again.
How about I make it real simple so someone like you doesn’t need your medical engineer dad to explain it?
Church.
State.
Separate.
The major problem you have is you’re substituting (in your head and thought processes) “Christianity” for “religion.”
Just like all of your fellow right-wingers. (and before you keep tossing the “left wing” card at me–I’m a political moderate, thank you very much.)
The world has numerous religions. In fact, there are a huge number of Christian religious subsects.
Unless you’re an authority on all the world’s religions, I think you can’t speak for them all on the stance of abortion.
Try again yourself.
How about I make something clear to you: Church : State : Separate, where did it come from?
If your answer is the constitution: DING DING WRONG.
Thomas Jefferson, a Christian who stated there should be a “wall of speration” between church and state in a letter he wrote centuries ago. Why did he write it? TO AVOID RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
Now that I have thrown out your terrible argument I feel the need to educate your pathetic @$$: Contraceptives being part of insurance provided by employers is not a religious issue. It is stupid through and through.
I took the morality argument because you took the morality argument against Robert and actually took swings at the church.
Idiot. I’m not a right wing zealot. The reasons I am against birth control have nothing to do with religion. At all. If you couldn’t tell by my examples, NONE were religion oriented. I said it was killing a child, did harm the body, and society as a whole has a pressure and vulnerability where we are causing more bad side affects allowing abortion than giving abortions. Crunch the numbers. It is undeniable. Based on that alone abortions should at least be limited. The idea in Kansas was pretty good about having a woman have to have an ultrasound and see the baby was a good one. You should not be able to abort a baby before you know the decision you are making.
And let me tell you: AFTER RAPE AND AFTER YOU GET PREGNANT IN GENERAL YOU DO NOT KNOW THE DECISION YOU ARE MAKING.
You say you respect the woman’s body, but you clearly do not respect how she feels in the long run.
should read “than stopping abortions”.
Pardon the mistake. And don’t comment on my intelligence. When one is angry they often make mistakes.
Your comments here are nothing short of unspeakable, and cause all the problems we have in this country on this issue.
To Bob – based on your about comments…I am curious….If I tell you that I have cancer and will most likely die within the next two years and I choose not to be treated for it at all by my doctors….do you think that my doctors should force me to be treated as the cancer is doing unthinkable damage to me and my body? It’s not about abortion, its not about contraception and its not about religon….so I am very interested in your opinion about my situation.
I’m going to reply to this one a second time to emphasize the comment I made before, I made a good comment but apparently some people here can’t apply what the comment means (again, you’ll see my IQ Jon when I make this comment)
Innaction – Getting pregnant and not getting an abortion. Not drinking. Not getting into a fight. Not getting treatment. Do we generally punish someone for innaction? No. Action: Having an abortion. Getting drunk. Assault and battery. Forcing treatment.
To compare someone being force to receive treatment, is entirely different as that is an action. A woman not getting an abortion is innaction. You are trying to argue that disallowing action is the same as forcing an action. Just as a generalized comment, as short as one can make it, philosophically and psychologically, no. Those are not the same. At all. You try to link it. This has to do with likely your age, or trying to feel you are a loving person. It is well intentioned but it is incorrect. A woman being force to carry the baby is not the same as forcing cancer treatment. That’s a factual statement. They are different. Innaction is not the same as forced action. That’s a fact.
Your point is null and void.
If ya’all including Jon wanted me to take the “stastical” “intelligent” debate tactic there you go. I can make you wrong on those terms as well. But I prefer to be you know, human. And human means sometimes applying a bit of common sense, and not shooting out irrelavent details.
Being so easily goaded into anger by an online forum post is also not the hallmark of a 156 iq.
Give it up, boyo, you’re fooling no one.
Bad example Chris. Your example is forcing something to be done. While you think it is the same it is not. Allowing an action is different than forcing one.
If she doesn’t like the kid, give it up for adoption. We don’t allow people to get drunk in public. There are reasons. But we do not ever force someone to drink alcohol.
We should not allow people to have abortions until they know what they are doing. We should not force someone (and don’t) to have an abortion.
And further: We did not force the woman to get pregnant. That was her choice.
So if you come back trying to compare someone being forced to try and survive cancer as similar to someone being forced to live with a child I’m going to tell you that you’re a very pessimistic person. I chose the words “survive” and “live” very carefully in that phrase and wrote it very carefully. Think about it for about a few days. It’s deeper than it looks.
Rape victims who get pregnant by the act didn’t have a choice, you misogynistic pillock.
Misogynistic eh? Wrong word there kid.
I love how liberals pretend they are for the woman when they aren’t.
Rape victims got pregnant, and in the trauma make even worse decisions. I never said it wasn’t bad. But all I said was that they need to know what they are doing when they have an abortion. It’s still not their choice. If their body had the ability to do it by their will it would do it. Clearly, it’s not their choice. Until they know the baby is NOT the rapist, they should not be allowed to have an abortion.
That’s nothing to do with hating them. It’s everything to do with loving the child and the relationship with the mother, and valuing that over focusing on the rape. Moron.
And further further: I find it funny the guy I was debating with was talking about THE GOVERNEMENT not allowing actions versus forcing them.
THE GOVERNMENT does not rape people. You whiny dip @#%!.
Your comment is so out of place there I don’t even know what to say to you.
It wasn’t even relevant. <——- Ergo the 156 IQ. Relevance.
And I feel the need to point out:
The baby being aborted will NOT change the trauma level.
So this whiny little drone act you’re playing on is insane. You got kicked on your ass, should you kick yourself in the balls too?
*rolls eyes*.
One emotional bad has nothing to do with another emotional event. The baby is still the woman’s who got raped. She still has an obligation to the child. If she’s so selfish that she can’t be pregnant for 9 months and give the child up for adoption if it makes her think of the rape then she’s the one in moral dissaray, not me for saying the baby’s life matters. I love how liberals try to pretend like they understand everyone, and they are looking out for the person.
Guess what? You’re not. You have not thought of and weighed the good and bad about abortions, and what makes my IQ 156 is the very fact that the arguments I made your mind HAS NOT thought about (don’t lie and say you have). It is not even a debate that allowing the abortions to go unregulated is bad, socially, morally, and for the baby in comparison to allowing them.
If you can’t make an argument for why something is better, and then say oh I’m just against women, I’m sorry that’s an emotional outburst. You might say my methods are the same but guess what? I’m $%@$%ing going off an an @$$ and I’ll talk to you as if you are one. Got it?