Please tell me again where in U.S. Law birth control is listed as a required employment benefit?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That is absurd. Every fetus has it’s own unique DNA…[/quote]
And every foetus is still significantly closer to being a part of the mother’s body rather than an independent, autonomous lifeform.
It is NOT a person.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Please tell me again where in U.S. Law birth control is listed as a required employment benefit? [/quote]
If an employer is going to provide access to health care for their employees, it is unconscionable for them to apply their own religious morality to their employees choices.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Abortion harms someone else. Not only does it harm them, it kills them.[/quote]
At the point it becomes a person would you harm or kill it . Before it is a clump of cells granted a living organism capable of becoming a person , so is a sperm .
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Forcing religious employers to pay for birth control is religious persecution. [/quote]
They are offering health care , the Insurance company is paying for birth control . It is just another example that the Employer is exceeding it’s right to interfere in it’s employees life .
An employer has the right to employe people , It has the right to expect that person show up for work ready , not in a mind altered state . Dressed how the employer wants , Has the right to expect a certain amount of work from .
Has no right in the bedroom, has no right in what that person does after work as long as that person is ready to work their next shift .
I think the only grey area and it should be very grey , is an employee that does something to embarass the employer .
That employe offers Health Ins. to lure good employees period .
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Please tell me again where in U.S. Law birth control is listed as a required employment benefit? [/quote]
If an employer is going to provide access to health care for their employees, it is unconscionable for them to apply their own religious morality to their employees choices.
[/quote]
So I guess you couldn’t find that law then?
No, they subsidize the employees health insurance making it more affordable for the employee. They should be able to subsidize what they want for religious reasons or otherwise. An employer should not have to pay for an employees birth control any more than an employee should have to pay for an employers personal car note, clothes, or their birth control.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Forcing religious employers to pay for birth control is religious persecution. [/quote]
They are offering health care , the Insurance company is paying for birth control . It is just another example that the Employer is exceeding it’s right to interfere in it’s employees life .
An employer has the right to employe people , It has the right to expect that person show up for work ready , not in a mind altered state . Dressed how the employer wants , Has the right to expect a certain amount of work from .
Has no right in the bedroom, has no right in what that person does after work as long as that person is ready to work their next shift .
I think the only grey area and it should be very grey , is an employee that does something to embarass the employer .
That employe offers Health Ins. to lure good employees period .
[/quote]
They are offering to subsidize the employees healthcare not pay for it. The insurance company doesn’t pay for birth control. I know, I’ve picked the perception up in the past and buy condoms regularly. The pharmacy doesn’t give them to me for free when I flash my band card.
What if the employee embarrasses the employer after hours?
^Should say prescription.
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That is absurd. Every fetus has it’s own unique DNA…[/quote]
And every foetus is still significantly closer to being a part of the mother’s body rather than an independent, autonomous lifeform.
It is NOT a person.
[/quote]
Absurd. How is it closer to being a part of the mothers body? Can you back that up with something other than an insult?
Q: what makes a 4 month old fetus different than a 4 month old baby?
A: location.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Q: what makes a 4 month old fetus different than a 4 month old baby?
A: location. [/quote]
9 months of development.
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No you miss my point , that fetus is not a child [/quote]
No a sperm is a child. I name all of mine.[/quote]
Your photo album must take up entire rooms of your house then…[/quote]
When your sperm is as pretty as mine, you make room.[/quote]
we agree 
[/quote]
So Pitt you have seen Pat’s sperm? Is there something you are not telling us? lol
[/quote]
I’d have to give him a facial and that just wouldn’t be pretty, but it would be an up close view…[/quote]
you so called conservatives are surprising me . Dmad is constantly inquiring on my sexual orientation and pat has homo erotic fantasies about me . I will tell you both so I no longer tease your dicks . I am straight , sorry guys
[/quote]
Damn…
The only reason your surprised is because of your own bias. “Conservatives” are just people. And we might by some miracle have a sense of humor too.
I am a deadhead for crying out loud, having conservative beliefs are based on reflection, examination of logic and facts. I am against abortion, for instance, because the logic and reason leads me to no other conclusion that a human life, the species of homosapian is created as new, unique and complete human being at the point of conception. There is NO evidence contrary to this. There is no logic that can be derived that would entail the new creature is anything other than a complete, unique, automous homosapien, unique from the host and the donor.
Since that is the case and I believe that killing human beings is morally wrong, I have no choice but to be against abortion. It’s where the evidence leads and that’s what I am going to follow.[/quote]
I think the definition of conservative is a whole new threads . I will say I think I am more conservative than the majority on this site . Conserving one’s money or environment or assets is what (I) believe conservative is all about . Not whether you choose to do away with some cells that could become a person
[/quote]
The cells are already a person. You have failed to prove differently. You’ve brought nothing, no evidence to the contrary.[/quote]
They are definitely not a person. Fundamentally, just because you claim it to be, doesn’t make it true, and nor does it force the burden of proof away from your position. There is a significant amount of evidence to the contrary, but it seems that your idiotic beliefs mean that you’ve already decided the outcome, and you’re trying to make the evidence fit, and cherry picking only the evidence that suits your conclusion.
Calling an embryo autonomous is so stupid it is surprising that you’re able to find the on button on your computer.
Lets not forget that your ability to apply logic and reason is clearly flawed due to your farcical beliefs in sky fairies and afterlives.[/quote]
I haven’t seen anyone massacre logic and reason more than yourself. My ‘beliefs’ are backed by science, logic and reason. What you got? Nothing? Thought so.
Provide a shred of evidence for what you are saying. You won’t find any because it doesn’t exist. Don’t use words you don’t understand the meaning of.
Here’s a scientific perspective. No I don’t expect you to understand it.
http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
[/quote]
ROFL, You can’t claim that sky fairies exist and that you have justified your beliefs with science logic and reason. The whole reason the “faith” card needs to be played is because the beliefs are fundamentally irrational and illogical.
A white paper like the one in that link is not scientific, at least as far as the method is concerned. In isolation, the premise can be seen to be attractive and yet it fundamentally ignores the most important aspects of the process. Yes it uses evidence to make an argument, yet just because an exercise is a well written chicken and the egg prevarication, does not mean that when looking at the evidence all scientists must arrive at the same judgement. That’s just not the way the scientific method works, and shows a significant misunderstanding of just what scientists do with the scientific method.
That implantation of the embryo is also necessary for life can’t be argued, as well the provision of energetic requirements for the growth of this cluster of dividing cells. What this paper manages to do is to muddy the waters so that intellectual incompetents such as yourself, Pat, are able to understand a line or two and think that this is sufficient basis to impose your own judgements about what is morally acceptable or not onto other individuals who don’t share your farcical ideology.
Trying to make clearly delineated single point of “the beginning of life”, where the evidence to support this position is simply making a definition of what it is does not advance the argument. What it does is ask the fundamentally incorrect question. The important question is at what point does independent life begin.
Until that time, while the embryo may have the potential for life in the future, it is not really anything other than a tumour in the body of the mother.
This is generally the problem with ethicists and their papers. They rumenate occasionally over interesting questions, but primarily they’re interested in tangential soft questions.[/quote]
“They ruminate occasionally over interesting questions, but primarily they’re interested in tangential soft questions.” ~ LOL! Yeah, ethicists, or ethical philosophers ‘ruminate’ over soft questions like when human life begins… LOL! This is what it looks like when someone shoots themselves in the foot.
And I fixed the spelling of the big words you don’t understand.
I can provide reams of pure unbiased evidence to back up my claims, this was just one. The fact that you simply don’t believe what it says does not make it untrue. Like I said you have no evidence to support your claims, I have tons.
Anything other than a tumor huh? You sir, are an idiot. This is evidenced by the fact that you still use the genetic fallacy to support your claim that I derived my conclusions purely based on religion and therefore they are wrong.
Well, the only person bring up religion is you. You don’t actually know what I believe or why I believe it. So you’re just making shit up out of thin air and reckon yourself a genius. You argument is purely emotive based not on facts but simply based on how you feel. Which means it total garbage.
So now you must prove that said clump of cells is nothing more than a tumor. What is your well reasoned, heavily evidenced argument for this? Let’s see the evidence. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut the fuck up.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
http://www.all.org/abac/aq0203.htm
“Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. â?¦ The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
I can bring more. You got anything, from an ethical or scientific perspective that supports your claims? Nope, I thought not. There are smart folks in Oz, you aren’t one of them.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Q: what makes a 4 month old fetus different than a 4 month old baby?
A: location. [/quote]
9 months of development. [/quote]
That was poorly worded and I deserve that response. In my defense I was still half asleep.
That said, yes development is a differnce, but they are still the same entity.
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That is absurd. Every fetus has it’s own unique DNA…[/quote]
And every foetus is still significantly closer to being a part of the mother’s body rather than an independent, autonomous lifeform.
It is NOT a person.
[/quote]
Prove it. Prove it’s not a human being, should be simple.
I think your name was chosen correctly, clearly your brain is frozen. All you do is say other people’s comments or arguments (and clearly you cannot tell the difference between the two). Yet, you bring no proof of your own claims to the table.
So your counter arguments suck, because you’re an atheistic asslick who believes that something can come from nothing. ← If this kind of horseshit can work for you, then it should work for others as well. So because your an atheist, it’s clear you’re an idiot who cannot even spell big words when he misuses them. Sound good? Works for me.
[quote]pat wrote:
you’re an atheistic asslick who believes that something can come from nothing. [/quote]
What did God come from?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
Yes, your arguments are complete bullshit.
[/quote]
You don’t agree with me so it’s bullshit, lol.
According to who, you? The employer can subsidize whatever coverage they want. It is an expensive part of the overall benefits package the employer offers and if the employee doesn’t like their benefits they are free to go else where.
The employer doesn’t have to provide anything and the employee doesn’t have to accept anything.
Again, if you’d like to provide free birth control setting up an LLC is pretty simple. Go for.
[quote]
I’ve been there, and while there are definitely great people spread throughout the USA, there is something fundamentally diseased about your country as a whole.[/quote]
You could argue there is something fundamentally wrong with every country on this planet.
Where are you from?[/quote]
No, your argument is bullshit, and therefore I am pointing out why you’re a fucktard.[/quote]
An overused childish insult, classy. [/quote]
I think laughing boy here took a ‘logic and critical thinking’ class in high school and reckons himself a philosopher. But it’s clear he doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about. Dropping ad hominems like it’s hot doesn’t prove shit, but I don’t think he’s bright enough to figure that out.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]cryogen wrote:
Yes, your arguments are complete bullshit.
[/quote]
You don’t agree with me so it’s bullshit, lol.
According to who, you? The employer can subsidize whatever coverage they want. It is an expensive part of the overall benefits package the employer offers and if the employee doesn’t like their benefits they are free to go else where.
The employer doesn’t have to provide anything and the employee doesn’t have to accept anything.
Again, if you’d like to provide free birth control setting up an LLC is pretty simple. Go for.
[quote]
I’ve been there, and while there are definitely great people spread throughout the USA, there is something fundamentally diseased about your country as a whole.[/quote]
You could argue there is something fundamentally wrong with every country on this planet.
Where are you from?[/quote]
No, your argument is bullshit, and therefore I am pointing out why you’re a fucktard.[/quote]
An overused childish insult, classy. [/quote]
I think laughing boy here took a ‘logic and critical thinking’ class in high school and reckons himself a philosopher. But it’s clear he doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about. Dropping ad hominems like it’s hot doesn’t prove shit, but I don’t think he’s bright enough to figure that out.[/quote]
I think he’s just a troll, but for some reason I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
you’re an atheistic asslick who believes that something can come from nothing. [/quote]
What did God come from? [/quote]
Playing devils advocate here, where did the first cell come from?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
you’re an atheistic asslick who believes that something can come from nothing. [/quote]
What did God come from? [/quote]
By definition, God cannot come from anything. Something caused cannot be uncaused, therefore if ‘God’ came from something ‘He’ wouldn’t be God. Feel free to start a thread about the existence of God if you wish, this is not the place for it. It will be a massive hijack of the thread about abortion.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
you’re an atheistic asslick who believes that something can come from nothing. [/quote]
What did God come from? [/quote]
Playing devils advocate here, where did the first cell come from? [/quote]
How far back do you want to go?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
you’re an atheistic asslick who believes that something can come from nothing. [/quote]
What did God come from? [/quote]
By definition, God cannot come from anything. Something caused cannot be uncaused, therefore if ‘God’ came from something ‘He’ wouldn’t be God. Feel free to start a thread about the existence of God if you wish, this is not the place for it. It will be a massive hijack of the thread about abortion.[/quote]
But you brought up God.