1. Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
    To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
    Already a member? Login here then!

Here we go

Discussion in 'Politics, Guns, and a can of Whoop Ass!' started by Horseplay, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. Horseplay

    Horseplay Well-Known Member

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... pill-case/

    Part of me wishes that they would just say, fine, and close up shop. Another 13k jobs (and who know show many more ancillary) lost because of Obamacare crap. The government should not be allowed to make a person pay for or provide what is the means to an abortion (murder). Period. For a court in America to say a business owner has no right to operate his business within the context of his religious beliefs, that in no way break any laws*, is unbelievable to me. So much for religious freedom.

    *outside of the Obamacare crap
     
  2. Jack1966

    Jack1966 Active Member

    This is a tough one and probably not a subject to be discussed here, given that this is such a hot button issue. As I have said earlier, I do not support abortion, but I normally think of that in terms of a fetus. The religious right and Catholic Church's position that birth control pills are an abortifacient is a stretch for most Americans, and is a relatively modern concept. Life beginning at conception didn't come into Protestant thinking until the 4 or 5 decades ago. The Catholic Church formalized this in 1869. Previously, Thomas Aquinas said life began around 7 weeks. St Augustine said the male fetus acquired a soul at 40 days and the female at 80 days.

    Science, religion, abortion, Obamacare, attorneys, courts . . . oh, boy!
     
  3. apollard

    apollard Active Member

    Jack, the case is based primarily on the morning after pill. The ACA requires that be provided at no cost. Even the maker says is serves as an abortifactant in it's FDA filings.

    That the church's position changed as the science showed it to be inccorrect is to be applauded.
     
  4. Jack1966

    Jack1966 Active Member

    There is so much misinformation and disinformation out there, I'm not sure what to believe (except I can categorically reject the extremists on both ends of the argument, because they are not interested in truth, but rather what can be used to support their position.)

    Now, as I understand, the latest scientific information is saying the morning after pill doesn't work by stopping implantation of the fertilized egg, but rather by delaying or preventing ovulation. If so, there is no way the morning after pill could be consider an abortifacient.
     
  5. Horseplay

    Horseplay Well-Known Member

    How about thinking about it this way. Giving people a simple option of popping a pill to relieve them of any responsibility for their actions is not a desirable plan. Is it? Shouldn't people be held to a higher moral standard? My god. No matter how you try to scientifically define the process the bottom line is a person would take this pill to stop the creation/birth of a baby. It's not like we are talking about a married couple in a committed relationship here. Most users will be young people worried about the lasting affect of a one night stand or college party "hook-up".
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    T E R R Y,

    You just don't get it do you. A women's "right" to do whatever she wishes with her body is the most important aspect of her life. Job, family, personal responsibility are all things the righteous people thrust upon her. It's her body and she has full rights to do whatever she deems fit AND require others to pay for it. *


    * Except selling herself for sex. No one seems to question THAT "right" (or lack thereof).
     
  7. Jack1966

    Jack1966 Active Member

    Moralizing on sex from the bleachers here . . that brings a smile.

    Men and women have sex because it feels good great. I doubt many couples only have sex to procreate. If that's all sex should be for, why are all of us old people still doing it?
     
  8. Horseplay

    Horseplay Well-Known Member

    Come on already. You may be older but I'm not quite certain you are senile just yet.

    My point was simply that a pill like this, made available to anyone who wants it free of cost is not a good practice. I'll go out on a limb and suggest you may have had sex with your wife more times than she became pregnant. Was that simply by accident or maybe did you act responsibly before and/or during the act? The point being you understood that there are potential consequences to your actions and you took responsibility to act accordingly.

    To me, this pill is nothing more than a way to erase a previous error in judgement. It is also a means by which we are telling our kids acting irresponsible is OK. Maybe your liberal leanings make it easier for you to accept what I see as further moral corruption of our values. It doesn't sit well with me. Either way, it is complete BS that we can force someone or a business to go against their principles (which so happen to be the very same upon which our country was founded) and financially carry the fiscal cost of such a program. If you want my tax dollars to pay for something in the line of birth control, I hereby volunteer my federal tax money go to sterilizing anyone on any form of government assistance. Go ahead and jump off the deep end on that one.
     
  9. dodgestang

    dodgestang Active Member

    Two kids....two copulations. Am I supposed to do more than that?

    ewwww
     
  10. Jack1966

    Jack1966 Active Member

    Even responsible people can make errors in judgement--I've made a few myself. I know what you're saying, but young people don't always act responsibly. Young people will have sex--it was no different 10 years ago or 100 years ago. I wonder how many parents who tout abstinence, abstained themselves before marriage--very few, I surmise. Women are fortunate today to have this option, whether it be an error in judgement or a failure of some other contraceptive device. And it is a much better option than dealing with the moral and emotional dilemma of abortion, or the pitfalls of single motherhood.
    I keep hearing this "free of cost." How is it free of cost?
     
  11. Horseplay

    Horseplay Well-Known Member

    Jack,

    Yeah, most of us screwed around when we were younger and prior to marriage. I think then we were more morally aware than the youth today. We did not, for example, have "F"-buddies or nightly "hook-ups" as casually as kids today. And I would venture to say we did abstain longer and in greater numbers...although not always by choice.

    I don't think even you would argue that the younger generation is much more active and greatly less concerned about any moral perceptions of their activities. I mean do you recall junior high girls competing to give the most boys BJs at your schools?

    A far as free goes, yes it is free according to Obamacare. Must be included in any insurance package at no cost. Before you argue they pay for their insurance remember there will be plenty who don't that you and I pick the tab for in the government version.
     
  12. Jack1966

    Jack1966 Active Member

  13. SELLERSRODSHOP

    SELLERSRODSHOP Active Member

    St. Augustine was a fool. i know too many women that NEVER aquire one....
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Watching the news the other day I wonder if the fat lady has sung or not.
     
  15. Horseplay

    Horseplay Well-Known Member

  16. apollard

    apollard Active Member

    There are two morning after pills - one works by stopping implantation, and of course, it's the only one the advocates of the drug discuss. The other (which has additional active) ingriedients works by stopping implantation and if that doesn't work, it kills the embryo. I've seen no evidence on that pill that shows different. And both the comapny and the FDA still stand by that action.

    You are correct, it's not free.

    However, it is free under the ACA to the person getting the prescription, and it was sold as such.
     
  17. Jack1966

    Jack1966 Active Member

    Read this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all
     
  18. apollard

    apollard Active Member

    That is discussing Plan B OneStep, not the original Plan B. Both are still available and according to stats, widely prescribed because the original has slighty higher efficacy. Frankly, I'd prefer something more reliable than the MYT and an article that gives not one cite to back up it's claims.

    But, it really doesn't matter to me. Abortefactant or not, the Federal government has no right to dictate to people what they now dictate. Peoples' religous beliefs say contraception is wrong (abortefactant or not), and the Federal Government is gladly violating that right - and being cheered on by the left, who supposedly are the most tolerant and concerned about people's rights.
     
  19. Midlife

    Midlife Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    Just remember that no one, and I repeat no one, is being forced to take this drug.

    All that the gov't is saying is that if you (i.e. a company) are going to provide or pay for medical services, this particular drug is to be included in the pharmacology.
     
  20. apollard

    apollard Active Member

    Not quite. Actually, they are saying that you will provide medical services and it will include all these drugs, and if you do not we will penalize you and then use the money to provide the drugs for your employees.

    In other words, they will force you to provide them one way or another.

    SCOTUS has a second opportunity to make the Bill of Rights mean something. Or, this technique is soon to be seen at gay marriage, ordination of women, and every other unpopular religious practice.
     

Share This Page