Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Collectivization Leads to Mob Rule

Pope Obama of the Secular Church of State (click to embiggen)


"But I'm not anti-religion...  Some of my biggest admirers are Catholic!"

Despite the toady nun marched out by Obama to declare that all was now good, the US Catholic Bishops rejected Obama's economically ignorant and transparently tendentious sham offer. I will admit that trotting out Sister Carol Keehan was a nice touch by the president, but why did it remind me of the racist who when cornered defends himself by saying that he has black friends?
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. – Benjamin Franklin
The standard liberal/left argument in favor of Obama dictating to church-run organizations can be boiled down to tyranny of the majority:  Over 50% of citizens think businesses should give away birth control pills and abortafacients, therefore all women have a right to it.  Period.

This is an insidious line of argumentation:
The pivot point is how you see this. Is it a battle over birth control -- used by 98% of U.S. women at some time in their lives -- or over government intrusion into the right of religious organizations to live by their teachings?
58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics. (USA Today)
This contradicts more authoritative, less agenda-driven polling, but we’ll ignore that for now.

Stated another way, “If half the Catholics don’t care, then why is this an issue?”

The logical outcome of this would be that the government can overturn any lawful religious belief or practice that a majority of adherents don’t agree with. It’s an ad populum argument crafted to skirt the more fundamental constitutional issue.

This is an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion, but that is drawing the issue too narrowly. Remove “Birth Control” and replace it with “Iced Tea” and the larger problem would be the same: The government usurping the freedom of individuals by telling them what to do in their personal lives.
"A resolution to this issue cannot only cover 'religious' employers," Pavone said. "Religious freedom, which includes freedom of conscience, does not belong only to religious entities but to every American. There are many non-religious reasons to object to the administration's policy." (USA Today)
Yes! And that cuts to the issue. Government is binding your conscience, in an age and place where religion no longer can.  How the worm has turned.  It is one thing to take your tax money and spend it on wars, or abortions or wasteful green schemes. Elections revolve around such issues. It is quite another for the government to put a gun to your head and demand you buy something and give it to someone else, regardless of whether it violates your moral beliefs.

Here’s another line of liberal argumentation along the same line…
More generally, as Kevin Drum points out, one price for engaging with secular society is living by the rules of secular society. (Cohen)
Sounds good, but it is fraught with error. Who sets “the rules?” Where do they come from? What is the arbitrating authority when there is a dispute over “the rules?” What rule is the Catholic Church violating?  Is the rule valid when measured against the US Constitution?

Collectivizing our Rights 

This is really about the relentless march of collectivism. Throw all our money and liberties into the public pot so that state panjandrums and public policy poobahs can dole them back out.  As a state-sponsored bonus, it all belongs to the federal government now, not you, so the wolves have a right to vote to eat the sheep.
When health care is thus “collectivized,” when we’re “all in this together,” we’re forced to fight for every “carve-out” of liberty. (CATO)
USA Today reports that Obama’s Retreat is not enough. The article details the tangled nest of thorny problems this has opened up. What about a small-business owner who objects to providing insurance covering the morning after pill?

It’s a snarled up mess because government doesn’t belong in this arena. It has chained businesses and organizations to itself, insisting they provide services to individuals. This sets up a situation where a person is beholden to their employer for not just medical, but dental and other services that used to be the purview of the individual.

The easy solution is for the government butt out

The federal government need to get its fat, intrusive ass out of this private issue and turn its attentions to creating a clean, well-policed space for a free marketplace of health insurance to bloom, independent of employer participation. Americans will be able to shop for what they want, and if a majority want birth control pills, sterilization and morning after drugs, the free market will set up a competition to see who can provide them at the lowest cost.

Women who work for Catholic organizations can be free to choose their health insurance without the church snooping on them.  That respects the liberty and consciences of all, and that is what America is all about.

Catholic Bishops: Don’t Revise; Rescind
Cartoons
WaPo - “Compromise”

106 comments:

Anonymous said...

just left the following at AOW's blog in reference to the "Contraception" issue. It should certainly be relevant to this discussion as well.

|
|
|
|
|

This "Contraception" business in truth has NOTHING to do with obeying or disobeying "God's Law." It has nothing to do with RELIGION per se at ALL.

The Tyrannists (Obummer is just a Figurehead, believe me) are using Leftist Thinking and Leftist "Revolutionary" tactics to bring about yet another Great Leap Forward in achieving total control through CENTRALIZED POWER.

Don't you realize that by FORCING private insurance companies to GIVE AWAY products readily obtained at your local pharmacy or through your private physician, insurance rates will have to RISE in direct proportion. In other words the cost will be passed on to YOU and ME. This will make private insurance less affordable than ever, thus bolstering the Tyrannist's case for a "Single Payer" system -- i.e. Euro-Canadian-style Socialized Medicine.

Like everything else the Left does it's ALL about wresting Power and Control away from the private sector and OUT of the hands of the Individual.

"Religion," always a hyper-emotional issue best left alone, has been USED as WEDGE to split the people away from their liberty.

Leftists do not represent "just another point of view." Leftists are The ENEMIES of FREEDOM.

DON'T fall for their insidious tactics. VOTE THEM OUT. And if that fails to work, ROUST them out by MAIN FORCE..

"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed [every now and then] by the blood of patriots and tyrants."

~ Thomas Jefferson

If Obama & CO are allowed to get away with THIS, you will soon see businesses of ALL kinds "required" to GIVE AWAY their goods and services to "those in need."

That, my friends, is COMMUNISM. Communism brought about by STEALTH through the relentless dissemination of insidious propaganda disguised as "Truth.". This new rise of Communism -- if left unchecked -- will have to be destroyed by VIOLENCE. The alternative is acquiescence to existence as a virtual galley slave on a state-run Trireme.

There is nothing "academic" about this crisis. It's not "theoretical" or "rhetorical" it is ACTUAL. We are being slowly-but-surely THROTTLED to DEATH by insidious, relentless machinations of the LEFT -- many of whom now call themselves "Neo-Conservatives." They are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Younger generations, now middle-aged, have been thoroughly DUPED to the point where, even though they may THINK they re "conservative," their indoctrinated views have in truth rendered them virtua PAWNS of the LEFT.

And they now have it firmly fixed in The Public Mind that figures such as Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and RICHARD NIXON were evil!

~ FreeThinke

Infidel de manahatta said...

The march to socialism, fascism, collectivism, whatever you want to call it will never stop. Unless the people make it stop. And sadly I do not think that will ever happen. Too many Americans are already getting money from the Government.

Mark Adams said...

"The standard liberal/left argument in favor of Obama dictating to church-run organizations can be boiled down to tyranny of the majority"

Exactly. The left continually regurgitates that this nation of 'democracy' over rules a republic document (clearly stated) and wages a war of debate that it's some kind of right to free sh*t. They also cherry pick the constitution, only to toss the rest of it out without reservation.

Always On Watch said...

This is really about the relentless march of collectivism. Throw all our money and liberties into the public pot so that state panjandrums and public policy poobahs can dole them back out.

Yep.

Gotta dash off to work now. I have a lot more to say (as usual), but no time now. Ugh.

Jim at Conservatives on Fire said...

"This is really about the relentless march of collectivism."

Exactly right. The statist have out smarted us once again. Obama and Axlerod have done the political calculations and believe that those that see this as an infringement on freedom of religion are people that probably weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. They believe the majority of women support this concept and will vote for Obama in November. Chalk one up for the collectivist.

Jack Camwell said...

"This sets up a situation where a person is beholden to their employer for not just medical, but dental and other services that used to be the purview of the individual."

You think that situation didn't exist before all of this?

How about the flip side, that the church not covering birth control limits a woman's options? The cost of birth control (which can be fairly affordable depending on how much you make) doesn't matter.

Also, how many times have you said that most people want budget cuts? Most people want to get the heck out of Afghanistan. I'm sure a few years ago, you might have said "most people oppose gay marriage." And you would have been using the majority argument. So how is it wrong to use the majority argument with this, but it's okay to use it for the things you agree with?

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jack: Also, how many times have you said that most people want budget cuts? Most people want to get the heck out of Afghanistan. I'm sure a few years ago, you might have said "most people oppose gay marriage."

Nope. Never. I may at some point have mention public opinion, but I have never used ad populum to make my point.

And yes, the situation exists now that employees are beholden to the employer. You get what they give you.

My solution is to decouple insurance from employment so people can go shopping for what suits them.

How about the flip side, that the church not covering birth control limits a woman's options?

I cannot believe you are making that argument. Did you think this through?

My employer not paying me the additional $10,000/year I think I deserve is limiting my options.

By your ridiculous standard, anything anybody else doesn't give me "limits my options."

You and others who argue this from the statist side need to get this through your heads:

You don't have a right to other people's stuff.

Bunkerville said...

Reid is allowing this to come up for a vote. The intention is to give cover to a couple of Senators. The Bishops are holding firm, and the Catholics are still supporting the ban per poll, so I am still a bit optimistic it may backfire.

Jack Camwell said...

My point was that we've always been beholden to our employers way before this.

I would really, REALLY appreciate it if you'd stop using the same old tired word "statist," to describe me and my arguments. Please explain to me what is statist about saying that religious exceptions don't apply to every situation, especially to situations which limit someone's choices?

Birth control is a controlled substance with medical benefits. What if the Catholic Church, or some other religion, believed a potentially life-saving cancer treatment to be immoral, so they wouldn't allow it to be covered by insurance? They're allowed to tell that person "sorry about your luck"? And like I asked before, what if the person isn't even Catholic?

If an employer is going to offer medical insurance to an employee, then it should not be that employer's decision what is going to be covered based on morality. Everything that can be covered, within financial feasability to the employer of course, should be covered.

This has to deal with employment in a non-ministerial capacity. The issue is secular, and should be treated as such.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, once again you seem to believe that rights apply to institutions.

"This is an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion."

Who's?

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

Should all organizations be exempt from taxes based on religious or moral objections?

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

"What if the Catholic Church, or some other religion, believed a potentially life-saving cancer treatment to be immoral, so they wouldn't allow it to be covered by insurance?"

Which pretty well illustrates how this isn't about FREEDOMS so much as it is about FAITH.........the baby, perhaps?

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: Taxes is an interesting issue, but the precedent has been set that the government will do things we don't like with the tax money. That is the government taxing you income. It has been tried and it passes constitutional muster.

It is a distinct issue for the government to force you to give me something, regardless of the moral issue involved.

You've got your "exceptions" wrong way around. As a believer in natural rights you should understand this.

The onus is on the government to justify why it is compelling an individual citizen or organization, not the other way around.

I don't mean to be insulting, but the constitution binds the state, not individuals. It is the exercise of state power that must be justified, not individual actions that do not infringe the rights of others. And again, you don't have the right to make somebody else pay for your stuff.

Jersey: Organizations are made up of people.

Grung_e_Gene said...

The "easier" solution would be for unelected US Conference of Catholic Bishops to butt out. But, they have the power of god so their argument wins out.

And you keep claiming this "gun to your head" metaphor. SF, you keep stating this only when government does something you (or other right-wingers) hate. If the government does something liberals hate well most conservatives snidely remark, 'It's a representative democracy, too bad!'

Fundamentally, this breaks down to whether a Secular power can enforce rules upon a religious institution. Something popes and kings fought about for centuries and the Founders sought specifically to avoid by the 1st amendment and the no religious test clause.

Clearly, you disagree with the Founders intent which was to make government wholly separate from religious authorities.

And I'll just remark once over here, since we hashed back and forth on my blog, that this is about Equal Protection via benefits and compensation.

If the church affiliated institutions want to cancel all coverage and let their employees go on the open market they could but that's not how medical care and insurance are structured now. But, they can not cover some things and exclude others because of the feelings of a few old white male virgins because, rightly or wrongly, there are multiple levels of government involved and people of other faiths or those who do not subscribe wholly to the Vatican II or whatever papal edicts have been issued.

And what they are doing now is discriminatory.

Silverfiddle said...

And speaking of insurance and cancer drugs, there are all kinds of advanced cancer drugs out there, but no insurance plan covers them all, just as most insurance plans will make you take the generic version of that acid reflux drug, so that argument is weak.

I want someone on the other side of this issue to make the case as I have done from my side.

Present a cogent argument that explains how this is authorized by the constitution.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Gene:

The "easier" solution would be for unelected US Conference of Catholic Bishops to butt out.

Makes no sense. Ask somebody to pay millions for something that violates their conscience but to otherwise butt out?

What it the government told you to give me one of your cars because you have two but I have none, and I've got to take my kids to school. Would you just "butt out" because the government told you to?

If the government has told you to give me your car, then I have a right to it, right? If you don't give it to me you are violating my rights and being discriminatory, right?

If the government does something liberals hate well most conservatives snidely remark, 'It's a representative democracy, too bad!'

Please give an example.

Clearly, you disagree with the Founders intent which was to make government wholly separate from religious authorities.

No. Clearly YOU do. You advocate church and state married at the hip, with the state dictating what church will pay for.

I'll as you as well to lay out your argument, Gene. Discrimination? Please explain.

My argument is grounded in natural rights to life, liberty and property. Our constitutional republic was founded upon them. The constitution recognizes no right to have other people buy stuff for you.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Makes perfect sense. The Catholic bishops were never elected by the American people ergo they have no authority.

And as an ardent atheist I'd turn every church, mosque and temple into a lighthouse before I'd marry church and state.

And it's clearly an example of an organization discriminating against one group for whom they provide benefits because the group uses those benefits for something they don't like.

As I wrote if the church wants to rescind covering any of their employees health care then fine but, they currently provide benefits and as such they can no more stop covering contraceptives than an christian scientist who thinks blood transfusions are immoral or if a orthodox jewish group thinks root canals are immoral (because it makes an imperfection on the body). They can not dictate what people spend their benefits on.

I'll stop bothering with this because clearly you don't want to engage on that Equal Protection argument because you know it's the core of the issue regardless of the nincompoops "serious moral concerns".

Silverfiddle said...

The pro-Obama argument denies natural rights and denies the constitution was written to restrict government overreach.

The pro-Obama argument also depends upon the belief that if government says so, then it's OK. A very dangerous belief indeed.

Here is where I think good people are going wrong: Defining health insurance coverage as a right when it is not.

Good people who would vehemently disagree with government taking property from one person and giving it to another nonetheless fall for such government schemes because they are part of a larger regulatory scheme.

This is how progressivism justifies such government criminality: If an individual government action violates someone's rights, it is illegal. But if it is done as part of a larger scheme, it is OK.

Please see:
Of Course Government Can Put a Gun to Your Head

Silverfiddle said...

Honestly Gene, I am trying to see your argument but I just don't get it. Perhaps a link to an article that explains it in a way I could understand?

My argument is based upon the fundamental principle that people (including people who make up an organization) can do whatever they want with their property so long as the do not infringe upon the rights of others.

That is a principle tenet of our constitutional republic.

Refusing to provide an employee something is not infringing their rights. Indeed, there is a wide diversity of pay scales and benefit plans across the nation. Is everyone who provides something less that the best benefit plan discriminating?

You appear to be creating rights out of whole cloth.

Silverfiddle said...

To those who disagree with me. Here is an article that agrees with you. Tell me if this is your argument?

Individual Mandate: Not a Slippery Slope

It would probably be illuminating for everyone to read, since I can't get anyone disagreeing with me to give me a cogent argument based upon our constitution.

For those who read it, be on the lookout for "Larger regulatory scheme," and "regulatory framework."

Here is the key phrase from the article:

As Balkin points out, finding the ACA constitutional would not be inconsistent with the outcome of the landmark 1995 commerce clause case U.S. v. Lopez, in which the Court struck down a federal gun-control law that was not part of a broader regulatory scheme, and did not address a problem that required a federal solution. As Adam Serwer wrote, the "necessary and proper" component of the commerce clause is important -- the law has to provide a necessary market regulation that is proper for the federal government to address.

That is the key: justifying the action as part of a larger regulatory scheme. Build a big bureaucratic monster, and you can force them to come.

Mark Adams said...

Wow, this has been taken from a "abridge the free exercise thereof", to the "Equal Protection" clause??

Liberals love to take the focus off the subject.

Anonymous said...

Just as an aside, can I point out that contraceptives are not, strictly speaking, "preventative health care" at all, since pregnancy is in no way, shape, or form, a disease.

It's at best lifestyle care.

That said, if we take the hot button topic of birth control out of the issue the absurdity of the situation is readily apparent.

Years ago my sister worked at a Jewish hospital in Brooklynn. Her chief complaint about the place was that she couldn't get a cheeseburger for lunch. Should the government be allowed to overturn millenia of Jewish law and tradition to have satisfied that craving?

viburnum

Jersey McJones said...

"Jersey: Organizations are made up of people."

Okay. So then you are saying that organizations are people? That organizations have human and citizen rights?

JMJ

Grung_e_Gene said...

viburnum is close but off. If the Jewish hospital docked the pay of your sister because in her time away from the hospital she "violated" their religious tenets that would be wrong.

And viburnum is flat out incorrect about contraception not being vital to the health of a person.

Mark Adams, ignoring your childish insult, this has always been about equal protection in my view.

SF, I apologize that can't make the argument more clear than if a person's employment and contract includes the employer providing healthcare coverage then if the employee chooses a plan with contraceptives the employer can not turn around and disavow the plan.

If the employer says we aren't providing anyone any coverage then yes, the employee can pay for their own care. And thus the church wouldn't have to fund something they find abhorrent.

And here is the crux, Silverfiddle is correct that healthcare should be de-coupled from employment but we all saw how demagogues turned any discussion about healthcare into a political nightmare in 2009 and 2010 FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WINNING ELECTIONS.

Silverfiddle said...

OK, Jersey, since you want to engage in "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin sophistry," I'll ask you a question: Can an organization be sued?

Now, here is a WSJ article explaining why Obama's actions are illegal:

Birth Control Mandate Unconstitutional and Illegal

I'd appreciate any links making an argument for the other side.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Gene: if a person's employment and contract includes the employer providing healthcare coverage then if the employee chooses a plan with contraceptives the employer can not turn around and disavow the plan.

Thanks for the clarification, but employers do this all the time. At each new "open season" they adjust coverage, adding some stuff, dropping others and (almost always) raising prices.

Mark Adams said...

"Mark Adams, ignoring your childish insult, this has always been about equal protection in my view."
I'm sorry, Gene, did I insult you? When?

Second, in your opinion?
But the fact remains, this is not the church’s argument, no matter how much you state your opinion.
It's a 1st amendment argument THEY are making.

Anonymous said...

@ Gene

I think you missed my point which was that it's a much an outrage to insist a Catholic institution to pay for something that violates the tenets of their faith as it would be to mandate that a Jewish hospital violate kosher dietary laws to serve cheeseburgers in the cafeteria.

What the employee believes is not at issue. What is is the government dictating behavior contrary to faith. If that doesn't fall under the 1st amendment 'free exercise' clause, what does?

We can't make the children of Jehovah's Witnesses recite the Pledge of Allegiance but we should make Catholic institutions pay for RU-486?



And please elaborate on just when pregnancy became a disease? Apparently my mother didn't think so.

viburnum

Jack Camwell said...

Because if you're going to use the "abridge the free exercise thereof" argument on this, then you have to apply it to every single religious issue, ever.

In this particular issue, the Catholic Church doesn't want to be a party to something it deems immoral, ie. birth control. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what they deem to be affordable heatlh care coverage. They are not denying it based on money, they are denying it based on moral reasons.

A lot of cancer treatments are not covered, and you're correct on that Silver, but they are not covered on the basis of moral grounds. They're not covered for reasons completely outside the scope of morality.

Insurance companies don't deny coverage of things because they find it morally objectionable. They deny coverage based on cost. The church is wanting to exclude coverage of this based solely on moral grounds.

And you seriously didn't think you were going to wiggle out of the taxes thing did you? The church was vehemently opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, yet their tax money still went to it.

*NO ONE* here is arguing that someone else's property has to be taken away. Insurance isn't even property. Hell, the money that pays for it isn't their property. It's property of the US government.

You're trying to make this out to be an attack on the church, and it simply is not.

Teresa said...

Free Thinke makes a great point about Obama and his progressive cronies trying to determine the outcome so they can install a single payer system. Their trying to break the system in order to build a new system. They only care about having as much power and control over our lives as possible. This issue is about religious liberty and progressives trampling of our constitutional rights.

Always On Watch said...

Bunkerville has pointed out that there are certain dangers to hormonal/chemical contraception.

Just sayin'.

Silverfiddle said...

Insurance companies don't deny coverage of things because they find it morally objectionable. They deny coverage based on cost. The church is wanting to exclude coverage of this based solely on moral grounds.

So you're saying it's OK to deny workers something based upon cost but not upon moral beliefs? That's a new one. Please cite the law that makes that distinction.

And you seriously didn't think you were going to wiggle out of the taxes thing did you? The church was vehemently opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, yet their tax money still went to it.

I didn't wiggle out of it. I granted it. The Government taxes us and uses the money for all kinds of objectionable activities. This has been constitutionally tested in courts of law and is a moot point.

It's not even applicable to this case. This is a case of the federal government telling the church to buy morally offensive things for someone else. See the difference?

To go further, if the government would simply buy contraceptives for whoever wants them, that would also solve this.

*NO ONE* here is arguing that someone else's property has to be taken away. Insurance isn't even property. Hell, the money that pays for it isn't their property. It's property of the US government.

You're kidding, right? The money that pays for insurance for the employees of Catholic Charities comes from Catholic Charities, not the US government!

I'm still waiting for a cogent argument explaining how the government has the right to do this under the constitution. I even helped you by providing a link to someone on your side defending it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The logical outcome of this would be that the government can overturn any lawful religious belief or practice that a majority of adherents don’t agree with."

That was done to Mormons who were forced by the US government to give up their religious practice of polygamy:

"Over a century ago, citizens of the self-governing territory of what is present-day Utah were forced by the United States federal government to abandon the practice of polygamy through the vigorous enforcement of several Acts of Congress."

No one wants to force Catholics to abandon their belief that using birth control is a mortal sin [and Catholic doctrine considers any form of contraception except abstinence and rhythm as morally evil] Catholics have rightfully and sensibly abandoned it themselves, long ago.

The RCC has lost the battle with its own congregants and hopes to make the government the enforcer of a religious practice that is irrational and, like polygamy, anti-woman.

Ducky's here said...

The Council of Catholic Bishops isn't the Church. The body of Christ is in the parishioners and they use birth control.

And also, the rules are that if you take government funding you play by the secular rules. Catholic hospitals are all run by private secular companies anyway. Not many nuns still doing nursing.

You play by the labor laws also and in many states that means covering birth control.

All this has done is move L'il Ricky Retardo out in front and Obummer will kick his teeth in without breaking a sweat. The Black Messiah may be nothing more than a disgusting corporate stooge but he sure can play politics and the right wing suckers walk right into the trap. Fools.

Ducky's here said...

You're kidding, right? The money that pays for insurance for the employees of Catholic Charities comes from Catholic Charities, not the US government!

--------
And a lot less has been coming of late. In Boston the Catholic Charities used to permit adoptions to gay couples and gays took on a lot of difficult adoptions. The did God's work.

Then the archdiocese decides to try to get tough over gay marriage and they stopped permitting gay adoptions. Cut off their nose to spite their face.

So they may get stupid once again and come up with more inanity.

Leticia said...

In one word, "fascism." That's what what all boils down to.

Teresa said...

"No one wants to force Catholics to abandon their belief that using birth control is a mortal sin [and Catholic doctrine considers any form of contraception except abstinence and rhythm as morally evil] Catholics have rightfully and sensibly abandoned it themselves, long ago."

The Church has never abandoned the belief that using birth control is a mortal sin. The so called Catholics (CINO's) who have abandoned their faith, who pick and choose what aspects of the faith to follow - Cafeteria Catholics - are the ones who have dissented from Church teaching and use contraceptives. That would be like giving justification to the breaking of civil laws even though those are the laws which are supposed to be followed.

Finntann said...

Jack: "Hell, the money that pays for it isn't their property. It's property of the US government."

Take all of your money, earned, saved, invested... place it in a large brown envelope and mail it to"

Timmy Geithner,
1500 Pennysylvania Avenue, NW. Washington DC 20220

Now, who the hell is trying to wiggle again?

ROFLMAO

Jack Camwell said...

So SIlver, you keep saying that the government can't force them to do something specific with their money.

Does anyone know if the employees have to pay a premium out of pocket every month for their insurance? My place of employment gives us health insurance, but we have to pay a premium every month (it's definitely smaller than it would be if I footed the entire bill myself).

So, if these employees are paying into the system, should they not have the right to have a say in what services they receive under said coverage?

And as I mentioned, what about non-catholics working for a Catholic organization? Is it fair to allow the church to impose that moral imposition on the person?

My guess is that the employees pay premiums monthly on their policies, so the government saying that birth control must be included is actually ensuring that the people get the services they pay for, the services that anyone else would receive if paying for it.

So the "something for free" argument I think completely fails considering that.

Finntann said...

Gene: The Catholic bishops were never elected by the American people ergo they have no authority

1. The Catholic Church is not a democracy.

2. Does this mean that the board of Planned Parenthood has no authority since they weren't elected by the Amercian people either?

3. The EPA is not elected by the American people either. Do they lack authority?

For readability, I'm going to break this down into individual posts addressing your arguments.

Finntann said...

Gene: This argument as most of yours are is absurd.

"And viburnum is flat out incorrect about contraception not being vital to the health of a person."

With the exception of a few small geographic areas of the United States (e.g. Key West, San Diego, Hawaii) clothing is also vital to the health of a person.

Shall insurers also be required to provide clothing free of charge?

Viburnum is correct. Except in limited circumstances due to an existing medical condition birth control is not medicine.

I have no problem with that being required coverage when medically necessary. I also doubt that the Catholic Church would object to estrogen tablets being used to correct a hormonal imbalance, again medically necessary.

Birth control prevents the consequences of a voluntary act. Should my insurer be required to provide me with electrical safety shoes because I like sticking my **** in a light socket?

Hey! It's a lifestyle choice.

Teresa said...

This is simple: If you don't want to abide by the Catholic Church's rules or beliefs don't work for a Catholic company. Everyone has the choice to work where they want. It is not the Church imposing their beliefs on others. It is the Church standing up and living those beliefs and not violating their consciences in aiding others in an intrinsically evil or intrinsically immoral act. It is the people who want to force the Church to provide contraception et al. that are imposing their beliefs on the Church. These people would use coercion to force Catholics to abandon their beliefs. This is one more example of how progressives undermining our constitution and forcing tyranny upon the people.

Finntann said...

Equal Opportunity:

Medical care is a benefit, it is part of a compensation package. It is not subject to equal opportunity law any more than salary is.

I would venture that between us, one of us makes more money. That's not equal.

You say that "If the employer says we aren't providing anyone any coverage then yes, the employee can pay for their own care. And thus the church wouldn't have to fund something they find abhorrent."

So it is an all or nothing proposition? If the church provides healthcare they must provide contraceptives. But I am sure that there are things that my health insurance provides that yours does not and vice versa.

The equal opportunity is there. You or I are perfectly free to go down to the local drugstore and buy condoms. Just as any woman can go to the doctor, get a prescription for birth control pills, go to the pharmacy and get it filled.

Company A offers a 401K with a 4% matching contribution, Company B offers a 401K with 2% matching contribution. Again, NOT EQUAL.

So it does not have anything to do with equal opportunity or access, it has to do with who pays for it.

Let's look at it from the hypothetical perspective. Thousands suffer from Alzheimer's. I am a bio-chemist and develop a drug that cures Alzheimer's. Unfortunately the drug is manufactured from the brains of aborted fetuses, and there is no alternative manufacturing process.

Should the Catholic Church be required to provide an Alzheimer's drug manufactured from the brains of aborted fetuses?

A little extreme perhaps, but I think it illustrates my point.

Finntann said...

Jersey, your argument regarding rights, individuals, and organizations is a good one but not really relevant to this debate. It is a separate issue because currently they do have rights, can be sue and can be sued.

Separate issue.

Finntann said...

How would all you liberals feel of the consequences if tomorrow the Pope got out of bed and ordered that all US Catholic Charities shut down and all US Catholic Hospitals stop admitting new patients because we were morally unable to continue to provide service in violation of our beliefs. There is absolutely nothing you could do to stop them.

The Catholic Church, its charities, and its hospitals are predominately non-profit institutions and are providing a service they are not required or obligated by law to provide.

How's your brave new world look now?

What does that do to your Holy Grail of healthcare?

It is an option, and I bet most of you would change your tune real fast rather than suffer the consequences.

It's what I would do if I was Pope, but then again... that's probably why I'm not Pope.

Cheers!

Finntann said...

Shaw: Polygamy or more precisely polygyny (as the church never supported the opposite position of multiple husbands) has always been controversial within the Morman Church.

Book of Mormon, (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.

My understanding of the situation is that the Mormon Church's abandonment of polygyny was a compromise between the church and the federal government for the admission of Utah as a state, although the federal government did make many attempts to eliminate it.

And yes, those attempts were unconstitutional.

And no, I am neither a Mormon nor a polygamist.

Cheers!

Ducky's here said...

How would all you liberals feel of the consequences if tomorrow the Pope got out of bed and ordered that all US Catholic Charities shut down and all US Catholic Hospitals stop admitting new patients because we were morally unable to continue to provide service in violation of our beliefs.

---------

My guess is that he would be defied.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Teresa typed: "The Church has never abandoned the belief that using birth control is a mortal sin."

I didn't state that. I wrote that Catholics, and specifically Catholic women, reject the belief that using birth control is a mortal sin.

Only the white haired celebate prelates think family planning is a mortal sin. There is absolutely not one word in the NT by Jesus that addresses this. It is a made up dictate by celebate old men. And I'm glad to see that Catholic women have rejected it. They are using their minds and tellig the men who protected child rapists to go to hell. Good for them.

Teresa said...

Shaw is anti-religion, anti-morality, anti-liberty, anti-constitution just like our president. Just because society's values go down the gutter doesn't mean you have to get in the gutter and get dirty too. Shaw has chosen to enter the gutter of immorality. The Catholic Church stand up for morality, truths, and Jesus. I'll stand with the Church any day. Its the likes of you who influenced the priests to be child rapists. Most, if not all, were progressives who dissented from Church teaching. Since Shaw is for people dissenting of Church teaching you are in effect giving justification to the the child rapists.

Teresa said...

"Since Shaw is for people dissenting of Church teaching you are in effect giving justification to the the child rapists."

Correction: Since Shaw is for people dissenting from Church teaching she is in effect giving justification to the child rapists.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jack: So, if these employees are paying into the system, should they not have the right to have a say in what services they receive under said coverage?

By the same token, employers who are also paying in also have a say. Back to square one.

I guess you you are a natural rights person just like you are a pro-abortion, anti-everything the Catholic Church believes Catholic. Are you putting us all on, Jack?

I am serious. What is conservative about you? Why, if you are pro-natural rights, why can you not grasp this simple property rights concept?

You have serious self-identification issues. I can't help you further...

Anonymous said...

Shaw's right, there is no line about contraception or abortion in the Bible...but, in every sense of the word, LIFE IS ALL IMPORTANT, Life is celebrated and not killed, Life is a God-given gift...we are told to 'go forth and multiply' in the Old Testament and I don't think that's advice for early math, but...

Anonymous said...

Genesis 38: 8-10

viburnum

Finntann said...

Shaw...yeah, I thought all that adultery and coveting stuff was a bit over the top too.

Isn't religion wonderful when you can pick and choose what you want to follow?

The RCC has lost (in adherence to canon) a lot of congregants on a lot of other issues too, as have the protestants and every other religion... makes the world a much better place, doesn't it?

By your logic if the majority of Catholics lied and stole, that would make those actions okay too.

Ethics and morality are not democracy issues, one can not vote away the immorality of certain acts. If the Iranians put nuking Israel off the map to a vote and a won...would it make it morally and ethically correct? After all if the majority supported it it must be okay, right?

As to whether or not there is anything in the New Testament regarding abortion, there is nothing about cannibalism either...care to attempt to make that moral argument?

While not specific to abortion the following quote sheds some light on the issue:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)"

While yet in his mother's womb...hmm, might make one pause and think, that is if one put any stock in the New Testament, no?

Since when has majority had anything to do with religion? There are roughly 70 million Catholics in the US... if only 10% adhered to the teaching that would be 7 million people forced to violate their conscience.

Fact is, the size of the church or the number of adherents is irrelevant. What if it was the Quakers? Or a church of 1000 people. It would still be just as wrong.

Cheers!

Always On Watch said...

Off topic....What the hell is this new format for word verification? I can barely read the damn thing!

Copy before trying to publish, I guess.

Always On Watch said...

How would all you liberals feel of the consequences if tomorrow the Pope got out of bed and ordered that all US Catholic Charities shut down and all US Catholic Hospitals stop admitting new patients because we were morally unable to continue to provide service in violation of our beliefs.

Or, they could pay the fine for not offering health insurance.

The fine for Notre Dame University for one year = $10 million.

-----------

If all the Catholic organizations, via shutting down or self-funding health coverage, pull themselves from the health-insurance market, we can expect the cost of all health-insurance policies to climb.

Jack Camwell said...

"@ Jack: So, if these employees are paying into the system, should they not have the right to have a say in what services they receive under said coverage?"

Of course they have a right to that. They also have a right to not get birth control. Just because the insurance covers it doesn't mean they are culpable in some way. Does anyone even know who the church goes through for insurance? I'm sure the provider covers non-catholics for their birth control.

"By the same token, employers who are also paying in also have a say. Back to square one."

Yes, they do. Fortunately, this is not a mandate forcing people to procure and use birth control. This is just making it more accessible for people who choose to use it.

"I guess you you are a natural rights person just like you are a pro-abortion, anti-everything the Catholic Church believes Catholic. Are you putting us all on, Jack?"

I believe that rights are innate and are derived purely from our humanity. By making the insurance cover birth control, it's giving people more freedom to do what they want with their money. If people under the insurance don't morally agree with birth control, they're free to continue not using birth control.

"I am serious. What is conservative about you? Why, if you are pro-natural rights, why can you not grasp this simple property rights concept?"

Services are not property. Maybe in some loose philosophical sense.

"You have serious self-identification issues. I can't help you further..."

I don't have identity problems. I'm just realistic about the world. I'm not stuck in some archaic idea of "liberal vs. conservative." I'm pro-choice, I'm pro gay marriage, and sometimes we disagree on some fiscal things but for the most part I'm fiscally conservative. I'm all for small government and getting it out of our lives, but I also understand that the government is there to PROTECT our rights and increase liberty.

I agree with nearly every one of Gary Johnson's platforms, and I'm a Ron Paul supporter.

Technically, I'm more conservative than you =p

Teresa said...

"Technically, I'm more conservative than you =p"

The only place you're more conservative is in your own mind. True conservatives deal with reality. You don't live in reality but in your own fantasy land, Jack.

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaw Kenawe said...

Teresa typed: "Shaw is anti-religion, anti-morality, anti-liberty, anti-constitution just like our president."


Just because society's values go down the gutter doesn't mean you have to get in the gutter and get dirty too. Shaw has chosen to enter the gutter of immorality.

The Catholic Church stand up for morality, truths, and Jesus. I'll stand with the Church any day. Its the likes of you who influenced the priests to be child rapists.

Most, if not all, were progressives who dissented from Church teaching. Since Shaw is for people dissenting of Church teaching you are in effect giving justification to the the child rapists.

2/15/12 9:08 PM



Teresa said...
"Since Shaw is for people dissenting of Church teaching you are in effect giving justification to the the child rapists."

Correction: Since Shaw is for people dissenting from Church teaching she is in effect giving justification to the child rapists.

I don't like to answer hysterical, unhinged comments, but when you, Teresa, attack my character, I will defend myself.

You equate my opinion on the contraception issue with encouraging child rapists?

You, Madam, are a fool.

Teresa said...

You have advocated for Catholics to dissent from Church teaching. That some type of dissent is what led to the priest sex abuse scandal. At least the Church has addressed this problem unlike other groups in our society. Instead, my view says either the people follow the Church's rules with which they belong to or if they refuse to follow the rules and disrespect the Church get the heck out and find a Church of what's happening now and do whatever the heck they want while belonging to that other church that doesn't give a darn about morality or truth.

Shaw, you are an ignorant, immoral fool. Go forth and be promiscuous you ignoramus.

Teresa said...

correction - "some" is really supposed to be same.

Jack Camwell said...

Teresa,
I'm fairly certain that you have little idea of what it means to actually be conservative. You've bought the line of crap that the Republican party has worked really hard to feed you. Being conservative has nothing to do with being okay with bold-faced contradictions.

Reality? You actually think that you have a grip on reality? And you think that you're so enlightened that you can tell people that they don't have a grip on reality?

Oh thank you SO MUCH for informing me that I don't have a grip on reality. My life will be better now knowing that everything I believe is a lie.

Please.

Your belief that you somehow have a grip on reality, and others do not, is a sure sign that you definitely don't have a grip on reality. Far greater minds than yours have admitted that even they don't have a grip on reality. So what makes you so special? Is it because you read some stuff and agree with it? Yes, agreeing with something definitely makes it true and real.

Open your eyes to the fact that you're blind and then you'll realize you were only blind because you kept your eyes shut.

Reality? Don't bore me with such manufactured partisan slop.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jack: By making the insurance cover birth control, it's giving people more freedom to do what they want with their money.

You don't Give people freedom; we possess it inherently.

I would agree with you if the person receiving the insurance coverage were not tapping the employer to pay for part of it. If it is you shopping with your money, then it is your business and no one elses. When you are asking someone else for something, the game changes, and as I keep saying, I do not have a right to demand you pay for my stuff.

Jack Camwell said...

Silver, for the love of God quit making a non-existent argument. Let me rephrase what I said:

By giving people more choice of what to do with their money, their freedom is less curtailed.

You're arguing something that we BOTH AGREE ON.

There would have to be more in depth analysis, but my guess is that asking for birth control to be covered would not incur any more cost to the employer. The premiums would likely stay the same.

And fortunately for me, if the employees do pay a premium, which they probably do, then yes they have a right to demand that they be given the services they pay for. It's not the insurance company doing this, it's the church. The church is telling them that they don't have the right to demand a service that they partially pay for.

Jack Camwell said...

BUT . . .

If it's the insurance provider that is choosing to not cover birth control, then you totally have a valid argument.

Teresa said...

Jack,

Your the one who is a partisan hack. I've seen your views across the internet and for you to claim I'm not a conservative when you definitely don't convey conservatives views as evidenced by your words across the internet is laughable - HAHAHAHA!!!

I am a die hard conservative who defends those values to the core.

Silverfiddle said...

The church is telling them that they don't have the right to demand a service that they partially pay for.

That's the crux of it. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

Decouple insurance from employment, where the individual can then take her hard-earned money and shop for the plan she wants, and there is no issue. Neither the government nor the employer is involved in someone's personal decision, as it should be.

Jack Camwell said...

Teresa,
I slam both the Republicans and the Democrats. Exactly how am I partisan? Do you understand the definition of what it means to be partisan?

In fact, if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson, a Libertarian. Last I checked, Libertarians are farther right on the spectrum than any rank and file Republican.

So since I blast both parties, explain to me exactly how I'm a partisan hack, especially compared to you. I've been called a lot of things, usually erroneously. I've been called a statist, a sexist, a racist, and the whole gamut. But one thing I've never, EVER been accused of is being a partisan hack.

So sure, you may be a die hard conservative, but your conservatism is fraught with contradictions. My guess is though, that since you don't even understand what a partisan hack is then you're probably okay with contradicting yourself in your beliefs.

Silverfiddle said...

Last I checked, Libertarians are farther right on the spectrum than any rank and file Republican.


Uh, no. Do yourself a favor and do not say that in a libertarian forum. You will get your butt torn off and handed to you.

Libertarianism does not fit on the left-right scale.

Libertarianism's scale is a personal liberty-state control scale, with libertarians firmly on the liberty end, fighting battles against "the socialists of all parties" on the state control end of the spectrum.

Teresa said...

I know how to get you stirred up, Jack. You may not fit the definition of a partisan hack but you sure do fit the definition of a selfish, immoral liberal fascist.

Jack Camwell said...

Theresa,
Since you apparently know me, please tell me exactly how I'm selfish.

Also, please tell me exactly how I'm immoral. By whose standard am I immoral? Yours? The Catholic Church's?

And Fascist? Really? You seriously believe that I'm the same as Hitler and Mousellini? I've talked about natural rights, and how people need to be free to live their own lives as they see fit, so long as that doesn't hurt anyone else, and you call me a FASCIST?

Maybe you don't know what the definition of Fascism is, which would not be surprising because you didn't even know what it means to be a partisan hack. Fascism is a much more complex term.

No, Teresa, I'm not even a little bit of a fascist. You know what seems pretty fascist to me? Outlawing gay marriage. See, unlike you I *actually* believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit. You'll never see me tell two people that they can't get married because the bible says so.

You also will never see me presume to tell a woman what to decide to do with her unborn child. Why? Because it's not my decision to make, and what's more it's not even my business.

I also believe in small government, but I believe that it's the government's job to protect our rights and make sure that we are able to live our lives as freely as we can.

So again, how am I a fascist?

Teresa said...

Jack, your ignorance spews forth in your comments.

You obviously are clueless about procreation and that it is impossible for two homosexuals to procreate naturally. Two homosexuals are not equal to a man and woman, heterosexuals. At least I'm not severely screwed up and clueless and recognize the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I know exactly what a partisan hack is and you took the bait. Yes, you are a liberal fascist. Your words prove this. Your hatred clouds your judgment and your view of reality. My view of reality of reality is crystal clear.

Teresa said...

My view of reality is crystal clear. May God have mercy on your soul for being morally bankrupt.

Jack Camwell said...

Teresa,
This is how I know you're completely out of sorts with just about everything: you said I "obviously" don't know about pro-creation and the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Really? Well, there's an assumption that's completely wrong. Why are you resorting to making false assertations about my knowledge and beliefs? Why would you be so bold as to presume to know me? So now that we know you're wrong about me again, where do we go from here?

And what bait? You baited me into showing that you have *no* clue what you're talking about? Did you purposely make yourself look like an idiot just so I could point it out? That's a pretty interesting strategy. Set me up to knock you down. Yes that really helps bolster your credibility.

You dodged my question asking you to explain exactly how I'm a Fascist.

Tell me what I have in common with Hitler.

Teresa said...

By demanding people to violate their conscience rights, violating their freedom of religion - to believe what their religious beliefs, forcing people to abandon their consciences all for women's so called rights is consistent with Hitler and a fascist mentality. Women can go do whatever the heck they want with their bodies as well another body inside of them, as long as they use their own money.

Teresa said...

religious is supposed to be religion. To believe what their religion believes.

Teresa said...

What if the next president mandated that all pro-choice agencies fund pro-life pregnancy centers?

You have determined that just because a person can't speak and can't stand up for him/herself the baby does not have value and is not worthy to have the right to life in the constitution. You are the one who devalues human life and has followed in the footsteps of Hitler. You have deemed that a bigger person has more value than the smallest human being, That is like Hitler. Hitler didn't see Jews lives as having value so he killed them. That is exactly what is happening with the unborn in America.

Jack Camwell said...

I see. Where did I say that all women must be on birth control? Where did I say that all women need to believe that birth control is morally right?

Women can do whatever they want with their bodies and what's inside them unless it's abortion, right? Because that's wrong, and you want to ban it. Right?

Please show me where I said they have to abandon their consciences? Are you suggesting that by having an insurance policy that covers birth control a woman is somehow morally culpable for that? That's pretty dumb, considering that every person's tax dollars are used to do things that people think are morally wrong. Yet those people aren't morally culpable are they?

"Oh, well that's because they have no choice but to pay their taxes." These women have no real choice but to have that health insurance plan.

Guess what, grand arbiter of reality: we're met with situations where we have to violate our consciences all the time. Life isn't as simply as you'd have it, and it never will be. Given that 98% of American women have used birth control at one point in their lives, and that about 50% of the population is Catholic, I'd say there aren't that many women being asked to violate their conscience.

True, no one should be asked to violate their conscience, so thank God no one is being asked to do so in this situation.

I'm all for women's rights, and I think it's pretty stupid that women are being denied something that other women in America get simply because the Church says so.

I suggest you go read an article about what fascism is. You might be surpised to see how much closer to it you are than I am.

Teresa said...

I am fully aware of what fascism is. You need to get your head out of the sand. You don't have a clue as to what fascism is. Your too close to your displays of fascism so you can't see that you are a fascist.

Jack Camwell said...

And there you go AGAIN making completely baseless and ridiculous assumptions about what I believe. Have you EVER read anything I've written?

Personally, I think abortion is abhorrent. I think the practice is barbaric, and it's sad that we live in an age where women get abortions simply because having a baby would be inconvenient to them. I would never, EVER want my wife to abort my child unless we knew the baby would kill her. You will never see me donate money to Planned Parenthood. I believe that abortion is immoral.

BUT, I'm also intelligent enough to understand that sometimes life isn't as easy as we want it to be. It's not my business to decide whether or not a woman should abort her baby. She knows herself best, she knows her life best. It's her choice. Whatever moral culpability there is is between her and whatever God she believes in. I know you won't be able to understand that, but that's because you've got a very loose grip on reality. Wouldn't it be wonderful if abortions were never, ever necessary. Wouldn't it be grand if war was never, ever necessary.

All life is sacred, even the terrorists that you're okay with having their rights violated in Guantanamo Bay. I also believe that the death penalty is immoral.

So, are you finished making really wacked out and incorrect assumptions about what I believe? Or will you just continue on?

Finntann said...

Jack, I think you miss the whole point. The issue is not about birth control, it is about government and rights, real inherent rights, not imaginary rights entitling you to someone else's stuff.

You will agree that birth control, whatever the form has some value?

The government is mandating that that value be transferred from one entity to another.

Anyway you look at it, someone other than the government or the policy holder is stuck with the cost of that good or service. Be it the church, the insurance company, or the employer.

Now, if the government said all insurers must offer contraceptive care, that's fine, but they can not mandate that anyone other than the recipient pay for it.

If the insurers wish to offer free contraceptives because in the long run it is cheaper than paying for a pregnancy and delivery, that's fine, that's also their choice... not something to be mandated by government.

On the subject of market regulation, the government does have limits to its power. Explain to me what the difference is between the government mandating that insurers provide free contraceptives and mandating that grocers must provide free milk.

Two businesses offering goods and service, what the good or service is, is quite frankly simply irrelevant.

And as you supporters of this government power grab like to point out, misquoting the Guttmmacher study misrepresenting the NCHS NFSG survey, 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives.

According to your own source data access to contraceptives isn't an issue, 98% is pretty darn good in fact.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

TOO MANY WORDS! TOO MANY WORDS!

Too much ANGER! Too much ANGER!

Too much ado about NOTHING!

Enough to give one a MIGRAINE.

~ FreeThinke

dmarks said...

Jack: So you really aren't opposed to abortion at all. Your saying you are opposed to it but it is OK if others choose to abort children is really weasel words.

Apply it to other issues. Your exact logic:

"I am opposed to hunger personally, but it is OK if others starve to death".

"I am opposed to the death penalty, but it is not my business if the government chooses to execute criminals"

"I am opposed to slavery personally, but it is not my business to dictate what slaveowners do with their own private property".

dmarks said...

jack also said: "You also will never see me presume to tell a woman what to decide to do with her unborn child. Why? Because it's not my decision to make, and what's more it's not even my business"

You are clearly the kind of person would observe a rape or child abduction in progress, and walk by and say "not my business".

The type of person who thinks the worst acts of violence against another person are fine as long as you aren't be harmed. And that a mother has a sacred right to commit fatal violence against her child.

You may claim to not be fascist, but it is this attitude of turning the other way when atrocities happen that let fascism succeed in Italy.

Jack Camwell said...

dmarks,

No, I don't think it's "okay" for others to have an abortion. I think it's a bad thing no matter who has it or for what reason. What I'm saying is that although it's a bad thing, it's understandable in some circumstances.

What if it's to save the mother's life? What if the mother was raped? What if it's an incest baby? All of those situations are incredibly crappy, and it's *not my decision* what a woman chooses to do in those situations. She's carrying the baby, it's her decision. It's not yours. It's not the government's.

Taking a life is never a good thing. It might be legitimate, it might even be justified in some cases, but it's never a good thing.

The government should not have the power to tell a woman that she must give her life to give birth to her child. Nor should the government tell a woman that she MUST give birth to the child of her rapist.

It's not okay that other people starve. You'll never see me rail against charity and the like.

The death penalty is not okay, and I don't look the other way.

And what is it with some of you and making wild-ass assumptions about my beliefs just so you can feel comfortable about how you view people whose opinions differ from yours?

If you think that I'm the type of person who would just allow someone to be raped, or think that violence is okay so long as I'm not getting hurt, then I hate to say it but you're an idiot.

Your problem, and Teresa's problem, is that you think reality is so simple, so black and white. If a line of logic doesn't work in every single situation, then that means the logic is fallacious, right?

Wrong.

What's sad is that you think your method of argumentation is actually effective. Anyone with a brain can see that you're making sweeping generalizations by applying the logic of one situation to completely different scenarios. It's weak and ridiculous.

For example, when is it EVER justified for a person to starve to death? When is it EVER justified to just let a woman get raped? When is slavery EVER justified?

The answer is it's never justified in those situations.

However, killing is a bad thing. But sometimes it's justified. Is it wrong to kill a man in self-defense? Maybe it is, but we would still say it was justified, or a legitimate response.

Just as well, it's a legitimate response to terminate a pregnancy that threatens to kill the mother.

So no, dmarks, I'm not a fascist. Not even a little bit. God forbid you are ever put in a serious situation that is morally gray.

dmarks said...

Jack said "...I think it's a bad thing no matter who has it or for what reason."

Which is kind of a weak opinion, as you don't mind it happening outside of your own sphere of influence.

"What if it's to save the mother's life?"

Then you get into a self defense issue. Like shooting an intruder in your home.

"All of those situations are incredibly crappy, and it's *not my decision* what a woman chooses to do in those situations"

So for you it is OK if someone kills someone for the reasons of the parents being related, or the father being a rapist.

"She's carrying the baby, it's her decision. It's not yours. It's not the government's."

You see that as a license to kill. I don't. The baby is a living human being. It is no ones decision. And yes, it is not the government's either (looking back at the Roe v Wade decision... a very bad one).

"Taking a life is never a good thing."

Except if the mother wants to kill someone, you argue.

"he death penalty is not okay, and I don't look the other way."

Unless it is a child. Then you approve of the death penalty for the above described reasons. And there's not even a trial.

"And what is it with some of you and making wild-ass assumptions about my beliefs"


It's no assumption. You have stated you oppose abortion, then go on in several ways about how you favor it.

"just so you can feel comfortable about how you view people whose opinions differ from yours?"

Opinions are one thing. Opinions that it is good to kill people are another thing entirely. Such uninformed and mean-spirited opinions are best kept to ones self.

"If you think that I'm the type of person who would just allow someone to be raped"

Well, you do approve of children being killed for odd reasons such as the crime of one of the parents or the consaguinity of the parents. So why would you not approve of other meaningless violence?

"Your problem, and Teresa's problem, is that you think reality is so simple, so black and white."

Black and white is what you are living in. I am just dealing with reality.

"What's sad is that you think your method of argumentation is actually effective."

Yes, it can be effective to deal with facts. I'm glad that arguing from an informed position can work.

"Anyone with a brain can see that you're making sweeping generalizations"

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your pro-abortion position.

Using your logic, if one can find a rare instance where one of these is justified (just like how rare it is that abortion is necessary for saving the life of a mother), would you give a wholesale right for men to rape, just like how you strongly favor mothers killing very young children?

T"he answer is it's never justified in those situations."

Just like it is never justified to kill someone because one of their relatives is a rapist.

"However, killing is a bad thing."

Unless when a mother wants to kill a child. your argument, not mine.

"But sometimes it's justified. Is it wrong to kill a man in self-defense? Maybe it is, but we would still say it was justified, or a legitimate response."

Is it justified to kill a man because his father is rapist?

"just as well, it's a legitimate response to terminate a pregnancy that threatens to kill the mother."

Agreed. But not for insane reasons such as the incest and rape ones.

"God forbid you are ever put in a serious situation that is morally gray."

I sure as hell won't react with bloodlust (gotta kill someone!) as you advocate and support.

And again, I am dealing with realities. Not your personal black, white, and grey issues.

Jack Camwell said...

Are you illiterate? Where, in anything that I've written, did I say that abortion is a "good" thing?

Actually, I think I said many, MANY times that it's never a good thing. And I've never said that it's "okay," only that in some cases it's justified.

Justification for something doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

Was World War II a good war? No. War is never a good thing. Necessary? Yes.

Just like Teresa, you somehow think yourself to be the grand arbiter of reality. And it's laughable because you're completely incapable or unwilling to see the complexity of these situations.

Your continued insistance that I advocate killing and bloodlust only further proves to anyone reading this that you've run out of arguments, and you're trying to burn me for arguments that I never made in the first place.

"Not for insane reasons like rape and incest . . ." Spoken like a true idiot who will never know what it's like to (A) Be raped, and (B) Have to carry the baby of your rapist in your womb.

Even more laughable is your justification for terminating a pregnancy that endangers the mother's life. Self defense? REALLY?

Let me just be clear about a couple of things here. If my wife were raped and impregnated by her rapist, I would advocate that she terminate the pregnancy. Ultimately it's her choice, but my guess is that less than 1% of the female population would disagree with that decision. If my wife's life were in danger from bearing and giving birth to the child, I'd choose her life over the baby's.

Either way, it would be painful for me, and I'd have to live with the guilt.

Open your ridiculously tunnel-visioned mind and see that your little world of absolutes is indicative of primitive, unenlightened thought.

Oh my God! A pro-choice person actually grieves at the loss of little babies? That just can't be possible!!!

Go back to the middle ages where you belong, fool.

Jack Camwell said...

At the risk of further exposing your lack of understanding of anything, answer me one question:

What does it mean to be human?

Anonymous said...

To be human is to be FINE.


Foolish
Immature
Neurotic
Erratic


A fellow named Sigmund Freud,
Whose writings cannot be enjeud,
Said, "I've found, I confess
Mankind's mind is a mess,
And would be better off unempleud.


__________ ~§~ __________


What we do is rooted in Vanity
'Tis destructive, divisive Inanity.
We think we're so clever,
But our every endeavor
Leads Humanity on toward Insanity.



~ FT

dmarks said...

Jack said: "Are you illiterate? Where, in anything that I've written, did I say that abortion is a "good" thing?"

You argue strongly in favor of it.,

"Actually, I think I said many, MANY times that it's never a good thing."

Yet you keep saying that it is OK for someone to kill a child for any reason.

"And I've never said that it's "okay," only that in some cases it's justified."

i.e. in some cases it's "OK"

"Justification for something doesn't necessarily make it a good thing."

You used "justifications" that weren't good at all.

"Just like Teresa, you somehow think yourself to be the grand arbiter of reality."

Not at all. I just think it's a bad idea to kill children, and I'm not being like you (in your black and white and grey world) trtying to argue how good it is.

"And it's laughable because you're completely incapable or unwilling to see the complexity of these situations."

I am very capable. You've just not made good or consistent arguments in favor of abortion.

"Your continued insistance that I advocate killing and bloodlust"

It's your insistence on advocating killing that is the problem. Not my pointing it out.

"..."only further proves to anyone reading this that you've run out of arguments,"

Saying so doesn't make it so.

" Spoken like a true idiot who will never know what it's like to (A) Be raped, and (B) Have to carry the baby of your rapist in your womb."

Wow. So now you are asserting that rape will turn any mother into a blood crazed fiend so bent on revenge that she would kill her child. Talk about projection. Yet another one of your arguments in favor of abortion that completely failed.

"Even more laughable is your justification for terminating a pregnancy that endangers the mother's life. Self defense? REALLY?"

How is that laughable? It is logical. For once, think about these things.

"Let me just be clear about a couple of things here. If my wife were raped and impregnated by her rapist, I would advocate that she terminate the pregnancy."

Wow. What a sociopath you are. You are so strongly in favor of abortion that you advocate the death penalty in crimes of rape. But not for the rapist. For someone else innocent of the crime.

"Ultimately it's her choice"

Since you think abortion is good, you think that. However, I consistently oppose abortion.

" but my guess is that less than 1% of the female population would disagree with that decision."

Actually, according to polls, half of women are opposed to abortion.

"If my wife's life were in danger from bearing and giving birth to the child, I'd choose her life over the baby's."

And here the "Really?" self-defense situation comes in. It exists, but is rare. Most abortions, however, are forced on children for mere selfish

Open your ridiculously tunnel-visioned mind..."

And see that abortion is good? No thanks.

"...and see that your little world of absolutes is indicative of primitive, unenlightened thought"

Your "kill kill kill" attitude? Well anyone reading this can see that this is indeed primitive. The law of the jungle.

"Oh my God! A pro-choice person actually grieves at the loss of little babies? That just can't be possible!!!"

Case studies show many serial killers have remorse about their crimes.

"Go back to the middle ages where you belong, fool."

You are a very ill willed and hypocritical individual. Obsessed with absolutes and black-and-white, instead of consistency and compassion.

"It the risk of further exposing your lack of understanding of anything, answer me one question"

You have yet to do so.

Jersey McJones said...

To read you righty screwballs jumping on Jack for his just-slightly-to-the-left-of-most-righty-screwball views on abortion is a sad show of nasty stupidity.

And some of you talk about fascism? As Forest Gump (I would presume a hero to geniuses like you) would say, fascism is as fascism does. You jump all over him for a just slightly less radical misogynistic and stupid, asinine, retarded, backwards, hick, stupid, stupid, stupid point of view than you hold, which imposing yourselves on other people's lives with no personal standing whatsoever. You are the nosy, annoying, imposing, idiotic neighbor who just won't leave you alone. The asshole who complains about your garden, about the way you keep your lawn, about the how your dog occasionally pees somewhere near their yard.

Shut the fuck up and get on with your own lives. Abortion is NONE of your business unless it is personally YOUR business. Fuckin' Assholes.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

Would you agree that MURDER ought to be forbidden by law? Most of us -- Conservatives and Liberals alike have at least agreed on that much.

Now, you must learn to understand that many many people realize that a human soul is created the very second the sperm unites with the egg. ALL the elements that make a full-fledged human being are present in that moment.

If your mother had been unhappy that she had conceived you, and decided, because it inconvenienced, overburdened or depressed her, to abort you, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE. You would never had had a CHANCE to live at all.

Wouldn't it be sad, if you weren't able to be here so you could call as a bunch of fuckin' assholes?

Wouldn't that have been a dreadful loss to the world?

It is not a matter of OPINION as to whether or not a pregnant woman is carrying a HUMAN BEING in her abdomen. It is a matter of incontrovertible, scientific, biological FACT.

ABORTION is MURDER, Jersey,

Now, you might be able to argue that murder CAN be justified in certain instances. I, myself, greatly favor the speedy excision from society of bullies, traitors, thugs, blackmailers, castrating bitches, serial killers, kidnappers, brutal rapists, rude shop clerks, bad waiters and waitresses, insolent beggars, internet trolls, and snotty teenagers -- but not BABIES.

At least give them a CHANCE to develop into ripe candidates for excision from society before you terminate their helpless little lives.

After all, you never know when one of them MIGHT find the Cure for Cancer -- or be the next Marilyn Monroe.

I most ardently DO believe in using contraception, unless a child is truly wanted and the parents are properly prepared to nurture it and raise it to become a responsible adult, but ABORTION should NEVER be used casually as a means of birth control -- EXCEPT in cases of rape and incest.

I ALSO believe that parents should have the right to terminate a pregnancy if medical tests have shown the baby will suffer from a severe birth defect -- such as having two heads, or no arms and legs, no brain, etc. but THAT decision should be left up to the PARENTS and the DOCTOR directly involved. It should NEVER be left to the GOVERNMENT to decide.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: "...fascism is as fascism does. You jump all over him for a just slightly less radical misogynistic and stupid, asinine, retarded, backwards, hick, stupid, stupid, stupid point of view than you hold"

Said the fascist monkey as he piled on...

Jersey: You can't see the humorous irony of aping the very behavior you are ripping someone a new one for?

That's classic!

This is a debate in the public square. At no time during this thread were any women denied an abortion. Get over yourself.

Jersey McJones said...

"Now, you must learn to understand that many many people realize that a human soul is created the very second the sperm unites with the egg."

Learn to understand? Nice try, FT, the pan-ultimate hyper-rationalizing pseudo-intellectual.

Many people believe what you do, but there's nothing real to realize about it. You just believe it.

In fact, until the mid-19th century, most of you Cafeteria Christian Conservatives didn't believe that. And not until the mid-20th century did it become a focal issue for the right wing Protestants among you.

So really, as usual, you idiots are just making it up as you go along.

But as idiots, it is easy to divide you from the rest of us, and by dividing you, the powers that be can manipulate you for their purposes. Because if you really believe these conservative forces really give a rat's ass about you and your blastocysts, then you really are an idiot.

As for the rest of your "facts," none of them matter. In reality, abortion has been around for at least all of recorded history, it is a private matter, we have laws and rules in place to keep it as safe and ethical as possible, and it is of no personal concern to you. You are simply imposing your stupid pseudo-religious beliefs on everyone else.

You are, as Silver always says, a statist. And worse yet, a theocratic statist, just a little to the left of the Taliban.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

We have such a good time here! Murder's been around forever too, Jersey. The age of the practice doesn't legitimize it. And are we statists for insisting murder is illegal? That violates a fundamental human right, so it is not "statist" to intervene against it.

You have inspired my Sunday blog post! Thanks, and please be sure to tune in!

Anonymous said...

Tut tut! As usual it's impossible to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

What a waste!

~ FT

Teresa said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejm9KjnMHV4


This is what a murdered baby looks like: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1163&bih=521&tbm=isch&tbnid=EN2bt9tNiS_YCM:&imgrefurl=http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011_08_01_archive.html&docid=1DfH3xuXBCUNWM&imgurl=http://www.davidmacd.com/images/fetus08.jpg&w=396&h=288&ei=--o_T5H1OMGzgwfByc33Aw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=674&vpy=168&dur=2888&hovh=191&hovw=263&tx=171&ty=109&sig=105617808184629776571&page=

Finntann said...

Shut the fuck up and get on with your own lives. Abortion is NONE of your business unless it is personally YOUR business. Fuckin' Assholes.

I guess by that logic, as I walk past the alley in which the mugger is disemboweling you... it's none of my business!

Your argument is specious, your logic flawed.

Irony! How many liberal women would return from having an abortion and call the police upon observing her neighbor kill a rabbit in his garden with his hoe?

If I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, I may be charged with manslaughter on up.

Obviously, if the woman is still alive I haven't committed manslaughter. So...who or what did I kill to earn that charge?

I may have violated the rights of the woman, I may have assaulted her, but that doesn't justify a charge of manslaughter, so obviously I must be guilty of killing a human being.

So by the same logic, if she punches herself in the stomach and causes a miscarriage.. is she not then guilty of the same crime (excepting the assault)?

And if her doctor punches her in the stomach... he is guilty, no?

But if it's consensual between third parties...it's okay?

I don't need god to argue against abortion, all I need is logic and science.

If I go into the hospital and kill a comotose man with no higher brain activity am I guilty of murder?

Doesn't the fetus have as much if not more potential to be human than the comotos man?

When you build a house of cards don't be surprised when it collapses.

Cheers!

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, you are a statist. ;)

Most people around the world, Silver, do not look at abortion and contraception as murder, unless it is very irresponsibly performed. Most people would not dehumanize people as you would by your definition of personhood - blastocysts, corporations, churches, and such. Most reasonable people consider only a human being as a human being, and no, embryos don't count either.

Oh, but foreign people do count, and so do the poor, and minorities, and immigrants, and so do the morons who listen to people like you and have babies they can't afford. You cons are such lousy phonies when it comes to all this and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You don't care about anyone's lives but your own, even at your own detriment.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

Why do you express yourself almost exclusively in terms of vituperation?

Why are you so angry?

What hurt you so badly that you have adopted such a dim view of life and all humanity?

Whatever is troubling you, try to remember "the fault ... is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

1. Silver, libertarians is classic Continental Conservatism - it is US Conservatism that does not fit the classic definition in the left-right spectrum, likewise with the American Left. That is why calling Obama a socialist or marxist never works. Come over here and see real ones....

2. i find the above arguments important in that what is the real level of justification, obligation and capacity for faith and established church to dictate our lives? that also goes to what really is democracy? is it the right for a majority to dictate our lives 'and' morals and to what extent? - for my part I am Catholic, proudly so, I chose my faith as a guide to listen to with serious respect. Does that faith take away my freedoms and right to disagree? no, of course not - so up yours Teresa. . .

3. FYI in most countries contraception IS prescription and considered medicine as it is also a possible medical requirement for some women.

4. as an individual and a practicing catholic, I find Teresa's mindless rant to be exactly what she accused Jack of: devoid of morality via not respecting others' views, closet fascist for demanding enforcement of her values on others and, well lets face it, selfish in a childish way as not allowing any alternatives.

D Charles,
currently in Plymouth, Emgland

Silverfiddle said...

Charles:

Libertarianism is not conservatism. Please read Hayek's "Why I am Not a Conservative."

If anything it is closer to the classical liberalism of our founding fathers.

I can't speak to Teresa's argument, but I will defend mine: People are free to do what they want so long as the government doesn't press other into paying for it, hence my argument against collectivization.

When you collectivize rights, actions and money, private morality now becomes the public's business.

Anonymous said...

Silver, I will freely admit that I disagree with elements of what is defined as Libertarian. It is an interesting subject to debate and there are many views to consider.

We may be talking a bit of "apples versus oranges" when it comes to talking in general terms with regards to what is Conservatism and Libertarianism based on what is say Conservatism in America or elsewhere. The "Australian Liberal Party" is in fact the Conservative Party.

From what is classic Conservatism in say Europe and Great Britain (and the Commonwealth), American Conservatism is more neoconservatism or paleoconservativism with not much in the middle. Your Libertarianism, which has a long and distinguished history I would add, has also grown into its own uniqueness. I would argue that US Libertarians are closer akin to the classic Conservatism we have over here.

In grass-root terms small government, emphasis on individual liberties and respect for rule-of-law are the basis behind Conservatism as well, with the rest being to what degree and local social/cultural differences making each region a bit different.

The ideal that Conservatism was staunch protection of customs and values almost no longer is applicable as say it did in the times of Friedrich Hayek. In otherwords the question "to what the Conservatives require to conserve", I believe is now moot. It is, in fact, only in the US and with nationalist/popularist parties over here (ie the far-right) that an argument that certain traditional values require protecting. I would argue that every main-stream party, be they whatever side of the spectrum, declares their respect of such values, standards and traditions.

Again, I am sure you will disagree with this view, that is more than fine and I can even appreciate it. Either way, I am sure you will agree that it is an interesting subject in itself.

I should add one more aspect. I am a strong supporter of Immanuel Kant and in regards to this particular subject, he would argue that the basics are the same, it is the element of belief, the will to be just and the support garnered that matters.

(Then again he would also argue that anyone who argues that liberty and freedom is paramount has, by claiming it as such, just disqualified that argument).

D Charles

Silverfiddle said...

Charles: Thanks for the clarification. You are imminently more qualified than I on what is considered liberal and conservative in Europe.

I wasn't trying to pick an argument but rather warn you against making such comparisons if you ever wander into a libertarian forum. They bristle at such labels and will flame you mercilessly for trying to paint them as either liberal or conservative.