Obama Forces Abortion, Condoms and Mornnig After Pills on Catholics

[PreachersWife2004]

Then the government should be buying guns for us and thus promoting the right to bear arms. After all, the right to bear arms does us no good if we can't afford them

Whoo boy. You are completely missing my point.

Carry on...

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Actually, 7 states HAVE filed a lawsuit. This story was buried when it first came out. Here's how the list of headlines went for that day:

Midair helicopter crash kills 7 Marines
Arrests made in death of third-grader
iReporters: GOP debate brings heat
Black history museum breaks ground
Bras liberate women from slavery
Skydiver faces fears
Miracle dodgeball catch wins game

I really had to search CNN to find the dang headline about the states suing.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the information I recant my earlier statement.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Also, Mach's "BEAR ARMS" thing reminds me of this.

Family guy season 4 episode 21 I take three quagmire - YouTube

 

[MachZer0]

Also, Mach's "BEAR ARMS" thing reminds me of this.

Just for the record, I don't get my political views from cartoons. That does however give me a sense of why some of my liberal friends don't understand some simple concepts.

 

[MachZer0]

Whoo boy. You are completely missing my point.

Carry on...

It's not me missing points

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Just for the record, I don't get my political views from cartoons. That does however give me a sense of why some of my liberal friends don't understand some simple concepts.

see, why do you have to insult people like that? (psst...that's some of the 'liberal-hate' I was talking about earlier)

I, for one, LOVE political cartoons. Sometimes they DO simplify a complex political ideology.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I, for one, LOVE political cartoons. Sometimes they DO simplify a complex political ideology.

I know right? And sometimes it's good for a little levity. Nobody has to be serious 100% of the time.

Besides, "Family Guy" makes fun of everybody. Especially Brian, who is probably the most liberal character on the show.

I don't know what happened to Mach that would make him so venomously against liberals, but to accuse a cartoon of being an example of "liberals" misunderstanding political issues is silly and overly paranoid.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Just for the record, I don't get my political views from cartoons. That does however give me a sense of why some of my liberal friends don't understand some simple concepts.

Who said anyone gets their political views from cartoons? Your statement just reminded me of a humorous bit of Family Guy. Why does it have to be a big liberal thing with you just because people find amusement from comedy?

 

[Charlie V]

I get my political views from Scooby Doo.

I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those snooping kids.

 

[MachZer0]

see, why do you have to insult people like that? (psst...that's some of the 'liberal-hate' I was talking about earlier)

I, for one, LOVE political cartoons. Sometimes they DO simplify a complex political ideology.

Cartoons are fine if you're looking for a laugh

 

[MachZer0]

I know right? And sometimes it's good for a little levity. Nobody has to be serious 100% of the time.

Besides, "Family Guy" makes fun of everybody. Especially Brian, who is probably the most liberal character on the show.

I don't know what happened to Mach that would make him so venomously against liberals, but to accuse a cartoon of being an example of "liberals" misunderstanding political issues is silly and overly paranoid.

Hey, I'm not the one posting cartoons in a political discussion

 

[MachZer0]

Who said anyone gets their political views from cartoons? Your statement just reminded me of a humorous bit of Family Guy. Why does it have to be a big liberal thing with you just because people find amusement from comedy?

It was your carton. I've never watched Family Guy so I have no idea what it's about. Gave up cartoons a long time ago.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Hey, I'm not the one posting cartoons in a political discussion

Yes, to relieve some of the tension with a bit of light-hearted humour.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes, to relieve some of the tension with a bit of light-hearted humour.

I see. Sorry if my points created tension for you

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I see. Sorry if my points created tension for you

No you're not sorry, and no it's not your "points". It's your constant need to put down anyone who disagrees with your train of (il)logic.

About the closest thing I have come to a reasonable discussion about whether this violates religious freedoms comes from a post in my home forum. Part of reads thusly:

I heard somewhere a rabbi who had a good analogy to this. He said that no one in their right mind would walk into a kosher deli and expect to be served a ham sandwich. But how much more insane would it be for the government to force all kosher delis to pay for and serve free ham sandwiches to their employees?

What we as Lutherans believe about contraception is not really the point. Think of something that is truly offensive to your faith -- something that you would be unwilling to do even if the government forced you to do it. That is the position that the Roman Catholics are in right now. They believe contraception is a sin, and the Obama administration is forcing them against their conscience and the clear teaching of their church to be party to something they believe is a sin. If that isn't a violation of their first amendment rights, I'm not sure what is.

Kudos to my fellow Lutheran for posting that. It does give pause. But I'm still not sold on our right to exercise our religious freedoms being violated.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Kudos to my fellow Lutheran for posting that. It does give pause. But I'm still not sold on our right to exercise our religious freedoms being violated.

Especially considering the fact that a large, if not majority, portion of the Catholic populous is actually totally okay with this law.

 

[A2SG]

It takes a real to stretch to say thealthcare is a right because the 9th amendment doesn't state that heathcare is a right

That is not what I said.

I said I believed it was a right, and should be treated as one. When you said it wasn't one because it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, I pointed out that it doesn't need to be. From there, you went off the rails.

Please pay better attention in the future.

-- A2SG, you also should familiarize yourself with the Constitution too, while your'e at it.....

 

[A2SG]

Sorry if you missed it, but this thread is about people being forced to provide medications they don't want to provide

No, it isn't. No one even mentioned pharmacists choosing not to carry contraceptives. All you've been going on about is employers paying for health coverage...and employers do not provide medication. That's what a pharmacy is for.

The difference is that I can't tell the programmer he has to keep broadcasting

So? How does that affect the fact that you have a right to listen to the radio, which is financed by someone else and provided free to you?

You seem to be under a misapprehension about rights and benefits: they are not mutually exclusive.

Sorry, but the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution

So? I said it wasn't inalienable.

Asked and answered. A review may be in order f you've forgotten the answer

Your answer was: "whatever you get at no cost becomes a benefit not a right." Which is obviously inadequate as many rights come to you free of charge: the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, the right to free expression of religion, etc. Some come with costs, like buying guns or property rights, but others do not. Some are both: you have a right to due process and a right to representation. You can pay for a lawyer of your own choosing, or if you cannot afford one, the state will provide one for you. Free of charge.

So, you see, some rights are also benefits. They are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think.

You said I paid for my ballot.

No, I didn't. You are not charged a fee for voting, that'd be unconstitutional according to the 24th Amendment.

It cost me nothing though and after voting, I had nothing more than before I voted, and nothing less.

You most definitely do have something after voting you did not have before: you have the satisfaction of having exercised your right to vote.

Just like when you posted, you exercised your right to free speech.

Another right that comes free of charge, I might add.

And not everything you want is something to which you have a right

True enough. So let me ask you: why ISN'T access to health care a right?

And please, don't repeat your mistake about it not being in the Constitution, since I'll just bring up the 9th Amendment again and we're back to square one.

No, you said the right to a free press comes with a cost because I have to pay for the paper.

That much is true.

My buying the paper has nothing to do with the free press.

I know.

The freedom is to the person who writes the news, not the one who reads it.

I know.

So, again I have to ask you, what were you trying to say with this:

"Let me just make one point. You don't have a right to buy the newspaper. The person providing the paper can refuse any time he wishes to stop providing it to you."

Obviously, some rights cost us something, some do not. Why do you feel rights are not rights if they cost nothing?

The right to the free press exists even if I don't pay for the paper, the right to bear arms exists even f I don't buy a gun and the right to due process exists even if I don't pay a lawyer.

Right. Proving that rights can be free of charge and still be rights.

So, what did you mean by this:

A2SG: "So having cost associated with something doesn't prohibit it from being a right."

Mach Zero: "As I demonstrated, your point fails"

You demonstrated no such failure. In fact, you just argued the same thing I did.

It does if someone else has to incur the cost, WHICH IA WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE

Nope. As someone once said, "The right to the free press exists even if I don't pay for the paper, the right to bear arms exists even f I don't buy a gun and the right to due process exists even if I don't pay a lawyer."

Rights exist, even if you don't pay for them, or if someone else does.

So, to bring this back to the point at hand, a right to health care can still exist even if your employer pay for your health insurance.

There is nothing free about any of those.

I send my daughter to public school in my town, they don't charge me tuition. I had to call a cop last year, they didn't bill me. A neighbor's garage caught fire last summer, the fire department put it out, no charge.

What you can demand is the right to BEAR ARMS, not the right for someone to give you a gun at no charge.

Correct. The right is free of charge, even if you have to pay something to exercise it. In other words, as I've said before, "So having cost associated with something doesn't prohibit it from being a right."

Go there and demand they give you free birth control, or a free vasectomy. See how far it gets you.

Not the point. You said I can't demand free health care, which is false. I never said I could demand anything and everything I wanted. It's obvious health care comes with costs associated with it, but that doesn't preclude it from being a right, as I've been arguing all along.

See, this isn't about FREE health care, it's about access to health care. You seem to think health care is a benefit, something you're given as a gift, even if it's inadequate or it doesn't meet your needs. Basically, you feel if your employer deigns to give you access to health care, you have no right to do anything but shut up and appreciate he's giving you anything at all.

I disagree with that assessment.

That's an odd statement because I don't need a newspaper to exercise my right to freedom of the press nor do I need a TV station to exercise my freedom of speech. Apparently you are unaware that when the 1st amendment was put in the Constitution, there were no TV's. What are they teaching in schools today?

It was a sarcastic response to this statement: "What you have the right to is whatever you can afford."

Rights are not limited by what you can afford. The exercise of them may be, in some cases, but that doesn't make the right any less your own.

A point, I might add, that you've made yourself a time or two.

You're truly all over the map here, my friend.

Earlier in this post, you said we got those at no cost, and now you say we pay for them.

Yup. Because both are true.

You pay taxes, which pay for things like public schools, police and fire protection, all of which come to you free of charge. I could also add road repair, trash pickup and a myriad of other services paid for by your tax dollars and used by you, free of charge.

Maybe you should get clear on what is what before discussing things. But those items are services, not rights.

Two more things that are not mutually exclusive. You have the right to any and all of these services.

The leverage comes at the time of hiring, or actually application. The employee offers his services, the employer offers his wages and benefits. If employees are hard to find, the employee has greater leverage than during times when employees are more available. Supply and demand

Again, you may want to familiarize yourself with labor law, there's a world of information out there you don't seem to know a thing about.

Which is a lot. I wouldn't claim to be an expert but I certainly know more than my liberal friends

You're wrong.

Was that part of her contrsact when she hired on?

BZZT! Wrong answer. See, you seem to be unaware that it's not legal to exchange sexual favors for money. We have a word for that....

Looks like Mach did quite well, reality having that distinct conservative bias

I'd respond, but I'm laughing too hard!

-- A2SG, thanks, though...I can't remember the last time i laughed that much.....

 

[A2SG]

Whoo boy. You are completely missing my point.

Carry on...

Yes, he excels at that.

-- A2SG, hmm...where have I heard that line before....

 

[MachZer0]

No you're not sorry, and no it's not your "points". It's your constant need to put down anyone who disagrees with your train of (il)logic.

About the closest thing I have come to a reasonable discussion about whether this violates religious freedoms comes from a post in my home forum. Part of reads thusly:



Kudos to my fellow Lutheran for posting that. It does give pause. But I'm still not sold on our right to exercise our religious freedoms being violated.

Excuse me but I don't recall putting anyone down