The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

There are times I wish that your mother was an abortion rights fanatic.

Received an interesting set of responses....

The majority opinion seems to be that this post really belonged in the "Awe-Inspiring Negative Rep" thread instead, and that I should have signed it "Rimbaud." Then it would have brought a chuckle.

The grammar police pointed out that, since it was a conditional phrase, I should have used the subjunctive ("mother were" not "mother was").



The whole point of that post, of course, was to highlight the underlying hypocrisy, and in that regard it was spectacularly successful, far more so than I expected, from the usual suspects.

Outraged that I would suggest an embryonic pre-Rover be terminated six months before birth? yet totally comfortable that tens of thousands of other embryonic pre-people are terminated in exactly the same way?

How is it that merely by putting a name to the embryonic pre-person, it generates outrage, yet while the embryonic pre-person is nameless, you are totally comfortable with it? Seems a bit inconsistent, eh?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Received an interesting set of responses....

The majority opinion seems to be that this post really belonged in the "Awe-Inspiring Negative Rep" thread instead, and that I should have signed it "Rimbaud." Then it would have brought a chuckle.

The grammar police pointed out that, since it was a conditional phrase, I should have used the subjunctive ("mother were" not "mother was").



The whole point of that post, of course, was to highlight the underlying hypocrisy, and in that regard it was spectacularly successful, far more so than I expected, from the usual suspects.

Outraged that I would suggest an embryonic pre-Rover be terminated six months before birth? yet totally comfortable that tens of thousands of other embryonic pre-people are terminated in exactly the same way?

How is it that merely by putting a name to the embryonic pre-person, it generates outrage, yet while the embryonic pre-person is nameless, you are totally comfortable with it? Seems a bit inconsistent, eh?

If they can dehumanize the babies, it helps them desensitize themselves about killing them. You look at the vocabulary of the pro-death crowd, and it's all a bunch of squishy language to make the baby sound less or unhuman.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You really don't have a clue about Obamacare do you?

No, why don't you tell us all what Drudge, hotair, Rush Limbaugh, Faux "News" or whatever other black helicopter site has told you.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If they can dehumanize the babies, it helps them desensitize themselves about killing them. You look at the vocabulary of the pro-death crowd, and it's all a bunch of squishy language to make the baby sound less or unhuman.

Yeah, and you look at the vocab of the anti-abortion crowd and every aborted fetus was going to grow up with the Cleavers to be the next Einstein, Lincoln, and Mother Teresa all rolled into one. It helps them justify their belief that all of humanity depends on that baby being born.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The whole point of that post, of course, was to highlight the underlying hypocrisy, and in that regard it was spectacularly successful, far more so than I expected, from the usual suspects.

The outrage has nothing to do with hypocrisy. You'd get the same reaction if you said, "I hope you get cancer and die." Totally classless and mean spirited either way.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

"I notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born"
Ronald Reagan

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yeah, and you look at the vocab of the anti-abortion crowd and every aborted fetus was going to grow up with the Cleavers to be the next Einstein, Lincoln, and Mother Teresa all rolled into one. It helps them justify their belief that all of humanity depends on that baby being born.

All humanity does depend on it for that one baby.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The outrage has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Must respectfully disagree. I merely said, "sometimes I wish you would experience the same fate that you wish upon others."

That is not actively wishing anyone ill at all. It merely says, "maybe you shouldn't be so glib about serious matters: how would you feel if you were the 'person' involved." that's not actively wishing anything upon anyone other than that they experience first-hand themselves what they so wilfully would foist upon others.

It is like saying "how would you feel if you were in their position?"

If you think calling someone out in that manner is mean-spirited, then I'd plead guilty. After all, it's those folks who maintain that a human fetus has no feelings and no rights. Yet if they were that same fetus, it's somehow different? Yeah, I'm guilty of calling them out on that inconsistency. You don't like a harsh truth, don't act like an insensitive moron, or another insensitive moron might get in your face about it.

 

[Carter]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

"I notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born"
Ronald Reagan

Pretty much says it all when we're talking about Reagan's intellect. What a senseless Fstain the man was.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

"Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other."

Malcolm Muggeridge

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

"Don't quote other people. Tell me what you believe."

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Must respectfully disagree. I merely said, "sometimes I wish you would experience the same fate that you wish upon others."

That is not actively wishing anyone ill at all. It merely says, "maybe you shouldn't be so glib about serious matters: how would you feel if you were the 'person' involved." that's not actively wishing anything upon anyone other than that they experience first-hand themselves what they so wilfully would foist upon others.

It is like saying "how would you feel if you were in their position?"

If you think calling someone out in that manner is mean-spirited, then I'd plead guilty. After all, it's those folks who maintain that a human fetus has no feelings and no rights. Yet if they were that same fetus, it's somehow different? Yeah, I'm guilty of calling them out on that inconsistency. You don't like a harsh truth, don't act like an insensitive moron, or another insensitive moron might get in your face about it.

Oh, like wishing people who talk down about others on public assistance had to depend on public assistance for their survival?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

"Don't quote other people. Tell me what you believe."

You may have noticed in life that when people quote other people, it's because they agree with the quote. Or maybe that's just another old-fashioned way of doing things. But, I'll concede to you that those are tough quotes to respond to.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Preventative medicine is almost always cheaper than the alternative.

Are you equating a pregnancy with a disease?

 

[Patman]

That is NOT the key issue involved, and it is far wider than "Catholics." The law also requires "free" access to abortifacients, and while I personally do not believe "human" life begins at the moment that a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall, I can certainly respect the viewpoint of others who do think so.

As far as I am concerned, if a human infant can survive on its own unassisted, then killing it is murder, even if it still resides in the mother's womb at the time. Certainly the jury in the PA abortion doctor case agreed with that assessment! and so I can say with complete confidence that at least 12 other people in the US agree with me here.

If others think that killing a human infant at an earlier date than its ability to survive on its own is murder, then who am I to judge the validity of their belief?

If the healthcare law is found effectively to require private employers to pay for employees' abortions, then I think that the Court may very well rule along the lines of Solomon here: allow preventative birth control to be required but to overturn the section that requires abortifacients to be provided.

Now, I would say that a prohibition against assisting other people to commit murder would definitely be a central tenet of quite a few people's religion, including yours.

The non constitutional issue is whether or not a company should be brought to its knees because they don't want to purchase birth control for employees.

But we ignore this in the usual flame war.

We are implicitly dictating what a lawful organization should believe.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Hilarious. Right back to the same crap.

Bottom line. This whole thing would be solved if we'd get employment and Health Care permanently severed like it's supposed to be and IS in just about every advanced western culture on the planet.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The non constitutional issue is whether or not a company should be brought to its knees because they don't want to purchase birth control for employees.

But we ignore this in the usual flame war.

We are implicitly dictating what a lawful organization should believe.

But they know what is best for all of us, so why should we question them?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

But they know what is best for all of us, so why should we question them?

There are religions that are opposed to blood transfusions. I have yet to see a Supreme Court case where one of their business owners sued to have that taken out of their employees Health Insurance.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

There are religions that are opposed to blood transfusions. I have yet to see a Supreme Court case where one of their business owners sued to have that taken out of their employees Health Insurance.

Uh, what is your point?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Uh, what is your point?

You really don't see it?

I'll make it easy for you.

I'm starting a new company and we're going to provide Health Insurance to our employees. But, since I don't believe in cancer we're going to cover everything but that. So, if you get cancer while using the Health Care policy provided by me you're on your own.

And if you and Patman still don't get it. Here.

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/26/247392814/supreme-court-will-take-up-contraceptions-case

The government, however, points to a long line of Supreme Court cases that take a contrary view. No court has ever found a for-profit company to be a religious organization for purposes of federal law, the Justice Department said in its briefs. Government would be unable to function, the department suggested, if children could be exempt from child labor laws on religious grounds, for example, or if employers refused to pay taxes because of religious objections to how the money was spent.