Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Fifty Years Ago American Evangelicals Didnít Care Much About Abortion. What Changed?

  1. -11
    Sons of Shula's Avatar
    17-0, 347 wins

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2013
    Posts:
    1,238
    vCash:
    10264
    Loc:
    Milky Way
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by COphinphan89 View Post
    I wouldn't know since I don't have any, but I wonder if some people don't realize that having kids means caring about and loving someone more than you do yourself, something I have no interest in doing.
    Kudos to you for knowing that. I was very selfish of my time in my younger years and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It takes great sacrifice to raise children. I was almost in my mid 30's when I finally decided to have a child with my wife and thankfully she was on the same page. But now, I wouldn't change that decision for the promises of the world.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2008
    Posts:
    447
    vCash:
    3406
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    "Corporations as people" is the legal basis for the claims by the plantiffs. It is not some bugaboo I'm throwing in. Legally speaking, the corporate entity buys the health care plan, not the individual owner or owners. If that entity was not for technical reasons a person, it would not have a religious freedom basis to make these claims.

    I've got to laugh at the implications of this kind of decision being limited given the fact that this case relies so heavily on the legal definition of corporate personhood as defined by Citizens United. I mean, people definitely saw this Hobby Lobby case coming when that decision was handed down. I can only imagine the number of people out who were beating this same drum you're beating. They've got to feel pretty smart right now.



    What in the name of Lloyd Christmas are you blathering about?



    Corporations before the Citizens United case had been considered "people" in some ways but not in others and was a legally murky area. That case defined it constitutionally. That's why you haven't seen this issue come up before.

    Whether a business makes one of these decisions for issues related to the bottom line or not is really beside the point (though it's a reason to suspect fraud will eventually take a hand). The point is that businesses engaging in practices that are otherwise illegal and standing behind their religious book of choice is not okay. It wasn't okay when the Civil Rights Act was met with a barrage of criticism by business owners who didn't want to integrate their businesses -- citing religious objections -- and it's not okay now.

    If Hobby Lobby was run by a family that wasn't religious but had the same objection to contraception, they wouldn't get a day in court. But somehow being religious means you're special and your ideas are worth more than someone else's.
    The irritating smiley emoticon is another sign of someone that doesn't know what he's talking about. First, you're the one that brought up the pointless distinction of doing business in the corporate form. I was just responding in kind.

    In this case, it's a bunch of Chrisitan fundamentalists saying they have to provide birth control to their employees when they didn't have to before. Ultimately, if they really care about it so much, a court can look into whether it's a real religious belief that isn't outweighed by some other compelling interest. I can't speak to Hobby Lobby in particular, but the corporations that are going to claim this particular exemption will be few and far between to the point that women are not going to start having to resort to back alley abortions and sending themselves to the poor house because they can't get contraception otherwise. It's the same reason that Sandra Fluke comes off as an utter lunatic for claiming that her rights are being trampled on because Georgetown Law School won't pay for her birth control pills. In the same way, there is not really a crisis of gay people unable to find photographers or cakes for their weddings because of religious objections.

    Now for your parade of horribles. Mr. Klansmen is all the sudden going to say my religion says I don't have to hire blacks or Mr. Corporate Meany is going to say that my religion says that I'm required to pay my workers 5 cents an hour. In the same way prisoners try to argue that their religion requires them to get this privilege or that (I've seen it all before), if they really want to press the matter, a court will ask is this an actual religious belief and is there some compelling interest that outweighs it. When you show me some real evidence that the first answer is often going to be yes, and the second no, then we'll talk.





    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,041
    vCash:
    28604
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Dolphan View Post
    The irritating smiley emoticon is another sign of someone that doesn't know what he's talking about.
    You're the one who didn't know that corporate personhood is a fundamental legal factor in these cases. But go on, keep telling me how much I don't know about this.

    Spoiler 


    In this case, it's a bunch of Chrisitan fundamentalists saying they have to provide birth control to their employees when they didn't have to before. Ultimately, if they really care about it so much, a court can look into whether it's a real religious belief that isn't outweighed by some other compelling interest. I can't speak to Hobby Lobby in particular, but the corporations that are going to claim this particular exemption will be few and far between to the point that women are not going to start having to resort to back alley abortions and sending themselves to the poor house because they can't get contraception otherwise.
    "Hey, it won't happen often, so what does the legality of it matter?" is not an argument.

    Also, birth control is not as cheap as you seem to think it is. The upfront costs for one of those IUDs can range between $500 and $1,000. If they're not interested in one of those -- for instance if they're thinking about having a kid sometime within the next decade -- any of the other popular pills, patches, rings or whatever are expensive. Like $50 or $60 a month, and you have to go to the doctor to get your prescriptions re-upped. Women have always traditionally paid more for their health care because of the high cost of birth control. Obamacare changed that in the hope of increasing the availability of birth control for that very reason.

    It's the same reason that Sandra Fluke comes off as an utter lunatic for claiming that her rights are being trampled on because Georgetown Law School won't pay for her birth control pills. In the same way, there is not really a crisis of gay people unable to find photographers or cakes for their weddings because of religious objections.
    Sandra Fluke came off as a lunatic to only a very special group of people.

    Now for your parade of horribles. Mr. Klansmen is all the sudden going to say my religion says I don't have to hire blacks or Mr. Corporate Meany is going to say that my religion says that I'm required to pay my workers 5 cents an hour. In the same way prisoners try to argue that their religion requires them to get this privilege or that (I've seen it all before), if they really want to press the matter, a court will ask is this an actual religious belief and is there some compelling interest that outweighs it. When you show me some real evidence that the first answer is often going to be yes, and the second no, then we'll talk.
    You're telling me there isn't a compelling state interest in providing birth control to women?

    Unintended pregnancies Ė which birth control obviously limits -- are linked to any number of negative health consequences. Here's a whole page from the CDC about it:

    http://www.cdc.gov/Reproductivehealt...ndedPregnancy/

    Of 6.1 million pregnancies in 2001, for example, half were unintended (as were more than 80% of the 800,000 annual teen pregnancies), resulting in 1.3 million abortions, 4 million births (of which one-third were unintended) and 800,000 miscarriages. A study for the Guttmacher Institute found that 52% of unintended pregnancies in the US are due to to nonuse of contraception, 43% to inconsistent or incorrect use, and only 5% to method failure. Children who are the result of unintended pregnancies are likely to be less mentally and physically healthy during childhood, at higher risk of child abuse and neglect, less likely to succeed in school, more likely to live in poverty and need public assistance, more likely to have delinquent and criminal behavior, and have significantly lower test scores. Furthermore, unintended pregnancies are correlated with a higher incidence of death of the mother during pregnancy.

    Not to mention that it isn't all about not trying to have babies. Women use birth control to treat other medical conditions, including menstrual regulation, relieving menstrual pain, or treating endometriosis.

    If helping reduce the number of unintended pregnancies isn't a compelling state interest, what is?
    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,740
    vCash:
    2442
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._from_not.html

    A fascinating story about how the attitude of evangelicals about abortion and contraception has changed over the last 50 years. Makes you realize the unfair advantage the religious hold when they can take a political position and spin it into religious dogma that protects them from having to follow the same laws that apply to everyone else.

    Regardless of your opinion about abortion or contraception -- and my own views about the former are somewhat ambivalent -- it's interesting to see the sea change.
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

    Reminds me of another i read not to long ago. Not directly on topic, but its related to some of points in the story:

    Abortion-rights activists won an epic victory in Roe v. Wade. They've been losing ever since
    http://content.time.com/time/magazin...132761,00.html

    Nothing shocking or revealing in it in it, but it emphasizes just how the language and focus has shifted in the last 40 years. Its absolutely amazing how successful political groups and (what would once be considered extreme) religious institutions have been when it comes to "changing the norm". While i dont mean to derail the thread, its worth highlighting how one of the main points in the various cases half a century ago wasnt necessarily "having the child or not", it was "having a safe abortion or having a dangerous abortion", its fascinating how thats been almost completely thrown to the side and is now merely a minor discussion point. With that example in mind, its not surprising that the focus has continued to shift and is now being spun into a religious rights debate.
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2008
    Posts:
    447
    vCash:
    3406
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    You're the one who didn't know that corporate personhood is a fundamental legal factor in these cases. But go on, keep telling me how much I don't know about this.

    Spoiler 




    "Hey, it won't happen often, so what does the legality of it matter?" is not an argument.

    Also, birth control is not as cheap as you seem to think it is. The upfront costs for one of those IUDs can range between $500 and $1,000. If they're not interested in one of those -- for instance if they're thinking about having a kid sometime within the next decade -- any of the other popular pills, patches, rings or whatever are expensive. Like $50 or $60 a month, and you have to go to the doctor to get your prescriptions re-upped. Women have always traditionally paid more for their health care because of the high cost of birth control. Obamacare changed that in the hope of increasing the availability of birth control for that very reason.



    Sandra Fluke came off as a lunatic to only a very special group of people.



    You're telling me there isn't a compelling state interest in providing birth control to women?

    Unintended pregnancies Ė which birth control obviously limits -- are linked to any number of negative health consequences. Here's a whole page from the CDC about it:

    http://www.cdc.gov/Reproductivehealt...ndedPregnancy/

    Of 6.1 million pregnancies in 2001, for example, half were unintended (as were more than 80% of the 800,000 annual teen pregnancies), resulting in 1.3 million abortions, 4 million births (of which one-third were unintended) and 800,000 miscarriages. A study for the Guttmacher Institute found that 52% of unintended pregnancies in the US are due to to nonuse of contraception, 43% to inconsistent or incorrect use, and only 5% to method failure. Children who are the result of unintended pregnancies are likely to be less mentally and physically healthy during childhood, at higher risk of child abuse and neglect, less likely to succeed in school, more likely to live in poverty and need public assistance, more likely to have delinquent and criminal behavior, and have significantly lower test scores. Furthermore, unintended pregnancies are correlated with a higher incidence of death of the mother during pregnancy.

    Not to mention that it isn't all about not trying to have babies. Women use birth control to treat other medical conditions, including menstrual regulation, relieving menstrual pain, or treating endometriosis.

    If helping reduce the number of unintended pregnancies isn't a compelling state interest, what is?
    You haven't responded in any meaningful way. The point is not whether birth control is too expensive or whether enough people have access to it. The point is that Hobby Lobby and companies like them not having to provide contraception on religious grounds is not going to change that. That is, it's not only whether there's a compelling interest, it's whether the law, forcing companies to provide contraception despite religious objections is sufficiently tailored to meet that interest. You have given me nothing to say that's the case, the same way that the best that Senate Democrats could do was trot out a child of well to do parents that could go to any number of law schools and get birth control for free, but instead consciously chose to enroll in one of the very few that didn't, at least based on religious principals. If you don't like the word lunatic, perhaps spoiled brat suits you better.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,041
    vCash:
    28604
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Dolphan View Post
    You haven't responded in any meaningful way. The point is not whether birth control is too expensive or whether enough people have access to it. The point is that Hobby Lobby and companies like them not having to provide contraception on religious grounds is not going to change that.
    It sure changes it for the people who work at Hobby Lobby, as well as the people who work for other companies that might take advantage of the ruling. You're appealing to some kind of fake minimum threshold for the number of people this might negatively affect when when it's quite beside the point, otherwise I'd point out that the number of religious businesses that are objecting to the provision is much smaller than the number of employees that stand to be affected by it.

    That is, it's not only whether there's a compelling interest, it's whether the law, forcing companies to provide contraception despite religious objections is sufficiently tailored to meet that interest. You have given me nothing to say that's the case
    If you don't agree a compelling interest exists it's no surprise you think the government is failing to tailor the law sufficiently.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2008
    Posts:
    447
    vCash:
    3406
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It sure changes it for the people who work at Hobby Lobby, as well as the people who work for other companies that might take advantage of the ruling. You're appealing to some kind of fake minimum threshold for the number of people this might negatively affect when when it's quite beside the point, otherwise I'd point out that the number of religious businesses that are objecting to the provision is much smaller than the number of employees that stand to be affected by it.



    If you don't agree a compelling interest exists it's no surprise you think the government is failing to tailor the law sufficiently.
    Interestingly I checked what birth control pills cost without insurance. Not a whole lot if you're smart about it.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/37-162...103004259.html

    There are a number of other places that the people at Hobby Lobby can work if they want subsidized birth control. Or they can pay for it out of pocket for not that much at places like Walmart or Costco. And that is most certainly what is happening in the real world as the very people that kept telling us that nutty religious employers were actually interfering in any meaningful way with their employees ability to obtain birth control could only drag out Sandra Fluke.

    And no I believe there are two legitimate interests at play, bona fide religious freedom, and access to contraception generally. Recognizing a religious objection for an employer to pay for their employees birth control will have no impact on the latter, or very very little. That really can't be debated, or you have presented no facts that suggest it at all.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,041
    vCash:
    28604
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Dolphan View Post
    Interestingly I checked what birth control pills cost without insurance. Not a whole lot if you're smart about it.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/37-162...103004259.html

    There are a number of other places that the people at Hobby Lobby can work if they want subsidized birth control. Or they can pay for it out of pocket for not that much at places like Walmart or Costco. And that is most certainly what is happening in the real world as the very people that kept telling us that nutty religious employers were actually interfering in any meaningful way with their employees ability to obtain birth control could only drag out Sandra Fluke.

    And no I believe there are two legitimate interests at play, bona fide religious freedom, and access to contraception generally. Recognizing a religious objection for an employer to pay for their employees birth control will have no impact on the latter, or very very little. That really can't be debated, or you have presented no facts that suggest it at all.
    It's not having an impact religious freedom generally, either, if you're to be believed about how many companies will invoke the exemption. It's only a few companies, certainly a lesser number (no matter what number you pick) than the number of people who collectively work for them. So if the impact to access to contraception is not that affected (which isn't even the point. Stopping a black person from eating at your restaurant does not greatly impact their access to food), the freedom of religion is being even less impacted than the access to contraception.

    It's a line of argument that gets you nowhere.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2008
    Posts:
    447
    vCash:
    3406
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It's not having an impact religious freedom generally, either, if you're to be believed about how many companies will invoke the exemption. It's only a few companies, certainly a lesser number (no matter what number you pick) than the number of people who collectively work for them. So if the impact to access to contraception is not that affected (which isn't even the point. Stopping a black person from eating at your restaurant does not greatly impact their access to food), the freedom of religion is being even less impacted than the access to contraception.

    It's a line of argument that gets you nowhere.
    Man you're too clever by half. And that's putting it mildly.

    The first amendment protects all kinds of unpopular religious beliefs or political views that only small numbers of people believe. It's a bedrock foundation of the country, and certainly moreso than some "right" to have your employer pay for your birth control. So it necessarily works the other way, that we ask if some intrusion on religious beliefs is properly tailored to serve some compelling need. Not whether one's religion (or political beliefs, etc) are tailored to meet a compelling public need.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  10. -20
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,041
    vCash:
    28604
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Dolphan View Post
    Man you're too clever by half. And that's putting it mildly.

    The first amendment protects all kinds of unpopular religious beliefs or political views that only small numbers of people believe. It's a bedrock foundation of the country, and certainly moreso than some "right" to have your employer pay for your birth control. So it necessarily works the other way, that we ask if some intrusion on religious beliefs is properly tailored to serve some compelling need. Not whether one's religion (or political beliefs, etc) are tailored to meet a compelling public need.
    Strict scrutiny is the highest constitutional standard in the land. There is not some higher standard, and it's the standard for religious freedom and for reproductive rights. Has been since Roe (which also defined reproductive freedom as a compelling interest). They're on equal footing whether you like it or not.

    The religious freedom of the owners of Hobby Lobby is not at stake here, since they are not compelled by anything to own their business (nor or they paying for anything directly; the corporate entity does). They can sell, just like Lester Maddox did back in the day. The case here is built once again on the religious freedom of the corporation itself. The owners can't sell without that entity being dissolved. So you can thank Citizens United and corporate personhood once again for helping make your point.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care
    By FinFatale in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 04-30-2010, 07:15 PM
  2. Fergie expects changes, RB says ppl didn't care.
    By SR 7 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 08:20 PM
  3. Pelosi Health Care Bill Includes Monthly Premium For Abortion
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 01:47 AM
  4. Sarah Palin - A Disaster for American Health Care
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 03:07 PM
  5. Fifty Things You Didn't Know About John Mccain
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-28-2008, 08:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •