DeletedUser
Guest
Did someone say master of debate?
All narcissistic arrogance aside, I haven't had too much time lately to post here, but some responses warrant a rebuttal I feel.
The pill this whole debate is about is a contraceptive that stops a pregnancy from progressing further, this pill can be used in the initial 9 weeks of pregnancy but it is mostly used in the first 2 weeks. During these initial few weeks the "baby" is not much more than a clump of cells, it's not even a fetus yet, it is called an embryo
The embryo has no consciousness and no brain. Negative connotations aside, it is nothing more than a parasite. It could not possibly live independently. It is about equally as "murderous" as menstruating or ejaculating.
Also, I'm sorry to tell you, but the USA actually is a secular state and religion has no place in its government. The United States does not have an official religion at either the federal or state level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the use of a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President's oath, but neither of these are required by law. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which you quoted yourself, is written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Furthermore, Many Christian principles are very outdated and come from a world of ignorance. The only valid ones are not in any way exclusive to christianity, the vast majority is very common in other religions like the islam. They should probably be called moral principles instead of putting a religious label on them.
All narcissistic arrogance aside, I haven't had too much time lately to post here, but some responses warrant a rebuttal I feel.
Of course I realize that. All I did was use another nation's take on a social issue and present it as superior to yours. Maybe if enough Americans knew about it they might want to adopt this alternative method of regulation (which I doubt, sadly)skully... are your talking about?
We have our courts over here and you have yours over there. I'm not exactly sure how you people don't recognize that.... I thought we been through this
I agree with this post, although not with some of the wording in the first paragraph, but I'll come back to that later.Also since we are talking about rights I believe you should have the right to have your fetus professionally killed. It doesn't matter how we feel about it there will always be people under certain circumstances that really want to do it. Wether it be with knitting needles or coat hangars.
I also believe a privately owned company should retain the right to object to government mandated contraceptive insurance coverage for such things as plan B pills. Here is why: you are free to work wherever you want. No one forces anyone to work here in this great nation of ours.
Thanks for presenting your opinion but if you want to convince anyone ever in a debate you're going to have to present some basis for your arguments. Why do you feel like having the right, as a woman, to have control over your own body is equivalent to having the right to commit murder? I assume it is because you see abortion/early termination as murder. Allow me to educate you;I disagree, as in my opinion that's having the right to commit murder.
The pill this whole debate is about is a contraceptive that stops a pregnancy from progressing further, this pill can be used in the initial 9 weeks of pregnancy but it is mostly used in the first 2 weeks. During these initial few weeks the "baby" is not much more than a clump of cells, it's not even a fetus yet, it is called an embryo
That might be true, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not forced to work there. Regardless, if one's options are limited to the extent that they cannot decline/quit the job, I do not think they are in a position to discuss the range of their healthcare benefits.Not sure I agree with the being free to work where you want, as for many, options can be very limited.
I agree and I would definitely call those kind of parents murderers. The information, the factual information is easily accessible and there is absolutely no excuse to endanger your children's lives because of some unsubstantiated believe. Luckily, the UK court is rational enough to force treatment regardless of the parents' beliefs.I do however agree with all that stuff about murder options. There are many ways to get away with killing someone (which you may or may not term as "murder"), and several of them involve legal opt-outs for religious beliefs.
Kids tend to get the down side of the religious opt-outs, as they don't get to make their own decisions on whether they live or die, nor do they have the right to be given information on medical options and pros and cons at all, let alone based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence. These things make killing them easy. For instance by contracting an easily curable or preventable disease and preventing medical treatment.
It would be quite amusing how these laws are used both to kill and to create children, if both were not so tragic.
Let's be honest, I don't think anyone can truly say they belief that? The USA is always referred to as the last of the 'free' with their religious freedom clause in the constitution, but I would argue it's mostly nonsense. Maybe not on a legal level, but most definitely on a social/culture level. The only thing you're free to be is a christian. Every other religion or lack therefore is shunned. While this, of course, does not apply to every single American, the USA is most definitely not worthy of the "freedom of religious" trait they are so often paired with.Genuine question, as idk the answer, but isn't the separation of church and state (religion and state) some sort of basic tenet of USAiness?
And another, isn't freedom from the constraints of other people's religions one of the precious freedoms that USAians go on about?
Your mindset is harmful to society and part of a problematic group prevalent in America that somehow doesn't acknowledge facts. You should care how "some random team of medical scientists" define contraceptives, because guess what? Medical scientists create contraceptives. They are the sole reason (the definition of) contraceptives exist. Science also generally works collectively as any claims made have to be substantiated and supported by falsifiable evidence, otherwise the scientific community doesn't even acknowledge, let alone support your claims.I don't care how some random team of "medical scientists," define contraceptives but I assumed you were talking about condoms yes. My point was they are two different things and apparently the Supreme Court has to a point agreed as well.
As sirloin said, the Religious Freedom Reformation Act to non-profit corporations is irrelevant as Hobby Lobby is not non-profit.Your concern about Catholics refusing to foot the bill for condoms is a valid one if you don't believe in the separation of church and state and believe the government has the right to tell businesses however religiously inclined how to run their business. However the decision reached in this case is narrowly worded just to avoid such a thing. It is viewed that the 2000 dollar fine per employee for dropping the contraceptive mandate is not the least restrictive way for an employer to provide contraceptives because less restrictive means are afforded under the Religious Freedom Reformation Act to nonprofit corporations.
Our first amendment states the freedom of religious practice.
What is the afca?I think your conception of seperation of church and state is misconstrued in this case due to the fact that the afca is in fact a direct violation of the first amendment. Also, this whole seperation of church and state does not appear anywhere in our constitution. In fact freedom of religion is. This nation was founded under Christian principles I'm sorry to tell you.
Also, I'm sorry to tell you, but the USA actually is a secular state and religion has no place in its government. The United States does not have an official religion at either the federal or state level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the use of a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President's oath, but neither of these are required by law. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which you quoted yourself, is written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Furthermore, Many Christian principles are very outdated and come from a world of ignorance. The only valid ones are not in any way exclusive to christianity, the vast majority is very common in other religions like the islam. They should probably be called moral principles instead of putting a religious label on them.
I would argue that most of the viable "religious" principles are, as I said, moral principles that have evolved alongside humans as we grew more and more social. The religions merely incorporated them in order to gain followers. However moral principles have continued evolving together with human society, religious principle, sadly, have not.No need to be sorry about that. I think you would be hard pressed to find a nation that was not founded on some religion's principles, since most were founded long enough ago that scientific knowledge was only for the few, to the extent it even existed. The masses could be easily controlled by whatever gods the powerful cared to invoke, however cruel or ludicrous stories of their demands might be.
Happily most developed nations have, erm, evolved since then.
This is silly, she raised some very valid points and there is absolutely no reason for you to back out other than the fact that you can't provide enough valid arguments to counter hers, essentially admitting your defeat.I suppose you must think you are eh master of debate. I admit I have no formal training but I see what you are doing. I will grant your wish and elucidate one more time when I get the chance but until you bring something to the table that has actual merit I'm going to have to decline to argue with you. It's clear you are either playing the devils advocate or you really feel strongly that the government should run every facet of your business.
Last edited by a moderator: