redtiger 1,740 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 The SC just ruled on the Hobby Lobby case(should privately held corporations have to pay for all forms of contraception under Obamacare). The SC ruled that NO they shouldn't have to pay for ALL forms(HL objected to paying for pills that ended a pregnancy, ie the morning after pill). For kicks I switched back and forth between Fox and CNN. Of course Fox considers it a great victory for far right wingers and CNN considers it discrimination against and oppression of women. To me its a compromise and a great victory for America! In the great spirit of American politics everyone loses a little bit. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 It's more narrowly tailored than I'd like to see (holdings only apply to close corporations, etc.). But in the end, I deem it a nice victory. I have several liberal friends, and they're acting like their dogs have just been Old Yeller'd... BearClaw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,740 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 I do wonder how the decision will be executed. Will private companies be able to pick and choose which types of contraception they don't want to pay for or will certain types of contraception be lumped together? Ive seen a lot of people basically making the argument that the 5 judges who voted in favor of HL basically hate women, that's very extreme imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixcat 2,919 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 More of the same! The extreme right versus the extreme left. Most people fall somewhere in the middle on most issues yet we continue to elect the fringe of each side. I haven't watched Fox News or CNN in several years. As a matter of fact, I cut the cable/satellite cord more than 3 years ago. I prefer Newsy. redtiger, Deleted Account and futbolking 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcat Bob 491 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Personal responsibility is basically a thing of the past I guess. Why should any employer pay for anybody's contraception? The "pill prescription" costs like $9 per month and prophylactics are about the same. Do like my generation did...either buy your own or don't do it. Deleted Account, HurricaneWarning and BlueRazor 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,740 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 In a way I would rather see them covered under insurance, just hoping that it will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children, welfare children, children being put up for adoption and abortions. I dont know that its right for the general population to make up for the irresponsibility of others but I would rather pay for contraception than pay for the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcat Bob 491 Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 What this decision eliminated from coverage were the four "morning after " drugs...basically abortion pills. Other contraception is still included. But, I still do not believe that any employer should pay for an employees contraception. What is next...paying for other people's kids to go to college? Or maybe bailing out failed companies? Or paying for other people's insurance? Or paying for cell phones for other people? Or... redtiger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 What this decision eliminated from coverage were the four "morning after " drugs...basically abortion pills. Other contraception is still included. But, I still do not believe that any employer should pay for an employees contraception. What is next...paying for other people's kids to go to college? Or maybe bailing out failed companies? Or paying for other people's insurance? Or paying for cell phones for other people? Or... You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a pregnancy progresses in the first two weeks. It takes 2-5 days for the sperm to meet the egg, and another 3-7 for the fertilized egg to implant in the uterine lining. Further, the majority (60%+) of fertilized eggs never implant. It's not an "abortion" pill. It's an emergency pill. sixcat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcat Bob 491 Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 My fundamental understanding of conception is pretty solid. I think you may want to do a little research on the matter before making comments that are just not accurate. According to the OB/GYN National Association website: The fastest an egg can get to a fallopian tube is about 30 minutes, meaning that the quickest conception could occur following sex is in the half-hour range if an egg is present. So, following sex, the egg could be fertilized before you get out of bed to grab a drink of water or light up a smoke. Not sure why you insist that it takes 2-5 days for the sperm to get to the egg. Maybe your "boys" aren't Michael Phelps but... Conception CAN occur five days or longer after sex, depending on the release of an egg. Five days is about the max sperm can survive in the fallopian tube waiting on an egg. BUT, my friend, if an egg is already in the tube, 30 minutes is a possibility. I guess your definition of emergency is different than mine. And those four pills can cause a fertilized egg to be aborted. That is a fact. That is one of the reasons for this decision. BlueRazor and redtiger 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,740 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 Once sperm meets egg that's a baby. Anything that prevents that from happening is ok in my book and I think is ok to most of America. The abortion/emergency pills are simply wrong in my book. If "The pill" and condoms are being used those others wouldn't be necessary. That's just my opinion, and I know everybody's got one. I really cant understand a woman not being on the pill, just dont take that chance. If there was a readily available, inexpensive birth control pill for me(im a guy in case you all didnt know) I would be taking it. Bearcat Bob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 Once sperm meets egg that's a baby. Anything that prevents that from happening is ok in my book and I think is ok to most of America. The abortion/emergency pills are simply wrong in my book. If "The pill" and condoms are being used those others wouldn't be necessary. That's just my opinion, and I know everybody's got one. I really cant understand a woman not being on the pill, just dont take that chance. If there was a readily available, inexpensive birth control pill for me(im a guy in case you all didnt know) I would be taking it. (1) It's not an "abortion pill". Please don't use incorrect terminology. Used properly, within 72 hours, it's emergency contraception. There is a very significant, meaningful difference that goes far beyond basic political correctness. (2) Again, 60% of fertilized ova don't implant in the uterine lining. Regardless of an external factor, approximately 2/3 of eggs fertilized in human history have never had a chance. Philosophically, I have to go beyond simply "sperm meets egg" to qualify as "baby", as the end result for said 2/3 is a cluster of cells. Hence, why I place such importance on attaching to the uterine wall. Once it attaches, the logical end is "baby". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcat Bob 491 Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 UVAO...you are clear that conception can occur as quickly as 30 minutes...not strictly 2-5 days as you previously espoused? Just want to be clear since we are addressing "incorrect terminology". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,740 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 I understand what you're saying UVAO, but we have to set a point at which, in general, contraception occurs / could occur and to me thats when sperm meets egg. When sperm meets egg it has a chance to become a a baby so I consider anything that stops its development from there on terminating a baby. Terminating is probably the correct word. In this type of situation the correct terminology does need to be used. The "emergency contraception" terminates the potentially fertilized egg. Again, if other forms of contraception are being used then the emergency pills aren't needed and the controversy is eliminated. Contraception, many forms of contraception, are being provided for women who don't want to become pregnant. To me its ridiculous to fight/argue over forms that so many people consider wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearcat Bob 491 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Abort is the correct word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueRazor 1,147 Report Share Posted August 26, 2014 I see both of your alls argument but that's really way too sophisticated...... I agree with Bob on this one. A lot just want to try and convince people they need an intellectual to guide them into correctness. Just like when it comes to Theology many preachers want you to think you have to listen to there interpretation on what it takes. Well Jesus said it best.....Love one another and keep my commandments....... pretty simple uuugh? My opinion on this one is.......Government....... stay out of our personal lives!!!!!!!!!!! Government is a necessary thing in our society. They do so much good but the many issues that seem to divide us are being hijacked for personal gain of politicians on the far left and far right. I for one am so sick of the vitrial between them. I wish America would stand up and get there selves to the polls and clean house on both sides of the isle. Just my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.