Simple mind, simple solution, Except it's not that simple

Disclosure:: After this conversation Hannah and I became connected via Facebook due to having a mutual friend.

I generally do not argue the abortion issue.  For me it is simple, choice.  The decision should only be a consideration of the women, her family, and doctor; caveats apply. I don't even care what science says on the topic; it all becomes moot.  But this, was too much even for me,,, I am a product of adoption.

The following speaks for itself,,, simple mind, simple solution. Except it's not that simple. "They" never, ever, consider the children currently in the system.

 

"They" never honestly consider cost of raising a child, thinking it as a badge of honor.  One look at this here blog will demonstrate not all think that way.  Keeping in mind I only focus on one facet of abuser.

Correction::  I should have stated worked when I was still living in NY.  Although a very similar situation applies where I live now. 

 The point I was making, I know of no narrative that fits this description but 1, in TX at an unknown time period. No examples or reports, etc. were cited in support of this claim. Simply put, abortion clinics will not perform an abortion on an unwilling patient, regardless of whether their parents believe they should obtain an abortion. 

This is one reason why I believe comprehensive sex education with parental participation should be available and mandatory via the schools or comparable means beginning at age 10.  Not just issues surrounding the physical act but all ramifications of having a child underage and unmarried.  As teen pregnancy is an issue, I also feel that K-12 schools need to be on the front  line accommodating needs so a teen parent can finish. Discussions like such also illustrate the need for comprehensive birth control methods to not only be made available but free of charge to all women age 10 or up.  Too many lives are impacted to have such a attitude. (I would like to also see our higher education system offer some type of mandatory education and services as well, but that is a whole other sticky wicket as cost is already spiraling out of control.)

It is a very simple question to ask, if no to abortion, do you then agree to supply other means of pregnancy prevention? I already know the answer but I wanted him to admit to it; took 3 times asking.

And so began the PRATTs.

And there it is, the "god" card.  As I have debated this individual before I was expecting it.  Doesn't change my argument any but I wanted to see I was right.  I purposely kept my argument god-free and religion free as TBH I didn't want to go that route today.  I wanted to avoid the long drawn out discussion that boils down to "does a god exist".

I am not quite sure where M was head with his HIV/AIDS retort, but thought his appeal to personal experience added a nice touch.  And yes I am guilty of it too, but its use highlights very well how asinine that type of argument can be.  

I find his "objection" (for lack of better) to the topic of providing birth control in relation to abortion kind of odd.  If he was trying to conflated the rate of HIV/AIDS infection to the failure of birth control he did a lousy job.

Basically this fuck-nut wants unmitigated pregnancy.  I am hazarding a guess he is probably Quiverfull and an end-timer who doesn't believe in climate change.  The more children the bigger the army for god.

Besides the issue of his argument being weak, it annoys me that individuals like M cant even take the time to get information factual correct.  I would rather run into a factual but otherwise possiblely faulty argument than lies. Coming from religionists weakens an argument even more when they lie for Jeebus or Mohammad.

Wingnut Nurse Sues Family Planning Center For Not Giving Her Job Just Because She Says She Won’t Do Job | Wonkette

"If I were a rich man,,," oops wrong childhood memory. "The hills are alive,,," nope still not quite right. Hmm, how about "I prefer not to." There we go, it seems that this Sara Hellwege person has herself confused with Bartleby the scrivener. You know the Melville character who starts off his new job with a bang but decides after a time that he no longer prefers to do said job.

I'm not sure if she came up with this scheme all by her lonesome - ya know being a warrior for Christ the pro-life agenda. Or if as Gray states. "No, she is the willing pawn of the Alliance Defending Freedom — which describes itself as (don’t laugh, I am not kidding) “a servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.”

Regardless of whose brilliant idea this lawsuit was ADF is involved and one of their arguments is,

Sara “possesses beliefs against prescribing hormonal contraceptives in certain circumstances,
which she believes have the potential to act in a manner potentially threatening the lives of embryos after their conception/fertilization.” That’s nice. It has no basis in actual scientific fact, of course, but who would even want a health care provider to rely on dumb science instead of “beliefs”?

This was a side note in the Hobby Lobby case, competing scientific claims. but should be front and center in this current mess as science is the basis for medicine. What one "believes" to be true should be trumped by what science says is true; this is not a 50/50 controversy or even 60/40. Ninety-five percent of science says not abortifacients and that should rule the day.

So I have to work later today, think I will tell them my "lack of religious" belief do not allow me to get my hands wet. Wonder how long it would take them to show me the door? (If it were only that easy for me,,,ha!!)

Wingnut Nurse Sues Family Planning Center For Not Giving Her Job Just Because She Says She Won’t Do Job | Wonkette

Local clergy hand out condoms at Aurora Hobby Lobby store - DailyHerald.com

Winters said his purpose was threefold.

He said he hoped people who happened upon the demonstration would walk away with an understanding that Christians have a wide variety of opinions regarding birth control.

In addition, he hoped it would get people to question whether the court ruling was fair to the religious freedom of Hobby Lobby employees who have beliefs differing from their employer.

"You can make the religious freedom argument, you can make the argument about contraception, but ultimately, for me, this is about power," he said.

Questioning the use of power, he said, was the third reason he organized the protest.

"Jesus had a lot of issue with powerful people using power over the powerless," he said.

The issue of power was also the primary reason Rev. Emmy Lou Belcher, a recently retired minister of the DuPage Unitarian Universalist Church in Naperville, agreed to attend the demonstration.

"We are all in this together and the point is to work things out together (in a way) that allows people a way to exercise their own beliefs," she said. "The health care law is meant to cover a diverse society ... so people aren't excluded. What this has done is exclude."

Local clergy hand out condoms at Aurora Hobby Lobby store - DailyHerald.com

Supreme Court issues emergency stay halting birth control mandate for Catholic groups | The Raw Story

According to the Associated Press, a Supreme Court justice has issued an emergency stay to halt the birth control mandate for Catholic organizations.

Catholic organizations had petitioned the Supreme Court to stop those elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that would have forced them to provide health insurance that included birth control coverage.

The organizations asked the Court to issue the stay until they had a chance to make their argument before the Court. The full court has already agreed to hear constitutional challenges of the birth-control mandate, which will occur at a later time. According to SCOTUSBlog, those cases have not yet been scheduled for oral argument.

Supreme Court issues emergency stay halting birth control mandate for Catholic groups | The Raw Story

Evangelical Corporations Try To Force Their Employees To Follow Their Religious Beliefs

In 2010 at the behest of the Koch brothers, Mitch McConnell, and corporate leaders everywhere, the U.S. Supreme Court granted personhood rights to corporations giving them power to control the direction of the government and buy the services of Republicans candidates without campaign finance restrictions. Dissatisfied with the inordinate power the conservative court gave corporations, they are likely headed back to the Supreme Court to demand power to impose their religion on their employees in the next logical step towards transforming America into a theocracy. Despite the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of, and from, religious imposition on the people, the extremist Christian fanatics intent on forcing all Americans to toe the evangelical line and fall under the purview of America’s version of Sharia Law are appealing to the conservative High Court for their blessing to impose their bastardized version of Christianity on the people and as usual they are focusing their attention on women.

The latest tactic of corporations with evangelical CEOs is a continuation of last year’s attempt to ban American women from using birth control as a result of President Obama’s inclusion of contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Care Act. At issue is whether a secular corporation with no business relationship or involvement in a religion can be considered religious and force its employees to follow the corporation’s religious beliefs and be prohibited from using contraceptives included in prescription coverage in health plans. The President gave religious organizations and churches permission to ban their employees from having access to contraceptives, but it still did not satisfy the neo-Christian fascist wing who sees the conservative Court as their ticket to impose, by Constitutional fiat, their religious convictions on their employees. It is noteworthy that the push to ban contraceptive use is being pressed by evangelical men who avoid using IUDs or hormonal birth control pills by choice, but their personal choice is not the issue; eliminating women’s choice is.

[,,,]
Writing for the 3rd Circuit’s majority, Judge Robert Cowen said although there was “a long history of protecting corporations’ rights to free speech,” there was no history of protecting a company’s free exercise of religion. “We simply cannot understand how a for-profit, secular corporation can exercise religion. A holding to the contrary … would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.” A few weeks ago, the Colorado-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores finding that corporations are entitled to assert religious rights and impose them on their employees. The court specifically noted that President Obama had offended the company’s religious beliefs with the contraception requirement. Now that there is a split between the 3rd and 10th Circuit decisions, it falls to the Supreme Court to rule if a corporation has the Constitutional right to impose its “religious convictions” on its employees.

Evangelical Corporations Try To Force Their Employees To Follow Their Religious Beliefs