General discussion

This one is just getting started.

Discussion is locked
Reply to: This one is just getting started.
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: This one is just getting started.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
This crap chaps my rear!

Thanks for the link, Doug. I really cannot stomach the feeble rationales some of the hard right give for some of this legislation. In the article is one of the worst, IMO :

> Kelly Laco, spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, which defended the rules in court, said it was disappointed. “Religious organizations should not be forced to violate their mission and deeply-held beliefs,” she said. <

I'd respond by saying one's religious convictions should not trump another's right to medical care. It's one thing to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage and quite another to restrict or block access to care for reproductive health.

I'm often reminded of one stand-up comic's take on this - "Women should be allowed to vote on abortion issues/laws but if you possess a (male member) - no vote! " I'd imagine consensus would be rapidly reached with far less heat and fury.


- Collapse -
As I said, just starting.

"to restrict or block access to care for reproductive health."

First, that's a good statement- as far as it goes.
I think no one is suggesting that Mrs Jones must get an abortion just because Mrs Smith would get one. If their company plan covers abortions then that's one benefit Mrs Jones won't ever use.*
The problem that arises is when their employer would not get an abortion, on principle. So she objects to paying for a procedure that she feels is immoral.
Complicated question with no answer as yet.

But wait! There's more! Roman Catholics and maybe others feel that any contraveptive device or procedure is immoral as well. If the employer is RC then she may not want to allow a plan that covers male or female sterilization, for any reason. (Assume in all cases here that the subject is otherwise healthy.)

Did I forget anything? ... Just the Bible ... The Bible!!!
What we find there is that an abortion takes the life of a human being at ANY stage after conception. That includes via vacuuming, IUD or 'morning after' pill.
We find no objection to preventing conception via pills or condoms.

Most of us would not care what our company's plan coverage was. See my Smith and Jones comment, second ¶.

There's more, which will come up later. Count on it.

* In case of a fetus that _has died_ on its own, a procedure called D & C is called for; a separate service objected to by no one and covered by virtually all plans.

- Collapse -
Well said -

I'm perhaps - as I've noted elsewhere - too much of a "temper - tantrum" kind of guy : though my bipolar medication does indeed help *that*, somewhat...

There's so much about religion (even the ones I _think_ I am at least partially well read about!) across the globe that it's difficult to "wrap my brain around".

Though complicated in itself, maybe I pine for a long-forgotten time when taboos actually meant something. Like the old Cole Porter song, "Anything Goes" about a "hint of stocking" vs. "Flappers" mayhap? I often dream of living around the 1920's or so - post war would have had it's downs, but to me at least it would be worth it just for the fashions women wore then, and the Jazz age through the thirties and forties - once met an older "pistol" lady who related how she had seen Benny Goodman's full band "back in the day". *That's* what I'd do with a Time Machine! But at least I can still enjoy the extant recordings... Seeing Billie Holiday would be sweet too - I have a record of her performing in NY city from 1944 that is fantastic if also heart-wrenchingly tragic.

Rick "Tangent topic switcheroo, here we go! " Jones

- Collapse -

Porter was famously bi-sexual; may have preferred men.
His "I Get a Kick out of You" had his line "I get no kick from cocaine ...", later changed under pressure to "from champagne".
One of my favorite songwriters.

Men's religions are.
Try the FAQs on our website. I think you'll find questions you and I- not the scholars- ask ourselves, along with clear answers.
While you're scrolling, the s/w will be scanning your brain, of course.

- Collapse -
This is what was predicted would happen

When you mandate a product that everyone is required to have and you take away the ability to choose for yourself, attorneys and court systems begin having their 'party' and decisions being made will be vastly different depending on how liberal or conservative that court is.

I have soooooo much to say on this topic, but will try to refrain for now because as much as you think YOUR blood is boiling, multiply it by ten for me right now....and you already know which 'side' of this I'm coming down on.

- Collapse -
I'll toss in this because it's definitely not a

soundbite, and because it's almost a primer on how pols and positions are "identified" these days.
Not very clearly or reliabily, as it happens.

- Collapse -
No link! Pruner, ya stoopid!!!

And now I can't find it.

- Collapse -
This sort of thing is bound to happen anytime

we have conflicts related to morality, propriety or cultural disagreements and toss them at the feet of government officials to mediate. The more "diverse" a population is, the more complicated and fragile this gets. Such is why formal and informal clubs and other organizations are formed by people of common thinking. But sometimes, even these organizations get into the cross-hairs of other organizations who, again, run to government to dissolve them.

Frankly, I think we're better off letting most of these things resolve themselves over time. Government intervention too often causes more strife than peace. Given time, humans will learn that their enemies aren't all that long as they don't kill each other first. Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) If humans had a Creator, though ...

CNET Forums