Posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:29 AM PDT by george76
Typical liberal ad hominem attack. Please show me either from the decision itself or one decent well known commentator that will support the assertion that the SC just agreed that life starts at conception.
This issue was not about when life begins. It was about giving for profit corporations the same religious liberties and protections that nonprofit and religious groups have.
It also did not free anyone for paying for birth control or abortion since it will still be available for no additional charge by forcing insurance companies to offer it at no charge which will be paid for either by government subsidy or increased premiums passed on as a cost of doing business like a tax.
In essence this was a shell game and Ginsburg got it right. If you pay any health insurance premiums at all you will be subsidizing birth control or abortions. Ditto If you pay federal taxes.
I never said what you claim that I said.
You said I was wrong, completely wrong. I assumed that reply was in response to a reply made to someone else since you made the first reply.
What is it you think Iam wrong about?
You are wrong because the Hobby Lobby ruling was a GREAT ruling.
It was a pathetic ruling. So you are wrong.
“You say in this post that a majority of the SC agree that life begins at conception.”
And again, No, I did not write that. You are rewriting what I posted. You left out “with the plantiff’s argument”.
“I believe that this is the first time that a majority of the court has agreed with a plaintiff’s argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!”
This is taken whole from your post to me. Please explain to me how it does not state what it so clearly does. To agree with the plaintiff’s argument that life begins at conception means that you agree that life begins at conception.
I doubt it.
The only thing wrong with this decision in Hobby Lobby is that it was not UNANIMOUS instead of 5-4 on our side.
But you really have NOBODY on your side of the argument, other than the pro-aborts, who think it is a bad decision.
Do I need to be a lawyer to have credibility?
Shouting loud does not help your argument so maybe you can explain why you think this ruling is great and citing something other than your opinion of me.
There is nothing wrong with the decision and I never said there was. it is just small and weak.
It simply confirms the plaintiffs rights under The RFRA by treating a closely held for profit company the same as a nonprofit company. So big deal a law intended to scale back a previous poor SC ruling is upheld on very narrow grounds.
The only reason the plaintiffs won was the the Obama administration had already provided a work around to the issue for nonprofits who would attest to their sincerely held beliefs. That work around simply results in someone else, either insured people through premiums or taxpayers, paying for the coverage.
So despite this ruling I will still be paying for abortions. My small company will still be paying for them and if I object my employees will get them for free if I carry health insurance for the company.
I’m sorry that I got very excited and did not explain my point very well in my first post.
But, I think that I did make a little better attempt with second post…
Please keep my second post in mind and let me add this:
You can not induce an abortion with an abortifacient unless there is an already fertilized egg to destroy, therefore the plaintiffs imply in their argument that “life has began at conception”. To destroy this conceived life (to kill it, MURDER IT) is a sin, based on their religious belief.
If the majority of the SC did NOT agree with the plaintiff’s *argument*, they would have decided that there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs claim that life begins at conception, therefore there could be no killing (MURDER) that would considered as a religious sin.
I understand what your saying but I disagree. It was not necessary that the SC believe what the plaintiffs said about their belief. It was only necessary that they thought it was illegal to prevent the adherence to those beliefs. The SC could have believed that life begins at 40 and still find for the plaintiff. Freedom of religion means nothing if not the freedom to hold to beliefs that are not accepted or proven.
Now you've gone off the rails again. SCOTUS did not agree with the plaintiffs on when life begins. They didn't address it other than to state the plaintiffs' beliefs.
Oh My Goodness!!!
Then PLEASE show me where the majority *rejected* the plaintiff’s *argument* in their favorable ruling for them, but instead ruled in their favor based solely on something ELSE!?!?!!!!!???
The plaintiff’s argument never was that life starts at conception so there could be no rejection of it. Their argument was that they should not be compelled to violate a religious belief. You have asserted with no proof that the SC endorsed the plaintiff’s belief that life begins at conception.
You're confusing a belief with an argument. The plaintiffs didn't argue that life begins at conception; they argued that because they think it does, the government cannot make them pay for drugs that they think would destroy a human embryo thereby causing them to sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.