Birth Control Question

[TexasTiger 14,070]

And so it begins:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2014/07/hobby-lobby-aftermath-does-person-in-rfra-include-a-guantánamo-bay-detainee.html

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Where your scenario falls short is that no one is objecting to providing certain drugs because people that use them might be sinners. They are objecting because of what the drugs actually do or have the potential to do. Not to mention, the equating of a man on his death bed in cardiac arrest with someone that wants to have sex without getting pregnant is a tad extreme.

I mostly have been talking about the use of the drug in reference to rape (I view there to be a difference between rape and just having sex and not wanting to get pregnant). In my post I pointed out that I was referring to forced and not unwanted pregnancy. I also mentioned that if you go through enough research you can find that all those other drugs have the potential to do the exact same thing Plan B and Ella are being claimed to do.

Was just a quick scenario I made up. I could insert Jehovah Witness doctor which believes blood should not be eaten or transfused even in the case of a medical emergency.

Regardless a persons religious beliefs are a persons religious beliefs. Is casual sex considered a sin, you can say yes and back it up with religion. Is Gluttony a sin, yes you can back that up with religion also. Both are acts that have consequences that impact the human body that can require medical treatment. The choice to not supply those drugs has to do with religion.

I want a simple yes or no. Regardless of the cause, or the outcome, do you feel that due to religious freedom that a organization or individual should have the right to refuse care, or versions of treatments, if they believe it violates their sense of morals.

Personally if I was Hobby Lobby what I would do is make a exception for those drugs in the case of rape. If the victim wanted to use insurance for the purchase then they need to see someone. This could help to increase, at least among its employee's, the number of women that would report the crime while making sure they got the proper medical and mental treatment necessary. Even the Pope last year approved the use of Plan B in Catholic organizations if they so wished in the treatment of rape victims.

[aubearcat 2,153]

Where your scenario falls short is that no one is objecting to providing certain drugs because people that use them might be sinners. They are objecting because of what the drugs actually do or have the potential to do. Not to mention, the equating of a man on his death bed in cardiac arrest with someone that wants to have sex without getting pregnant is a tad extreme.

I mostly have been talking about the use of the drug in reference to rape (I view there to be a difference between rape and just having sex and not wanting to get pregnant). In my post I pointed out that I was referring to forced and not unwanted pregnancy. I also mentioned that if you go through enough research you can find that all those other drugs have the potential to do the exact same thing Plan B and Ella are being claimed to do.

Was just a quick scenario I made up. I could insert Jehovah Witness doctor which believes blood should not be eaten or transfused even in the case of a medical emergency.

Regardless a persons religious beliefs are a persons religious beliefs. Is casual sex considered a sin, you can say yes and back it up with religion. Is Gluttony a sin, yes you can back that up with religion also. Both are acts that have consequences that impact the human body that can require medical treatment. The choice to not supply those drugs has to do with religion.

I want a simple yes or no. Regardless of the cause, or the outcome, do you feel that due to religious freedom that a organization or individual should have the right to refuse care, or versions of treatments, if they believe it violates their sense of morals.

Personally if I was Hobby Lobby what I would do is make a exception for those drugs in the case of rape. If the victim wanted to use insurance for the purchase then they need to see someone. This could help to increase, at least among its employee's, the number of women that would report the crime while making sure they got the proper medical and mental treatment necessary. Even the Pope last year approved the use of Plan B in Catholic organizations if they so wished in the treatment of rape victims.

It is only approved if testing can be done to prove that there has not been fertilization and that the woman is not ovulating. The church nor the pope will approve of abortion in any form form for any reason.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Where your scenario falls short is that no one is objecting to providing certain drugs because people that use them might be sinners. They are objecting because of what the drugs actually do or have the potential to do. Not to mention, the equating of a man on his death bed in cardiac arrest with someone that wants to have sex without getting pregnant is a tad extreme.

I mostly have been talking about the use of the drug in reference to rape (I view there to be a difference between rape and just having sex and not wanting to get pregnant). In my post I pointed out that I was referring to forced and not unwanted pregnancy. I also mentioned that if you go through enough research you can find that all those other drugs have the potential to do the exact same thing Plan B and Ella are being claimed to do.

Was just a quick scenario I made up. I could insert Jehovah Witness doctor which believes blood should not be eaten or transfused even in the case of a medical emergency.

Regardless a persons religious beliefs are a persons religious beliefs. Is casual sex considered a sin, you can say yes and back it up with religion. Is Gluttony a sin, yes you can back that up with religion also. Both are acts that have consequences that impact the human body that can require medical treatment. The choice to not supply those drugs has to do with religion.

I want a simple yes or no. Regardless of the cause, or the outcome, do you feel that due to religious freedom that a organization or individual should have the right to refuse care, or versions of treatments, if they believe it violates their sense of morals.

Personally if I was Hobby Lobby what I would do is make a exception for those drugs in the case of rape. If the victim wanted to use insurance for the purchase then they need to see someone. This could help to increase, at least among its employee's, the number of women that would report the crime while making sure they got the proper medical and mental treatment necessary. Even the Pope last year approved the use of Plan B in Catholic organizations if they so wished in the treatment of rape victims.

It is only approved if testing can be done to prove that there has not been fertilization and that the woman is not ovulating. The church nor the pope will approve of abortion in any form form for any reason.

Correct, and Plan B loses its effectiveness as the time since intercourse increases also.

[homersapien 12,172]

This forum isnt necessarily a slice of America.

I dont think one source of media is necessarily more popular just based on identification.

I guess i just wanted to see if you really believed that because i read and am told that Demographics are swinging toward the Dems and will soon totally devastate the Right.

http://cdn.americanp...emographics.pdf

Demographics may swing toward Dems, or at least away from Repubs, but most Dem voters I know are not rabid leftists-- many used to vote Republican.

The only thing "swinging" is the Republican Party, to the right. Even now, their "majorities" in electoral politics is based on gerrymandering. (Reminds me of that 49% debate.

Once they they lose that localized power, good buy GOP. At least unless they can re-invent themselves, which is not likely as long as they are burdened with the "Tea Party" element.

[Tigermike 3,657]

[DKW 86 7,866]

I am not gonna say how much i wish some of the propagandists would actually use BIRTH CONTROL. It would make the whole world a much nicer place.