Senate Abortion

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Katana_Geldar, Nov 18, 2012.

  1. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Don't worry, I know. ;) (Love Monty Python here!)

    I just find taking that stance seriously to be extremely well...creepy.

    I mean, if you think wasting gametes is equivalent to murder, then does that mean you think little girls should be married and pregnant as soon as they hit puberty to prevent them from wasting eggs? It's just so ****ed up...
    Last edited by PiettsHat, Jul 9, 2013
  2. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    I think intentionally starting a process whose natural consequence is the creation of human beings is immoral. I do not think that letting biological processes continue naturally as they do while not initiating said process is immoral.
  3. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I just find the reasoning behind masturbation = immoral to be highly fallacious. The reasoning behind it is, in part, that it is the wasting of "seed" that is highly immoral. Well, if a girl ovulates and doesn't get pregnant, she's "wasting" an egg. When you look up catholic views on masturbation on Wikipedia for example, one individual they quote is:

    Clement of Alexandria, considered a saint and a Church Father, who said of masturbation, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.".

    If you really think that it's the wasting of a human life, then doesn't that require you to do your utmost to ensure that life is protected?

    I just can't wrap my head around it personally.
  4. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I'm way behind on my Monty Python. My bad. [face_peace]
    Asterix_of_Gaul likes this.
  5. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    I think it's OZK's right to believe that such things are immoral and the government should leave him and private organizations that believe in the same thing alone. It's not fair to tell him and other Catholics they can't uphold their beliefs in their institutions because others disagree with them.

    It's why I mentioned the thing earlier about Liberals being against international intervention in most circumstances--I wasn't trying to specifically insult Liberals. I was trying to illustrate that it's almost the same concept with the government intruding on the rights of Catholic organizations--leave them alone--stop trying to order them around based on what you [government] think is best for them!

    If the US government wants to start a program that distributes funds for contraceptives or something like that....fine. But, don't force people to act against their fundamental beliefs because your conscious told you it was right.
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 9, 2013
  6. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Sorry...but nope. Churches (and other religious institutions) already don't pay taxes. I, however, have to pay taxes towards war (which I find far, far more immoral than contraception -- which isn't the slightest bit immoral in my book). If the Church does not like contraception, then its members are free to not use it. But we all have to pay into systems we may sometimes not agree with -- it's the cost of living in a society.
  7. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    And they shouldn't be forced to pay for it either. Like I said, let your tax dollars go to such a program that enables people to get contraceptives. Why go through the trouble of trying to force others to act against their own moral beliefs?

    Why is that ok to do for individuals and private organizations, but not ok to do with other nations on principle?
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 9, 2013
  8. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    The moral reasoning behind masturbation is largely that it's a lustful activity. Which it manifestly and undeniably is. One carries out their fantasized sexual desire for another to the point that one literally completes his or her part of the actual sex act. It's pretty beyond debate.

    However, in contrast to Asterix, I don't see where it's at all unreasonable to expect public institutions to play by public rules. Plenty of religions feel that only people of certain genders or families should take leadership roles. If that's a part of your faith, great. But it's not therefore acceptable for those places to open public workplaces and then refuse to promote employees that are female or of particular ethnicities. Nor can organizations that believe in tithing force employees to donate to designated non-profits or religious organizations. A Muslim employer can't make employees go to Mecca. Et cetera. The workplace is the workplace. Anyone should be able to operate freely there, so long as they do their job. They should be able to do so free from harassment, aspersion, or crudely wielded instruments of bureaucratic department of vice and virtue. If you're going to have freedom of religion, you can't very well allow employers to force their religion onto everyone that works for them.
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  9. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Wocky, I'm not talking about public institutions. I'm talking about private institutions.

    Private colleges have a right to openly express various religious faiths--and to operate by those same religious tenets. Why should it be any different for any other religious private institution?

    If you don't like the rules of a private business or institution--don't work there and/or don't go there. No one is forcing you to.
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 9, 2013
  10. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Sure they should. Plenty of people have to pay taxes into things against their morals or beliefs -- why should the Church be special? People who are against war still pay taxes to support wars. People who are against population growth and don't have children still support the public school system through their taxes, even if they may not agree with this. People who don't believe in welfare still have to pay taxes that contribute to this.

    And who says that it's not ok to do with other nations on principle? I firmly believe that there are instances where intervention in other nations is the right choice -- such as in the case of the Rwandan genocide. It just seems to me that all too often we intervene in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.
  11. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Not providing a service or not paying for a service is a negative action--that's not something you force onto someone else. You can't force not paying for contraceptives onto others. That makes no sense to me.

    The irony of your statement is that while you're claiming this abstract private institution is forcing a "not service" on someone else, at the same time you want to force the individuals in charge of that same institution to do something based on what you believe to be morally right.

    Now why should they be privy to your whims anymore than an employee should be privy to being forced into moral decisions by his/her bosses at this institution?

    EDIT:

    And intervention is often considered by many--especially Liberals/Libertarians to be a last resort--not the go to primary answer.

    In this case, it's simply not necessary imo. Moreover, it undoubtedly conflicts with the rights of others in an unfair tyrannical fashion. Again, why not choose any number of other options that make it easier for everyone? When you single out heads of business, or certain faiths and vilify them--it doesn't help. If anything it just divides people further, especially if your argument is "I'm going to knowingly trample on your beliefs because I think you are wrong."

    I'd argue a bigger problem than even access to contraceptives is the overall societal perspective on them. If you want to change hearts and minds for the better--if you want to help better your fellow human being...then trampling on his/her beliefs is not the best way to start imo.
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 9, 2013
  12. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Refusing to promote women or pay them equally is a negative action, too. What's your point?

    This positive/negative rights idiocy is an important distinction most only in the minds of conservatives. Either can and do have powerful effects on people's everyday life, and regulations apply consequently apply to both.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  13. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5

    Your knee-jerk reaction to anything you don't understand as "stupid" makes you appear rather narrow-minded and difficult to converse with imo.

    However, my point was quite self-evident: you can't force nothing onto others...that makes no logical sense. You were commenting on employers forcing their beliefs on others, yet you failed to demonstrate how they actually would do this in the real world.

    How does one accomplish forcing a non-action on another? I'm being rhetorical :p

    I've said my piece. :)
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 9, 2013
  14. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    There is a difference between being forced to pay for your employee's trip to Mecca and forcing him to go to Mecca.
    Last edited by Obi-Zahn Kenobi, Jul 9, 2013
  15. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Whoever said that mandating coverage of birth control was the only answer? I certainly agree with you that a multi-pronged approach is necessary which includes changing hearts and minds for the better.

    But still...the Church has to be like the rest of us and suck it up. Again -- why is there a special provision for the church's beliefs? Are my beliefs concerning the immorality of war not equally as important?

    I agree that heads of businesses and faiths should not be vilified, but they also have to accept that they can't always have it their way.

    There are enormous societal benefits derived from access to contraception that outweigh the Church's moral quandaries. Likewise, there's enormous benefits to having public school systems and forcing everyone to pay into them through taxes regardless of whether or not they they agree.

    I'm not asking that the Church be condemned. I'm asking that it be treated like everyone else.
  16. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Well hey I totally respect and understand that opinion. I would just prefer a situation where we nonetheless don't walk on others' beliefs no matter how weird/unfair we think they are. I don't think that's, you know, a bad thing to hope for at least in principle :p

    I just think everyone gets along better when they can learn to accept that we don't all think alike, and we don't have to in order to help each other. I'd rather go through numerous methods to help solve a societal problem before resorting to government force just as I would with any foreign situation. I just think it's prudent to always be a bit more cautious before launching into government intervention and I find that many people don't think through issues that far before giving up and deciding that's the only answer. Moreover, this kind of approach often ends up benefiting both the politicians, and the big corporations behind such action more than the people who needed help in the first place--I want to put the individual first (and that means humbling myself and accepting that what I think is morally right doesn't apply to everyone else--if that's true, then what right would I or anyone else have in imposing their own beliefs on others through force?).

    When I went to a Christian Liberal Arts college they didn't force their beliefs on me through the threat of jail or taxes. I had the freedom to choose their institution and I could leave whenever I wanted. The point is, the choice rested with me and likewise the choice rested with them to let me in. The government wasn't needed here and no one's beliefs were trampled against their will. The same can apply to numerous private institutions, which are not run by machines...but individuals who seek to work with other like-minded individuals on the basis of their own willingness to be there.

    Thanks for being kind. :)
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 9, 2013
  17. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    @Asterix_of_Gaul: Is there a particular reason you refused to answer my previous question? You said that employers in private workplaces should have the right to express their religion through their company's policies. You later specified that you didn't think "negative" actions--were one simply declines to do something, rather than "positive" actions that force another to do something--are harmful or inappropriate.

    That being the case, should an employer that refuses to promote female employees above entry-level positions or pay them equal wages be exempt from Equal Pay Act if they claim a religious conviction is behind this policy? Yes or no?
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  18. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Hey, you never answered my question either. Why don't we call it at that. I've already said what I wanted to say....no point is pulling myself into a "gotcha" argument with you, where you can use words like "stupid" and "moronic" to demonstrate the superiority of your position. No, I don't want to talk about how you're equating discrimination against a specific sex with not paying for something.
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 9, 2013
  19. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    I found this awesome pic that's pretty relevant to the discussion at hand:

    [IMG]
  20. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    The Catholic Church teaches that God is in favor of sex and in favor of children, so I see no contradiction in the pharmacist's behavior.
  21. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I didn't think you actually wanted an answer. You objected that my previous scenarios used positive rather than negative actions, and so I presented you with a negative action.

    And I "eqauted" the two because that's the legal effect of your statement. If you think that, as a blanket matter, "religious freedom" should exempt private employers from what are otherwise the general obligations of all employers towards their employees, you could very easily end up with a scenario like the one I described above. If you do not, please explain how and why "religious freedom" is acceptable when otherwise putting arbitrary limits on benefits in opposition to federal law, but is unacceptable when applying the same rule to wages? What sort of reasoning threads this needle? Isn't an employer's conscience always important? Or, alternatively, aren't the rights of the employee and the federal laws designed to protect them significant enough to override the personal objections of any one employer?
  22. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    [IMG]

    Why did she go directly to the FDA?

    Wocky, my bad--I did say it was rhetorical. I forgot :p

    Uh, in short form....preventing a woman from getting a promotion or paying her less because she is a woman is a direct action against her liberty. Not buying her something is not--they're not preventing anything.

    The government is supposed to protect religious liberty...not protect religious institutions so that they may control others/act out against others. I already showed you why one can't force a non-action on someone. I can't force not buying you GoT season 1...on you. :p
    Last edited by Asterix_of_Gaul, Jul 10, 2013
  23. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I guess I'm not seeing what makes limiting wages an "action against" whereas limiting health benefits merely "not preventing" something. After all, paying someone a lower wage doesn't prevent them from earning money at another job. Nor does it even prevent them from earning money at the same job--they just have to work more hours. Not coincidentally, this is also what they'd have to do to pay for the extra contraceptives their job decided not to cover.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  24. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6

    I think the modern world has grown beyond caring what the Catholic church says about any subject.
  25. Katana_Geldar Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2003
    star 8
    Millions of Catholics ignoring what the church says about contraception and abortion have the right idea.

    FTR Paul, in my VERY Catholic girls school I was never taught that the pill was poison. Or that contraception was against Gods law. When we learned about these things, religion was left outside as our teachers were teaching young women what they needed t know.