Shared publicly  - 
I'll just leave this here. (◕‿◕)✿

#ProChoice #atheism #atheist #skeptic
G. Michael Williams's profile photoZephrine Templar's profile photoMichael K Pate's profile photoJimmy Wallace's profile photo
+Cristian Ortiz No, Obama did not really say that, don't know who came up with the picture either.

I do agree with the "quote" though
Just like women have the right to not work at an institution that chooses to deny medical coverage for birth control.
Too. Many. Words. They'll lose interest before finishing the large print...
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all . . . Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."--Barack Obama
What about blood transfusions. Many religions have proscriptions about certain practices, but they are not being forced on anyone. Just think if blood transfusions were not covered because it was against jehovah witnesses beliefs. Its about setting basic rights.
What about the right to not be held indefinitely without charge?
+Matthew Hahn Jr Right, because nothing can be discussed unless everything is discussed. The point about women's rights is valid, habeas corpus notwithstanding.
+Thomas Grimstad : Your argument is well taken. However, the issue of funding becomes rather more complicated when the problem relates to collective risk. There is collective risk in suppressing birth control availability, because unwanted pregnancies and uncontrolled population growth impact the public at large (we all collectively pay the welfare costs for the dependents of the unemployed, for example). When there is collective risk involved, we set rules for private organizations that they must meet to play the game. If you want to build stuff, you have to abide by clean water and air rules. If you want to treat patients, you have to have proper certification, etc.
If this isn't an Obama quote I don't think it should presented in this way. I think it violates the boundary of responsible information sharing, and intellectual honesty. (Not that it matters what I think, mind you.)
Sex is not necessary to for the individual to live. Contraception is not a right. If your employer chooses not to cover contraception as part of the benefits package they provide as a bonus to you, you have two choices:
1. Pay for the contraception yourself
2. Find another employer that will

Imagine if I worked in and Islamic center and demanded that I be allowed to eat a ham sandwich in the cafeteria. And if the Islamic center provided lunch as a benefit and food is necessary to live I got the Govt to force them to buy my ham sandwich.
This is about one group forcing their morals on another group. The lefts continual assault on organized religion. (see Marx and Mao) And the many on the left that do not believe in personal responsibility but that others should pay for their wants.
+Zephrine Templar :Contraception is a public health issue. It relates to shared, public risk in much the same way as vaccination. Since members of the general population have a right not to be put at undue risk by others, public health problems necessitate that constraints be placed on private enterprise to account for them.

You complain that "the left" desires that "others should pay for their wants" - well, it turns out that unexpected pregnancies are a major contributor to welfare costs. So contraception helps to reduce the shared costs overall. The only reason it is such a political hotbed is because there is a presumed "moral" component, which is mostly a matter of the religious right, not the political left (not that the left doesn't have it's own soap box religious nonsense).
+Zephrine Templar I don't think it's so absolute as you imply. If society chooses to enact standards that society feels employers must follow, society is free to do so. The employer always has the choice to close down or move to another society. Also, society must make choices about the boundaries between conflicting rights. Religious rights are no different and no more sacred than other rights. Choices have to be made. I favor the Administration's choice in this case, since it favors a tangible effect to a universal right above an intangible effect to a right only important to a few.
I believe those statements have nothing to do with religious freedom.
Too bad this isnt Canada or England. Everyone's medical services would be covered (including ED meds for males and birth control for females) and you'd only take it if you wanted it. And if you feel so inclined that you are paing for some one else's stuff, you will be happy to rationalize you are only paying for your own.
+Ken Palar Your point reminds me of something I've often thought: Public involvement as a payer in a private/commercial healthcare system won't scale long-term. Strategically, we should be exploring public involvement at the care provider level.
+A. Scott White , do you mean a pay in by people at the doctor level rather than at a higher organization level?
+Ken Palar I mean public ownership of facilities and public employment of providers. The for-profit market is insatiable, and for-profit healthcare is no different. I worry that it will bleed the public dry if the public is expected to fund expenses and shareholders.

UPDATE: This is not a universal notion for me. I believe in the free market for commercial endeavors, which abound. Certain things, however, belong in the public purview. Basic healthcare, especially that which promotes public health and safety, is absolutely one of those things, in my opinion.
no one seems to be noting that a compromise has been made and a religious organisation can refuse to pay for it on moral grounds. If they do then the insurance company they use is required to cover it. some on the religious right are still not happy claiming that the the costs may still be passed on to them in other areas by the insurance companies to make up the difference. that says to me that it's either not a moral but rather a monetary issue or that their real goal is to deny woman access to birth control as evidenced by many conservative controlled states pursuing person hood amendments that would effectively make hormonal birth control illegal
Republicans will come up with anything to denounce the President.
+Jason Horton Please explain to me how condoms, IUD's and the pill are a right. They are goods and services that the Govt is forcing an organization that finds them to be immoral to buy for them. No one is stopping the woman from providing them for herself. I find the ending of innocent human life immoral yet I am being forced to pay for the abortion bill.
+A. Scott White Actually our religious rights and freedoms are very important in this country. Try reading the Constitution especially the 1st amendment. And in the founding documents our rights and freedoms are not given by man (the Govt) but by the Creator. What man giveth man taketh away. What God giveth man cannot take away.
Best point made in this whole list by Zephrine Templar. We are an entitled society that thinks we have a 'right' to this and a 'right' to that. What we should actually be considering is not what mandate the president is proposing but the fact that the president is mandating at all.
+Zephrine Templar Those of us who are Americans and who do not accept the existence of god see the religious language in the founding documents of this country as cultural baggage, I suppose. One need not believe rights are god-given in order to believe that rights are real. And I can accept the authors (to varying degrees) saw those rights as god-given whereas I see them as inherent to our mutual civil contract in the absence of god. It doesn't detract from their centrality to the society we've built. The founding documents don't have to be infallible to be useful for providing a framework for our government.

Also, I don't think religious rights and freedoms are unimportant, I just think that we have to make choices, as a society, when rights conflict. For my part, I'm satisfied in this case that the rights of women (you may not see them as rights, but we disagree with you) are more important than the rather indirect and gnat-straining complaints (as I see them, in this case) of religious groups. It's easy to imagine a very offensive frontal assault on religious rights and freedoms. I just don't see it here.
I would also add that "Obama" and even "The Government" are distractions and smoke screens in this discussion. This legislation came about as the result of the efforts of a large segment of society and it exists because a large segment of society thinks it should exist. Society makes laws. The government is just a tool. Claiming that "The Government" or "Obama" or "The Boogie Man" is doing this "to us" against our will is just demagoguery. Some of us want things one way. Some of us want things another way. We cannot all win all the time.
+A. Scott White I see what you are saying now. The state of Minnesota is kind of there - only for nonprofits can offer healthcare. So, even though UHG has a large presence in the state due to economical reasons, they can't actually operate here due to being for-profit.
I also agree with your other point. This is not an assualt on religion - if you don't want to use birth control, don't. It's still a free country. Doesn't mean other people can't have the choice TO use it.
Agree but the argument is not about religion but when human life begins.The Birth control pill doesn't stop the union of sperm and egg. Conception takes place. Some argue that life begins at conception.That is the debate here. Most people would agree that infanticide is wrong and there should be a law to protect infants. Is it a basic right for a women to kill or neglect her infant? After all its her infant. Therefore if life indeed begins at conception shouldn't there be a law to protect the fertilized egg? The debate continues.....
+A. Scott White In our country society does not make laws. We are a representative republic. Our representatives make the laws.
So if society became a majority Catholic you would have no problem with 10% of your taxes sent to the Pope?
Or Condoms could not be sold anywhere in the country?

With out God how do you set your moral compass? What ever feels good to +A. Scott White ?

So if one group is in majority they can trample the rights of the minority if that what "society" agrees with?
+Zephrine Templar This healthcare legislation is the result of the will of a large segment of society. That is undeniably true. A large segment of society supports it. Your struggle is ultimately with us, not with "The Government" or "Obama." The representatives might operate the mechanism, but society drives the agendas.

When I am a minority in society (like I usually am in Texas, for example), a lot of legislation passes that I do not like. I do have a problem with it, but there it is, nevertheless. Having a problem with it is fine, and I'm not, by debating with you, trying to say you shouldn't have a problem with it. I'm just debating your representation of the issue because I disagree with it.

Presumably you're a religious person, a believer. Do you, as a believer, feel compelled to do for your religion things that seem morally reprehensible to you? Do you have a personal moral compass that is in conflict with your religion? All decent people, religious or not, do what "seems right" (not "feels good," as you said) to ourselves. What else should we do? Should we do what feels wrong to ourselves? Surely that's not what religious people do, and neither do decent people who are not religious.

Our society is not setup to let the majority trample the rights of the minority, but rights often conflict. We arbitrate that as best we can. Results vary.
Mr. White & Templar let me make this comment to you both to your statement on society, Government, & The current President. The people of the U.S.A. have depended on the President & the rest of the government for everything instead of correcting his/her children its up to the Government & President. You see gentlemen most of society leaves the Government & the President control because most of these people in the society are too lazy to say NO & the majority of these people live off the U.S. Government & allow control to the President & Government officials.
+Jimmy Wallace For what it's worth, I think there's something to what you're saying, but I also think you're drastically overstating it. In my opinion you paint with too broad a brush and your assessment is more negative than I feel is justified based on what I've experienced. Doomsday isn't coming, at least not from that direction. Again, just my opinion.
+A. Scott White My religion and faith never asked me to do anything morally reprehensible. My faith and religion help set my moral compass. It sets the north star of my life. It has taught me compassion for others, to love my neighbor, to give through charity, to value life. I frequently help people where ever I go. They are continually surprised that someone in today's day and age stopped to help. My response, "That's why God put us here to help one another." Of note in Godless secular societies (ie Europe) charity giving is much lower than the US. Look at Greece they are more concerned with pensions and vacation days.
What if what feels right to me is electing a Govt that raises taxes and redistributes wealth to me so I never have to work an day in my life to have my needs met?
I teach college science. I have a number of students who see nothing morally wrong with taking years worth of your tax dollars in welfare or unemployment, never looking for a job and using it to pay for school. They then complain that if they don't get a second or third year of unemployment they won't be able to finish college or forbid they might have to get a job to pay for it.

I have been homeless during a real MI winter. I collected unemployment once for a couple months and did my best to quickly find another job. All of my college was paid for by myself or my family.
I am far from rich currently working multiple part time jobs. I expect no handouts from the Govt just a tax and regulation environment the encourages employment not discourages it.
+Jimmy Wallace many of us are not too lazy. We have been busy working and raising our families. Keeping up with everything the Govt does is a full time job. The rise of tea party came about because (under Bush and accelerated by Obama) we could no longer live our lives in peace and freedom w/o excessive Govt interference. I once asked an activist liberal if he had ever seen the Right rise up like this? "No that's our job." Even though I am in no condition to survive it, I would enjoy the results if Atlas just Shrugged and the 1% closed up shop.
+Zephrine Templar Godless Greece is more Christian than the USA, recognizing Orthodox Christianity as its official religion (while still allowing religious freedom). 97% of Greeks identify themselves as Christians. That's far higher than in the USA.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this openly and civilly. We all want what is best for society, but we have very different ideas about what will accomplish that. From your perspective, in its most extreme, the other side are freeloaders who don't believe in personal responsibility. From my perspective, in its most extreme, the other side are people who have bought into the self-serving ideologies of the "haves" in their struggle to continue their ages-old domination of the "have-nots."

I appreciate your independence and sense of personal responsibility. At the same time, I think there are things we could do to rearrange society so that it's easier on more of us, and you too.

Thanks for the talk.
Law is supposed to be fixed, not reworked and contrived at. At least thats a Cardinal truth. Why do we not understand what is happening as devolution?
+Zephrine Templar As European citizen, i find that statement interesting. Of course charity spending is much lower. Most of the things handled by charities are socialised through welfare, healthcare and other institutions. The gap of funding for help that traditionally existed has been bridged by charity in the US while in European countries government involvement has been more likely. While here in germany religioua freesom rights are absolutely prominent, no one would get the idea that the right of one person would limit the freedom of government services. It is inconceivable here for people to ask healthcare providers to limit services because of an employers religion. Healthcare is mandatory here as well.

As for god and morals :never has religion really provided morals. As you said, morals derive from society and a moral zeitgeist preeminent at every point in time. Racism was well accepted 150 years ago in usa and europe alike even among the brightest minds. Such changes in general consensus and especially their interpretation by religious groups has been a continous process. You yourself likely refer to a combination of groupthink of your moral peee group and interpreted scripture for your morals rather than a set of rukes hammered in stone. Therefore it is not faith but the moral zeitgeist among your peer group that shaped morals. No one escapes this moral zeitgeist.

Our very own bases support god not above our heads but at the back door where circon- can do us the most good at making our own Holistic choices of freewill, never a bias.
Isn't this according to Law?
Vs. Thomas. We are not dealing with a Muteable god here, whom procures any and everything for us, the way forward is the way to rise up positive and changes cannot be forced, seduced,as such is contrary and dispositive.
The choices we make affect ourselves predominantly and those choices dont render affectation of others to be conclusive and partys must all be satisfied for a fact.
A conscience vote, is reserved for the elected contiingents of all partys representatives whom take on the issues the people en mass are not qualified to take up amongst themselves. Then there' is the Executive® to ensure thebfacts are impartial and not misguided 1st, and never power to be misplaced 2nd, thirdly muteable law is not cast without being Gold® only as pure is their innocence ensuring never a guilt-ridden conscience nor unthought out mockery.
But you may be right to a point Thomas after Ive spent this while talking to myself, that is , a woman on fire can destroy a man quite naturally without contraceptives. Fair game. Tony
Food, Water, Shelter, Clothing - these are basic rights.
Birth Control Contraception is not a basic right.
What's next in basic rights ? French Fries ? Welfare ? Starbucks ? The Rabbit ?
Over half of the women on the pill, use it for medical reasons and not contraception. PMS control, Acne are the big reasons. I'm remembering an 85% figure but, I'm not positive on that.
Gloria ! Where abouts in Africa are you in your thoughts , its always been a dark repressive systematic struggle to just stay alive !
+Jason Horton If abortions were just about about a woman having control over what happens to her own body I would have little to no problem with it as long as I was not forced to pay for an elective procedure that was brought on by choice. ie If you get tired of a tattoo you are free to have it removed from your body buy don't raise my insurance or tax rates because you made a choice you now regret.

The fetus (human life) with in her womb is not her own body. I will clarify this with science and law.
1. If I sample tissue from the fetus and send it to the FBI crime lab they will report back that it is human DNA
2. The DNA test will show that DNA of the fetus and the mother share traits but are definitely from two different people. This especially obvious if the fetus is male.
3. Our nations founding documents list "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as some of our inalienably rights. When a woman aborts a fetus she is ending a human life without due process and it never has the chance at "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" That innocent life has fewer rights than a convicted serial killer such as Jeffry Dahlmer who at least got due process.
4. If the fetus is just part of the woman's body why do we convict a mother for killing her 1 month old child? It is still the same organism that would have been aborted.
5. Since the father provided 1/2 the DNA why doesn't he have a say? What about his reproductive freedom and rights?

Abortion is about irresponsible sexual behavior and promiscuity without wanting to deal with inconvenience (or as Pr Obama say punishment) of the consequences of that choice.
Politically with the focus of this thread it is also about forcing others via insurance premiums and taxes to pay for those poor choices.
??? Atheist comprise .02% of the prisons in the US. And Atheists are described as having no morals. I don't get it, either.
+Thomas Grimstad : The very idea is easy : There needs to be a moral consensus among a majority of people. Then, this majority within politics decides what the heck they do with that money.

If there is any kind of socialised health care, which is necessary for tons of reasons, the decisions they make should not take care of any religious belief at all if it comes to wether or not they should GIVE any kind of treatment. Of course, anyone should have the choice to REJECT treatment. But essentially denying others the right to have a form of health care is intruding into their lives even more than paying the absolutely same amount of healthcare you would anyway.
+Erick Ovando Of course it is easier to do what you think is rights when you subscribe to no higher moral code or values. Since Erick sets the rules for himself Erick can't violate those rules unless he has conflicting multiple personalities.
+Frank Taeger Killing human life just because it is unwanted is not health care it is death care. Having the Govt force someone else pay for your birth control is not a right. It is a form of tyranny. No one is stopping men and women from going to the corner drug store and buy contraceptives.
+Zephrine Templar nice emotional pleas. But, given the church covers up pedophilia and sells nothing but, snake oil, they don't really have the moral cover to make the choices. Throw in Birth Control pills are used for medical reasons other then contraception and you have a real problem. I'm not aware of any insurance that covers condoms.

God is a lie, put your big girl panties on, welcome to reality.
+Erick Ovando +Zephrine Templar has imaginary friends and believes freedom of religion means freedom to impose religion. Ergo, an idiot. Beliefs don't mean you don't have obligations. I don't believe in Income Tax but, I still have to pay them. A book of errors doesn't mean one doesn't have to comply with the rest of the world.
+Jason Horton No I am not wait for the thread to die down to commit some conspiracy I come to it once a day or so when I have time. It is informative in the mind of the Left.
1. My argument above had nothing to do with religion or my faith. It was is the fetus human life? Is the fetus which is DNA different from the mother her body? Why do we give more rights to someone who willfully takes the lives of others than one that in denied a chance at life.
2. Atheism and Leftism are both belief systems and in a sense religions w/o a god. You and others +G. Michael Williams +Erick Ovando keep saying they we are trying to impose our religion on you when that is exactly what Pr. Obama did to the Catholic organizations and pharmacies. He said I don't believe the same belief system as you and I one man with my bureaucracy will nullify your belief system and prevent you from practicing it and force you to do things against your beliefs.
If we allow this president to force that, what will the next president force?
I am reminded of the black lawyer that defended the KKK's right to hold a protest in a city park. He said "If I don't defend their freedom of speech I can't complain when they take away mine."
3. As to Dr's and pharmacists refusing prescriptions for birth control. This does not violate the oath of first do no harm. As to the morning after pill, If they view the fertilized egg as human life then the abortion pill in their view does harm. But you would force them to do harm. The woman is always free to find another Dr. or pharmacist.
4. What's wrong with Pro-life picketing peacefully in front of a Pro-death org such as Planned (un)Parenthood. Planned Parenthood did 329,445 abortions in 2010 while it provided prenatal care to only 31,098 women and referred only 841 women to adoption agencies. From their own records. They are not in the business of parenthood. See black lawyer above.
5. I have always been taught with freedoms and rights come responsibilities and consequences. The woman exercised her reproductive freedom when she engaged in intercourse. Planned (un)Parenthood and the left take this view on that. As Pr Obama said we don't want you punished with a child so go ahead let a Dr. stick poison in your uterus and a mini weed whacker to kill your mistake. Or if you have it we have all of this wonder welfare (other peoples money we took from them), and give it to you. You don't have to work or anything for it just keep voting for us your $$drug dealer. And if your a minor we'll teach you how to have sex and kill the fetus for you just vote for us when you are an adult.
What post psychiatric care to they give girls to help them deal with this trauma?

The Bill of Rights promises freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Freedom of speech not freedom from speech.
+G. Michael Williams +Jason Horton amusing how when liberals and the left resort to name calling when they don't like the debate
(SIX HIRB is Dennis's acronym for the debate-ending names conservatives are called by liberals. If you disagree with the Left, you are one or all of the following -- Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.)
+Jason Horton You just called me names, fascist, bigot, misogynistic, magical sky fairy, +G. Michael Williams and other have engaged in name calling.

is the fetus human life No. This one statement of your's gave the clarity to the disagreement. As a scientist I disagree with you but we have clarity to the disagreement .

Rape is not "intercourse" and since it is forced on the woman she is not exercising freedom. I am torn on the that case because I have compassion for both.

Under age girls: Maybe we should encourage (not force) the media to stop over sexualizing young girls. Teach the ideal that their body is actually something special and not a play thing. And no boys don't love you just because you give it up.

dead beat boy friend: She made the choice to have sex with a loser.
If I drink and drive is it the bartenders fault for serving me too many drinks.

So under your understanding of who can protest I would like to say the bigots of "Occupy", the teachers union, and SEIU who terrorize, and trespass causing damage to both public and private property. Over the weekend in Berkely CA someone was killed by a criminal because the police were too busy preparing for a "occupy" protest.

Planned Parent hood does not have the equipment at a majority of their locations to do cancer screening. Usually they just collect a fee and refer them to a facility that does. This is part of the reason Karmonos wanted to stop funding them. They would rather fund the facilities that actually do the screening.

Thanks for the clarity
+Erick Ovando Then why do we stop people from committing suicide?
Why do we try to stop bulimics or cutters?
Why should I care what what they do with their body?
+Erick Ovando thanks for at Least admitting the fetus is alive. And that the individual must make the moral choice-
Let me put this to a test by asking anyone of you who have commented on this subject. If any of you were a woman who was raped & your condition was not good & you had to make a choice on which of you should die you the mother or the child that you did not ask for. My answer is this I would let the fetus/child go because I know that I did not ask to be raped. Lets see what your answers will be.
Granted my answer might be considered cold & heartless but I'll be dammed if I would have a child out of wedlock by a man I didn't even know much less asked to have sex with.
Add a comment...