In what way, Frank?

Read the responses to your other posts and you should get an idea of some of the ways you are wrong

You do realize Judges have been arrested for NOT doing their job and being subject to corruption and bribery…just because they are a judge does not make them ABOVE the law and just because they are a judge does not make them HONORABLE!

Airangel,

You did not answer my question.

Forcing them to comply is outrageous in and of itself, what is in the illegal act is unimportant. And, by unimportant, I mean since it is illegal we dont have to comply.

It is wrong to use force to take one’s property to fund the sex practices of Sandra Fluke/Flake. The fact that you don’t see this simple distinction between right and wrong evidences as corrupt ethic. Looting A to satisfy B is not what the taxing power was intendend to effect. In fact merchantilism was a form of such looting A to satisfy B and was one of the reasons for the revolution. It is you who might stand a bit of study. Try reading:

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
The Inflation Crisis and How to Resolve It – also by Hazlitt
America’s Great Depression – Murray Rothbard
The Political Thought of Etienne de la Boetie – also by Rothbard
The Law by Frederic Bastiat
That Which is Seen And That Which is Not Seen, an essay (on the WWW) also by Bastiat

tlgeer says:
“Congress was given the power in the Constitution. Were you not aware of this?”

Where in the Constitution, and be precise, was Congress given the power to force you to pay for my birth control?

“Where in the Constitution, and be precise, was Congress given the power to force you to pay for my birth control?”

I was speaking about raising and collecting taxes. There is nothing that says what they have to use it for, other than to pay the accounts that we have run up.

Are you serious? Do you really not understand the facts? Do you not see that FORCING us to PAY for HEALTH INSURANCE, that MUST cover BIRTH CONTROL, is forcing us to pay for others BIRTH CONTROL? And, on the subject of it being a TAX, that was decided by the Supreme court, so in your stance it is a TAX and therefor we are TAXED to pay for BIRTH CONTROL.

Where does this logic fail you?

And, based solely on your posting of your personal thoughts and ideas here, you a liberal Democrat.

“The check in the system that you mention is the “Jury Box” (One of the 4 boxes given to us by our founders)”

Jury trials are for individuals only, and only when the charge is criminal and the loss of freedom or life is involved. They are not to rule on whether a law is Constitutional or not.

Actually, tlgeer, again you are mistaken. A jury is also used in equity cases when someone is suing for damages in a contract default. No loss of life or possibility of incarceration is at issue there.

In most states, constitutions, it is written that the jury will rule on the LAW and the FACTS. This gives them the authority to decide if the law is just in that given case, or in fact if it is legal. It is THE PEOPLE who have the last say about every LAW in our nation. This is a part of our founding principles, that removes the possibility of oppressive power in the government.

When you say “we”, you are taking on the responsibility of all the liberals that speak against Christian values. Flashy obviously denigrates Christianity, are you trying to defend his atheist statements as friendly towards Christianity?

Every IGNORANT person on this site that says the religious right are wrong are denigrating Christian values, are you going to try to defend them also?

I believe that you might be claiming to be Jewish? I also understand that the Jewish faith is in strong alignment with Christian values in these matters. By this reasoning, if you are Jewish, these people are denigrating your religious values as well.

You want Christian values to be eliminated from Law? Careful there, almost all LEGAL laws are derived from Christian values.

The Bible does not say follow the word of God, unless it offends others, or is looked down upon by Human government. It says follow the word of God at all times in all facets of your life.

“you are taking on the responsibility of all the liberals that speak against Christian values.”

Not at all, and I am not a liberal. I am a Democrat.

“Every IGNORANT person on this site that says the religious right are wrong are denigrating Christian values, are you going to try to defend them also?”

If what they are saying is that the religious right have the right to make their religious views into law, then yes I am.

“I believe that you might be claiming to be Jewish?”

No, someone else is claiming that I said I was. She is wrong. Completely.

“I also understand that the Jewish faith is in strong alignment with Christian values in these matters. By this reasoning, if you are Jewish, these people are denigrating your religious values as well.”

The majority of society’s have the same rules/laws. They are not confined, by any means, to just Judaism or Christians. They are simply common sense. Claiming that common sense rules/laws are anything other than that makes no sense because they are obviously not confined to only certain religions or country’s or beliefs.

Regardless of whether or not you are a liberal, you were defending liberals statements which means you were taking on their views.

Since you are a liberal, it does not make any difference that you say you are just a Democrat.

As with all LIBERALS you twist everything into some religious right wing agenda to force their religion into law. That is pure malarkey.

As a LIBERAL you THINK that you are RIGHT about all this nonsense, when you are vastly mistaken.

As a LIBERAL you think that all HUMANS have some innate sense of right vs wrong that is universally followed in all nations and by all religions. I AM SORRY THAT THIS IS SO VAST IN SCOPE BUT YOU FORCE IT WITH YOUR POSTS. History of the world will prove you and all LIBERALS wrong on these facts. Murder is acceptable (not considered murder) in Islam, if there is a good religious reason for the killing. Many Socialist governments believe that it is not only necessary, but good to kill people that dont follow the party line. Many people have advocated the extermination of third world minorities as being a drain on the worlds resources. Extreme racial and religious views have prompted attempted genocides all over the world.

That is why we have the rule of law here, to prevent those atrocities from occurring.

And, you might not like it, most of the civilized laws are found in the Bible. Most modern laws are based on Christian / Jewish values. If you are an atheist and believe the Bible is mans word, only given as Gods to have more authority, the rules are there in the Bible. Be it God or man made, the rules for modern civilization come from the Bible. Christians follow the bible, so the laws follow Christian values.

And, if you want to veer off into abortions, that is covered in the Bible also. God clearly speaks of the person in the womb as a distinct human. He says that the child is a person at the time of fertilization. It is only man that has a problem deciding when that baby is a real person. And your statement in another post about it being a separate being is deceptive. Separate can mean physically apart from and not connected. In that definition, the baby is not a separate human till the umbilical cord is cut. So if you use that definition, we can shoot a baby as soon as it is born but still connected to the mother. Another definition for separate might be as a separate entity in itself. A baby is separate even inside the womb, it is only getting nourishment and protection from the mother, not unlike the first years after it is born.

I am not proposing that anyone’s religious beliefs should be imposed on anyone else. First of all, that is impossible. That is a personal choice. The problem is government trying to do just that; either to obliterate completely all morality or impose secular humanism on everyone. That is what I am against. Hide and watch if you do not believe it. We are just about down the tubes as a nation regarding any decency and morality at all. Nudity, profanity, brutality and all immorality is now “in your face” whether you approve of it or not. That is what I detest. In the days when I was young, none of this filth was allowed in public; now one cannot escape it. It is like wading through a sewer and growing worse by the day.

Come on, tlgeer, think before you speak.

It is not necessary for there to be a precedent for a case to be set by a previous case. If you followed that ignorant logic (false logic) you would never be able to have a judge preside over the violation of a new law.

“Health care IS (or was prior to Obamacare) the responsibility of the individual.”

It was still based largely on employment and still is today Vicky.

What kind of health insurance, and when it kicked in, was a part of what I looked at before deciding on which company to go to work for. That and if the “clean” rooms were actually clean. I encountered a lot of wafer fab companies that did no regular maintenance and the floors were filthy. Ick. HP was one of them.

“remember those waivers”

They expire in 2014.

SPOT ON Airangel….it’s called FREE MARKETS and unfortnately it’s being squashed at every opportunity.

I agree.

Air says: “work somewhere else or shop somewhere else..you can’t dictate someone’s conscience”

For an individual you can’t. That is for certain. However a corporation where I’m sure the family is ducking responsibility and enjoying tax advantages is a creation of the state and thus has no “concience.” Ink and paper are not a human being.

Rob

Give says: “it’s called FREE MARKETS and unfortnately it’s being squashed at every opportunity.”

No it isn’t. What about freedom for the employees? It’s completely gone when they are supposed to act under the provisions of someone else’s religion.

And, remember, a corporation isn’t a person. It is a dodge for individuals to avoid responsibility for their actions and get tax advantages.

Rob

“BS – work somewhere else or shop somewhere else..you can’t dictate someone’s conscience – that’s like saying make vegetarians serve meat in their restaurant!”

It’s nothing at all like saying that. Nothing at all.

@Robert Smith, Tjeer, deerw…no on and I mean NO ONE forced people to go apply at Hobby Lobby, if you don’t like the soup, don’t eat it, go somewhere else that offers what you want, that’s freedom of CHOICE, no individual, government, corporation should pay for another’s behavior, it’s called SELF RESPONSIBILITY, consequences for actions…that’s the problem with anything Government ran, freedoms are lost – insurance should be affordable to pick a plan that works for that individual (i.e. guys don’t need mammograms, women don’t need prostate screening, some of us despise Big Pharma and would prefer alternative supplemention) it should be a pick and choose and insurance companies should compete across state lines for your business, that’s what drives costs down…and Chester the first paragraph of this article talks about the morning after pill and week after pill which is what I referred to in my response, not your ASSumption! Robert those privately held companies started as individual businesses and due to success were able to incorporate but that doesn’t changee the philosophy of the man behind the wheel and his vision which I’m sure when he incorporated didn’t state “in order to incorporate, you must pay for your employee’s sexual appetite”!…. All of you remember NOTHING is free and come with a price!!! 23 million already out of work and hundreds of thousands of job joss since Obama took office…this type of Government suffocation is killing jobs, incentive and motivation to even start up a company – you’ll reap what you sow by your lack of common sense and self responsibility!

ROFL… “Ethics and values are critical to success and typically come from the owner(s) experience and core beliefs. ”

Ever hear of Enron?

Ever hear of Monsanto?

Ever hear of BP?

Rob

“ROFL… “Ethics and values are critical to success and typically come from the owner(s) experience and core beliefs. ”” …

sorry about the cut and paste, but same reaction and described the mirth perfectly.

Ever hear of Abound Solar?

Ever hear of Solar Trust?

Ever hear of Energy Conversion Devices?

Ever hear of Ener1?

Ever hear of Aptera Motors?

Ever hear of Massachusetts-based Beacon Power Corp?

Ever hear of Solyndra?

All were green-energy companies under Obama watch who received a combined total of almost 3 billion dollars in stimulus money, and are now bankrupt!!! And you want this man and his fascist idiots leading our economy, Robert?

A “Corporation” is where two or more individuals pool their resources to operate a business while protecting their separate, private property from the activities of their business partner. They follow the law set forth by their “State” to make their Corporation legal, but it’s ALWAYS the individuals involved who CREATE the corporation, and never the State.

Under our federal constitution, the US Government has no authority what-so-ever to meddle in the running of such a business. We need SOME STATE (it really doesn’t matter which one) to stand up and enforce the FEDERAL Constitution, which was designed to limit and restrict the federal GOVERNMENT to certain areas only, and not individuals or the companies they may choose to create. In doing so that State should first demand the US Supreme Court identify WHERE in the constitution it gets the authority to “INTERPRET” that constitution, and when it fails to do that, because it can’t, demand that it refrain from doing so in the future. Next, that State should demand government identify where federal “COURTS” are authorized to create a law when no law exists. Our constitution clearly says “only Congress can make a law” so some ruling by some court CAN NEVER be a law, since it would be unconstitutional. “CASE LAW” is a concoction whipped up by lawyers, both on and off the bench, and needs to face a quick death at the earliest possible date. It’s, quite simply, unconstitutional on its face.

We only need one State to refuse all federal “bribery” payments and demand the constitution be followed, in its entirety, and this nightmare could be ended…

Good post. Well written. Why do folks who wish to form a businesses ask for permission from the state, thus making the state a third party to the agreement? I think it is because the state then offers protection for a price, not just from the evils between the partners but becasue the people have demanded protection. So the majority of voters force themselves and those who disagree with them, to pay via compelled taxes to support such tyranny of politicians and judges. People beg for voluntary servitude, as explained by Murray Rothbard in his review of The Political Thought of Étienne de la Boétie.

This is no different than if I was a vegetarian that didn’t believe in eating meat and I open a restaurant. A patron comes in to my business wanting meat. I say I don’t serve meat as I’m a vegetarian and don’t believe in eating meat. Should the meat eater have a right to sue me or should he just go elsewhere that serves meat? Should workers that I hire sue me because there’s no meat on their lunch break and they need protein? The answer is “NO”. Work somewhere else or bring you lunch, do business with someone that aligns with your values. There are enough businesses to cater to everyone.

Hobby Lobby is a private entity and entitled to run their business how they see fit. Don’t like it, don’t work there and don’t shop there but leave them to their faith and their OWN business. Why would anyone go into business today with this “screw you to the wall” government?

YES Mr. Marxist Agitator……that’s a concept called FREE CHOICE!

“Hobby Lobby is a private entity ”

Flase. It is a family owned corporation. Corporations are created by the state.

Rob

As Dean of Flashy’s School for Wayward Girls and Soiled Women, BC is available. Especially if the “patrons” continue to frequent in the numbers they have. Funny how many of them are carrying Bibles under their arm and quite voluntarily check them at the door when they enter to “interview” the ‘students” …

Airangel, quite factually, Hobby Lobby was protesting being “forced”, their words, to provide birth control of any type to anyone, employees most especially. Seems they don’t believe a woman should be provided the means to prevent a birth at their expense, but by the same token, they will gladly terminate such woman should she become pregnant and not be able to provide for that child. Seems they prefer their female employees get pregnant so they can be released and replaced by new, cheaper blood.

From Air: “Men need to be gentlemen and women need to be ladies and respect each other and learn more about each other before hopping into bed irresponsibly with no discipline whatsoever!”

Really? If that there right wing brutal god didn’t want people enjoying adult activities why did he make it feel so good?

Oh, maybe it doesn’t feel good for them, but for those of us who do enjoy sex for recreation stay out of our bedrooms.

Rob

Consensual SEX and MORALITY have no connection. ONLY RELIGION seems to believe there is a connection. It is only the NON-CONSENSUAL actions between individuals which enter the realm of Morality

Chester, contrary to being educated into wisdom you were educated into idiocy.

Robert Smith writes:
“Oh, maybe it doesn’t feel good for them, but for those of us who do enjoy sex for recreation stay out of our bedrooms.”

They aren’t trying to get into your bed Robert. They are just objecting to being forced to pay for some of your bedroom toys.

And they are attempting to force their employees to adhere to their religious views.

No, tlgeer, the government is trying to force the company to adhere to the employee’s morality. If the employee wants insurance that covers these things, they are free to get it on their own.

You really dont understand reality do you?

tlgeer says:
“And they are attempting to force their employees to adhere to their religious views.”

They (the company) have no power to force their employees to have a particular religious view or indeed ANY religious view. The company is merely objecting to being forced by government to pay for the employees indiscretions. If employees wish to be indiscreet they can pay to clean up their own mess.

Givemeliberty

No problem. BTW, the beginnings of anorexia that you described are covered under Obamacare.

BTW…if the CEO of your employer carries beliefs that medicine and hospitals are against his/her beliefs…would you accept not having health insurance offered to employees if such were the case?

To whom should it be the decision for..the employer offering benefits, or the employee deciding based upon THEIR religious beliefs?

Question from Flashy: “if the CEO of your employer carries beliefs that medicine and hospitals are against his/her beliefs…would you accept not having health insurance offered to employees if such were the case? ”

There is an answer to that. The Christian Scientists!

” “Truth is the power of God which heals the sick and the sinner, and is applicable to all the needs of man.” That’s from: http://christianscience.com/prayer-and-health/the-bible-and-science-and-health

So, if we want to go by their rules there won’t be ANY health care.

Rob

Flashy writes:
“BTW…if the CEO of your employer carries beliefs that medicine and hospitals are against his/her beliefs…would you accept not having health insurance offered to employees if such were the case?”

Sure. I don’t have to work for them. I have in fact worked for many companies that did not have “perks” like health insurance for employees.

“To whom should it be the decision for..the employer offering benefits, or the employee deciding based upon THEIR religious beliefs?”

The employer since they are the one offering. Those benefits are merely part of the agreed compensation for work.

Robert Smith writes:
“So, if we want to go by their rules there won’t be ANY health care.”

There won’t be any health care because there won’t be any NEED for man made health care as God provides all.

Btw, why do we always get health insurance mixed up with health care in these discussions?

OK…so the Mayflower had Puritans. Big deal. This has NEVER been a christian nation. Got that? Easy to understand as a concept. Very much a reality.

Tell you what. you live one year based upon my belief system…I’ll then live one year under yours. Deal?

Seriously…you wouldn’t take that deal because my beliefs are quite different than yours. . So quit trying to insist everyone live under your belief system.

Flashy says,
“Seriously…you wouldn’t take that deal because my beliefs are quite different than yours. . So quit trying to insist everyone live under your belief system.”

You mean like you’re trying to impose with all your athiestic dribble? For you information, this nation WAS founded as a Christian nation and God’s name and his word is everywhere from the posting of his Ten Commandments to “In God We Trust” on our currency. Your stupidity is phoenominal and transcends any logic that you could ever possibly display. I can’t think of a single solitary soul that would ever want your style of life and would be willing to make such a trade as you suggest. I, for one, would be thoroughly disusted with myself as you should be with yourself. Trust me on this. God WILL get around to you.

“Trust me on this. God WILL get around to you.” < THA DUKE

Ummm…two questions. Whose god and which one of the several available ?

Wow flashy, you pull facts out of your ____, just like all Progressives, Their were not Puritans on the Mayflower, there were Pilgrims on the Mayflower. “The same thing.” you say…not by a long shot. So now I know you education level, I will stick with the Pilgrims.

Nobody’s Fool…so you just called every maried woman a slut. Nice … hate to be your spouse, must be frustrating as all git out. What’s her monthly tab for batteries ?

“Christians don’t want to rule anything”

You do. Instead of everyone (adult and consenting) living by their own beliefs, or lack of beliefs, you want to force everyone to live by your beliefs. If that’s not ruling, what is?

Sandra Fluke, Leslie Marshall and Debbie Wasserman-Schults and the troika from Kalifornia Hell, Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer approve of using force to compel me to pay taxes to be handed over to them and their fawning sycophants for their sexual practices, which is the imposition of the scheme of looting A to satisfy B and that is criminal! As H.L. Mencken said, government is a broker in pillage and every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen property.

” troika from Kalifornia Hell”

As soon as you posted this your post became irrelevant. It shows, quite clearly, that you are not dealing with reality.

tlgeer says:
” “Christians don’t want to rule anything”

You do. Instead of everyone (adult and consenting) living by their own beliefs, or lack of beliefs, you want to force everyone to live by your beliefs. If that’s not ruling, what is?”

Who is this you that you speak of? Christians do not want to rule you. There are, however, lots of people that pretend to be Christians who will use force (often of Government) to make you to live by their beliefs. We see that every day with the common progressive and “Social Justice”. These people may think they are Christian but clearly they are not.

CaroleAnn: Since when was “Free Will” abolished for individual business owners? Hobby Lobby is not a “PUBLIC” Company you can buy stock in. It’s a Family Owned Company, with all stock privately held by that family, so what about THEIR “Free Will?”

Nothing about Hobby Lobby’s activities is designed to STOP their employee’s from accessing birth control of whatever type they choose, including the use of abortion pills after-the-fact. The “FAMILY” owning that company simply objects to being “FORCED” by our federal government to SUBSIDIZE such activities, and under our constitution, they certainly have that right!

People seem unaware of the fact that “Employer Provided Health Insurance” is fairly new in America, and only began here during WWII, when our federal government froze wages and employers needed to find some other way to attract the best available workers. “Health Insurance” (not healthcare) was one way they did that.

Healthcare is each individuals responsibility, and there’s no way some “company” can mandate a healthy lifestyle for it’s employees without moving them into company provided dormitories, feeding and clothing them and controlling the entirety of their existence. Is this the sort of future you consider desirable? There’s a MAJOR difference between “Health Insurance” and “healthcare”, whether or not the LEFT would like to turn them into a single entity.

Healthcare has been with us since the beginning of time, while “Health Insurance” has only become popular in America in the past 50-60 years. Once upon a time “individuals” took responsibility for the former, while few had ever even heard of the latter…

CaroleAnn writes:
“Many Christians seem to forget that we all have (or are supposed to have) free will. The right to choose for ourselves.”

I see some inconsistency in your application of free will for “we all”.

You want government to force the employers to go against their free will choice to NOT offer a specific “benefit”.

The employee has free will and can freely NOT work for an employer that does not offer a “benefit” the employee wants.

Thus the free will right of both parties is maintained.

“Sorry but I refuse to pay a prostitute for having sex with anyone. I know the word prostitute doesn’t sit well with a lot of people, however the last time I checked, a woman that received compensation for having sex was by definition a prostitute.” <—Eugene Sevene-THE PATRIOT

So what's the monthly tab for your wife's batteries there Eugene…. psst…for martial harmony, and to ensure you don't get knifed in the middle of the night, i wouldn't go around letting your wife know you just referred to her as a prostitute.

Be that as it may as far as your wife, you diss prostitution. You do realize do you not, the first prostitute using your definition and religion would be Eve. She received benefits from having Adam as her "boy toy" .. and..just askin' … but if there were only Cain, Abel and Seth as sons….where'd the grandkids come from? Seems "christian morality" would be screaming for the banning of the Book of Genesis seeing as incest or cross breeding amongst the brothers and sisters had to have occurred.

So…before you toss out the definitions and then diss someone for not adhering to YOUR belief system…perhaps you should examine its basis …

Flashy writes:
“So what’s the monthly tab for your wife’s batteries there Eugene”

Since he is not asking you to pay that tab, what business is it of yours? Other than to try and make a connection between prostitution (a business) and the Holy Institution of Marriage?

Excellent refutation of Flashy’s fallacious philosophy of suicidal commie/socialism. You did not drink the “kool aid” of the deceivers, you may pass to “GO” and earn your reward of having maintained faith with those who founded this nation and which is sore need of rejuvination of their moral/ethical foundations. Good on ya mate!

So, according to your view I shouldn’t have taken birth control pills when I was 19? You do know that birth control pills are used for more than just to keep from having babies, don’t you?

Are you aware of the fact that you not only do not have the right to know WHY I was taking them, you also do not get a say in whether I should have.

I know of many reasons for taking birth control pills that is not pregnancy prevention. I dont care why you took them. I didnt say you dont have the right to take them. I wont buy them for you. Non of my business why you take them and not my responsibility to help you acquire them.

IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT MY STANCE THAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND?

Frank Kahn writes:
“The government has no right to make laws either for or against them.” (birth control and/or abortion)

Objection your Honor. Abortion is the murder of a child so the government has a DUTY to make laws to protect that life just as it has a duty to make laws to protect your and flashy’s life. Now we might need to discuss which level of government should make those laws but that is a different discussion

Objection, over ruled, it is the CONSTITUTION that says ALL CITIZENS have EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.

I am not a legal scholar nor am I able to personally determine the intentions of the authors of that document. I do believe that it was intended to mean that no LAW may be enacted that benefits or harms any group of citizens with respect to others. Making a LAW that LEGALIZES abortion is such a law, by harming the rights of our youngest citizens.

Therefor, we do not need a law against abortion (killing), we need a ruling in court or some other legal means of addressing the rights of a fetus. To do this, we need a firm and unassailable determination as to when LIFE begins. If, LIFE begins at conception, then so does citizenship, giving that fertilized egg all the rights afforded in the CONSTITUTION.

So, in conclusion, we already have a law against MURDER (abortion), so we dont need a new law against ABORTION.

What you say has merit. However, exactly when life begins, is not absolute. Some say at conception. Some say not until the fetus has been out of the womb for 7 days. Some say that life is in the blood, which I believe is around 18 days after conception.

It seems to me, this discussion has broken down from the goverment’s rights to tell employers what they must spend money on to far more reaching topics such as birth control and abortion. Neither one of those is really an issue – it’s all financial and whose responsibility it is to pay for those extras. I can see all sides of this issue, but I still think that whatever benefits an employer chooses to provide or not provide is the decsion of the employer. If those who want to work for them don’t like it, they are free to work elsewhere. No one is forcing them to work for a particular employer. I love it that the Hostess people basically told the unions to go pound sand and sacked 18,000 employees who were just plain too greedy. I am totally on the side of Hostess. It seems the tail wants to wag the dog. Employers, not employees make the rules, risk their investment, and succeed or not based on all factors including their employees. Its still a free country (sort of) and no one is forcing anyone to work where they don’t want. The government should stay out of our businesses. This country was set with limited government and lot of personal responsibility – somehow, it has become more and more like a socialist (ok, so communist) country with large government stickin their noses into everything.

God says it begins at the beginning, which is fertilization of the ovum.

“Abortion is the murder of a child”

In your opinion only. Until there is scientific evidence of when a fetus becomes a separate being, you only get to make that decision for yourself. No one else.

The problem here is that most definitions have nothing to do with life of a child. Life, by definition, is there as soon as the egg is fertilized. It does, at that point, have all the SCIENTIFIC attributes of LIFE. The argument appears to be centered around, “when does it qualify as human?”

I make this distinction, because it is a point of law, you cant murder something that is not Human. Therefor, killing a fetus, that has not attained Human attributes, is not murder.

You have children, right? Did you feel them moving inside you around the 5th or 6th month? Did you ever notice that they react to outside stimulus? If you eat very spicy foods when you are pregnant, the baby will often object and become extremely active. Would you call this a living being, a human?

Sometimes, a baby survives the abortion, it is actually alive when removed from the mother. Is this a human being? Was the abortion attempted murder?

Yes, we need a better definition of when the baby becomes a human, and therefor a citizen of this nation. But, it is very clear, that in some cases, abortion is MURDER. This is not an opinion, nor is it a grey area, if that baby would have survived outside the mother but was killed, it is murder.

“This is not an opinion, nor is it a grey area, if that baby would have survived outside the mother but was killed, it is murder.”

I have not said anything different.

What we were talking about was the scientific definition of when a fetus becomes a separate person. A human fetus is always human, and I never said otherwise.

If the fetus is human, and by definition living, then it is definitely murder to kill it.

tlgeer says:
“Are you aware of the fact that you not only do not have the right to know WHY I was taking them, you also do not get a say in whether I should have.”

Are you aware that neither Frank nor I nor most of the conservatives on this discussion even care. We DO care that you want to use the force of government to make us PAY for your little indiscretions.

“PAY for your little indiscretions”

I have never had any.

Frank Kahn writes:
“So, in conclusion, we already have a law against MURDER (abortion), so we dont need a new law against ABORTION”

Amusing that you over rule my objection then go on to argue for it. But I do like the way you presented your case. I could have modified my objection to say that “government has a DUTY to make laws to protect that life just as it has a duty to make laws to protect your and flashy’s life. One such law is the law against murder.”

Frank Kahn:
“Making a LAW that LEGALIZES abortion is such a law, by harming the rights of our youngest citizens.”

I know of no such law, do you?.

Frank Kahn: “Therefor, we do not need a law against abortion (killing), we need a ruling in court or some other legal means of addressing the rights of a fetus.”

Which is to say we need a ruling to overturn the Court decision (Roe vs Wade) that made murder of the (really) young child legal. Such a ruling might be along the lines of
“The right of the child to life over rides the mothers right to privacy.”

The really sad part of the Roe vs Wade logic that Privacy is violated comes from the observation that most murderers want privacy to commit murder too. They should rise up and demand equal protection under the law.

You could, of course, claim that they are protected by the 4th and 5th amendments (when government bothers to honor those) and then it could be argued that the abortionist doesn’t need those protections because the court decision has stripped the child of the protections of a civilized society and allowed murderers of children to walk among us.

Roe v wade decision
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

The last item you quoted from me is essentially taken out of context when you fail to include the sentence that follows it. You cannot protect the rights of something that does not exist. Until it is determined that life begins at conception, you cannot protect the baby from an abortion.

I did not say there is an actual law legalizing abortions, however, the R v W decision is given the weight of law in this country.

Many people, civilians as well as members of government, think that the Supreme Court decisions are law. It is really quite the opposite, their rulings are supposed to define the true intent of the laws, and determine their legality under the constitution.

The Supreme Court went to far in the Roe vs Wade decision, they should have struck down the states law as unconstitutional instead of changing the wording and authority of the law. That is a case where the Supreme Court violated its constitutional authority in that it in effect wrote a new law for the state.

Btw the actual Roe Vs Wade decision struck down laws against abortion. I do agree that those laws should not have even been necessary since murder is already illegal. Unfortunately at the time protected life began at birth (unless a DA wanted extra murder convictions against a defendant who had murdered a pregnant woman.).

Roe Vs Wade did force the court to consider pre-birth protection of life which they did directly address in their ruling. Unfortunately many cases and laws since then have modified the ruling to allow murder most anytime during the pregnancy and for most any reason.

The relevant parts of the ruling as it pertains to pre-birth protection of life:

“3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

In that case, the Supreme Court was correct in finding the law against abortion to be wrong. They, however, attempted to create judicial science in their determination of when Life begins. The Roe vs Wade decision should be removed from precedent findings in future abortion rulings because it is invalid in its opinion on the beginning of life.

” pregnancy”

It’s not a pregnancy unless the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. Attempting to prove anything else is showing that you have a profound lack of knowledge of a woman’s reproductive system. A profound lack.

@tjeer – it doesn’t matter…your business is your business but complete strangers, fellow Americans should NOT have to pay for your choices, that’s your responsibility, not ours!

“SODOM & GOMORA”

Which were destroyed for in-hospitality. In what way is this similar?

WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU READING? IF your Bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they we not nice to visitors, I have a spare Bible I can send to you with the appropriate passages marked as the reason for God destroying them.

They were destroyed because of evil, debauchery and sodomy. Have you never wondered where the word sodomy came from?

Yes! You know the scripture. Thanks Frank. S&G were destroyed for practicing homosexuality!

S&G were destroyed becasue they practiced perversion, i.e. homosexuality.

I remember gasoline @ $ 0.14 per gal.,should I assume that the petroleum industy is trying to bankrupt the American Auto Industry ??

please provide a line of logic that would connect those two items.

Thank You Robert for bringing truth to the discussion. Corporations are creatures of the State (Hale v Henkel). Corporations are fictional entities that do not have any God-given rights as humans do. Corporations only have priveledges granted by the State which can be taken by the State. Humans have rights given by God which no man can make null or void, but men wrongfully suppress, oppress, and violate rights these rights and eventually suffer the consequences of their actions. Hobby Lobby should dissolve the corporation and trade as men who have God-given rights… Leave the matrix.

Yes, but corporations are created by people, and people have morals and values, some less than others, some more, and they should not be thrown under the bus.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, as with Hostess, they can stand their ground, and close their business, and then who is better off?

Corporations are created by the State (not humans)according to the Supreme Court decision Hale v Henkel. Corporations have no morals since they are not human and they have no rights. Hobby Lobby owners (The Greens) have personal rights and morals that the corporation does not have. The Greens are not conducting business here … Hobby Lobby INC is engaging in commerce. Hobby Lobby is obligated by contract to abide any law the state passes and has no right to complain because the Greens consented to the terms when they incorporated. It is simple contract law. The Greens agreed to the terms. The Greens can however “choose” alternative forms of trading outside of the corporate rules. You have to seperate Hobby Lobby INC from the Green family and recognize them as individual and seperate entities under the laws. I hope this helps.

Sonny and Jim,
The suit should be brought forth by the individual principals and employees of Hobby Lobby instead of the Corporation. The funding of the suit can be paid by Hobby Lobby if they so desire and the suit would carry the merrits of individuals vs the corporation and then the judge would necessarily have to look at individual religous freedoms and beliefs. I would think they should have discussed this with their attorneys ahead of the filing.

In a lawsuit, one must show how one was harmed and state a “claim of action”. If the corporation was created by the State and has to submit (by agreement) to every law the state passes, there is no harm because Hobby Lobby INC agreed to the terms of “the deal”. The individual employees (taxpayers) have consented and agreed to all the tax laws that apply to them. If you don’t like the applicable laws (Obamacare is this case), then stop being a tax payer. That doesn’t mean stop paying legitimate taxes…it means get out your agreement to be a tax payer. You have to research how.

I agree. We need to know how to remove consent to tyranny, to cease voluntary servitude, as Murray Rothbard discussed in his The Political Thought of Étienne de la Boétie. Corporatism is a way to evade responisbility for one’s actions, it is protection offered by “law.” Corporatism is a device by which government attempts to encourage risk taking and then government turns round and regulates so as to undo the damage that government spawned by all its protectionism and regulations and deregulation and reregulation. Government intervention in the market is one of the root causes of our problems. The root cause, IMHO, is the fiat currency/credit systemp that government imposed on We The People in 1913; witness the slaughter of wars and the economic debacles like the Great Depression and recessions of post war eras, the early 1970′s, the early 1980′s and the present. Stephen Byington recognized the evil of fiat/paper currency back in 1890!

“financially contribute to immorality by use of my premiums and tax $$.”

Right. Who gets to decide what is immoral or not?

That question can only be asked by an atheist, the answer is always the correct one, GOD.

tlgeer says:
” “financially contribute to immorality by use of my premiums and tax $$.”

Right. Who gets to decide what is immoral or not?”

This is precisely why government must stay out of it. Individuals can decide if the behavior is moral or immoral. If the individuals think to behavior is moral and they want to contribute they can. If the individuals think the behavior is NOT moral then they can choose individually to NOT contribute.

“What’s at issue here is mandating that small businesses provide health coverage to people who”

This is only for small businesses. According to the ACA, that is a company with 50 or more employees. Frankly, I know of know “small” businesses that have 50 or more employees.

12/17/12, An auto dealer w/49, for example, might need to expand but may be unable to do so. Each employee, may or may not afford certain levels of coverage, depending on income, whereas a business may be thrown into another bracket the same as you would, depending on how much you make.

So, tlgeer, sooner or later, you eventually run out of other people’s money.

1/8/13, Suppose you have a supermarket, a pawn shop, a car dealership, etc w/49 people & you think you might need to add on a few more; crossing the 50 mark could throw them into a new bracket where they’ll lose money.