Supreme Court

What's at Stake in Monday's Hobby Lobby Ruling from the Supreme Court

|

Credit: White House / Flickr.com

On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce its final decisions of the 2013-2014 term. Only two cases still remain undecided, and one of them is perhaps the most closely watched case of the year: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. At issue is the so-called Obamacare contraceptive mandate, the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which requires most businesses to cover birth control in their employee health plans. What are the legal issues at stake? Here's a rundown from my recent column on the case:

According to Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., an arts-and-crafts retailer owned and operated by a family of evangelical Christians, the contraceptive mandate forces both the business and its owners to violate their religious scruples by providing access to four methods of birth control they see as equivalent to abortion, such as the emergency contraceptive Plan B.

That requirement, Hobby Lobby maintains, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 law signed by President Bill Clinton which says the government may not "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion," unless it has a "compelling" justification and has used "the least restrictive means" available. The contraceptive mandate, Hobby Lobby told the Supreme Court in its main brief, "is a textbook 'substantial burden' on religious exercise under RFRA."

The mandate's defenders take the opposite view, arguing that Hobby Lobby should lose because a for-profit corporation is unable, by definition, to exercise religion. As David Gans of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center put it, "corporations cannot pray, do not express devotion and do not have a religious conscience." Therefore, he argued, "the justices should reject the notion that a corporation is a person that exercises religion."

During oral arguments in March, the justices appeared closely divided over these issues, peppering the lawyers on each side with a series of sharp questions.

"Every court of appeal to have looked at the situation have held that corporations can bring racial discrimination claims as corporations," Chief Justice John Roberts told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "Does the government have a position on whether corporations have a race?" Roberts asked. In other words, if corporations are treated as persons for purposes of equal protection jurisprudence, why should a free exercise claim brought by a corporation be treated differently? Verrilli was forced to concede that in discrimination cases "corporations can bring those claims."

Justice Stephen Breyer, a leader of the Court's liberal wing, also seemed dubious of that portion of the government's case. "Take five Jewish or Muslim butchers, and what you're saying to them is if they choose to work under the corporate form," they have to abandon the Free Exercise Clause as a legal tool, Breyer observed. "Looked at that way," he continued, "I don't think it matters whether they call themselves a corporation or whether they call themselves individuals."

But Hobby Lobby also ran into problems of its own. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worried that if the Court allowed this particular religious objection to prevail it would open the floodgates and completely undercut the federal health care law. "There are quite a number of medical treatments that different religious groups object to," Kagan argued. "So one religious group could opt out of this and another religious group could opt out of that and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, meanwhile, who may well hold the deciding vote in the case, left both sides guessing. "The employee may not agree with the religious—religious beliefs of the employer," Kennedy observed at one point. "Does the religious beliefs just trump? Is that the way it works?" At another point, however, Kennedy took issue with the solicitor general. "Under your view," Kennedy told Verrilli, a for-profit corporation "could be forced to pay for abortions…your reasoning would permit that."

A decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is expected on Monday morning.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

349 responses to “What's at Stake in Monday's Hobby Lobby Ruling from the Supreme Court

  1. Hobby Lobby to Rob Your Knobby of Its Jobby!

    (That’s my headline if they have to pay for jimmy hats.)

  2. I just realized something. Hobby Lobby is fighting this for the same reason the Catholic Church does. The Church forces you to have sex without protection because it wants more members. A craft store will have the same idea. More kids means more business. RULE AGAINST THEIR CRAVEN SELF-INTEREST, SCOTUS!

    1. It is true! Now that I have kids I have to stop by the Hobby Lobby a couple times a week to buy model glue. Huffing is the only thing that keeps me sane.

      1. Placebo effect – they got rid of the good shit long go.

        You may as well just go straight to the gas nowadays.

    2. The churches and Hobby Lobby have a grievous and perplexing problem. They have a choice, they can choose to save innocent born life or they can make the intentional choice to let that life die and save a fetus instead. Being unable to understand that fact does not give them a right to make a false claim based upon the belief they are saving life when in fact they are causing death. Search Google for “Scientific Abortion Laws”

      1. What the fuck are you babbling about?

        1. I love weekend H&R. It’s loco!

          1. Tundra, loco?

            I think you mean Uffda, HnR on the weekends is quite the deal

            1. It’s kind of surreal, actually.

              I just came in for a little lunch and a couple laughs. Mission accomplished.

              Have a great rest of the weekend, y’all!

        2. You have a choice, you can save innocent born life dying at the rate of 1.8 each second, or you can choose to let that life die and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers make the intentional choice to let innocent babies die to save fetuses. What is your choice?

          1. Citation needed.

            1. As a person interested in science I had to look.

              3. Each individual has a choice, they may save one of the 7 billion born people that are dying or an unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.

              So when pro-life people prevent an abortion, they killed someone because they could have been saving them but did not. Basically, not saving equals killing.

              HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

              1. No, if they killed someone by saving a fetus that would be a fallacy.

                What is occurring is that there are both born people and unborn fetuses dying, one may choose to save a born person or let it die and save a fetus instead.

                Not saving is exactly that, not saving.

                The problem arises when a person has a duty to save and does not save. That makes the death murder by omission. You might want to look that up. And keep in mind that pro lifers claim to save babies, yet they save fetuses and let babies die.

                1. one may choose to save a born person or let it die and save a fetus instead.

                  You mean they either turn in their “save a life” card for a person born or one unborn? Every time I don’t save a fetus, I save someone else?

                  Why couldn’t they be saving 10,000,000 people, every time they save a fetus? Where exactly do I go to save a fetus? How many people would I save by performing abortions? Is it just a one for one ratio? A law against all abortions would kill millions, because without that law we would all be out saving them?

                  Very scientific.

                  1. “You mean they either turn in their “save a life” card for a person born or one unborn? Every time I don’t save a fetus, I save someone else?”

                    That is a straw man fallacy and does not require an answer. Two are dying, a real person and a product of conception. The real people are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second and the POC is dying at the rate of 1.4 per second. You can’t save them both. So you have a choice, you choose to let the born person continue to die.

                    “Why couldn’t they be saving 10,000,000 people, every time they save a fetus? ”

                    That is another straw man fallacy. Explain how they can save 10 million every time they save a fetus.

                    “Where exactly do I go to save a fetus?”

                    Another straw man that does not require an answer. Pro Lifers choose to attempt to save fetuses, or so they claim.

                    “How many people would I save by performing abortions?”

                    Another straw man that requires no answer. No one said that performing abortions saves life.

                    “Is it just a one for one ratio? A law against all abortions would kill millions, because without that law we would all be out saving them?”

                    Another straw man fallacy. No one suggested that your idea above would work. If you think it would, put it out there for people to respond to.

                    “Very scientific.”

                    A series of straw man fallacies is worthless. Your arguments have no value.

                    1. “The real people are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second”

                      Is the rate before or after the ACA is fully implemented?

                    2. Ad hominem fallacies are an indication that you do not understand what you have read or are not capable of making a valid argument. Which is it?

                2. So every child who dies on planet earth would have lived if someone in the pro-life movement had, say, teleported to their exact location and provided assistance rather than… not had an abortion?

                  Fucking wow. I’ve heard of tortured logic before, but this is like Warty’s rape dungeon.

                  1. Let’s see, a fetus and a baby jump off theGolden Gate Bridge. Which do I save?

                    The fetus. The baby will get caught in the $40 MM net, but the fetus would slide through.

                    1. “Let’s see, a fetus and a baby jump off theGolden Gate Bridge. Which do I save?”

                      Straw man fallacy.

                      “The fetus. The baby will get caught in the $40 MM net, but the fetus would slide through”

                      ad hominem fallacy

                  2. “So every child who dies on planet earth would have lived”

                    No one lives forever.

                    ” if someone in the pro-life movement had, say, teleported to their exact location and provided assistance rather than… not had an abortion?”

                    No. That is a straw man fallacy. Why not say that everyone could live if they were saved eternally by fairies and ask me to prove that?

                    “Fucking wow. I’ve heard of tortured logic before, but this is like Warty’s rape dungeon.”

                    Complete and senseless straw man arguments have no value.

                  3. If you can’t argue the points of the claim, and only offer straw men, you lose the issue.

                    “So every child who dies on planet earth would have lived if someone in the pro-life movement had, say, teleported to their exact location and provided assistance rather than… not had an abortion?”

                    Another straw man fallacy. No one said what you claim. Everyone dies, the pro life person simply has made a choice not to save the baby. They are only required to save babies, because that is what they claim to do.

                    “Fucking wow. I’ve heard of tortured logic before, but this is like Warty’s rape dungeon”

                    Ad hominem. If you can’t argue the issue you lose.

                  4. “So every child who dies on planet earth would have lived if someone in the pro-life movement had, say, teleported to their exact location and provided assistance rather than… not had an abortion?”

                    That is a straw man fallacy based upon an intentional fallacy. Either a born baby dies or a fetus dies, there is a choice. You simply must choose which life you save a fetus or a baby. The babies are dying at a constant rate and if you choose not to save them then they continue to die.

                    “Fucking wow. I’ve heard of tortured logic before, but this is like Warty’s rape dungeon.”

                    Your use of ad hominem fallacies is most likely because you cannot address the real issue. If you come to a point where you can defend your murders, then lets talk.

                    Babies are dying, pro lifers claim to save babies, yet they choose to let babies die and save fetuses. Do you understand that?

                3. So by your reasoning every woman who gets an abortion saves an already born.

                  Do the men who impregnated those abortion seeking women get credited with assists in saving already borns?

                  1. “So by your reasoning every woman who gets an abortion saves an already born.

                    Complete straw man fallacy. No need to answer. I am pretty clear, getting an abortion does not save an already born person.

                    “Do the men who impregnated those abortion seeking women get credited with assists in saving already borns?”

                    Straw man argument. Why not ask if fairies are saving the already born?

                    Your senseless arguments are a waste of time.

              2. No one said that preventing an abortion kills someone. I said that two things are dying. You choose to save the fetus and let the human die. You can’t save both. But that does not matter all that matters is that you chose the, fetus when there were humans to save.

                1. Dude, your stupidity is epic, Everest epic. Saying “you can’t save both” means nothing. Perhaps I am incapable of saving either? No, I MUST either save one or the other? How? You don’t say. Good intentions, one supposes.

                  Save from what? You count deaths but do not attribute the cause. You know, cause and effect? Oh, you don’t know shit, so of course you do not. You seem to claim that if I favor abortion, that somehow “saves” cancer patients? 100 year olds? Trauma victims?

                  You might be the stupidest poster I have ever seen on this site. Your “logic” is like a black hole of ignorance out of which not a single coherent thought can escape.

                  We claim here that Peak Derp will never be reached. I believe that you, sir, may have actually achieved the unpossible.

                2. No one said that preventing an abortion kills someone.

                  You describe it in this thread as “murder by omission”.

                  So not only are you an imbecile that couldn’t find his own ass with both hands, you are dishonest as well. Figures.

          2. You make a regarded argument. Repeating it does not make it less retarded.

            1. You don’t know what the argument is? Repeat it if you think you can. LOL

            2. You make a regarded argument

              Not really. It really doesn’t make any argument. A list of unsupported claims followed by a conclusion pulled out of one’s ass does not an argument make. Even if one does know some Latin.

          3. Babies vs fetuses? Open any textbook on biology and find this:

            “Within a few hours of conception, the fertilized egg divides into two identical cells, each of which soon divides again, and so on, until there are enough to form a small sphere. Within a few days, this sphere embeds itself in the wall of the uterus, where the placenta nourishes the embryo by allowing the transfer of substances between the blood of the mother and that of the developing child.”

            The embryo is a genetically distinct human organism. Your distinction is false and without merit and therefore your position fails. Progs bitterly cling to the distinction to avoid admitting they are killing a human organism, as if a fetus is not human or is at least sub-human. Then there’s this:

            The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.

            Of course the law makes an irrational exception for abortions, splitting the baby such that a “medical procedure” to kill a sub-human fetus is not murder. Sleep well progs.

            1. “Babies vs fetuses? Open any textbook on biology and find this:”

              The first year biology book you are reading is describing life from a retrospective view. I agree with everything it says in the context in which it is true. I do not take it out of context and apply it to an entirely different context.

              {“Within a few hours of conception, the fertilized egg divides into two identical cells, …….. the mother and that of the developing child.”}

              The description above explains to you the process that occurred for a baby that is born and what must occur for that baby to be born. It is a retrospective view. The process of conception is a prospective process. From the prospective view it is clear that 70 percent of conceptions die and no human life results.

              Do you understand the difference between a retrospective view and a prospective view?

            2. “The embryo is a genetically distinct human organism.”

              Every sperm and egg is a genetically distinct human organism that if allowed to fulfill its purpose will produce an entirely new human life. The sperm needs the egg just as the zygote needs the uterus. If a zygote is a baby at an earlier stage, then a sperm is a baby at an even earlier stage.

              “Your distinction is false and without merit and therefore your position fails.”

              My position is based entirely on scientific fact, yours is not. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses a human phenotype, that can live as a human, there is no human life. Until the distinct processes of birth are complete, there is not a complete human being.

              ” Progs bitterly cling to the distinction to avoid admitting they are killing a human organism, as if a fetus is not human or is at least sub-human. ”

              If you can prove that a fetus is a human capable of human life then your arguemnt would be valid. But you can’t. Until the DNA “expresses” a complete human life there is no proof it will produce a human life. Even at birth 1 percent of fetuses die. Those dead fetuses were not human life that could live as a human. And in order to force them to live you must let a real baby die.

            3. “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim….. who is carried in the womb”.

              As the scientific abortion laws become better known, that law will be repealed and replaced with the truth that a zygote has only a 30 percent chance of life and a full term fetus has a 99 percent chance of life. Those distinctions are important.

              1. I, for one, look forward to the use of d100s in the courtroom!

            4. “Of course the law makes an irrational exception for abortions, splitting the baby such that a “medical procedure” to kill a sub-human fetus is not murder. Sleep well progs.”

              The fetus has value as a potential person and its value is related to the value of any net input expended in its creation and an innate value to the parents. Killing a fetus is certainly a crime if the fetus was intended to be born and of value to the parents. If the fetus has value because it is a baby at an earlier stage, then the sperm is also a baby at an even earlier stage. The sperm needs the egg like the zygote needs the uterus.

              1. If the fetus has value because it is a baby at an earlier stage, then the sperm is also a baby at an even earlier stage.

                Dude, imbecilic and just plain wrong, yet again. For someone supposedly scientific, you apparently don’t know the first thing about DNA.

                A sperm does “need an egg” to become a distinct human being. A fetus is already a genetically distinct human being, duh.

                Stick with the term “person”. It is unscientific as can be and is most often used when attempting to rationalize the morality of killing a living human individual. You know, like the Nazis did with the Jews.

        3. The whole abortion issue is controlled by scientific laws. Those laws show that the pro life side is actually causing death, not saving life. You might want to read before commenting. http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

          1. You made the claim, you back it up with more than a fucking hyperlink.

            1. The claim is that there are both born persons and unborn fetuses dying and that pro lifers claim to save “babies” but in fact save fetuses. Thereby choosing to let innocent babies die. That is murder by omission.

              1. Nah, we can multi task.

                1. The world is only either/or, don’t you know? You can’t do both, because… um… we said so?

                  /RussellDerp

                2. You can multitask until you save all the born life, then you can save the fetuses and I will help. Until then you are letting born life die to save fetuses.

              2. By this logic, if I feed my kid to prevent him from starving to death, I have committed “murder by omission” by not, instead, feeding some kid in Africa to prevent him from starving to death.

                Yeah… no.

                1. “By this logic, ”

                  You suggestion is a straw man. It is not “this logic.”

                  “if I feed my kid to prevent him from starving to death, I have committed “murder by omission” by not, instead, feeding some kid in Africa to prevent him from starving to death.”

                  You have no duty to save a kid in Africa unless you claim to save his life. Pro lifers claim to save “babies” but instead save “fetuses.” We would have no argument is they claimed to save fetuses and let babies die. Pro lifers have a duty to save “babies” and do not save “babies.”

          2. Uh, you know that Hobby Lobby *doesn’t* support abortion, right?

            1. Hobby Lobby supports killing innocent babies to save fetuses.

          3. I highly recommend this site. The utter lack of self awareness approaches Jezebel levels.

        4. Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

      2. Russell are you sure you wish to bring your pseudoscience here to reason ?

        Here you will not enjoy the power you misuse at your site to be both commentator and moderator.

        Here is an example of Russell’s idea of a debate in which he is both posting and moderating:

        “I received your latest post and am sad to say you have continued to post straw man and other fallacies. I have warned you repeatedly not to use such arguments. You have also based your currently unapproved post on fallacies and false analogies used in previous posts.
        Those will not be allowed.”

        and another: “You need to remove your fallacies and false analogies before I can allow you to continue to post. Either that, or admit to them individually.
        Once you remove your fallacies I will approve your other posts. ”

        It must be nice proving one’s intellectual superiority by being able to disallow the other side’s comments at will.

        1. lol so anyone who refuses to accept his premises is using a logical fallacy?

          What a moron.

          1. That is the way of the progtard.

            1. Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

          2. Back off man, I’m a scientist!

          3. Well, as a pro-death, anti-choice, cat-loving, Gaia / Mother Earth Loving, Baby-Seals-loving kind of Morally Superior Personoid that I am, I have to conclude this entire argument by pointing out that ALL of you are babbling about stuff-an’-stuff that just does NOT matter! What REALLY matters is that the Earth Mother has kindly, graciously provided us ungrateful sub-humanoids with PERFECT puddy-tats to show us the way! They use neither cloth nor un-natural fibers to clad their babies’ butts, or even to wipe their own? They LICK them clean, in a Gaia-loving way. Most of us can’t lick our own butts, sad to say, so the VERY least we could, and should, be doing, is to use recycled cloth butt-wipes and lick them clean, wasting neither precious water (Gaia-Mother’s precious BLOOD, you know!) nor fiber, nor polluting the Mother Earth with artificial fibers or pollutants. If y’all aren’t doing it like I say, here, y’all are just making the baby seals cry, that’s all I gonna say now? Do as I say, REPENT NOW! Before it is too late!

          4. Anyone that has an argument that is not a fallacy is welcome to disprove what I say.

            “What a moron”

            Ad hominem fallacy and of no value.

            ” Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent”

        2. “Russell are you sure you wish to bring your pseudoscience here to reason ?”

          I haven’t seen much “reason” at “Reason” so far. Only fallacies.

          “Here you will not enjoy the power you misuse at your site to be both commentator and moderator.”

          LOL, ad hominem fallacy.

          “Here is an example of Russell’s idea of a debate in which he is both posting and moderating:

          (“I received your latest post and am sad to say you have continued to post straw man and other fallacies. I have warned you repeatedly not to use such arguments. You have also based your currently unapproved post on fallacies and false analogies used in previous posts.
          Those will not be allowed.”

          and another: “You need to remove your fallacies and false analogies before I can allow you to continue to post. Either that, or admit to them individually.
          Once you remove your fallacies I will approve your other posts. “)

          You didn’t remove your straw men and ad hominem fallacies did you?

          “It must be nice proving one’s intellectual superiority by being able to disallow the other side’s comments at will.”

          I am sorry your only arguments are fallacies, correct your fallacies and we can have a discussion. Is that too much to ask?

          “reply to this ”

          Sure, say something that is not a fallacy and you will get a response.

      3. I just read a handful of articles on your website.

        Hoooooly fuck, you are a crazy sumbitch.

        Zygotes that are incapable of sustaining their own life are not, in fact, human? Really?

        Would you actually look the mother of a stillborn baby in the face and say “It’s all right, madam, because that thing was never a human to begin with.”?

        Even non-viable births are human births, you monster. Miscarriages are human deaths. Abortion is human murder.

        Don’t get me wrong. I’m fine with abortion. I wouldn’t want it for myself, but if you want to go out and have yourself an abortion, then far be it for me to stop you.

        But seriously, you goddamn maniac, your website is possibly one of the most sickening and terrible places I have been to. And I’ve seen 2 girls, 1 cup.

        Go die in a fire. Please?

        1. You’ve piqued our curiosity.

          1. Lets have a “reasoned” discussion.

            1. Been there. Tried that. You deleted my reasoned discussions. Eat a dick.

              1. I deleted your ad hominem fallacies, straw man fallacies and outright lies. Your other posts were answered and shown to be invalid. If you in fact think you have stated something that disproves what I have posted, then post it here, I can’t delete it.

                1. I deleted your ad hominem fallacies, straw man fallacies and outright lies

                  Translation: “I deleted everything you said that I disagreed with.”

        2. “Zygotes that are incapable of sustaining their own life are not, in fact, human? Really?”

          Straw man fallacy. Learn to read in context. Zygotes that do not have the correct genetic makeup and die, are not human.

          “Would you actually look the mother of a stillborn baby in the face and say ….”?”

          I would not lie to her. You would, right? It is not a reflection on her, why lie?

          “Even non-viable births are human births, you monster.”

          I agree, the birth was a human birth, the zef that is not human is simply not human enough to live. Why lie? It is not a reflection on the woman, she had a human birth of a product of conception. It happens multiple times every day.

          ” Miscarriages are human deaths.”

          Miscarriages occur with products of conception. Until they can be proved to be human, you cannot prove they were human enough to live. A human like body on a genetically flawed product of conception is noting to be ashamed of, it happens multiple times every day. One can lie about it or they can be honest.

          ” Abortion is human murder.”

          Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype one cannot prove there is human life, thus, there cannot be murder. The first point a fully human phenotype is proved is at birth. Until then it may not have fully human DNA.

          “Don’t get me wrong. I’m fine with abortion.”

          I am not surprised, you don’t know what abortion is or very much about the issue.

          1. It seems to come down to this: So long as the phenotype expressed by DNA of the genotype is uncertain as to its correctness, it’s okay to murder a human organism in any stage of development. Just call it a fetus.

            1. #1 – Zygotes are made up of human DNA. They are literally created from humans, with human DNA, and are prepared to form themselves into another human. Anything that contains human DNA is part human. Your 95% ape DNA theory is a fallacy. Apes have closely related DNA to humans, sure, but it is APE DNA. Actually different from human DNA, seeing as how the goddamn thing is not human.

              #2 – You are, in fact, lying to her, because the baby is a goddamn human. See my point above for clarification.

              #3 – I have read your documentation. When you say non viable zygotes, you’re referring to pregnancies that never even happened. They never went so far as to even stick to the uterus and begin to form. Some sperm hit an egg, the body released hormones, then everything got flushed. That’s different, because I was referring to your actual written comments on your own website that explain quite clearly that you believe a child that dies from conception to fully one year after birth counts as a non-viable pregnancy. And yeah, that’s monstrous.

              1. #4 – We’re back to #3 with this argument. A fertilized egg that is flushed within 6-18 days, as your beloved scientific paper explains, was never a viable birth. It was never even properly replicating or growing into something human. It was just human DNA that got flushed. But that is not a miscarriage. It’s not even defined as a miscarriage by YOUR OWN SOURCES. A miscarriage is a properly replicating fetus that goes bad somewhere in development, or is killed by an outside force. These are human. Just because they are screwed up, genetically ruined humans does not make them less human. It is a faulty premise. Once the cells begin to split and mutate, it becomes a separate, human entity. And killing it is murder. The issue after that is simply whether or not you care. I don’t, at least not for other people.

                1. #5 – If you test my sperm, you will find fully formed human DNA. If you test my wifes eggs, you will find fully formed human DNA. Do a prenatal DNA test on a fetus to check for abnormalities, and you will find fully formed human DNA. Birth is not the point at which you can determine if something has the correct DNA to be human. And phenotypes are not the way to determine if something is human. Phenotypes are as much observed reactions to evironment as they are genetic heredity. To say that is to say that only things that act human are in fact human. And that sets an arbitrary line of definition, based entirely upon what one person sees as human. My cat sits and watches TV with me. She also speaks to me, admittedly in little whiny barks, that expresses quite clearly what she wants or needs. She expresses many, many human behavioral characteristics. Under your theory, I have a valid argument to claim that my cat if human. It’s nonsense, because you are misapplying the theories to fit your narrative.

                  1. #6 – I am fascinated with medical procedures. I love to watch surgeries, vivisections, and medical history documentaries. I ask my doctors and nurses all kinds of medical questions every chance I get in order to learn more. I peruse drugs.com and learn about different types of medications, their legal classes, their uses and interactions, and their benefits and side effects. I actually LOVE to LEARN, Russell. And I know quite a bit about abortion. I know how they’re done, both inside and outside a medical facility. I dislike abortion. I’d never force it on anybody. I would also never stop someone who wanted to get one, because I have principles of freedom upon which I will stand and shout to the heavens. You are wrong about me, Russell. Quite wrong. And once again you are speaking out of your ass about a subject you know nothing about.

                    So, in conclusion, EAT A DICK.

                    1. #6 – I am fascinated with medical procedures…… I actually LOVE to LEARN, Russell.

                      This is what you need to learn: There are more people dying than can be saved. So you have a choice of whom to save, you can’t save everyone. So choose, do you save born people or do you save products of conceptions. It is your choice.

                      “And I know quite a bit about abortion. I know how they’re done, both inside and outside a medical facility. I dislike abortion”

                      That is why you dislike me. I show that legal abortion in fact saves life, as shown by the fact that there have been more births after Roe than before. I want to save the most life possible. You don’t.

                      “because I have principles of freedom upon which I will stand and shout to the heavens. You are wrong about me, Russell. Quite wrong. And once again you are speaking out of your ass about a subject you know nothing about.”

                      I agree with your principles of freedom, just not your defense of murder.

                      “So, in conclusion, EAT A DICK.”

                      Ad hominem fallacies are used by those who have no principles of freedom. People that believe in freedom believe in honest debate.

                  2. ” Birth is not the point at which you can determine if something has the correct DNA to be human.”

                    It may still not be human at birth. But being human at birth is all that matters in this instance when the subject is abortion.

                    ” And phenotypes are not the way to determine if something is human. Phenotypes are as much observed reactions to evironment as they are genetic heredity.”

                    If the phenotype is not human it does not matter what made it not human.

                    ” To say that is to say that only things that act human are in fact human.”

                    No. That is your theory and I do not subscribe to your idea.

                    “And that sets an arbitrary line of definition, based entirely upon what one person sees as human. My cat sits and watches TV with me. She also speaks to me, admittedly in little whiny barks, that expresses quite clearly what she wants or needs. She expresses many, many human behavioral characteristics. Under your theory, I have a valid argument to claim that my cat if human. It’s nonsense, because you are misapplying the theories to fit your narrative.”

                    My theory is that abortion does not kill human life because until the DNA expresses the correct phenotype one cannot tell if the product of conception is human. If your cat is comprised of a full human genome and phenotype, it is not a cat, but a human.

                  3. #5 -” If you test my sperm, you will find fully formed human DNA.”

                    Until the DNA “expresses” there is no human DNA proved. It may or may not be capable of creating human life. You need to look up DNA expression and Changes at birth.

                    ” If you test my wifes eggs, you will find fully formed human DNA. Do a prenatal DNA test on a fetus to check for abnormalities, and you will find fully formed human DNA.”

                    Of the 70 percent of conceptions that die in the first trimester 60 percent do not have human DNA sufficient to produce human life. You may “guess” the DNA is human and be wrong most of the time.

                2. ” But that is not a miscarriage. It’s not even defined as a miscarriage by YOUR OWN SOURCES. A miscarriage is a properly replicating fetus that goes bad somewhere in development, or is killed by an outside force. These are human.”

                  Some will be human, some not. We cannot tell which have sufficient DNA until the DNA “expresses.” You might want to look up “DNA Expression” and “Changes at birth” to understand what you need to know.

                  ” Just because they are screwed up, genetically ruined humans does not make them less human.”

                  They are not human if they do not have enough human DNA to live as a human. Your claim is a “Fallacy of division ? assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.”

                  “It is a faulty premise.”

                  No, you have not proved a faulty premise you have expressed a “fallacy of division” which would not support a faulty premise claim.

                  ” Once the cells begin to split and mutate, it becomes a separate, human entity. And killing it is murder.”

                  That is another “Fallacy of division ? assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.”

                  “The issue after that is simply whether or not you care. I don’t, at least not for other people.”

                  I care that your arguments will lead to people kill innocent babies to save fetuses.

                3. “#4 – We’re back to #3 with this argument. A fertilized egg that is flushed within 6-18 days, as your beloved scientific paper explains, was never a viable birth.”

                  Are you admitting it is not “life at conception.” After implantation, another 30 percent of z/e/fs will die. So it is not life after conception as well. It will be life for 30 percent of conceptions.

                  ” It was never even properly replicating or growing into something human. It was just human DNA that got flushed.”

                  You need to read the paper again. The 70 percent of conceptions that die in the first trimester and those that miscarry all the way up to birth were at every stage right up to stillbirth.

              2. ” Your 95% ape DNA theory is a fallacy. Apes have closely related DNA to humans, sure, but it is APE DNA. Actually different from human DNA, seeing as how the goddamn thing is not human.”

                Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. Having what appears to be human DNA is not proof the DNA is human. It must “express” human life to be human.

                “#2 – You are, in fact, lying to her, because the baby is a goddamn human. See my point above for clarification.”

                Your points are fallacies as outlined.

                “#3 – I have read your documentation. When you say non viable zygotes, you’re referring to pregnancies that never even happened. They never went so far as to even stick to the uterus and begin to form. Some sperm hit an egg, the body released hormones, then everything got flushed. That’s different, because I was referring to your actual written comments on your own website that explain quite clearly that you believe a child that dies from conception to fully one year after birth counts as a non-viable pregnancy. And yeah, that’s monstrous.”

                At birth, if the fetus lives, it is human enough for me. You read someone else’s comment, not mine.

              3. #1 – Zygotes are made up of human DNA.

                You have a problem with semantics and science here. Zygotes may be made of human DNA or they may not be made of human DNA even though they were made by human DNA. Errors in translation and transcription could render zygotes not made of human DNA.

                “They are literally created from humans, with human DNA, and are prepared to form themselves into another human.”

                That is a “Fallacy of composition ? assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.”
                There is no proof that a human will be created of the DNA you “assume” is human DNA. There could have been problems.

                “Anything that contains human DNA is part human.”

                Being part human is not being human.

            2. I am all for saving every zygote/embryo/fetus that is produced along with every sperm and egg. I just don’t want people to murder an innocent baby to save them. Will you stop murdering babies to save fetuses? In the last 60 seconds while you read this, you let 108 innocent babies die. How does that make you feel?

              1. Please please please, Russell, quit your lying for a second or two and read my posts bottom thread.

                1. Will you stop murdering babies to save fetuses? In the last 60 seconds while you read this, you let 108 innocent babies die.

                  Peak Derp. We thought it could never be reached but it is here.

                  Apparently, the comments section represents millions of babies that could have been saved. H&R approaches Stalin in it’s utter evil.

                  I pity your complete and total ignorance. At what public school do you teach?

  3. “”There are quite a number of medical treatments that different religious groups object to,” Kagan argued. “So one religious group could opt out of this and another religious group could opt out of that and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.””

    Sorry, Madame Justice, that ship has sailed. Congress and the executive had issued numerous waivers and exemptions, so that the law and regulations of the ACA are “piecemeal” rather than “uniform.”

    A key question is whether, having handed out exemptions to so many groups, including even some religious groups, which it likes, the feds can arbitrarily deny an exemption to some group it *doesn’t* like.

    1. Is there any evidence the religious exemptions existing for the law are being granted and denied to some religious groups but not others? I thought the issue was whether corporations could claim to have their free exercise substantially burdened regardless of the religion?

      1. “Groups That Are Exempt From Obamacare…

        “The law defines exempt groups using the definition from 26 U.S. Code section 1402(g)(1), which describes the religious groups currently considered exempt from Social Security payroll taxes. Eligible sects must forbid any payout in the event of death, disability, old age or retirement, including Social Security and Medicare.”

        http://www.economicpolicyjourn…..acare.html

        1. Again, does that doesn’t mean the act and it’s exemptions are not religiously neutral. I don’t think any current lawsuit is claiming that, the claim is all about whether for profit corporate groups get or must have exemptions, the content of the beliefs is not an issue

          1. I’m just pointing out that there’s “evidence the religious exemptions existing for the law are being granted and denied to some religious groups but not others.”

            1. And IIRC, Citizens United was a corporation, yet the Supreme Court said it had First Amendment rights when it came to free speech and free press.

              1. That does seem to suggest something in favor of the owners claims (of course, corporations have been denied other rights, like protection from self incrimination).

            2. If your point is that some religious groups might not be exempt because of areliguous factors like when they were formed, whether they object to insurance in general, then yes, that’s right.

              1. Could you run that by me again?

                1. Take two criteria for a religious exemption: A the sect must be one that was formed by date x and B the sect must believe in the Rapture. The second would be a clear 1st Amendment issue, the first not so much. From what I understand the ACA religious exemption criteria, which tracks that for SS, is like the first

                  1. The exemption language, which the ACA takes from the Internal Revenue Code, not only requires that there be a “recognized” sect existing in 1950, but that the person must, in accord with the sect’s teachings, be “conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act).”

                    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1402

                    1. Yes, this would be like saying criteria for a religious exemption from the draft is to belong to a sect which teaches all war is forbidden. Any religion that holds that gets the exemption.

        2. Wait if I say I’m religious I can avoid paying into SS?

          1. If, based on the teachings of your recognized religious group, you are conscientiously opposed to any form of insurance, yes.

            1. Does the Church of Monday Night Football -founded 1975 – count?

      2. I wonder if that woman can do long division. Like, what happens if she has to subtract a remainder?

        1. That’s too complicated and costs too much money for that level of precision.

          We’re *regulators*, not math weenies.

          Round that motherfucker – pi = 3 is close enough for government work.

    2. everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform

      Obviously we can’t have that in this country! We must have uniformity! Except when we must have diversity!

  4. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worried that if the Court allowed this particular religious objection to prevail it would open the floodgates and completely undercut the federal health care law.

    Oh, HORROR.

    1. Yeah. Feature not bug.

    2. Since when is “it would undercut the health care law” and exception in the First Amendment?

      1. Since a SCOTUS Justice got to judge a law she helped craft.

      2. I expect nothing less from Kagan. She basically just admitted that she wasn’t going to do her fucking job.

      3. It goes to the compelling interest/ narrow tailoring prong, see the Amish social security case

      4. Since when is “it would undercut the health care law” and exception in the First Amendment?

        In fact, isn’t the whole point of the first amendment to undercut or preclude certain laws?

        1. Yes. I’m sure the idiot understands perfectly well that Roe v. Wade wiped out about 50 anti-abortion laws, but she probably can’t hold that and the Burwell arguments in her head at the same time.

    3. …”would open the floodgates and completely undercut the federal health care law.”

      Hasn’t Obo been doing this fairly regularly with his Friday afternoon tweets?

      1. Some undercutting is more equal than others.

    4. They’re so open about it now.
      Like how Obama just comes out and says he’s going to make new law without the consent of Congress.
      The Audacity of Dopes.

  5. everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.

    Progressivism in a nutshell. Terror at the notion of people just randomly doing whatever the fuck they want.

    1. But, as Notorious pointed out above, it isn’t like via executive fiat Obama hasn’t already rendered the law piecemeal with various waivers and special exemptions.

      1. Yes, but that lack of uniformity is the result of Top Men? do top work and not the result of sticky proles going their own way.

        1. So those are the same guys who examined the Ark of the Covenant? Clearly their work is not to be questioned by the unwashed masses.

    2. My thought too.

      Since when is uniformity a good thing?

      1. Other than manufacture of bolts.

        1. Well, they are a bunch of tools.

      2. When it’s will of the supreme reader.

  6. But Hobby Lobby also ran into problems of its own. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worried that if the Court allowed this particular religious objection to prevail it would open the floodgates and completely undercut the federal health care law.

    This is my “shocked” face.

  7. It’s unlikely that Ms. Lerner came to the IRS with the idea of using her position to harass the opposition. She just happened to be in a position to do so when applications from groups she didn’t like ? perhaps that she even saw as dangerous and wrong ? came across her desk. It’s possible that she did it entirely on her own. And that’s the scariest thing ? a bureaucracy that moves on its own to squash ungoodthinkers is much more dangerous than a top-down conspiracy. It may be hard to replace an administration, but it’s almost impossible to replace a bureaucracy.

    http://www.bloombergview.com/a…..ls-ruh-roh

    Wow is Megan McArdle stupid. Lerner was an election lawyer. She knew nothing about tax law. Yet they put her in charge of exempt organizations at the IRS. Why does Megan think Lerner got the job if not to harass the opposition?

    1. No, Megan isn’t stupid; she’s just diplomatic. I assume she likes to eat and pay her bills.

      1. Hmm, her bills must be a lot tastier than mine.

      2. McCardle is stupid but Reason is too harsh with Palin.

        Forget it, LB, we’re in John Land now.

        1. McAdrdle is stupid. If you think that saying Lehrner got the job with no idea she might be able to harass her enemies, you are stupid too.

          1. OMFG.

            So I decided to look at your article to see the context.

            CTRL-F “unlikely” — nothing.
            CTRL-F “harass” — nothing.

            OK, let’s do a search for It’s unlikely that Ms. Lerner came to the IRS with the idea of using her position to harass the opposition.

            Turns out Paul Caron wrote it.

            Rousing applause for John here. Tree-fiddy internet points.

            1. whoa.

            2. It looks like Caron was quoting this guy.

    2. Meh, I think it’s possible that she was just stooging in the hopes of looking good for the bosses.

      Possible. I admit that the possibility exists, but that’s really as far as I’ll go.

      1. And yet there were hundreds of visits by IRS types to the White House, all supposedly about Obamacare. And Obama has joked about using the IRS to audit enemies. And he has used underhanded means to win elections in the past. It fits the pattern.

    3. Regardless of the commentariat argument on McArdle’s intelligence here, I think this is an extremely important point:

      And that’s the scariest thing ? a bureaucracy that moves on its own to squash ungoodthinkers is much more dangerous than a top-down conspiracy.

      This is really something all those in favor of limited government have to deal with. Even if a libertarian-leaning president and Congress were elected, you would have to deal with an entrenched bureaucracy. Clearly the best way to deal with that would be a root-and-branch expunging. BUT, that would be a PR nightmare.

      1. Reason #505 why we’re doomed.

      2. Or pass a sweeping tax reform that would obsolete the IRS with a single stroke.

    4. Not stupid at all, John.

      Lerner was career civil service, not an Obama appointee. According to Wiki, she went to IRS in 2001. If “they” put her in IRS to harass the opposition, the “they” were bureaucrats. Certainly Bush Administration didn’t choose her to harass the tea party and conservative groups. If “they” were bureaucrats, McArdle’s thesis still holds up.

      1. Not only that, but as I note above, that isn’t even McCardle’s statement.

  8. No, Megan isn’t stupid

    Yeah, right.

    1. Now, now. Megan isn’t a soldier bomb-thrower. Her job is to infiltrate with softy-softly, to plant uncomfortable thoughts in the minds of the unsuspecting. There is a role for everyone in Libertopia.

      1. No. her job is to concern troll. Her whole act is “well you guys on the right sometimes have a point but you really just go too far and are kind of icky”

        I really can’t stand her. And her constant “now now the IRS has a perfectly rational explanation for this” coverage of the IRS scandal has been the worst.

        1. Keep in mind, she procreated with Suderman, so a bit of grace needs to be extended her way.

          1. Suderman is nearly as bad as she is. They have both been in Washington too long and have little understanding of how the real world or really even government works. Ultimately, neither can accept that our top men are not just wrong but profoundly stupid.

            1. Yeah, Yeah. Cosmotarians. Cocktail parties.

              I can’t say I’ve read Suderman much, but he’s done yeoman’s work on Obamacare – good quality work.

              Megan’s got a column at Bloomberg, a widely read column. She might not be as pure as some would like but she’s libertarian sympathetic – that’s a good thing.

              1. There is a fine line between being sympathetic and acting as a concern troll that allows the other side to say “see even someone who likes you thinks your are nuts”. McCardle spends most of her time on the wrong side of that line.

                Ultimately, McArdle is just naive and doesn’t’ really know much. It is that part that I cannot forgive more than anything.

                1. I guess we just disagree. I think she’s a fine columnist even though she soft sells it too frequently. She often teases out arguments that others pick up on and amplify.

                2. So she suffers from David Brooks Disorder?

                  1. David Brooks is a “Conservative”, not a “Libertarian”.

                    1. David Brooks is a “Conservative”, not a “Libertarian”.

                      Needz moar scare quotes.

                      Uh, yeah. I could have picked a number of media talking heads to make my point, but Brooks jumped directly to mind as an example of an columnist or pundit that makes a living making [insert ideology here] type arguments that always seem to leave the opposing ideology either very comfortable and/or mostly endorsed in their position.

                    2. Needz moar scare quotes.

                      Are you not good with sarcasm?

                      Megan might hedge a bit but, there’s no comparing her to Brooks.

                    3. Brooks jumped directly to mind as an example of an columnist or pundit that makes a living making [insert ideology here] type arguments that always seem to leave the opposing ideology ruling class either very comfortable and/or mostly endorsed in their position.

                    4. There are no statists of any sort who make libertarians very comfortable and/or mostly endorsed in their position.

          2. Oooh, Lady Bertrum, talk more about procreating. . .

        2. Wait a minute, the person giving the most benefit of the doubt is the one concern trolling?

          1. So, you’re arguing that one can’t be “giving the benefit of the doubt” in service to a partisan agenda?

            1. No, I’m arguing about what it means to be concern trolling

              1. No, I’m arguing about what it means to be concern trolling

                Please stop. The universe will implode from an overload of irony if you continue, and there’s a show I want to watch later today.

                1. Another who doesn’t know what it means?

              2. Ok, it appears John is arguing that she is “giving the benefit of the doubt” in service to a partisan agenda as a form of concern trolling.

                And you’re not really countering him.

                1. If you can point to an outside source’s definition of concern trolling then perhaps. Usually that term is used to refer to someone who pretends to agree but then expresses worry that the point is not palatable, it doesn’t refer to anyone that is wrong.

                  1. A concern troll would say ‘I agree Lerner was up to no good, but saying so won’t play in Peoria and will hurt our chances of ….’ All McCardle is doing, perhaps naively, is giving Lerner the benefit of the doubt and saying her excuses are plausible. That might make her naive and wrong, but concern troll?

              3. No, I’m arguing about what it means to be concern trolling

                As per usual. You would argue with fucking Tad Furtado about the meaning of the term. You demonstrate every goddamn time we have this discussion that you yourself either have no clue what the term means, or define it so narrowly that it can’t actually exist due to the ambiguity of the English language.

                blockquoteNo. her job is to concern troll. Her whole act is “well you guys on the right sometimes have a point but you really just go too far and are kind of icky”

                What John is suggesting is that she feigns agreement with those on the right, but has some concerns about their methods and tactics. If you think he’s wrong, fine, explain why he’s wrong. But if he’s right, yeah, that’s pretty much the classic definition of .

          2. No the person who denies the obvious is a concern troll.

            1. That’s a pretty idiosyncratic definition

              1. Are you concerned about it?

        3. Obama wanted to punish his enemies. Par for the course with him.

        4. This.

          Megan McArdle’s “statements” are packed with so many qualifiers that she doesn’t say anything anymore – but only when she’s saying something critical of the Left. When it’s the Right that’s the target of her criticism, there are no qualifiers.

          She’s extremely, extremely insecure about her opinions. As she should be! They are wrong.

  9. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worried that if the Court allowed this particular religious objection to prevail it would open the floodgates and completely undercut the federal health care law.

    A truly revealing statement, not that anyone paying attention required it. You can have your rights so long as exercising them does not cause undo difficulties for the government. Thanks, Kagan. Guess I’ll report to my nearest free speech zone to begin my permitted protest as soon as the relevant authority figures sign off on it.

    1. She is by far the worst justice on the court by any measure.

    2. “open the floodgates” = corporations will continue to sit in their corporation buildings and be all corporationy.

    3. “Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worried that if the Court allowed this particular religious objection to prevail it would open the floodgates and completely undercut the federal health care law.”

      I am obviously not as smart as a wise Latina, but shouldn’t she be worried about whether or not it abides by the Constitution ?

      1. After posting I realized that someone could think that I don’t know the difference between Kagan and The Wise Latina.

        I do but I admit that I got them momentarily confused.

        Move along.

        1. Isn’t Kagan the retarded lesbian?

          1. How would this definition clarify anything?

            1. As opposed to ‘the wise Latina’. Aren’t they all getting nicknames or something?

  10. My God Kagan gives me headaches…who cares if it makes the law piecemeal? It isn’t he court’s job to make sure a statute remains intact. They are there to interpret. If the statute is made Swiss cheese because of the free exercise clause then the statute needs to be re-written. No shock that the justice who was never a judge before getting appointed to SCOTUS has no idea how the whole being a judge thing works. One of the most embarrassing SCOTUS appointments EVER.

    1. It isn’t he court’s job to make sure a statute remains intact. They are there to interpret.

      See below for the “compelling” justification, bassasaurusrex.

    2. Remember her numbskullious notion that ObamaCare subsidies are free? Like really, NO ONE PAYS! Like HOW COULD YOU TERN DOWN FREE MUNNY THAT FALLS FROM THE SKY???!!!

      I don’t see how lawyers keep it down with her. How do they manage to refrain from staring her in the face and calling her a fucking idiot?

    3. He who appointed her and those who approved her have no embarrassment factor.

      Her thought process is a feature, not a bug, to them.

  11. the government may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” unless it has a “compelling” justification

    Like not “completely undercutting the federal health care law”? 8-(

  12. In other words, stay off facebook Monday

  13. her constant “now now the IRS has a perfectly rational explanation for this” coverage of the IRS scandal has been the worst.

    I quit reading McArdle’s drivel a long time ago. I assume she believes, like Mika Fluffzinski, the IRS just needs a bigger budget to prevent further “data losses” down the road, and to do a better job of fairly extorting money from the productive sectors of the economy.

  14. If the statute is made Swiss cheese because of the free exercise clause then the statute needs to be re-written.

    Haha, good one.

  15. The mandate’s defenders take the opposite view, arguing that Hobby Lobby should lose because a for-profit corporation is unable, by definition, to exercise religion.

    This annoys the everloving crap out of me. The Roman Catholic Church is incorporated in every state in America. Their entire purpose is the exercise of religion. They are, presumably, non-profit. What is it about being for-profit that makes a corporation unable to exercise religion when compared to a non-profit?

    1. Good question.

  16. government may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” unless it has a “compelling” justification and has used “the least restrictive means” available.

    What ever happened to Congress shall make no law…

    1. I believe Hobby Lobby used the RFRA as its main argument and not the First Amendment. May have been a big mistake.

      1. Under Scalia’s opinion in Smith Hobby Lobby had little chance under the 1st, RFRA was, however, ideal for them

  17. The great problem for the USSC is that the whole case is made moot after consulting the scientific laws that show Hobby Lobby in fact consents to abortion. The fact is that 70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester and of those that die 60 percent are not human enough to live as a human, due to innate genetic flaws. And after implantation, 30 percent of conceptions abort naturally and a fraction of those were also incapable of becoming human life.

    The Hobby Lobby case is based on the assumption that the zygote is human life. Because most potential zygotes are not capable of human life, their case is moot. In addition a person has a duty to understand the scientific laws that control a subject before they file a pleading. Therefore it was the duty of Hobby Lobby to understand that because 70 percent of conceptions die, any intentional choice to have sex was implied consent to abort what ever life form resulted from that choice. So a choice to have sex by any employee of Hobby Lobby is in fact a choice to consent to abortion. And the abortion is intentional if the sex was intentional.
    http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com

    1. That is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time.

      1. That is an ad hominem response that is of no value at all. If you have something to support your claims, then use it, otherwise, you can be ignored.

        1. Fair enough, but some of have replied to you in that way, so what’s your response?

          1. Doesn’t really matter what your response is. He’ll try and pull the same tactics he does on his own website.

            He’ll explain quite calmly that your facts/opinions/feelings/testicles do not matter because *bullshit reason*.

            Then, since he has no actual power here, he will ignore you in the most smug, self-satisfied way he possibly can.

            Because he’s right, dont’cha know? There’s no possible way Wikipedia is wrong about the facts. And also, not actively trying to save a life is murder. Also, unless babies grow into viable adults, they aren’t even human.

            I may be a bit of an Anarchist Whackjob, but this guy. . .this guy. . .

            Fuck. How do you codify the mixture of pure evil and severe aspergers syndrome?

            1. How do you codify the mixture of pure evil and severe aspergers syndrome mental retardation?

              FIFY.

              1. Please leave the Aspy’s out of it. Please.

            2. “Doesn’t really matter what your response is. He’ll try and pull the same tactics he does on his own website.”

              Ad hominem fallacy. You ignore my post and attack me personally.

              “He’ll explain quite calmly that your facts/opinions/feelings/testicles do not matter because *bullshit reason*.”

              Ad hominem attack. Address the issues if you can.

              “Then, since he has no actual power here, he will ignore you in the most smug, self-satisfied way he possibly can.”

              Ad hominem fallacy, of no value.

              “Because he’s right, dont’cha know? There’s no possible way Wikipedia is wrong about the facts.”

              Ad hominem attack and of no value.

              ” And also, not actively trying to save a life is murder.”

              Straw man argument. My claim is that a person with a duty to save life that does not save life has committed murder by omission.

              ” Also, unless babies grow into viable adults, they aren’t even human.”

              Straw man fallacy. My statement is clear: Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life.

              “I may be a bit of an Anarchist Whackjob, but this guy. . .this guy. . .”

              You have a choice, you may save an innocent baby or you may let it die and save a fetus instead. What is your choice?

              “Fuck. How do you codify the mixture of pure evil and severe aspergers syndrome?”

              Ad hominem fallacy. If you can make a lucid comment about the real issues and not a fantasy you have constructed, then make it.

        2. Not an ad hominem attack.

          He called your post stupid. He didn’t say, this man is stupid, therefore don’t listen to anything he says.

          Even if he shortened it to, ‘You’re the stupidest person on here.’ (Since Tony isn’t here, he would have had to add.) That still isn’t an ad hominem because he isn’t discrediting your post on the FACT you are STUPID.

          By the way…I too think your post is idiotic. Clever, but idiotic.

          1. I love how proggies, who are all down with science, believe in biological alchemy. “It isn’t human till I say it’s human!” Nevermind DNA, which every individual has, born or pre-born.

            1. Until the DNA expresses the correct phenotype, you don’t know if the DNA is sufficient to produce human life.

              You might want to look up “DNA expression” and learn what it means. If after reading you want to continue to discuss your misunderstandings then come back and we will talk.
              Hint: you don’t even know if the DNA is human until it has expressed at least some human phenotype.

          2. “Not an ad hominem attack.”

            “Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

            His posts and your posts are ad hominem fallacies. You both avoid the topic to attack me personally. Your words speak for themselves.

            “He called your post stupid. He didn’t say, this man is stupid, therefore don’t listen to anything he says.”

            Ad hominem fallacy. If you can address the issue, then do so. Your answers and my answers with regard to the issue will show who is stupid.

            “Even if he shortened it to, ‘You’re the stupidest person on here.’ (Since Tony isn’t here, he would have had to add.) That still isn’t an ad hominem because he isn’t discrediting your post on the FACT you are STUPID.”

            Ad hominem fallacy.

            “By the way…I too think your post is idiotic. Clever, but idiotic.”

            If you were sincere, you would express why it is stupid so that people can judge your wisdom. You just want to post ad hominem fallacies because you cannot defend your own views.

        3. RussellCrawford|6.28.14 @ 12:32PM|#

          That is an ad hominem response that is of no value at all. If you have something to support your claims, then use it, otherwise, you can be ignored.”

          Too bad you can’t just refuse to post anything you disagree with here like you can at that pseudoscience site you linked to .

          Not being the moderator puts a serious dent in your claim to intellectual superiority Russell.

          1. “Too bad you can’t just refuse to post anything you disagree with here like you can at that pseudoscience site you linked to .”

            Ad hominem fallacy. Perhaps your feelings were hurt because you posted ad hominem fallacies on my site?

            “Not being the moderator puts a serious dent in your claim to intellectual superiority Russell.”

            Ad hominem fallacy. If you have an argument, then post it.

      1. ad hominem

        You have no argument, no proof.

        1. People who do science don’t deal in proof. They deal in evidence. Which you would know if you knew anything about science.

          Proof is for geometry and alcohol

          1. And pudding.

          2. Ad hominem fallacy. If you have an argument about what I have posted, then make the argument. You obviously have no insight that you can share.

    2. after consulting the scientific laws that show Hobby Lobby in fact consents to abortion

      It’s SCIENCE!!!

        1. No, if I had said, say, “Don’t believe anything that asshat RusselCrawford writes because he’s a sheepfucking retard” that would have been an ad hominem. What I did was simply mock you.

          1. . . . RusselCrawford writes because he’s a sheepfucking retard

            Allegedly!

          2. Ad hominem fallacy, if you have an argument, the post it.

            “Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

      1. The science is settled. There is no more need for debate !

        Russell agrees with Russell.

        Everything else is ad hominem !

        1. No Russell has to abort Russell to save Russell. Russell?

        2. “The science is settled. There is no more need for debate !”

          The science is not settled in the way you think it is settled. “Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life.”
          The Scientific Abortion Laws have settled the issue.

          “Russell agrees with Russell.”
          Ad hominem fallacy.

          “Everything else is ad hominem !”

          Ad hominem fallacy. If you have a valid comment, please post it.

    3. No. The Hobby Lobby case is based in the fact that someone finally had standing to challenge a deplorable, terrible law.

      The government has overreached. I, personally, believe abortion should be legal. But I disagree that the government should be able to compel your employer to pay for it.

      I further disagree that the government should be able to compel an employer to insure all its employees, regardless of size.

      1. Your comments are moot because the issue is related to abortion, which is covered by scientific law. It should not be before the court.
        Your belief that the government should not be required to insure its employees is offset by the fact that if they don’t carry insurance, the employee can still sue for on job accidents.

        The issue is also related to whether or not the government can pass laws for the general welfare of its citizens. Which I think it can. We are taxed for roads, mail, support of the congress, armies, medical care for federal employees, etc. I don’t see where your argument has a foundation.

        1. The whole point of insurance is to pool risk so that, in the event of an unlikely misfortunate accident, a company wouldn’t go out of business or the employer wouldn’t be bankrupted to cover the liabilities. It’s a sensible choice.

          With respect to taxing, however, supporting a common defense and a legislature is constitutional. You know, as in it’s in the Constitution. Mail, roads, health care for federally-employed people in make-work positions who couldn’t get jobs as stamp-lickers if not for the government teat? Not so much. (A thousand pardons for exceeding my hyphen quota.)

          And private companies are explicitly not part of the government enterprise in the first place. Even if I’d accept that gov emps should have their health care covered by my tax dollars, it doesn’t follow that employers should be forced to pay health care for their employees. Or is there some scientific law? that compels that as well?

          1. The weakness in your argument is that everyone in the US is entitled to go to any emergency room and get free health care right now. That pretty much defeats your entire argument. The only thing that happens here is whether the employer or the public pays. I submit that I want the employer to pay.

        2. Abortion should not be before the courts because it is covered by ‘scientific law’. What is that? Is there a science court somewhere I haven’t heard about?

          Death is also covered by ‘scientific law’, therefore murder should not come before the courts? Drugs?

          We know the government can pass SOME laws for the general welfare of its citizens. SOME. It can’t pass anything it likes. The Constitution is the limiting factor. The question is has this law stepped outside the boundaries of the Constitution?

          1. “Abortion should not be before the courts because it is covered by ‘scientific law’. What is that? Is there a science court somewhere I haven’t heard about?”

            There are scientific facts that control the abortion issue. For example there are more people dying than can be saved. Therefore one must choose which life to save. The unborn fetus that may not be human or the born human life.

            “Death is also covered by ‘scientific law’, therefore murder should not come before the courts? Drugs?”

            Ad hominem fallacy. Death is covered by scientific laws but murder is not.

            “We know the government can pass SOME laws for the general welfare of its citizens. SOME. It can’t pass anything it likes. The Constitution is the limiting factor. The question is has this law stepped outside the boundaries of the Constitution?”

            The government elected by the people can pass any law that is based on a vague constitutional limit. The scientific facts that relate to this case make it clear that the law is constitutional. The scientific fact is that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no human life. And if the zygote is a baby at an earlier stage, the sperm is a baby at an earlier stage. The sperm needs the egg just as the zygote needs the uterus.

        3. “So scientifically… If she weighed the same as a duck… she’s made of wood! Judgment affirmed!”

          1. Ad hominem fallacy of no use to the argument.

        4. RussellCrawford|6.28.14 @ 12:40PM|#

          ” I don’t see where your argument has a foundation.”

          Why didn’t you just refuse to post his comment like you do at your joke of a site naturalabortionlaws.com

          Are you here at reason trying to drum up some page clicks ?

          People ignore your site for a reason.

          1. Ad hominem fallacies for everyone.

    4. A persons religious belief doesn’t have to be ‘rational’ to be burdened.

      1. Almost by definition.

      2. A religious belief that is irrational can still be a religious belief but may not have legal protection that is enforceable. For example if you believe that denying medical care for the severed arm of you child is a sin and therefore deny that care, a court can over-rule your belief.

        1. Talk about idiosyncratic! At times a compelling interest can override a persons free exercise rights, but it’s the compelling ness of the interest that that rests on, not the rationality of the belief. Courts are not to be declaring which religous claims are rational and which are not, and that’s a good thing IMHO

          1. Bo, as a law student surely you can point me to the phrase “compelling interest” in the constitution?

            1. It’s not, it’s in case law

              1. It’s also incorporated in the provisions of the RFRA (requiring application of the strict-scrutiny standard) on which Hobby Lobby relies. From Hobby Lobbby’s cert. brief:

                The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. ? 2000bb et seq., provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden satisfies strict scrutiny. Id. ? 2000bb-1(a), (b).

                Whole thing hier.

                1. That’s a much better answer than mine.

            2. Don’t be hating on strict scrutiny.

              There *are* limits to our enumerated and unenumerated rights.

              ex – ‘can’t yell fire in a crowded theater’, speech that is substantially likely to lead to physical (not emotional) harm is prohibited.

              We are, by default, to be ‘secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects’ – the fourth lays out how the government is able to fulfill its compelling interest (which, of necessity, means that at times it will need to violate that security) in a way that is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to accomplish that.

              Strict scrutiny is used to prevent excessive curtailment.

              However – *FUCK* ‘rational basis’ and ‘intermediate scrutiny’. Fuck them right in the eye-socket.

    5. You are a giant fucking moron.

      People shouldn’t waste their time reading your bullshit.

      And yes, that was an ad hominem. Now fuck off.

      1. Ad hominem.
        People should read what I write and then read what you write in response. They will see you have no lucid comments to support your ad hominem fallacies.

  18. Isn’t “it can’t function Constitutionally as written” a perfectly acceptable reason to strike this down?

    What is Kagan thinking, using that as a reason to keep it?

    1. The beliefs of Hobby Lobby are moot and therefore their cause of action is moot, regardless of the ruling of the court. If the court rules in favor of HL then it will simply reverse itself later.

      1. Moot?

        You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        1. Inconceivable.

        2. It probably doesn’t. It also seems to not understand that an argumentum ad hominem states a fact, about the person, that is irrelevant to the topic.

          So when it screams “ad hominem!” at “stupid” and “derpy” it is acknowledging that it is, in fact, stupid and derpy.

          I think what it is searching for is that name calling is not an argument, but “insultare” is not as sexy as “ad hominem.”

          1. Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent

            Sorry, I use the definition from wiki.

            It is an ad hominem fallacy because it evades the subject and makes a personal attack instead.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

            1. Saying you’re stupid is not an ad hominem attack. It is an insult. Saying ‘don’t listen to anything he says because he is stupid’ is an ad hominem attack.

              Your arguments most of the time don’t deserve an actual argument against them. That’s why you’re not getting them. They’re that dumb.

            2. Oh look! It uses wiki! I despise wiki. But that’s neither here, nor there.

              If you had clicked the link for “ad hominem, you would have read the following:

              An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

              So, are you just obtuse? Or purposefully deceptive?

              1. This is a quote from the site:

                “Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent”

                You should have read the rest of the link.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

        3. Mootness, in American law: a point in a case is said to be moot when it has been made irrelevant, and therefore does not need to be considered further

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot

          1. Are you saying religious beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to SC decisions?

            I think you’re moot.

      2. “If the court rules in favor of HL then it will simply reverse itself later.”

        Yeah, the Supreme Court’s most notable attribute has gotta be its eagerness to revisit settled law… I think you’re on to something there.

        1. It cannot be settled statute or common law if it violates scientific law.

        2. Let me help you understand. You have a choice, you may save innocent born babies or you can make the intentional choice to let them die and save a fetus instead. You cannot save both because there are more people dying than can be saved. If you spend 1 second saving a fetus then in that second you will allow 1.8 born persons to die. Those are persons you claim to save, if you are pro life, so you have a duty to save them. You claim to “save human life” yet you make the intentional choice to let human life die. That is by the common law “murder by omission.”

          1. Uhm, you know that in American common law, ‘murder by omission’ is a very, very narrowly applied category.

            In the first place it only applies when the law creates a duty to act and the law only does that in a couple of situations.

            1. When the defendant created the danger.

            2. Doctors and hospitals have a duty to provide appropriate care for their patients, and an omission *may* breach that duty except where an adult patient of ordinary capacity terminates the duty by refusing consent.

            3. When contracted to do so.

            4. Military commanders can be prosecuted for war crimes by personnel under their effective control if they either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes.

            So I am pretty certain that none of those apply here.

            1. To give an (extreme) example, if I walk down the street and see you on fire, even though its completely within my ordinary capabilities to do so, I have no legal duty to piss on you to put it out.

              1. Or another fun one.

                Train barreling down the track towards 20 people. You stand by a track switch that can send the train down another track but it will hit one person.

                What do you do?

                Legally speaking – you don’t touch anything. You have no duty to act but if you *do* then you can be held liable for the death of that one person.

                If the jury is lenient, they can give you a break for saving 20 in he process but they don’t have to.

                1. Thank you, Agammamon.

            2. Common law agrees that if you have a duty to save a baby and choose to let it die, it is murder by omission. The contract with the public by the pro life movement is that it saves babies. They collect donations based upon that false claim. So they commit murder by omission.

              Some common law duties have been codified and therefore no longer are common law. This should be codified and I will fight to make that happen. Murderers should be convicted of murder. Pro lifers simply need to be truthful. They do not save babies, they let babies die to save fetuses.

      3. Exactly! It’s a for-profit corporations which seems to have little problem making profits off of the stuff they sell made by destitute and poor people the world over….I wonder what they are doing to make sure factory buildings in Bangladesh are not collapsing on the $1 a day workers?

        More HL money goes to “family planning” Chinese corporations than anywhere else. Why don’t they care?

        Aren’t other people humans? Well, I guess they are not of the proper religion over there…

        Isn’t it interesting that when it comes to procuring cheap goods from slave labor from China, Hobby Lobby’s “Christian values” are nowhere to be seen? But telling its employees how to run their private lives? Then it is “Christian values” time!

        1. Not wanting to violate their beliefs does not equal running other people’s lives.

          1. And declining to pay for something does not equal running other people’s private lives. Hobby Lobby doesn’t prevent anyone from buying whatever abortion or contraceptive services they wish.

      4. A religious belief that is irrational can still be a religious belief but may not have legal protection that is enforceable.

        If this is the case, then how are the Hobby Lobby’s beliefs *moot*?

        Isn’t the point of this case to decide whether or not those beliefs (rational or not) give them the freedom to ignore the contraceptive mandate?

        How do you contradict yourself in less than a half a page? Are you simply not fully aware of the logical consequences of your own argument?

    2. “It will gut the law” and “But that’s a good thing if the law is unconstitutional” is too menny thoughts to have in her head at won time.

  19. Jeez Louise, Kagan was just invoking SCOTUS precedent with that question.

    http://supreme.justia.com/case…..s/455/252/

    1. Never heard of a bad precedent?

      1. Sure, but it’s not like she’s concocting some fantastic theory there legally speaking.

        1. Concocting? No.

        2. Ehhhhhh….

          Lee discusses compelling interest. I’m not sure how she gets to “but things would fall apart” from there.

          Add to that the actual facts at issue here, that Hobby Lobby is requesting a very specific exception here, and it gets even more difficult to see her point.

          1. The relevant part of the Lee opinion is Sec II B

            1. “The relevant part of the Lee opinion is Sec II B”

              I read it before I posted what I write and your response doesn’t change anything.

              Lee doesn’t get her there. Not even Sec II B.

              1. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say you have no idea what you’re talking about.

          2. I’m not sure how she gets to “but things would fall apart” from there.

            It’s because as a liberal, she sees people forced to pay for other people’s contraception and abortion as central to health care.

  20. “Your assertion is incoherent and idiotic” is not an ad hominem.

    hth

    smooches.

  21. …Kagan argued. “So one religious group could opt out of this and another religious group could opt out of that and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.”

    OMG! That would be terrible. Uniformity is good. Soooo good. Even when its bad, it is good, because then no one has good, which is fair.

    1. Yeah, Kagan shouldn’t tie herself up in knots over this, she should just recuse herself.. if she had any moral or intellectual integrity, of course. Her hand in implementing the law in the first place, as solicitor general is enough to question her perceived impartiality…

      1. She doesn’t require impartiality. She knows what is right.

  22. because a for-profit corporation is unable, by definition, to exercise religion.

    Profits are evil. How can you legitimately claim to be religious if your entire operation is based on evil?

    The Pope took a vow of poverty. QED, motherfucker.

    1. Yeah! Arts & crafts stores are public accommodations! They have to serve gay people… and pay for abortions! That’s the ticket!

  23. So anyway the material difference if Hobby Lobby wins is that companies will be able to delete the contraception and abortion clauses from employee insurance policies?

    I guess it’s a big deal to them, but I want more.

    1. You have a lot of nerve showing your face around here.

      1. Make him take off his johnny hat, so we can see who he is!

      2. I don’t want to blind anyone with my beauty. Everyone here reading the stories in Braille and then commenting, all the typos would drive me crazy.

  24. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, worried that if the Court allowed this particular religious objection to prevail it would open the floodgates and completely undercut the federal health care law

    Ya know dear, that’s not really *your* job to fix that. If congress writes a law that has massive loopholes *as written*, its *their* job to fix it. Yours is not to harmonize the law, nor to find ways to make it work. Yours is just to judge whether or not it violates our governing principles.

    “Every court of appeal to have looked at the situation have held that corporations can bring racial discrimination claims as corporations,”

    Ah, hoist by your own petard. This must be one of those ‘unintended consequences’ I hear so much about. ‘We never intended for our power to be constrained by consistent and principled application of precedent!’

    “So one religious group could opt out of this and another religious group could opt out of that and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform.”

    The cry of the statist planner – ‘but its not *uniform*!’ how can we measure and control it if its anarchic?!

    1. “Ya know dear, that’s not really *your* job to fix that. If congress writes a law that has massive loopholes *as written*, its *their* job to fix it. Yours is not to harmonize the law, nor to find ways to make it work. Yours is just to judge whether or not it violates our governing principles.”

      Spot on.. +1
      And I suspect that if Roberts had answered the fucking question he was asked, as opposed to ignoring it, and instead.. answering a question that NOBODY asked.. we wouldn’t be here right now asking poor Kagan to violate her delicate statist sensibilities…

    2. Imagine if Congress passed a law that MULTIPLE groups had standing to sue on. Then we’d have to keep the law more than ever!

      Kagan Logic.

  25. The intention of this site is to skew the debate by deleting what I post and allowing others to post ad hominem responses. That my friend will disqualify this page from most awards it would otherwise qualify for.

    1. But, what does it mean?

    2. Someone here at Reason deleted your post ? And you are crying about it ?

      Russell you have already proven above that you don’t even know what an ad hominem is. You should go back to your site where you can control the posts. You are in over you head here. While I am not one of them, there are some highly educated and intelligent people here. The difference between you and I is that I know I am not one of them but you mistakenly believe you are.

      Refusing to post others comments that disagree with you is your modus operandi at your junk science site yet you come here and whine about getting the same, or similar treatment ?

      Ha !

      I’m sure Reason appreciates your concern troll for it’s non award winning actions.

      Thanks for the laughs Russell. It’s raining heavily here today and I’m locked inside.

      1. The comments here are based upon ad hominem fallacies as defined thusly:

        “Argumentum ad hominem ? the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    3. Russel, do you have a right to continue living? If so, why? And why, scientifically, taking into account the DNA of the unborn, do they not have the right to continue living?

      1. There is no right to life scientifically speaking. One person can claim a right and then be murdered for that belief. So what right is there?

    4. The intention of this site is to skew the debate by deleting what I post

      Ad hominem. Come back with a real argument.

      *pouts*

    5. Wait, You were about to hand out some awards or somethin?

    6. Please name these awards. And are you involved in any or all of them?

  26. This SCOTUS case is important but is still insignificant compared to another that is only in a District Court awaiting dismissal, Contempt, and Rule 11 Sanctions or proceeding to a jury of peers. Docket mirrored for free linked to CN_Foundation of in this profile.

    ONLY a JURY of peers should weigh matters such as this SCOTUS case. SCOTUS is a group of wealthy, elderly oligarchs and NOT peers!

  27. The wifey of the Natural Born Killer duo who shot some cops a few weeks ago…after hanging at the Bundy Ranch – she worked for Hobby Lobby.

    I’m pleased they didn’t make her breed…..to populate their Christian Nation….

    Just sayings. It’s not a coincidence that all these far right wingers hang together. As far as Hobby Lobby, I doubt they are much of an enlightened corporation…probably looking just to fleece their workers of benefits.

    They did raise their min wage for part time workers – to $9.50 an hour! Wow….what Christians!

    1. So start a business to compete with Hobby Lobby. You can pay $20/hr with full benefits for full and part time employees, while selling only union made products.

      1. Exactly.

      2. Don’t forget to make it a non-profit worker’s collective.

    2. You mean those two nuts who turned out to be Occupy protestors?

      1. source on this? I tried google but cant find anything
        Thanks in advance

          1. Thanks!

    3. We might as well drop that amendment and establish a standard christian religion so that pagans like craiginmass can have there say in what Hobby Lobby does with their stores.

    4. The wifey of the Natural Born Killer duo who shot some cops a few weeks ago…after hanging at being thrown off the Bundy Ranch

      You were saying?

      Just sayings. It’s not a coincidence that all these far right wingers hang together.

      Lol. We’re only a couple degrees of separation from HOBBY LOBBY DID WTC! Keep going! I’m sure you can get there!

  28. Hey Damon, so what is at stake? perhaps I missed the part where you explained the importance of this case. You aren’t going to backpeddle a couple of days from now when Roberts orders hobby lobby to pass out limitless quantities of condoms or misquotes the constitution?

    1. It’s like I was tryin’ to clarify above. The Hobby Lobbys of America can delete the contraceptive and abortion clauses from their employee insurance policies. Big deal to those companies, but to me it’s just a “I’ll take what I can get” until the bill is repealed (and replaced with something equally stupid).

  29. A corporation is a distinct legal entity from the owners by design.

    An owner cannot defensibly claim that the corporation is not them under some circumstances, ie bankruptcy, then turn around and say the corporation IS them under another, such as this.

    It seems claiming that a corporation is just an extension of the owners would pierce the corporate veil.

  30. The fact that the owners are christian should have nothing to do with it. They are just offering it as part of a medical coverage. The employee is free to use it or not and the company has no say in whether they do or not. Using religion to deny their employees access to any coverage not deemed acceptable to the company is equivalent to saying no employee can have sex outside of marriage because it violates their christian principles. Allowing employees access to all coverage doesn’t violate their christian principles either. This is not a church, but a place of business, where all manner of people may be employed. Not allowing the employees full access to medical coverage would be discriminatory.

  31. The people on this site are severely confused.
    Lets clarify:

    1) There are only two types of life that can be saved. Born life that has already been proved to be human enough to be born and other life that has not been proved to be human enough to be born.

    2) The Scientific Abortion Laws state that there are more people dying than can be saved. Why is that true and a law? Because everyone and every living thing that science is aware of dies. And therefore there is more life alive than can be saved. Why does that matter and become elevated to a law? Because it clarifies an important human right, the right to control ones own body through bodily autonomy.
    The law makes it clear that one cannot “save” a fetus and thereby ignore bodily autonomy, without causing the death of another human. The Law makes it clear that the only way to save a fetus, that is not a certain life, is by letting a certain life die. The law therefore makes it clear that because everyone is in fact dying, one must choose whom they will save. Passing a law that all fetuses must be saved without passing a law that saves all other life simply puts the life of the fetus above the life of a born person.

    So far all arguments on this site that have been presented are ad hominem fallacies and straw man fallacies. If there is someone here that can argue the real facts then I am ready for a real debate.

    1. There are no such laws, despite what you state. So three is no need to refute them. Anymore than I need to refute the 12 regeneration limit for Time Lords.

  32. In no way, shape, or form does someone protesting at an abortion clinic (or any other attempt to save an unborn life) mean that that person is willingly letting someone else die.

    I tried posting this at your goddamn website, you asshole, and you kept deleting it, so I’ll try and explain this again.

    The majority of human beings (51.6%) die from things almost nobody on earth can save them from.

    There are, at least as of 2012, 1.9 doctors in the world per 1000 people. It takes a large number of people, from doctors, to nurses, to medical equipment suppliers and repairmen, to pharmaceutical professionals, to heal just one person of just one of the major reason people actually die every 1.8 seconds.

    1. The World Health Organization actually recommends only 2.3 (on average) qualified physicians, midwives, or nurses to attend a birth. And the amount of equipment and drugs necessary to facilitate a birth are drastically lower. Even a simple regimen of prenatal vitamins and a regular checkup with your doctor LONG before a viable birth take little time, little effort, and drastically increase the chances of a viable birth. There is a greater statistical chance that a doctor giving a routine checkup to a pregnant woman will help produce a viable birth than that same doctor trying to save a person with Ischaemic Heart Disease will actually manage to stave off his death.

      And remember, most doctors have multiple patients. No doctor, on earth, can reach every dying person. So, doctors trying to help women with their unborn babies tend to also help people with severe diseases get the help and medication they need as well.

      1. But you’re not just talking about doctors, are you? You’re talking about normal, everyday people like me. Well, fine, lets talk about that.

        1.9 (lets round up to 2) out of every 1000 people are even capable of helping with the highest share of human deaths. That leaves the other 48.6% of deaths to the remaining 998.

        Now, the WHO actually says that around 56 million people die every year. If we round down the medical death percentage to 50% (and keep in mind that this is only TEN FUCKING DISEASES), that leaves us with roughly 28 million deaths left over for the non-doctors to deal with. If we divide that by 998, we get right around twenty eight thousand and fifty six deaths per year per citizen. That’s 78.6 lives every person everywhere would have to save every single day, in order to justify your theory.

          1. Now, if we look at the FBI numbers, we can clearly see that there are, at least in the US, more police officers per 1000 citizens than ever before. If you couple that fact with the fact that real life goddamn superheroes are popping up all over the country, you can clearly see that those qualified, and those not-so-qualified, to handle crime are in fact proliferating at a rate that seriously takes the pressure off of the average citizen.

            So, if we take away the medical deaths, and we then remove the violent deaths, what kinds of death are we left with for the average person to try and save us from? Accidents? Suicide? Not knowing that bleach will kill you if you drink it? If you are to be believed, then we can assume you do not want the government to have control over your body. And that’s great. But it also means that the remaining types of death are pretty much all things the government would have to inject themselves into your life in order to prevent. So they’re right out

            1. This all brings it home, then, doesn’t it? You have created a fallacy about death prevention out of thin fucking air, and are peddling it everywhere to try and discredit a movement that, for the most part, only wants to make sure cute cuddly babies make their way into the world. I disagree with them, because I don’t think they should have the power to MAKE someone keep a pregnancy they wish to rid themselves of, but the average pro lifer isn’t evil, per se, just stupid.

              Now, we’ve had a good, logical discussion here. Want to retort?

              1. Now, please keep in mind, my good retard, that this only addresses the simple facts about death. This shows how clearly you are incorrect about only one part of your crazy fucking theory.

                I posted a perfectly good and worthwhile argument, with links no less, on your website numerous times last night. That argument also went to clearly disprove your wacko “theories” involving the 30% viability rate of embryos.

                If I care enough, I’ll post that argument after I get home from work. I saved it to my hard drive, just to make sure I could get your stupid ass to read it one day.

                So go on, Russell. Prove me wrong. With SCIENCE!

                1. “Now, please keep in mind, my good retard, …. your crazy fucking theory.

                  If you posted more ad hominem fallacies, I likely will not read them. I have not been to my site for several days, so you have a chance to repost clearly relevant information there if you want. I won’t read any fallacies you post and will not allow them on my site. If you post stuff similar to your comments here, there is no chance they will be posted.

                  “I posted a perfectly good and worthwhile argument, with links no less, on your website numerous times last night. That argument also went to clearly disprove your wacko “theories” involving the 30% viability rate of embryos.”

                  If you use the word “wacko” that is an ad hominem fallacy. If you want an answer simply say “your wrong for these reasons and then list your thoughts.”

                  “If I care enough, I’ll post that argument after I get home from work. I saved it to my hard drive, just to make sure I could get your stupid ass to read it one day.

                  So go on, Russell. Prove me wrong. With SCIENCE!”

                  With your permission, I will clean up your post and allow them on my site. Would you like me to do that for you?

                  1. Tell you what, Russell. I will clean out my obscenities and repost for your viewing pleasure.

                    I dislike you a great deal, but if you actually want to have a debate, in a public forum of your own design, I will gladly have it.

                    😀

          2. The cause of death has no impact. All that matters is choice by those obligated to save life.

            1. According to whom?

        1. “But you’re not just talking about doctors, are you? You’re talking about normal, everyday people like me. Well, fine, lets talk about that.”

          Doctors have no impact. All that matters is the choice of people that claim to save babies. No one else has a duty to save babies.

          1.9 (lets round up to 2) out of every 1000 ……

          Now, the WHO actually says that around 56 million people die every year….., in order to justify your theory.

          Straw man fallacies. All that matters is that people make a choice. Whatever resources are available to save life can be used by those that choose to save babies. Resources have no impact on choice.

      2. The World Health Organization actually recommends only 2.3 ….will actually manage to stave off his death.

        Straw man fallacy.

        The number of doctors responding has no impact on the choice. The choice is dependent on the individual. They may choose to save babies or fetuses. A choice to save fetuses is a choice to let babies die.

    2. “In no way, shape, or form does someone protesting at an abortion clinic (or any other attempt to save an unborn life) mean that that person is willingly letting someone else die.”

      If someone at an abortion clinic claims they are there “saving babies” then they are obligated to save babies. If they are attempting to save fetuses, then they are not saving babies, they are saving fetuses. They have a choice of how to use their time, they can save babies, which is what they claim, or the can save fetuses, which is what they do. So they are letting innocent babies die while “attempting” to save fetuses that they cannot prove are alive or human. They are committing murder by omission.

      1. The numbers don’t lie, Russell. Everyone everywhere commits murder by omission simply by not being capable enough to get to their allotted 78.6 people every single day. Can you manage to locate, diagnose, treat, and save 78.6 people every day?

        Would you even know where to start?

        My guess would be that no, you don’t. No, you can’t. No, you wouldn’t even if you could.

        Now me, Russell, I actually help people. I’ve brought people into my home who had nowhere to go. I’ve given them food and shelter and helped them get their lives back in order over and over again, often at great expense to myself.

        I routinely give food to the homeless.

        I donate money to charities, when I have it to spare.

        I go out of my way, quite often, to be as helpful as possible to the people I meet, for little or no reward.

        I also help stray animals. I am the sole reason one of my current cats is even alive. I fed and took care of her grandmother, and little Kaylee is the result of years of nurturing strays.

        I’ve actually gotten a bit done on my quota.

        How about you, Russell?

        1. “The numbers don’t lie, Russell. Everyone everywhere commits murder by omission simply by not being capable enough to get to their allotted 78.6 people every single day.”

          No-one commits murder by omission unless they have a duty to save another person. For some people all they can do is save themselves and others cannot do that.

          “Can you manage to locate, diagnose, treat, and save 78.6 people every day?”

          You really need to read what I right before you post. No person that is without duty can commit murder by omission.

          “Would you even know where to start?”

          Yes, I would start by saving those whom I claim to save.

          “My guess would be that no, you don’t. No, you can’t. No, you wouldn’t even if you could.”

          I know whom I claim to save. And I save them as best I can.

        2. “Now me, Russell, I actually help people. I’ve brought people into my home who had nowhere to go. I’ve given them food and shelter and helped them get their lives back in order over and over again, often at great expense to myself.”

          You are not obligate to do that unless you claim to be saving life or are obligated to save life because of your beliefs.

          “I routinely give food to the homeless.
          I donate money to charities, when I have it to spare.
          I go out of my way, quite often, to be as helpful as possible to the people I meet, for little or no reward.
          I also help stray animals. I am the sole reason one of my current cats is even alive. I fed and took care of her grandmother, and little Kaylee is the result of years of nurturing strays.
          I’ve actually gotten a bit done on my quota.”

          You are a very nice person. But if you claim to save babies and instead let them die, you are guilty of murder.

          “ow about you, Russell?
          reply to this”

          I donate to missionaries, my church, people in need, I employ people, I have donated one of my patents to help people obtain water. I also give to Planned Parenthood to help save life.

          1. Psssh. In my view everybody has an obligation to save people.

            That said, I wouldn’t under any circumstance MAKE someone save anyone else for any reason.

            You believe that people who claim to save lives should dedicate nearly all of their abilities to saving living people instead of saving fetuses? Fetusi? Multiple fetus? However you say that.

            The trouble is that the ones who feel they have a duty towards life cannot actually save nearly as many people as you think. And many doctors feel the need to save people that they feel CAN actually be saved. I’ve known several doctors in my day that felt exactly that way. they would dedicate the most time and energy to saving those that they actually COULD, whether that meant a fetus or an adult.

            Stopping the medical work being done towards unborn children (in any stage of development) would ultimately hurt as many people as it saves. The only reason you feel you can say that and have any credibility left is because you firmly believe that until a child is born, and exhibits signs of normal human life, that child is not human.

            1. The trouble with that definition is that it is not the most commonly held belief. It is also not the position the World Health Organization itself takes regarding unborn children. They consider a human child to be whole and valid from 22 weeks after conception.

              That’s less than six months, and considerably less than, as you said yourself, up to one year after birth.

              Yes, Russell, I went through and read your arguments with other people.

              You seem to get most of your information on the subject from one single scientific paper. This paper was written as a conjoining between three different studies done over the course of about 40 years. The problems, though, are multiple.

              I’ve got sore hands from trolling, though. I’ll bring the evidence later.

              1. “The trouble with that definition is that it is not the most commonly held belief. It is also not the position the World Health Organization itself takes regarding unborn children. They consider a human child to be whole and valid from 22 weeks after conception.”

                What they consider to be a human child leads to the death of real human children. So they must change or explain why they murder innocent babies to force the birth of a fetus. Don’t misread what I am saying. I am not saying fetuses should be aborted. I am saying a woman has autonomy and should she determine that the fetus is not viable, it does not matter what anyone else says. In order to force birth, they must murder a child. And that is what is wrong with your ideas.

              2. “That’s less than six months, and considerably less than, as you said yourself, up to one year after birth.”

                I have never said up to a year after birth. A fetus is not fully “expressed” even later than a year after birth. But that does not mean it is not human enough to live as a human. If it can be born it is human.

                “You seem to get most of your information on the subject from one single scientific paper. This paper was written as a conjoining between three different studies done over the course of about 40 years. The problems, though, are multiple.”

                I have hundreds of sources. —over 400

                “I’ve got sore hands from trolling, though. I’ll bring the evidence later.

                reply to this ”

                You seem to have backed off on the ad hominem fallacies for the last couple of posts. That is a good thing. Keep it up please, you waste time when you use fallacies.

                1. “Psssh. In my view everybody has an obligation to save people.”

                  I am attempting to save those that you encourage people to murder.

                  “That said, I wouldn’t under any circumstance MAKE someone save anyone else for any reason.”

                  As long as you stop murdering babies and don’t encourage others to murder then that is all that matters to me.

                  “You believe that people who claim to save lives should dedicate nearly all of their abilities to saving living people instead of saving fetuses? Fetusi? Multiple fetus? However you say that.”

                  No, I just believe that they should not murder babies and claim to be saving babies. They don’t have to dedicate anything to stop murdering. All they have to do is change their statements. They should simply say, I believe is saving fetuses and letting babies die. If they do that, that is all I require.

                  “The trouble is that the ones who feel they have a duty towards life cannot actually save nearly as many people as you think.”

                  I don’t want them to be forced to save anyone. I want them to either stop lying about what they are doing or to stop killing babies. Either option is fine with me.

                2. The WHO has tens of thousands of sources. So they likely won’t bow to your fringe ideas.

            2. ? And many doctors feel the need to save people that they feel CAN actually be saved. I’ve known several doctors in my day that felt exactly that way. they would dedicate the most time and energy to saving those that they actually COULD, whether that meant a fetus or an adult.”

              As long as pro life doctors stop murdering babies that is fine. They can save anyone they want.

              “Stopping the medical work being done towards unborn children (in any stage of development) would ultimately hurt as many people as it saves.”

              IF they stopped “forcing” birth that would be fine. They can save real babies if they are not forcing other zygotes. Killing a born baby to save a fetus is not helping society, it is murder.

              “The only reason you feel you can say that and have any credibility left is because you firmly believe that until a child is born, and exhibits signs of normal human life, that child is not human.”

              That is a scientific fact. What I believe does not matter. It is my belief that the zef should be saved if a woman wants it. And if she does not, a born baby should not be killed to force its birth.

      2. What about all the deaths those of us with psychic powers prevent? Annual worldwide deaths are reduced by over 40% because of the application of psychic powers.

        You might want to recheck your research. This is a glaring omission.

  33. “I tried posting this at your goddamn website, you asshole, and you kept deleting it, so I’ll try and explain this again.”

    You probably posted it with numerous ad hominem fallacies, just as you do here. I do not let ad hominem fallacies on my page after a person has been warned.

    “The majority of human beings (51.6%) die from things almost nobody on earth can save them from.”

    So, no one can be saved. People can only have their lives extended and enhanced, not “saved” eternally. A zygote has an extremely low chance of life.

    ” There are, at least as of 2012, 1.9 doctors in the world per 1000 people. It takes a large number of people, from doctors, to nurses, to medical equipment suppliers and repairmen, to pharmaceutical professionals, to heal just one person of just one of the major reason people actually die every 1.8 seconds.”

    It takes a single person committed to saving a person to actually save a life. If a person commits to saving a zygote, then babies die through out that commitment.
    No one has an obligation to save life. But if they claim to save babies and instead let babies die to save fetuses they are committing murder by omission due to their verbal contract to save babies.

    1. Yep. You’re both wrong and stupid. Please, good sir, show me how just one person can cure just one person of AIDS.

      Show me how one person can cure one person of Ischaemic Heart Failure.

      Show me how one person can cure Alzheimers.

      Show me how one person can save one person in almost ANY WAY, other than by ripping poison from their hands or knocking the gun from the hand of a murderer.

      Saving zygotes really isn’t even the goal, Russell. Saving babies IS. Since you said yourself that nobody can actually prove precisely when a zygote becomes an independent life form, what they think and do makes perfect sense.

      These people believe that by saving zygotes, we save people from never being born. In many ways that is actually true. Many viable pregnancies are terminated by people every day. Pregnancies that may or may not have grown to term and become normal, worthwhile people (or you).

      You’re simply dealing in percentages to back your argument, but clearly those numbers do not actually back up your claims. Many many people who feel this way and act accordingly would never be able to save a human life in any way, shape, or form. They simply do not have the knowledge, drive, or physical capability to do so.

      Ergo, my good retard, your argument is invalid.

      1. “Yep. You’re both wrong and stupid. Please, good sir, show me how just one person can cure just one person of AIDS.”

        Ad hominem fallacy. I don’t claim to be able to cure anyone.

        “Show me how one person can cure one person of Ischaemic Heart Failure.Show me how one person can cure Alzheimers.Show me how one person can save one person in almost ANY WAY, other than by ripping poison from their hands or knocking the gun from the hand of a murderer.

        No one can save anyone eternally. I can save “almost” anyone for a second or two.

        “Saving zygotes really isn’t even the goal, Russell. Saving babies IS.”

        Your goal is impossible because you must let an innocent born baby, child or adult die to save any unborn product of conception.

        “Since you said yourself that nobody can actually prove precisely when a zygote becomes an independent life form, what they think and do makes perfect sense.”

        Killing born life to save zygotes makes no sense.

        “These people believe that by saving zygotes, we save people from never being born.”

        Killing born babies to save fetuses is insane. Pro life ideas are a recipe for murder.

        1. Saving someone for a second or two isn’t actually saving them, regardless of what you’re doing. It’s just watching them die for two seconds. In cases such as I pointed out, there’s literally nothing you or anyone can do. And I actually wasn’t talking about you in particular. I was talking about the people you claim are killing babies.

          And here’s the ultimate point, Russell: Letting someone die who is going to die no matter what you do to help them is not murdering them.

          That is true for most people. Because most people have differing beliefs as to when life actually starts. If you consider the idea that life starts at conception, then by your definition it is murder to not help the zygote form.

          I’ve already shown you quite clearly that most people who die, will die from medical conditions or violent harm from which there is no rescue. Even if I were willing to go with your theory that 30% of conceptions end in a viable birth, then I would contend that the number of people that can actually be saved on a regular basis by the people that CAN is hovering right around 30% itself.

          So then either path is right, for a person who cares and sees it as his duty to save people.

          1. “I’ve already shown you quite clearly that most people who die, will die from medical conditions or violent harm from which there is no rescue.”

            You have not proved such a thing. You have surmised that you cannot save them “forever” yet you can save many for an extended period of time and you can save many simply by changing their lifestyle. Unless you can prove that an improved lifestyle does not improve life span, your argument is fallacious.

            “Even if I were willing to go with your theory that 30% of conceptions end in a viable birth, then I would contend that the number of people that can actually be saved on a regular basis by the people that CAN is hovering right around 30% itself.”

            Every human life is dying. So all 7 billion can be saved for some period of time. Either by improved lifestyle or environment, or medical care. So your theory is false on its face. The people you claim are not capable of being saved now could possibly have had their life extended had the people that are pro life chose to save them via better health care, etc.

            “So then either path is right, for a person who cares and sees it as his duty to save people.”

            No, a society that murders its born to save its unborn is doomed to fail.

          2. “And here’s the ultimate point, Russell: Letting someone die who is going to die no matter what you do to help them is not murdering them.”

            All life dies, fetuses, babies, adults and everyone dies. All that matters is whom you consider to be worthy of being saved. I find born life to be important. You don’t. You want to let innocent babies die and save fetuses. That is your right, you can murder babies if you like and I can’t stop you. But I can and will report your murders to the public.

            “That is true for most people. Because most people have differing beliefs as to when life actually starts.”

            When human life starts is not based on opinion, it is based upon scientific fact. The fact is that until the DNA expresses the correct phenotype there is no human life. It is not open for debate.

            “If you consider the idea that life starts at conception, then by your definition it is murder to not help the zygote form.”

            Life does not start at conception, life starts when the correct phenotype is expressed at birth. —–“Life” as in living matter started 3.5 billion years ago and has been continuous.

          3. “Saving someone for a second or two isn’t actually saving them, regardless of what you’re doing.”

            Just before Einstein died he made a last statement. The person there did not understand what he said. If there had been a few more seconds, perhaps someone who understood German could have come into the room and discovered a profound statement. So a few seconds may or may not be important.

            ” It’s just watching them die for two seconds.”

            Or not.

            “In cases such as I pointed out, there’s literally nothing you or anyone can do.”

            Of course there is a reason to save life, if one considers life to be valuable. You consider the fetus to be more important than the baby, so the fetus is important and a few seconds for a baby is not important. Whereas the seconds may mean the world for the mother and family.

            “And I actually wasn’t talking about you in particular. I was talking about the people you claim are killing babies.”

            I am not claiming they are killing babies, I am reporting that they are killing babies. Scientifically they have a choice and choose to let babies die.

  34. “In many ways that is actually true. Many viable pregnancies are terminated by people every day. Pregnancies that may or may not have grown to term and become normal, worthwhile people (or you).”

    It is impossible to force one of those pregnancies to term without causing the death of a born person. If you figure out a way, then let me know.

    “You’re simply dealing in percentages to back your argument, but clearly those numbers do not actually back up your claims.”

    Percentages have no impact. All life dies— every life– all species– and that is the point. 100 percent fatality rate, all the time though out history.

    ” Many many people who feel this way and act accordingly would never be able to save a human life in any way, shape, or form.”

    If they want to save life, by all means save life. But right now they murder innocent babies in an attempt to save a zef that is not human until born.

    “They simply do not have the knowledge, drive, or physical capability to do so.:

    They simply choose to save fetuses and let babies die. A nation that kills it born to save its unborn cannot survive.

    “Ergo, my good retard, your argument is invalid.”

    Ad hominem fallacy, no value whatsoever.

    1. Here’s where I seem to have trouble convincing you. Lets see if I have the words.

      1) The World Health Organization clearly states the top ten most common causes of death in the world.
      2) These causes of death are things that cannot be helped. People will die of these condition no matter what anybody does. Ergo, these people are not worth attempting to save, under your own rules.
      3) Violent deaths are something that doctors and others who also claim to want to save lives cannot control. This is another form of death that should be ignored by them, because stopping it is impossible.
      4) This makes the number of lives able to be saved quite similar to the number of zygotes that need attention in order to survive.
      5) This means they are both equally valid.
      6) This means that saving a zygote is equally worth the time of people capable of saving wither one. The only matter is preference. And forcing preference is wrong, by your own words.

      And the great thing here is that there are numbers to back it up!

      If you’re right, and only 30% of pregnancies make it to birth, then that means nearly 12 million pregnancies happen each year just in the US!

      Compare that to the number of deaths that happen on average each year. And remember, less than 50% of those deaths are something that can actually be dealt with.

      Clearly, the pregnancies win. They deserve more attention.

      1. {The only matter is preference. And forcing preference is wrong, by your own words.}

        No, the only matter is choice. That is what we are discussing. You have a choice of which life to save and cannot save both. So your choice is all that matters. You must either elevate a potential life to a point it is equal to a baby or above. There is no other option that will meet your requirements.

        {And the great thing here is that there are numbers to back it up!}

        Your numbers are of no use, they do not change the fact that you are elevating a potential life over a born life.

        “If you’re right, and only 30% of pregnancies make it to birth, then that means nearly 12 million pregnancies happen each year just in the US!”

        And it means that those that are born become born babies that you can kill to save fetuses.

        “Compare that to the number of deaths that happen on average each year. And remember, less than 50% of those deaths are something that can actually be dealt with.”
        ——-

        Your arguments fail here:

        All 7 billion people are dying. A choice to save born life is a choice to extend life through better health, better environment and better health care. It is a choice to save only people dying in the instant of time you outline above.

        {Clearly, the pregnancies win. They deserve more attention.}

        Pregnancies that are wanted are important. But the most important thing is to not murder born life.

        1. Looking at the post as a whole, it is a straw man argument. The number of deaths, the cause of deaths or births, the impact of deaths or birth and the other information you have posted has absolutely no impact on the issue. All of those points are fine, and nice but are only operable after the “choice.” So a person’s choice is all that matters. What you are concerned about follows the choice in time.

          ——————————-
          “Here’s where I seem to have trouble convincing you. Lets see if I have the words.”

          There are no words that can overcome the fact that what you are posting is a straw man fallacy.

          (——1) The World Health Organization clearly states the top ten most common causes of death in the world.—-)

          All 7 billion people on earth are dying, they can all be saved. They are saved by humanitarian activities and better living conditions. Your whole list here is a straw man argument that is of no value at all.

          { 2) These causes of death are things that cannot be helped. People will die of these condition no matter what anybody does. Ergo, these people are not worth attempting to save, under your own rules.}

          Those causes of death are only a small amount compared to the 7 billion people needing to be saved.

      2. { 3) Violent deaths are something that doctors and others who also claim to want to save lives cannot control. This is another form of death that should be ignored by them, because stopping it is impossible.}

        The number of violent deaths is small compared to the 7 billion people that can be saved.

        {—–4) This makes the number of lives able to be saved quite similar to the number of zygotes that need attention in order to survive.
        5) This means they are both equally valid.—–}

        It has no impact at all.

        It means that you have made a choice to let babies die to save fetuses, elevating the fetus to the same status as a baby.

        { 6) This means that saving a zygote is equally worth the time of people capable of saving wither one.}

        The problem of course is that you must let a born baby die to save the fetus. So you are elevating the fetus above the born baby.

        1. Okay. I think I’m getting it.

          Babies = An actual* human of any age.

          Saved = Either the religious meaning (of whatever denomination you are) or the total elimination of suffering, sickness, disease, pain, and unhappiness.

          Zygote = The possibility, but not certainty, of a human being*.

          Killing = Making the choice not to dedicate all of your available resources to saving*.

          * = Your own definition, depending on what thread we’re reading.

          And I say that ^ because I’ve read quite a few of the posts you’ve made on your own website. And many of the assertions I’ve made regarding your thoughts on matters have been made in the understanding that you actually thought, felt, and believed the things you posted on your own website.

          1. “Okay. I think I’m getting it.

            Babies = An actual* human of any age.”

            No, you are taking it of context. You are a very confused person.

            “Saved = Either the religious meaning (of whatever denomination you are) or the total elimination of suffering, sickness, disease, pain, and unhappiness.”

            No, it is what I said it is. Before guessing you should read the real answer.

            “Zygote = The possibility, but not certainty, of a human being*.”

            Nope, it is a zygote. No certainty of being a human being at all.

            “Killing = Making the choice not to dedicate all of your available resources to saving*.”

            No, It is what I said it is.

            “* = Your own definition, depending on what thread we’re reading.”

            Everything is defined in the text, you out to read it some time.

            “And I say that ^ because I’ve read quite a few of the posts you’ve made on your own website. And many of the assertions I’ve made regarding your thoughts on matters have been made in the understanding that you actually thought, felt, and believed the things you posted on your own website.”

            You haven’t understood what you have read.

      3. Also. . .where the hell are you getting the idea that I support the anti-abortion crowd?

        I support freedom. I don’t LIKE abortion, but that is so far removed from forcing others to give birth that I can’t even find the connection you are making.

        I dislike abortion.

        I will never support laws or people that feel the need to take away our right to choose.

        Is that clear enough?

        Abortion: Dislike

        Choice: Like

        Freedom: Like

        1. “Also. . .where the hell are you getting the idea that I support the anti-abortion crowd?”

          You defend the murder of innocent babies.

          “I support freedom. I don’t LIKE abortion, but that is so far removed from forcing others to give birth that I can’t even find the connection you are making.”

          Your arguments, if applied, lead to the intentional murder of babies. You are pro forced birth.

          “I dislike abortion.”

          You are for the murder of babies. Your arguments do lead to the intentional killing of innocent life.

          “I will never support laws or people that feel the need to take away our right to choose.”

          Your arguments lead to the taking away of the rights of others.

          “Is that clear enough?”

          Your thoughts are twisted. On the one hand you support the pro life movement and the murdering of babies and on the other hand you claim to not want the right to choose to me enforced. You can’t have it both ways.
          Abortion: Dislike

          Choice: Like

          Freedom: Like

          1. You positively have to be trolling.

            There is no way you can mean the things you say.

            You just keep contradicting yourself, ignoring information, and repeating the same things over and over again without ever clarifying what they mean.

            If you really mean these things you’re saying, then you are deeply, severely disturbed. I mean that. There is an underlying mental condition here that is manifesting itself as this belief of yours.

            I said Aspergers up above as a joke, but I am related someone with severe Aspergers. I know what it is like, especially when he gets agitated and upset. You actually seem to fit a good portion of the criteria.

            What’s up, Russell? And I really want to know, no insults, no jokes. I mean it.

            1. Ad hominem fallacy. No answer required.

    2. Hey Russell Crawford Sir Dude Sir,
      While I share your opinion about the self-righteousness and waste-your-time-ness of most of the anti-choice crowd? In summary, they could spend their money and time saving born babies instead of zygotes? I do believe you are wasting most of your time arguing about it. People rarely change their minds about such things, based on arguments, no matter how factually-based or well-reasoned the arguments may be. I think our efforts are better spent trying, by hook or by crook (but not by coat-hanger), to preserve the rights of young women to have unfettered access to abortions, if they want one and can pay for it. Bible-bangers claim, if not in so many words, that only non-slutty women should have freedom, and slutty women (such as those who want an abortion), should not have freedom, religious or otherwise. We need to work on securing their religious freedoms, plain and simple! To see some worthy efforts along these lines, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/ ?

  35. I am sorry if I have missed any posts by anyone out there. It is my intent to answer all posts. However, this site has no way that I can track new postings. Therefore, if I miss your post, let me know where it is in on this site and I will respond.

  36. Russian——– I have deleted all your posts that contain ad hominem fallacies and other fallacies. You are welcome to repost without the fallacies if you wish. There are some other new posts and they will be warned about their ad hominem fallacies as well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.