@SCOTUSblog
-
Some of us don't meet the med requirements and thus would not be able to do anything to gain a vote under that system. That could be considered acceptable losses, but it is something that you need to acknowledge when proposing things like that.
Well, like I said, it would preclude me as well. But willingness to serve the country in any capacity would make sense - as long as you are contributing to the country's well-being. I'm sure that positions within the military could be adjusted/created to oblige.
Filed Under:Awfully specific and pedantic about obvious hyperbole from the author, aren't we?
-
Filed Under:Awfully specific and pedantic about obvious hyperbole from the author, aren't we?
Sorry, I've had lots of arguments where people specifically didn't include the civil service options that existed in the books, so that is how I assumed it was going to go. My bad.
-
Wait - how often do you have this argument?
-
I wish I could have more Starship Troopers arguments.
-
Probing the brain bug was obviously a reference to the military promoting rape culture.
Discuss.
-
Moar Dizzy shower scenes!
-
Once or twice a year, for like a decade. It's more the only Starship Troopers (or Heinlein) argument I tend to see online that makes it seem common.
-
Here's a good summary of the media's distorted view of the topic:
News Media Distort Hobby Lobby Ruling
Since the left, and its avatar Barack Obama, lost the case before the before the Supreme Court that would have forced the owners of Hobby Lobby to violate their religious beliefs, the left’s fallback position has been to smear the owners of Hobby Lobby . . .
-
I'll just leave this here... Conception Does Not Begin At Ejaculation
-
I believe the idea behind not believing in the morning after pill has more to do with intent. If you use birth control, you intend to not make another life. The morning after pill is about regret... it's taken because it is known you might have created/will create life, and wish to stop it.
If a boyfriend was sneaking birth control into his girlfriend's food, would that be the same as sneaking a morning after pill into her breakfast?
-
the idea behind not believing in the morning after pill has more to do with intent
There are exceptions to the rule, namely that condoms can break. In that case, the morning after pill isn't about "regret", it's because the tool filling the intent failed, and it's a second chance to keep the intent.
-
Which is all well and good as a moral philosophy, but going around saying the morning after pill causes abortions is straight-up wrong. It works the same way pre-sex contraceptives work: by preventing implantation. There's nothing different about it. It's not an "abortifacient". It may be "immoral" according to a specific moral framework based on intentions and timing, but that's a different issue altogether.
-
But then you are still admitting you may have created life - and taking direct action to stop that life is the issue of belief here.
-
Which is all well and good as a moral philosophy, but going around saying the morning after pill causes abortions is straight-up wrong. It works the same way pre-sex contraceptives work: by preventing implantation. There's nothing different about it. It's not an "abortifacient". It may be "immoral" according to a specific moral framework based on intentions and timing, but that's a different issue altogether.
Sure, but if you're being forced to do something against your beliefs, and you have to argue it in court, unfortunately moral philosophy is not going to give you anything to stand on - by claiming it as something like 'abortifacient', you can tie it to previous legal decisions.
I'm not even saying I agree with Hobby Lobby in this matter, but that I agree with the SCOTUS ruling. Forcing them to offer this against their religious beliefs would be the same as forcing an atheist company to install prayer rooms in all its stores to accommodate their Christian employees.
-
And we're back to @Yamikuronue's link. Ejaculation is not the point of conception. Crazies can believe what they want, but science says otherwise.
The only real point I would consider the "morning after pill" as an attempt at abortion is if the couple intentionally does not use contraception with the intent to have a child, but then change their mind after sex and get and use the pill. That is the actual point of "regret", when you have an intent and then backed out.
Using the pill as a second chance when the first chance fails doesn't change the intent, which is "we're trying to not have a child".
Filed under: [All contraception can "fail"](#tag2), [does that mean all sex is a precursor to admitting you may create life?](#tag2)
-
All I'm saying is that the post I replied to, indicating that this case was "about abortion", was a blatant lie. The contraceptives being objected to do not cause abortions.
How is providing insurance that covers Plan B different than providing employees money that they are allowed to spend on Plan B? Hobby Lobby does not manufacture, sell, or hand out Plan B to their employees, customers, or anyone else. They are 100% uninvolved in the process of obtaining Plan B. They merely provide access to insurance provided by a third company which follows rules mandated by the government that provide the option to purchase Plan B. That's even less direct than providing money with which someone buys a gun and murders someone else. Should they not be required to pay their employees?
-
They [...] provide access to insurance [...] that provide[s] [...] Plan B.
That would really be the base of their concerns, that they are "forced" to provide access to something that goes against their beliefs. They object because they are "forced" to give that option by association, and to them, it is not any different than having to give that option themselves.
-
Using the pill as a second chance when the first chance fails doesn't change the intent, which is "we're trying to not have a child".
It does change though, from trying to eliminate the chance of pregnancy, to eliminating an actual possibility of pregnancy. It's a thin moral line, I concede, and not having been in the situation of trying to stop a pregnancy (my wife and I would love to have the possibility of getting pregnant, and always used protection when I knew I wasn't ready), I can't say I actually know how to feel about the morning after pill. But I do understand the objection to it, and feel that trying to deny that objection through government is very much against the first amendment.
does that mean all sex is a precursor to admitting you may create life?
Um, well yeah, that is the original natural point.
How is providing insurance that covers Plan B different than providing employees money that they are allowed to spend on Plan B?
Because if it is offered on the insurance plan, then the company is directly paying for/supporting it.
-
So by being forced to pay employees, they provide the option for employees to buy a gun and shoot someone, forcing them to provide access to murder.
Hobby Lobby pays [Insurance Company] who pays for plan B when requested by Employee.
Hobby Lobby pays Employee who pays for Gun when requested by Employee.Same exact chain of responsibilities.
-
But they're not paying for a plan to offer them free guns to murder with (and by the way, GUNS != MURDER).
The difference is the employees are choosing to buy the morning after pill, versus the company being forced to pay for the morning after pill. Pretty obvious distinction to me.
-
That's not a valid comparison. Firearms have many uses that don't involve murder, and in fact most firearms are never used for murder. Abortion pills, however, only have one use, and that's to kill a fetus. You can pretty accurately guess what someone will use an abortion pill for when they buy one.
-
Um, well yeah, that is the original natural point.
In which case, why not lump all contraception in as "regret"? Besides:from trying to eliminate the chance of pregnancy, to eliminating an actual possibility of pregnancy
No, with or without the pill, it is always "the chance of pregnancy", whether or not other contraception is used.not having been in the situation of trying to stop a pregnancy
If I want to go pedantic dickweed, all contraception is "trying to stop pregnancy", not just the pill. I know what you meant, though.I do understand the objection to it
I do too, but I also know that a lot of the objection to it is because people are uninformed as to what the pill really is.
Filed under: [Now I remember why I don't like jumping into topics like this, really kills my productivity.](#tag2)
-
Abortion coverage is not mandated by the ACA and is, in fact, illegal in most states.
We're talking about contraceptive coverage.
-
How is providing insurance that covers Plan B different than providing employees money that they are allowed to spend on Plan B?
Not at all. So what's the fucking big deal? You can still spend your money on contraceptives, abortion pills, not really abortion pills, guns, hookers, and blow. The only difference is that your company supplies you with money, instead of those things themselves.
and in fact most firearms are never used for murder.
And most big-ass swords are not used for murder anymore either, which doesn't change the fact that they weren't exactly made for slicing bread. Also, I fail to see an actual use for a firearm that doesn't involve firing it at someone. Training doesn't count, since it's not really useful.
and that's to kill a fetus
Careful with that word.
-
And most big-ass swords are not used for murder anymore either, which doesn't change the fact that they weren't exactly made for slicing bread. Also, I fail to see an actual use for a firearm that doesn't involve firing it at someone. Training doesn't count, since it's not really useful.
Well crap, the several dozen firearms owned by me and my family and friends have never been fired at a person before. I guess we're Doing It Wrong™.
-
Well crap, the several dozen firearms owned by me and my family and friends have never been fired at a person before. I guess we're Doing It Wrong™.
Okay. So what's the use you have for them?
-
I fail to see an actual use for a firearm that doesn't involve firing it at someone.
Hunting.
Filed under: [Animals aren't "someone"](#tag2), [at least, not to everyone](#tag2)
-
Okay. So what's the use you have for them?
Mostly plinking. Go out to some friends' out-of-town land and shoot cans, pumpkins, targets, etc. Lots of fun and it's a legitimate use that doesn't involve firing at a person. Also hunting, but really I only fire 1 - 2 shots a year when actually deer hunting. You don't have time to miss when you're using a bolt-action.
And there's always self-defense. I've never had to use a firearm in self-defense, but it's a good insurance policy. Until I moved to my current state, I had a concealed carry permit and had a 9mm with me almost all the time. That 9mm has never been fired at a person either, despite having been shot several thousand times since I bought it.
-
to kill a fetus
It isn't a fetus when implantation occurs, which is what the pill makes less likely to occur.
-
Okay, so we have hunting (which most firearms are pretty unsuitable for, and it still involves killing), shooting cans (which is not particularily useful, even though a lot of fun, and is once again not the primary purpose of firearms' existence), and self-defence (which does, in fact, involve pointing a gun at a person and at least threatening to shoot).
I don't really oppose owning firearms (I'm kind of "my home is my castle" kind of person), but these things are, in fact, made to kill. Claiming otherwise is BS.
-
I don't really oppose owning firearms (I'm kind of "my home is my castle" kind of person), but these things are, in fact, made to kill. Claiming otherwise is BS.
Even if they are made to kill, the truth is most are not used to kill. Call it "emergent gameplay" or something, but plinking is good, safe entertainment that builds hand-eye coordination and gets us off the couch and outside away from the Xbox.
Fun fact: nitroglycerin was originally made to kill, but now it's used as heart medicine! The intention behind the invention is not necessarily related to actual uses.
-
Some people I know are in the firmly adamant category that since guns were designed to kill, we should destroy them all and that will stop so much gun crime.
These people do not appreciate being told, however, about all the other crime that used to happen before guns were a thing, or indeed about all the other kinds of crime that will happen if guns went away.
-
I'll just leave this here... Conception Does Not Begin At Ejaculation
Because there aren't enough straw men floating around already?
-
It works the same way pre-sex contraceptives work: by preventing implantation.
Don't most versions of "the pill" prevent ovulation?
-
Also, I fail to see an actual use for a firearm that doesn't involve firing it at someone.
You have an extremely weak imagination then, or you're just not trying. Not all intentional deaths from firearms are murder.
-
Not all intentional deaths from firearms are murder.
Either that, or preventing a murder. War is kind of a shady area, but I'm not really going to argue for next billion posts about the definition of the word as it applies to the battlefield.
Filed under: i have already earned my pedantic dickweed badge at least twice
-
good summary of the media's distorted view of the topic
That's a "good" summary?
Abortion is a form of birth control. Just because you'd prefer the word abortion is used to bias everyone towards your own opinion doesn't make the headlines "bald-faced lies".
-
Also - I see boomzilla brought both the lefties and the righties to this party... and even some moderates!
Now I can make fun of everyone. :D
-
Now for making fun of the left... comparing miscarriages to the pills that hobby lobby doesn't want to cover?!
When hobby lobby starts paying for providing miscarriages in their health plan, they probably should start covering the pills too.
-
Abortion is a subset of birth control, so saying the case was about birth control when it was actually about a much smaller subset, is inaccurate. It would be like an (hypothetical) article talking about a case that bans driving when the case is really about keeping NASCAR cars off the road. Or banning programming languages when really only PHP is being abolished.
-
And even then, the case was only about some form of birth control because it violated the religious practices which were protected by a previous statute (RFRA).
Is it the Court's (or Hobby Lobby's) problem that Congress and HHS can't keep their shit together?
Filed Under: The answer is No
-
And some of us aren't even in America and just laugh at all the politics anyway.
-
The difference is the employees are choosing to buy the morning after pill, versus the company being forced to pay for the morning after pill. Pretty obvious distinction to me.
That's incorrect. The employee doesn't pay for the pill. The government does.
-
-
That's incorrect. The employee doesn't pay for the pill. The
governmenttaxpayers does.FTFY.
-
Should I not be surprised that so many software guys are conservative?
-
That's incorrect. The employee doesn't pay for the pill. The government taxpayers does.
Money doesn't grow on trees in DC?
-
Money doesn't grow on trees in DC?
Actually, it falls from helicopters.
Filed Under: Earning my douchebag badge
-
-
Some people I know are in the firmly adamant category that since guns were designed to kill, we should destroy them all and that will stop so much gun crime.
These people do not appreciate being told, however, about all the other crime that used to happen before guns were a thing, or indeed about all the other kinds of crime that will happen if guns went away.
But think of the children.
It doesn't matter that we live in the most peaceful era of humanity ever.
