It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: TheCounselor
a reply to: Gryphon66
You don't know me well enough to be so familiar and sarcastic with me- After all, behind this avatar, I very well may be a woman.
First of all, any "tone" that is singularly directed at "you" is in your mind; as you so aptly stated, I don't know "you" from Adam's old housecat. If you have personal comments to make, may I suggest U2U? That reduces in-topic clutter of this nature.
My response was keyed to emphasize and perhaps exaggerate the repulsiveness of the average male attitude toward the subject. The fact that I addressed it to you is completely incidental and situational. I won't make the mistake again since you seem to have a thin skin.
Secondly, what does your sex that have to do with anything? Is that germaine to the topic in some arcane way? Did you have a point of disagreement? or additional facts to add?
originally posted by: nenothtu
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone
So you admit that those pills you are begging for are toxic and you want everyone to pay for your toxic chemicals?
Yep. And we think that Chemo should be covered and all other medication that may have "side effects". As well, the religious righties can keep their paws off our sodas, candy, fast food french fries, cigarettes, booze and medical weed too!
"Religious righties"?
Look at your list again.
With the exception of medical marijuana, it's the heathen LEFTIES who are trying to ban all those things!
Really? This ruling was about women NOT having the right to birth control?
Nope. Not true. You're wrong.
originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Gryphon66
Fair enough.
Who's being treated in a prenatal surgery to repair spina bifida, the mother, the child, or both?
All Hobby Lobby employees still have the right to birth control.
Just not paid for by Hobby Lobby.
They want to abort their kid? They still can, but not paid for by their employer.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Libertygal
As I understand it, SCOTUS ruled that HL's belief that those methods of birth control violated their religious beliefs were all that matters. SCOTUS ruled on the right to hold a belief. Not on whether or not that belief is true or even valid.
Where my concerns lay is with how people, attorneys, in particular, take rulings like these, and 'read between the lines".
originally posted by: nenothtu
originally posted by: MsSmith
Please tell how how taking birth control or getting an abortion has any affect on any man anywhere. You could argue that it has an effect on the potential fetus, but since you aren't that fetus and that fetus's existence has no effect on you (outstde of paying child support if you happen to be the father), you still have no right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do to her own body on her own time. Ever.
It affects MEN's "reproductive rights", same as it does women's. It takes two to tango - virgin births are exceedingly rare. Aborting MY child affects MY reproductive rights, and would be an overall bad idea to boot. If it ISN'T my child, I could care less if you cook it and eat it after you've killed it. You can kill off your own kids at will, and THAT doesn't affect me.
Requiring a man to pay child support for a kid that only the woman has the power of life and death over is just plain wrong. Either give him all of his rights, or none of them, but don't go half-assed.
originally posted by: MsSmith
originally posted by: Dfairlite
originally posted by: MsSmith
originally posted by: Dfairlite
originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: thesaneone
I think it's solid to remind ourselves about freedom, and that we provide to women in the US - who yet again are being dictated to by insecure men.
I love this argument, the "if you aren't a woman you should have no say" argument. I guess doctors who haven't had AIDS or Cancer shouldn't have a say in their patients treatment. The argument smacks of stupidity. And again, women haven't been told anything by the US. In the US they can still purchase any contraceptives they want. In the US they can still get an abortion. But the fact that an employer can say "I'm not paying for that, it violates my beliefs" is somehow a negative reflection on the US? But it would be a positive reflection of the US if the government said "you have to do what we say, regardless of your beliefs"? You have some weird world views.
You really don't see the difference between a man telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body and an educated doctor treating a patient for cancer? Seriously??? LMAO!
To start, cancer and AIDS are both diseases. Despite what you may believe, being a woman is not. There's always a possibility anyone could develop a disease, but there's no possibility that a man will ever develop a uterus. Second, while a doctor can suggest treatments, he can't force you to undergo or not undergo any treatment you choose. You have the final say, not your doctor, which is true of almost anything else when it comes to a man's body. You can decide not to undergo chemo and use holistic medicine instead. Right now as we speak, women in this country can't undergo a procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because some man somewhere decided those women don'r have the right to make decisions about their own body.
No matter how hard you try, you cannot become a biological woman if you are born a man. So nothing a woman can or can't do to her body could EVER affect a man, including men who undergo gender reassignment, SO NO, MEN DO NOT GET A SAY IN ANY WOMEN ONLY ISSUES. Please tell how how taking birth control or getting an abortion has any affect on any man anywhere. You could argue that it has an effect on the potential fetus, but since you aren't that fetus and that fetus's existence has no effect on you (outstde of paying child support if you happen to be the father), you still have no right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do to her own body on her own time. Ever.
I don't see a difference between an educated man telling you what to do for cancer and an educated man telling you what to do for pregnancy. No, I don't see that difference. You want to pretend that being a woman is some unknowable phenomenon to anyone but a woman, when really it's not anymore unknowable than a doctor who has never had a disease. No womanhood is not a disease, I never implied that, if you thought I was then you misunderstood the point.
No man can force a woman to do or not do anything, to suggest otherwise is to be ignorant to the mindset of women. Unless you do what that guy in ohio did to those women he had locked in his basement. Then again, he was charged with five counts of murder for the unborn babies... oh wait... they're not people... so how does that work? Anyway, what the men and women in congress do (which are voted in by women, as well as men) is represent the interests of their constituents. NEWS FLASH: Most women oppose abortion (according to gallup) so by lumping all women into this group that is monolithic and supports abortion, again, shows your ignorance. Also, you must have missed the memo, you aren't allowed to have women's only issues, just like we aren't allowed to have men's only issues, clubs, etc.
And it's not an argument that it affects the unborn baby, it's a fact. It's the whole reason for the procedure. It's not even a procedure, it's murder. If your child (born) dies in their sleep, it's not murder but a tragedy, but if you go in with a saw and hack them all to pieces, it sure is murder. The same goes for your unborn children. Just because you deem them lower than human, doesn't make it so. Just like it didn't make slaves lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them. Just like it didn't make mormon's lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them.
There is no argument that because the mother is sustaining them while she's pregnant ... because that would make post-birth abortion OK (babies rely on their mothers sustenance, long after birth). There is no argument that the mother can't afford them, there's adoption. There's no argument that because they are "not viable"... because eventually they'll be able to grow them in a test tube, which will make your view now look as barbaric as the culling of children in Sparta.
If you don't want to get pregnant, there are numerous ways to prevent it, from drugs and devices, to surgeries and abstinence. There is no excuse for murder.
The difference between an educated man telling me what to do for cancer and an educated man telling me what to do for pregnancy is I STILL HAVE THE ULTIMATE CHOICE OVER ANY TREATMENT FOR THE CANCER IN MY OWN BODY. No doctor can force me to do any treatment or stop me from doing any treatment I choose. And no random man off the street has any influence whatsoever over any decisions I make.
And LOL @ every man everywhere with an opinion on what women should do with their own bodies being educated because no. If this was an issue of only doctors suggestion to women what they should do, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not. Men with no medical experience whatsoever are using personal and religious beliefs to MAKE LAWS telling women what they can do with their own bodies, not suggesting ideas for cancer treatments. Until I approach you or anyone else asking for your opinion, you are nothing comparable to a doctor helping me choose a treatment for cancer. And since you can't force me not to kill the cancer cells if I decide I want to, it's not even relatable. I can walk away from a doctor who thinks it's immoral to treat cancer cells in my uterus. I can't walk away from an idiot man who passed a law that says it's illegal to treat fetal cells in my uterus.
There are numerous ways to prevent pregnancy. Termination is one of them. Thankfully, morons like you have no control over what I do with my body where I live!
originally posted by: solomons path
originally posted by: Dfairlite
originally posted by: solomons path
Sweet . . . I love this decision.
As an atheist business owner, I will no longer be paying "holiday pay", closing up, or honoring "requested days off" for "Christmas".
Mandates be damned!!
Whoo-hoo!!
Many businesses are open on christmas, it's not mandated you close. Holiday pay is not mandated either (at least federally). Nor do you have to honor requests for any day off, just be prepared to lose employees by the drove.
I never claimed I was mandated to provide those things. Just that I will no longer be paying for those things that go against my personal beliefs. What's good for the gander and all . . .
My line about mandates was specifically about the court decision.
And I'm not worried about "losing employees by the droves" . . . I'm sure the can move to the nearest town that houses a HL and find work there. Or anywhere really, I hear work/jobs in the U.S. is/are at a surplus . . . I'm sure they won't have trouble finding one. I reside in a right to work state, so I don't have to wait for them to leave. All they have to do is "call-in sick" on Dec. 25th and I'll be happy to show them to the nearest DES office and turn them into the "gold diggers" they despise. Plus, I'm told there are "thousands of immigrants" coming to this country everyday, I'm sure they will be happy for the work.
I'm mean if the SCOTUS can rule it's okay for one corporate leader to be an @$$#*% based on their religious beliefs . . . why can't we all?