Well done to the Supreme Court.

[Elok]

Ah so it happens (a lot) naturally in nature, but it's completely immoral because.. 'god says so'?

If you want to get into a broader theodicy debate, I refuse. But if your argument is that X happens naturally, therefore X is morally permissible (from your notion of my POV, anyway), I can't restrain my .

[-Jrabbit]

Corporation = corpus = body of believers.

No.

[DinoDoc]

No.

In his defense, the point he was responding to was quite stupid as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

I still enjoy the irony of a single male fighting for marriage and against abortion.

Uh, I want to get married, NES.

[Ben Kenobi]

No.

Incorporeal, "without body", corpus, corporation. Same root.

[Ben Kenobi]

The notion that a legal construct whose main aim is to create a legal divorce in terms of liability between an owner and an enterprise should have the same rights as a actual material human being (ie. a human being who exists regardless of the legal system) is one of those wonderful abstractions that show how utter idiocy can be disguised as some form of wisdom.

Employers have rights too, gepap.

[MrFun]

Are you an idiot? The point here regardless of your stupid rants is that the government under its own rules lacked the authority to force the company's owners to violate their beliefs in this instance.

You'd think with all the moaning and groaning by Hobby Lobby's owners about being forced to "violate" their "religious beliefs" by the government that they would take the initiative in other areas, to do business in accordance with their "religious beliefs" and "values."

[DinoDoc]

You'd think with all the moaning and groaning by Hobby Lobby's owners about being forced to "violate" their "religious beliefs" by the government that they would take the initiative in other areas, to do business in accordance with their "religious beliefs" and "values."

You don't care in the slightest about that issue, MrFun. That's why its pointless to discuss it with you. You'd still be whining about the decision even if they didn't do business with China or whatever of the other picayune issue you pretend to care about.

[-Jrabbit]

In his defense, the point he was responding to was quite stupid as well.

It was a throwaway. Touché.

[Berzerker]

I'm not impressed when the court protects a corporation, lets see them protect religious drug use. Until then they're just hypocrites.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seriously, Berz? It's like you just read talking points and don't any research for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal

Unanimous, FWIW.

[kentonio]

Honestly, this crap makes my eyes glaze over, but maybe this is relevant too. Basically, she says HL is part of a plan shared with multiple other employers, and has no power to direct how the money is spent. They could switch over to another plan, but she also notes that about $300k, total, is getting invested in IUDs and Plan B. If they switched over to the "ethical" plan anyway (she claims), they would be getting a grossly suboptimal return on their employees' investments, and (if I'm reading her correctly) expose themselves to legal liability on that count. I don't really understand this stuff at all, so take this with a grain of salt.

Ah, so they aren't willing to risk going to the supreme court to defend their right to invest 'ethically', but they can do it here?

If you want to get into a broader theodicy debate, I refuse. But if your argument is that X happens naturally, therefore X is morally permissible (from your notion of my POV, anyway), I can't restrain my .

Someone brought up god. If god is anything more than a fairy tale, then god is responsible for things that happen 'naturally'. If religious people want to take the line of reasoning that says 'Only god gets to decide which children are aborted' then that's consistent at least. Pretending a god would have to be totally anti-abortion though is nonsensical.

[Elok]

If we're talking about abortion as a human-initiated action, the two lines of reasoning are identical. Also, who's "someone"? Don't feel like digging, but I'm guessing it was BK.

[kentonio]

If we're talking about abortion as a human-initiated action, the two lines of reasoning are identical.

If you narrowly define terms then it is indeed usually easier to defend a point.

Also, who's "someone"? Don't feel like digging, but I'm guessing it was BK.

****ed if I can remember, possibly.

[Elok]

I'm not sure what you're going for here, honestly. I will concede that God does not hold us morally culpable for naturally-occurring miscarriages, if that's it.