Text 13753, 554 rader
Skriven 2014-04-02 11:25:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BILL MCGARRITY
Ärende: Re: Aganist Abortion
============================
On 04-01-14, BILL MCGARRITY said to TIM RICHARDSON:

-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to BILL MCGARRITY <=-


BM>On another point that is probably dear to your convictions.... how do you
BM>feel about the Hobby Lobby suit if you freely gave out birth control
BM>pills, some to, according to your words, mentally handicapped who may have
BM>or may not have known exactly what was being given to them.


TR> Hobby Lobby is a business that has nothing whatever to do with caring
TR> for the mentally handicapped, who are not mentally able to make
TR> informed, sensible decisions for themselves.


BM>Never said it did.  I asked you what do you think of the suit that Hobby
BM>Lobby has against supplying birth control being you actively participated
BM>in distribution of such.


You maybe mis-understand. As far as I know, it is the Catholic Church who is
against birth control methods.


In any case, there are two things Hobby Lobby is fighting here;


Christians of all stripes are strongly against pre-marital or extra-marital
sexual activity.


Not every woman who works for Hobby Lobby is a married woman.


So....being made to pay for pregnacy preventives involves Hobby Lobby in
foreknowledge of the pre-marital or extra-marital sexual activity of their
employees. Hobby Lobby (rightfully) doesn't want to get involved in their
employees lives on that level.


Secondly...I call your attention to the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. It clearly says that Congress shall make no laws respecting the
establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


AGAIN! Either the Constitution means what it says and ALL of us are bound by
it....or it doesn't!

We either have freedom of religion in this country, or we don't! You can't
have it both ways.


TR> The people who work at Hobby Lobby are (get ready, folks) WORKING for a
TR> living, earning their OWN money, and making their OWN informed
TR> decisions.


BM>I have no problem with them working for a living and I commend them.  And
BM>what if their "informed" decision was they felt Hobby Lobby, as a
BM>corporation, should offer perscription birth control?


By the same reasoning, what if Hobby Lobby's "informed" decision was they
didn't want to? And what if Hobby Lobby's "informed" decision is that, there
are so many easily-affordable birth control medications out there, they pay
their employees more than enough to be able to buy their birth control
medications themselves?


TR> Those who are mentally handicapped usually can't even make the decision
TR> to change their SOCKS once a day, without a staff member on their group
TR> home telling them to!


BM>So you were, in theory, possibly giving abortions to each one of those
BM>women without their concent being they were undable to make a decision.


BM>I understand it was through a physician's orders but according to your well
BM>stated morals, it would be against your Chrisitan beliefs.. n'est pas??


You are getting confused in your desperate effort to play`gotcha'!


First of all...not even my Christian family members or Christian friends would
call me `a Christian'.


In the family and social circles I am part of, I'm known as a sort of heathen;
I drink alchoholic beverages...I like to puff on cigars or one of my pipes...
and except for a few weddings or memorial services, I haven't really been IN a
church since my wife died about 12 years ago.


So trying to rub that `you're a Christian BUT....' macro in my face is wasted
effort.


Secondly...you are attempting to lay some sort of `guilt' trip on me with your
little `aha! birth control pills equal abortions....so YOU perform abortions!'


Pretty well everyone knows that birth control pills, taken daily under a
physicians supervision, is NOT an abortion. It is a `pregnancy-preventive'!


TR> There are other methods of controlling pregnancy among the mentally
TR> handicapped, without issuing birth control pills.


BM>Then why wasn't that method used?


Well...other than segregation of the sexes in seperate group homes (which the
democrat-controlled state licensing board outlawed many years ago), the other
methods were used by the Nazis. Like...compulsory sterilization for the males,
historectomies for the females...and simply death for any baby born that is
going to be mentally or physically unable to be `normal'.


TR> By the way...the mentally handicapped who live in group homes get much
TR> better medical care than you or I do. An entire medical staff comes to
TR> one of the group homes my employer's sister operates and a large number
TR> of her clients who live in one of the twenty group homes she owns and
TR> operates, are brought there and recieve examinations, and regular care.


BM>I understand that but that isn't the question at hand.


Part of that care includes effective birth control methods....so it IS `the
question'.


TR> The females of child-bearing age are prescribed birth control pills,
TR> either by that group of physicians, or in the case of the clients'
TR> family having their OWN physicians (its not rare), the prescription
TR> comes from them.


BM>But again, against your beliefs with regard to abortion, you issued each
BM>one of the female patients a pill that could possibly cause an abortion by
BM>restricting a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus.


Using a birth control method to  `restricting a fertilized egg from attaching
itself to the uterus' is NOT an abortion.


Again...you are trying to play `gotcha'! You're only making yourself look
silly.


TR> As for Hobby Lobby....remember Sandra Fluke?


TR> She got up in front of a Congressional committee, ON camera, in front
TR> of the whole nation, and made the ridiculous claim that her `birth
TR> control costs over $3000 per year'!


BM>How do you know what it costs her?


She *stated* it costs her over $3000 per year! She *stated* that to a
Congressional committee...ON-camera...in front of the whole country!


BM>Maybe she has a condition that
BM>requires her to take larger doses that what's normally perscribed by a
BM>doctor for birth control alone.


Nope! No such thing! She was in the hands of Diane Feinstein, who `trotted'
her out during the `Obamacare' debates. And if ...IF such a condition existed,
she'd have said so. She DIDN'T!


BM>My daughter happens to be one of those
BM>who need to be perscribed a higher dose... it's "medically" required.  And
BM>what if the drugs she needs to take is a $10/day pill?


Your daughter is one person.


And if she has to pay that much for one pill to prevent pregnancy...maybe the
best solution is to NOT engage in sexual relations!


You also didn't say if she's married or single. And besides...a pill that
costs $10\day that is "..."medically" required..." wouldn't be a `birth
control' pill; because nobody in the world that I ever heard of can possibly
get pregnant if they aren't engaging in sexual relations with a member of the
opposite sex, short of artificial insemination; which would completely negate
your entire argument!


BM>Do the math Dr. Tim.


*YOU* do the math, *Dr.* Bill!


TR> THEN.....got pissed off when a well-known talk radio show host called
TR> her a slut!


BM>Would you not get pissed off is someone called you an idiot? Same chruch..
BM>different pew.


She (nor any OTHer leftist *idiot*) had any right to protest what Limbaugh
said, since she pretty much came out on-camera, to a Congressional committee,
and freely admitted that her sex life reads like the sexual exploits of an
alley cat!


The only mistake Limbaugh made was apologizing! *I* wouldn't have.


TR> She's a single woman. What she `does' with her body is `her' business.


TR> But...lets look at her `over $3000 per year claim a little:


BM>BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I already discussed this above regarding prices. Costs
BM>are dependent on the perscribed dosage...


No, you HAVEN'T `discussed this' above, or anywhere else.


And the list of *affordable* birth control pills you pass off with a *BLAH
BLAH BLAH! Thats not `discussion', thats dismissal!


You can't get around the facts....so you try to dismiss them out of hand,
pretend they don't exist!


You cited ONE instance (your daughter) whom you CLAIM has to pay $10\pill. How
convenient! Thats about $3250 per year for birth control.


Unfortunately, Diane Feinstein didn't know about your daughter. Amazing you
didn't contact Feinstein's office at the time.


TR> So...the price variance reflects WHERE you shop for what you want.


TR> Now...lets get back to Sandra Fluke and her `over $3000 per year for
TR> birth control' claim;


TR> Look at all those birth control prices above.


TR> Do the math.


TR> NONE of those individual items add up to the `over $3000 per year' she
TR> claimed!


BM>Again, are you her physician and know this for certain or are you just
BM>blowing smoke up your ass...


Another favorite tactic of yours; you can't put up any FACTS, so you
attack with insults. you try to silence me with put-downs and
disparaging remarks and characterizations.


You're almost as predictable in an exchange on the abortion issues as you were
on the subject of the Sodomites in another echo.


TR> In other words...she LIED to a Congressional committee! Of
TR> course,,,she's a student at LIAR's (law) school!


BM>Again, you know that for a fact?  If not, I'm sure Ms. Fluke would be
BM>interested in a libel suit against you.


Bring it on, Mz. Fluke! Bring it on! In fact...why don't *you*
contact her and give her the particulars...sort of get her started? She might
even give you a share of the settlement!


All she has to do is produce proof of this outlay for birth control pills she
claims she pays every year. She didn't produce any at the committee hearing,
nobody thought to ask her for any, and the democrats just passed over it and
went on with the show!


TR> But...the main point is...the entire argument the democrats presented
TR> (using HER to press their point) is based on a HUGE LIE!


BM>Read above.... you're stepping into libel area... :)


*YOU* read above....she produced no credible PROOF that what she claimed was
true.


TR> And its been my experience that, when legislation is, or HAS to be,
TR> based on lies to get it passed into law...its not good for anyone, and
TR> almost always turns out bad.


BM>Mmmm..... Iraq comes to mind...


This about Hobby Lobby being forced to participate in something they shouldn't
even be involved in.


TR> Now lets address Hobby Lobby and its situation regarding this;


TR> A huge question arises right off the bat:


TR> *Sex* is not an activity engaged in at work! *Sex* is an activity
TR> engaged in on someone's own time, in a setting that has nothing
TR> whatever to do with the work place.


BM>Says who?  I know for a fact many women at the Bunny Ranch depend on sex
BM>at work to make a living. BTW, it is legal so it's considered "work".


We aren't discussing whore houses, here. We're discussing an employer who
works in the `hobby' supplies and crafts business, who has no connection
whatever with the `sex' industry.


TR> So....what makes the democrat leftists and their cadre come up with the
TR> notion that Hobby Lobby, or any other employer for that matter, becomes
TR> responsible for supplying pregnancy preventives, at the employer's
TR> expense?


BM>Then why would Hobby Lobby be responsible to offer Viagra to you?


They don't. I don't use Viagra. And I have an HMO that *I* pay for, which pays
a co-pay for medications I buy. *I'm* paying for my OWN insurance. And *I* pay
my share for medications. I don't expect either my employer OR my HMO to buy
condoms for me.


TR> And...Hobby Lobby is an outfit that is owned and operated by solidly
TR> believing Christians. By their Christian beliefs, abortion in all its
TR> forms is against what they practice as their religion.


BM>And if they were owned by Muslims you'd be the first in line bashing then
BM>for NOT offering it.


If it were owned by Muslims I wouldn't care. And thats an example you
shouldn't have used. Muslims treat their women like property, almost slaves.


TR> And believe this: IF this were about Islamic women dressing from head
TR> to toe, or sending Islamic girls to public schools wearing that
TR> headdress I see a lot of Islamic school girls made to wear by their
TR> Islamic parents....we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first
TR> place!


BM>So if you feel that way I would suspect you'd have issue with a Catholic
BM>priest wearing vestments to a formal dinner?  The Pope walking around St.
BM>Peter's Square dressed in white. Not very Christian of you Tim.


They are doing so because they CHOOSE to do so. Islamic women and girls do so
because they are MADE to! Nobody MAKES a priest or nun wear a `habit'.


TR> OR...if it was about Jewish children wearing Yarmulks to school (and
TR> where I grew up a LOT of the Jewish children wore Yarmulks to class),
TR> we would ALso not be having this conversation.


TR> The democrats and their cadre are determined to obliterate Christianity
TR> and all its beliefs and teachings, in every way they can.


BM>In just the same manner you're trying to obliterate other reliegions?


*I* amd not doing any such thing.


TR> But it boils down to this;


TR> I quote in part from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the
TR> United States:


TR> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
TR> prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*


BM>Congress has never made or passed a law stating a specific religion is the
BM>law of the land.  That is what you, the GOP and the rest of the Tea Party
BM>want.


BM>And as stated, ALL citizens have the right to practice their chosen
BM>faith, something you, the GOP and the Tea Party want to abolish.


That is false. BUT! Either the Hobby Lobby is covered by that Constitution or
it isn't. If it isn't, then neither is anyone else in the country.


BM>You
BM>already had this discussion with Earl with regard to a company offering
BM>services to the public. Just as you stated above, sex shouldn't belong in
BM>the workplace, someone's religious beliefs shouldn't either.


Someone who owns and operates a business has the right to run that business on
their personal principles and beliefs within the law.


If it were me...they would not get birth control paid for by me. They'd pay
for their own or go work somewhere else.


And it has NOTHING to do with what I do or do NOT believe about abortion. It
has to do with my paying them a salary, and they can buy their OWN birth
control.


BM>No religion tops the other, no matter how much you want it.


You are trying to create a strawman here. And I've set your strawman afire
several times.


By the way...the discussion I had with Earl had nothing to do with abortion.


And you are also trying to goad me into a `food fight' over abortion. I won't
play along with that, either.


TR> Thats pretty plain and un-ambiguous. Pay attention to the `...or
TR> prohibiting the free exercise thereof' part. See that right there?


BM>I saw it and remarked about it....


You did? Where?


TR> That, like the entire document...means exactly what it say. Congress
TR> cannot make any law that prohibits the free exercise of a religion.


TR> Christianity is a `religion'. And HAS been for two thousand years! Its
TR> older than Islam by about 600 years!


BM>And Buddhism has been around since the 6th century BC.  So I guess by your
BM>logic, Buddhism trumps CHristianity due to the length it's been practiced.
BM>There's actually a theory that CHrist travelled to India as to study with
BM>the Buddhists and Hindus before he started his ministry in Galilee.  Tell
BM>me, what was he doing for that 20 years between the Temple and the wedding
BM>at Cana?


Why don't you ask the Pope?


TR> And before you throw the age of Jewry at me...allow me to
TR> point out that Christianity was established by a JEW...with the help
TR> of His JEWISH followers!


BM>Read above....


Read below that.


TR> The bottom line in all this is simple:


TR> Either the Constitution means what it says...or it doesn't!


BM>The Constitution is for EVERYONE time.. not just your bigoted views.


Ah....the `bigot' strawman! Well.....your boy Hussein Obama seems to think he
can just ignore it. And all his minions follow his lead.


TR> We either have `freedom of religion' in this country...or we don't!


BM>And you agree a Muslim woman has the right to wear a Hijab as an
BM>expression of their religion?


They can do anything they want. As long as they don't try to impose THEIR
religious laws on me.


BM>Didn't think so.... afterall, Islam is only 1400 years old.


Another one of your strawmen. Already set afire.


TR> If this decision makes Hobby Lobby go against its
TR> religious standards and principles, then the Constitution is dead!


BM>The Constitution is dead if they allow Hobby Lobby to get away with their
BM>insanity.


BM>I for one do not want to live in the Christian state as you perscribe the
BM>US should be.  Your views are in direct violation of the First Amendment
BM>if you'd stop and think about it.  Think, now there is an oxymoron...


If you do not wish to live as a Christian...that is your choice. However...
you cannot insist that *Christians* must go for the `hajib' and an Islamic
female's `right to wear it'...and yet a *Christian* is not allowed to follow
THEIR religious principles as well.




---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)