Text 13769, 685 rader
Skriven 2014-04-02 16:55:00 av Bill McGarrity (6103.2fidonews)
Kommentar till text 13753 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: Aganist Abortion
============================
-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to BILL MCGARRITY <=-
TR> @MSGID: <533C5AA3.6087.2fidonews@tequilamockingbirdonline.net>
TR> @TZ: 40f0
TR> 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.
TR> You maybe mis-understand. As far as I know, it is the Catholic Church
TR> who is against birth control methods.
And the owners of Hobby Lobby as well...
TR> In any case, there are two things Hobby Lobby is fighting here;
TR> Christians of all stripes are strongly against pre-marital or
TR> extra-marital sexual activity.
TR> Not every woman who works for Hobby Lobby is a married woman.
TR> So....being made to pay for pregnacy preventives involves Hobby Lobby
TR> in foreknowledge of the pre-marital or extra-marital sexual activity of
TR> their employees. Hobby Lobby (rightfully) doesn't want to get involved
TR> in their employees lives on that level.
So what you're saying is that married couples who are employed by Hobby Lobby
should be covered and offered birth control being they are married and only
having sex within the confines of that marriage. Again, another scenario which
you fail to understand or have closed you eyes to the fact that SOME women need
to take birth control pills for reasons other than preventing a child. Also
you previously stated that *SEX* has no reason to be in the workplace, so why
make that statement? Please get your stories straight Tim...
TR> Secondly...I call your attention to the First Amendment of the United
TR> States Constitution. It clearly says that Congress shall make no laws
TR> respecting the establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free
TR> exercise thereof.
TR> AGAIN! Either the Constitution means what it says and ALL of us are
TR> bound by it....or it doesn't!
TR> We either have freedom of religion in this country, or we don't! You
TR> 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?
TR> By the same reasoning, what if Hobby Lobby's "informed" decision was
TR> they didn't want to? And what if Hobby Lobby's "informed" decision is
TR> that, there are so many easily-affordable birth control medications out
TR> there, they pay their employees more than enough to be able to buy
TR> their birth control medications themselves?
Maybe because when it comes to healthcare, Hobby Lobby has no say in the
matter. Just as you presuming all birth control is perscribed just for the
prevention of a birth.
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??
TR> You are getting confused in your desperate effort to play`gotcha'!
LOL... I'm not confused.... being you're against abortion, which is the basis
on Hobby Lobby's suit under the protection of religious beliefs, you should be
taking that stand when it comes to your actions on giving women who, according
to your words, don't have the mental capability of making an informed decision
and administering them birth control where one of the ways it prevents
pregnancy is by making the walls of the uterus inhospitable for a "FERTILIZED"
egg. In other words you're part of an abortion. The truth can't be changed
Tim no matter how much spin you put on it.
TR> First of all...not even my Christian family members or Christian
TR> friends would call me `a Christian'.
Doesn't matter, by your actions, you've taken part in possible abortions.
TR> In the family and social circles I am part of, I'm known as a sort of
TR> heathen; I drink alchoholic beverages...I like to puff on cigars or one
TR> of my pipes... and except for a few weddings or memorial services, I
TR> haven't really been IN a church since my wife died about 12 years ago.
Going to a church doesn't necessarily constitute a Christian. I can pray to
God in the middleof a corn field just as well as I can in a building.
TR> So trying to rub that `you're a Christian BUT....' macro in my face is
TR> wasted effort.
Hey, walks like a duck and quacks like one....
TR> Secondly...you are attempting to lay some sort of `guilt' trip on me
TR> with your little `aha! birth control pills equal abortions....so YOU
TR> perform abortions!'
You were part of the practice of adminsitering birth control pills. So now
you're saying your alter-ego was wlking from room to room?
TR> Pretty well everyone knows that birth control pills, taken daily under
TR> a physicians supervision, is NOT an abortion. It is a
TR> `pregnancy-preventive'!
Tim, read my lips, one of the ways it prevents pregnancy is by making the walls
of the uterus inhospitable for a "FERTILIZED" egg to adhere therfore, you're
terminating a baby.
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?
TR> Well...other than segregation of the sexes in seperate group homes
TR> (which the democrat-controlled state licensing board outlawed many
TR> years ago), the other methods were used by the Nazis. Like...compulsory
TR> sterilization for the males, historectomies for the females...and
TR> simply death for any baby born that is going to be mentally or
TR> physically unable to be `normal'.
Condoms for the men weren't discussed? Maybe you could have helped the men put
them on... afterall, you were administering the pills to the women.
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.
TR> Part of that care includes effective birth control methods....so it IS
TR> `the question'.
True, but again, if you're against abortion and it's a proven fact that birth
control pills can and does help in the termination of a fertilized egg from
going term, why didn't you protest?
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.
TR> Using a birth control method to `restricting a fertilized egg from
TR> attaching itself to the uterus' is NOT an abortion.
Oh? So when, in your mind does a fertilized egg become a life? Careful here Tim
because you're about to give an opinion and rememeber, opinions are like
assholes, everyone got one of those too....
TR> Again...you are trying to play `gotcha'! You're only making yourself
TR> look silly.
Oh I doubt that... you've got that base all covered my friend... and there's no
more room in that "silly parade" when you're participating.
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?
TR> She *stated* it costs her over $3000 per year! She *stated* that to a
TR> 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.
TR> Nope! No such thing! She was in the hands of Diane Feinstein, who
TR> `trotted' her out during the `Obamacare' debates. And if ...IF such a
TR> condition existed, she'd have said so. She DIDN'T!
Oh, so you require everyone to admit physical conditions which require them to
take a perscribed drug even if it's not intended for the actual usage the
pharmaceutical companies have distributed it for?
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?
TR> Your daughter is one person.
True, but I'm sure there are many out there with the same condition, or are you
clairvoyant as well? Did you talk to Namcy Reagan for Ron??
TR> And if she has to pay that much for one pill to prevent
TR> pregnancy...maybe the best solution is to NOT engage in sexual
TR> relations!
Hey Tim, it wasn't perscribed for JUST sexual relations. Do you comprehend
what is written to you or do you live in a tunnel?
TR> You also didn't say if she's married or single. And besides...a pill
TR> that costs $10\day that is "..."medically" required..." wouldn't be a
TR> `birth control' pill; because nobody in the world that I ever heard of
TR> can possibly get pregnant if they aren't engaging in sexual relations
TR> with a member of the opposite sex, short of artificial insemination;
TR> which would completely negate your entire argument!
You truly are a disaster when it comes to comprehension of medical issues.
Forget that a birth control pill is used for preventing pregnancy... they're
also used for other medical conditions and are perscribed by physicians as
such. Is that SO hard for you to understand?
BM>Do the math Dr. Tim.
TR> *YOU* do the math, *Dr.* Bill!
I have and I've taken all the possibilities under how the drug is administered.
You're just looking at the pregnancy part.
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.
TR> She (nor any OTHer leftist *idiot*) had any right to protest what
TR> Limbaugh said, since she pretty much came out on-camera, to a
TR> Congressional committee, and freely admitted that her sex life reads
TR> like the sexual exploits of an alley cat!
Oh, and you're her judge? Does your middle name start with G.. as in God?
TR> The only mistake Limbaugh made was apologizing! *I* wouldn't have.
We all know that....
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...
TR> No, you HAVEN'T `discussed this' above, or anywhere else.
TR> And the list of *affordable* birth control pills you pass off with a
TR> *BLAH BLAH BLAH! Thats not `discussion', thats dismissal!
Anything you say can be dismissed as nonsense... why I'm even wasting my time
here answering you is beyond me but I guess I'm being Christian like and trying
to guide you to a place of non-judgemental behavior... you know, that Golden
Rule thing. You seem to have issues with that.
TR> You can't get around the facts....so you try to dismiss them out of
TR> hand, pretend they don't exist!
TR> You cited ONE instance (your daughter) whom you CLAIM has to pay
TR> $10\pill. How convenient! Thats about $3250 per year for birth control.
TR> Unfortunately, Diane Feinstein didn't know about your daughter. Amazing
TR> you didn't contact Feinstein's office at the time.
Again, how do you know that Ms. Fluke didn't have the same condition as my
daughter? Again, are you clairvoyant or do you just take things for granted?
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...
TR> Another favorite tactic of yours; you can't put up any FACTS, so you
TR> attack with insults. you try to silence me with put-downs and
TR> disparaging remarks and characterizations.
Again, I am not Ms. Fluke's physician so I don't know what she was perscribed
and how much of it was needed. If you do, please enlighten us.
TR> You're almost as predictable in an exchange on the abortion issues as
TR> 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.
TR> Bring it on, Mz. Fluke! Bring it on! In fact...why don't *you*
TR> contact her and give her the particulars...sort of get her started? She
TR> might even give you a share of the settlement!
I just may... but then again, can't get blood out of a stone.
TR> All she has to do is produce proof of this outlay for birth control
TR> pills she claims she pays every year. She didn't produce any at the
TR> committee hearing, nobody thought to ask her for any, and the democrats
TR> just passed over it and went on with the show!
Isn't that considered doctor/patient confidentiality?? Or should we just blow
that law up as well...
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!
Again, in your mind. You have ZERO proof the $3000 she stated wasn't for the
actual medication she was perscribed as per her physician. More assumptions on
your part. Tim, just so you know, the world doesn't revolve around you and your
doctrines.
BM>Read above.... you're stepping into libel area... :)
TR> *YOU* read above....she produced no credible PROOF that what she
TR> claimed was true.
And neither can you... so why are you trying to pass this charade off??
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...
TR> This about Hobby Lobby being forced to participate in something they
TR> 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".
TR> We aren't discussing whore houses, here. We're discussing an employer
TR> who works in the `hobby' supplies and crafts business, who has no
TR> 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?
TR> They don't. I don't use Viagra. And I have an HMO that *I* pay for,
TR> which pays a co-pay for medications I buy. *I'm* paying for my OWN
TR> insurance. And *I* pay my share for medications. I don't expect either
TR> my employer OR my HMO to buy condoms for me.
They better not being you don't work for them but where you fail to understand,
Hobby Lobby isn't making a stink over giving MEN drugs.
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.
TR> If it were owned by Muslims I wouldn't care. And thats an example you
TR> shouldn't have used. Muslims treat their women like property, almost
TR> 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.
TR> They are doing so because they CHOOSE to do so. Islamic women and girls
TR> do so because they are MADE to! Nobody MAKES a priest or nun wear a
TR> `habit'.
Not necessarily. You assume they're made to. There are many Muslim women who
only wear the Hijab during Islamic functions and don't necessarily wear it
while working in the corporate world.
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?
TR> *I* amd not doing any such thing.
Oh, so you consistant bashing of Muslims doesn't fall under that catagory? Gay
Christians don't fall under that catagory? Tim, you're a bigot, just face
facts... it'll be easy that way.
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.
TR> That is false. BUT! Either the Hobby Lobby is covered by that
TR> Constitution or it isn't. If it isn't, then neither is anyone else in
TR> the country.
As I stated, what if the drug is being used for something other than birth
control, then what? You also stated that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to bring SEX
into their business but they're certainly not doing a good job with that one.
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.
TR> Someone who owns and operates a business has the right to run that
TR> business on their personal principles and beliefs within the law.
TR> If it were me...they would not get birth control paid for by me. They'd
TR> pay for their own or go work somewhere else.
TR> And it has NOTHING to do with what I do or do NOT believe about
TR> abortion. It has to do with my paying them a salary, and they can buy
TR> their OWN birth control.
BM>No religion tops the other, no matter how much you want it.
TR> You are trying to create a strawman here. And I've set your strawman
TR> afire several times.
TR> By the way...the discussion I had with Earl had nothing to do with
TR> abortion.
TR> And you are also trying to goad me into a `food fight' over abortion. I
TR> 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....
TR> 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?
TR> 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....
TR> 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.
TR> Ah....the `bigot' strawman! Well.....your boy Hussein Obama seems to
TR> 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?
TR> They can do anything they want. As long as they don't try to impose
TR> THEIR religious laws on me.
BM>Didn't think so.... afterall, Islam is only 1400 years old.
TR> 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...
TR> If you do not wish to live as a Christian...that is your choice.
TR> However... you cannot insist that *Christians* must go for the `hajib'
TR> and an Islamic female's `right to wear it'...and yet a *Christian* is
TR> not allowed to follow THEIR religious principles as well.
I let you rant on about strawmen above because that's your favorite word... but
let me put the nail in the coffin on this one. IF Hobby Lobby is SO against
offering birth control pills to their female workers on their Christian
beliefs, why is their 401(k) employee retirement plan holding more than $73
million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency
contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in
abortions. Yet, Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this
company-sponsored 401(k). Ironic isn't it?
Hobby Lobby is a corporation which offers services and as such, can't use it's
religious beliefs when it comes to serving the public OR it's employees. If
this is upheld, what's next, refusing service to people who drink and smoke
cigars and have administered pills that can cause abortions to mentally
handicapped women?
Keep trying Tim... but again, this is the end. You'll not hear from me again
on this subject and in all honesty, I think most of the participants here are
tired of your noonsense as well. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't
but understand, you have NO right to tell another how to live their lives. The
sad part about this, you're against aborion yet you and the rest of the GOP
would be the first to let those same children starve to death on the street or
better still, send them to a bogus war built on lies. Not the lies you talk
about above by a woman, but PROVEN lies by those entrusted with running our
gubment. Maybe that's where you get your distrust from... I know I do.
You're dismissed Tim....
Bill
Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live
... Tim Richardson... administer of death pills....
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
--- SBBSecho 2.26-Win32
* Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
|