or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 256

post #3826 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kajak View Post

+1 to Piob for correcting the (incorrect) talking point about HL and abortificants. This drives me up the wall because if you're going to a) present a case about science/healthcare b) hear a case about science/healthcare c) cover a case about science/healthcare you should read a textbook.
See the above sentence, especially the part where you read a textbook. (Not Ataturk you. You clearly (now) know those drugs aren't actually abortificants. It's that a blind disregard for scientific and medical is absolutely insane.)

The problem is that most faiths believe that life starts at conception, which most agree is when an egg becomes a zygote. Or I could be completely wrong; I don't care what any group of people in this whole debate believe. I just don't want to pay for other people's shit.
post #3827 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The problem is that most faiths believe that life starts at conception, which most agree is when an egg becomes a zygote. Or I could be completely wrong; I don't care what any group of people in this whole debate believe. I just don't want to pay for other people's shit.

They can still present a case that "preventing implantation" is morally unacceptable and tantamount to murder to them, but they should have their case thrown out if they call it abortion (1) because its materially incorrect.

People who can't spend three minutes on basic research annoy me; people not checking Snopes is 3/5's of this thread after all.

(1) - in a "our case is based on it" way, not a "they mentioned abortion, case closed" way because thats silly
post #3828 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kajak View Post

+1 to Piob for correcting the (incorrect) talking point about HL and abortificants. This drives me up the wall because if you're going to a) present a case about science/healthcare b) hear a case about science/healthcare c) cover a case about science/healthcare you should read a textbook.
See the above sentence, especially the part where you read a textbook. (Not Ataturk you. You clearly (now) know those drugs aren't actually abortificants. It's that a blind disregard for scientific and medical is absolutely insane.)

The "case" is about enforcing a statutory protection of sincere religious conviction from regulatory agencies run amok. It doesn't matter one lick what the textbooks say.

Moreover, the moral objection to abortion has nothing at all to do with the technical definitions of pregnancy and abortion. A zygote is a unique, individual, and very much alive human. Just because killing a zygote (like killing a newborn) isn't technically abortion doesn't make it any less wrong. The label isn't what's important.
post #3829 of 5454
If you can't be assed to spend five minutes of research to learn about what the grown ups are talking about and the actual lexicon to present these ideas, how sincere are your beliefs? I'm not objecting to the spirit of the ruling (in so far as I disagree with healthcare being provided by your employer and not a single payer system but whatever, its not relevant at this crossing) but you can't base a case on incorrect facts in a (rational) system of law. That's just Kafka-esque.
post #3830 of 5454
Again, you're concerned with labels, not facts. Isn't that a frequent criticism of the legal system -- that it's obsessed with formality and technicalities?

And I shouldn't have to explain why the rationality vel non of religious beliefs would be a terrible way to decide which are worthy of protection. The first question you might ask is who decides?
post #3831 of 5454
I said I didn't have a problem with the content of the ruling.

Fact 1: preventing implantation is not abortion.

Belief 1: Abortion is murder.

Belief 2: Preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo is also murder.

Fact 1 doesn't prevent belief 2 from being held, nor does it actually prevent belief 2 from being protected, nor should it.

You can't have an informed discussion or decision about technical subjects without using technical language.

Edit: I never said anything about judging the rationality of their beliefs. You're assuming that because I'm a pro-choice agnostic, and us non-religious types who post on the internet apparently never do anything but scorn religious peoples for their irrational beliefs (see: every stupid post by Tagut on facebook)

Edit 2: The computer fire example doesn't work the same way, I don't think. The fire claim is clearly wrong and I've had a friend agree that it is wrong, but its still a part of the Sabbath law because of tradition. This is fine and worthy of protection. It's hard to come up with an example where you would cite something that is really close to being correct but just not quite.
Edited by Kajak - 7/21/14 at 9:31pm
post #3832 of 5454
I hope you understand why some people disagree that fact 1 is actually a fact
post #3833 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

I hope you understand why some people disagree that fact 1 is actually a fact

Its a definition. We need to have mutually agreed upon definitions of technical words and concepts for a conversation to happen. The medical community (and the legislative/judiciary) gets to decide that lexicon on medical things, because that's the *only* body that can do so (in America) while respecting the First Amendment, because accepting the definition of abortion as outlined above doesn't affect your stance on the morality of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting.
post #3834 of 5454
I find your argument very amusing. In Roe v. Wade the supreme court premised its decision on the (ridiculous) premise that no one had the right to decide when life begins. But according to you, well, all we have to do is flip open a medical textbook and see what the doctors think life means.

That's a load of bull. For one thing, dictionaries have multiple definitions for various words for a reason. Context matters. Meanings are not universally agreed upon. It's an old debate, prescriptivism versus descriptivism. And of course there's the specter using language to shape or control thought. Remember pro-life and pro-choice? Parties proposing definitions, even doctors, are often interested.

Frankly, I think "abortion" is itself just a euphemism for taking a life early in its development. The distinctions between it and homicide are arbitrary. So when you tell me that, why, this deliberate taking of a life doesn't even technically qualify as an abortion, my response is "so what?"
post #3835 of 5454
I find your argument specious since if you can't agree on a lexicon for debate you have no basis for a system of law.

I actually generally agree with you about context mattering, and descriptivism being more useful, outside of technical debates where these meanings matter. And since HL wasn't the story of a plucky religious family taking on Obama's evil healthcare mandate, it was the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty finding a lovable underdog, getting them to research their health plans, where they realized that they did cover these drugs... It's hard to not think that there is something intellectually dishonest going on, and that this might not just be about HL, and might be about the wider issue.

Which, obviously, you're fine with, but I'm not.

Well actually I just enjoy arguing about it, doesn't actually affect me that much.
Edited by Kajak - 7/21/14 at 10:45pm
post #3836 of 5454
Whether the contraceptives in question constituted abortion or not was never even an issue raised at any point by the Government. The Government conceded very early on that HL's owners had a deeply held and legitimate religious objection to the 4 drugs.
post #3837 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kajak View Post

If you can't be assed to spend five minutes of research to learn about what the grown ups are talking about and the actual lexicon to present these ideas, how sincere are your beliefs? I'm not objecting to the spirit of the ruling (in so far as I disagree with healthcare being provided by your employer and not a single payer system but whatever, its not relevant at this crossing) but you can't base a case on incorrect facts in a (rational) system of law. That's just Kafka-esque.

Talk about being "assed" to do five minutes of research...
post #3838 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Talk about being "assed" to do five minutes of research...

I think we have all done at least a few minutes of ass research.
post #3839 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kajak View Post

Its a definition. We need to have mutually agreed upon definitions of technical words and concepts for a conversation to happen. The medical community (and the legislative/judiciary) gets to decide that lexicon on medical things, because that's the *only* body that can do so (in America) while respecting the First Amendment, because accepting the definition of abortion as outlined above doesn't affect your stance on the morality of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting.

Like you said it's A definition and not one that everybody agrees on. Not everybody agrees with a medical definition because people differ on where they believe life begins. A medical body defines things for medical purposes but medicine isn't the only player in a philosophical/morality debate. If you can't even understand this why bother arguing with such indignant righteous rage.

accepting such a definition in fact does matter on the morality of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. Unless you of all people are trying to argue lexicon doesn't matter
post #3840 of 5454

Love coming into this thread, as it reminds me how infinitely dumb some of you posting are. :slayer: 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.