When does life begin?

 

One side chooses a scientific view, another takes a religious one.

 

As for me, I don't know. I haven't the proper training to be an authority on the subject. Admittedly, the religious side and the scientific side of me tug at each other.

 

It's not for me to speak for anyone else, given how conflicted I am about it.

 

When does science say life starts? When does religion say it starts? I don't know that they differ.

 

I think the tug you are feeling is between the Pro-Choice/Liberal View and Religious/Scientific View.

Bet that won't hold water. No court in the country will sign on for eliminating consent. So, good luck if that's your angle sisters of darkness.

38 states require parental involvement in the case of a minor seeking to terminate a pregnancy, which means 12 don't; 17 states mandate counseling; 26 require a waiting period, on and on. Every state seemingly is different. You might be right -- the Satanic Temple sisterhood might not pass the litmus test as a religious organization. Still, it will be interesting to see how creative the challenges become.

I believe that forcing people (and corporations, especially individual or family owned are truly part of them) to directly fund something they do not believe in under threat of law or additonal 'taxation' is very wrong - regardless of the source of that 'belief'. The 'establishment' clause was to ensure the government did not impose beliefs on people by ensuring there would not be the equivalent of the 'Church of England' where the government (King) created and forced people to join and 'believe' as it does.

 

Yet, the argument that 'if its legal' you must fund it as ACA forces is just that - a government forced belief system. If a government forces personal and direct funding of actions the are counter to your beliefs then it has has done EXACTLY what the establishment was meant to prevent. Legality and ones personal beliefs often differ. It used to be 'legal' to own slaves. It used to be 'legal' to kill slaves at whim. It was because of individuals and peoples beliefs that this was changed. 'Legal' does not equivilate into just.

 

If we are coerced or forced into personal and direct actions that go against our own personal belief system - regardless of the source or reason for that belief system - then we have become slaves to a government power.

Let's face it, the inclusion of the women's health benefits was simply political gamesmanship on the administration's part, why else are these mandates included over more life threatening medications? Thus, the merging of politics, government and religion rests squarely at Obama's feet.

Let's face it, the inclusion of the women's health benefits was simply political gamesmanship on the administration's part, why else are these mandates included over more life threatening medications? Thus, the merging of politics, government and religion rests squarely at Obama's feet.

 

Sounds a lot like Sharia Law.

Let's face it, the inclusion of the women's health benefits was simply political gamesmanship on the administration's part, why else are these mandates included over more life threatening medications? Thus, the merging of politics, government and religion rests squarely at Obama's feet.

So Obama should have excluded women's health benefits from the ACA because he should have foreseen the Hobby Lobby decision? That's the dumbest thing I've read in the last 70 minutes.

 

By the way, you boys are confusing Sharia law with Scalia law. The merging of church and state is coming from the Supreme Court, not the executive branch.

So Obama should have excluded women's health benefits from the ACA because he should have foreseen the Hobby Lobby decision? That's the dumbest thing I've read in the last 70 minutes.

 

By the way, you boys are confusing Sharia law with Scalia law. The merging of church and state is coming from the Supreme Court, not the executive branch.

 

You really have a reading comprehension problem. Try again.

 

Care to address my comments rather than try to squeeze in today's talking points?

You really have a reading comprehension problem. Try again.

 

Care to address my comments rather than try to squeeze in today's talking points?

I read your post a second time. You wrote: "The inclusion of the women's health benefits was simply political gamesmanship ..."

 

The more I read it, the dumber it gets.

 

Perhaps you would care to try again?

I read your post a second time. You wrote: "The inclusion of the women's health benefits was simply political gamesmanship ..."

 

The more I read it, the dumber it gets.

 

Perhaps you would care to try again?

 

Sorry, can't do much to improve your ability to comprehend, you'll have to work on that yourself.

I read your post a second time. You wrote: "The inclusion of the women's health benefits was simply political gamesmanship ..."

 

The more I read it, the dumber it gets.

 

Perhaps you would care to try again?

Context, TTP, context. You know, that pesky little thing you so often take things out of.

Does this group have a case?

 

 

You bet they do!

Without getting into a protracted debate religion/God needs to be out of all law/government/etc.

 

Bottomline.

I said I liked the comment.

 

Ask yourself this question everyone, why is a woman mandated to do anything if she chooses to have an abortion? And your focus has to be on mandated.

 

We have laws against murder. Pretty simple.

Of course we see that with our Catholic hospitals.

 

One day it won't be that way or they will be nearly out of business.

 

So your saying one day we won't have freedom of religion in this country ? That is a scary thought.

Don't see a case here based on the HL decision but can one of our legal people explain if this group has standing to sue?

 

That said, other than standard information required to be given in all serious procedures I don't think these laws would hold up to a legal challenge.