California Ordering Churches To Pay For All Surgical Abortions

[guerreiro9]

 

The 1st, 9th Amendments gives you the right to have an abortion and the 1st and 14th Amendments gives you the right to SSM.

 

Even if they do (which is debatable) which one of the amendments ensures that abortion and ssm are government subsidized activities?

 

The constitution guarantees that you are free to engage is certain activities, it does not guarantee that you will receive tax benefits for doing so.

 

-guerreiro9

[The Nehor]

It is entirely different when duly elected representatives enact laws through the legislative process to collect taxes than it is when an unelected judge imposes taxes through judicial fiat.  You know "No taxation without representation" and that whole thing.

 

I completely accept that the government is going to take money from my pocket for things that I do not agree with from time to time, but in those instances I can elect better officials or campaign to have those taxes changed.

 

In the example you gave of unsupported wars, you can elect officials who will not support wars in the future and therefore you will not be funding them.

 

In the case of same-sex marriage and abortion (in regards to this thread), it is no longer possible to enact laws to defund or repeal these taxes, because they were not enacted by the legislature.

 

-guerreiro9.

Judges are either elected or are appointed by the elected. In this case I think it is more accurate to say the judiciary enforced preexisting laws.

[guerreiro9]

Judges are either elected or are appointed by the elected. In this case I think it is more accurate to say the judiciary enforced preexisting laws.

 

Their interpretation of the law, and there in lies the problem.  They are pretty much free to interpret the law in any way they see fit.  Their interpretation may go against decades, even centuries of what the law in question stood for and go against the clear voice of the people.

 

One person overruling the voice of many to suite their personal agenda.  Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

-guerreiro9

[The Nehor]

Their interpretation of the law, and there in lies the problem.  They are pretty much free to interpret the law in any way they see fit.  Their interpretation may go against decades, even centuries of what the law in question stood for and go against the clear voice of the people.

 

One person overruling the voice of many to suite their personal agenda.  Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

-guerreiro9

Well then tear up the Constitution as a godless enemy of democracy because that is the way it is set up and intentionally so. So-called "activist judges" are not a new thing. It is just when people agree with them they call them "defenders of the constitution" instead.

[Stargazer]

Those poor churches......who would have thought the day would come that churches running insurance plans would have to ensure such plans comply with the law? The horror!!!!!!

This is not about churches. It is about insurance having to cover certain medical procedures as prescribed by law and the reality is you cannot abuse your employees by offering less in your insurance then the government mandates on the grounds that you do not personally believe in the treatment. That would be forcing your religious beliefs onto your employees.

I personally prefer to get rid of health insurance all together and either go to a government system or a basic capitalist system without insurance companies screwing with prices and sending them upwards but we are stuck with what we have, the worst of both worlds.

 

I find myself agreeing with at least part of what you're saying.

 

A large part of the reason for the rising costs of medical care is in fact insurance.  The more money that chases a limited commodity, the higher the prices will become.  This is a basic economic principle.  If insurance only covered catastrophic health problems, and we were required to pay for more routine care, prices would not be where they are.

 

And if they would reform the tort laws this would reduce the enormous costs associated with malpractice suits.

[The Nehor]

I find myself agreeing with at least part of what you're saying.

 

A large part of the reason for the rising costs of medical care is in fact insurance.  The more money that chases a limited commodity, the higher the prices will become.  This is a basic economic principle.  If insurance only covered catastrophic health problems, and we were required to pay for more routine care, prices would not be where they are.

 

And if they would reform the tort laws this would reduce the enormous costs associated with malpractice suits.

I would say the problem is even more basic. In real terms health insurance companies do not produce anything. Our healthcare money funds them while they do not produce healthcare. Of course prices are high.

[thesometimesaint]

Even if they do (which is debatable) which one of the amendments ensures that abortion and ssm are government subsidized activities?

 

The constitution guarantees that you are free to engage is certain activities, it does not guarantee that you will receive tax benefits for doing so.

 

-guerreiro9

 

The government doesn't pay for abortions(SEE Hyde Amendment) or SSM. It merely allows those to legally exist.

 

We've long recognized that households engage in more economically positive activities than singles do. IE; So we give tax benefits to homeowners, as it encourages home ownership. One could argue that there is no constitutional right to any tax benefits. But that is for another discussion.

 

As to SSM our experience with it is very new, and our legal structures haven't kept up with its rapid acceptance. Personally I prefer to get the government out of the marriage(religious rite) business altogether. Make them all legally enforceable civil contracts.

[BCSpace]

This can't be true. I was just assured on the gay marriage and priesthood thread that suspecting the government will dictate to people against their religious beliefs is silly and paranoid.

 

Think again.  That's what activists publicly tell you, but their goal is otherwise. See here for example:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64417-homosexual-activist-on-destroying-marriage-fighting-for-ssm-generally-involves-lying-about-what-were-going-to-do-with-marriage-when-we-get-there/

[thesometimesaint]

All Indians walk in single file. I saw one do it once.

[PtolemyGlenn]

We have gone from a society that is taught people to be responsible for their own actions. To whatever you do someone else will pay. Perfect example is Sandra Fluke. Im sorry real women pay for their own birth control. If you cant afford it dont have sex.

But really as grownups we need to take ownership and responsibility.

[thesometimesaint]

We have gone from a society that is taught people to be responsible for their own actions. To whatever you do someone else will pay. Perfect example is Sandra Fluke. Im sorry real women pay for their own birth control. If you cant afford it dont have sex.

But really as grownups we need to take ownership and responsibility.

 

Tell me something do you have any form of insurance? If you do why are you trying to make others pay for your actions?

[MormonFreeThinker]

I believe that abortions are wrong, but not all of them, some are necessary.  Some religious people want all abortions to be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, and serious health problems. Religious beliefs shouldn't rule our secular law, blood transfusions contradict the religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, but that must be be legal. 

 

Here is the position of the church 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/abortion

 

The 1st, 9th Amendments gives you the right to have an abortion and the 1st and 14th Amendments gives you the right to SSM.

 

I am not an extremist, I am a moderate. 

When do you believe that human life begins? It is clearly not after birth. Do you believe that parents have the right to infanticide? What is the difference between infanticide and abortions?A human fetus is not part of the women's body, it is not an organ, it has it's own DNA. 

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/abortion-and-presidential-politics

"From the moment of conception on, there exists a living organism which is a genetically complete human being and which, if left to develop naturally, will grow into an adult member of its species. Contrast the complete human embryo with a sperm or an unfertilized egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg alone constitutes a human being: each is genetically incomplete, having only 1/2 the chromosomes necessary to make a complete human being. If left alone, they don't develop into anything: the sperm dies in a couple of days, and the unfertilized egg is expelled in a woman's monthly cycle. But if they unite, they combine into a single living cell to form a unique individual which has never before existed. Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or a Y chromosome from the sperm. The later development of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality which has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits like body type, eye and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth are all determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception. Moreover, the development of this individual is a smooth and unbroken continuum throughout. There is no non-arbitrary breaking point before which you can say the fetus is not human, but after which he or she is. The traditional division of pregnancy into three trimesters has no scientific or medical basis: it is a purely arbitrary reckoning device for the sake of convenience. It's probably due to the fact that pregnancy lasts nine months. If human beings had a gestation time of 8 months, nobody would talk about trimesters. We'd probably divide it into quarters. The fact is that any attempt to draw a line and say "not human before this point, but human afterwards" is wholly arbitrary and without biological foundation. Thus, as I say, it seems to me virtually undeniable that the fetus — which is just Latin for "little one" —is a human being in the early stages of his development. Whether one is a "little one," a newborn, an adolescent, or an adult, he is at every point a human being at a different stage of his development"

[Yirgacheffe]

We have gone from a society that is taught people to be responsible for their own actions. To whatever you do someone else will pay. Perfect example is Sandra Fluke. Im sorry real women pay for their own birth control. If you cant afford it dont have sex.

But really as grownups we need to take ownership and responsibility.

The same with viagra and cialis.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe that abortions are wrong, but not all of them, some are necessary.  Some religious people want all abortions to be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, and serious health problems. Religious beliefs shouldn't rule our secular law, blood transfusions contradict the religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, but that must be be legal. 

 

Here is the position of the church 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/abortion

 

 

I am not an extremist, I am a moderate. 

When do you believe that human life begins? It is clearly not after birth. Do you believe that parents have the right to infanticide? What is the difference between infanticide and abortions?A human fetus is not part of the women's body, it is not an organ, it has it's own DNA. 

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/abortion-and-presidential-politics

"From the moment of conception on, there exists a living organism which is a genetically complete human being and which, if left to develop naturally, will grow into an adult member of its species. Contrast the complete human embryo with a sperm or an unfertilized egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg alone constitutes a human being: each is genetically incomplete, having only 1/2 the chromosomes necessary to make a complete human being. If left alone, they don't develop into anything: the sperm dies in a couple of days, and the unfertilized egg is expelled in a woman's monthly cycle. But if they unite, they combine into a single living cell to form a unique individual which has never before existed. Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or a Y chromosome from the sperm. The later development of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality which has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits like body type, eye and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth are all determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception. Moreover, the development of this individual is a smooth and unbroken continuum throughout. There is no non-arbitrary breaking point before which you can say the fetus is not human, but after which he or she is. The traditional division of pregnancy into three trimesters has no scientific or medical basis: it is a purely arbitrary reckoning device for the sake of convenience. It's probably due to the fact that pregnancy lasts nine months. If human beings had a gestation time of 8 months, nobody would talk about trimesters. We'd probably divide it into quarters. The fact is that any attempt to draw a line and say "not human before this point, but human afterwards" is wholly arbitrary and without biological foundation. Thus, as I say, it seems to me virtually undeniable that the fetus — which is just Latin for "little one" —is a human being in the early stages of his development. Whether one is a "little one," a newborn, an adolescent, or an adult, he is at every point a human being at a different stage of his development"

 

I'm more of the moderate.

 

I fully support the Church position on abortion. That under the rare conditions of rape, incest, life/health of the mother, viability after the birth of the fetus, abortion is permissible but not encouraged. I also realize that not everyone has my religion, and that people of good will can and do disagree with the Church. That in a pluralistic society such as ours freedom of religion is sacrosanct.

 

The Church takes no position on when the Spirit enters the body.

 

The fetus is not a separate individual until live birth. It is totally dependent on the mother.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

The Church takes no position on when the Spirit enters the body.

 

I am using scientific and philosophical arguments, not religious arguments.  My religion tells me that abortion is not murder. The position of the LDS church helps me tolerate elective abortions.

 

 

 

The fetus is not a separate individual until live birth. It is totally dependent on the mother.

 

A fetus is not a body organ like an arm, eye, brain, it has it's own DNA. 

Babies are dependent too, what is the difference between abortion an infanticide? Please use scientific or philosophical arguments. 

[california boy]

The US government does not force women to obtain abortions against their will (currently), but it does force women and men to pay for abortions against their will.

 

In almost all cases this financial imposition has not been voted on, but has been imposed by judicial ruling.

 

Being forced to pay for abortions, and same-sex marriage benefits without any possible representation on my behalf makes that whole Tea Act thing of 1773 seem like a good deal.

 

-guerreiro9

Since when do we have a right to not pay taxes if we don't agree with everything the government does with those taxes?? I could cut my taxes in half over all the things I do not want to pay for with my tax dollars.  How is this any different?  

 

There are literally hundreds of things that I pay for in my insurance policy that I will never actually use.  Many things that don't even apply to me.  Should women not be "forced" to pay for prostrate cancer treatments?  Should men have to pay for pap smears?  The article did not say the government was forcing anyone to HAVE an abortion.

[thesometimesaint]

I am using scientific and philosophical arguments, not religious arguments.  My religion tells me that abortion is not murder. The position of the LDS church helps me tolerate elective abortions.

 

A fetus is not a body organ like an arm, eye, brain, it has it's own DNA. 

Babies are dependent too, what is the difference between abortion an infanticide? Please use scientific or philosophical arguments. 

 

I didn't say a word about so called elective abortion. In the vast majority of cases I think that adoption is the better elective. Murder by definition is the illegal taking of a human life. Abortion in this country has been legal since 1973.

 

There is no point at which life "begins". The egg is very much alive and the sperm are very much alive. So there is just a continuation of life. At what point does it become a separate individual is an open question, but most recognize that breathing is a important part of that process.

[Sleeper Cell]

I would say the problem is even more basic. In real terms health insurance companies do not produce anything. Our healthcare money funds them while they do not produce healthcare. Of course prices are high.

If so, wouldn’t that also be true of Obamacare? 

[Sleeper Cell]

Since when do we have a right to not pay taxes if we don't agree with everything the government does with those taxes?? I could cut my taxes in half over all the things I do not want to pay for with my tax dollars.  How is this any different?  

 

There are literally hundreds of things that I pay for in my insurance policy that I will never actually use.  Many things that don't even apply to me.  Should women not be "forced" to pay for prostrate cancer treatments?  Should men have to pay for pap smears?  The article did not say the government was forcing anyone to HAVE an abortion.

 

But nobody forced you to buy your insurance policy.  At least, not until recently.  Besides, nobody prevents you from shopping for an insurance policy that doesn’t insure the stuff you don’t want..  Unless, of course, government regulations prevent companies from offering such polices.     

 

BTW, I  accidentally gave you a rep point, even though I disagree with your post.  Chalk it up to a future post, in which you agree with me on something.   

[The Nehor]

If so, wouldn’t that also be true of Obamacare?

To a degree yes but Obamacare has less of an incentive to charge more because it is government run.

But nobody forced you to buy your insurance policy.  At least, not until recently.  Besides, nobody prevents you from shopping for an insurance policy that doesn’t insure the stuff you don’t want..  Unless, of course, government regulations prevent companies from offering such polices.     

 

BTW, I  accidentally gave you a rep point, even though I disagree with your post.  Chalk it up to a future post, in which you agree with me on something.   

No one forced me. I could always die or hope I will be forever healthy or take the risk of medical bankruptcy because insurance companies have negotiated rates to drive up prices that I, as an individual, cannot influence. In the United States health insurance is not an option, it is a requirement unless you want to play financial Russian Roulette.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Abortion in this country has been legal since 1973.

 

Do you believe the law is perfect? Should it change? What are your philosophical or scientific arguments? 

 

There is no point at which life "begins". The egg is very much alive and the sperm are very much alive. So there is just a continuation of life. At what point does it become a separate individual is an open question, but most recognize that breathing is a important part of that process.

 

Scientific

"Now, scientists are a step closer to understanding the climax of this eternal love story: how sperm and egg merge to create a brand new individual" 

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080325/full/news.2008.685.html

 

"At conception, a person receives DNA from both the father and mother"

https://www.familytreedna.com/understanding-dna.aspx

 

Philosophical

"Whether one is a "little one," a newborn, an adolescent, or an adult, he is at every point a human being at a different stage of his development"

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/abortion-and-presidential-politics

 

Don't misunderstand what I said, I do not believe abortion is murder because the church told me that. I also believe that some abortions are necessary. 

[thesometimesaint]

No one doubts the fetus is alive. At what point does it become as separate individual is still an open question.

Philosophically; I believe that abortion should be kept safe, legal, and rare. We live in an imperfect world and bad things happen. I believe we have an ethical responsibility to limit that imperfection as much as possible.

[MormonFreeThinker]

No one doubts the fetus is alive. At what point does it become as separate individual is still an open question.

 

I don't like the fact that politicians always talk with absolute certainty, most of them do not seem to be open minded, I think I agree with you that it is still an open question. 

 

Philosophically; I believe that abortion should be kept safe, legal, and rare.

 

Do you think abortion should be legal in all circumstances? 

 

 

We live in an imperfect world and bad things happen. I believe we have an ethical responsibility to limit that imperfection as much as possible.

I agree 

[LinuxGal]

There is no point at which life "begins". The egg is very much alive and the sperm are very much alive. So there is just a continuation of life. At what point does it become a separate individual is an open question, but most recognize that breathing is a important part of that process.

 

That seems to be the position of scripture as well.  

 

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[PtolemyGlenn]

The same with viagra and cialis.

Totally agree. Sex is not a must. Its a choice. If someone wants to have sex the need to pay for it themselves. And stop getting ofhers to pay for their own choice.