No, you seem to be inserting your own conclusions into my argument.1. I said “you wanted to discuss Hobby Lobby too.” I know I brought it up. As an example of why we need government (and not the SCOTUS’ current decision).2. Again, false. Of course I defend a child’s right to live. I don’t even know where you get that “logical” link, since I have never said anything different. Unless you think that a blastocyst counts as a “child,” in which case we disagree.3. Actually, there are two points here. First of all, of the 16 so-called “accepted” plans, they include things like condoms and diaphragms with spermicide, which are bought over the counter and are NOT covered by their plan. Second, they ban IUDs, which are not “abortificients.” They prevent fertilization. They are absolutely incorrect in their “beliefs,” but the Supremes permit them to avoid coverage and forbid coverage of what may be a necessary medical procedure regardless? That’s a scary precedent. As it happens, I don’t think fertilization is a good measure of whether someone is human, let alone a baby. Actually, many fertilized ova do not implant, in which case they fail to survive. Is that a murder? Obviously not. Should we try to save every fertilized ovum? I think not, but some of these people would clearly think we should.I fail to understand what your point is on “justifying my stance.” I think a baby is a person — but a fertilized ovum is not a baby.
No, you seem to be inserting your own conclusions into my argument.1. I said “you wanted to discuss Hobby Lobby too.” I know I brought it up. As an example of why we need government (and not the SCOTUS’ current decision).2. Again, false. Of course I defend a child’s right to live. I don’t even know where you get that “logical” link, since I have never said anything different. Unless you think that a blastocyst counts as a “child,” in which case we disagree.3. Actually, there are two points here. First of all, of the 16 so-called “accepted” plans, they include things like condoms and diaphragms with spermicide, which are bought over the counter and are NOT covered by their plan. Second, they ban IUDs, which are not “abortificients.” They prevent fertilization. They are absolutely incorrect in their “beliefs,” but the Supremes permit them to avoid coverage and forbid coverage of what may be a necessary medical procedure regardless? That’s a scary precedent. As it happens, I don’t think fertilization is a good measure of whether someone is human, let alone a baby. Actually, many fertilized ova do not implant, in which case they fail to survive. Is that a murder? Obviously not. Should we try to save every fertilized ovum? I think not, but some of these people would clearly think we should.I fail to understand what your point is on “justifying my stance.” I think a baby is a person — but a fertilized ovum is not a baby.