Common Ground – Your Rights
Unless you’re 100% oblivious to news now a days, you are probably aware of a major issue the American people are being faced with — mandated contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilization. These services will be fully covered through President Obama’s mandatory healthcare plan, and there will be no copay or out of pocket fee for these services.
I’m not here to debate whether or not contraception is okay, but I do ask you look at the bigger picture. Rights are being violated under this mandate. The First Amendment right of religious liberties has practically been thrown in the trash. Whether you’re pro-life, atheist, Catholic, Muslim, or anything else in between, your right to practice your moral beliefs are being greatly violated and it is a slippery slope from here . . .
 |
| Sebelious and President Obama |
Contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilization are just the beginning of “preventative services” which President Obama’s administration will mandate. If Health and Human Services (HHS) is able to pull this blatant violation of First Amendment rights off, then nothing will stop them from adding abortion to the list of “preventative services”.
We are on the edge of what could become a full on abortion mandate in our country. I am not okay with this and you shouldn’t be either. I challenge you to take action now with millions of others from across the country who are saying NO to this HHS mandate that violates the moral consciences and rights of millions of citizens.
Take Action:
- URGENT: Tell Your Senators to Vote YES on the Blunt-Rubio-Ayotte Amendment to Protect Conscience
- Participate in awareness events: http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/
Mandated contraception?
Nobody is forcing anybody to use contraception.
What's happening right now is that religious fanatics are trying to scream at the top of their lungs that contraception shouldn't be covered in health care drug plans. You know? the same plans that cover blood pressure medication (being fat is a lifestyle choice) and erectile disfunction medication (geezer sex lives are a lifestyle choice).
PS I'm still waiting for you folks to set up a site called "Secular pro-marriage-defined-as-between-a-man-and-a-woman.com"
//that's my cute way of saying that you're all disingenuous liars.
Nobody is forcing anyone to use contraception, but if ALL healthcare plans are FORCED to cover contraception, you're FORCING people to pay for it, even when that stands in blatant defiance of their religious tenants. Not just USING it, but PAYING FOR IT.
What's happening right now is that religious individuals are under attack, and unless we're satisfied sitting back and watching as we become hypocrites, we have to defend them just as we'd want them to defend us if they were trying to pass a law mandating we all buy a crucifix (or pay specifically for the crucifixes of those who want them), whether or not we are religious.
Who mentioned defining marriage around here? Oh, only you, because it was a huge deflection? Ok. I thought so. But hey, since you want to travel down that little rabbit hole, I'll play your game and tell you that I don't support government-recognized marriage AT ALL, and think the institution as it stands should be done away with, because it's a religious concept. I think it should be replaced with civil unions available to everyone, and then those civil unions can be recognized as marriages in religious ceremonies if that's what floats someone's boat.
Your definition of "cute" is rather childish, not unlike all the nonsense I've seen you pasting around here.
Thank you, Xalisae. The First Amendment is just as important to atheists as it is to religious people. When the government stays out of religion, we ALL benefit.
I guess you don't get it.
I shall use an analogy
"secular pro-life" is to disingenuous deception as "secular anti-gay marriage" is to disingenuous deception.
There is a limit to where your religious beliefs may be practiced and they end when you try to FORCE THEM UPON OTHER PEOPLE.
This is why fundamentalist Shi'ites can't commit honor killings in the US. But don't you dare let catholics live in a country where other people can use birth control legally!
That's funny, because every time someone has an abortion, she forces her belief on another person. Just because someone believes that a fetus isn't human, that doesn't make it true. People can be willfully ignorant of science if they'd like, but when they act out their beliefs by KILLING, others have every right (and responsibility) to intervene.
If you don't like abortions, you have the choice to not have one.
Instead, you choose to force other people to not have abortions. You are trying to make a choice for someone against their consent. They are not forcing you to do anything.
Your argument is reminiscent of a Jim Crow era southerner who resents the Federal Government's intrusion of her right to enact a government policy that persecutes black people.
and where and when does one get the choice not to be aborted?
I'm failing to see your argument as a direct rebuttal to Kelsey's comment. It lacks coherence.
Also, I fail to see ANYWHERE where Catholics are attempting to prohibit the legal USE of birth control. All I've seen is an attempt to prevent Catholics from having to BUY it.
You presume without evidence that an unborn organism is human, thus capable of making choices. You likely presumes that humanity is endowed at conception, again– without evidence.
Since this is "secular" pro-life, I'm open to your explanation of why life begins at conception.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
sorry, I wasn't clear:
Since this is "secular" pro-life, I'm open to your explanation of why "humanity" begins at conception.
People have attempted to dodge that one before.
What is your explanation for why "humanity" should not be considered an inherent property of every living human organism?
because a living human organism is a human being. There is no age limit on when an organism is classified as a member of their species, and by definition a human being is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, with no other existing requirement. Anything you've dreamed up that would be an additional requirement (you seem to think the ability to make choices is a requirement to be a human being) is completely arbitrary and exists nowhere in established medicine or science.
Thankfully, you've never had to lose a loved one to a degerative mental illness. Perhaps if you did, you'd place more value on the cognitive aspects of what makes us all human. Instead, you adopt a position that treats things with no cognitive attributes as worth less than people who are living in this world.
Instead, you adopt a position that treats things with no cognitive attributes as worth more** than people who are living in this world.
"All I've seen is an attempt to prevent Catholics from having to BUY it."
Contraception is a valid form of health care, along with blood pressure medication and erectile disfunction medication. Public health services operated by religious institution do not have the freedom to deny care to people based on their religious beliefs.
Why are people assuming that there exists a First Amendment right to compensate one's employees in such a way that they are restricted from using their compensation to do something against the employer's religious belief? I'm pretty sure there's no case law backing up that interpretation of the Free Exercise clause. What about the employee's right to use HER compensation (which is what health insurance tied to employment is) in a manner that comports with her own values and beliefs and not someone else's? As usual in this country, people are just assuming that the employer has all the rights and the employee has none.
The reason abortion shouldn't be covered (except for actual health-related reasons) is that it ends the life of a human being, not that it is against this or that religion.
To the anon or anons: of course it is possible to arrive at pro-life beliefs through entirely secular reasoning. If you're actually interested, as opposed to angrily flinging accusations, I'd be glad to discuss it further.
If it's possible to arrive at pro-life beliefs through entirely secular reasoning, i'd be amazing if someone could go beyond simply saying that was possible.
People have gone beyond simply saying it's possible. It's not our fault if you've never looked. This post contains a list of a number of secular/atheist pro-life resources. You might also want to check out an interview I did with Point of Inquiry about atheist opposition to abortion.
Every single "secular pro-life" argument assumes that that genetic identity is a sufficient condition for establishing humanity. In spite of all the instances where an individual with human DNA has his/her life ended regardless of their ability to consent. This assumption is completely unwarranted and ignores the cognitive factors of human interaction that influence our status as humans. Again, the secular "assumption" that human life is sacrosanct from the moment of conception is a repackaging of biblical philosophy that has no place in secular discussions. The underlying philosophical basis of the pro-life movement is religious in nature. And it is why the "secular pro life" website is devoted to supporting the policies of Christian fundamentalists republicans in the VA general assembly.
So, you not agreeing with an argument — and many people have in fact put forth arguments for why humanity should apply over the whole of the human organism's lifetime, instead of just assuming it — makes people disingenuous liars?
What I see is this organization claiming to be "secular" yet supporting one of the most flagrantly christian fundamentalist republican governors in my lifetime. VA state law is making international headlines because of Bob McDonnell and his "Abortion is a lifestyle choice" house of delegates. To claim that you're secular at the same time you support these Republicans makes you disingenuous at best and a terrible liar at worst. Republicans in VA will not stop until EVERYONE LIVES ACCORDING TO THEIR MORALITY.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the claim that the contraception mandate includes "abortion inducing drugs" isn't true. Though there were some old studies that suggested a possibility, it has never been shown that hormonal contraception *actually* does anything but prevent fertilizaton.
Yeah, and once again a personhood amendment has failed because of belief that it would ban hormonal contraception, this time in Virginia. When we say birth control pills cause early abortions it has a hollow ring to people when we then say personhood amendments won't ban them.
Such is the plight of the pro-lifer who hides their opposition to contraception by conflating contraception with abortion.
Most of us (the majority) don't live in a world where we go to hell for having sex that doesn't lead to pregnancy.
Yes I said it, pro-lifers are trying to legislate christian morality, and when they claim they aren't, they're lying.