Liberal Opposition To Natural Law

New York Representative Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, is no doubt completely ignorant when it comes to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There isn’t, unfortunately enough for us, a requirement that anyone seeking elected office have at least a basic understanding of our founding documents and how those documents came to be.

The founders of this country relied upon what we would call Natural Law to establish not only those documents that lay out our natural rights, but also to establish the negative liberties within, that are designed to keep a tyrannical government from infringing upon those rights that they had no hand in creating. Despite rhetoric that implies the contrary, government cannot grant or take away the natural rights set forth in our founding documents.

At a town hall meeting yesterday, Rep. Hochul not only admitted that they [Congress] were not looking at the Constitution when they wrote and passed Obamacare and the mandates that are contained therein, she also said that “it has been decided by this Congress” that American citizens were “entitled to healthcare.” And because of that, the Catholic Church, insurance companies, and whoever else would be required to pay for it.

True enough, “this Congress” has decided that Americans are “entitled” to a lot of things. Not just this Congress, but previous and most likely, subsequent Congresses will decide on their own that Americans as well as those not yet citizens of this country are “entitled” to things that the government does not have the authority to grant as a right.

Healthcare, housing, food, clothing, internet, a vehicle to drive, flat screen television’s, cell phones, you name it, the government these days seems to grant it as a right. But what they don’t seem to understand is that by doing so they are usurping the authority of the Creator who established Natural Law and natural rights. Natural rights preceded the Constitution. Natural rights preceded even the very first Congress. Natural rights are beyond the grasp of any man, woman, or government entity to be able to grant or take away.

Why do liberals and statists continue to be so insolent when it comes to granting and taking away rights? I think it’s nothing more than their deep seeded belief that the state is the be all end all of granting rights, with no other force ever devised being as powerful as the state. It’s not by accident that most liberals, statists, communists, socialists, Marxists, or whatever label you want to add, hold a disdain for the idea of a Creator endowing them and their fellow man with rights that are inalienable.

The god complex within the statist gives them the authority to deem that mere commodities such as healthcare or access to high speed internet be considered rights that all men must have.

Unfortunately for the rest of us that realize that there is something larger than ourselves or even the state that has granted us rights that can’t be given or taken away, we have to endure the cost, both monetarily and culturally while the Liberal battle against Natural Law is waged.

 

"Wisdom is the rarest quality of all"
Liberal Hate
  • Jay

    Just understand that you have no rights.  It’s easier that way.

  • Jay

    Just understand that you have no rights.  It’s easier that way.

  • Tano

     ” I think it’s nothing more than their deep seeded belief that the state
    is the be all end all of granting rights, with no other force ever
    devised being as powerful as the state.”

    I hear this charge made quite often from the right, and yet I have never heard anyone actually espouse such beliefs.

    Actually, if you stop and think about the arguments made about rights and the law in modern American discourse, you will discover that it is often “the right” that gets mighty confused on these points.

    Lets just take the biggest and most obvious issue – abortion, and beneath that, contraception. These were, of course, the specific issues around which the Supreme Court ended up recognizing a right to privacy.

    One might think that privacy – especially for the most intimate aspects of one’s personal life – from intrusive meddling by the state would be something that all libertarian-leaning conservatives would be adamant about. One might imagine that defending a sphere of privacy from the state might rank right up there with the general pursuit of happiness as a right that is pre-Constitutional – something endowed by the Creator. One would be wrong though, wouldn’t one.

    All we hear from conservatives is scathing denunciations of judges who “make up rights” that are not to be found in the Constitution. How can you not see that this attitude is based on an assumption that individuals shall have no rights recognized unless they are explicitly granted in the Constitution? Is there a right to privacy? Did the Creator wish for you to have someplace free from state intrusion? Or must we look, in vain,  to the Constitution for such a right?

    Look, lets be honest here. The hypocrisy (on both sides) is absolutely epidemic. If a liberal administration wants to do something, like health care, then the conservatives will scream that the state has no power to do so unless explicitly granted by the Constitution. If, however, a conservative administration wants to regulate sex or drugs or individual reproductive decisions (none of which are mentioned in the Constitution), then the government is free to do so.

    Yeah, the other side wings it too. Everyone fights for what they want, and makes up “principles” when needed, for rhetorical effect, and then tosses them the minute that following them would cause an outcome they don’t want.

    • PBunyan

      Wrong.  Abortion is not about an “individual reproductive decision”, it about killing your child AFTER you’ve made an individual reproductive decision.   No one on the right wants to take away your right to reproduce, we simply want to protect your child’s most basic human right, the right to life, AFTER you have made the choice to reproduce.

      Also no one on the right wants to use the force of government to ban contraception, we simply don’t want to be forced by government to pay for other’s people’s contraception.

      Nice stawmen though, Obamatalker.

      • It is useless to talk to him Pbunyan.  He has his head so far up his ass that he needs move his shoulders to comb his hair.

        • Tano

           Well RM, it is a free country, and we all have the right to have our heads up our asses. The interesting question is whether we have the right to keep the government’s head out of our asses, or other parts.

          Do you believe there is a right to privacy even if it is not made explicit in the Constitution?

          • If by right to privacy you mean abortion then no.  I dont believe that.  As for keeping the govts heads out of our asses liberal want them everywhere else so why not our asses.  They want to dicatate what we eat, drink, what we can and cannot teach our children, feed them, raise them what to and to not believe, etc.

            All your meme above was was nothing more an argument for abortion.

            We as a society tell people what to and not to do with their bodies all the time.  We have vice laws, laws on how to and not to behave in public,  what we can and cannot do with our bodies and everything else.

            Your abortion is privacy is crap IMO.

            Your thoughts on hypocracy are crap as well. As I stated societies for thousands of years have set guidelines on behavoir.

          • Tano

             Glad to see you make it all explicit RM.

            Just don’t try to pretend to anyone that you have the slightest concern for liberty. You are far more of a statist than any lefty I ever encountered.

            Maybe a career taking orders from the government has left its mark.

          • At least I work for a living and made something of myself.  more than I can say for most libs.  They are mainly leeches who suck off the tit of the govt.
            But hey I am a live and let live kinda guy. Someone who makes long winded speeches about how killing unborn children wouldnt know about that.

          • Tano

            ” They are mainly leeches who suck off the tit of the govt.”

            Leeches suck blood, not milk. Just thought you might want to know that….

            “But hey I am a live and let live kinda guy. ”

            Well good for you…I hope you enjoy your life…

          • Oh I do.  Extraordinarily so.
            I dont need others to pump me up or make me feel good nor do I need their approval or feel the need to scapegoat someone for my failings.
            As for what leeches suck. Well you and your friends have first hand experience with that.

          • Oh I do.  Extraordinarily so.
            I dont need others to pump me up or make me feel good nor do I need their approval or feel the need to scapegoat someone for my failings.
            As for what leeches suck. Well you and your friends have first hand experience with that.

          • Tano

            ” They are mainly leeches who suck off the tit of the govt.”

            Leeches suck blood, not milk. Just thought you might want to know that….

            “But hey I am a live and let live kinda guy. ”

            Well good for you…I hope you enjoy your life…

          • So hoiw do you get from “A right to privacy’ to “A right to force someone to buy or pay for a product they do not want’ and “A right to free stuff at someone else’s expense’?

          • Tano

             You are paying for people’s health care already. If an uninsured person is injured or becomes gravely ill, they will be treated, whether they can afford it or not. This is both because there is a federal law mandating such care (I believe it was passed in the Reagan administration) and because that is part of our basic religious/cultural belief system – we don’t let people die on the street.

            So the hospitals and doctors just eat the cost of caring for these people, which means of course, they simply charge everyone else who does pay, or has insurance, a bit more to cover those costs.

            So this “product” (healthcare) is in fact something that everyone wants, and everyone certainly uses whenever they need it. The question is simply whether they will pay for it or not, or whether they will dump the bill on the rest of us.

            Mandated insurance is simply a means to rationalize the payment system. And by putting everyone into the insurance system, and giving the opportunity and incentive to get preventive care, or to see a doctor before their condition gets really grave, you end up most likely saving money for everyone in the end, or at least having it be a wash.

            I don’t quite see the logic of your complaints. You seem to object to people getting free stuff at the expense of others. A perfectly understandable sentiment, one that I share. But then why do you object to mandating that these people pay their fair share for the health care services that they are now getting for free? You seem to be arguing at cross purposes with yourself.

      • Tano

         ”  we simply want to protect your child’s most basic human right, the right to life,. ”

        Well goody for you. You are free to worry about my child once it is born.
        Actually, according to Roe, you (the collective you – i.e. the state) can begin to have some standing around the time of the embryo-fetal transition during development.

        You can try to spin the framing of the question all you want, but the reality of the issue is rather clear –  when exactly, and in which circumstances, should the state have the power to trump the liberty and the autonomy of the mother. I just find it interesting to see that you, and so many conservatives instinctively come down hard on the authoritarian, statist side of the question.

        “Also no one on the right wants to use the force of government to ban contraception, ”

        Perhaps you missed the reference. I mentioned contraception in the context of discussing the right to privacy – y’know, the concept that lies at the heart of the Roe decision. The SC did not first recognize the right to privacy in Roe, in fact they simply applied it in Roe – they had first recognized it in an earlier decision, Griswold v Connecticut, wherein they mentioned the oft-ridiculed “penumbras and emanations” of prior Court rulings regarding rights. Griswold was about contraception – yes Virginia, it really is the case that in my lifetime, contraception was illegal, even in CT.

        The rightwing is constantly attacking not only Roe, but all the argumentative underpinnings of Roe, including and especially the right to privacy, and the language of the Griswold decision. Is it unreasonable to conclude that people who think that Griswold was wrongly decided might wish it to be overturned? That contraception could be made illegal again?

        If you listen to Mr Santorum, you will hear quite clearly that he thinks contraception is wrong. He also has no problem using government to forbid things that he thinks are wrong. Granted, he does not put this all together and explicitly advocate for making contraception illegal – he realizes it is political suicide to do so, but I don’t think it fair to claim that no one on the right would like to do so.

        As for paying for other  peoples contraception, well, thats reallly just too bad isn’t it. Are we going to have a conscience exemption for all manner of government action? Should pacifists have the right to not pay taxes that would be spent on weapons, given their deep moral beliefs on the subject?

        But more to the original point – do you think that we citizens have a god-given right to privacy, even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution?

        • As far as Roe. . . the style of argument was an abomination;  once you start delving into “Penumbras’ and “Emanations” you find you can suddenly justify ANYTHING you want to.  Just argue that the document. .well, it never SAID this, but surely they MEANT it!  And it was an abomination entirely aside from the subject matter.  It could have been legislation on the proper shape of a cheese sandwich and it still would have been an abysmally poorly rendered case which sets dangerous precedents.  And in that case. . why is MANDATING that insurers MUST pay for contraception not also an invasion of a private decisions?  Is not a mandate the precise flip side of the coin of a ban?

          • Tano

             So, this means that you are against the recognition of a right to privacy? There is no space anywhere where the government cannot intrude?

          • If you want to have a specific ‘right to privacy’ codify it into law.  Don’t make it be there by judicial fiat.

          • And you just ignored everything I posted.  Even setting aside WHAT the decision was, it wouldn’t matter if a decision I LIKED was made the same way. . it would STILL BE WRONG.  That is a main different between a real conservative and a modern ‘progressive’.  To the progressive ANYTHING is justified so long as it moves them in what they believe is the ‘right’ direction, procedure and law be damned.  Precedent be damned.  Thinking at only one remove.  No thoughts to further consequences. Someone is poor?  Just take money away from someone else, give it to them, problem solved!  No room for thinking about “And then what?” . . 

        • EricSteel

          Well as you point out, even Roe v. Wade did not find that the right to  abortion was absolute.  The State does have the right to step in and regulate abortion in favor of protecting the fetus. 

          But I find it curious that many on the left ignore that part of the decision.  I have had plenty of arguments with people on the Left who believe that Roe v. Wade outlaws abortion completely and that  a woman has the right to abort at any point in the pregnancy.

          By the way your argument about contraception is fallacious, and has it completely backwards.  There is no tax involved where the government is the middle man in the financial transaction.  The government is telling organizations that they must pay for someone else’s contraception through private insurance coverage even if it is contrary to the organization’s moral code.  In that way the government is imposing its moral code onto private organizations.

          The government is not protecting the right to privacy of individuals, it is infringing on the right to privacy of private organizations

          • Tano

            ”  The government is telling organizations that they must pay for someone
            else’s contraception through private insurance coverage even if it is
            contrary to the organization’s moral code”

            The organization is not “giving” contraception to their workers. They are giving health insurance to their workers in exchange for work performed. If those workers utilize that insurance to get contraception it is not the business of the employer, any more so than if the worker were to use his salary money to go out and buy pornography. Perhaos you think that employers should have the power to decide how employees spend their salaries???

            Mandating that contraception be included in health insurance merely opens the possibility that the employee will take advantage of the service, and that the money that used to be in the hands of the employer will end up paying for that service. But that is just the same possibility that exists when the employer gives the employee money – that most fungible currency of all. Money that used to be in the hands of the employer may end up in all manner of places that the employer finds morally troubling, but it is none of his damn business.

            Funny how the self-appointed guardians of liberty have so little real affection for it.

            “The government is not protecting the right to privacy of individuals, it
            is infringing on the right to privacy of private organizations”

            No private organization has a privacy right to meddle in the financial or medical affairs of its employees, even if those matters are financed with money that the employee recieved in exchange for his labor (excepting of course purely ministerial relations, like the church;s relationship with its priests)

          • What did people do for contraception before the govt forced someone to buy it for them?  Oh wait they paid for it themself.  What a marvelous idea.

          • SoBeRight

            Because Catholic men should have their vasectomies paid for by health insurance — no complaints from the church abut that mandate, no sirree —

            But women are lesser beings in the Catholic church, so they should just sit down, shut up and let the men settle this.

            /truth

          • EricSteel

            Stop getting your information from Media Matters, because a) they lie and b) you are misinformed.  The Catholic Church does not support vasectomies.

            http://catholic.christianityinview.com/morals.html

          • SoBeRight

            I didn’t say they did.

            I hope you learn to read… let me try again.

            I said they are not complaining about a health care mandate to provide vasectomies — they just want to block the mandate that FEMALE contraception be provided.

            It’s a hugh hypocrisy that you chose to avoid by using an ad hominemt attack. If you cant’ read past a 3rd grade level, go comment on someone else’s remarks, They are plenty of ignorant conservatives around here for you to “correct” —

            — but seriously, learn to read first and maybe you wont look like such a hypocritical ass.

          • EricSteel

            What are you going to do, ban me?

            Maybe you over estimate your own reading comprehension skills. The Catholic Church does not support or provide insurance coverage for vasectomies either. The mandate covers both male and female contraception. But It is the Left that keeps making this an issue about women.

          • SoBeRight

            The Catholic Church has not said WORD ONE complaining about health insurance mandates that pay for vasectomies — only birth control for women.

            When I pointed this out before you ignored it and changed the subject.

            Now you are just flat out lying, proclaiming falsehoods.

            I’m not going to ask that the site ban you – you aren’t attacking me personally – you’re just another fathead liar, and I want to keep the fathead liars around.

          • EricSteel

            But you are the one attacking me personally, by calling me a fathead liar.  The Church did not support vasectomies before the mandate, and they haven’t changed their position because of the mandate.  Your point is meaningless.  It is the government that is making the mandate about women’s contraception. 
            Barack Obama, “Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the <b<woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”  
            Where do you see this as mandating vasectomies, and the church saying okay?

          • “they just want to block the mandate that FEMALE contraception be provided. ”

            Stephen you are still an idiot and have no clue what you are talking about.  The above statement is simply untrue.

            And as I said before.  Since you are not Catholic what does it matter to you if people follow their chosen faith or not.   As usual you want to sidetrack and throw feces.

          • “they just want to block the mandate that FEMALE contraception be provided. ”

            Stephen you are still an idiot and have no clue what you are talking about.  The above statement is simply untrue.

            And as I said before.  Since you are not Catholic what does it matter to you if people follow their chosen faith or not.   As usual you want to sidetrack and throw feces.

          • iwogisdead

            You are an idiot. The position of the church has nothing to do with the recipient of the “service,” but, rather, the victim of the “service.” Vasectomies have no victims–abortions do.

          • iwogisdead

            You are an idiot. The position of the church has nothing to do with the recipient of the “service,” but, rather, the victim of the “service.” Vasectomies have no victims–abortions do.

          • Nice Strawman there Stephen.  Show me where the church has paid for people they employ to get vasectomies.  The short answer is You cant. 
            /truth  (see others can do that as well)

          • Nice Strawman there Stephen.  Show me where the church has paid for people they employ to get vasectomies.  The short answer is You cant. 
            /truth  (see others can do that as well)

          • jim_m

            Each medical condition has a cost and an actuarial risk associated with it.  Each condition and treatment has a cost that is calculated into the cost of insurance premiums.

            Insurance is not a bank account that the patient spends on health care.  The employer buys insurance for the worker, the employer pays for everything that the employ will make a claim for. 

            You make this idiotic leap hat the employer by refusing to pay for something the employee wants that the employer is meddling in the financial or medical affairs of the employee.  That is not so.  The employee still has the right to go out and buy condoms with his own money.

            Once again this is an example of how the left demands that others pay for them to exercise what the left believes are rights. 

          • Tano

            ” The employer buys insurance for the worker, the employer pays for everything that the employ will make a claim for.”

            First off, the employee has earned the money that is being used to pay for the insurance. The policy belongs to the employee – they are the ones who have paid for it. The employer has merely paid the employee for his work.

            Perhaps you are just confused by the fact that the employer, for practical reasons, sets up the relationship with the insurance company and pays the employees earnings directly to the company, bypassing the employee. But that does not change the underlying relationship. It is the employee’s money, that he earned, that is paying for the insurance – it is not a gift from the employer.

            “You make this idiotic leap hat the employer by refusing to pay for
            something the employee wants that the employer is meddling in the
            financial or medical affairs of the employee”

            Of course they are. The employee has spent his/her money (by forgoing salary) for health insurance. And the employer is trying to barge into that relationship and impose their moral values onto the decisions of what treatments shall or shall not be paid for.

            Its so funny to hear the rightwingers whine about government bureaucrats getting between a patient and their doctor (as if there weren’t already a private insurance bureaucrat there). Now you want your employer to weigh in on your medical treatments – at least to the extent of having a say as to whether they will be covered by insurance???

            It is none of the employer’s business what the employee does with his or her medical care – not even on the question of whether it will be covered or not. Your freedom to swing your fists ends at the point of my nose. Your freedom to follow your moral code does not extend to interference in my relationship with my doctor and my health insurance company – even if that insurance is paid for by money I earned in your employ.

          • You are a true idiot.  Businesses pay into health plans for their employees as well.

            “It is none of the employer’s business what the employee does with his or her medical care”

            Really?  Then businesses shouldnt care if or where  their workers smoked or used drugs correct? 

            The libs in the govt have schools monitoring children’s body fat.  Some libs want health benefits decided by whether a person lives a health lifestyle or not.
            But all of that is just fine and dandy with you since it is the govt doing it.
             

          • You are a true idiot.  Businesses pay into health plans for their employees as well.

            “It is none of the employer’s business what the employee does with his or her medical care”

            Really?  Then businesses shouldnt care if or where  their workers smoked or used drugs correct? 

            The libs in the govt have schools monitoring children’s body fat.  Some libs want health benefits decided by whether a person lives a health lifestyle or not.
            But all of that is just fine and dandy with you since it is the govt doing it.
             

          • EricSteel

            Actually, organizations do have the right to make that decision.  The employer is the one providing health insurance and can decide what if anything will be covered by that insurance.  The employer is not infringing on the employee’s right to contraception, the employee is perfectly free to purchase contraception.  And the employer is perfectly free to not have to pay for it.

            For example, my employer does not pay for vision care.  My employer is not infringing on my right to have glasses because they choose not to provide visioncare.  I have to pay for my glasses out of pocket.  Are they meddling in my financial and medical affairs by not providing vision care?

            What is the difference to the situation where an employer chooses not to pay for contraception coverage? 

            If a Catholic organization is making a moral decision not to pay for contraception coverage, isn’t the government doing the same thing, making a moral decision to require contraception coverage?  Where does the government get the right to dictate moral decisions to private parties?

            Funny how the self-appointed guardians of liberty have so little real affection for it.

          • Tano

             “The employer is the one providing health insurance and can decide what if anything will be covered by that insurance. ”

            No, Eric, the employer is not the one providing health insurance. The insurance company is providing health insurance. And the employee is paying for it with money that he receives as part of his overall compensation package. The employer is merely a facilator of the process – putting together a pool of customers for the insurance company to sell their product to, and arranging for part of the employee’s earnings to be directly routed to the insurance company, instead of giving the money directly to the employee and then having the employee send the money to the insurance company.

            I guess it is very easy for you guys to overlook what is going on here. It is YOUR MONEY that you earned, not your employer’s money anymore. Once you earn the money, they do not have a right to determine how you will spend it.

            “If a Catholic organization is making a moral decision not to pay for contraception coverage,…”

            This is the problem, this is where they go wrong. They are not paying for contraception. It doesn’t even make sense to claim that they are paying for health insurance. They are paying their employee for the work he has done.That is the contract with regards to this money. Once the employee does the work, the employer owes him the money they agreed to.

            If the employer makes an arrangement on the side with an insurance company such that the employee can purchase health insurance at a good rate, with his earnings, that does not change the fact that the money at play here belongs to the employee, not to the employer. If the employer facilitates the deal by sending some of the employee’s earnings directly to the insurance company, that too does not change the nature of the relationship – it is the employee’s earned money, not the employer’s money.

          • EricSteel

            Sorry Tano, but you are incorrect on all counts. The cost of health insurance is shared by the employer and the employee, let’s say 50/50. But you say, the 50% covered by the employer is “really” the employee’s money because it is part of his compensation package. I can see your point. But… It is the employer who decides what plans and coverage are to be provided to the employees and the employees are still getting compensated for the plan whatever it covers and whatever it costs.

            Employers do not provide 100% coverage for all medical procedures. Again, I go back to my own employer. They do not provide vision care because it is not part of the plan that they negotiated with the insurance company. As a result they are not required to provide me with vision care.

            If the employer negotiates with the insurance company not to pay for contraception coverage, it is not the government’s job to interfere with that decision and force a company to have to provide coverage for an elective medical procedure that the private organization has a moral or religious objection. What happened to the separation of Church and State?

          • SoBeRight

            The health care premium split between employer and employee is ofter closer to 80-90% employer/10-20% employee — not 50-50.

          • EricSteel

            I was using 50/50 as a hypothetical split to make the math easier.  But you are correct that in reality, it is not 50/50.

          • EricSteel

            I was using 50/50 as a hypothetical split to make the math easier.  But you are correct that in reality, it is not 50/50.

          • So you are saying that it is fine for the govt to tell employers how to spend their money while Tano  says it isnt.

            Got it.

          • Tano

             ” It is the employer who decides what plans and coverage are to be
            provided to the employees and the employees are still getting
            compensated for the plan whatever it covers and whatever it costs.”

            That does not change the fact that it is paid for with the money that the employee earned. It is his money, his plan. That the employer has any say as to what is in the plan is an anomaly of how our health insurance system has evolved.

            ” it is not the government’s job to interfere with that decision and
            force a company to have to provide coverage for an elective medical
            procedure that the private organization has a moral or religious
            objection”

            Once again, the employer is not providing the coverage. The employer is simply facilitating the purchase of insurance, by the employee, with his own money. You seem, at the beginning of your comment, to “see my point”. But you are not assimilating it. The moment you have done your work, fulfilled the terms of your contract with your employer, he owes you the compensation that he promised. And once he releases those funds, they are yours – both the money that he sends to your bank account, and the money he sends, in your name, to the insurance company. He has no right to decide how that money is spent – its yours, not his.

             He is not purchasing the groceries that you buy with your salary, just because that money was at one point his. Similarly, he is not purchasing contraception when you do so, even though the money for it was his before he gave it to you as compensation – either directly as cash, or through your health insurance.

            If you want to make an argument that the government should not mandate contraception in health insurance plans,you can find several grounds on which to make that argument, but the claim that it violates the employers religious conscience is specious. It has nothing to do with the employer – it is your money.

          • EricSteel

            I am going to reply at the bottom because of this stupid comment editor.

          • EricSteel

            I am going to reply at the bottom because of this stupid comment editor.

          • ” but the claim that it violates the employers religious conscience is specious”

            The truth always is specious with libs.

          • ” It is YOUR MONEY that you earned, not your employer’s money anymore. Once you earn the money, they do not have a right to determine how you will spend it. ”

            Hey can you tell the Obama administration that.  Especially since they want to tell insurance companies how to spend the money THEY EARNED. 

        • I dont think Santorum has ever said that the govt should outlaw contraception (maybe I am wrong as I havent heard everything he has ever said or even 1% of it).  I believe he is saying the govt shouldnt have to pay for it.  A concept which the liberals refuse to accept.

          • hyperboliszt

            Because it’s fucking retarded.

          • SoBeRight

            Birth control is good idea — at least in some families… like certain conservative military families…

          • hyperboliszt

            I don’t follow.

          • hyperboliszt

            I don’t follow.

          • OOohh smart idea there Stephen.  Both my parents were democrats. BTW.  They were also Catholic which means I actually got a chance to grow up and make up my own mind about things.  Something a lot of libs dont want kids to have the chance to do.

          • hyperboliszt

            Oh wait, I get it… sorry.
            He’s just a cantankerous old buffoon.

          • You have first hand knowledge of that subject hyper.  still think it is okay for people to chop off their own limbs?

          • hyperboliszt

            Yup!

            Anyway, the government paying for contraception means fewer abortions and fewer unwanted children and fewer dollars spent on social services for poor kids. You do realize that preventing a pregnancy is not the same thing as killing a child, right?

            If you want to have sex and have kids, go ahead. If you want to have sex and not have children, it’s in society’s interests for the government to provide you with contraception. If that offends your religious sensibilities, um… who cares?

          • “it’s in society’s interests for the government to provide you with contraception”

            Why does the govt have to provide it?  I mean people have provided their own for the past hundred years or so?
            It isnt like folks cant get birth control nor has anyo0ne called for it to be outlawed..

          • hyperboliszt

            Some people are really poor, is why.

            If it’s a ‘right’ then the government has a corresponding duty to uphold it. I believe (and you are most welcome to disagree, as I expect you will) that access to modern contraceptive technologies ought to be recognized as a right.

          • Actually I dont think it is a right.  It is something available in the market and not outlawed.  That hardly makes it  a right.  Unless you wnat to argue that everyone should have a can of peas and that having it is a right as well.  So are cigarettes then since they meet the same criteria.  The same with a new car or million dollar mansion.

            So hey. Since it is in the best interest of society then you think the  govt should have to pay for it.

            Well everyone should have a free ride to Harvard as that is in the best interest of society and some people cant afford it.

            And since it is in the best interste of the society for everyone to eat meat than the govt should have to pay for that as well in your opinion.

            So where does it stop?  I mean since there are a lot of things in the best interest of society the they should be free or paid for by the govt.  At least in your opinion.

    •  I hear this charge made quite often from the right, and yet I have never heard anyone actually espouse such beliefs.

      I take it you’ve never read Hobbes.

  • Tano

     ” I think it’s nothing more than their deep seeded belief that the state
    is the be all end all of granting rights, with no other force ever
    devised being as powerful as the state.”

    I hear this charge made quite often from the right, and yet I have never heard anyone actually espouse such beliefs.

    Actually, if you stop and think about the arguments made about rights and the law in modern American discourse, you will discover that it is often “the right” that gets mighty confused on these points.

    Lets just take the biggest and most obvious issue – abortion, and beneath that, contraception. These were, of course, the specific issues around which the Supreme Court ended up recognizing a right to privacy.

    One might think that privacy – especially for the most intimate aspects of one’s personal life – from intrusive meddling by the state would be something that all libertarian-leaning conservatives would be adamant about. One might imagine that defending a sphere of privacy from the state might rank right up there with the general pursuit of happiness as a right that is pre-Constitutional – something endowed by the Creator. One would be wrong though, wouldn’t one.

    All we hear from conservatives is scathing denunciations of judges who “make up rights” that are not to be found in the Constitution. How can you not see that this attitude is based on an assumption that individuals shall have no rights recognized unless they are explicitly granted in the Constitution? Is there a right to privacy? Did the Creator wish for you to have someplace free from state intrusion? Or must we look, in vain,  to the Constitution for such a right?

    Look, lets be honest here. The hypocrisy (on both sides) is absolutely epidemic. If a liberal administration wants to do something, like health care, then the conservatives will scream that the state has no power to do so unless explicitly granted by the Constitution. If, however, a conservative administration wants to regulate sex or drugs or individual reproductive decisions (none of which are mentioned in the Constitution), then the government is free to do so.

    Yeah, the other side wings it too. Everyone fights for what they want, and makes up “principles” when needed, for rhetorical effect, and then tosses them the minute that following them would cause an outcome they don’t want.

  • Commander_Chico

    I’m trying to figure out this “Natural Law,” what it is.  Is there a book somewhere the Natural Law is written down? 

    I know there was a Natural Law Party, http://www.natural-law.org/ , but they seem to be defunct.  They were following the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.  He was the same guy who influenced the Beatles, wasn’t he?  So is “Natural Law” related to Transcendental Meditiation?

    Or is it more like this Sharia law they’re trying to ban?  The Muslims say Sharia is the natural law, are they wrong?  If I need a legal opinion on Natural Law, who do I go to?  A naturist?

    • Law that is inherent just through existence vs law that can be granted and taken away by government.  Liberals despise natural law because it takes power away from them and government, and is therefore evil.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, but can you tell me where this Natural Law is written down?  People seem to disagree on what is “natural,” and I can’t find the definitive Natural Law text.

        Or is it a suum quique— to each his own — kind of thing?  Like, we all decide what’s “natural” or not? For the gays, they say what they do is natural, even though others say not. So what’s up with that? Do the gays have their own Natural Law?

        • TWB

          Well Chico, you’re not going to find an original source for Natural Law, and that’s kind of the point. “Self-evident” truths. That’s natural law. 

          • SoBeRight

             In other words — “We Christians have decided what the natural laws are — and the Constitution takes second place behind what we think are more important rights and laws”….

          • In other words “We liberals have decided what the natural laws are, and if we have to ignore the constitution to get there”  Come on.  That reply isn’t even difficult.

        • If a right is defined by what is written down then it is subject to editing.  As liberals have proven with the constitution, once you have put something in legal language, people will twist it to make it say the opposite of what it does to get what they want;  First amendment being a prime example.

        •  Natural law comes from God, hence leftists problem with the concept.

          http://www.lonang.com/

          • Commander_Chico

            You mean charlatans who claim to speak for God get to rule over us, by claiming its Natural Law?  Sounds like Iran.

          • As opposed to those who speak for themselves and claim to rule over us because they can?  Believers in God recognize the limitations of the wisdom of men, and the concepts of right and wrong. The alternatives are Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Saul Alynski. Sounds like Stalin.

          • TWB

            Natural Law doesn’t necessarily have to mean laws that came from God. As a Christian, I believe that’s where they came from. But Natural law is laws that are inherent in nature, from some thing, or some source bigger than all of us. Even an atheist would have to acknowledge the existence of Natural Laws.

          • TWB

            Natural Law doesn’t necessarily have to mean laws that came from God. As a Christian, I believe that’s where they came from. But Natural law is laws that are inherent in nature, from some thing, or some source bigger than all of us. Even an atheist would have to acknowledge the existence of Natural Laws.

          • hyperboliszt

            Do you mean Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Brahmin? Or Shiva? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

            If you love theocracy so much you should go live in a theocratic country.

          •  I would love to have an intelligent discussion over this, but I refuse to engage unarmed men.

          • SoBeRight

            Thanks for shutting up and admitting you’ve lost.

            Well done, hyper. Stay the course…

          • hyperboliszt

            I replied to you but realized I misread what you’re saying. Sorry

            OTIS doesn’t have to reply with anything other than dismissive pomposity but I would be interested to hear his thoughts on why he dislikes living in a secular country.

          • hyperboliszt

            I replied to you but realized I misread what you’re saying. Sorry

            OTIS doesn’t have to reply with anything other than dismissive pomposity but I would be interested to hear his thoughts on why he dislikes living in a secular country.

          • jb

             Yeah, damn Leftists with that whole “humans should be free to believe in what they like as long as they don’t hurt anyone else” thing.

            How do they sleep at night?

          • jb

            Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: Gays caused 9/11 .

            Your point being?

    • iwogisdead

      So, you’ve always been at a loss when you have read these words:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [t]hat to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, . . .  [and t]hat whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . .

      Start here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

      • jim_m

         Careful, repeating those words you quoted might be considered sedition by the current government.

      • Commander_Chico

        Riiiight, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

        So that is the “Natural Law?”  And what else?  Does Natural Law have a position on Social Security?  On non-tariff barriers to trade?  On prohibition of marijuana?  Banking capital reserve requirements?

        • Evil Otto

          And what else?

          What do you mean “what else?” Natural law deals with RIGHTS. It does not have anything to do with government programs.

          Does Natural Law have a position on Social Security? On non-tariff barriers to trade?  On prohibition of marijuana?  Banking capital reserve requirements?

          No.

          Let me ask you something, oh intentionally-obtuse-one… if the Bill of Rights were repealed tomorrow, would you argue that you still had the rights of freedom of speech, religion, and the rest even though the government now claimed you didn’t?

          If you believe you would still have those rights even if the government disagreed, congratulations, you believe in natural law. It’s what’s left after you cut away the useless chaff about Social Security, non-tariff barriers to trade, and the rest.

    • TWB

      You should read the The 5000 Year Leap, Chico. http://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Leap-Original-Authorized/dp/0880801484

      • Commander_Chico

        I appreciate that, but what’s your argument now. TWB?  I won’t have time to read that book in the next week and by that time this thread will be dead.

        • TWB

          I’m just saying if you want to read a good book with great explanations of Natural Law, that’s a good one to read.

          • Commander_Chico

            Well, I read the “28 principles” on the internet, some of them are good, some of them are nonsense, but I would not say all or perhaps any of them are “natural.”   For example, three branches of government.  The UK and Australia seem to do well with two.

          • TWB

            I believe it’s Principle 1 that Natural Law is discussed as being the the main source of inspiration for most of the founders.

          • Commander_Chico

            Any “Law,” whether you call it “Natural” or not, that is not written down somewhere – in a statute, constitution, or a case – is meaningless.

            What does it mean other than “inalienable right” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

            “Natural Law” has its predecessors and corrollaries:  the divinity of the emperor,”The Divine Right of Kings” (Deo Gratia), the Islamic law principles of Wilayat i Fiqh.

            It all amounts to “subject to interpretation” and “making up shit and saying God said it” to me.

            Seems like you’re more in tune with the Republic of Gilead than the USA.

        • TWB

          I’m just saying if you want to read a good book with great explanations of Natural Law, that’s a good one to read.

  • Oysteria

    “There isn’t, unfortunately enough for us, a requirement that anyone seeking elected office have at least a basic understanding of our founding documents and how those documents came to be.”

    Exactly.  In order to get my low level job I had to have a full and complete understanding of things far above and beyond the position.  I took four tests and passed three with 100% and the fourth with 97% (I could effectively argue the latter).  I needed a full background check (personal and financial) and a drug test (otherwise known as an “IQ test”).

    In order to become a politician, you get on-the-job training for how government works, but not necessarily does one ever have to learn the actual laws that govern it.  Obama has shown us this.

    • jb

       Right. Obama the Constitutional Law professor, who also practiced law in the private sector with national and international firms.

      Do you guys ever Google?

  • PBunyan

    I can think of nothing more dangerous, no great affront to basic human rights, than when someone decides they have a right to a service that another person provides.  It’s tanamount to slavery. 

    The Republicans abolished slavery almost 150 years ago, but over the last 100 years the Democrats have gradually been bringing it back.  Well, I guess I should be thankful that the government only enslaves me for half of every year… 

    • jim_m

       Oh, you must mean healthcare.

    • hyperboliszt

      So paying taxes is like being forced to work on a plantation for no pay? Is Ron Paul the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, then?

  • Par4Course

    I’m skeptical of the “Natural Law” concept but the writers of the Constitution clearly intended to establish a government with  limited, enumerated powers, subject to the Bill of Rights, which reserves most powers to the states or to the people.  There is no Constitutional provision for an “entitlement” to any government benefit or any mention of health care or anything remotely similar.  If pressed, the Democrats will probably say that all this is implied in the clause that gives the government the power to borrow money – since that’s the only way the government can pay for all the entitlements it has bestowed.

    If Obamacare is not repealed by a new Congress or struck down by the Supremes, it is likely to be with us for a very long time, as the populace is inclined to accept and then demand any perceived benefit the government bestows.  Look at Social Security, an unsustainable program sold by the lie that it was insurance.   Now SS is a Sacred Cow often call the Third Rail of American politics – a program that is fiscally irresponsible but which politicians won’t touch for fear of the voters kicking their asses out of town.

  • iwogisdead

    Kathy Hochul is the latest example in a disturbing trend among Democratic Congresscritters who do not understand that the power of the Congress to do anything comes only from specific provisions of the Constitution. “Congress has decided” is not a valid Constitutional argument. The fact that she cannot cite a provision of the Constitution (can she spell “Constitution”?) giving the Congress the power to pass Obamacare should scare the hell out of everyone.

    I have no idea what the SCOTUS is going to do with this mess. With meatheads like Ginsburg and Breyer, and especially Sotomayor and Kagan, anything can happen.

  • ackwired

    “Natural Law” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.  Jefferson said that certain inalienable rights were self-evident, which would indicate that he was using natural law theory to argue that individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It seems a stretch to therefore assume that both documents were based on the theory of natural law, and that natural law should govern the actions of the three branches of government today.  Your assertion that government can neither grant nor take away “natural rights” also flies in the face of the fact that the founding fathers specifically prohibited congress from passing laws that would prohibit or restrict certain rights.

    • Evil Otto

      “Natural Law” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

      Read the Declaration again.

      “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to
      dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and
      to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station
      to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent
      respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
      causes which impel them to the separation.”

      Keep in mind that the Declaration was gone over with a fine-toothed comb by congress (much to Jefferson’s dismay), and parts of the wording changed… but they left that part in. Jefferson was far from the only Founder to believe in the concept of natural law… most did. Their writings are full of talk about natural law and natural rights.

      Your assertion that government can neither grant nor take away “natural
      rights” also flies in the face of the fact that the founding fathers
      specifically prohibited congress from passing laws that would prohibit
      or restrict certain rights.

      This was a point of contention during the debate on the Constitution. On the Federalist side many, Madison for example, felt that there was no need to spell out the rights of mankind as they were self-evident and the Constitution would not allow the government to interfere with those rights. His feeling was the government would restrict itself to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists held that the government would grow out of control and impinge on people’s rights unless it was clearly spelled out that it could not. They demanded that the rights be spelled out specifically, though the 9th Amendment made it clear that those were not the only rights the people had. Had the Bill of Rights not been guaranteed, it is unlikely that the Constitution would have been ratified.

      • ackwired

        Thanks for the response.  Good job.

  • TWB

    I’ve never understood the liberal argument that abortion is protected under the right to privacy. If I wanted to kill and eat human beings in the privacy of my own home would I still be prosecuted under the law for violating their basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or would I be allowed to go free because I perpetrated the crimes in private, where no one else could see?

    • Tano

       I am rather suspicious of the sincerity of your question, but what the heck….

      The question is rather obviously – when in the developmental process that starts with ovulation and ends with birth – at what point do we recognize the existence of a “person” under the law. That is why the debate in many places is now centering on these “personhood” amendments.

      One group claims that the moment of conception should mark the beginning of a fully recognized person, with all legal and constitutional rights. Others argue for other moments. You should read the actual Roe decision – it offers a succinct summary of at least some of the history of how this question has been answered in our civilization.

      It certainly is not the case that conception is the necessary moment. It certainly has not been in the past. If anything, you can see that so many things in our culture point to our having historically recognized personhood rights at birth. We dont celebrate conception days, we dont count fetuses in the census, we don’t give extra tax benefits or transfer payments to fetuses, or to pregnant women.

      Probably the most often used milestone for at least the beginning of a recognition of personhood has been the moment of “quickening” – which the religious authorities identified as the moment that the soul entered the body, and is the moment when there is the first feeling, by the mother, of the movement of the fetus. This happens roughly half way through the pregnancy, although it can happen closer to the beginning of the second trimester.

      There is also the biologically important milestone which can generally be referred to as an embryo-fetal transformation – basically when most all the parts are assembled and the rest of the pregnancy is spent on growing those parts. That also corresponds roughly to the end of the first trimester.

      For those historical, cultural, and biological reasons, the SC, in Roe, recognized that the state could begin to have the power to regulate the fate of the fetus at around the end of the first trimester. Before that, the state does not have a compelling reason to violate the autonomy of the woman.

      • TWB

        Well Tano, and not to sound like a smart ass, but your first paragraph sort of makes my point for me. You said:

        “The question is rather obviously – when in the developmental process that starts with ovulation and ends with birth – at what point do we recognize the existence of a “person” under the law. That is why the debate in many places is now centering on these “personhood” amendments.” 

        There is a point at which “we” recognize the existence of a person (hence the bickering and fighting about it) and a point at which Natural Law recognizes the existence of a person, which can’t be debated. Natural Law is absolute. “We” can disagree all day long and never come to a conclusion that satisfies all parties, however, Natural Law is what it is. Nature knows without a doubt when a person becomes a person and what laws apply and when they start applying.

      • TWB

        Well Tano, and not to sound like a smart ass, but your first paragraph sort of makes my point for me. You said:

        “The question is rather obviously – when in the developmental process that starts with ovulation and ends with birth – at what point do we recognize the existence of a “person” under the law. That is why the debate in many places is now centering on these “personhood” amendments.” 

        There is a point at which “we” recognize the existence of a person (hence the bickering and fighting about it) and a point at which Natural Law recognizes the existence of a person, which can’t be debated. Natural Law is absolute. “We” can disagree all day long and never come to a conclusion that satisfies all parties, however, Natural Law is what it is. Nature knows without a doubt when a person becomes a person and what laws apply and when they start applying.

  • Thanks for the link TWB, and for the fine mini-essay.

    • TWB

      No problem Bob.

    • TWB

      No problem Bob.

  • GarandFan

    “Entitled to health care”?  So I’m ENTITLED to the labor of someone else?  Uh, isn’t that called ‘slavery’ and isn’t it against the law?

    • hyperboliszt

      Yeah, doctors and nurses are analogous to slaves. Well-paid, highly respected slaves with reserved parking spots, but still, slaves.

    • SoBeRight

      Aren’t you entitled to police and fire protection?

      Of course you are – and those are the labors of others.

      Are you entitled to a public education?

      Of course you are – and those are the labors of others.

      It’s not slavery and not against the law.

      Are you entitled to collect Social Security at age 65 – after you stop working you can collect monies paid into social security by others, regardless of how much you yourself paid in.

      As a matter of fact, you are. And that’s not slavery or anything against the law.

      • TWB

        Entitlements and Rights are two different things. Sure, we’re entitled to police and fire protection because we pay taxes. But that doesn’t mean that the government won’t take those entitlements away from us.

        We’re entitled to SS because we’ve paid into it. That doesn’t mean it will be around when we reach 65. Had they been “rights”, such as the natural rights we’re talking about, there would be no chance that we may lose those entitlements one day.

        If you believe, like most libs, that healthcare is a right, tell me if every doctor, nurse, or anyone who administers healthcare were gone tomorrow, who would be around to insure your “right.”

      • TWB

        Entitlements and Rights are two different things. Sure, we’re entitled to police and fire protection because we pay taxes. But that doesn’t mean that the government won’t take those entitlements away from us.

        We’re entitled to SS because we’ve paid into it. That doesn’t mean it will be around when we reach 65. Had they been “rights”, such as the natural rights we’re talking about, there would be no chance that we may lose those entitlements one day.

        If you believe, like most libs, that healthcare is a right, tell me if every doctor, nurse, or anyone who administers healthcare were gone tomorrow, who would be around to insure your “right.”

      • GarandFan

        Police and fire?  So that’s what my property tax bill pays.

        Go to Arizona.  In some towns, you buy a house, THEN go to the neighborhood fire station to pay them an ASSESSMENT for protection.

        Public education to a certain grade level is mandatory.  Are you ENTITLED to a college degree?

        Social Security payments are a result of MANDATORY contributions TAKEN FROM YOU.

        Go to any doctor of your choice and tell them that you are ENTITLED to their services.

        • Dont try to confuse him garand.  He says that people shouldnt be able to tell you how to spend the money you earn (unless they are the govt and then it is just fine).

          Also there was the house that burned down a few months back because the family didnt pay for fire proteciton service.

          “Are you ENTITLED to a college degree?”

          See Hyper;s argument above and below. He believes it is a right and as such the govt should pay for it no matter what.

          • hyperboliszt

            I didn’t say that you putz. You’re either thick or lying.

            I do believe that the government is obligated to furnish us with whatever is necessary such that our rights are upheld; I don’t believe post-secondary education to be a right. I do believe that we have a right to elementary and secondary schooling, and so does the government and that’s why school is free and everybody has to go. I don’t believe the same about college.

            So: are you dumb or are you lying?

          • Just going by what you said Hyper.  Thats all.

          • hyperboliszt

            Oh I get it, you’re just trolling trolls. Whatever floats your boat!

          • Not my fault you are such a hypocrit there hyper. 

  • EricSteel

    Tano,
    You keep ignoring my point about vision care.  So I will ask you directly.  Tell me how do I get vision care from my insurance company if it is not part of my medical plan?

    • Tano is too busy out there killing unborn children to answer your question.

      • EricSteel

        I don’t think that is a necessary RM. Tano and I are having a respectful debate and I don’t see where he deserves such a disrespectful comment. He is not being an ass like Zgofish.

        • Eric

          You are correct and I was in the wrong.  I apologize to both you and Tano ref my post above on this matter.

           

      • hyperboliszt

        Abortion is a legal medical procedure in pretty well every developed country. There are lots of shitty goat pastures in the third world where you can go and live happily in your regressive utopia where women have no rights and poor people have to beg for alms rather than cash their government cheques. Some of these countries have laws based on religious texts, which you would also enjoy. All of those countries fucking suck but they obviously appeal to you so pack your bags and go to the airport.

        You’re old so you remember the 60s and 70s. Do you remember that your team lost the culture war and that abortion is now legal and women don’t have to pretend to care what you think they should do with their reproductive organs? Because that happened and it was totally sweet and it’s really funny that you’re still bitter about it.

        • geez talk about bitter.  Did you read what you just wrote.  I may be old but I am not that old.  I was born in 60 so yes I remember the 60s and 70s.

          As for the culture war I never fought it, dont care who won it and could care less about it.  You are the one whose self worth is based off others feelings not mine.  No bitterness here on my part.

          I thought we were discussing contraception not abortion.  But as long as you mention it you are the one who thinks it is alright for folks to cut off their own limbs. 

          As I stated.  You want folks to live by your standards and not anyone;s who doesnt agree with you.  And you are pissed because I called you on it.

        • geez talk about bitter.  Did you read what you just wrote.  I may be old but I am not that old.  I was born in 60 so yes I remember the 60s and 70s.

          As for the culture war I never fought it, dont care who won it and could care less about it.  You are the one whose self worth is based off others feelings not mine.  No bitterness here on my part.

          I thought we were discussing contraception not abortion.  But as long as you mention it you are the one who thinks it is alright for folks to cut off their own limbs. 

          As I stated.  You want folks to live by your standards and not anyone;s who doesnt agree with you.  And you are pissed because I called you on it.

  • EricSteel

    Tano,
    You keep ignoring my point about vision care.  So I will ask you directly.  Tell me how do I get vision care from my insurance company if it is not part of my medical plan?

  • hyperboliszt

    @yahoo-W6UJJOM4PP4XLSBG6N4LROVSQE:disqus , the thread got too skinny so I’m continuing it here.

    Well everyone should have a free ride to Harvard as that is in the best interest of society and some people cant afford it.  Actually it’s not in society’s best interests. Not having too many kids in shitty situations (i.e. teenaged single moms) certainly is.

    • Hey it is your opinion of what a shitty situation is and that it isnt in society’s best interests to have children in those situations.  Others may have different ideas of what defines a shitty situation. 

      Wouldnt society be a better place if everyone grew up in million dollar mansions, had 3 square healthly meals a day,  a car in every garage,  a chicken in every pot and a harvard education.  After all that is your measuring stick hyper.  That because it is for the good of society that the govt should pay for it.  You also feel that since a commodity is legal and available that it is therefore a right and that govt has the responsibliity to ensure that everyone has it. To include million dollar mansions, cars, Harvard education, etc etc etc. I am simply using your measuring stick Hyper. Per your measuring stick having these things are all rights which the govt should make sure people get.

      “Not having too many kids in shitty situations (i.e. teenaged single moms) certainly is.      ‘
      Well that means that you think that socieity should certainly take every single child out of a shitty situation and make sure that they do just fine at govt expense.   College education, good house, good food. car, video games,  everything.  I mean who says we have to go by your definition of shitty situation.

      • hyperboliszt

        It’s not my opinion that society needs a stratified labour market. It’s a statement of fact.

        Something being good for a person does not mean every person is entitled to it. That’s not and has never been my argument. The social utility to preventing unwanted pregnancy is so obvious that I have to think you’re just being obtuse by proffering examples like million dollar mansions.

        • “It’s not my opinion that society needs a stratified labour market. It’s a statement of fact.”

          Where is that written?  IN the book Liberal facts for fun and plundering other people;s money?

          “Something being good for a person does not mean every person is entitled to it’

          No you didnt.  You said that since it was good for society that govt should pay for it.  You then said that it was a right and the govts duty to ensure you have access to it.

          Those are almost verbatim quotes.

          Better yet here are your own words.

          “If you want to have sex and not have children, it’s in society’s interests for the government to provide you with contraception”

          I simply used other things that are in society’s interest and you poo poo them away.   Things like everyone having a Harvard educatrion and growing up in million dollar homes. 

          Then  you said
          “If it’s a ‘right’ then the government has a corresponding duty to uphold it. I believe (and you are most welcome to disagree, as I expect you will) that access to modern contraceptive technologies ought to be recognized as a right. ”

          Now modern contraceptives are a commodity.  It is curently legal and it is available to everyone for a price.  You think it is a right.  So what stops other commodities like Cars, million dollar mansions, XBOX 360s etc from being rights as well.   After all except for the funciton for which the commodity is used they are currently legal and are available to everyone for a price.

               

          I simply used your measuring stick and applied to other things that would be also be good for society.  You are simply refusing to accept the fact that you are a hypocrit and only want us to use your standards.

          • hyperboliszt

            You didn’t understand the previous comment. I said that a stratified labour pool is necessary to demonstrate why the idea that everybody going to Harvard being good for society is absurd. We can’t all be doctors and somebody needs to clean the toilet at McDonald’s.

            I firmly believe that things that are good for society are things that government should possibly invest in. In this case, contraceptives are a miniscule investment vs. the cost of a child being raised in poverty. Enormous cost savings for taxpayers. If you care about fiscal prudence then you should care about people having guaranteed access to contraceptives. The other things you’re talking about have nothing to do with healthcare and are superfluous consumer commodities. An Xbox is a video game console, whereas birth control pills regulate a person’s reproductive system. I understand what you are trying to do with the examples but they just aren’t very good ones.

            And it’s not in everyone’s interest to live in million dollar homes. Society doesn’t need more entitled brats.

          • ” We can’t all be doctors and somebody needs to clean the toilet at McDonald’s.”

            Well you just wrote off those guys cleaning toilets at McDonalds.
            But that is okay because that is your standard.

            “I firmly believe that things that are good for society are things that government should possibly invest in”

            Key word in that whole sentence.  I. I. I. I.  Not society as a whole.  not what others may think.  Just your standard.   As for possibly.  You didnt say possibly above.  You said definitely.

            ” guaranteed access to contraceptives”

            People have gaurenteed access to contraceptives.  Show me one person who doesnt.  Poor people get access to them just the same and the govt pays for them.  And for those that govt doesnt take care there are plenty of charities and free clinics that do.   So again that word guarenteed has to meet YOUR STANDARD.

            “The other things you’re talking about have nothing to do with healthcare and are superfluous consumer commodities.”

            But you see you didnt say healthcare.  You said FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.   And again you want us to only use YOUR STANDARD.

            “And it’s not in everyone’s interest to live in million dollar homes”

            But you see then people will feel self conscious about where they grew up.  Some might feel they grew up in shitty situations if they didnt grow up in a million dollar home.  But hey that is okay because YET AGAIN YOU ONLY WANT US TO USE YOUR STANDARD.

            The truth is people have acess to birth control whether they can pavy for it or not.  The truth is you simply want the govt (or employers via govt fiat) to pay for it because that is your standard. 

            Here is a clue Hyper. The world doesnt revolve around YOUR STANDARD. Nor mine. It is a mix of all of ours. That is why despite the Catholic religion being against contraception that contraception is legal.

            Besides if we want to save money how about not giving any more money to companies ran by Obama’s donors and bundlers which then go bankrupt. Oooo theres a thought.

            Just becuase you think something is a right doesnt make it so.

            Besides once again, you are from Canada. What do you care if something is considered a right in the US or not?

  • Jay

    Hey, uhm… GOP?  You guys are losing the audience with your right wing nuttery.  Might want to tone it down and see why people like sex and contraception besides women’s health care access and mixed up notions of why condoms are the only thing a woman needs.

    • I could care less if I “lose the audience” or not.  My opinions dont shift with the wind and I dont have to be part of the “popular” crowd in order to feel complete.

      And just so you know. It is laughable that you point to a Maureen Dowd piece in the NY Times to try to prove anything other than liberal bias and writers who dont have a clue what reality is.

      In all this controversy one thing has been missing.
      Not one politiician has pointed out one woman who has got pregnant because she didnt have access to contraceptives. Not one. WHere’s thge infamous hard luck story that Obama drags out to prove that this program or that program will help people like “Mary from Tumblewa IA who got pregnant because she was too poor to buy a condom or to get the pill” You know the story the lamestream media repeats ad nauseum and doesnt check on but some blogger finds out that Mary from Tumblewa, IA drives a caddilac, lives in a $150k house and fraudlently gets food stamps while making $50k a year.

      • Jay

        I could care less if you think that Maureen Dowd speaks for me as one more voice that’s saying that the GOP is losing on this social issue.

        The point has been that a number of people (particularly women) are beginning to oppose what the GOP is doing.  Whether you’re swayed by that as a fiscal or social conservative is irrelevant to the battle that the GOP is losing in the polls over the healthcare issue.

        Not one politiician has pointed out one woman who has got pregnant because she didnt have access to contraceptives.

        An excellent strawman.  I guess when you buy your blue pills that should be covered as a medical condition while women should just put aspirin between their legs.  Just saying, when you have people like Pat Buchanan saying that the GOP is overreaching, it’s time to reassess what’s going on.

        • EricSteel

          What does Pat Buchanan have to do with anything?  He isn’t a Republican anymore.  He left the party years ago.  And no one on the Right has cared about his opinion for years. 

        • Why is it a strawman.  It is the truth and is totally relevant to the discussion.  Two things most liberals dont understand.

          • Jay

            It’s a strawman because you’re taking a very narrow definition of what this issue is about (women’s access to healthcare in the form of contraception) and trying to complain about how no one has come up in support (or opposition) to having contraceptives.  

            What I constantly criticize is how everyone seems to believe this this entire argument is just about women wanting to avoid pregnancy.  If it really was about that, then why are women so ardently against the GOP proposals that seem to be much more… insensitive, for lack of a better word.

            I can assure you, there are women that use birth control pills to lessen the time that their periods occur.  I’ve heard from one person that their period could take two weeks without contraception.  There’s a LOT of women that want access to healthcare and the proposals that GOP officials want is lacking.  And to say that GOP officials have been outdated in what they offer instead is an understatement.  It’s ridiculous that VA had the state sponsored rape proposal even though there was no need for it.  

            But so long as the GOP wants to continue this horrible campaign against women, they’re going to make their reelection campaigns that much more difficult.

          • Jay

            It’s a strawman because you’re taking a very narrow definition of what this issue is about (women’s access to healthcare in the form of contraception) and trying to complain about how no one has come up in support (or opposition) to having contraceptives.  

            What I constantly criticize is how everyone seems to believe this this entire argument is just about women wanting to avoid pregnancy.  If it really was about that, then why are women so ardently against the GOP proposals that seem to be much more… insensitive, for lack of a better word.

            I can assure you, there are women that use birth control pills to lessen the time that their periods occur.  I’ve heard from one person that their period could take two weeks without contraception.  There’s a LOT of women that want access to healthcare and the proposals that GOP officials want is lacking.  And to say that GOP officials have been outdated in what they offer instead is an understatement.  It’s ridiculous that VA had the state sponsored rape proposal even though there was no need for it.  

            But so long as the GOP wants to continue this horrible campaign against women, they’re going to make their reelection campaigns that much more difficult.