Torrence wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You think that establishing precedence only works for progressive causes? It only works to change the law when things like gay marriage are on the line, but not things like property rights of employers? That's... naive as hell.
Property rights? We aren't talking about a strip of land here that people are trespassing on.
Property is not just land.
Quote:
We are talking about womens' reproductive health.
Which is the property of the woman. Do you even understand what property rights are? You get that Roe v. Wade ultimately comes down to property rights, right? The right to control one's body is the right to control one's property because
your body is your property. When the government starts passing laws mandating what people must do with their property, it weakens property rights for everyone. And yeah, that includes women and their bodies.
You're talking "about" women's reproductive health, but I really don't think you know what's being said.
Quote:
Human beings. Believe it or not, slavery actually was abolished (by your party, incidentally) and employees are no longer considered 'property'. Neither are women. Welcome to the new age.
Sigh... Can't get past labels to see the truth. Is this really the argument you want to make?
Quote:
Hobby Lobby's owners have just decided to take a stance against something they don't like (ACA) and they believe that attacking women is the way to get what they want. A hundred years ago that approach might have worked, but today the majority of thinking human beings see it for what it is: the last ditch efforts of a dying breed of cowardly men trying desperately to control other people. It's pathetic, but immensely entertaining to watch you stamp about.
How the hell does "not involving ourselves in any way with regards to a woman's contraceptive choices" equate to "attacking women"?
Let me clue you in on something: Best intentions aside, whoever pays for a thing controls that thing. The women aren't the ones who will control their contraceptive/reproductive choices in this model. The government, and whomever lobbies the government will. Cause they're the ones who will decide what contraceptives will be covered and which wont. They'll decide how much it'll cost and who will pay. Can you grasp that this does not give the end user more power, but less?
And it's not really just about contraception. Yes, this one case is. But the larger issue is that this applies to everything that's mandated (or not) by the ACA. By creating the mandate, the government is now in the position to tell every single person what form their health care must take. You no longer have a choice. It's a massive loss of liberty, not just for employers, not just for the rich, and not just for women, but for everyone. The sad part is that most people have been trained to react to the surface layers of the specific issues so they fail to see the bigger picture. They demand their right to have their freedom be taken away from them. It's really insane.
You can't have freedom if someone else is paying for it. Period. The person who pays controls what you get every single time.