6 Stupid Liberal Arguments on Hobby Lobby?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I thought some of you might be interested in the challenge:

"6 Stupid Arguments About Hobby Lobby From Dumb Liberals" by Sean Davis at The Federalist.com

Comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Secondly - is it truth that the decision relates only to contraception that destroys already existing pregnancy if there is such? What about the morning-after pill?

"Let’s take that phrase “human life begins at conception” apart.

What do you mean by “life begins”? Was there some step between your parents and you where there was a dead cell? Life is continuous — there hasn’t been a transition from non-life to life for about 4 billion years. So, yes, I’d agree that the zygote is a living cell, but so were the sperm and egg that fused to generate it, and so were the blast cells that were precursors to it, and so were the zygotes that developed into your parents. We can trace that life all the way back to early progenotes with limited autonomy drifting in Archean seas, to self-perpetuating chemical reactions occurring in porous rocks in the deep ocean rifts. It’s all been alive, so this is a distinction without meaning.

What about “human”? It’s a human zygote, we’d all agree; but it’s also human sperm and human ovum. You can pluck a hair from my head and determine with a few tests that it’s a human hair; you can take a blood sample from me and check a few antigens and determine that it is human blood; you can similarly swab a bit of saliva or earwax or tears from me, and analyze its biochemistry and find that it is specifically human spit or earwax or tears. That we can tag something with the adjective “human” does not in any way imply that my earwax deserves all the protections and privileges of a full human being. “Human zygote” imposes as much ethical obligation on me as “human spit”.

And don’t even try to pull that BS about a unique, novel genetic individual being created at conception. One of the key properties of meiosis is a genetic reshuffling of alleles by random assortment of the parental chromosomes and recombination by crossing over — every sperm and egg is genetically unique as well, and we spew those profligately with no remorse. Conception just adds another level of semi-random rearrangement of a random assortment of genes that were made during oogenesis and spermatogenesis.

So what are we left with? An obvious attempt at distortion or incomprehension in which the common modifier “human” is used as an absolute signifier for sociological and historical and psychological of an entity as being a complete member of a higher level community. It’s a lie cloaked in ambiguous language."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/17/marco-rubio-is-already-gish-galloping/

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

I am all pro-choice, actually I am CF. What I wanted to understand is whether it is true that the ruling in HobbyLobby case is limited to some kind of contraception or does it cover all kinds and types of contraception.

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

As mentioned, yes only certain types, but the REASONS they gave for WHY they shouldn't have to cover it were based on lies and misinformation. They have set a precedent for being able to violate the law if you believe that you should be allowed to. Because "religion".

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

That is a great piece! Thanks for the link.