So, it's a religious argument. And the recommended method prescribed by Catholics and most christians is the rhythm method, because they believe life begins at conception and the morning after pill and the birth control pill kill the zygote (fertilized egg) aka "fetus" according to pro-lifers.

But so does the rhythm method.

However ineffectual it is, when it works, the egg is almost always fertilized, but is unable to implant. It then dies and pregnancy does not occur.

Amazingly, the morning after pill and the birth control pill and the rhythm method are identical in what they do to the "fetus" (zygote/fertilized egg).

Read more http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563373/

The stupid, it hurts. Who are these idiots?

Yes, Alice...couldn't agree more. I still half hope for that 'tea & toke' next time I end up in CA. :) In the chat room, one can send a private chat. I've looked for you in there but never seen you. Though most hang out durring the show, one can drop in anytime. I would suggest using this forum to arange a time w/ Loren to drop in to the chat room and exchange emails via private message. In fact, if you ever feel so inclined, I'd be honored to do the same.

Sandle

The belief that a fertilized egg is human, with rights equal to the person carrying it, is a patriarchal notion that needs to go bye-bye. I don't give a flip what the owners of Hobby Lobby believe; what matters to me is freedom; the freedom of all people to live their lives as they see fit, unencumbered by the belief systems of others and the rules & restrictions accompanying such belief systems, and regardless of where they happen to earn their paychecks. When it comes to matters of birth control, nothing could be more private in anyone's life and therefore, it is not for their employers (or the government) to restrict in any manner, shape or form.

As taxpayers, we are always forced to pay for things we don't believe in: imperial war mongering and subsidies to fossil fuel, to list just two examples. Gee wouldn't it be nice if we could pick and choose where our tax money went!

We really need to break this connection between healthcare and employment, for many more reasons than I'll elaborate on here. Single payer would eliminate this whole issue of what employers are willing or not willing to pay for, when it comes to women's healthcare.

An egg is no more a human than a seed is a tree. Get over it. - AIW

Quote ChicagoMatt:The belief that a fertilized egg is not a human, and therefore killing it isn't murder, is a secular belief. Forcing someone to pay for that, if they think it is murder, is forcing a secular belief on them.

ChicagoMatt ~ Ridiculous! The EMPLOYEE is paying for everything. Health benefits are part of the entire compensation package--not a bloody handout. You right wingers constantly presume that the employer owns their employees. They own their bodies--drug testing--and they own their health--for profit health care. What a bunch of hypocrites you are. You don't believe that government has any place in peoples lives and no place between people and their doctor; but, when it comes to fascist corporate powers you want everyone to bend over and take anything they want to dish our like we are all corporate slaves. Sorry buddy, but if that's the kind of horse manure you're trying to sell you're going to go bankrupt fast on this site.

This is the precise reason that healthcare needs to be run by the government. It is the only entity capable of defending the rights of the individual and protecting those rights form the individual whims of private interests. Taking us right back to the discussion we just had about healthcare. This SCOTUS decision is a first class example of the dangers to civil liberties presented by for profit heathcare.

how was anyone's "secular belief system" being "imposed" on the owners of Hobby Lobby?

The belief that a fertilized egg is not a human, and therefore killing it isn't murder, is a secular belief. Forcing someone to pay for that, if they think it is murder, is forcing a secular belief on them. They still pay for all other forms of contraception that stop the egg from being fertilized in the first place, because they don't consider a separate egg and sperm as humans yet. And they're not telling their employees that they can't use Plan B or any other abortion pill. The owners of the company just aren't going to pay for it.

By the way, aren't there religious exceptions for other laws as well? Can't you get out of the draft or jurt duty if you object on religious or moral grounds? Aren't the Amish granted exceptions for their views for things like cumpulsory education? There is a precident for people being exempted from certain laws for religious reasons.

And why isn't anyone making such a big issue of Viagra and similar medications?

Because it's not similar. It doesn't stop a fertilized egg from implanting. You're just focusing on genitals. You'd have a better argument if you brought up vaccinations, which some people object to, but if they opt out, they could be endangering other people in the long run.

By the logic you've just expressed, I might as well claim that anyone using Viagra is violating MY code of conduct and therefore, should be prohibited from doing so.

If Viagra is against your belief system, and you own a company that has enough employees (I think 50 is the minimum) that you are forced to provide insurance, then yes, you should be able to object to providing Viagra. I'd support that.

While you're at it, please explain why a man should be more entitled to THAT than a woman is to birth control.

Both are equally entitled to both. It's a question of who is paying for it.

I have no problem with spell checking on this blog site. I either use NoScript (an addon to my Mozilla Firefox browser) so that the javascript script from this web site doesn't use the rich-text Comment box....or...if I do allow thomhartmann.com script then if I disable the rich-text then spell checking works fine. All you have to do is click inside of the Comments box and the spell check shows all your misspelled words with a wavy red underline. It doesn't work if you allow rich-text.

The characters for paragraphs from a word processor aren't the same as the ones from HTML. And HTML tags are what is used in this blog site. I have LibreOffice which is practically the same thing as Apache Open Office as they split off from the same project Libre split from Open and about the only difference is that Libre can continue to copy from Open any new changes that occur at Open. But not the other way around. Open can't copy from Libre. I think I have seen something about configuring something where you can format from these word processor format to HTML. But, it's too late for me to go any further on it tonight (this morning). This Drupal CMS may have a program that converts and may not always work correctly...I am just guessing. If the paragraphing problem stopped then there must be an intermittent problem. Maybe HollyIT caught it and fixed it????

You needent apologize for being ornery as it is surely your right.

I think the key to the (pornographic) nature of the Rightist and/or Abrahamic male obsession with female fertility is to be found in the pronouncements of the patriarchs, for example Huckabee's pulpit-pounding remarks about women who "can't control their libido." In other words, the issue -- and I know this not only from reading Bible-thump propaganda but from the years I spent (involuntarily) in the South -- is not fertility per se. it is instead the notion, central to the Bible, the Qur'an and the Talumd, that all women since Eve are potential creatures of the Devil, not only soulless but infinitely lustful (and in their demonic lustfulness readily able to ensnare "godly" males). The ultimate patriarchal antidote to this misogynistic bigotry is of course the burka, but failing that, denying women the right to control their fertility (and thereby making them subject to the sort of slavery characterized by the phrase "barefoot and pregant on the outskirts of town") is considered the next most practical means of suppression.

There is also the fact, overlooked by misogynists and feminists alike, that when their survival is threatened, women are instinctively revolutionary. This is evident far back into history: Boudica's rebellion (the most destructive revolution in the 1600-year history of the Roman Empire, west and east); the bread riots by the women of Paris who sparked the French Revolution; the women of Petrograd's Lesnoy Textile Works whose wildcat strike on International Women's Day (8 March by our calendar) started the Russian Revolution; the women of the Petrograd Soviet who saw to it Soviet Russia was the first nation on the planet to grant all women the right to vote. A little research would yield dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of similar examples.

Thus the patriarchy, in this instance interchangable with the One Percent and knowing fully well the sort of anti-humanitarian savagery the future holds, is desperate to re-subjugate woman precisely so they cannot perform such (life-asserting) revolutionary functions.

Thus too it truly is "a war against women," but it is actually about 5,000 years old, beginning with the desert tribes' first encounters with phenomenon like the biblical burning bush or Ezekial's fiery wheel and the allegedly divine voice from within mandating the imposition of patriarchy. (The original, pre-biblical Eve was in fact a goddess, considered the Mother of All Being, this by a people who are known to have been matrilinear and were in all probability matriarchal as well, an entirely logical construct given that woman is the bearer of life and that, under primitive conditions, life-bearing trumps all other human functions.)

As to the fiery wheel, your guess is as good as mine what it actually was. But I will say this: if it was indeed an extra-terrestial visitation, the introduction of patriarchy amongst the tribes of h. sapiens sapiens was no different from the introduction of smallpox-infested blankets amongst First Nations peoples.

By the way, thank you for the compliment; you are my favorite poster here also. Indeed it is dialogues like this make me dearly wish we could talk face-to-face (no doubt for hours at a time -- even until [to steal the phrase by which the Rolling Stones proved themselves to be true bohemians] "the morning sun is rising like a red rubber ball." Which is precisely how it looked as viewed from the domains of my youth, the boho zones of Lower Manhattan...)

Matt, how was anyone's "secular belief system" being "imposed" on the owners of Hobby Lobby? How can they substantiate such a claim? And why isn't anyone making such a big issue of Viagra and similar medications? By the logic you've just expressed, I might as well claim that anyone using Viagra is violating MY code of conduct and therefore, should be prohibited from doing so.

While you're at it, please explain why a man should be more entitled to THAT than a woman is to birth control. - AIW

Alice: yes, yes, yes and yes!!!

My only comment is most of the politicians I have encountered are way too venal -- and penil -- to envy a woman's womb. That also seems true of the vast majority of men I've met -- which is no doubt why even now at age 74 I find women not just generally more interesting than men, but better human beings as well. (Nor am I alone; Sartre and Camus, for example, are said to have held similar views.) What my gender really envies (and also fears) is woman's capability for multiple orgasms and -- more to the point -- its implicitly infinite sensuality. Hence I've always preferred the terms "vagina envy" or "clitoris envy" -- plus of course acknowledgement Freud was merely projecting his own feelings onto women.

I wrote the following article, Womb For Rent, a couple years back and posted it on this forum months ago. Seems just as relevant today, and it certainly relates to the topic! So I will post it here once more:

WOMB FOR RENT (Published in the March 2012 issue of The Advocate): Do you recall Sigmund Freud’s famous theory, that girls suffer from so-called “penis envy”? As I observe the shenanigans going on in Congress nowadays, it seems the opposite is true. If there’s one thing old-school patriarchs can never get a grip on, it’s an ability women have that none of them will ever possess, despite all the advantages to being male in a “man’s world”. Only females have access to this unique form of power. It sets us apart, for we are the gateway to life itself. Whether a blessing or a curse, it is our exclusive domain, the power to open or close that gate. It is something we’ve inherited as females and it is our birthright. Can you imagine any reality more basic to the laws of the natural world? Which begs the question: what could be more sharply at odds with a patriarch’s worldview than this simple fact of life?

Through the ages, patriarchs have compensated for this by keeping us marginalized, disempowered, handicapped via artificial means. They accomplish this through a variety of methods, ranging from religious custom and repressive legislation to plain old brute force. This battle over the womb has dragged on, literally, for millennia. We women now find ourselves pitted against the current generation of misogynist bigots who are determined to roll back the proverbial clock. This could condemn women and girls to second-class citizenship status, at a level few of us, of either gender, are old enough to recall. Regardless of what motivates these womb-obsessed woman haters, their efforts to keep us down, at the mercy of our own biology, are relentless and never-ending. Womb envy? Perhaps. The latest episode of this ancient power struggle has erupted in the halls of Congress. We’ve just witnessed a drama so archaic, I’ve had moments when I’ve found myself wondering which century I’m living in. Imagine the implications of an all-male group of legislators, monopolizing a discussion about birth control! These men get to decide on policies that determine who has access to birth control and who doesn’t. It is a dialogue where no woman is allowed to participate, from which we’ve been brazenly and willfully excluded. Never mind that it is our reproductive health on the line, not theirs!

With this planet in such peril, its life support systems collapsing while the fate of humanity hangs by a thread, you’d think our elected officials would have better things to do than attack women’s hard-won rights. As the next presidential election looms near, corporate media’s pundit shills busy themselves filling the airwaves with their loud, toxic drivel. It is so transparent, so predictable, I’d find it laughable if only the stakes weren’t so high. Armed with their latest wedge issue, these guardians of the status quo have picked their target; not abortion, mind you, but birth control! Neo-con legislators not only want to re-criminalize abortion, they aim to take away all means of prevention as well. Yet when it comes to having babies, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, especially if we’re poor.

Like all wedge issues, this one was manufactured to keep us collectively distracted from real problems we face: global warming, overpopulation, the nuclear threat, decaying infrastructure, monopoly crony capitalism, economic injustice, privatization of the commons with its ugly consequences, the erosion of democracy and so on. But for patriarchs and oligarchs, this tired old debate serves a duel purpose. As a wedge issue, it divides and conquers us - the “masses” - while simultaneously, keeping women “in their place”. Double bonus, for them! So here we are at the dawn of the 21st Century, having to fight for access to birth control yet again, while at the same time, a man’s access to gender-specific healthcare services is never scrutinized.

Just blows my mind, this ongoing obsession over the womb. Seems bizarre to me, how a mere body part can provoke so much controversy. Our wombs are fought over nonstop, coveted as if mere territory to be conquered. This uniquely female organ has been the object of male envy throughout recorded history; something highly valued, despite all the negative ways its value might manifest in patriarchal cultures.

With living-wage jobs so scarce these days and the “fruit of the womb” in such high demand, I see a potential source of revenue here. This could be the opportunity of a lifetime! So ladies, if you are of childbearing age, why not transform burden into bounty, leasing womb space to the wombless among us? In hard times like these, you’ve got to think creatively to get ahead. Were I not past childbearing age myself, I’d post an ad in the classifieds: “WOMB FOR RENT”. Hey, I’m a 99er too! I could use some extra cash.

Cheers! - Aliceinwonderland

Flyguy says "HOBBY LOBBY should not have to compromise their religious beliefs any more than I should fund a woman's right to SCREW with out getting pregnant if I choose not to." By that same logic, I shouldn't have to fund Viagra either, since a man's "right" to a fake hard-on is of no consequence to me. I happen to think a woman's right to prevent or terminate a pregnancy is way more important, with much farther-reaching consequences.

You guys are always putting 100% of the blame for unwanted pregnancies on women. Never mind that such a pregnancy could never occur without a man's active participation! Which makes you, and guys like you, hypocrites.

Aside from that, Flyguy, you apparently have forgotten one aspect of this issue concerning employers' religious beliefs, and whether they should be able to force those beliefs on their employees. Last I heard, this country was not a theocracy. Therefore the ONLY religion that should be involved in a woman's personal choices should be her religion… if she even has one. If she is secular, religion should have no influence on the choices she makes for herself.

It infuriates me no end that people who can't get pregnant, who've never been and will never be pregnant, think they have any business telling those who can get pregnant what they are allowed to do about it.

Beyond that, we need a third party of SOCIALISTS, not "moderate libertarians". Libertarianism only translates to "conservative lite" or "fascist lite". It could be argued that Clinton is a libertarian. Enough of that already. - Aliceinwonderland

But, Chuckle8, you are obviously following the Ruling Elite playbook. They own the Dems just like they own the Repubs. To listen to you, all we have to do is to get more Dems in power but you obviously can't see how the Dems are going to hoodwink us into voting for them, once again, and they'll do just what the ruling elite wants them to do.

Voting for Dems won't change things. Only when people realize that and massively take to the streets and boycott and cause all manner of consternation making the ruling elite fear that their time is up, that they can no longer hoodwink us into playing their rigged game, will the ruling elite relent and stop being such conniving bastards. As long as they don't have to fear mobs in the streets they will keep stringing us along. They'll keep using the Dems to feed us false hope and they'll keep screwing us.

I was saying this before Obama was elected for the second time. I voted for him the first time and saw what happened and spoke out against voting for him the second time. And I was right...many people who voted for him the second time have come to realize that Obama didn't do a turn around, as they expected, he got worse.

And now many people, who just can't seem to learn a lesson, will think that they have to vote for the Dems again..thinking it is their only choice. Something very shocking will have to come out of masses of people before anything will really change.

One thing very shocking would be to overwhelmingly vote the Green Party into power...it would break the hold of a long historical precedence. Or vote any other party into power BUT the Republicans or the Democrats. It would really send a strong message if we voted into power a Communist, or even a Socialist party. Sh1t would hit the fan for sure.

Failing that, even if the Republicans get in (or, especially if the Republicans get in), it may just usher in a new, long in coming, revolution against the corrupt two party system. If they manage to vote in more Democrats, then it will more than likely do just what it was manipulated to do ...create yet more false hope... defusing what is most likely necessary for real change to happen..that is...a full scale massive revolution against the ruling elite.

Something has to happen to make the Democrat Party straighten up and fly left! If they realize that they cannot rely on the old "vote for the least evil" ...or... "it would just be too much to risk to let the Republicans be in full control again" ploys then maybe it might shock them into actually fighting as hard for liberals/progressives who voted them into power as Republicans fight for their poor deluded voters.