Christianity Today

This should open the eyes of the Christian denominations who got behind President Obama's Health Care Reform. The denominations themselves may escape the government's wrath, but their members may not. There is a price to be paid by US Christians who by surrendering the charity, in this case healthcare, that they institutionally provided in years past to the government. The Christian Churches in the United States who built colleges, hospitals, clinics in the past that provided services and education to the needy now seem unable to do anything but shill for the welfare state. Since the Supreme Court has determined that the mandate is not a mandate but a tax this will be a hard battle. We, as Christians, need to support those businesses and individuals who defend their corporate conscience against a government that seems determined to deny people individually or corporately the right to practice their faith by adhering to their beliefs.

The easiest way to bring this issue to it's conclusion is to unincorporated so the owners ARE the company versus the differing inc's and LLC's and the like that are meant to separate the person from personal risk of corporate activity. At that point, one can truly argue that his or her rights are being violated because they ARE the company and are personally at risk legally speaking.

Seems simple. If I'm against killing, I won't give you a loaded gun.

The biological argument against abortion is the strongest anti-abortion argument there is. Personally, I prefer the religious argument against abortion. However, when I was an undergraduate in my major courses in biology, it became abundantly clear that there are no biologists trying to redefine a developing human as something other than alive, or something other than human. The people making those ridiculous leaps in logic are political philosophers, and poor ones at that.

Mr. Holmes, a genetically unique human is formed with the cortical reaction when the sperm meets the egg. By the first division, it has met all of the requisite biological definitions of a living thing. In this case the living thing happens to be a growing person. It thrives in the environment it is conceived in until natural birth. Whether or not man interrupts and plays God in life or death matters is the heart of the issue. There is a binary issue here, and it is absolutely paramount whether it is comfortable for you or not. The binary issue is one of right and wrong, righteousness and sin. The ten commandments are clear about murder...it is a sin. It is simple...if God allows the child to die, then so be it. If man kills it, then man sins. It is elegantly simple, like all of God's truths. As reachable by the mind of a serf as it is by the mind of an ivory tower egghead. As for the rest of your statement regarding menopause...that's quite a series of stretches.

I always understood that the imposition religious views on others was an infringement of their rights. So when a non human entity attempts to impose its religious views on humans, we are getting into some very murky areas which were seen in such disasters like the Inquisition etc. Brings the comment re 'planks in eyes' to mind as well. Of course the debate re start of life is not clear as well. Even the Creator allowed our reproductive system to lose about 30% of fertilized eggs prior to implantation. A binary view confusing potential with outcomes is also a biological nonsense. If they are so concerned about the possibility of funding abortions, either they had better only employ males or post menopausal women, or ensuring that good contraceptive advice and products are freely available to their staff. Otherwise this is just special pleading to escape providing what is a common law requirement for workers. I call that worker discrimination.