tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37352287.post2761073698316044204..comments2023-11-03T11:11:57.989+01:00Comments on Chronicles from the Front: A reply to the editors of AmericaLazy Disciplehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05839410764981702225noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37352287.post-71914974461198875752012-03-01T17:16:20.583+01:002012-03-01T17:16:20.583+01:00Thanks, Francesco 1221. Hope you'll be a regul...Thanks, Francesco 1221. Hope you'll be a regular visitor and participant in the comboxes.<br /><br />LDLazy Disciplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05839410764981702225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37352287.post-69714008572360157572012-03-01T12:33:22.845+01:002012-03-01T12:33:22.845+01:00Well said.
There was a pro-choice commenter on a ...Well said.<br /><br />There was a pro-choice commenter on a recent Slate article who made this surprising observation:<br /><br />"I do not believe in fining individuals or organizations for living by their moral code. <br /> <br />No one has a right to demand that others pay for their contraception. If an employer does not pay for their employees contraception, they are not denying anyone's right. If I want contraception, I can purchase it myself, or else seek organization or companies that will purchase said contraception for me. No one is saying that women cannot have contraception. Simply, that we should not be able to compel others to purchase said contraception. <br /> <br />To force others to purchase something denies those individuals the right to their property. The Government is effectively forcing these individuals to use their property on something that they are opposed to. This is a violation of the 14th amendment. In addition, mandated consumption is by definition unconstitutional as it is excluded from the rights enumerated for the Federal Government in the constitution. <br /> <br />Laws are meant to protect the rights of people. The rights of the people are protected by these laws. The right to property and to use said property as the owner so chooses is protected. The right to conscience is protected. Furthermore, no woman is prevented from obtaining contraception. All women in the United States, even with these laws, have the ability to procure contraception if they so choose. These laws simply prevent others from being compelled to purchase said contraception, which would be a violation of their rights in the first place."<br /><br />Someone responded:<br />"But if enough people in a certain area decide that a certain form of contraception is against their conscience, then a woman doesn't have access. So what happens then?"<br /><br />To which the original commenter replied: "That very remote possibility is not an argument to deny the right to property and liberty. That is the issue at hand. Two wrongs never make a right. <br /> <br />Look, I do not agree with the Catholic Church's anti-contraceptive beliefs. I believe that careful family planning is essential and does not violate the Bible. Thankfully, most medical insurance companies and organizations like Planned Parenthood and many public and private schools/colleges/universities agree with me. It is not in an insurance company's best interests economically to discriminate against female contraceptive users, so the vast majority do not. The possibility that a woman would have absolutely no access to contraceptives is extremely remote. Moreover, that remote possibility does not give the U.S. Government the right to impose on the liberty of others' conscience and use of property."<br /><br />http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/24/martha_plimpton_stop_undermining_women_s_health_with_personhood_amendments_and_ultrasound_laws.htmlfrancesco1221noreply@blogger.com