Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Sunday, July 12, 2020

Rescinding my opinion…


Good day, all.

Regarding my OP from a few days ago  on the SCOTUS' ruling on contraceptives, I've been thinking more about the conundrum.  (Glad I'm not an SC justice.  It'd drive me crazy(ier).)

I'm going to change my mind and say that the SC made the wrong decision: SCOTUS should not have given the green light for employers to deny their employees contraceptive coverage. 

That coverage was previously a mandated part of the ACA’s provisions for such, and since employees were offered a “health care package,” employers can’t (or *shouldn’t*) start picking and choosing what they like and don’t like about it, principles-wise.  Once that starts, there can be no end to discriminating for this, that, or the other thing.  Seriously, what would be next?  No meds for AIDS?  For herpes or other STDs?  Etc.?

I think I understand the religious factions’ objections.  The thing about religion(s) is that they almost exclusively lie in the realm of the “unverifiable.”  Claims of, say, their God being upset with them, or damning them to their Hell for being a “participant,” while real to them, cannot be verified.  Though I don’t personally believe it, it’s just a/their point of view with no way to prove one way or the other.  Objections on religious grounds lie in the realm of those dastardly Essentially Contested Concepts.  If it could be proven that these negative things wouldn’t happen to them, then they would just be objecting on “personal grounds.”  And a LOT of us object about a LOT of things, on (our) personal grounds.  No end to that kind of thing either!

Anyway, contraceptive coverage is (or WAS) part of a h/c "package," under the ACA.  If the religious had a problem with that, they could've always "blamed" the non-Christians for "making" them comply (complain to their God that they were coerced into complying).  If their God still holds that against them, maybe time to look for a “more fair” God. ;)

A special thanks to larry motuz for insisting on making me think more about it. :)

Signed, "always second-guessing." ;(
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)