Hobby Lobby Part II

This post is a direct, point-by-point response to a blog entry by CS, found here.

If you're looking for my original opinion piece on the Hobby Lobby decision, take one step back, Jack (meaning find my previous post. That was a musical reference. "Hit the road, Jack...." Ok, I'll stop now).

Alrighty then, let's crack this thing open one piece at a time.

"One particular one I came across seems to think that any opposition to the ruling is simply illogical."

Never said that. Moving on.

"First, the author claims that terminology regarding the beginning of pregnancy is, 'nothing but semantics.'"

Nope. I claim the use of that terminology as an objection to the Hobby Lobby ruling is nothing but semantics. Of course terminology is generally important--but it's not important here, as I showed in my original post and as I'll show again.

"Asking a doctor whether a pregnancy begins at 'implantation' or at 'conception' is a null question. To a medical doctor, those two words are interchangeable."

The paragraph containing that quote seemed a bit too long to reproduce here. Basically it explains that science has its own definitions for words in our vernacular, like pregnancy, mass or theory.

I agree with you, CS; a scientist's definition of pregnancy might differ from Joe Schmoe's.

...But what on earth does that have to do with anything?

You have to show that emergency contraceptives don't kill the unborn. If they don't kill the unborn, Hobby Lobby should have no reason to object to them. If Hobby Lobby has no reason to object, the case is rendered meaningless. That's your argument.

Here are the facts. They're pretty simple:

1. Emergency contraceptives can end the life of the unborn after fertilization.

2. Hobby Lobby objects to that life's being ended for religious reasons.

3. The Supreme Court said, "okie dokie."

You can call the unborn whatever you want. A clump of cells. A baby. A blastocyst. A tumor. A parasite. A bird. A tree. An alskdfinj.

You can call the event of killing it whatever you like. Abortion. Infanticide. Choice.

You can call the unborn's place in the cycle of life whatever you like. Pregnancy. Conception. Implantation.

But here's the problem.

Here's the rub.

Here's the uncomfortable truth.

Here's the gaping maw of a hole in that string of sentences propped up like an argument:

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

If you can't show the facts above to be false, you have nothing. You have but straws at which to grasp.

Let me put this another way: Hobby Lobby's owners know exactly what an IUD does. They know exactly what Plan B does. They understand the process. They grasp the science. And they object to it. Whether they used the wrong term to describe what they object to, is just trivia. It's meaningless. It's chaff.

Here's an exerpt from my original post--yet another way of saying what I just said. In fact, CS quoted these lines but didn't bother to respond to them, much less refute them.

"Does [Plan B] kill the blastocyst (the little clump of great-grandbaby cells from the fertilized zygote)? Absolutely. And that’s what Hobby Lobby objects to."

Yup.

Ok, next.

"He then goes on to say that abortion isn’t the proper term, but rather 'murder, manslaughter, butchery, carnage, homicide, infanticide, massacre, extermination, slaughter or annihilation.' Basically, he’s just playing on emotionally charged words to sway an uninformed audience."

Uh-huh. Because anyone who reads those words is sitting there thinking:

"Well golly! This young chap just called the whole thing murder! I've never heard that line of rhetoric before. Gee, I think I'll change my whole view on the subject."

If I'd known swaying people was this easy, I'd have run for office years ago. Moving on.

"Implying that the pre-implanted blastocyst is a 'person' and preventing implantation is 'murder' is like saying bricks are a hospital and that not using the brick is malicious destruction of a hospital. It’s just ridiculous, and stems from a misunderstanding of science, particularly developmental biology."

Ok, that analogy is just...the worst. How is it flawed? Let me count the ways:

1. Cells are specific to the organism they make up. Bricks are generic.

2. A hospital does not reproduce.

3. The word hospital might denote a building, or it might not. If a hospital building burns down, the hospital still functions. It moves to a temporary facility and keeps its name.

4. There is nothing fundamentally valuable about a hospital building that makes it evil to destroy one. If you came across an abandoned hospital from years gone by, there would be nothing immoral about demolishing the place--at least, not in the same sense as it is immoral to murder.

5. Take away some bricks and you can still build the hospital. Take away those first cells and you will NEVER have the child.

Oh, and by the way, please tell me at exactly what stage those cells DO become a person, one with an inalienable right to life. Do enlighten me.

Because at the moment, a pregnant mother could change her unborn child's legal personhood by crossing state lines. That is insane. It is outrageous. It beggars belief.

Oh--and one more thing. Did you just compare fetal development to a building's construction, then accuse me of misunderstanding developmental biology? I believe you used the word "ironic" in your opening paragraph.

"Hobby Lobby said; 'We think X does this, regardless of what the medical/scientific community says, so we shouldn’t have to do it.' Man, I wish that worked for me. 'Officer, I define speeding at going at least 15mph over. It doesn’t matter what the legal system defines speeding as, because I think it means at least 15mph over. So I shouldn’t have to pay a ticket.'"

Aha! I think this analogy will help. Allow me to tweak it:

Here comes a vanload of Congressmen going 15 over. Hobby Lobby pulls them over, sirens crooning.

The Congressmen roll down the window. "What seems to be the problem, officer?"

Hobby Lobby whips out his ticket pad. "Well, gentlemen, it seems you were floofing in a school zone."

"Floofing? Uh, we don't get it."

Hobby Lobby scribbles. "You were going 15 over. Floofing. That's gonna cost you."

The Congressmen frown. "Uh, officer, you seems to be confused. I believe the proper term is 'speeding.'"

"Speeding, floofing--I don't give a rat's rubbed-raw heiney," says Hobby Lobby. "You were going fifteen over. That's the important thing. Doesn't matter what you call it; I'm gonna write you boys up."

That's my last attempt to get this point across. Hope it helps. Next:

"Essentially, the author uses a myriad of strange metaphors and emotionally charged wording to say that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to provide emergency contraceptives (of which, IUDs are not even classified, so it doesn’t even concern them) because they don’t provide 'free food, water, gas, or clothes' either. Sorry, but last time I checked, the healthcare laws didn’t require an employer to provide those. The statement is just a bunch of Red Herrings used to make a point that they don’t support."

Honestly, I'm not sure you understood the argument here. I'm not even trying to be rude; it's probably my fault for explaining it too loosely. But you haven't even come close to refuting what I'm getting at, so I'll try again.

1. Last time I checked, Hobby Lobby doesn't have to provide emergency contraceptives OR IUD's. I believe the Supreme Court had a little something to do with that.

2. This event led to protests, many of which featured signs that read: "Keep the boardroom out of my bedroom!" or something similar.

3. Since emergency contraceptives, IUD's, food, gas, water and clothes now share a category (they are things Hobby Lobby is not required to give its employees), they may be compared.

4. Upon comparison, we find that nobody minds not receiving free food. Or water. Or gas. They only care about emergency contraceptives and IUD's.

5. Nothing pertinent presents itself to explain this distinction. After all, food is much more vital to life, and in most cases more expensive, than insurance coverage for contraceptives.

6. We conclude that either Hobby Lobby must provide food, gas, clothes and water to its employees along with IUD's and emergency contraceptives, or it need provide none of them.

7. It seems more reasonable to assume it need provide none of them.

Hope that helps.

"The laws do, however, require companies with > 50 full time employees to provide health insurance, including contraceptive coverage."

...Uh, not in all cases. Not anymore.

See: Hobby Lobby.

"Their only argument is that they think, or believe, we will put it, that pregnancy begins when sperm meets egg, which flies in the face of the medical and scientific communities’ definitions."

Just a rehash of the argument I've already refuted above.

Sure, Hobby Lobby used the word "pregnancy" to refer to the moment sperm meets egg. Sure, according to most sources, that's not the scientific definition of the word.

But it doesn't matter what Hobby Lobby calls that moment. Maybe they should've called it the moment of fertilization, or conception, or whatever. It. Does. Not. Matter.

In the real world, when sperm meets egg, the zygote's DNA is decided. A few days later it implants.

A clump of cells sits in its mother's body between those two events. Whatever that clump is--whatever you call it--Hobby Lobby doesn't want to be forced to end its life. It's that simple.

That is all.

Dumb Stuff People Say About Hobby Lobby

If you believe any of the following about the Hobby Lobby case, you are a drooling nearnderthal, fit decoration for the swamps of a less civilized epoch, incapable of coherent thought but self-centered and blind enought to believe your views should be aired, like a monkey hurling feces without realizing it stinks you should rethink your reasoning.

1. The emergency contraceptives HL objected to don't really cause abortions. So the whole case is pointless.

Ok, let me get this straight. You're saying all nine members of the Supreme Court, plus the Green family, plus the Green family's legal counsel, spent weeks or months of their lives preparing to argue a case based on the fact that certain contraceptives cause abortions...when they actually don't?

These are all highly intelligent people. Some sit on the highest court in the land; some run a multi-billion-dollar corporation; others lobby for multi-billion-dollar corporations.

And what you're saying is, these people made a kindergartener's mistake. You think they're scratching their heads and saying, "Well, shucky darn. Why in tarnation didn't we learn this extremely relevant and readily available piece of information during our months and months of preparation and research?"

Yeah, I'm calling bull on that one.

Here's the truth of it:

According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until the blastocyst implants in the uterine wall. Most gynecologists don't use this definition anymore, but let's accept it anyway. Going by the ACOG, emergency contraceptives like Plan B don't actually terminate a pregnancy, since Plan B halts the whole process before implantation. By their definition, pregnancy hasn't begun yet, so you can't terminate it.

...Which makes no difference. All this is nothing but semantics (read: poppycock, malarkey, rubbish, hooey, baloney, bunk, drivel, BS).

Does Plan B halt a pregnancy? Depends on how you define pregnancy. Does it kill the blastocyst (the little clump of great-grandbaby cells from the fertilized zygote)? Absolutely. And that's what Hobby Lobby objects to.

But hey, progressives, we'll gladly quit calling what plan B does "abortion." That term's a little sanitized for our taste anyway, so if it's the word you object to, we'll come up with a new one.

I'm thinking: murder, manslaughter, butchery, carnage, homicide, infanticide, massacre, extermination, slaughter or annhiliation. We'll workshop it.

2. "Keep the boardroom out of my bedroom!"

Would you hold up a sign like this? Do you think it's a pithy sum-up to all the evil that is Hobby Lobby?

I've always wanted to meet someone like you! Do you maybe have, like, really good memory like Rain Man? Or maybe it's more like A Beautiful Mind, where you aren't aware of what's going on around you, but secretly you're a super genius. ...Ok, well, you should at least charge tickets, like at the state fair. Can you do tricks? Like jumping through rings or something? ....No?...

Ok then, I'll do a trick. Watch me refute this position in one sentence. Ready, set, go:

Hobby Lobby doesn't give its employees free food either.

That was fun. That got a little something off my chest. Now let's go into it deeper.

Imagine you're unemployed.

Not by choice, either. The economy has chewed you up and spat you out. You find yourself pounding the pavement day and night with no luck.

Are you receiving free birth control from your employer? Of course not. Does this mean your boss has interefered in your bedroom? I doubt it, seein' as how you don't have one.

Now let's say you're offered a job in retail. Whereas a year ago you scraped by on minimum wage, you've now been offered a $14-per-hour job at Hobby Lobby. That's about 28K per year, starting wage.

Here's the catch: Hobby Lobby won't provide emergency contraceptives. You've got to buy them yourself (note: Hobby Lobby isn't preventing you from buying emergency contraceptives. They just don't want to hand them out for free).

Remember, Hobby Lobby didn't have to offer you a job. You didn't have to apply. You are not guaranteed gainful employment in this life; you must pursue it on your own steam. That's called being an adult.

So you sit across from the Hobby Lobby manager. She slides 28K across the table, one great big stack of Benjamins. That's 28K more than the $0 you were making ten minutes ago. Even if your emergency contraceptive bill for the next 12 months is $27,999.99, you're still ahead.

You can take the 28 or walk away with nothing. Up to you. "So, what do you say?" the manager asks.

"HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!" you scream. "ANY and EVERY employment opportunity I receive MUST include free emergency contraceptives or I AM BEING MISTREATED!! Keep your boardroom out of my bedroom!!!!!!!" You leave the 28K and storm out, irate.

Would that be a rational response?

My point is this: Hobby Lobby does no harm to its employees by hiring them without providing emergency contraceptives.

After all, emergency contraceptives aren't the only thing Hobby Lobby doesn't provide for its employees. I don't see free food in the contract. Or water. Or gas. Or clothes. Yet no one parades around with signs that say: "Keep the boardroom out of my pantry/gas tank/wardrobe!"

Here's another thought experiment.

Let's say you own a chain of fast-food restaurants: Benny's Bakin' Bacon Burger Barn. Let's say a law was passed last year, requiring employers to provide free assault rifles and gun safety training to all employees. For protection, the politicians say. It's all for your own good, they croon.

But you disagree. You think the new law is insane and dangerous. You believe guns end lives instead of protecting them.

You take the issue to the Supreme Court and win. You are no longer forced to supply heavy armaments to your employees. Sure, they can buy them elsewhere, and sure, in most cases they can get them free from Uncle Sam. But at least now your hands are clean.

Next day, the backlash begins. "My wife was murdered in our home last year while I lay helpless," one man sobs on TV. "If you work at Benny's Bakin' Bacon Burger Barn, the same could happen to YOU! And Benny, their blood will be on your hands."

Next, protesters flock to your stores.

One sign says: "Keep BAD GUYS and BOSSES out of the BEDROOM!" Another reads: "Don't shove your pacifism down MY throat!"

"Wait!" you say. "I'm not shoving anything on anyone! You can still buy guns if you want them. I won't interfere. If anything, the gun law was forced on me! Besides, before the law was passed, you couldn't get free guns anyway. I wasn't giving them away then, and I'm not giving them away now. Nothing has changed! Why are you protesting all of a sudden?"

But no one listens. They keep chanting. They keep waving their signs. They drone on.

Get the picture? See why this line of reasoning is insane?

One more thought:

If Hobby Lobby closed its doors tomorrow, it would never offer anyone birth control again. Everyone agrees it has the right to close. Since Hobby Lobby doesn't do any harm to anyone by remaining open--it's not taking away anyone's birth control--what exactly is all the fuss about?

3. It's a slippery slope!

Check out Salon's article on the Satanists who want to opt out of some states' mandatory counseling laws (these are the laws requiring abortion patients to receive counseling before the procedure). They'd like to take it to the Supreme Court per Hobby Lobby's precedent.

This is supposed to be an ironic victory against conservatives. A sort of, "Aha! By thine own logic art thou undone!" Salon's Katie McDonough writes, "Satanists are now using the Supreme Court’s sweeping Hobby Lobby decision to challenge coercive mandatory counseling laws."

Which would be fine...if the HL decision were actually "sweeping."

Actually the decision was based on a carefully defined interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The act says the government may restrict religious freedom IF:

1. It has a compelling reason to do so, and
2. It can accomplish its purpose by no less restrictive means.

Here the Supreme Court decided the government did have a compelling reason to restrict Hobby Lobby's religious freedom. They also, however, found it could accomplish its purpose by a less restrictive means: by providing free emergency contraceptives directly.

That logic doesn't apply to the Satanists' example. If the states have a compelling reason to provide counseling to abortion patients, there's no less restrictive means by which they could accomplish that purpose.

Sure, you could argue the states have no compelling reason--but you won't be using Hobby Lobby for a precedent.

That is all.

I prefer my supermodels airbrushed

Maybe you've heard a statement like this recently:

"Women should stop photoshopping pictures of themselves. Girls, you're perfect the way you are!"

Statements like this one are everywhere. In line with this trend, Aerie Lingerie has decided to run a new line of ads without photoshopping its models. The campaign's slogan: "The real you is sexy."

Call me crazy, but I think statements like the above are completely counterproductive. Not to mention...really dumb. I mean really, really DUMB.

Here are two reasons.

First, the argument behind the statement above is fundamentally flawed. It ASSUMES that a woman's value is based on her physical beauty.

It could be rewritten: "Women should stop trying to add to their value by photoshopping themselves. Because they are already naturally beautiful, they are already valuable."

That last sentence is the core of the problem: "BECAUSE a woman is naturally beautiful, she is already valuable."

See what I mean?

Put another way: if you assume that a woman's value has NOTHING to do with her physical appearance, then how is it affirming of her value to say she's naturally beautiful?

Second, photoshopping is just one way women try to make themselves appear more beautiful. Should we outlaw makeup? Hair dye? Cute clothes? Push-up bras?

For some reason our cultural has put photoshopping in a category of its own, separate and distinct from the myriad ways women alter their physical appearance. Why?

Real sucky logic. What do they teach in schools these days?

And that is all.

Dove's "Real Beauty" Baloney

I'm sure you've seen Dove's recent series of commercials, in which a forensic artist produces two sketches of a woman: one based on her own description of herself, and another based on the description of a near-stranger.

The idea, of course, is that the stranger-described portrait turns out to be a much more flattering depiction than the self-described one.

This is supposed to reveal something about the way women view themselves. All set to soft chords, played to tug at the heartstrings...hold on while I dab my eyes...there. Sniff. Better.

But there's a massive, glaring logical problem. It's right in your face, screaming at you.

Let me illustrate.

Say you're a drop dead gorgeous woman and you know it. You have no body-image issues. And you're asked to participate in the game.

Are you going to sit down with the artist and say, "Frankly, I'm drop-dead gorgeous"?

Of course not! You're going to be hard on yourself so you don't sound arrogant. You're gonna mention the wrinkles, the blemishes, the protruding jaw, the droopy eyebrows-- whether you believe you have them or not.

It's human nature.

After all, the only sin a woman can commit greater than ugliness, is arrogance. As we've all heard so often: "You don't know you're beautiful / And that's what makes you beautiful."

It goes the other way, too. Say you're the stranger, and you're asked to describe the woman you just met.

Are you going to mention ANY of her blemishes? And sound like the biggest jerk on planet earth? Of course not!

This little social experiment proves nothing, and Dove knows it. At the end of the day, they just want to make you cry. And then buy soap.

So if you've bought into the piano chords and soft lighting....You been played by a playa.

That is all.

Love the sinner; hate the sin?

Micah J. Murray's Huff Post blog, "Why I Can't Say 'Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin' Anymore" has been splashed all over social media in the last week. I've seen it twice just today.

Here's a link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-murray/why-i-cant-say-love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin-anymore_b_4521519.html

While social media has always been a cesspool of terrible logic and I've learned to overlook most of it, the religious controversy surrounding homosexuality seems to bring out the worst. And then someone shovels a gleaming manure pile like this blog onto my news feed.

Micah Murray really hates the accusing nature of the word "sinner," especially when directed at homosexuals. He's also got a lot of screwy ideas about Christ's ministry which some theologian needs to pile-drive into the ground.

But I'm not that guy. If you want to say Jesus never claimed to be God, if you want to say He never accused anyone of being a sinner, if you want to say he was born in Africa as a woman--I won't argue with you. Not because you'd be right, but because I'm no theologian.

But if you're going to make a statement like:

"We embrace [homosexuals] with arms full of disclaimers about how all the sinners are welcome here. And yet, they're the only ones we constantly remind of their status as sinners, welcome sinners"

--then, as a thinking human, I've got a bone to pick with you.

The first thing you need to understand, Micah, is that a homosexual who doesn't have gay sex isn't sinning. There's no sin to "hate."

We've all got evil desires. We heterosexuals (since I happen to be heterosexual and I assume, from your wording, you are too) have to ward off ALL sexual desire from puberty 'til marriage, assuming we do marry. Even then, extramarital sex is off limits forever.

I'm sure you've heard all this before, Micah. It's nothing new.

When Christians say "love the sin; hate the sinner," they're usually talking about someone with homosexual desires who DOES have gay sex--someone who considers gay sex to be part of his identity and lifestyle, and who doesn't care what the Bible has to say on the matter.

In that sense, the saying "love the sinner; hate the sin" doesn't even refer just to homosexuals. It refers to ANYONE engaged in an unrepentant, habitual lifestyle of sin. Keyword: unrepentant.

Maybe you still take offense at the word "sinner"'s being used to describe anyone. After all, the word is strongly negative--

--but also, highly descriptive. "Sinner" is, after all, just a word. It means "someone who sins," which describes our unrepentant, habitual offender perfectly. Just like "murderer" describes someone who's committed murder, or "singer" describes someone who can make music vocally, or "human" describes a member of the species called man.

Maybe it's just negative adjectives you object to, when used to describe people.

Should we stop using them altogether? Maybe we should find a Sharpie and a Webster's and mark them all out.

Or maybe we should just let people keep loving sinners, but hating sins. Would that really be such a stretch?

I don't wanna believe in a God who...

I've been reading the countless homosexuality-related debates sparked by Phil Robertson's comments in GQ.

A few people--passionate, well-lettered, seemingly intelligent people--have responded to Phil's use of Bible verses with some version of: "I choose not to believe in a God who...."

Do the logical ones in the crowd now understand my use of "seemingly intelligent"?

Yikes, people.

First off, it's very difficult--maybe impossible, though that's up for debate--to "choose" to believe anything. Want me to prove it? Concentrate hard, right now, and try to make yourself believe the sky is green.

Don't burst a blood vessel. Got it? ...Not quite? Maybe a few years of meditation and you'll have it.

But that's not all that's wrong here. Let's say you were actually ABLE to make yourself believe the sky is green. Would you be right?

Unless the sun's rising or setting in spectacular fashion, no. Empirically, no.

Does the universe care what we believe? If I choose to believe there's a million dollars in my bank account, will I be happy when I check?

Of course not. Whether God exists or not, he is supremely unaffected by our belief or disbelief in him.

Saying you don't believe in God, just because you don't like his politics, is every bit as childish and ineffectual as sticking your tongue out at him and blowing a raspberry.

That is all.

Young Marriage

Obviously my decision to start a blog wasn't random. I need to use my logic valve immediately.

Today I read the third or fourth anti-young-marriage Facebook post I've seen in the last week.

Surprising how each poster thinks he's in the overwhelming minority, like the whole world's against him and his ideas. And yet a day later, another post rears its ugly head.

Ok, there are some pretty bad arguments out there against marrying young. Most don't even merit the trouble of rebutting; a few of my personal favorites: "You don't know who you ARE yet." "You need to date around, kiss strangers, live it up." "Get a career first. Get stable." Yikes, people.

Then there are some better arguments. Like the higher divorce rate for younger couples.

Let me respond to that one real quick. All you anti-young-marriage-content-creators out there who favor this argument, lend me an ear, and think on this. Ready?

Read this next paragraph carefully.

Do you think there's a higher divorce rate among young marrieds because marrying young is a bad idea? Or--bear with me--because the kind of person who would marry young is more likely to be the kind of person who makes rash decisions, and is therefore more likely to get divorced no matter his age?

If there's even a CHANCE (which I think you'll agree there is) that the second explanation accounts for part of the statistic, then what good is a Facebook post against young marriage gonna do? Why not write a post urging people not to make rash decisions, no matter their age?

Oh...is that not controversial enough for Facebook?

Darn.

For that matter, what good will a Facebook post against young marriage do anyway? No more good than this blog! If you have to vent by posting things to the internet...at least be honest, and admit you're venting.

That is all.