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.