Should American companies be required to support abortions?
Sure, why not?
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Hell no!!!
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
So I think there is a catch 2 here. Should American Companies be required to provide birth control or support for abortions? I think if they provide support for one or the other that is fine. If you look at the Hobby Lobby case, if they don't provide for birth control shouldn't they be responsible for support for abortions for those women denied birth control measures? Side: Sure, why not?
1
point
Not unless they themselves offer health insurance to an employee. But even then they should not be granted the right to dictate what it covers and what it doesn't on account of personal/religious beliefs. If a business offers company financed health insurance as a perk to being an employee; an incentive/reward for doing good work for the business, then it should not serve as a vessel to promote their religious beliefs. They aren’t allowed to discriminate against who they hire on account of religious beliefs, they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against their employees regarding what health benefits they receive either. What business does the Supreme Court have in determining which religious beliefs are to be honored anyway? What’s stopping other businesses from filing similar suits on account of religious convictions? If a Mormon run business had religious convictions against blood transfusions, would we be expected to honor that and rule it to be omitted from the employee’s insurance coverage as well? If a Muslim run business proclaims their religious convictions against medicine containing alcohol, are we to honor their beliefs on account of religious freedom as well? This is a step in the wrong direction. Side: Sure, why not?
But even then they should not be granted the right to dictate what it covers and what it doesn't on account of personal/religious beliefs. Why? Why can't the company choose what insurance they will provide? The company governs itself, thus it would be logical for the company to set it's own rules. If a job seeker doesn't like the benefits then find another job. If a Mormon run business had religious convictions against blood transfusions, would we be expected to honor that and rule it to be omitted from the employee’s insurance coverage as well? Yes, especially since the employee didn't have to choose this work place. The company should have the right to set it's standards. If they don't support blood transfusions then find a job that will. If a Muslim run business proclaims their religious convictions against medicine containing alcohol, are we to honor their beliefs on account of religious freedom as well? Yes, especially since you have no say in the business yourself. The founders of the company should be allowed to choose what they want to cover. Again, if you don't like the conditions then don't work there. This is a step in the wrong direction. This is a step in the right direction. Businesses have a bit more freedom. Side: Hell no!!!
Why? Why can't the company choose what insurance they will provide? 1. they don’t provide it, the insurance company does. 2. in most cases the employees are still required to pay a premium for coverage. 3. the business owners are not medical professionals or law makers. 4. the issue they are trying to resolve is not for medical reasons or legal reasons but based on personal beliefs. 5. they have no place to dictate what medicine or medical practices should be allowed or not, especially when the medicine in question is not illegal. 6. an employee should not be affected by an employer’s personal beliefs. 7. their employees’ medical needs are not any of their business unless it affects their performance. The company governs itself, thus it would be logical for the company to set it's own rules. This is not true; a company doesn’t govern itself. Just because a company can set rules for itself doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to abide by the laws and rules that are already in effect within the country (like discrimination laws). Companies are not sovereign states. The company should have the right to set its standards. If they don't support blood transfusions then find a job that will. Not when those standards affect the liberty of another person. It doesn’t matter whether or not a company supports or disapproves of certain medicine or medical procedures based on their personal beliefs. It should not affect their employees. As much as I’m sure Hobby Lobby would want to have all Christian employees, they don’t. Unless birth control is made illegal, the employer has no right to say they won’t allow the insurance provider to cover it. That is between the employee and their doctor. Side: Sure, why not?
|
Why do companies need to be involved with a mother banging a guy that she doesn't want to have a child with? This is pure socialism. For crying out loud, condoms and birth control pills don't cost that damn much. If you can't afford them then you shouldn't be banging in the first place. Side: Hell no!!!
1
point
1
point
2
points
I don't intend to present this as a slippery slope, mind you, but... Is that really a direction we want to go? I mean, consider such topics as welfare, foreign aid, and military activity. There are individuals who are repulsed by the idea of financing such activity. Probably not to the same extent where welfare and foreign aid are concerned, but how about military activity? Think about the Iraq war, and Vietnam, and their ilk; I think there were/are certainly individuals who are every bit as repulsed by these as there are those repulsed by abortion. Should people also be able to opt out of financing these types of things? If not, then why make abortion, and only abortion, the exception to the rule? Side: Sure, why not?
2
points
I don't want to minimize what you have said but the abortion issue has been an extremely hot topic for many people for a very long time. I mean, you don't hear about people picketing welfare and foreign aid. And even though we have had debates about military activity, the largest debate was during the Vietnam war and the Iraq war never to rose to that level. No one is willing to die for those causes. Also, this country was founded on religious freedom. Not on welfare, foreign aid and military action. Abortion is the exception to the rule because of its history and because of the passion on both sides of the fence. I think the judges figured, who is willing to die for this? Women have many options available to them. The fact that they are unable to force religious organizations to pay for their abortions is no sweat of their back. They are not willing to die on that hill. The justices probably felt that religious organizations lost the gay marriage debate and that they may be more willing to die for this cause. In other words, side with the crazies in order to avoid a revolution ;) Side: Sure, why not?
|
