Clear
58°
Clear
Hi 67° | Lo 56°

Letter: Leave biology to biologists

It’s kind of Sister Mary Rose Reddy to explain the science behind the Hobby Lobby decision (Monitor letters, July 13).

The explanation is incomplete, though, and in a particularly perplexing way.

However “alive” a fertilized human egg may be, it’s also doomed until and unless implanted, preferably within a human uterus.

Fertilized eggs pass unnoticed and unaided from human reproductive systems every day.

Is this the sin of murder? Suicide? Who commits these sins?

It’s fine for theologians to conclude that fertilization by male sperm produces life in female ova, but generating living human babies is a drawn-out, complex matter.

Focusing on one sperm-centered instant out of a 9-month-long uterus-centered process seems like special pleading.

Meanwhile, the planet’s human population has begun outstripping its access to potable water and arable land. What wisdom do theologians offer for these crises? How do they suggest we feed and water the humans whose burgeoning numbers and environmental alterations already push other species to extinction every day? Who benefits from theological intrusions into private family concerns? What life-enhancing values are served by boosting the odds that families will have babies neither they nor our planet can support?

An institution whose dome of tradition and theology has been created, if not supported, exclusively by men finds itself increasingly at odds with a world where women hold up half the sky.

Perhaps theologians should stick to theology, leaving biology to biologists and family planning to families.

JANE J. HUNT

Concord

For some reason the fact that these female employees also pay into their health insurance and the fact that health insurance is part of their pay package seems to make so difference to the Supreme Court or the posters on here. The employees have right to freedom from religion or if their religion has no problem with contraception. When did INDIVIDUAL rights become less important than corporate rights?

Tillie: I'm guessing that you're pro choice, right? Each citizen in our great country gets to CHOOSE where they wish to work. That is not true in all countries. If you no longer like where you work, . . . choose to leave! Is that choice equality, or what?

Citizens do have a right to work where they want, but also corporations that enjoy the benefits of this nation are not allowed to discriminate in hiring. They are also not allowed to enforce their religious beliefs on their employees. If you do not understand this distinction or do not want to, there is no point in discussing this further for me.

Where does it end in regards to what the left deems employers should be mandated to offer in regards to benefits? Will the left next demand that employees offer 6 weeks of vacation, child care and transportation to the job? How about every employer be mandated to buy every employee a new car? There are some employers that offer lower wages, and less paid holidays. You do not like the benefits, work elsewhere. The excuses we have from the left in regards to telling religious folks what they can and cannot do has now reached the point of insanity. If any employer has lousy benefits, folks will in fact not work there. That is called choice. We know the left believes that the govt needs to mandate everything, but be aware, these companies will in fact leave here and make their products elsewhere. Add to that all the illegals who the left believe should be here, and at some point, there will in fact be no place for any americans to work. There is a war on religion in this country. Even non religious folks can see that.

And, more than 30% of the pregnancies fail: "The study showed, .....that there is about a 25 percent chance each month that a woman who is trying to become pregnant will conceive. But once an egg is fertilized, according to the study, the pregnancy has a 31 percent chance of ending in a miscarriage." And, IF the Catholic church considers EVERY pregnancy as a real child, they probably need to have burial services each week to honor their dead !!

Walter: What does any of what you have written have to do with the supreme court case? Why do you want to force your fellow citizens to enable and support delivering "contraceptive/abortifacients" to their employees? As Jane almost wrote; leave business to the business owners! You and others are free to purchase male contraceptives or female contraceptives at any convenience store any time you want. Please remember that the Catholic Faith has enabled thousands of scientists in all fields, including Gregor Mendel in gentics. Stop hating what you do not know.

The Catholic Church provided those FIVE MALE judges to make the decision. Religion has no part in US government and its laws!!

Oy vey! . . . again, Walter, with the rambling. Christianity has shaped Europe and the United States and much of its legal system. Read Article 1 from Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You may also want to read Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which Sandra OConnor sided with the majority. Happy reading!

Lets see 'establishment of religion...free exercise thereof...freedom of speech'...what part said that an employee can force on their employees which contraceptives must be allowed/disallowed?? Whenever does reproductive right enter the Constitution?? Nor is it in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps its OK with you that 5 Catholic Judges reproductive law for all women; I find it an insult to women!!

What part says that an employer has to offer their employees health care or what part says that health care is a "right" or "guarantee". I doubt that the founders could envision a day when women did not want children and wanted the embryo removed, aborted, thrown away. I guess that it depends which women focus on this decision. Wholesome women or ..............

.free exercise thereof.....that part. Just what does religious freedom mean to you???? Maybe if you answered that question, we could all see your point of view. Free exercise thereof does not just mean freedom of worship

The 2nd Amendment also means freedom FROM religion. One individual's right to "exercise" stops when it interferes with another's rights . Or at least it did until this decision. What the HL employers are now enabled to do is prevent their employees from availing themselves of IUDs, a method of BC that may be the best medical choice for certain women for any number of reasons. The SCOTUS' regard for the religious rights of corporations is touching, and obviously was given more weight than a woman's right to the best reproductive healthcare. This concern for the rights of corporations over real people is especially galling given than the concept of the corporation was originally designed to shield individuals from the actions of their corporate entity.

I find it an insult we're even having this discussion.

As opposed to what? THREE ACTIVIST LIBERALS? Government has no part in our bedroom, that is what progressives think, right? Then why are they involved in birth control and the act that takes place in the bedroom.

Itsa...fair question. Why are FIVE CONSERVATIVE CATHOLIC JUDGES involved in an act that takes place in the bedroom? Yes, PROGRESSIVES (and some conservatives and even MOST corporations) want to have the US government (and the Constitution) say NOTHING about what goes on in the bedroom. Maybe you should think some more about your position on the SCOTUS decision.

Let's get one thing straight. Judges (although progressives don't believe this) are there to be "impartial". They are not there to be activists. So to answer your question, one has to believe, first and foremost that all judges are activists based on their beliefs. Some on the Supreme Court take a liberal view of the Constitution and progressives are fine with that be truth be told, they really don't agree with much of the Constitution. Conservative judges read the Constitution as the founders intended. I come down on the side of the latter. Why? Because changing the morals, mores, ethics and societal beliefs as we go along to fit "today's" latest trend can not and will not build a stable society or country.

Let me see if I've got this right: ALL Supreme Court justrices are nominated by a sitting President and confirmed by the Senate. They are considered to be of the highest level of education with morals above reproach. However, you believe that ONLY those who are conservatives make good decisions, right? That would be decisions that you agree with. A person who finds SCOTUS decision contrary to their views must be a progressive, right? So, the decisions on Citizens United, ACA, and DOMA, were not by activist justices? Which were you happy with? Which were made by activist justices?

I guess reading comprehension is out of the question huh? Must be that you were distracted when you read my post. Too much ROTFLYAO? My point is that they need to be "impartial" and not activist. Citizens United is a solid decision based on the Constitution. ACA was disappointing but it was simply about the employer mandate, which was one decision. I am not happy with that one. DOMA was a activist decision on the Left. But my point was, in essence, the Left justices find reasons to go outside the Constitution.

Re: "...not there to be activist." I think a large number of legal scholars, whether from the middle or from either end of the political spectrum, would agree the Roberts Court is now an activist court.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.