Birth-Life Issues

Obama’s Step To Contradiction (On Hobby Lobby)

Kevin A. Sensenig | August 23, 2014 | Updated August 30, 2014

OBAMA’S STEP TO CONTRADICTION

I thought he (Obama) in 2008 said his pay grade was not high enough (to determine abortion); and my read was that he was therefore not going to make decisions for others on it — and would preserve the status quo on abortion rights, that women can decide. I expected this all to mean that he would perhaps highlight the dilemma.

Several notes: 1) Obama did not take into account Republican views at all — to highlight the dilemma. 2) Obama built abortion further into ObamaCare (particularly the regulations, is my understanding) — to impose upon companies and their officers and their employees and their consumers the decision to — supply abortion products. [1] 3) Obama seemed to have in 2014 decided that the owners and stockholders and employees and consumers of the products of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods _did_ have the pay grade to make the product available at their expense, thus to be participants in an act of abortion. [2]

My answer again is presented in my paper on the Mikulski argument (here)— that if there is such a dispute, that women simply have available an economic layer (and model within the free market) such that they can _independently_ make such (ethical) decisions for themselves.

I’ve stated elsewhere that I thought from certain things in 2008 (I wasn’t following too closely) that Obama would explain what the Republicans saw in things; that he would lay claim to what the Democratic core insights were, and remain firm on them; yet would try to resolve in this way many what had been absolute issues leading to fracturing and fragmenting dissent, bitter in every way; then to highlight several dilemmas, so we as the people could work with the dilemma ourselves, and really investigate them in the political way. That to my mind was what was meant by “Hope and Change”. Others will see this differently. It didn’t turn out to be much hope and change, in a framework-and-structure sense; though in 2012 there was the emphasis again on the various issues, and maybe they went this way or that.

FOOTNOTES

1.I would not want to stand before my Creator and be asked uh pertinent questions on why you made feasible something that God considers to be fundamentally immoral, unmerciful, and unjust; and to kill a human life where there was only the purity of God in that life. There is maybe some ethics you can investigate, on another layer, that would make other insights more clear as well; or you maybe can establish resonant domains that support this while not its expression in the exact religious terms that the Christian or otherwise might; or you might have another parallel expression, in other terms. This actually becomes suddenly a very interesting question.

2.[ I’m referring here to the 2014 Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case, decided in favor of Hobby Lobby. ] Note that Hobby Lobby provided 16 (I think it was) contraceptives as part of its health plans; the 4 in dispute were in addition to this, that the federal government wanted to enforce, and these were challenged as abortion drugs or means. That is, the routine contraceptives were not enough — the federal government wanted to specify what was provided, to enforce a certain interpretation of ethics, where there already were options provided consistent with the spirit of the federal (regulatory) mandates. There is an ethic here, too, that one can look into; and how various rights to do this or that are permitted while others are not. Then you go back to the premise of the Constitution, or natural rights; and matters of limit or to protect rights in others. I’ll stop here, on this philosophical or natural rights matter. (1. It’s ethical to eat in a restaurant — black history. 2. To deny access to a thing, via a certain avenue, is predicated on — what. 3. To deny access to a thing, via all avenues, is predicated on — what. 4. To enforce access to a thing, via a certain avenue is predicated on — what. 5. To enforce access to a thing, via all avenues, is predicated on — what. 6. Is anyone or anything being infringed on, and by what means. 7. What is the nature of that thing or person. 8. What is the nature of the thing or person under consideration as infringing. 9. What of these things, persons, or acts is to enforce, prevent, or tolerate, and how do the logical facts, and objects (entities, things) relate? [3], [4])

3.Marvin Minsky introduces “enforce, prevent, tolerate” as a possible schema for a certain domain in his book The Society Of Mind. It may or may not apply for this or that individual or philosophy. This simply is an open question, meant to probe the philosophy of this or that; and what natural rights are.

4.“how do the logical facts, and objects (entities, things) relate” is based on the material from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. It is a book he wrote in both German and English, and I’m still in the opening chapter or section. I recommend the book, for logic and philosophy. To see it, you almost have to see “from the inside out”. Then on the linear plane. It’s that striking.