Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Hobby Lobby in the news.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="boondocks" data-source="post: 1148199" data-attributes="member: 20599"><p>Scientific consensus is that the birth control methods this FOR-PROFIT corporation wants to restrict do NOT work by destroying fertilized eggs. <em>See, e.g., </em>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html Rather, they prevent fertilization in the first place (that's a GOOD thing if you don't want the abortion rate to go up due to unwanted pregnancies).</p><p></p><p>Those who applaud this decision are not conservatives. A true conservative does not believe a for-profit CORPORATION has all of the rights of a human being, nor that an employer has the right to dictate health care decisions to its employees. "Nanny state" detractors: take note.</p><p></p><p>Evangelical Christianity is not the only "religion", and those who think this is a great ruling will, I'm sure, feel the same way when Wiccans get a ruling that men don't get Viagra, or Mormons get a ruling that smokers don't get lung cancer treatment; or Hindus get a ruling that meat-eaters don't get cholesterol meds (or coronary bypasses, or stents, or....).</p><p></p><p>There has been a pretty sharp line between the rights of an INDIVIDUAL and those of a CORPORATION. This decision, and <em>Citizens United</em>, turn that jurisprudence on its head, taking away our individual rights and giving them to large for-profit corporations. Sorry, but I'm generally for the rights of individuals over corporations. If you want the benefits (limited liability, etc) of acting as a corporation, you should not get the benefits of being a individual also. Corporations aren't people, period, full stop.</p><p></p><p>Then there's this investigation showing that Hobby Lobby has made extensive investments in such birth control, abortion, etc. : <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/02/anti-abortion-company-hobby-lobby-reportedly-invests-retirement-funds-in-abortion-drugs/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ion-drugs/</a> </p><p> </p><p>See also, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... objection/</a></p><p></p><p>Where I come from, we call that situational ethics (or just a hypocrite).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="boondocks, post: 1148199, member: 20599"] Scientific consensus is that the birth control methods this FOR-PROFIT corporation wants to restrict do NOT work by destroying fertilized eggs. [i]See, e.g., [/i]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html Rather, they prevent fertilization in the first place (that's a GOOD thing if you don't want the abortion rate to go up due to unwanted pregnancies). Those who applaud this decision are not conservatives. A true conservative does not believe a for-profit CORPORATION has all of the rights of a human being, nor that an employer has the right to dictate health care decisions to its employees. "Nanny state" detractors: take note. Evangelical Christianity is not the only "religion", and those who think this is a great ruling will, I'm sure, feel the same way when Wiccans get a ruling that men don't get Viagra, or Mormons get a ruling that smokers don't get lung cancer treatment; or Hindus get a ruling that meat-eaters don't get cholesterol meds (or coronary bypasses, or stents, or....). There has been a pretty sharp line between the rights of an INDIVIDUAL and those of a CORPORATION. This decision, and [i]Citizens United[/i], turn that jurisprudence on its head, taking away our individual rights and giving them to large for-profit corporations. Sorry, but I'm generally for the rights of individuals over corporations. If you want the benefits (limited liability, etc) of acting as a corporation, you should not get the benefits of being a individual also. Corporations aren't people, period, full stop. Then there's this investigation showing that Hobby Lobby has made extensive investments in such birth control, abortion, etc. : [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/02/anti-abortion-company-hobby-lobby-reportedly-invests-retirement-funds-in-abortion-drugs/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ion-drugs/[/url] See also, [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/]http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... objection/[/url] Where I come from, we call that situational ethics (or just a hypocrite). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Hobby Lobby in the news.....
Top