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="Commercialfarmer" data-source="post: 1148528" data-attributes="member: 14544"><p>1. I like verification of facts. From the original source (Plan B's website), not so much from partisan writers.... </p><p></p><p>I'll take their word for it, since it is their baby. They invested the millions to gain FDA approval and they've sifted through all the data and are responsible for any and all litigation that comes about from the use of the medication. </p><p></p><p>That is under the facts section.</p><p></p><p></p><p>IUD- I assume you can look that one up as well. If you disagree that it keeps an egg from implanting in the uterine wall, I'll explain it further. </p><p></p><p>If we need to go through them all, I'll be happy to. Ignoring anything I understand about the medications, I don't understand how liberal bloggers would dream that they are privy to information that wasn't available to an attorney arguing in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. And you bought in to this? </p><p></p><p></p><p>2. Why did you take the time to comment about what a "true" conservative thinks or should think? What others thought didn't affect me in grade school, why would I care now? I won't go into the meat of why I would disagree as I believe it has already been addressed. I do find it interesting that in your view the liberal judges voted like a true conservative would and the conservative appointed judges didn't. ;-) </p><p></p><p>3. Best part of religious freedom, is well.... religious freedom. I'll take western culture where you and I don't have to agree on which church you attend, or if you attend one at all vs a place where you can be hung, raped, shot, burned, or imprisoned for not being of the correct faith, or just because you have a faith and practice it. Won't loose sleep over Wiccans refusing to purchase viagra. Is this really what you're so up in arms about? :lol: :hide: :lol: It's a joke. </p><p></p><p>4. The situation ethics bit is more than stretching it. For situational ethics to apply, it will need to be shown that they knowingly purchased the funds that contained companies profiting from the sells of abortion inducing medications. I don't think you'll ever get your smoking gun, because I highly doubt it exists. I imagine that there are people on this forum that wouldn't knowingly support the pornography industry, but with the billions made in the industry, they may have a mutual fund that owns stock in an adult entertainment company. Intentional no. When I was younger, I put money into growth funds due to the recommendation of my financial counselor that I didn't know the entirety of the portfolio. </p><p></p><p>Most importantly, none of these items would be weighed by the court in making this decision. </p><p> </p><p>It should have been a unanimous decision against the US government because of the founding documents: </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Boondocks, when you read that, make sure you use the right frame of reference. It is purely a limitation (an outright ban) on the central government, not on the citizens. The citizens should be able to exercise FREELY. Pretty plain English.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Commercialfarmer, post: 1148528, member: 14544"] 1. I like verification of facts. From the original source (Plan B's website), not so much from partisan writers.... I'll take their word for it, since it is their baby. They invested the millions to gain FDA approval and they've sifted through all the data and are responsible for any and all litigation that comes about from the use of the medication. That is under the facts section. IUD- I assume you can look that one up as well. If you disagree that it keeps an egg from implanting in the uterine wall, I'll explain it further. If we need to go through them all, I'll be happy to. Ignoring anything I understand about the medications, I don't understand how liberal bloggers would dream that they are privy to information that wasn't available to an attorney arguing in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. And you bought in to this? 2. Why did you take the time to comment about what a "true" conservative thinks or should think? What others thought didn't affect me in grade school, why would I care now? I won't go into the meat of why I would disagree as I believe it has already been addressed. I do find it interesting that in your view the liberal judges voted like a true conservative would and the conservative appointed judges didn't. ;-) 3. Best part of religious freedom, is well.... religious freedom. I'll take western culture where you and I don't have to agree on which church you attend, or if you attend one at all vs a place where you can be hung, raped, shot, burned, or imprisoned for not being of the correct faith, or just because you have a faith and practice it. Won't loose sleep over Wiccans refusing to purchase viagra. Is this really what you're so up in arms about? :lol: :hide: :lol: It's a joke. 4. The situation ethics bit is more than stretching it. For situational ethics to apply, it will need to be shown that they knowingly purchased the funds that contained companies profiting from the sells of abortion inducing medications. I don't think you'll ever get your smoking gun, because I highly doubt it exists. I imagine that there are people on this forum that wouldn't knowingly support the pornography industry, but with the billions made in the industry, they may have a mutual fund that owns stock in an adult entertainment company. Intentional no. When I was younger, I put money into growth funds due to the recommendation of my financial counselor that I didn't know the entirety of the portfolio. Most importantly, none of these items would be weighed by the court in making this decision. It should have been a unanimous decision against the US government because of the founding documents: Boondocks, when you read that, make sure you use the right frame of reference. It is purely a limitation (an outright ban) on the central government, not on the citizens. The citizens should be able to exercise FREELY. Pretty plain English. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Hobby Lobby in the news.....
Top