Forget Plan A, Let's Go With Plan B

Yes or no for Plan B?

  • Yes! Make Plan B readily available OTC.

    Votes: 23 88.5%
  • No! Let nature take it's course.

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • Total voters
    26

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,068
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,980
Sarcasmo said:
Between Captain Christ who is currently our president and the untold number of loud-mouthed "this is what I believe" pricks infesting our nation both within and without public offices, we live in a religious theocracy. I'm not just addressing the stem cell issue. I don't care about that. That should be left to the public sector anyway, and our tax money shouldn't be funding it. I'm simply talking about the fact that untold numbers of decisions people make and which affect me are motivated by their personal religious feelings and views, instead of objectively and logically as they should be. That means you are telling me and everyone else what we can and can't do on the basis of your personal spirituality. And that is a LOT shittier and more ridiculous than me killing some blob of cells to reap a benefit on behalf of the greater human race.
No one likes GW, but better than Kerry. Imagine the deomcrats with an untold amount of power. That sounds like FUN.

I'd hate to tell you, but loud mouthed people, youre free to ignore them. People voted for those people, they hold office. If you dont like them you can vote for someone else who doesnt like them to balance it out.

People should make descisions a certain way? I'm not sure you understand freedom. People can make descisions any way they please, they can say what the process involved is and hold it up to public scrutiny, or they can just make the descision, and people can make up their minds on if that person deserves to be elected again. There is no "as they should be", they cannot tell you how to think, you cannot tell them how to think. You are more than free to speak against them to try to convince other people that they are not worthy of the power accorded them.

Beside half formed concepts in your mind WHAT ESSENTIAL LIBERTY ARE YOU DENIED? Name some right, that you are prevented from doing every day simply because someone with religion also happens to hold public office.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,068
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,980
ceiling fly said:
I was really joking the whole time. Babies as commerce? :lol:

That said, contraceptives are to prevent pregnancy. This is to be used mostly after conception. Therefore, its more of an abortion and falls under federal guidelines?
You are not guaranteed a right to abortion. You are guaranteed a right to privacy. The state cannot outlaw abortion so much as the interest of the mother is greater than that of the state. All from Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The descision in that case is also VERY shaky. If you ever get around to reading the case it is unfathomably baseless as far as legal opinions go. The federal government has no laws on abortion though, I suppose they could make one based on the commerce clause or the general welfare clause but I dont see it happening.

Also no one knows if this drug is legally a contraceptive or an abortive. If an abortive it would be a medical procedure in most states and NOT OTC, but it would be protected from prohibition. If a contraceptive it could fall either way depending on the state.
 

Pandora

Flaccid Member
Oct 19, 2004
7,656
0
0
Atlanta GA!
skewed.textamerica.com
Marklar
₥0
FlamingGlory said:
No one likes GW, but better than Kerry. Imagine the deomcrats with an untold amount of power. That sounds like FUN.

I'd hate to tell you, but loud mouthed people, youre free to ignore them. People voted for those people, they hold office. If you dont like them you can vote for someone else who doesnt like them to balance it out.

People should make descisions a certain way? I'm not sure you understand freedom. People can make descisions any way they please, they can say what the process involved is and hold it up to public scrutiny, or they can just make the descision, and people can make up their minds on if that person deserves to be elected again. There is no "as they should be", they cannot tell you how to think, you cannot tell them how to think. You are more than free to speak against them to try to convince other people that they are not worthy of the power accorded them.

Beside half formed concepts in your mind WHAT ESSENTIAL LIBERTY ARE YOU DENIED? Name some right, that you are prevented from doing every day simply because someone with religion also happens to hold public office.

I am denied my right to hookers and purchasing alcohol on Sundays.

Plus there's all these drug laws. And I'd also like to have the government recognize my 'union' with Goldylocks here. We deserve the same perks other couples have.

goldy.jpg
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,068
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,980
Pandora said:
I am denied my right to hookers and purchasing alcohol on Sundays.

Plus there's all these drug laws. And I'd also like to have the government recognize my 'union' with Goldylocks here. We deserve the same perks other couples have.

[IG]http://uselessforums.com/files/120505/goldy.jpg[/IMG]
Although I deny that any of those are essential liberties:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Those are both state laws.
 

Pandora

Flaccid Member
Oct 19, 2004
7,656
0
0
Atlanta GA!
skewed.textamerica.com
Marklar
₥0
FlamingGlory said:
Although I deny that any of those are essential liberties:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Those are both state laws.

I wasn't aware we were only discussing federal laws...since you specified that in your RE n'all.... I was just supporting Sarcasmos statment about the religious oppressors:

Flamer McDickchugger said:
I'm simply talking about the fact that untold numbers of decisions people make and which affect me are motivated by their personal religious feelings and views, instead of objectively and logically as they should be.
 

fly

omg
Oct 1, 2004
75,867
25,936
1,323
Marklar
₥62,053
Steam
mattressfish
FlamingGlory said:
You are not guaranteed a right to abortion. You are guaranteed a right to privacy. The state cannot outlaw abortion so much as the interest of the mother is greater than that of the state. All from Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The descision in that case is also VERY shaky. If you ever get around to reading the case it is unfathomably baseless as far as legal opinions go.

Doesn't matter: Stare decisis

The federal government has no laws on abortion though, I suppose they could make one based on the commerce clause or the general welfare clause but I dont see it happening.

Also no one knows if this drug is legally a contraceptive or an abortive. If an abortive it would be a medical procedure in most states and NOT OTC, but it would be protected from prohibition. If a contraceptive it could fall either way depending on the state.

Are you sure about you abortion being a medical procedure? iirc, I remember hearing doctors (and word of mouth, of course) telling people what birth control pills to double or triple up on to induce abortion...
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,068
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,980
Pandora said:
I wasn't aware we were only discussing federal laws...since you specified that in your RE n'all.... I was just supporting Sarcasmos statment about the religious oppressors:
I wasnt aware you were being willfully ignorant of what I said to Sarcasmo.

For your lack of attention:

People can make descisions any way they please; they can say what the process involved is and hold it up to public scrutiny, or they can just make the descision, and people can make up their minds on if that person deserves to be elected again.

The idea of forcing a person to make decisions "as they should be" made is indefensible. You cannot tell any person what rules or logic they can use when making a decision. Just as they cannot tell you how to think, you cannot tell them how to think. You have the ability and are absolved from all punishment and in other words 'free' to speak against them to try to convince other people that they are not worthy of the power accorded them.

Blame your own failure of persuasion or idleness on what laws are placed on you for it's your own fault. If those laws were truly as heinous as you think they are you would resist them; but you dont.

You are not denied any liberty guaranteed by law from time immemorial. You have restrictions on the exercise of privileges that have been placed in the care of the government.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,068
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,980
ceiling fly said:
Doesn't matter: Stare decisis
I was just encouraging you [and others] to actually read the descision. Because it is so shaky and full of loopholes lower courts can interpret it narrowly.

Are you sure about you abortion being a medical procedure? iirc, I remember hearing doctors (and word of mouth, of course) telling people what birth control pills to double or triple up on to induce abortion...
Medical law is practically something I never read. Birth control pills are prescribed, abortions are prescribed (ones performed by non-doctors would be practicing medicene without a licence), a doctor giving advice to a patient in regards to drugs they already have scripts for would sound like the practice of medicene. OTC drugs are not afforded the same protections as medical procedures/scripts hence why allergy medicene is regulated in many places etc.
 

theacoustician

Flaccid Member
Sep 30, 2004
12,781
4
0
Marklar
₥0
FlamingGlory said:
I wasnt aware you were being willfully ignorant of what I said to Sarcasmo.

For your lack of attention:
Next time you wonder why you're sitting at home by yourself, reread this post.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,068
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,980
April23 said:
Who all thinks FlamingGlory wouldn't be so "educated" if we took away his search engine...

Say AYE!
How do you think I find which cases are relavent? :tard:

I have a index by subject to NY and Federal law on my desk.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,068
1,485
573
<3
Marklar
₥2,980
theacoustician said:
Next time you wonder why you're sitting at home by yourself, reread this post.
Look, quickly; this is my care face.

I'm sure Pandora, by her own virtues, is well able to defend herself without you stepping in and personally attacking someone. Why not contribute some factual information or stay out of it. You've not, as yet, from what I can recall. Jumping into the middle of a conversation and singling out one person for something completely non-related is neither endearing nor funny.

Grow up.
 

theacoustician

Flaccid Member
Sep 30, 2004
12,781
4
0
Marklar
₥0
FlamingGlory said:
Look, quickly; this is my care face.

I'm sure Pandora, by her own virtues, is well able to defend herself without you stepping in and personally attacking someone. Why not contribute some factual information or stay out of it. You've not, as yet, from what I can recall. Jumping into the middle of a conversation and singling out one person for something completely non-related is neither endearing nor funny.

Grow up.
:lol:
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,360
38,053
1,823
Houston
Marklar
₥59,346
FlamingGlory said:
How do you think I find which cases are relavent? :tard:

I have a index by subject to NY and Federal law on my desk.


So why do you "build" a road if you have this wealth of knowledge?
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
FlamingGlory said:
No one likes GW, but better than Kerry. Imagine the deomcrats with an untold amount of power. That sounds like FUN.

I'd hate to tell you, but loud mouthed people, youre free to ignore them. People voted for those people, they hold office. If you dont like them you can vote for someone else who doesnt like them to balance it out.

People should make descisions a certain way? I'm not sure you understand freedom. People can make descisions any way they please, they can say what the process involved is and hold it up to public scrutiny, or they can just make the descision, and people can make up their minds on if that person deserves to be elected again. There is no "as they should be", they cannot tell you how to think, you cannot tell them how to think. You are more than free to speak against them to try to convince other people that they are not worthy of the power accorded them.

Beside half formed concepts in your mind WHAT ESSENTIAL LIBERTY ARE YOU DENIED? Name some right, that you are prevented from doing every day simply because someone with religion also happens to hold public office.


JESUS CHRIST, I HAD A 2-PAGE FUCKING RESPONSE TO THIS THAT TOOK ME 3 HOURS TO TYPE WHILE WORKING AND THEN WHEN I CLICKED SUBMIT I GOT A DATABASE ERROR THAT LASTED FOR 30 MINUTES AND I LOST THE ENTIRE THING. I FUCKING QUIT.



I EVEN QUOTED ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE FOR FUCK'S SAKE



11206657429693ef.gif