Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 112: Line 112:  
::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life?  Interesting.  Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat.  What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.   
 
::::Oh, so a family consensus is necessary to end someone's life?  Interesting.  Of course, legally the family's consensus means squat.  What the judge was enforcing wasn't the "family's consensus" but rather, the will of Terry Schiavo.   
 
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam?  And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::According to your rationale, I assume you support all the "draft-dodgers" of Vietnam?  And the soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::::I suggest you find out the whole story about Terry Schindler. But yes, a family consensus should be a legitimate constraint. That's why I wrote the last sentence of my last comment. Your way off base on the draft dodgers which has absolutely nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about. The topic is about forcing someone, in this case a pharmacist from doing something that violates their own conscience. If you want to debate about draft dodgers, or Terry. Nothing to do with not letting an employer hire who they want either. This is all about whether you or anybody can force a Pharmacist to give you something that will violate his conscience. The answer to that is that you can't for the reasons I've already spent too much time trying to explain to people who don't want to know. I didn't spend thirteen years as a Marine Infantryman to be called a supporter of all draft dodgers either. You are way off base on that one too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
277

edits

Navigation menu