Originally Posted by host

will, this is the United States, and the year is 2008.... I can understand anyone believing that life begins at conception, or even that it is improper to interfere with the process of ovulation, or, in the case of a man, "wasting his seed", belief in sex only for procreation and a reverence towards semen and ovum.

I think it is okay to familiarize others with a sense of a reverence for life, and procreation, even at the earliest stages, and in the potential. I think it's okay to talk to anyone who will listen or read another person's opinions about these concepts and closely held beliefs.

Try to counsel people, stand in close, legal proximity to clincs and other medical facilities which provide women's reproductive health services, including abortion servivces. Try to engage people approaching or leaving these facilities, to try to influence them. Donate or volunteer for advertising and counseling services aligned with your belieffs.

But, remember our circumstances, they're in my opening sentence. I think a pharmacist who objects to filling prescriptions for birth control,is acting reasonably if he defers to a colleague to fill such prescritptions. But, if he works alone or has a commitment to customer service as part of his job description, he should fill the prescritption without comment or delay, or resign form his position.

A woman in the US has the right to vote, and the right to choose what grows or doesn't grow in her uterus. No restrictions are discussed or planned to narrow or curtail a woman' voting rights.

The right to choose must be considered in the same way. Just as the vote was, the right to choose has been a hard fought battle. We need to accept that it is over, and not attempt to reign it in or narrow it via attempts to impose legally enforceable restrictions oin it, no matterhow altruistic and reasonable the motivation to do so, is.

We must all agree not to mess with it. Gun rights advocates demand nothing less, and compared to the right to choose, gun ownership seems trivial matter. If your concern is fathers's rights, why niot propose changes to family law practice, having to do with support obligations, under the law.