Quote:
Originally posted by Anomaly_
So if anti-MAP pill people aren't against regular birth control and all drugs that could just as minutely have a chance of preventing implantation, then their argument does not hold up.
|
I am.
Quote:
[/b]The "Pro-Life" opposition to the MAP pill makes me vomit. If this pill were prescription free, the number of abortions in the US would drop significantly. Isn't that what these people want? Of course it isn't. They are really "Pro-Telling-you-what-to-do" and "Pro-Consequences".[/B]
|
The number of intentional deaths would not drop significantly. I'm pro-people-having-the-right-to-life-as-long-as-there-is-no-justification-for-taking-it-away. And I wouldn't call for legal changes if my position were based solely on religious beliefs.
Quote:
Pay very close attention to that statment Foolthemall.
|
The current law is incompatible with his chosen profession. Should Christian hospitals be shut down for not providing abortions?
Quote:
Surely we can also agree that while we may disagree on if the law is right, that is the job of our court system, not us or him to decide.
|
He decided not to give her an item. She had no right to this item. (edit: That's not to say that she had no right to attempt to obtain it.) She had no need for this item. The business can certainly fire him for refusing to sell one of the company products, but he violated no rights.
Quote:
the 72hr pill prevents ovulation, and if ovulation has not occured, then there is no clump of cells for us to argue semantics about.
|
Perhaps I made a mistake here. It's referred to in the article as the morning-after pregnancy-prevention pill. The woman sought this drug after the rape occured. I assumed that this meant that conception had already occured and implantation was to be prevented, because my understanding is that pregnancy begins with implantation and not conception.
Anomaly, can you give me a source to support the claim that the chance of prevention of implantation is "incredibly small"? I'm looking for a figure.