I agree with Lurkette on this one. I mean, I would find it incredibly hard to love and cherish a child who was the product of a rape. A daily reminder of terrible things that have happened to me? GREAT!

Also, I think pharmacists these days are on absolute power trips. They are NOT doctors, they have NOT completed their medical school - just because they deal with drugs, their effects, and anatomy, does NOT mean that they have the professional knowledge of diagnosing someone. Sure, they may have 20 years of experience and pretty much be able to figure out the problem, but its NOT formal training that a doctor has. If a pharmacist has a problem with a prescription, they can phone the doctor who prescribed it and have a discussion with them on the merits, rather than flat out refusing.

I know as of recent I've had some problems with my own personal pharmasist. I'm on a method of birth control he feels that is 'STUPID' for someone my age to be on. However, my doctor and I have decided this is the best course of action for me. Last time I went to the pharmacist, he decided to ask me a round of incredibly embarassing questions on my sexual history, in earshot of many other customers. I refused to answer his questions, and booked it the hell out of there. I came back later with my Mother (who is a nurse) and she gave him a tounge lashing. What ever happened to patient confidentiality? Things such as sexual history never have to come between you and your pharmacist.

Now, to tie that in - I believe that the pharmacist should have never even KNOWN that the woman was taking it because she was raped. This is information he doesn't need to know. Being someone in the medical profession, he should have known that his moral values SHOULD NEVER play a part in doing his job.

UGH! I could go on forever about how much I hate [certain] pharmacists .. but this was just a long winded way of saying what everyone else probably did .. :\

Thank you for posting lurkette and Isis.
It's good to have both genders opinion on this incident, especially when the discussion at hand involves the female, not male body.

Incoherent. 'Should' implies a moral. Either withholding this drug was immoral for a pharmacist to do, or it was moral.

It has the power to live dependently. And that power certainly can be taken away.

I don't have to experience pregnancy from rape to know that it isn't a justification for taking an innocent life. Simple as that.

I didn't decide when life begins. I decided to recognize when life begins. It's not a matter of opinion. I have no problem making moral choices for others, when the decision of whether or not to violate others' abilities to make choices, is the moral choice in question. For instance, I have no problem with laws against rape. And I have no problem with laws that would take away a woman's right to destroy HER clump of cells, given the nature of the clump of cells.

Which would be a valid point if the bodies of pregnant women were the only bodies involved in the equation.

In this 'SPECIFIC' equation, there is only one, I believe. Did this guy purposely rape the woman in order to have a child? I highly doubt it. The raped woman is the one who has to go through not only the psychological damage caused by this rape, but she has to carry through with the pregnancy too?

In this case, I believe the man should have absolutely NO bearing on the 'equation' if thats what you want to call it.

And thus, the crux of the problem, which people (usually on the prochoice side) refuse to recognize: What is human life? What does it mean to be a "person"?

When these questions can be answered catagorically, then there will be no further debate.

I don't believe this will ever happen.

#2 is the zygote.

It actually isn't the crux of the problem for everyone. I happen to know a pro-choicer who insists that the z/e/f (zygote/embryo/fetus) is obviously a human being. His issue lies with what force is appropriate for the government to use in the issue of abortion. Whether it's possible for the government to outlaw abortion effectively without violating the pregnant woman's rights. Something like that.

But in most cases, you're absolutely right.

One way I look at it: we need a straight and reasoned line, one the law can act on. Birth is such a line, but partial-birth abortion has shown it to be, for all its convenience, false. Consciousness isn't very clear, but neither is adulthood. The problem with this line is that there is nothing to base it on. It's arbitrary. It can't be the 'feeling pain' thing, or otherwise dentists could become very effective hired killers. And so it can't think? It will, given the time to develop. And that's the key for me; it's developing. Organically. Its own organs. Its own mind. Its own body. It's a life, in an early stage of development.

But then, that's not enough for many. No, human beings are conscious by definition, human beings are independent by definition. And we fight over whose definition is best. And so the story goes on...

While I think all rape concieved children should be aborted, who the hell are YOU to decide the same things?

While I'm in the clump of cells camp myself, I can understand the pro-lifers point of view as well.

Its pretty easy to get people all fired up in a rape case, but when abortion becomes a form of birth control for some people (and don't deny it, as it is) I start to wonder what sort of values our society has.

Here's the difference: I'm not deciding anything. I'm not imposing a choice that conforms to my values on the woman, but allowing her to make the choice. I'm not saying all rape-conceived children should be aborted, nor that they should all be carried to term. In the absence of compelling evidence about the beginning of human life/consciousness, decisions about a woman's body (for example, whether to allow a forcibly fertilized egg to implant in her uterus) should be left up to the woman.

And this is not a case of abortion, as many have pointed out. The drugs would prevent fertilization. If this is abortion, then all forms of birth control are abortion. Which they're not.

Bingo!

We have a winner!

That is why we are pro-choice and not pro-abortion!

As I've quoted below, how can those who are "Pro-Life" not be in support of a pill that could prevent 800,000 abortions per year?
So where is the campaign against allergy medication, among other drugs, for women who are sexually active?

From http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.or...howEBCworks.htm
From http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.org/
800,000 abortions prevented is not significant? Are you really "Pro-Life"?

Sperm can live inside a women as long as 4 days waiting to fertilize an egg. The MAP pill works because conception doesn't immediately occur.

From http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.org...owEBCworks.htm
From http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBu...20040106b.html

Thank you Anomaly_ , your post was highly informative and well presented with factual evidence. i learned much from those links.

Lebell: I agree. Pro-choice is choosing to allow each indivigual to decide the appropriate course of action themselves, as opposed to legislating any given action as correct.

Bravo!:p

Seriously, i find it soooo funny that the people who argue the most for pro life are the peopel who don't have a vagina...

(again, oversimplification, but it's just what i've observed)

some other edumactional links:
http://plannedparenthood.com/library...ONTROL/EC.html
more general info here: http://plannedparenthood.com/library...mergContra.htm

and info on obtaining EC:
http://plannedparenthood.com/ec/

also, there's a hotline to call to obtain local information: 1-800-NOT-2LATE


and, if all that didn't tell you, I FULLY support emergency birth control. the pharmasist in this tory did what he felt was right, and his employer will do what they have established in their company policy. Personally I think it is morally wrong to deny medication to an individual when it has been prescribed by a doctor. Perhaps there is a pressing need to do so. perhaps a pregnancy would kill the mother-to-be, perhaps it's not being used as birth-control, who knows. Not the pharmasist, because of the patient-doctor confidentiality, and he has no right to know. I'd almost say that the poor woman has a case to sue the pants off of the ass-hat for willful neglect. He's denying medical care to someone when he doesn't know the whole story and does not have the training to make judgement, even if he DID have the whole story.

I'm with Lurkette on the abortion issue. It's my body, and my life, and I'm not ready for a kid right now. so I take birth control. and you know what? I may very well have killed a fertelized egg somewhere along the way by not allowing it to become embedded in the wall of my uterus. And I'm fine with that. And, since it's my soul that's going to hell if that's not okay, well.. i don't see how it's anyone else's business.

It's not just your body, its another human being. It has its own unique DNA and it has its own soul (a soul apart from god and religion, Einstein proved the essence). Hey if your not ready for a kid keep your fucking pants on! That works. You people just keep telling your selves its not human, I refer to slavery and Dread Scott and Nazi Germany's persecution of the lesser races. While were at it lets Euthanize(sp) handicap people, they aren't convienent either. Old people too, why should i have to support them through social security!!! Hey I got it too lets create life in test tubes, oh wait it wouldn't be human so we can harvest it all we want. And then once we develop the ability to clone, oh man that will be fun. If our carbon copies don't come out right its no biggie because they aren't human either! BTW I find it interesting how the skank that got the abortion boat rowing in America was also a big fan of Hitler's Eugenics programs, really says alot about it.

Either you're going way off topic or you haven't acknowledged that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill. The tired slippery slope argument isn't helping prove your point either. Whatever the case may be, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was not a supporter of eugenics or the practices of Hitler. From the Planned Parenthood website :

Oh my bad, it was Sanger who influenced Hitler's eugenics programs. Funny she also preached eugenics for black people and the systematic removal of them and other social undesireables.

http://blackgenocide.org/negro.html

No, you are deciding.

You are deciding its ok for someone to flush a bunch of viable cells in order to prevent the birth of a child.

I'm sure you wouldn't say a mother has the right to kill a born infant.

To a right-to-lifer there is NO difference, and I can see their point. When did you become YOU?

I don't have any memories until maybe 3 and no real memories until at least 6. I was totally dependent on my parents, so should they have had the right to kill me?

If you think that life begins at conception then you have a duty to try to outlaw abortion the same say someone like you would want the killing of children outlawed.

Thats the only difference between them and you (unless of course you think killing children is ok, in which case all bets are off ;) )

I think we should ALL agree to disagree on this point:

THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER TO WHEN LIFE BEGINS.

Some may argue it is the second the sperm hits the egg. Some may figure the blastocyst stage. Some may figure when it implants. The point is, there is NO right answer to this question.

And in relation to that quote: I'm carring what, 400 viable follicle cells in my ovaries right now. But because those are "viable cells that can cause life" .. I'm committing a crime by ovulating?

Until we define a line where life actually BEGINS .. this argument will be as circular as the world. (Which might still be debated, by some ;D ;D).

you'd be committing a crime by ovulating w/out conception just as a man commits a crime by masturbating w/out chance of impregnating a woman.


As for when life begins, sometimes, you can't tell until the clump of cells is way past 70 yrs old..

I'm deciding i don't have the right to determine another person's morality for them, since i'm just as fallable as the next person. I don't know if I could/would abort a child, and hopefully i"ll never have to find out. I can only make my own decisions based on what i feel is best for ALL involved. And all is me, juan, and the as yet un-concieved baby. I choose not to ruin 2 lives to bring a third one into the world to be ruined as well. I would suggest that is a mercy, not a murder.

I also would think that you pro-lifer's would encourage birth-control, as a preventative to abortion. if there's no pregnancy, there's no child to abort.

Mojo_PeiPei: as for keeping my pants on, well... when you are me, you can make that decision for me. untill then, mind your own damn business, because my life is my own, and as long as I'm not harming you, you have no say in it.

All I'm saying if you aren't ready to take responsiblity for your actions, or in this case an action that creates life, keep your pants on.

So theft, murder and rape is ok? Society decides morality every day, or the end result is anarchy. If you believe in a soul and if you think life begins at conception how could you NOT want to outlaw abortion? It would be no different then killing someone walking down the street.

Most motivations for abortion are selfish. And before someone jumps all over that statement, I said most not all. Its the parents inconvenience that seems to be the issue, the welfare of the child is not an issue.

I personally don't care about abortion, and wish the controversy would go away so we could get to other issues in society.

One could argue, if you are not SURE when life begins, why take the chance with an abortion?

:lol: best.sarcasm.ever :lol:

And Ustwo and Mojo_PeiPei:
The discussion here is not about abortion. We've established that the 72 hour pill does not stop anything that has already implanted. It simply prevents ovulation. If ovulation has not occured before this pill has taken, then it does not occur. If there was no ovulation, then there was no egg.if there was no egg, there was never fertilization. if there was no fertilization there was never a clump of cells to argue about. If there is nothing to argue about, we should return to our regularly schedualed thread and discuss if the pharmacist has a right to express his moral beliefs when practicing in the public health feild and/or if when paid by someone to do a job, you understand that your representing the company and you left your personal opinions on anything from the superbowl to the 72 hour pill at the door when you clocked in.

My opinions on the thread at hand are clear in my first post.
His personal beliefs where incompatible with his choosen proffesion and employer, both of which mandated that the 72hr pill was acceptable. Therefor he deserved to lose his job, and his name should not be withheld for privacy, so that other pharmacy's can know who he is to decide if they want him on staff.

"It's not just your body, its another human being."

Says who ? where does life begin ?

"It has its own unique DNA and it has its own soul (a soul apart from god and religion, Einstein proved the essence)."

Please explain how Einsein proved that each person has a soul...

"Hey if your not ready for a kid keep your fucking pants on! That works."

Unless you get raped or a condom fails or ect.

"You people just keep telling your selves its not human, I refer to slavery and Dread Scott and Nazi Germany's persecution of the lesser races."

Godwin's Law, you lose... I can stop right here.

How do you figure I lose? People justify the systematic genocide and persecution of people based on defining what human life is. Einstein based it off sensory impulses consisting of electricity, its with you the second your concieved through death and since it is electricity it never degrades... if you don't believe me ask Jeff GoldBlum in Powder =P .

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Seems like einstein's soul theory is just a misguided attempt to prove religion through science.

Actually quite the opposite, Einstein didn't believe in the soul seperate from the body. I still don't get this whole Goodwin's Law thing. What I further don't understand is how it discredits my argument about the Nazi's, especially in context of this thread. But at anyrate Nazi's aside, the easiest way to get down on a group of people is to dehumanize them.

Bwhahahaha.
Anyway, keep to the topic. The topic is not abortion. The topic is this case and if what he did is right or if consequences should be felt by him for his actions.
Let me repeat this mojo, the topic is not when life begines or abortion.

Yes, but it had digressed that way. And on that note, the dude is a dusche and should be fired.

It looks like I am the only person who would back a prison sentence for this individual?

Interesting. And a good question. My preliminary answer would be, "It isn't as obvious." A second answer would be, "Effective legal prevention of this side-effect would extend well beyond the government's proper power."

My apparent misconception was that these 800,000 prevented abortions still resulted in the death of the z/e/f through the prevention of implantation. If it's all contraceptive, I retract my previous statement.

Does this mean that prevention of implantation is impossible if taken in the 0-72 hour time period, or that it is rare? If the latter, is there a figure available?

interesting article, poor title choice.

It's not obvious because the Pro-Life supporters don't have the label "birth control" or "contraceptive" to jump on in order to miscontrue the effects of a drug. We would absolutely hear about the real abortive dangers of an allergy medicine if there actually were any. Emergency contraceptive, with equally small effects on implantation, however is likened to evil voodoo medicine simply because of its name.

I'm glad you can listen to reason.

Like both sources state, preventing implantation is not how the drug operates especially given the time period in which it is used. Even if were taken AFTER pregnancy, it would not abort a child. I do not have a figure to quote but the statements extrapolated from data seem to clearly indicate that implantation prevention is exceedingly rare.

Cytotec, a medicine used for treating ulcers is widely used to produce miscarriages.

Any public outcry over that one yet?

--------------

Heheh. It's almost like the "you can make rope with hemp!" situation. Or not.

Good points brought up. Thanks.

I don't know your reasoning...but if it has anything to do with the "sanctity of life," what difference does it make if a child is a result of rape or any other means?

prison is not the solution and a waste of tax money. he will never understand intil he experiences the situation, which i hope not, because rape is one of the unforgivable crimes.