Is this the true face of the "Pro Life" campaign?? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

isis · 02-05-2004, 03:27 PM

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 .. :\

arch13 · 02-05-2004, 03:43 PM

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.

FoolThemAll · 02-05-2004, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by isis
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.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
how can you "kill" a being that does not have the power to live independantly? If something does not have a life of its own, it cannot be killed, surely?

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

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
I hate to pull out the uterus card, but I'd love it if some of you pro-lifers who'd like to see this woman carry a rapist's child to term could walk a mile in a woman's shoes. Imagine living every day of nine months with the spawn of the man who raped you growing in your body. Who the hell are you to decide when life begins? And who the hell are you to make moral choices for other people and impose your will on the body of a woman who can bloody well make up her own mind and suffer the moral and emotional consequences herself? It's HER body, HER unborn clump of cells that may or may not become a potential life, HER choice.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by arch13
It's good to have both genders opinion on this incident, especially when the discussion at hand involves the female, not male body.

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

isis · 02-05-2004, 04:06 PM

Quote:

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.

Lebell · 02-05-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
...I didn't decide when life begins. I decided to recognize when life begins. It's not a matter of opinion....

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.

FoolThemAll · 02-05-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by isis
In this 'SPECIFIC' equation, there is only one, I believe.

#2 is the zygote.

Quote:

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"?

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...

Ustwo · 02-05-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Who the hell are you to decide when life begins?.... It's HER body, HER unborn clump of cells that may or may not become a potential life, HER choice.

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.

lurkette · 02-05-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

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

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.

Lebell · 02-05-2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Here's the difference: I'm not deciding anything.

Bingo!

We have a winner!

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

Anomaly_ · 02-05-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
...
When did I say that the MAP was abortion? I said I drew the line at not helping rape victims.... I meant that in ALL situations similar to this one, whether the woman be maybe a day along, or a few months along (although it pains me to say that). You're probably confused by the abortion reference I made.... I'm actually kind of hurt that you would make that inference that all Pro-Life people want to do is boss people around. It isn't true, it just isn't. This guy is a jackass, there are people who take it too far, but it's on both sides too. Please don't make generalizations from extreme people you hear about in the news.

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?

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
I am.

So where is the campaign against allergy medication, among other drugs, for women who are sexually active?

From http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.or...howEBCworks.htm

Quote:

EBC pills, the copper-T IUD, regular birth control pills, and many other drugs such as certain prescription allergy medications may all prevent pregnancy by causing the lining of the uterus to be shed even if a fertilized egg is present. Together, these medicines are prescribed to millions of women each year.

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
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.

From http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.org/

Quote:

Widespread use of EBC could prevent 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions each year in the United States alone.

800,000 abortions prevented is not significant? Are you really "Pro-Life"?

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
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.

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

Quote:

EBC may work by interrupting the pregnancy process in any of the these ways:

1. Delaying or inhibiting ovulation

In this case, EBC prevents any egg from being released from the ovaries. With no egg for sperm to fertilize, a woman cannot become pregnant. The most current research suggests that this is usually the way that EBC pills prevent pregnancy. In fact, this is the only way in which EBC pills have been proven to work. The other ways described below have not been studied enough to be universally accepted by the medical community, and therefore remain theoretical.

From http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBu...20040106b.html

Quote:

"Implantation occurs at the 7th or 8th day after fertilization, so, although large-dose progestogens can prevent implantation, this is not relevant to use of the [MAP], in the 0-72 hour time following intercourse,"

arch13 · 02-05-2004, 06:55 PM

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!

Paq · 02-05-2004, 07:20 PM

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)

cheerios · 02-05-2004, 08:18 PM

some other edumactional links:
http://plannedparenthood.com/library...ONTROL/EC.html

Quote:

Emergency contraception cannot end a pregnancy. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if the woman is pregnant; they act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)" (FDA, 1997). A recent study found that most often, ECPs reduce the risk of pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation (Marions, et al., 2002). Emergency contraception reduces the risk of pregnancy and helps prevent the need for abortion; it itself is not a form of abortion (Grimes, 1997; Guillebaud, 1998; Hughes, 1972; Van Look & Stewart, 1998).

Quote:

A recent study of 235 women who had used ECPs found that the overwhelming majority — 91 percent — were satisfied with the method, and 97 percent would recommend it to friends and family. These women also reported that they did not intend to substitute ECPs for regular contraceptive use (Harvey et al., 1999)

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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-05-2004, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheerios

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.

Lebell · 02-05-2004, 08:59 PM

This isn't directed at any one person, just a general note to keep everything within forum rules.

I know how hot these topics can get, so if you feel yourself losing it, step away before you say something everyone will regret.

Thanks and now back to your regularly scheduled thread

-lebell

Anomaly_ · 02-05-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
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 :

Quote:

Sanger's disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-05-2004, 09:48 PM

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

Quote:

On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the "Say So" march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade "rights" in t he latter–converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

‘"Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!" declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning," Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: "We have become victims of genocide by our own hands," cried Hunter at the "Say So" march.

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and "purtiy"," particularly of the "Aryan" race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the "fit" to reproduce and the "unfit" to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the "inferior" races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this "population crisis." According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.

Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more "scientific" approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more "practical and acceptable ways" to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

Critics of Malthusianism said the group "produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless." Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the "scientifically verified" threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Ruin. Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that "virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists." Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of "revolutionary" literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services "almost without the exception." And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.

The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area–those deemed "unfit" to reproduce.

Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

Ustwo · 02-05-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Here's the difference: I'm not deciding anything.

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

)

isis · 02-05-2004, 10:05 PM

Quote:

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

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).

Paq · 02-05-2004, 10:15 PM

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..

cheerios · 02-05-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
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 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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-05-2004, 10:27 PM

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.

Ustwo · 02-05-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cheerios
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.

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.

Ustwo · 02-05-2004, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by isis
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).

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

arch13 · 02-05-2004, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paq
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..

best.sarcasm.ever

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.

nanofever · 02-05-2004, 10:47 PM

"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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-05-2004, 10:52 PM

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 .

nanofever · 02-05-2004, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-05-2004, 11:36 PM

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.

arch13 · 02-05-2004, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
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.

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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-06-2004, 12:02 AM

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

Strange Famous · 02-06-2004, 03:45 AM

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

FoolThemAll · 02-06-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anomaly_
So where is the campaign against allergy medication, among other drugs, for women who are sexually active?

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."

Quote:

800,000 abortions prevented is not significant? Are you really "Pro-Life"?

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.

Quote:

From http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBu...20040106b.html

"Implantation occurs at the 7th or 8th day after fertilization, so, although large-dose progestogens can prevent implantation, this is not relevant to use of the [MAP], in the 0-72 hour time following intercourse,"

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?

irateplatypus · 02-06-2004, 08:09 AM

interesting article, poor title choice.

Anomaly_ · 02-07-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
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."

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.

Quote:

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.

I'm glad you can listen to reason.

Quote:

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?

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.

Mehoni · 02-07-2004, 10:52 PM

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

Any public outcry over that one yet?

sabatoa · 02-08-2004, 10:14 AM

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

FoolThemAll · 02-08-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
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.

Arsenic7 · 02-08-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
I draw the line at not helping rape victims. I believe there should be no abortion except for cases of rape, or in cases where there is endangerement of the mother, or other extreme cases. This is just, I can't believe it, I'm just too shocked for words at what type of crap this is.

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?

moonstrucksoul · 02-09-2004, 10:57 AM

Quote:

by Arch13: 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.

Quote:

by Mojo_PeiPei: And on that note, the dude is a dusche and should be fired.

Quote:

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

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.

02-05-2004, 03:43 PM	#42 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	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. __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever

02-05-2004, 06:55 PM	#51 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	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! __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever

02-05-2004, 07:20 PM	#52 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	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) __________________ Live. Chris

02-05-2004, 08:59 PM	#55 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	This isn't directed at any one person, just a general note to keep everything within forum rules. I know how hot these topics can get, so if you feel yourself losing it, step away before you say something everyone will regret. Thanks and now back to your regularly scheduled thread -lebell __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-05-2004, 10:15 PM	#60 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	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.. __________________ Live. Chris

02-05-2004, 03:27 PM	#41 (permalink)
isis Insane Location: In the Woods.	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 .. :\

02-05-2004, 10:27 PM	#62 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-05-2004, 10:47 PM	#66 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	"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. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

02-05-2004, 10:52 PM	#67 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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 . __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-05-2004, 11:36 PM	#69 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-05-2004 at 11:38 PM..

02-06-2004, 12:02 AM	#71 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yes, but it had digressed that way. And on that note, the dude is a dusche and should be fired. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-06-2004, 03:45 AM	#72 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	It looks like I am the only person who would back a prison sentence for this individual? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-06-2004, 08:09 AM	#74 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	interesting article, poor title choice. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-07-2004, 10:52 PM	#76 (permalink)
Mehoni Insane Location: Within the Woods	Cytotec, a medicine used for treating ulcers is widely used to produce miscarriages. Any public outcry over that one yet? __________________ There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

02-08-2004, 10:14 AM	#77 (permalink)
sabatoa Crazy Location: California	-------------- Last edited by sabatoa; 07-11-2006 at 07:53 PM..