Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Is this the true face of the "Pro Life" campaign?? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/44325-true-face-pro-life-campaign.html)

Strange Famous 02-04-2004 12:45 PM

Is this the true face of the "Pro Life" campaign??
 
I wasnt sure whether this belonged in sexuality or here, but on the basis that rape is nothing to do with sex, and the implications are political, I chose here.

I have to say, this article astonished me - if it was from Afghanistan I might have at least not been as shocked... I can understand (although I dont personally agree with ) some of what the pro life campaign is about, but to act like this is so incredibly, so unbelievably heartless...

I can only say that I hope I speak for most people here in hoping for a long custodial sentence for the pharmicist involved. I am not sure that I would be capable of being just with such an offender, his crime makes me so angry - but prison time is the only option in my opinion, as both a punishment and a deterrent.

(And despite anything else, this is a terrible own goal for people who are against widely available abortion and birth control)

I understand that this can be an emotive issue, for both sides of the debate, and I apologise if I am too emotional about it, I just find it beyond belief...

LINK


Quote:


Texas Pharmacist Refuses Pill for Rape Victim
Tue Feb 3, 6:08 PM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!


DALLAS (Reuters) - A Texas pharmacist was disciplined for refusing to fill the prescription of a rape victim seeking a morning-after pregnancy-prevention pill, the pharmacy chain that employed the man said on Tuesday.

Eckerd Corp. said the pharmacist considered it a violation of morals to give a rape victim, with a valid prescription, a pill that would prevent her from getting pregnant due to the sexual assault.

The incident took place on Jan. 23 at an Eckerd drug store in the Dallas suburb of Denton.

Eckerd spokeswoman Joan Gallagher said she could not give details of the disciplinary actions, but that the pharmacist had violated company policy.


"A pharmacist is obliged to fill a prescription if it is a valid, legal prescription," she said. "We do not make exceptions for any moral, religious or ethical concerns with regard to filling the prescription."

Florida-based Eckerd is owned by Texas-based retailer J.C. Penney Co..

Protesters, carrying signs reading "Got Raped? Let someone else help you" and "Rape violates my morals," have been picketing the store this week.

Kathryn Allen, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) of North Texas, said the situation could have been avoided if hospitals in the state mandated emergency contraception in sexual assault cases. Other states stipulate that hospitals must make emergency contraception available to victims of sexual assault, but Texas does not.

"What this pharmacist did was truly outrageous. It forces the woman to relive the assault," said Allen, adding that the prescription in question is essentially a high dose of birth control pills that prevents pregnancy.

The rape victim was able to have her prescription filled at another pharmacy in the area, they said.



Tomservo 02-04-2004 12:48 PM

I'd say it's quite a simple issue- the pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to practice. Not forever, I suppose, but a definite suspension wihout pay is in order. What's next- no medicinal marijuana? No selling of condoms?

archer2371 02-04-2004 12:58 PM

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.

Conclamo Ludus 02-04-2004 01:05 PM

Jailed? No.
License reviewed, suspended and/or revoked. Definitely. It was a legal prescription he should have filled it.

arch13 02-04-2004 01:29 PM

His personal beliefs are irrelevant and obviously incombatible with his choosen proffesion.
His liscence should be pulled and he should be blacklisted from working in the industry.
His job was to fill prescriptions, and no one elected him to be a judge of character or morality.
His personal opinions are not relenvent to doing the job he was paid to do and he should be able to do his job without a problem. Since he obviously can't and cannot see for himself that he his incapable of performing his duties, the board governing pharmasists should make sure he cannot work in that feild anymore so that he is not a danger to others as he obviously was.

I cannot explain how angry i was when i read this this morning.

filtherton 02-04-2004 03:40 PM

How is this guy even a pharmacist if he has moral objections to doing his job correctly?

FoolThemAll 02-04-2004 04:59 PM

Rape is a nonsense exception. Emotional anguish is not a sufficient justification for killing another human being, no matter how severe. Never mind how questionable it is to think that abortion would have a significant impact on said anguish.

It should be legal for one to refuse to provide such 'treatment'. Having said that, Eckerd Corp was certainly entitled to discipline or fire this man.

filtherton 02-04-2004 05:25 PM

In some ways it is adding insult to injury. Not only would someone have to endure being raped by some asshole, they would also have to endure raising said asshole's bastard child concieved by way of sex crime. Whether it is murder at all depends on where life begins, which is a debate for another thread.

FoolThemAll 02-04-2004 05:34 PM

Well, let's simplify.

If it's a human being we're talking about, then rape is a nonsensical exception.

If it's just a clump of cells we're talking about, then rape is a nonsensical and unneeded exception. No justification would be necessary.

arch13 02-04-2004 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
Well, let's simplify.

If it's a human being we're talking about, then rape is a nonsensical exception.

If it's just a clump of cells we're talking about, then rape is a nonsensical and unneeded exception. No justification would be necessary.

Re-read this a couple times and you'll realize it makes no sense.

Avoiding the moral argument, the law is the law. And the law of the land is that the 72 hour pill has been approved for use in this country. He is expected to follow the law, and the law is that no person shall be held from seeking a prescription filled who has been legally authorized to seek a prescription by a doctor.
If i was a doctor and i denied you treatment because you where white and i disliked whites, i would be disbarred. he denied a woman treatment as a medical worker (as pharmasists are classified) and thus there is no difference from my example as both are discrimination.
As a medical worker he is expected to check his personal opinions at the door when he is dealing with the health and well being of others. Any medical proffesional who cannot do that presents a possable risk to patients and should be removed.



And as for my opinion since you brought it up,
It's just a clump of identical cells similar to cancer for the first trimester. It has no conciousness. By third trimster i could view it as a living being, but it is not anything 72 hours or even two months. Sorry.
What your arguing for is the possability that something may exist given sufficient time, not that something currently exists that can be killed.

{mods, if my last part is a thread jack, please delete}

milkyp 02-04-2004 06:30 PM

So, does this mean that he would give that pill to non rape victims?

that makes no sense at all...definitely should not be allowed to be a pharmicist anymore, but jail time would just be completely ridiculous. he is not obligated by law to give her what she wanted, although its agreed that he was an asshole prick for not doing it.

FoolThemAll 02-04-2004 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arch13
Re-read this a couple times and you'll realize it makes no sense.
Done. Prediction false.

Quote:

Avoiding the moral argument, the law is the law. And the law of the land is that the 72 hour pill has been approved for use in this country. He is expected to follow the law, and the law is that no person shall be held from seeking a prescription filled who has been legally authorized to seek a prescription by a doctor.
The law is wrong in this situation. One has the right to seek out those who sell the wanted prescription. One does not have the right to force any person to sell such a product.

Quote:

If i was a doctor and i denied you treatment because you where white and i disliked whites, i would be disbarred. he denied a woman treatment as a medical worker (as pharmasists are classified) and thus there is no difference from my example as both are discrimination.
Except that the refusal had nothing to do with the patient's habits and everything to do with the effects of the drug. There's no bigotry here.

Quote:

As a medical worker he is expected to check his personal opinions at the door when he is dealing with the health and well being of others. Any medical proffesional who cannot do that presents a possable risk to patients and should be removed.
Sure. And I would be ignoring the health and well-being of others if I dispensed that drug.

FoolThemAll 02-04-2004 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by milkyp
So, does this mean that he would give that pill to non rape victims?
If he would, then I'm just as confused. My understanding is that he would refuse the pill to anyone.

Rekna 02-04-2004 07:40 PM

It is a pharmasists job to sell the drugs that a person in prescribed by a doctor. It is not a pharmasists job to decide if a prescription is right or wrong. If he wanted to control what people were prescribed he should have become a doctor. I doubt he legally did anything wrong but within his buisness he definatly did something wrong and should be fired for it.

If a general refused to obey the president on an order that was within reason (legal bounds) and the general did not follow the order what do you think would happen to the general?

There is a chain of command; a way things work. If you agree to be part of that chain you better be ready to do what your told to do.

FoolThemAll 02-04-2004 07:47 PM

1. I have no problem with his being fired.

2. There's no legal military action that is counter to the purpose of the military. This is a legal medical action that is counter to the purpose of the medical field. "First, do no harm."

Paq 02-04-2004 08:51 PM

that is for doctors, not pharmacists and if he refuses, tehy should give her a prescription from another pharmacist, unless he was the only one there.

even so, she should be able to get it elswhere

filtherton 02-04-2004 08:53 PM

That depends on your definition of harm. If by helping someone not have the bastard child of a sex criminal you mean harm, well, i just find that interesting.:)

FoolThemAll 02-04-2004 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
That depends on your definition of harm. If by helping someone not have the bastard child of a sex criminal you mean harm, well, i just find that interesting.:)
Please.

Quote:

Originally posted by Paq
that is for doctors, not pharmacists
Touche. Nevertheless, pharmacists shouldn't be handing out drugs that are intended to kill human life. I assume that we agree on this, but not on whether an abortion pill does this.

Anomaly_ 02-04-2004 09:50 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.
Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
Rape is a nonsense exception. Emotional anguish is not a sufficient justification for killing another human being, no matter how severe. Never mind how questionable it is to think that abortion would have a significant impact on said anguish.

It should be legal for one to refuse to provide such 'treatment'. Having said that, Eckerd Corp was certainly entitled to discipline or fire this man.

Why aren't people getting this: THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS NOT AN ABORTION PILL. It is just a higher dosage of the typical birth control pill. In other words, it prevents ovulation. There is an incredibly small chance that it would actually prevent implantation, which could be seen as abortive, however there are many other drugs not even related to birth control that can have this effect. 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.

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". I sincerely hope this pharmacist never stands behind a counter again. Thank you religious zealots for making the world a better place.

arch13 02-04-2004 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arch13
His personal beliefs are irrelevant and obviously incombatible with his choosen proffesion.
Pay very close attention to that statment Foolthemall.
Surely we can agree that regardless of his personal belief, as a representative of the company he works for he is employed to dispense the drugs the company has decided to sell regardless of what he may personaly believe. If he doesn;t like that, he should open his own pharmacy. On someone elses dime, his personal opinions are not wanted or relavent and should not affect how he performs his job when he's being payed to do it.
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. The courts are there to represent the will of the majority's beliefs in such matters and the morality and nature of birth control and womens choice is something for that venue, not his personal pulpet.


Also, from a scientific point of view, Anomaly_ is correct. the 72hr pill prevents ovulation, and if ovulation has not occured, then there is no clump of cells for us to argue semantics about. Are you arguing that we should not prevent ovulation and the chance that brings at insemination? Becuase then you are arguing that birth control is wrong, not abortion.
If ovulation is prevented, then nothing ever existed.

Mehoni 02-05-2004 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anomaly_
If this pill were prescription free, the number of abortions in the US would drop significantly. I
Wow, you learn something new every day. I was wondering why you were talking about prescriptions.

In Sweden the MAP is free if you go to a hospital/see a doctor and costs $10 at a pharmacy (state owned monopoly). No need for a prescription.

Anyway, that guy didn't do his job, so he deserved to be fired.

Kadath 02-05-2004 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
The law is wrong in this situation. One has the right to seek out those who sell the wanted prescription. One does not have the right to force any person to sell such a product.

The man is free not to work as a pharmacist, where he KNOWS he might be asked to sell such a product. It's like a pacifist entering the armed forces and complaining when they have to shoot someone. We, the people, don't get to decide when "the law is wrong." You can't pick and choose.

FoolThemAll 02-05-2004 07:24 AM

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.

Kadath 02-05-2004 08:41 AM

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.

Can I ask what they are based on, if not solely on religious beliefs?
Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll

The current law is incompatible with his chosen profession. Should Christian hospitals be shut down for not providing abortions?

I won't deny that's a well-argued point. I'll ask in rebuttal should pharmacies then get to decide which drugs they want to dispense? Should a pharmacist who feels ADHD is over-diagnosed be allowed to refuse Ritalin prescriptions? What about a Catholic pharmacist? Can he refuse to sell condoms?

Quote:

Originally posted by FoolThemAll

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.

I guess the problem here is I don't feel the pharmacist has the right to make the decision, nor do you. She had no right to this item? I don't really understand the distinction between the right to have it and the right to try to obtain it.

Lebell 02-05-2004 08:56 AM

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.


Just to clarify:

Prevention of ovulation is the primary way the "Morning After Pill" works.

Prevention of implantation (if fertilization has occured) is a secondary way.


For my own part, I think this man is an ass and deserves to be fired, if he already hasn't been.

FoolThemAll 02-05-2004 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Can I ask what they are based on, if not solely on religious beliefs?
The right to life, and a belief that all human beings, regardless of stage of development, are deserving of this right.

[quote][/b]I won't deny that's a well-argued point. I'll ask in rebuttal should pharmacies then get to decide which drugs they want to dispense? Should a pharmacist who feels ADHD is over-diagnosed be allowed to refuse Ritalin prescriptions? What about a Catholic pharmacist? Can he refuse to sell condoms?[/b][quote]

Yeah. It's entirely up to the owner of any given store what he/she will sell in their store (barring illegal items), and a pharmacy should be treated no differently.

Quote:

She had no right to this item? I don't really understand the distinction between the right to have it and the right to try to obtain it.
The former implies that one need not do anything other than exist in order to deserve possession of it. And that's not true in this case. Either she makes the product or provides the service for herself (the infeasible option), or she provides compensation to someone who voluntarily provides the product/service.

Now, if an employee doesn't carry out the wishes of the employer in this case, and the wishes are legal, then that's a legitimate reason for job termination. And the employee will have to seek out an employer without those wishes. (No one has the right to employment, either.)

FoolThemAll 02-05-2004 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Just to clarify:

Prevention of ovulation is the primary way the "Morning After Pill" works.

Prevention of implantation (if fertilization has occured) is a secondary way.


For my own part, I think this man is an ass and deserves to be fired, if he already hasn't been.

Thanks. Now it's just a matter of whether the secondary way's chance of taking place is negligible or not. If negligible, I may change my mind on this. But that's not the sense I get from reports on this drug.

Candide 02-05-2004 09:14 AM

Ok, the question so far:

1) Is the MAP equivalent to abortion or contraception?

2) Does a pharmacist have the right/duty to second guess a doctor?

3) Does an employee have the right/duty to apply their own value set in place of their employers?

4) If the answer to (3) is no (or, I guess, even if the answer is yes), then what is an appropriate punishment for doing so?

The science says the answer to (1) is that it is contraception. If you're against contraception, then you are against the MAP. If you are against abortion, the MAP is irrevalent to you.

I argue that if the answer to (2) is yes, then we are all in a great deal of trouble indeed.

I have no trouble imagining a pharmacist thinking asthma is psychosomatic, and denying a Ventalin prescription. The patient gets nervous about this, and goes into an asthma attack and dies. I am sure other readers of this can imagine variations on the theme.

I also argue the answer to (3) is yes, but that employee must do so publicly and suffer the consequences. Sometimes the only employer in town is the local saw mill or mine or auto plant, and the fact of this world is that we must make money to support ourselves and our families.

We are obligated to follow our own sense of right and wrong (and for many of us, following the laws of the land in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary is a very strong "right") at all times and all circumstances. We choose to comply and continue our employment, or we choose to conflict and either win the dispute or lose our employment.

I know my answers seem to contradict each other; sadly, the older I get, the more complicated and contradictory the world seems to get.

Regards,
Candide.

Bill O'Rights 02-05-2004 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arch13
His personal beliefs are irrelevant and obviously incombatible with his choosen proffesion.
His liscence should be pulled and he should be blacklisted from working in the industry.
His job was to fill prescriptions, and no one elected him to be a judge of character or morality.
His personal opinions are not relenvent to doing the job he was paid to do and he should be able to do his job without a problem. Since he obviously can't and cannot see for himself that he his incapable of performing his duties, the board governing pharmasists should make sure he cannot work in that feild anymore so that he is not a danger to others as he obviously was.

I cannot explain how angry i was when i read this this morning.

This sums up my feelings, reactions and opinions quite well. Thank you, arch13, I couldn't have, and probably wouldn't have, phrased this any better than you have. I might have spelled liscence "license", though. ;) J.K. Good job.

matthew330 02-05-2004 11:01 AM

Quote:

How is this guy even a pharmacist if he has moral objections to doing his job correctly?
I am staunchly pro-life as i'm sure those who argued with me in the philosphy board about it are well aware. But i agree with this. The unfortunate fact of the matter is it is legal, and it's his job to fill prescriptions. If he has a moral objection to it - he shouldn't put himself in that position (i.e. - find a new job).

VitaminH 02-05-2004 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
How is this guy even a pharmacist if he has moral objections to doing his job correctly?
They taught me in pharmacy school we have the right to refuse to fill any prescription. However, company policies often beg to differ ;) Most companies have to allow it if it's for religious reasons, because if they discipline for that, then it's discrimination. However, since he refused it on moral grounds, he's toast. Based on Illinois law he wouldn't lose his liscence, I don't know what it's like in TX though.


I would have filled it, the fact that she was a raped just reinforces it that much more.

Lebell 02-05-2004 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VitaminH
They taught me in pharmacy school we have the right to refuse to fill any prescription. However, company policies often beg to differ ;) Most companies have to allow it if it's for religious reasons, because if they discipline for that, then it's discrimination. However, since he refused it on moral grounds, he's toast. Based on Illinois law he wouldn't lose his liscence, I don't know what it's like in TX though.


I would have filled it, the fact that she was a raped just reinforces it that much more.

Just out of curiosity,

Then if you are a scientologist (a recognized religion by the govt.), can you refuse to fill a prescription for zoloft or prozac?

(this is a serious question, btw.)

Tomservo 02-05-2004 11:44 AM

"Rape is a nonsense exception."

Spoken like someone who can never be forced to have sex, then forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and a lifetime of bonding with a child from a rapist.

archer2371 02-05-2004 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anomaly_
Why aren't people getting this: THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS NOT AN ABORTION PILL. It is just a higher dosage of the typical birth control pill. In other words, it prevents ovulation. There is an incredibly small chance that it would actually prevent implantation, which could be seen as abortive, however there are many other drugs not even related to birth control that can have this effect. 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.

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". I sincerely hope this pharmacist never stands behind a counter again. Thank you religious zealots for making the world a better place.


...
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.

FoolThemAll 02-05-2004 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomservo
"Rape is a nonsense exception."

Spoken like someone who can never be forced to have sex, then forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and a lifetime of bonding with a child from a rapist.

Spoken like someone who realizes that killing an innocent bystander cannot be justified as a cure for emotional anguish.

Strange Famous 02-05-2004 02:22 PM

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?

Lebell 02-05-2004 02:29 PM

AHEM.

It's fine to talk about the merits of this thread, but let's keep on track and not get personal.


Thanks,

-lebell

matthew330 02-05-2004 02:29 PM

...aren't their like 50 abortion debate threads already.

druptight 02-05-2004 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
...aren't their like 50 abortion debate threads already.
Yeah, and they always go in the same circles, regarding when something is a life, and why i believe what i believe, and who's right, until it eventually gets personal, as this thread has, and no-one is any better for any of it.

Anyways, i think they should fire the guy, and that his refusal is bad news!!!

lurkette 02-05-2004 03:06 PM

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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360