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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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}

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.

Done. Prediction false.

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.

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.

Sure. And I would be ignoring the health and well-being of others if I dispensed that drug.

If he would, then I'm just as confused. My understanding is that he would refuse the pill to anyone.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.)

"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.

...
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.

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

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?

AHEM.

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


Thanks,

-lebell

...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!!!

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 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.

I'll tell you what pisses me off. It's when people, including the government, force their views and morals on others. I do not personally support abortion, but I am definetly pro-choice because other people have the right to decide what's right for themselves. America is a free country and people should be able to make decisions about abortion for themselves. Am I alone on this one?

nope, you aren't alone, i totally agree.

not to mention, as i have said previously, most of the people arguing against choice in the matter don't have vaginas, so they never really are faced with that situation, except by proxy...

So..yeah, i'm with you, Dostoevsky

dostoevsky,

i share your desire for freedom of choice, but your argument is based on completely different premises than most pro-lifers base theirs on. so, it really is something very separate from addressing any of the pro-life viewpoints.

It all lies in the your definition of human life:

the majority of pro-life proponents would argue that when you abort a baby, you are taking the baby's ability of choice away. by choosing to end it's life, you are making a decision for another person that is unable to promote its own agenda. the ultimate in restriction of freedom.

nearly everyone wants free-choice. the issue often boils down to the definition of a human life. no matter your stance, the fetus is just that... a small developing person. the beginning of a real human being, an entity that can sense its environment and feel pain.

i realize that women are sometimes put into horrible situations. oftentimes an abortion is the only thing that rescues them from disgrace and/or ruin. but still, this isn't the same as a woman having the freedom to have plastic surgury or a piercing. there are many ethical considerations that must be taken.

it is never as simple as either side would have you believe.

The problem is that no 100% brightline exists to say where a fetus/zygote becomes a human, except for when the child can live outside the woman's body.

Is it murder if someone has an abortion an hour/week/month/9 months before they birth the child ?

Is using birth control to stop a pregency the same as an abortion ?

How about if my hypo-wife and I decide not to have sex one night when a child would have been concieved if we had sex, is that killing a child ?

The only brightline I see is when a child can survive outside the woman's body. That is why I think that third-trimester abortions are unethical while a first or second trimester are not.

Edit: That being said, I don't believe that my morality is right for anyone else and that is why I won't consider imposing my beliefs on someone else.

No, my freind, you are most certainly not alone on this one. You have summed up my viewpoints, to a "T". I couldn't even edit your quote to illustrate the "high points", as the entire post is a high point. Well said Dostoevsky, very well said.

So there Billy you KNOW when life begins then?

Actuallyy, i know many people who refuse to use birth control saying it's akin to murder and abortion. Admittedly, these people are a bit to the right of UsTwo, but they vehemently denounce any form of birthcontrol including the pope's roulette..(withdrawal) saying that once intercourse begins, it should continue until done so that pregnancy is helped along.

....

So by that logic, does a women commit murder everytime she has her period?

Just curious.

i've asked her and she just gave me that "Are you stupid" look...
i do know she believes masturbation from male or female is a horrible sin.

oh, she's a virgin too..the other 7 people i know that fit the descript aren't, but they are trying to have children..

oh goodie, the next generation gets to have people like this too :)

no, that's ridiculous. By that logic you would be commiting umm, sexualar homicide (i made that up just now, whatever) every time you had sex and it didn't result in pregnancy (or maybe that's a better metaphor for those who like to counter the pro-life argument with "am i committing murder every time i masturbate). The difference is that whether or not you want to call a fetus a "life" once fertilization has occurred the "life process" has begun. Stopping that process is in the eyes of the pro-lifers (i.e.-me) has significantly more implications than birth control. Ones taking a life, the others preventing life from starting. Easy enough, right? (not to agree with, just to understand - i'm not getting in another abortion debate)

maybe not easy enough - i have to learn to use punctuation and not just type streams of thought.

hey, i'm with you, but, that's what she told me. "You're no better off using birth controll pills than having an abortion, it's god's will if you get pregnant or not"

Some people...geez

I was just discussing abortion with my GF (not about having one) just the concept as a whole and how we thought that 50 or so years down the road we are going to look back at abortion much in the same way that we look back on slavery "WTF were we thinking?". It seems illogical that you can abort (Kill) a baby 1 day before it is natrally born but 1 day after it is born you would be all over the news as some horrible monster of a baby killer. It seems illogical that murderers get charged with 2 murders when they kill a pregnant mother but if the mother dosent feel like carrying the baby to term then thats just dandy. The fact is wiether it be through a failed condom or pure carelessness there were actions that led up to the pregnancy that could be avioded, (like keeping your pants on as another member put it) .

I would bet also that most people dont realize how much of a problem abortions really are. Some people dont even use birth control, if they get pregnant, they simply have an abortion. Most of the time they get pregnant again within a few months. And shockingly 1 out of 4 babies , thats %25, have been abortred since roe wade.

Now I used to be "pro-choice" but truly, abortion just dosent make sence to me anymore.

Rape throws a huge wrentch in the whole thing though....gatta think some more about that.

well, i don't think it will be like slavery. I'm pretty sure we'll have better birth control, but it's a matter of getting people to use it. Religion, culture, societal standards tend to stand in the way of rational thought when ti comes to fornication...

that said, i still think that the gov't should keep its nose out of woman's vagina. Think about it, if a woman is pregnant and she is not going to carry the child to term, then she is going to find a way to abort. One way or another. I would prefer that method to be a safer, sterile way vs the "Hey, lemme stick a coathanger up there" method.

as i recall, Roe V Wade wasn't followed by an onslaught of abortions, just that the number reported by doctors went up, as they weren't allowed to disclose otherwise..

Granted, thier would be more unsafe abortions. But the wole thing is that they should not be able to decide wiether or not to carry the child to term.

I t would be interesting if there was some way to poll all the women that have had abortions and ask them if looking back they think it was a good idea and it worked out for the best. All the people I ave ever heard from regret it.

I would bet in thier heart of hearts %90 of women that aborted wouldent do it again if they could go back.

*edit to say, I'll take that bet.

I know women who have had them and regret them, and women who don't.

It isn't anything like 90% regret.

not really, i've known several who were relieved and continue to be relieved that they had an abortion. Also, current studies have been done and they do show a majority of women would choose the same decision they did before. i'll look up the stats when i get a chance if you want. If you don't wanna wait, look at masters and johnston pages for links to current studies

And they should decide whether or not to carry a baby to term. I think this boils down to a fear that men will lose control over child bearing. I mean, we have very little to say on whether or not a girl gets pregnant and i think a lot of people want more control over the whole birth process. I don't, and i don't think we should force our children upon women who do not want them. Abortions are horrible, yes, and that is a life, yes, and if i have a gf or wife that gets pregnant, i would like to be involved in the decision for or against an abortion, but ultimately, it's her body and until that child is no longer connected, he/she will stay under the classification of her body. I just think the whole anti abortion movement is tied to who has control over bringing children into this world and the fact is, women have that ultimate control and men want to take it away.

So yeah, it's a heated subject and yeah, I'll agree that abortions are NASTY, HORRIBLE, VILE, and i wish, unnecessary, but the fact is, they happen and for some, they are the best option, sad as that is. I think the majority of women that have one do so only as a last option and i'll begrudge that there are a few that use them as a backup to birth control and i find that disgusting, but those same people would be the ones who would jam knitting needles into themselves or would starve themselves enough to force an abortion. It's sick and sad, but it's true, and again, I dont' have a vagina, so i should not be able to dictate how a woman goes about her pregnancy unless it is my child and then, at most, i just want my opinion heard in that particular case. I want all women to have the same options and i would prefer to keep knitting needles out of vaginas...I think that will be my new slogan: "No Needles for Vaginas" ...ok, so it's not as catchy as "Keep your Bush out of my bush" (sorry, trying to lighten the mood)

at any rate, i understand your arguments and i will agree almost totally wtih them, BUT, i'm not in that position and i do not think we, as men, should force our views on women who are in whatever position.

Knowledge, help, education, resources will deter FAR more abortions than just "Oops, you can't get one, it's illegal bc we don't want you in control of your body"

Maybe you should just adapt(or adopt) "No wire hangers EVER!" from Mommy Dearest.
Having volunteered for Planned Parenthood, having done candlelight vigils in front of my local courthouse regarding the importance of Roe v Wade, having pushed since I was old enough to understand it for a woman's right to choose, I say fuck you to anyone who would try to take that right away. What really chaps my ass is when the same idiots who rail against abortion are staunchly against sex education in the classroom. It's cause and fucking effect, people.

Where the hell do you live where abortion is legal in the 39th week?

yeah - cause: handing condoms to school children, effect: more kids having sex. Cause, telling children "hey don't worry about it if you do get pregnant, you can abort and won't even have to tell you mommy, effect - well, whaddya think?