Dallas Observer column (Morning After Pill incident)

Innocent lives taken? What did the fetus ever do? I'm not for capital punishment in America, but at least there you have an element of justice at hand.

The very fact that our government professes freedom is the advocation of a truth. Our founders had in the beggining elements of virtue that the government should promote and advocate. That's not totalinarianism.

 

I have given the reasons why I think abortions should remain legal in this thread. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Of course giving them a chance to be born is the correct thing to do. We are just debating the methods. I just think use of force would be counter-productive, and would create problems that we can not even predict.

 

That's like saying, racism will never stop, lets stop the civil rights movement. The government should advocate was is correct, and slavery, racism, sexism, all are bad, and the government stepped in and said, you must not do these illegal things that are blatantly wrong. Does it stop racism? No. Does it stop sexism? No. (ok so slavery was stopped, but maybe thats a good example of what could happen with abortion if the government stepped in and says what is the noble thing to do)

 

andymoon, this is what your argument looks like to pro-lifers (this is mostly one of your posts with very little editing),

You can believe chopping someone's head off with an axe is murder all you like, but that belief does not make it so for others. I reiterate that if you believe chopping someone's head off with an axe is murder, don't chop someone's head off with an axe. Counsel others not to do it. Provide programs that make it easier for people to choose not to chop someone's head off with an axe . But if you try to legislate your personal morality based on a belief that others do not share, you are in for a nasty fight.

 

Last post here

There are many examples that "moral" legislation was counter-prodtuctive. Would you wan't to try and ban beer again? Do you want to try and outlaw materialism, greed, etc.? Do you want to put in law the Buddhist belief that you should not kill any animals? Why not, isn't it a noble cause? I agree there should be lines drawn, but there are many factors that should be considered when making them.

Don't group those who support the legality of abortion with those who do not see abortion as killing. Some just think we need to be more realistic and compassionate in our approach to the problem.

 

And thats a respectable position, but it doesn't mean that our country has to continue to uphold it.

 

The problem with your definition of "conception" it that it is not the standard biological definition of "conception" which means when a sperm and egg combine to become a new unique organism. Your definition only applies to mammals and isn't accepted in regards to sexual reproduction of all life forms.

Further your definition goes against much of the logic of the pro-life movement which in addition to opposing abortion also opposese the creation and destruction of human embryos outside of the womb. Most pro-lifers that I am aware of while supporting artificial fertilization oppose the destruction of the extra embryos and also the use of those embryos for gathering stem cells. See the brouhaha a few years ago regarding stem cell research and also the legal cases where pro-life groups have legally tried to prevent couples who are divorcing from having unimplanted embryos destroyed. In these cases implantation has been meaningless to the pro-life argument because if "conception" specifically meant implantation in a womb artificially created embryos could be destroyed or experimented on without moral qualms by pro-lifers.

One more point regarding fertilized egg, embryo and implantation. In most human sexual reproduction fertilization doesn't take place in the uterus but in the fallopian tubes. Upon fertilization the egg is a new unique organism genetically distinct from the parents and rapidly begins dividing. By the time the egg reaches the uterrus its already divided many times and its cells could already be differentiating. Sometimes the embryo develops to a high degree even before reaching the uterus which causes a problem I've heard referred to as tubal pregnancy.

So the problem with your definition is that not only is it too narrow it totally discounts the point of sexual reproduction, the merging of sperm and egg to create a new life, and also goes against any pro-life arguments regarding embryos created outside the womb.

Of course this is a free society and I'm sure the pro-life community is divergent in their views regarding what counts as pregnancy, or in this case what counts as life since your definition only applies to fertilized eggs that make it to implantation in a womb. It seems to me that if you consider creating a new genetically distinct life, any artificial method that destroys an embryo is abortion.

 

And a pro lifer can think that all they want as long as they don't try to force that belief on anyone else. You can believe what you want to believe, as deluded as I think some of those beliefs are (ex. birth control against God, life begins when sperm meets egg, or choice ends once sex is had). Just because you believe something does not automatically make it true and until we have the technology to remove the fetus and culture it ouside the mother's womb, YOU have no right to decide what will or will not happen to a given woman's body. As long as the fetus cannot live outside the womb, it is not a "life" in my book and my opinion on this is just as valid as yours is. I will never try to force you to believe the way I do just as you have no right to force me. I will never try to remove your personal choice through legislation just as you have no right to do the same.

 

As long as I feel like cutting your head of with an axe, you are not a life. You are welcome to your opinion on this, but you have no right to force your opinions on me.

 

Hmm, let's see: Cutting someone's head off with an axe without receiving their consent before decapitating them.

Compared to:

A woman choosing to have a legal operation done on her own body.


Wow. Not really the same thing at all, are they?


But don't worry yourself about it (and I know you won't) - I stopped believing Bush-supporters were capable of maintaining a rational argument a long time ago (because there's no rational reason to support Bush if you're not a billionaire), so I'm not disappointed in this obviously fallacious and rather common style of attempting to make a valid point. Unfortunately, sometimes there are people around who will actually call you on a silly and baseless comparison that you obviously crafted more for dramatic effect than for the purpose of actually making an well-thought-out argument in favor of your own viewpoint.

 

Hmmm, let's see: Artificially terminating the life of a human being with a unique genetic code, using a sharp object, at T = (X + Y).

compared to:

Artificially terminaing the life of a human being with a unique genetic code, using a chemical, at T = X.

You are right, there are no similarities there. What in the hell was I thinking?

You see, it isn't a woman having an operation on her own body that I have a problem with. I am not against setting a broken arm, getting a boob job, amputating a gangrenous leg, etc. It is when the operation involves killing an innocent child for no reason outside the convienence of the mother that I take issue with it.

 

So you oppose abortion when (using your words) "the operation involves killing an innocent child for no reason outside the convienence of the mother that I take issue with it".

From this I have two questions (or three);

1. Can one assume from that statement that you would not oppose abortion if the woman was a victim of rape? Or if the mother was a young victim of incest?

..and in the case that you answer number 1 in the affirmative;

2. Is a woman having an abortion after being raped the same thing as you cutting off someone's head with a sharp object, or is it only comparable to you cutting off someone's head with a sharp object when the woman is getting an abortion because she or her partner made a mistake?

....and, just for curiousity;

3. This hypothetical person whose head you're hypothetically cutting off - do they have a job? Are they conservative or liberal? Did they vote in the last election? What's their favorite color? Do they like the Houston Rockets? What will you do with the head once you cut it off?


If you're making a valid and rational point, it would be an excellent stance for those who agree with your argument. So maybe if you answer these questions, just try to clarify your position here, then it will be beneficial to all involved.

 

I do not see those as valid reasons to have an abortion. The only time abortion should be a viable option is when the mother's life is in jeopardy (beyond the jeopardy that is inherent in living and having a child without complications). The mother does not have to keep the baby, but she is not allowed to kill it.

Since my answer to #1 was negative, this does not apply.

I guess since andymoon was the person in my example, I would answer these questions: yes, liberal, yes, unknown, yes, and sell it on eBay (of course ).

 

Stupid weekends get in the way of my arguing! But, I won't be here much longer anyway; just wanted to acknowledge those who responded to me so they know I didn't completely ditch.

I was hoping there was more to the argument that I really wasn't getting. As you explain it, it sounds to me like one's right to an abortion would not be any different from one's right to commit suicide or right to self-mutilation or right to drug-abuse (and, yes I'm well aware of your position where it comes to drugs) (and those a re just a couple examples, since regulations of p*rnography, prostitution and a number of other things also come to mind) -- that is, rights that are easily dispelled by laws regulating these practices. I suppose that explains the current push to legalize drugs and suicide. In any case, I think the government's right to regulate these things has been demonstrated through a lot of precedent and it isn't a right I feel needs much changing. So, I guess I'm happy with my current position.

 

now we got Xian Pharmacist nuts all over thinking it is their duty to force thier beliefs on others



Complaint filed against pharmacist


The Associated Press
3/16/2004, 2:53 p.m. ET


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state agency is accusing a pharmacist of blocking a woman's attempts to refill her birth control prescription because of his religious beliefs.

The Department of Regulation and Licensing's complaint against Neil Noesen stemmed from his refusal to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy after he refused to fill it himself.

The complaint was filed Friday with the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board over the 2002 incident at a K-Mart pharmacy in Menomonie in northwestern Wisconsin.
(snip)

According to the complaint, Noesen was the only pharmacist on duty on the weekend when a woman came in to refill her birth control prescription. He had told the managing pharmacist that he would not fill contraceptive prescriptions because he considered them in violation of his religious beliefs.
(snip/...)

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/national-20/1079467142168840.xml


Pharmacist faces complaint in birth control case
0:06 AM 3/16/04
Patricia Simms Wisconsin State Journal


The state is accusing a pharmacist of unprofessional conduct for blocking a young woman's attempt to refill her birth control prescription because of his religious beliefs. <

Neil Noesen, 30, wouldn't transfer the prescription to another pharmacy to be filled after he refused to fill it, according to a complaint filed Friday with the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board by the state Department of Regulation and Licensing. <

Noesen has attracted organized support from opponents of abortion rights during the year-and-a-half since the incident occurred. <

Noesen was working as a fill-in pharmacist at the Kmart pharmacy in Menomonie in the summer of 2002. Before he was hired, Noesen told the managing pharmacist that he wouldn't fill prescriptions for contraceptives which could cause what he believed to be an abortion, the complaint said. The complaint said Noesen was told he wouldn't have to fill them - the managing pharmacist would do so later. <
(snip/...)

http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/70273.php

 

New ACLU Report Considers Religious Refusals To Provide Reproductive Health Care
http://archive.aclu.org/features/f012202a.html

access to reproductive health care is increasingly jeopardized by the imposition of religious beliefs in the health care context, according to a report released today by the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

The report, Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights, makes available for the first time the ACLU's recent public opinion research, which shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose laws that protect religious objectors at the expense of the patient's rights and the public health.

"The debate over religious refusals to provide certain reproductive health services is often miscast as a straightforward contest between religion and reproductive rights," said Catherine Weiss, an author of the report and Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "But people of all faiths and no faith need and provide reproductive health care. And institutional religions stand on both sides of the debate about reproductive choice."
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/reproduct/refusal_report.pdf )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pharmacies New Reproductive Rights Battleground
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1003

"Conscience-clause" legislation that exempts medical providers from performing procedures or dispensing drugs they oppose is appearing on more and more legislature dockets across the country. At least 19 states considered bills with conscience clauses in the last legislative session, and two states, Arizona and Massachusetts, passed laws. In several states the proposed legislation specifically cited pharmacists for coverage, an inclusion that potentially puts a woman's reproductive health at risk, according to women's advocacy groups.

Pro-choice groups say the time sensitivity of emergency contraception--the drug most likely to be denied by pharmacists--makes for a dangerous mix of conflicting needs and rights: If a pharmacist refuses, a woman may not have enough time to secure the medication within 72 hours.

And then, of course, there's the fact that Catholic hospitals are more and more becoming the ONLY choice for people in a given area - hospitals:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Women's Services Cut as Catholic Hospitals Expand
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/316/context/archive

Across the country, women in need of reproductive medical care--birth control, abortion, tubal ligation, infertility treatments or emergency contraception--are increasingly being denied treatment and often experiencing grave consequences from the vast expansion of the Catholic healthcare network, in which religious dictates can take precedence over individual preference.

What makes this development even more alarming, hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church have historically taken a leadership role to provide urgent medical care to those most in need, from lepers to impoverished immigrants, from pregnant women to newborns.

Catholic hospitals now constitute the nation's largest single group of non-profit hospitals, according to the Catholic Health Association of the United States, with 621 hospitals and 85 million patients in 1999. Of the 20 largest non-profit systems, 10 of them are Catholic. The mega-system, Catholic Healthcare West in California, added 12 hospitals in 1999 for a total of 48 hospitals, 8,172 beds and $5.9 billion in assets.

Catholics for a Free Choice, a pro-choice advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., reports that in the past 10 years, the number of Catholic medical care centers has grown rapidly through acquisitions, mergers, business arrangements and now consolidations. In 1998, the group says, Catholic hospitals were the sole providers of medical care in 91 communities--a 20 percent increase in a single year.