Dallas Observer column (Morning After Pill incident)

Correctly stated. (without speaking for Max)

It's not abortion...simple as that. Until the egg is firmly attached to the uterus, there is no pregnancy. This is Biology 101 folks.

Odd...you would seem to have your belief in a free drug trade forced down the throats of all objectors. I think that you should rethink that before you slam all others for voicing their beliefs.

 

An interesting argument but I would disagree with it. If the pharmacist finds that dispensing the pill is so morally objectionable his staying will one violate his professional obligation and create a moral conflict with doing his job as a professional but two will continue to violate his moral conscience regarding abortion because he will still be working for and supporting the system that makes that dispenses that pill even if he isn't the one who is doing the dispensing. While you can say that if he quits someone else will take his place that is true but just as likely if for some reason Eckard doesn't fire him someone else from Eckard will dispense the pill and worse for his morals he will continue to collect a paycheck from a company that is doing something immoral.

Think about it this way if a Nazi camp guard decides that its morally objectionable for him to keep guarding the death camp does it make him moral if he says, "I'm going to quit guarding this camp but I'm not going to quit the Nazis." While yes he is making a moral statement that he believes this action is immoral but at the same time he is continuing to support the organization that undertook that action.

Under this type of situation the person with the moral conflict has to decide should they continue to be part of an organization, and profit from it, that acts immorally or should they refuse to have anything to do with it. I would say the latter.

 

Why is the slogan of the Pro-Life movement "Life Begins at Conception"?


If you really believe life begins at conception I don't see how you can consider having a fertilzed egg get flushed out of the uterus by artificial hormonal to not be abortion.

 

In order to conceive, the fertilized egg MUST attach to the uteran wall. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand for some people? This is at least the third time I have had to type the same thing.

Is an IUD an abortion? CLEARLY not.

An IUD keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the uteran wall.

If an IUD is not an abortion, why would a pill that does precisely the same thing?

 

You can ask the question "when does life begin," but when it comes down to it, with today's advances in medical technology, life does not begin until the mother decides (makes the choice) to bring the child to term and bear it. Until we can remove the fetus from the womb and culture it, the government cannot ban abortion.

If we ban abortion, we will go back to the days of back alley abortions performed by unlicensed practitioners in unapproved facilities. Every single medical procedure performed in this country must be performed by a licensed physician in a regulated facility.

Again, you can believe abortion is murder all you like, but that belief does not make it so for others. I reiterate that if you believe abortion is murder, don't have an abortion. Counsel others not to have them. Provide programs that make it easier for women to choose to have the child. 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.

Government's only place in this issue is to ensure that ALL medical procedures are performed in regulated facilities by licensed practitioners, period.

 

I was speaking to those who would ban abortion in this country. You have no right to force your morality on anyone else through legislation.

The pharmacist had no right to ignore the mandates of his/her profession. (S)He was being paid to do a job and willfully went against the policies of his/her company and as such should receive some consequences. The pharmacist is allowed their qualms, but those qualms are personal and should be left outside the workplace.

 

You really need to get a grip on reality. There is no evidence that I have seen that would indicate that abortion rates would drop significantly. In fact, with RU-486 out there, getting an abortion would be as easy as acquiring a pill. We have seen how effective the government is at policing pills.

You are ignoring history. We had banned abortions for a long time in this country and the problems were so significant that the Supreme Court had to decide that a woman has a right to have an abortion if that is her choice. You want to go back to the dark ages and it just will not work. There are many ways to reduce abortion rates, but banning abortions will not accomplish that at all, especially in today's world.

 

The only avenue I have an issue with is legislative. If the pro-life movement were just about charities that provide support to mothers and mothers-to-be that need healthcare, prenatal care, housing, food, work, clothes, education, counseling, and help with addiction, I would be on board and would support the movement wholeheartedly.

When you try to force your morality on other people through legislation, that is when you pick a fight that you cannot win.

 

I have a right to make my own choices regarding my body. If I choose, I can refuse medical care or allow it. I can choose to take aspirin for a headache or I can meditate instead.

A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, even if there is a fetus growing inside of it. She has the right to terminate the fetus or to bring it to term and bear it. If abortions are banned, then that choice is taken away from the mother and someone else's morality has just taken her rights away.

 

Just like they did when abortions were illegal before and it STILL didn't work. They DID throw "doctors" in jail for performing abortions and yet they still lined up to perform them.

So you want to use the war on drugs as a model??? You are seriously deluded. The drug war has actually INCREASED the level of drug availability and usage in this country. Actually, this analogy is probably pretty appropriate. Ban abortions and all of a sudden, organized crime will have a new source of funding, deaths would go up, health care costs would increase, and enforcement costs would be through the roof.

Again, if you are using the drug war as a model then there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that abortion rates would rise. In fact, I would venture a guess that most abortions would be done through RU-486 and therefore the same people who sell drugs would also provide abortions. As such, the abortion pill would become available to anyone who wanted it, including teens. With banned abortions, teens would be able to get the abortion pill more easily than adults (again, based on the drug war model).

Mom: Susie, your father and I had an accident. Can you pick up an abortion pill while you are at school?

Susie: Sure, mom. I can get that as easily as cocaine!

 

Most women that give birth also suffer from some level of depression also, so that is a red herring. My wife burst into tears 4-5 times a day right after Aidan was born.

You are right that drugs are harder to trace, which is the reason that most abortions done under a system where abortion was banned would be done by RU-486 as opposed to being performed by a "doctor." This would make abortion as easy to hide as a pill and would guarantee that our children have easier access to abortions than they do now AND more access than adults have.

 

I will reiterate that I would support groups like that if they did not have a legislative component going. If those groups were not trying to force their beliefs on others through force of law, they would probably even make the short list for my yearly charitable contributions.

 

Actually, I believe that the drug war is just this argument turned around. We are in the days much like the pre-Roe days were for abortion. Other people have forced their moral beliefs (that ALL drug use is absolutely wrong under any circumstances) down the rest of our throats.

I am arguing for the removal of said ban, just as I am arguing against banning abortion. I would never try to force drugs on anyone (unlike dealers in our prohibitionist system), but nobody would have drugs forced on them if they were available to be purchased by adults. Just like I would never force someone to have an abortion, but would not ban the procedure either.

Nice try, though.

 

Andy-

I wanted to write something mean back to you, but I guess I'll just ask you a hypothetical question...

If you believed, that shooting someone in the head was murder, and 50% of Americans shared your belief, yet shooting people in the head wasn't illegal, in fact 4,400 people were getting shot everyday, would you say to yourself, ok, I guess I must believe that the shooter is the only one who can chose life or death for the shoote, because that is the (worthless) argument that the shooters give me, or would you say, well, I believe shooting people is wrong, but I don't want the government to step in ban shooting people, or would you say, well if we make illegal, more people are going to get randomly shot everyday so we better allow for it, or would you say hey? You know what? This shooting people thing is bad, maybe we should do soomething about it.

Don't equate the drug war numbers with abortions, an abortion is not an appetative desire that must continue to be refilled.

It's about living in a country that says damn to hell with relatavism, this is what we stand for. Do you think the American dedication to truth is a forcing of that morality on you? If we were to take away everything but the country's dedication to freedom, that is the life and pursuit of happiness part, do you think we would be better off?

I shudder for you sometimes.

 

Sorry thwy, but your above post does sound very totalitarian to me. You are the owner or truth? Congratulations. Now just get your army, enforce it, and everything will be fine.

As far as comparing the drug war with the prohibition of abortion, I think the comparison is more than valid. Many years ago I was pro-life. Then I saw what this drug was has doing to our society. It is corrupt and wrong. I was rallying against the drug wag 15 years ago when such a thought would get you labeled a nut. Nowadays, after a lot of bloodshed, people will at least hear your side and many minds have opened up. I realized then that the prohibition of abortions would takes us down a similar atrocious path. It would be worse than the abortions themselves, and compound the problem.

I think we should try recognize the craziness that exists between ethical theory and actual practice and, while we do not condone the taking of life, we should advocate understanding and compassion toward all living beings, a loving kindness that is non judgmental and respects the right and freedom of human beings to make their own choices.

 

I think we should try recognize the craziness that exists between ethical theory and actual practice and, while we do not condone the taking of life, we should advocate understanding and compassion toward all living beings, a loving kindness that is non judgmental and respects the right and freedom of human beings to make their own choices.

Do you then believe that murder should be legal? Because that's what you're asking twhy77 to believe, if he believes a fetus is a human being.

 

I think we need to get past the labeling, and see the bigger picture.

 

I think we need to get past the labeling, and see the bigger picture.

Interesting, but that has nothing to do with what I said, given that I did not reference a label of any sort in my post. I'm still curious as to your answer to my question.

 

Murder can't be lawfull by its own definition. Murder is a legal term. Once a killing is deemed legal, it is not murder.

You are talking about killing. There are many circumstances for which killing is legal, for many different reasons. I and think there are many reasons why this killing should remain legal.

Those who would advocate compassion for the unborn need to practice it for the born as well.

 

You are talking about killing. There are many circumstances for which killing is legal, for many different reasons. I and think there are many reasons why this killing should remain legal.

Fine - would you argue that killing should be legal for the sake of convenience or to avoid emotional distress, or any of the other many reasons abortion is in demand? Same question applies - if twhy77 believes a fetus is a life, you're asking him to believe that killing for convenience should be legal.

Those who would advocate compassion for the unborn need to practice it for the born as well.

I think many would argue that the most compassionate thing we can do for the born is giving them a chance to be born in the first place.