Obama: Mental Distress Can't Justify Late Abortion

Conception has occurred. It's not my argument, but there have been Title VII lawsuits over pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill on the grounds that it violates their religion.

 

Their decision. Not yours or that of anyone else. What is stopping the "customer" from going to another pharmacy?

 

Yeah, it'd be pretty expensive. A great reason to leave it up to the woman and her doctor to begin with, given that reproduction is a fundamental right and all. Forcing the state to foot the bill for a judicial review process is a much better alternative, in my view, than allowing the state legislature to play cat and mouse with the Supreme Court, seeing how far they can regulate abortion.

To politicians, regulating or protecting abortion is just a game law makers use to garner votes, and it shouldn't be. Give it to the courts to decide, or stay the hell away from it and leave it to medicine to regulate.

 

Actually, the issue in these cases was whether the employer, like Walmart or CVS, can fire pharmacists who refuse to sell the drug.

 

the morning after pill or "plan B" is the same thing as "the pill" with hormones. It does the same thing.

Both work by either preventing an egg drop, or not allowing sperm to enter the uterus, and finally making it can make it impossible for a fertilized egg to attach.

 

It still sounds silly. The pharmacist could just yell out to one of his or her colleagues, and say, "Anybody want to sell an abortion pill to this customer?"
If someone does, the blood is on that pharmacy worker's hands -- but the customer still gets serviced.

My doctor won't perform an abortion. He makes the referral to someone who will. He counsels first, but the decision ultimately belongs to the patient.

BTW, I have no problem with preventatives.

 

Funny you mention birth control, because the Court's 1965 decision Griswold v. Connecticut announced the right to privacy that opened the door for Roe v. Wade. Before Griswold, states could ban birth control too!

 

This was the system at another time and place for another problem:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JgOxqwVd5Z8&feature=related

 

I love Woody Allen. But, if Woody wanted legal p*rn, okay. If a customer wants a legal abortion pill, okay. In the latter scenario, why would someone be embarrassed about telling the world they are about to kill a fetus? Gee, I can't figure that out. If they are embarrassed, they might be having some guilt feelings.

 

This is just inaccurate. The morning after pill is NOT RU 486. In fact, the literature for the morning after pill states that it is not for use if a woman is pregnant. It is highly concentrated birth control pills. It prevents conception. You just are not accurately informed on this topic.

See CaseyH's post above. He has the accurate facts.

Right...but as the pregnancy continues and viability outside the womb becomes more possible, there is a third party (fetus) whose interests you cannot logically ignore. Given that life is protected in all of our founding documents. First trimester where the fetus is NEVER viable outside the womb...no problem. Later on...bigger problem.

The law on most of these issues is settled. Look at the progeny of Roe deciding things like parental or spousal notification, etc. The law in the third trimester is clear...states can freely regulate late term abortion.

The only "game" politicians are playing is whether or not to try to overturn Roe. For the most part, the rest of these "games" being played by politicians are those you appear to be manufacturing.

 

I don't understand why otherwise pro-Life people are so ready to concede this. I assert that that is a human being whether you can detect it or not. Our science is just lagging to be able to detect the humanity. Are we really so foolish as our ancestors to think that we are at the culmination of knowledge?

Key Point 1: you have to manufacture complex arguments to justify abortion; you don't to reject it.

Key Point 2: I keep reading that it's between the woman, her doctor and God. What do people really think God would say and why no voice for the child?

 

Hey I'm on your side here. The image of a pharmacist shouting across the store just brought this scene to mind...

 

Don't forget about the father's rights.

 

As I said, Woody Allen is hilarious. I didn't mean to sound combative. The WA piece was just so perfect for comparison of legal but guilt-ridden actions.

There are posters in here who want to make this a "clinical" discussion. It's like war. You can be for it or against it and make salient arguments for either. But, until one has experienced it, one can't understand that hot blood needs to be factored into the "equation." Theory goes out the window when you're in the thick of it.

 

Yes indeed... my oversight in rushing to a point.

 

How many times has the subject of abortion been a topic here and how often has it quickly descended into the same rhetoric, from all sides, that we are reading now? More times than I can remember. So I'll put in my 2 cents, and everyone who wants to continue to beat this subject to death, again, can carry on and I'll have donated my "change."

A woman has a fundamental right to the control of her own body. Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with the law saying that an abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal, unless the health of the woman is threatened. I also wouldn't have a problem if the law didn't address this issue at all and left the woman entirely in control with what she does with her body. I simply don't think the State should be telling a citizen who is an adult what they can or cannot do with their body. A ban on 3rd trimester abortions, unless the health of the woman is at risk, is where I will compromise on the issue.

Cheers.



Impeach Bush/Cheney.

 

How many times have you let your children run out into the street? Don't they get control over their own body?

This is just a manufactured argument. I'm interested in the baby's life not the woman's body, but I'm willing to "control" someone's body if it saves a life. I'd do it with someone coming after you with a pick-axe!!!

 

The woman has the right to not accept a naked frank, too. The responsibility of having a baby is taken on by two people.
I guess it's the woman's choice if the man has to support the baby too?

 

I agree with you. The sad thing is, child-rearing is looked upon as a hinderance to one's life, not an addition to it. It's simply the result of irresponsible fun and "mistakes". Abortion is the easy way out, and there are countless excuses laid forth to flush the terrible mistake. Sure, having a baby would make anyone nervous, but that's life, deal with it.
Single women make up the majority of abortions, likely with no father involvement.

 

My understanding of the morning after pill, and how some birth control pills work, is that they don't stop fertilization but they prevent the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. (Casey H notes that in his post although I have no idea what his expertise in in birth control) If the belief is that life begins at the moment that sperm combine with egg then yes the morning after pill and the class of birth control that prevent the uterus from being spongy enough to keep the embryo from attaching those are essentially abortion pills since a fertilzed embryo is killed even though pregnancy (as considered as an embryo attaching to the uterus and developing and being nurtured by the mother) never occurs.

RU486 from what I understand is that it causes a spontaneous breakdown of the spongy tissue on the uterine wall that is ejected along with any attached embryo so in that case it terminates a pregnancy.

There is a Constitutional problem though that under the 14th Ammendment life is defined as being born as the 14th guarantees that rights are granted to those born or naturalized as US citizens. It doesn't say those conceived so in that sense fetus and embryos in utero aren't considered persons subject to rights.

Given that the USSC has struck down laws regarding late term abortion procedures I don't think the law is quite that settled.