NationStates Jolt Archive

In case you ever wondered why I utterly refuse to call anti-abortion people pro-lifers, here's an example. (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31667)
Cedar River Clinics, a women's health and abortion provider with facilities in Renton, Tacoma, and Yakima, filed a complaint with the Washington State Department of Health this week alleging three instances where pharmacists raising moral objections refused to fill prescriptions for Cedar River clients. The complaint includes one incident at the Swedish Medical Center outpatient pharmacy in Seattle. According to the complaint, someone at the Swedish pharmacy said she was "morally unable" to fill a Cedar River patient's prescription for abortion-related antibiotics. Cedar River's complaint quotes its Renton clinic manager's May 17, 2005, e-mail account: "Today, one of our clients asked us to call in her prescription... to Swedish outpatient pharmacy. [We] called the prescription in... and spoke with an efficient staff person who took down the prescription. A few minutes later, this pharmacy person called us back and told us she had found out who we were and she morally was unable to fill the prescription." (Cedar River thinks their client eventually got her prescription filled.)
Because nothing says "pro-life" like helping a woman die of an infection that antibiotics could have treated easily.

This kind of crap is growing, folks--South Dakota's abortion ban, the increasing number of states that are trying to restrict birth control, and that are allowing pharmacists to "voice their consciences" by refusing to fill prescriptions they feel are immoral. I fear the world my daughter may come of age in.

well it's not a coincidence that prolifers are frequently not in support of childcare, education, and health. pro-life is a way of feeling powerful, and forcing your views on others.

Is it a surprise? Some of the most vocal anti-abortionists support capital punishment and the Iraq occupation at the same time.

Yeah, crap here in America too allows pharmacists to refuse to fill perscriptions forbirth control and the morning after pill, because they 'morally object' to it, claiming it's 'killing' life. In fairness, pharmacists are there to do a job - dispense drugs, following orders of a doctor, regardless of what the perscription is for. This bullshit allows people toenforce their beliefs on other people, and that's not fair. If something like that ever happened to me, I'd sue their smarmy arses for causing me to be hospitalised with infection/become pregnant, etc, etc, because they refused to follow my doctors orders.

incredible. nearly 20 minutes and no prolifers have risen to the bait.
EDIT: I mean topic, not bait...

incredible. nearly 20 minutes and no prolifers have risen to the bait.
EDIT: I mean topic, not bait...
I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised, because this is the kind of topic where the less insane among them can cluck worriedly and say "well, I think abortion is bad, but these people have gone too far" or some such nonsense.

I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised, because this is the kind of topic where the less insane among them can cluck worriedly and say "well, I think abortion is bad, but these people have gone too far" or some such nonsense.
Give them a chance. It's only 6 posts so far. First, there'll be the "this is going too far" faction. Then there'll be the "pharmacists have a right not to violate their beliefs" faction. And finally, the "if she didn't want to have a Baby(tm), she shouldn't have been a godless slut" crowd will register. They never let us down.

Give them a chance. It's only 6 posts so far. First, there'll be the "this is going too far" faction. Then there'll be the "pharmacists have a right not to violate their beliefs" faction. And finally, the "if she didn't want to have a Baby(tm), she shouldn't have been a godless slut" crowd will register. They never let us down.
Yeah, you're probably right. They're nothing if not consistent.

The dirty whores should have kept their legs shut. SARCASM

I don't know what to say.

The dirty whores should have kept their legs shut. SARCASM
No, those dirty men should have kept their dicks in their pants.

Nah, just joking, I'm a guy.

I fear the world my daughter may come of age in.
Yep, it looks like we've been cursed to live in interesting times. I was kind of hoping to slide into a nice, stable, self-indulgent middle age, but instead, I'm going to have to go back to being a "despised radical," as my friends used to call me. Being radical is such a chore, but what choice have we got?

The dirty whores should have kept their legs shut. SARCASM
Bitch! You came in out of turn. :p

No, those dirty men should have kept their dicks in their pants.

Nah, just joking, I'm a guy.

No those dirty men SHOULD have kept their dicks in their pants. Don't have to always blame the women, the guy did something as well. ;)

Bitch! You came in out of turn. :p

Looks like you could use a good beating with the bible if you ask me. :p

Looks like you could use a good beating with the bible if you ask me. :p
Now, now -- wait until the real thumpers show up before you start that kind of hijack. ;)

Now, now -- wait until the real thumpers show up before you start that kind of hijack. ;)

hijack how? If they have sex they need to have the kid. Stop ruining my fun damn it.

my views are, i dont care most of the time. i dont care if joe blow gets suzy q pregnant and they decide not to have the child.

but...

in my personal life, if it was my girlfriend i would not like her to have an abortion.


and same goes for family and friends. if it was my sister i would not want her to go through with an abortion. if it was a close friend i would not like them to go through with it. but if they did it wouldnt be the end of the world.

Yeah, crap here in America too allows pharmacists to refuse to fill perscriptions forbirth control and the morning after pill, because they 'morally object' to it, claiming it's 'killing' life. In fairness, pharmacists are there to do a job - dispense drugs, following orders of a doctor, regardless of what the perscription is for. This bullshit allows people toenforce their beliefs on other people, and that's not fair. If something like that ever happened to me, I'd sue their smarmy arses for causing me to be hospitalised with infection/become pregnant, etc, etc, because they refused to follow my doctors orders.

The problem isn't that enforcing your beliefs on another is inherently unfair: we enforce our belief that killing is wrong on would-be killers, yet I see nothing unfair about that. The problem, however, is that they are violating the purpose of their position. The purpose of a pharmacist isn't to be a moral arbiter of society. Their purpose is to give people the prescription that the doctor said was in the best interest of the patient to have. To allow them any more than that is to invite anarchy into the medical system; after all, if it's okay for a conservative Baptist to refuse morning-after pills, shouldn't it also be okay for a Scientologist to refuse anti-psychotics, or for a Seventh-Day Adventist to refuse vaccines?

*sigh* I wish I could say I were surprised.....

My fiance's reaction to it:

http://downtym.livejournal.com/101954.html#cutid1

my views are, i dont care most of the time. i dont care if joe blow gets suzy q pregnant and they decide not to have the child.

but...

in my personal life, if it was my girlfriend i would not like her to have an abortion.


and same goes for family and friends. if it was my sister i would not want her to go through with an abortion. if it was a close friend i would not like them to go through with it. but if they did it wouldnt be the end of the world.


But if someone you knew did decide to have an abortion, don't you think it would be a good idea for them to have access to the antibiotics they might need afterwards?

You know, if you have a problem with anti-biotics, you probably shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Speaking of which, I was always under the impression that pharmacy school was hard. Judging by this asshat, it can't be all that difficult.

*mutters* glorified bean counters anyway

But if someone you knew did decide to have an abortion, don't you think it would be a good idea for them to have access to the antibiotics they might need afterwards?

yes i do think it is necesarry for them to get it done right if they get it done at all. im just saying i would rather they didnt, but im not going to force them not to

The problem isn't that enforcing your beliefs on another is inherently unfair: we enforce our belief that killing is wrong on would-be killers, yet I see nothing unfair about that.

See, the difference is that the killing thing generally involves someone else who doesn't want to be killed. Suicide, on the other hand, it does seem unfair to make illegal, since this is something they're only doing to themselves. Like the diffence between drunk driving, and just drinking.

No those dirty men SHOULD have kept their dicks in their pants. Don't have to always blame the women, the guy did something as well. ;)
Well, it's a well-known fact that men think with their dicks (I know from personal experience), so you really can't blame our primal urges.

The problem isn't that enforcing your beliefs on another is inherently unfair: we enforce our belief that killing is wrong on would-be killers, yet I see nothing unfair about that. The problem, however, is that they are violating the purpose of their position. The purpose of a pharmacist isn't to be a moral arbiter of society. Their purpose is to give people the prescription that the doctor said was in the best interest of the patient to have. To allow them any more than that is to invite anarchy into the medical system; after all, if it's okay for a conservative Baptist to refuse morning-after pills, shouldn't it also be okay for a Scientologist to refuse anti-psychotics, or for a Seventh-Day Adventist to refuse vaccines?
'Well, yes actually. They do it all the time.

my views are, i dont care most of the time. i dont care if joe blow gets suzy q pregnant and they decide not to have the child.

but...

in my personal life, if it was my girlfriend i would not like her to have an abortion.


and same goes for family and friends. if it was my sister i would not want her to go through with an abortion. if it was a close friend i would not like them to go through with it. but if they did it wouldnt be the end of the world.
no one LIKES abortion. no one wants anyone they know to have to go through that either because they were careless or because they just found out that the baby they already love is too defective to live.

the only question is whether or not women should have the right to choose or not. should it be legal or should someone else's judgement override the choice of the person who is pregnant.

no one LIKES abortion. no one wants anyone they know to have to go through that either because they were careless or because they just found out that the baby they already love is too defective to live.
-snip-

I think you are wrong. I love abortions. The idea of killing unborn children just appeals to me. However, I do wish I was allowed to eat a baby. Maybe a fetus...I would, but I think I would prefer a fresh few-month old.

I think you are wrong. I love abortions. The idea of killing unborn children just appeals to me. However, I do wish I was allowed to eat a baby. Maybe a fetus...I would, but I think I would prefer a fresh few-month old.
Now that right there is a prime example of satire. Well done, my friend, well done. :)

Now that right there is a prime example of satire. Well done, my friend, well done. :)

Actually, hate to break it to you, but I was not kidding. At all. I truly do hate children, and wish to kill and eat them. Just as I wish to kill everyone in the world.

*sigh* I wish I could say I were surprised.....

My fiance's reaction to it:

http://downtym.livejournal.com/101954.html#cutid1
That's a good reaction. :D

I'm going to go to work on Monday and say that answering phone calls violates my morals. I want to see how long it takes my ass to hit the pavement.

Actually, hate to break it to you, but I was not kidding. At all. I truly do hate children, and wish to kill and eat them. Just as I wish to kill everyone in the world.
Oh, well I've got a cozy underground bunker right here in my backyard, so you probably won't get at me. Hey, I hate little kids too, have at em.

Oh, well I've got a cozy underground bunker right here in my backyard, so you probably won't get at me. Hey, I hate little kids too, have at em.

How deep? Cause I was thinking...assume control of the world, and then nuke the whole damn place. And thats cool...I always thought child flesh would be tasty. Nice and tender, I would think...

See, the difference is that the killing thing generally involves someone else who doesn't want to be killed. Suicide, on the other hand, it does seem unfair to make illegal, since this is something they're only doing to themselves. Like the diffence between drunk driving, and just drinking.

Well, that we make illegal because our intuition is that no rational person would commit suicide; it is therefore our obligation as citizens to help our irrational fellow citizens. Just as it would be unjust to give a person's knife back if he was acting crazy, so to would it be unjust to allow a person to commit suicide when you can act to stop it.

The point was that we ask our professionals to pass judgment only insofar as it fulfills their purpose as professionals. If I have herpes, I ask for the judgment of my doctor to prescribe the best medication for it. When I hand my pharmacist a Valtrex prescription, I ask for their judgment that it won't interfere with any of my other medications. If I want to know whether contracting herpes is a sign of moral/immoral behavior, I go to see an ethicist or a priest. I don't go to the pharmacist looking for moral condemnation, and in fact moral condemnation interferes with the prescribed purpose of pharmacy in the first place. Taken to its logical conclusion, it violates the Hippocratic Oath to above all do no harm, it interferes with the doctors ability to fulfill their oath, it infringes upon the purpose of the clergy, and undermines the very efficacy of the system.

I'm going to go to work on Monday and say that answering phone calls violates my morals. I want to see how long it takes my ass to hit the pavement.

well lets balance this out.

pharmacist - years of education and constantly keeping up with new advances.

answering phone calls - a job even a high school student can do

How deep? Cause I was thinking...assume control of the world, and then nuke the whole damn place. And thats cool...I always thought child flesh would be tasty. Nice and tender, I would think...
Just like Kentucky Fried Chicken I'd bet.

well lets balance this out.

pharmacist - years of education and constantly keeping up with new advances.

answering phone calls - a job even a high school student can do

What's your point? That it's okay to not do your job for "moral reasons" if you went to college for it?

Just like Kentucky Fried Chicken I'd bet.

Depends on the way you cook, but I suppose it could...I dunno, I was thinking it might be something like veal...rich as hell, and tasty.

What's your point? That it's okay to not do your job for "moral reasons" if you went to college for it?

no, the point is, to replace someone to answer a telephone is as easy as going to a high school and saying "who wants a job?"

finding a new pharmacist is a little more difficult. lets just say its not a career five year olds dream of being when they grow up

pharmacist - years of education and constantly keeping up with new advances.


Counting pills? How hard can that be.

Anyway, it might take years, but it can't be that difficult. Also, this pharmacist seems to have missed the 'new advance' where abortion was made legal.

Counting pills? How hard can that be.

Anyway, it might take years, but it can't be that difficult. Also, this pharmacist seems to have missed the 'new advance' where abortion was made legal.

no that's the old advance. the new advance is reverting to pre-old advance culture, which in canada we call progressive conservatism.

Counting pills? How hard can that be.

Anyway, it might take years, but it can't be that difficult. Also, this pharmacist seems to have missed the 'new advance' where abortion was made legal.

dont think its that hard, go ahead try to be one, go through the system of haivng to know different drugs, the effects, and effects when mixed with others and such.

dont think its that hard, go ahead try to be one, go through the system of haivng to know different drugs, the effects, and effects when mixed with others and such.
I still fail to see where knowledge of drug interactions--as complex as that is--makes one more suited to make moral decisions for others.

no that's the old advance. the new advance is reverting to pre-old advance culture, which in canada we call progressive conservatism.

I stand corrected. This is more complicated than it appears at first blush.

I still fail to see where knowledge of drug interactions--as complex as that is--makes one more suited to make moral decisions for others.

i never siad that they were right, look at my previous posts, what i posted was in defence that their job isnt cake, its not as easy as "your fired, bring the new one in"

i am very opposed to people not doing their job, such as people that join the millitary then refuse to go to war.

dont think its that hard, go ahead try to be one, go through the system of haivng to know different drugs, the effects, and effects when mixed with others and such.

I'm not spending five years in school so I can get bragging rights on the internets. That's just silly.

I'm not spending five years in school so I can get bragging rights on the internets. That's just silly.

oh, come on, it will be fun

dont forget about the thousands of $

I'm not spending five years in school so I can get bragging rights on the internets. That's just silly.
well hell, at the current rate university degrees aren't going to be worth much more.

Speaking of which, I was always under the impression that pharmacy school was hard. Judging by this asshat, it can't be all that difficult.

Heh. My mother is a biology professor, and has had many aspiring pharmacists in her classes. Several years ago, my family ended up switching pharmacies when one day we found a girl who'd "passed" an introductory bio course with a flying D- filling our prescriptions. My mother recalled that said girl had found concepts like the difference between "cell" and "atom" horribly confusing. Pharmacy school clearly can't be too very hard.

As for the original topic, not giving a patient antibiotics because an abortion clinic prescribed them is taking this whole pharmacist-as-moral-arbiter nonsense to brand-new levels of stupidity. *sigh*

No those dirty men SHOULD have kept their dicks in their pants. Don't have to always blame the women, the guy did something as well. ;)
While technically true, our culture enforces the idea that the final arbitrator of whether sex will or will not take place to be the woman. While "no means no" can technically be applied to men, it simply isn't.

When any time a man decides he wants to have sex, and has to convince his partner it's considered by some (on this forum) to be cohersive rape, it should be clear that men are hormonally crazed monsters incapable of rational action. As such, it must fall on the oh so rational women to be responsible for any consequences of sex.

If it weren't the case that our culture assigns women the role of final arbitrator of when sex occurs, clearly the blame would have to fall equally, but since the responsibilities of men and women are so radically different when it comes to initiating a sexual encounter, the blame must fall on the one who makes the decision.

While technically true, our culture enforces the idea that the final arbitrator of whether sex will or will not take place to be the woman. While "no means no" can technically be applied to men, it simply isn't.


Hmmm, you should meet my best friend. He has literally had to fight girls off of him. Can't see the attraction myself. But then, I'd have to see him with his clothes off for that.

dont think its that hard, go ahead try to be one, go through the system of haivng to know different drugs, the effects, and effects when mixed with others and such.


Hmmm I wonder why they punch in the drug's name into a computer and get the nice printout that says what to do then?

the last 3 pharmis I used had drug consulting as optional.....

Hmmm, you should meet my best friend. He has literally had to fight girls off of him. Can't see the attraction myself. But then, I'd have to see him with his clothes off for that.
When speaking about cultures in general, you by neccesity exlude everyone who deviates from cultural norms.

(And I probably should meet him. Maybe I'll be able to figure out what he's doing right, and I'm doing wrong.)

In case you ever wondered why I utterly refuse to call anti-abortion people pro-lifers, here's an example. (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31667)

Because nothing says "pro-life" like helping a woman die of an infection that antibiotics could have treated easily.

This kind of crap is growing, folks--South Dakota's abortion ban, the increasing number of states that are trying to restrict birth control, and that are allowing pharmacists to "voice their consciences" by refusing to fill prescriptions they feel are immoral. I fear the world my daughter may come of age in.Want to hear something else? It happened to another NSer, and they said it in a thread. He was on vacation, and needed his diabetes medicine. The pharmicist said she couldn't provide the medicine because "God decides who lives and dies, not us."

Want to hear something else? It happened to another NSer, and they said it in a thread. He was on vacation, and needed his diabetes medicine. The pharmicist said she couldn't provide the medicine because "God decides who lives and dies, not us."
I remember that thread. I also remember being extraordinarily outraged.

I remember that thread. I also remember being extraordinarily outraged.
As was I.

Pro-Life and proud.

Zukariaa']Pro-Life and proud.

Not much to be proud of...although I can't be sure, you didn't really say anything.

Want to hear something else? It happened to another NSer, and they said it in a thread. He was on vacation, and needed his diabetes medicine. The pharmicist said she couldn't provide the medicine because "God decides who lives and dies, not us."
I remember that one, too. It just goes to show that abortion rights is just the first battlefield for human rights against self-appointed moral arbiters. They will stop at nothing.

Why did that person become a pharmacist in the first place? If god decides who lives and dies, then surely god can decide who gets sinus congestion and who doesn't too. Obviously, this person was motivated by their own power trip (dressed up as religion), taking it on themselves to decide who lives and who dies by denying medicine. That person should have been arrested, in my opinion.

While technically true, our culture enforces the idea that the final arbitrator of whether sex will or will not take place to be the woman. While "no means no" can technically be applied to men, it simply isn't.

This hasn't been my experience. If I want sex, I"ll initiate, and he is then the "final arbitrator" as it were. If he wants it, he'll initiate, and its up to me to decide. In truth, I don't think there's much, if any, discrepancy between who initiates more often, although there was at the outset of our relationship.

And I have seen no evidence that "our culture" is any different. "Popular culture", as in, "what we see on TV shows," suggests that men are the initiators more often, but I don't exactly take cultural cues from TV shows. Otherwise, we'd all be living in a sitcom.

Zukariaa']Pro-Life and proud.

Pro-life as in "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice"?

This hasn't been my experience. If I want sex, I"ll initiate, and he is then the "final arbitrator" as it were. If he wants it, he'll initiate, and its up to me to decide. In truth, I don't think there's much, if any, discrepancy between who initiates more often, although there was at the outset of our relationship.

And I have seen no evidence that "our culture" is any different. "Popular culture", as in, "what we see on TV shows," suggests that men are the initiators more often, but I don't exactly take cultural cues from TV shows. Otherwise, we'd all be living in a sitcom.

A guy that will turn down sex?!?!?!?!? :eek:

To the shelters everybody; it's a sign of the apocalypse!

:p

A guy that will turn down sex?!?!?!?!? :eek:

To the shelters everybody; it's a sign of the apocalypse!

:p
I've turned it down before, but only in the Zap Brannigan "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised" way. :D

Zukariaa']Pro-Life and proud.Your stance on the death penalty is?

Swedish Medical Centre? What a hoot.

A guy that will turn down sex?!?!?!?!? :eek:

To the shelters everybody; it's a sign of the apocalypse!

:p

Hehe. Well, I do have to admit, if I initiate, chances are damn good that it'll happen. If he initiates, they're just good. =) (Of corse, if it does happen, it's always "damn good". =)

pro life and pro choice are both compleat misnomers.

which i proiblby spelt wrong. and i forget most of the arguments to back it up. it was a while back that i came to that conclusion.

at this point my stance would be: the pharmicist is an idiot and should not have their job.

the woman is an idiot who should not be haveing sex if she wasn't prepaired to have the kid.
.. actually, i'd also say she shouldn't be haveing sex if she's not married, and then only to her husband... and i'd say the equivilant thing to any guy as well. i happen to know some people will disagree. i'm not argueing it.

and abortion is wrong. it's either outright murder or .... pre-emptive murder.. man that's a weird way of putting it. *laughs*

sorry. my ability to explaine odd concepts in an intelligent manner died temporaraly when i only got 3-4 hours sleep.

sorry. my ability to explaine odd concepts in an intelligent manner died temporaraly when i only got 3-4 hours sleep.

Don't worry, as long as you were anti-abortion, it wouldn't have been in an intelligent manner anyways.

Don't worry, as long as you were anti-abortion, it wouldn't have been in an intelligent manner anyways.
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5395/rofl4mz.gif

Don't worry, as long as you were anti-abortion, it wouldn't have been in an intelligent manner anyways.

now, i'm not sure if that was ment to be funny or not. either way, this statement does nothing to aid your cause.

unless you're TRYING to sound like an idiot.

sometimes people don't fit sterio types you know. i happen to disagree with you, vehnimantly perhaps, on the issue. that doesn't mean i'm not capable of explaineing my pooint of view in an intelligent manner.

... and people wonder why i don't generaly bother commenting on anything that actually matters.. for all those who wondered, this is a prime example.

on the original point, that is the pharmisist not supplying the medication... all the outrage is quite right..

the aformentioned pharmisist is a much greater idiot than you appear to be.


ehh... i'm not good at dealling with humour at my own expence.. especially when it's not actually funny. still. ranting is... an interesting vent...

now, i'm not sure if that was ment to be funny or not. either way, this statement does nothing to aid your cause.

unless you're TRYING to sound like an idiot.

sometimes people don't fit sterio types you know. i happen to disagree with you, vehnimantly perhaps, on the issue. that doesn't mean i'm not capable of explaineing my pooint of view in an intelligent manner.

... and people wonder why i don't generaly bother commenting on anything that actually matters.. for all those who wondered, this is a prime example.

No, I mean no matter what kind of logic you'd use to be against abortion, it'd be flawed, so it doesn't really matter how coherent you are about it.

pro life and pro choice are both compleat misnomers.

Pro-choice completely and accurately describes my viewpoint on the issue of abortion. I am not in favor of abortion. In fact, you could accurately say that I am anti-abortion. However, I am in favor of women making that choice for themselves. Thus....pro-choice.

Don't worry, as long as you were anti-abortion, it wouldn't have been in an intelligent manner anyways.

Being anti-abortion is not a problem. Trying to force such views upon others is.

Being anti-abortion is not a problem. Trying to force such views upon others is.

Yeah, sure, fine. As long as he kept following the point of view he looked to be following it'd would've been illogical, whatever.

Pro-choice completely and accurately describes my viewpoint on the issue of abortion. I am not in favor of abortion. In fact, you could accurately say that I am anti-abortion. However, I am in favor of women making that choice for themselves.
This is the kind of thinking that I don’t understand. The conclusions one must make about abortion are such that letting any abortion happen would be criminal according to one’s own morality.

It’s equivalent to saying, I don’t think it’s right for people to torture animals, but then sticking up for my neighbor when he gets arrested after allegedly barbequing a stray cat, alive.

Me, I am pro-abortion. Abortion eases over-population, lowers the crime rate and reduces the need for welfare and medicade. There should probably be more abortions, actually.

Being anti-abortion is not a problem. Trying to force such views upon others is.
That's what bugs about this debate; you are either for or against abortion and nothing else.

This is the kind of thinking that I don’t understand. The conclusions one must make about abortion are such that letting any abortion happen would be criminal according to one’s own morality.

No more than letting someone have promiscuous sex would be criminal. No more than letting someone experiment with drugs would be, according to my morality, a criminal act.

I place a value on the potential of a zygote/embryo/fetus. To me, that value is important and warrants protection. However, I recognize that viewpoint as subjective. I can't prove the value of such potential. Thus, I have no basis from which to force it upon others.

It’s equivalent to saying, I don’t think it’s right for people to torture animals, but then sticking up for my neighbor when he gets arrested after allegedly barbequing a stray cat, alive.

Actually, that isn't any where near equivalent. With an animal, I can objectively demonstrate the harm - that a feeling being was harmed for no reason.


That's what bugs about this debate; you are either for or against abortion and nothing else.

Wrong. I know that some people want everything to fit into nice little black and white boxes so that they don't actually have to think about anything, but I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. I am against abortion - I think it is wrong. But I am not in favor of making it illegal, any more than I am in favor of making promiscuous sex (which I also think is wrong) illegal.

I place a value on the potential of a zygote/embryo/fetus. To me, that value is important and warrants protection. However, I recognize that viewpoint as subjective. I can't prove the value of such potential. Thus, I have no basis from which to force it upon others.

It just seems natural to me to want to protect something you place value on. It’s why I, unlike others who support abortion, am able to admit that many anti-choicers are not irrational morons and that they have clear thought out reasoning behind their beliefs.
Actually, that isn't any where near equivalent. With an animal, I can objectively demonstrate the harm - that a feeling being was harmed for no reason.
What about abortions in the third trimester then? I’m no expert on the subject and I may be mistaken, but can’t the little parasites move around and kick then? That certainly means they have the ability to feel and thus be harmed.
Also, I didn’t say for no reason. Some people get quite a bit of joy out of torturing animals. Certainly not anybody I'd ever hang around with, but still.

What about abortions in the third trimester then? I’m no expert on the subject and I may be mistaken, but can’t the little parasites move around and kick then? That certainly means they have the ability to feel and thus be harmed.

Well, considering the extremely tiny fraction of abortions that happen in the third trimester, and that I don't feel like debating farther than the 28th week or so right now. Sure, you can show they might be harmed then.

It just seems natural to me to want to protect something you place value on.

I do. I simply don't want to do so by force. If I knew someone who was pregnant and sought my advice on the issue, I would try and help her find alternatives to abortion. But I would respect the fact that, in the end, it would be her decision what she would and would not do - not mine.

What about abortions in the third trimester then?

I am in favor of the current law on third trimester abortions - that they can only be carried out in the instance of a medical need or a severe defect of the fetus.

Also, I didn’t say for no reason. Some people get quite a bit of joy out of torturing animals. Certainly not anybody I'd ever hang around with, but still.

"I just like doing it," is for no reason. If, on the other hand, torturing an animal would save a human being.... But I can't really think of an instance in which it would.

I am in favor of the current law on third trimester abortions - that they can only be carried out in the instance of a medical need or a severe defect of the fetus.
Then you aren't purely pro-choice.
"I just like doing it," is for no reason.
Sure it is.

If a women came to me for advice about a pregnancy (extremely unlikely) I would encourage her to get it aborted simply because it would make her life far more enjoyable to not have to go through the trials of pregnancy and motherhood and relieve humanity of one more mouth to feed.

Then you aren't purely pro-choice.

No one is "purely pro-choice" then, in your opinion. I highly doubt that you would be in favor of a woman having access to abortion 2 minutes before birth, for instance.

Sure it is.

Not in my book.

If a women came to me for advice about a pregnancy (extremely unlikely) I would encourage her to get it aborted simply because it would make her life far more enjoyable to not have to go through the trials of pregnancy and motherhood and relieve humanity of one more mouth to feed.

And that would be your opinion - your advice to her. You are entitled to it.

I highly doubt that you would be in favor of a woman having access to abortion 2 minutes before birth, for instance.

Well that's kind of what Cesareans are...

If the fetus is viable though, which is is for the large part of the third trimester, being removed from the uterus doesn't kill it. It's just a preemie in that case.

So I don't think the word "abortion" is even relevant past the point of viability. "Abortion" and "birth" are essentially the same past that point.

No one is "purely pro-choice" then, in your opinion. I highly doubt that you would be in favor of a woman having access to abortion 2 minutes before birth, for instance.
You’d be surprised. If someone managed to have an abortion two minutes before birth, I’d congratulate them on finally making the right choice.

When speaking about cultures in general, you by neccesity exlude everyone who deviates from cultural norms.

(And I probably should meet him. Maybe I'll be able to figure out what he's doing right, and I'm doing wrong.)

Depends on which culture you are talking about. And the situation. I can provide a large number of situations in the various co-cultures I move in that demonstrate that men are the final arbitrators of sexual congress.

Well that's kind of what Cesareans are...

No, it isn't. In a 3rd trimester abortion, the life of the fetus (if it is still living) is terminated before it is removed. That's a rather large difference between birth (in which the fetus is removed from the womb alive) and abortion, in which is it either already dead, or is killed before it is removed.

Has anyone ever read Naomi Wolf's Promiscuities? It's a fascinating book and she shows how over the past 3,000 years women have been punished for wanting sex and men have not.