Page 1 of 1 pages
Abortion involves either preventing a fertilized egg from implanting or removing it afterwards. As opposed to such birth control techniques as using a condom (or anal/oral sex, for that matter), which prevents fertilization from taking place.
While one may be on either side of the issue, one ought to know the difference. . .
It is interesting to consider whether the state should *force* pharmacists to dispense products they believe are harmful. Perhaps we could just ship off the ladies who get pregnant to Iraq, where they might be able to lose the baby for their country?
Posted by wolf on Mar 29, 2006 at 8:43 AM
What about condoms can they still be sold? Any conscieous objectors to those? Don’t they prevent pregancy? Is thismore about controlling woman?
borderlines
Posted by borderlines on Mar 29, 2006 at 12:52 PM
I don’t think anyone in the US is serously proposing to ban birth control (such as condoms), just abortion (such as Plan B - really a terrific name). Mostly since they see abortion as a way to kill a baby, not a way to free a lady.
Posted by wolf on Mar 29, 2006 at 1:38 PM
Wolf,
Plan B doesn’t prevent a zygote from implanting in the uterous but prevents or obstructs ovulation and thus fertilization. Read the Article above! Your neanderthal lies (and murderous suggestions that pregnant women wanting birth control be shipped to Iraq to be killed) reveal the true nature of the “right to life” movement’s hypocracy! They don’t value life at all. They just want to control women! It is also obvious that they don’t value human lives that actually exist, just fetuses as a way of inhibiting reproductive rights and spreading their patriarchial agenda. Demented morans like Rick Santorum hate birth control because he knows that family planning will reduce the Republican voting population by giving po’ small town folk some options over unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. Besides, is a zygote really a human being. Maybe to a mindless fanatic. To me the thousands of innocent civilians of Fallujah who were slaughtered by US marines, many as they tried to flee, were human lives as well. I guess the “pro-life” movement doesn’t care to defend them since doing so wouldn’t further the cause of repressing US women or any other reactionary agenda.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 29, 2006 at 2:19 PM
cabdriverinchicago - um, are you at all familar with “sarcasm”?
I find your views of those who hold opinons different from your own (on this subject) to be rather naive. You might try asking more questions and offering your own a bit less - this technique can be quite illuminating.
Or if this is a bit much for you we can just stick with
pro-abortion - good
pro-life - bad
(Sarcasm again)
Posted by wolf on Mar 29, 2006 at 2:45 PM
The Pro-Life movement suffers from an unrealistic desire to save every potential life without any regard to how this will further aggravate the existing problems that overpopulation is responsible for. In addition, they often support policies that are counterproductive to their own goals, such as advocating abstinence-only sex education (which is proven to be woefully ineffective) instead of a true sexual education that includes the proper use of readily available contraceptives.
One day, hopefully, the Pro-Life movement will realize that they should be pushing for real sex education programs, so that accidental pregnancies will become much more rare.
Posted by Harrower on Mar 29, 2006 at 2:57 PM
By the way, here is a claim by a radical website that says that Plan B does in fact (some of the time) prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. But the website may have some evil conservative agenda (controlling women or some such), you know you can’t believe everything on the Web (damn those conservatives). Of course, the source is the official Plan B website. . .
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx
Plan B
Posted by wolf on Mar 29, 2006 at 3:01 PM
Harrower - are you in favor of the genocide in the Sudan? Sure might help with the population thing. Even the war in Iraq could be helpful from that pov.
The Pro-lifers i actually know (hey, Harrower, you know any? If so - talk to them!) have no problem whatsover with sex education. They mostly do it at home, as opposed to thinking the state/schools should take up this task (but there are exceptions to every rule).
I do agree that we should try to make unwanted pregnancy rare. In a perfect world, there would be no desire to abort a (healhty) child. Of course, we live in a very imperfect world. . .
Posted by wolf on Mar 29, 2006 at 3:10 PM
Wolf,
Here are some points I want to address. I read the plan B website you provided. Thanks! I also note that it basically works by preventing fertilization. Even if in the rare circumstances it prevents the zygote from implanting it is NOT abortion since the women in question is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall in order to grow and be nourished. If this fails to occur the zygote remains stagnant, cannot develope, and hence pregnancy cannot occur. Thus, no abortion. To oppose Plan B just because preventing implantation can occur sometimes is an act of fanaticism. No one would argue that an unimplanted zygote is a life because it cannot become an actual human life as can an impanted zygote. In any case its none of the states business!!!!!!!!!!!!
The pro-life movement is different than those who have some personal qualms with abortion or feel it can be harmful emotionally or otherwise in select cases. Most such people don’t oppose abortion in ALL cases and surely think the state should stay out of a private medical decision! Most of the hardcore “pro-life” movement are religious fanatics, some extremely violent, with no concern for women and their families, who want to push their reactionary agenda on unwilling people and the societies they inhabit! I cannot abide such people!
As for sex ed. most of these “pro-lifers” hate the schools or the public sector trying to teach the public about sex because they want to preserve the hegemony of the Church to repress open discussions about sex and because they want to push their repressed “morality” on society even though it hasn’t helped to solve pressing social problems. Homeschooling is ideal for atomizing society in order to prevent needed social discussion and change. It also gives parents undue control over their kids and doesn’t allow them to hear alternative views. This is essential for maintaining political repression.
As far as not respecting views different from mine, it isn’t true. Views different from mine are always welcome. They are intriguing and help me sort out my own view. The views I cannot accept are those which I find morally unacceptable, inhuman, unenlightened, and essentially barbaric.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 29, 2006 at 3:51 PM
I find the title of the article misleading, it is sugesting that people want condoms, IUDs and other contraceptions banned. This is not the case.
There is a strong case to be made that Plan B is chemical abortion, in fact it is commonly called the abortion pill.
It is bad enough we have serial liars and distorter in government, if the opposition feels it can do the same thing, what hope is there.
Please a little honesty..
Posted by pjp500 on Mar 30, 2006 at 6:51 AM
cabdriverinchicago - thank you for your thoughtful response. Perhaps you might be interested in my response. . .
“No one would argue that an unimplanted zygote is a life because it cannot become an actual human life as can an impanted zygote.”
There are many people who believe life begins at *conception*. While one might believe this to be true or false, it seems to me that it is at least a reasonable assertion. (What other choice is there? Birth? Viability? 18? Retirement?)
I agree with you that the state should tread softly on this issue. One does wonder when the state should involve itself in various circumstances. For instance, if i spank my child, should the state intervene? If i use a belt? What if i am verbally abusive, perhaps even drunk? If the state does intervene, will it improve the situation or just make it worse?
The interesting issues are never choices between good and evil. Rather they are choices between the lessor of two evils, as it is in the abortion case.
While there have been some violent pro-life fantics, they are are extremely tiny fraction of the total. I doubt they number in the dozens. (This puts our Christian fanatics up a very big step over the much crazier, much more violent Islamic fanatics. They kill, more or less randomly, when a **cartoon** is printed! But i digress. . . )
“The views I cannot accept are those which I find morally unacceptable, inhuman, unenlightened, and essentially barbaric.”
I personally don’t “accept” any views that i feel are wrong, for whatever reason. But in most cases, even in cases that may fall clearly in your categories above, i feel that the people who hold the alternative views are worthy of respect. And who knows, maybe they or i, or even both, will grow and change as a result of a thoughtful interchange?
Posted by wolf on Mar 30, 2006 at 9:07 AM
Wolf,
Life doesn’t necessarily begin at conception because the zygote needs to implant first in order to develope hence the argument of the Plan B advocates. One must also take into consideration that the earlier the pill is ingested the greater the chance fertility will be PREVENTED in the first place making the entire issue moot! I don’t think this is the core of the problem anyhow. This is an issue about people’s privacy and rights. The state should play no part in telling people what to do with their private medical issues. Besides, our entire legal system and society is based on life beginning at birth not conception.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 30, 2006 at 10:37 AM
One might wonder when “life” actually does begin. Conception, implantation, viability, birth, whatever. I think it is non-trivial to come up with a good answer to this question. I tend to think that life should be *protected* when it becomes viable, but this is just my own opinion.
I agree that birth control is most effective when practised earlier. Condoms being the optimal solution since they also inhibit the spread of disease. (In my case a vasectomony was and is the ideal solution.)
The state - for right of wrong - has been and is involved in private health decisions. A possibly interesting one being immunizations of children (can’t enroll a child in school without their vaccinations). The state also takes a stand occasionally on mental health; in places attempting to ban corporal punishment even by parents (from some of the children i have seen around here, i would *require* corporal punishment! <joke>).
Our legal system is flexible (got rid of slavery, added women’s right to vote, etc etc), If one kills a pregnant lady, is it a single homicide or a double? Does it matter if she got pregnant that day or if she is in the delivery room? Again, a place where lines will be drawn and they will be imperfect. I think it is not that either side is evil or immoral or unenlightened, but merely it is a strongly emotional topic with no “right” answer.
Posted by wolf on Mar 30, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Wolf:
I know quite a few Pro-lifers. The area in which I live is saturated with them. Perhaps it is simply the misfortune of my particular geographic area, but they are all religious nutcases who would rather pretend sex didn’t exist. Or, at least, the ones surrounding me are. Any of them who advocate real sex education get golf claps.
As for Sudan… trying to equate the mass extermination of an entire regional demographic with the use of contraceptives and early pregnancy abortions is pretty silly.
Posted by Harrower on Mar 30, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Harrower -
OK. Well i know some fanatics too, but they are in the minority of those i come into contact with. Lucky me.
“As for Sudan
Posted by wolf on Mar 30, 2006 at 1:45 PM
The question of when life begins is, oddly enough, a non-starter in this whole debate because it leads to absolutes which cannot serve as a realistic resolution to a public issue. The practical and realistic question policy-makers should look at is, “do we want abortions in the third trimester by desparate women often at the hands of butchers, or do we want to abort a simple fertilized egg with a harmless pill often before it even implants in the wall of the uterus?” This is what a realistic and intelligent person asks. The fanatics ask questions that can only be answered with ABSOLUTE yes or no, right or wrong. This is the wrong way to go about solving a pressing social problem. It leads to unnecessary suffering because of intolerant dogmas that have no place in a modern democracy.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 30, 2006 at 1:46 PM
Wolf
“...save every potential life…”
...though perhaps I should have added ‘human’ into that particular section. I equate killing a handful of cells or a fertilized egg to killing a tumor - aside from the potential to become, both are equally human. Perhaps the abortion of a more developed fetus should be outlawed, but agreeing on when a mass of embryonic cells becomes a fetus seems to have been problematic in the past.
Posted by Harrower on Mar 31, 2006 at 7:45 AM
cabdriverinchicago and Harrower thanks for the discussion. To me, how one arrives at their opinions is more interesting than the opinions themselves. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts here.
Posted by wolf on Mar 31, 2006 at 8:48 AM
“I’d hate to hurt the li’l piece o’ flesh…”
Bill Hicks
Posted by rocco on Mar 31, 2006 at 10:03 PM
cabdriver in chicago. your angry comments about what all prolife people believe is simply smear type politcs. The Left loves to demonize Senatro McCarthy fifty years after his death for allegedly (he didn’t) calling all leftists “Communists”. The same appropriate revulsion against labelling all prolife, antiabortion advocates applies. A person who does not want to service a prescription that they view as a step in homicide should be respected, even if most professional druggists would fill the prescription. As a former lawyer, there were clients an cases I simply did not want to touch. That is individual ethicl choice.
Professionals ought to be able to make those choices in a democratic, allegedly tolerant society.
Many prolife individuals are Roman Catholics who are strong politcala progressives, antiwar, profeminist, prolabor. Nevrtheless, you seem to consider them reactionaries just because of their prolife views.(Labor only wishes the Pope could influence US labor policies!)
Personally, I am prochoice, although I have no problem in a more vigorous campaign to promote adoption over abortion. But I’d leave the prolife pharmacists alone.
I take my positions based on my personal experience, my personal self-interest, the readings I’ve done for over 40 years, and my professional career in law and in education. Tolerance is the sine qua non for any advocate of any position, no matter how heart felt. Otherwise progress and correction of social ills is impossible. Solutions require compromise and societal acceptance of change. The longer I look at problems and listen to both current and historical views on these problems, the more I realize that simple solutions usually are not lasting solutions.
Vigorously argue your views. Please stop making assumptions about views of your opponents you do not know..
Posted by knocko on Apr 2, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Knocko,
The reason I argue so vehemently against pro-lifers and Pharmacists who refuse to issue Plan B. is that Plan B helps women cope with unwanted pregnancies without resorting to abortion. To say that preventing a zygote from implanting—which is rarely the way Plan B works as it prevents ferlilization—is the same as partial birth abortion is unreasonable. This is what many of them believe. They are NOT the same. Most pro-lifers and the Pharmacistis in the article are FANATICS because they do not use REASON. They are people who want to think and act in ABSOLUTE terms without seeing that life and the solving of problems can never be seen in absolute terms. Life is about compromise and seeing things in context. If these Pharmacists promptly issued the prescription they would help avoid the killing of the zygote and prevent fertilization. The real question is not when life absolutely begins but how best to cope with unwanted pregnancy as early as possible and to prevent such pregnancies in the first place with education and family planning. Most of these pharmacists and pro-lifers simply hate freedom of choice and want to force their views on an unwilling majority. They are religious fanatics who judge people who deem sex pleasureable, married or not, and thus hate birth control because it is not for procreation alone but for the pleasure of the act itself which Christians view as lust and sin. This is why they should be forced to keep their views to themselves and out of the lives of others who may disagree.
“Life is about compromise and seeing things in context”. My friend cabdriver, you have stated timeless wisdom with these words. Now all you merely need to do is to take your own advice. Point out the obvious: that those who believe that life begins (bear with me here) at the moment of implantation simply do not see things in context. Indeed, many of them might agree, as believers in religious absolutes might logically argue that context is what allows us weak humans to argue against moral dictates, and thus sin. You and I agree so far, I think. We depart when you equate Reason with truth. One person’s perception of Reason is another’s immorality.
While I like to characterize myself as a conservative secular unitarian spiritual seeker with as few preconceptions as possible (i.e., i’m all over the place), the world of ideas would be poorer without the contributions of religion. That does not mean religious domination; it means appreciate what is worthwhile and refuse to accept the authority of the Church or churches over secular life.
Grant the believers the sincerety of their beliefs. As I mentioned, there may be many Catholic positions on public policy with which you might agree. The abortion issue takes a disproportionate share of the time of both progressives and genuine conservatives. (Bush or a Pat Robertson are not genuine conservatives).
You for example,may endorse the rights of young people to be conscientious objectors should the dratt re-emerge. Well, that’s what these pharamacists are about. The KIng-Ghandi principle to refuse to commit moral harm. That you don’t think moral harm has occurred is irrelevant.
Not everyone will take a strong moral stand on priniciples you or I might agree are moral. I was not a big fan of Martin Luther King, as I believed Malcom X was more in touch with realtiy than the good Doctor who frankly was always trying to catch up with events initiated by younger activists. But I respected King, especially his courage, and I never called him the disrespectful things many on the Left (yes the Left) called him while he was alive, even if I thought he was a bit of a publicity hog, an indiscreet adulturer who exposed the movement to blackmail by the FBI, and a poor tactician out of touch with the vast majority of African Americans in urban areas. But the struggle to at least 1965 was in the rural South. So I held my tongue.
Many years later I can say these things; but during the struggle, why would I have given the enemies of civil rights further ammunition by bickering about non-mundane matters?
As long as these pro-life (so-called) druggists don’t actually stop a woman from exercise of her legal rights to buy the medication, they have a right to do what they want to do. And while women have a limited right of pregnancy termination under Roe, the Supreme Court never held and would not hold that medical professionals are required to assist in abortions or in procedures they deem abortions. The prohibition against slavery works for conscientious objectors of all stripes.
I had the privilege of participating in several cases before the US Supreme Court. Among other areas, one of my specialties was constitutional law. These pharamacists have their First Amendment rights, as do the patients. Having said that, the pharmacists could be legally fired, IMO, by WalMart. That won’t happen however.
Calm down. Stay on track. Your basic view of the need to see everyone’s view is sound. Don’t let the obstinacy of others cause you to be obstinate, and thus detract from your positive message.
Posted by knocko on Apr 2, 2006 at 7:38 PM
Knocko,
My main purpose was to argue that one must not do more harm with a law than the law was mean’t to prevent. One must also be realistic. To say, for example, as many pro-lifers would, that a young girl who is raped by her evil stepfather must carry the pregnancy to term even though she could obtain Plan B within 72 hours and end all the trauma that would ruin her life is ignorant and fanatical. Most reasonable people would agree! No reasonable person would argue that a fertilized egg is more important than a person who has been with us for many years. I have found that those who make no necessary distinctions between obviously different things and are constantly thinking in terms of rigid absolutes often demonstrate less education and lower basic cognitive skills than those who don’t. I believe this! I don’t mean to insult anyone and I am not refering to you, Knocko, but try and talk to a real fanatic. It’s not a rewarding experience! Relgion surely has its good points but has also caused much damage by teaching people to think in rigid absolute terms!
As an attorney would you expect the same punishment for a wealthy Fortune 500 CEO who embezzled millions of dollars as you would a poor, homeless, elderly women who stole a $3.00 chicken sandwich from a convenient store because she was starving? After all the rigid absolutist would say “stealing is stealing” (aside from the obvious issue of the order of magnitude). It was a great French Philosopher who said “The law is just because it prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges and begging for money in the streets!” Here is where reason and context enter the fray.
There are no absolutes in the real world. No absoute right. No absolute wrong. no absolute good. no absolute evil. no absolute truth. no absolute justice. There is only people using reason to solve problems realistically using the legacy of the collected mores and moral wisdom of myriad societies gone before and, hopefully, with the intention of doing more long-term good than harm with their rational solutions taking circumstances into account. To do otherwise would do more harm than good and, ironically bring about the opposite results than we claim to want.
The Pharmacists in question are not properly regarded as “conscientious objectors” because they are not just excersizing their own rights but using their position to interfere with the rights of others. They are also promoting an agenda which can permanently harm the position of women in society.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 3, 2006 at 12:38 AM
Although the pharmacists are within their rights to decide they don’t want to sell a particular (legal) item, this also means they have to be selective about where they’ll seek work. For example, I don’t intend to sell or otherwise profit from the sale of arms, so for me to seek a job with a retailer that sells guns, expecting that I should be allowed to refuse to sell them on grounds of conscience, is a bit silly.
Next thing you know, we’ll have pro-abortion rights businesses only catering to pro-abortion rights customers, who will refuse to do business with anti-abortion rights retailers. The “red-blue” dichotomy has already been co-opted by the Rep-Dem parties, we’ll have to choose another color code to know which place to buy medicine and avoid helping our ideological adversaries to make profit.
Not everyone likes referring to the stage of the pregnancy as a way of deciding whether termination in that timeframe is less or more “moral”, but from the point of view of neural interconnection, with all that results from it, time passing is the main factor. Are not gametes somehow “alive” before they unite into a zygote? Or, are they only half-human because they possess only half of the genetic material? If they aren’t alive, are they non-living? Potentially living?
If they are alive, is menstruation the natural termination of a life? A potential life? A half-life?
Is masturbation (by a guy) murder? Half-murder, multiplied by millions?
Back to neural development. Since there’s a time sensitivity associated with EC, delaying access to it could very well lead to more abortions of further-developed fetuses, in the sense that the fertilized egg would have an opportunity to implant and grow but would still be likely slated for abortion, assuming the mother doesn’t change her mind about terminating the pregnancy
I’m also assuming that prohibition of abortion won’t necessarily prevent it, so simply outlawing it wouldn’t be the solution. There are too many instances of illegal abortion (with all its own horrors) for any other assumption to hold water.
It can be argued that there’s no qualitative difference between a newly united zygote and a 3-month fetus, but I’m not at all convinced by that idea. It doesn’t seem logical to equate a blastocyst with a 2nd-trimester baby.
A last thought. To what extent would abortion rates drop if unscheduled pregnancies did not so often lead to social, familial, and economic dislocation? If we took care of each other better, including the care of “inopportune” mothers and the children they would bear, would it be so strongly felt by so many women that their pregnancy was a disaster to be forestalled instead of a blessing?
You know, once the kids are out breathing air, we really don’t take the best care of them, as a society. Some are lucky in this regard and get great care, but plenty of others get jack-shit from their families or their societies, except to be the objects of political conflict. As long as we’re arguing whether they ought to be born or not, maybe we can take up that little detail as well.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 4, 2006 at 12:30 AM
People need to leave their fanatical beliefs at home when they go to work, especially if they have the potential to unduely affect the lives of others. One’s religion may require one to have no truck with birth control or abortion but no one’s religion requires them to be a pharmacist! There are other jobs. This is not just my opinion. It is that of a lower court judge in California who long ago ruled in favor of a couple facing eviction from their apartment by their fundamentalist Christian landlady on the grounds that they were not legally married. The ruling didn’t violate her religious beliefs. Christianity doesn’t require, he argued, that one own and rent out apartments to the general public!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Apr 5, 2006 at 12:02 PM
The question of when life begins is involved in both science and religion, even the Bible agrees with the science point of view.” Without blood there is no flesh, without flesh there is no blood ” in reference to human fetal physiology , there is no decernible heart beat until the end of the 2nd month of pregnancy, or possibly the beginning of the the third, the Catholic Church says life begins at the quickening, or when the mother first feels movement , that is either in the last days of the 1st trimester, or half way through the 2nd trimester. (you can look all of this up Wolf ) The part from the Bible is found in Leviticus, one of the books the pro-life movement likes to quote , any physiology book containing gestational physiology will point this out also, as for the Catholic Church I believe it was one of the Pius’ s that made that statement.
Posted by jeanie west on Apr 6, 2006 at 9:32 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Abortion involves either preventing a fertilized egg from implanting or removing it afterwards. As opposed to such birth control techniques as using a condom (or anal/oral sex, for that matter), which prevents fertilization from taking place.
While one may be on either side of the issue, one ought to know the difference. . .
It is interesting to consider whether the state should *force* pharmacists to dispense products they believe are harmful. Perhaps we could just ship off the ladies who get pregnant to Iraq, where they might be able to lose the baby for their country?
What about condoms can they still be sold? Any conscieous objectors to those? Don’t they prevent pregancy? Is thismore about controlling woman?
borderlines
I don’t think anyone in the US is serously proposing to ban birth control (such as condoms), just abortion (such as Plan B - really a terrific name). Mostly since they see abortion as a way to kill a baby, not a way to free a lady.
Wolf,
Plan B doesn’t prevent a zygote from implanting in the uterous but prevents or obstructs ovulation and thus fertilization. Read the Article above! Your neanderthal lies (and murderous suggestions that pregnant women wanting birth control be shipped to Iraq to be killed) reveal the true nature of the “right to life” movement’s hypocracy! They don’t value life at all. They just want to control women! It is also obvious that they don’t value human lives that actually exist, just fetuses as a way of inhibiting reproductive rights and spreading their patriarchial agenda. Demented morans like Rick Santorum hate birth control because he knows that family planning will reduce the Republican voting population by giving po’ small town folk some options over unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. Besides, is a zygote really a human being. Maybe to a mindless fanatic. To me the thousands of innocent civilians of Fallujah who were slaughtered by US marines, many as they tried to flee, were human lives as well. I guess the “pro-life” movement doesn’t care to defend them since doing so wouldn’t further the cause of repressing US women or any other reactionary agenda.
cabdriverinchicago - um, are you at all familar with “sarcasm”?
I find your views of those who hold opinons different from your own (on this subject) to be rather naive. You might try asking more questions and offering your own a bit less - this technique can be quite illuminating.
Or if this is a bit much for you we can just stick with
pro-abortion - good
pro-life - bad
(Sarcasm again)
The Pro-Life movement suffers from an unrealistic desire to save every potential life without any regard to how this will further aggravate the existing problems that overpopulation is responsible for. In addition, they often support policies that are counterproductive to their own goals, such as advocating abstinence-only sex education (which is proven to be woefully ineffective) instead of a true sexual education that includes the proper use of readily available contraceptives.
One day, hopefully, the Pro-Life movement will realize that they should be pushing for real sex education programs, so that accidental pregnancies will become much more rare.
By the way, here is a claim by a radical website that says that Plan B does in fact (some of the time) prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. But the website may have some evil conservative agenda (controlling women or some such), you know you can’t believe everything on the Web (damn those conservatives). Of course, the source is the official Plan B website. . .
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx
Plan B
Harrower - are you in favor of the genocide in the Sudan? Sure might help with the population thing. Even the war in Iraq could be helpful from that pov.
The Pro-lifers i actually know (hey, Harrower, you know any? If so - talk to them!) have no problem whatsover with sex education. They mostly do it at home, as opposed to thinking the state/schools should take up this task (but there are exceptions to every rule).
I do agree that we should try to make unwanted pregnancy rare. In a perfect world, there would be no desire to abort a (healhty) child. Of course, we live in a very imperfect world. . .
Wolf,
Here are some points I want to address. I read the plan B website you provided. Thanks! I also note that it basically works by preventing fertilization. Even if in the rare circumstances it prevents the zygote from implanting it is NOT abortion since the women in question is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall in order to grow and be nourished. If this fails to occur the zygote remains stagnant, cannot develope, and hence pregnancy cannot occur. Thus, no abortion. To oppose Plan B just because preventing implantation can occur sometimes is an act of fanaticism. No one would argue that an unimplanted zygote is a life because it cannot become an actual human life as can an impanted zygote. In any case its none of the states business!!!!!!!!!!!!
The pro-life movement is different than those who have some personal qualms with abortion or feel it can be harmful emotionally or otherwise in select cases. Most such people don’t oppose abortion in ALL cases and surely think the state should stay out of a private medical decision! Most of the hardcore “pro-life” movement are religious fanatics, some extremely violent, with no concern for women and their families, who want to push their reactionary agenda on unwilling people and the societies they inhabit! I cannot abide such people!
As for sex ed. most of these “pro-lifers” hate the schools or the public sector trying to teach the public about sex because they want to preserve the hegemony of the Church to repress open discussions about sex and because they want to push their repressed “morality” on society even though it hasn’t helped to solve pressing social problems. Homeschooling is ideal for atomizing society in order to prevent needed social discussion and change. It also gives parents undue control over their kids and doesn’t allow them to hear alternative views. This is essential for maintaining political repression.
As far as not respecting views different from mine, it isn’t true. Views different from mine are always welcome. They are intriguing and help me sort out my own view. The views I cannot accept are those which I find morally unacceptable, inhuman, unenlightened, and essentially barbaric.
I find the title of the article misleading, it is sugesting that people want condoms, IUDs and other contraceptions banned. This is not the case.
There is a strong case to be made that Plan B is chemical abortion, in fact it is commonly called the abortion pill.
It is bad enough we have serial liars and distorter in government, if the opposition feels it can do the same thing, what hope is there.
Please a little honesty..
cabdriverinchicago - thank you for your thoughtful response. Perhaps you might be interested in my response. . .
“No one would argue that an unimplanted zygote is a life because it cannot become an actual human life as can an impanted zygote.”
There are many people who believe life begins at *conception*. While one might believe this to be true or false, it seems to me that it is at least a reasonable assertion. (What other choice is there? Birth? Viability? 18? Retirement?)
I agree with you that the state should tread softly on this issue. One does wonder when the state should involve itself in various circumstances. For instance, if i spank my child, should the state intervene? If i use a belt? What if i am verbally abusive, perhaps even drunk? If the state does intervene, will it improve the situation or just make it worse?
The interesting issues are never choices between good and evil. Rather they are choices between the lessor of two evils, as it is in the abortion case.
While there have been some violent pro-life fantics, they are are extremely tiny fraction of the total. I doubt they number in the dozens. (This puts our Christian fanatics up a very big step over the much crazier, much more violent Islamic fanatics. They kill, more or less randomly, when a **cartoon** is printed! But i digress. . . )
“The views I cannot accept are those which I find morally unacceptable, inhuman, unenlightened, and essentially barbaric.”
I personally don’t “accept” any views that i feel are wrong, for whatever reason. But in most cases, even in cases that may fall clearly in your categories above, i feel that the people who hold the alternative views are worthy of respect. And who knows, maybe they or i, or even both, will grow and change as a result of a thoughtful interchange?
Wolf,
Life doesn’t necessarily begin at conception because the zygote needs to implant first in order to develope hence the argument of the Plan B advocates. One must also take into consideration that the earlier the pill is ingested the greater the chance fertility will be PREVENTED in the first place making the entire issue moot! I don’t think this is the core of the problem anyhow. This is an issue about people’s privacy and rights. The state should play no part in telling people what to do with their private medical issues. Besides, our entire legal system and society is based on life beginning at birth not conception.
One might wonder when “life” actually does begin. Conception, implantation, viability, birth, whatever. I think it is non-trivial to come up with a good answer to this question. I tend to think that life should be *protected* when it becomes viable, but this is just my own opinion.
I agree that birth control is most effective when practised earlier. Condoms being the optimal solution since they also inhibit the spread of disease. (In my case a vasectomony was and is the ideal solution.)
The state - for right of wrong - has been and is involved in private health decisions. A possibly interesting one being immunizations of children (can’t enroll a child in school without their vaccinations). The state also takes a stand occasionally on mental health; in places attempting to ban corporal punishment even by parents (from some of the children i have seen around here, i would *require* corporal punishment! <joke>).
Our legal system is flexible (got rid of slavery, added women’s right to vote, etc etc), If one kills a pregnant lady, is it a single homicide or a double? Does it matter if she got pregnant that day or if she is in the delivery room? Again, a place where lines will be drawn and they will be imperfect. I think it is not that either side is evil or immoral or unenlightened, but merely it is a strongly emotional topic with no “right” answer.
Wolf:
I know quite a few Pro-lifers. The area in which I live is saturated with them. Perhaps it is simply the misfortune of my particular geographic area, but they are all religious nutcases who would rather pretend sex didn’t exist. Or, at least, the ones surrounding me are. Any of them who advocate real sex education get golf claps.
As for Sudan… trying to equate the mass extermination of an entire regional demographic with the use of contraceptives and early pregnancy abortions is pretty silly.
Harrower -
OK. Well i know some fanatics too, but they are in the minority of those i come into contact with. Lucky me.
“As for Sudan
The question of when life begins is, oddly enough, a non-starter in this whole debate because it leads to absolutes which cannot serve as a realistic resolution to a public issue. The practical and realistic question policy-makers should look at is, “do we want abortions in the third trimester by desparate women often at the hands of butchers, or do we want to abort a simple fertilized egg with a harmless pill often before it even implants in the wall of the uterus?” This is what a realistic and intelligent person asks. The fanatics ask questions that can only be answered with ABSOLUTE yes or no, right or wrong. This is the wrong way to go about solving a pressing social problem. It leads to unnecessary suffering because of intolerant dogmas that have no place in a modern democracy.
Wolf
“...save every potential life…”
...though perhaps I should have added ‘human’ into that particular section. I equate killing a handful of cells or a fertilized egg to killing a tumor - aside from the potential to become, both are equally human. Perhaps the abortion of a more developed fetus should be outlawed, but agreeing on when a mass of embryonic cells becomes a fetus seems to have been problematic in the past.
cabdriverinchicago and Harrower thanks for the discussion. To me, how one arrives at their opinions is more interesting than the opinions themselves. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts here.
“I’d hate to hurt the li’l piece o’ flesh…”
Bill Hicks
cabdriver in chicago. your angry comments about what all prolife people believe is simply smear type politcs. The Left loves to demonize Senatro McCarthy fifty years after his death for allegedly (he didn’t) calling all leftists “Communists”. The same appropriate revulsion against labelling all prolife, antiabortion advocates applies. A person who does not want to service a prescription that they view as a step in homicide should be respected, even if most professional druggists would fill the prescription. As a former lawyer, there were clients an cases I simply did not want to touch. That is individual ethicl choice.
Professionals ought to be able to make those choices in a democratic, allegedly tolerant society.
Many prolife individuals are Roman Catholics who are strong politcala progressives, antiwar, profeminist, prolabor. Nevrtheless, you seem to consider them reactionaries just because of their prolife views.(Labor only wishes the Pope could influence US labor policies!)
Personally, I am prochoice, although I have no problem in a more vigorous campaign to promote adoption over abortion. But I’d leave the prolife pharmacists alone.
I take my positions based on my personal experience, my personal self-interest, the readings I’ve done for over 40 years, and my professional career in law and in education. Tolerance is the sine qua non for any advocate of any position, no matter how heart felt. Otherwise progress and correction of social ills is impossible. Solutions require compromise and societal acceptance of change. The longer I look at problems and listen to both current and historical views on these problems, the more I realize that simple solutions usually are not lasting solutions.
Vigorously argue your views. Please stop making assumptions about views of your opponents you do not know..
Knocko,
The reason I argue so vehemently against pro-lifers and Pharmacists who refuse to issue Plan B. is that Plan B helps women cope with unwanted pregnancies without resorting to abortion. To say that preventing a zygote from implanting—which is rarely the way Plan B works as it prevents ferlilization—is the same as partial birth abortion is unreasonable. This is what many of them believe. They are NOT the same. Most pro-lifers and the Pharmacistis in the article are FANATICS because they do not use REASON. They are people who want to think and act in ABSOLUTE terms without seeing that life and the solving of problems can never be seen in absolute terms. Life is about compromise and seeing things in context. If these Pharmacists promptly issued the prescription they would help avoid the killing of the zygote and prevent fertilization. The real question is not when life absolutely begins but how best to cope with unwanted pregnancy as early as possible and to prevent such pregnancies in the first place with education and family planning. Most of these pharmacists and pro-lifers simply hate freedom of choice and want to force their views on an unwilling majority. They are religious fanatics who judge people who deem sex pleasureable, married or not, and thus hate birth control because it is not for procreation alone but for the pleasure of the act itself which Christians view as lust and sin. This is why they should be forced to keep their views to themselves and out of the lives of others who may disagree.
“Life is about compromise and seeing things in context”. My friend cabdriver, you have stated timeless wisdom with these words. Now all you merely need to do is to take your own advice. Point out the obvious: that those who believe that life begins (bear with me here) at the moment of implantation simply do not see things in context. Indeed, many of them might agree, as believers in religious absolutes might logically argue that context is what allows us weak humans to argue against moral dictates, and thus sin. You and I agree so far, I think. We depart when you equate Reason with truth. One person’s perception of Reason is another’s immorality.
While I like to characterize myself as a conservative secular unitarian spiritual seeker with as few preconceptions as possible (i.e., i’m all over the place), the world of ideas would be poorer without the contributions of religion. That does not mean religious domination; it means appreciate what is worthwhile and refuse to accept the authority of the Church or churches over secular life.
Grant the believers the sincerety of their beliefs. As I mentioned, there may be many Catholic positions on public policy with which you might agree. The abortion issue takes a disproportionate share of the time of both progressives and genuine conservatives. (Bush or a Pat Robertson are not genuine conservatives).
You for example,may endorse the rights of young people to be conscientious objectors should the dratt re-emerge. Well, that’s what these pharamacists are about. The KIng-Ghandi principle to refuse to commit moral harm. That you don’t think moral harm has occurred is irrelevant.
Not everyone will take a strong moral stand on priniciples you or I might agree are moral. I was not a big fan of Martin Luther King, as I believed Malcom X was more in touch with realtiy than the good Doctor who frankly was always trying to catch up with events initiated by younger activists. But I respected King, especially his courage, and I never called him the disrespectful things many on the Left (yes the Left) called him while he was alive, even if I thought he was a bit of a publicity hog, an indiscreet adulturer who exposed the movement to blackmail by the FBI, and a poor tactician out of touch with the vast majority of African Americans in urban areas. But the struggle to at least 1965 was in the rural South. So I held my tongue.
Many years later I can say these things; but during the struggle, why would I have given the enemies of civil rights further ammunition by bickering about non-mundane matters?
As long as these pro-life (so-called) druggists don’t actually stop a woman from exercise of her legal rights to buy the medication, they have a right to do what they want to do. And while women have a limited right of pregnancy termination under Roe, the Supreme Court never held and would not hold that medical professionals are required to assist in abortions or in procedures they deem abortions. The prohibition against slavery works for conscientious objectors of all stripes.
I had the privilege of participating in several cases before the US Supreme Court. Among other areas, one of my specialties was constitutional law. These pharamacists have their First Amendment rights, as do the patients. Having said that, the pharmacists could be legally fired, IMO, by WalMart. That won’t happen however.
Calm down. Stay on track. Your basic view of the need to see everyone’s view is sound. Don’t let the obstinacy of others cause you to be obstinate, and thus detract from your positive message.
Knocko,
My main purpose was to argue that one must not do more harm with a law than the law was mean’t to prevent. One must also be realistic. To say, for example, as many pro-lifers would, that a young girl who is raped by her evil stepfather must carry the pregnancy to term even though she could obtain Plan B within 72 hours and end all the trauma that would ruin her life is ignorant and fanatical. Most reasonable people would agree! No reasonable person would argue that a fertilized egg is more important than a person who has been with us for many years. I have found that those who make no necessary distinctions between obviously different things and are constantly thinking in terms of rigid absolutes often demonstrate less education and lower basic cognitive skills than those who don’t. I believe this! I don’t mean to insult anyone and I am not refering to you, Knocko, but try and talk to a real fanatic. It’s not a rewarding experience! Relgion surely has its good points but has also caused much damage by teaching people to think in rigid absolute terms!
As an attorney would you expect the same punishment for a wealthy Fortune 500 CEO who embezzled millions of dollars as you would a poor, homeless, elderly women who stole a $3.00 chicken sandwich from a convenient store because she was starving? After all the rigid absolutist would say “stealing is stealing” (aside from the obvious issue of the order of magnitude). It was a great French Philosopher who said “The law is just because it prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges and begging for money in the streets!” Here is where reason and context enter the fray.
There are no absolutes in the real world. No absoute right. No absolute wrong. no absolute good. no absolute evil. no absolute truth. no absolute justice. There is only people using reason to solve problems realistically using the legacy of the collected mores and moral wisdom of myriad societies gone before and, hopefully, with the intention of doing more long-term good than harm with their rational solutions taking circumstances into account. To do otherwise would do more harm than good and, ironically bring about the opposite results than we claim to want.
The Pharmacists in question are not properly regarded as “conscientious objectors” because they are not just excersizing their own rights but using their position to interfere with the rights of others. They are also promoting an agenda which can permanently harm the position of women in society.
Although the pharmacists are within their rights to decide they don’t want to sell a particular (legal) item, this also means they have to be selective about where they’ll seek work. For example, I don’t intend to sell or otherwise profit from the sale of arms, so for me to seek a job with a retailer that sells guns, expecting that I should be allowed to refuse to sell them on grounds of conscience, is a bit silly.
Next thing you know, we’ll have pro-abortion rights businesses only catering to pro-abortion rights customers, who will refuse to do business with anti-abortion rights retailers. The “red-blue” dichotomy has already been co-opted by the Rep-Dem parties, we’ll have to choose another color code to know which place to buy medicine and avoid helping our ideological adversaries to make profit.
Not everyone likes referring to the stage of the pregnancy as a way of deciding whether termination in that timeframe is less or more “moral”, but from the point of view of neural interconnection, with all that results from it, time passing is the main factor. Are not gametes somehow “alive” before they unite into a zygote? Or, are they only half-human because they possess only half of the genetic material? If they aren’t alive, are they non-living? Potentially living?
If they are alive, is menstruation the natural termination of a life? A potential life? A half-life?
Is masturbation (by a guy) murder? Half-murder, multiplied by millions?
Back to neural development. Since there’s a time sensitivity associated with EC, delaying access to it could very well lead to more abortions of further-developed fetuses, in the sense that the fertilized egg would have an opportunity to implant and grow but would still be likely slated for abortion, assuming the mother doesn’t change her mind about terminating the pregnancy
I’m also assuming that prohibition of abortion won’t necessarily prevent it, so simply outlawing it wouldn’t be the solution. There are too many instances of illegal abortion (with all its own horrors) for any other assumption to hold water.
It can be argued that there’s no qualitative difference between a newly united zygote and a 3-month fetus, but I’m not at all convinced by that idea. It doesn’t seem logical to equate a blastocyst with a 2nd-trimester baby.
A last thought. To what extent would abortion rates drop if unscheduled pregnancies did not so often lead to social, familial, and economic dislocation? If we took care of each other better, including the care of “inopportune” mothers and the children they would bear, would it be so strongly felt by so many women that their pregnancy was a disaster to be forestalled instead of a blessing?
You know, once the kids are out breathing air, we really don’t take the best care of them, as a society. Some are lucky in this regard and get great care, but plenty of others get jack-shit from their families or their societies, except to be the objects of political conflict. As long as we’re arguing whether they ought to be born or not, maybe we can take up that little detail as well.
People need to leave their fanatical beliefs at home when they go to work, especially if they have the potential to unduely affect the lives of others. One’s religion may require one to have no truck with birth control or abortion but no one’s religion requires them to be a pharmacist! There are other jobs. This is not just my opinion. It is that of a lower court judge in California who long ago ruled in favor of a couple facing eviction from their apartment by their fundamentalist Christian landlady on the grounds that they were not legally married. The ruling didn’t violate her religious beliefs. Christianity doesn’t require, he argued, that one own and rent out apartments to the general public!
The question of when life begins is involved in both science and religion, even the Bible agrees with the science point of view.” Without blood there is no flesh, without flesh there is no blood ” in reference to human fetal physiology , there is no decernible heart beat until the end of the 2nd month of pregnancy, or possibly the beginning of the the third, the Catholic Church says life begins at the quickening, or when the mother first feels movement , that is either in the last days of the 1st trimester, or half way through the 2nd trimester. (you can look all of this up Wolf ) The part from the Bible is found in Leviticus, one of the books the pro-life movement likes to quote , any physiology book containing gestational physiology will point this out also, as for the Catholic Church I believe it was one of the Pius’ s that made that statement.
register a new account »Posting Security