Why is Washington State Flip-Flopping on Pharmacy Refusal?


Washington state’s women’s health and rights advocates are in a state of confused uproar. Suddenly and without warning the Washington state Board of Pharmacy has proposed a change to a rule which, after an immense amount of effort from advocates and citizens in the state back in 2007, required pharmacies to fill all prescriptions regardless of a pharmacist’s personal objection to a patient or a particular medication. This unexpected switchback comes as women’s rights organizations (including the legal advocacy organization Legal Voice), Washington state’s Department of Health and the Board of Pharmacy were preparing to fight a lawsuit brought by Stormans, Inc. (an Olympia, WA pharmacy) and two individual pharmacists who claimed the rule infringed on their first amendment rights. That case has been stayed, meaning the proceedings are suspended, much to the dismay of women’s rights advocates.

According to Seattle news site, Publicola, Judge Ronald Leighton, writing in his ruling to stay the case, said the Board of Pharmacy’s proposed rule-making process, “… if completed as currently contemplated would resolve the legal issues in this case.” This is not good news.

“This issue was vigorously debated for 15 months starting more than three years ago and the State has spent considerable time and resources successfully defending the rule in Court,” said Elaine Rose, CEO, Planned Parenthood VOTES! Washington. “We are shocked the Board of Pharmacy is re-opening the rule and jeopardizing hard-fought rights for women seeking essential health care.”

The Board of Pharmacy (BOP) inexplicably proposed (reportedly during a Board phone meeting on June 29th of this year -  of which there are no public notes available on the Board of Pharmacy web site) a rule change to allow pharmacists the right to “facilitated referral” rather than mandate they fill prescriptions on site. What this means is that, instead of ensuring that any patient – a woman seeking to fill a prescription for emergency contraception or another form of birth control, a person with HIV seeking to fill a prescription for their life-saving medication, a patient with diabetes who needs their medication – has the ability to access legal medication at any pharmacy in a timely manner, they can now be denied their medication at the whim of an individual pharmacist or pharmacy and be forced to go somewhere else.

If you think this doesn’t sound so bad, consider that in small towns there may be only one pharmacy; in towns or cities with more than one pharmacy, how many pharmacies does a person need to visit in order to find one that has a pharmacist who “agrees” that he or she “deserves” access to their medication?

According to Legal Voice,

“Under the revisions the BOP seeks to make, even when the medication is in stock, available and sitting on a shelf behind the pharmacist, a pharmacy could require a customer to go to a different pharmacy.”

To be clear, the Board of Pharmacy rule that had been set in place in 2007 after an extended period of public input and comment (during which advocates and Washington state citizens from HIV/AIDS activists to reproductive rights organizations to every day citizens, rallied together and fought long and hard) did not force individual pharmacists to fill prescriptions for medication they did not support. It mandated that pharmacies had to have at least one pharmacist on site that would fill prescriptions for patients, regardless of her or his “personal, moral or religious beliefs.”

For a pharmacy with only one pharmacist on staff, or for pharmacy owners that opposed birth control or medication for HIV or AIDS, this meant that they needed to either stock and fill prescriptions for all legal medications requested, use a temporary or on-call pharmacist, or offer telepharmacy services. 

So while the Board of Pharmacy had been working with women’s health and rights advocates, and the Washingon state DOH to defend its original rules against Stormans, Inc. and two individual pharmacists, they changed horses midstream leaving many wondering why.

“Regardless of who you talk to among the coalition of organizations [that have been fighting this] we would all say we have no idea why the state did this or what the motivation is behind it. We don’t know where the motivation came from for The Board of Pharmacy to reopen the rules,” says Lauren Simonds, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington.

It is true that Judge Ronald Leighton, set to oversee the July 26th case between the pharmacists and the state, may very well have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (the pharmacy and pharmacists bringing the suit). Leighton provided a small window into his views on issues related to womens’ health and rights during the motion for summary judgement when he stated that he “knew of no other case, in the country, until this one, that chips away at that protective cocoon” established by government after Roe v. Wade to protect those with a religious objection to providing abortion services, via conscience clauses. He was also concerned that his local Catholic hospital, St. Joe’s in Tacoma, WA,  would be forced to provide emergency contraception in their pharmacy, should the case be won by the state. It’s a concern that is curious considering all hospital emergency rooms in Washington state are required to offer rape victims emergency contraception, if the woman is not already pregnant.

Still, the defendants had already enjoyed one victory from the 9th Circuit Court. In addition the rule decided upon in 2007 was created only after an extended and involved period of public comment with public sentiment clearly on the side of patients unimpeded access to legal medications from pharmacies.

The 9th Circuit victory occurred, writes Josh Feit at Publicola,

“After the District Judge in Tacoma, Judge Ronald Leighton, issued an injunction against the new rules back in 2007 pending his decision on the case itself…

Tossing the injunction last summer, the appeals court specifically upheld the Board of Pharmacy rules, saying they were “neutral” (meaning they didn’t discriminate against anyone); that they served a legitimate need (getting women their legal prescriptions); and they didn’t upend anyone’s First Amendment religious freedoms. The government can limit religious conduct when it believes that conduct threatens a larger public good, like public health. And that is what the higher court concluded about the Board of Pharmacy rules.”

Then what gives?

Sara Ainsworth of Legal Voice is baffled and frustrated:

“We can only speculate, we really have no idea why the state has seemingly thrown away the victory we had achieved.”

Ainsworth’s organization, Legal Voice, represents intervenors in the lawsuit. They intervened on behalf of women who need and want access to emergency contraception as well as people living with HIV and AIDS and others whose rights are impeded when prescriptions won’t get filled by pharmacies with an agenda. But Legal Voice also fought long and hard for the 2007 Board of Pharmacy rules. With the case halted, all they can do now, says Ainsworth, is wait for the period of public comment to begin for these newly proposed rule changes. But she’s concerned.

“The state has given us pause with what they’ve said publicly to be worried that they won’t consider what the public says. It is a public process, they are supposed to take public input and we anticipate, given that this issue has received a lot of attention, that the public still feels the same way [they did in 2007]- that they should be able to have their prescription needs met.”

To be clear, the rules put in place back in 2007 were not specifically related to women’s access to emergency contraception. This was – and is -  about ensuring that all Washington state citizens are able to have their prescriptions filled in a timely manner.

Simonds told RH Reality Check,

“These rules were put into place to protect the patients of WA because we all have a right to have our prescriptions filled…If you go back in the history of this it wasn‘t just women who weren’t able to access birth control or medications prescribed on pads from certain physicians. It wasn’t just women and reproductive health related medication. There are some parties in the lawsuit who are people living with HIV and AIDS and people living with diabetes who had prescribed medication denied because pharmacies wouldn’t fill them.”

She goes on,

“A pharmacy has no right to deny someone their medication based on a personal or moral belief. That can be construed as religious discrimination against the person who is seeking to have their prescription filled because someone is impeding upon what that person may believe. This is about the right of all patients in Washington state to access the medications they need and not to have a pharmacy decide for them that they can’t.

The current rule does allow pharmacists a way out as long as there is another pharmacist on staff to fill the prescription.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in response to the pharmacists who asked them to reconsider their decision that the 2007 rules did not impede upon their First Amendment rights, noted that “the new rules do not aim to suppress, target, or single out in any way the practice of religion, but, rather, their objective was to increase access to all lawfully prescribed medications.” 

Washington state governor, Christine Gregoire, agrees.

Gregoire does not support the proposed rule change and has consistently supported access to emergency contraception. Back in 2006, in response to the first draft of the rules the Board of Pharmacy developed (before the period of public comment which encouraged the them to ultimately pen the supportive 2007 rules), Gregoire penned a heated letter to the head of the state Board of Pharmacy, telling him, “I strongly oppose the draft pharmacist refusal rules recommended by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy today. The rules under consideration fail to protect Washington families from pharmacists who refuse to dispense lawful prescriptions. They are fraught with contradictory, bureaucratic language that makes unclear a pharmacist’s responsibility.”

In a similar fashion, Gregoire recently sent a letter to Attorney General Rob McKenna who signed off on the Board’s proposed rule change. From Publicola:

“I am not in agreement with the state Board of Pharmacy’s decision to reopen the rulemaking process which currently requires pharmacists to provide all legally prescribed medications to individuals…”

As Ainsworth alludes to, Gregoire is also concerned that there appears to be a “pre-determined outcome” from what’s supposed to be a process of considerable citizen involvement:

“I am concerned that the Board appears to have a predetermined outcome in the new rulemaking process. I will not support a position that does not provide the same level of access, or better, than is currently offered. We cannot restrict access for patients. In rural parts of our state, eliminating access to medication could force people to drive miles to the next closest pharmacy, or simply force them to go without.”

The issue, at this point, sits squarely in the laps of the Board of Pharmacy who has, without rhyme or reason, re-written the rules mid-game. It should then be up the public to decide whether a person’s right to access their legal medication at any pharmacy is paramount. Whether this is the case or not remains to be seen.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • bornin1984

    Double post

  • squirrely-girl

    “The government can limit religious conduct when it believes that conduct threatens a larger public good, like public health.”

  • bornin1984

    The law was stupid. Forcing someone to carry a product they do not want to carry is the real definition of fascism (which is a common accusation against pro-lifers), and is quite indefensible. If I own a pharmacy and I do not want to stock, for instance, Plan B, under what basis should the government tell me that I have to stock Plan B?

  • prochoiceferret

    Forcing someone to carry a product they do not want to carry is the real definition of fascism (which is a common accusation against pro-lifers), and is quite indefensible.

     

    Man, anti-choicers are funny.

     

    Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? “Why yes, of course. They spread their legs, didn’t they?”

     

    Forcing pharmacy owners to carry Plan B? “OMG RIGHTS VIOLATIONS FASCISM FASCISM WHATS NEXT CONCENTRATION CAMPS FOR GOD FEARING CHRISTIANS”

  • bornin1984

    The government does not dictate what products you have to sell. If, for example, I am an avid vegetarian, and the only store in town is a meat market, I cannot demand that the meat market stock fruits and vegetable so that I can eat and sue them over their refusal to do so. Now, if that meat market did stock fruits and vegetables, that would be another issue entirely. As it is, it is rather amazing how pro-choicers tend to go on and on and on about respecting each others beliefs, but are quick to ignore the aforementioned saying and demand that everyone kowtow to their own beliefs by providing what they view as an essential product, which begs the question as to how/why do pro-choicers get to decide what product is essential? Here is a question for you: if a place like Ralph\’s Thriftway decides to close up shop rather then to provide a product they disagree with, then what? Are you going to tell them that they have to remain open?

  • crowepps

    Not really up on all the rules for pharmacies, which operate under a state license permitting them to be in business IF THEY FOLLOW THE RULES, which are extensive and detailed.

     

    A link to pharmacy regulations by state is available here:

    http://www.sph.umn.edu/hpm/NHRegsPlus/category_face_pages/category_pharmacy_services.htm#Comparison_of_State_Regulations_

    It seems pretty clear from just a cursory reading that pharmacies which serve Medicaid clients are REQUIRED to stock the drugs which are commonly prescribed under Medicaid and the different formulations of birth control, including EC, are commonly prescribed under Medicaid.  Which would mean that the ‘basis’ under which the government tells pharmacies they have to stock a certain list of drugs is the government is one of their biggest customers.

     

    You might as logically protest “under what basis should the government tell me” that I am only allowed to sell drugs to those with valid prescriptions.

  • bornin1984

    Not that this is anything new, but you are most certainly not very good at this whole debate thing. But I suppose it is good that you try. Anyway, just to reiterate to you what I am sure I have reiterated to you hundreds of times prior, women do not have to get pregnant. Barring rape, they choose to engage in an action which leads to pregnancy. Once they do become pregnant, then they hold an obligation to carry that pregnancy to term. Conversely, no pharmacy has to carry any medication. But if they choose to carry any specific medication, then they are obligated to dispense it when one wants it. Now, you are welcome to ignore this post in its entirety as I know you are prone to do, and instead try to impress me with your non-existent wit.

  • crowepps

    MINNEAPOLIS – Some Muslim cab drivers are refusing service to a growing number of passengers with alcohol or dogs, and officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are trying to fight it.

     

    “Our expectation is that if you’re going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it,” said Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airport Commission.

     

    Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport, and refusals for religious reasons have grown in recent months, airport officials said. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.

     

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472393/

    Apr 17, 2007 8:58am EDT

     

    MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) – Muslim cab drivers at Minnesota’s biggest airport will face new penalties including a two-year revocation of their taxi permits if they refuse to give rides to travelers carrying liquor or accompanied by dogs, the board overseeing operations ruled Monday.

     

    The Metropolitan Airports Commission, responding to complaints about the liquor issue, voted unanimously to impose the new penalties beginning in May.

     

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1633289220070417

  • prochoiceferret

    As it is, it is rather amazing how pro-choicers tend to go on and on and on about respecting each others beliefs, but are quick to ignore the aforementioned saying and demand that everyone kowtow to their own beliefs

     

    Where “everyone” means “businesses,” and “beliefs” means “access to widely-needed pharmaceuticals should not be restricted by the pharmacist’s personal religious beliefs.” What’s next, are you going to complain that restaurant owners shouldn’t be forced to serve customers of a race they don’t like?

     

    Here is a question for you: if a place like Ralph\’s Thriftway decides to close up shop rather then to provide a product they disagree with, then what? Are you going to tell them that they have to remain open?

     

    No, but I’m sure that Bob would be happy to open a Piggly-Wiggly store, snag all of Ralph’s old customers, and not make such a fuss about stocking the product he disagreed with. The free market is cool like that.

  • crowepps

    Any food store (excluding pharmacies) which applies for participation in the WIC program shall be enrolled via a State Health Department approved one-year expirable contract if all of the following criteria are met. If all the criteria are not met, the vendor may not be enrolled.

    (4) The applicant vendor shall stock [and maintain] WIC-acceptable foods, as determined by the New York State Department of Health,

     

    http://www.health.state.ny.us/regulations/recently_adopted/docs/2010-01-06_wic_vendor_minimum_stocking_requirements.pdf

    So, yes, in the case of stores which want to participate in the WIC program, the government does indeed tell them, specifically, not only what to stock but how much of it they must have available.

  • bornin1984

    A free market is not free when you cannot operate according to your own business principles and are forced into providing products and services considered essential even if you do not want to. I am sure you knew that, however. Anyway, unsurprisingly enough, I see how you are failing to differentiate between refusing to provide something you stock and refusing to stock that product at all. And also, unsurprisingly enough, I see how you ignored the difference between refusing to provide a product or service, and providing a product or service yet refusing to serve a certain demographic. Surely you can see the difference between owning a restaurant and not serving vegetables, and owning a restaurant yet not serving Blacks. But since you have proven time and time again that you have no real propensity for debate, you more then likely do not.

  • crowepps

    Barring rape, they choose to engage in an action which leads to pregnancy. Once they do become pregnant, then they hold an obligation to carry that pregnancy to term.

    On what basis do you assert there is an “obligation”?

    To whom do you assert the women are obligated?

  • prochoiceferret

    Barring rape, they choose to engage in an action which leads to pregnancy. Once they do become pregnant, then they hold an obligation to carry that pregnancy to term.

     

    No, they don’t, actually. But given that you don’t like it when women have recreational sex, I can see why you would like to impress that “obligation” on them. (It’s kind of creepy, however, you trying to tell women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies.)

     

    Conversely, no pharmacy has to carry any medication.

     

    Spoken like someone who’s never run a pharmacy!

     

    Now, you are welcome to ignore this post in its entirety as I know you are prone to do, and instead try to impress me with your non-existent wit.

     

    No, no, I’m not laughing with you. I’m laughing at you!

  • bornin1984

    WIC is a government sponsored program. Of course it is subject to government regulations.

  • prochoiceferret

    A free market is not free when you cannot operate according to your own business principles and are forced into providing products and services considered essential even if you do not want to.

     

    Ah, a right-winger whining about business regulations. It’s right up there with bears peeing in the woods, and popes being Catholic.

     

    Surely you can see the difference between owning a restaurant and not serving vegetables, and owning a restaurant yet not serving Blacks.

     

    And surely you can see the difference between a restaurant serving vegetables or not, and a pharmacy not carrying emergency medication needed by a wide segment of the population.

     

    (But since you have proven time and time again that you have no real propensity for learning from facts, let alone critical thinking, you more than likely do not.)

  • crowepps

    A free market is not free when you cannot operate according to your own business principles and are forced into providing products and services considered essential even if you do not want to.

    Of course, the same is equally true in the reverse, as one of the drug dealers complained when the cops were seizing his gro-lights and plants, “You realize you’re putting me out of business, man.”

     

    In a free market, one can choose WHICH business one will go into taking into account their own business principles and whether the business make them practicable.  It seems unwise to choose to get involved in a tightly regulated, state licensed business and then complain that the standard business practices and ethics code that you knew about before you ever started are “unfair”.

  • crowepps

    Any store which participates in WIC is specifically told what stock to carry.

     

    Any pharmacy which participates in Medicaid is specifically told what stock to carry.

     

    Personally, I wouldn’t have any problem at all with pharmacies that don’t want to carry Plan B or hormonal birth control choosing to opt out of Medicaid.  That seems reasonable to me.

  • bornin1984

    No, they don\’t, actually. But given that you don\’t like it when women have recreational sex, I can see why you would like to impress that \”obligation\” on them. (It\’s kind of creepy, however, you trying to tell women what they can and can\’t do with their own bodies.)

    Yes. I hate women having recreational sex so much, that I have recreational sex with women. Anyway, sure they do. Unlike you, who somehow argues what the law is so long as it suits you to do so, I argue what things should be, which is the way you typically debate. And I will not point out to you that the law, by its very existence, dictates the things you can or cannot do with your body. But you do not understand anything relating to debate, and as a result will ignore this point, as you have in the past, so never mind.

    Spoken like someone who\’s never run a pharmacy!

    No. Spoken like someone who keeps up with going ons.

    No, no, I\’m not laughing with you. I\’m laughing at you!

    Given your propensity to laugh at those things you cannot respond to, I take that as a compliment. Which reminds me, when are you ever going to get around to, one, finding me a source which shows that the average family size has been greater then ten in the past century or, two, telling me how a human looks and how far you have to deviate from the norm to still be a human? Time is wasting.

  • bornin1984

    Ah, a right-winger whining about business regulations. It\\\’s right up there with bears peeing in the woods, and popes being Catholic.

    I would ask you how you figured I am a right-winger, but I would be willing to bet that you pulled that out of the same place you pull most, if not all, of your responses.

    And surely you can see the difference between a restaurant serving vegetables or not, and a pharmacy not carrying emergency medication needed by a wide segment of the population.

    Vegetables are wanted by a much larger segment of the population then are emergency contraception. If a business is not required to sell vegetables, which affect a large segment of the population, then neither should they be required to sell emergency contraception, which affects a smaller portion of the population.

    (But since you have proven time and time again that you have no real propensity for learning from facts, let alone critical thinking, you more than likely do not.)

    Yes, you are right. I do not learn from facts. Speaking of which, tell me again how large family sizes were in 1933 and how the unborn at all ages are not human beings?

  • bornin1984

    Incorrect. There is no Federal law dictating what pharmacists have to carry. None at all.

  • squirrely-girl

    Awwww but then they wouldn’t be able to make money off of government programs! Don’t you know it’s just NOT FAIR they can’t pick and choose?! Damn you crowepps and your logic!

  • squirrely-girl

    … with STATE regulations and guidelines. I thought “pro-businessey” peeps were ALL FOR state rights? 

     

    Medicare on the other hand is a federal program.

  • invalid-0

    Well, if you went to a meat market (aka butcher) to buy vegetables, then I’d say you’re an idiot.

     

    The issue is that these meat markets wear a supermarket label. 

     

    I don’t know why anyone would hire a person who is unwilling to do THEIR JOB.  Do I think it’s fair to force someone to do something they aren’t comfortable with?  No, I don’t.  

    But I also don’t think it’s fair for this pharmacist or pharm tech to say, “We don’t stock that.”  or “I can’t sell that you.  I just can’t.”  They CAN say, “Tammy will assist you with this purchase.”  Or is this infringement and deception obligatory to the objector?

  • bornin1984

    Both Medicare and Medicaid are Federal programs. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is not funded solely at the Federal level and participation in it is optional. It is still subject to Federal regulations and provisions. And, for the record, neither party is anti-business. The sooner you realize this, the better. And states rights and being pro-business are completely separate issues.

  • prochoiceferret

    I argue what things should be, which is the way you typically debate.

     

    And what you’ve made very clear, in all the comments you’ve posted to this site, is that no one with so much as a scrap of sanity to their name would want a world in accordance with how you feel “things should be.”

     

    It might make for a good dystopian novel—recall that Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale was pretty popular, and is considered a classic nowadays. I doubt you’d be able to pull off the complex character development, however, since nuances aren’t your strong suit. You’d be better off writing a pulpy thriller a la Tim LaHaye.

  • bornin1984

    The issue is not about providing products they stock, but about making pharmacies stock products they do not sell.

  • crowepps

    But Medicaid is a federally FUNDED program administered by the States, and each State has unique regulations about exactly how they run it.  As I said, if pharmacies are going to be operated by “free market” principles, then I have no problem at all with them opting out of Medicaid and refusing participation in government funded programs.  Of course, as a matter of principle, they probably would want to ‘abstain’ from participating in Medicare as well.

     

    The only caveat I would have is that since the average ordinary customer assumes that all pharmacies can and will fill all prescriptions, then in service of free market principles, the pharmacy should make an upfront disclosure by posting a sign about their policies (some birth control medications are not stocked by this pharmacy) so that individual customers are not individually inconvenienced and the rest of the customers can make their informed “free market” decision as to whether that policy makes a difference in whether they want to shop there.

  • saltyc

    I have recreational sex with women.

    And are you trying to have children?

    Otherwise, what form of birth control are you using?

     

    I am against you having sex, so I will get a job as someone who sells whatever BC you use, and only after you wait in line for an hour I’ll not give it to you because I am against your having sex.

    Think I’m awesome now?

     

    PS I’m being facetious about not wanting you to have sex. But your “pro-life” heros really don’t want you having sex.

  • crowepps

    The issue is not about providing products they stock, but about making pharmacies stock products they do not sell.

    My assumption, and I realize it is only an assumption, is the whole POINT of making them stock the products is to encourage them to also sell them.

     

    The issue then becomes “does a pharmacist have a right to deny a patient a duly prescribed medication on the basis that the pharmacist doesn’t agree that having sex and then preventing pregnancy is ‘moral’ and refuses to ‘facilitate’ the patient using it unless the patient agrees to surrender her right to medical privacy and provide the pharmacist with an ‘excuse’ for having had sex that’s acceptable to him like having been raped.”

     

    Does she have to bring a copy of the police report to obtain permission?

  • crowepps

    You know, Fauntleroy and Paul keep saying how they think men have to “take equal responsibility” and all that, and how recreational sex is terrible, but you sure don’t see either of them pitching in here to awaken 1984 to his responsibility to stop having ‘recreational sex’ that risks an unwanted pregnancy that might result in abortion.

     

    So Fauntleroy, now that you have stated that women who smoke should receive severe punishment, just what do you think should be the punishment for this admitted fornicator?

     

    And Paul, you want to rerun that little homily about how sex should only occur within marriage and be considered sacred and focus on the “dread” of unwanted pregnancy?

     

    Just saying

  • crowepps

     I have recreational sex with women.

    Enjoy it while you can.  The Catholic Church and the ProLife movement are doing their best to make sure that won’t happen in the future.

    Edited to add:

    “We won’t be happy until there is no fornication and no abortion.” Joe Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League

  • squirrely-girl

    …they’re not here to bemoan men having recreational sex because it’s only fornication on the part of the woman. //end snark

  • arekushieru

    And as has been noted to YOU, several times before, women have no control over the fact that they inherit a condition known as pregnancy as a risk of sex.  So, either force her to be ‘responsible’, or rather punish her, for it by limiting her sexual freedoms or denying her her rights.  That’s the ProLife way.  Consider that a woman having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation is a criminal activity and the woman a criminal for having it.

     

    Yet you screech rights violations when a business is expected to fulfill the same standards that every other business that is regulated the same way is supposed to fill.  If they want to fulfill different standards then apply to become a business that comes under different regulations.  It’s really that simple.  And, these ARE two SEParate issues, VERY similar to what I outlined in my most recent comment to you.

  • arekushieru

    She was telling you how your definition was so far off-base.  Because, if we DO go by your logic, it doesn’t have to be human to be a person, because it doesn’t have to look human, as YOU said.

     

    Also, I do believe she answered your question when she said that it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing that families are no longer larger than ten?  She would simply be helping herself, not you, if she provided the answer you so desperately want, after all.

     

    You have YET to provide ONE instance where the law restricts what one can and cannot do with one’s body, as regards the right to bodily autonomy, without the presence of a criminal activity or criminal.  You are not held responsible for ingestion of substances, btw, but possession.  Sorry. 

     

    Another example of how different rights should not be compared to others.  Possession, right to bodily autonomy, financial rights, business “rights”, etc….

  • crowepps

    Their proposal to eliminate abortion is that women shouldn’t ‘fornicate’ but it’s okay if men ‘fornicate’ which, logically, means that the men could only ‘fornicate’ with each other?  That doesn’t seem practical — most men aren’t gay.

     

    Of course, the Catholic Church and ProLife activists are also opposed to pornography and masturbation, because people shouldn’t ‘fornicate’ even when they’re alone either.  It does make one wonder about the protestation that ProLife isn’t opposed to sex, since they seem to be against every kind of sex act I’VE ever heard of.  Maybe it’s okay to DREAM about having sex so long as you don’t actually ever have actual sex in real life.  Or is that still ‘satanic’?

  • squirrely-girl

    So if there’s no chance at a potential baby these are okay, right? How about gay couples who have been legally married in their state?

     

    I think it’s only okay to dream about having sex so long as you don’t actually follow through with it and self-flagellate upon waking.

  • saltyc

    Funny how quiet 84 got when we started discussing his sex life. Maybe he doesn’t like his private life debated in an open forum, the way women’s private matters are up for debate.

    But really “pro-life” men enjoy having sex without responsibility just like everyone else. They just want women to go on having sex with men, and also to continue to bear the consequences quietly, to themselves. And what better way to silence than shaming?

    Everyone likes playing hot potato, no one likes being stuck with the potato, and the way we have it, it’s mostly women, especially poor women, left holding it. And paying for it. And that suits 84 just fine. It’s their own fault for playing hot potato, nevermind the fact that he was playing too. He did the smart thing: got in a game where the rules were stacked in his favor.

  • crowepps

    No, no, anal and oral are both *SODOMY* and we all know how they feel about THAT.  Sex is supposed to be ONLY about making babies and people who don’t want to make a baby are supposed to stop touching the nasty places!

     

    It really doesn’t have anything to do with abortion but instead with a loathing of pleasure.  Irregardless of whether a pregnancy might result, people are never, ever supposed to do things with or too their bodies that make them FEEL GOOD.  Feeling good is WRONG because people are all vile and we all should be sitting around full of shame and humiliation about how UNWORTHY we are.

     

    Those Puritans were sure a depressing bunch, weren’t they?

  • cassius

    The assumption that a women who has sex somehow consents to pregnancy, birth, and motherhood is surely wrong. You shouldn’t confuse the idea that someone accepts the risk of sex with the idea that someone consents to pregnancy, etc. Consider an analogy. A person who voluntarily walks through a dangerous area of town late at night assumes or accepts a risk of being mugged, but she does not consent to being mugged – she has done nothing to waive her right not to be mugged or given permission to mug her. Or perhaps consider those who wish to become police officers they no doubt accept a risk/consent to that risk of being killed by criminals, but they do not give give criminals their consent to kill them.

  • squirrely-girl

    … couples where one or both of the individuals is infertile? I mean, if they keep trying long enough and hard enough they *might* change God’s mind right?! ;)

  • crowepps

    Well, I suppose that would be all right, so long as it wasn’t actually pleasant — although then what would be the point?

     

    You’ve got to wonder, isn’t life miserable enough now?  What is the root of the compulsive desire of religiosity to make everything MORE wretched?  Paul went on and on about that — ‘I know this will increase the unhappiness in the world and everyone will have extra burdens but it’s more MORAL to grit your teeth and endure’ — just how did ‘moral’ become defined as ‘wretchedly unhappy’?  How did Christian ethics become indistinguishable from S&M?

  • bornin1984

    1.) Number one, the simple fact that corporations are persons proves that to be a person you do not have to be a human being. Number two, corporations do not look human, yet they have the protections of persons under the law. Number three, there is nothing wrong with my definition. Pick up a biology book sometime and look up the definition of human being. There is a problem, however, with defining human beings by the way they look, and I am still waiting for her to answer the question (which was actually simple with no tricks involved).

    2.) Crowepps stated that if the law was changed to what pro-lifers would want them changed to, that people have six or eight or ten excess children they did not really want and end up in abject poverty. That, however, is nothing more then fearmongering, as even in 1933 the average family size was 2.3 children, and that was about thirty years prior to the invention of the pill and about forty years prior to Roe v. Wade. I can understand wanting to defend your friends, but this on this point there is no defending what was said.

    3.) You want me to find a case of the law restricting what one can and cannot do with their body where that activity is not illegal, even though the reason the law would restrict what one cannot do with their body is because said action would be deemed illegal? That does not make any sense, as you are asking to prove an impossibility, and are therefore engaging in a form of begging the question. At any rate, a prime example of the government restricting what you can and cannot do with your body is prostitution (which most feminist groups, ironically enough, vehemently oppose).

    4.) I have no idea what your last two sentences are supposed to mean.

  • crowepps

    A person who is a passenger in or drives a car knows that doing so puts them at risk of having an accident and being injured in an accident, but EVEN IF THE ACCIDENT IS THEIR FAULT medical care is provided with the aim of restoring them to their pre-accident condition.  They don’t leave one of their bones unset because damage to their health will ‘teach them a lesson’.

     

    The ‘shouldn’t have taken the risk of having sex’ and ‘obligation to continue the pregnancy’ memes can only work if they are based on the presumption that the woman’s behavior in having sex she expects to be nonconceptual is ‘bad’ and therefore she has no right to be returned to her pre-accident condition.  This is particularly clear when you consider the menz insist that she not shouldn’t be able to have an abortion but she ALSO shouldn’t be ‘rewarded for her promiscuity’ by receiving support for any resultant accidental child that is born.

  • crowepps

    Number two, corporations do not look human, yet they have the protections of persons under the law.

    And yet it’s completely legal to “kill” corporations by dissolving them.

    That, however, is nothing more then fearmongering, as even in 1933 the average family size was 2.3 children, and that was about thirty years prior to the invention of the pill and about forty years prior to Roe v. Wade.

    That was not, however, prior to the availability of the pessary, the condom, the diaphram and other birth control methods, ALL OF WHICH the Catholic Church and ProLife activists want to once again ban. Yes, the average family size was 2.3 children WITH CONTRACEPTION AVAILABLE. Without contraception, however, who knows?

    At any rate, a prime example of the government restricting what you can and cannot do with your body is prostitution

    Now that’s a very interesting comparison, considering that in most jurisdictions, it is illegal to sell sex but it is not illegal to buy it. Any explanation for why that is true? How is ‘public morality’ upheld by requiring women to give sex away for free?

  • bornin1984

    1.) I ignored this before, but I will respond to it now. For your argument to be true, denying a woman the ability to have an abortion must involve taking away a right from her, in this case I guess that being reproductive rights or whatever you all refer to them as. But how, by being disallowed from having an abortion, is she losing any reproductive rights? Is she being prevented from using contraception? No, she is not. Is she being prevented from having as much sex as she wants with whomever she chooses? No, she is not. What she is being prevented from doing is killing another. I have noticed that you, among others, are operating under the mistaken assumption that a woman does not reproduce until the baby is born, but this is incorrect. By the time a woman is pregnant, she has already reproduced, and at the time you have reproduced, any kind of rights you have related to whether or not you want to reproduce cease to exist, for you already have. Also, does your standard only apply to women, or do you apply it uniformly?

    2.) Contrary to your consternation, pharmacies are being allowed to operate in the same manner that any business is allowed to operate.

  • bornin1984

    I do not sit around all day looking at this site, so I am sure you can forgive me for not responding to something straight away. At any rate, since you are on a roll with your assumptions and whatnot, I feel that it would not be appropriate to stop you. So, please, do continue to tell me what I and all pro-life men think. It is rather amusing.

  • ack

    Thank you.

  • arekushieru

    Btw, abortion was legal before Roe Vs. Wade.  Just to let you know.  The only difference was that I think it was regulated by states and abortion was limited much more.  And there are other explanations for the lower incidence of birth rates at that time.  If you go back a hundred years or MORE, you’ll see what she was talking about.  After all, THOSE are the policies she was referring to.

     

    Prostitution is illegal because of the money changing hands without a liscense to sell.  I don’t think prostitution, in and of itself, should be illegal.  And I also don’t think that you really understand why we (as the feminists you are referring to, here) oppose prostitution, we oppose prostitution because of the way it is, *now*.  We oppose it because it puts women in harms way, and that mostly after they have discovered they have no other options, nothing to do with the right to bodily autonomy.  Thanks.

     

    I am not asking you to prove an impossibility.  I am asking you to put your money where your mouth is.   Restricting rights based on a legal, bodily function would be the first time something like that has ever been done or not? 

     

    As for number 4, you don’t remember what you wrote, when you were explaining to me about initial stages of development getting extra privileges?  Weeiiird.  You were comparing extra privileges from financial rights to extra privileges from the right to bodily autonomy and I explained why that was impossible. 

  • bornin1984

    And yet it\’s completely legal to \”kill\” corporations by dissolving them.

    And in the same vein it is legal to kill a person via lethal injection. In case you do not get what is being hinted at, we do not need to go down this road, because it is not pertinent to anything stated thus far.

    That was not, however, prior to the availability of the pessary, the condom, the diaphram and other birth control methods, ALL OF WHICH the Catholic Church and ProLife activists want to once again ban. Yes, the average family size was 2.3 children WITH CONTRACEPTION AVAILABLE. Without contraception, however, who knows?

    The Catholic Church? Probably. Pro-lifers in general? No. The overwhelming majority of people do not have a problem with birth control in general, just specific types of birth control.

    Now that\’s a very interesting comparison, considering that in most jurisdictions, it is illegal to sell sex but it is not illegal to buy it. Any explanation for why that is true? How is \’public morality\’ upheld by requiring women to give sex away for free?

    Number one, there are such things as male prostitutes. Your propensity to turn everything into a matter of misogyny or hatred of women grows tiring after a while, especially when you take into account that most bans on prostitution were passed, and are still supported, by womens groups. Number two, in most jurisdictions the person selling themselves out and the person paying for their services both go to jail/face a fine, so I really have no idea what you are talking about.

  • arekushieru

    And I have explained to you many times what right you are denying women.  ONCE AGAIN, you are denying her the right to determine who uses her body and when and how it is used, via onGOING, explicit and informed consent, which is applicable to ALL other groups of humans, even WHEN another’s life is involved and which is NOT based on what organs they may have. 

     

    If Pharmacies are allowed to deny service to one segment of the population based on one’s conscience, they are not being allowed to operate in the way any other business is allowed to operate.  I was not allowed to deny service to someone whom I think is repugnant, when I worked at a dry cleaner’s, after all.  So, of course extra rights for corporations and fetuses.

     

    Btw, corporations don’t look like persons, neither do ferrets.  Thanks for proving our point.  Although, I really don’t understand why corporations SHOULD be considered persons.

  • arekushieru

    Yes, there are.  And do you know who their customers usually are?  Men.  By far and away, though, female prostitutes outnumber male prostitutes. 

  • bornin1984

    1.) I already know that abortion was legal, in some states, prior to Roe v. Wade, as the first state legalized abortion occurred in 1967, and even then it was limited. If you went back a hundred years, you still would not see large family sizes. In fact, I feel confident in saying that the average family size in the United States has never been above 5, and I think even 4, and I want to say 3. Never.

    2.) Prostitution is illegal because of the efforts of some women to deny the choice of who you have sex with and for how much. It seems rather silly to me to argue that women are morally autonomous beings who are able to act in their own moral capacity when it comes to abortion, yet turn around and argue that they are not when it comes to prostitution and even to pornography (I am looking at Gloria Feinstein). But that is neither here nor there.

    3.) Yes, you are asking me to prove an impossibility. The implicit assumption in something not being restricted is that it is illegal. The implicit assumption is something being restricted is that it is illegal. Both you and I know this. If I take that which is legal and restrict it, that which has been restricted is now illegal.

    4.) You need to try again on number four. The argument, as I have stated numerous times now, is one based on dependency, where the more dependent one is, the more rights they are granted. That has nothing to do with, as you say, financial rights vs. rights from bodily autonomy, which is a distinction you just invented.

  • cassius

    Corporations are not persons nor will they ever be persons. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, that is a fact created by courts or governments. You are certainly right that defining a human being in terms of the way they look is quite odd. To be a human being simply means to be a member of the species Homo sapiens. Of course this is an empirical question that can be answered by using the scientific method, and of course zygotes, embryos, and fetus’ are human if they have 46 chromosomes, have human parents, is genetically human, fit the criteria for being an organism, etc. You are also correct in saying that not all humans are persons and not all persons are humans. Personhood is not a scientific question but rather a philosophical one that should be informed by science.

     

    Crowepps is probably correct in saying that if the law changed their would be significant changes in family size(not to mention woman’s health and lives). But not all sex will lead to the birth of a child even in a society where contraceptives and abortion are not available. I’m sure people will find ways to enjoy sexual relations without leading to a baby, mutual masturbation, oral, and anal sex are great examples.

    If you cant prove it hurts or harms anyone then you cant forbid it.

  • bornin1984

    So you say that no one with a scrap of sanity would want to live in a world in accordance with how I feel things should be. But if I were to point out that there are people who would want to live in such a world, you would claim that they are insane, and as a result what they think is irrelevant. Seems like a bit of a Catch-22 to me.

  • bornin1984

    Unless you are going to ignore what the law says, then yes corporations are persons, and given the pro-choicers propensity here to constantly rely on the law, it seems rather silly to argue the law when it suits you to do so, but not when it does not. Anyway, as I constantly point out, and how it just constantly people willingly ignore, the people who go on about personhood are purposely conflating the meaning of words, as they argue that to be a human being you have to be a legal person (someone who has standing under the law), and to be a legal person you have to be a philosophical person (however you want to define that). That is fallacious, and is akin to arguing that to be blue (sad) you need to be blue (the color), and to be the color blue you need to be blue (profane). Of course, most people will not see the fallacy in the first example, but will be able to instantly point out the fallacy in the second even though the two are the same. Much like the color blue does not hinge on being profane nor being sad hinge on being the color blue, in order to be a legal person you do not have to be a philosophical person, and to be a human being you do not need to be a legal person. Personhood is an irrelevant question that has nothing to do with science nor has any bearing on whether or not one has standing under the law. It is a game of verbal linguistics pro-choicers love to play, but I do love to point this out every so often.

    And if abortion is made illegal tomorrow, family size will not skyrocket.

  • bornin1984

    1.) No matter how many times you ignore this, Are, I point out to you that absolutely no one has absolute control over their body to use it in a way they see fit. You say that all other humans have absolute control over their bodies, but this is wrong and decidedly so.

    2.) The issue is not about pharmacies refusing to serve some segment of the population or to dispense a product they stock, as that would be discriminatory. Rather, the issue is about pharmacies not stocking the product at all, and someone wanting to force them to stock and sell that product, even if the pharmacy does not want to.

    3.) What does a person look like?

  • crowepps

    denying a woman the ability to have an abortion must involve taking away a right from her

    Yes, it does – her right to bodily autonomy, to have her body to herself and to choose not to allow anyone else to use it.

    Is she being prevented from using contraception?

    If someone is refusing to provide her with Plan B she certainly is being prevented from using contraception. That’s what Plan B is, contraception.

    What she is being prevented from doing is killing another.

    Sometimes that ‘killing’ is justifiable homicide, as in the case of ectopic pregnancy or other complications that threaten her life.

    By the time a woman is pregnant, she has already reproduced

    No, she hasn’t. I’ve been pregnant four times but have only ‘reproduced’ twice because the other two pregnancies failed. Being temporarily pregnant with a nonviable fetus is not reproducing, nor is molar pregnancy, nor any of the other 70 to 80% of pregnancies which fail naturally.  No woman who has had 10 miscarriages could be argued to have ‘reproduced’ because she has FAILED to reproduce if she doesn’t have any live children.

  • crowepps

    And if abortion is made illegal tomorrow, family size will not skyrocket.

    That would depend on whether the Catholic Church manages to succeed in ALSO making all forms of contraception illegal and whether the ProLife extremists manage to succeed in banning ‘fornication’ as well as abortion.

     

    And of course now that the cheap ($12.50 per unit) and reuseable manual aspiration device is available, certainly ILLEGAL abortion would still be widely available.

  • ahunt

    By the time a woman is pregnant, she has already reproduced

     

     

    Everyone here already knows my own story. So let us try this: My maternal great grandmother married at 14, was pregnant 20 times, bore 12 and raised 8 to reproductive age. Do the math.

  • crowepps

    And yet it\’s completely legal to \”kill\” corporations by dissolving them.

     

    And in the same vein it is legal to kill a person via lethal injection. In case you do not get what is being hinted at, we do not need to go down this road, because it is not pertinent to anything stated thus far.

    Actually, it’s not necessary to take any action at all to dissolve a corporation – in Alaska corporations are considered ‘dissolved’ or ‘dead’ if they do not file their annual report and pay the fee which allows them to continue doing business.

     

    So now that we know that corporations are legally ‘persons’ and yet they don’t have any ‘right to life’, why don’t you forego ‘hinting’ about whatever your point is and just state it plainly so it can be discussed.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, it does – her right to bodily autonomy, to have her body to herself and to choose not to allow anyone else to use it.

    Barring rape, or barring her being capable of parthenogenesis, a woman can only become pregnant of her own volition. At that point, any sort of right to bodily autonomy goes out of the window, for choice comes before an act, not after it.

    Sometimes that \’killing\’ is justifiable homicide, as in the case of ectopic pregnancy or other complications that threaten her life.

    Tell me, what percentage of abortions are performed because the life of the mother is at stake?

    No, she hasn\’t. I\’ve been pregnant four times but have only \’reproduced\’ twice because the other two pregnancies failed. Being temporarily pregnant with a nonviable fetus is not reproducing, nor is molar pregnancy, nor any of the other 70 to 80% of pregnancies which fail naturally. No woman who has had 10 miscarriages could be argued to have \’reproduced\’ because she has FAILED to reproduce if she doesn\’t have any live children.

    So if a woman has a child who dies soon after it is born, she did not reproduce? If her child dies after its fifth birthday, she did not reproduce? If the child dies at twenty, she did not reproduce? I am sure you see where this is going and, as a result, I do not need to continue. By the time fertilization concludes, you have already reproduced as a new genetically distinct individual exists. From that point on until birth, said individual develops. Viability has nothing to do with whether or not that thing exists, and it does not suddenly poof into existence by exiting the uterus. The fact that the individual dies before it reaches whatever age does not mean that you did not reproduce. It means that the individual died.

  • bornin1984

    The assumption that a women who has sex somehow consents to pregnancy, birth, and motherhood is surely wrong.

    Does the same, therefore, hold true for men?

  • crowepps

    Pro-lifers in general? No.

    Wait until the CC finds out you’re stabbing them in the back and don’t plan to implement their FULL program.  Haven’t you heard all that stuff about the ‘evils of the contraceptive mentality’?

    The overwhelming majority of people do not have a problem with birth control in general, just specific types of birth control.

    The overwhelming majority of people don’t have a problem with ANY form of birth control – those who object to hormonal birth control generally speaking are under a misapprehension about how it works.

     

    As a matter of fact, a majority of people are just fine with Roe v Wade remaining legal and the abortion laws staying just as they are right now.  It’s only the 15% who are extremists who want to change things.

  • ahunt

    With your permission, I will archive this post, Crowepps. Succinct and devastating, you encapsulate my argument spread over many postings.

  • ahunt

    You’ll get varying opinions here, Son…but I have absolutely no problem eliminating men, by their choice, from any responsibility for their progeny. Such policy would call out the BIG LIE that men are somehow essential to their children. No really.

  • bornin1984

    I am not Catholic, so I do not care about the RCC. As far as most people being okay with the status quo regarding abortion, you are dead wrong. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows that the majority of Americans, if given the chance, would restrict abortions to rape, incest and issues where the life of the mother is at risk. This has been true for the last thirty years, and I can seriously sit here and pull up article after article, study after study and poll after poll which demonstrates this.

  • crowepps

    If you went back a hundred years, you still would not see large family sizes. In fact, I feel confident in saying that the average family size in the United States has never been above 5, and I think even 4, and I want to say 3. Never.

    Talk to anyone who is interested in geneology and I think you will discover you are incorrect.

     

    Three of my sisters and I have 2 children and one sister had three. My mother had four children. Her mother, my grandmother had two. Her mother, my great-grandmother had 9 children and I have a nice picture of the whole group. Her mother, my great-great grandmother, had 11.

     

    My great-grandmother on the other side had only one child because she died shortly after the birth in 1903 but her mother had 10 children and her father was one of 13 siblings. The further back one goes, the larger the families.

     

    In addition, there are massive amounts of historical data which contradict your statement, including this site where a nice chart of historical total fertility rates is available:

    In the early nineteenth century, the typical American woman had between seven and eight live births in her lifetime and people probably lived fewer than forty years on average. … The population of the British mainland colonies increased from several hundred non-Amerindian individuals in the early seventeenth century to about 2.5 million (2 million whites and about half a million blacks) in 1780. Birthrates were high, ranging between over forty and over fifty live births per one thousand people per annum. The high fertility of American women attracted comment from late eighteenth-century observers… http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography

    The average number of children per woman in 1800, 7.04; 1810, 6.92; 1820, 6.73; 1830, 6.55; 1840, 6.14; 1850, 5.72 — the average number of children per woman did not get down to 4 until 1880 and it took till 1920 for it to reach 3.

  • crowepps

    *blush*

  • ahunt

    Right…because the only moral abortion is MY abortion.

     

    Why is it then…that catholics and evangelicals make up such a significant proportion of the women who choose abortion? Do some research.

  • crowepps

    Well, golly Moses, wait just a cotton picking minute. Do you mean to tell me that all those posts about ‘Catholics believe that’ and ‘Catholics want’ and ‘Catholics think abortion is’ was just your uninformed, nonCatholic SPECULATION? No wonder you were so far off base.

    As far as most people being okay with the status quo regarding abortion, you are dead wrong.

    And yet Gallup has been polling on precisely that issue for a number of years:

    Would you like to see abortion laws in this country made more strict, less strict or remain as they are?

     

    [NOTE: this poll is almost at the bottom of this page - answers available over a number of years]

     

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

    And the answer, overwhelmingly, is that the majority want them to remain as they are or be LESS strict or don’t have an opinion and only a minority want them to be more strict. The only way you can come up with a majority who want them to be more strict is to only look at the answers from Republicans, and even there, only about 52% of Republicans want the laws changed to be more strict.

  • ahunt

    No blushing…and you need to meet Mellenkelly1. Do a tag team…the rest of us would enjoy the intellect!

  • arekushieru

    1.) I already know that abortion was legal, in some states, prior to Roe v. Wade, as the first state legalized abortion occurred in 1967, and even then it was limited. If you went back a hundred years, you still would not see large family sizes. In fact, I feel confident in saying that the average family size in the United States has never been above 5, and I think even 4, and I want to say 3. Never.”

     

    I’m pretty sure that is not the case.  I’m quite confident, actually, that families often had larger numbers of children on average, back in the day.  Besides, women died more often during childbirth, back then and children often died earlier of diseases easily cured today.  If they didn’t end up with large numbers of children it wasn’t because of a lack of, oh, y’know, what we’re actually discussing… intent…?

     

    ”2.) Prostitution is illegal because of the efforts of some women to deny the choice of who you have sex with and for how much. It seems rather silly to me to argue that women are morally autonomous beings who are able to act in their own moral capacity when it comes to abortion, yet turn around and argue that they are not when it comes to prostitution and even to pornography (I am looking at Gloria Feinstein). But that is neither here nor there.”

    Really?  Feminists made it illegal because of their efforts to deny the choice of who you have sex with and for how much…?  I didn’t know laws worked that way.  I really thought you had this little thing called a constitution that these laws were based on.  Although, I think you’re just reaching, as always. 

     

    And how is a woman morally autonomous, anyways, when she is forced into a position of such servitude due to lack of accessible resources and a society that is slanted towards male privilege?  You think just letting women continue to be forced into such a situation, makes them morally autonomous?  Uh, rather I think that demonstrates a lack of advocacy for the moral autonomy of women.  Sorry.

     

    “3.) Yes, you are asking me to prove an impossibility. The implicit assumption in something not being restricted is that it is illegal. The implicit assumption is something being restricted is that it is illegal. Both you and I know this. If I take that which is legal and restrict it, that which has been restricted is now illegal.”

     

    Still. Not. Getting. It.  And you wonder why I think ProLifers simply regurgitate everything they’re told…?  They cling to the regurgitated information as if it’s a lifeline, after all, by claiming something totally irrelevant, in the hopes that someone won’t figure it out.

     

    I was reFERring to the right to bodily autonomy.  WHEN is someone’s right to determine WHO uses their body and when and how it is used, regardless of the latter’s intent, via ongoing, informed and explicit consent, even when it involves another’s life, restricted based on what organs they have and what legal activity is occurring? 

     

    Prostitution is illegal, but one’s right to bodily autonomy (as described above) was not restricted unTIL it was made illegal.  THAT is similar to making pregnancy illegal and not restricting one’s right to bodily autonomy unTIL pregnancy is illegal.  It is NOT similar to what ProLifers, or you, want to do, as you stated.  Restricting one’s rights based on what one COULD do because of the presence of a certain organ, IS, indeed, similar to making something illegal beCAUSE one’s right to bodily autonomy is restricted.

     

    Prostitution is illegal because of money changing hands without a liscense.  Since prostitution would be considered a business, how would it be right to allow people to sell their bodies without a liscense, but force others to only sell goods and other services WITH them, after all?  How does that work within the Constitution, eh?  Denying one thing to one business, but allowing another with another business?  Oh, but that’s right, you believe medical professionals should be able to have more rights than any other business…. 

     

    “4.) You need to try again on number four. The argument, as I have stated numerous times now, is one based on dependency, where the more dependent one is, the more rights they are granted. That has nothing to do with, as you say, financial rights vs. rights from bodily autonomy, which is a distinction you just invented.”

     

    Glad to see that you’ve finally admitted that ProLifers would be granting more rights to feoti, but what did I tell you about falsely accusing me of doing something you are doing?  I have already addressed that argument, after all.  I pointed out how, with EQUITABLE rights, your argument does not stand up.  I DEMonstrated how a baby is not granted more of a right to life because it is more dependent compared to an adult. 

     

    And THAT is what I was arguing.  I compared the right to life to the right to life.  I did not compare the right to expect financial support to the right to expect financial support and expected that I had made my point on the right to bodily autonomy, as YOU did, because, AS I said, those are two very different rights based on a NUMber of DIFFerent contingencies.  That’s what I said, not what you CLAIMED I was arguing.

     

    Anyways, hopefully, my point about pharmacies and businesses is enough for the mods to believe that my post is somewhat related to the topic….

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    accidental double post

  • crowepps

    Men don’t get pregnant.

    Men don’t give birth.

    Men don’t become mothers.

     

    They say there’s no such thing as a stupid question, but boy howdy — this has GOT to come close.

  • squirrely-girl

    …it’s only when you’re unhappy that you can be “redeemed.” The vision of a perfect and beautiful afterlife and promised land were meant to guide us through the unhappy times and great suffering… and there was a LOT of that back in the biblical times! I mean, what’s the point of life if it’s all sucky and there’s never anything to look forward to? This is epitomized by the pope telling the poor and huddled masses of India (maybe some other poor country… I forget) that their suffering is not in vain… because when they die they’ll be happy (never mind that he wears several thousand dollar shoes by Prada, lives in a palace, and has his own city). So by some weird extension… it’s somehow wrong to be happy in this lifetime and happy people don’t deserve the promised land. So suffer!!!!!!!!!

     

    Then again, they’re still taking directions from a book written ages ago based on stories passed down from generation to generation through the male victors speaking a dead language and subjected to various “translations” and “interpretations” depending on who was in power or reading it. So… whatever :/ At least Aesop’s stories are acknowledged as fables…

     

    And before anybody starts blasting me about my Bible commentary… I REALLY DON’T CARE. Seriously. Every time somebody starts quoting all I hear is “blah blah blah.” Unless you believe ALL of the stories and are following ALL of the “directions” (the world was created in exactly seven days, people lived several hundred years, you’re sacrificing animals and/or your children, you’re sleeping with your children during times of national disaster, you don’t wear fabric blends, you’re abstaining from shellfish, you own or sell slaves, etc.) you just need to shut up. Seriously. I don’t want to hear a single verse or story. Because if you’re not following EVERY LAST BLOODY WORD, you’re just a blatant hypocrite who picks and chooses what fits their life based on CONVENIENCE. And frankly, after 10 years of Catholic school and a lifetime of doctrine, I don’t give much mind to bible-thumping hypocrites anymore :)

  • ahunt

    Snerk!

     

    Bu, bu but, Crowepps…MRAs base their entire philosophy of FATHERHOOD on the critical importance of Fathers in the lives of their children. Is there a disconnect here?

  • arekushieru

    1.) No matter how many times you ignore this, Are, I point out to you that absolutely no one has absolute control over their body to use it in a way they see fit. You say that all other humans have absolute control over their bodies, but this is wrong and decidedly so.”

     

    Read my last post, Born, you have not.  Because you keep getting some part of the question wrong.

     

    “2.) The issue is not about pharmacies refusing to serve some segment of the population or to dispense a product they stock, as that would be discriminatory. Rather, the issue is about pharmacies not stocking the product at all, and someone wanting to force them to stock and sell that product, even if the pharmacy does not want to.”

     

    And your point is…?  By refusing to stock the product, they refuse to serve a segment of the population, and, either way, the Pharmacies are a business.  They are run by rules and regulations, just like every other business.  If my company refused to perform certain services because of their conscience, they would be closed, just like any other company.  In order for them to NOT be so, they would have to apply to run that business under a DIFFerent set of rules and regulations.

     

    “3.) What does a person look like?”

     

    Are you being deliberately obtuse, now?  You complained about PCF showing photos of ferrets when you said that it doesn’t matter how one looks when defining personhood, but if that last is a criteria of personhood, you should not be complaining about her pictures and whining that she is not making a point.

  • crowepps

    By the time fertilization concludes, you have already reproduced as a new genetically distinct individual exists. From that point on until birth, said individual develops.

    Individuality is not determined by being genetically distinct or identical twins would be the same person in two bodies.

     

    Individuality is determined by being an “independent, separate” being. It is not an ‘individual’ so long as it is dependent on the body of the woman to keep itself alive and not yet separate. Separate and independent is what happens at birth.

    Viability has nothing to do with whether or not that thing exists, and it does not suddenly poof into existence by exiting the uterus.

    It does, however, become an INDIVIDUAL by exiting the uterus, and a live one by beginning to breath on its own.

     

    Reproduction is the act of producing offspring, new living individuals of the same kind as yourself. I don’t think any reasonable person could possibly consider it reproduction to produce new DEAD individuals, no matter how many of them you produced, since you still would have no offspring in the form of descendents.

  • squirrely-girl

    I just want to start a round of applause for these winners. Ahhhhhhhhh logic how I love thee so :)

     

    Individuality is not determined by being genetically distinct or identical twins would be the same person in two bodies.

     

    Individuality is determined by being an “independent, separate” being. It is not an ‘individual’ so long as it is dependent on the body of the woman to keep itself alive and not yet separate. Separate and independent is what happens at birth.

  • ahunt

    And if she miscarries…? Chemical pregnancy?

  • arekushieru

    Tell me, what percentage of non-consent to living organ donations are allowed because of a threat to life of the organ donor?  None?  That’s right!

  • bornin1984

    Embryology disagrees with your assertion.

    The goal of the fertilization cascade is thus achieved:

    * The fabrication of a diploid set of chromosomes
    * The determination of the chromosomal gender of the new individual
    * The induction of normal cleavage division for embryogenesis.

    http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html

    I suppose they never got the memo, though. Your post is what happens you impose personal beliefs onto science which happens quite a bit around here, actually. Are you unreasonable?

  • crowepps

    Unfortunately, too many men believe that fatherhood entails only the shedding of magic testosterone dust while they sleep or watch TV, and an occasional contribution of cash, and that all of the actual RAISING of the children, the teaching, discipline, supervising, playing with, cleaning, feeding, etc., is all ‘women’s work’.  Somehow, in some mysterious way, the mystical influence of having ‘a penis in the house to keep mommy under control’ makes the home better, even if the rest of the body attached to it pays zero attention to the kids and can’t remember their names.

     

    If you really want to make Fatherhood Rights advocates gibber, ask them if men who have children should be barred from taking jobs away from the home, serving in the military where their family cannot join them, working weekends or overtime so they lose time with their child, or dumping the kids on the current girlfriend while they hang out with their buds at the sports bar, etc.

     

    After all, if having ‘a father in the house’ is so important, the government should ensure that fathers and their children should never, EVER be separated or it will have a TERRIBLE impact on the innocent kiddies, probably one that’s WAY worse than the minor temporary effect caused by pregnant women smoking.

  • crowepps

    Men become fathers when their sperm impregnate someone and the resulting offspring is born alive. Then they are fathers. Even if they’re no longer in town.

  • arekushieru

    That doesn’t disagree with anything crowepps said.

  • crowepps

    Well, if that’s successful ‘reproduction’, as you assert, and the woman has already reproduced, what’s your problem with her removing it at that point if she decides she’s finished?

  • ahunt

    Heh…military brat here…and the Bayou Louisiana Lavender and Lace Lady raised HIS five children…usually solo.

     

    Real tired of the “male abortion” whiners. I think we need to give them what they want, and firmly establish the irrelevancy of men in the family as we determine public policy.  No really.

  • cassius

    I will admit that the same is true of men. Although men cannot become pregnant or give birth, but they can become parents. Putting aside the question of abortion for a moment, parents have a duty to their children they are also responsible for them. This stems from the fact that the parents are biologically related to their children, as well as being responsible for their need for aid, and because they created that child. For example if  I uses contraceptives but my girlfriend becomes pregnant despite my precautions. She doesn’t want to have an abortion or she doesn’t agree to put the child up for adoption, instead she elects to keep the child and raise it. Surely I would be doing something wrong if I were to leave her, I think most of us would have this intuition as well. Most of us would also think that if she were to keep the child I must share the burden of caring for it(as well as helping my pregnant girlfriend) Of course it is premised on the idea that we have reasons toward helping others, and in the case of parent-child relationship(a special relationship) the reasons are strengthened. We would also hope that the legal system is functioning to enforce such an obligation. Of course this doesn’t undermine the analogies with police officers and driving cars. Nor does it show that abortion or EC is wrong and should be impermissible or even illegal. It is also worth noting that fatherhood/motherhood doesn’t start at conception, parents form strong emotional bonds with their children and establish an extensive history of experiences and reciprocal benefits. It is unlikely or even impossible that these relations form at birth or even before birth, after all they require time and contact.

  • crowepps

    Surely I would be doing something wrong if I were to leave her

    I disagree. If you do not WANT To stay then you should leave. A reluctant companion is worse than none. I do agree that you would be doing something wrong if you were to abandon the CHILD however.

  • ahunt

    Keep talking, Cassius. We are listening.

  • crowepps

    I don’t think fathers are irrelevant to children, so long as they are GOOD fathers. Bad fathers, of course, are worse than none, but most men are NOT bad fathers. I think you can pretty confidently pick the bad ones by how much time they spend whining “but what about ME, what about MY rights, what about what I DESERVE to GET from MY children.”

  • bornin1984

    1.) I see from the post crowepps made above.

    2.) If most women are forced into prostitution, then most women are forced into having an abortion. Given your former assumption, I think the latter assumption is fair. As it is, look up the history of prostitution in the United States. The earlier feminists worked to get laws passed that outlawed prostitution. Yes, that is the way laws work.
    3.) I really do not know how much clearer I can make this, but if tomorrow we make abortion illegal, we are not restricting it based on what organs someone has. We are making it illegal based upon the fact that it kills another. If, tomorrow, we make abortion illegal, there would be no right to tell someone that they cannot use your organs, in this case the unborn in regards to the uterus, regardless of your intent. When I told you that you were begging the question, I did not point that out for the heck of it. I pointed it out because you really were begging the question. You are presupposing some facts, and then asking how changing the law tomorrow would not violate your presuppositions. And, really, I have no idea what the rest of what you typed out is supposed to mean, so I am not going to bother with it.

    4.) I know I saw someone else tell you this before in the past, but the right to life is not granted. Where ever it is mentioned, it is always spoken as something which cannot be taken away from you, not something that you are given. Because you seemingly do not understand what the right to life is or entails, somehow treating it as something you are given, and as a result you continue to argue against something which has not been said.

  • colleen

    At that point, any sort of right to bodily autonomy goes out of the window

     

    Consent to sex is consent to slavery? But only for women?

  • bornin1984

    She said it is not an individual until after it is born.

  • ahunt

    Heh…so we give men the choice as to be good fathers, adequate fathers, or non-fathers. Shuts up the MRAs.

  • bornin1984

    Because it is dependent on her, and as a result she should be held responsible for its welfare until the time it can provide for itself.

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, did you happen to notice that the definition never defined what individual was, said ‘determination’ and never said when it became an individual?

  • crowepps

    If it were an ‘individual’ it wouldn’t need the woman to keep it alive.

  • arekushieru

    Colleen, THANK you for encapsulating everything that he’s been saying so neatly and efficiently.

  • colleen

    ‘I know this will increase the unhappiness in the world and everyone will have extra burdens but it’s more MORAL to grit your teeth and endure’

    I’ve never understood the ‘extra burdens for everyone’ claim. It seems to me that in the business of extra burdens and unhappiness, Paul and the Catholic hierarchy places far greater burdens and more demands for sacrifice on women and raped little girls than they would ever place on themselves or each other.

  • crowepps

    Well, sure it’s dependent. As a matter of fact it hasn’t even managed to complete the genetic ‘recipe’ and assemble itself yet and at that point is pretty much a parasite disassembling her to build itself.

     

    Personally, considering the high statistical likelihood of it failing to develop further, the biological load of providing its needs and cleaning up its waste, the health risks inherent in any pregnancy, and the possibility that it will spontaneously miscarry, I don’t see where she’s “responsible for its welfare” to the extent that she has to CONTINUE reproducing if she doesn’t want to.

     

    You and your small band of fellow travelers may want to “hold her responsible for its welfare”, but the majority of people don’t. Why should she do what you want instead of what she wants? Since your opinion and her opinion have equal weight, both of you have equal freedom of conscience, and your wishes have no privilege over hers, no reason I can think of at all.

     

    I know some 24 year olds who are still living in their parents’ basement and working 12 hours a week to get spending money.  Some guys your age have a teenage brother who decides he’s ‘dependent’ and ‘unable to provide for his own welfare’ and shows up demanding a place to crash and then never leaves. How long does family in those instances have to be “responsible”? “Until [he] can provide for [him]self”?  He may be there till he’s 40.

  • ahunt

    Oh? So how far back do you want to take this “responsibility” concept, Born? Just wondering.

  • crowepps

    But the heirarchy and Paul would have to be really, really SAD that other people were suffering unnecessarily just because God required the heirarchy and Paul to insist that females be assigned all those extra burdens and die attempting to carry them. Golly, it might even interfere with their enjoyment of their male privilege, or, gasp, make their TAXES GO UP! Oh, the horror!

  • ahunt

    Actually croweeps…I know plenty of boys living out of their parents’ basement…but I do not know of any girls doing so? Anomaly?

  • crowepps

    I think parents with a daughter in the basement pay a lot more attention to what she’s doing and who she’s doing it with so that daughters are more likely to move out into their own space even if they have to tolerate roommates and that sons tend to be left pretty much alone to do whatever they want so there’s no downside for them.

  • saltyc

    Cause you keep hitting the nail right on the head. BAM!

  • crowepps

    Remember hovering anxiously to see if my daughter was home and how she looked and if things went well.

     

    When my son was dating at the same age, just checked to see if his car was there in the morning.

     

    The dynamics are TOTALLY different!

  • bornin1984

    Does fertilization occur after one is born, Are? That is a rhetorical question, because we all know it does not. How can one be an individual before they becomes an individual by exiting the uterus? They cannot, which means that either crowepps is wrong or science is wrong. And, frankly, I will side with science.

  • bornin1984

    If it were an individual it would not need the woman to keep it alive. That is utterly ridiculous, crowepps, even for you. Did you not read click on the link I gave you? Did you not read anything on that site? We can, quite honestly, play this game all day. You will ultimately lose, though, simply because your assertions are proven wrong science, and what one personally believes does not trump reality.

  • bornin1984

    Number one, a zygote is genetically complete. This is a simple biological fact, and a fact attested to by the link you somehow chose not to click on. Number two, reproduction is not a on-going process. You either do or you do not. The fact that the unborn exists does not mean that you are continuing to reproduce, but rather that you have reproduced. Number three, what do you mean the majority of people do not want to hold her responsible? I now remember why this argument is so familiar to me- because we went over it almost three months ago here http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/19/roundup-road-supreme-court-paved-good-intentions. Please notice how I provided you with five different polls which all showed that Americans would limit abortion to only specific cases, and you proceeded to disregard them all. And number four, once you hit eighteen, you are considered emancipated. I really do not understand how you missed that point of my post.

  • bornin1984

    Read my last post, Born, you have not. Because you keep getting some part of the question wrong.

    I am capable of reading, Are, and as I am I will continue to point out to you that your argument hinges on the notion that people have absolute control over their bodies. They do not.

    And your point is…? By refusing to stock the product, they refuse to serve a segment of the population, and, either way, the Pharmacies are a business. They are run by rules and regulations, just like every other business. If my company refused to perform certain services because of their conscience, they would be closed, just like any other company. In order for them to NOT be so, they would have to apply to run that business under a DIFFerent set of rules and regulations.

    It means just what I said. Refusing to stock a certain item does not constitute refusing to serve a segment of the population. Women are not barred from buying anything those pharmacies do sell. Neither are pregnant women. To go back to my meat market example, would you argue that a meat market is being discriminatory by refusing to sell fruits and vegetable? I doubt you would, but this is in effect your argument in regards to pharmacies. It makes little sense. Anyway, let me ask you a question. Since you care so much, what is stopping you from opening up your own pharmacy and from stocking your shelved with all the products you want? What is stopping any of you from opening up a pharmacy and selling whatever you want to sell?

    Are you being deliberately obtuse, now? You complained about PCF showing photos of ferrets when you said that it doesn\\\’t matter how one looks when defining personhood, but if that last is a criteria of personhood, you should not be complaining about her pictures and whining that she is not making a point.

    One, I am not being obtuse. I really want to know what a person looks like. Two, you are lying, because I never complained about her posting a picture of ferrets. I asked if she was going to answer my question, which she did not and still has not gotten around to doing.

  • arekushieru

    Of course, you misunderstood what I was saying.  Determination is a process, meaning that this is something that occurs beFORE an individual appears.  Also, individual was never defined, within this context, so it could be using a totally different definition of individual than the one crowepps et al are talking about.  Much like legalese uses the word ‘child’ before one is born but never defines it, so it could mean something entirely different from what a ProChoicer means when they say you cannot say there is such a thing as an unborn ‘child’.

     

    However, I do have to give you kudos (no, I am not being sarcastic) on presenting the belief that one deserves more rights due to dependancy rather than innocence (a fetus lacks the capacity to BE guilty and innocence is the default of guilt, not the lack of capacity to be guilty) or defencelessness (a fetus suppresses a woman’s immune system, drains her body of its resources and cannabalizes it).

  • bornin1984

    It said the determination of the sex (gender), which is determined by the the presence of the Y-chromosome (more specifically, the SRY gene) not determination of individualness. Within biological, individual is often times synonymous with organism. The quoted does not need to define individual because, being someone who would be dealing with embryology, the implicit assumption is that you already know what is meant by individual. And ty :)

  • crowepps

    Number one, a zygote is genetically complete.

    Certainly a zygote’s genetics are fixed, and no more genes will be added and none deleted, so in that sense they are ‘complete’.  That does not mean, however that a zygote has a correct set of genetic ‘instructions’ to built itself into a human.  70% of zygotes do NOT contain correct genetic ‘instructions’ and therefore fail to develop at one of the developmental milestones which must be successfully met before further development is possible.

     

    Some zygotes have the genetic ‘instructions’ to create a molar pregnancy, some the ‘instructions’ to build an embryo with no kidneys or esophagus, and some have such faulty ‘instructions’, a ‘recipe’ so corrupted that it can’t pass the first test by successfully completing cell division.  Zygotes may indeed be ‘complete’ at the moment they are created but that doesn’t mean they have what they need to build a viable fetus that survives birth.  If they did, 70% of them wouldn’t be failures.

  • crowepps

    Number two, reproduction is not a on-going process. You either do or you do not.  The fact that the unborn exists does not mean that you are continuing to reproduce, but rather that you have reproduced.

    And again, producing zygotes which fail to mature by dividing, zygotes which cannot form blastocysts, is not ‘reproducing’ by any definition.  It could be possible for a woman to produce a fertilized zygote every single month and have those zygote fail monthly to attach to the uterus so that at the end of a year after producing 12 zygotes she has never actually been ‘pregnant’ by the medical definition.  Calling that ‘reproducing’ when there was never any actual ‘product’ is a stretch.

     

    If you think the woman makes no further contribution to reproduction after the zygote has formed, I sure don’t see why you think she should be REQUIRED to continue to be its host.  If there is no “on-going process” of reproduction, having her decide to do something else shouldn’t be a problem.

  • crowepps

    Please notice how I provided you with five different polls which all showed that Americans would limit abortion to only specific cases, and you proceeded to disregard them all.

    Just as I provided you will a link to a poll that said the majority of Americans want the laws on abortion made less strict to to stay the same.

     

    It’s pretty well known that poll results are influenced by the precise question asked.  The link I provided had a great many different polls asking different questions that gave varying results.  What we were actually TALKING about, however, was how many people “wanted her held responsible” and that is precisely what a question about “do you want the law changed” reveals — those people who want abortion laws to be less strict or remain the same do not want to butt into someone else’s life and ‘hold them responsible’.

     

     And number four, once you hit eighteen, you are considered emancipated. I really do not understand how you missed that point of my post.

    But we weren’t talking about whether the ZBEF was ‘emancipated’, instead you were insisting that ‘dependency’ triggers responsibility.  If your brother can’t hold down a job, then he is ‘dependent’ no matter what his age.  Why should you or your parents be able to shove YOUR ‘family responsibility’ for a dependent off onto the taxpayer?  He should be ENTITLED to your support.

  • arekushieru

    The y chromosome actually plays more of a role in sexual organ determination, than just the sry gene.  After all, those who lack the sry gene, are often said to be intersexual.  Meaning they have male and female sexual organs/functions.

     

    Either way, determination of sex (gender) still suggests a process and processes often occur before the end result, in this case when one becomes an individual.

     

    If the meaning is synonymous with organism that is, indeed, different from the individual we are referring to.  Organism in that case means one with organs that are differentiated and work together.  Individual, in our case, means one whose components cannot be divided down any further, within the context of their species.  Human fetuses, especially, can be divided down further.  They are just incompatible with life upon separation from the uterus, which has nothing to do with components, themselves, of humans.

     

    Just wanted to add:  I am pretty sure that you know that I do disagree with you on the dependancy aspect of providing more rights and that I’ve given several reasons why?  And yw.  :)

  • arekushieru

    And you have not proven that people DON’T have complete control over their bodies withIN the complete context I AM asking it.  That you don’t like that fact, is not my problem.

     

    A meat market that doesn’t sell fruits and vegetables is operating entirely within their guidelines and regulations.  Let me simplify for you:  Medication is medication.  Meat is meat.  Meat is NOT vegetables.

     

    Yes, they are refusing to serve a segment of the population.  Pregnant women or women who want to have sex without fear of pregnancy, just as men may do.  What don’t you understand about that?

     

    And I SAID that PCF provided you with an answer when she provided you with that picture.  Persons do not need to look like humans.  She showed why that definition was erroneous.  Thank you.

     

     

  • bornin1984

    1.) Your context does not matter. People do not have complete control over their bodies period. However, since you want to press the issue, I will provide you with the response you so desperately want. As we all know, a woman is not allowed to have an abortion at any time she wants, that time typically being post twenty-four weeks, as the fetus will be granted, as you say, a right to use her organs regardless of what she wants. She can holler, she can scream and she can throw a temper-tantrum, it will not matter. The fact that a woman can be, and is disallowed from having an abortion whenever she wants, renders your statement false.

    2.) Meat is food. Fruit and vegetables are food. Therefore, following your logic, because a store sells one type of food, they must sell all types of food.

    3.) Walk into one of the pharmacies in question and tell them that you want to wanton sex. They will still serve you. You are confusing refusing to stock an item with refusing to serve someone.

    4.) You really need to go back and reread. I said that humans are not defined by the way they look. She posted a picture of a ferret. I asked if she was going to answer my question. She never did. The only thing she showed, as she usually does, is that when she cannot respond to something someone else types out, she resorts to non-witty comments.

  • bornin1984

    I really do not have the patience to deal with you being purposely obtuse and trying to make a point whereas you have none. I do not really feel like quote mining, so just read this http://www.clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28.

  • bornin1984

    Please show me a recent poll which shows that the majority of Americans want laws on abortion to remain the same or be less strict. The most recent poll on the subject I can find is at http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm, and that is the CBS News/New York Times Poll done on April 5 – 12, 2010, in which 36% of Americans says it abortion should be generally available, 38% of Americans says it should have stricter limits, 23% say it should not be permitted, and another 3% are unsure. I do not know where you get your information from, but I would like to know.

    Also, your twenty-four year old brother, unless he is suffering from some physical ailment or serious debilitation, is physically capable of going out and providing for himself. He is better equipped to do so than is a fifteen year old, who is better equipped to do so than a ten year old, who is better equipped to do so than a five year old, who is better equipped to do so than a newborn, who is better equipped, although marginally, than the unborn. That was the point of my post. The younger you are, the more dependent you are on someone else to provide for you. That is not based on some kind of choice. That is based on actual, physical limits.

  • arekushieru

    Yes, the context DOES matter, because that is WHY PCers say that a woman has the right to choose to abort or continue her pregnancy.  *Faceplant*

     

    Food is food.  Medication is medication.  Meat is meat.  Vegetables are vegetables.  A food market that does not serve vegetables, is not the food market it is advertised as.  A meat market that does not serve vegetables IS still the meat market it is advertised as.    See where I am going with this?

     

    You canNOT serve someone if you do NOT have the items they want you to provide.  Service is not simply walking into a store and being asked for something.  It has to actually BE provided.  HOW is that SO difficult to underSTAND?

     

    If you were talking about humans, then why are you using that to inform your own definition of persons?  You say that someone does not have to look human to be human, then use that as the reason why corporations can be considered persons.   Hmmm….

     

     

  • janine

    The process of conception and the process of implantation are both involutary proceses (except for IVF where the physician is directly involved acting in both yet never incurs responsibility to the child).

     

    Sex may be voluntary or not…but not unlike any other choice which involves risk (if I’m not mistaken crowepps already addressed this topic elsewhere).

  • janine

    Inducing labor post-viability is illegal?

     

  • janine

    Plus there is always the choice of legal adoption to opt out of the dependency.  Women can relinquish their children to the state for adoption regardless of poor state facilities, cut budgets, and even when there are recent stories of abuse/death under state care.   If she does choose to keep her child, dependencies may increase or decrease over the duration of childhood itself (e.g. illness, permanent injury, or a genetic illness that starts later in childhood may increase a dependency over time during childhood).

  • crowepps

    Walk into one of the pharmacies in question and tell them that you want to wanton sex. They will still serve you. You are confusing refusing to stock an item with refusing to serve someone.

    Depends on the pharmacy

    The News & Record, a North Carolina newspaper, reported that some pharmacists were destroying prescriptions, giving patients speeches on morality, and stalling the patient beyond the point where emergency contraception would be effective.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC557172/