Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Charles Lindsey

Some pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control pills

Recommended Posts

This should curl your toes.

quote:

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im supprised women actually use birth control... the side effects are down right horrible! death being one of them lol

I guess having sex is more important than all of that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, hopefully she will not only file a complaint but sue the pharmacy for disobeying the law and causing her anguish and suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's called common sense Nomad.

Human life begins at conception, how hard is that to understand?

I believe that anyone that allows thier religious beliefs to get in the way of their professionalism needs to find a new job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

It's called common sense Nomad.

Human life begins at conception, how hard is that to understand?


I guess the question shouldn't be when it starts, but at what point the bundle of cells that HAS grown can be condsidered 'human life'. Is 1 cell a human, or does it take 1 million cells. Unfortunately defining that is not going to be easy, if it's even possible, because you will have people fighting on both sides of it.

Another thing about the birth control topic is HOW it actually works. If the method destroys the cells AFTER fertilization, then I can see how that could be considered wrong. But if the method prevents fertilization from being able to occur, then how is that different from using other more-stretchy forms of prevention or even abstaining at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting, I was just discussing this when human life starts topic the other day. People of course had different opinions, all varied from conception to birth. Now my question is, when the cell fertilizes there's no guarantee that it will develop into an actual human with brains, feet and hands, it's just a cell that starts dividing, PLUS the natural rate for fertilized eggs to fail to implant and exit the body (meaning pregnancy is aborted naturally) is over 60%, so does human life then really begin with a fertilized egg, or when that egg actually devides to a point where there's brains, or when the fetus is able to survive and live on it's own (birth)? All had different opinions and I think it's just up to your belief when you can consider it a human being, be it at fertilization, development or birth.

I do not disagree with abortion, with the contraception pills, and especially with the morning after pill because that simulates the natural body response of having the fertilized egg fail to implant (which I said the natural rate for that is well over 60%). The only thing that bothers me is partial birth abortion, when the developing baby has brains and feet and legs. That is literally murder because as far as I know the baby is trying to survive, and you are literally killing it and then just scraping it out of the womb, but then again, I also think that if the parent is that irresponsible (not to mention stupid and probably retarded) to not make the decission as to be a parent or not well before the embryo starts developing, then any time there's a partial birth abortion it should come at a price of having her tubes tied too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XOR: Huh? There are rare life threatening side effects if not used properly. I might take offense to your closing statement. Since I can't quite censor what I would say in response to that, I will remain quiet. Which kills me!

I have two beautiful healthy children, my pregnancies were complicated. From the minute I knew they were there (3 weeks after conception) they were nothing but alive to me.

I do take the pill and I do not plan to have any more children. I also personally have not ever considered aborotion. I feel in a lot of cases abortion is grossly abused. That being said, I am almost 35 years old, my eggs are inside of me dying and drying up.

The pill prevents the ovulation process all together. In the event that an egg escapes and is fertalized the pill shortens the monthly cycle so it cannot attach to the uterine wall, and cannot grow(2 weeks). Wasted eggs.

I see no problem with me donating my eggs to science to be fertilized for stem cell research, in which I belive they are used prior to being 10 days old, to try and find cures. I truly feel they are much better served trying to better tommorow, than rotting inside of me.

I know not everyone agrees with this. To each his own. Hugs and kisses to all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you simply must have your BC pills then at LEAST make sure they have PROGESTERONE in them. Thats what you actually need assuming someone is wanting to take them just for their chemical effects since progesterone will help you and not have all the nasty side effects of regular birth control pills. And echo you can tell me whatever you want to I dont mind it at all, however I dont want you to get in trouble for breaking any rules so whatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

If you simply must have your BC pills then at LEAST make sure they have PROGESTERONE in them.

I think both types of BC pills contain Progesterone. One contains a combination of Progesterone and estrogen, the other contains just Progesterone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally true, why have a baby that will be born and be impaired in some way, be it the down syndrome, or some kind of other dissability. I actually think that that's abuse towards the child and is malignant towards their life when you KNOW that they will be crippled mentally or physically and still opt to birth it.

Unbelievable, me and nomad agreeing on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

The french have recently legally settled the issue of defining the start of a human life. They consider that a human being exists only after the birth of the child, and not before.

Only the french would be so disgusting, as far as I am concerned.

I do not think that abortion should be illegal, but I also believe that abortion should be legal ONLY before the end of the 1st trimester.

ANy and all tests can be done before that time, the woman should know before that time whether she wants the baby, and any diseases, genetic disorders etc can be tested for.

After that, the woman no longer has a choice as far as I am concerned. she needs to make her choice within the first 3 months, while the fetus is still "a bundle of cells".

The child can and will feel pain after the 3rd month, amd the woman should be able to make a decision before that time.

Chickening out at the last minute, is unacceptable, after the 3rd month, the woman has made her choice, and only if her life is in danger, should an abortion be allowed.

I find partial birth abortion a disgusting and murderous act, and using abortion as a form of birth control is not what it should be for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

The french have recently legally settled the issue of defining the start of a human life. They consider that a human being exists only after the birth of the child, and not before.

Only the french would be so disgusting, as far as I am concerned.

I do not think that abortion should be illegal, but I also believe that abortion should be legal ONLY before the end of the 1st trimester.

ANy and all tests can be done before that time, the woman should know before that time whether she wants the baby, and any diseases, genetic disorders etc can be tested for.

After that, the woman no longer has a choice as far as I am concerned. she needs to make her choice within the first 3 months, while the fetus is still "a bundle of cells".

The child can and will feel pain after the 3rd month, amd the woman should be able to make a decision before that time.

Chickening out at the last minute, is unacceptable, after the 3rd month, the woman has made her choice, and only if her life is in danger, should an abortion be allowed.

I find partial birth abortion a disgusting and murderous act, and using abortion as a form of birth control is not what it should be for.


I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XOR: It would not be enough to get me booted but I try not to do too much male bashing around here.

Jaguar: I totally agree anything past the 1st trimester is awful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i feel like its a human life the exact moment pregnancy is set in motion(sperm enters egg) since that is the beginning of the life-cycle of a human after all

thats if you want to go by a strictly logical point of view...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the most interesting show on Nova a while back. Two "x rated" spots. 1. The man did his thing in sort of liquid filled vessel so they could show that part. 2. They showed a live birth. EVERYTHING. And get this; John Cleese narrated.

Other than that it was extremely interesting. Getting an egg fertilized is a feat unto itself. The sperm have to go a long way in a hostile environment to get to the egg. After which the "lucky" sperm must match neuron receptors on the egg exactly or no go. Then the egg softens the wall and the sperm enters and begins the dna stuff. Then the egg must attach to the uterus wall and burrow like a little parasite. The rest is what Soback has discussed.

Watch it if you can. It's "X rated" in spots but in a clinical sort of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

XOR: It would not be enough to get me booted but I try not to do too much male bashing around here.

Go ahead.I think some of the males could use a little bashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

personally i feel like its a human life the exact moment pregnancy is set in motion(sperm enters egg) since that is the beginning of the life-cycle of a human after all

thats if you want to go by a strictly logical point of view...

No,on the contrary its just a simple and illogical POV.Beginning of the lifecycle of a human being "sperm enters egg" is just a belief-certainly not strict logic-,like many others.To be able to argue about it we should have a shared definition of "human" and we certainly dont..But the best possible solution to this with the ideal of democracy seems to me what france did.Its not perfect,its not logical to elite minorities or to people who *really* think about it(meaning people out of this is evil this is holy-good,whatever- attitude) but it makes masses happy.At least more than other solutions..

Edit(after clarifications).France sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfheart:

No,on the contrary its just a simple and illogical POV.Beginning of the lifecycle of a human being "sperm enters egg" is just a belief-certainly not strict logic-,like many others.To be able to argue about it we should have a shared definition of "human" and we certainly dont..But the best possible solution to this with the ideal of democracy seems to me what france did.Its not perfect,its not logical to elite minorities or to people who *really* think about it(meaning people out of this is evil this is holy-good,whatever- attitude) but it makes masses happy.At least more than other solutions..


Justify your belifes however you want but that still doesnt change the fact that the beginning of the human life cycle is when the sperm enters the egg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact!!Define me that term ,please.You really like to see the world with concepts like ultimate,absolute,fact right?I guess stuff like subjectivity,change,relativity gives you quite a headache But of course you are free to make yourself happy by assuming to know facts.This discussion is about definitions of murder and human,murder is handled with social cantacts and definition of human will be as well but these are only practical solutions(for good of many),they are NOT and CANNOT be absolute truths.But your holy books tell different so Im probably wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad your half right because you have to take in consideration that not all pregnancies are planned. However I suppose there is more at work here than meets the eye as the educational film has shown. But the point im trying to make, that our friend Wolfheart was so adept at missing, is that ultimatly the beginning of a human is when the sperm enters the egg... I dont see how that has to do with any of my "holy books" seeing as how I didnt even base my argument on the bible but on science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

...ultimatly the beginning of a human is when the sperm enters the egg...

So let us say a pregnant woman trips by accident, falls down a flight of stairs and learns once she reaches the hostipal that her unborn child is dead.

Should she be charged with manslaughter?

The legal consequences of defining human life as begining when "the sperm enters the egg" will make your head spin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posed by Ockham:

So let us say a pregnant woman trips by accident, falls down a flight of stairs and learns once she reaches the hostipal that her unborn child is dead.

Should she be charged with manslaughter?

The legal consequences of defining human life as begining when "the sperm enters the egg" will make your head spin...


Common now thats just rediculous, there is a difference between abortion and accidently killing your unborn child, besides if that were the case then the same thing would apply even if she was well into the pregnancy. Also that would be involuntary manslaughter since it was an accident.

anyways that doesnt matter because THATS NOT MY ARGUMENT! Im saying the beginning of the HUMAN LIFE CYCLE is when the sperm enters the egg how hard is that to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XOR:

quote:

Originally posed by Ockham:

So let us say a pregnant woman trips by accident, falls down a flight of stairs and learns once she reaches the hostipal that her unborn child is dead.

Should she be charged with manslaughter?

The legal consequences of defining human life as begining when "the sperm enters the egg" will make your head spin...


Common now thats just rediculous, there is a difference between abortion and accidently killing your unborn child, besides if that were the case then the same thing would apply even if she was well into the pregnancy. Also that would be involuntary manslaughter since it was an accident.

anyways that doesnt matter because THATS NOT MY ARGUMENT! Im saying the beginning of the HUMAN LIFE CYCLE is when the sperm enters the egg how hard is that to understand?


Excuse me, involuntary manslaughter

And yes, your argument is easy to understand (I never said I didnÔÇÖt understand), if not a bit vague, but what I am pointing out is that there will be serious moral and legal consequences if everyone accepts your argument.

Our legal system is in part a reflection of our morals.

IÔÇÖm not so much arguing against you as I am adding to the conversation in this thread.

Assuming the human life cycle (we really should have an operational definition for this term) starts when the sperm enters the egg, should we not grant this human who is beginning his or her life cycle at least the most basic rights that all other humans within our society are granted? We cant just protect some human individuals and not others because of their age or status of maturity, right?

My point is not ÔÇ£rediculousÔÇØ as you have stated.

It is very relevant to the conversation at large.

Our definition of what the beginning of a ÔÇ£human beingÔÇØ is can mean the difference between involuntary manslaughter or just a horrible and tragic accident for the lady who fell down the stairs example I used in my earlier post.

It could also mean the difference between being convicted of 2 murders instead of just 1 if an individual kills a pregnant woman.

See where I'm going with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×