Want to use birth control, with you gf or wife....TOO BAD

I promised myself that I would not get into any prolonged argument about abortion ever. But I just have to let you know that that's one of the most asinine posts I've seen you make on the subject.

Thas'all.

this is bullshit. My ex has to take birth control pills because she has a hormonal problem and can develop cysts in her uterus. We weren't having sex, but she had to have the pill for medical reasons. I remember the first time she discovered the problem, and I was extremely afraid because of all the pain she was in. Should she have to suffer because some asshead pharmacist wants to enforce his/her belief on her? Hell no.

absolutely not

Quote:

sneaky bunny said:
well a fish is developed, a fertilized egg isn't.

a fertilized egg has no ability in function, its a sack that can't survive

But that's not what you said. You said it wasn't alive.

It may be alive but all it really is, is a sac of cells, scientifically speaking at such an early stage it cannot be considered to be human, it just a cluster of cells, that are not developed. The argument could be made that we are also a sac of cells, but we are developed. If we were to isolate a small portion of our cells and place them on petrie dish would you call that a human being, no you wouldnt even though they are living cells, the same goes for a fertilized egg. That is all.

Quote:

winged creature said:
It may be alive but all it really is, is a sac of cells, scientifically speaking at such an early stage it cannot be considered to be human, it just a cluster of cells, that are not developed. The argument could be made that we are also a sac of cells, but we are developed. If we were to isolate a small portion of our cells and place them on petrie dish would you call that a human being, no you wouldnt even though they are living cells, the same goes for a fertilized egg. That is all.

So I could kill you right now and call it an abortion?

A "retroactive abortion".

Quote:

rex said:
Quote:

winged creature said:
It may be alive but all it really is, is a sac of cells, scientifically speaking at such an early stage it cannot be considered to be human, it just a cluster of cells, that are not developed. The argument could be made that we are also a sac of cells, but we are developed. If we were to isolate a small portion of our cells and place them on petrie dish would you call that a human being, no you wouldnt even though they are living cells, the same goes for a fertilized egg. That is all.

So I could kill you right now and call it an abortion?

Im developed i have the abilility to reason, i feel pain, i have emotion, to kill me you'd kill a developed organism. While merely a fertilized egg thats just 2 cells that have been fused. Killing a fertilized egg is liking killing a small amount of cells on my body. So if u really want to equate a developed organism with 2 cells, thats really up to you.

And thats how some people feel about abortion. They think you are killing a feeling and thinking person.

yes but 2 cells cant think or feel. but they are entitled to believe what they want im just expressing my opinion

but it has no emotion, no thought and can't function and its not developed

But it is developing. It will eventually be a living breathing thinking person.

key word it will be, but at that stage it isnt

Quote:

sneaky bunny said:
but it has no emotion, no thought and can't function and its not developed

So you're telling me that people with disabilities which result in their brain not fully developed as an adult, means they're not alive? They're not human? According to what you just said, thats true.

Also, if remember correctly, the heart is the first organ formed. I hate to break this to you, but it's been proven that life begins at coneption.

This is the only problem: refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her.

"Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician." Actually, their job partially IS to regulate wjat people take. Otherwise they can get sued and have their liscance revoked. There are people who claim to be doctors or are shady doctors who prescribe controlled substances and other drugs. It's not just the Pharmacist's job to recognise and stop these occurances but also to ensure the doctor doesn't perscribe medications which would have negitive interactions with other medications. Rest assured, pharmacists know more about medications then physicians do. And they go to just about as much school. Their job is not to "just ... fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician." THAT is mostly what pharmacy technicians do (we do more, but not too much).

A pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell a product they find morally reprehensable, just like any other customer-oriented service has the right to refuse service. If the pharmacist refuses, there are two courses of action:
1. the customer takes their business elsewhere
2. if the pharmacist is not self-employed, their employer may chose to terminate their employment contract. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.

Quote:

Batwoman said:
Quote:

sneaky bunny said:
but it has no emotion, no thought and can't function and its not developed

So you're telling me that people with disabilities which result in their brain not fully developed as an adult, means they're not alive? They're not human? According to what you just said, thats true.

Also, if remember correctly, the heart is the first organ formed. I hate to break this to you, but it's been proven that life begins at coneption.

Regardless, you will never convince anyone of something held in personable belief and only observed from the outside. Until we can crawl up a uterus and say, "Hey! Zygote! You alive?" can we determine the assheadedness of peo- nevermind, that's mean and childish. You cannot force someone to share your beliefs.

um, I never said Christians were the ones to prove that life begins at coneption. Scitentists have proven it, just don't remember where I saw/read that though, course it's been ages since I've heard that.

Quote:

Uschi said: Regardless, you will never convince anyone of something held in personable belief and only observed from the outside. Until we can crawl up a uterus and say, "Hey! Zygote! You alive?" can we determine the assheadedness of peo- nevermind, that's mean and childish. You cannot force someone to share your beliefs.

Wait a minute. Are you trying to tell me that because I've never had an abortion that I can't speak on this subject pro or con? That is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard.

No, I've never had an abortion, nor have I ever been pregnant, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opnion on the matter.

As for reasons for being pro life, there are plenty of people who feel abortion is murder regardless of religion.

Quote:

Batwoman said:
Quote:

sneaky bunny said:
but it has no emotion, no thought and can't function and its not developed

So you're telling me that people with disabilities which result in their brain not fully developed as an adult, means they're not alive? They're not human? According to what you just said, thats true.

Also, if remember correctly, the heart is the first organ formed. I hate to break this to you, but it's been proven that life begins at coneption.

no that's not what i said. again, the egg its a undeveloped sack of cells that can't function and has no feeling or emotion. i didn't say a mental disabled person is uncapable of emotion or feeling, their perfectly cpable of both and their developed living organism.

well can you proven to me that the sack of cells which your calling life is developed, can functio, show emotion and can survive outsie the womb?

Following are some excerpts from the book, approved by Planned Parenthood and SIECUS four years before the legalization of abortion:

"... at least one [sperm] will reach the egg, fertilize it, and conception will take place. A new life will begin." (page 15)

"... the egg which, if fertilized, gives rise to a new life." (page 3)

"From fertilization to delivery, mother and child are as one for approximately 266 days. At the end of the period the mother delivers the infant into the world ..." (page 3)

"However small it may be, the egg is about two thousand times as large as the sperm that must fertilize it. ...it carries the food the growing embryo will use during the first few days of its life." (page 26)

"The inherited characteristics of the baby to be born ... are determined by material within the egg and sperm ... each mature egg contains genetic material carrying the inheritable characteristics of the mother ... the child receives inherited characteristics from both parents." (page 50)

Quote:

no that's not what i said. again, the egg its a undeveloped sack of cells that can't function and has no feeling or emotion. i didn't say a mental disabled person is uncapable of emotion or feeling, their perfectly cpable of both and their developed living organism.

well can you proven to me that the sack of cells which your calling life is developed, can functio, show emotion and can survive outsie the womb?

This is an old and tired argument. People with dimished mental capacity can't function without the help of others. Same goes for new borns, babies, children in general.

ANd don't think that just because you don't hear them, babies inside the womb don't feel pain, don't scream when they're being killed. After all, a mother gets heartburn when the baby she's carrying has the hiccups. People can feel when a baby kicks inside the womb. Babies inside the womb react to outside things. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE OR HEAR THEM DOESN'T MEAN THEIR NOT LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS!

but see, your crossing the line from fertal egg to fetus.

children babies and the handicapped have the ability to do things that even if they are minimual, THEIR DEVELOPED CELLS.

So are fertilized eggs and fetuses, maybe not fully developed, but their STILL developed.

Quote:

Batwoman said:
Quote:

Uschi said: Regardless, you will never convince anyone of something held in personable belief and only observed from the outside. Until we can crawl up a uterus and say, "Hey! Zygote! You alive?" can we determine the assheadedness of peo- nevermind, that's mean and childish. You cannot force someone to share your beliefs.

Wait a minute. Are you trying to tell me that because I've never had an abortion that I can't speak on this subject pro or con? That is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard.

Uh, no. That would be very stupid. Even moreso than even I can attain.

I'm saying you can argue when life starts to the end of the earth and not convince someone who believes differently than you. Life is mysterious. Are fire and viruses alive? Who knows. Are fertilized eggs? I think so, but who really KNOWS?

Fires walk the razor's edge of your papercut mistresses.

They live I tell you!

and how exactly is a bag of chemicals developed? and how does that bag of chemicals have feeling or emotion?

Way to go off topic people.

I could've sworn this was about Pharmacists and dispensing Birth Control Pills . . . not about when "life" begins.

Quote:

Bianca said:
Way to go off topic people.

I could've sworn this was about Pharmacists and dispensing Birth Control Pills . . . not about when "life" begins.

Thread drift...

I was in error. Uschi is right. The problem is that the pharmicist refused to return the script or transfer the script to another pharmacy. While the pharmacist's own moral code may prevent him/herself from filling a script, we are not to judge others. As long as birth control pills are legal (and they should be), the pharmacists has an obligation to transfer or return the script. If the pharmacist has a problem with the law, then there are other issues here.

Let me bottom line it:

I think the owner of a pharmacy has the right to not seel any product he or she is personally against.

I think the customer has a right to take his or her business elsewhere.

I think the pharmacist had damn well better return the script if he or she won't fill it.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Let me bottom line it:

I think the owner of a pharmacy has the right to not seel any product he or she is personally against.

I think the customer has a right to take his or her business elsewhere.

I think the pharmacist had damn well better return the script if he or she won't fill it.

WTF?

I agree with G-man. Elizabeth, I'm comning to meet you...

Quote:

Batwoman said:
Quote:

sneaky bunny said:
but it has no emotion, no thought and can't function and its not developed

So you're telling me that people with disabilities which result in their brain not fully developed as an adult, means they're not alive? They're not human? According to what you just said, thats true.

Also, if remember correctly, the heart is the first organ formed. I hate to break this to you, but it's been proven that life begins at coneption.

ok now ur just sounding stupid, comparing a cell to a partially developed, though they are partially developed they can feel pain and they do have a certain amount of brain capacity, 2 cells do not. Cells are just protein and nucleic acid, they are not developed like humans, you cannot compare the 2. The next thing your gonna say is that masterbating is killing humans, since the cell sperm cell is "developed"

madness i say madness!

Masturbating...good...

Dude, that post sitting out next to your avatar is just too damn creepy.

Anyways, I think Uschi has said it best here. The pharmacists are wrong when they won't give back scripts or recommend another pharmacy. Not for refusing to fill a script. Pharmacists don't just hand you bottle with fucking pills in them. They have a responsibility to their clients as well. I've known a lot of pharmacists who have refused to fill prescriptions because they realized that the drufs were either dangerous to a particular client's health due to preexisting conditions or because the drug whose company gave the doctor a nice trip to Cancun and did nothing to treat an ailment. They should be allowed to act on their own morals as long as they don't prevent someone from getting the script filled elsewhere. They hand out a shitload more than just birth control pills, after all.

Quote:

thedoctor said:
Dude, that post sitting out next to your avatar is just too damn creepy.

Not coming over, then?

No.

No clue who the black dude is.

It's Dr. Quinn.

Oh. Well. There you are.

Isn't Dr. Quinn a medicine WOMAN???

I know, I know.

*claps for Joe* Hey you even know the name of a girly series :P Are you also a fan of LMN? My dad calls it the "men hater's channel ;P" Not always but just mosta the time.

Quote:

Uschi said:
This is the only problem: refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her.

"Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician." Actually, their job partially IS to regulate wjat people take. Otherwise they can get sued and have their liscance revoked. There are people who claim to be doctors or are shady doctors who prescribe controlled substances and other drugs. It's not just the Pharmacist's job to recognise and stop these occurances but also to ensure the doctor doesn't perscribe medications which would have negitive interactions with other medications. Rest assured, pharmacists know more about medications then physicians do. And they go to just about as much school. Their job is not to "just ... fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician." THAT is mostly what pharmacy technicians do (we do more, but not too much).

A pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell a product they find morally reprehensable, just like any other customer-oriented service has the right to refuse service. If the pharmacist refuses, there are two courses of action:
1. the customer takes their business elsewhere
2. if the pharmacist is not self-employed, their employer may chose to terminate their employment contract. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.

very good. i approve.

the issue i have is that birth control pills aren't always used as contraception. my ex-wif used to use birth control pills to regulate her cycle (without them she had her period once every two weeks...and that sucked) and missing a day would have been disastrous.

i can understand this pharmacist's dilemna, but she should have given people warning (a month at least), as Uschi said.

LMN?

Quote:

Joe Mama said:
LMN?

Love Men Naked?

Love Men Now?

Laying Men Nightly?

Lifetime Movie Network sillies :P

Quote:

sneaky bunny said:

Says the one involved in a debate about abortion in this very thread....

i just don't wanna know bout JJ's swingers group.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Masturbating...good...

Oh...LIFETIME! Gotcha...

No, I'm more of a Food Network guy. Iron Chef is one of my top ten favorite shows. Rachael Ray is too cute not to be my wife. "Good Eats" is fascinating TV. Emeril...well, I have a love/hate relationship with Emeril: local boy makes good, but why is a New Orleans chef from Fall River Massachusetts trying to be all New York? Good show though.

Upon reading this post, it's clear to me that my gal uses birth control for TWO reasons:

1) To regulate her period and a hormonal imbalance that causes ovarian cysts, among other things

2) To ensure that my lame genes don't get passed on

Quote:

Joe Mama said:
Upon reading this post, it's clear to me that my gal uses birth control for TWO reasons:

1) To regulate her period and a hormonal imbalance that causes ovarian cysts, among other things

Which is why I have a problem with what this pharmacist did. I don't think she took that into account, and she should know that better than anyone.

Quote:

Joe Mama said:

2) To ensure that my lame genes don't get passed on

Okay, everyone, we can all breathe easy now

Quote:

Joe Mama said:
No, I'm more of a Food Network guy. Iron Chef is one of my top ten favorite shows. Rachael Ray is too cute not to be my wife. "Good Eats" is fascinating TV. Emeril...well, I have a love/hate relationship with Emeril: local boy makes good, but why is a New Orleans chef from Fall River Massachusetts trying to be all New York? Good show though.

right on!

Quote:

1) To regulate her period and a hormonal imbalance that causes ovarian cysts, among other things

....yeah, had one, those kill. I'm alos surprised that wasn't taken into consideration.

Quote:

2) To ensure that my lame genes don't get passed on

just the thought scares me

POST CLONER!

CLONER OF POSTS!

Whatever!

Quote:

Wednesday said:
the issue i have is that birth control pills aren't always used as contraception. my ex-wif used to use birth control pills to regulate her cycle (without them she had her period once every two weeks...and that sucked) and missing a day would have been disastrous.

i can understand this pharmacist's dilemna, but she should have given people warning (a month at least), as Uschi said.

I mentioned that previously. One of my sisters has a condition like that. Ovarian cysts and something else. She had to take birth control pills for years (then got preggers and the problems are clearing! woo!).

Still, it is likely the diagnosis was on the Rx. Sometimes the docs even request the diagnosis on the product label (always for control subst.)

Don't knock pharmacutical knowledge. They are very very smart people. And their job is SO much more that just filling perscription requests from little bottles. Even in non compounding pharmacies (ie Walgreens, etc.).

The RPhD in question should indeed be persecuted for violating that customer's rights. A pharmacist has no right to confiscate a perscription that is not obviously a fraudulent Rx.

Quote:

Uschi said:
I'm saying you can argue when life starts to the end of the earth and not convince someone who believes differently than you. Life is mysterious. Are fire and viruses alive? Who knows. Are fertilized eggs? I think so, but who really KNOWS?

Now this is the kinda talk that makes me wanna marry you.

Seriously, that post best illustrates why I'm totally against abortion. The fact that we don't really know for sure whether or not the tissue is non-living (and yet we still perform abortions anyway) proves that abortion is murder even if, in the end, it's not living. Because the fact of the matter is we're willing to take that risk--The risk that we're killing children.

Beautiful.

FDA REVIVES PILL HOPES

The Washington Times

This is an example of the problem I have with much of the pro-choice movement, even though I lean pro-choice in many areas.

They are never willing to compromise or agree to any restrictions on abortion or contraceptives, even though we recognize the legitimacy of government regulation of other medical procedures or drugs.

Abortions are a medical procedure. The morning after pill is a contraceptive that is also a drug.

There are many, many, medical procedures or substances that we prevent minors from having without parental consent. Most people, most of the time, recognize the sense of having parental consent for medical treatment. However, as soon as--and only when--that medical treatment is abortion, the concept of "parental consent" goes out the window.

That's cockgay!!!