Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/womens-health/2008/07/22/a-government-threat-to-birth-control.html" target="_blank">http://health.usnews.com/artic...rol.html</a> <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5935532.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...532.html</a> Yup, you read that right. Under new definitions being proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (run by former Utah governor Mike Leavitt - tells you all you need to know) several forms of birth control would be defined as abortion. This is being done, the administration claims, to prevent people who object to birth control from hiring discrimination in the health care industry. So basically, if you work in a pharmacy, and you consider the pill to be "abortion," you could legally refuse to provide it to a woman requesting it. Unfortunately, the story hasn't gotten a lot of attention. It's a shame, because it's precisely this kind of thing that Americans need to see to realize just how crazy Bush is. They got a glimpse of it during the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Suddenly people who supported Bush over Iraq or tax cuts were wondering what would happen to them if their family was making end of life decisions. Make no mistake. President Bush and religious fanatics like him think they know what's morally right and they won't hesitate to impose it on you.
Originally Posted By mele Fantastic. Just *freaking* fantastic. I'm so sick of these pinheads. It's very difficult to not feel like these people are my enemies when I hear stuff like this. I don't need these amoral idiots telling me what to do with my body.
Originally Posted By ecdc Your vote counts. People in this freaking country need to wake up. Whine and moan all you want about Obama's celebrity. But your vote impacts *your* life. Start voting for your own self-interests for a change. Obama's not going to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. I get that you think it's icky if two boys kiss. I get that you're upset that a woman might choose to abort a fetus you believe is a baby. I'm genuinely not unsympathetic. But if you think it's your right to impose your will on those people, then it's not unreasonable to assume that someone else assumes it's ok to impose their will on you. You're probably a reasonable person. You support birth control but don't believe in abortion. But if you tell someone else what they're going to do, it opens the door. You cannot have the attitude that "anyone more liberal than me's a heretic, and anyone more conservative than me's a nut." Your support of religious interference in public policy is a tacit approval of even wackier things. One more time. WAKE UP. IT. HAS. NO. PLACE. IN. GOVERNMENT. Your support of these people hurts you. Period.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Well, the pill does function in two ways: 1) It prevents ovulation (most of the time) 2) It prevents the embryo from attaching itself to the uterus. This aspect could be considered as abortifacent. Many evangelicals are horrified when they learn of aspect #2, especially since most of them felt it was OK to take the pill and their pastors did not object.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Many evangelicals are horrified when they learn of aspect #2, especially since most of them felt it was OK to take the pill and their pastors did not object.<< Hey, goodie goodie for Evangelicals. Once they learn it, then they are more than welcome to stop taking the pill and crap out a litter of kids like the Duggars. Maybe they can just eschew science altogether and quit going to the hospital. But they really need to stop telling the rest of us what to do. They need to quit voting for incompetent boobs who think Jesus elected them and now they can make sure the rest of us are moral. And if they don't want to hand out birth control, then they can get a different job. Go work in a creationist museum. Make a diorama of Noah commanding the building of the Ark on the back of a Brontosaurus. More power to them. But for the love of their god, they need to quit telling the rest of us how to live. (Sorry fkurucz, I'm not upset w/ your post. I'm just so DONE with stories like this. Like mele, I'm pretty pissed.)
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< 1) It prevents ovulation (most of the time) 2) It prevents the embryo from attaching itself to the uterus. This aspect could be considered as abortifacent. Many evangelicals are horrified when they learn of aspect #2, especially since most of them felt it was OK to take the pill and their pastors did not object. >>> This brings up a side issue that I've long been curious about. An implication in the above is that it's generally considered that #1 is permitted by the Bible, but #2 is not and is in fact absolutely prohibited. My understanding is that this is widely considered to be the case. Can someone cite the Biblical references that support these conclusions? I'm asking this from a Protestant perspective.
Originally Posted By hopemax From the second article, the new wording could also... "In fact, the draft rule could void laws in 27 states that require insurance companies to provide birth control coverage for women requesting it. The rule also could counter laws in 14 states requiring that rape victims receive counseling and access to emergency, day-after contraceptives. It would also require federal agencies and states to provide funds for sham family planning clinics that provide women only abstinence counseling." I was going to post this in the "Who are you going to vote for thread" when the question of why somebody would even consider a candidate's stance on abortion. But at that moment, I ran out of time.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Just proves that the Bush Administration is the worst ever to come down the pike. Bar none. What a bunch of losers.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<(Sorry fkurucz, I'm not upset w/ your post. I'm just so DONE with stories like this. Like mele, I'm pretty pissed.)>> No problem. Just waanted to shed some light on why many evangelicals are moving away from the pill, which they used to approve.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Abstinance is abortion.<< The funny thing is, the very nature of conception, human reproduction, and pregnancy demonstrate just how grey the whole issue is. Something like 70% of *natural* conceptions fail. The sperm and egg don't attach to the uterine lining, and the woman never even knows she was pregnant. But by conservative definitions, that's a "death." It was alive since the moment of conception, now it's a human death. It seems by using birth control (like condoms) that "death" is prevented. If the sperm and the egg never reach each other, conception never happens, and there's no problem, right?
Originally Posted By Mr X Incredible insight right there ec. One that will be lost on those you are trying to speak to though, methinks.
Originally Posted By RC Collins >>Maybe they can just eschew science altogether and quit going to the hospital.<< Yes, because not wanting to kill innocent human beings = a rejection of science. Yeah, that follows logically. >>Something like 70% of *natural* conceptions fail. The sperm and egg don't attach to the uterine lining, and the woman never even knows she was pregnant. But by conservative definitions, that's a "death."<< That's right. And a lot of people aged 1 day to 117 years old die of diseases and accidental injuries, but that doesn't make it okay to murder them. To be fair, I have not read the links provided. But there is a difference between CONTRACEPTION and something that will kill a human being in the zygote, embryo, or fetus stage of development. One need not be Christian or of any established religion to understand this. They just have to understand that an individual human being is formed at conception, and if they are against killing legally-innocent human beings, then they would have an objection to this. In principle, a pharmacist should be able to refuse to assist in this. And the owner of the pharmacy should be able to fire such pharmacists or not hire them in the first place. Finally... no, I'm not going to be posting regularly. Just saw the topic and wanted to chime in, since the discussion was still relatively reasonable. And to answer someone else suggestion from a while back... I've had a blog for a long time now. It is possible to do that and still comment other places, like here.
Originally Posted By jasmine7 <<In principle, a pharmacist should be able to refuse to assist in this. << No, sorry, I have to completely disagree with you there. As long as a woman has a legal prescription for a drug, no pharmacist should be able to deny her that drug. He or she doesn't know the backstory of why a woman needs the morning after drug. What if she was raped? Why should she have to suffer through additional pain and humiliation? I've read so many horror stories of women who were refused the drug and who had to travel great distances in order to fill their prescription. That is just plain wrong to me. One person's morals end where another's health (mental or physical) is in question. What next? Are we going to allow pharmacists to deny a patient their Paxil or pain medicine because of a moral belief?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To be fair, I have not read the links provided. But there is a difference between CONTRACEPTION and something that will kill a human being in the zygote, embryo, or fetus stage of development. > I'm glad you see that difference. Because as the links you didn't read show, some people in this administration do not.
Originally Posted By DAR Well if abstience as a form of birth control is considered abortion then I've certainly been doing my part for the last year.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yes, because not wanting to kill innocent human beings = a rejection of science. Yeah, that follows logically.<< No, it doesn't, which was why it was pretty obvious I was speaking in hyperbole. However, there is a legitimate case to be made that Christians are not remotely consistent in their use of science. They quickly decry science with the use of stem-cells or its roll in determining evolution. But they wanted medical science to keep Terri Schiavo artificially alive, even though 50% of her brain was liquid. The truth is, 100 years ago Schiavo would've died within a day or so of her collapse. Only science, that Christians love to hate in other venues, kept her alive. There's also the issue of quality of life. An undeveloped embryo is not capable of self-awareness or much conscious thought. It's worth asking what kind of life it will have. And of course, for plenty of us, life doesn't begin at conception. Life is much more than a microscopic bit of goo that may or may not attach to the uterine lining after a night of drunken partying. There should be other considerations beyond keeping a heart beating simply in the name of "life" - regardless of what that life is like. >>That's right. And a lot of people aged 1 day to 117 years old die of diseases and accidental injuries, but that doesn't make it okay to murder them.<< And yet we don't hold funerals for those joined sperm and egg that don't attach to the uterine lining and therefore die. In fact, we never know it's even happened. Trying to equate that kind of "life" with a cute little toddler playing with blocks doesn't cut it, but the pro-life movement has routinely tried to do just that (including in a new video about Obama). It's simple-mindedness at its best, a refusal to recognize that sometimes life is complex and not everything is black and white. >>In principle, a pharmacist should be able to refuse to assist in this. And the owner of the pharmacy should be able to fire such pharmacists or not hire them in the first place.<< If they don't want to believe in medicine and science, or pick and choose what they like, they shouldn't become a pharmacist. Yet again, Christians believe their way is right and that everyone should just "understand" them. But should a male Muslim ER doctor be able to refuse to operate on someone just because she's a woman? Should a Jehovah's Witness doctor be able to refuse to give a patient a necessary blood transfusion? Should a white supremacist doctor refuse to work on a black patient? Nope, we have laws against letting people's superstitious beliefs in mythical people come before the needs of living, real people. But if the Bush administration has its way, that'll be impacted.
Originally Posted By Disneyland55 >>>Incredible insight right there ec. One that will be lost on those you are trying to speak to though, methinks.<<< I sure hope this was not directed at me Mr. X.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy When the evangelical right decides to loudly denounce the war in Iraq (innocent people being killed there everyday) or stand behind legislation to eliminate the death penalty (how many innocent people have been found on death row?), I won't hesitate to understand their views on abortion/contraception. It just seems like there is so much hardship and killing of innocent people throughout the world without any outrage at all. Why make all the noise about fetuses when there is so much disregard for life in general on this planet?
