Morning-After Pill a religious issue.

MichaelAllen
Sorry but you are off the mark. Neither King or Gandhi were trying to impose their religious views. They were fighting the injustice of Racism and for civil rights. That is in no way a religious issue. As for Malcolm X I have no idea what his contribution was if any.. However, when I think of organized religion all I see is the wars, massacres, expulsions, inquisitions, forced conversions and, etc., committed through the ages in it's name.

'Morning After' at the F.D.A.


Published: December 14, 2003
Five years ago, in a major advance for women's health, the Food and Drug Administration approved the marketing and sale of emergency contraceptive pills that women can take within three days of unprotected sexual intercourse to prevent pregnancy. Now the agency must decide whether to allow an even bigger breakthrough, and permit the so-called morning-after pill to be sold over the counter in pharmacies, without a doctor's prescription.
On Tuesday, the agency's advisory panels for nonprescription drugs and reproductive health will hold a joint hearing as prelude to a vote. The panels are supposed to be judging whether the drug, known as Plan B, is safe enough to use without medical supervision. Given numerous studies attesting to its safety, and the fact that millions of women around the world have been successfully using similar emergency medication for more than 25 years, advocates who have urged the drug's acceptance have a right to feel at least optimistic.
What's absolutely certain is that they have a right to expect the decision to be made on the basis of science. If some of the drug's supporters are uneasy on this count, it is because the Bush administration has, on more than one occasion, attempted to make scientific research agree with its own ideological predilections. This is particularly true when it comes to abortion.
The potential benefits from making emergency contraception more widely and easily available are enormous. Among other things, it would be an effective strategy for reducing the number of abortions in this country. It's ironic that many of the same groups that pressed for passage of the ban on so-called partial birth abortions by describing certain abortion procedures in grisly detail are pushing just as hard to limit the availability of a drug that would make all abortions, including later ones, less common.


Religion should play no part in the decision!!!

A religious person has as much right to try to foster laws based on his/her religious beliefs -- as an atheist has to try to foster laws based on his/her secular beliefs.

We agnostic are not much given to "beliefs" -- but we certainly have notions of what we would like to see enacted into law -- and what we want not to see dealt with that way. And we have the right to foster laws based on what we feel, sense, and such.

Sorry that concept is so lost of some of the people arguing in this thread -- but that also is their right.

No, my friend, it is you who don't understand. King and Gandhi fought for their religious views. Racism and civil rights would fall under their religious beliefs. Gandhi would fast to stop the violence between Muslims and Hindus. He is known as saying, "My life is my message." He was deeply devoted to his religious beliefs and trying to help others to understand them. And there is no argument that MLK was a reverand who promoted marches, sit-ins and gave some rather interesting orations all to fight against segregation because he believed, "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God." You just don't want to see it that way because you agree with their efforts and I'm assuming you are not a religious man. It's fine to agree with Christians, Hindus, Muslims...etc. That won't make you a religious man.

But, while you are not prepared to say that these great men did not belong in politics, you are undoubtedly saying that the religious people of today should not be in politics. I hope you soon see your contradiction.

Yes, it is a religious issue, just as opposition to birth control was. There are concerns that young women might use them incorrectly or be more likely to engage in unprotected sex if emergency contraception is readily available, but the primary opposition to the morning-after pill comes from people who have been told by their church leaders that life begins at conception and that we as human beings have no right to interfere in the process.

Never mind that we claim the right to intervene in the death process even when it would be more humane to let someone die, kill our god-given enemies including young men, women and children, and slaughter our ape cousins for food.

So why do some people still insist that childbearing should be left to chance rather than choice? They claim to know that God immediately endows the fertilized egg with a soul! This makes no sense to me when 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to implant and grow. Of the ones that produce pregnancy, another 15-25% will be spontaneously aborted, untried soul and all. And some eggs split into twins several days after conception!

Without this unsubstantiated belief in instant ensoulment, there would be no reason to demand that an unintended and unwanted egg-sperm union be given an unalienable legal and moral right to life. It has no brain, heart, emotions or anything else that would qualify it for personhood, other than a potential for growth shared by hundreds of other eggs and billions of other sperm for every couple. IMO, there is no legal or ethical reason to grant a fertilized egg any rights at all until it has at least developed a rudimentary brain that might produce some semblance of consciousness. That simply does not occur before 24 weeks of gestation.

Until it has a functioning human brain, the woman whose body it is attempting to parasitize has every right to evict it by whatever means causes her the least trauma. From 24 weeks to birth, pain to the fetus should be minimized if it is necessary to abort it, but as long as it is anesthetized it should not matter to anyone other than the woman and her doctor how this is done.


Do people have the right to try to impose their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on everyone else? Of course, as long as they do so in accordance with the law. It gets rather tiresome to constantly have to defend schools and public venues from the assaults of people who don't seem to trust their religion to survive without public affirmation. But lawmakers have an obligation to uphold the Constitution and rebuild that wall every time it is breached.

Terry,

The use of the word "parasite" is a bit extreme don't you think?

They don't become parasites until their teen years.

No, parasite is not extreme. That's exactly what embryos/fetuses are.

Fortunately they start to become more useful as symbiots when they entertain you by being cute, help with chores, and my teenagers actually got jobs! My son was self-supporting when he was 19 (although we still paid his tuition).

Of course, if they ever try to move back into the empty nest, then they might be seen as parasites again... :wink:

You guys are missing the point. The current argument is not whether the morning-after pill should be marketed in America...it already is!...but rather if it should be made available over-the-counter instead of by prescription only.

MichaelAllen
The issues you sight for both Gandhi and King were social issues not religious ones. King for equal rights and Gandhi the cessation of conflict between religions. Neither were involved in trying to force their religious beliefs on others. The truth is that Gandhi was fighting against the bigotry of religion.



You are undoubtedly incorrect and I would thank you not to reinterpret my words to foster your argument. I will make it as clear and simple as I can. I do not believe that the religious beliefs of a particular religion in fact any religion should be the sole basis for legislation.That can lead to a religious majority imposing their will and beliefs upon the majority.
In addition and as I stated previously and you seemed to have missed
organized religion has only brought us wars, massacres, expulsions, inquisitions, forced conversions and, etc., through the ages. Can you think of anything positive?

Actually, the point is whether people with strong religious convictions should be allowed to voice their concerns in politics. And while Terry makes some interesting points based on some scientific findings and has opinions about what those findings mean to Terry, they are just another set of views worthy of attention in the debate. No more and no less valuable than someone who has a moral objection to offering the morning-after pill over the counter.

Laws are created to make people feel safe and comfortable in their environment. With a majority of the people being religious in some way, why wouldn't their opinion count? Most people fight political battles logically, knowing that one law leads to another. Who knows what this could lead to, but some people are opposing it because they have the foresight to understand what will be coming next.

MichaelAllen


Therein is the difference and the tyranny of religion. Allowing the pill to be sold over the counter does not stop an individual from following his moral code and does not intrude upon another's rights. Making it a point of law does. I object strenuously to the imposition of religious "Morality," upon others.

To you they weren't religious, but to them they were. I even quoted MLK from the letter he wrote from the Birmingham Jail that pinpoints this sentiment exactly and you just don't want to see it.



No, I agree as far as Gandhi is concerned. He handled himself much more maturely than using force. His mere example was enough. Using passive measures was his message. And it wasn't "bigotry," you're just having fun with slanderous words now.

As far as MLK is concerned, sit-ins, marches, protests...etc. I would say he was set to impose his beliefs.




How else am I supposed to respond? Also, if Gandhi or MLK were involved in this debate, you wouldn't say they had no voice in it. Or maybe you would.



Neither do I. Not the "sole" basis, but have a voice.



I didn't miss it. I just think it's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard and I have heard it from other people. This statement, especially with the word "only" in it, means you overlook their missions work, missionaries feeding people in third-world countries, churches providing clothes to the homeless of San Diego (a specific example I personally witnessed one year), priests standing between a military force and the people seeking relief from tyrannical rule. The church is respected by a majority of the world as a safe haven for people who choose to defect. In cases like segregation, Christianity helped change the face of America when it opposed the demoralizing laws placing people in a sub-human type category. These are just a few. I could go on and would never be able to provide a complete list.

I agree that wars have been started, but this is where you find it hard to make the connection. Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Christians make up a majority of the world. Their religious views are passionate. But, we've also gone to war for such reasons as property, land, rule...etc. Religious people can get just as passionate as anyone else in their beliefs. If you think money is what it's all about, you'll fight to keep it and to gain more. They happen to believe that "souls" are important enough to go to war over. Why do you think you should have a right to impose your beliefs on them and they shouldn't have a say in politics?

MichaelAllen
When I wrote the Gandhi was fighting the bigotry of religion. I spoke of one religion against the other.
I suggest that if you check history you can readily see the damage that organized religion has inflicted on mankind throught the ages.Start with the Crusades

The "tyranny" of religion? Really. Religious people don't have any rule that I know of, we keep pushing them further and further out of our lives. But, again you see it the way you want to see it and therein lies my point. People are allowed to see things the way they choose to see them. People with strong religious convictions are allowed to make those convictions known in public debate about law, policy...etc.

Plus, where could this decision lead? As I said earlier, it takes some foresight to know whether a decision made now is going to produce a landfall later. While you don't see one or aren't opposed to where it could lead, the religious people have a right to voice their views.

Yes, voice not impose.

The separation of Church and State was a resolution because of the Church having so much influence on public policy from an age when religious views were intertwined in the people's hearts and minds with socal issues.

Having had that debate, let's try to look at recent history. Choose the last four wars and tell me the religious input. There isn't any. We want peace, we want land, we want money and we want to be the world's big brother.

The issue here isn't about war. It's about making the morning-pill a matter of convenience for people to purchase. I don't have a problem with that, but there are obviously some religious people who do. I want to hear their views just as much as I want to hear yours.

Exactly.

It's dosen't have to be a Religious Issue, it could also be a Commonsense Issue, "Medically Speaking." Has anybody thought of the idea of Drug Abuse? I know there's a lot of Smart Female Users here, but there are some females out there that could think that this drug is useful for protection of Sexually Transmitted Deceases. If you really think about it, All this is, is really an Issue about Commonsense.

Bigotry was invented by religious people, so you're obviously an expert on the subject!

When was the last time an athiest knocked on your door at 9:00 am and tried to force their philosophy on you?

Spain has just recently raised the age of consent from 12 to 14. Mexico still has 12 as the age of consent. Two deeply Catholic countries but having laws that elsewhere would be considered a paedophiles charter.

As for bigamy, aren't Mormons christians?