1
   

Birth Control...Control?

 
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 12:04 pm
Individuals opposing abortion, euthanasia, contraception etc. often spout the "playing God" rhetoric justifying such moral positioning.
But playing God goes both ways--in preservation of life and the termination of it.

I wonder what would happen if a pharmacist opposed filling heart medication prescriptions on based on arbitrary moral grounds.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 01:04 pm
Viagra is covered by Medicaid. Until recently, Viagra was given to sex offenders under some misunderstanding of the law.

The only reason Viagra exists is to allow old fools to chase young women who are only interested in their money. I'm 60, consider myself youthful, but I will not date a woman under 50.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 01:35 pm
Atkins wrote:
Viagra is covered by Medicaid. Until recently, Viagra was given to sex offenders under some misunderstanding of the law.

The only reason Viagra exists is to allow old fools to chase young women who are only interested in their money. I'm 60, consider myself youthful, but I will not date a woman under 50.


Or it's used by older maried men who have long since lost the physical ability to combine emotional love for their partner with the physical.
I heard a stat. that said there is a 12% decline in erectile function for every decade a man ages.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 02:56 pm
Atkins wrote:
Viagra is covered by Medicaid. Until recently, Viagra was given to sex offenders under some misunderstanding of the law.

The only reason Viagra exists is to allow old fools to chase young women who are only interested in their money. I'm 60, consider myself youthful, but I will not date a woman under 50.


Oh, you should read Jack Webb's thread in Relationship "older men, younger women". He doesn't have as much sense as you do Atkins. Wink
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 03:33 pm
Perhaps the difference can be explained in inverse ratios between egos and common sense?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 04:37 pm
material girl wrote:
Surely if people dont do their full job they should be fired!!!

Some hospitals over here wont tell an expectant couple the gender of their unborn babies because of religion!!Whats the point in having all that equipment to do that kind of thing and then not tell the parents if they want to know..


The purpose of the ultrasound machine is to look for any type of physical birth defects. An added bonus of the machine is to tell the sex of the children. It isn't the job of the person to tell the parents the sex of the children. It is a good thing to know but it isn't mandatory for the person to tell the parents.


candidone1 wrote:
Here's the skinny on why this pharmicist believes their profession has the right to refuse specific services:

Quote:
What are protection of conscience laws?

Protection of Conscience Laws (PCL's) ensure that people cannot be forced to facilitate practices or procedures to which they object for reasons of conscience. These may include abortion, capital punishment, contraception, sterilization, artificial reproduction, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human experimentation, torture, etc


Source

This was in fact cited on the news program that I originally got the story from. Seems that if one supports the pharmacist, then one ought also support the soldier, as Baldimo alluded to earlier.

Brief essay and some comments here:


I don't think it should apply to soldiers in the way you are thinking. Sure if they don't want to fight then apply for consciences objector status. If you go AWOL then you are not covered because you are breaking a signed contract and violating military law.

Are you breaking a law but not handing out birth control? Next you are going to make churches marry gay people if they don't agree with gay marriage?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 06:02 pm
Baldimo wrote:
material girl wrote:
Surely if people dont do their full job they should be fired!!!

Some hospitals over here wont tell an expectant couple the gender of their unborn babies because of religion!!Whats the point in having all that equipment to do that kind of thing and then not tell the parents if they want to know..


The purpose of the ultrasound machine is to look for any type of physical birth defects. An added bonus of the machine is to tell the sex of the children. It isn't the job of the person to tell the parents the sex of the children. It is a good thing to know but it isn't mandatory for the person to tell the parents.


So what of the birth defects?
You find out with ultrasound that your child will be severly disabled....then what?
Chances are you won't be getting an abortion from that service provider if you wanted one.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 06:29 pm
candidone1 wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
material girl wrote:
Surely if people dont do their full job they should be fired!!!

Some hospitals over here wont tell an expectant couple the gender of their unborn babies because of religion!!Whats the point in having all that equipment to do that kind of thing and then not tell the parents if they want to know..


The purpose of the ultrasound machine is to look for any type of physical birth defects. An added bonus of the machine is to tell the sex of the children. It isn't the job of the person to tell the parents the sex of the children. It is a good thing to know but it isn't mandatory for the person to tell the parents.


So what of the birth defects?
You find out with ultrasound that your child will be severly disabled....then what?
Chances are you won't be getting an abortion from that service provider if you wanted one.


Are they 100% accurate? No they are not, they can't even be 100% certain of the sex of your child. Why would you want to kill a child just because it might have a handicap? Isn't that the stuff of barbarism? Just because they might have an issue or 2 doesn't mean they don't deserve to live. Should I give up my child or even have it aborted because he is deaf? He can't hear and has a low level autism. Sure life isn't easy but he has been a blessing in our lives and has allowed us to learn a new language and meet some amazing people we wouldn't have if he weren't born.

I thought the left stood for compassion. Killing a handicapped child isn't compassion.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 08:12 am
Actually, you can't see if a baby is deaf or if it has autism with an ultrasound. The types of birth defects that they are able to see are things like missing skulls. If a fetus is missing a skull, it won't survive birth. These are the types of birth defects that parents abort for. One could certainly argue that sparing a baby having its head crushed on the way out of the birth canal is compassionate.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 11:29 am
Baldimo wrote:
material girl wrote:
Surely if people dont do their full job they should be fired!!!

Some hospitals over here wont tell an expectant couple the gender of their unborn babies because of religion!!Whats the point in having all that equipment to do that kind of thing and then not tell the parents if they want to know..


The purpose of the ultrasound machine is to look for any type of physical birth defects. An added bonus of the machine is to tell the sex of the children. It isn’t the job of the person to tell the parents the sex of the children. It is a good thing to know but it isn’t mandatory for the person to tell the parents.


candidone1 wrote:
Here's the skinny on why this pharmicist believes their profession has the right to refuse specific services:

Quote:
What are protection of conscience laws?

Protection of Conscience Laws (PCL's) ensure that people cannot be forced to facilitate practices or procedures to which they object for reasons of conscience. These may include abortion, capital punishment, contraception, sterilization, artificial reproduction, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human experimentation, torture, etc


Source

This was in fact cited on the news program that I originally got the story from. Seems that if one supports the pharmacist, then one ought also support the soldier, as Baldimo alluded to earlier.

Brief essay and some comments here:


I don't think it should apply to soldiers in the way you are thinking. Sure if they don't want to fight then apply for consciences objector status. If you go AWOL then you are not covered because you are breaking a signed contract and violating military law.

Are you breaking a law but not handing out birth control? Next you are going to make churches marry gay people if they don't agree with gay marriage?


It is not the place of a pharmacist to judge the holder of a prescription.

Gay couples have had church "weddings" for somewhere around two decades.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 11:30 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Actually, you can't see if a baby is deaf or if it has autism with an ultrasound. The types of birth defects that they are able to see are things like missing skulls. If a fetus is missing a skull, it won't survive birth. These are the types of birth defects that parents abort for. One could certainly argue that sparing a baby having its head crushed on the way out of the birth canal is compassionate.


Abortions of this sort are very rarely performed and largely exist in the minds of the right wing extremists of this country.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 11:31 am
CalamityJane wrote:
Atkins wrote:
Viagra is covered by Medicaid. Until recently, Viagra was given to sex offenders under some misunderstanding of the law.

The only reason Viagra exists is to allow old fools to chase young women who are only interested in their money. I'm 60, consider myself youthful, but I will not date a woman under 50.


Oh, you should read Jack Webb's thread in Relationship "older men, younger women". He doesn't have as much sense as you do Atkins. Wink


Will check out that thread. What category is it under?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 12:13 pm
Baldimo wrote:

The purpose of the ultrasound machine is to look for any type of physical birth defects. An added bonus of the machine is to tell the sex of the children. It isn't the job of the person to tell the parents the sex of the children. It is a good thing to know but it isn't mandatory for the person to tell the parents.


So, if settling the curiosity of the baby's gender isn't the objective of an ultrasound, and given what you say later, regarding birth defects, abortion and...barbarism...what's the point of an ultrasound?
To prepare oneself for the birth of a deformed or handicapped baby?
I am an advocate of pre-first trimester abortions, because I, along with many others, fail to see the human in this:
http://www.crprc.ucdavis.edu/images/1st_trimester.jpg
...but that's my opinion, and you are entitled to yours.
Similarily, labelling abortion "barbaric" makes it seem like there are no conditions under which an abortion may be performed.
But I won't put words in your mouth--I'll let you speak to that.

Baldimo wrote:

Are they 100% accurate? No they are not, they can't even be 100% certain of the sex of your child. Why would you want to kill a child just because it might have a handicap? Isn't that the stuff of barbarism? Just because they might have an issue or 2 doesn't mean they don't deserve to live. Should I give up my child or even have it aborted because he is deaf? He can't hear and has a low level autism. Sure life isn't easy but he has been a blessing in our lives and has allowed us to learn a new language and meet some amazing people we wouldn't have if he weren't born.


I have made a conscious choice to date and engage myself with a healthy, attractive woman. I deliberately steered clear of making my lifelong committment to someone with birth defects, cancers, AIDS, or any other terminal illness or retardation.
...but that's just me. I guess I'm a dick for being so shallow and idealistic.
If I can figure out in the first trimester that my child will have an extremely low quality of life due to a grave birth defect, disease or other ailment (and lead my quality of life to plummet), then I think I would opt to terminate the pregnancy (at the consent of my wife, of course).

I am a teaher who frequently deals with autistic children, and I would be honored to have one of my own--I am speaking to the extreme instances where the child would be nothing more than fluid, bones and skin.

Baldimo wrote:
I thought the left stood for compassion. Killing a handicapped child isn't compassion.


The right needs to hop off the soapbox when they talk down as moral superiors to the left. I have seen nothing compassionate about this new breed of conservatism, nor do I see any compassion in the bigotry constantly spewed toward those not of their ilk.

Call me crazy, but clinching your bible and praying for this to live, just ain't compassion to me.

Pre-Schaivo, I have had a long standing agreement that I do not want to live like she did...and I would even pay to have someone flood my lifeless body with the barbarism you speak of.
We are different.

You think life is good at any and all costs, and I take a more compassionate perspective on the quality of that life.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 02:59 pm
Notice that the same people who want to cut programs down to the bone are the people who want mothers to give birth to defective babies.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 03:04 pm
Atkins wrote:
CalamityJane wrote:
Atkins wrote:
Viagra is covered by Medicaid. Until recently, Viagra was given to sex offenders under some misunderstanding of the law.

The only reason Viagra exists is to allow old fools to chase young women who are only interested in their money. I'm 60, consider myself youthful, but I will not date a woman under 50.


Oh, you should read Jack Webb's thread in Relationship "older men, younger women". He doesn't have as much sense as you do Atkins. Wink


Will check out that thread. What category is it under?


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1312877#1312877
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 08:19:13