ARTICLE: Thank God I'm Not a Woman!!!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And who are you (not you, but "you") to impose your code of conduct on people?

I'm not imposing my code of conduct on people; those advocating that pharmacists should be forced to do something they find morally unconscionable are...

And those pharmacists are imposing their moral code on a women who wants to terminate the pregnancy.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, but Pharmacists are not executioners.

It is part of their job to dispence emergency contraception, and all other prescriptions. If that makes them executioners, then executioners they are.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So a pharmacist is supposed to give out a drug that has no other purpose than to kill another person?

Some might argue on whether it's a person or not...

Heck, even guns are more restricted, and they can have uses apart from shooting people.

Lame straw man argument...

[quote]
I do not question that a pharmacist ought to do what her profession asks her,
[quote]

Than what's your point... all people are asking for is for them to DO THEIR JOB.

but I insist that part of her profession is not to dispense harmful drugs without a good reason.

Are they "harmful" to the person who is using them...
NO, they aren't.

I don't believe that the reasons given for an abortion justify the dispensation of drugs to kill that person.

Again... "person"... just a matter of opinion that doesn't go along with the law of the land.

[Drake Tungsten]

And those pharmacists are imposing their moral code on a women who wants to terminate the pregnancy.

No, they aren't. She can go buy the drugs somewhere else. No one is stopping her from aborting her child if she really wants to do it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

There is a difference between a living human lifeform, a human being and a human person.

Just like black people were once three-fifths of a person, or Jews were not persons under the Reich, eh?

A being is a being to others, traditionally that would rest upon the ability to communicate, though some might say the ability to be perceived and thus qualities of being ascribed by others upon one - sentience.

Consider this. I am almost deaf, but fortunately, I have the ability to converse fluently in English. Suppose I were not so fortunate, and I was unable to communicate with you in any meaningful manner, other than through sign language.

Now, who is the person? Am I no longer a person because I cannot converse with you, or are you no longer a person because you cannot converse with me?

In short, the ability to communicate has nothing to do with whether we consider someone to be a person or not.

A "person" is not dependent upon biology, it is someone with a consciousness that they know, a being unto oneself in the existential sense. The definition is an extention of Descartes famous "Cogito ergo Sum".

So what about someone in a coma? Are they no longer a person because they lack current conscious thought?

And how do you know that the unborn in the womb doesn't think?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And those pharmacists are imposing their moral code on a women who wants to terminate the pregnancy.

No, they aren't. She can go buy the drugs somewhere else. No one is stopping her from aborting her child if she really wants to do it.

And if all pharmacists do this? That would be legal, and involve her being no longer able to get it terminated. Also, with a 72 hour time limit, in many cases it would stop her going somewhere else within the time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lame straw man argument...

Argument from lesser to greater. If guns, which have purposes other than killing another person, should be less restricted than a pill with no other purpose.

That's all.

Are they "harmful" to the person who is using them...
NO, they aren't.

Who is 'using' the medication? Isn't the person who uses the medication the person who suffers the effects of the medication?

As for it being the job of the pharmacist to dispense these drugs, are pharmacists professionals allowed to exercise reasonable judgement, or all they pill pushers?

[Drake Tungsten]

And if all pharmacists do this?

So, we're not going to deal with reality anymore?

[Whaleboy]

BK: You'll note how I am not giving my opinion, just a particular framework to a reasoned opinion one way or the other. On the actual issue, I'm mostly ambivalent, defaulting to pro-abortion considering that I'm not a woman, I don't know what it's like to be a woman and I'm not inclined to impose upon it, but I digress.

Just like black people were once three-fifths of a person, or Jews were not persons under the Reich, eh?

Strawman. The question of "person" remains constant accordingly, no-one would have denied that they were persons under my definition. I do not use it to mean autonomous in action, or equal in status.

Consider this. I am almost deaf, but fortunately, I have the ability to converse fluently in English. Suppose I were not so fortunate, and I was unable to communicate with you in any meaningful manner, other than through sign language.

Now, who is the person? Am I no longer a person because I cannot converse with you, or are you no longer a person because you cannot converse with me?

A good question. I would consider that you would see me as conscious, and I see you as conscious. Communication is so much more than language. In your example, sight and body language would equate, in any example, simply moving autonomously, being more than a peace of lifeless meat, is communication (you'll note how communication is a two way *interpretative* process).

In this case, you could argue that communication with a foetus occurs when it does something other than move to sustain itself, like a biological machine/lifeform... for example, when it kicks. A possible cut off point for abortion, having been allowed before hand? Perhaps, that would rest on other positions within my framework, itself that is an unloaded statement as per the conclusion.

In short, the ability to communicate has nothing to do with whether we consider someone to be a person or not.

You misunderstand. Being and person are different. To be, you have sentience *ascribed* by virtue of your communication. Person is what a religious person might call a "soul", or someone else would call a subjective consciousness.

So what about someone in a coma? Are they no longer a person because they lack current conscious thought?

If you can show that they lack conscious thought, that they are essentially brain dead, then yes they are not a person. They are only a being because that status was previously ascribed to them when they were demonstrating sentience, now they logically are not, though emotionally to the relatives obviously they still are because they love the comatose patient. Indeed, if they are brain dead, on ventilators / heart-lung machines etc et c etc, then they are not being, they are a human lifeform.

And how do you know that the unborn in the womb doesn't think?

You don't. But then, how do you know that anyone but yourself thinks? You have to make that assumption upon the basis of the demonstration of sentience, alternatively a mothers love for her child. If you think an unborn child thinks and is conscious at any given point, then at that point you would not abort it lest it be murder. The question is to the definition of that point?

Day 0, week 12, week 24? The question remains open, I'm half-tempted to say that it should be the mothers decision as to when she thinks it is, but I need to think that through, don't consider that a debatable position yet, I need to work on it before presenting it. Just an example of how this argument isn't clear cut.

[Whaleboy]

So, we're not going to deal with reality anymore?

In a matter so lucid, conceptual, abstract and important, considering the way things are today is not a good approach, considering that this issue will have generational implications.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Argument from lesser to greater. If guns, which have purposes other than killing another person, should be less restricted than a pill with no other purpose.

What purpose does a gun have other than to kill?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Who is 'using' the medication? Isn't the person who uses the medication the person who suffers the effects of the medication?

No. If my mother takes hormone drugs, and thus starts being curt and rude to me, I still haven't used her medication. The person who uses it is the person who takes it. That's what using a drug means.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for it being the job of the pharmacist to dispense these drugs, are pharmacists professionals allowed to exercise reasonable judgement, or all they pill pushers?

If there is a prescription, they're just pill pushers, as the doctor decides.. If not, it depends on the law. IMHO, they're pill pushers plus advice. They can advise, but if it's over the counter, they can't refuse to sell, like someone in a shop can't refuse to sell a good they stock and have priced up.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Argument from lesser to greater. If guns, which have purposes other than killing another person, should be less restricted than a pill with no other purpose.

That's all.

And again... what do guns have to do with this discussion. The situation isn't the same... you are just using it to try to validate you position on an entirely different issue.

Who is 'using' the medication? Isn't the person who uses the medication the person who suffers the effects of the medication?

If the person that is taking the medication wants the desired effects of the drug, then they are not "suffering" from the effects of the medication... The medication is HELPING THEM.

As for it being the job of the pharmacist to dispense these drugs, are pharmacists professionals allowed to exercise reasonable judgement, or all they pill pushers?

Actually... they are pill providers... based on following orders written up by doctors. They are allowed and expected to provide their "OPIONION" and ask questions that could help their "patients"... but frankly, they are following orders provided by doctors who BETTER know their patients than the pharmist does.

They are not like a store that can decide what they want to sell... they are licensed by the state and medical authorities to provide medication based on doctors orders. That's the job they signed up for. If they don't want to do it, they should get out of the business. They are more than welcome to try to council people.. but that's as far as they should be allowed to go.

[Drogue]

Ming Put it much better than I did.

[Ben Kenobi]

(you'll note how communication is a two way *interpretative* process).

And that's one of my points that I would have had to bring up. If we are going to determine whether someone ought to live, or die, the standard should be something not subject to interpretation.

In this case, you could argue that communication with a foetus occurs when it does something other than move to sustain itself, like a biological machine/lifeform... for example, when it kicks.

The unborn child has many forms of communication with the mother. One could even argue that the mother does not know she is pregnant, unless her child interacts with her body in such a way that it becomes apparent.

There are many biological processes that the embryo initiates that affect the mother, of which any of these could constitute communication.

If you can show that they lack conscious thought, that they are essentially brain dead, then yes they are not a person.

Stop there. I did not say brain dead. I said merely lacking conscious thought, since that was not your standard. If you are changing your standard to detectable brain activity, then you should do so throughout, rather than referring to conscious thought.

I agree, that in the case of irreverseable brain death, that the person should no longer be considered a person, but the key point being irreverseable. The unborn child is not analogous since she temporarily lacks brain activity in the earliest stages of development. One anticipates the brain activity to emerge later on, which is different from the person with irreverseable brain death.

They are only a being because that status was previously ascribed to them when they were demonstrating sentience,

No, if that were so, then no life would ever terminate because they would always have a previous state of sentience. They are a being because they retain a capacity to function as a person, something also possessed by the unborn child.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Any medical organisation worth its salt would have to ensure that there was always someone around who could and WOULD prescribe any medicine or service that it should be offering (ie, any that it had the facilities to do so and it was legal to do so), so it would never come down to whether the moral right of the pharmacist had to clash with the moral right of the patient.

And IMO, if such a clash occurred, I'd favour the patient anyday, but then that's me. My main point is above. The real horror to me is if someone is denied a service they should have access to because the only person around to help them had a moral issue with a service they could be providing.