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

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drogue
Ming Put it much better than I did.

Excellent job of cross posting

[Ben Kenobi]

What purpose does a gun have other than to kill?

A gun can be used to hunt animals, hence my point about persons.

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.

That's a side effect of the drug is what you are talking about. I'm talking about the primary effect. Your mother's irritability is a side effect of the drug, but she still recieves the benefits of the primary effect. The same is not true in the case of an abortifacient. The unborn child recieves the primary effect of the drug, and so you could say, that the unborn child takes the drug, more so than the mother.

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.

So why would a pharmacist be forced to stock this drug? Wouldn't that be legal for a pharmacy to refuse to carry the drug in the first place?

[Whaleboy]

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.

I concur, but since that is a matter of rationality, it still leaves the question of love and emotion. Namely, the mother. The question remains open.

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.

My apologies. My argument is that you can never know with anyone that they are a person, you can only assume so. Again, cogito ergo sum. Stop me when I sound too solipcist . I would contend however that in an unconscious state, the only means of communication to determine whether someone is a being or a lifeform is brain activity. That has interesting implications for animal welfare.

I won't debate you BK, since I have no position as such of my own. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't have opinions on everything, am open to ideas. I know how I would form one, that is what I have communicated, and you have taken that and added your interpretation, thus demonstrated your view, which is fine. I have not done so yet because there are assumptions in my view I have yet to explore fully. Be assured that when I do, you'll be the first to know .

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A gun can be used to hunt animals, hence my point about persons.

And as such, a gun needs more restrictions. I'd put killing an animal above killing an unwanted foetus, personally. One's a potential life, one already *is* life.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's a side effect of the drug is what you are talking about. I'm talking about the primary effect. Your mother's irritability is a side effect of the drug, but she still recieves the benefits of the primary effect. The same is not true in the case of an abortifacient. The unborn child recieves the primary effect of the drug, and so you could say, that the unborn child takes the drug, more so than the mother.

But the mother is the one that actually *takes* the drug. Taking does not mean having the effect of, as you can take a placebo. Taking means the means with which it is ingested, either by swallowing a pill or injecting a drug. If you swallow a pill, you have taken that pill. Any effect does not change the act of taking it. The primary effect of the drug is to remove the mother's support of the child. The secondary effect is to kill the child, IMHO.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why would a pharmacist be forced to stock this drug? Wouldn't that be legal for a pharmacy to refuse to carry the drug in the first place?

Depends on the law. In the UK, pharmacists are required to stock or be able to get hold of all prescribed drugs, IIRC. So yes, they would have to, if they wanted a license.

[Ben Kenobi]

And again... what do guns have to do with this discussion. The situation isn't the same...

Why not? What makes this different from the case of a gun?

Suppose I took a different tack. These medications have very serious side effects on the women who take them. Shouldn't there be restrictions placed on them because of the potential dangers?

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.

How is the abortifacient drug helping the woman Ming?

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.

So why are doctors prescribing a drug that could seriously harm their patients? Unless there is a real medical benefit from using these pills it makes sense, but if there is not, then it makes no sense at all for the doctor, if they are interested in their patient's welfare to prescribe these pills.

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.

So fine. If they are forced to sell these pills, then they can also challenge the justification behind selling them. It's a two way street. If they can't choose what they stock, then they can change the rules so that pharmacies do not stock these pills.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is the abortifacient drug helping the woman Ming?

The women has decided to take it, ergo she has decided it is helping her. An unwanted baby might not help her. She may lack financial support, time, energy, or many other things, meaning she doesn't want the baby. If I don't want something, and choose not to have it, I'd say it's helped me.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why are doctors prescribing a drug that could seriously harm their patients? Unless there is a real medical benefit from using these pills it makes sense, but if there is not, then it makes no sense at all for the doctor, if they are interested in their patient's welfare to prescribe these pills.

Because unlike you, the doctors believe that when it is the patients desire not to have that baby, it is a problem for them to have it. Thus they act to stop that. The mother is their patient, not the foetus. How can the drug seriously harm the mother? The doctor is interested in the patients welfare, the mother may be better off without being pregnant.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So fine. If they are forced to sell these pills, then they can also challenge the justification behind selling them. It's a two way street. If they can't choose what they stock, then they can change the rules so that pharmacies do not stock these pills.

They can, but it's the doctor that decides, and fills the prescription, not the pharmacist.

Sorry for answering for Ming, just like the discussion (and bored on lunch break ).

[Ben Kenobi]

And as such, a gun needs more restrictions. I'd put killing an animal above killing an unwanted foetus, personally. One's a potential life, one already *is* life.

An unborn child is an animal too. They respire, they grow, they develop just like other living things.

If you say they are not alive, then when do they become alive? Living things do not come from dead things. You don't get little bugs from the sky, from water, without first having other living things there.

Haven't you ever heard of the problem with abiogenesis, Drogue? If living things can only come from living things, then the living infant, must also have a living progenitor, the unborn child.

But the mother is the one that actually *takes* the drug. Taking does not mean having the effect of, as you can take a placebo. Taking means the means with which it is ingested, either by swallowing a pill or injecting a drug.

So who gets the drug applied to them? The child or the mother? It's not clear from the application that it is only the mother to whom the pill is applied.

The primary effect of the drug is to remove the mother's support of the child. The secondary effect is to kill the child, IMHO

That's like saying the primary effect of suffocation is to remove the support of air from a person, and the secondary effect is to kill him.

Depends on the law. In the UK, pharmacists are required to stock or be able to get hold of all prescribed drugs, IIRC. So yes, they would have to, if they wanted a license.

If enough pharmacists opposed these pills could they change the licensing requirements?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
An unborn child is an animal too. They respire, they grow, they develop just like other living things.

So do paracites. If they can survive on their own, fine. If not, they have no right to feed off the mother until they can. The same as a tapeworm. It may be alive, but at the expense of the mother. It has no right to be alive, IMHO, at the exspense of someone else.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So who gets the drug applied to them? The child or the mother? It's not clear from the application that it is only the mother to whom the pill is applied.

The mother takes the pill, so it is applied to her.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's like saying the primary effect of suffocation is to remove the support of air from a person, and the secondary effect is to kill him.

If the aim was to remove the air, and not to kill him, yes. The primary effect is the intended effect, and all others are side effects. The intended effect is to remove the child from the mother, and thus is the primary effect. If the child dies in the process of that, then that is a side effect.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If enough pharmacists opposed these pills could they change the licensing requirements?

If they can get their congressmen/senators to get a bill through, yes. But that's a legal matter. Do I think they should be able to refuse to stock certain? No?

[Ben Kenobi]

The women has decided to take it, ergo she has decided it is helping her. An unwanted baby might not help her. She may lack financial support, time, energy, or many other things, meaning she doesn't want the baby. If I don't want something, and choose not to have it, I'd say it's helped me.

So why not throw a costly and difficult toddler in the trash for these same reasons?

And none of these are medical benefits. This is like saying a placebo has demonstrable medical effects because people feel better after taking them.

Because unlike you, the doctors believe that when it is the patients desire not to have that baby, it is a problem for them to have it.

So why is the solution to this problem to kill the child? There are many other ways to solve the problem.

How can the drug seriously harm the mother?

Good question.

https://www.princeton.edu/ec/ecpnyou.html

About 50% of women experience nausea and 20% vomit. A far more serious side effect is the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The Princeton University website promoting ECPs also warns: "It is possible ... that a woman using ECPs could have one of the dangerous or even fatal complications that have been reported in very rare cases with normal, prolonged use of birth control pills. These include: thrombophlebitis (blood clots in the legs), lung clots, heart attack, stroke, liver damage, liver tumor, gallbladder disease, and high blood pressure"

http://opr.princeton.edu/ec/ecpnyou.htm

https://www.fwhc.org/ecinfo_n.htm

What are the Risk Factors for ECP Use?
Women who smoke cigarettes and those who have experienced any of the following conditions are advised not to take ECPs: blood clots in the legs or lungs, cancer of the breast or reproductive organs, stroke, heart attack, and "any serious medical disorder such as diabetes, liver disease, heart disease, kidney disease, sever migraine headaches, or high blood pressure"

[Ben Kenobi]

So do paracites. If they can survive on their own, fine. If not, they have no right to feed off the mother until they can.

Biologically, you cannot have a parasite of the same species as the host.

It may be alive, but at the expense of the mother. It has no right to be alive, IMHO, at the exspense of someone else.

Then most children also have no right to depend on their parents, and we do not have the right to depend on each other.

Remember your praise of my point that no man is an Island?

The mother takes the pill, so it is applied to her.

Okay. But what are the medical benefits that justify the use of ecp?

If the aim was to remove the air, and not to kill him, yes.

So if I said that I intended to remove all the air from someone I would not be charged with murder?

That's not right, Drogue. Of course I would be charged with murder even if I said I only intended to remove the air, because I know that to remove the air from someone will result in his death.

The same here. To remove the support from the child, is like suffocating him. One should be just as responsible as in the first case.

If they can get their congressmen/senators to get a bill through, yes. But that's a legal matter. Do I think they should be able to refuse to stock certain? No?

That's dumb. The medical authorities should get to decide what gets stocked and what does not. The very fact that the politicians get involved tells me that pharmacy supplies are more about politics than about medicine.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Just to chime in again here, how much pain and suffering must an unwanted and potentially abandoned child be put through before one suggests it would have been better were they to have never been born at all?

I totally agree that abortions would be far more rare if the level of education was in place, but it is not, and until it is, a child born into a situation where the parent(s) did not want/were not able to look after it is going to have a poor start on life right away. And we can't really expect the State to look after all of these children. And should the foetus be diagnosed with a debilitating disease then you again have the choice between a possibly short life of suffering and no life/suffering at all.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why not? What makes this different from the case of a gun?

What makes them the same?

Suppose I took a different tack. These medications have very serious side effects on the women who take them. Shouldn't there be restrictions placed on them because of the potential dangers?

Laws are in place that state a doctor has to tell the patient of any serious side effects of a drug they prescribe... The Pharmasist can and must alert the patient of possible problems of drug interaction with other drugs... But not "normal" side effects. It is not the pharmasists place to restrict a drug soley because of side effects... because the doctor and patient have already decided the possible serious side effects are out weighed by the advantage of taking he drug. That's between the doctor and patient...

How is the abortifacient drug helping the woman Ming?

What a silly question.
The woman is taking the drug for a reason... she doesn't want the child. So it is indeed helping her.
That's the whole point of taking it.

So why are doctors prescribing a drug that could seriously harm their patients? Unless there is a real medical benefit from using these pills it makes sense, but if there is not, then it makes no sense at all for the doctor, if they are interested in their patient's welfare to prescribe these pills.

Doctors might prescribe medication that conflicts with other medication the patient is taking but they weren't aware of it because they didn't prescribe it or the patient didn't tell them... That happens... and that's where it is the pharmasists job to step in... It is not their job to withhold medication just because they don't want to.

So fine. If they are forced to sell these pills, then they can also challenge the justification behind selling them. It's a two way street. If they can't choose what they stock, then they can change the rules so that pharmacies do not stock these pills.

That I have no problem with that. As long as they continue supplying the pills until the law does change.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Of course there are many woman who believe they will be better off without abortion.

That's ****in' stupid. That's likes saying, damn, I'm glad murder is illegal, or I might murder someone, and I think that's wrong.

[Patroklos]

BK - just because the executioner doesn't believe the convicted is guilty, doesn't mean he doesn't have to kill him.

Man, the Nazi's could have used you at Nuremborg. I will remember this comment if ever ordered to slaughter civilians.

So when I bring my perscription for arsnic should my pharmacist think twice?

[Patroklos]

That's ****in' stupid. That's likes saying, damn, I'm glad murder is illegal, or I might murder someone, and I think that's wrong.

Yet we do outlaw murder, or do you disagree with this.

I like that you equate abortion to murder. Glad we are on the same page.