Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/ecinfo.htm

Established pregnancy
Past heart attack or stroke
Blood clots in the legs or lungs
Breast or genital cancers
Liver cancer

If anything, this site is biased against me.

And because of these not very common reasons you suggest that the vast amount of women should be denied this pill ? None of those exceptions has anything to do with a common and healthy person.

[Patroklos]

Now I will admit to using the State of Nebraska. I seriously doubt it is going to be all that different from your one example, especially not by over 10%. Given what you do for the Navy - you've got to have some basic understanding of statistics. My point is, which Kuciwalker seems to understand, and you don't (yet you have responed to Kuciwalker as though you believe he is a moron for not admitting your points), is that the exhaustive (or rambling if you don't like the conclusion) post utterly refutes your claim there is no need for it in Camden County.

Unless you live in the glaciers of Alaska, there is no place in this country where you can not reasonably find a pharmacy that carries what you want. Whether that be MAP or anything else.

In all honesty Harley, I MADED CAMDEN UP (it just so happens that a county is actually named that), the point was that even the rural arguement is bogus. We don't require a heart surgeon to be in every little town, and not only is that emergency more serious, most are damn near more time sensitive than 72 freaking hours.

You can crunch your numbers to death, you particular numbers are exactly useless for this debate!

It also refutes Imran's claims that there is never a medical necessity for this drug.

So what? Even if we assume it is a neccesity it is not an emergency which is the only time doctors are required to help you. We have gone over this already.

[quote] she has some friends, my guess is multiple friends, who have been raped. I'll bet one month of my avatar on it.[quote]

Taken, and you just so royally screwed yourself. Not that we could ever verify it, which you know.

At least she was trying to back down, instead of devolving to personal attacks, like some of our right and left posters do.

She didn't back down, she declared victory and left the tread. Very different. Nobody here attacked her personally. She earned what she got by her own efforts alone.

And a question for you they H, of rapes committed, how may are revieled within 72 hours?

[Patroklos]

I don't think that any chatolics are forced to be pharmacists, but whenthe choose to be that, then they also accepts that they have to give out drugs without question. If that is against their belief, then their only option is to quit the job - not force their belif upon others.

The point is BC, that they ARE pharmacists, we DO make exceptions, and we do so in a host of other proffessions and circumstances as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

And because of these not very common reasons you suggest that the vast amount of women should be denied this pill?

Actually, if you read my arguments I say that the pill poses health risks without providing any measurable health benefits other than a dead baby.

So the very fact that there will be health risks associated with the high hormonal doses of the morning after pill, without the medical benefit, makes it a very poor form of 'medication'

None of those exceptions has anything to do with a common and healthy person.

Actually, healthy women will get side effects from the morning after pill, just that these particular pre-existing conditions greatly increase the chance of catastrophic outcomes, like death.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Actually, if you read my arguments I say that the pill poses health risks without providing any measurable health benefits other than a dead baby.

Try to discuss that with a rape victim that certainly doesn't want a "souvenir" that may hunt her for the rest of her life.

Or for that matter a couple of youngsters using contraceptives (most relevant a condom that breaks) but isn't capable of building a family for the moment.

So the very fact that there will be health risks associated with the high hormonal doses of the morning after pill, without the medical benefit, makes it a very poor form of 'medication'

Actually, healthy women will get side effects from the morning after pill, just that these particular pre-existing conditions greatly increase the chance of catastrophic outcomes, like death.

BS. Most - if not all - medics has side effects but that doesn 't mean they should be banned. Currently I'm taking a beta blocker which possible side effects are pretty scaring - still they are only possibilties so I don't deny to take them.

[Patroklos]

Try to discuss that with a rape victim that certainly doesn't want a "souvenir" that may hunt her for the rest of her life.

Listen, it is disengenuous for you to try to use the emotionally charged rape situation to make your points. Even in raped, the pregnancy is not automatically a medical emergency, as it is not life threatening. And if you want to consider the miniscule chance that the perhaps oped for abortion might make it so, then you have just made basically anything medical an immediate life threatening emergency. And that still does nothing to answer the constitutionality of making someone perform something that stinks of religious discrimination.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Patroklos


The point is BC, that they ARE pharmacists, we DO make exceptions, and we do so in a host of other proffessions and circumstances as well.

This is the reason the discussion goes haywired - pharmacists is a profession that earns their money by delivering medics to the public for the good of all - not for the good of the pharmacist. If that was the case there would be a lot of drugs that wouldn't be accessible to ordinary people.

[Ming]

I'll bet you more women have died from giving birth than from taking the morning after pill

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Mr. Harley
Note I HAVEN'T EVEN DEALT WITH THE ISSUES NORMAL WOMEN MAY HAVE WITH ACCESS. Then you numnuts wonder why Mrs. Tuberski reacts like it's a hot button? And castigate her for it? Why not instead look at the fact that she is a generally reasonable individual, not necessarily articulate when typing (she has told us about her problems there, I do believe), and that maybe there's a reason that for Mrs. Tuberski, and alot of women, having a bunch of men pontificate gets them really pissed.

QFT

[Patroklos]

This is the reason the discussion goes haywired - pharmacists is a profession that earns their money by delivering medics to the public for the good of all - not for the good of the pharmacist. If that was the case there would be a lot of drugs that wouldn't be accessible to ordinary people.

Phamacists yes, pharmacies are there to make money. Or if the want, make a moral statement a la any Christan book store or Chick-Fila.

But it matters not, becasue if we hold Pharmacists to the same standard we do doctors, they are under no legal obligation to give the drug. Just like the doctor is under no obligation to perscribe it.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Listen, it is disengenuous for you to try to use the emotionally charged rape situation to make your points. Even in raped, the pregnancy is not automatically a medical emergency, as it is not life threatening. And if you want to consider the miniscule chance that the perhaps oped for abortion might make it so, then you have just made basically anything medical an immediate life threatening emergency. And that still does nothing to answer the constitutionality of making someone perform something that stinks of religious discrimination.

Of course it isn't - that was actually the point in the OT.

Still - the point aboout this pill isn't abortion - it's about NOT getting pregnant - there are a big difference between preventing an pregnancy and an abortion.

It's quite funny that you claims that it's reigious discrimination when I suggest that pharmacists should find another occupation if they don't want to deliver the pill of religuious reasons - what about the costumer that probably have another religious opinion ? Isn't it religious dicrimination of that person if the pharmacist denies to deliver what he/she is obliged to do ?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Is an embryo the same as a 'fertilised ovum?' By the time of implantation, you progress from a zygote, to an embryo as cell division begins.

Zygote = fertilized egg

Implantation = pregnancy

Morning after pill = abortion? NO.

[Patroklos]

It's quite funny that you claims that it's reigious discrimination when I suggest that pharmacists should find another occupation if they don't want to deliver the pill of religuious reasons - what about the costumer that probably have another religious opinion ? Isn't it religious dicrimination of that person if the pharmacist denies to deliver what he/she is obliged to do ?

No, it would be religious discrimination if he sold it to a Baptist, but not a Catholic.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Unless you live in the glaciers of Alaska, there is no place in this country where you can not reasonably find a pharmacy that carries what you want. Whether that be MAP or anything else.

Notice the OP?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Patroklos


No, it would be religious discrimination if he sold it to a Baptist, but not a Catholic.

No problem - then the drug store just have to employ persons of matching religious beliefs matching the customers.