Women: A Parting Gift from Bush to You

[Guest]

I e-mailed my congressman asking that he take action to see that the regulations--as written in draft form, discriminatory, in my opinion--require faith-based health care organizations receiving funding through HHS to not discriminate in hiring against persons who believe that witholding legal abortion and/or contraceptive services from patients who desire them is morally wrong. And, that such persons not be required, as a condition of their employment, to participate in the witholding of such services.



Sauce for the goose, etc.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Then, Roxanne, we will agree to disagree.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So? I deny the legitimacy of that point of view.

It's nothing like a moral issue. It's a religious issue. Religion has nothing very much to do with morality. Peacefully enough, I defend the separation of religion from the actions of the state.

Oh c'mon, Cant. It's a profoundly moral issue. That it's also a religious one doesn't change that. Look past your personal preferences and engage the issues being discussed.

I happen to agree with you that abortion is not murder, and I'm also an atheist, but this absolutely is a highly ambiguous moral issue, one which becomes much more so the more developed the fetus. If you go denying the legitimacy of the pro-life point of view that may come back to bite you hard on some other issue. Just like your willingness to use government to bully employers who are religious social service agencies comes back to bite you in a smaller way when the same arguments are used to bully government-subsidized abortion and morning-after pill providers.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's curious, but the person who is frequently dissed as an "ideologue" around here is the one resisting absolutist, doctrinaire, "the other side has no right to its views" positions in this thread. That probably would be more apparent if some of the pro-lifers were in here duking it out too.

Here's my view in a nutshell: Abortion is morally an ambiguous issue, and so political disagreement about it is natural and legitimate, and democratic processes are the proper way to resolve the issue. Perhaps I would be less sanguine if there were a realistic prospect that abortion would be banned outright nationwide in my lifetime, but that's not going to happen, and anyone who claims it might is playing political games.

~~~~

BTW, if the anti-aborts were in here swinging, here's what I would say to them: Your religious views have no weight or relevence to this debate. However, abortion is a valid though highly ambiguous moral issue. Your viewpoint may be legitimate, but your only option is to persuade a majority of your fellow citizens that abortion is so close to murder that the destructive and pernicious effects of prohibition would be warranted. Your chances of accomplishing that for third trimester abortions are fair, but very low for second trimesters, and zilch for first tri.

~~~~~

Finally, like many people I too am conflicted about this issue, and as I said, might be less dispassionate were there a realistic chance that all abortion might be prohibited nationwide in my lifetime. The fact that no woman can be forced by any law to carry a pregnancy to term - one can always commit suicide - should be extremely troubling to the anti-aborts.

 

[DesertPirate]

Abortifacents?

The pill works by preventing conception, DP.

If you're speaking about the emergency contraceptive pills taken after rape, they need to be administered within 12 hours. Conception may not have even happened.

Sarahh, check what all the ingredients do. There are abortifacents in the pills to cover slips since not one of them are 100% even with the aditives.

I won't convert you and I'm not changing either. We just have to dissagree on this one.

 

[Guest]

Sarahh, check what all the ingredients do. There are abortifacents in the pills to cover slips since not one of them are 100% even with the aditives.

I won't convert you and I'm not changing either. We just have to dissagree on this one.

Can you give me a source? I actually checked a few sites listing pill ingredients before I posted my reply.

 

[DesertPirate]

Can you give me a source? I actually checked a few sites listing pill ingredients before I posted my reply.

American Life League

 

[Guest]

American Life League

I've read some of their stuff before. They lost me when they sued Disney because of subliminal messages in some of their cartoons.

We'll definitely have to agree to disagree.

 

[3113]

I won't convert you and I'm not changing either. We just have to dissagree on this one.

Disagree? DISAGREE? What are you, fucking nuts? If she says the Earth is round and you say it's flat, and she presents the facts that show it's round are you going to say, "Well, we'll just have to disagree..."

Either the Earth is round or flat. Either the pill contains abortifacents or it does not. This is SCIENCE, and I think we can find a scientist around here, a real one with real facts, a doctor, a real one with real facts, or a reliable website with FACTS not bias views either way to reliably attest to what the pill contains, absolutely, no argument.

Facts are facts. I know we all want certain truths to be, well, true and so have our way, but if they're not the truth, they're not. This isn't a matter of moral opinion. This is a matter of chemistry. There should not be any disagreement unless you're playing with definitions of what is or is not an abortifacent.

 

[Guest]

Disagree? DISAGREE? What are you, fucking nuts? If she says the Earth is round and you say it's flat, and she presents the facts that show it's round are you going to say, "Well, we'll just have to disagree..."

Either the Earth is round or flat. Either the pill contains abortifacents or it does not. This is SCIENCE, and I think we can find a scientist around here, a real one with real facts, a doctor, a real one with real facts, or a reliable website with FACTS not bias views either way to reliably attest to what the pill contains, absolutely, no argument.

Facts are facts. I know we all want certain truths to be, well, true and so have our way, but if they're not the truth, they're not. This isn't a matter of moral opinion. This is a matter of chemistry. There should not be any disagreement unless you're playing with definitions of what is or is not an abortifacent.

Since the American Life League disagrees with the very idea of any sort of contraception in the first place, they are an unreliable source for this information.

But if someone believes them to be reliable, how can their opinion be swayed?

I don't think it's possible, no matter the number of facts produced.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Sarahh, check what all the ingredients do. There are abortifacents in the pills to cover slips since not one of them are 100% even with the aditives.

I won't convert you and I'm not changing either. We just have to dissagree on this one.

Birth control pills are not 100% effective but when they don't work, the woman gets pregnant. I don't believe that there is an abortificant included. If there was, she wouldn't get pregnant, or she would abort the fetus or whatever it would be called.

American Life League is a gang of zealots, and I wouldn't believe anything they say on the subject.

 

[colddiesel]

Sarahh, check what all the ingredients do. There are abortifacents in the pills to cover slips since not one of them are 100% even with the aditives.

I won't convert you and I'm not changing either. We just have to dissagree on this one.

My wife, a fertility clinic doctor tells me you are wrong. The pill does not contain any abortifacent of any description.

Further she tells me that even the so called 'morning after' pill is effective before fertilisation in 85% plus of cases. It continues to be effective for up to 72 hours and in the later stages may be post fertilisation but prior to attachment to the uterus.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[xssve]

Anal/oral sex is a 100% effective means of birth control.

Bend over baby!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well that was quick!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well that was quick!

I think the HHS secretary is lying in his teeth, about the purpose, but it is possible some rogue staffer issued the proposal before he checked it over.

 

[Guest]

I think the HHS secretary is lying in his teeth, about the purpose, but it is possible some rogue staffer issued the proposal before he checked it over.

Yeah, I think Leavitt is full of shit.

 

[rgraham666]

The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn

It's after you're born that they stop caring.

However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraception but the legal right medical practitioner have to practice according to their conscience, and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.

Um? They don't now? News to me.

How can you tell when a Shrubbie is lying? His lips move.

 

[Just-Legal]

Anal/oral sex is a 100% effective means of birth control.

Bend over baby!

Actually, Anal isn't. There's a possibility of, err... dripping? Can't think of way to describe it lol.

 

[Liar]

Actually, Anal isn't. There's a possibility of, err... dripping? Can't think of way to describe it lol.

Not if you combine it with a handstand.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I believe the proposed regulation will be shelved after the furor it has caused. Not so much on this forum, but in general.

I don't like the idea of discrimination on religious grounds, and it is against the law, up to a point. However, if a Muslim were to apply for a job as a cook with IHOP, or some similar establishment, and tell the owner that he would refuse to cook bacon or pork, the management could legally refuse to hire him. If job applicants are unable to do the jobs they are applying for whatever the reason, it is perfectly proper to turn them down.

Likewise, if people accept jobs at medical clinics where abortions are frequently performed, and refuse to make appointments for such operations, or otherwise refuse to have any involvement, the management can fire them. You certainly don't have to retain the services of persons who refuse to do the work they have been hired for. I would say that would apply to anybody, up to and including physicians who are employees of the clinic and refuse to perform or even aid in abortions.

At the same time, if a person owns a medical clinic, that person can refuse to allow abortions to be performed there.

As to a pharmacist who refuses to dispense contraceptives, I feel the same way. If the owner of the pharmacy feels that way, he has a right to refuse to sell them. However, if the pharmacist is an employee, and his employer does provide contraception, failure to dispense it should be a firing offense. Reasonable accommodation should be made, but if that can't be done, then goodbye to the person who won't do the job.

 

[SlickTony]

I just got done writing to Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Mel Martinez.

 

[Guest]

Anal/oral sex is a 100% effective means of birth control.

Bend over baby!

Actually, Anal isn't. There's a possibility of, err... dripping? Can't think of way to describe it lol.

Not if you combine it with a handstand.

Really?


http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/NowIsee-1-1.jpg

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Now just how did you manage to type that. And don't give me any wiseacre "I just stood on my head", either. I'm serious. I wanna be able to type inverted letters too.

 

[Guest]

Now just how did you manage to type that. And don't give me any wiseacre "I just stood on my head", either. I'm serious. I wanna be able to type inverted letters too.

It looks right-side up to me.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It looks right-side up to me.

You're incorrigible! http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/1volupturary_manque/8.gif