Oh man, I think this means that adults are going to start having all kinds of sex now! Oh, the sin, THE SIN!
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
What Lyrhawn said. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In the middle of the night, "evolutionary biology" disappeared off of the list of college majors approved for recipients of government grants. I think that was the other shoe dropping?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Bad!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
What now? Are you serious? Do you have a source?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Good.
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Bad!
It's amazing how many of our most controversial threads can be distilled to this very exchange.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: What now? Are you serious? Do you have a source?
Evolutionary Biology: Conservative Christians don't think I should be taught in schools!
Bush: PWNED!!!!!!!
---
Student: yo ima be a evo bio major, gov't should gimme teh grantz
Bush: PWNED!!!!!!!!
Student: omgwth? evo bio wuz on here!!!!1! HAX!!!111!!!
Conservative Christians: kekekeke ^_~*
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Is the normal pill available without prescription in the US?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Bad!
You say this from a medical perspective -- you think it should require a prescription? Or because you consider the MAP to be abortion?
Or were you just attempting to bring balance to the thread? Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Great, it's OTC, now insurance won't cover it, and the high cost goes directly to the recipient.
What a victory. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Is the normal pill available without prescription in the US?
Yes. But only for past year (two?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
sm, AFAIK, most insurance companies were already refusing to cover it.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Ugh, this topic makes me nauseated.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is a massive blow to the church community. Do you have any idea the number of people who are not praying right now, who elsewise would be on their knees, at the church-of-most-convience, praying for all their worth that, "God, please don't let me be pregnant." or "God, please don't let her be pregnant."
This drastic cut in floor traffic could signifigantly hurt donations, political action, and other good work otherwise performed by the guilty, worried, parents-may-be's.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Great, it's OTC, now insurance won't cover it, and the high cost goes directly to the recipient.
What a victory.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Awesome.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't understand how anyone can see this as bad. Adults can buy it on their own recognizance. No one is being forced to sell it or prescribe it. Minors have to get a prescription.
quote: Conservative groups that fought wider availability said age enforcement was impossible.
Why?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't understand how anyone can see this as bad.
After all the discussions about this topic on this site? I see it as not positive because it could possibly destroy an unborn child.
quote: Like prescription birth control pills, Plan B blocks the release or fertilization of an egg. Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, and some opponents liken that mechanism to abortion.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It would be impossible because any adult can now go buy it and give it to kids, just like they do with alcohol and cigarettes.
NOTE: To me though, the benefits of better availability for adults outweighs this risk. It is impossible to "protect" kids from everything, and nearly as impossible to protect a determined kid against practically any specific thing. I think requiring a prescription for minors is adequate governmental intervention.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Scott,
To my recollection. Maybe I missed those threads.
The only threads I remember dealing with birth control had to do with forcing certain stores or people to sell birth control. I don't recall discussing whether or not birth control should be available at all.
From what you are saying, I take it you are against all birth control?
Karl,
that could have happened with a prescription before this ruling.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Karl,
that could have happened with a prescription before this ruling.
It's a hundred times easier now.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Demonstrocity,
I think it depends on where you live. In a lot of cities, places like Planned Parenthood would give morning after pills away to people who were 18 and up. Even if you lived in a place where you had to go get a prescription, how big of a deal do you think it would be to take an hour out of your day to get a prescription for birth control? I don't see that it was 'a hundred times' harder.
Edited for clarity
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm--
The blush smiley's not big enough...
I thought the 'Morning After Pill' referred to RU-486; I didn't read the article until after the first part of my post.
I'm still leery of this pill because:
quote:Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb
It's a fine line to draw, between fertilized egg and unfertilized egg; because of my religious beliefs, I dislike the idea of a fertilized egg being willfully destroyed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, the issue, then, isn't about the pill being OTC so much as the morning-after pill in general?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:I think it depends on where you live. In a lot of cities, places like Planned Parenthood would give morning after pills away to people who were 18 and up. Even if you lived in a place where you had to go get a prescription, how big of a deal do you think it would be to take an hour out of your day to get a prescription for birth control? I don't see that it was 'a hundred times' harder.
1) You addressed only prescription-based availability; I only addressed prescription-based availability.
2) Imagine you're 15, and the condom broke. Before, you would need a prescription; obtaining one is often difficult and embarassing and in many places, requires either parent notification or sex counseling. Now, you can go ask your 18 year old friend to go buy Plan B at the corner drug store.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm:
Pretty much.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As to your point 1, the issue is availability before this ruling. This directly bears on your second point.
As to your second point, you could go ask your 18 year old friend before. She would just have to have a prescription for it, which, as I mentioned, isn't hard to get. As in, not hard at all.
But let's go with your viewpoint and say that getting the pill is 'difficult and embarassing'. Now, we've already concluded that the dirty deed has been done ('the condom broke'). Are you saying that it's better that it's harder to get the morning after pill, that is, increasing the odds that nothing will be done?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you for the clarification, Scott.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote:It's a fine line to draw, between fertilized egg and unfertilized egg; because of my religious beliefs, I dislike the idea of a fertilized egg being willfully destroyed.
I have mixed feelings on this. I'm 20 years old, sexually active, and definitely pro-life, and if I were to get pregnant I would have no hesitation in my decision to keep the child. That said, I really, really, really don't want to get pregnant. I use condoms and take birth control pills, and feel pretty safe most of the time, but if there was ever a doubt in my mind about protection failing, knowing that I could go to the drugstore and get a morning-after pill is somewhat comforting. What's not comforting is having to wonder if the pill merely blocked fertilization altogether, or if it destroyed an already fertilized egg (and I believe that life begins at conception.) I'm not sure if I would personally use the pill or not, but I am glad that it's available now with more convenience.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:So, the issue, then, isn't about the pill being OTC so much as the morning-after pill in general?
For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache.
Of course, the article refers to it as "preventing pregnancy", which makes it equivalent to birth control pills. But IMO, once an egg is fertilized, you're pregnant. So to me it's not the same thing as preventing pregnancy. It's terminating it. Abortion is a serious decision and shouldn't be made lightly, and it makes me ill to think that someone could end a pregnancy in the same shopping trip and with as little forethought as picking up some Tylenol.
And why would birth control pills need a prescription, but the morning-after pill not? It makes the morning-after pill easier to obtain and use than reglar birth control, which gives women an incentive to not do anything to prevent pregnancy until after the fact. This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:As to your second point, you could go ask your 18 year old friend before. She would just have to have a prescription for it, which, as I mentioned, isn't hard to get. As in, not hard at all.
Um. Have you ever tried to obtain the morning after pill by prescription?
It's a lot harder than you're making it sound. And a LOT more embarassing and difficult.
It often involves a mandatory pelvic exam, mandatory sex counseling, mandatory STD testing before a 'scrip will be written.
There is NO comparison.
quote:But let's go with your viewpoint and say that getting the pill is 'difficult and embarassing'. Now, we've already concluded that the dirty deed has been done ('the condom broke'). Are you saying that it's better that it's harder to get the morning after pill, that is, increasing the odds that nothing will be done?
No, I'm not saying that. In fact, I've said nothing about it being "better" or "worse."
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache.
As has been mentioned, the day-after pill is geared at prevent conception, not implantation.
Also, you do not need to be 18 to purchase pain killers.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:So, the issue, then, isn't about the pill being OTC so much as the morning-after pill in general?
For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache.
Except the problem is, the Morning-after pill isn't an abortion. It prevents release of the egg.
Yes, there is a chance that it can prevent implantation. And yes, if you believe that conception is when life starts, then there is a chance it could cause an abortion. However, the chance is THE SAME as the chance of a regular birth-control pill doing the same thing.
Basically what I'm saying is, if you're against the morning-after pill, you should be against the regular birth-control pill. In which case, fine.
I just get terribly frustrated when people think that these two pills are different. The only difference is that one has a higher dosage of the same drugs, and one is taken after sex while the other is taken before.
This isn't a comment against you, JennaDean, it just happens that your quote set me off, sorry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Demonstrocity (I keep wanting to type "eros") -
That's a fairly likely scenario, in the same way that cigarettes, liquor and what, porn I guess, are smuggled to youth against the law.
I'm curious, how easy was it before for girls under 18 to get birth control? By circumventing the law, how easy I mean.
Either way, I think the benefits of this to the over 18 population outweigh the risks to the under 18 population. Something about the idea of the possibility of 12-17 year olds breaking the law should prevent 18-100+ year olds from easily purchasing a perfectly legal substance is a little odd to me. I think the restrictions set in place are the best that can be done, and the rest should be up to parents and their children.
The government can't be watching out for your kids all the time.
edit to add: whew I'm behind the thread, this was in response to your 1:45 post.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: which gives women an incentive to not do anything to prevent pregnancy until after the fact. This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior.
This isn't something that can be taken after you find out you're pregnant -- it really does have to be the morning after sex (or evening, I suppose, if the encounter was in the morning). And it causes what is in effect a very heavy period, immediately. I really can't see many women choosing to bring on 4-6 days of heavy bleeding after every act of intercourse rather than using regular birth control.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Demonstrocity,
quote:As has been mentioned, the day-after pill is geared at prevent conception, not implantation.
Yes. And it has also been mentioned:
quote: Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, and some opponents liken that mechanism to abortion.
Of course, that's why I don't like certain forms of before-the-morning-after contraceptives either, as some of them work by the same method.
quote:Also, you do not need to be 18 to purchase pain killers.
No, just White-Out. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Jenna, getting a prescription for birth control wasn't, and isn't, hard. I think this point also speaks to your belief that making birth control easier to get will make the decision to abort a child easier. That is, I'm not sure it follows.
Keep in mind, then, that we're talking about people who, often, aren't on birth control at all, and don't plan ahead, and are already engaged in risky behavior.
I appreciate your argument that from your point of view, this will increase people engaging in risky behavior, but it seems like that this is not a given.
What is a given, and is a fact, is that there are people who engage in risky behavior. Let's say for the sake of argument that the number of people engaging in this risky behavior stays the same. From what you're saying, the argument isn't about engaging in this behavior, but aborting a 'child'. So, it sounds like you are against the morning after pill totally, too.
****************************
One point that I hesitated making with Scott, but that I will say now, is that this thread bears directly on the discussions of whether or not someone should be forced to sell the pill against their beliefs. I don't understand how you can say, on the one hand, that a person's beliefs should be honored to not sell, but on the other hand, a person's belief's should not be honored when they wish to sell birth control. This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
dkw - Good point. I don't think they'd take it EVERY time. It's called Plan B for a reason. It's a backup/last resort, not someone's first choice.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: And why would birth control pills need a prescription, but the morning-after pill not? It makes the morning-after pill easier to obtain and use than reglar birth control, which gives women an incentive to not do anything to prevent pregnancy until after the fact. This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior.
The morning after pill basically causes your period to start. So it's not exactly going to be viewed as a substitute for being on regular birth control pills. I doubt there are many sexually active women who would consider taking a morning after pill every time they had sex preferable to getting a birth control prescription.
--
Demonstrocity, I'm curious where you're getting your information about what getting a morning-after pill prescription "often" involved. I've never heard of sex counseling or STD tests being required, and pelvic exams only if you didn't have your annual in the file. (Or, I suppose, if you weren't going to your regular doctor.) It may be different in different places, of course, but I'm just wondering if you're speaking from friend's experience, or news reports, or what.
Added: Boy, I'm slow.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Um. Have you ever tried to obtain the morning after pill by prescription?
It's a lot harder than you're making it sound. And a LOT more embarassing and difficult.
It often involves a mandatory pelvic exam, mandatory sex counseling, mandatory STD testing before a 'scrip will be written.
I have never heard of these things being a necessity in all cases to get the morning after pill. I am open to the idea that I am wrong. So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
quote: quote:But let's go with your viewpoint and say that getting the pill is 'difficult and embarassing'. Now, we've already concluded that the dirty deed has been done ('the condom broke'). Are you saying that it's better that it's harder to get the morning after pill, that is, increasing the odds that nothing will be done?
No, I'm not saying that. In fact, I've said nothing about it being "better" or "worse."
That would be why I asked you the question.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Demonstrocity,
quote:As has been mentioned, the day-after pill is geared at prevent conception, not implantation.
Yes. And it has also been mentioned:
quote: Some research suggests the hormone also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, and some opponents liken that mechanism to abortion.
Of course, that's why I don't like certain forms of before-the-morning-after contraceptives either, as some of them work by the same method.
quote:Also, you do not need to be 18 to purchase pain killers.
No, just White-Out.
Right; I objected to your attitude and phraseology, which suggested a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I take it that was directed at me, Demonstrocity. I can't speak to my attitude. I've tried to be pretty polite in this thread. If I've somehow not succeeded in doing so, then I don't know what to say.
As to 'misinterpreting' the facts, which facts have I misinterpreted?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"For me it's both ... I dislike the morning-after pill as I dislike any abortion, and I think it's really sad that it will become as easy to get rid of a fertilized egg as it is to get rid of a headache."
As has been pointed out SOME research suggests that this MAY prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. So far, there's nothing to suggest it does do this.
"But IMO, once an egg is fertilized, you're pregnant."
The medical definition of pregnancy is implantation, so the statement that it prevents pregnancy is entirely accurate within the field of medicine.
" This seems to me to really encourage irresponsible behavior."
There's been a lot of research geared at demonstrating this, and so far its come up dry. So you can rest easy on that account, at anyrate.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I take it that was directed at me, Demonstrocity. I can't speak to my attitude. I've tried to be pretty polite in this thread. If I've somehow not succeeded in doing so, then I don't know what to say.
As to 'misinterpreting' the facts, which facts have I misinterpreted?
That was geared at JennaDean, not you (hence her post being quoted, not yours).
You haven't offended me or been impolite; I just think you're wrong. ^_^
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There is little or no evidence that hormonal birth control actually prevents implementation of an already fertilized egg. As far as I could find when I researched it (about 2 years ago), the idea that it might was a marketing gimmick when “the pill” was first introduced. The intended and well studied effect is to prevent ovulation. It also causes changes to the uterine lining, which may make implementation more difficult (though obviously not impossible, since some women have gotten pregnant while on the pill). Whether or not these changes do actually decrease the chance of implementation doesn’t seem to have been studied. But they might.
Now if I needed to take, for any reason, a medication whose possible side effects included making it more difficult for a fertilized egg to implant (for example, some anti-inflammatory drugs) I would want to take precautions to see that there was no fertilized egg to worry about. Since the main intent and effect of hormonal birth control is to see that there’s no egg present to be fertilized in the first place, I consider it a responsible form of pregnancy prevention, not a possible abortion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Javert -
Great article. Dr. Drew, I think, has always been the most respected and progressive advocate for teenage sexual health. Thanks for the link.
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
Javert, Great article, thanks for posting it. I hope everyone reads it. It sums it up nicely with the fire extinguisher analogy.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If you take the pill right after the condom breaks, it works better than if you take it a day later. So, getting a prescription takes time and increases your chance of getting pregnant. I also have trouble getting upset over fertilized eggs that early not implanting. Some drs estimate as many as 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant. Implanting is not a guaranteed thing.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Whew, I had a whole post typed out, but I'm way behind by now.
quote:Right; I objected to your attitude and phraseology, which suggested a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.
Just wanted to say I didn't mean to have an "attitude" that was objectionable. I'm learning a lot from this thread. I can understanding why my "phraseology" (or perhaps my analogy) might be objectionable. It's just that I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that planning ahead would be more difficult than trying to fix things after. Or that something as serious and needing of consideration as this should be treated like a headache or sniffles, with a pill you can take over the counter to get rid of it.
We get the behavior we encourage. I know realistically we're not going to encourage more "risky behavior" with the availability of this pill, but we're certainly not going to discourage it. I just want to encourage people thinking and taking consideration of their behavior and their choices, especially in an area so important as procreation.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Javert, thanks for that article. It makes me re-think.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" It's just that I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that planning ahead would be more difficult than trying to fix things after."
Its more difficult to plan ahead for many things, then to fix them afterwards. You can't REALLY plan ahead for dropping a glass when setting the table, but its pretty easy to clean up the shards afterwards. People spend years planning how to get their children into great colleges. Then the kids that don't go to great colleges go to good colleges. There's not much difference between the university of wisconsin, and harvard, educationally. Yeah, you won't make the connections at UW as you will at harvard. But its a pretty good fix for not getting into harvard or yale or princeton. People spend a year planning their wedding, and then if something goes wrong still enjoy the day. Etc.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Don't thank me, thank Dr. Drew. He may have been in a really bad Olson Twins movie, but he's still pretty smart.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The American Medical Women’s Association likens it to keeping a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. Does the presence of a fire extinguisher mean you’re going to torch your food? No, of course you’re not planning to have a fire, but if you do, you’re grateful that the extinguisher is there.
Most teenagers don't feel the desire to set their kitchens on fire-- in a safe, convenient, and fun manner.
It's a poor analogy. Sex is desirable; fire in the kitchen, less so.
quote:This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
Yes, yes. And for my next trick, I shall revoke women's rights to vote and hold property. Fear me, I am the PATRONIZER!
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote: It's a poor analogy. Sex is desirable; fire in the kitchen, less so.
You're not likening the two properly. Sex and good food: both pleasurable. Accidental pregnancy, fire in the ketchen: both bad. Fire extinguisher and Plan B: quick resolutions.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Jenna, I was in a conversation with some friends of mine once, all LDS now, most of whom had grown up LDS. We got to talking and it turned out that 7 out of the 10 of us had been date-raped or someone had tried to at least once. Obviously that's not representative. But if there's a form of birth control that you can use after the fact to possibly stop implantation if you are date raped (after which many girls are too ashamed to tell their parents or anyone else what happened), shouldn't it be available? And not just to 18 year olds, but to all teenage girls it might happen to? That's my view on it. I mean, ideally, you get to a doctor that night or maybe the next day, get tested for VD, get the pill. But what if you don't? And many teenage girls just don't.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Jenna, I was in a conversation with some friends of mine once, all LDS now, most of whom had grown up LDS. We got to talking and it turned out that 7 out of the 10 of us had been date-raped or someone had tried to at least once. Obviously that's not representative. But if there's a form of birth control that you can use after the fact to possibly stop implantation if you are date raped (after which many girls are too ashamed to tell their parents or anyone else what happened), shouldn't it be available? And not just to 18 year olds, but to all teenage girls it might happen to? That's my view on it. I mean, ideally, you get to a doctor that night or maybe the next day, get tested for VD, get the pill. But what if you don't? And many teenage girls just don't.
Ultimately it comes down to: do you want to pander to the lowest common denominator? And if so, which side is the lowest common denominator?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Yes, yes. And for my next trick, I shall revoke women's rights to vote and hold property. Fear me, I am the PATRONIZER!
This doesn't help me understand that my conclusion is wrong.
Posted by Mneighthyn (Member # 9572) on :
Anyone know what the status is of this in Canada?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't think the fire extinguisher analagy works that well. After the morning after pill, you have to have a heavy period, probably only like 2 weeks since you had the last one. Perhaps better than being pregnant for most women, but still, quite the deterent. It's like the fire extinguisher causes pain and misery when used. No way are woman going to be using it as primary birth control method. Also, too expensive for that.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I have never heard of these things being a necessity in all cases to get the morning after pill. I am open to the idea that I am wrong. So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
If you can get to a Planned Parenthood, it's fairly easy, though they do give you a pregnancy test. If Planned Parenthood is closed, it's really not so easy. You have to go to the emergency room, where they perform a whole lot of tests and an exam. Happened to one of my friends a year ago. She and her boyfriend had sex on a Friday night, and the condom broke. So if you need a Plan B prescription on a weekend, it's difficult.
-pH
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Scholar, agreed, it shouldn't be used as primary birth control.
Now, just to play with the analogy, have you ever fired off a fire extinguisher in a small room? That chemical stuff gets EVERYWHERE, and is certainly not fun to breath or clean up.
This is just arguing semantics, of course...the fire extinguisher analogy isn't perfect, but it's probably the best one we have at the moment.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Why do we have to have an analogy?
quote:Ultimately it comes down to: do you want to pander to the lowest common denominator? And if so, which side is the lowest common denominator?
Are you implying that rape victims are the lowest common denominator? I'm determined not to argue about this, I'm just curious.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
ketchupqueen - we don't!
Demonstrocity - Who do you mean when you're talking about the lcd? I'm confused.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
Sorry, I missed this.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I have never heard of these things being a necessity in all cases to get the morning after pill. I am open to the idea that I am wrong. So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
I deliberately specified that it was not applicable in all cases; I am not disputing that it can be easy to obtain a day after pill by prescription, I am disputing that always (or even mostly, or even half the time) is, which is what you seemed to be implying.
quote:That would be why I asked you the question.
I am glad that the morning after pill is more easily available.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
pH,
thanks for the post responding to my question.
Just doing a little poking around on the web, and it seems like the morning-after pill is something where how hard it is to get is strongly dependent on who is dispensing it and where you live? Hmmm.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Cool. Thanks for the clarification, Demonstrocity. Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Are you implying that rape victims are the lowest common denominator? I'm determined not to argue about this, I'm just curious.
quote:Who do you mean when you're talking about the lcd? I'm confused.
If you believe that life begins at conception, you ultimately have to decide which group you will disenfranchise when making a moral decision about the legality and availability of the day-after pill.
By advocating against the pill, you are advocating against rape victims by saying their needs matter less. By advocating for the pill, you are advocating in favor of the rape victims, saying their needs matter more.
Edit to add:
By advocating against the pill, you are advocating in favor of the unborn babies created at conception. By advocating for the pill, you are advocating against the unborn babies created at conception.
Assuming, of course, that you agree conception is (even periodically) being allowed to take place despite the use of the day-after pill.
That's all I meant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Yes, yes. And for my next trick, I shall revoke women's rights to vote and hold property. Fear me, I am the PATRONIZER!
This doesn't help me understand that my conclusion is wrong.
I just wanted to commend you Storm on how you handled this.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:If you believe that life begins at conception, you ultimately have to decide which group you will disenfranchise when making a moral decision about the legality and availability of the day-after pill.
What do you mean by "conception"? "Conception" could mean "fertilization" or it could mean "implantation"-- personally, I'm in favor of the latter if you're going to make the "life begins at conception" argument (which I'm not sure whether I agree with or not, but that's another matter), because so many fertilized eggs just don't implant. It doesn't make sense to me that every single fertilized egg is a real live baby already.
I'm assuming by "conception" you mean "fertilization", though. But in any case, the pill, if taken very quickly, can also prevent fertilization. So unless you're arguing that sperm is also a bunch of real live babies, I'm not sure that's an accurate point.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(And I swear, that was my last post! I do NOT want to argue today!)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't understand how you can say, on the one hand, that a person's beliefs should be honored to not sell, but on the other hand, a person's belief's should not be honored when they wish to sell birth control. This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
1.) Many people, and the law in general, see forcing someone to do something to be a far greater imposition on personal autonomy than prohibiting something. And yes, I'm aware many things can be couched as both a requirement and a prohibition, but in the case of forced sale of something, the distinction is clear.
2.) There is a distinction between the morning after pill and hormonal birth control with respect to prevention of implantation. With the former, there was, presumably, nothing preventing ovulation from occurring, either due to omission or failure of the method. With the latter, there was something preventing ovulation. Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill.
3.) Did Scott advocate banning hormonal birth control or merely the morning after pill? If he did, I didn't see it, but I haven't read closely enough to be sure.
4.) There are many advocating for a right of conscience for pharmacists and not advocating to keep plan B prescription.
5.) Perhaps you missed Scott's implication that your accusation of dishonesty is, well, patronizing. It's not clear Scott intended to help you understand your conclusion to be wrong so much as to chide you for implying dishonesty in the discussion.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dag, as for your #2, the morning after pill PRIMARILY works by preventing ovulation, not preventing implantation. It's my understanding that the actual window of fertility is pretty small, so the morning after pill helps to push that window away from the time of unprotected sex.
-pH
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill."
I'm not sure this is right at all.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I think I agree with Dag's #2.
I was about to write my own opinion on that subject, and since he already has responses I'll go ahead. If a person is on birth control every month and then has unprotected sex while on birth control, most likely no egg was going to get released because the birth control has been the there all week. But if you aren't on birth control, and you take the morning after pill, it can only prevent the egg from being released if it hasn't already been released. If it just got released right before Plan B, or in the first hour or two, then the egg could still be fertilized and the implantation prevented. A person on birth control will not have that released egg except very rarely. So yes, the chance of a fertilized egg being created then destroyed is much higher with Plan B than with birth control.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: 1.) Many people, and the law in general, see forcing someone to do something to be a far greater imposition on personal autonomy than prohibiting something. And yes, I'm aware many things can be couched as both a requirement and a prohibition, but in the case of forced sale of something, the distinction is clear.
If you're saying that not letting birth control be sold is less of an imposition than forcing someone to sell birth control, or the morning after pill, the distinction's not clear to me from a general point of view. Sorry. That is, some people are going to see not being allowed to sell birth control/morning after pill as much more of an imposition than being forced to sell it, and vice versa.
quote: 2.) There is a distinction between the morning after pill and hormonal birth control with respect to prevention of implantation. With the former, there was, presumably, nothing preventing ovulation from occurring, either due to omission or failure of the method. With the latter, there was something preventing ovulation. Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill.
I see that now that you point it out. Didn't occur to me before.
quote: 3.) Did Scott advocate banning hormonal birth control or merely the morning after pill? If he did, I didn't see it, but I haven't read closely enough to be sure.
Just the morning after pill. With your point number two above, I see the error in how I expressed myself, that I wasn't clear (see below).
quote: 4.) There are many advocating for a right of conscience for pharmacists and not advocating to keep plan B prescription.
I know. What I was trying to say was that it doesn't make sense to me how you can say a person is advocating for a 'right of conscience for pharmacists', when a person doesn't advocate for pharmacists to sell the morning after pill, if that is what their conscience dictates.
quote: 5.) Perhaps you missed Scott's implication that your accusation of dishonesty is, well, patronizing. It's not clear Scott intended to help you understand your conclusion to be wrong so much as to chide you for implying dishonesty in the discussion.
I didn't mean to imply dishonesty at all. I genuinely had no idea where Scott was coming from or why he was angry.
Frequently in conversations on this and other forums, it becomes clear that the words we choose, or positions we seem to take with the words we choose, are not entirely consistent with a principle we hold or think we hold. Often, it is not clear to another person how this principle is working itself out within another context. Sometimes people misunderstand what the other person is saying.
Scott never made the point in this thread for a right of conscience for pharmacists, however this point does seem to me to bear upon this thread, and I just happened to think of it when reading Scott's post and just kind of muddled it in with what he was saying. That's all. I wasn't trying to imply that Scott was being dishonest, I was just confused as to how the two viewpoints (the right of conscience to not sell/sell birth control versus selling otc maf pills) could reconcile themselves. From your point number two above, I can see how from a certain perspective, they do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:" Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill." I'm not sure this is right at all.
How is it not right?
In the time between sex and the morning after pill, an egg might be fertilized, right?
If what everyone is saying about hormonal birth control is accurate, the pill prevents fertilization as its primary method of control, meaning that the up-to-72-hour window for fertilization that exists with plan b simply doesn't exist with the pill.
quote:Dag, as for your #2, the morning after pill PRIMARILY works by preventing ovulation, not preventing implantation. It's my understanding that the actual window of fertility is pretty small, so the morning after pill helps to push that window away from the time of unprotected sex.
The point is that either plan B does nothing to prevent pregnancy after fertilization or it has a greater chance of preventing implantation than the regular pill, because the pill certainly reduces the chance of fertilization.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you're saying that not letting birth control be sold is less of an imposition than forcing someone to sell birth control, or the morning after pill, the distinction's not clear to me from a general point of view. Sorry. That is, some people are going to see not being allowed to sell birth control/morning after pill as much more of an imposition than being forced to sell it, and vice versa.
It is almost a foundational tenet of our legal system that the law is more likely to prohibit an action than to require an action. For example, I can legally walk by a drowning baby who is not in my care and not pull the baby out of the water, even if there is no risk to me, simply because the law creates no general duty of rescue.
Many people see the distinction between saying, "You must do X" and "You may not do Y."
I'm not trying to convince you that there is a distinction. I haven't given any reason as to why I think this to be so. I'm merely pointing out that there are many people who do think so. The general principle that prohibition is less onerous than mandating is likely a majority view among legal scholars.
All that's required is that you recognize this belief exists, and exists strongly, to see why one might hold the two views you described without it meaning that "the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available."
quote:That's all. I wasn't trying to imply that Scott was being dishonest, I was just confused as to how the two viewpoints (the right of conscience to not sell/sell birth control versus selling otc maf pills) could reconcile themselves.
I see. I misinterpreted your statement, then. I'm sorry.
As of now, I don't think there's enough evidence on implantation effects that I advocate for banning plan B or hormonal birth control. #2 makes it more likely that I would advocate to ban plan B if such information became available.
But the reason I wholeheartedly support a conscience clause (at the employers' discretion) is because of #1, regardless of my opinion on the specific drugs themselves.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"How is it not right?"
"The point is that either plan B does nothing to prevent pregnancy after fertilization"
I'm pretty certain that plan B does nothing to prevent pregnancy after fertilization.
I could be wrong on this, but I'm fairly certain that all plan B does is prevent ovulation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Paul, I'm confused by your response - moreso your first than your second. You stated that you thought this ("Therefore the chances of an egg being present and fertilized are far greater in the case of the morning after pill") might not be true. Without going into the rest of the argument, how is this sentence not true?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Whoops. You're right, dagonee. I made a mistake in reading.
Yes, the chances of an egg being present and fertilzed are greater in a case where someone takes plan B.
However, I don't think Plan B prevents implantation.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:What do you mean by "conception"? "Conception" could mean "fertilization" or it could mean "implantation"-- personally, I'm in favor of the latter if you're going to make the "life begins at conception" argument (which I'm not sure whether I agree with or not, but that's another matter), because so many fertilized eggs just don't implant. It doesn't make sense to me that every single fertilized egg is a real live baby already.
I'm assuming by "conception" you mean "fertilization", though. But in any case, the pill, if taken very quickly, can also prevent fertilization. So unless you're arguing that sperm is also a bunch of real live babies, I'm not sure that's an accurate point.
I remember reading about the morning-after pill issue on Dr. B's blog, and in the comments thread this issue was addressed. Apparently (according to the people on the thread; I'm certainly not a doctor) it takes quite a while for the sperm to actually reach the egg and fertilize it. In the meantime, the morning-after pill prevents fertilization. There were several studies examining the effects of the morning-after pill later on after intercourse, and they showed that the morning-after pill is not effective at preventing implantation for an already-fertilized egg. The warning on the bottles and in information about it is a medical disclaimer so that they can't get in trouble in case new studies show that it does in fact prevent implantation of fertilized eggs; it uses "may" in the way scientists tend to, as in "we have no evidence that it does and a bunch that it doesn't, but of course we're not 100% positive." The way that the general public uses may implies a higher probability, which is where the confusion comes from. (Like people misunderstanding the use of the word "theory" in the theory of evolution through natural selection.) It's like people being ultra-careful to use "seems like" and "apparently" and "I'm not an expert, but..." online.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have a couple questions.
1. I read, I think on a link in this thread, that Plan be can be taken up to three days after unplanned sex, exactly how long after intercourse does semen remain in the body? I mean, how long after sex can a woman still no be pregnant, but still can get pregnant?
2. How long after fertilization does implantation occur?
3. What studies/tests are there that I can read that actually say that Plan B causes fertilized eggs not to be implanted?
(Been a long time since I took a health class)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Plan B becomes less and less effective the lonager you wait to take it, remember. I seem to remember my health class saying that sperm could stay alive for like a week, but I don't know if that's true.
-pH
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I was thinking sperm lived in the female body for well over a day, but I couldn't remember exactly. This page is interesting. It says sperm can live 48 hours in the best of conditions.
And it looks like implantation is around 7-10 days after ovulation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Back to the rape issue...I don't really like that we are making it easier for rape victims to not report their crimes. Darn it, I want those crimes reported so the justice system can go after the rapists. One of the things that encouraged women to come forward and go to the hospital was so they could get morning after treatments and such to help prevent pregnancy and get checked for STD's.
Now we've made it even easier to "hide" the fact that you've been raped by getting the morning after pill over the counter. I can't help but think that will lead to more rapes going unreported and I can't believe that's a good thing.
I also am not sure about the idea of minors getting the pills (yes I know they're not supposed to but we all know how easy it is for minors to get someone to buy them booze and cigarettes, let's face it - a 15 year old is going to be able to get her hands on this) and taking them without the supervision of a physician.
Has this been adequately tested in minors? Are we sure it's safe for young teens? Heck, not even teens, are we sure it's safe for 10 and 11 year olds? My husband has delivered a baby to a nine year old mother before, so we could be talking about very young girls.
I don't know, I just don't like the idea of it being so easily available. Although I'm staunchly pro-life, I don't have a problem with birth control methods that prevent fertilization and since that's the primary way this regimen works, I'm not against it being available at all, I'm just not happy about the over the counter status.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Has this been adequately tested in minors? Are we sure it's safe for young teens?"
Yes and yes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dag:
Your #5 isn't quite right; I wasn't implying Storm was being patronizing. I was using sarcasm and hyperbole to convey the ridiculousness of Storm Saxon's assertions.
quote: This makes me think the issue isn't about personal choice/rights at all, so much as making it so that birth control is not available, and that giving people who don't want to sell it their choice, but denying those who do want to sell it, is a means to this end.
At the time that this statement was made, only two (or three) people in this thread had offered objections to the Plan B pill. Both of those objections were specifically framed in language that made the reasons for the objections very clear. Storm Saxon chose an alternative explanation that seems to fit HIS preconceptions of why people object to this pill; reasons that had nothing to do with those given.
Instead of addressing the concerns raised by opponents of the pill, he chose to call them liars instead.
While I'm not convinced that the closed-minded attitude portrayed by OSC's leftists guerrilitas is the norm, this conversation is CERTAINLY a prime example of what he often talks about. Storm Saxon maligned opposers of this pill, not on any objections they'd made on this thread, but on his own concepts and prejudices about them.
Pfagh.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
From the article:
quote:Barr plans studies to back non-prescription use by a broader age group, said company spokeswoman Carol Cox.
Paul Goldner, this would seem to indicate that those studies do not presently exist, which is why I raised the question. If the studies do already exist, then why would the company be planning to initiate studies on younger age groups?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote:He added that information about mid-adolescents cannot be used to extrapolate how younger girls would act. In addition, he said there was insufficient information that young teenagers would use the product correctly without the help of health care providers or parents.
I happen to agree with Galson, and nothing in that article reassures me that this is not the case. I don't trust my 13 year old to take medication without my or a doctor's advise, I certainly wouldn't want my 10 or 11 year old child responsible for it.
A 10 year old is not the same as a 21 year old, even if she is sexually mature and menstruating. Now, of course, a 10 year old isn't old enough for consensual sexual activity in my opinion, so I reiterate my concerns that making this type of thing more readily available decreases the likelihood that abuses or rapes of young girls will be reported. And no, I can't prove that is the case, it's just my opinion, but it's one of the reasons I can't be fully behind this, even though I have no religious or philosophical objections to morning after pills in general. I think they should be available, they just should be prescription-only.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was incorrect about the Pill being available OTC in the US. I thought that had finally happened about a year ago, but it was fought down (again) based primarily on objections that women might use it instead of Plan B. So maybe now that Plan B has been made OTC, the Pill can be as well.
Also, it is almost certainly true that the odds of affects on a fertilized egg are higher than with regular BC (because of opportunity, as Dags mentioned). However, the odds (as best as anyone has been able to figure) are still EXTREMELY low. Fertilization does not occur until HOURS after intercourse -- most estimates I have seen say up to 12 hours. (Considering that the majority of fertilized eggs never implant (someone said 50% above, but most of the estimates I've seen are more like 60-80%) even without any chemical interference, it is probably impossible to prove the odds one way or the other.)
And sperm's lifetime is generally considered to be 3-5 days (or at least, that's what my doctor and all the books said when I was researching infertility a dozen years back) . . . the precise time period Plan B is considered to be potentially effective during. IOW, Plan B works by preventing ovulation from occurring during the 3-5 days that the swimmers stick around.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's actually the same medication, in a higher dosage. One of the sites I found gave instructions on how to use various different brands of birth control pills as a substitute for Plan B, by taking a larger dose.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Too bad no one linked to a page like that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Heres the link on how to take normal birth control so that it acts like Plan B
Am I wearing an invisibility cloak? Or is my 4:40 post?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I believe rivka was being sarcastic.
edit: That's what I get for not checking to see if there were any new posts before posting this.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Yes, exactly, MightyCow. It's quite simple to just take 3-7 pills in a regular pack of contraception and prevent pregnancy. Doctors used to do this for rape victims or concerned women when the condom broke, etc. My own mother told me about it when I was like 12 or something. However, the MAP is only progesterone (I think - or estrogen, I could be getting my hormones crossed) and is therefore less likely to make you puke your guts out, which is what taking a lot of normal pills will usually do. Not pleasant.
Incidentally, I asked to be put on the pill when I was about 15, because I had really heavy periods (like 9 days of using super-absorbent everything) and it was beyond obnoxious. I didn't become sexually active until I was in college, however. My doctor was like "Great, cool, here are some sample packs, see what you think." He is a VERY responsible physician, but he was not about to mess around with a 15 year old girl requesting contraceptive drugs. He did not discuss it with my parents, for which I was appreciative, since this would have precipitated an "intersting" conversation with my mom. She would have supported me 100%, but still, I was 15, not fun to talk to your mom about.
I live in Boulder, a predominantly white, affluent, and well educated city. Most of my friends were offered BC pills as soon as they hit high school by their doctors and many of us now have standing prescriptions for the MAP in case of emergencies. There seems to be a strong correlation between affluence and education and access to birth control, possibly abortion as well. It's upsetting to me that some of the women who are least informed regarding the risks of intercourse and pregnancy also have the least access to resources to help them make intelligent decisions. I mean, when I was a kid, there were about 20 different moms who I could have gone to besides my own, five doctors, multiple friends, if I'd had unprotected sex or been raped. Big old safety net.
I am firmly pro-choice, but I would really prefer it if everyone avoided unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I think Plan B goes a long way toward doing that. Well-educated wealthy young women have been able to prevent or abort unwanted pregnancies for some time now. All women have had the choice to abstain from using BC if they did not wish to. I think Plan B just levels the playing field somewhat.
Interesting article that's likely been linked to in another page:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: According to this page: http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx , Plan B works just like regular birth control pills. If you support birth control pills, I don't see any reason not to support Plan B.
It's actually the same medication, in a higher dosage. One of the sites I found gave instructions on how to use various different brands of birth control pills as a substitute for Plan B, by taking a larger dose.
Yes, it is the same medication. The effect of taking it high dose one day, as opposed to 3-4 weeks every month, IS a little different. Enough different for many people to have arguments with one and not the other. Not to mention that birth control isn't over the counter, and the Plan B now IS, which is kind of what this thread is all about. Being against Plan B, being against Plan B OTC, being against Plan B for kids, and being against birth control are all for slightly different reasons.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That is an interesting article. There are so many sides to these debates, so many unforeseen consequences to all the various actions.
I'm honestly surprised that doctors and pharmacists are legally allowed to withhold medical treatment based on their personal feelings.
It makes me wonder why a doctor or pharmacist's beliefs trump those of their patient, when the doctor or pharmacist took the job with the express intent to provide medical services to the public, and with the full knowledge that their job included things which they might find to go against their beliefs.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
But how hard is it to get ahold of a pack of BC pills? I mean, this is the thing that's kind of odd to me about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for the MAP - all I'd have to do to get around them is renew my BC scrip, have my doc call a new pack in ( they needn't know why), or just take some of the pills I already have. Or call around and find out what friends already have a MAP lying around, or a scrip for one, or have old BC pills they stopped taking . . . yes, I know that transferring prescriptions or giving someone medication without a license is illegal, but it's not hard to do.
I dunno, it all seems like semantics to me, especially in regards to other people's health decisions. If someone doesn't want someone to use emergency birth control, talking to them, probably at a young age and persuading them, seems more effective than trying to keep them from having access.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm really glad for this. I want all children to be cherished and well cared for. Unwanted children often aren't. Technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy is a good thing.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
They aren't allowed to withhold emergency medical care. It's really only a problem usually in very small rural areas, where there is only one doctor or one pharmacist. With birth control, anyway. Plan B might be different, not sure yet.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Samarkand. A lot of small towns might only have one or two pharmacies, only a few doctors. If you don't have access to a car, how do you get your prescription when nobody in town will write or fill it?
In cases like these, it seems like an extreme abuse of power to me. Doctors and pharmacists should not have the ability to change the law, but by allowing them to decide not to offer birth control or plan B, it's giving them defacto power to make them illegal.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: but by allowing them to decide not to offer birth control or plan B, it's giving them defacto power to make them illegal.
That's almost funny. People who live in extreme rural areas don't get everything at their fingertips. That might include not having gynecologists or Planned Parenthood down the street. That doesn't make it the other health care workers' fault that they chose to live there.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Until recently (yay Walgreens), I lived in a one non-24-hour pharmacy college town. I know people who have been refused their BC prescriptions by a pharmacist. Thankfully, the situation was easily remedied by returning the next day when someone else was working. I find it silly that a pharmacist, who seems like a pretty smart person, would think it logical that all unmarried women take BC for "recreational" use.
Course, when this happens now, we can all just head down the road to the other pharmacy. Given the number of women in this country taking BC, it can't be good business for a pharmacy to hire a pharmacist who turns people away. My only hope is that this financial concern will keep certain pharmacists from working (or not working, depending how you look at it.)
Sorry if that was off-topic.
I have no problem with BC requiring a prescription and MAP not. MAP is an emergency medication. BC is taken for an extended period of time and therefore need to be monitored for negative effects on the body (ex: the drug yasmin can raise potassium levels and is dangerous for women with liver or kidney problems.)
I, personally, have never been able to get in to see my doctor without making an appointment three weeks in advance. Even in situations where I had problems that didn't quite require an emergency room visit, but where the symptoms were severe enough that I wanted medical attention soon...I have been seen. How would you get in while the window for using the MAP is still open?
Emergency health services through the state or PP can be even hard to get in with. After calling around and finding that most locations near me were still closed post-Katrina, of the two nearest locations more than an hour away, one was booked two months in advance and the other charged more than $100+ for a visit despite being a full-time student who could not use her insurance.
I welcome any tool which allows women to decide when they become pregnant and keeps unwanted children from having unloved lives.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Isn't this a malpractice suit waiting to happen?
Scenario: A woman taking medication that leads to birth defects (Accutane, anyone?) has, for one reason or another, unprotected sex. Or a woman who has already developed gestational diabetes once. Or who has a high likelihood of developing an immune reaction to the fetus. Aware of the fact that a pregnancy would be dangerous to her and any resultant child, she attempts to get the MAP. Her physician denies her because they have a moral problem with it. The patient while comfortable with the MAP, feels that abortion is morally abhorrent and therefore does not have an abortion and subsequently has an impaired child, or develops severe diabetes, or dies. Ahhh, the lawsuits . . .
Apparently some Catholic hospitals in Boston refuse to administer the MAP to rape victims, although they will tell them where to get it. Of course, your ambulance driver decides what hospital you go to. I imagine that the trauma of rape followed by someone imposing their values on me regarding my body (again - isn't this what rape is?) would result in my decking the attending physician.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: While I'm not convinced that the closed-minded attitude portrayed by OSC's leftists guerrilitas is the norm, this conversation is CERTAINLY a prime example of what he often talks about. Storm Saxon maligned opposers of this pill, not on any objections they'd made on this thread, but on his own concepts and prejudices about them.
Or I just made a mistake and didn't read clearly. I'm sorry for misunderstanding and micommunicating to some degree the position of opposers of the morning after pill.
That said, stop misrepresenting my motives and doing what you're accusing me of doing. I've been on this forum long enough where it should be clear that I make an effort to understand what people are saying and to not misrepresent their positions. Even in this thread, I think it should be clear that I've tried to be polite and understanding.
If it's not clear to you, and you insist on living in OSC's idiot, right wingnut fantasy world, where the simplest act of misunderstanding (something that happens in almost every thread!) is a deliberate act of sabotage in the neverending culture war, then this is your problem, not mine. I promise to always try and act in an above-board and honest manner when dealing with the positions of those on this forum. If it seems like I am being less than honest in how I'm dealing with you or anyone else on this forum, let me know, and just like I'm doing right now, I will either apologize if I am in the wrong, or work to clear up any misunderstandings.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Hmmm. Help someone commit a mortal sin and thereby be guilty of mortal sin themselves, or pass the buck to some other health care worker who doesn't believe it is a mortal sin.
That's pretty much what Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors are supposed to do. It's not just values and morals, it's eternal life, it's trying not to participate in a serious sin. You could demand that no Catholics who believe this practice medicine anymore and that all the Catholic hospitals close, but that would't really be practical.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Storm Saxon- I think your behavior in this thread is some of the most polite behavior I've seen in a controversial thread on hatrack in the 4 years I've been here. I've appreciated it a lot.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:That's pretty much what Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors are supposed to do. It's not just values and morals, it's eternal life, it's trying not to participate in a serious sin. You could demand that no Catholics who believe this practice medicine anymore and that all the Catholic hospitals close, but that would't really be practical.
But when a person chooses to work in a pharmacy or in a hospital, the person can be reasonably expected to know that they might be required to dispense the morning-after pill or other form of birth control (this is what we're talking about, right?) in the course of their duties. So I think it is reasonable to expect someone who has moral problems with that either avoid those careers altogether or choose those jobs where passing the buck to some other health care worker who doesn't believe it is a mortal sin is always possible, so that they never end up in a situation where it's between what the patient wants and what they believe the patient needs (and not what they believe the patient physically needs as a physician or pharmacist, but spiritually as a Catholic, where they have not at all solicited advice).
It's simply irresponsible to go out and become a doctor in a small town where you will be the last decision for patients who come in, when you can't actually give them the aid they request. It's like going and becoming a soldier in the army when you believe it's morally wrong to kill someone; go join the Coast Guard (I don't think they kill people, anyway) or the Peace Corps or something. Don't pick a job in which you may very well be required to do something you abhor.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The workings of the FDA in the past 15-20 years have become mysterious to me. In the past, they had a reputation of going forward based on research. In fact, they sponsored much research, iirc.
Nowadays, things seem much more politicized. Top management over-rules the technical staff. Final decisions are made not on the basis of the science, but on a variety of factors, some of which are socio-political in nature.
I'm not sure how I feel about the morning-after-pill being available OTC. Frankly, if there are serious side-effects or complications possible, that by definition should make it a prescription-only thing. The idea of having standing prescriptions makes sense to me, though, and that sort of undermines at least part of the control factor that a prescription requirement is supposed to provide.
I do wonder if this will reduce the frequency of surgical abortions in this country. And if so, I wonder what various pro/anti- groups will say about that decline.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you, blacwolve.
I want to say a little more about my reply to Scott. I think that what I said is true if you just look at what I said within the context of birth control. Of course, given that to Scott and others against the maf pill, the issue is birth control *and* abortion, this makes my statement not false, but a half-truth that fails to take into consideration of their position that the maf pill is abortion. It is still absolutely true that giving or not giving the pill is a matter of conscience. It's just that to one side (mine), giving the morning after pill is not really any different than birth control, while to the 'other side' (Scott's), giving the maf pill carries the possibility of abortion at least, and is, in fact, abortion to some.
Scott, I apologize for my clumsy handling of that point. Again, please let me know when you think I am in error rather than assuming that I am out to get you. I like you and respect you as a person, and I hope that at some point you might feel the same about me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Incidentally, I asked to be put on the pill when I was about 15, because I had really heavy periods (like 9 days of using super-absorbent everything) and it was beyond obnoxious. I didn't become sexually active until I was in college, however. My doctor was like "Great, cool, here are some sample packs, see what you think." He is a VERY responsible physician, but he was not about to mess around with a 15 year old girl requesting contraceptive drugs. He did not discuss it with my parents, for which I was appreciative, since this would have precipitated an "intersting" conversation with my mom. She would have supported me 100%, but still, I was 15, not fun to talk to your mom about.
I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a minor child being on prescription medication the parent is unaware of. I'm responsible for my child's healthcare, I make the decisions for her and if she's in an emergency accident and the doctors need to know what drugs she's taking - I'd like to know what they are!
"Interesting" or not, that's exactly the type of conversation I think you should have had with your mother and I don't see why you didn't, since you say she would have supported you. I don't think that it's a good thing to encourage kids to lie or conceal the drugs they're taking from their parents. I really, really don't. (I realize you aren't necessarily advocating that others do what you did, but still you talk about it as if it's a good thing you concealed this from your mother and I am not comfortable with that idea.)
My daughter and I talk about those things all the time, she's certainly not afraid to come to me and tell me she's having cramps and a lot of bleeding - as her mother that's the kind of thing I'd want to know. And, I certainly wouldn't be against her taking the pill if a doctor thought it would help her and I was assured it was safe for her. That's the kind of decision that should be made with child, parent, and doctor all discussing the pros and cons and weighing them appropriately. I do not like the idea of minors getting prescriptions that their parents are unaware of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's simply irresponsible to go out and become a doctor in a small town where you will be the last decision for patients who come in, when you can't actually give them the aid they request. It's like going and becoming a soldier in the army when you believe it's morally wrong to kill someone; go join the Coast Guard (I don't think they kill people, anyway) or the Peace Corps or something. Don't pick a job in which you may very well be required to do something you abhor.
No, it's not irresponsible. There are many pharmacies that allow their pharmacists to declare, in advance, which prescriptions they will not fill for ethical reasons. Why should an arrangement between employer and employee be trumped by the fact that people live in a small town.
In a small town with only one doctor, should that doctor be allowed to decline to provide abortions? If not, why is this different? If so, I don't want to live under your government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Are cops allowed to not enforce laws they are morally opposed to?
If not, then I don't see why pharmacists should be an exception. Both are placed in positions of public trust, and both should be expected to serve the will and good of the public despite personal objections.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Don't pick a job in which you may very well be required to do something you abhor.
Further, this is entirely begging the question. Why should a doctor or pharmacist be required to provide any particular service? It hardly seems fair to make requirements about which services or products one must provide, then use those requirements to drive an entire segment of the population out of the profession.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are cops allowed to not enforce laws they are morally opposed to?
If not, then I don't see why pharmacists should be an exception. Both are placed in positions of public trust, and both should be expected to serve the will and good of the public despite personal objections.
Actually, if the chief of police or the district attorney decides that a particular law shouldn't be enforced, then it won't be.
If they order a police officer to enforce a law and he won't, they can fire that officer. But they could also hire an officer who says, "I won't work drugs" IF they are willing to let him not work drugs.
Pharmacists do not work for you. Pharmacists aren't required to carry all drugs. They can make that decision for economic reasons, for liability reasons, or simply because they don't like dealing with a particular company. Why would you remove that right when the decision is based on something other than money?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But they are supposed to find me a store with the drug. Or order me the drug. I mean, if you have a prescription for amoxil, and for some reason, the pharmacy doesn't carry amoxil, I don't think they're just supposed to send you on your merry way.
And when they do, I stop having prescriptions filled there, Walgreens.
-pH
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I personally support the availability of emergency contraception over the counter. I doubt that it will significantly increase irresponsible sexual behavior, but that's just an opinion. I'll be interested to see if there's any jump in STDs or unwanted pregnancies. I suspect that many women may use it once instead of birth control, but with the nasty side-effects, I can't imagine many would prefer it to regular BC use (where most of the side-effects are actually quite nice, like not having periods). Nor do I think it will reduce the number of people who decide to report a rape. I would imagine that if a woman is hesitant to report a rape, she'd probably rather risk the pregnancy than go to the hospital. How about instead including information in the packaging about resources for rape victims? Numbers for hotlines, what to do if you've been raped, etc.
Regarding the implantation issue, it's good to note that the research is mixed on the issue. There have been a few studies which found that the morning-after pill did not prevent implantation in various animal species. Some studies, however, did find an effect (though some of those studies seem to include drugs other than levonorgestrel, so those may not apply--looks like a few even used RU-486 in combination). You can all take a look for yourself by going to Pubmed and searching for levonorgestrel implantation.
I'd also like to add that the probability of fertilization and lack of implantation both occuring is low enough for me to be comfortable with. I also take the risk of killing someone every time I get behind the wheel of a car. Doesn't mean I refuse to drive. I won't be intending to kill embryos when I take the Pill and have sex. I will be trying to prevent pregnancy with the awareness that there is a slight but non-zero chance that an embryo might die that would have otherwise survived to term. I think the benefits outweigh the risks.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Belle - As someone who would like to be a mother someday, I understand your hesitation over medication being presribed to a minor without their parent's knowledge. However, I think my physician's viewpoint on this for contraceptives was:
1) I was 15, had been menstruating since 11, and was capable of getting pregnant. 2) I was an intelligent, well-educated kid who asked my own GP for a scrip and understood how the meds worked 3) Failing to provide a minor with the means to prevent pregnancy may result in said minor getting pregnant
I think it would have been quite different if I'd wanted sedatives or painkillers or steroids or something.
Now, I legitimately wanted the meds for a different reason - to shorten my periods and make them less severe. But heck, if a kid walks in and ASKS for contraceptives . . . shaky moral ground to refuse, in my eyes at least. It's so sad, but there are an awful lot of unplanned pregnancies in the world that lead to children not being cared for properly, and that's such a crime, one we're all complicit in to some extent. I mean, while there's one child somewhere on the planet who isn't getting food, love and medical attention we're kind of failing as a species.
And it was more of a "don't ask don't tell" policy, really. I mean, I'd leave the pack out on my nightstand . . . eventually I was like, "Hey, could you pick up my Loestrin at Safeway? Thanks!" to my dad . . . Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hmm...I'm not sure how I'd feel about that. On the one hand, I think kids are entitled to some degree of medical privacy. On the other, I'd probably want to know if my kid were taking any medication. On the third hand, I hope my kid would trust me enough to talk to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
NOTE: Samarkand's & Belle's exchange had me thinking about some families I've known. (This is NOT NOT NOT a comment on Samarkand's homelife, which actually sounds pretty normal)
I think it is sad that many kids don't have the kind of relationship with their parents where they would feel comfortable discussing birth control issues.
At least some of those situations are not going to get fixed by a parental notification law.
15 year olds from crappy homes...are these, in general, people we would hope to exclude from access to birth control unless mom or dad okays it?
Forcing the issue in the hopes that suddenly the irresponsible parents will suddenly take an interest, or stop abusing their child long enough to make a decision...I guess I just don't see a good outcome here.
Unless we're also going to intervene in all the crappy home situations and make parents be good parents, according to some standardized definition of "good."
I think if a parent wants their child to talk to them about this kind of thing, they had better have raised the child in such a way that the child wants to talk to them about it.
I think the laws to enforce parental rights are going to have unintended consequences for some of the people who are already at a huge disadvantage in the parenting department.
Having said that...
there ARE problems if teens (who may not be well informed on things like drug interactions) are sneaking around to get their BCPs -- not using their regular doctor or pharmacist. Part of the reason to stick with a small number of health care providers is that there is then an expectation that they'll not give you something that's contraindicator for a person with your health history and/or who is already taking some other types of medications.
I don't have a good solution for this (except better parenting overall), but I'd hope that pharmacists and doctors probably have pretty good radar when it comes to things of this nature.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
We had a great discussion about a year ago of the doctor/pharmacist right to refuse specific treatments or to dispense specific medications.
I think the scenario that bothers me in this ISN'T the one where the pharmacist tells his employer up front and they have an agreement. The one that bugs me is where the hired pharmacist decides without consulting the company/owner. That's what happened in the case that prompted last year's discussion. In the case I recall, the pharmacist was fired. I believe there was a similar case in which the company simply ensured that the pharmacist in question never worked alone -- there was always another pharmacist to fill the prescriptions that the first person didn't want to fill.
As to the question of under-served rural communities, I have the sense that health care in small towns is not on a par with that available in large urban areas. People who live in these communities know that and choose to continue living there for a variety of reasons. I'm not going to start wringing my hands over it. I've known people who moved away from such communities because they could no longer tolerate the limited level of services they had access to.
In many of those small towns, the pharmacist owns the drug store -- they don't answer to anyone. In the absence of any laws to the contrary they can pretty much decide what they do with their own business. Even if there WAS a pharmacist's oath that called upon them to fill every legally obtained prescription (which there isn't, afaik), who is going to tell a person that choosing their personal ethics over their professional ethics is a problem? Would the community be better off if the government fined the pharmacy out of business?
Also, there are very few places in the US that are so remote that the local pharmacist is truly the only option. In rural America, most people have to travel a long way to hit an actual free-standing (non-hospital-based pharmacy). 30 miles is not uncommon. Being able to travel 30 miles implies the ability to travel 50 miles or 100 miles. Within 50 miles of most places in rural America, there's a decent sized-town supporting another pharmacy. Within 100 miles, there's usually a big enough city to have a chain store.
And if you're a teen living in a part of the country where every single pharmacist for 200 miles around is going to deny you BCPs...well, you may just have to deal with the reality of your situation and either take steps to become emancipated, or just wait until your 18th birthday and move. Sometimes life does kind of not align itself to give us everything we want. Passing laws isn't really going to work, imo. Driving pharmacists and doctors out of business over these issues is not going to make the standard of life in such communities better.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm really glad for this. I want all children to be cherished and well cared for. Unwanted children often aren't. Technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy is a good thing.
I agree, as long as we're talking about prevention, not termination.
Storm Saxon, like I said before-- the blush smiley isn't big enough. I overreacted.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But they are supposed to find me a store with the drug. Or order me the drug. I mean, if you have a prescription for amoxil, and for some reason, the pharmacy doesn't carry amoxil, I don't think they're just supposed to send you on your merry way.
And when they do, I stop having prescriptions filled there, Walgreens.
-pH
Actually, I see it all the time. Pharmacies simply don't carry everything. Sometimes patients have to call all over town looking for some obscure drug that isn't used very often. Sometimes there is a local shortage of a drug that is often used Oftentimes the pharmacy will special order the drug for the patient, but it might take a week to come in. You can't very well wait a week for antibiotics, pain pills, Plan B, etc, so that option isn't really practical. Sometimes the pharmacy will suggest another pharmacy that might have it, but sometimes they have no idea if the other pharmacies in town carry it. So yes. I see patients turned away from pharmacies quite often. It's just a fact that pharmacies can't carry everything.
Hopefully, they won't run out of amoxil. It IS a staple of most pharmacies. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can see why you were upset, Scott. I'll try and be more clear in the future.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
It's quite interesting to see how this plays out in the local communities. And sad -- it seems like neither side will budge an inch in seeing the other side's point of view.
I keep coming back to "Whose right is more right?"
The pharmacy or store owner to choose what they will or won't offer for sale (which is pretty common and needed in a store -- these daily decisions are made about all sorts of things . . . which brand of aspirin, milk, OJ, diapers, bread, organic vegies or not, etc.) versus ease of access or purchase for the consumer/pateint.
Hmmm.
We do have 36 pharmacies in our immediate area, with two major cities less than an hour away (well, barring rush-hour Friday traffic) and reasonably good bus service.
Granted -- not every community has that ease of access, and that must be considered, too. I have worked in communities where they have three mountain passses to traverse just to get to a nearby town, and can be snowed in for weeks at a time . . . how then does this work for them . . . ?
Our state also goes to great lengths to care for sexual assault emergencies -- every county has SAT centers -- although not every county has access to an abortion provider, so that begs the question of how accessible BC or morning after would be . . .
It's a pickle.
And guaranteed to heat up if the list of state leg bills on-hold from last season ready to go to the floor for the next season are any indicator:
What's happening in your community?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Why don't people think that it's possible for something that isn't a human right now (a zygote) to later grow into one given the right enviroment? This has always puzzled me. Why, just because a zygote can later become a human, does that mean it must be one now?
When cloning becomes routine and commonplace, it will be the case that any human cell is capable, given the right circumstances, of being grown into a human being. So if I trim my nails, all the cells that I'm trimming could become human. Each individual one. It will be like Lank Mueller in Treason. Every one of your trillions of cells will be capable of being grown into a full identical twin to you.
Just as a fertilized egg, a zygote, which is a single cell, has the potential of becoming a real human someday, given the right (highly specialized) environment. The only difference is that in the latter case, the engineer was evolution instead of our own intelligence and understanding of the world. Both are of God. Both result in real people, who can love and laugh and be alive.
Why does anyone think a cell is a human being? I know that when cloning becomes commonplace, people will not treat cheek scrapings as though they are their children. They aren't children. They are potential children, if you want them to become children.
I seriously can not understand how anyone can think a cell is a child. I can see that I would consider my fertilized eggs really important to me personally, because I would hope they could grow into my children some day. But I can't see thinking other people's fertilized eggs are human beings that it's wrong to deny the correct environment that gives them a chance to become children.
We don't say children are mandatory for all parents. We don't try to dictate the minimum number of children a couple has to have. Can someone please explain this in a way that it makes sense to me? This whole idea seems to me like a mistake made by people who don't understand biology. However, I respect that there's obviously something about it that I'm not getting.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think I remember reading in the news last year that there was some research suggesting that nursing doesn't keep eggs from being fertilized, it just keeps them from being implanted. Has anyone heard of this as well? If it's true, then I think it casts this debate in a different light.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why don't people think that it's possible for something that isn't a human right now (a zygote) to later grow into one given the right enviroment? This has always puzzled me. Why, just because a zygote can later become a human, does that mean it must be one now?
Why do you think this is why people who believe that life begins at fertilization thinks this?
quote:We don't say children are mandatory for all parents. We don't try to dictate the minimum number of children a couple has to have.
How is this relevant to the question you are asking? It makes me thing I'm missing your overall point, which I've interpreted as "why do some people consider a fertilized egg a child?"
quote:Can someone please explain this in a way that it makes sense to me? This whole idea seems to me like a mistake made by people who don't understand biology. However, I respect that there's obviously something about it that I'm not getting.
There are many ways to conceptualize this:
1.) From a religious perspective, personhood might start from the moment of ensoulment. There's no particular reason why this wouldn't occur at fertilization, while there are reasons for thinking it wouldn't occur prior to that point.
2.) Work backwards from a time when you definitely consider the child to be a person. Say birth, so there's almost no controversy on that point. Go back a second. Still a child? Why or why not. If one allows personhood to precede birth at all, there is a continuity. Fertilization is the single biggest moment of change, where two entities existed now one exists. The organism will grow, unless she dies, until she becomes what everyone recognizes to be a human being.
3.) As for cloning, if it ever does create people, there will be a moment when the cheek cell stops being a cheek cell and starts being a person. Most likely, since as far as I know cheek cells don't actually grow into clones, that moment akin to fertilization will occur when the genetic material from the cell is deposited into a sterile egg (if I'm remembering correctly how cloning works). There's almost no relevance between cheek cells and the cloning.
4.) Let's imagine further technology. For example, artificial wombs. Suppose it becomes possible to take an egg fertilized in vitro and grow it in an artificial uterus without it ever going into a mother. Would we consider the result to be people? Most likely. The working backwards principle can be used, but this time I think it's clear that birth would be an artificial checkpoint for personhood, because the scientist would be deciding when birth occurs. The child could be removed a day earlier. Would we say personhood is dependent entirely on a technician's decision to get an extra few humans out before the weekend? Doubtful.
Now continue to work backward. Again, we see that there is a continuity: person, go back one second, person, go back one second...eventually, not a person. Fertilization is again the most logical stopping point.
The caveat to this is that some people define "person" by status - brain or nervous functioning, or heartbeat, or response to stimuli. The "moment" idea does not refute this concept. I reject the status concept, though, because such a definition almost certainly excludes many people with severe medical conditions.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:No, it's not irresponsible. There are many pharmacies that allow their pharmacists to declare, in advance, which prescriptions they will not fill for ethical reasons. Why should an arrangement between employer and employee be trumped by the fact that people live in a small town?
I was saying it's an irresponsible personal choice to choose to work in a town so small that you're the only pharmacist around when you can't give people the medications they want for ethical reasons.
It's like if there was a state where doctors were required to administer euthanasia to patients who fulfill all the requirements set by the law (I don't think there's any state like this, though)--if you were a doctor who believed that administering euthanasia was murder or otherwise immoral, you shouldn't go practice medicine in that state, or if you do you should make sure that there are other doctors who could do it for you. In other words, if you want to make the choice not to provide the morning-after pill for moral reasons, then don't provide it, but don't put yourself in the position where you're the only available provider. Otherwise you're forcing your moral position on others, just as a law that required you to dispense the medication would force the legislator's moral position on you.
quote:In a small town with only one doctor, should that doctor be allowed to decline to provide abortions? If not, why is this different? If so, I don't want to live under your government.
I'm really not sure about what the law should say in these sorts of situations. I'm talking purely about what is responsible for the doctor to do: if you can't dispense certain medications, make sure that your patients have easy access to people who can.
quote:Further, this is entirely begging the question. Why should a doctor or pharmacist be required to provide any particular service? It hardly seems fair to make requirements about which services or products one must provide, then use those requirements to drive an entire segment of the population out of the profession.
If someone believed it was morally wrong to cut someone open, that person probably shouldn't go into surgery. If someone believes that killing and eating animal meat is morally wrong, that person probably shouldn't become a butcher. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who decides to put themself in a situation where their personal and professional ethics are mutually incompatible, if they had the forethought to consider what their personal ethics would mean in the context of their job and could have reasonably anticipated and avoided the conflict.
What if someone believes that using drugs of any kind for medicinal purposes is morally wrong? Isn't it generally irresponsible of them to become a pharmacist--and specifically, the only pharmacist in a small town?
quote:As to the question of under-served rural communities, I have the sense that health care in small towns is not on a par with that available in large urban areas. People who live in these communities know that and choose to continue living there for a variety of reasons.
Except that not everyone has the ability to move away from those communities. Like, say, unemancipated teenagers in places where they can't legally be emancipated. (Arizona, for instance, only just passed an emancipation law this last year, and it only applies to sixteen-year-olds and has a long court procedure.)
quote:Even if there WAS a pharmacist's oath that called upon them to fill every legally obtained prescription (which there isn't, afaik), who is going to tell a person that choosing their personal ethics over their professional ethics is a problem? Would the community be better off if the government fined the pharmacy out of business?
Actually, I was thinking more of the doctors-in-emergency-rooms-in-the-hospital situations than pharmacists, because they do have an oath--I'm not sure what it covers, though, and perhaps it doesn't say anything about refusing medical care to patients on moral grounds.
quote:And if you're a teen living in a part of the country where every single pharmacist for 200 miles around is going to deny you BCPs...well, you may just have to deal with the reality of your situation and either take steps to become emancipated, or just wait until your 18th birthday and move.
So a teenager gets raped (or even the-condom-broke), goes to get a morning-after pill, can't, and she's supposed to go through the long procedure of proving herself capable of living on her own to a judge (even assuming she's of age to be emancipated) and in the meantime she might get pregnant? It's called the "morning-after" pill, not the "months-after" pill. Let alone wait until she reaches the age of eighteen. And in the can't-help-a-minor-cross-state-lines-to-get-an-abortion states, while she's waiting to be declared emancipated she can't even get an abortion. So even if she manages it before birth, she's had to wait and wait and wait and abortions get more risky the longer in the term they are.
I wouldn't want to be the one telling a pregnant teenager that life doesn't always align the way they want. Or that the moral choices of the man who raped her and the doctors who refused to get her the pill override her choice not to get pregnant (not even to terminate the pregnancy, not to get pregnant!).
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think I remember reading in the news last year that there was some research suggesting that nursing doesn't keep eggs from being fertilized, it just keeps them from being implanted. Has anyone heard of this as well? If it's true, then I think it casts this debate in a different light.
I haven't heard the research, but I can attest from personal experience that nursing doesn't keep anything from happening.
Actually, nursing usually delays the start of the menstrual cycle. My cycle started at 4 months with my first (hence the early pregnancy) and at 8-12 months with my next three. I guess it's possible that rather than delaying eggs being released from ovaries, it could just be delaying the buildup of blood in preparation for a baby - therefore, as you said, it could allow eggs to be fertilized but not implanted.
Hmm. Interesting.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So a teenager gets raped (or even the-condom-broke), goes to get a morning-after pill, can't, and she's supposed to go through the long procedure of proving herself capable of living on her own to a judge (even assuming she's of age to be emancipated) and in the meantime she might get pregnant?
In the case of rape, if she presents herself to the police and reports the crime, the standard procedure is for her to be taken to a hospital where she will be examined and a rape kit exam performed, and one would presume that morning after birth control would be available to the victim.
In the case of a condom breaking, the person is willfully and consensually engaging in an activity that might produce a child, since no birth control is 100% effective (not even morning after regimens) so she should accept the potential risks and consequences of that action. If morning after is not available, and she's relying on that as a back up mesure then perhaps she should re-think having sex in the first place.
quote:Or that the moral choices of the man who raped her and the doctors who refused to get her the pill override her choice not to get pregnant (not even to terminate the pregnancy, not to get pregnant!).
I would absolutely fight with everything I had to give a raped woman access to morning after regimens, no matter who she was or how old she was. But I will not extend that fight to people who choose to have sex and are not forced - they are choosing to engage in an activity that has a chance of producing a pregnancy and should take responsibility for that choice.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"In the case of a condom breaking, the person is willfully and consensually engaging in an activity that might produce a child, since no birth control is 100% effective (not even morning after regimens) so she should accept the potential risks and consequences of that action."
You know, this argument really bothers me on a lot of levels. When people screw up, there are ALWAYS ways to correct the mistake. And we don't deny them access to correcting the mistakes they make, simply because they screwed up.
Further, its basically saying "In order to punish you for making a mistake, you have to have a baby."
I can't think of a better way to punish a CHILD then to use it as punishment against its mother.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
But Belle, not every woman is in a mental or social position to report rape. And some hospitals refuse to provide the morning after pill for religious reasons, even in the case of rape. While I agree that the morning after pill should be standard in all rape kits, that doesn't mean that it IS standard. If a small snowed-in town has a single pharmacy that does not stock the morning after pill, it's easy to imagine that it might be impossible to get the pill within 72 hours after rape. Also, if we're talking about a minor being abused my a family member, or an adult for that matter, the odds of reporting the abuse are much lower. Easy access to pregnancy prevention, including the morning after pill. becomes even more critical.
Also, I'm not sure of your stance on abortion, but a woman choosing to engage in consensual sex with protection that fails, and who cannot gain swift access to the morning after pill may choose to abort if a pregnancy does result. Is it morally acceptable to not work for full access to the morning after pill if lack of access may lead to more abortions?
As I've said before, I'm pro-choice, but it would sure be a lot nicer if women didn't have unplanned pregnancies in the first place. And I agree with you that any woman engaging in consensual sex, with or without protection, should have the foresight to understand that her decision may result in her having to choose between carrying a child to term or having an abortion. However, not everyone is as thoughtful as I (and I think you as well) wish they were.
So what's the best way to decrease unplanned pregnancies and abortions? I dunno, but wide access to the morning after pill seems like a critical piece of the puzzle.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: So a teenager gets raped (or even the-condom-broke), goes to get a morning-after pill, can't, and she's supposed to go through the long procedure of proving herself capable of living on her own to a judge (even assuming she's of age to be emancipated) and in the meantime she might get pregnant? It's called the "morning-after" pill, not the "months-after" pill. Let alone wait until she reaches the age of eighteen. And in the can't-help-a-minor-cross-state-lines-to-get-an-abortion states, while she's waiting to be declared emancipated she can't even get an abortion. So even if she manages it before birth, she's had to wait and wait and wait and abortions get more risky the longer in the term they are.
I wouldn't want to be the one telling a pregnant teenager that life doesn't always align the way they want. Or that the moral choices of the man who raped her and the doctors who refused to get her the pill override her choice not to get pregnant (not even to terminate the pregnancy, not to get pregnant!).
I didn't say anything about rape because that's a totally different situation and, well, frankly, if anyone is raped there is a process (may not be great, of course, but it is there...).
I'm kind of suprised by your other example...you left out all the other bad scenarios -- like sexual abuse by a parent or close relative -- where parental notification and going through the police also involves the choice of whether or not to involve the police in ones family, the fear of seeing the family (such as it is) torn apart, the risk of one close relative murdering another close relative, and so on...
I don't like the idea of forcing a person to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. And if they were taking precautions and those precautions didn't work (the condom breaking scenario), I feel even more "on their side."
But, yes, at some point people do have to realize that life doesn't always align itself for their convenience and, if a teen girl is engaging in consensual sex and knows there's a risk of pregnancy and she may not be able to get the morning after pill without telling her folks, who will then have some say in her getting to go to a pharmacy further away than she's allowed to go, or to get a prescription for it since she's under age...well...yes, I'm not going to sit here wringing my hands over how unfair life is to her at that point.
If your home life is so bad that you can't imagine ever consulting your parents then, yeah, go get emancipated. And guess what...if you're adult enough to be emancipated, then you're adult enough to refrain from sex until you have the "right" measure of control over your own life to enable you to do what you feel is necessary if you were to get pregnant.
If you can pre-plan your sexual activity enough to get condoms, you can pre-plan enough to abstain under selected circumstances.
Sorry...that is exactly what I mean by society not aligning itself for the individual's convenience.
Does that mean I would want that person barred from access to an abortion if she chooses that alternative. No. I would want there to be a way for her to get her way even over her parents objections. But it can't be just a simple "she says so and that's that." Not with dependent minors.
I just don't have a lot of empathy or sympathy to spare for the kid who wants to be treated like an adult but doesn't really think this stuff through first and act in his/her own best interest to begin with. I realize the sex urge is powerful, but if the options are "have sex and if, despite your best precautions, you get pregnant you're in a huge mess" or "don't have sex," then I expect the majority should choose not to have sex.
Frankly, as the potential (as personally perceived) damage to your life from becoming pregnant rises, the willingness to refrain from sexual intercourse should rise as well. If it doesn't work like that for some teens, that's not society's fault. Other than saying that we should definitely do a better job educating our young people, I don't really think there's much that "society" should do about it. Acting contrary to ones own best interest is not responsible behavior.
And I'm more worried about the children coming into the world under those circumstances. I feel for the young moms, but I have real concern for the infants. If the mom is wrapped up in how having a baby (or even earlier -- if being pregnant) is ruining her life, what chance has that child got?
I've seen teen parents do a great job. Don't get me wrong. I just think the odds are not in their favor. There's a reason the social norm is to consider sex as "adult behavior."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wonder where the community's responsibility to the mother is? If the community is able to tell a woman that she must get pregnant (she's not allowed to get the morning after pill), shouldn't that community hold a moral responsibility to care for the mother and the child?
It seems like a very irresponsible thing to impose your morality on someone else, but only up until the point where they no longer have a choice, then sit back an watch them suffer.
Pharmacist: Oh, maybe you shouldn't have had sex (sinner), if you couldn't be responsible for the baby. I have the power to help you, but I choose not to.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wonder where the community's responsibility to the mother is? If the community is able to tell a woman that she must get pregnant (she's not allowed to get the morning after pill), shouldn't that community hold a moral responsibility to care for the mother and the child?
It seems like a very irresponsible thing to impose your morality on someone else, but only up until the point where they no longer have a choice, then sit back an watch them suffer.
Is that what we do as a society? Really? I don't believe that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Is that what we do as a society? Really? I don't believe that."
With unwanted children? More or less, thats what we do.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I'm sure medicaid and special programs and social workers everywhere will be bummed by your words.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I absolutely cannot understand people who say that the morning-after pill or abortion is okay in the case of rape, but not in the case of consenting sex.
If you believe that that fertilized egg is a human being, and should not be killed, then it's a human being no matter what the circumstances of its creation were. Yes, it would really suck for nine months for the woman involved, but does that mean a human being (the egg) should be murdered?
(For the record, I'm pro-choice and pro morning-after pill, but I hate, hate, hate it when people claim that its wrong to "kill" a fertilized egg, EXCEPT in the case of rape)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mighty Cow, and Paul...that's not at all what society's message is.
Surely as you grew up you learned that it was inappropriate to have sex below a certain age, right? If you chose to ignore that message, and are still underage, we (the rest of society) don't leave you in a lurch. There are programs to help you finish school. Programs to make sure your child has food. Programs to offer job training and assistance finding a job. There's even welfare if all of the above fail. And if you need medical attention and can't get it any other way, you can, in this country, walk into any emergency room and it is flat illegal to deny you treatment (assuming it is an actual emergency).
I think we should do more for the children who are born into those circumstances. I think there should be ways for an underage girl to obtain an abortion if she wants one. But that doesn't mean it has to be easy and that she can do it without having her parents (or a court-appointed guardian if the home situation is a serious problem) involved in some way.
I also would not deny the morning after pill. But how about this: people who can't afford an "oops" take additional precautions, up to and including just not engaging in intercourse. It's really not that difficult (barring rape, which we've already covered sufficiently, I believe).
I would never abandon people who are in trouble, but there's a point at which if someone is saying they are old enough and responsible enough to CHOOSE to have sex, then they should act like it. Choose NOT to have intercourse if the consequences of pregnancy are too much for you to handle and you are too young to legally make your own decisions regaring abortion, tubal ligation, etc.
This one of those situations where you can't have it both ways. Either you're old enough to do the act and accept the consequences or you aren't. If you aren't, then don't do the act. If you are, then fine...I'll be there to willingly lend a hand with expenses as long as you'll be a good parent to that child. I'll be there to foot the bill for adoption (if you choose public adoption route) or foster care (if you're such a crappy parent that the state takes your child away).
All I ask is that using public money for your upkeep and your child's upkeep be a last resort. We all know mistakes are going to happen. The next teen to get pregnant isn't the first and won't be the last. It's not the end of the world -- we'll all survive and even thrive if we don't work against each other or expect the world to align itself to our wishes.
You know what, though...sometimes things are just going to suck. Let's be honest. Having a child while still in high-school is not the preferred option. Before you've experienced life you're responsible for another life. And, yes, people are going to fret more about what chances your baby have than you have. Gosh-darn baby is going to get the lion's share of the attention and concern.
If that's not an acceptable scenario, then...yes...do whatever you can to avoid it. And yes, there's a safety net, but it's not free and it's not luxurious. It's the bare minimum. And that sucks, but that's all there is going to be.
Please tell me...what would an intelligent near-adult do?
Is sex so crucial to a teens day-to-day life that it must happen no matter what the outcome? Of course not. Do they know this? Of course they do.
Will it keep happening anyway? Yeah...sure it will.
Could it happen less? I sure as heck hope so.
Who can make it happen less? Teens. Who the heck else?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Do you consider "medicaid and special programs and social workers everywhere" to always provide at least adequate services for all children, young mothers, families on welfare, etc.? I have close friends who are social workers or in AmeriCorp or any number of other programs, and they are vastly underfunded and overworked. I would love for it to be true that as a nation (or on a grander scale, as a species) we take care of everyone who needs help, but that's blatantly false. New Orleans, anyone?
I think the concern that MightyCow and Paul are expressing is that when a woman does know that she has a risk of becoming pregnant and is prevented from taking steps to prevent that pregnancy, it's not as if society descends on her and pays for daycare so she can pursue a high school diploma and/or professional school, makes a registry of necessities for the baby, sends gift baskets full of diapers and formula at the delivery date, explains the importance of folic acid, comes by her house to take her to her pre-natal checkups, etc.
I wish we did do this as a society, but we don't. Some people try, and work very hard for it, but it's really not the norm. Having and caring for children is expensive and difficult - I think the self-selecting members of Hatrack are, as a whole, remarkably intelligent and committed to caring for children, but there are still posts all he time asking about how to deal with tough scenarios.
How is it morally superior to encourage the birth of a baby who will not be cared for?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
A couple points regarding people having sex when they haven't really thought about it:
1) Good parenting should convery the message that sex carries certain risks, including disease and unplanned pregnancy. But not everyone receives good parenting. Some parents say nothing. Some parents, with the best intentions, fail to explain how to prevent pregnancy under the assumption that their child will not engage in sex simply because the parent has said they shouldn't.
2) Schools should reinforce messages regarding abstinence, sex, dangers, responsibility, etc. However, many private schools (or public schools is some districts, for that matter) have no viable sex ed classes or preach abstinence only. I have no particular objection to abstinence being taught as a sensible option, but again, failure to explain the repercussions of sex (and what sex IS for that matter) lead to people wandering around thinking you can't get STDs from oral sex or that you can't get pregnant if you're wearing your shoes. Or not even understanding what sex is. Not good.
Bob, I wish that every reproductively adult person on the planet knew what sex is, what the risks are, reasons not to choose sex, ways to be safe while having sex, how to prevent pregnancy, how to terminate pregnancy, how to access programs to care for expectant mothers, how to appropriately raise a child, how to apply for grants to raise a child - but they just don't. And I think society IS at least partially responsible for allowing such ignorance to go unchecked.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dag, is it that there's no clear dividing line during development between human and not-yet-human, that's why you feel the line must be backed up to fertilization? Because fertilization somehow makes a good break point?
But there are many many important things in life that don't have clear dividing lines. The age of majority, for instance. We pick an arbritary age there, because there's no saying exactly when a child becomes an adult. Being old enough to drive, or drink, or vote. A sapling becomes a tree. Night becomes day at dawn. Whatever instant we choose as "the moment of sunrise" who can think this isn't fairly arbitrary? The moment the sun's disk touches an artificial horizon line, regardless of the actual topography of the area you live in?
Huge important life changing differences hang in the balance on many of these things. Are you an adult and able to decide where you will live and whether you can marry the person you love? Are you a child and under the legal authority of a parent who may or may not have your best interests in mind? These dividing lines are almost completely arbitrary.
Had I been hired before Dec 31 I would have 2 weeks vacation this year and 2 weeks next year. Even though I was offered and accepted the job in Dec, it took them long enough to complete the paperwork that I didn't start until Feb. Therefore I have one week's vacation this year and one week next year.
Trivial examples, and important ones abound. There are no clear dividing lines between states that matter very much which state we choose, that have huge life-changing consequences.
Is that idea harder to conceptualize than looking at a cell through a microscope and calling it a human person?
I agree that if it's a matter of religion alone, then there's no questioning that. However, if it is a matter of religion alone, then there's no rationale for forcing this view on people who don't share the religion.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Teenagers are preoccupied with sex. Their entire biological directive is to procreate. Their own body is telling them, "Have sex, have sex, HAVE SEX!!!" loudly and frequently. It takes a lot to overcome that. Some teens are lucky enough to have the support system to resist these urges, or the educational and financial resources to have birth control easily available.
Unfortunately, many teens are uneducated about safe sex. Many teens don't live in an environment where abstinence is given a high priority. Many teens believe that you can't get pregnant your first time, or that pulling out is a viable form of safe sex, or that wearing a condom means you can't get pregnant.
If a teen isn't considered mature enough to make her own birth control choices, why is she still held responsible for her choices concerning sex? If a teenager should stand up and take responsibility for her actions, how is it right to limit their ability to take the responsible choice of trying to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
Further, if someone takes intentional steps to promote a woman's pregnancy, isn't that person partly responsible for the pregnancy?
Withholding Plan B from teenagers seems on par with removing airbags from a teen's car. Maybe if they don't want to get into an accident, they shouldn't drive. And if they drive and get into an accident, well too bad they didn't have airbags. They knew when they got in the car that they might get hurt.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Withholding Plan B from teenagers seems on par with removing airbags from a teen's car. Maybe if they don't want to get into an accident, they shouldn't drive. And if they drive and get into an accident, well too bad they didn't have airbags. They knew when they got in the car that they might get hurt.
Come to think of it, aren't frontal air bags dangerous for kids? Aren't kids supposed to ride in back, and if they MUST ride in front, the air bags are supposed to be turned off? Perhaps that analogy works a bit after all. Air bags are not safe for kids. Plan B might not be safe for kids.
Teens driving cars have to have passed tests, have licenses, prove they are mature enough to drive. They can't do that, they can't drive. To bad we can't do that before teens start experimenting with sex...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Do you consider "medicaid and special programs and social workers everywhere" to always provide at least adequate services for all children, young mothers, families on welfare, etc.? I have close friends who are social workers or in AmeriCorp or any number of other programs, and they are vastly underfunded and overworked. I would love for it to be true that as a nation (or on a grander scale, as a species) we take care of everyone who needs help, but that's blatantly false. New Orleans, anyone?
I think the concern that MightyCow and Paul are expressing is that when a woman does know that she has a risk of becoming pregnant and is prevented from taking steps to prevent that pregnancy, it's not as if society descends on her and pays for daycare so she can pursue a high school diploma and/or professional school, makes a registry of necessities for the baby, sends gift baskets full of diapers and formula at the delivery date, explains the importance of folic acid, comes by her house to take her to her pre-natal checkups, etc.
I wish we did do this as a society, but we don't. Some people try, and work very hard for it, but it's really not the norm. Having and caring for children is expensive and difficult - I think the self-selecting members of Hatrack are, as a whole, remarkably intelligent and committed to caring for children, but there are still posts all he time asking about how to deal with tough scenarios.
I would not say that the social services in this country are perfect, or even adequate. Is the answer more money and more social workers? Maybe, but only in part.
And my question back is...knowing that the safety net has huge holes in it, what does a responsible person choose to do if having a baby means reliance on that safety net?
You know what...when you go on public assistance you tacitly give a portion of control over your life to "the public." They (in a sort of weird group way) decide how much help you get. You don't get what you ask for, you get what the rest of the country has (over the course of decades) decided you'll get.
I would spend more on social programs and education if it were up to me. But it's not. I give a lot to charities. Some people who are being argued with (Belle and Dagonee in particular, but others too, I'm sure) donate their time and efforts professionally and personally to make up for some of the lack of services.
Yes, we can do more...and should.
Katrina is not a really telling counter example, by the way. This is not a once-in-100-years crises that descends on people with no warning. It's as predictable as the sunrise. And the ways to avoid the catastrophy are simple and within the grasp of practically every person on whom it falls.
So, how about this...let's pick a level of service that we can all agree on. You all start -- tell me what you'd like to see as a basic "service package" to teen moms and their children. I'll probably agree to almost all of it, frankly. But lets then be really honest and compare the life of a teen living in those circumstances to the relatively carefree existence of the average 17-20-something year old and choose which one we'll try to promote as the American ideal for teens to strive for.
I'm betting the one we agree to promote doesn't involve having children that early. And so, we also want something in return for the improved safetynet, don't we? Don't we want to have to invoke it less?
And, if someone is going to take public assistance, I think we also have a right to ask something in return with respect to parenting behavior. If you aren't equipped to be a mommy or daddy yet, then you'll take classes -- we'll pay. Just do what they tell you.
I know some wonderful families that started when the parents were in high-school. Some of these folks are actually personal models for me of what it means to be a great parent. Do you think they tell their children to do as they did -- start a family at 16. No, I'm betting not. They probably hope their children will take an easier path and avoid the hardships of taking on too much responsibility too soon.
They'd also help if their children did decide to go that route, or just made a mistake and ended up as parents.
It's all good as long as people act responsibly.
And I don't want ANYONE to raise a child if they don't want to raise a child. That's cruel to the child and the "parent."
If adoption weren't an option, I'd be much MUCH more in favor of abortion than I am. And I'm actually in favor of abortion as an option just because the girl/woman wants one. But yeah... I want teens to go through a few hoops before deciding to have an abortion. Why?
Well, for one, they've already displayed at least the possibility of poor judgement. Having an abortion shouldn't be an impulse decision. Or a panicked one either. And it shouldn't be a way to avoid responsibility, or embarrassment. Let's start with some frank discussions. "Okay...you're pregnant, it's not the end of the world." Then let's go from there. I want to work with the person to get to the incipient adult who should then make decisions that the person IS going to have to live with -- whether to abort, have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption. I want to engage the reasoning being who, realistically, is making decisions not just for themself. I want that understanding to be there.
Secondly, teens, unless emancipated are minors. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say, and even make the final decision (in most cases). But if we as a society say that parents are legally responsible for their children, then they are. That's our law. We shouldn't throw the law out lightly. I would if it comes down to a case of the teen's parents being cruel or persistently irrational -- or even just refusing to hear their teen's side of the decision. Then, I'd want to have the court appoint a person to act as a parent. But there still should be someone there with more life experience advising the teen.
Third, if society really is going to foot the bills for all of this, then we're going to have to have some agreements in place and have them stick. This has to be taken seriously. A quicky abortion so no-one has to know is not an option if society is footing the bill. Taht's just the way it works. Likewise, if a teen has a child and decides to keep it, and use public assistance, then we have a say in how things are going to be done for that child. It has to be understood. The teen has to understand the options.
I have to say, I'm not in favor of a lot of extra laws on this. I'm not about to advocate outlawing abortion for teens either. But let's not kid ourselves, teens aren't ever going to get the quiet "nobody has to know" deal that they may want. And that's just the way it's going to have to work. It's part of being below the legal age.
I want to see more education. LOTS more. I want there to be so much education that everyone is sick of it. Then add more. And it should be frank and honest. Show the kids what life might be like if they DO get pregnant. Talk through what steps they'd have to go through legally to get an abortion if their parents don't want them to. I'm not advocating "get tough" by the way. I'm advocating tell them like it is. Be realistic. You say social services for new moms are inadequate. I agree. TELL THE KIDS THIS FACT! Spell it out in agonizing detail. Have a kid now, and this is what your life will be like.
If/when we improve the social services, then get that message out too. I don't want to JUST scare kids. I want them informed. And then I want them to make responsible decisions about sex. EVERY TIME. Not just most of the time. EVERY TIME.
quote:How is it morally superior to encourage the birth of a baby who will not be cared for?
If the alternative is killing the baby, then the moral superiority stems from encouraging life. I'm afraid I can't call a "system" of morality valid if it fails to advocate in favor of life as a central tenet.
My stance in favor of abortion is decidedly NOT a moral one. It is a sad recognition of a tragic situation, with a bit of stone-cold pragmatism thrown in. If anything, it is the opposite of moral. It is saying that I am willing to go along with an act that I consider immoral because I am unwilling to make that moral choice for another person, and because I see this as a special case, distinct from what I normally would view as murder.
Now...you chose the word "encourage." I want to make it clear that my answer would be different if you had used the word "force."
Final note: I really would like to see a list of what people think should be included in the basic "teen pregnancy support package" that American society should make available.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Bob- I honestly cannot put together your posts in such a way that I understand why you aren't in favor of plan B over the counter, which is what your position seems to be. .
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Unfortunately, many teens are uneducated about safe sex.
I suspect the proportion of American teens who are uneducated about safe sex is a LOT smaller than seem to think it is.
quote:f a teen isn't considered mature enough to make her own birth control choices, why is she still held responsible for her choices concerning sex? If a teenager should stand up and take responsibility for her actions, how is it right to limit their ability to take the responsible choice of trying to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
Teens are not adults. That does mean that they cannot be held legally responsible for many actions in a court of law. Does that equate to not being responsible for their actions in the real world? In a family? In school? In what happens to their own bodies?
Please tell me you don't think that a switch is flipped on at your 18th birthday?
If we (as a society) can't expect gradually increasing self-control of their actions out of children as they "mature," then all is lost.
Ready or not, when your body is ready for sex, it's time to be in control of your body. The consequences fall to the person whether society says so or not. We could try to protect the person from the consquences, but there still are some. Ignoring it doesn't make it easier, it makes things worse.
...
I'd like to make it very clear, I'm not in favor of withholding Plan B from teens. If a doctor ordres it, give it to them. If there parent isn't present when they get the prescription from the doctor, or when they go to the pharmacy, then I want to know why. If it's just because they're scared of what mom or dad will say, I can understand that. And I'd have to say I'd want the disclosure to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not some blanket law, one-size-fits-all.
What I'm worried about here is not the ones who want their parents to remain ignorant because it'd make their lives less complicated. Yeah...that's a bad family dynamic. I'm worried about the ones who have an abusive home life. I'm worried about the ones who come in and may have been raped by dad or their uncle.
This is a momentus event in the life of a teen. Or it should be. It SHOULD be serious. It shouldn't be "Plan B, a pack of gum and a SLUSHY, please."
Think on this. If the same girl is getting Plan B six or seven times a year, shouldn't we worry about a potentially abusive situation?
Abuse and panic do weird things to people. I'm against free/anonymous access to Plan B for teens because they are the most vulnerable to the kinds of situations I worry about. And they aren't necessarily equipped to handle them. And Plan B opens up a whole new set of ways they can hurt themselves without really understanding the downsides.
So, yeah, it should be available, but no, it shouldn't be anonymous or as easy as just asking for it at the counter.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Bob- I honestly cannot put together your posts in such a way that I understand why you aren't in favor of plan B over the counter, which is what your position seems to be. .
Well...if the immediately preceding post doesn't help, I'll maybe try again. I have to go in a few minutes. I'll check back sometime later (or late tomorrow) to see if this thread is still dealing with the same issues.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If you had to provide a drivers license to get plan B, and the name would be taken down and put into a registry, that would trigger if the same person under 21 years of age picked up plan be more then 3 times in the preceeding 5 years, how many of your concerns would that alleviate?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Quite a few, really, except that the information would probably not be available to anyone under HIPAA regs, so probably I'd want at least physician review. I think a prescription is the way to ensure that a neutral advocate for the person's health is part of the loop. I'm not sure a pharmacist or some central Plan B registry is the right spot for that.
Of course, I'm not sure of the HIPAA regs as they apply to people under age 18. Maybe they have no privacy protections under HIPAA...I'm not sure.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" think a prescription is the way to ensure that a neutral advocate for the person's health is part of the loop."
I'm just not certain a prescription makes any sense for something that has a 72 hour window, and really only a 24 hour time window where its more then moderately effective.
If the trigger sent the information to the person's primary care physician, would that work? It seems like most states have this information on file.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If someone believed it was morally wrong to cut someone open, that person probably shouldn't go into surgery. If someone believes that killing and eating animal meat is morally wrong, that person probably shouldn't become a butcher. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who decides to put themself in a situation where their personal and professional ethics are mutually incompatible, if they had the forethought to consider what their personal ethics would mean in the context of their job and could have reasonably anticipated and avoided the conflict.
But it's only a conflict because some people consider it incompatible with professional ethics. I haven't seen anyone make the case that professional ethics demands that every pharmacist dispense every drug.
quote:I'm really not sure about what the law should say in these sorts of situations.
OK, then, do you think it's irresponsible for a doctor to locate to a small town as the only doctor and refuse to perform abortions.
quote:What if someone believes that using drugs of any kind for medicinal purposes is morally wrong? Isn't it generally irresponsible of them to become a pharmacist--and specifically, the only pharmacist in a small town?
There's a difference between thinking the entire point of one's job is morally wrong and thinking that one particular aspect of it is wrong. I think it's immoral to defend or pursue certain kinds of civil suits. If I can find a practice that allows me not to do so, it's not unethical to do so, even if that means the market I serve lacks that service.
Again, you've simply jumped to a conclusion that assumes that there is an ethical problem here, without explaining why there is one.
Further, why do you presume there would be a pharmacist at all in a small town if the one who wishes to refuse to dispense certain pills were to relocate to a big city?
quote:You know, this argument really bothers me on a lot of levels. When people screw up, there are ALWAYS ways to correct the mistake. And we don't deny them access to correcting the mistakes they make, simply because they screwed up.
Further, its basically saying "In order to punish you for making a mistake, you have to have a baby."
I can't think of a better way to punish a CHILD then to use it as punishment against its mother.
What bothers me is this ongoing insistence of equating consequences with punishment. Yes, people are allowed to correct mistakes, but not generally at the expense of another person. The person making a mistake is not required to bear the consequences if those consequences can be avoided. But they are forced to bear them when the only alternative is to foist them another.
quote:Dag, is it that there's no clear dividing line during development between human and not-yet-human, that's why you feel the line must be backed up to fertilization? Because fertilization somehow makes a good break point?
Because there is a clear line at fertilization.
quote:But there are many many important things in life that don't have clear dividing lines. The age of majority, for instance. We pick an arbritary age there, because there's no saying exactly when a child becomes an adult. Being old enough to drive, or drink, or vote. A sapling becomes a tree. Night becomes day at dawn. Whatever instant we choose as "the moment of sunrise" who can think this isn't fairly arbitrary? The moment the sun's disk touches an artificial horizon line, regardless of the actual topography of the area you live in?
Wait. I thought you were asking someone to explain something to you because you couldn't at all comprehend how they could believe that a fertilized egg is a person without misunderstanding biology. Do you wish to debate the issue, or simply understand the other side. I can do either, but I'd like to know what to expect.
Your sapling/tree example and child/adult examples are inapplicable. A sapling is still a tree. A child and an adult are both human beings. Each is a stage of development recognized as the same organism. These examples actually make my case stronger - no one denies that a fertilized egg isn't the same organism as the baby born 9 months later, barring twinning. The stage of development can be seen as zygote, blastocyte, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult.
Or it could be divided up some other way. Yet, post-birth, no one denies that each of these stages is a person. This is evidence that such lines are not "real."
quote:Trivial examples, and important ones abound. There are no clear dividing lines between states that matter very much which state we choose, that have huge life-changing consequences.
Exactly. And when the consequence is one week's vacation or getting one's license a year later, such arbitrary lines can be used because the cost is low. When, as you say, there is no dividing line of personhood, the cost of being incorrect is hight.
quote:Is that idea harder to conceptualize than looking at a cell through a microscope and calling it a human person?
Once again, do you wish to debate or understand. Here are the facts:
1.) Lots of people who know far more about biology than either of us believe that personhood begins at fertilization.
2.) You've said that the only way you can comprehend this view is by assuming that the people who hold it are ignorant of biology.
3.) I've tried to demonstrate a rationale for that view that is consistent with what is known about biology.
That's all that's necessary to meet your request. Do you now wish to debate this issue? If so, I'd ask you to present your biological facts and how the concept of a one-celled human being is inconsistent with those facts.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
Bob: before I respond to your posts so far, can you tell me what your position is on physicians choosing not to dispense certain medications because of their beliefs on the morality of the medication? Because I've got some arguments lined up for someone who believes both that teenagers shouldn't put themselves in situations where they have to rely on Plan B, and that doctors and pharmacists are acting completely responsibly if they put themselves in a situation where they have to dispense Plan B. But if that doesn't apply to you, then I'll engage someone else who thinks that we can't reasonably expect people to make sure that their personal and professional ethics don't collide in regards to the dispensation of the morning-after pill.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dag, here's the thing. If you think a certain kind of law practice is bad, you can specialize in another kind of practice. Pharmacists at drugstores don't just become the "allergy pharmacist" or the "antibiotic pharmacist." In becoming drugstore pharmacists, they know that they may be called upon to dispense a wide variety of prescriptions. It's not the same as law.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, here's the thing. If you think a certain kind of law practice is bad, you can specialize in another kind of practice. Pharmacists at drugstores don't just become the "allergy pharmacist" or the "antibiotic pharmacist." In becoming drugstore pharmacists, they know that they may be called upon to dispense a wide variety of prescriptions. It's not the same as law.
Sure, but we do know that most drug stores don't carry every drug, and that ordering such drugs is not always feasible. And no one has given a rationale for forcing the pharmacist to provide a particular service other than "If we don't, someone might not get the drug." Well, this is true for a wide variety of drugs now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:that doctors and pharmacists are acting completely responsibly if they put themselves in a situation where they have to dispense Plan B.
Not the same thing at all. Doctors and pharmacists are only putting themselves in a position where they "have to" dispense Plan B if someone makes them have to dispense Plan B.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
quote:And no one has given a rationale for forcing the pharmacist to provide a particular service other than "If we don't, someone might not get the drug." Well, this is true for a wide variety of drugs now.
If someone doesn't get the morning-after pill in the short window when it is effective, it's much more possible that she will get pregnant. Which means that she has to choose either to carry to term or terminate the pregnancy; either decision has physical and psychological effects that last far longer than the effects of the morning-after pill. And any woman of child-bearing age potentially will need the morning-after pill. And the other types of pills aren't stocked for very different reasons from the reasons why morning-after pills aren't stocked: cost, availability, the actual demand for it in the area, and so on, as opposed to moral considerations.
quote:Doctors and pharmacists are only putting themselves in a position where they "have to" dispense Plan B if someone makes them have to dispense Plan B.
And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if someone refuses them Plan B and they become pregnant.
All I'm saying is, doctors and pharmacists who cannot morally dispense certain medications should make sure they don't end up being someone's only chance to get those medications. Then they can make sure someone else who can dispense them, does, and any duty to dispense the medication is gone. The doctor has neither actively aided someone in murdering a baby (if that is the moral problem with dispensing Plan B, that it prevents implantation and that that is morally wrong) nor actively forced someone to get pregnant who wanted to use Plan B. I really didn't think it would be so controversial; all I was trying to do was think of how the aforementioned Catholic doctors could balance their moral beliefs and still preserve their patient's ability to make a moral decision in the opposite direction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: And the other types of pills aren't stocked for very different reasons from the reasons why morning-after pills aren't stocked: cost, availability, the actual demand for it in the area, and so on, as opposed to moral considerations.
When did moral considerations become less acceptable as reasons for a person doing or not doing something than money? Has this country really sunk this low?
quote:And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if someone refuses them Plan B and they become pregnant.
No, the teenagers are in this position because they had sex. The fact that an option that might alleviate the consequences of having sex isn't available to them is something faced by a lot of people facing a lot of different consequences for a lot of different acts.
quote:All I'm saying is, doctors and pharmacists who cannot morally dispense certain medications should make sure they don't end up being someone's only chance to get those medications.
What if no one else will be a doctor or pharmacist in that town? I know that many small towns have to go to great lengths to attract doctors. Are you saying if a doctor decides to make the sacrifices necessary to fill an otherwise unmet need that he should only do so if he's willing to dispense Plan B?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Dag, here's the thing. If you think a certain kind of law practice is bad, you can specialize in another kind of practice. Pharmacists at drugstores don't just become the "allergy pharmacist" or the "antibiotic pharmacist." In becoming drugstore pharmacists, they know that they may be called upon to dispense a wide variety of prescriptions. It's not the same as law.
Sure, but we do know that most drug stores don't carry every drug, and that ordering such drugs is not always feasible. And no one has given a rationale for forcing the pharmacist to provide a particular service other than "If we don't, someone might not get the drug." Well, this is true for a wide variety of drugs now.
Is it? I was always under the impression that if a pharmacy didn't have a drug, they would order the drug or tell you where to get the drug. Because if the prescription is for an antibiotic, someone might end up dead without treatment.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it? I was always under the impression that if a pharmacy didn't have a drug, they would order the drug or tell you where to get the drug.
According to Theca, that's not necessarily the case.
quote:Because if the prescription is for an antibiotic, someone might end up dead without treatment.
True. Very different than Plan B.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Is it? I was always under the impression that if a pharmacy didn't have a drug, they would order the drug or tell you where to get the drug.
According to Theca, that's not necessarily the case.
The American Pharmacists Association has reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for medications in stock at their pharmacies but that they ensure those customers can get their medications filled in some other way. (see, e.g., pages 2-4 of this pdf on APhA statement to the House Small Business Committee)
quote:The ability of health professionals to opt out of providing services they find personally objectionable is an important component of our health care system. ... APhA’s policy states:
quote:APhA recognizes the individual pharmacist’s right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure [the] patient’s access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacist’s right of conscientious refusal.
... In sum, our policy supports a pharmacist ‘stepping away’ from participating but not ‘stepping in the way’ of the patient accessing the therapy.
Pharmacists, like physicians and nurses, should not be forced to participate in procedures to which they have moral objections. However, recognizing pharmacists’ unique role in the health care system, there should also be systems in place to make sure that the patient’s health care needs are served. ... [FYI]The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals operates a national hotline (1-888-not-2-late) that allows patients to find a listing of providers who provide emergency contraception services. The same group, in collaboration with Princeton University’s Office of Population Research, also operates a website (http://not-2-late.com) that can help patients identify a provider of emergency contraceptives in their area. ... An important underlying concept of our proposed systems is that they are established proactively — before a pharmacist is presented with a prescription to which they object. The system should be seamless, with a pharmacist – patient interaction that is very similar to the interaction that occurs with any other prescription. Similar to the situation where a medication is simply out of stock on any given day, if the pharmacist is unable to dispense the prescription, then the patient must be made aware of the options available to them to fulfill his or her medication needs. [italics added by me, since this part was kind of buried --CT] ... When alternative systems are established proactively, the patient is unaware of the pharmacist’s actions and both the patient’s right to care and the pharmacist’s need to step away from certain activity are accommodated.
I was not aware of the emphasis that the APhA places on having such conscience refusals by pharmacists be invisible to patients. That is, it should be done behind the scenes, according to this professional organization,* even though the APhA fully supports individual decisions of pharmacists whether to fill given medical prescriptions.
Additionally, there is wide variation in state law and state licensing board policy regarding refusal to fill in-stock medications -- some states and/or boards prohibit it, some specifically allow it, and some do not specify (yet), although I think this issue is coming to a head all around.
----------
*[Edited to add: Of course, just because the APhA endorses something doesn't mean it's right, or that all (or even most) pharmacists agree, or anything like that. The AMA and the CMA both endorse policies I may disagree with, for sure. I just thought this was a pertinant and interesting tidbit.]
[ August 27, 2006, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think I remember reading in the news last year that there was some research suggesting that nursing doesn't keep eggs from being fertilized, it just keeps them from being implanted. Has anyone heard of this as well? If it's true, then I think it casts this debate in a different light.
I haven't heard the research, but I can attest from personal experience that nursing doesn't keep anything from happening.
Actually, nursing usually delays the start of the menstrual cycle. My cycle started at 4 months with my first (hence the early pregnancy) and at 8-12 months with my next three. I guess it's possible that rather than delaying eggs being released from ovaries, it could just be delaying the buildup of blood in preparation for a baby - therefore, as you said, it could allow eggs to be fertilized but not implanted.
Hmm. Interesting.
This is absolutely fascinating. For those of use who are against use of Plan B particularly because of belief that it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg -- if the same effect were found to be true of nursing (a big "if," I know), would you counsel against women having unprotected sex while breastfeeding? Or is it the intent that matters (or, at least, factors in)?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1.) From a religious perspective, personhood might start from the moment of ensoulment. There's no particular reason why this wouldn't occur at fertilization, while there are reasons for thinking it wouldn't occur prior to that point.
Dagonee, I know this is a side point, but it's one I've always found interesting philosophically. If we consider ensoulment to happen at fertilization, then the question of what happens in post-fertilization zygote/embryo cleavage (i.e., "twinning" or other multiplicative gestation) becomes problematic. Is there another new soul formed (even though the genetic material doesn't change), or is the soul split, or what else?
Of course, an omnipotent deity could do as that deity wished, but it's just an interesting puzzle. More complicated than it looks on the surface, I suppose. I've always found simple, elegant theories to be the most appealling, but they so rarely stay that simple when you puzzle through them. *wry look
quote:2.) Work backwards from a time when you definitely consider the child to be a person. Say birth, so there's almost no controversy on that point. Go back a second. Still a child? Why or why not. If one allows personhood to precede birth at all, there is a continuity. Fertilization is the single biggest moment of change, where two entities existed now one exists. The organism will grow, unless she dies, until she becomes what everyone recognizes to be a human being.
And again, "twinning" becomes an interesting puzzle for this line of argument.
quote: The caveat to this is that some people define "person" by status - brain or nervous functioning, or heartbeat, or response to stimuli. The "moment" idea does not refute this concept. I reject the status concept, though, because such a definition almost certainly excludes many people with severe medical conditions.
Dagonee, I'm sympathetic to the concern. I wonder, though, what your position is on personhood and death (in re: status case, for example). Just curious -- I'm still working through where my own beliefs fall out, but I've found myself compelled to accept some sort of status definition here, and this has informed my view about the initiation of personhood, too, even though it isn't a perfect fit.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
As far as what to do about common activities of daily life causing an egg to not implant: I'd follow motive. If a person's sole reason for taking an antiinflammatory for days on end, or for breastfeeding, or for jumping up and down for six hours straight on the eight day after ovulation, were to to be to stop a pregnancy, then I'd probably see that as a bad thing.
But if that is a side effect for breast feeding for other reasons or an unknown effect of some routine drug or a food choice, then no. I don't see that as a bad thing. It's a normal part of life for implantation errors to be made.
Plan B or other one time use, high dose contraceptives are taken for only one goal. That isn't 100% true for any other drugs, not even routine birth control except in some cases. Well, except abortion drugs, of course.
I don't see twinning as complicating the issue at all. I'm curious about it, but that's as far as I go with that. I always assumed there was a new soul formed at that point.
[ August 27, 2006, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: Theca ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
What I find problematic about twinning is that if* one sees the simplicity and straightforwardness of soul-enforment at the time of conception to be a big part of its appeal and rigor as a theory, then the existence of twinning throws a bit of a wrench into the works.
That is, if soul is formed if & only if at time of new formation of genetic material, then where does the second soul come from?** Given the assumption that twins have separate souls, then the second soul must have formed not on the basis of formation of new genetic material. And if a zygote or embryo can be ensouled at a time after the formation of new genetic material (e.g., at the time of twinning cleavage), then what is the impetus for finding the formation of new genetic material to be compelling as the time of ensoulment? (Why not later for all embryos, rather than making an exception for twins?)
-------
Upon rereading this, I'm pretty sure I am not explaining the complications this raises too clearly. I hope someone else more up to the task will take a shot.
-------
Footnotes:
*Granted, this is a big "if." I'm sure there are many people who accept the time of fertilization to be the time of ensoulment but who don't base their reasoning on something like "it's the most obvious time for it." For these people -- and I have no idea who on this thread this may or may not represent, as I take Dagonee to be just offering up hypotheticals at this point -- the vexedness of twinning for the elegance of the theory wouldn't be a problem.
**Again, if one does not base a theory of personhood-ensoulment on the obvious attractiveness of fertilization as a timepoint, then this isn't necessarily a problem. (Presumably God can figure it out for himself. ) It's only when one pins the soul to fertilization that this becomes dicey.
And, more succinctly, if one were to argue that the obviousness of fertilization as the marker for ensoulment strengthens the argument for personhood to be established at the same time, then further considerations which make ensoulment at fertilization a less tenable theory would also make personhood at fertilization a less tenable theory (assuming ensoulment is what grants personhood, that is).
Wait. Succinct was the wrong word. *grin
(Does this make sense? Am I the only one which finds this fascinating? Problematic? Complicated yet worthwhile to puzzle through?)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the soul is there at the moment of fertilization, then what happens when identical twins happen?
Is each one only possessed of half a soul? Or does God kick in a bonus soul?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: As far as what to do about common activities of daily life causing an egg to not implant: I'd follow motive. If a person's sole reason for taking an antiinflammatory for days on end, or for breastfeeding, or for jumping up and down for six hours straight on the eight day after ovulation, were to to be to stop a pregnancy, then I'd probably see that as a bad thing.
But if that is a side effect for breast feeding for other reasons or an unknown effect of some routine drug or a food choice, then no. I don't see that as a bad thing. It's a normal part of life for implantation errors to be made.
*nods
I know the Doctrine of Double Intent is pretty firmly established for Catholicism.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
The twinning thing just doesn't seem that complicated to me. I like the bonus soul idea.
A new soul would be needed as soon as you have a fertilized egg/early embryo not already possessing a soul. That would occur as soon as the twinning occurs, at least that's what I might imagine.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
So, which egg/embryo would be the unsouled one?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Does it matter? It probably goes to the on top 50% of the time and the one on the bottom 50% of the time.
Ok, it probably does matter. But I'm perfectly ok with not knowing how God can tell which twin came first and which came second.
Or maybe God plans or knows about the twinning from the get go and has the extra souls planned from the start.
Oh, or maybe God knows they aren't finished yet and withholds the soul until all the twinning has occurred.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I know! I get that -- the perfectly okay with God part. [ ] It's why I was trying to be so careful (and wordy, unfortunately) above.
It's isn't a problem per se for those concerned with ensoulment, but I think it is a problem for the "obviously the important timepoint is fertilization" argument. That's different, you see?
And interesting, I think. I also am curious to see how the debates go if cloning technology progresses past the unwieldiness of Nuclear Somatic Transfer techniques.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
It just doesn't seem different to me. If people have souls and are real human beings from the moment of conception then obviously there is a lot of mysterious and miraculous stuff going on and we'll never be able to understand it with science.
I'm not sure I can understand people who don't believe in souls right at this moment. Too tired.
Bed or shower? I think I'll try bed first.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
If* one finds the simplicity of "fertilization = ensoulment" to make it the most compelling theory, then additional nonsimplicity (e.g., God moves in mysterious ways) should make it proportionally less compelling a theory.
Mind you, I can understand the appeal of complexity in a theory, too, and I can see why some might prefer it. Sometimes I do, too.
Night, Theca. Sweet dreams.
---
*If, if, if! Many people do not fulfil the antecedent (as I suspect you do not, Theca, from what you have just said), and so the consequent of course would not apply.
[ August 27, 2006, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Maybe twinning happens BECAUSE there's more than one soul in there! I mean, we really don't know the mechanism that causes the split that creates identical twins. Although I'm betting on a purely biological mechanism, it is at least possible that an active deity does something to force the event. Also, since we don't know how souls get "into" humans, the situation where two or more TRY to get in at the same time is at least worth putting on the list of scenarios. The possibilities abound. Souls could be in each cell, and divide and multiply with the cells (I'm betting its in those weird little mitochondria). Or...souls could show up any time...maybe some people don't get a soul until age 47.
If we accept a biological definition of what it takes to make someone human, then the deal is sealed before fertilization. The egg & sperm are human cells and combine to make a human cell.
If we decide this soul stuff is too nebulous, but we still need to discuss "personhood" then we're free to set the starting point at whatever gestational age is most convenient or legally defensible.
It's a very important and objectively unanswerable question.
I think we should fight to the death over it.
Gwen: Sorry I couldn't answer yesterday, I was busy. I don't really have an answer to your earlier question, but I'd be interested in hearing your take on things.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Or...souls could show up any time...maybe some people don't get a soul until age 47.
Oh boy, does THAT explain a lot...
About the ensoulment thing... seems like as long as you use the word "soul" then this can't be a simple process. If you leave "soul" out of the discussion then aren't we having a different discussion? I still feel confused. Oh well.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Huh. Somehow I missed this bit of news.
Did the FDA ever say what happens if you take Plan B and you're already a couple weeks pregnant? I could never find an answer when the subject came up before.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I know this is a side point, but it's one I've always found interesting philosophically. If we consider ensoulment to happen at fertilization, then the question of what happens in post-fertilization zygote/embryo cleavage (i.e., "twinning" or other multiplicative gestation) becomes problematic. Is there another new soul formed (even though the genetic material doesn't change), or is the soul split, or what else?
I've read the rest of the discussion on this, too.
There are two principle mainstream Christian doctrines on creation of the soul. One is creation ex nihilio, which postulates that the soul is created from nothing (by God) and infused into the human being at the moment of creation. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church and many Protestant theologians, although I'm not sure how "official" it is. That is, there are many writings on it, with a core of consistency, but I'm not sure the Church itself has ever taught "this is how it is." This teaching in and of itself doesn't require ensoulment at fertilization.
Let's add the fertilization requirement for now, which exists in Catholic teaching independent of the specifics of creation ex nihilo, and look at twinning. The philosophical underpinning for ensoulment at the fertilization point is that humans are spirit and animal both, at all times. The ensoulment happens at the immediate point where the distinct animal body exists. Under this view, "ensoulment happens at fertilization" is a shorthand way of saying "ensoulment happens at the moment a distinct human organism exists." Note that this general rule is not dependent on "the basis of formation of new genetic material" but on the existence of something which is definitively the same organism as will, if all goes well, come out of the womb in about 9 months.
Typically, this point is fertilization. During twinning, a second animal body is generated. At that point, the one without a soul is ensouled as soon as the twinning is complete. This isn't an exception to the general rule, but an exception to the common case used to express the general rule. And it's still simple: the soul is created and infused at the earliest existence of the physical vessel.
The reason genetics is mentioned with fertilization is not the uniqueness of the genetic material, but because there is a clear dividing point working backwards in which neither the egg nor the sperm is the same organism.
The remaining quandary is which one keeps the original soul. I don't see that as problematic, though. If you raise some objections, I'll try to respond.
The other major view of ensoulment, one I believe is more commonly held by lay Protestants. The parents' souls somehow combine a portion of themselves to create a new soul. (Corporeal Traducianism, which adds that this process is part of the physical generation of the body, is considered heretical to Catholicism. Generationism, the view that a totally spiritual process of combination and reproduction takes place, is considered not to be strictly heretical but opposed to the general teachings of the Church.) Under this view, there is a spiritual reproduction that occurs that parallels physical reproduction.
Again, ensoulment at fertilization is not an essential element of this, but we will examine it as if that is what occurs. Here, twinning is even more easily handled. The generalized concept is that the creation of a body also creates the soul. There are two ways a body is created: fertilization and twinning. Working backward, there is still a point where the body definitively exists - let's say when the twins are totally separate for now. At that point, the body has a soul.
I'm not covering Mormon views, which differ significantly, because I simply don't know enough to do so.
Edit: I almost lost this post. I clicked "Add Reply and went on to the forum main page when I noticed that the post hadn't made it. Thank goodness for FireFox's ability to preserve form entries with the back button.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The ensoulment happens at the immediate point where the distinct animal body exists. Under this view, "ensoulment happens at fertilization" is a shorthand way of saying "ensoulment happens at the moment a distinct human organism exists." ... Typically, this point is fertilization. During twinning, a second animal body is generated. At that point, the one without a soul is ensouled as soon as the twinning is complete.
How does this work for conjoined twins (aka "Siamese twins")?
Honest, I'm not trying to be a butthead. <insert obligatory "trying" joke here *grin> And I don't really have a point to make, other than that one can make a tenable argument that the status definition of personhood is more intuitive and straightforward, all things considered.
Which, again, wouldn't necessarily be arguing against anyone's views as posted in this thread -- from my point of view, as originally posted, it is an interesting and illuminative puzzle, but rather a side point to the total discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I'm sympathetic to the concern. I wonder, though, what your position is on personhood and death (in re: status case, for example). Just curious -- I'm still working through where my own beliefs fall out, but I've found myself compelled to accept some sort of status definition here, and this has informed my view about the initiation of personhood, too, even though it isn't a perfect fit.
This is a different kind of issue to me. I don't know the particulars of brain death or ability to breathe. However, these types of status checks are check of whether a person has stopped living - that is, whether they are still a living person, not whether they are or were a person.
There's almost no doubt that a fertilized egg is living, is there? It's fragile, sure. The environment in which it can survive is severely limited. But, we don't consider someone not to be living solely because they are on a ventilator and can't survive without it. There's some status element other than need for external support for nutrition and oxygen that applies.
The dispute is over whether this living organism is a person.
There's much more to be written here, but the essence comes down to capability defining life, not personhood. Here, the fertilized egg metabolizes energy, grows (far more rapidly than at any other time of life), takes in nutrition, eliminates waste, and so on. The fertilized egg does not respond to stimuli, probably has no consciousness or thought, and can't move.
We might use these to determine if life has stopped after a person has become capable of these things. But we wouldn't use them to determine if they were a person.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How does this work for conjoined twins (aka "Siamese twins")?
Honest, I'm not trying to be a butthead. <insert obligatory "trying" joke here *grin> And I don't really have a point to make, other than that one can make a tenable argument that the status definition of personhood is more intuitive and straightforward, all things considered.
I don't see how the status definition becomes more straightforward, though. Depending on which organs are shared, the status definition has to be footnoted and caveated to the same extent, doesn't it? Consider the case where one twin could survive separation and the other couldn't. Under the status definition, one can't carry on the functions of life without external support. The other can.
The statement "the one without a soul is ensouled as soon as the twinning is complete" is not made less intuitive because we can't easily determine the point where "twinning is complete." The determination "is twinning complete" is difficult for us to make whether or not we are trying to answer questions about the soul.
quote:Which, again, wouldn't necessarily be arguing against anyone's views as posted in this thread -- from my point of view, as originally posted, it is an interesting and illuminative puzzle, but rather a side point to the total discussion.
Remember, the genesis of this conversation was to respond to someone who said that she couldn't imagine anyone not ignorant of biology thinking that personhood begins at fertilization. So there was no attempt to propound a complete theory, but merely enough to respond to this charge.
So you're now getting it piecemeal. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hmmm. (I am thinking -- that is not just a rhetorical device. And thank you for responding with such thoughtful interest. It is much appreciated.)
Insofar as any organism can generally be said to be living, persons who are kept on life support in order to harvest organs are still living. (Yeah, I know, there are definitely concerns that this brings up, but it is there and must be dealt with -- by somebody at least, even if not by us. But maybe you, at some time and in some cases (!), and maybe me, too.)
I think that the words we choose for these sorts of discussions are themselves instructive and illuminative, and so I do not want to dismiss any distinction as "just semantics." (Actually, I have a loathing for the term.) Yet I do think that there is an awkwardness to the language which may not well grasp some differences here; i.e., distinctions which are real and useful.
It is, all of it, dicey stuff. It's dicey because it is hard to piece through, but it is also dicey because it is so important. And, finally and perhaps most critically, because it is a discussion about matters which have been used in the past to deliberately justify some pretty horrific things.
Are you okay with going further on this, or is it getting to be an unuseful conversation to you? I ask because these are the sorts of conversations which can feel like traps, you know? And I don't want to participate in that. I do not want to make you uncomfortable or feel pressured to explain or defend a position.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Remember, the genesis of this conversation was to respond to someone who said that she couldn't imagine anyone not ignorant of biology thinking that personhood begins at fertilization. So there was no attempt to propound a complete theory, but merely enough to respond to this charge.
So you're now getting it piecemeal.
I know! *laughing
Which was why I tried to be clear that I was not getting down on dissin' Dagonee. I do very much appreciate that this is a conversation filled with ifs and hypotheticals and responsive commentary.
If we continue this, I suspect moving to a new thread would be in order. It would probably also be best (I think) to continue in conversational form, as much as my academic side likes a fully laid-out system. The older I get, the more suspicious I am about rigorous formal frameworks for debate -- they smack of an emphasis on point-getting.
However, I'm amenable to being convinced otherwise. *smile
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you okay with going further on this, or is it getting to be an unuseful conversation to you? I ask because these are the sorts of conversations which can feel like traps, you know? And I don't want to participate in that. I do not want to make you uncomfortable or feel pressured to explain or defend a position.
Absolutely. I'm enjoying this immensely. My response rate will slow down, though.
Would you mind outlining (in a very general way such as I did a few posts above) a theory of human life as determined by status? We're both using the terms now without any kind of outline on what we're talking about.
One particular question I have is whether status is the determinative factor - that is, a living person exists because this status exists - or merely indicative - we know a living person exists because this status exists.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Are you okay with going further on this, or is it getting to be an unuseful conversation to you? I ask because these are the sorts of conversations which can feel like traps, you know? And I don't want to participate in that. I do not want to make you uncomfortable or feel pressured to explain or defend a position.
Absolutely. I'm enjoying this immensely. My response rate will slow down, though.
And mine as well. It is 7:30am here, and I am set to wake my sweetheart to prepare for a kayaking lesson. (Stay tuned for the saga of How I Became a Mariner Salty Dog. Good story.) Perhaps we can return to this in a new thread later today?
quote:Would you mind outlining (in a very general way) a theory of human life as determined by status? We're both using the terms now without any kind of outline on what we're talking about.
One particular question I have is whether status is the determinative factor - that is, a living person exists because this status exists - or merely indicative - we know a living person exists because this status exists.
I would be delighted to, so long as we work with the understanding that we are each still piecing together frameworks,a nd that as such there will be additions and revisions as we go.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And mine as well. It is 7:30am here, and I am set to wake my sweetheart to prepare for a kayaking lesson. (Stay tuned for the saga of How I Became a Mariner Salty Dog. Good story.) Perhaps we can return to this in a new thread later today?
Sounds good. I'll wait for you to open it.
Oh, and "aaarrr!"
quote:I would be delighted to, so long as we work with the understanding that we are each still piecing together frameworks,a nd that as such there will be additions and revisions as we go.
Of course. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
Later then, matey.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Huh. Somehow I missed this bit of news.
Did the FDA ever say what happens if you take Plan B and you're already a couple weeks pregnant? I could never find an answer when the subject came up before.
Nothing.
-pH
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks, ph. That makes me less concerned.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
<-- is greatly looking forward to reading the CT/Dagonee discussion.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I keep seeing in this discussion, "If teenagers don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex." or variations, "The teenager isn't having the baby because she can't get Plan B, she's having the baby because she had sex."
It seems to me like we don't want teenagers to have sex, and some people want to hold pregnancy over their head as a possible punishment. It's almost as if some people want to make Plan B unavailable because they hope teens will get pregnant, so they "get what they deserve" for having sex.
Honestly, that seems really messed up to me. Using pregnancy as a punishment to coerce teens into what one might consider a correct moral position of not having sex.
This discussion is bringing up a lot of talk about punishing the child because the mother didn't intend to conceive it in the first place, or punishing the mother by forcing her to get pregnant when withholding Plan B.
Why is the act of a teenager having sex so morally reprehensible to us, that we feel that it justifies using children (both the mother and the unborn/not-yet-conceived baby) as our means of keeping teens from having sex?
I know, nobody wants to cop to that. We want to think that it's really about life and justice and whatever. Yes, some of it is.
But ask yourself, how much of this wouldn't be an issue for an adult.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It seems to me like we don't want teenagers to have sex, and some people want to hold pregnancy over their head as a possible punishment. It's almost as if some people want to make Plan B unavailable because they hope teens will get pregnant, so they "get what they deserve" for having sex.
Honestly, that seems really messed up to me. Using pregnancy as a punishment to coerce teens into what one might consider a correct moral position of not having sex.
I don't want teenagers to have sex. I don't want adults having sex unless they are mature enough to deal with all the possible consequences. The rest? Nah. Nobody here believes that, not even a little tiny bit.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Why isn't getting Plan B if the condom breaks, "dealing with the possible consequences?"
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
*tired* This is getting old... I'm not playing anymore. I'll just watch CT and Dag from afar.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
MightyCow, I'm am so tired of this "punishment" argument. It's intellectually myopic, in the sense that it's only punishment to people who already agree with your premises.
Look, there are people who think taking Plan B is wrong, and of a sufficient wrong that it ought not to be made easier by the government.
There is a difference between the natural consequences of an act, imposing additional consequences on the act, and preventing someone from alleviating the consequences of an act.
The second and third may be punishment. The third, however, may not be punishment. If the method of alleviation is one that somebody considers wrong, then it's almost foolish to say that that somebody is motivated by a desire to punish in preventing that alleviation from occurring.
I get that you don't think it's wrong. I'm not even sure I think it's wrong, nor do I know what I think of the OTC decision being only 18 or over.
Consider someone who wrecked their car. You wouldn't consider it punishment to prevent that person from stealing a car to replace theirs, would you? Why? Because you think it's wrong to steal a car. And I know stealing a car has an identifiable victim, and that's why you think it wrong. Once you think it's wrong, however, it's the fact that it is wrong that makes preventing someone from stealing a car a non-punitive act.
I see this "punishment" accusation brought up here time and again, especially in abortion threads. Those levying the accusation seem to not consider that nobody states "if they have sex, they should be prepared to raise the child" as the reason for banning abortion. The reason most have for banning abortion is that they think it results in the death of an innocent. The consequences are brought up in response to plaintive cries of "what about the person not ready to be a mother," not as a reason to ban abortion, but as a response to an argument against banning abortion.
It's a very subtle difference, but a critical one.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
Just a question. Is Plan B still going to be available to teens anonymously through Planned Parenthood? Because if I were still under 18, that would be my first choice regardless of FDA approval. It's free, and they only ask that you take a giant bag full of condoms with you when you leave.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Um - so what's the earliest delivery date at which a preemie can survive and go on to live to maturity with relatively good health? And let's define relatively good health broadly - like, at all humanly functional, eg. paralyzed but mentally intact, mentally impaired but capable of enjoying life, etc.
Because if I were going to assign a demarcation line for a shift between "chance at human life" (or fetus) and "human life" (or baby) I think that's where I'd put it.
And yes, I do think that taking the risk of terminating a chance at human life is worth serious moral consideration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My big problem with that determination is that it defines human life based on human technological capability. A child in the exact same condition as a child we wouldn't consider alive now now would be considered alive 20 years from now.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Then the definition would shift - but to my understanding, once a birth is too premature, we just can't deliver nutrients, hormones, etc. the way the womb and a woman's body do. I doubt that we'll make much progress on that front; it's insanely complicated and body-specific. I'm sure people are working on it, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's serious hope for an artificial womb. That would make the definition pretty close to conception.
My objection to the shifting definition based on technology is philosophical in nature based on a belief that human life is a thing that exists outside our determinations.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Look, there are people who think taking Plan B is wrong, and of a sufficient wrong that it ought not to be made easier by the government.
And yet, in allowing Plan B to be available either OTC or by prescription, the government is in effect saying that either Plan B is not wrong, or at least it is a sufficiently necessary and/or useful wrong- or that it creates enough "right"- that it should be legal.
Which then puts it in the odd case of having legal hoops to be jump through not because there's anything in particular clinically wrong with the drug or its function, but to appease the portion of the population that believes it's morally wrong.
It's sort of the reverse of some of the rulings about tobacco- "We can't find that it's that dangerous, because if we did, we'd have to ban it."
quote:There is a difference between the natural consequences of an act, imposing additional consequences on the act, and preventing someone from alleviating the consequences of an act.
It is worth noting that to some points of view, there needn't be consequences. As to whether those consequences are "natural", the natural consequence of being in a head-on collision doesn't prevent me from wanting a car to have seat belts and air bags.
quote:The second and third may be punishment. The third, however, may not be punishment. If the method of alleviation is one that somebody considers wrong, then it's almost foolish to say that that somebody is motivated by a desire to punish in preventing that alleviation from occurring.
It well be true that the entirity of the motivation of those who frequent Hatrack and take an anti-abortion stance is to protect the life of children. And I sympathize.
However, on a national level- the level on which policies are made- a far from trivial portion of the contingent that opposes abortion does so on a platform that also opposes contraception and sex education. And some of the people who come from that platform also claim to be foremost interested in saving the lives of the unborn, though it's a tiny part of their rationale. Arguing that everyone should conform to their notions of family or morality doesn't play as well.
In short, it may be "foolish" to argue a punitive motivation for the arguer, yet not for the mass behind the argument.
quote:Consider someone who wrecked their car. You wouldn't consider it punishment to prevent that person from stealing a car to replace theirs, would you? Why? Because you think it's wrong to steal a car. And I know stealing a car has an identifiable victim, and that's why you think it wrong. Once you think it's wrong, however, it's the fact that it is wrong that makes preventing someone from stealing a car a non-punitive act.
I'm sure you realize the limitations of such an analogy.
Part of what makes what appears wrong to one person and acceptable to another is the steps in between. In the case of the wrecked car leading to car theft, different people would go through different steps:
"Why did they get into an accident in the first place?"
And then,
"Why didn't they have insurance? If they did, why didn't they use the insurance payment to get a new car?"
"Why didn't they purchase, rent, or borrow a new or used car before they went to steal one? Why didn't they give up the notion of car ownership and take a bus?"
...And if one wanted to get ridiculous, one could go all the way through to, "Why didn't they steal from a dealer, who has less to lose from any single car, then from an individual, for whom the loss would be as great as their own"... But at that point, you've lost most people.
Part of the frustration of those who support the availability of "Plan B", I suspect, is that it puts one more step between the extremes of delivery and abortion, and some people just want to forbid that step, leading the supporters to say "It prevents abortion- they said they wanted to prevent abortion- what do they want, anyway?!"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Dagonee, I'm pulling my thoughts together, but I've been briefly sidetracked tonight by the actions of a third-year law student who was (IMO) harrassing and intimidating my mother-in-law in another province. Long story short: the young man confronted my MIL, saying that he knew the law and something she was doing was illegal (which it isn't), and accompanied by his mother, who called my MIL a "f------ b----." This is Not Okay, and I am currently researching the proper person to give legal advice and representation to my MIL. It's condo issues, so I'm trying to cross Elder Law with Real Estate.)
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:After all the discussions about this topic on this site? I see it as not positive because it could possibly destroy an unborn child.
I hope it sets your mind at ease somewhat to know that the MAP is simply a double-dose of regular birth control pills. MAP is not 100% effective because it does not do anything to a fertilized egg or to an implanted fetus. All it does is aggressively suppress ovulation.
The regular BCP works by suppressing ovulation. Some pills also have other effects as well, such as increasing the density of the mucous plug at the opening of the cervix (EWWW, MUCUS AND CERVICES!), or other hormonal changes that work together with the ovulation suppressant to trick the body into thinking it is already pregnant, and therefore, that there is no need to ovulate.
So, therefore, the MAP doesn't destroy an unborn child at all - it prevents a child from ever being conceived in the first place.
If ovulation has already occurred, or fertilization, then the MAP will not prevent pregnancy. Even the hormonal dose shouldn't have any negative impact on the fetus, since the hormones present in the MAP and BCPs are very similar to those already present in early pregnancy. (When you consider the fact that human ova can only be fertilized in a less-than-24-hour window of time, it's amazing anybody gets pregnant at all).
No worries over the MAP - unless you're Catholic.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB] Storm--
The blush smiley's not big enough...
I thought the 'Morning After Pill' referred to RU-486; I didn't read the article until after the first part of my post.
Oh, okay. Never mind my last post. I'm glad you're clearer on how the MAP works, but I understand your concerns re: fertilized eggs.
For what it's worth, what I've read and heard from my friend who's a "lady doctor" points to there actually being VERY minimal evidence of the prevention of implantation - the evidence that has been observed clinically could be coincidental, as many more fertilized eggs naturally do not implant or are shed shortly after implantation than eggs that take root and grow.
However, I do understand your point of view on it. Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Wait - why would being Catholic mean concern over the MAP? Just because of the official ban on contraception?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote: So, if anyone else has any views on how hard it is to get the morning after pill in their area, I'd like to hear it.
I can't speak to recent times, since I'm now married to a man who's had a vasectomy (yay, I have no concerns about pregnancy anymore!), but a few years ago, it was not difficult in my area (Seattle). I went in to Planned Parenthood to get on the Pill, and I was told that if I ever needed the MAP, all I needed to do was make a "priority appointment," have a quick chat with the doctor, and I'd have the prescription in hand within 10 minutes of coming in. Getting on the Pill was very easy, too, although it did require a pelvic exam. No STD counseling, no sex counseling, just a quick ride in the stirrups and that was that.
Of course, my area is very liberal, too.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Very good article - I love Dr. Drew. He's a real champion for young people empowering and educating themselves.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Wait - why would being Catholic mean concern over the MAP? Just because of the official ban on contraception?
Well, yes. Because a lot of Catholics have strong feelings about ANY interference with conception. At least, many of the Catholics I know do.
It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Wait - why would being Catholic mean concern over the MAP? Just because of the official ban on contraception?
Well, yes. Because a lot of Catholics have strong feelings about ANY interference with conception. At least, many of the Catholics I know do.
It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
Yeah, I go to a Jesuit university, where they can't prescribe birth control, and they don't have free condoms in the health center.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is worth noting that to some points of view, there needn't be consequences. As to whether those consequences are "natural", the natural consequence of being in a head-on collision doesn't prevent me from wanting a car to have seat belts and air bags.
Why is it worth noting this in the context of my post. I haven't tried to convince anyone that plan B is bad. It's clear that I recognize that other people have this view.
As to the seat belt and air bags, that example leaves the distinct impression you didn't understand the point of my post. Unless someone thinks they are somehow morally wrong, the example is simply irrelevant.
quote:In short, it may be "foolish" to argue a punitive motivation for the arguer, yet not for the mass behind the argument.
Then perhaps the person who made such an accusation ought to make it against those other people. After all, I don't attribute "If I get some girl pregnant I don't want to have to pay for it for 18 years" to abortion supporters here.
Beyond that, though, I think it's simply easier to attribute that motivation to the "mass behind the argument" because they're not here. I've known thousands of pro-life activists. Not one wishes to "punish" anyone by making abortion or MAP unavailable.
quote:I'm sure you realize the limitations of such an analogy.
Part of what makes what appears wrong to one person and acceptable to another is the steps in between. In the case of the wrecked car leading to car theft, different people would go through different steps:
"Why did they get into an accident in the first place?"
And then,
"Why didn't they have insurance? If they did, why didn't they use the insurance payment to get a new car?"
"Why didn't they purchase, rent, or borrow a new or used car before they went to steal one? Why didn't they give up the notion of car ownership and take a bus?"
...And if one wanted to get ridiculous, one could go all the way through to, "Why didn't they steal from a dealer, who has less to lose from any single car, then from an individual, for whom the loss would be as great as their own"... But at that point, you've lost most people.
Part of the frustration of those who support the availability of "Plan B", I suspect, is that it puts one more step between the extremes of delivery and abortion, and some people just want to forbid that step, leading the supporters to say "It prevents abortion- they said they wanted to prevent abortion- what do they want, anyway?!"
The analogy was constructed precisely to make my point. Those questions are irrelevant. I can make easily some up for the pregnancy situation (multiple methods, alternative forms of sexual gratification, etc.) but I won't.
I'll try this one more time:
If people think action X is wrong, then their prevention of people from performing action X is not motivated by a desire to punish.
It's that simple, and, in the multiple times I've presented this argument here on Hatrack, not one person has ever dealt with this actual point. They've sidestepped it as you have done here.
quote:(Dagonee, I'm pulling my thoughts together, but I've been briefly sidetracked tonight by the actions of a third-year law student who was (IMO) harrassing and intimidating my mother-in-law in another province. Long story short: the young man confronted my MIL, saying that he knew the law and something she was doing was illegal (which it isn't), and accompanied by his mother, who called my MIL a "f------ b----." This is Not Okay, and I am currently researching the proper person to give legal advice and representation to my MIL. It's condo issues, so I'm trying to cross Elder Law with Real Estate.)
Get him, CT. Seriously, I hope you can help her put a stop to this.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
"If people think action X is wrong, then their prevention of people from performing action X is not motivated by a desire to punish."
Just a quick thought, Dags, before I head out the door to work:
Many parents do exactly that with their kids on a variety of fronts. Action X is wrong, and they withhold, they reason, they coerce, they spank, they scold, they do whatever they feel they have to do to prevent the child from performing whatever action X might be. and sometimes, the motivation is based on "punishment" as a way of preventing said action. Whether taking away toys, spanking, scolding, etc.
Just a thought.
And a second "get him, CT --"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That doesn't make preventing the acton a punishment. The punishment there is the spanking, not the preventing.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Of the people who think the MAP is wrong, isn't it perfectly clear to you that there is plenty of room for honest, sincere seekers after the truth to disagree with you? Your statement that ensoulment occurs the moment of fertilization is quite problematic for many reasons. In the end you seem to agree that it's a matter of religion, that other religions disagree, and you admit the right of all people to practice religion according to their own consciences.
So I'm left understanding completely why you would never choose to use the MAP. But I'm still totally puzzled why you think it should be illegal. Jewish people don't eat pork, as a matter of religion, but they don't lobby trying to outlaw it for the rest of us. They don't cry loudly for forced circumcision of all male babies.
The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Of the people who think the MAP is wrong, isn't it perfectly clear to you that there is plenty of room for honest, sincere seekers after the truth to disagree with you? Your statement that ensoulment occurs the moment of fertilization is quite problematic for many reasons. In the end you seem to agree that it's a matter of religion, that other religions disagree, and you admit the right of all people to practice religion according to their own consciences.
So I'm left understanding completely why you would never choose to use the MAP. But I'm still totally puzzled why you think it should be illegal. Jewish people don't eat pork, as a matter of religion, but they don't lobby trying to outlaw it for the rest of us. They don't cry loudly for forced circumcision of all male babies.
The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
Because we're not in the business of saving their souls, or the lives of their unborn children, and they feel the reverse is true.*
*Generalization, but this was a serious attempt at understanding.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Those examples don’t work, Tatiana, because Jewish people don’t believe that it’s wrong to eat pork or not circumcise – they observe those markers as signs of a special covenant. They are only required for members of that covenant. It would be wrong for me to never kiss my husband, but that doesn’t mean I think everyone should be kissing him.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive.
I think you hit the nail on the head earlier in your post and then strayed from it here. The crux of the matter is what you called "ensoulment" rather than the more general "when life begins." If your definition of "human life" is not contingent on viability or sentience, then life does begin at conception. The question to be answered, then, is:
Is it morally acceptable to prevent a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, or fetus from reaching maturity -- that is, being born -- and if so, under what circumstances?
Insofar as I don't think it should be up to me, I do think there are circumstances under which at least some of those things are morally acceptable. I don't feel a strong drive to protect the existence of a blastocyst, for example, but then I don't believe in souls at all. Many people who believe strongly in ensoulment-at-conception do feel such a drive.
Added: I recognize that this isn't really related to the MAP discussion, but I thought it merited saying all the same.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
K, this is stretching back a little bit to an important point that I don't think has been addressed:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And yet, in allowing Plan B to be available either OTC or by prescription, the government is in effect saying that either Plan B is not wrong, or at least it is a sufficiently necessary and/or useful wrong- or that it creates enough "right"- that it should be legal.
While I would say that our system of law is largely moral, and in a certain light based on some foundation of morality (assuming the constitution is a moral document) much of modern rulings on the law has little/nothing to do with morality.
I'm not necessarily saying that this law is objectively right or wrong, but I am saying that the fact it's a law is NOT enough to say that it is morally right. Look at any number of obviously immoral laws from the past or present (laws permitting slavery, laws prohibiting women to vote etc...) for examples on things that were legal, but at the same time wrong. Hell, The law says it's ok for my dad to own 100 guns... it's not necessarily immoral for him to do so, but neither is it moral, at best it's neutral and at worst it officially allows things that are immoral.
even without claiming the justice system corrupt or overly flawed, it's easy to find places where the law forces itself away from morality.
I've said it before, and I always come down to saying it again in every abortion discussion... The two sides of the issue are at odds at such a fundamental level that there's little point arguing between them. One side sees life forming much much earlier than the other, and sees this life as just as valuable as another life. The other side does not. The reason that pro-life proponents are often seen as more rabid than pro-choice is evident in the name choice: pro-life is arguing to save life, pro-choice is arguing to give someone more choice... they're not arguing on the same planes.
As for why a pro-life proponent would be against this (assuming it does in some way interfere with fertilized ova), it's directly comparable to why one might think it immoral to hand an angry parent a gun with which to shoot their child.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Those examples don’t work, Tatiana, because Jewish people don’t believe that it’s wrong to eat pork or not circumcise – they observe those markers as signs of a special covenant. They are only required for members of that covenant. It would be wrong for me to never kiss my husband, but that doesn’t mean I think everyone should be kissing him.
Thank you for making the point I was going to, only better and with a clever analogy. Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Note: I'm not trying to push a pro-life agenda onto those that don't hold it. I'm trying to point out that each side's basic views relating to the issue are so far removed from each other that the subsequent arguments are all basically pointless.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
I feel pretty comfortable making this decision because I believe that I'm helping to save children's lives.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have a couple of ancillary questions, Scott:
(1) Are you convinced that the MAP prevents implantation, or,
(1a) Is the possibility that the MAP might prevent implantation enough for you to oppose it?
(2) Do you oppose normal prescription birth control pills?
I'm not planning to use your answers against you in some sort of sneaky trick, I'm just trying to develop my understanding of your position.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
(Pssst. . . I think Scott already answered some of those questions to Storm on page 1.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
1) No; I'm not convinced either way.
1a) I don't know. I need to see more data on just how high/low the possibility is.
2) Not usually.
The full text of Tatiana's question might help to point what exactly what I was responding to:
quote:The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else? Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:(Pssst. . . I think Scott already answered some of those questions to Storm on page 1.)
Not as precisely as he went on to answer them this time, though.
quote:1) No; I'm not convinced either way.
1a) I don't know. I need to see more data on just how high/low the possibility is.
That's basically what I was wondering -- whether any possibility was too great. Thanks for explaining.
quote:2) Not usually.
The full text of Tatiana's question might help to point what exactly what I was responding to:
That's why I noted that my questions were ancillary -- entirely for my own edification. That is, I saw what you were getting at, but was curious about some other tangential stuff. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What does "not usually" mean? I mean, is it an opposition based on the type of birth control (like the IUD vs. the Pill), or the age of the person involved? What factors determine when is usually and when isn't?
-pH
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't like the idea of minors taking normal prescription birth control pills without their parents' knowledge.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I have not read the whole thread, but my gut reaction to this is a positive one.
I was date raped when I was 16, and of course it was totally unprotected. It was a Friday night and by the time I was able to think clearly enough to think about plan b, Planned Parenthood was already closed. I was so frustrated and scared.
I made an appointment early Monday morning and got the pill and did manage to aviod pregnancy, but during this whole ordeal I kept wondering why it was so hard to get. It is very available 9-5 Monday-Friday, but when emergencies do not always happen in a timely manner I think it is a great thing to be able to go to a 24-hour CVS and pick it up.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Allegra, did you not have the option of going to the police and having them take you to the hospital. And/or going to the hospital on your own?
<ps: please feel free to ignore if this is too raw a topic>
On another note: South Dakotans will soon be voting on the proposed most restrictive abortion law in the country. It would allow no exceptions for rape -- only for the health of the mother. The woman most credited for pushing this ballot item now (many pro-life advocates in the state actually advised against it figuring that it would simply be overturned by the Supreme Court anyway saying simply that the timing is wrong) did it because she underwent an abortion and immediately regreted it. In her words, she doesn't want any other woman to go through what she did.
See...now I have a HUGE problem with this kind of reasoning. She's not considering the fact that many women could have an abortion and not have anywhere near the regrets she did. She went through a 1 year depression. Also, if she chose to, she could counsel other women and share her experiences. But she feels compelled to get a law passed instead. I understand that's her right. But really, her statements sound much to much like she knows what's best for everyone else and she's going to make sure that we all realize it. Here's a Washington Post article on it. I'm trying to find a better source, closer to the action. Perhaps with a better sense of who is behind the bill and their motivations. I make no claim to WP's accuracy on this.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Dagonee- While no one on this thread has said "You should have to keep the baby as punishment." Plenty of people have said "If you didn't want to risk getting pregnant, maybe you shouldn't have had sex in the first place." Which to me, at least, sounds pretty much the same. I understand the point being made, and in some ways agree with it. Reading it, though, it produces an instinctive feeling that the person making it is passing a value judgement on me. I know the personal views of many of the people making these statements. In fact, they are making (or have already made) a value judgement on people who have premarital sex. That's completely their right. But as someone who doesn't believe premarital sex is wrong, I don't understand why the law should prevent me from receiving medications which would enable me to have it free of worry. (I'm pro-life, so this applies only to the MAP and BC, although I know it applies to abortion as well for people who aren't pro-life)
I also have a question for the people who are against the MAP being dispensed to underage teenagers. This is not meant to be disrespectful, I'm just curious. Would you prefer that your child receive the morning after pill without your knowledge, or that they become pregnant? Assuming, of course, that you don't believe the MAP induces an abortion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Would you prefer that your child receive the morning after pill without your knowledge, or that they become pregnant?
As long as we recognize those aren't the only two options, and that lots of teenagers make it through to young adulthood without ever engaging in sex...
Honestly, if my child were having sex, I'd feel I'd already lost the BIG battle. Pregnancy or parental deception-- meh. Those are...not tangential problems, but they're not THE problem.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That doesn't make preventing the acton a punishment. The punishment there is the spanking, not the preventing.
The point being -- my apologies for not being clear enough -- was that parents can, do, and will use punishment AS a prevention.
Ex) I try reasoning: "Hold my hand while we cross the street." I add explanation, "Cars drive fast and can hurt or kill you." Which has (at least in my case) escalated to a whop on the butt as said child continues to use every possible means available to dash away at a dangerous time. Child cries, and parent says: "Then next time, hold my hand." It's a punishment designed to prevent a behavior or bad consequences.
Anyway, Dags said no one ever answers the punishment line of reasoning, so I thought I'd give it a stab. Just my .02.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
quote:Allegra, did you not have the option of going to the police and having them take you to the hospital. And/or going to the hospital on your own?
<ps: please feel free to ignore if this is too raw a topic>
Both options were available, but I was too scared to go to the authorities. The only reason I was brave enough to try to get plan B was because I was so scared of getting pregnant.
Don't worry about it being too sore of a subject, I wouldn't have posted anything about it if I wasn't ok with talking about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your statement that ensoulment occurs the moment of fertilization is quite problematic for many reasons. In the end you seem to agree that it's a matter of religion, that other religions disagree, and you admit the right of all people to practice religion according to their own consciences.
No, I don't think it purely a matter of religion. The comments on ensoulment were recognized by at least one other person as ancillary to my main point and treated as such. That person then started what was essentially a new conversation about that. It was never central to an attempt to convince others of the truth of the proposition that life begins at fertilization. It was merely an attempt to demonstrate to you that your understanding of why others feel differently than you about life beginning at fertilization was incomplete and inaccurate.
quote:So I'm left understanding completely why you would never choose to use the MAP. But I'm still totally puzzled why you think it should be illegal.
I haven't decided whether MAB should be illegal.
However, if I do decide it should be illegal, it will be because I find the evidence to be very strong that it does kill human beings some of the time. Can you see why that's different than, say, condom use, which I also think is immoral but don't think kills a human being? How are you totally puzzled by this concept?
quote:Jewish people don't eat pork, as a matter of religion, but they don't lobby trying to outlaw it for the rest of us. They don't cry loudly for forced circumcision of all male babies.
Dana has answered this quite well. I'll add that my stance on gay marriage makes it quite clear that I do not attempt to codify my moral beliefs into law willy-nilly. I have a very complicated system for deciding which immoral things should be illegal.
quote:The question of where life begins is complicated and not intuitive. Clearly there can be a lot of different opinions. Why do you feel your particular view of that question should be allowed to dictate the reproductive decisions (surely some of the most personal and deeply felt decisions people make) of others? That's what boggles me!
Because I think that holding what I consider to be the incorrect view results in the killing of human beings with insufficient justification.
Honestly, how does this boggle you. I believe that close to a million human beings are killed each year with essentially no legal protection. It boggles you that I wish that to stop?
quote:I would never try to make those decisions for you. How can you feel justified making them for someone else?
If someone were trying to kill me, I'd like you to make the decision for the person trying to kill me that they can't do that. Please.
quote:Someone you don't even know, and whose circumstances are so foreign to you as to be inconceivable?
I have thought more than most about when killing is justified. It is inconceivable to me that a loved one be brutally murdered. But I consider it wrong for me to kill the culprit of such an act, even were he to be acquitted.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Allegra:
quote:Allegra, did you not have the option of going to the police and having them take you to the hospital. And/or going to the hospital on your own?
<ps: please feel free to ignore if this is too raw a topic>
Both options were available, but I was too scared to go to the authorities. The only reason I was brave enough to try to get plan B was because I was so scared of getting pregnant.
Don't worry about it being too sore of a subject, I wouldn't have posted anything about it if I wasn't ok with talking about it.
Thanks Allegra.
I worry about this kind of scenario. Basically, the South Dakota ballot initiative is relevant to the kind of scenario you were in. And they justify the near-total ban on abortion by pointing to the availability of the MAP for cases of rape (and others, of course).
But not every rape victim is going to get her wits about her quickly enough. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true. Rape, especially date rape and incest, is a big problem in this country. It's precisely in those situations where a victim minght hesitate. There's more at stake than hoping to send some stranger to jail. What if she takes 4 days to figure out what to do? In South Dakota, if this law passes, she can't get an abortion. I think this scenario is not THAT unlikely. And I do think the cruelty of forcing a woman to carry her rapist's child to full term is bad enough to make the South Dakota law a bad one.
Now, if I had my way, every rape and act of incest would go reported. I'm of the opinion that there's not enough good in those situations to be "saved" by not reporting it. But I can't make that choice for the victim, and I won't.
Telling rape victims that they should've gone to the police may be the "right" thing, but it's also not completely realistic. Telling rape victims that they're "covered" in case of pregnancy because there was a 3-day window for them to access MAP is not realistic either.
We can hope that every crime gets reported and every victim gets the assistance they deserve. But realistically, we know that's not going to happen.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Dagonee, I'm terribly sorry that you're tired of an argument that you disagree with. Perhaps if you could provide a reasonable counter, you wouldn't be so tired of it. Perhaps it wouldn't come up so often if it didn't hold quite a bit of truth.
quote: I see this "punishment" accusation brought up here time and again, especially in abortion threads. Those levying the accusation seem to not consider that nobody states "if they have sex, they should be prepared to raise the child" as the reason for banning abortion. The reason most have for banning abortion is that they think it results in the death of an innocent. The consequences are brought up in response to plaintive cries of "what about the person not ready to be a mother," not as a reason to ban abortion, but as a response to an argument against banning abortion.
It's a very subtle difference, but a critical one.
I disagree. Some of the people are indeed stating that minors should not be able to get the morning after pill because they have no business having sex.
The whole abortion/contraception debate is steeped in the puritanic values which consider sex for non-procreation sinful. I don't deny that many of the people against abortions and against the morning after pill feel that way because they believe that these actions end a life and are wrong.
I do believe though, that the issue is complex, and that many people cannot or will not separate their ideas of sex as sinful from the rest of the debate. These people tend to want to deny contraception, including Plan B, and deny sex education except abstinence, and I believe that they're shooting themselves in the foot.
I respect people who believe that abortion is killing an unborn child, and so oppose it on those grounds, even though I disagree with them.
I am very frustrated with people who wish to legislate their morality about sex and contraception.
Plan B is contraception, not abortion. People who treat it like abortion seem to me to be either misunderstanding the issue, or intentionally obscuring it to further their moral views on sex.
Those who want to withhold it as a way to force pregnancy upon those who do not want it are tyrants in my opinion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm pro-choice and I'm tired of the pregnancy as punishment argument.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I disagree. Some of the people are indeed stating that minors should not be able to get the morning after pill because they have no business having sex.
Really? I haven't seen anyone say this here. I know people who do say this, but I haven't seen anyone here make this argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I'm terribly sorry that you're tired of an argument that you disagree with. Perhaps if you could provide a reasonable counter, you wouldn't be so tired of it.
Since no one has ever responded to my counter, instead responding to something else, I wonder how you can even comment on its reasonableness. There's no evidence you've even read it.
quote:I disagree. Some of the people are indeed stating that minors should not be able to get the morning after pill because they have no business having sex.
Find one who did so here and quote them for me, please. Your initial response was aimed at this thread, not some amorphous group.
quote:Plan B is contraception, not abortion. People who treat it like abortion seem to me to be either misunderstanding the issue, or intentionally obscuring it to further their moral views on sex.
Good grief. Could you at least pretend to have read the several pages on this. I've already had one person simply declare that people who believe the pill-maker's claim that MBA stops implantation are simply ignorant of biology, ask for clarification, and then basically ignore that clarification. Do we need another person to do it, too?
quote:Those who want to withhold it as a way to force pregnancy upon those who do not want it are tyrants in my opinion.
Yes, those mythical people are tyrants.
What the hell is wrong with Hatrack that people feel the need to misstate the viewpoints they disagree with in such a transparent manner.
That's three times in this thread, now. Only one of the three who made the accusation has bothered to address the response.
The other two have simply reiterated the same tired point without even the courtesy of addressing the points raised in opposition.
Oh, yeah. You said, "I disagree."
Still no evidence, though.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Here's what you said:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if someone refuses them Plan B and they become pregnant.
No, the teenagers are in this position because they had sex. The fact that an option that might alleviate the consequences of having sex isn't available to them is something faced by a lot of people facing a lot of different consequences for a lot of different acts.
This reads to me as "you made your bed, now lie in it." How else should I understand your assertion that if a woman can't get Plan B because her pharmacist doesn't give it to her, it's really her responsibility, because she should have though about that before having sex?
It's also very nearly a quote of what I said, so yes, I was indeed referring to this discussion, but it also does apply to the discussion on the whole.
As far as reading, I've read the entire thread, and as far as the Biology goes, Plan B is nothing more than birth control pills concentrated. If birth control pills aren't abortion, neither is Plan B.
Do you have any other points you'd like me to make so you can side-step them?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
MightyCow,
To me, this reads like you are deliberately missing the point so that you can be upset.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I just thought you all should know that while waiting at the Planned Parenthood to get a new Nuvaring prescription, I read all about Plan B, and it said in REALLY BIG LETTERS that it does not harm unborn children.
Here is what I think about them saying that it might possibly prevent implantation:
Perhaps it's much like a pharmacist telling me that a certain antibiotic MAY interfere with my birth control. My doctor explained it to me this way: I don't use oral birth control, so it's much less likely that there would be interference, since the hormones go directly into my bloodstream. In addition, the antibiotic in question concentrates itself in the urine and is at a very low dose. Taking all of this into consideration, it is extremely unliikely that this particular antibiotic will interfere. In fact, it's my understanding that the studies concerning antibiotics interfering with birth control focused on CERTAIN antiboitics and ORAL birth control. But they give me the warning every time because legally, they can't say "We know for sure that this will absolutely not interfere with your particular birth control."
In other words, the chances of Plan B preventing implantation are likely incredibly small, but they haven't done enough studies about it to absolutely say, "This medicine will not interfere with implantation." Much like regular birth control.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with Bob on this.
Don't make me pull this thread over!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This reads to me as "you made your bed, now lie in it." How else should I understand your assertion that if a woman can't get Plan B because her pharmacist doesn't give it to her, it's really her responsibility, because she should have though about that before having sex?
Even your deliberately crude reading of it doesn't amount to punishment. "Consequence" does not equal "punishment."
Moreover, there's no "should" in my statement. You added that. You obviously somehow think it's important.
With respect to the specific situation addressed, the distance between your reading is even greater. If you want to rephrase the original quote to be more accurate, you could do so like this:
quote:And the teenagers I'm discussing are only putting themselves in a position where they have to get an abortion if they can't compel someone to dispense Plan B to them and they become pregnant.
In this case, you're equating the inability to compel someone else to do something with punishment.
It's getting beyond ridiculous.
quote:As far as reading, I've read the entire thread, and as far as the Biology goes, Plan B is nothing more than birth control pills concentrated. If birth control pills aren't abortion, neither is Plan B.
The most that's been said about the anti-implantation effects of either is that the evidence of the effect is weak.
Again, the manufacturers made this claim. I have - repeatedly now, but maybe you'll notice it this time - stated that I don't have an opinion on it yet. Some people feel this evidence strong enough to avoid taking the risk.
The manufacturers are to blame for this. They talked about the implantation effect to market their pills. Now that it's not useful, they backpedal.
quote:Do you have any other points you'd like me to make so you can side-step them?
I'd like you, just once, to discuss the difference between consequences and punishment.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think part of the problem is that in some parenting philosophies (popular when some of our younger members were growing up) the word "consequences" was/is used instead of "punishment" even when the second would have been more acurate.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm a little perplexed by some of the reactions here.
I submit that fundamental agreement may be found on the following 4 things:
1) If you don't want to get pregnant, the most effective way to accomplish that is to avoid sexual intercourse. Barring rape (for which practically every place in the country has effective victim assistance) you have zero chance of becoming pregnant.
2) If you don't want to get pregnant and yet can't find other ways short of sexual intercourse to satisfy the sexual urge, effective birth control, used properly is a good, but not perfect solution. The failure rate of condoms and/or BCP is very low, for example.
3) If you don't want to get pregnant and you make a mistake, or are concerned that you MIGHT have made a mistake, the MAP is available as emergency contraception. It is NOT a good idea to use it as a frequent method of birth control, and we don't know everything about its effects or its side effects, but it looks to be a reasonably safe alternative when things are in panic mode. In general, panic mode is to be avoided, however, and the level of concern should rise dramatically if you find yourself needing to get MAP more than once or twice in a lifetime (see #2 and #1). That would be an indication of you not taking birth control seriously enough, or that your birth control method is ineffective for you, or that you might be in an abusive relationship (or several).
4) If you don't want children, but if you make a mistake and you don't/can't use MAP in time, you have a decision to make. In this country, you can choose to have the baby and keep it, have the baby and give it up for adoption, or have an abortion. It is not by external decree, but by facts of life and human psychology that each of these options has downsides for most people. Having children when you don't want them or don't feel ready has some obvious drawbacks. Adoption means you carry the child to full term, and then you have a child out there "somewhere" that you can't be with (and you may wish you could be), also, you go through all the embarrassment and have nothing to show for it since you didn't keep the child. Abortion avoids the social embarrassment, but it is a source of some anguish for some people. Sometimes immediately, sometimes later. It's never really a forgotten thing, from past experiences of people who have had them. If nothing else, you should be up front with your medical providers so you have to kind of keep track of how many you've had...
NOW: In saying that rational beings who don't want children would try to avoid #4, and even #3, I'm stating what to me are obvious conclusions. There's pain (physical and/or psychological) associated with the higher-numbered options.
We ALL know that there will be teens who get to #3 and #4. The older folks on this forum know that. We also know that the "crisis" can seem a lot bigger when the discovery first hits and that sometimes what teens lack most is perspective. So, when they hit #4 and start making decisions, at least some of them are acting of out panic and mistaken perceptions of things rather than a cool rational assessment of their short and long-term best interests. Even adults are not immune from this decision-making in panic mode, but teens are more susceptible to it, less well prepared to handle it, and have less experience with long term thinking. Plus, they have legal representatives who are responsible for them in most serious situations (usually parents, but sometimes guardians, etc.).
When an underage teen demands anonymity, and unfettered access to things like MAP, it DOES set off some alarm bells for people who worry about the exploitation of teens, and about the general lack of fully formed decision-making skills among teens. In essence, what some of us hear is that anonymity is of primary importance. We don't hear "I'm an adult, treat me like one" because we know that in most things, that teen is not an adult. What we hear is "I don't want anyone to know I might be pregnant because that means they'll know I'm having sex, and that I can't manage an effective birth control regimen, despite the education I've had on the issue." And that proves (to some of us, at least) that teens ARE irresponsible when it comes to sex and really don't have any business engaging in it. They don't want kids and aren't prepared for the consequences.
NOW...some of us (myself included) think that part of the reason for this situation is that our education of teens on the topic is lacking...big time. Some of us (myself also included) think that, barring rape, most of the teens who get pregnant but who don't want children (i.e., aren't actively HOPING to get pregnant) got that way because they did something that is a lot less effective as a method of birth control than what they are telling us. The incidences of "the condom broke" are really very rare. The instances of "we were just fooling around and we put the condom on later" are not rare.
AND FINALLY, there is NOTHING in this that suggests I would want teens to suffer punishment for getting pregnant. But I do want teens to grow up. And sometimes, sadly, teens have to grow up too fast. One of those times is when you are faced with the decision of what to do now that you are pregnant.
You don't know how hard it is to NOT say something about what you'll do re: abstinence or birth control NEXT TIME. But that's not helpful to the teen or their decision-making now. So...really, nobody is saying that if they are involved in counseling teens -- the get around to that, but first and foremost there's a lot of help and counseling about how to make the decision NOW about what to do.
And really, nobody is EVER saying that we want teens to be punished once they are pregnant. Face the consequences...yes. You have to anyway. And...for those who AREN'T pregnant, face the consequences early, before you really have to face them. And then act according to your own best interests. Stick to #1 if you can. If you REALLY can't abstain from sexual intercourse as a way of satisfying the sexual urge (and I submit that shows a certain lack of creativity on your part), then for crying out loud get yourself educated about birth control and do it right, every time. Because the consequences ARE serious.
There are life and death decisions involved here. Debates about the instant of personhood are just scrimmaging over legal boundaries. It's what you truly believe that matters, and will matter later on too, and perhaps your beliefs will change in the future too.
What kind of people would we be if we didn't warn you about that?
Cut us some slack, you youngsters. We've all been through this. Many of us DID abstain. We KNOW it's possible. Many of us didn't. A few of us went through the decisions at #4 (#3 wasn't available then, but really, #3 doesn't change things a whole heck of a lot if you are acting rationally to begin with).
[ August 29, 2006, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bob, excellent post.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, just so I'm clear on this point, your opinion wouldn't be affected if souls were removed from the equation, right? That's how it reads to me.
(1) It is wrong to bring about the end of a human life.
(2) When the sperm and egg combine and become at least one new individual with unique DNA (identical twins excepted), a human life has begun.
From these, any intervention that causes the termination of a pregnancy is wrong. Am I reading you correctly?
I also have a tangential question. The way I'm reading you it sounds like you view all pregnancy control as immoral. If that's so, does that also extend to surgical methods? For example, if I were to have a vasectomy, would it be immoral of me to have sex with someone who knew that, assuming no STDs on either side? What I'm trying to understand is the why of it. One possibility is that you think taking measures to reduce the chance of conception is immoral, but it's only one possibility and I'm not sure what the others are.
Could you explain? Email would be fine if you'd rather not talk about it here for whatever reason. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hear hear, Bob! Lovely summary.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Bob, is your post exclusively about teenagers?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
i'd also agree, that was an excellent post by Bob.
As for the dag/Cow argument here's a few thoughts:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: As far as reading, I've read the entire thread, and as far as the Biology goes, Plan B is nothing more than birth control pills concentrated. If birth control pills aren't abortion, neither is Plan B.
I'm sorry, but this statement is just silly... consider some similar issues:
Alcohol in small quantities can be good for the health, reduce risk of heart disease, calm nerves, encourage sound sleep etc... a few too many shots can induce impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, upset stomach, headaches, up to alcohol poisoning and potentially death. more directly: Everclear is effectively concentrated alcohol yet is required to have warnings about possible death or blindness on the bottle.
Amoxacilin (the pink bubble-gum antibiotics I had as a kid) is a medicine in small quantities, but if you're like my cousin and drink a whole bottle you have to be hospitalized...
Apple seeds are safe to eat (though probably not reccomended), however if I were to down a gallon of apple seeds I would likely die of some combination of a bowel obstruction (or something) and/or sianide poisoning...
While most of us I think agree that it's possible that the MAP does not have a chance (or a significant chance) of harming an unborn child, I don't see that there has been enough conclusive evidence put forth on the matter.
But don't let it be assumed that because one thing is safe that a concentrated amount of that thing is also safe.
As for the punishment/consequence argument, I think others have already addressed it sufficiently, but I'll throw in some more examples that might help.
Example: Playing around with nuclear waste can cause cancer and death.
There are numerous stringent security measures which keep nuclear waste in locations that the public cannot access.
Are these security measures punishing those people who want to play around in nuclear waste? or are they protecting the public from a harmful action?
(not the best analogy, I know, but fun nonetheless)
Alternate Example: it's just prior to the civil war and slavery is legal.
A law is instituted by some of the free states that allows escaped slaves to live free of fear of being recaptured.
Is this law intended as punishment to those who lose slaves or is it intended to respect human life?
Alternate example: there is a problem in this country with obesity and poor health.
If we were to ban certain weight-loss pills because they were believed to cause cancer or other harmful effects.
Are we punishing overweight people by taking away one of their routes out or are we saving lives and as a side effect making some people live with the consequences of their lifestyle?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Just an aside FYI: I've branched Dagonee's and my discussion from back on page 4 off to another thread, Conversation on Life, Death, and Personhood)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, just so I'm clear on this point, your opinion wouldn't be affected if souls were removed from the equation, right? That's how it reads to me.
I can't say this for sure. It's certainly possible that my preference for the continuity line of reasoning would not exist without my belief in the soul.
However, the continuity line of reasoning is not dependent on the soul. My belief in when ensoulment takes place is, at heart, an article of faith. It certainly doesn't surprise me that an examination of the physical processes involved contains a similar, contemporaneous demarcation line.
For sure, my rejection of a status definition of personhood stems from my belief in a non-physical aspect of human beings. I think, though, that this is not solely based on my belief in the soul.
quote:(1) It is wrong to bring about the end of a human life.
(2) When the sperm and egg combine and become at least one new individual with unique DNA (identical twins excepted), a human life has begun.
From these, any intervention that causes the termination of a pregnancy is wrong. Am I reading you correctly?
Leaving aside questions of danger to the physical health of the mother, yes, you are reading me correctly.
If we include instances of danger to the physical health, my answer involves the double intent line of reasoning that Theca (I think) touched on. The upshot would be that some actions which caused the termination of the pregnancy would not be wrong, based on the intent of the action.
Intent must be distinguished from motive here. An abortion intended to reduce a health risk to the mother still involves an intent to terminate the pregnancy, even though the motive is to save the mother's life. I think such abortions are probably wrong, but I'm not sure they should be illegal even if they are wrong. (This seems startling, I know. I think that passing by a drowning person who could be saved with no risk to one's own life is a great moral wrong that causes death, but I don't think it should be illegal, either.)
On the other hand, a chemotherapy regimen that is certain to kill the child has the same motive as the abortion described above, but is intended to cure cancer, not terminate the pregnancy. The termination is the byproduct of the treatment. If the treatment was exactly the same except that it didn't harm the child, it would still function according to its intent.
Again, though, if you ignore danger to the physical health of the mother, your summary is correct.
I don't think that every action that reduces the risk of successful completion of a pregnancy is wrong. There are many things that are beneficial yet incur risk of harm. We have a moral duty to truly weigh such risks and ensure they are worth the benefit, but we do not have a moral duty to avoid all such risks. However, assume for a moment that MAP does sometimes prevent implantation, even only 0.0001% of the time. Then it would be wrong to take in any situation in which this might occur, because the intent of the pill is served by the possibility of the unlikely chance.
quote:I also have a tangential question. The way I'm reading you it sounds like you view all pregnancy control as immoral. If that's so, does that also extend to surgical methods? For example, if I were to have a vasectomy, would it be immoral of me to have sex with someone who knew that, assuming no STDs on either side? What I'm trying to understand is the why of it. One possibility is that you think taking measures to reduce the chance of conception is immoral, but it's only one possibility and I'm not sure what the others are.
Could you explain? Email would be fine if you'd rather not talk about it here for whatever reason.
I need to think how to explain this.
If I haven't answered and you're still interested, please bump this thread with a nag post after the weekend.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: As far as reading, I've read the entire thread, and as far as the Biology goes, Plan B is nothing more than birth control pills concentrated. If birth control pills aren't abortion, neither is Plan B.
I'm sorry, but this statement is just silly... consider some similar issues:
Alcohol in small quantities can be good for the health, reduce risk of heart disease, calm nerves, encourage sound sleep etc... a few too many shots can induce impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, upset stomach, headaches, up to alcohol poisoning and potentially death. more directly: Everclear is effectively concentrated alcohol yet is required to have warnings about possible death or blindness on the bottle.
Amoxacilin (the pink bubble-gum antibiotics I had as a kid) is a medicine in small quantities, but if you're like my cousin and drink a whole bottle you have to be hospitalized...
I'm sorry, but this analogy is completely false. Abortion is not the consequence of taking too many birth control pills, like blindness is the consequence of drinking too much Everclear.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
twinky,
I think a fair amount of what I posted has to do with everyone. There would be changes for adults because upon reaching the age of 18 in the US, it is possible to choose sterilization as an option. This is a solution not readily available to teens (at least here) because:
1) most parents would not approve it. 2) I can't imagine a doctor in today's climate conducting the operation on a minor regardless of whether the parents approved or not.
Also, the adults I know who have faced the unwanted pregnancy thing are not facing the same sources of panic. If anything, the assumption is that if you are an adult, you are sexually active, so trying to hide that fact from the general public is usually not as big a concern (sure, nuns, seminary students, members of some religious groups would still have the problem...but still not as big a deal for the vast majority of people).
I will, however, admit to biased thoughts regarding women who repeatedly get to the point of needing MAP or wanting an abortion as adults. I still do worry about abusive relationships -- and I consider failure on the man's part to take responsibility for birth control when necessary a potential form of abuse -- but there's still that nagging feeling in my mind that says "oh c'mon...it's not THAT difficult to avoid getting pregnant. If you are worried about it, then act like you're concerned and do what it takes NOT to get pregnant."
And yes, I still have a high tolerance in the post-mistake decision making period. Even for adults.
So...yes, most of my post would apply, but obviously some parts are teen-specific. Or at least apply more strongly to teens.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: However, assume for a moment that MAP does sometimes prevent implantation, even only 0.0001% of the time. Then it would be wrong to take in any situation in which this might occur, because the intent of the pill is served by the possibility of the unlikely chance.
I'm confused. How does that not translate to also being against the regular pill? Because if you're assuming it's a remote possibility for Plan B, then it's probably a very very very very remote possibility for regular birth control by that assumption. So what is the probability cutoff?
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There would be changes for adults because upon reaching the age of 18 in the US, it is possible to choose sterilization as an option.
Just FYI, Bob, that's not entirely true, as most doctors won't perform sterilization surgery on an 18 year old, either, or even someone in their early 20s.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah, I thought that might be the case, but at least 18 year olds wouldn't need parental permission.
I was wondering, though, what with the success at reversals, wouldn't at least SOME doctors be more inclined to go ahead with the procedure?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The reversal process, as I understand it, has a much greater rate of success for men than for women. Both the initial operation and the reversal procedure also are much less invasive/risky for men than women. And the more time that has passed before you try to get it reversed the less your chances, so if you get it done at 18 and change your mind when you're, say, 30, you're chances are already pretty slim. (Again, for women.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah, thanks for the info.
I know people of both sexes who have had successful reversals, but I don't know how "old" their original surgeries were.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*nod* Yeah, it can certainly happen. But they tell you when you have it done that you should consider it permenent, because the odds are that it is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm confused. How does that not translate to also being against the regular pill? Because if you're assuming it's a remote possibility for Plan B, then it's probably a very very very very remote possibility for regular birth control by that assumption. So what is the probability cutoff?
I'm assuming that for a point of discussion, pH. Nothing more.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, thanks for the detailed reply. I should have explicitly mentioned the health of the mother exception. In my eagerness to concisely summarize my perception of your position, I oversimplified.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: An abortion intended to reduce a health risk to the mother still involves an intent to terminate the pregnancy, even though the motive is to save the mother's life. I think such abortions are probably wrong, but I'm not sure they should be illegal even if they are wrong. (This seems startling, I know. ...)
It actually doesn't startle me. Remember, we've discussed same-sex civil marriage before, too. I think that's a valuable distinction to make.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: On the other hand, a chemotherapy regimen that is certain to kill the child has the same motive as the abortion described above, but is intended to cure cancer, not terminate the pregnancy. The termination is the byproduct of the treatment. If the treatment was exactly the same except that it didn't harm the child, it would still function according to its intent.
...
I don't think that every action that reduces the risk of successful completion of a pregnancy is wrong. There are many things that are beneficial yet incur risk of harm. We have a moral duty to truly weigh such risks and ensure they are worth the benefit, but we do not have a moral duty to avoid all such risks.
This reminds me of what happened to my father. He was recovering well from the critical brain surgery to remove his ruptured tumour, and underwent radiation therapy to kill small groups of cancerous cells that were dispersed in his brain when the tumour ruptured. The radiation therapy was absolutely necessary, and all three of us (that is, him, mum, and me) agreed to it for that reason, but it was so hard on him that it marked the turning point from steady recovery to a gradual decline until he ultimately died a couple of months later.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: However, assume for a moment that MAP does sometimes prevent implantation, even only 0.0001% of the time. Then it would be wrong to take in any situation in which this might occur, because the intent of the pill is served by the possibility of the unlikely chance.
I don't understand this usage of "served," and consequently I don't think I understand the point you're getting at here. Can you clarify this?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I need to think how to explain this.
If I haven't answered and you're still interested, please bump this thread with a nag post after the weekend.
I'm going away Saturday and will be gone for a little over a week, but if you haven't answered by the time I come back and I haven't forgotten I'll bump this or make a new thread.
-------------
Bob, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to explain why I was asking. This paragraph twigged my brain a little bit:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And really, nobody is EVER saying that we want teens to be punished once they are pregnant. Face the consequences...yes. You have to anyway. And...for those who AREN'T pregnant, face the consequences early, before you really have to face them. And then act according to your own best interests. Stick to #1 if you can. If you REALLY can't abstain from sexual intercourse as a way of satisfying the sexual urge (and I submit that shows a certain lack of creativity on your part), then for crying out loud get yourself educated about birth control and do it right, every time. Because the consequences ARE serious.
There are a couple of reasons. First, and this isn't directly related to your post at all, I think after reading that, I can see the discrepancy between the "punishment" and "consequences" positions. Pregnancy has historically been a natural consequence of sex for virtually all human beings (and, indeed, for virtually every living being that uses sexual reproduction mechanisms). Thus, under this view, accepting the possibility of pregnancy is implicit in the decision to have sex. It ought to be explicit, of course, but sometimes it isn't.
However, modern pregnancy control methods have reached the point where, in virtually all instances, pregnancy no longer has to be a natural consequence of sex. To use a loose analogy, I don't consider the possibility that I might die every time I board an airplane, because thanks to technological improvements, operational improvements, and security measures, that possibility is remote enough that I can ignore it almost all of the time. Similarly, as a woman, if I don't want to become pregnant, it doesn't mean that I can't -- or, under the "punishment" view, shouldn't -- have sex. That is, the punishment view takes as a premise that people using modern pregnancy control techniques can make two independent decisions: (1) I am ready to have sex, and (2) I am ready to become pregnant.
That doesn't always work, of course. Condoms break, pills are forgotten, and even surgical methods aren't 100% effective. However, even alone each of these pregnancy control methods is close* to 100% effective when used correctly, and using them in combination (e.g. pills and condoms) reduces the risk even further, well past the point where it isn't unreasonable to spend as little time, on order of magnitude, thinking about it as I spend thinking about dying in an air crash.
Under this view, insisting that pregnancy remain a consequence of sex can be perceived as wanting a person to suffer unnecessary (that is, not naturally-occurring) consequences, which is not that far removed from directly inflicting unnecessary consequences. It isn't hard to view the latter as a form of punishment in this context.
I don't subscribe strictly to either view, but I think I understand the essence of the difference between them now, so thanks for helping me with that.
As to what bothered me, I'll quote from the same paragraph:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If you REALLY can't abstain from sexual intercourse as a way of satisfying the sexual urge (and I submit that shows a certain lack of creativity on your part), then for crying out loud get yourself educated about birth control and do it right, every time.
I completely agree with your last clause. I think everyone should be well-educated about all of the available, legal pregancy control options. However, I have a real problem with the way you've couched your first and paranthetical clauses. You seem to be attaching a negative value to "sexual urges." The way I parse what you've written, I read an implicit suggestion that sexual urges are something to be suppressed, or at worst controlled, until some unspecified later time. In other words, you should only have sex if you (and presumably your partner in, uh, crime) really can't stop yourselves. If you can't restrain or repress those primal urges, or if solo play or "pre-game festivities" just are't cutting it.
What I'm getting at is: I don't think people should aim to abstain from sex; I think they should aim to have sex with the partner(s) of their choosing in the context(s) of their choosing. That may, obviously, entail aiming to abstain completely, but I don't take that as an axiom.
I recognize that you began the paragraph addressing teenagers, of course, which is why I asked whether you meant it to apply more broadly.
*Condoms are the least effective, of course, and whether they are "close" to 100% effective when used correctly but without redundancy (e.g. without pills) depends on what you mean by "close." Obviously pills and surgery are an order of magnitude "closer" to 100% effective than condoms.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Nice post Twinky.
I believe you correctly identified an underlying current to this thread - that premarital sex, or perhaps even marital sex purely for pleasure, is immoral. I actually have no problem with other people thinking this, and living their lives accordingly, but I have a huge problem with people expecting me to confrom to their moral structure.
For example, I believe, with all my heart, that having a child, whether a teenager or adult, whether married or unmarried, when you have reason to seriously question your ability to care for that child, is immoral. Period. Especially given the number of children on the planet who are already in desperate need.
However, I do no run about telling people that their choice not to have an abortion or to have another child is immoral and sinful and wrong. Because it ain't my bidness.
Clearly, my opinion that in many cases NOT having an abortion is immoral is pretty much the polar opposite view of people who believe that it's immoral TO have an abortion. And that's ok, we all have different ways of looking at the world, and it's great that there are places like Hatrack where we can talk to each other openly. But I think that people would be understandably annoyed if I started berating them on moral grounds for their choice to carry a baby to term, so why would these same people feel it was approriate to berate me if I were ever to choose to have an abortion?
I don't question the thinking behind different moral viewpoints, just the moment at which people think it's ok to impose those views on others.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thank you.
quote:I don't question the thinking behind different moral viewpoints, just the moment at which people think it's ok to impose those views on others.
I [sort of*] agree with this in principle [in this context], but if someone believes that abortion (with certain exceptions) should be classified as homicide, I'm not sure that they can in good conscience refrain from advocating their view.
That's exactly what makes compromise so difficult in the abortion debate. One "side" has little reason to compromise. That isn't a criticism, though.
[I edited in the parts in brackets.]
[*Really, I'm something of a liberal authoritarian, so I don't seem to have much trouble telling others what to do in certain contexts. I strongly support seatbelt laws and smoking bans, for example.]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I know there are people here who believe sex outside of marriage is immoral. I highly doubt there is anyone posting here that believes marital sex purely for pleasure is immoral, and I think you have to be reading some pre-assumptions into posts to get that out of them.
As far as whether or not option #1 should be the preferred moral option, if you believe that getting pregnant will absolutely ruin your life* and you know that for one reason or another other options are not available (either you would never consider an abortion or you don’t have access to an abortion provider or you have some health condition that would be aggravated by even the beginnings of pregnancy, or you can’t keep a secret to save your life and your parents would kill you if they found out, or whatever) then abstinence is your only 100% safe option, no matter what your views on the morality of sex outside of marriage.
*note that the truly “absolutely ruin your life” situations are probably much rarer than they seem at the time – but I know of people who have attempted suicide upon finding out they were pregnant. For someone who believes that suicide is better than pregnancy or abortion, I would suggest that abstinence would not be an unreasonable alternative.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
While that's a very long "if" chain, I don't reject that argument. Given that I don't believe in immaculate conception, abstinence is indeed the only 100% safe option.
I'll try to explain what I do reject. Consider Bob's #1 and #2:
quote:1) If you don't want to get pregnant...
2) If you don't want to get pregnant and yet can't find other ways short of sexual intercourse to satisfy the sexual urge...
So, other things "short of sexual intercourse" should be tried first, and if none of them are satisfying enough, you can go on and have sex, but Bob will think that you lack creativity. However, I might easily be able to "satisfy the sexual urge" without having sex with someone, but want to have sex with them anyway even though I also don't want that person to become pregnant. Bob could address my criticism by rephrasing #2 as "If you don't want to get pregnant but you do want to have sex, ..."
What I'm getting at is that it's possible to make the argument that Bob's making without taking as a premise that sex should be a last resort. It's the premise, not the argument, that I reject.
Added:
Let me put it this way: I think sex is something that people should want to have. Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Samarkand, I have a couple of comments in response to you.
1) Perhaps I'm just not seeing it the same way as you because I'm closer to the views of Dagonee and others, but I don't see many/any of us trying to push sex as immoral on others. I do think there are people here trying to push sex as non-trivial on others. No one here is proposing to make premarital sex illegal (even those that I'm sure strongly believe it to be immoral). We are, however, trying to establish that it is not something to be entered into completely without concern (whether for pregnancy, STDs, emotional trauma etc).
2) Again, when complaining that Pro-Life advocates "push their views on others" consider the comparison to slavery: Pro-Choice advocates are like those arguing that people shouldn't be able to infringe on their property rights. Pro-Life advocates are like those arguing that all humans have the right to freedom...
it's a completely different level of argument. I realize my views do encroach potentially on your lifestyle, but in my mind your views encroach on the life of the unborn (who unfortunately don't have much of a voice in the matter, so it seems more lopsided an argument than it really is). You are arguing for your own rights while I am arguing for the rights of someone who can't argue for themselves.
If people cannot grasp this distinction, then the discussion is pointless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't understand this usage of "served," and consequently I don't think I understand the point you're getting at here. Can you clarify this?
I simply meant that the goal of MAP is to not be pregnant, and the prevention of implantation* (and subsequent death) of a fertilized embryo serves that goal. (Edit: in the sense that, were the prevention not to occur, a pregnancy likely would.)
*again, used in the hypothetical sense to explain a possible position.
[ August 30, 2006, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh, okay. I get it. Thanks. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why is it worth noting this in the context of my post. I haven't tried to convince anyone that plan B is bad. It's clear that I recognize that other people have this view.
As to the seat belt and air bags, that example leaves the distinct impression you didn't understand the point of my post. Unless someone thinks they are somehow morally wrong, the example is simply irrelevant.
I presume that my posts in this regard are not irrelevant to your posting, or I wouldn't have made them. I may be incorrect in my assumptions, but I don't doubt you're aware that when one takes on the task of addressing the viewpoint of others, hypothetical or not- as we both appear to be doing, you in citing the rationale of those who oppose "Plan B", I in those who favor its legalization- that points can become less clear, particularly which points are those of the arguer and which are simply points of the greater mass behind a point of view, e.g., why those who oppose "Plan B" will continue to do so.
So, if there's any lack of clarity, yes, I understand your own ambivalence with regard to "Plan B".
Moving on: While there may not be a moral element on most dimensions of something like having air bags, there can be an implication of a result being "natural"- that is, that it will occur, barring interference- meaning that it should not be interfered with. Not what you're saying, but a tack some opposing "Plan B" might. So it's worth pointing out that we interfere with "natural" things all the time for a variety of reasons, and the "natural" nature of something alone is not alone an argument for it. If only for clarity's sake.
quote:Then perhaps the person who made such an accusation ought to make it against those other people. After all, I don't attribute "If I get some girl pregnant I don't want to have to pay for it for 18 years" to abortion supporters here.
You have every right to be offended if you feel your point of view is being misrepresented. Of course, in such discussions it can be very easy for the emotional nature of the argument to cause confusion. It might be best to correct such statements and move on. It can be done without rancor.
quote:Beyond that, though, I think it's simply easier to attribute that motivation to the "mass behind the argument" because they're not here. I've known thousands of pro-life activists. Not one wishes to "punish" anyone by making abortion or MAP unavailable.
And I've had friends at pro-choice rallies who had people scream in their faces that they were baby-killing sluts. <shrug> I'm willing to set the anecdotal aside, or use it. I'm not willing to concede that one person's anecdotal evidence is superior.
quote:The analogy was constructed precisely to make my point. Those questions are irrelevant. I can make easily some up for the pregnancy situation (multiple methods, alternative forms of sexual gratification, etc.) but I won't.
I'll try this one more time:
If people think action X is wrong, then their prevention of people from performing action X is not motivated by a desire to punish.
It's that simple, and, in the multiple times I've presented this argument here on Hatrack, not one person has ever dealt with this actual point. They've sidestepped it as you have done here.
Perpendicular, perhaps. Not irrelevant. You said:
quote:And I know stealing a car has an identifiable victim, and that's why you think it wrong. Once you think it's wrong, however, it's the fact that it is wrong that makes preventing someone from stealing a car a non-punitive act.
And I'm saying, no, it's not merely the presence of an identifiable victim that makes an act wrong; in the case of the analogy, it's the recognition of other steps that could have fulfilled the visible need, and made the wrongdoing unnecessary. Or to put it another way: there can be no wrong if there is no alternative choice.
Abortion is wrong.Stealing cars is wrong.
Except when it isn't.
I suspect most, if not all, of the pro-life people on Hatrack would acknowledge that in a case where there is a certainty that both the infant and the mother will die if the preganancy is carried to term, and that abortion will save the life of the mother, that carrying out an abortion would not be a reasonable course of action.
Similarly, while most people would argue that stealing a car to replace a stolen wrecked car is wrong, I think many people would think that, say, hotwiring an apparently abandoned car to escape from the area of a natural disaster that imminently threatens the thief's well-being is probably justifiable.
X sees something as wrong, Y says "but you see this similar thing as not being wrong- why is there this distinction? And is that bridgable?"
It may not be a direct response to your statement, but it is irrelevant to neither your statement nor the discussion as a whole.
As far as intent and punishment, it's very difficult to make absolute claims about anything. "Punishment" itself has different definitions, and both "negative reinforcement of behaviors that one wishes to minimize" and "smashing something one hates into dust" can be described as such. Further there can certainly be a rational spoken level to an argument (Abortion is necessary to the rights of women/The destruction of unborn children is a moral wrong and a stain on society) and unspoken emotional level (Insert paranoid distrust of government, defamation of fundamentalism, et. al here/ Insert sexual phobias, defamation of those who participate in premartial sex here.) The role of the latter is not so easily dismissed.
Obligatory disclaimer: No, I'm not saying the aforementioned is the running mindset of anyone...
But, for that matter, consider, however naively, that a purely rational, clearly spoken argument is all that exists with regards to such a debate. Then one gets into some really ugly questions, like "If your interest is in preserving life, rather than punishing wrongdoing, why not focus on environmental mercury and lead and inadquate prenatal care, which cause scores of infant deaths, rather than focusing on the possibly nonexistant fetal deaths caused by 'Plan B'?"
(Or, to be fair, "If you're really so interested in women's rights, why are you focused on the United States where women can vote on the issues that effect them, rather than any of a number of nations where they have no control over their own lives at all?)
To wrap the two points together: If wrong and punishment is about the victim, why is there so much less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer? Is something "more wrong" because it has a perceptible human perpetrator, despite the results being identical for the victim(s)? And if so, how can that not color one's views of intent?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This is your nag post, Dagonee, but I'm still on holiday and won't be back until next week so if you haven't had a chance to think it over there's no great rush. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You have every right to be offended if you feel your point of view is being misrepresented. Of course, in such discussions it can be very easy for the emotional nature of the argument to cause confusion. It might be best to correct such statements and move on. It can be done without rancor.
I did correct such statements. Several times. It did no good.
quote:And I've had friends at pro-choice rallies who had people scream in their faces that they were baby-killing sluts. <shrug> I'm willing to set the anecdotal aside, or use it. I'm not willing to concede that one person's anecdotal evidence is superior.
Your anecdote doesn't support the contention that some pro-life people want to punish women for sex at all.
Beyond that, not one shred of proof has been offered for this punishment motive.
quote:Or to put it another way: there can be no wrong if there is no alternative choice.
And yet, the pointing out of the viable choice - not having sex if one is not willing or ready to have a child - is consistently mischaracterized by a small number of people on this forum.
Clearly you recognize that the existence of an alternative choice matters in such a discussion. I just wish certain other people would reach that realization, rather than insisting that the motives of other people are, in fact, not what they say they are (and using incredibly specious logic to do so, too).
quote:Abortion is wrong. Stealing cars is wrong.
Except when it isn't.
I suspect most, if not all, of the pro-life people on Hatrack would acknowledge that in a case where there is a certainty that both the infant and the mother will die if the preganancy is carried to term, and that abortion will save the life of the mother, that carrying out an abortion would not be a reasonable course of action.
OK, there's a lot of fine philosophical discussion to be had about when normally wrong actions are justifiable.
Not the point. Of course it's sometimes morally justifiable to steal a car. And you're right, most people think there are times when it's morally justifiable to cause the death of an unborn child.
And many people will disagree about the precise boundaries of either of those conditions.
Not the point. This is the central proposition of the car analogy: if someone thinks the act in question is wrong, then their wanting to ban that act is most likely not motivated by a desire to punish people for some other act, but rather to prevent a wrong thing from being done.
The fact that people disagree about when that act is wrong is irrelevant to analyzing this proposition. For the purposes of the proposition, the act is wrong. Finito. End of story.
If the situation involves a time when the person whose motive is under examination thinks the act isn't wrong, then that proposition quite simply doesn't come into play.
quote:Then one gets into some really ugly questions, like "If your interest is in preserving life, rather than punishing wrongdoing, why not focus on environmental mercury and lead and inadquate prenatal care, which cause scores of infant deaths, rather than focusing on the possibly nonexistant fetal deaths caused by 'Plan B'?"
(Or, to be fair, "If you're really so interested in women's rights, why are you focused on the United States where women can vote on the issues that effect them, rather than any of a number of nations where they have no control over their own lives at all?)
Neither question is ugly. Both are enormously silly if intended to be a serious response to someone. Both questions contain an implicit assumption that only the most serious problem in existence can be worked on; once that one problem is solved, then we can move on to the next.
In this context, of course, the question is even more ridiculous, because there's no effort involved in simply not filling Plan B prescriptions. (To be clear, it is the decision not to fill a prescription that has provoked the accusations of "punishment.")
quote:If wrong and punishment is about the victim, why is there so much less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer?
I'd like to see you support the contention that there is "less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I also have a tangential question. The way I'm reading you it sounds like you view all pregnancy control as immoral. If that's so, does that also extend to surgical methods? For example, if I were to have a vasectomy, would it be immoral of me to have sex with someone who knew that, assuming no STDs on either side? What I'm trying to understand is the why of it. One possibility is that you think taking measures to reduce the chance of conception is immoral, but it's only one possibility and I'm not sure what the others are.
Could you explain?
twinky, I'm going to deal with this in pieces.
Disclaimer (not needed for twinky, but possibly for others here): I am presenting this as what I believe. I am not attempting to convince anyone that it is correct. The center of Christianity is not in sexual morality, and I’m going to rely on many premises closer to the center of Christianity (as I perceive it) that many readers don’t share. Were I attempting to convince others, I would be attempting to prove those premises. I’m not, so I won’t. I will attempt to answer questions that I believe to be motivated by a desire to understand my point of view. I will attempt to resolve apparent (or perhaps real) inconsistencies within my premises and analysis. I will not attempt to step outside my own framework for purposes of this discussion.
Overview: I’ll define some terms and discuss marriage generally.
Question number 1: When is it morally licit to try to not have children? (future post)
Question number 2: Why is abstention (timed or otherwise) the only acceptable means of preventing pregnancy? (future post)
Overview
I am purposely doing this from memory, trying to articulate things I believe and feel but have not spoken before. If I am incorrect on a matter of doctrine, I apologize. Please view this only as my views on Catholic marriage. I’m also going to be all over the place, but trust it will come back to the question at hand eventually.
Part of Catholic marriage is the intent to have children if possible. This does not mean that those who do not have children are not married. It simply means that the state of mind at the time of marriage is supposed to be the intent to accept the fruits of the bounty of marriage. It also means that marriage and parenting are intertwined. Obviously each can and does exist without the other, but they are, at the core, the intensely related. As an example, the intent to not have children at the time of marriage is enough to cause the Church to grant an annulment, which means they consider the marriage to not have been properly entered into.
The religious ed definition of Sacrament is “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.” There are 7: baptism, communion (or Eucharist), reconciliation (also called penance or confession), confirmation, marriage, holy orders, last rites (or extreme unction).
Marriage and holy orders are considered the vocational sacraments, in which the recipient is dedicating himself or herself to their Christian vocation. Both are also considered reflections of God/Christ, a way in which we were made in God’s image.
Each vocation has an intended set of people to be cared for. Holy order recipients care for all the Church, usually in subsets. Married people care for children and for each other. It is this dedication of service to others that makes both vocations. Note also that this dedication of spouses to each other means that marriage is a vocation whether children are present or not.
The priest and bishop who receive holy orders reflect God’s guidance and care of us. Note that this is related to parenthood (Father as a form of address for priests) so often and casually that many people forget the comparison is there.
The marriage symbolizes many things:
1.) The union of two into one is a reflection of the Trinity (not in number, but in unity).
2.) The ability to create life is a reflection of the creative powers of God and a chance to participate in the ongoing creation.
3.) The parenting of children is a reflection of God's guidance and care of us.
Marriage is the only Sacrament given by lay persons. While there are emergency situations when some of the other Sacraments may be performed without a priest or bishop, in a marriage ceremony, each spouse gives the Sacrament to the other.
So we’ve covered one part of the question at hand: a fertile, married couple must intend to have children and be willing to care for them as part of their vocation of marriage.
If all actions to prevent pregnancy (including abstention) were considered illicit, then the principle involved could be stated very simply, something like “Married couples must have as many children as possible.” But, not all such actions are illicit.
Specifically, abstaining from sex for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is sometimes licit. This can be done full-bore – no sex ever – or by attempting to time the fertility cycle and only abstaining during fertile periods. I’ll call the second type NFP for purposes of this discussion and won’t worry about how the timing is determined.
Knowing that abstention intended to prevent pregnancy is sometimes licit means it must sometimes be licit to try not to have children. I will attempt to address this in the next post. This next post will have little to do with sexual morality.
The post after that will focus on why, if the intent is sometimes licit, the means are restricted. In doing so, I will be attempting to present Catholic sexual morality as a positive thing – not positive only in the sense of “good” or “beneficial,” but also positive as in “this is why God gave sex to us” as opposed to “this is what is forbidden.”
[ September 19, 2006, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Your anecdote doesn't support the contention that some pro-life people want to punish women for sex at all.
Beyond that, not one shred of proof has been offered for this punishment motive.
I would tend to argue that calling someone who holds a position a sexually promiscuous infanticide implies a desire to punish, at least in the second (destructive) definition, if not the (corrective) first. If you disagree, clearly, that won't go anywhere. And I'd be inclined to say, "Okay, anecdotes aren't going to do much good here."
quote:And yet, the pointing out of the viable choice - not having sex if one is not willing or ready to have a child - is consistently mischaracterized by a small number of people on this forum.
The viability of that choice is a whole other can of worms. As to how someone suggesting that might be mischaracterized, well, these things happen on both sides; all I can say is if you still think it's worth clarifying and re-clarifying to the point of migraine, good luck and more power to you (and no, I'm not being sarcastic.)
quote:Clearly you recognize that the existence of an alternative choice matters in such a discussion. I just wish certain other people would reach that realization, rather than insisting that the motives of other people are, in fact, not what they say they are (and using incredibly specious logic to do so, too).
It's extremely difficult not to assign motives on such an emotional subject. And I have to reiterate that I suspect it's difficult to be entirely certain that one's motives are solely what is apparent in the written or spoken word. I just don't know that everyone is capable of that level of introspection. Certainly what one sees doesn't suggest so.
And when discussion ranges between individuals, comunities, groups, religions, political platforms, etc. etc. etc... Never mind trying to encapsulize any of the above... The terminology alone gets pretty twisted.
And then there's the whole "How can person 'X' not recognize the consequences of their position..." Which also gets confused with the matter of intent.
Rambling. "Yes, words get mischaracterized and intentions get presumed. There's a number of reasons why; many are regrettable, some may be inevitable, I agree we should try to take things at face value for the sake of discussion."
quote: This is the central proposition of the car analogy: if someone thinks the act in question is wrong, then their wanting to ban that act is most likely not motivated by a desire to punish people for some other act, but rather to prevent a wrong thing from being done.
The fact that people disagree about when that act is wrong is irrelevant to analyzing this proposition. For the purposes of the proposition, the act is wrong. Finito. End of story.
There seem to be, or have been, a number of laws whose purpose may have been other than what was stated. Poll taxes come to mind. In my home state, there was (and probably still is) a curfew that prevents people under the age of 18 from being out late at night. The stated intention was to reduce crime; I couldn't help but think that it was convenient to reduce crime by discriminating against a non-voting block.
It is perhaps inevitable that someone adversely affected by a law will be suspicious of the intentions of those who back that law. Sometimes that cynicism is unwarranted; sometimes not. But it would certainly be better for the sake of discussion to say "Have you considered this will have this effect," rather than "You clearly intend this."
Though, emotional impact being what it is, it's a lot easier to rally people to the latter.
quote:If the situation involves a time when the person whose motive is under examination thinks the act isn't wrong, then that proposition quite simply doesn't come into play.
Makes for sticky law-writing, though, doesn't it?
quote:Neither question is ugly. Both are enormously silly if intended to be a serious response to someone. Both questions contain an implicit assumption that only the most serious problem in existence can be worked on; once that one problem is solved, then we can move on to the next.
I don't really think so. If one assumes that time, money, energy, etc. is finite, wouldn't one be best to address issues where there will be the greatest direct impact, if one's intentions are what they say they are? There may certainly be other factors; it's easier to motivate oneself to helping people in one's own country than halfway across the world, for example. (the response to the tsunami in Asia vs. the response to Hurricane Katrina comes to mind.)
It's easier to marshal people to helping locally than internationally, against an imminent problem than a distant one; it's also easier to rally people to fight an enemy than something amorphous or intangible. But there, rightly or wrongly, suspicion festers.
quote:In this context, of course, the question is even more ridiculous, because there's no effort involved in simply not filling Plan B prescriptions. (To be clear, it is the decision not to fill a prescription that has provoked the accusations of "punishment.")
You'll pardon me if it's sometimes difficult in this discussion to differentiate on what level law or intent or opinion is being discussed.
quote:I'd like to see you support the contention that there is "less focus on situations to prevent the victimization rather than pursuing the [perceived] victimizer."
Well, that goes way beyond contraception issues. It's more of an societal, or perhaps a human observation, that I suspect carries over. On that level, I can give some of examples. Consider the amount that's spent on border control, versus humanitarian efforts in nations with large amounts of illegal immigration. Drug counselling, versus drug incarceration. Heck, consider the incident at Columbine High School: how much of the media attention was focused on whether Marilyn Manson and Doom were responsible for the shootings? And how much of the later response tended towards metal detectors and dress codes, rather than counselling and awareness?
I'm not saying this is endemic to this debate. I'm just saying it's a common thread I don't think has miraculously halted here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would tend to argue that calling someone who holds a position a sexually promiscuous infanticide implies a desire to punish
I'd like to see that actual argument, rather than just your assertion that this is so.
Beyond that, are we even talking about the same thing any more?
The accusation made: Those who support a ban on abortion (or Plan B) and say such a ban does not require people to have a baby because there are alternative ways to not get pregnant want to punish women for having sex.
How does someone yelling something nasty at a bunch of protesters have anything to do with this contention?
I never contended that there is no desire to punish associated with banning abortion. Anyone who supports a ban most likely supports some punishment for those who violate it.
The question is whether the ban itself is intended as punishment.
quote:The viability of that choice is a whole other can of worms. As to how someone suggesting that might be mischaracterized, well, these things happen on both sides; all I can say is if you still think it's worth clarifying and re-clarifying to the point of migraine, good luck and more power to you (and no, I'm not being sarcastic.)
All I've been trying to do is clarify this point. Do you agree that the desire to ban something one thinks is wrong is mostly like not an intent to use that ban as punishment for a totally different act?
quote:It's extremely difficult not to assign motives on such an emotional subject.
No, it's really not. Rather, it's not even a little bit difficult not to do so in print, here at Hatrack, in the midst of a discussion.
quote:If one assumes that time, money, energy, etc. is finite, wouldn't one be best to address issues where there will be the greatest direct impact, if one's intentions are what they say they are?
The place where the greatest problem exists is not necessarily where the biggest impact can be had. Beyond that, you're original examples on this point make assumptions about what people consider "bad" that aren't warranted. I think deliberate killing is worse than accidental death. Many people likely think that greater equality here will allow more to be done for nations with almost none.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, I've known people who were quite open about their view that pregnancy is an appropriate punishment for illicit sex. And they use some of the same "consequenses" language you've been using, though they clearly mean something different (punitive) by it.
I think your argument would be better served by acknowledging that some people do use the language that way, and then clarifying what you and others mean by it, rather than denying that it means that at all.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Rewinding to August 30th...sorry twinky, great post back there. Sorry I missed it.
Samarkand, I don't think I'm making a moral judgment in my post. I understand twinky's view that there's no need for #1-type measures if you can manage birth control properly. I think I even said that. A couple of times.
All who still care: Now...here's why I said that bit about "if you just can't satisfy your sexual urges without actual intercourse". I meant it exactly as it is written. I know this may sound old fashioned, what with excellent birth control methods out there, but intercourse is not the only way to orgasm. It is a way. It's a particularly fun way, but there are other excellent ways too. And I do think that people forget that and decide that sexual intercourse is a MUST.
And for those who decide that...then my preference is that they know what the heck they're doing with respect to birth control.
That's it...that's what I said and that's what I meant.
I'm not making a moral judgment. I meant what I said about it showing a lack of creativity. I won't go into details, but the methods and varieties of sex sans intercourse are wonderful and they fit well within my idea of what #1 can be.
I think a lot of people assume that when someone says "don't have sex" they mean go cloister yourself and don't touch any area of another person that's normally covered by a bathing suit. Age-appropriate...I'm advocating a little creative exploration in lieu of actual intercourse. That doesn't mean I think kids should start that behavior at 13, but I do think that it's possible to enjoy that kind of thing well into adulthood leading up to the point when one decides to have a family, or decides to permanently NOT have a family.
And, yeah, if you can't make that kind of thing work, and absolutely MUST have intercourse, then I want you to do so responsibly and do everything in your power to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
And it's not me saying "face the consequences" should you become pregnant. It's life.
Maybe this will make the difference clear:
If someone came to me and said they were pregnant and didn't want to be, I'm not going to tell them "well, you shouldn't have had intercourse then!" If anything, I'm going to ask them if they need help, and do they want to talk through their situation and options.
In the back of my head, I might be tempted to think less of a person who, say, gets to this point and is in denial about it, but I do understand the panic and the feeling of wishing (against all logic) that it wasn't happening.
I hope this clarifies things a little more.
And thanks again twinky for pointing to an area where I could've been more clear in my earlier post.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
"That doesn't mean I think kids should start that behavior at 13, but I do think that it's possible to enjoy that kind of thing well into adulthood leading up to the point when one decides to have a family, or decides to permanently NOT have a family."
Considering that very small toddlers start that behavior because it feels good, and adults tend to at that point (some in more open and accepting ways, and others not so much) socialize them as to appropriate times and places for said normal behavior, I'd have to argue that the behavior starts much earlier than 13 -- and lasts probably a lifetime.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Bob, that it could (and probably should) continue up until said person is willing and ready to accept the consequences of full participation in a mutual fashion . . . as it were. *grin*
And perhaps that is part of the problem in the USA? We squelch natural self-exploration which is a wonderful form of -- well -- self-exploration . . . and one that can help satisfy those youthful -- and NOT so youthful -- urges that can lead into times of major regret when/if one acts upon them. Pregnancy, STDs, HIV/AIDS, not to mention the concepts of self-restraint, delayed gratification, self-respect . . .
Anyway -- just thinking aloud.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:rather than denying that it means that at all.
quote:the desire to ban something one thinks is wrong is mostly like not an intent to use that ban as punishment for a totally different act?
And I've clarified repeatedly, and been told that I must mean that. What else could it mean?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well you know, the communications geeks say you have to say something at least three different ways before it sticks . . .
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Posso dirlo in italiano.
Ma non penso che sarebbe molto efficace.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thanks, Dagonee, that was interesting. I'm looking forward to reading your follow-ups.
Bob, thanks for clarifying. I still don't agree, as I outlined above, but I get where you're coming from.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think what dkw said applies. Rephrasing #2 as "if you don't want to get pregnant, but you DO want to have sex..." would be fine with me except that, at least to my mind, such a thing can't be separated from acceptance of the risks of pregnancy, however small.
If the idea is that sex can't be made completely, 100% risk free, then the individual should be aware of that and the fact that they are taking a "calculated" risk. They might do everything right birth control-wise and still get pregnant.
Does the fact that they were trying NOT to get pregnant make the decisions easier? I suspect not. I suspect part of the reason people get motivated about birth control practices is that they don't want to have to face the decisions -- even if they know in advance that they'd choose abortion, it's still going to be a hassle, and possibly gut wrenching.
All I was trying to say is that as the seriousness of the desire to avoid pregnancy goes up, the willingness to engage in actual coitus should correspondingly drop.
Anyway, I doubt we can resolve the disagreement if one still exists, twinky. I hope I at least satisfied you on the possibility of this not being a moral judgment on my part. I don't look down on people for wanting sex, or even HAVING it. I regret it in some (usually because of age and/or maturity issues), but I'm not viewing this as a morality issue so much as I do an avoidance of regrettable outcomes issue. Purely aside from moral issues about whether it is murder or not, I view abortion as a regrettable outcome. It is something that is avoidable (except in extreme circumstances) through changes in behavior and adoption of selected techniques. So, yes, #2 is not of equal preference to #1 because it increases the risk of pregnancy, even if that increase is small. But it is much prefered over #3 and #4.
If it helps any...to me, there's a huge gap between 1&2 and 3&4. The gap between 1&2 is pretty small. But they aren't the same.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I guess the biggest part that catches me on what you're saying, Bob, is the whole goal of orgasm. I'm sure there are plenty of unmarried people who have sex for reasons aside from simply having an orgasm, just as I'm sure there are many married people who feel the same way. I'm not sure that a discussion of the possible spiritual meanings of sex would be useful, but I'm just going to throw it out there.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pH, I think you have it right. I was trying to get my various thoughts to come together and I think you did it.
Sometimes there are things that one must express to another person and those things can only be truly expressed by nothing-held-back intercourse. At least for me, that is often a different purpose than the physical pleasure/release of orgasm (which for me often happens before actual intercourse - I am so spoiled - as well as during).
Now. I am a grown up and make grown up choices about sex. And I am willing and prepared to accept the natural consequences of those choices. But I do think that, in a perfect world, those consequences should be chosen. I also think that we should make it more possible for people to share sexual expression without taking on consequences they do not choose.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I do think that, in a perfect world, those consequences should be chosen. I also think that we should make it more possible for people to share sexual expression without taking on consequences they do not choose.
And now we come back to one of the basic, but often misunderstood premises of freedom of choice:
We are free to make choices, but we are not free to choose the consequences.
I learned that one a LONG time ago ... although of course I'm still trying to find a way around it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But there are ways that we can shape those consequences. There is a difference in saying, "let's see how we can make this safer" and, "well just stop doing that". Which response we choose has to do with the value of the activity and the possibilities and costs of making the activity safer. For me, the "well just stop doing that" response to sex fails to take into consideration the enormous, non- procreative importance and value of sex.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'd like to see that actual argument, rather than just your assertion that this is so.
If we are assuming that there exists a rational purpose behind such an exclamation, the only non-punitive ones I can envision are to rally supporters or to vent emotion to prevent an even more hostile and/or violent erruption.
quote:Beyond that, are we even talking about the same thing any more?
Good question.
quote:The accusation made: Those who support a ban on abortion (or Plan B) and say such a ban does not require people to have a baby because there are alternative ways to not get pregnant want to punish women for having sex.
How does someone yelling something nasty at a bunch of protesters have anything to do with this contention?
It might, if there's an overlap between the former and the latter. A "visceral knee-jerk" response to matters isn't out of the question. In point of fact, I'm a little sceptical that this *isn't* what happens whenever someone agrees with every position of a party's political platform.
quote:I never contended that there is no desire to punish associated with banning abortion. Anyone who supports a ban most likely supports some punishment for those who violate it.
The question is whether the ban itself is intended as punishment.
Noted.
quote:All I've been trying to do is clarify this point. Do you agree that the desire to ban something one thinks is wrong is mostly like not an intent to use that ban as punishment for a totally different act?
I can't make an absolute statement of that. Again, consider poll tax.
quote:No, it's really not. Rather, it's not even a little bit difficult not to do so in print, here at Hatrack, in the midst of a discussion.
You sound injured, and I'm sorry for that. But I disagree on the point. Because I believe both sides often get to a point where what they want to say is, "How can you claim to not see or dismiss the consequences of what you're proposing? Are you a liar, or an imbecile?"
And I don't really think there's a good way to say that.
quote:The place where the greatest problem exists is not necessarily where the biggest impact can be had. Beyond that, you're original examples on this point make assumptions about what people consider "bad" that aren't warranted. I think deliberate killing is worse than accidental death. Many people likely think that greater equality here will allow more to be done for nations with almost none.
But if (admittedly a big "if") the results of correcting two different wrongs are materially identical, the desire to do one over the other delves into personal motivations that aren't easily quanifiable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can't make an absolute statement of that. Again, consider poll tax.
What does poll tax have to do with anything? With the poll tax, the intent was to stop a particular group from voting.
Here, the intent is already acknowledged: the person who wants to ban something thinks it's wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a group of pharmacists who have filed a lawsuit because they were fired (or were afraid of being fired) for not being willing to administer the MAP.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...I guess I should try to clarify a bit more.
I wasn't trying to convince people that sex isn't fun or spiritually fulfilling, or that those aspects of sex should be discounted.
I realize now that I should've stated my position as follows:
As the personal "cost" (considered from any and every angle) of getting pregnant goes up, it seems to me that the willingness to engage in activities that could lead to pregnancy (no matter how unlikely) should decrease.
My hope is that people are going to weigh the joy of sex (and the value of intimacy in their relationship) against the risks and they are going to make a decision. If they decide that the intimacy and spiritualness of coitus outweighs the downside risk of getting pregnant, that's their choice. I wasn't trying to say that people cannot or should not make those decisions.
Quite the opposite. If people are thinking about the risks and making informed decisions, and acting accordingly, I'm thinking we're going to have a lot fewer unwanted pregnancies.
edit: I'm sorry for the confusion. I didn't realize that I hadn't been saying this all along.
[ September 08, 2006, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Bob, thanks for clarifying. I haven't been saying anything this thread, because other people have been saying it much better than I could. But I really agree with your last post.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*bump* for Dagonee. As always, no rush, I just want to make sure you haven't forgotten. Shall I start a new thread? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've discovered this isn't something I'm going to be able to write after work. Just too much energy gone.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
However, I might easily be able to "satisfy the sexual urge" without having sex with someone, but want to have sex with them anyway even though I also don't want that person to become pregnant. Bob could address my criticism by rephrasing #2 as "If you don't want to get pregnant but you do want to have sex, ..."