Arlos, we may agree

[Wrath Child]

Several points:

I'd actually bet pharmacists know more about drugs than most docs do.

Some drugs, no doubt. Others, no way.

Kinda negates the purpose of a 'morning after' pill if it has to be ordered.

Only if you're ignorant and you think people only buy it 1 pill at a time. Gawd...

Susan C. Winckler isn't the pharmacist in question so anything she says on the topic is irrelevant. She could spout off about the pharmacist not liking green so he won't carry green pills and it would not necessarily be what is going on.

Seeing as how the American Pharmacists Association represents 52,000 pharmacies, I would say their influence is quite substantial.

If a pharmacist decides he doesn't want to carry green pills that is his right as a business owner/manager. All businesses are governed by what people actually buy vs what sits on the shelf. There's no money to be made in an item that sits there.

That's just it, it WON'T just sit on the shelf. The only reason the shelf will be empty is due to the medication being sold out!

[Donnel]

Donnel: It's not for you, me, OR that pharmacist to decide whether or not the medication in question is or is not a necessity. That's the DOCTOR'S job. If he feels that a patient needs a certain medication, well, that's why he went through 10 years of college and medical school, plus however many years of residency. No one BUT the patient's doctor should have any say whatsoever on whether or not a medication is "necessary".

Okay I will grant you that, but only because I'm nice :P

However that doesn't change the fact that businesses are being told what they have to sell, when there are alternative sources. Mail order or online pharmacies are not extreme at all and if you are talking waiting 1 day for a real pharmacy to get you it, often that online one is just as quick and right to your door.

Even if you and I shouldn't decide what a necessity is, that shouldn't warrant a government body deciding what a business should sell. Pharmacies are licensed for the safety and wellfare of the consumer, not so the government can tell them what to do.

[Martrae]

WTF does her association representing anyone have to do with this situation? IF she was personally representing this particular pharmacist then her words would hold weight. As it is she is just one more person with an opinion.

As to sitting on a shelf....you ever heard of turn over rate? Supply and demand? Yeah I'm sure the morning after pill is FLYING off the shelves all over the US.

I'm done with this Mindia look alike contest. I can only deal with one person with their head up their ass a day.

[Arlos]

Again, they're a governmentally regulated industry. As such they are required to follow governmental rules. It is *ONLY* the actual licensed pharmacy component of the store that has to fill a customer's prescription regardless of what it may be. Elsewhere in the store, in the over-the-counter section, the store can sell or not sell whatever it wishes. If they are strongly anti-birth-control, they can, for example, not sell condoms, and no law should force them to do so, as condoms are not a prescription item.

As for online pharmacies, there are many people out there who don't use the internet or even computers. Last I checked there was no law in the country stating that one needed to be computer literate or connected to the internet in order to receive medication their doctors have said they need. As a result, for many people, their local pharmacy is the ONLY place where they can get their medications.

I will repeat: Allowing any licensed pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for ANY drug, regardless of what that drug may be, is an incredibly bad precedent. There are innumerable drugs out there, and who knows what drug some pharmacist may find objectionable tomorrow, with who knows what consequences to the patient in question.

-Arlos

PS. Mar, I hope you're not referring to me as being the one with my head up my ass....

[Langston]

I can only deal with one person with their head up their ass a day.

Poor Kahar... I guess she won't be talking to you tonight after work.

:ohsnap:

[xaoshaen]

Pharmacists rights? If you're a pharmacist, do your job and fill prescriptions. What someone does with the condoms or morning after pills they buy is up to them, not you.

It is however, up to you as a retailer to decide which products you will or will not carry. The pharmacists are not government employees, but theoretically a participant in a capitalist system. The pharmacist does not choose for whom they fill prescriptions, but should certaintly be allowed to determine what products they choose to stock. If a pharmacy does not stock what you require... go to the competition.

If you do feel it involves you, then be prepared for lawsuits from victims of Meth users who's Meth was created by products you sold! Same with opiate based pain killers. If someone gets addicted, clearly it's your fault since you sold it to them.

Everyone who goes into a pharmacy school knows that birth control pills are a HUGE part of that business. If a woman gets pregnant after you refused to fill her prescription, you are partially responsible for the abortion she then goes and has.

Wow, blatant hypocracy in the space of two paragraphs. You just argued that a retailer is not responsible for what a customer does with products postsale. It's the height of idiocy to turn around in the very next paragraph and argue that the retailer is responsible for a customers actions without so much as the justification of a transaction.

What's worse:

Taking part in the possible prevention of a fertilized egg becoming attached in the uterus...

Or

Taking part in the actual abortion of a fully formed baby?

They both have exactly the same result: no baby. Let's hear it for arbitrary distinctions though:

Conception!

No, birth!

No, first trimester!

No, forty-two days, seven hours, twenty-three minutes, and fifty-four seconds!

[xaoshaen]

Again, they're a governmentally regulated industry. As such they are required to follow governmental rules. It is *ONLY* the actual licensed pharmacy component of the store that has to fill a customer's prescription regardless of what it may be. Elsewhere in the store, in the over-the-counter section, the store can sell or not sell whatever it wishes. If they are strongly anti-birth-control, they can, for example, not sell condoms, and no law should force them to do so, as condoms are not a prescription item.

There are a great many industires regulated by government agencies. Regulation does not imply inventory control. Period. Simply because restaurants and other food service establishments are government-regulated doesn't give the government the right to mandate that all such businesses offer Coke.

As for online pharmacies, there are many people out there who don't use the internet or even computers. Last I checked there was no law in the country stating that one needed to be computer literate or connected to the internet in order to receive medication their doctors have said they need. As a result, for many people, their local pharmacy is the ONLY place where they can get their medications.

Self-imposed limitations are not an excuse for government regulation.

I will repeat: Allowing any licensed pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for ANY drug, regardless of what that drug may be, is an incredibly bad precedent. There are innumerable drugs out there, and who knows what drug some pharmacist may find objectionable tomorrow, with who knows what consequences to the patient in question.

Don't be ridiculous. If a doctor writes me a script for heroin, there's absolutely no reason to expect a pharmacy to fill it for me.

Welcome to capitalism: if one provider chooses not to meet my needs, I go to the competition. If this happens often enough, the former provider either modifies their policies or goes out of business.

[The Kizzy]

My school only carries coke, and I lik pepsi, BASTARDS

[Langston]

My school only carries coke, and I lik pepsi, BASTARDS

Only cat lovers and nazis like Pepsi.

[Wrath Child]

WTF does her association representing anyone have to do with this situation? IF she was personally representing this particular pharmacist then her words would hold weight. As it is she is just one more person with an opinion.

Again, you're too ignorant to see the big picture. And yes, her opinion does hold weight among the 52,000 pharmacies her group controls. Maybe you should put those blinders back on, the truth is clearly too much for you to handle.

As to sitting on a shelf....you ever heard of turn over rate? Supply and demand? Yeah I'm sure the morning after pill is FLYING off the shelves all over the US.

This isn't about supply and demand. It's about some religious nutjob who thinks a recently fertilized egg is a human being. And by supplying the medication he becomes an accessory to murder. We have one of these wackos here, too, and he's trying to prevent college students from getting the pills on campus. Control freaks, that's what they are.

I'm done with this Mindia look alike contest. I can only deal with one person with their head up their ass a day.

Boy, that didn't take long for the Azlanafication process begin after you became a 'full' mod. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

BTW, that wasn't a very nice thing to say about Arlos! His posts were actually right on the money for a change.

[The Kizzy]

My school only carries coke, and I lik pepsi, BASTARDS

Only cat lovers and nazis like Pepsi.

I am starting to loathe my cat. She always wants to lay on me whern I am trying to sleep and it 80 degrees and humid in my room, I hate that cat.

[Zanchief]

I was a lifetime Coke drinker up until about 2 years ago when my entire life turned upside-down and I finally changed to Pepsi. I think my reluctance was caused mostly by the Province of Quebec and their endorsement of Pepsi.

In conclusion. I am neither a cat lover, a Nazi or a Quebecois and I like Pepsi.

Pepsi>Coke

[Wrath Child]

Pharmacists rights? If you're a pharmacist, do your job and fill prescriptions. What someone does with the condoms or morning after pills they buy is up to them, not you.

It is however, up to you as a retailer to decide which products you will or will not carry. The pharmacists are not government employees, but theoretically a participant in a capitalist system. The pharmacist does not choose for whom they fill prescriptions, but should certaintly be allowed to determine what products they choose to stock. If a pharmacy does not stock what you require... go to the competition.

Going to the competition is not always an option.

And again, this isn't about not having shelf space or fearing the product won't sell. This is about pharmacist imposing their religious beliefs onto their customers. There have been plenty of cases, including here, where the product was stocked but the pharmacist refused to sell it.

Posted: April 13, 2005

Madison - The state Pharmacy Examining Board on Wednesday reprimanded and limited the license of a pharmacist who refused to refill a young woman's prescription for oral contraceptives.

The seven-member board acted on a recommendation made in February by an administrative law judge who reviewed the case. Pharmacist Neil T. Noesen, 31, was punished for rejecting the young woman's refill request and failing to refer her to another pharmacy where she could get her prescription filled.

"Pharmacists have the right to exercise their conscience in a case like this, but the health and safety of the patient has to be the overriding issue," said Michael Bettiga, a Green Bay pharmacist who directs the board.

The decision brings a measure of resolution to a case that represents a bigger national debate over the rights of pharmacists and other health care providers to refuse to participate in procedures they say conflict with their moral or religious beliefs. Bettiga said it strikes a balance between Noesen's right to object and the patient's access to proper care.

While supporters of women's reproductive rights applauded the decision, abortion opponents said the board's action gives urgency to efforts by Wisconsin lawmakers to pass "conscience clause" legislation to address the ethical problems that pharmacists and other health care providers have with some medical practices.

The board's decision will require Noesen to provide advance written notification to employers about what pharmacy practices he will decline to perform, and the steps he will take to be sure the patient's access to necessary medications isn't impeded.

Noesen will also be required to pay for the costs of the proceedings and undergo six hours of continuing education in pharmacy practice. Christopher Klein, executive assistant for the state Department of Regulation and Licensing, said the costs are estimated to be about $20,000.

Bettiga declined to comment on Noesen's options for appeal.

Krystal Williams-Oby, an attorney for Noesen, didn't immediately return calls for comment. The state Department of Regulation and Licensing represented the woman, Amanda Phiede, in the proceedings, and she wasn't expected to issue a comment, Klein said.

The case stems from an incident in July 2002, when Noesen was working a Saturday shift as a freelance pharmacist at a Menomonie Kmart pharmacy. He refused to fill a prescription for contraceptives for Phiede, then a student at the University of Wisconsin-Stout.

At a Department of Regulation and Licensing hearing in October, Phiede and Noesen testified that he asked her whether she was using the drug for contraception, and she said yes. That's when he refused to fill the prescription, both said.

Noesen said at the hearing that he had told the agency that placed him that his Roman Catholic beliefs prevented him from dispensing contraceptives because he didn't want to commit a sin.

Phiede went to a nearby pharmacy to have the prescription filled, but Noesen refused to transfer the prescription. Despite trying again that Sunday to have the prescription filled, Phiede had to wait until another pharmacist returned to the store Monday, meaning she missed one of her doses.

Williams-Oby objected to the judge's findings in a written response, saying that Noesen had sufficiently informed his employers of his conscientious objections and hadn't harmed Phiede by not filling her prescription.

Noesen has run into more trouble. He was arrested in January in Minnetonka, Minn., when he allegedly refused to leave the corporate headquarters of Snyders, a drugstore chain, after being terminated.

Snyders didn't return a call for comment about why Noesen was fired. He was charged with disorderly conduct, trespassing and obstructing the legal process, said Minnetonka City Attorney Desyl Peterson. Wisconsin is one of 47 states with a law that allows health care providers to refuse treatment on moral grounds, according to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. The law, in place since the 1970s, allows physicians, hospitals and hospital workers to decline to perform abortions and sterilization for moral or religious reasons. Pharmacists aren't included in those protections.

Earlier this month, Republican legislators introduced a bill to allow pharmacists to opt out of certain practices if they oppose its purpose. If pharmacists refuse to dispense products on moral grounds, the bill would shield them from disciplinary action by the board or the Department of Regulation and Licensing, the bill says.

Peggy Hamill, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said such legislation is necessary. "No pharmacist should be forced to daily check his or her conscience at the workplace door," Hamill said in a statement. Nicole Safar, public policy analyst for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said such a law is "unacceptable" because it would allow health care providers to put their needs ahead of patients.


From the April 14, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

If you do feel it involves you, then be prepared for lawsuits from victims of Meth users who's Meth was created by products you sold! Same with opiate based pain killers. If someone gets addicted, clearly it's your fault since you sold it to them.

Everyone who goes into a pharmacy school knows that birth control pills are a HUGE part of that business. If a woman gets pregnant after you refused to fill her prescription, you are partially responsible for the abortion she then goes and has.

Wow, blatant hypocracy in the space of two paragraphs. You just argued that a retailer is not responsible for what a customer does with products postsale. It's the height of idiocy to turn around in the very next paragraph and argue that the retailer is responsible for a customers actions without so much as the justification of a transaction.

Yes. It is "blatant hypocracy" on the part of the pharmacist, which is why I pointed it out with my example. Good job on figuring that out, Sherlock!

What's worse:

Taking part in the possible prevention of a fertilized egg becoming attached in the uterus...

Or

Taking part in the actual abortion of a fully formed baby?

They both have exactly the same result: no baby. Let's hear it for arbitrary distinctions though:

Conception!

No, birth!

No, first trimester!

No, forty-two days, seven hours, twenty-three minutes, and fifty-four seconds!

No, they don't always have the same result. When a woman takes a morning after pill for it's intended purpose, she doesn't know if she conceived or not. How could she?

But when a women goes in for an abortion - maybe a partial-birth abortion - she knows full well that she's pregnant.

Are you suggesting a fertilized human egg is just as much a human being as a 25 week old fetus is? Or as human as you are?

If I held up two beakers, one containing a freshly fertilized dolphin egg and one containing freshly fertilized human egg, could you tell me which contains a human being and which contains a dolphin? Without the aid of any scientific equipment?

I think you've watched the sperm episode of Family Guy one too many times.

[Langston]

And again, this isn't about not having shelf space or fearing the product won't sell. This is about pharmacist imposing their religious beliefs onto their customers. There have been plenty of cases, including here, where the product was stocked but the pharmacist refused to sell it.

Viva la Free Enterprise and Private business!!!

Sorry bud - but if a private business owner of a pharmacy wishes to stock nothing but Valium and Juju beans, that's his prerogative... just as it is your right to open a business of your own and supply nothing BUT morning after pills. I'd argue just as strongly for that business owner's rights, as well.

You're trying to complicate a very simple topic with politics and morals.

Bottom line of this ENTIRE conversation is this: If someone owns a business it is there right to sell anything (in accordance to law and permits) he chooses; not sell anything he chooses; and not sell to anyone he chooses. Market forces will dictate whether his business is successful accordingly.

Stop trying to turn this into a morality debate. It's about business owners' rights. PERIOD.

[xaoshaen]

Going to the competition is not always an option.

Present a situation where it's not and we'll consider it. In this scenario there clearly are alternatives.

And again, this isn't about not having shelf space or fearing the product won't sell. This is about pharmacist imposing their religious beliefs onto their customers. There have been plenty of cases, including here, where the product was stocked but the pharmacist refused to sell it.

Fascinating. If only that's what we were actually talking about:

Under the emergency rule put in place in Illinois, pharmacies that do not have a particular prescribed contraceptive would be required to order some or to send the prescription to another pharmacy.

The issue at hand is the government legislating inventory to privately owned companies.

Yes. It is "blatant hypocracy" on the part of the pharmacist, which is why I pointed it out with my example. Good job on figuring that out, Sherlock!

Wow, that was downright Mindia of you. When confronted with the internal inconsistencies of arguments you proposed, you result to obfuscation and name calling. It doesn't change the fact that you contradicted yourself within the space of two paragraphs.

No, they don't always have the same result. When a woman takes a morning after pill for it's intended purpose, she doesn't know if she conceived or not. How could she?

But when a women goes in for an abortion - maybe a partial-birth abortion - she knows full well that she's pregnant.

You appear to be having a difficult time distinguishing between rationale and result. In either case, the result is the same.

Are you suggesting a fertilized human egg is just as much a human being as a 25 week old fetus is? Or as human as you are?

And yet, you'll vehemently defend the notion that a 25-week fetus is as human as you are, despite the fact that it's largely nonviable without significant medical support. It is noteworthy that with sufficient medical support, even a fertilized egg is also viable. I don't particularly care one way or the other. I just find the arbitrary establishment of acceptable termination dates to be incredibly entertaining.

[Captain Insano]

this is bullshit... Those pharmacies aren't giving out the pill because the pharmacist on duty is a fucking jesus phreak or some anti abortion asshole.

This is the one time I like the government stepping in. We need less people not more 18 years olds with squeeling brats.

[brinstar]

i'll let you in on a secret ralf

those wailing brats being hauled around by white trash teenagers living in trailer parks all grow up to be republicans

[Gidan]

Uh...married women who don't want any more kids make their hubs get fixed exactly like I did.

Perhaps it's just me...but I definitely wouldn't call the morning after pill birth control. Birth control is planned items you use BEFORE having sex. The morning after pill is the irresponsible person's pill.

So lets say the couple use a condom (a responsible thing to do) and it breaks. Does that make them irresponsible?

As for the argument of if that pharm doesn't offer just goto another. Well the town I grew up in had 1 pharmacy, the next closets one was over an hour away on a good day.

Being as this is a contraversial drug peopel will argue both ways, but lets say you just had a major operation and the only pharm you could easily use said they refuse to care any forms of pain medication. Would you still be saying, thats np its their right not to carry it.

[mofish]

Hopefully, the FDA will do the right thing and soon make it an over-the-counter product, like they should. Then we can all watch abortion clinics across the country wither and die from a lack of business!

yes.

[Captain Insano]

i'll let you in on a secret ralf

those wailing brats being hauled around by white trash teenagers living in trailer parks all grow up to be republicans

KREIKY!

[Captain Insano]

I had a condom break on me with my last GF. I took her to a local grocery store pharmacy to get the morning after pill. The chain of stores ALL carried the pill, but the bitch pharmacist tried not giving it to her....

Needless to say I tore her a new ass bout six times over and almost got the bible thumper fired.

That is exactly why the gov't needs to step in an say you must carry this thing and you must give it out without hassle.

Pharmacists jobs are to count fucking pills not push their moral agenda around.

The other thing I don't understand is that the pill prevents a pregnancy... It isn't killing anything. What is the fucking problem?

[The Kizzy]

I would like to see a lawyer take on this case under the premise that they are discriminating against women. They do dispense male enhancement drugs, yes?

Not sure how I feel about this, so holding my opinion til then.

[Donnel]

Kizzy that one would lose so fast. It's not discrimination because they'd deny selling the same thing to a man too. The fact that a man would never have a prescription for them is irrelavent.

[Wrath Child]

Going to the competition is not always an option.

Present a situation where it's not and we'll consider it. In this scenario there clearly are alternatives.

Although I already did, I'll offer another compliments of Gidan:

As for the argument of if that pharm doesn't offer just goto another. Well the town I grew up in had 1 pharmacy, the next closets one was over an hour away on a good day.

And again, this isn't about not having shelf space or fearing the product won't sell. This is about pharmacist imposing their religious beliefs onto their customers. There have been plenty of cases, including here, where the product was stocked but the pharmacist refused to sell it.

Fascinating. If only that's what we were actually talking about:

Under the emergency rule put in place in Illinois, pharmacies that do not have a particular prescribed contraceptive would be required to order some or to send the prescription to another pharmacy.

The issue at hand is the government legislating inventory to privately owned companies.

That is what we're talking about. You and the others are just to gutless to look at the big picture. You're acting like a bunch of dodgy liberals who are afraid to discuss when a fertilized egg becomes human because they don't like the answer since it violently erodes their argument for any and all abortions. Especially those liberals who are anti-death penalty.

This guy is nothing but another example in a long list of examples of pharmacist imposing their morality on others because their religion teaches them that birth control is a SIN! And if you help a sinner commit a sin, what does that make you? A SINNER!

If the only pharmacy around for 100 miles is owned by a devote Muslim, does he have the right to impose his religious views on women who enter his business?

NO SHIRT
NO SHOES
NO BURQA
NO MALE RELATIVE TO ESCORT YOU
NO SERVICE!

It is his business, after all.

Or how about this guy:

Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat
Attorney: 'It's A Classic Case Of Religious Discrimination'

POSTED: 5:46 am EDT August 4, 2004
UPDATED: 1:50 pm EST December 31, 2004

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.

Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.

However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.

Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean," Local 6 News reported. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.

"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.

"Yes," Morales said.

Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"

" Yes," Morales said.

Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.

However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.

"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.

"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."

Attorney Travis Hollifield is representing Morales in a lawsuit against the company.

"It's just un-American," Hollifield said. "It's not in compliance with the laws of this country."

Local 6 News reported that the case has precedent-setting issues because it addresses employee rights and religion in the workplace.

"It's a classic case of religious discrimination," Hollifield said. "They have not articulated a single reason other than religious reason behind the policy."

The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.

"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.

"Yes." Kweli replied.

"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.

" Yes," Kweli replied.

"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.

"We do, we can," Kweli said.

"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.

"Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said.

The Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork. And according to Kweli, Morales and every employee at the company is advised of the no pork policy.

"Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can," Kweli said.

"Even if it impacts other people?" Holfeld asked.

"Well, it always impacts other people," Kweli replied.

Orlando attorney Mark Nejame is close to the Muslim community, Local 6 News reported. He said Kweli's intentions may cross constitutional parameters, according to the report.

"They're making it seem that if you don't follow a certain set of religious practices and beliefs then you're going to be terminated and that's wrong," Nejame said. "If this case prevails, what it will mean -- the implications of this case -- is it will eliminate accommodations of religion."

Both sides are steadfast in their belief that they are right. Morales is taking the company to court charging discrimination, Local 6 News reported.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

Yes. It is "blatant hypocracy" on the part of the pharmacist, which is why I pointed it out with my example. Good job on figuring that out, Sherlock!

Wow, that was downright Mindia of you. When confronted with the internal inconsistencies of arguments you proposed, you result to obfuscation and name calling. It doesn't change the fact that you contradicted yourself within the space of two paragraphs.

You can't possibly be this dumb, can you? The point I made is that if this guy believes he's responsible for what a customer does with the birth control product he sold them - in many religions using birth control is a sin - then he must also be held responsible when one of his customers become addicted to the pain killers he sold them or for all of the harm caused by him selling cold medicine to his customers, who then turn around and make Meth out of it.

Either he's responsible for what his customers do with the products he sells them or he isn't. He can't pick and choose. If he does, he's a hypocrite.

No, they don't always have the same result. When a woman takes a morning after pill for it's intended purpose, she doesn't know if she conceived or not. How could she?

But when a women goes in for an abortion - maybe a partial-birth abortion - she knows full well that she's pregnant.

You appear to be having a difficult time distinguishing between rationale and result. In either case, the result is the same.

I guess using your silly logic means we shouldn't lock up murderers. Whether you die at the hands of a killer or from cancer, the result is the same. You're dead! So why waste all those billions keeping killers locked up.

Are you suggesting a fertilized human egg is just as much a human being as a 25 week old fetus is? Or as human as you are?

And yet, you'll vehemently defend the notion that a 25-week fetus is as human as you are, despite the fact that it's largely nonviable without significant medical support. It is noteworthy that with sufficient medical support, even a fertilized egg is also viable. I don't particularly care one way or the other. I just find the arbitrary establishment of acceptable termination dates to be incredibly entertaining.

That would depend on your definition of "as human as you are". Is a paraplegic "as human as you are"? A quad amputee? How about someone who's been in a coma for 20 years and has no chance of coming out of it? "Are they as human as you are"?

Does a person who needs a ventilator to survive revert from being human to a clump of tissue? After all, they need "sufficient medical support" to survive, which seems to be your definition of being human.

My belief on when a fertilized egg becomes human - thus deserving of rights - is based on science, not by some random roll of the bones. You on the otherhand, clearly believe that a clump of tissue MAGICALLY becomes human ***POOF*** right after birth and only after the umbilical cord has been cut.

The Earth is round, too, btw.

[Donnel]

Quit flip flopping you freak.

You advocate that a fertilized egg is NOT a human, then turn around and ream Xao and claim that he thinks it's only a human after birth!

ACK!

And for your respoinsibility thing... SHUT UP!

You said that someone shouldn't be held responsible for selling METH making ingredients and rightly so! Then you turned around and said if he doesn't sell birth control or the morning after then he's responsible for the baby! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! That is what Xao was pointing out, get a clue!