Emergency contraceptive=as bad as abortion?

InfraRedConnection · Post by **InfraRedConnection** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:35 pm

I'm torn. I would like everyone's opinions (pro-choice, pro-life, indifferent, everyone).

I read an article about how some woman sued Wal-Mart for not carrying emergency contraceptive (the morning-after pill) and it made me think. Is that pill like having abortion? I mean...I know it isn't like having an abortion but is it just as bad? Something along similar lines?

What do you think?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:47 pm

I think it's disgusting that someone can sue a private retailer for not carrying an item. I wonder if it would make the papers if I sued them for not carrying neon-green ostrich-skin penny loafers?

I think the morning after pill is a contraceptive, thus preventing pregnancy rather than killing the human.

InfraRedConnection · Post by **InfraRedConnection** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:56 pm

lol yeah it is pretty stupid that they were able to sue Wal-Mart for not carrying something but that wasn't my point...it's just what triggered my thought hehe...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:28 pm

I'm surprised the pro-choice and anti-WalMart people aren't all over this one.

Bump for the cowards. :yh_tong2

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:13 pm

Accountable wrote: I'm surprised the pro-choice and anti-WalMart people aren't all over this one.

Bump for the cowards. :yh_tong2

Sorry, darlin' - I missed this yesterday!

I can't find everything that I want at Wal-Mart either but it never occurred to me that I should try and sue them! I mean, damn, I have been looking for one of those tension bar things with arms that come out that you hang plants from. That's it - I'm calling my lawyer and demand that this become available at my local Wally World ASAP!

I am Pro-Choice but I am not exactly sure why that would matter in this case.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:09 am

InfraRedConnection wrote: I'm torn. I would like everyone's opinions (pro-choice, pro-life, indifferent, everyone).

I read an article about how some woman sued Wal-Mart for not carrying emergency contraceptive (the morning-after pill) and it made me think. Is that pill like having abortion? I mean...I know it isn't like having an abortion but is it just as bad? Something along similar lines?

What do you think?

What would you think if you were told you couldn't buy contraceptives, be it condoms or the pill, because a retailer thought it was morally wrong?

Rather depends on whether there was an alternative pharmacist she could go to as well I would have thought.

Personally I think it hypocritical to moralise about unwanted pregnancies and then at the same time deny people the choice as to whether they can use contraceptives or not. Unless you happen to live in a Catholic country that is. In which case you have a whole different set of issues.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:56 am

LilacDragon wrote: Sorry, darlin' - I missed this yesterday!

I can't find everything that I want at Wal-Mart either but it never occurred to me that I should try and sue them! I mean, damn, I have been looking for one of those tension bar things with arms that come out that you hang plants from. That's it - I'm calling my lawyer and demand that this become available at my local Wally World ASAP!

I am Pro-Choice but I am not exactly sure why that would matter in this case.
I'm pretty sure IRC was more interested in how the pill works.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:58 am

InfraRedConnection wrote: Is that pill like having abortion?http://www.aaplog.org/oral.htm is the current position of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. My own summary of their statement, if that helps, is that there is no evidence that a fertilized ovum is prevented from implanting in the womb by the morning after pill, and that the effect of the pill is limited to prevented ovulation, and prevented fertilization where ovulation has already occurred.

The reason that the morning after pill was thought initially to also prevent implantation is that drug companies, rather like patentees, list all possible "benefits" in order to claim precedence over subsequent products with the claimed effects. I suspect that in this instance they'd prefer to have kept their speculation to themselves.

If there is in fact no fertilization, the product behaves in an identical manner to standard contraceptive pills except that it's a more powerful kick to the system and it can't be repeated frequently. If you equate that with abortion then that's what it is. Most people wouldn't. If evidence is ever found that implantation is prevented by the treatment, then it gets into murkier water since - to some people - the fertilized ovum is a life in being, and preventing it from implanting stops it from gestation. Nobody has yet demonstrated that this happens.

I would guess that the reason Wal-Mart doesn't stock the line is that they are avoiding problems which have occurred in other chains, where counter staff have established a right to refuse to serve the products to customers on conscientious grounds. That right is contingent on their referring the customer to other sales staff on the counter who then perform the transaction instead. Where staff have refused to make this referal, the legal system has been invoked. Wal-Mart may be trying to avoid this. Wal-Mart does actually stock the products where State law makes it mandatory for them to do so.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:08 am

Accountable wrote: I'm pretty sure IRC was more interested in how the pill works.

Sorry. I was kind of tired last night.

I am not sure how long it takes from ejaculation to conception. If one takes the pill after the sperm has entered the egg, then I suppose whether or not taking the pill is the same as abortion depends on what part of the development of the fetus you consider the unborn a child. Does that make sense?

I am very much Pro-Choice but I don't think that abortion or the morning after pill should be used as a contraceptive. I certainly don't think that it is the business of a "big-box" retailer to decide someone else's morals.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:09 am

gmc wrote: What would you think if you were told you couldn't buy contraceptives, be it condoms or the pill, because a retailer thought it was morally wrong?

Rather depends on whether there was an alternative pharmacist she could go to as well I would have thought.

Personally I think it hypocritical to moralise about unwanted pregnancies and then at the same time deny people the choice as to whether they can use contraceptives or not. Unless you happen to live in a Catholic country that is. In which case you have a whole different set of issues.
Massachusetts is small enough one could practically walk across it, yet they've enacted law requiring Wal-Mart's 44 stores and 5 Sam's Clubs (subsidiary of Wal-Mart. Sorry I don't have a reference; I heard it on TV but I think I got the numbers right) to sell the drug. I would be more flexible for a pharmacist that is a virtual monopoly in the area, as well.

To answer your question, I think a retailer has a right to be as hypocritical as it wants to be. If people don't like it, they shouldn't shop there. Why should consumers have a right to sue a retailer to force them to sell ... anything? They should take their complaints to the court of the almighty dollar. Give another retailer their business.

What I think would be very hypocritical is if these women spoke out against Wal-Mart's employment practices. "I hate the way they treat their employees, but they should still carry what I'm in there to shop for. It's too expensive elsewhere." :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:22 am

LilacDragon wrote: Sorry. I was kind of tired last night.

I am not sure how long it takes from ejaculation to conception. If one takes the pill after the sperm has entered the egg, then I suppose whether or not taking the pill is the same as abortion depends on what part of the development of the fetus you consider the unborn a child. Does that make sense?

I am very much Pro-Choice but I don't think that abortion or the morning after pill should be used as a contraceptive. I certainly don't think that it is the business of a "big-box" retailer to decide someone else's morals.
I found this in an earlier thread:

actionfigurestepho wrote: The morning after pill is just a high dose birth control pill. It'll prevent you from ovulating. Since sperm can live inside a fallopian tube for 4-5 days, this will can help prevent the two from meeting. If someone's already pregnant, it's not going to terminate the pregnancy. You could probably take a few days worth of a regular oral contraceptive and get the same effect. The abortion pill will actually destroy the embryo and flush it from the body.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:26 am

Accountable wrote: The abortion pill will actually destroy the embryo and flush it from the body.- not your text, I know, but... that's a third style of pill entirely, the abortifacient. Not to be confused with either the contraceptive pill or the morning after pill. I suspect that the difference was noted earlier in the thread you quoted from.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:31 am

spot wrote: - not your text, I know, but... that's a third style of pill entirely, the abortifacient. Not to be confused with either the contraceptive pill or the morning after pill. I suspect that the difference was noted earlier in the thread you quoted from.True. The link is in my post for those that want the whole conversation. But you knew that, didn't you? You just wanted to show off by typing "abortifacient". :p

InfraRedConnection · Post by **InfraRedConnection** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:42 pm

I think that in what Accountable showed us...the person quoted was purposely talking about the two different pills. At least, that's how it came off to me. What I gathered from that is the morning after pill doesn't kill an already-forming baby but the other pill does. The person seemed to be trying to explain the morning after pill isn't like abortion but there is a pill that is used for abortion. *shrug* just how I took it!

Thanks everyone! Especially Accountable. That thing (well...if it's medical fact) made it make more sense to me.

golem · Post by **golem** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:22 am

Seems simple to me.

No one has the right to interfere in any way with a woman who chooses to go full term and drop yet another kid on this overpopulated world, so no one has the right to stop a woman who decides that she doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to.

THAT is what freedom is about though personally I believe that there is far more good morality involved if there was to be a pro termination strategy in place especially in the case of underage girls where I strongly believe it should be made compulsory with a zero tolerance strategy on the prosecution of the male who inseminated them with NO exceptions.

As for retail outlets who refuse to stock a particular medication as to do so would offend the franchise holder or whatever Ã¢â‚¬“ not a problem.

If they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to provide the full services and products of the facility that they offer then they should be closed down and let someone else who will take the space made vacant.

There are some things in life and in commerce that simply come with the territory. Selling contraceptive or even self abortion medication for early stage pregnancies should be included.

.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:34 am

First of all, if I go to a store wanting a doorknob, and they don't have them, I would go to another store for one, not sue them.

As far as the morning after pill, it sickens me that there is a need for it. You want to play, you should pay. On the other hand, there are so many abused and/or neglected children out there, too bad this pill didn't come out sooner.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:04 am

I can't remember which show I saw it on, but unil Wal-Mart rolled over and agreed to sell the plan B pill, they were the only major pharmacy to not carry it. Meaning most people could go somewhere else nearby if they wanted it.

Obviously a ploy by abortion groups, sponsored by the manufacturer, to artificially increase sales - since the pharmacy has to purchase inventory, let it sit until expiration date, then purchase more.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:31 am

PEG "First of all, if I go to a store wanting a doorknob, and they don't have them, I would go to another store for one, not sue them.

As far as the morning after pill, it sickens me that there is a need for it. You want to play, you should pay. On the other hand, there are so many abused and/or neglected children out there, too bad this pill didn't come out sooner."

+++++Doorknobs aren't health care. If you had a raging bladder infection and went to a pharmacy, prescription in hand, only to be told they refuse to stock that item, how would you feel? Suppose it were medication to prevent heart problems? Suppose it were pain medication and you had a broken arm? Pharmacies are in the business of selling medication...not moralizing.

Secondly, I'm really shocked by your "you want to play, you should pay" remark. What happens if a condom breaks or you discover you've placed your diaphragm incorrectly? Is pregnancy a "punishment" because you "played?"

Can you deny someone who's in TERROR because of contraceptive failure the immediate application of a "Plan B" pill, where time is of the essence? Consider someone who's been the victim of "date rape" and is desperately trying to prevent a pregnancy. Have you no compassion?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:32 am

Lulu2 wrote: +++++Doorknobs aren't health care.Neither is abortion. Lulu2 wrote: If you had a raging bladder infection and went to a pharmacy, prescription in hand, only to be told they refuse to stock that item, how would you feel?It saddens me that you equate pregnancy with an infection. Lulu2 wrote: Suppose it were medication to prevent heart problems? Suppose it were pain medication and you had a broken arm? Pharmacies are in the business of selling medication...not moralizing.Suppose we let private retailers decide what they will stock or not stock. What a concept, eh??

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:36 am

Oh, come on, Accountible! I don't equate possible pregnancy with a bladder infection! I was trying to bring home to point that the "Plan B" emergency contraceptive is a substance...just like an antibiotic...which is time sensitive. Anyone who's ever had a bladder infection knows time is of the essence, just as it is with "Plan B."

Nobody knows for sure how it works at which point, Accountible. It may prevent ovulation, it may make conditions unfavorable for fusing of the egg and sperm. It can also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine lining. I don't call any of these "abortion," and I do suggest that, if I choose to use an FDA-approved pharmaceutical which is highly time-sensitive, it's my business to do so.

According to figures cited by Planned Parenthood, nearly half of America's 6 million annual pregnancies are accidental, and half of those are terminated by abortion. Widespread use of emergency contraception like Plan B could potentially prevent an estimated 1.5 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions each year.

"Plan B" is a valuable drug.

As I understand it, you maintain that any business has the right to select its inventory. I agree. I absolutely agree. And I sincerely hope that any woman you love who finds herself in need of emergency contraception is in a community which has more than one pharmacy, if one of them imposes "moral values" on its customers.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:42 am

Accountable wrote: I'm surprised the pro-choice and anti-WalMart people aren't all over this one.

Bump for the cowards. :yh_tong2

Personally, I think that any woman who is capable of child bearing who is not pregnant is denying a potential child the chance of life.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:44 am

:wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:56 pm

You want to play, you should pay.

I disagree with this comment completely. A child is a human being. A child should NEVER be a consequence or a punishment.

Why not sue Walmart? They are a pharmacy and a pharmacy is supposed to stock everything regardless of what anyone's moral feelings are. Imagine not being sold painkillers because the pharmacist felt you should live out your pain and be tough or was concerned that vicodin would make you a drug addict.

While I wouldn't sue over a doorknob, a doorknob is not going to affect my life much and I have time to go to another store and get one. If I am potentially pregnant, I don't need the inconvenience of shopping around for a pharmacy that carries what I need.

If it were a man who was pregnant I think the tides woudl change. In this modern day we are still punishing women who have sex and don't want to "pay."

And as an aside, I think Walmart is too big for its moral britches anyway. Stop censoring my music and my reading material because you don't think it is acceptable to YOUR values. You're a store, not a church.

Imagine if Walmart failed to sell me insulin because they thought since I'm overweight, that I brought my diabetes on myself? Or if they failed to sell me antidepressants because my problems were "all in my head?"

Accountable, why do you feel abortion does not fall under health care? Should we not have access to a safe abortion? Should we still be in the back alleys or on our kitchen tables with a knitting needle?

ETA: I failed to answer the original question. I don't think the drug is a bad thing and I feel it is definitely preferable to (standard) abortion.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:10 am

Lulu2 wrote: Oh, come on, Accountible! I don't equate possible pregnancy with a bladder infection! I was trying to bring home to point that the "Plan B" emergency contraceptive is a substance...just like an antibiotic...which is time sensitive. Anyone who's ever had a bladder infection knows time is of the essence, just as it is with "Plan B."But there's no moral baggage that comes with a bladder infection (that I'm aware of).

Lulu2 wrote: Nobody knows for sure how it works at which point, Accountible. It may prevent ovulation, it may make conditions unfavorable for fusing of the egg and sperm. It can also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine lining. I don't call any of these "abortion," and I do suggest that, if I choose to use an FDA-approved pharmaceutical which is highly time-sensitive, it's my business to do so.I agree.

Lulu2 wrote: According to figures cited by Planned Parenthood, nearly half of America's 6 million annual pregnancies are accidental, and half of those are terminated by abortion. Widespread use of emergency contraception like Plan B could potentially prevent an estimated 1.5 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions each year.Damn! That sound like alot, but it's still less than one percent of the total population. Still, I hope the numbers aren't accurate. :-1

Lulu2 wrote: "Plan B" is a valuable drug.No doubt

Lulu2 wrote: As I understand it, you maintain that any business has the right to select its inventory. I agree. I absolutely agree. And I sincerely hope that any woman you love who finds herself in need of emergency contraception is in a community which has more than one pharmacy, if one of them imposes "moral values" on its customers.Some time ago in another thread, someone mentioned a law that force local pharmacies to carry Plan B if they were the only pharmacy in the area. I don't disagree with that, but if there is another pharmacy in the area that carries it, Wal-mart or any other pharmacy should not be forced to stock it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:12 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: Personally, I think that any woman who is capable of child bearing who is not pregnant is denying a potential child the chance of life.Yeh! and why do they need so darn many shoes?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:22 am

RedGlitter wrote: You want to play, you should pay.

I disagree with this comment completely. A child is a human being. A child should NEVER be a consequence or a punishment.

Why not sue Walmart? They are a pharmacy and a pharmacy is supposed to stock everything regardless of what anyone's moral feelings are. Imagine not being sold painkillers because the pharmacist felt you should live out your pain and be tough or was concerned that vicodin would make you a drug addict. Who says they're supposed to stock everything? Do you believe every retailer is required to stock every brand??

As for the rest, :yh_eyebro

RedGlitter wrote: While I wouldn't sue over a doorknob, a doorknob is not going to affect my life much and I have time to go to another store and get one. If I am potentially pregnant, I don't need the inconvenience of shopping around for a pharmacy that carries what I need. Oh, so it's a question of convenience?? Come on.

RedGlitter wrote: If it were a man who was pregnant I think the tides woudl change. In this modern day we are still punishing women who have sex and don't want to "pay."

You're probably right.

RedGlitter wrote: And as an aside, I think Walmart is too big for its moral britches anyway. Stop censoring my music and my reading material because you don't think it is acceptable to YOUR values. You're a store, not a church. So don't shop there.

RedGlitter wrote: Imagine if Walmart failed to sell me insulin because they thought since I'm overweight, that I brought my diabetes on myself? Or if they failed to sell me antidepressants because my problems were "all in my head?"The company doesn't want to stock Plan B at all. Selling a legal drug to one customer with a prescription and refusing to sell the same drug to another customer with a prescription is a whole other issue.

RedGlitter wrote: Accountable, why do you feel abortion does not fall under health care? Should we not have access to a safe abortion? Should we still be in the back alleys or on our kitchen tables with a knitting needle?

Quite a leap you've made there. I'm vehemently against abortion, but you can read my posts (over a year's worth) and will not find once that I called for illegalization. It can be argued that abortion falls into the category of healthcare in some certain circumstances, but certainly not all.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:16 am

I went to a bookstore the other day looking for a Bible. I needed it quickly for a gift. They didn't have it. They had a Bible but not the particular Bible I needed. I shouldn't have to go shopping around for a Bible. How dare they inconvenience me. They are a book store they should carry every book I need. They shouldn't leave out Bibles just because they may not want to carry them. So instead of spending my money elsewhere, I'm suing to force them to carry my Bible.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:16 am

:rolleyes: Right, Adam! That's a huge stretch and it doesn't really work. You, of all people, know how critical it is to get first aid in an emergency. If "Plan B" can prevent unintended pregnancy, it must be taken quickly. Sending a woman all over town as she tries to find someone who doesn't impose their own idea of "morality" on her body really IS "immoral," in my point of view.

Another case of "fundies" trying to impose their control on the rest of us.

ACCOUNTABLE[/B "It can be argued that abortion falls into the category of healthcare in some certain circumstances, but certainly not all."

Excuse me? If it's not related to health care, what IS it?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:31 am

Lulu2 wrote:

ACCOUNTABLE[/B It can be argued that abortion falls into the category of healthcare in some certain circumstances, but certainly not all.

Excuse me? If it's not related to health care, what IS it?

It only falls into the category of healthcare if the pregnancy is going to be detrimental to the mother's health.

If the abortion is for convenience or for social reasons then it is not healthcare.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:52 am

It's ALWAYS about health care because it must be safely performed in a sanitary environment. The "reasons" are none of my business, or yours or anyone's other than the woman who chooses to continue or terminate a pregnancy.

There are myths about women who abort "for convenience" or "just for birth control." I challenge those. I've known many women who've chosen to terminate a pregnancy...none of them were frivolous or impulsive. Society tends to think of pregnancy as punitive...the old, "Well, if you're going to play, you've got to pay" attitude. Sad.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:01 am

LuLu, you know I was being facetious. I not against Wal-Mart carrying the Plan B pill. But I agree with Accountable. It's ridiculous to force a retailer to carry any product. If Wal-Mart didn't carry my Prevacid, I would go somewhere else. My comments have nothing to do with Plan B, it has to do with choice. Retailers choose which products they carry and reap the financial consequences.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:16 am

Lulu2 wrote: It's ALWAYS about health care because it must be safely performed in a sanitary environment. The "reasons" are none of my business, or yours or anyone's other than the woman who chooses to continue or terminate a pregnancy.

There are myths about women who abort "for convenience" or "just for birth control." I challenge those. I've known many women who've chosen to terminate a pregnancy...none of them were frivolous or impulsive. Society tends to think of pregnancy as punitive...the old, "Well, if you're going to play, you've got to pay" attitude. Sad.

I think that we're looking at this from different viewpoints.

Nobody is denying that, once the decision has been made to have an abortion, that healthcare is all important. What is being said is that the reason for having the abortion is not a healthcare issue if the health of the mother is not at stake.

The reason for the abotion *is* important - more so the later in the pregnancy it gets. There is a massive difference between "both mother and baby will die if we don't" and "the father's left me and I don't know how I'll cope" when you get past the 20th week.

I would never dream of suggesting that a woman choses to have an abortion frivolously or impulsively. A good friend of mine had an abortion at 17 and I watched the heartsearching and turmoil she went through in making that choice but in the end she decided that she could not support the baby and continue her schooling. It was a hard decision for her and she suffered for it but it was *not* a healthcare issue.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:27 pm

It was a hard decision for her and she suffered for it but it was *not* a healthcare issue.

Bryn, you have exposed one of the great distortions/myths of the abortion debate. Kudos.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:32 pm

Then, this is about semantics. It's a healthcare issue because it involves her body. If you want to debate "mental health"...that's something different.

Which "great distortions/myths" are you thinking about, Adam?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:42 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Then, this is about semantics. It's a healthcare issue because it involves her body. If you want to debate "mental health"...that's something different.

Which "great distortions/myths" are you thinking about, Adam?
Not semantics, subject. What is the question we are discussing?

If we are discussing the procedures carried out then you are perfectly correct - it is always a healthcare issue. If, on the other hand, it is about the reasons for chosing to have an abortion (which I believe was Accountable's point) then Accountable is correct.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:03 pm

Accountable wrote: neon-green ostrich-skin penny loafers?

I know what I'm getting you for Christmas.....:-6

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:50 pm

Arrrgh.

Where to start?

Yes, it still falls under health care. We're talking about preventing a naturally occurring bodily function that will most assuredly take place if she doesn't get what she needs fast.

For those who think it's all about being inconvenienced, let me say that if you were a woman who may be pregnant, you would know what inconvenience really means in this case. If you can't get your Prevacid then the worst you'll get is heartburn and acid reflux. If you can't get Plan B in time, you get a baby! That would be a major inconvenience. Oh wait! But the woman should have thought of that before she had sex right? And we don't want to carry an *abortion pill!* So we judge! And it is a judgement.

Lulu, I don't understand your comment about "if it's mental health, that's different?" How so?

I still maintain that when men get uterii, things will all be different.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:54 pm

RedGlitter wrote:

Yes, it still falls under health care. We're talking about preventing a naturally occurring bodily function that will most assuredly take place if she doesn't get what she needs fast.

Is pregnancy an illness?

If the pregnancy is not being terminated due to a medical condition and is not an illness then how is the choice of termination a healthcare issue?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:57 pm

(I was confused by Bryn's logic...I THINK it was an attempt to scoff at women's reasons for terminating pregnancies.)

I don't see much point in debating the "is it or is it not healthcare" issue any more. You either "get it," or you don't. As Red' said, if a woman doesn't get access to "Plan B'', she's pregnant. And that IS a health care issue.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:09 pm

If the pregnancy is not being terminated due to a medical condition and is not an illness then how is the choice of termination a healthcare issue?

Bryn, health care encompasses preventative care as well as treatment for illness. If I get a Pap smear and I don't have cancer, then it is still health care. Pregnancy involves a person's health whether you carry or terminate, so how the heck is it not health care?! If I have a standard D&C (dilation and curettage) procedure for a medical condition, it falls under health care. If I have a standard abortion which is still basically a D&C procedure, only to remove a fetus, they are still scraping my uterus, I could still bleed to death and that would involve the care of my health.

Maybe I will leave that one alone now because I don't know where it isn't making the connection. :-5

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:13 pm

(I'm with you, Red!) (P.S...you said it much better than I did.)

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:17 pm

Lulu2 wrote: (I was confused by Bryn's logic...I THINK it was an attempt to scoff at women's reasons for terminating pregnancies.)

I don't see much point in debating the "is it or is it not healthcare" issue any more. You either "get it," or you don't. As Red' said, if a woman doesn't get access to "Plan B'', she's pregnant. And that IS a health care issue.

No scoffing intended at all - a true story from my youth.

One last try, can you not see that there are occasions that a woman chooses to have an abortion for reasons other than health?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:23 pm

RedGlitter wrote:

Maybe I will leave that one alone now because I don't know where it isn't making the connection.

Because the original discussion was about the reason for choosing a termination and not the effects of that choice.

If we cannot separate out the two subjects then there is no discussion - I've already agreed that, once the choice is made, everything else is based around healthcare. The original statement was that sometimes the decision is made for reasons other than healthcare - is that so unreasonable?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:39 pm

The original statement was that sometimes the decision is made for reasons other than healthcare - is that so unreasonable?

Okay so therein is the actual crux of the matter, what I suspected from the start. If she just doesn't want the baby then it's not health care. Is that what you're saying? Because if so, then first, yes I concede that sometimes the reason given does not revolve around health care and secondly, it still falls under health care anyway because it's a bodily issue. For whatever reason she doesn't want to have that baby, the fact of the matter is that her health is still on a timeline. Pregnancy is not an illness but it does usurp your strength and often your good health.

I have to say the comparisons between doorknobs and bibles and a termination pill aren't holding up for me. Can it be conceded that we are talking about drugs and bodily health here (not to mention the possible fact of a fetus) and not random household objects? It's not like the woman is suing WM because they were out of Swiffers! :wah:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:44 pm

RedGlitter wrote:

I have to say the comparisons between doorknobs and bibles and a termination pill aren't holding up for me. Can it be conceded that we are talking about drugs and bodily health here (not to mention the possible fact of a fetus) and not random household objects? It's not like the woman is suing WM because they were out of Swiffers! :wah:

I know nothing about doorknobs and Bibles - are they somehow connected with the foul practices of backstreet abortionists? Certainly not connected to my arguments!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:05 pm

I know nothing about doorknobs and Bibles - are they somehow connected with the foul practices of backstreet abortionists? Certainly not connected to my arguments!

Sorry Bryn,

That reference was for the person who asked if we should sue the store for not carrying the doorknob they wanted and I believe it was Adam Zapple?? who brought up bibles. I don't know why but your comment made me laugh. Maybe I've been in this thread too long today.

You put up a good argument. I'm sure we'll meet again.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 pm

I choose freedom, warts and all. That means taking responsibility for your actions, which means being a parent if you choose to take the risk of pregnancy by having sex. A safer alternative is masterbation.

I choose freedom, warts and all. That means leaving people (women) the freedom to destroy what I believe is a living human, or avoid having to take responsibility at all by taking a Plan B pill.

I choose freedom, warts and all. That means giving pharmacists the freedom to decide what they will stock, and consumers the freedom to shop someplace else.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:57 pm

RedGlitter wrote:

If you can't get your Prevacid then the worst you'll get is heartburn and acid reflux.

Actually, the worst I can get is a terminal case of esophogal cancer. If your argument was really about pharmacists stocking drug needed for proper health care then you wouldn't have been flippant about Prevacid.

Accountable wrote:

I choose freedom, warts and all. That means giving pharmacists the freedom to decide what they will stock, and consumers the freedom to shop someplace else.

This is where doorknobs, Bibles, and swiffers come in. This part of the argument has nothing to do with Plan B. It is a recognition of the right for any retailer to carry the products they think will help there business. If you are unhappy with the retailers selection of products, take issue and threaten to shop elsewhere. That is the way to get your product in the store, not by legislative or judicial mandate. Suing a retailer because it didn't carry a product you wanted is a bit ridiculous.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:04 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: RedGlitter wrote:

Actually, the worst I can get is a terminal case of esophogal cancer. If your argument was really about pharmacists stocking drug needed for proper health care then you wouldn't have been flippant about Prevacid.

Accountable wrote:

This is where doorknobs, Bibles, and swiffers come in. This part of the argument has nothing to do with Plan B. It is a recognition of the right for any retailer to carry the products they think will help there business. If you are unhappy with the retailers selection of products, take issue and threaten to shop elsewhere. That is the way to get your product in the store, not by legislative or judicial mandate. Suing a retailer because it didn't carry a product you wanted is a bit ridiculous.

I don't find esophageal cancer funny and if you thought I was making fun of you, for that I apologize to you. I have acid reflux, have for years and I know that it sucks. That said, my point again was that there is a big difference between reflux and pregnancy. Saying abortion doesn't come under health care if the woman just doesn't want to take "responsibility" baffles me. That seems more like a moral judgement than common sense.

I feel a pharmacy should stock as much stuff as possible. When I run out of insulin, I want my pharm to have more to sell to me. I don't expect to hear "well you should have taken responsibility and had an extra bottle on hand." Or "if you'd lose weight, you wouldn't have diabetes so I don't want to carry insulin when it's your own fault." By refusing to stock the termination pill, pharms are effectively saying "WE don't believe in abortion so YOU can't buy that here." This is a pharmacy not a fruitstand. I'm all for going to another fruitstand if they're out of apples but I do not think a pharmacy has a right to refuse to carry this product.

Supposing in that 5 day conception period, she hasn't become pregnant YET. If she takes Plan B, all it will do is trigger her monthly cycle. That's not causing an abortion. I could liken this to refusing to sell condoms because they prevent pregnancy and if you're going to have sex you should take responsibility. Now before you point out that that would be preventing a pregnancy and not terminating one, keep in mind you don't know if that woman is pregnant yet, so why not give her the dang pill and the benefit of the doubt?

I do understand what you are saying regarding a store not having to sell something. I would agree in most cases. But in the case of a druggist refusing to stock Plan B, I liken that to working in a meat packing plant and refusing to package the product because you are a vegetarian.