Anti-Choice's newest weapon: Pharmacies.

[Zac Naloen]

She asked her obstetricians when she could terminate. The head of the practice replied, “We call that murder.” Another doctor in the practice was willing to induce, but, Audrey says, warned her “she couldn’t prevent a nurse from running into the OR with life support. The idea of holding a baby as its organs failed — we couldn’t think of anything worse.”

Yeh, cos it's so much better when it happens during actual labour

It's going to happen either way, so what's the point in continuing pregnancy?

[CaptainZoidberg]

What makes you think they aren't controlling it and using the rest as pawns, exactly? Your cutting insight which caused you to fully drink the kool-aid and accuse the other side of being 'Free and consequence free abortions'?

That's exactly my point. If the radical Pro-Life people are just using "Save babies" as a way of controlling their moderate Pro-Life pawns in a broader fight against birth control, then my point still stands. For the majority of Pro-Life persons, it's not about controlling sex, it's about protecting what they perceive as a person (of course if someone is trying to sell an anti - morning after pill agenda as Pro-Choice then they are indeed only concerned about controlling sex).

However the majority of Americans who believe that abortion laws should be more restricted than today usually do not oppose the birth control or the morning after pill. A Gallup poll conducted in May 2008 shows that 71% of Americans believe that abortion should not be legal under all circumstances, yet according to Naral Pro Choice America less than 19% of Americans oppose birth control as a way of reducing abortion. Your assertion that it's all about preventing sex and birth control runs directly counter to the evidence from polls.

Total and utter bullshit. That's called 'Lying'.

Even if the people creating that website were lying about their real motives, the fact remains that ALL knew that talking about "Saving babies" and not controlling sex was the best way to appeal to their audience.

[SirNitram]

What makes you think they aren't controlling it and using the rest as pawns, exactly? Your cutting insight which caused you to fully drink the kool-aid and accuse the other side of being 'Free and consequence free abortions'?

That's exactly my point. If the radical Pro-Life people are just using "Save babies" as a way of controlling their moderate Pro-Life pawns in a broader fight against birth control, then my point still stands. For the majority of Pro-Life persons, it's not about controlling sex, it's about protecting what they perceive as a person (of course if someone is trying to sell an anti - morning after pill agenda as Pro-Choice then they are indeed only concerned about controlling sex).

And your proof they are the majority would be what, precisely?

However the majority of Americans who believe that abortion laws should be more restricted than today usually do not oppose the birth control or the morning after pill. A Gallup poll conducted in May 2008 shows that 71% of Americans believe that abortion should not be legal under all circumstances, yet according to Naral Pro Choice America less than 19% of Americans oppose birth control as a way of reducing abortion. Your assertion that it's all about preventing sex and birth control runs directly counter to the evidence from polls.

So because a long-running attempt has been successful and a newly started offensive is not equally successful, you defeat all evidence. You're a fucking looney.

Total and utter bullshit. That's called 'Lying'.

Even if the people creating that website were lying about their real motives, the fact remains that ALL knew that talking about "Saving babies" and not controlling sex was the best way to appeal to their audience.

Yes, it's called manipulation of idiots like you. You just walk around proclaiming that because the effort against contraception is not yet as successful as the decades long war on abortion, it must be bollocks. You provide no proof to your statements, you just merrily drink down the lies fed to you. You even pretend the other side actually says 'Abortions with no cost or consequences'.

[Plekhanov]

CaptainZoidberg how many 'pro-life' groups can you name that advocate decent sex-ed and increasing access to contraception?

I've been involved in the pro-choice movement for several years now in the UK and so far every single 'pro-life' group I've encountered has been anti-contraception, why is that do you think?

[Graeme Dice]

That's exactly my point. If the radical Pro-Life people are just using "Save babies" as a way of controlling their moderate Pro-Life pawns in a broader fight against birth control, then my point still stands. For the majority of Pro-Life persons, it's not about controlling sex, it's about protecting what they perceive as a person (of course if someone is trying to sell an anti - morning after pill agenda as Pro-Choice then they are indeed only concerned about controlling sex).

You're a fool if you think that the anti-abortion movement is truly concerned about protecting persons. If they were truly motivated by such a concern, then they wouldn't be make an exception for rape victims. After all, according to their beliefs the fetus in a rape victim is still a person. Their hypocrisy is quickly laid bare as almost all do make such an exception, You can easily identify the true misogynists by their sudden insistence that all pregnancies must be carried to term once you point this out.

[CaptainZoidberg]

So because a long-running attempt has been successful and a newly started offensive is not equally successful, you defeat all evidence. You're a fucking looney.

Originally your argument was that Pro-Life was all about controlling sex, and not at all about protecting what they perceive as people. The notion that I don't agree with is that "It's all about controlling sex", not that the idea that there exists a fundamentalist anti - birth control movement.

Yes, it's called manipulation of idiots like you. You just walk around proclaiming that because the effort against contraception is not yet as successful as the decades long war on abortion, it must be bollocks.

Where did I claim that the war on contraception is bollocks? I only claimed that most Pro-Life people aren't motivated to take the Pro-Life stance because they hold an anti - birth control stance.

You provide no proof to your statements, you just merrily drink down the lies fed to you. You even pretend the other side actually says 'Abortions with no cost or consequences'.

Where did I say that?

[Cairber]

I think the constant resistance by the prolifers to legislation to support children after birth is more evidence that their movement is highly influenced by controlling sex and not, as they claim, about saving babies/children.

[SirNitram]

So because a long-running attempt has been successful and a newly started offensive is not equally successful, you defeat all evidence. You're a fucking looney.

Originally your argument was that Pro-Life was all about controlling sex, and not at all about protecting what they perceive as people. The notion that I don't agree with is that "It's all about controlling sex", not that the idea that there exists a fundamentalist anti - birth control movement.

Yet, for all your blubbering and now changing of subject, you can't come up with effective counterarguments beyond 'They don't explicitly say they're about controlling sex'. That's the core of your abject failure here.

Yes, it's called manipulation of idiots like you. You just walk around proclaiming that because the effort against contraception is not yet as successful as the decades long war on abortion, it must be bollocks.

Where did I claim that the war on contraception is bollocks? I only claimed that most Pro-Life people aren't motivated to take the Pro-Life stance because they hold an anti - birth control stance.

Will you provide evidence that those that self-identify as Pro Life don't hold that, and they are the majority?

You provide no proof to your statements, you just merrily drink down the lies fed to you. You even pretend the other side actually says 'Abortions with no cost or consequences'.

Where did I say that?

When one extreme is "Abortion is murder, ban all abortion", and the other extreme is "Abortion should be free and legal", the golden mean is "Ban some abortions",

Where has anyone said that abortion should be free, IE, no consequences, no monetary cost? No, wait, I know. You got that from your bullshit you get fed by the anti-choicers.

[The Yosemite Bear]

mind you I recall them trying to stop people from getting Testicular, prostate, mamagram and pap smear exams too. the idea, keep the population ignorant, poor, and unhealthy.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Yet, for all your blubbering and now changing of subject, you can't come up with effective counterarguments beyond 'They don't explicitly say they're about controlling sex'. That's the core of your abject failure here.

My argument is that they attract new members with appeals not related to controlling sex, and that on polls only a small minority of those who believe in at least some legal restrictions on abortion oppose birth control.

Will you provide evidence that those that self-identify as Pro Life don't hold that, and they are the majority?

I already linked to the Gallup and Naral polls showing that most people who support some restriction of abortion support birth control as an alternative to abortion.

When one extreme is "Abortion is murder, ban all abortion", and the other extreme is "Abortion should be free and legal", the golden mean is "Ban some abortions",

Where has anyone said that abortion should be free, IE, no consequences, no monetary cost? No, wait, I know. You got that from your bullshit you get fed by the anti-choicers.

Free as in "Free Speech", not free as in "Free beer".

[Mayabird]

Yet, for all your blubbering and now changing of subject, you can't come up with effective counterarguments beyond 'They don't explicitly say they're about controlling sex'. That's the core of your abject failure here.

My argument is that they attract new members with appeals not related to controlling sex, and that on polls only a small minority of those who believe in at least some legal restrictions on abortion oppose birth control.

Will you provide evidence that those that self-identify as Pro Life don't hold that, and they are the majority?

I already linked to the Gallup and Naral polls showing that most people who support some restriction of abortion support birth control as an alternative to abortion.

When one extreme is "Abortion is murder, ban all abortion", and the other extreme is "Abortion should be free and legal", the golden mean is "Ban some abortions",

Where has anyone said that abortion should be free, IE, no consequences, no monetary cost? No, wait, I know. You got that from your bullshit you get fed by the anti-choicers.

Free as in "Free Speech", not free as in "Free beer".

Have you ever heard of the Wedge Strategy by any chance? It's used by creationists in whatever new mutation of their beliefs they try to force down, intelligent design, irreducible-complexity, teach-the-controversy, whatever that new crap is about pros and cons or something. The idea is that once you get that first step in, you can wedge in more and more crap until you reach your ultimate goal: for instance, the dismantlement of the public education system into a religious indoctrination system.

There is also a wedge strategy for sexuality. The wedges here are abortion and birth control methods they can convince stupid people are also abortion. The ultimate goal is to control women's sexuality by banning contraceptives, period. It's not something that's widely advertised. Many of the sheep and peons and in the movements don't realize that it's the end goal, and if they heard it as a shock, they might turn against the movement, but if it's introduced slowly, measure by measure, piece by piece driving in the wedge, they'll go along to the very end.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Have you ever heard of the Wedge Strategy by any chance? It's used by creationists in whatever new mutation of their beliefs they try to force down, intelligent design, irreducible-complexity, teach-the-controversy, whatever that new crap is about pros and cons or something. The idea is that once you get that first step in, you can wedge in more and more crap until you reach your ultimate goal: for instance, the dismantlement of the public education system into a religious indoctrination system.

Well by current polls most people wouldn't support the final pushes of such a wedge strategy for abortion.

There is also a wedge strategy for sexuality. The wedges here are abortion and birth control methods they can convince stupid people are also abortion. The ultimate goal is to control women's sexuality by banning contraceptives, period. It's not something that's widely advertised. Many of the sheep and peons and in the movements don't realize that it's the end goal, and if they heard it as a shock, they might turn against the movement, but if it's introduced slowly, measure by measure, piece by piece driving in the wedge, they'll go along to the very end.

I'm quite aware that many of them are using that wedge tactic, however that doesn't change the fact that most Pro-lifers don't have anything against birth control.

But frankly I don't see this wedge tactic working. The "stem cell is a unique person" argument isn't particularly strong, but it's nowhere near the sheer and utter stupidity of the "Sperm/Egg Cell is a unique person" argument that one must accept in order to view the morning after pill or the condom as Anti-Life.

[Plekhanov]

I'm quite aware that many of them are using that wedge tactic, however that doesn't change the fact that most Pro-lifers don't have anything against birth control.

So can you point us in the direction of some moderate 'Pro-life' groups that don't oppose sex ed and wide availability of contraception?

After all if as you claim 'most Pro-lifers don't have anything against birth control' surely atleast some 'pro-life' groups should reflect this.

[SirNitram]

Yet, for all your blubbering and now changing of subject, you can't come up with effective counterarguments beyond 'They don't explicitly say they're about controlling sex'. That's the core of your abject failure here.

My argument is that they attract new members with appeals not related to controlling sex, and that on polls only a small minority of those who believe in at least some legal restrictions on abortion oppose birth control.

Yes, yes, they dupe new people in with one message, nevermind that the agenda is written on the wall for anyone whose not steadily chugging down the propaganda and believing it all and never, ever providing a shred for their claims.

Will you provide evidence that those that self-identify as Pro Life don't hold that, and they are the majority?

I already linked to the Gallup and Naral polls showing that most people who support some restriction of abortion support birth control as an alternative to abortion.

That isn't what I asked. Learn to read.

When one extreme is "Abortion is murder, ban all abortion", and the other extreme is "Abortion should be free and legal", the golden mean is "Ban some abortions",

Where has anyone said that abortion should be free, IE, no consequences, no monetary cost? No, wait, I know. You got that from your bullshit you get fed by the anti-choicers.

Free as in "Free Speech", not free as in "Free beer".

Oh cute. Now we're moving into semantics.

Are you ever going to give a real reason why we should disregard their agenda beyond 'That's not what they tell me or new recruits'? I mean, it's not like JW's tell they'll brainwash you.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Yes, yes, they dupe new people in with one message, nevermind that the agenda is written on the wall for anyone whose not steadily chugging down the propaganda and believing it all and never, ever providing a shred for their claims.

Are you listening to what I'm saying? Even if some Pro-Life people have the radical agenda which you've described, the majority of the persons who oppose some form of restriction on abortion do not share that viewpoint.

That isn't what I asked. Learn to read.

That's exactly what you asked.

Oh cute. Now we're moving into semantics.

I said that Pro-Choice people support free access to abortion. You interpreted free as meaning "with no cost", but when I said free I meant "Without legal restriction".

Are you ever going to give a real reason why we should disregard their agenda beyond 'That's not what they tell me or new recruits'?

When have I said that we should disregard "their" agenda? All I have said is that the agenda you describe is not shared by the majority of the movement.

I mean, it's not like JW's tell they'll brainwash you.

Have you ever read Watchtower? Their main appeal is always "The world will end".

[SirNitram]

Yes, yes, they dupe new people in with one message, nevermind that the agenda is written on the wall for anyone whose not steadily chugging down the propaganda and believing it all and never, ever providing a shred for their claims.

Are you listening to what I'm saying? Even if some Pro-Life people have the radical agenda which you've described, the majority of the persons who oppose some form of restriction on abortion do not share that viewpoint.

So we should ignore those who fund, control, and guide this movement because they're the minority, fuckwad? And again, you evade the request....

That isn't what I asked. Learn to read.

That's exactly what you asked.

It's little surprise you snipped out anything previous. Here is what was actually asked:

Will you provide evidence that those that self-identify as Pro Life don't hold that, and they are the majority?

Here is what you said:

I already linked to the Gallup and Naral polls showing that most people who support some restriction of abortion support birth control as an alternative to abortion.

You are now black-white fallacying anyone who supports any restriction on abortion(Like no third trimester ones, which include me), into a self-identifying Pro-Lifer. You are lying. You are dishonest. Stop.

Oh cute. Now we're moving into semantics.

I said that Pro-Choice people support free access to abortion. You interpreted free as meaning "with no cost", but when I said free I meant "Without legal restriction".

Which is also not the widely advocated position due to third trimester ethical concerns based on facts. Even pro-choicers are against those, or most are. But you pretend the two extremes are equal, thus making you a liar once again.

Are you ever going to give a real reason why we should disregard their agenda beyond 'That's not what they tell me or new recruits'?

When have I said that we should disregard "their" agenda? All I have said is that the agenda you describe is not shared by the majority of the movement.

Your continual repetition of this point in the face of the proof this is what it's about would make it seem like you want to disregard it, or you'd not be screeching so loudly and so dishonestly.

I mean, it's not like JW's tell they'll brainwash you.

Have you ever read Watchtower? Their main appeal is always "The world will end".

And they don't mention the brainwashing. Because yes, I have read Watchtower, you dumb cunt. You once again fail to respond to what is actually said, and make up something you think is easier to counter.

You're a lying little troll. Why don't you answer some of those who keep pushing you to prove your claims? Or any of my actual requests, instead of requests you think will pass because you're an idiot?

[SirNitram]

While Zoidberg continues to rail against the idea it's about exactly what it has been about since probably the Renaissance, here's some reminders of things happening in the same venue:

From the same WaPo article:

Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions.

If you require an ambulance to get to your abortion, chances are it's fairly important and probably life-threatening. Sound like 'Saving babies' to you?

Anesthesiologists have refused to assist in sterilizations.

In the most infection-prone place in the world, hospitals, no sterilization! Of course, infections of the area in question for this procedure can render you sterile... 'Saving babies'? Nope! Punish the slut-whore!

From WaPo two years ago, a reminder of how this even applies to rape..

For example, on the issue of whether Catholic hospitals should be forced to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims, ... Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, on the other hand, recently opined, in response to a question on the subject, that in Connecticut it's only a "short ride" to another hospital.

Saving rapists babies, well, that might be what Zoidberg meant.

[Patrick Degan]

If the radical Pro-Life people are just using "Save babies" as a way of controlling their moderate Pro-Life pawns in a broader fight against birth control, then my point still stands. For the majority of Pro-Life persons, it's not about controlling sex, it's about protecting what they perceive as a person (of course if someone is trying to sell an anti - morning after pill agenda as Pro-Choice then they are indeed only concerned about controlling sex).

Even if the people creating that website were lying about their real motives, the fact remains that ALL knew that talking about "Saving babies" and not controlling sex was the best way to appeal to their audience.

Who fucking cares what the pawns believe? It's what the leadership of the movement are after. If they're lying about the true objectives, then that only sustains the point that sexual control is the purpose of the exercise. You have no argument.

[Superboy]

I hate to say anything that resembles a defense of social conservatives, but people here are talking like this pharmacy has a moral responsibility to provide all medications. Why is this? I mean, these are private companies, right?

Would it be morally wrong for someone to open up a "heart pharmacy" that carries only heart medications? I mean, it'd be stupid as fuck, but would you guys be as outraged?

These pharmacies aren't actually hurting anyone, right?

[SirNitram]

I hate to say anything that resembles a defense of social conservatives, but people here are talking like this pharmacy has a moral responsibility to provide all medications. Why is this? I mean, these are private companies, right?

Would it be morally wrong for someone to open up a "heart pharmacy" that carries only heart medications? I mean, it'd be stupid as fuck, but would you guys be as outraged?

These pharmacies aren't actually hurting anyone, right?

Re-read the bit in this thread talking about liscencing. You don't actually get to choose not to stock medications you don't like. You can refuse to stock other stuff, but medications is more tightly controlled legally.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I hate to say anything that resembles a defense of social conservatives, but people here are talking like this pharmacy has a moral responsibility to provide all medications. Why is this? I mean, these are private companies, right?

Would it be morally wrong for someone to open up a "heart pharmacy" that carries only heart medications? I mean, it'd be stupid as fuck, but would you guys be as outraged?

These pharmacies aren't actually hurting anyone, right?

It's all well and good until your hypothetical cardiology pharmacy turns out to be the only one in town. Anyone else is fucked. Now imagine the pharmacy simply doesn't do contraceptives or prophylactics. Now it's people who don't want or cannot afford to have kids who are fucked.

Worse, this situation tends not to be in a vacuum, but can be mitigated or aggravated by, say, comprehensiveness of sex education. Consider that the same people who would stop a pharmacy from dispensing the contraceptives and prophylactics would also deliberately sabotage sex ed into abstinence-only, and you have a recipe for huge problems like unsustainably high birth rate and massive STD infection rates. Both of these combine to keep the town in extreme poverty by asking its resources to be divided amongst more people than would be optimal, run up medical bills that could have been avoided, cause lost productivity and missed workdays, and create unnecessarily higher stress levels in the populace. I can't imagine it would be anything but detrimental to the town's tax revenue, either, with the obvious implications and repercussions that ensue.

I will only briefly mention that these effects usually form synergistic positive feedback loops which can rapidly amplify and go asymptotic if left unchecked by proper education and health care. All this because some stupid bloody-minded fundie wanted sex to be as difficult, dangerous, dirty, and consequential as possible in some quixotic moralistic crusade against our own biology.

[Superboy]

Re-read the bit in this thread talking about liscencing. You don't actually get to choose not to stock medications you don't like. You can refuse to stock other stuff, but medications is more tightly controlled legally.

Wait, are there currently restrictions like that in place for geting a pharmacutical license? I agree that, ideally, there should be, but I was under the impression that no such regulations exist yet.

It's all well and good until your hypothetical cardiology pharmacy turns out to be the only one in town. Anyone else is fucked. Now imagine the pharmacy simply doesn't do contraceptives or prophylactics. Now it's people who don't want or cannot afford to have kids who are fucked.

I suppose I'm looking at it from the point of view that those people would be just as fucked if the pharmacy didn't exist. There were comments about how a pharmacist should go into a different profession if he doesn't want to provide all meds, but if he did that than even those who need heart meds would be fucked.

If some right-wing fundy nutjob opens up a pharmacy that doesn't provide contraceptives, he's still providing some service to the community by giving easier access to medicine for the ill.

[Knife]

I hate to say anything that resembles a defense of social conservatives, but people here are talking like this pharmacy has a moral responsibility to provide all medications. Why is this? I mean, these are private companies, right?

Would it be morally wrong for someone to open up a "heart pharmacy" that carries only heart medications? I mean, it'd be stupid as fuck, but would you guys be as outraged?

These pharmacies aren't actually hurting anyone, right?

If the owners of a store just don't sell a certain product...sure. It's up to them and a business decision. If a pharmacist who is just an employee at a pharmacy has a doctors order to fill a particular med, whether OTC or prescription, and doesn't; he/she is in the wrong line of business and is working against all professional ethics of his/her line of work.

A pharmacist can balk at giving a med if that med is a danger to their patient and the prescribing Doc fucked up somewhere, but he/she has no ethical or moral duty to refuse to give a med to a patient based on personal opinions. If you don't want to fill birth control scrips or sell condoms OTC, find another job.

[Keevan_Colton]

How about a store that only serves white customers? They're not actively hurting anyone, it's a business decision...after all, people that they dont provide a service for can just use the free market and go else where...

There are rules regulating what a business owner can and cannot chose to do if they're running a business of a particular type. If you want to run a pharmacy you have to follow the rules for a pharmacy. Those rules should include providing all the functions of a pharmacy...ie, filling all legal prescriptions and carrying the full range of medication.

[Darth Wong]

The people who defend this practice don't seem to recognize that the medical industry is not just a for-profit commercial enterprise; it is an essential public service. Once one recognizes this obvious fact, the absurdity of ...

Oops, I forgot that we're talking about America.