Anti-Choice's newest weapon: Pharmacies.

[CaptainZoidberg]

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

Ignore? Who said that? I'm only saying that the Pro-Life movement is not about controlling in so far as the majority of its constituents are concerned.

The minority that is just using abortion as a wedge to ban birth control? Those people are terrible, and should be stopped. They're. But my point is that they are a small minority (even if we assume that everyone who opposes birth control and also opposes abortion only opposes abortion as a wedge to ban birth control).

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.

If you support any restriction on abortion due to the life and personhood of the fetus that reduces the rights of the mother with respect to her own body, then you are to at least some extent Pro-Life, and not fully Pro-Choice. By your own logic, you are really only interested in controlling sex when you oppose third trimester abortions, and the whole thing is just a wedge tactic you're using so that you can ban all abortions.

Whether someone self-identities as Pro-Life on the abortion issue is far less important than what position they actually hold, the same way it's more important if you believe Jesus is divine or not, then if you actually self-identify as a Christian. By doing that, we're reducing the error from cultural bias.

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.

I have never pretended such a thing. When I cited the Gallup poll, I told you that I was showing people who supported any restriction on abortion, i.e, anyone who holds a partially Pro-Life view.

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've only had to repeat it because you've never seemed to get it.

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.

Right, but they show what their actual position is, which is what's relevant to this debate. Of course they don't show what their tactics/techniques are, but they disclose their position.

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?

I've already supported my claims. And the request you made was meaningless in the context of the issue being debated.

Also, if you're going to keep calling me a liar I'd like you to back it up. Presumably, you're angry about me looking at people who support "Some restrictions on abortion" as partly Pro-Life. Simply put, if someone supports at least partial reduction of a woman's right to choose then that person at least partially supports the Pro-Life movement. Given that my constructive is that those with Pro-Life stances are not just trying to get rid of birth control, then my evidence supports my constructive and no lying has been committed.

[SirNitram]

You are now redefining 'Pro-Life' to support your own bullshit claims and avoid a clearly worded request for data which you refused or were too fucking stupid to provide. On top of this, you continue to dodge the central issues I raise, pretending that the public face of religious extremists is their 'actual position' and things like brainwashing and the like are simply 'techniques'.

You're a liar. I'm not upset that you label me pro-life.. I'm very pro-life, I like saving lives of actual people, not half-formed masses of cells. I support stem-cell research, genemodding and therapy, and other methods that will extend and support life.

You, however, are lying by attempting to redefine everything to your preferred meaning, because your preferred meaning lets you pretend your position is anything less than laughable bullshit.

[Darth Wong]

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.

That's a good point. Interestingly enough, he chose not to answer it. But it remains true: the majority of so-called "pro-lifers" would make an exception for rape victims, thus demolishing their claim that it's all about protecting the unborn. It's actually about punishing sluts.

[CaptainZoidberg]

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

I agree. If someone claims to be Pro-Life and brings up the morning after pill or rape exceptions than they clearly are only using abortion as a wedge tactic to reduce birth control and reproductive choice.

You can easily identify the true misogynists by their sudden insistence that all pregnancies must be carried to term once you point this out.

I think the true misogynist would be the person who still insists on an exception for rape, even after you point out how silly their position is.

[Braedley]

The most common, widely publicized conflicts have involved pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, morning-after pills and other forms of contraception. They say they believe that such methods can cause what amounts to an abortion and that the contraceptives promote promiscuity, divorce, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and other societal woes. The result has been confrontations that have left women traumatized and resulted in pharmacists being fired, fined or reprimanded.

No, refusing to supply contraception doesn't stop the spread of STDs, the use of condoms stops the spread of STDs! Not only are they helping to promote teen pregnancy (because we all know abstinence only programs don't work), but they're also helping to promote the spread of something they claim to want to stop.

That's my couple of pennies.

[sketerpot]

Some people seem to have a problem with the idea that pharmacies should have to supply contraceptives even if their owners object. So let's walk through this:

Goal: ensure that all citizens have access to important things like contraception. There are damn good public health and quality of life reasons for this.

Method 1: have the government run pharmacies that will make all that stuff available. This will accomplish the goal, but the amount of government interference is a little heavy-handed. So let's go with something more lightweight and market-oriented:

Method 2: just make private pharmacies supply contraceptives and other essential medication. The government is already regulating them to make sure they don't just give you sugar pills or something, so the increase in government intervention is minimal.

If you have a better way to make sure everybody can get contraception (etc.) in their area, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, can we just accept this bit of government interference in the way pharmacies decide to conduct their business?

[General Zod]

If you have a better way to make sure everybody can get contraception (etc.) in their area, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, can we just accept this bit of government interference in the way pharmacies decide to conduct their business?

Unfortunately you'll have to convince the free-market wankers and lolbertarians. They're going to be the biggest opponents of any sort of government regulation of pharmacies, whether or not it actually makes sense to do it.

[PeZook]

Think about the issue this way: What if tomorrow, Christians get a wacky idea that only prayer healing of infections should be allowed and antibiotics are ungodly and evil? Would people still use the "but a pharmacy is a private business!" excuse?

[CaptainZoidberg]

If you have a better way to make sure everybody can get contraception (etc.) in their area, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, can we just accept this bit of government interference in the way pharmacies decide to conduct their business?

Make schools, libraries, and other public offices stock and distribute condoms.

As for pharmacies, if the government doesn't force pharmacies to stock contraceptives, they could force them to publicly display the addresses and phone numbers of nearby pharmacies that do carry the drugs.

[General Zod]

Make schools, libraries, and other public offices stock and distribute condoms.

Why the fuck should people have to go to somewhere other than a pharmacy for contraceptives?

As for pharmacies, if the government doesn't force pharmacies to stock contraceptives, they could force them to publicly display the addresses and phone numbers of nearby pharmacies that do carry the drugs.

What makes you think every town is going to have more than one pharmacy within a reasonable distance?

[CaptainZoidberg]

Why the fuck should people have to go to somewhere other than a pharmacy for contraceptives?

They shouldn't, but if pharmacies aren't going to stock them then the government ought to provide them through alternative channels.

What makes you think every town is going to have more than one pharmacy within a reasonable distance?

If you live in a town small enough to have only own pharmacy, you probably own a car.

In any case, if the person has a phone and a credit card then they could always order by mail, or online.

[SirNitram]

Why should the government not simply require the pharmacies to actually stock such things? I mean, do we liscense pharmacies for giggles now?

[General Zod]

>snip horseshit<

This is some of the most retarded drivel I've heard in awhile. What the fuck is wrong with simply having the government require the pharmacy to provide contraceptives?

[CaptainZoidberg]

This is some of the most retarded drivel I've heard in awhile. What the fuck is wrong with simply having the government require the pharmacy to provide contraceptives?

Nothing, and I never implied that we shouldn't just require them to stock pharmacies. I merely provided things that we could do should we choose not to require pharmacies to stock contraceptives.

[Darth Wong]

This is some of the most retarded drivel I've heard in awhile. What the fuck is wrong with simply having the government require the pharmacy to provide contraceptives?

Nothing, and I never implied that we shouldn't just require them to stock pharmacies. I merely provided things that we could do should we choose not to require pharmacies to stock contraceptives.

Wrong. You were challenged to provide a "better way" than simply force pharmacies to do it, and you answered with that stupidity about offering them in government buildings. You claimed it was a BETTER way, liar. Don't change your argument after the fact.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Think about the issue this way: What if tomorrow, Christians get a wacky idea that only prayer healing of infections should be allowed and antibiotics are ungodly and evil? Would people still use the "but a pharmacy is a private business!" excuse?

I'd think they'd get prosecuted for negligent homicide; click for the evidence.

The 'OH N0ES PRIVT BZNS!1' excuse is just another way of saying "The Corporation Shalt Be Above Man's Law" insofar that its rights to political expression supercede an individual person's right to life or health. In short, just another form of Calvinism.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Wrong. You were challenged to provide a "better way" than simply force pharmacies to do it, and you answered with that stupidity about offering them in government buildings. You claimed it was a BETTER way, liar. Don't change your argument after the fact.

Well, actually better was in the context of one of the two methods (forcing pharmacies to do it was the second method) he proposed:

Method 1: have the government run pharmacies that will make all that stuff available. This will accomplish the goal, but the amount of government interference is a little heavy-handed. So let's go with something more lightweight and market-oriented:

Method 2: just make private pharmacies supply contraceptives and other essential medication. The government is already regulating them to make sure they don't just give you sugar pills or something, so the increase in government intervention is minimal.

So the notion of requiring distribution of contraceptives at existing government offices and services was proposed as being better than establishing entirely new government run pharmacies.

But nevertheless I think that simply requiring pharmacies to carry a series of critical drugs and requiring schools/libraries to stock simple contraceptives like condoms is the best plan.

[Kanastrous]

Zoidberg, maybe you clarified this pages back and I missed it, but are you operating from the position that pharmacists should have a protected right to pick and choose prescriptions to fill, based upon their personal morality?

Because no argument regarding alternate solutions is worth the time it takes to frame it, unless your start from the point that pharmacists are entitled to refuse to do their jobs and that alternatives are therefore necessary.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Zoidberg, maybe you clarified this pages back and I missed it, but are you operating from the position that pharmacists should have a protected right to pick and choose prescriptions to fill, based upon their personal morality?

No, I don't they should be able to do that.

Because no argument regarding alternate solutions is worth the time it takes to frame it, unless your start from the point that pharmacists are entitled to refuse to do their jobs and that alternatives are therefore necessary.

That's probably quite true.