Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[Suudy]

Yes, the rights of the woman are paramount.

Well, there it is. The woman’s rights are more important than another’s right to life. When there is such a clear case of moral ignorance, I don’t know how to argue this case any further.

Well, I guess this exchange is now about the lurkers. Perhaps someone else, who has the innate moral knowledge that most of us has, will read this discussion and learn something.

You’re talking about " the standards by which we evaluate all other behavior" in accordance to the teachings of the Church. This is not a universal teaching, otherwise, all religions and all cultures would agree with the Church.

It is universal in the application of law within the United States, which has been a foundation of much of your argument. Recklessness and negligence are prosecutable offenses in the United States. Why only in the case of rape are the standards recklessness and negligence ignored?

By the way, all religions and cultures in all time have condemned murder. And nearly all religions and cultures in all time have condemned or strongly opposed manslaughter. This isn’t a religious argument. It is a moral, ethical, and legal one.

And of course in the case of rape, a woman’s right to avoid a pregnancy is distinctly different. If it wasn’t, even the Bishops wouldn’t have made it distinct, but they did. They acknowledge that a rape victim has the right to protect herself from a forced pregnancy. There is no “unitive” property to protect in the case of rape.

I can’t seem to emphasize this enough. You do not seem to understand the nature of reckless or negligent acts. The Bishops only state it is permissible, not that it is mandatory. The entire point of this thread and the entire point of my discussion is that individual caregivers should be permitted to exercise their professional, prudential judgment on the administration of Plan B. For Catholics, if “there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization”. Not “shall” be treated and not “shall be made available”.

But note also the preamble that the Bishops placed before that statement I quoted above. “If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence…” You have been suggesting that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists be required to administer Plan B even in the absence of “appropriate testing”. This is not supported by your quotes by the Bishops or Fr Williams. Indeed, the requirement you are in support of is opposed by the Pope!

I guess I’m not being clear enough. Let me put it one simple sentence:Caregivers should not be required, by law, to administer Plan B in any circumstance that in the professional, prudential opinion may put a potentially conceived unborn child in danger.
That’s the gist of it. Your objection to this above is not grounded in any of the quotes from the Bishop or Fr Williams.

If the state of ovulation is unknown, there are no parties that “have the moral knowledge and conviction”. They are just guessing, at the expense of a rape victim. Laws need to protect the patient as well.

You appear to have misunderstood me. The “moral knowledge and conviction” I’m talking about is not with regard to the state of ovulation, but with regard to the nature of reckless and negligent acts. And if “[t]hey are just guessing”, that is no different than a caregiver “just guessing” that conception has not occurred. The difference is in the potential evil that comes out of a bad guess.

Let’s talk about what might come out of a bad guess. Which of these is the greater evil? In all of them, the state of ovulation is unknown.

1. 
   *]The caregiver guesses that ovulation has occurred, and is wrong.
   *]The caregiver guesses that ovulation has occurred, and is right.
   *]The caregiver guesses that ovulation has not occurred, and is wrong.
   *]The caregiver guesses that ovulation has not occurred, and is right.
   
   Now, what, in each of these cases, is potential outcome of the administration of Plan B? Only in #1 and #4 would Plan B pose no risk of an abortion. In #2 and #3, conception could occur, and Plan B could lead to an abortion.
   
   Now, what, in each of these cases, is the potential outcome of the refusal to administer Plan B? In #1 and #4, there is negligible risk of pregnancy. In #2 and #3, there is risk of pregnancy.
   
   Now, which is the greater evil? A pregnancy or an abortion? Based upon your response at the beginning, I suspect you think the former.
   

   The Bishops can agree with whomever they like, because they only control those people who give the Bishops authority over them. Thankfully, the Bishops don’t make the laws. They only “govern” Catholics.

   You brought up the Bishops, Fr Williams, and the Church to defend your arguments. Only after they were admitted into evidence, so to speak, did I use them. And we find that they teach something different than what you are advocating.

 

[Suudy]

Actually, no, Father Williams did say that Plan B is permissible if there is uncertainty – at all. He said just the opposite here: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

Your quote doesn’t disprove what I said. I said “[o]nly if there is reasonable doubt”, which is the exact phrase he used. Reasonable doubt is very different than uncertainty. It is more than uncertainty. Indeed, let’s look at the legal definition: The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
Fr Williams’ two extremes are “reasonable doubt” and “certainty”. And he only discusses the extremes. The area between is wide, and is the entire point of my discuss here with you. Medical caregivers should be permitted to exercise their professional, prudential judgment as to where on this scale from “reasonable doubt” to “certainty” the knowledge of ovulation occurred, and decide whether to administer Plan B. You want to take that decision out of the very people that are best equipped to make that determination.

In real life, that nurse should have no trouble finding someone to administer the medication for her. However, if there is a rare chance that she can’t find someone else, then she has to do it, or she risks her job, and I agree with that.

So do I. I think an employer is perfectly within their rights to fire an employee who refuses to do their job. However, Illinois in OP (and you elsewhere in this thread) want to make it a legal requirement, with legal sanctions, for those who refuse to participate in Plan B. This is where I disagree.

Someone has to administer the medication as ordered, and it’s her job to do it if someone else can’t do her job for her. But again, she should be able to find someone to do it.

“Someone has to administer the medication as ordered” only insofar as it is the hospital or clinic’s policy. That “has to administer” should no be a legal requirement (emphasis mine).

“reasonable doubt” that ovulation has taken place is an uncertainty, that means, when it is unsure.

It is much more than that. It isn’t just a shrug, grunt, and “I dunno”. It’s a reasonable doubt. For example, in a hospital or clinic that doesn’t have the testing apparatus, and the patient’s menstrual history is unknown or uncertain, one cannot–by definition–reach the standard of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires reasons for doubt.

Only because this is a Catholic forum. No other reason. In the real world, it really doesn’t matter what the Bishops say, unless, as I mentioned above, the Bishops are saying it to Catholics who give the Bishops authority over them.

If they had no authority, you shouldn’t have tried to use them as such. So, drop the attempt to rationalize your position from a Catholic standpoint (which I think is impossible to do), and let’s focus instead on the moral, ethical, and legal aspects.

 

[Rence]

Fr Williams’ two extremes are “reasonable doubt” and “certainty”. And he only discusses the extremes. The area between is wide, and is the entire point of my discuss here with you. Medical caregivers should be permitted to exercise their professional, prudential judgment as to where on this scale from “reasonable doubt” to “certainty” the knowledge of ovulation occurred, and decide whether to administer Plan B. You want to take that decision out of the very people that are best equipped to make that determination.

Yes, nurse and pharmacists shouldn’t have the authority to override what a patient says about the functions of their own body. If the woman who has been raped has reasonable doubt that she was in danger of conceiving at that time, the nurse or pharmacist should not (and don’t) have the authority to contradict her because they are afraid to take a risk (with another person’s body yet). I agree with the law. They should never have this kind of authority over a patient’s welfare.

So do I. I think an employer is perfectly within their rights to fire an employee who refuses to do their job. However, Illinois in OP (and you elsewhere in this thread) want to make it a legal requirement, with legal sanctions, for those who refuse to participate in Plan B. This is where I disagree.

If they can’t do the job, they don’t need the license that shows they can do the job - or they will leave a trail of unfilled orders on their job-hop.

“Someone has to administer the medication as ordered” only insofar as it is the hospital or clinic’s policy. That “has to administer” should no be a legal requirement (emphasis mine).

We disagree. I agree it should be a legal requirement. The patient should not have to jump hoops to get a medication administered if prescribed by a doctor. When a pharamacist or nurse denies the patient’s right to medications ordered by the physician, they strip that person’s rights as a patient, and strip them of their autonomy. An already emotionally/spiritually/physically battered woman does not need the additional slam by a caregiver who denies her treatment (plan B) that she not only wants, but for which she has an order from her physican. These caregivers should never have that kind of power over another individual, the individual with consent to treatment.

It is much more than that. It isn’t just a shrug, grunt, and “I dunno”. It’s a reasonable doubt. For example, in a hospital or clinic that doesn’t have the testing apparatus, and the patient’s menstrual history is unknown or uncertain, one cannot–by definition–reach the standard of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires reasons for doubt.

If the woman (who knows her own menstrual history) gives the information, the history is known. For anything else, a history given by the patient is not only subjective but acceptable as well. It should be no different in this case.

If they had no authority, you shouldn’t have tried to use them as such. So, drop the attempt to rationalize your position from a Catholic standpoint (which I think is impossible to do), and let’s focus instead on the moral, ethical, and legal aspects.

What is moral, sorry to say and I already know you are will disagree, is subjective depending on factors such as a person’s background, culture, religion. Therefore, the patient should not be at the mercy of a caregiver who does not have the same background, culture and/or religion of the patient. We can argue back and forth of the “morality” of taking Plan B in a rape senario, but just because you claim it is immoral, doesn’t mean it is. There are people out there who believe it to be immoral to withhold plan b from a rape victim. The laws are written to protect people of all beliefs and values, not just one group.

What is ethical is fulfilling a doctor’s order for a consenting patient. A nurse or pharmacist doesn’t have an ethical leg to stand on by trying to circumvent a treatment ordered by a physician for a patient because they don’t think it’s “moral”, There is a difference between not filling a precription for a medication because it’s the wrong medication, or the wrong dose or because it is contraindicated due to the patient’s other medications – and quite another when it doesn’t jive with the nurse’s or pharmacist’s personal opinion.

Legally, the patient has the right to the medications ordered by the physician.

It’s due to the morality, ethical and legal factors that pharmacists and nurses keep fighting with doctors, patients, patients’ families, and lawmakers over their perceived “rights” to force their views on their patients by denying them (or trying to force) treatment ordered by the physician and wanted by the patients and patients’ familes. It’s due to these factors that pharmacists and nurses will lose their jobs if they don’t perform their duties as described on their job descriptions. It’s due to these same factors that patients can sue their caregivers for damage due to neglect defended by “it was against my religion” or “it did not fit my moral code”.

It’s due to all these reasons, and fear of lawsuits and fear of having their licenses revoked, that facilities and their ethics committes are administering treatments contrary to the facilities’ “moral codes”. They know they can’t deny physician ordered treatments without reprucussions by simply citing personal moral codes that conflict with the patient’s own beliefs and values. And they better have a plan in place to work another job if their refusal to follow doctor’s orders leads to the harm or death of a patient, that’s for sure. Inflicting harm on someone else because the prescribed treatment goes against your grain should and does result in legal ramifications.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, nurse and pharmacists shouldn’t have the authority to override what a patient says about the functions of their own body. If the woman who has been raped has reasonable doubt that she was in danger of conceiving at that time, the nurse or pharmacist should not (and don’t) have the authority to contradict her because they are afraid to take a risk (with another person’s body yet). I agree with the law. They should never have this kind of authority over a patient’s welfare.

You use the phrase “reasonable doubt”. My objection has never been over “reasonable doubt.” But that doubt must have reasons. If a woman doesn’t remember her when her last menstrual period ended and there are no tests available, then by definition, the doubt cannot be reasonable. It is a pure guess, with no reason at all to support that guess.

And of course a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist should have that “kind of authority over a patient’s welfare”. Indeed, they must have it. Say a doctor prescribes a drug that could have serious contraindications that might threaten the health of the patient. A nurse and/or pharmacist must refuse to administer/fill that prescription if they have knowledge that it might have a harmful effect. If a nurse or pharmacist administers or fills a prescriptions knowing that it is contraindicated, they will be held legally liable for their actions. Yet in the case of rape, you want to deny caregivers that very same power only in the cases of rape. It doesn’t make any sense.

If they can’t do the job, they don’t need the license that shows they can do the job - or they will leave a trail of unfilled orders on their job-hop.

It isn’t as simple as that. When interviewing for the next job, there is always the question of why one left their previous job. And references–usually former peers or employers–are contacted. They can’t just “leave a trail of unfilled orders on their job-hop” because future employers would very likely become aware of their refusal to administer Plan B. And if the new employer requires an caregiver to do so, they should refuse to hire the applicant.

When a pharamacist or nurse denies the patient’s right to medications ordered by the physician, they strip that person’s rights as a patient, and strip them of their autonomy.

That’s not entirely true, and I think you know it. See above. If a particular course of treatment, in the professional judgment of the caregiver, puts the patient or anyone else in unreasonable danger, they are ethically required to refuse that care. I gave the example above of a contraindicated drug. If a nurse knowingly administered a drug that he/she knew could kill a patient, even if there was a legal prescription in place, she must refuse to administer it. Is this case, did she “strip that person’s rights as a patient, and strip them of their autonomy”? Of course not!

So why is it any different when administering a drug that may kill an unborn child? Why is the case of a rape where there is the potential to kill an innocent human being different?

Right. As you said: the woman’s rights are paramount, even over the right to life of another. This is why we will get nowhere on this point. You seem think a pregnancy due to rape is a greater evil than killing an unborn human being.

An already emotionally/spiritually/physically battered woman does not need the additional slam by a caregiver who denies her treatment (plan B) that she not only wants, but for which she has an order from her physican. These caregivers should never have that kind of power over another individual, the individual with consent to treatment.

Plan B is not a treatment. It does not treat any disease or illness. Pregnancy is not a disease.

If the woman (who knows her own menstrual history) gives the information, the history is known. For anything else, a history given by the patient is not only subjective but acceptable as well. It should be no different in this case.

Duh! That’s why I said uncertain menstrual history. If a patient tells the doctor or nurse that her last menstrual period ended the day before the rape, that should be sufficient for a nurse to have reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred, even if testing equipment for ovulation is not available… I stated this earlier in the thread.

The entire point here is if ovulation is unknown. Not certain. Not with reasonable doubt. Unknown. The woman doesn’t remember when her last menstrual period ended. Testing is not available. When these conditions are present, doctors and nurses should be permitted to exercise their professional, prudential judgment, and not be compelled by law to act contrary to their judgment.

We can argue back and forth of the “morality” of taking Plan B in a rape senario, but just because you claim it is immoral, doesn’t mean it is.

I didn’t say it is always immoral**. **But that isn’t the point. The point is that in some cases it may threaten the life of an innocent human being. Every single “morality” in the US thinks that the death of an innocent human being is an evil (or at least a wrong), and should be avoided by even extraordinary means. And what you are suggesting is that people should be forced to be complicit in an act that may lead to the death of an innocent human being. One doesn’t need to be a bible thumper or a disciple of Richard Dawkins to see the problem in this.

There are people out there who believe it to be immoral to withhold plan b from a rape victim.

Well, both sides can’t be right. Either it is immoral to withhold Plan B or it isn’t. One of the sides is wrong.

 

[Suudy]

The laws are written to protect people of all beliefs and values, not just one group.

I’m not arguing “beliefs and values”. I’m arguing reasons. You haven’t once responded to the quadrilemma, which is an argument from reason, not beliefs and not values. Believe it or not, ethics and morality do have a reasonable basis, independent of believes and values. They may not teach that in medical ethics classes, but they certainly do in philosophy courses.

What is ethical is fulfilling a doctor’s order for a consenting patient. A nurse or pharmacist doesn’t have an ethical leg to stand on by trying to circumvent a treatment ordered by a physician for a patient because they don’t think it’s “moral”, There is a difference between not filling a precription for a medication because it’s the wrong medication, or the wrong dose or because it is contraindicated due to the patient’s other medications – and quite another when it doesn’t jive with the nurse’s or pharmacist’s personal opinion.

Every single objection I’ve raised have been reasons not opinions. You have failed to offer a single reasonable objection (i.e. one based upon reason) to those reasons. All of your responses have been opinion. The quadrilemmas I’ve posted use reason to argue to an ethical conclusion, not opinion.

I agree that personal opinions are sufficient to override legal orders. However, professional, reasoned objections are sufficient.

Legally, the patient has the right to the medications ordered by the physician.

No, they don’t. Just as you admitted above (“the wrong dose or because it is contraindicated”). Nor do they have the right to medication that in the professional judgment of the caregiver poses a risk to the patient or anyone else.

It’s due to the morality, ethical and legal factors that pharmacists and nurses keep fighting with doctors, patients, patients’ families, and lawmakers over their perceived “rights” to force their views on their patients by denying them (or trying to force) treatment ordered by the physician and wanted by the patients and patients’ familes. It’s due to these factors that pharmacists and nurses will lose their jobs if they don’t perform their duties as described on their job descriptions. It’s due to these same factors that patients can sue their caregivers for damage due to neglect defended by “it was against my religion” or “it did not fit my moral code”.

You are ranting on this whole “moral code”, “opinion”, “against my religion” strawman you have created. Not once did I offer a moral opinion or religious argument against Plan B. Go back and re-read all the reasons I have offered. And if you disagree with those reasons, give a reason why you disagree, not an opinion.

Inflicting harm on someone else because the prescribed treatment goes against your grain should and does result in legal ramifications.

Refusal to administer Plan B inflict no harm on the patient. The harm was already done before the patient arrived. Don’t try to pin the anguish and suffering of a rape victim on any of the caregivers.

 

[Rence]

Well, there it is. The woman’s rights are more important than another’s right to life. When there is such a clear case of moral ignorance, I don’t know how to argue this case any further.

Those of us who believe the raped woman has the right to protect herself against a forced pregnancy feel the same why about those who don’t think she has that right.

Well, I guess this exchange is now about the lurkers. Perhaps someone else, who has the innate moral knowledge that most of us has, will read this discussion and learn something.

Surely, some of the lurkers know a rape victim, or have been a rape victim themselves, and have their views on this. When I first came here, I had no idea (it was quite a shock, to be honest) that some people thought it was perfectly acceptable (moral even) to deny a rape victim the ability to stop the abuse by preventing a pregnancy resulting from that rape — if that was something she had to do for herself. The choice should be up to the rape victim, not an outside party.

It is universal in the application of law within the United States, which has been a foundation of much of your argument. Recklessness and negligence are prosecutable offenses in the United States. Why only in the case of rape are the standards recklessness and negligence ignored?

The drug is prescribed FOR rape victims. Therefore it is neither reckless, nor negligence, to administer it as ordered. Even Fr. Williams says this:

The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy

By the way, all religions and cultures in all time have condemned murder. And nearly all religions and cultures in all time have condemned or strongly opposed manslaughter. This isn’t a religious argument. It is a moral, ethical, and legal one.

It’s obviously not reckless, negligent or even forbidden.

The entire point of this thread and the entire point of my discussion is that individual caregivers should be permitted to exercise their professional, prudential judgment on the administration of Plan B. For Catholics, if "there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may

be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization". Not “shall” be treated and not “shall be made available”.

But note also the preamble that the Bishops placed before that statement I quoted above. “If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence…” You have been suggesting that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists be required to administer Plan B even in the absence of “appropriate testing”. This is not supported by your quotes by the Bishops or Fr Williams. Indeed, the requirement you are in support of is opposed by the Pope!

The article written by Fr. Williams speaks for itself. And it’s clearly in support of the rape victim and her right to protect herself from a forced pregnancy. That’s obvious to anyone who reads it. And the Pope is opposed to the abortion pill. The only thing he said about plan B is that the caregivers don’t have to give it. That’s his opinion, not an infallible teaching. However, he doesn’t write the laws that you’re complaining about.

I guess I’m not being clear enough. Let me put it one simple sentence: Caregivers should not be required, by law, to administer Plan B in any circumstance that in the professional, prudential opinion may put a potentially conceived unborn child in danger. That’s the gist of it.

I understand what you believe. I disagree with you.

You appear to have misunderstood me. The “moral knowledge and conviction” I’m talking about is not with regard to the state of ovulation, but with regard to the nature of reckless and negligent acts. And if “[t]hey are just guessing”, that is no different than a caregiver “just guessing” that conception has not occurred. The difference is in the potential evil that comes out of a bad guess.

The woman’s account of her history is sufficient to go by. If she has reasonable doubt, then there is reasonable doubt. Fr. Williams also said to err in favor of the woman if the tests are not available. He didn’t say for the caregivers to “guess” for her. Obviously, if he said that if the tests are not available, and there is reasonable doubt, that plan b could be administered, he couldn’t possibly be talking about anything else besides the patient’s own account, since the caregivers would have no clue.

 

[Suudy]

When I first came here, I had no idea (it was quite a shock, to be honest) that some people thought it was perfectly acceptable (moral even) to deny a rape victim the ability*** to stop the abuse*** by preventing a pregnancy resulting from that rape — if that was something she had to do for herself.

This is such a loaded, emotional statement. Objectively, the abuse stopped when the rape ended. Any pregnancy that results from a rape, is not continued abuse. That unborn child is not inflicting anything upon the woman. If the mere presence of a person constitutes abuse, then people everywhere constantly abusing others and being abused.

The choice should be up to the rape victim, not an outside party.

Only if it doesn’t put another person in danger! How hard is this to understand? If the state of ovulation is unknown (not “certain” and not “reasonable doubt”), there is the possibility that an innocent human being could be killed. People do not have the right to put other people in mortal danger, despite their condition. And people certainly do not have the right to coerce others to assist in putting others into moral danger.

The drug is prescribed FOR rape victims. Therefore it is neither reckless, nor negligence, to administer it as ordered. Even Fr. Williams says this:

You are missing the point. it is at least negligent and possibly reckless if the state of ovulation is unknown! This isn’t rocket science. Note that this entire line of reasoning from Fr Williams is with regard to conception. Just to be clear, the medical community defines pregnancy as when the fertilized ovum implants in the uterine wall. If the state of ovulation is unknown (not “certain” and not “reasonable doubt”), then the state of conception is unknown. And if the state of conception is unknown, any drug or procedure that can lead to the expulsion of a fertilized ovum is an abortion.

Again, I don’t think you understand the nature of recklessness or negligence. If you are aware of the danger (potential expulsion of a fertilized ovum), it is reckless. If you are not aware of the danger, it is negligent. There is a danger of a fertilized ovum being expelled when using Plan B and the state of ovulation is unknown. It is either reckless or negligent to use it in cases of unknown ovulation (and by extension, conception).

Now, right from the Plan B manufacturer’s website (here):Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). **In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). **It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.
Now, what do you think that bolded sentence means with regard to taking Plan B after conception has occurred?

Taking plan B to prevent a pregnancy due to rape is hardly murder, or manslaughter.

It is murder if you know that conception has occurred. It is, at best, manslaughter if you don’t know if conception has occurred. Plan B is neither if conception has not occurred. How can you know if conception has occurred? Indeed, you can only know if conception has not occurred, and that is only if you are certain ovulation has not occurred or have have reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.

It’s obviously not reckless, negligent or even forbidden.

See above. Indeed, it is forbidden in the cases where it is demonstrated that ovulation is certain to have occurred.

The article written by Fr. Williams speaks for itself. And it’s clearly in support of the rape victim and her right to protect herself from a forced pregnancy. That’s obvious to anyone who reads it.

Only in certain cases! That is obvious to anyone who reads it. You are suggesting that it is permissible (indeed, required if requested) in all cases, which is clearly contrary to Fr Williams’ article.

And the Pope is opposed to the abortion pill. The only thing he said about plan B is that the caregivers don’t have to give it. That’s his opinion, not an infallible teaching. However, he doesn’t write the laws that you’re complaining about.

Good, then you agree that at least the Church doesn’t think Plan B should be required. That’s a step forward. Now, why do you think the Church doesn’t think it should be required? It is more than just an “opinion”. In fact, I think very likely he has a reason for his objection.

The woman’s account of her history is sufficient to go by. If she has reasonable doubt, then there is reasonable doubt.

I agreed with this. Go back and re-read my posts. In this case, there are reasons to doubt ovulation has occurred.

Fr. Williams also said to err in favor of the woman if the tests are not available.

Only based upon her history. If she doesn’t know, then there is to reason to base the likelihood of ovulation. And then there couldn’t be reasonable doubt.

Obviously, if he said that if the tests are not available, and there is reasonable doubt, that plan b could be administered, he couldn’t possibly be talking about anything else besides the patient’s own account, since the caregivers would have no clue.

Again, read my posts. Note that I put two conditions: 1) the last menstrual period is unknown and 2) no ovulation tests are available. In this case, the patient AND the caregiver are guessing. I’m not talking about cases of “certainty” or “reasonable doubt”.

 

[Suudy]

Those of us who believe the raped woman has the right to protect herself against a forced pregnancy feel the same why about those who don’t think she has that right.

One point that just came to me.

Nobody here is suggesting that a victim of rape should be denied the ability to protect herself from a forced conception. Indeed, I agree that it is licit to prevent conception. I am certainly not suggesting that rape victims be forced into pregnancy. She certainly has the right to prevent conception. But she does not have the right to put another in danger to achieve those ends.

So, if there is conception, what that child’s right to life? You have stated that you think the woman’s right is paramount. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why. The only way I can reconcile your position, is that either you reject the notion that the product of conception is an innocent human being or that that unborn child does not have the same right to life as any other. If the former, you can’t have any objection to abortion in general. If the latter, this is a case of saying that some classes of people (e.g. those conceived in acts of rape) have less value than others.

 

[Rence]

One point that just came to me.

Nobody here is suggesting that a victim of rape should be denied the ability to protect herself from a forced conception. Indeed, I agree that it is licit to prevent conception. I am certainly not suggesting that rape victims be forced into pregnancy. She certainly has the right to prevent conception. But she does not have the right to put another in danger to achieve those ends.

So, if there is conception, what that child’s right to life? You have stated that you think the woman’s right is paramount. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you do not understand that the rape victim’s right is paramount. For the life of me, cannot understand why you do not understand that the sooner Plan B is administered, the odds are in favor of preventing conception, and that they are high enough (very high in fact) to be used to prevent that conception. It’s not as if conception is immediate. It’s not. The odds that the conditions are favorable for a quick conception are so low that I can’t understand for the life of me why anyone in the world would be opposed to administering plan B to a rape victim who asks for it to prevent conception from happening in the first place. By refusing to administer planB to a rape victim who is asking for it, the chances of conception go up with the additional time it will take for her to find someone to administer it. If a rape victim wants plan B, she’ll get it. It’s in the best interest of everyone to administer it quickly upon request, rather than have her drive all over town to get it, wasting time getting rid of that unfertilized egg before it’s too late. The longer one waits for it, the closer the chances are of conceiving. And I hold the person who refused to administer plan B the first time it was asked responsible for that one. Not the rape victim seeking immediate intervention.

If I weren’t so sure I could get it emergently if God forbid I ever needed it, I’d make sure it was in my bathroom cabinet already, so that no one could take advantage of me in this way.

 

[Rence]

You use the phrase “reasonable doubt”. My objection has never been over “reasonable doubt.” But that doubt must have reasons. If a woman doesn’t remember her when her last menstrual period ended and there are no tests available, then by definition, the doubt cannot be reasonable. It is a pure guess, with no reason at all to support that guess.

You’re acting as if conception occurs within minutes. It takes time for an egg to travel to the fallopian tube and for a sperm to travel up into the fallopian tube to fertilize an egg. The odds of a woman being raped when the conditions are favorable for immediate conception are so low that I can’t understand what the beef is. If you don’t dilly dally driving around town looking for plan B, and take it immediately while being treated in the ER after a rape, conception will be prevented.

And of course a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist should have that “kind of authority over a patient’s welfare”. Indeed, they must have it.

No, they must not, which is why they actually do not.

Say a doctor prescribes a drug that could have serious contraindications that might threaten the health of the patient.

Arguing this example cannot be compared to this situation because plan B is NOT contraindicated and will NOT threaten the health of the patient.

That’s not entirely true, and I think you know it.

Sorry, but that’s not how I know it. I’ve said it like I know it.

See above. If a particular course of treatment, in the professional judgment of the caregiver, puts the patient or anyone else in unreasonable danger, they are ethically required to refuse that care.

Absolutely — if the patient is in danger. However, this isn’t the case with plan B being prescribed for a rape victim.

So why is it any different when administering a drug that may kill an unborn child? Why is the case of a rape where there is the potential to kill an innocent human being different?

The only thing different about this senario is that if a rape victim were already pregnant and refused to continue to be, she would just have an abortion. This is not the case. This is not what we’re talking about. In this case the rape victim is trying to prevent a conception from happening in the first place.

A pregnancy due to rape is a greater evil than taking plan b to prevent a conception from happening in the first place. The odds of that happening are favorable enough to take it.

Plan B is not a treatment. It does not treat any disease or illness. Pregnancy is not a disease.

Plan B is a treatment prescribed to prevent an unwanted pregnancy occuring due to a rape. Pregnacy is not a disease, but rape is an act of violence which can lead to a forced rape. Taking Plan B after a rape enables a rape victim to take back control.

Duh! That’s why I said uncertain menstrual history. If a patient tells the doctor or nurse that her last menstrual period ended the day before the rape, that should be sufficient for a nurse to have reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred, even if testing equipment for ovulation is not available… I stated this earlier in the thread.

The nurse still has no right to withhold the plan B when prescribed by a physician.

The entire point here is if ovulation is unknown. Not certain. Not with reasonable doubt. Unknown. The woman doesn’t remember when her last menstrual period ended. Testing is not available. When these conditions are present, doctors and nurses should be permitted to exercise their professional, prudential judgment, and not be compelled by law to act contrary to their judgment.

Actually, the entire point is withholding a treatment when prescribed by a physician because it goes against the grain of the one administering it. Again, conception isn’t immediate.

I didn’t say it is always

immoral**. **But that isn’t the point. The point is that in some cases it may threaten the life of an innocent human being. Every single “morality” in the US thinks that the death of an innocent human being is an evil (or at least a wrong), and should be avoided by even extraordinary means. And what you are suggesting is that people should be forced to be complicit in an act that may lead to the death of an innocent human being. One doesn’t need to be a bible thumper or a disciple of Richard Dawkins to see the problem in this.

I am suggesting that pharmacists and nurses do their job, as they agreed to do. If they have a problem with a particular aspect of that job, they need to be forthcoming about that with potential employers and either get a job elsewhere or be assured that arrangements would be made to ensure the patient received the treatment ordered.

Well, both sides can’t be right. Either it is immoral to withhold Plan B or it isn’t. One of the sides is wrong.

It is wrong to and immoral to withhold plan B from a rape victim requesting it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Rence]

Every single objection I’ve raised have been reasons not opinions. You have failed to offer a single reasonable objection (i.e. one based upon reason) to those reasons. All of your responses have been opinion. The quadrilemmas I’ve posted use reason to argue to an ethical conclusion, not opinion.

Actually, you have argued with your opinions…

I agree that personal opinions are sufficient to override legal orders. However, professional, reasoned objections are sufficient.

Of course you agree that personal opinions are sufficient to override legal orders — just as I agree that personal opinions are not sufficient to override legal orders.

No, they don’t. Just as you admitted above (“the wrong dose or because it is contraindicated”). Nor do they have the right to medication that in the professional judgment of the caregiver poses a risk to the patient or anyone else.

“The wrong dose or because it’s contraindicated” doesn’t apply to Plan B when prescribed for a rape victim who requests it because it’s the correct dose and it’s not contraindicated.
In this case, it’s the dispenser’s opinion that is in conflict, not the appropriateness of the prescription.

You are ranting on this whole “moral code”, “opinion”, “against my religion” strawman you have created. Not once did I offer a moral opinion or religious argument against Plan B. Go back and re-read all the reasons I have offered. And if you disagree with those reasons, give a reason why you disagree, not an opinion.

Whether the words are yours or mine, they are all opinions. The only difference is that the law is on my side of the coin instead of yours. Which helps me in my daily life, while it doesn’t help you.

Refusal to administer Plan B inflict no harm on the patient. The harm was already done before the patient arrived. Don’t try to pin the anguish and suffering of a rape victim on any of the caregivers.

Refusal to administer plan B to a rape victim who requests it does harm the patient if she is further affected by a forced pregnancy. The harm will continue if she becomes pregnant against her will. Plan B will prevent that from happening. And it is a further insult to the rape victim on the part of the caregivers if they refuse to administer it when it is prescribed and when it is asked for by the rape victim.

 

[Rence]

This is such a loaded, emotional statement. Objectively, the abuse stopped when the rape ended. Any pregnancy that results from a rape, is not continued abuse. That unborn child is not inflicting anything upon the woman. If the mere presence of a person constitutes abuse, then people everywhere constantly abusing others and being abused.

For a rape victim who has tried to prevent a pregnancy and failed it is a continued abuse.

Only if it doesn’t put another person in danger! How hard is this to understand? If the state of ovulation is unknown (not “certain” and not “reasonable doubt”), there is the possibility that an innocent human being could be killed. People do not have the right to put other people in mortal danger, despite their condition. And people certainly do not have the right to coerce others to assist in putting others into moral danger.

It’s not understandible because there is no other person in danger. Even if ovulation is unknown, conception is not immediate.

You are missing the point. it is at least negligent and possibly reckless if the state of ovulation is unknown! This isn’t rocket science. Note that this entire line of reasoning from Fr Williams is with regard to conception. Just to be clear, the medical community defines pregnancy as when the fertilized ovum implants in the uterine wall. If the state of ovulation is unknown (not “certain” and not “reasonable doubt”), then the state of conception is unknown. And if the state of conception is unknown, any drug or procedure that can lead to the expulsion of a fertilized ovum is an abortion.

Again, I don’t think you understand the nature of recklessness or negligence. If you are aware of the danger (potential expulsion of a fertilized ovum), it is reckless. If you are not aware of the danger, it is negligent. There is a danger of a fertilized ovum being expelled when using Plan B and the state of ovulation is unknown. It is either reckless or negligent to use it in cases of unknown ovulation (and by extension, conception).

There is no danger to anyone except the emotional danger to the raped woman denied plan B. There is no reason in the world to deny its administration on the grounds that it is an “abortion”

Now, right from the Plan B manufacturer’s website (here):Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). **In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). **It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

Now, what do you think that bolded sentence means with regard to taking Plan B after conception has occurred?

Taking plan B after conception renders it less effective. That’s why some women wind up pregnant even after taking it. It’s not designed to terminate a pregnancy. It’s primary action is to prevent ovulation.

It is murder if you know that conception has occurred.

There is now way to know that conception has occurred because it’s not an immediate process.

See above. Indeed, it is forbidden in the cases where it is demonstrated that ovulation is certain to have occurred.

Forbidden by whom? I thought you said to leave religion out of it.

Good, then you agree that at least the Church doesn’t think Plan B should be required. That’s a step forward. Now, why do you think the Church doesn’t think it should be required? It is more than just an “opinion”. In fact, I think very likely he has a reason for his objection.

Of course the Church wouldn’t require it. The Church doesn’t require it anymore than it would require someone accept treatment for a disease uterus while pregnant. That doesn’t mean it’s forbidden for a rape victim to take plan B – anymore than it’s forbidden by the Church to be treated for uterine cancer while being pregnant. The Church forbids abortion. When a woman takes Plan B after having been raped, it’s to prevent a conception from happening in the first place.

 

[Suudy]

I’m not replying to all of the other responses, because this one captures most of the content.

For a rape victim who has tried to prevent a pregnancy and failed it is a continued abuse.

What? This is nonsense. You are saying that an unborn child, conceived in rape, is a continued abuse. What act is the child taking that is abusive to the victim of rape? The mere presence of a person is abuse? Really?

It’s not understandible because there is no other person in danger. Even if ovulation is unknown, conception is not immediate.

I quoted Plan B’s own method of action. It either 1) prevents ovulation, 2) alters tubal transport, or 3) prevents implantation.

Obviously, #1 can only be meaningful if ovulation has not occurred. And since this discussion is about what happens after ovulation, this method of action is not relevant. For #3, this is clearly abortion. The only other case is #2.

Now, I’m not suggesting conception is immediate. What I’m saying is that #2 does not destroy sperm or ova, only hinders tubal transport. Now, if the state of ovulation is unknown, one is certain as to where the unfertilized egg is present within the fallopian tube. Therefore, even if one were to take Plan B, there is no certainty that fertilization would not occur. IF conception were to occur, Plan B puts that unborn child into danger.

Again, let’s get back to the nature of negligence and recklessness. If one does not know the state of ovulation, one is either being negligent or reckless in assuming that conception will not occur. Plan B does not guarantee conception will not occur. And the amount of time since ovulation, the more likely conception is to occur.

There is no danger to anyone except the emotional danger to the raped woman denied plan B. There is no reason in the world to deny its administration on the grounds that it is an “abortion”

I quoted one! Did you not read what Plan B’s own drug information sheet states? What do you think they mean by “inhibit implantation”? This certainly is an abortion, since it is a fertilized ovum we are talking about.

Taking plan B after conception renders it less effective. That’s why some women wind up pregnant even after taking it. It’s not designed to terminate a pregnancy. It’s primary action is to prevent ovulation.

That’s not what it says. It says: “It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun”. This has no bearing on conception. This is all after conception.

But it’s secondary action is to prevent implantation. If the primary action fails (prevent conception), it relies upon its secondary action to achieve the desired end: preventing pregnancy. The ends do not justify the means.

There is now way to know that conception has occurred because it’s not an immediate process.

That’s my point all along! One is either “certain” that ovulation has not occurred, or one has “reasonable doubt” that it has occurred. Anything other than that means conception may occur or have occurred. And in those cases, it is reckless or negligent to take action.

Forbidden by whom? I thought you said to leave religion out of it.

Note that my response was to the religious based arguments you were making. Follow the chain and you’ll see it was in response to the Bishop’s statement. But regardless, one doesn’t need to make a religious appeal to demonstrate the reckless or negligent nature of administering Plan B when the state of ovulation is unknown (again, not “certain” or “reasonable doubt”). I’ve already done it several times with the quadrilemmas that you have been ignoring.

That doesn’t mean it’s forbidden for a rape victim to take plan B – anymore than it’s forbidden by the Church to be treated for uterine cancer while being pregnant.

The two are very different. One is subject to DDE (the latter), the former isn’t.

The Church forbids abortion. When a woman takes Plan B after having been raped, it’s to prevent a conception from happening in the first place.

You aren’t understanding me. In cases where the intent is to prevent conception and there is certain or reasonable knowledge that ovulation has occurred, Plan B makes sense. Indeed, this is exactly Fr Williams’ point. But in the case where ovulation is unknown (again, not “certain” and not “reasonable doubt”), it is reckless or negligent to use Plan B.

I don’t know how to get this across other than to argue analogically. I’ve used the example in the past, but you have not addressed it. When hunting, hunters are required to have certain knowledge of the target they are aiming toward. They are also required to have certain knowledge of the surroundings. For example, when aiming, he must be certain it is really a deer and not a guy dressed up like a deer, or a cow, or another hunter. He must also be certain that in the case his shot misses he will not put anyone else in danger. Using Plan B is analogically the same. When using Plan B, one should have certain knowledge that one isn’t flushing a fertilized ovum. One must also be certain that the surroundings are safe in case there is a fertilized ovum. A hunter who fires at a moving bush without confirming a deer and kills fellow hunter is at best guilty of manslaughter. A hunter who fires at a deer and misses killing a fellow hunter is at best guilty of manslaughter. And a hunter who fires at a moving bush and kills a deer is at best reckless. A hunter who fires at a deer standing near a fellow hunter is also reckless.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I am suggesting that pharmacists and nurses do their job, as they agreed to do. If they have a problem with a particular aspect of that job, they need to be forthcoming about that with potential employers and either get a job elsewhere or be assured that arrangements would be made to ensure the patient received the treatment ordered.

(bolded emphasis mine)

I agree with the bolded sentence - let pharmacists do their job as they agreed to do. Now, if I take a job as a pharmacist, I will either seek out an employer who has a policy not to dispense Plan B, or I will open my own pharmacy. Either way, the whole point is that I never agreed to dispense Plan B. As a pharmacist, I only want the state to leave me alone, and not to chase me out of my profession just because I refuse to carry and dispense Plan B.

As an aside, the whole idea of the raped woman driving around city with a prescription for Plan B is preposterous. She needs immediate medical attention, which she will receive at the hospital or ER, not from my pharmacy. The ER will administer the test for ovulation, and if ovulation has not taken place, the ER will also have Plan B on hand and administer it to the rape victim right on the spot. My pharmacy, down on the street corner, never even enters the picture.

So, why do Illinois and Washington states mandate every last pharmacy down the street to carry Plan B? Because they have left-wing lunatics and extremists in control, so wedded to the culture of death, that they will stop at nothing to impose their own immoral ideas on healthcare workers, or else chase them out of business, that’s why.

 

[Suudy]

Actually, you have argued with your opinions…

Really? Is that your opinion, or a fact?

Of course you agree that personal opinions are sufficient to override legal orders — just as I agree that personal opinions are not sufficient to override legal orders.

That was a typo. What I meant to write was:I agree that personal opinions are NOT sufficient to override legal orders. However, professional, reasoned objections are sufficient.
The “I agree” in the first sentence and the “however” in the second were the contextual clues to a typo.

“The wrong dose or because it’s contraindicated” doesn’t apply to Plan B when prescribed for a rape victim who requests it because it’s the correct dose and it’s not contraindicated.

It is contraindicated if there is reason to suspect that conception has occurred or is probable. There is another life potentially at stake. This is where professional, prudential judgment comes into play.

In this case, it’s the dispenser’s opinion that is in conflict, not the appropriateness of the prescription.

In conflict with what? The objectiveness of the the probability of conception? Or in conflict with the patients desire to prevent or terminate (if conception has occurred or will occur) a pregnancy?

Whether the words are yours or mine, they are all opinions. The only difference is that the law is on my side of the coin instead of yours. Which helps me in my daily life, while it doesn’t help you.

Helps you how? You don’t get to jettison your conscience just because the law says something is legal. You are just passing the buck. Some people actually come to reasonable conclusions on ethical matters through solid principles and aren’t secular, legal automatons. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to stick your head in the sand and pretend there aren’t ethical considerations here (that transcend the legal issues), go for it.

Refusal to administer plan B to a rape victim who requests it does harm the patient if she is further affected by a forced pregnancy. The harm will continue if she becomes pregnant against her will. Plan B will prevent that from happening. And it is a further insult to the rape victim on the part of the caregivers if they refuse to administer it when it is prescribed and when it is asked for by the rape victim.

But any continued harm does not trump the rights of any child that might already be conceived or may be conceived. The woman’s right to avoid a pregnancy does not trump the right of a conceived child’s right to life.

 

[Suudy]

(bolded emphasis mine)

I agree with the bolded sentence - let pharmacists do their job as they agreed to do. Now, if I take a job as a pharmacist, I will either seek out an employer who has a policy not to dispense Plan B, or I will open my own pharmacy. Either way, the whole point is that I never agreed to dispense Plan B. As a pharmacist, I only want the state to leave me alone, and not to chase me out of my profession just because I refuse to carry and dispense Plan B.

As an aside, the whole idea of the raped woman driving around city with a prescription for Plan B is preposterous. She needs immediate medical attention, which she will receive at the hospital or ER, not from my pharmacy. The ER will administer the test for ovulation, and if ovulation has not taken place, the ER will also have Plan B on hand and administer it to the rape victim right on the spot. My pharmacy, down on the street corner, never even enters the picture.

So, why do Illinois and Washington states mandate every last pharmacy down the street to carry Plan B? Because they have left-wing lunatics and extremists in control, so wedded to the culture of death, that they will stop at nothing to impose their own immoral ideas on healthcare workers, or else chase them out of business, that’s why.

I do hope you’ll take over for me. There is a complete disconnect between me and Rence. I’m not giving answers that make any sense to her (?) and she’s not providing any responses that make any sense to me. Perhaps somebody else can get across the point that compulsory administration of Plan B has ethical problems.

As for me, I think I’m done. Any lurkers should be able to gleam real information from the exchange, and neither Rence nor I are making any progress toward a consensus. I don’t see any point in continuing.

 

[Rence]

I’m not replying to all of the other responses, because this one captures most of the content.

What? This is nonsense. You are saying that an unborn child, conceived in rape, is a continued abuse. What act is the child taking that is abusive to the victim of rape? The mere presence of a person is abuse? Really?

I really don’t understand why you would not consider a forced pregnancy resulting from rape to be an added insult to injury. As much as you think what I believe is nonsense, that’s how I think of what you say about it. Sure, some women might accept that pregnancy, and surely I’ve seen some women raise the child and they did very well. But I’ve seen the opposite too. I’ve see women tipped over the edge from being pregnant after a rape. What it boils down to is that 1) not everyone is the same, 2) some women may choose not to try to fight back by trying to prevent a pregnancy, and 3) some will will try to prevent a pregnancy by taking plan B. A forced pregnancy after a rape is a continued abuse. The mere presence of a pregnancy inside of a rape victim’s body is, yes, a continued abuse if that is what she regards it as. Obviously the Bishops agree or they would not make this exception to the use of contraception (Plan B). The exception to the rules implies that it is different – because it is. I can’t fathom why each and every rape victim would be willing to accept a pregnancy after a rape. Again, I can see how a pregnancy may be regarded something very good, even a blessing (a pregnancy). However, I can clearly see the other side of that coin. Very clearly. And considering the pregnancy would result from 1) being forced on the woman against her will and 2) an act of violence, I have no unearthly clue why someone would try and take this option away from a rape victim. All I can say about it is, when you get raped, don’t take plan b. But it’s not for anyone else to dictate to another victim of rape. It’s their choice.

I quoted Plan B’s own method of action. It either 1) prevents ovulation, 2) alters tubal transport, or 3) prevents implantation.

if it is taken after the rape, it will prevent ovulation. If you dilly dally and wait, or make the patient wait, then yes, at that point it wil prevent ovulation. That’s why it should be given when it is asked for by the rape victim and without delay.

Again, let’s get back to the nature of negligence and recklessness. If one does not know the state of ovulation, one is either being negligent or reckless in assuming that conception will not occur. Plan B does not guarantee conception will not occur. And the amount of time since ovulation, the more likely conception is to occur.

It’s negligence not to fill the order as prescribed. It’s reckless to deny the rape victim the ability to prevent a forced pregnancy from happening in the first place.

That’s not what it says. It says: “It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun”. This has no bearing on conception. This is all after conception.

If the product literature also says it’s first method of action is to prevent conception. And sorry, but many women get pregnant anyway after taking plan B which backs up the manufacturer’s claim that it’s less effective if used any other way than to prevent conception.

But it’s secondary action is to prevent implantation. If the primary action fails (prevent conception), it relies upon its secondary action to achieve the desired end: preventing pregnancy. The ends do not justify the means.

If you take it asap, the primary action will be at work.

That’s my point all along! One is either “certain” that ovulation has not occurred, or one has “reasonable doubt” that it has occurred. Anything other than that means conception may occur or have occurred. And in those cases, it is reckless or negligent to take action.

The woman should not be punished for being raped by being forced to be pregnant. Erring on the side of caution should be in favor of the rape victim.

Note that my response was to the religious based arguments you were making. Follow the chain and you’ll see it was in response to the Bishop’s statement. But regardless, one doesn’t need to make a religious appeal to demonstrate the reckless or negligent nature of administering Plan B when the state of ovulation is unknown (again, not “certain” or “reasonable doubt”). I’ve already done it several times with the quadrilemmas that you have been ignoring.

My arguements based on religion were only made because this is a Catholic online forum.

You aren’t understanding me. In cases where the intent is to prevent conception and there is certain or reasonable knowledge that ovulation has occurred, Plan B makes sense. Indeed, this is exactly Fr Williams’ point. But in the case where ovulation is unknown (again, not “certain” and not “reasonable doubt”), it is reckless or negligent to use Plan B.

It’s not reckless or negligent to use plan B because conception doesn’t occur immediately.

I don’t know how to get this across other than to argue analogically. I’ve used the example in the past, but you have not addressed it.

I don’t think there is a fitting analogy when we are talking about a rape victim whose rights are ignored due to the personal opinions and sensitivities of their care givers, who are in direct conflict with the medical community at large, and the law that supports the rape victim. Not everyone else can be wrong, and only you right. That just means you disagree.

 

[Califman831]

praise Jesus

 

[Rence]

Helps you how? You don’t get to jettison your conscience just because the law says something is legal. You are just passing the buck. Some people actually come to reasonable conclusions on ethical matters through solid principles and aren’t secular, legal automatons. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to stick your head in the sand and pretend there aren’t ethical considerations here (that transcend the legal issues), go for it.

Hey, I’m not passing the buck: I am in full agreement with the law and grateful for this law. I find it ethical and moral. I find it grossly immoral that some people would deny a rape victim the right to take Plan B after their rape.

But any continued harm does not trump the rights of any child that might already be conceived or may be conceived. The woman’s right to avoid a pregnancy does not trump the right of a conceived child’s right to life.

The rights of the rape victim being treated in the ER and being prescribed Plan B as a result, and more importantly, her request for plan B, trump all else. She needs to be cared for, and she needs to be enabled to help herself. This is what the drug was designed to do. This is it’s indication. To hinder conception and prevent pregnancies in the case of rape.

 

[Rence]

I do hope you’ll take over for me. There is a complete disconnect between me and Rence. I’m not giving answers that make any sense to her (?) and she’s not providing any responses that make any sense to me. Perhaps somebody else can get across the point that compulsory administration of Plan B has ethical problems.

As for me, I think I’m done. Any lurkers should be able to gleam real information from the exchange, and neither Rence nor I are making any progress toward a consensus. I don’t see any point in continuing.

Suudy, there is a complete disconnect between you and me because we view rape differently. Sure, we both believe it’s vile and disgusting. I’m sure you can come up wih a few more words to describe it that match my own. But one thing we just don’t agree on is the rape victim’s right to fight back, to take control of the situation, to take control of her body. Plan B is available for her if she wants to prevent a pregnancy from resulting from that rape. We’re not going to reach a concensus in this regard. Women have been victimized and still are, though the ages. They could do nothing to protect themselves in any way at one time. But with Plan B, they can at least protect themselves from a pregnancy as a result of rape. Unlike you, for me, refusing a rape victim plan B that would enable her to protect herself against a forced pregnancy is just as evil as holding her down physically. I know it’s not the same for you, but that’s how I regard this abuse.

But you know, we can argue back and forth about it on this forum. But the reality is plan B is still availble for any woman who wants it. You don’t even need a presciption for it if you’re over 18. You can get it online as well. Maybe women should just get a box to keep at home just in case. To me, it seems more “pro-life” to go after those seeking elective abortions rather than pick on the rape victims who need it emergently in an effort to prevent a conception from happening in the first place.