'Morning-after' pill available to minors without rx

[NCSue]

Hi Spectrm,
If you believe that abortion is murder (and in some cases I do)…

“In some cases I do”…

Killing is killing is killing is killing is killing.
Under what circumstances is killing NOT killing???

 

[Dale_M]

Under what circumstances is killing NOT killing???

When it is NOT killing a person.

I’m not challenging your belief that an embryo or early stage fetus is a person. I just don’t share that belief. I do agree that at 20 weeks of development, and after, abortion should be prohibited.

 

[NCSue]

When it is NOT killing a person.

I’m not challenging your belief that an embryo or early stage fetus is a person. I just don’t share that belief. I do agree that at 20 weeks of development, and after, abortion should be prohibited.

With all due respect, I think your position places you on a very slippery slope. By your logic, at 19 weeks 6 days, abortion is defensible; the next day it is not.

 

[Pani_Rose]

I wonder how long it will take some of the law firms to start advertising…
!
If you lost a baby, or if you were sick, or if your child died from using the morning after pill, you may be entitled to compensation?

That’ll propably be a never, cuz then they are doing damage to the cause for which they support.

God have mercy on us all

 

[mlchance]

Yes - by definition, it’s a fetus. And it is clearly of the homo sapiens sapien variety.

So then it is human.

My point is you’re ignoring the legal implications of determining a fetus ‘human’. There’s more to these social decisions than mere ideology.

I’m not ignoring anything. Yours is the incoherent – even dangerous – position of allowing one party to determine to what extent another party does not have even the most basic of human rights.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Dale_M]

With all due respect, I think your position places you on a very slippery slope. By your logic, at 19 weeks 6 days, abortion is defensible; the next day it is not.

Sue, thank you for kindly disagreeing with me. Although I mentioned the 20 week figure, what I was really thinking of is the development of brain waves in the fetus or embryo. In the absence of brain waves there can be no consciousness or subconsciousness, which leads me to think that personhood really can’t be attibuted to the embryo or fetus.

I mentioned 20 weeks because it seemed that I had read that electrical activity in the brain began around 8 weeks, with the first brain waves at 20 weeks, and regular brain waves at 22 weeks. But in trying to locate that article, it seems I was in error.

I am open to other information, but it appears that 7-8 weeks is the time frame for the development of brain waves in the embryo/fetus. Some doctors have argued that attributing personhood at this stage is overly cautious, that fetal brain waves can’t be compared to adult brain waves. But I do think it provides a margin of safety, which is important in this issue.

 

[NCSue]

Sue, thank you for kindly disagreeing with me. Although I mentioned the 20 week figure, what I was really thinking of is the development of brain waves in the fetus or embryo. In the absence of brain waves there can be no consciousness or subconsciousness, which leads me to think that personhood really can’t be attibuted to the embryo or fetus.

I mentioned 20 weeks because it seemed that I had read that electrical activity in the brain began around 8 weeks, with the first brain waves at 20 weeks, and regular brain waves at 22 weeks. But in trying to locate that article, it seems I was in error.

I am open to other information, but it appears that 7-8 weeks is the time frame for the development of brain waves in the embryo/fetus. Some doctors have argued that attributing personhood at this stage is overly cautious, that fetal brain waves can’t be compared to adult brain waves. But I do think it provides a margin of safety, which is important in this issue.

Hi Dale - I suppose the real basis of our disagreement isn’t when brain waves begin - I don’t know when that is, either. The real basis of our disagreement is when does the SOUL begin.And the soul isn’t yet measurable or detectable by any scientific methodology. I believe that the soul begins with conception. I can’t prove this - it’s not “provable”, but for me, it’s a matter of faith.

Peace.

 

[Dale_M]

Hi Dale - I suppose the real basis of our disagreement isn’t when brain waves begin - I don’t know when that is, either. The real basis of our disagreement is when does the SOUL begin.And the soul isn’t yet measurable or detectable by any scientific methodology. I believe that the soul begins with conception. I can’t prove this - it’s not “provable”, but for me, it’s a matter of faith.

Sue, I think you are right. Nonetheless, I do appreciate what you wrote because you forced me to check my facts. Although my position is not congruent with the Catholic Church, it is substantially more restrictive than the current abortion policy in the US.

 

[spectrm]

So then it is human.

Yes…I spelled out ‘homo sapiens sapien’ and ‘fetus’ in the same sentence to say that (for the third time)…but it was merely to show how moot the point is. It’s a human fetus, but it is not a person, as per the law and, once again, there are very important reasons for that.

I’m not ignoring anything. Yours is the incoherent – even dangerous – position of allowing one party to determine to what extent another party does not have even the most basic of human rights.

Really? Cuz you’re the one telling me that you would deny a woman the right to a life saving surgery or a pill that kills nothing and could prevent a tragic turn in her life.

But if we could get back to PlanB (as the thread states), that would be fantastic.

 

[mlchance]

It’s a human fetus, but it is not a person, as per the law and, once again, there are very important reasons for that.

According to which law?

Really? Cuz you’re the one telling me that you would deny a woman the right to a life saving surgery or a pill that kills nothing and could prevent a tragic turn in her life.

Please quote me telling you either of those things.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[spectrm]

According to which law?

I thought that was pretty clear. But for the sake of spelling it out for the mentally-less-capacitated: legal law, social law - you know, the law that members of all faiths follow in order to form an actual country. Your ‘higher power’ doesn’t have sovereignty over all people.

Please quote me telling you either of those things.

Well…you believe abortion is uncircumstancially murder and so should be banned. And you apear to believe that PlanB is an abortion pill. That pretty well covers what I said.

 

[mlchance]

I thought that was pretty clear. But for the sake of spelling it out for the mentally-less-capacitated: legal law, social law -

So, IOW, you can’t actually cite any specific law. I thought as much.

Well…you believe abortion is uncircumstancially murder and so should be banned. And you apear to believe that PlanB is an abortion pill. That pretty well covers what I said.

So, IOW, you can’t actually quote me saying those things. I thought as much.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[stbruno]

What upsets me…as a youth minister, I can’t give a minor an antacid, a cough drop or acetaminophen without express written permission from a parent but kids at age 17 can ask for the morning after pill without any parental involvement. This a fatal medicine to an infant, and could cause life threatening harm to the recipient, but that’s ok acorrding to law??? I just don’t get it

 

[spectrm]

So, IOW, you can’t actually cite any specific law. I thought as much.

I can cite any one of 49 state statutes and various federal guidelines that define a separate set of rights for unborn children, as they are not covered by laws applying to ‘American Persons’. Most of all, however, I would point to the ‘common law’ practice involved…if you’re right and my inability to cite a ‘specific law’ signifies a lack of such a law existing, then common law would hold that I could sue a waitress for the miscarriage of my child after she served my wife sushi (the same happens to bartenders when a patron leaves drunk and kills someone). But really, i’d just cite Roe v. Wade.

legal definition of a ‘person’:
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Person
wikipedia for ‘United States person’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_person

So there is no definition in our legal system that even declares a fetus a ‘person’. They are not property holders, and can’t be as they are not citizens or on paper as a ‘real person’.

So, IOW, you can’t actually quote me saying those things. I thought as much.

Right - because I remember god specifically using the term ‘abortion’ in the Bible. Logical deduction is invaluable as a human being, don’t you think?

 

[spectrm]

What upsets me…as a youth minister, I can’t give a minor an antacid, a cough drop or acetaminophen without express written permission from a parent but kids at age 17 can ask for the morning after pill without any parental involvement. This a fatal medicine to an infant, and could cause life threatening harm to the recipient, but that’s ok acorrding to law??? I just don’t get it

Well - youth minister implies nothing about your accreditation as a medical doctor or health care specialist. Should you have one of those accreditations, and a license from the state to operate such practices as prescribed by your certification within your congregation, you can certainly dole out nearly any meds you’d like…but even then, you’d need a pharmacists license, otherwise all you can issue are prescriptions.

 

[stbruno]

Well - youth minister implies nothing about your accreditation as a medical doctor or health care specialist. Should you have one of those accreditations, and a license from the state to operate such practices as prescribed by your certification within your congregation, you can certainly dole out nearly any meds you’d like…but even then, you’d need a pharmacists license, otherwise all you can issue are prescriptions.

It has nothing to do with my credentials. I am a registered nurse too. I still cannot give out medication to anyone without parental permission.

 

[Holly3278]

This has got to be the dumbest thing that the FDA has ever done besides legalizing the RU486 drug. I am just utterly sickened.

 

[spectrm]

This has got to be the dumbest thing that the FDA has ever done besides legalizing the RU486 drug. I am just utterly sickened.

I would put this several rungs below approving ‘Splenda’…that’s eugenics in a can, folks.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes - by definition, it’s a fetus. And it is clearly of the homo sapiens sapien variety. My point is you’re ignoring the legal implications of determining a fetus ‘human’. There’s more to these social decisions than mere ideology.

Fetus means ‘little one’ in Latin.
Little what?
Little baby is the proper term. Or little human if you like.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Right - because I remember god specifically using the term ‘abortion’ in the Bible. Logical deduction is invaluable as a human being, don’t you think?

Actually according to rabbonic scholars - the Hebrew word for abortions is the same Hebrew word for Giants.
They say the English translation of the ‘time of the giants’ in Genesis during the time of Noah is an error and the actual word is aborted fetuses.