Mother is denied Pill by Muslim pharmacist

[Liberalsaved]

What is your defination of being “actually alive”?

Actually being an existing person. If conception has not even happened, potential fetuses are not yet humans.

 

[a_cermak]

But the failure to implant happens all the time naturally. And because the hardening must be done prior to implantation to be effective in blocking pregnancy, one can argue that this merely makes conditions hostile for any thing to implant, but does not in fact kill anything.

 

[deb1]

But the failure to implant happens all the time naturally. And because the hardening must be done prior to implantation to be effective in blocking pregnancy, one can argue that this merely makes conditions hostile for any thing to implant, but does not in fact kill anything.

A lot of things happen naturally that is wrong for us to do ourselves. People die, that is a natural phenomen. It woud be wrong for me to murder someone because death happens naturally.

Doesn’t the same logic apply to embryos?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I wonder what would happen if the same incident happened in Illinois. Would the governor there go after the man.

 

[TheGarg]

I have to say, I don’t see birth control as murder. I’ve been painted untruthfully as in support of free-range abortion, but that is too extreme for me.There are moral arguments to be had about it, but unless the victim is actually alive, it is not murder.

Hah…you mean if the victim can’t scream, then it’s not really a victim?..shall we get a microscope?? I bet whatever we look at is “alive”…

life at conception…period.

 

[fix]

But the failure to implant happens all the time naturally. And because the hardening must be done prior to implantation to be effective in blocking pregnancy, one can argue that this merely makes conditions hostile for any thing to implant, but does not in fact kill anything.

So, how long does implantation have to happen before you deem it a life? One second, one hour, one day, one month, more? How is that determined?

 

[Wendy-Kay]

Actually being an existing person. If conception has not even happened, potential fetuses are not yet humans.

I loved and named my embryos while they were still “potential fetuses”. My children are thus, regardless of their size. I saw them on the ultrasound. They definitly existed.

 

[estesbob]

So, how long does implantation have to happen before you deem it a life? One second, one hour, one day, one month, more? How is that determined?

Life begins at conception. No one disputed this until the late 50s when the IUD was developed. The idea that life began at implantation was the result of a PR campaign by the pharmaceutical companies to gain acceptance of the IUD(which prevents implantation)

Heres the comments of a Dr. Taylor at an ealy IUD conference:

“I fully agree with you sir, that the time of which human life begins is a philosophical question , however, if a medical consensus develops and is mantained that pregnancy , and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our bretheren from other faculties will listen”

In short there was no science at all involved in the “life begins at implantation” claim.

 

[fix]

Life begins at conception. No one disputed this until thelate 50s when the IUD was developed. The idea that life began at implantation was the result of a PR campaign by the pharmaceutical companies to gain acceptance of the IUD(which prevents implantation)

Heres the comments of a Dr. Taylor at an ealy IUD conference:

“I fully agree with you sir, that the time of which human life begins is a philosophical question , however, if a medical consensus develops and is mantained that pregnancy , and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our bretheren from other faculties will listen”

In short there was no science at all involved in the “life begins at implantation” claim.

I await an answer from those who claim life begins at implantation. How long before it should be called a life?

 

[a_cermak]

As I stated, the hardening of the uterus has to be accomplished prior to implantation to be effective. So if the embryo has not yet implanted, then the mother is free to keep her uterus in whatever state she wishes as there is no life in the uterus for her to safeguard.

 

[deb1]

As I stated, the hardening of the uterus has to be accomplished prior to implantation to be effective. So if the embryo has not yet implanted, then the mother is free to keep her uterus in whatever state she wishes as there is no life in the uterus for her to safeguard.

Just for clarification, you believe that life starts at implentation?

 

[fix]

As I stated, the hardening of the uterus has to be accomplished prior to implantation to be effective. So if the embryo has not yet implanted, then the mother is free to keep her uterus in whatever state she wishes as there is no life in the uterus for her to safeguard.

So, the instant the fertilized egg attaches to the “hard” uterous it becomes a life?

 

[a_cermak]

So, the instant the fertilized egg attaches to the “hard” uterous it becomes a life?

I believe that it’s life from the moment of conception. But I don’t believe that that life has an inherent right to a safe place to implant. Nor do I believe that it has unlimited rights upon its host even after implantation.

 

[fix]

I believe that it’s life from the moment of conception.

OK, great

But I don’t believe that that life has an inherent right to a safe place to implant.

Why not? What is the purpose of the uterous? If the baby does not have an absolute right to life, then I have to ask who else has no absolute right to life?

Nor do I believe that it has unlimited rights upon its host even after implantation.

So, only conditional rights? So, the baby is less human than the mother?

 

[a_cermak]

Why not? What is the purpose of the uterous? If the baby does not have an absolute right to life, then I have to ask who else has no absolute right to life?

Because the woman has an ownership claim on her uterus. Just as random strangers can’t choose to move into your home, even if they don’t disturb you, the embryo has no ownership claim on the woman’s uterus.

So, only conditional rights? So, the baby is less human than the mother?

No, no less human, but dependent. Just as a landlord is not required to allow a family to live in his apartment building without paying rent, even if they will freeze if he evicts them.

Now this is not true once you pass the 6 month point where a child can live independent from his mother. But she has the right there to demand inducement.

It’s strictly a property rights issue with me.

Back to topic: If this were a pharmacy in IL and it stocked birth control then the pharmacy would be in trouble with the law, not the pharmacist.

 

[fix]

Because the woman has an ownership claim on her uterus. Just as random strangers can’t choose to move into your home, even if they don’t disturb you, the embryo has no ownership claim on the woman’s uterus.

No, no less human, but dependent. Just as a landlord is not required to allow a family to live in his apartment building without paying rent, even if they will freeze if he evicts them.

Now this is not true once you pass the 6 month point where a child can live independent from his mother. But she has the right there to demand inducement.

It’s strictly a property rights issue with me.

Back to topic: If this were a pharmacy in IL and it stocked birth control then the pharmacy would be in trouble with the law, not the pharmacist.

So, the mother is absolute master over her body? She is the “owner”? The baby is a stranger and his/her absolute right to life is secondary to the contrived “property rights” of the woman?

How does the Christ fit into that reasoning?

 

[estesbob]

Because the woman has an ownership claim on her uterus. Just as random strangers can’t choose to move into your home, even if they don’t disturb you, the embryo has no ownership claim on the woman’s uterus.

No, no less human, but dependent. Just as a landlord is not required to allow a family to live in his apartment building without paying rent, even if they will freeze if he evicts them.

Now this is not true once you pass the 6 month point where a child can live independent from his mother. But she has the right there to demand inducement.

It’s strictly a property rights issue with me.

Back to topic: If this were a pharmacy in IL and it stocked birth control then the pharmacy would be in trouble with the law, not the pharmacist.

I thought we were taking about the wanton slaughter of human life-not negotiating a lease…

 

[james1441]

So, the mother is absolute master over her body? She is the “owner”? The baby is a stranger and his/her absolute right to life is secondary to the contrived “property rights” of the woman?

How does the Christ fit into that reasoning?

i dont think they were trying to say that the baby has no worth or was trying to say abortion is a good thing. however it is correct that a person’s body is their property and they are master of it so long as it does not conflict with the rights of another person (this would be why a consensual pregnancy would not allow an abortion since that mother knew she would be having a child, and for her to then kill the child would then be a violation of his property rights and his right to live) after all if a person does not even have the right to their own body then there is no reason why i couldnt just kill them or rape them.

even though this analogy doesnt have to do with abortion this might put things in a better perspective. a man suddenly handcuffed himself to you and then threw you two over the side of a bridge, now you two are hanging there for dear life. you realize you two will eventually fall off in a matter of minutes, you also have once chance to escape but that would involve letting him fall to his death. so do you allow him to die and you to live or you both die? well the answer would be that you have the right to let him fall since it was him who violated your rights in the first place and got you into this mess, you have no right to die for his action.

 

[estesbob]

I believe that it’s life from the moment of conception. But I don’t believe that that life has an inherent right to a safe place to implant. Nor do I believe that it has unlimited rights upon its host even after implantation.

HOST? There is no “host” invloved in pregnancy. Oh I get it-you mean MOTHER! I was afraid for a minute you had bought into the child is a parasite lie. One runs across the most absurd biology from those trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[estesbob]

i dont think they were trying to say that the baby has no worth or was trying to say abortion is a good thing. however it is correct that a person’s body is their property and they are master of it so long as it does not conflict with the rights of another person (this would be why a consensual pregnancy would not allow an abortion since that mother knew she would be having a child, and for her to then kill the child would then be a violation of his property rights and his right to live) after all if a person does not even have the right to their own body then there is no reason why i couldnt just kill them or rape them.

.

I thought my body was a Temple of the Holy Spirit and belonged to God? I thought this was true from the moment God formed me in the womb?. Where did you ever get the idea our body was our own property?