[quote name='thrustbucket']Wow. Well, why stop there? Why not allow killing it the day it's born if it turns out to be ugly? You could also make a pretty good case for a mothers right to kill it at any point in it's first few months/years of life by saying the little organism is still completely dependent on it's mother.... So why not still make it a womans right to kill it if she decides the choice to keep it ends up too much a pain in the ass?
In fact, if this debate is really about womens rights, I'm all for just allowing a mother to legally kill her child at any stage in life as her moral and social responsibility. Hell, why not? Gotta trust mothers intuition, right?[/QUOTE]
I think adding "biologically" in front of "dependent" changes much of the meaning. And saying it's about "women's rights" kind of makes it sound like "equal wages" and "voting." It's also about the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. The fact that at some point, your body *contains* another living thing is what makes it a complicated issue. But I'd think a small gov guy like yourself might understand it better by thinking about what your reaction would be if the government told you there were certain things that you were flat out prohibited from doing with your own body. Should it be illegal for pregnant women to smoke, too? What about smoking in general, then? And so on and so forth.
[quote name='thrustbucket']You can use the same logic to say that someone, or society itself, is better off with the death of multiple undesirable people. The question is: should we?[/QUOTE]
We do it all the time, at least in states where we still have the death penalty.
[quote name='thrustbucket']But I think it should be difficult to obtain, and nearly impossible to be used as simple birth control.[/QUOTE]
Well, I've yet to meet the woman who prefers getting her reproductive organs scraped and vacuumed with surgical instruments to having her man put on a condom, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Of course, making it difficult to obtain only increases the probability that the abortions that do happen will be late-term. So which is preferable?
[quote name='thrustbucket']That day likely won't come through billions spent in handing condoms out and putting condoms on cucumbers in elementary school.[/QUOTE]
But since there ain't any better ways at the moment . . .
Anyway (and this is no longer directed toward thrust) , what I find especially troubling is "the regulation ... explicitly allows workers to withhold information about such services and refuse to refer patients elsewhere." In fact, the whole point of this regulation is because "two professional organizations for obstetricians and gynecologists [that he said] might require doctors who object to abortions to refer patients to other physicians who would provide them." Notably, it also covers all medical professionals and pharmacists.
Quotes from:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082103218.html
So no, it ain't just about "I get to pass on performing abortions" -- it very literally and intentionally allows these people to impose their morals on you -- to say that because THEY are opposed to birth control, YOU don't get to have it.
I mean, let me make this clear: if you are a woman who goes to pick up your birth control prescription and your pharmacist doesn't like that, he can pull the prescription and not give it back to you, like this douche-nozzle:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html, or this one:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/23/eveningnews/main657435.shtml, or this one:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0405-23.htm. And in the case of a woman who needs to grab some morning after pills, the need is quite urgent, and *cannot* be delayed ... else you're looking at a woman who needs one of those abortions they also oppose.
Further, the proposed rule isn't limited to abortion. That's one given example. But there's nothing that says abortions are the only procedures that can be refused.
"The fourth conscience provision, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(d), provides that “[n]o individual
shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program
or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by [the Department] if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions."
Think about that. All those "crazy" hypotheticals that people have been listing about not treating gays or blacks? Yeah, that shit's protected. And the nutjobs are completely aware of what they can get away with now (from WaPo again):
"Both supporters and critics said the language remains broad enough to apply to contraceptives, as well as many other areas in medicine.
'I think this provides broad application not just to abortion and sterilization but any other type of morally objectionable procedure and research activity,' said David Stevens of the Christian Medical and Dental Association. 'We think it's badly needed. Our members are facing discrimination every day, and as we get into human cloning and all sorts of possibilities, it's going to become even more important.'"
Not gonna be forced into the cloning either, huh?
Even if they're anti-abortion, how the
can anyone come out and defend this utter bullshit with a
ing clean conscience or a straight face? Because this -- THIS RIGHT
ING HERE -- is the shit that needs to be fought, tooth and nail, if you have even the *slightest* idea of American ideals or human rights. So really. Who just read all that and said, "No, no, I'm all for that" -- because I want a direct, personal,
ing rebuttal from anyone who's posting in this thread supporting this bullshit so far. Let's go.
