Nicely said Jessica, arsehole precisely. My most major question was why these tossers actually want to be health professionals in the first place if they're gonna deny prescriptions.

And, of course, this says nothing about the idiotic closeminded tyranny of thinking you have the right to impose your beliefs on others. Personally fundamentalist 'christian' morality has jack-shit to do with the way I live my life, and honestly, am getting really sick of having it imposed on me.

If she didn't want to deal with being told-off for wanting to murder her unborn child, she ought to have gone to a pharmacy where the pharmacist was an overt pro-death supporter.

If she didn't want to be told she was a baby murderer (which is what I'd say she is) she ought to have gone to a death-factory, instead of a place of life. Medical doctors are in the business of saving life, not taking it. Pharmacies dispense medicine to save life.

I know doctors, they vow, "Do no harm" as is part of their oath. This means that they must never knowingly do harm. To help a woman murder her unborn child would surely be doing harm, to the unborn child.

"If she didn't want to be told she was a baby murderer (which is what I'd say she is) she ought to have gone to a death-factory, instead of a place of life."

Ah yes, Walgreens. The place of life.

I think MC is joking. If not, he needs to get off the mic, yo.

uh, Amanda,

if MC is joking, then he has been joking in every single one of his other posts ... and the humour is honestly getting a touch old ...

Why would being a Calvinist and standing for God be interpreted as a joke? God is not a joke.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Dear Militant Calvinist,

Go to hell. I'm mocking god right now, as you read this: he, he. I just did it again. That's ok, god is all forgiving, so I'm safe as long I repent before death, right.

More to the point, there appears to be a concerted effort by anti-progressives to hijack discussions on un-mediated blogs. I've seen it across the political spectrum of blogs, but find it most abusive here at feministing.com. Spirited discussion helps clarify conversants' thinking, bomb-throwing rhetoric from reactionaries derails the flow. I suggest we create a single sentence on the order of "The above post doesn't warrant further comment" to flag bomb-throwers.

best,
Jack

No, you're not safe. God doesn't accept or allow those to repent who were not ashamed when they sinned (read Jeremiah 6:15). I believe in the Absolute Sovereignty of God. If you are not Elected by God to eternal life, you are going to hell and no amount of prayer, bible reading, church going, charity donating, etc, will ever change that.

I believe, as scripture teaches, that everything was predestinated from before the foundations of the Earth were laid, as it says in Romans, Ephesians, and Revelation (our names were either written in the book of life from before the foundation of the world or they were left out) there is nothing any can do to change this.

And if you ever read the bible, you'll realize there are MANY things God won't forgive, many things are a one way ticket to hell

Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

MC, you might believe that stuff, but not everyone does. You can't make them.

I don't wish everybody to believe in Calvinism. I believe Evangelism is wrong, if God wants you to be saved, He'll pull you into Calvinism and you won't be able to resist His irresistible Grace (it's the 4th point of the Five points "TULIP")

Basically those predestinated to be saved and have eternal life, will be pulled into the faith by God. That's why Calvinists don't waste their time evangelizing and doing missionary work, it's just not biblical.

Joking or mad as a hatter. I'm still leaning to the former--even batshit crazy loons know that this country isn't a theocracy.

I'm a Calvinist, we don't believe it's possible to have a government without it being based on bible, entirely on bible.

Government without bible is like a bird without wings, it won't get anywhere at all, it'll just sort of stagnate and achieve nothing.

Here's the contact info for Walgreens.

http://www.walgreens.com/contactus/default.jhtml

I guess what I'm wondering is when the pharmaceutical companies that make EC and birth control are going to start putting up as much a fuss as feminists are. I mean, this is a huge loss for them. Maybe they're just as scared as the pharmacies of the wingnuts.

(Sorry if the site doesn't come up as a hyperlink; maybe someone could explain it in completely understandable un-acronymed language:) )

If Pharmacies want to start handing out birth control willy-nilly as though they're candy canes in December, well you're darn right we're going to get up in a dander. We'll start forming picket lines and protest their sorry asses.

I think I'm going to suggest that at the next Council meeting, that we start economic boycotts against companies that birth control enable.

Let me add this, when the Council boycotts you, you feel it. There are probably 50,000+ members of the Council, including numerous state governors and state legislators. Multiple US Congressmen and Senators are also in the Council or have spoken before Council meetings.

Basically the Council, politically speaking, is a force to be reckoned with. And they can mobilize a whole slew of other groups to join in the pickets and boycotts.

This shit has got to stop. I get my birth control from Walgreens but I have no problem going elsewhere. Is there a drugstore that offers some sanity with their prescriptions?

Reading the constitution, one cannot find anywhere, written therein, that there is a right to either use contraceptive or more specifically that one has the other "right" to murder an unborn baby.

It won't be too long now though, and Roe v Wade will be toppled along with the other past idiotic court rulings (Miranda v Arizona, etc)

I am sorry, MC - did you happen to come across anywhere in the Constitution where it says that pharmacists specifically have a right to refuse prescription they find offensive? Probably not.
But OH! There's that little bit about separation of Church and State. It was put in there for a reason. And it means that US of A does NOT have to follow the Bible, although it might incorporate its ideals.

That said, I would worry about any right-wing organization deciding to boycott pharmacies that sell EC. Memebers of such organizations wouldn't question their leaders, and just do whatever their leaders tell them to. So, depending on the state/area, it might become a serious problem.
Incidentally, I've never heard anyone, of any faith, to say that God told them to do something that didn't agree with their own beliefs. It seems to only happen in Old Testament.

What I often fail to understand is the absense of shades of gray among "pro-life" people.

Wouldn't you rather a woman use emergency contraception to expel a single cell than get an abortion after the fetus has already begun to grow?

Once I told one of these people that there was a difference between expelling a zygote and dumping a baby in a trash can, and they refused to recognize any difference.

By grouping all "pro-life" people together, you are guilty of the same crime, GENERALIZING.

I think most people of reason (conservative and liberal) agree that EC is far preferable to abortion. That is why it has been legalized and approved for use in the US. A few isolated morons are makeing the news but never fear.....the reasonable people are winning.

Christ repeatedly tells people to do things they don't want to do, in the New Testament which is a literal and perfect record of His minsitry, as recorded in the King James 1611 version.

The right-wing typically doesn't "Just do what the leaders say" as you suggest. Trust me, we all have minds of our own. But if I ordered those under my command to boycott, they'd boycott, because authority and order are respected and valued in the right-wing.

There have to be clear and defined chains of command and those below have to obey those above. It's how a system, any system, works.

MC,

"If she didn't want to deal with being told-off for wanting to murder her unborn child, she ought to have gone to a pharmacy where the pharmacist was an overt pro-death supporter."

A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions and give drug-related advice, not to tell people off. Hence, she went to a pharmacist to have a rx filled. Pharmacists cannot, and do not dispense lethal doses of meds, and their personal views on the death penalty are irrelevant, hence your designation of a pharmacist as "pro-death" is illogical.

"If she didn't want to be told she was a baby murderer (which is what I'd say she is) she ought to have gone to a death-factory, instead of a place of life. Medical doctors are in the business of saving life, not taking it. Pharmacies dispense medicine to save life.

I know doctors, they vow, "Do no harm" as is part of their oath. This means that they must never knowingly do harm."

Since the woman hasn't killed a baby, nor was she planning to, calling her a "baby murdered" is illogical. [Your belief does not equal reality.] There are no "death-factories" in the U.S. The medical doctor who prescribed the EC, and the pharmacy who dispenses it are, indeed, in the business of saving life: the life of the woman who might get pregnant. [Assuming the woman is in perfect health, her risk of death from carrying pregnancy to term is 1:10,000.]

"To help a woman murder her unborn child would surely be doing harm, to the unborn child"

Since EC has no effect on an established pregnancy your statement is illogical.

"If Pharmacies want to start handing out birth control willy-nilly as though they're candy canes in December, well you're darn right we're going to get up in a dander. We'll start forming picket lines and protest their sorry asses."

May I suggest you proceed ASAP with those planned picket lines; pharmacies have been dispensing birth control (condoms, vaginal film, spermicides) OTC for quite some time now.

in the business of saving life: the life of the woman who might get pregnant. [Assuming the woman is in perfect health, her risk of death from carrying pregnancy to term is 1:10,000.]

That is what you said.

Anyway, that figure you give is a false figure, at least in the upper class of the USA it is, maybe in the Third world or poor communities in the USA. But I honestly don't know of anybody who ever died carrying an unborn child to term. Nor have I heard of any such cases. Maybe it happens in the poor communities or the Third World, indeed it probably does, but oh well, that's the way things are. If people want to avoid it, they can abstain from sex.

Anyway, I find something fundamentally flawed with a society that permits women to run around getting abortions behind the backs of their fathers (if they're underage then their medical situation ought to be decided by their father) or their husband (if they're married it ought to at least be partially decided by their husband).

Again, I base these things only on bible, and solely on bible. Well I suppose not solely on bible, some of it is just common sense and the sort of thing that any intelligent person can see is conducive to building a strong society and healthy economy. And yes, these are economic matters as well.

Too many Americans are having abortions and this is drastically lowering the quality and quantity of our workforce. They say we need people to do various jobs, and since Americans are not replacing themselves, they bring in foreigners, mostly Mexicans and other Third Worlders, who are ultimately not the quality of workers we need.

we don't believe it's possible to have a government without it being based on bible, entirely on bible

And yet, here we all are, having a government that's not based entirely "on bible." (I believe the phrase you are looking for is "on the Bible.")

But I honestly don't know of anybody who ever died carrying an unborn child to term. Nor have I heard of any such cases.

Ah, so because YOU don't know anyone, it can't be true. Women face major medical risks from pregnancy all the time, whether you know those women or not, and sometimes that involves death.

Maybe it happens in the poor communities or the Third World, indeed it probably does, but oh well, that's the way things are. If people want to avoid it, they can abstain from sex.

Yeah, those rape victims should have abstained from sex, too.

LOL. Feministing has the wackiest trolls. This has to be a troll, because no way can you be seriously proposing this garbage.

As I said, I'm an Old School/Primitive Baptist who believes in the Five Points of Calvinism. I'm also in the CCC (The Council) so maybe you ought to look into the council first. We're the largest group of paleo-conservatives in the nation (we reject Bush and the entire neo-con movement as nothing but a communist front to subvert and destroy the Western civilization that is present in America)

And I've read the statistics, less than 10% of abortions are for rape or serious threats to health.

Also, we always say "Bible" not "The bible". Often before I start preaching to my peers I'll hold it up and shout, "I got some bible for you all!" and then that's the signal for them to gather around. (Lots of folks seem to love my preaching

MC,

"Anyway, that figure you give is a false figure, at least in the upper class of the USA it is, maybe in the Third world or poor communities in the USA. But I honestly don't know of anybody who ever died carrying an unborn child to term. Nor have I heard of any such cases. Maybe it happens in the poor communities or the Third World, indeed it probably does, but oh well, that's the way things are. If people want to avoid it, they can abstain from sex."

I mentioned this before; your belief (same for your personal experience/s) does not equal reality:

"Anyway, that figure you give is a false figure, at least in the upper class of the USA it is, maybe in the Third world or poor communities in the USA."

The figure I used is from Williams Obstetrics, 21ed, p1518, and the 10,000 denotes U.S. female population, not U.S./Third world/poor country lower class population. If you have studies and data proving this figure is false, I urge you to contact the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, as well as the authors of Williams immediately.

"But I honestly don't know of anybody who ever died carrying an unborn child to term. Nor have I heard of any such cases."

And I honestly know women who have died carrying a pregnancy to term. I have also heard of many such cases. However, neither your personal experience, nor mine, for that matter, are relevant. Neither can be used to determine the risk of death from carrying a pregnancy to term. Only properly conducted, population based studies can do that. Hence my use of the 1:10,000 figure.

"Anyway, I find something fundamentally flawed with a society that permits women to run around getting abortions behind the backs of their fathers (if they're underage then their medical situation ought to be decided by their father) or their husband (if they're married it ought to at least be partially decided by their husband)."

If this is your belief, then it's understandable why you'd be pleased with the woman mentioned in the post having an abortion, since a male pharmacists [practically] decide that for her. Granted, he was neither the woman's father, nor her husband. However, since you believe men are a priori better qualified to decide women's medical care, just the fact that a male made the medical decision should be sufficient.

"Again, I base these things only on bible, and solely on bible. Well I suppose not solely on bible, some of it is just common sense and the sort of thing that any intelligent person can see is conducive to building a strong society and healthy economy. And yes, these are economic matters as well."

Apropos "some of it is just common sense and the sort of thing that any intelligent person can see": Please familiarize yourself with some basic logical fallacies (http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/).

"Too many Americans are having abortions and this is drastically lowering the quality and quantity of our workforce. They say we need people to do various jobs, and since Americans are not replacing themselves, they bring in foreigners, mostly Mexicans and other Third Worlders, who are ultimately not the quality of workers we need."

The elective abortion rate has been steadily declining, so fewer Americans are having abortions. Please provide the data showing a link between the elective abortion rate and the quality and quantity of our workforce. Who is "They"? And "since Americans are not replacing themselves" is not true. The fertility rate, the rate needed to replace a population, is ~2.1. The U.S. fertility rate is 2.1 (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html). [Mexico's fertility rate is 2.5 (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/mexico_statistics.html).]

Too many Americans are having abortions and this is drastically lowering the quality and quantity of our workforce. They say we need people to do various jobs, and since Americans are not replacing themselves, they bring in foreigners, mostly Mexicans and other Third Worlders, who are ultimately not the quality of workers we need.

Excuse me? America is in no danger of running out of bodies to do the work. In fact, a frightening number of Americans have lost their jobs over the past few years because the work is being outsourced. The companies are giving the jobs to "Mexicans and other Third Worlders" because those people will work for smaller paychecks.

I see that not only are you religiously bigoted and sexist, you're also under the false impression that people from other countries are not as good as Americans! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though.

First let me say that no, not any man is better qualified to decide medical care. Some strange doctor who has no attachment and concern for the person who is to receive the care, ought not be the final say. Obviously though a husband has a strong emotional connection to and greats greatly for, his wife. The same as with a father and a daughter. Thus a husband ought to have some say in the medical care his wife received. But as for a father, as long as his sons and daughters are minors, he has total control over them.

Now as for the second person who makes some claim that I'm sexist and bigoted. I don't think so, and none of my friends do. I accept the term ultra-nationalist, racialist, fascist, reactionary, etc. But I deny the terms sexist, racist, bigot, hate-monger.

My main political concern in life is that demographics are rapidly shifting against the Western world and pretty soon there won't be any West left.

It won't be long before Sharia is imposed across Europe as more and more muslims flood in. And we all know what happens to women, particularly Christian Western women, once muslims get their paws on them.

"First let me say that no, not any man is better qualified to decide medical care. Some strange doctor who has no attachment and concern for the person who is to receive the care, ought not be the final say. Obviously though a husband has a strong emotional connection to and greats greatly for, his wife. The same as with a father and a daughter. Thus a husband ought to have some say in the medical care his wife received. But as for a father, as long as his sons and daughters are minors, he has total control over them."

When it comes to deciding a medical course of action you, the patient, do not want the person making the decision to be attached, or to have a strong emotional connection to you. That's a serious disadvantage; it clouds the judgment, and can lead to mistakes. How much input the husband has, if any, is between him and his wife, the patient. However, the final say, the one between the patient and the physician, is the woman's, since she is the patient.

No, actually, legally, he does not. Aside from the fact that he cannot murder them, abuse them, etc. at will, a pregnant minor is automatically considered emancipated, and can consent for herself. [Well, for major decisions like surgeries, and other medical treatments that is, not for taking the bus across state lines.]

"It won't be long before Sharia is imposed across Europe as more and more muslims flood in. And we all know what happens to women, particularly Christian Western women, once muslims get their paws on them."

[I'm not sure if you're serious, but I'll play along.] As opposed to what happens to women (Christian, or not!) once other flavors of religious fundamentalists (that's what you meant by Muslims, no?) get their paws on them? So the only logical thing for us all to do is to get behind supporting an atheist take over. [Because you know those people, paws or no paws, won't contaminate anybody's religious purity. They've simply no alternative God to offer.]

It's interesting that so many Christians claim abortions are against the will of God, when there are absolutely no passages dealing with abortion in the entire Bible.
The two passages most often quoted (Psalms 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:4-10) refer two two specific individuals: Kind David, supposedly formed by God in the womb, and the prophet Jeremiah, who God "Knew before he was born". One's a God appointed King, the other a prophecied holy man. Neither passage refers to anyone other than those two individuals.

One passage is used by both sides of the choice argument: Exodus 21:22-25. Some interpret it as being about the death of a foetus being acceptable. Others say it simply refers to causing premature birth.

Nowhere in the Bible does it clearly state that the death of a foetus is morally wrong. Given that the Bible deals in black and white morality, and abortions have existed for thousands of years, this seems an odd oversight.

MC,

The great thing about the United states is we get to choose whatever religion we feel like. Thus, you get to base your life off of a restricting, impropable, illogical faith and I get to live my life as a goddless heathen. Yay for plurastic society.

So, you're oppinion of what is and what isn't is entirely different from mine. You're entitled to that oppinion, so you can choose not to use bc and possibly find a willing submissive wife. That's nice. I'll go and not find myself husband, because they're quite frankly a waste of time if you don't want kids (in my oppinion). And continue I'll continue to use bc and if I get pregnant, abortion, because it's my body and I don't have to defer to a father or a husband (incidentally, if I told you I didn't have a father, what would you have said? Was I supposed to defer to my grandfather?)

I also have some major questions about predestination and how "logical" it is, but that would be a thread drift so email me at floater_girl@yahoo.com