If they can't understand the difference between abortions and emergency contraception, they shouldn't be involved in the medical business. And if they persist in the delusional claim that dispensing emergency contraception is against their religious beliefs, they should find a different profession.

Right on! I was going to say also that the pharmacists said they believe "life begins at conception." Pharmacists should know that EC PREVENTS pregnancy...meaning nothing is conceived! IDIOTS! If I were them I'd be suing my pharmacy school for all the money it took to get the degree, because obviously they didn't get a complete education!

Oh SHIT. The dude who own's Ralph's is a wacko? Dammit dammit DAMMIT. Where am I supposed to get my groceries, Albertson's? FUCK.

Now I'll have to shop at Whole Foods, which is soooooo expensive :(

Please, nobody post a bad story about Trader Joe's, or I will go broke... :(

oh my God. I SO know that "owns" has no apostrophe...

And yet vegetarian butchers still have no recourse for refusing to sell customers meat...

Wait, you can sue for HAVING TO DO YOUR JOB? Dude, can I sue for having to deal with ignant plonkers all day?

OH phew, nevermind. False alarm. I guess the crazy is just the guy who owns THAT Ralph's...

OMG I flipped out when I got to this passage in the story. "The plaintiffs are pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, and Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy."

I KNOW THAT STORE!! It's the closest grocery store (at least on the bus line) to the Evergreen State College. It's literally the first grocery store I went to my freshman year of college. It's right in downtown Olympia but because of the way the buses go from campus to downtown you always end up passing it.

I can't believe two women who work at that store...who deal with as many liberal, progressive, lefty, *activist* college kids are making a big stink about passing out Plan B. It's like two people who live in the Castro District of San Francisco being angry that their city council person isn't anti-gay.

It's summertime so I imagine campus activism is at a low point but I can't imagine this not blowing up in the store's face come fall. Evergreen students LOVE TO PROTEST. That store cannot afford the college kids not shopping there. (Granted it's been...um...a decade since I lived in Olympia but I have friends who lived there much more recently.)

This whole idea of pharmacists being able to deny people medications always gets my fire burning.
What I do with my life has nothing to do with what they do in their own lives.

I would say to them, do your job and quit your bitching.

Oh brother. So, let's see are they opposed to dispensing any OTHER medications on moral grounds? Are they okay with Viagra? Funny how the only prescription that bears religious scruitiny is this one. Do they even THINK about the other medications they dispense in this way? I've never seen a pharmacist refuse to prescribe any other medication. If someone has an example though, please post it, I'd love to see it.

Kali Ma, good point. I know there are some religious groups who are opposed to VACCINATIONS... I've never heard one of them complaining that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to vaccinate people for the flu. Probably because those people have the good sense to understand that if you are opposed to providing aspects of BASIC HEALTH CARE, then probably the field of HEALTH CARE is not the best career choice.

My new religion of Supersolipsism allows me to bolt work early any time I overhear/eavesdrop on a workplace conversation that does not have anything to do with me.

Right on! I was going to say also that the pharmacists said they believe "life begins at conception." Pharmacists should know that EC PREVENTS pregnancy...meaning nothing is conceived! IDIOTS!

Actually, Fiery lil redhead, you're the one who needs a clue. There is a fundamental difference between the biological processes of conception and implantation.

---

I don't think that pharmacies should be required to stock this, any more than they should be required to stock any specific drug.

There is a compromise in this bill: the pharmacist can refuse to fill the prescription and hand it off to a colleague.

If the constitutional rights of Jewish business owners weren't violated by requiring them to be closed on Sunday, even though they already were closed on their own sabbath, as the Supreme Court has held, it's hard to see how a bunch of people who unfortunately found themselves working in a field that entails certain ethical duties can have any fundamental right to refuse to comply with those duties to the detriment of those who rely on them. I'm just hoping that there are adequate and independent State grounds in the dismissal so that Alito & Co. can't have a go at it.

It's also worth noting that fertilised eggs don't always end up implanting. If these Nobel Prize winners want to be truly consistent, they should be forcing their female customers to stop menstruating.

Elise,

Those two posts are confusing. I'm not sure how you are confusing menstruation with pregnancy... and I'm really confused as to why you conflate two different concepts. Analogise: a store may refuse to sell alcohol, believing it to be immoral; the moral basis is that the store owners don't want to use their store to aid and abet bad actions. That is an entirely different thing from forcing customers to do something.

The same distinction applies with the Supreme Court ruling you cited. It is one thing to prevent someone from doing something (i.e. operating a store on Sunday) and to force them to do something (i.e. forcing them to open on their own Sabbath).

In many states, teenagers cannot operate their cars after midnight. That's an acceptable state regulation. OTOH, there would be mayhem if teenagers were required to operate cars for a certain purpose.

So here's a question: should Jessica be required to sell advertising space on Feministing to an organisation which she finds morally repugnant? Should teachers, in the name of education, be forced to teach their students that honour killings are legitimate cultural phenomenon? Should a judge or the state be able to require an attorney to represent someone accused of honuor killing, without any conscience clause?

The force of law is a great thing when it's for your own goals, but is frightening and tyrannical when used against you.

I am so sick and tired of these pharmacists! It should be the law that if the doctor, who spent those four years at medical school, passed the exams and has that license to practice medicine, writes a prescription for anything, the pharmacist should just fill it. Isn't it the job of a pharmacist to dispense medication? If they want to pick and choose which ones they dispense then they should find a new profession.

I'm not sure how you are confusing menstruation with pregnancy... and I'm really confused as to why you conflate two different concepts.

I'm not confusing anything. Prior to implantation, a fertilised egg may leave the uterus during menstruation. If life begins at fertilisation, as these pharmacists claim, then sexually active women who also menstruate are serial killers.

SassyGirl,

I totally agree with the last part - there's reasons why I wouldn't be a criminal defence attorney, for example - but not the rest of it.

Pharmacy school is six years long. :) They don't just learn to find the right pill and stick it in a plastic container - any high-school graduate could do that - but there are other issues they must deal with. A lot of their job involves substituting medications if insurance doesn't cover the brand name, or ensuring that there aren't conflicts among the person's various meds (which is a huge issue), and, of course, some pharmacists compound their own drugs.

A pharmacist who "just fills" a prescription is abrogating her professional duty. Nevertheless, a pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense Plan B can work at a pharmacy that doesn't stock it or get another pharmacist to fill it.

I'm not confusing anything. Prior to implantation, a fertilised egg may leave the uterus during menstruation. If life begins at fertilisation, as these pharmacists claim, then sexually active women who also menstruate are serial killers.

HUH?

1) There is a difference between a deliberate act and one that happens naturally. Consider that it's wrong to off an elderly person, even if she would have died of a heart attack the next day.

2) Menstruation doesn't cause the non-implantation.

3) No one is forbidding women who want Plan B from entering the store; they just aren't helping them to obtain it. My Mormon friends will never buy alcohol for me, but they will hang out with me. There's a difference between not aiding in wrongdoing and banning the wrongdoers from your life.

You're reaching and not making much sense.

2) Menstruation doesn't cause the non-implantation.

Well good thing that's not what she's SAYING! Fertilized eggs often leave the body via menstruation. Meaning tiny little "babies" come out with one's period blood sometimes. If it doesn't implant, it's not gonna turn into a baby.

SarahMC,

You're often bitchy to me for no reason. I do vividly recall that you called me "shallow" out of nowhere.

Nevertheless, I'm honestly confused. Is Elise saying that fertilised, non-implanted eggs come out of the body via menstruation? Or that fertilised, implanted eggs come out?

Why is any of that important? Many babies die in infancy, but we don't use that to justify infanticide. She has still yet to explain why a deliberate act and an act of nature are morally the same. Consider that we will all die, yet murder is manifestly illegal.

oenophile, I am having trouble reconciling your comments on this thread with your pretty much exact opposite comments on the thread about doctors who refuse to perform tubal ligations. Interestingly enough, also, you have mentioned on this website that you make the choice (as you have absolutely every right to, and which choice should be respected by all choice-minded feminists) not to have non-marital sex -- and that you have no intention of having children, and would potentially be interested in having a surgery to prevent you from becoming pregnant.

While I acknowledge that there are, in the abstract, rational bases on which to distinguish these two issues, frankly I question your motivations in making such a vehement defense of these patriarchal protectionist pharmacists when you're incensed at patriarchal protectionist doctors.

It all boils down to choosing an occupation in which you won't be expected to do things that make you morally uncomfortable. For the past thirty to forty years, contraception is simply another component of basic health. It is. This is 2007 and you have to live in the real world, and in the real world, contraception is a BASIC HEALTH SERVICE and to think otherwise is simply to live in denial. Similarly, emergency contraception is just that, CONTRACEPTION. This is the MEDICAL term given to it by SCIENCE AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. In other words, it prevents CONCEPTION. From a medical and scientific definitional standpoint, it does not abort a living fetus. It prevents conception. Thus, fertilization does not equal conception (now watch the anti-choicers' new rallying cry: life begins at fertilization! Heh... seems much less romantic and catchy). Thus, it is STILL part of BASIC HEALTH SERVICES to which a pharmacist signs on by going to school and getting a license and getting a job as a pharmacist.

If you were morally averse to keeping damaging secrets, then you could not be a lawyer. Even if your understanding of your religion said that keeping damaging secrets was immoral and akin to murder. The obvious answer would be: don't become a lawyer, because maintaining client confidentiality (which often -- even usually -- involves keeping damaging secrets) is a part of the job description. Don't like it, find another occupation. It really is that simple.

from an article on Plan B:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/05/67432?currentPage=2

"...Dr. James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University, said the studies cited by the Population Council were well-done, but said they can't prove with certainty that Plan B never affects a fertilized egg. That's because no human test exists that can determine whether fertilization has taken place, he said.

"But he pointed out that pregnancy prevention can also occur under more natural circumstances, and whether the pregnancy is thwarted before or after fertilization is equally impossible to prove.

"For example, the majority of fertilized eggs simply do not successfully implant in the uterus, even when no birth control is used. Also, breast-feeding is known to reduce the chance of pregnancy for up to six months after a woman gives birth.

"'So if one really were opposed to anything that might prevent pregnancy after fertilization,' Trussell said, 'one would need to be opposed to all hormonal methods as well as breast-feeding.'..."

I wonder how many people out there would applaud a mother who breastfeeds her baby on demand despite the risk of shedding a fertilized egg and would condemn a mother who breastfeeds her baby on demand in part because of the risk of shedding a fertilized egg.

Refuting arguments is not bitchy, IMO.

Is Elise saying that fertilised, non-implanted eggs come out of the body via menstruation? Or that fertilised, implanted eggs come out?

She was originally saying the former, I believe; the latter also happens, however.

While I acknowledge that there are, in the abstract, rational bases on which to distinguish these two issues, frankly I question your motivations in making such a vehement defense of these patriarchal protectionist pharmacists when you're incensed at patriarchal protectionist doctors.

Um... not really. Babe, my defence is not "vehement." I am defending the law as currently written - that which the pharmacists are challenging. I'm strongly defending the profession of a pharmacist, which is more than being a pill dispenser. Believe it or not, I'm capable of nuanced opinions....

I do not think that doctors should be forced to perform tubal ligations. I just think that they should present logical reasons for not doing so. The point I've been trying to make over there is that their reasons for not performing the tubal ligations are irrational: they analyse only the risks of the surgery and do not analyse the risks of not performing it. I also believe that, if they choose to not perform the operation, they should refer patients to someone who will. Same as any other operation: analyse risks, analyse benefits, and refer to another doctor if you feel squeamish. Alternatively, they could go into an area of medicine which would not entail them doing TLs.

Likewise, as I said above, a pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense Plan B can work in a pharmacy that doesn't stock it, or, under Washington's law, get someone else on staff to do it. If you'll notice, I don't agree with the idea that they should be forced to dispense it, no more than I think doctors should be forced to perform an operation.

Furthermore, one objection is religious and moral, which I place a LOT of weight upon, and the other is neither religious nor moral. (Perhaps some doctors object to TLs for those reasons, but the vast majority do it out of some irrational, half-baked theory about "changing your mind.") I do think that any profession could entail religious conflict, and a good law will allow a person to do his job within the parameters of his conscience while protecting the public. The Washington Plan B law does that. Tubal ligation squeamishness isn't about morals - no one is running around, worrying that this is tantamount to murder - it is actually a radical deviation from every other professional standard.

You can conscientiously object to representation of certain clients or certain matters. The fact that you may need to do so certainly hasn't prohibited you from becoming a lawyer. If you do so object, though, your bosses and your firm's clients should at least hear a reason that comports with your deeply held beliefs.

If you have trouble reconciling those opinions, that problem is YOURS and not mine.

Yeah, I know I don't want kids and I don't have premarital sex. Heard of rape? Heard of marriage? Much of the reason that I have not actively sought a spouse is because of the pregnancy issue.

(Hint: if you still have trouble, figure out the pro-life difference between preventing conception and preventing implantation. One of them is very pro-life; the other is questionable. Some of my avid support of TLs and vasectomies is that they can prevent the need for abortion.)

"Question my motivations" however much you want, LawFairy. Stop being a tool and come right out and say it.

By the way, I have an impossible time reconciling your Christianity with your pro-abortion positions....

SarahMC,

This is an example of your unwarranted bitchiness:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/007308.html#comment-90195

Oenephile, I'm not going to get into it with you over reproductive rights, we both know it's pointless. You've complained about how people treat you on this board before, though. Calling people "babe" & a tool is totally unnecessary. You can engage in debate without that, and if you did, people would probably take you more seriously & show you more respect.

"By the way, I have an impossible time reconciling your Christianity with your pro-abortion positions...."

Is that a joke? No, really, I am actually asking.

I was unaware that there was an 11th Commandment, but apparently there is and it's "Thou shalt not intentionally abort thy fetus."

Give me a fucking break.

Give me a break, Oenophile. You searched for an example of my "bitchiness?" Please. I could point to numerous examples of your bitchiness, not to mention your frequent anti-feminist tirades.
I agree with you sometimes on other non-repro-rights issues. But if it seems like I attack you a lot, it's because you're so often wrong.

Vegans (can be a religious decision -Hare Krishnas, etc) don't get to object to dispensing drugs tested on animals, though they may choose to not be pharmacists to not have religious conflicts. From an employer standpoint, it seems like you would not be so understanding with an employee who refuses to do their job. If my pharmacy wasn't filling my prescriptions, I'd switch all of my prescriptions, not just my b.c. - but consumer choice isn't always an option in small towns where there may only be one pharmacy.

quick example of why a pharmacist should question a prescription - my brother was prescribed an unusally large dose - the pharmacist called the doctor to make sure.

She was originally saying the former [evacuation of fertilised, nonimplanted eggs], I believe; the latter also happens, however.

That's exactly what I was saying.

2) Menstruation doesn't cause the non-implantation.

Well good thing that's not what she's SAYING! Fertilized eggs often leave the body via menstruation. Meaning tiny little "babies" come out with one's period blood sometimes. If it doesn't implant, it's not gonna turn into a baby.

Thank you, SarahMC. I should never have allowed myself to even get into a discussion with oenophile. Since the Brownback/abortion for rape victims thing, it's obvious that her game is to derail threads with intellectually dishonest nonsense and impressively distorted misrepresentations of what others are saying.

My grandmother's boyfriend once had a pharmacist refuse to sell him Viagra, because he knew the man was a widower and the pharmacist was staunchly catholic and didn't believe in any extra-marital sex. (Obviously, it wasn't pre-marital sex by this time). But that's ONE pharmacist and my grandmother's boyfriend had no problem getting the perscription filled elsewhere.

I agree that you can't require pharmacists to fill ALL perscriptions blindly because doctors do make mistakes and there are other considerations with regards to drug interaction and potential for addiction that pharmacists can catch when doctors don't. Still, if one doctor has a moral objection to any drug, I think they should be required to work with someone who does not share that objection so that the customer can still be served. I know I went on my BC for non-sex related reasons, and if I was denied it I would probably say some very un-ladylike things to the pharmacist about exactly what would happen to me (and him) if I didn't get my Seasonale immediately. I'll be damned if someone shames me for having primary dysmenohrrea that's not controlled by NSAIDs, I'd like my life better if this wasn't the case too but until then I need my little pink pills.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

"The stakes really couldn't be much higher," plaintiffs' attorney Kristen Waggoner said.>>>>

I'm laughing and crying at the same time. Also, part of me is dying inside. The stakes couldn't be higher, huh? What about the women they're denying the pill to?

This whole idea that medical professionals should have the right to cram their morality down their patient's throats is so offensive!

A pharmacist's job is to dispense the prescriptions written by the doctor PERIOD.

It is not their job to deny a patient drugs that were lawfully prescribed.

And if they have a "moral" problem with the drugs the doctor prescribed TOUGH!!!

I'm anti war, but I used to work in a factory that made file cabinets for the US Army - did I have a right to "conscienciously object" to making those file cabinets?

NO!!!

As long as I had that job, I had to build the products that the boss was selling.

In this case, these pharmacists should either prescribe the drugs that come across the counter - or quit their jobs!

It's really just that simiple!!!

There's a meaningful difference between this drug and other prescriptions that no one's been pointing out: the time sensitivity. If, say, as in the earlier example, Joe Catholic refuses to give the guy his Viagra, he can go to another pharmacy and get it, a pain, but no big deal. If Catholic's boss doesn't have a problem with the lack of business, then I don't really have a problem with that, as it's a personal business decision.

But with something like Plan B, where it's so time sensitive, if Mary Hypothetical has to spend hours running around, trying to find a place that will give her the medication, then it may well already be too late. In this case, I think her pressing need for the medication well overwhelms the pharmacists' objections.

In that case, I'd have to tell pharmicists to suck it up. People who don't believe in premarital sex deliver single women's babies, and vegetarians sweep floors and work cash registers at meat markets. Deal with it, or get another gig.

If you're like me and this really gets you fuming, here's what you can do to help:

http://pillpatrol.saveroe.com/

I was unaware that there was an 11th Commandment, but apparently there is and it's "Thou shalt not intentionally abort thy fetus."

Give me a fucking break.

Try the Sixth Commandment: "You shall not murder."

Try, as well, Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13.

Moxie,

LawFairy went on rant - out of nowhere, as she is wont to do - about my psyche.

The great irony is that the other thread is about women knowing their own minds better than they themselves do... and here she goes, insinuating that she knows the inner workings of my mind.

She thinks there is a difference between conception and fertilisation with respect to Plan B - somehow, it prevents conception but not fertilisation....?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conception

She seems to have missed the part where they are synonymous. :)

The best part was when she wrote that there are rational reasons to distinguish the two issues, but refused to believe that those reasons could be the basis of my (slightly different) reactions - because, after all, she knows the inner workings of my mind.

Now, Moxie, I'm not sure what definition of "tool" you are using, but the one I use seems to fit our Law Fairy. I will NOT apologise for accuracy. If it hurts her, maybe she'll consider

Now, Moxie, I'm not sure what definition of "tool" you are using, but the one I use seems to fit our Law Fairy. I will NOT apologise for accuracy. If it hurts her, maybe she'll consider
Then you shouldn't complain the next time someone calls you a troll or asks you to be banned. It doesn't matter if it's "correct," insulting & name-calling isn't cool, it brings down the level of discourse, & sidetracks threads.
You seemed really upset about the way people treated you a few threads back yet you are so rude to people who disagree with you. I'm not here to defend TLF, she is more than a match for you, but I'm just really sick of you insulting whomever you disagree with. Maybe that flies on your libertarian boards but that's not cool here...

Moxie,

1) You have had NO qualms about insulting me in the past. "Here's a quarter; buy a brain" comes to mind.

2) "I'm not here to defend TLF, she is more than a match for you,"

We shall agree to disagree. I'm often startled at the depths of her irrationality.

3) so rude to people who disagree with you.

I have my limits. I can take rational disagreement - or even irrational disagreement (i.e. Elise) - but NOT attacks on my psyche or character. I see a LOT of women here who make fairly gratiutious remarks (SarahMC's was absolutely classic) about me, and then throw a hissy fit when I respond.

I would find your complaints easier to swallow if you had actually directed some of it at LawFairy. She said, [w]hile I acknowledge that there are, in the abstract, rational bases on which to distinguish these two issues, frankly I question your motivations

I'm calling bullshit. Would it kill her to ASK before attacking my character? Would it kill you to say, "LawFairy, that's a bullshit statement to make - you are not in Oenophile's mind, so please don't attribute bad motivations to her when you yourself acknowledge that there are benign motivations?"

Non-snarky question:

Well good thing that's not what she's SAYING! Fertilized eggs often leave the body via menstruation. Meaning tiny little "babies" come out with one's period blood sometimes. If it doesn't implant, it's not gonna turn into a baby.

Where is the causal connection, then, between menstruation and non-implantation? Non-implantation may happen at any time during a woman's cycle.

A menstruating woman is not necessarily shedding embryos (which happens most often); non-menstruating women may shed embryos.

Perhaps this is why I'm "stupid" and "foolish," but I honestly fail to see the causal connection between menstruation and non-implantation, to the extent that menstruation is akin to Plan B.

My spiritual beliefs tell me that I should do everything in my power to avoid bringing suffering to any living being. However, if I worked in a Deli at a grocery store and had to sell meat to customers, I would never refuse to sell it to them just because I don't feel that it is morally acceptable to eat meat. Food, like reproductive freedoms, is so personal, and should be left to the individual to decide how they will deal with those situations.

You have had NO qualms about insulting me in the past. "Here's a quarter; buy a brain" comes to mind.
Yeah, & I apologized for that & I'm working on not calling people names. If it bothers you so much, maybe you should remember how that feels the next time YOU type something insulting. Y
I don't CARE about TLF's arguments or her rationals, that is so beyond the issue. The issue is how you treat people on this board. It's kind of like when you're little & you say, "But he/she started it!" I don't care who started it. Any issue you have with TLF is your own, but I, for one, am sick of you calling people "babe, honey, sweetheart, etc." when you disagree with them. The men you work with/study with may find it cute but it's not cool here. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You disagree with TLF? FIne, whatever. But calling people a "tool," no matter how accurate you think it is, is really stupid. It is NOT cool to insult people & it definitely takes away from your argument. That's all I'm going to say about the issue. You seem not stupid, I hope you don't get defensive & actually take a minute to think about what I said.

hey folks, let's remember to keep it civil. it's saturday night, let's all have a drink. ;)

The issue is how you treat people on this board. It's kind of like when you're little & you say, "But he/she started it!" I don't care who started it. Any issue you have with TLF is your own

Except that your problem with me is how I respond to other people's insults. You can't pretend that anything I say is in a vacuum; it's in direct response to something else said.

It is NOT cool to insult people & it definitely takes away from your argument.

I presume that is directed at:
*SarahMC, who called me shallow out of nowhere (scroll up in that link for my comment);
*Elise, who called me stupid and foolish (see tubal ligation thread);
*Law Fairy, who has some psychic insight into my brain - and who thinks I'm racist;
*etc.

Oh no. That was only directed at me. Those women can say whatever the hell they want, unprovoked, and you let it slide. Then it's holy war when I call someone "babe."

Moxie, this double standard is bullshit. I would LOVE for you to, when bitching me out, actually direct some of that anger at the other person involved. Would it kill you to say, "TLF, when you attack Oenophile for expressing a feminist opinion, you're degrading these boards and while I don't like how she responds, I can't blame her for being angry."

Might not kill you. Try it.

*Shrugs* I tried. Whateva.
If anyone is having trouble getting their BC, I recomend telling your gyn. I didn't have prescription coverage for awhile, & he used to give me samples to help me save money. That works with a lot of meds, actually.

But if it seems like I attack you a lot, it's because you're so often wrong.

No... see, thing is... I'm not. You say that I'm wrong on "reproductive rights," and I know that you are wrong on the issue of human rights.

Hey, according to a Princeton study, 51% of women but less than 45% of men agree with me. Take the guys' side, why don't ya? :)

Elise, who called me stupid and foolish (see tubal ligation thread)

Again with the misrepresentations. What I said was that oenophile was willing to look foolish by pretending not to understand rather uncomplicated connections when understanding them would mean giving up her misplaced sense of rectitude.

Where is the causal connection, then, between menstruation and non-implantation? Non-implantation may happen at any time during a woman's cycle.

*headdesk*

There is no "causal" connection. Nobody implied that or outright said that.

*sigh* What was Jon Stewart's take again? Christians are being oppressed by having to dispense EC, the same way Jews are being oppressed by having to dispense pork suppositories, the same way Christian Scientists are being oppressed by having to dispense anything at all.

Somalians are also being oppressed by having to drive drunk people in their cabs or having to check out people's pork-based groceries at the stores they work at.

If you have a job, you have a duty to do it properly, not simply how it suits you. If you went to SCHOOL specifically to tell someone to fuck off when they come to you for help, go back to school. Make a career change. Work for a pharmaceutical company that doesn't make EC. You have options. Fucking deal.

there's no constitutional right to employment, correct?

There is no "causal" connection. Nobody implied that or outright said that.

Except for Elise, no, no one implied that:

It's also worth noting that fertilised eggs don't always end up implanting. If these Nobel Prize winners want to be truly consistent, they should be forcing their female customers to stop menstruating.

That only makes sense if there is a causal connection between the two events.

That only makes sense if there is a causal connection between the two events.

What is of course obvious, to anyone who does not wish to ignore it, is the fact that a fertilised egg does have rather a greater chance of implantation if it is not evacuated in the course of menstruation or otherwise. That does not imply sole or even primary causation, and is at least as defensible as an objection to the administration of emergency contraception on the grounds that it prevents the implantation of a fertilised egg that is not entirely likely to implant in the first place.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Moxie here, Oenophile: no matter who started the trash talk or which thread it started on, perpetuating it is a bad idea and can only harm your arguments.

I've been called names on Feministing (and other places), but I remind myself that I don't have to lower myself to their level. (If only I could be so cool-headed in face-to-face interactions.)

Also, I hate condescension, and don't like to see anyone doing it. So I try very hard not to do that myself.

Well, Elise, your friend Sarah MC seems to think that there is no causal connection.

You state that there is one between "menstruation or other events."

Why not just admit that your original point was utterly senseless?

ShifterCat,

If you really feel that way, bitch out LawFairy, Elise, EG, and SarahMC.

What is the rational reason for only aiming your criticism at me? Again, you (and everyone else) act like my responses are in this vacuum.

Why not tell the people who are on your side that their bitchiness harms their arguments (which are also your arguments)?

Double standards are such crap.

You state that there is one between "menstruation or other events."

I continue to regret enabling your trolling, but I do feel compelled to point out that that is exactly not what I said. The reason people criticise you, oenophile, is because you have a habit of resorting to intellectually dishonest tactics when the facts fail you. People might have a bit more respect for your "contributions" if you would at least do them the minor courtesy of not actively misrepresenting their statements. And remember, people can scroll up and read what was actually written, so it ultimately only reflects poorly on you.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity ofeach patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

-From The Code of Ethics of the American Pharmacists' Association.

Well, Elise, your friend Sarah MC seems to think that there is no causal connection.

*blink*

Because there isn't.

Give me a fucking break.

Try the Sixth Commandment: "You shall not murder."

Try, as well, Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13.

Posted by: oenophile [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 28, 2007 08:46 PM

From someone else who would like a break; check this out:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

Congrats. At most, you've established a reason for Jews to be pro-choice. Christianity deals with the New Testament.

It also ignores Thomas Aquinas, who stated that, when something is in doubt, the person must choose the morally safer route.

Consider as well: if you are Christian and err about the validity of abortion, you've committed murder and have destroyed God's creation.

I could spend quite a bit of time destroying the b.s. found in that cite. If you would like to discuss, drop an email.

Thanks Twincats, that was an awesome link. :)

"What is the rational reason for only aiming your criticism at me? Again, you (and everyone else) act like my responses are in this vacuum."

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but out of the folks currently here, the two I've seen being most vicious are you and Moxie Hart. And Moxie apologized and stated that she's trying to break herself of such bad habits.

This may not excuse LawFairy, Elise, EG, or SarahMC, but it's a matter of degrees.

I've seen you debate choice issues in a civil and sympathetic way, and while I still don't agree with you, I was a lot more willing to listen on those occasions.

Wow. I take a day off from the computer and I get beaten up by a child while I'm gone. Sweet.

Anyway, for anyone who cares, my point was the oenophile's apparently contradictory positions (which, as she notes, I acknowledged COULD be backed up by a sophistic distinction, even though she isn't even making THAT very well) fit curiously in line with personal moral decisions she makes about her own life. That's great for her, but when she comes on here and decries in one place the atrocity of people robbing women of their rights over their own bodies, and defends it in another (because there are many towns in which there really is only one option or a handful of options as far a pharmacies are concerned, and allowing conscientious objecters to opt out of giving women the services they need would effectively rob them of their rights), she better have DAMN good reasons for doing so. It's just strangely convenient that it just so happens that HER choices would be perfectly protected by the system she wants set up, and, well, who cares about the women who don't think like her? I'm not saying she said this, I'm just pointing out the cognitive dissonance. I don't think this is ad hominem, but I will grant I can see how it would look borderline to some. Bear in mind, however, this is a common feminist refrain used here and elsewhere -- along the lines of, if men could get pregnant, abortions would be state-funded tomorrow (I happen to think this is true -- but if this is an ad hominem attack, then probably all of us could use a refining of our debate skills -- which perhaps we could anyway). At any rate, it certainly was not an insult, and I only referred to things oenophile has said, rather than casting aspersions on her character due to, say, her upper-middle-class upbringing (as she has done to me).

Also, for the record, the use of "conception" and "fertilization" interchangeably is controversial within medicine because of "conception"s colloquial (and political) use. It's too loaded and imprecise a term to be considered to accurately reflect a scientific fact. So her equation of one with the other is not, as she asserts, recognized by science.

That said, I'm done talking to oenophile. For the record, she's attacked me numerous times on this website, WITHOUT even arguable provocation (which I will grant she does have -- ARGUABLE provocation -- in this ONE incident). As for getting definitions strictly accurate, the Urban Dictionary defines "tool" as "One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem." Other UB definitions include "someone who tries too hard. a poser. one of those chic's who holds the sign saying 'Carson Daly is Hot.' the asstard who goes to a rock show because they heard one of the songs on the radio or mtv. or someone who insists on wearing velour sweat suits. Avril Lavigne." and "someone who is a complete idiot/ one who is used by other people, and usually dosen't even realize it/ someone who can't think for themselves/ an asshat." Merriam-Webster defines "tool" as "a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal: MACHINE TOOL"; "a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession (a scholar's books are his tools) b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function (a drawing tool) c : a means to an end (a book's cover can be a marketing tool) d often vulgar : PENIS"; "one that is used or manipulated by another"; "plural : natural ability (has all the tools to be a great pitcher)."

So, I leave it up to you guys to decide whether oenophile's use of (at BEST) wholly disproportionate insults (including "tool," "babe," and multiple aspersions cast on my intelligence) were 1) appropriate and/or 2) accurate.

/out