Home - List All Discussions

Pharmacists' Consciences and abortifacient drugs

by: Daniel

Three Eckerd Drugs pharmacists in Texas were fired for not filling a prescription for the morning after pill, which can kill a child in the days between fertilization and implantation. These pharmacists did not want to be part of possibly ending a child's life.

Another Texas pharmacist at a CVS drugstore refused to fill a birth control prescription because she does not believe in birth control. CVS has respected her right to follow her conscience.

People who say they believe in choice want to take away the choice of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that go against their moral or religious beliefs. It just goes to show that "pro-choice" is a lie.

reply from: Proliferbeme

Pro choice logic (if you want to call it that) is filled with nothing but spin, double-talk and double-standards.  They only what they want for themselves... they certainly dont subscribe to ... equal rights for all.

reply from: Dmourning

I shall bump this topic because I'm curious what the members of this forum think...

They should be fired, no questions asked. It is their job to fill the prescription, not decide if it's necessary or not. If the pharmacists have such a deep moral objection to those drugs, why on earth do they work in a place that even stocks them in the first place?

reply from: mom5

A pharmacists does not just simply look at a prescription from a doctor and fill it...  they are under liability and obligation to their profession to "double check" all prescriptions.  Kinda more of a "safety net" for the patient.  If a medication is "questionable" and could be fatal or have severe complications, a pharmacists will call the doctor to discuss.

As for the MAP..We could actually compare this to an OB/GYN who refuses to do an abortion because it is against their morals.   Don't be surprised if we do not hear about this more often with the MAP.

As for the birth control pills... well, they have been around for years.  I really don't know the answer to that question.  Maybe the pharmacist should have specified when she was hired that she would not fill those prescriptions.. 

By the way, if pharmacies were to not stock these medications... could you just hear the pro-choicers then...  Hopefully, people's morals will be the wave of the future.. more people living and taken action by their morals rather than what is politically correct.

Hey, if you want your birth control pills filled in the future.. you just might have to start calling the pharmacy before hand.. huh?

I think it is very courageous for these people to stand up for their moral beliefs.

reply from: Dmourning

But doing at the expense of their customers' health, it is despicable.

reply from: mom5

But doing at the expense of their customers' health, it is despicable.

Last time I looked, there is a pharmacy on every corner, just like a doctor... they can go the another pharamacy. 

Expense of patient's health... I have never heard of anyone dying from NOT taking their birth control pills or MAP.  Have you?

reply from: Dmourning

No, they can just get pregnant or require an abortion later. Sounds like a fair trade off to me.

reply from: mom5

Take just a few more seconds to read my post.... I said... let me spell it out....

G*O  
T*O
A*N*O*T*H*E*R
P*H*A*R*M*A*C*Y 

reply from: Dmourning

To quote you from another post...

reply from: yoda

If done properly, a refusal to fill a prescription to kill an unborn child ought not to be a problem for a pharmacy. After all, to sell someone arsenic when you know they intend to poison someone with it is an illegal AND an immoral act.

reply from: Christian4life

That's just not good enough for Planned Parenthood.  They sued WalMart for refusing someone RU-486, even though they REFERRED the person to another pharmacy which would give it to them.  They won't be happy until abortifacients are passed out on every corner like candy, and every woman is implanted with an IUD. 

reply from: mom5

I didn't hear about that...see it's already happening!

reply from: mom5

This discussion led me to think about something else..

Last I heard was that America has went from 2000 abortion clinics to 743 clinics... what does that tell us?

Last I also heard was that only 14% of hospitals provide abortions... what does that tell us?

There have been attempts to "require" Catholic hospitals to provide abortions.. did it work.. no!

So what this all tells me is that YES, abortion is a moral issue...we see less providers of abortion, less facilities for abortions and thank goodness, abortion is a choice for a facility to provide.... well, why can't the same be true for pharmacies? 

reply from: jessinpgh

But doing at the expense of their customers' health, it is despicable.

Please tell me what health benefits the morning after pill has..and exactly HOW this affects the customers health. I applaud the pharmicist for standing up for thier beliefs , if we had more people like that this world would be a better place.

reply from: Dmourning

I'd say that preventing an unwanted pregnancy is a powerful health benefit.

So if we had more people running around refusing to do their jobs based on personal preferences the world would be a better place, right? I guess the Jewish waiter can refuse to serve me pork, the card carying KKK or American Nazi party member who is a paramedic can refuse to treat a Jew or African-American as well as the pro-lifer who refuses to fill BC or EC prescriptions. The world would be oh so much better then.

reply from: shiprah

I'd say that preventing an unwanted pregnancy is a powerful health benefit.
First of all, there are other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Secondly, getting pregnant isn't equivalent to getting sick.  Having something happen to you that you don't want isn't a sickness.
So if we had more people running around refusing to do their jobs
a pharmacists job is to kill people?  The pharmacist is trying to do his job -- look out for the health of all people, those who buy abortifacient birth control impede his ability to do his job by insisting he do the opposite -- destroy the health of the unborn child by killing him or her.  based on personal preferences
 they aren't opposing on preference but morality
the world would be a better place, right? I guess the Jewish waiter can refuse to serve me pork, the card carying KKK or American Nazi party member who is a paramedic can refuse to treat a Jew or African-American as well as the pro-lifer who refuses to fill BC or EC prescriptions. The world would be oh so much better then.
The pharmacist isn't refusing to serve a client based on whom the client is -- that is wrong, but based on what the client requests.  For example, if someone asked a doctor to give them a prescription pain killer he shouldn't be able to say no because the person is black, but its completely different if he says no because the person has a history of drub abuse.

reply from: Dmourning

I don't want cancer. Does that mean if I get it, it isn't a sickness?

No. A pharmacist's job is to dispense the medications stocked by the pharmacy in accordance with a doctor's prescription. It is not a pharmacist's job to make a moral judgement call on behalf of the person whose doctor has already prescribed them BC or EC.

And that makes it even worse. Moral values are not absolute, therefore, the morals of one person have no business being inflicted on another. Besides, if the pharmacist is that morally opposed to BC and EC, why does he/she even work in a place that stocks the stuff in the first place? That's sort of like someone who crusades against morally objectionable television working for Fox or Spike TV.

It is the doctor's job to prescribe medicines. Once the doctor prescribes the medicine, the pharmacist's job is to dispense it, simple as that.

reply from: shiprah

I don't want cancer. Does that mean if I get it, it isn't a sickness?
 I don't want a pie thrown in my face, if someone hits me with one am I sick?
No. A pharmacist's job is to dispense the medications stocked by the pharmacy in accordance with a doctor's prescription. It is not a pharmacist's job to make a moral judgement call on behalf of the person whose doctor has already prescribed them BC or EC.
However, a contraceptive is not medicine.
And that makes it even worse. Moral values are not absolute, therefore, the morals of one person have no business being inflicted on another.
 So why is rape illegal?
Besides, if the pharmacist is that morally opposed to BC and EC, why does he/she even work in a place that stocks the stuff in the first place?
Maybe because he wants to give people real medicine.
That's sort of like someone who crusades against morally objectionable television working for Fox or Spike TV. It is the doctor's job to prescribe medicines. Once the doctor prescribes the medicine, the pharmacist's job is to dispense it, simple as that.
That's like saying, it was the officer's job to tell his subordinates what to do, so if they said to abuse Iraqi prisoners, they should do it.

reply from: Dmourning

That rationalization made no sense so I will skip it.

Correct, but BC pills still require a doctor's prescription and therefore a pharmacist to dispense, per their job.

It's the law of the land.

And not only is part of a pharmacist's job to give people "real medicine" (like Viagra and Cialis), but it is also to dispense other items in the pharmacy as needed.

In EVERY job you will ever have in your entire life, you will be faced with duties and situations that you object to for a variety of reasons. You, however, carry on because you realize they are part of your job and purposefully neglecting them could have a negative impact on your continued employment. If you are faced with a situation you find particularly difficult, you find someone else who can perform the duty or handle the situation.

At the VERY least, those pharmacists who refuse to fill these prescriptions should simply hand the script off to the next pharmacist who will fill it without any moral objections.

Unless they want to deal with charges of insubordination, yes.

reply from: shiprah

It's the law of the land.
And its the law of the land for its immorality.
And not only is part of a pharmacist's job to give people "real medicine" (like Viagra and Cialis)
viagra doesn't kill people like abortifacient contraceptives
, but it is also to dispense other items in the pharmacy as needed. In EVERY job you will ever have in your entire life, you will be faced with duties and situations that you object to for a variety of reasons. You, however, carry on because you realize they are part of your job and purposefully neglecting them could have a negative impact on your continued employment. If you are faced with a situation you find particularly difficult, you find someone else who can perform the duty or handle the situation. At the VERY least, those pharmacists who refuse to fill these prescriptions should simply hand the script off to the next pharmacist who will fill it without any moral objections.
 Oh yeah, they just say, I won't kill your baby, here's someone who will.
Unless they want to deal with charges of insubordination, yes.
Perhaps that's one of the major differences between prolifers and prochoicers.  Prolifers believe in doing what's right, even if you get fired for it.  Prochoicers will kill someone to keep a check coming in.  You've said a lot about your character.  Your philosophy seems to be, keep your head down, do what you're told, don't use your conscience, get that $$$.

reply from: Dmourning

Why, then, is adultery legal? It's biblically and socially immoral, is it not? That is because morality is relative. What's moral to you isn't moral to the next person and not all morality must be legislated or acted upon by strangers.

You didn't catch the sarcasm there. Tell me though, what people do "abortifacient contraceptives" kill? That whole fertilized egg before implantation thing doesn't count either.

And your philosophy seems to be "Live life by my morality whether you like it or not". That tells me a lot about your intolerant character.

There's a time and a place for everything. If you want to be an activist, go stand in front of a clinic with your mutilated fetus photo gallery. Don't try to play hero/activist while working your public service job.

reply from: jessinpgh

Your logic amazes me...you pro choice people stand up for peoples right to choose..correct? Or is the only "choice" you stand for is the right to murder babies...by your logic the pharmicist should have the right to choose what he does also..or is it you only have the right to choose if you agree with your ideas?? Your comparisons to nazis or the kkk are incredibly foolish..we stand up for ALL life whereas those people believe that some life is worthless. As for your so called health benefits of the morning after pill..there are none. This pill is not healthy for women it has side effects including, abdominal pain, headaches, backaches, numbness in limbs, blurred vision, vomiting, dizziness, as well as irregular bleeding, hemorrhaging, and horomonal imbalance.I guess that as a man these facts would not influence your feelings as you will never have to take this pill and suffer these side effects just as you would never have to suffer through the side effects of an abortion.

reply from: Dmourning

I disagree with paying taxes to a government that is not adequately representing me. Does that mean I have the right to stop paying them then? No. Those are the rules we as citizens of the USA have to live by. Conversely, filling prescriptions regardless of moral objection should be the rules pharmacists live by (although some activist politicians think otherwise)

Absolutely not. If you can stop doing things you are obligated to do in your job based on moral objection, why couldn't they stop doing things they are obligated to do in their jobs based on moral objection?

Unwanted pregnancy prevention is one of the biggest health benefits known to humankind.

All manner of over the counter remedies including common pain reliever and cold remedies boast some of those side effects. Chemo drugs boast even worse side effects than those, actually. What's your point?

That's a nice sexist thing to say. So you think the man has no role whatsoever in the reproductive choices of his family? I don't expect any less from anti-choice radicals.

Do you honestly believe that every woman who ever gets an abortion lives the rest of her life in agonizing guilt and physical torment? You really should talk to more people outside of your anti-choice circle.

reply from: yoda

Prevention is one thing, abortion is quite another.

reply from: shiprah

You didn't catch the sarcasm there. Tell me though, what people do "abortifacient contraceptives" kill? That whole fertilized egg before implantation thing doesn't count either.
Of course it does, fertilized eggs are people, plus many women have died from the morning after pill.  Both morning afters and birth control pills cause breast cancer.

reply from: Dmourning

Shiprah, the supposed breast cancer link is nothing but pro-life propaganda

reply from: chooselife

I found an article about this topic that I would like to share:

Sydney pharmacy owner John Wilks says there are several sound medical reasons why supplying Postinor-2 is a problem for him.

The morning-after pill is the equivalent of taking 50 birth-control pills within a 24-hour period, "a dose far in excess of what a woman would normally take," he said in a phone interview.

"That's the underlying pharmaceutical problem - you're taking such a large dose."

Problems reported in medical literature include increased instances of ectopic pregnancies - when an embryo is implanted in a fallopian tube rather than the uterus - which can affect future fertility.

Another problem related to blood-clotting, Wilks said. There could be a negative interaction with a commonly prescribed blood-clotting medication, warfarin. Also, about 3 to 5 percent of women have a genetic blood-clotting disorder, and taking the morning-after pill may generate blood-clots, he added.

Yet another worry deals with the virus most closely linked to cervical cancer. Wilks said laboratory studies had raised concerns that for a woman carrying the human papilloma virus unawares - which can happen easily - taking the pill "could theoretically kickstart cervical cancer."

'The unseen patient'

Some women taking the morning-after pill may not know that they are in the early stages of pregnancy (from intercourse that occurred earlier). Unlike doctors, pharmacists cannot examine a woman before deciding whether to recommend the emergency contraception.

In cases where women taking Postinor-2 are already pregnant, morning-after pill supporters say there is no harm to the unborn baby. The PSA guidelines say pharmacists should not supply the pill to pregnant women, but on the grounds of a "lack of benefit," not because of any risk to the pregnancy.

For Wilks, greater consideration should be taken.

"Any pharmacist has to be cognizant of the fact they are actually treating two patients - the patient standing before them, and the unseen patient, that is, the human embryo," he said.

Wilks said the PSA's code of conduct says pharmacists should not supply any product when there is reason to doubt its "safety, quality or efficacy" or where the product may pose a hazard to the patient.

"So we are professionally obliged, under this code of conduct, not to sell this particular medication."

Legal worries

Wilks said it was also ridiculous to expect that a pharmacist could hold a sensitive discussion with a customer about sex and contraception in a busy pharmacy storefront.

Another concern was that the morning-after pill could be used by the perpetrators of sexual abuse such as incest, to cover up the abuse.

"That's been one of the major concerns of a number of pharmacists - you could have a predatory male pretending to buy it for a girlfriend who needs it, when in fact the woman is a daughter, a niece or whatever."

If the abuse later emerged, the pharmacist could be legally liable.

Likewise, in instances where a women takes the morning-after pill and later suffers serious side-effects, the pharmacist could face legal problems.

"So many issues have not been sorted out, and one of them is, who is going to be responsible if something goes wrong? There's no doctor involved. The pharmacist is going to be solely and exclusively responsible."

Won't sell, won't refer

Wilks said he would neither supply Postinor-2 to customers, nor refer them to another source.

"Many pharmacists would think, how can I on-refer something that I consider to be an unsafe medication?"

Because of the medical concerns, he said, the requirement to refer the customer elsewhere "becomes null and void."

"I will be saying, I don't supply it because of the health implications for women and for the unborn human embryo, nor can I on-refer exactly for the same reason."

By referring a customer elsewhere, he explained, "you're still in one sense applying your professional approval ... it's watering down the gravity of the concern."

Wilks has produced a fact-sheet outlining the scientific evidence and health concerns, and will hand it to customers asking for the morning-after pill.

"They can then make a prudent decision rather than a rushed one. Most of the times the decisions we make in haste turn out to be less than wise decisions."

It's difficult to establish how many Australian pharmacists have problems with selling the morning-after pill.

An online professional discussion list carries a current poll asking whether pharmacists are "ready to handle requests" to sell Postinor-2, but only 16 respondents had taken part by Tuesday. Of them, 56 percent said yes and 25 percent said no.

In an earlier poll, in mid-2003, 52 percent of pharmacist respondents felt the emergency contraception should be available from a pharmacist without a prescription, and 45 percent wanted it to remain prescription-only.

Wilks belongs to a pro-life pharmacists' group, but he said many pharmacists who don't share those views nonetheless are also concerned about the morning-after pill.

Letters in various pharmaceutical journals in recent months had been strongly critical of the decision, he said.

On the Internet discussion list, one objecting pharmacist suggested that those not wanting to sell the morning-after pill simply say they are out of stock.

"I reckon from casual conversation that at least 60 percent of the profession are uncomfortable with MAP," she wrote.

Another pharmacist accused "anti-abortionists and other ill-informed fringe groups" of spreading misinformation, such as the charge that the morning-after pill can prevent implantation and thus constitute an early abortion.

"Implantation occurs at the 7th or 8th day after fertilization, so, although large-dose progestogens can prevent implantation, this is not relevant to use of the [MAP], in the 0-72 hour time following intercourse," he argued.

Pro-life campaigners frequently point to a U.S. public health service leaflet (#1066) which defined an abortion as follows: "All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote [newly-conceived embryo] at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion."

reply from: chooselife

Dmourning - Have you actually studied the evidence on this?  Anyone with basic research knowledge can see that the link of breast cancer with abortion is evident.  It is well known that the more children a women has (starting from under age 24) and the longer she breastfeeds leads to a dramatic reduction in breast cancer.  Breast cancer used to be a cancer for elderly women.  Now breast cancer is showing up in 20 year olds on a regular basis. The link in abortion.  Please check out the website http://bhttp://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/  for a complete listing of all of the research on this subject.  Don't discount something because you read one newspaper article about it.  If you make a statement like that you had better have the facts and epidemological data to back it up. {/b}

reply from: Dmourning

Why would you try to sway me with evidence from a pro-life activist organization? Would you be swayed if I tried to sway you with evidence from PP or NARAL? Probably not.

Would you be swayed if I gave you evidence from the most respected cancer organization in the nation?

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

reply from: chooselife

Dmourning - The website you linked uses the NCI's findings as justification for the statement of abortion and breast cancer not being linked.  Here is a little more info about the NCI's workshop:
The NCI sponsored a three-day workshop for selected scientists to discuss the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) research.  NCI director Andrew Von Eschenbach announced at the start of the workshop that its purpose was to allow scientists to review, evaluate and debate the research.  That never happened, but several weeks after the workshop, Von Eschenbach told New York Times reporter Claudia Dreifus that the workshop permitted 'open and vigorous' scientific debate.  Von Eschenbach's staff either misled him or else he lied. [1] 

A scientist's eyewitness account reveals that the workshop was not designed to allow a comprehensive review, evaluation and debate of the merits of the research.  Dr. Joel Brind's http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/minorityreport/index.htm shows what really took place.  For non-scientists, we offer the following summary of his Minority Report:

1. The NCI's leaders only invited one viewpoint - that abortion is not related to increased risk of breast cancer.  No one was invited to debate the issue or given an opportunity to present an opposing viewpoint. 

2. Invited scientists were not independent of the federal government.  Their scientific careers depend heavily on the NCI or other federal agencies for grants.

3. For the first month after the February 24-26 workshop, visitors to the NCI's website were led to believe that no dissent had taken place. There was no indication whatsoever that dissent had occurred.  The NCI's updated March 25, 2003 web page included bare minimal information that an unnamed "participant" (Joel Brind, Ph.D.) dissented.  The dissenter's Minority Report is excluded from the web page altogether.  As a result, women are being kept in the dark about the rationale behind his dissent.

4. The NCI workshop statement and its website admit that late first term pregnancy, childlessness, lack of breastfeeding and decreased childbearing raise breast cancer risk.   It is self-evident that abortion causes breast cancer in this first of two ways by contributing to these childbearing patterns.

5. The NCI's workshop findings - that abortion is unrelated to increased risk of breast cancer - contradicts 46 years of epidemiological and biological evidence demonstrating a positive association.  As of February 2003, 29 out of 38 epidemiological studies reported risk elevations.  Thirteen of 15 American studies reported increased risk.  Sixteen of 17 statistically significant studies found risk elevations. 

Additionally, scientists know that estrogen overexposure provides a reasonable explanation for most of the risk factors for breast cancer.  Because women are exposed to more estrogen starting early in pregnancy than at any other time in their lives, estrogen overexposure also provides a reasonable explanation for the ABC link. Only a third trimester process is believed to mature breast cells into cancer-resistant cells.

6. Three new studies were announced, but not given to scientists for an in-depth evaluation before the start of the workshop.  The studies were non-peer reviewed, and their data were unpublished. Although scientists regularly share their data when asked to do so, requests for it were denied to the workshop's participants. New studies were presented on Day 2 of the workshop, the only day for which a videocast was not made available on the NCI's website until long after media attention had waned.

7. Mads Melbye was one of three scientists reporting new research.  During the six-year period prior to the workshop, the NCI and private cancer organizations told the world that the prospective study, Melbye et al. 1997, was the "perfect" study. [2]  They used it quite effectively to disparage 29 studies reporting risk elevations (even though Melbye and his colleagues were severely criticized for misclassifying 60,000 women who'd had abortions as not having had abortions.) [3]

The cancer and abortion industries didn't tell women, however, that even Melbye et al. found a statistically significant 89% risk elevation among women procuring abortions after 18 weeks gestation.  At the workshop, Melbye announced that his team determined that data from the "perfect" study needed to be "reanalyzed."  Not surprisingly, their "reanalysis" eliminated this statistically significant finding from the 1997 study.

8. The workshop statement falsely labeled the relationship between pre-term birth and increased breast cancer risk as an "epidemiologic gap" in the research, even though the studies, Melbye et al. 1999 and Hsieh et al. 1999, provide ample support for a positive relationship. [4, 5]  Melbye et al. 1999 found a more than two-fold risk elevation among women having pre-term births before 32 weeks gestation.  Because a pre-term birth is essentially the same biological event for a woman as an abortion, both studies also provide support for the ABC link. 

The Melbye team's 1999 study implicitly corrected the defects in the methodology from the 1997 study and used the same population database.  Yet, the findings from the superior 1999 study were labeled an "epidemiologic gap," and the severely flawed 1997 study continues to be used to dismiss overwhelming evidence of a link.

9. The NCI workshop statement led women to believe that a short-term breast cancer risk associated with a term pregnancy is greater than the risk associated with the non-pregnant state. The statement said, "Breast cancer risk is transiently increased after a term pregnancy."  Women weren't informed that:

1. The transient risk only occurs among women who delay their first full term pregnancies until age 25 or later; and

2. The transient risk is significantly less than the long- term risk associated with abortion. [6]

10. The workshop ended prematurely and suddenly, thereby thwarting opportunities for dissent.

reply from: Dmourning

You keep referring back to that same anti-abortion activist website. Are you telling me the ACS is now part of the great pro-choice conspiracy?

Can you find any organization that is not an activist for the pro-life cause that can clearly refute the claims of the American Cancer Society?

reply from: chooselife

The following is from Joel Brind Phd who is a professor of Biology and Endocrinology and founded the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in 1999. In this article he mentions the acknowledgement of the ABC link in some pro-choice and widely respected medical journals: 
 
In 1994, Dr. Janet Daling and colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, published their results in the NCI's own journal. They reported:

a 50% increase in the risk of breast cancer before age 45 among women who had one or more induced abortions;

an 80% increase in the risk of breast cancer among women who had any abortions and who also had any family history of breast cancer;

a more than 100% risk increase among women who had any abortions before age 18 or after age 30;

an incalculably high risk increase among women who had an abortion before age 18 and who also had any family history of the disease.

Such a clear indictment of abortion as a breast cancer risk factor (especially by a strongly pro-choice research team) could only be published by the NCI along with an editorial which branded the results "far from conclusive" and likely flawed by something called "reporting bias."

This "reporting bias" refers to a hypothetical difference in the veracity of breast cancer patients compared to that of healthy women. The theory is that if breast cancer patients are more likely to admit previous abortions, then abortion will appear to be more common among women who developed breast cancer than among those who didn't and an apparent (but artificial) risk increase will surface in the data. While the possibility of reporting bias is a valid concern, researchers have tested for reporting bias without finding it in ABC research. In fact, Daling, et al., tested for reporting bias rigorously in their study and reported in their paper that they did not find such bias in the data. However, one would never guess that from the editorial. In fact, the only study which claimed to have uncovered direct evidence of reporting bias relied on the preposterous assumption that breast cancer patients in Sweden had over-reported abortions, i.e., claimed to have had abortions that never took place! This conclusion was based on the dubious presumption that the computerized records in Sweden were flawless. This claim of over-reporting of abortions was eventually (and quietly) retracted in 1998 by the World Health Organization research team that had originally made the claim back in 1991.

Of course, no one argues with the fact that, all other things being equal, it is better to rely on medical records established at the time of abortion rather than upon interviewing breast cancer patients many years later. But then, it is most curious that the NCI and others who would use this argument to dismiss all the interview-based studies conveniently omit the fact that the one 1989 American study based on medical records, reported a 90% increase in breast cancer risk with abortion! Instead, they have relied largely on a 1997 Danish study based on the medical records of all 1.5 million women born in Denmark between 1935 and 1978. That study reported: "Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." However, it was so seriously flawed as to render its overall results entirely invalid. For just one example, the Danish study utilized medical records of abortions dating back only to 1973, in which year, the study implied, elective abortion was legalized in Denmark. In truth, elective abortion was legalized in Denmark way back in 1939, and 60,000 women in the study who had legal abortions on record, were misclassified as not having had an abortion! Yet, to this day the NCI and other agencies still rely on the Danish study as more or less definitive in showing that, overall, abortion does not raise the breast cancer risk.

But things are finally beginning to change. The court testimony cited at the beginning of this article, for example, was just taken in November of last year. More recently, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), arguably the most influential medical journal in the world, finally listed abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer in its review of breast cancer risk this past February. The NEJM is the journal which published and championed the Danish study only three years ago. Most recently, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG), the agency which sets the standards of care for abortion practitioners in the United Kingdom, validated the evidence for the ABC link. Specifically, the March, 2000, edition of RCOG's triennially revised "Evidence-based guideline No. 7: The care of women requesting induced abortion" reviews our own "comprehensive review and meta-analysis" of the worldwide ABC literature, which was published in 1996 in the British Medical Association's Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The RCOG guideline restates our summary finding of a significant, overall 30% increased risk of breast cancer with abortion. It also states that our review was "carefully conducted" and comments that "the Brind paper had no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded."

As of this writing, the ABC link has been evidenced by 13 out of 14 epidemiological studies in the U.S. and 27 out of 34 worldwide. The biological basis of the ABC link is well established. It was even demonstrated experimentally in laboratory rats twenty years ago. Even if scientific rigor does not demand that such overwhelming evidence constitutes conclusive proof, medical ethics demand that women considering abortion be informed about the evidence linking this elective surgical procedure to a life-threatening disease.

reply from: Dmourning

Your source mentions the New England Journal of Medicine.

Funny, but they didn't seem to mention anything about a known link. In fact, they deny it:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/2/81?andorexacttitleabs=and&search_tab=articles&tocsectionid=Original+Articles&tocsectionid=Special+Reports&tocsectionid=Special+Articles&tocsectionid=Clinical+Practice&tocsectionid=Review+ArticlesAORBClinical+PracticeAORBClinical+Implications+of+Basic+ResearchAORBMolecular+Medicine&tocsectionid=EditorialsAORBPerspectiveAORBOutlookAORBBehind+the+Research&tocsectionid=Sounding+BoardAORBClinical+Debate&tocsectionid=Clinical+Implications+of+Basic+Research&tocsectionid=Health+Policy*AORBQuality+of+Health+Care&tmonth=Feb&searchtitle=Articles&sortspec=Score+desc+PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&hits=20&where=fulltext&tyear=2005&andorexactfulltext=and&fyear=1995&fmonth=Feb&sendit=GO&searchterm=abortion+breast+cancer&searchid=1108354932204_8794&FIRSTINDEX=0&tocsectionid=Original+Articles&tocsectionid=Special+Reports&tocsectionid=Special+Articles&tocsectionid=Clinical+Practice&tocsectionid=Review+ArticlesAORBClinical+PracticeAORBClinical+Implications+of+Basic+ResearchAORBMolecular+Medicine&tocsectionid=EditorialsAORBPerspectiveAORBOutlookAORBBehind+the+Research&tocsectionid=Sounding+BoardAORBClinical+Debate&tocsectionid=Clinical+Implications+of+Basic+Research&tocsectionid=Health+Policy*AORBQuality+of+Health+Care&journalcode=nejm

"Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer."

reply from: chooselife

Dmourning - the article you are referencing was from 1997.  The article I mentioned was from 2000 - The reference is Volume 342:564-571, Feb 24, 2000 - Number 8 - Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer -

Even the world's most influential medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, has begun to change its tune about an ABC link, albeit quietly. Three years ago, the NEJM published a Danish study that denied the abortion-breast cancer link. Known as the Melbye study, researchers concluded that "induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." Also published in the NEJM was an editorial by a National Cancer Institute epidemiologist asserting that "a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer" when she contemplates an abortion. 

But in the text of an article last year, entitled "Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer" by Katrina Armstrong and her associates from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, the following statement was made:  "Other risk factors have been less consistently associated with breast cancer (such as diet, use of oral contraceptives, lactation, and abortion)." The statement, although far from a resounding declaration, represents a significant change from the journal's previous position. 

Also check out the link http://www.aapsonline.org/press/abortioncancer.htm - This is the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and their article specifically points out the ACS and NCI denying the finding of their own studies once political pressure was applied by pro-choice politicians.

Scientists, women’s groups, and the media have consistently suppressed or ignored research that establishes a direct link between abortion and breast cancer for their own political purposes. Further, women considering abortion are not given true informed consent about the real risks of the procedure as a result of withholding this evidence. - AAPS
NOTE: The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a non-partisan, professional association of physicians in all specialties, dedicated since 1943 to protection of the patient-physician relationship.

reply from: chooselife

Dmourning - for your reading pleasure. Here is an article by a Russian mag making fun of America for our politically controlled media on this very subject:

Pravda Tells the Truth About Breast Cancer/Abortion Link

If American women want to know the truth about the well-established link between breast cancer and abortion they'll have to read Russia's Pravda because America's pro-abortion media won't tell them what they need to hear about link between the deadly disease and the killing of the unborn.

And amazingly the one-time Soviet-controlled propaganda sheet took pains to castigate the U.S. media for their propaganda campaign to cover up the real truth on this subject so vital to the health of America's women.

According to Chicago's feisty RFM News, the former communist mouthpiece called the American mainstream media establishment "liberal" and "asserted that "dozens of studies" associating abortion with breast cancer are not being discussed in the American public forum.

'Taboo'

Pravda noted that this occurs because the women's health issue is a "taboo subject" as a result of "intense pressure from the billion-dollar abortion industry."

RFM said that the Pravda article warned Russian women, "Thousands of women could die because of the failure of the medical establishment and government to warn women of the link between abortion and breast cancer."

Citing a Dec. 4, 2001 article in the British publication The Age, Pravda said, "British researchers from Populations and Pensions Research Institution, an independent group of statisticians, reported that women who procure abortions double their risks of breast cancer."

Pravda reported on a controversy that has erupted between U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., and a handful of Hoosier activists associated with the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) revealed in a NewsMax.com report, http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/21/181403

NewsMax.com reported that 11 NBCC activists lobbied Hostettler in May 2002, in order to raise more taxpayer money to support breast cancer research. The congressman, who is up for re-election in November, was publicly chastised by six members of the NBCC three months later and called Hostettler an "embarrassment" to his district in a letter to an Indiana newspaper, the Evansville Courier and Press, because he discussed abortion-breast cancer research.

In a letter to Courier and Press, California physician Frank Joseph wrote, "I was appalled that U.S. Rep. John N. Hostettler, (R-IN) was given such a hard time for trying to expose America's best kept secret -- and from women who were fighting breast cancer, no less.

"He should have been given a medal." Joseph lamented that American journalists "will not report on 28 scientific studies done world-wide, which found that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer, but they did inform the public that cell phones might increase the risk of brain cancer. This, after only six studies, in which the pros and cons were equal."

America's P.C.-Controlled Media

Joseph expressed wonderment that Pravda ran a column about the research. On the topic of Pravda and the former Soviet Union, Joseph said "for years, the USSR did not have a free press. One has to wonder which country now has the freest press."

Joseph added: "They are no longer controlled by politics. Unlike the American press, they are not afraid to print the truth. What a turnaround! It is now the American media that is politically controlled."

reply from: yoda

Ironic, isn't it?

reply from: Dmourning

Chooselife.

Please link the NEJM article from 2000 that you mentioned. I couldnt find it on their page.

Also, why do you keep using slanted pro-life and conservative sources in your arguments?

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=1836

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?&DID=6&User_ID=16678947&st=2772&st2=-43026550&st3=77896104&Product_ID=1421&CATID=1&GroupID=1

reply from: chooselife

Pravda is a pro-life conservative source? That is laughable.  Calling a former communist russian newsource pro-life and conservative.  Russia has one of the highest abortion rates in the world and even they will acknowledge the ABC link.  I don't know about newsmax but they were talking about an article in the Russian (magazine?) Pravda.  And as for NEJM I quoted the portion of the article that was interesting (in terms of our discussion)
But in the text of an article last year, entitled "Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer" by Katrina Armstrong and her associates from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, the following statement was made:  "Other risk factors have been less consistently associated with breast cancer (such as diet, use of oral contraceptives, lactation, and abortion)." The statement, although far from a resounding declaration, represents a significant change from the journal's previous position. 

I had this journal article in some of my own resources....however I did go to their site and went to the search field and typed in "Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer" - The results pulled up the exact article I was speaking of first; however, you can only read the first 100 words.  If you are a subscriber you can read the full text.  If you want to read the entire article you will have to go to the library and use the references that I listed previously (date, Volume, number). Are you also accusing the AAPS of being pro-life and conservative?  Or are you just ignoring their findings?

reply from: Dmourning

Ok, I went there and http://this

is what came up. I didn't see anything that even once mentioned abortion.

And as for your slanted source...

Show me the original Pravda article and not the Pravda article as told by a biased conservative news "source" like Newsmax.com

You don't honestly think I fell off the boat yesterday and will blindly believe any slanted right wing nonsense you throw at me do you?

reply from: chooselife

Dmourning - I explained that you could only view the first 100 words of the NEJM article.  I quoted what was in the article...as stated before you will have to either A) pay for a subscribtion to read the entire article or B) go to your local library and ask for the volume mentioned. As for the Pravda article I am still looking. I went to their website but they only have a google search and I am attempting to locate an archives search.  I am still wondering if you think the AAPS is conservative and pro-life and why you do not believe Joel Brind Phd who has been studying this for many years.  Please check out the link I mentioned above to the AAPS article.  What is your problem with this article?

reply from: Dmourning

How come the article I posted you don't need any kind of membership to see? I've been completely open about providing my references.

As far as the AAPS, I haven't been able to find out much about the objectivity (or lack thereof). I will give your source the benefit of the doubt but however, when taking the word of the AAPS vs the word of the American Cancer Society and New England Journal of Medicine, I stand by the latter.

reply from: chooselife

Your article's author provided an abstract.  If no abstract is provided they only post the first 100 words of the article.  The article I referenced did not have an abstract.

reply from: mehh

i really want to get a job at publix, then refuse to sell meat at my register (for religious and moral beliefs), and, after being fired within 30 seconds, sue them for lots of ca$h, using the same logic. that'd be great.

reply from: mom5

Yes, by all means do that.  That will really make a good point.

reply from: anybody

There might be many pharmacies around you but most of the US is rural areas and there citizens do not have your luxury.

reply from: anybody

Then why are there so many children waiting to be adopted in this country? Is it because they are too old? Why are babies more valuable. Isn't life just that LIFE not age.

reply from: Tam

Yes, life is just LIFE. The unborn child's life is just as valuable as the born child's life.

reply from: Della22

DMourning, I am a little surprised by your response here. I can usually understand why you feel a certain way about prochoice stances because you believe in a freer America I guess (if I'm not expressing myself right I'm sorry, the words just aren't coming to me today.) You usually rally more for a person to have all their rights (while I don't agree that one person's rights should trump another's or that the born should have more rights than the unborn, I do understand why you feel the way you do.) But to look at it another way, those pharmacists are BORN people (most prochoicers see them as superior beings having lived outside the womb) so why shouldn't they have a right to their beliefs? I used to work at a gas station a few years ago and if I thought someone was too drunk or even if I just didn't like them, I had the right to refuse them alcohol or even cigarettes! It was my right. And even if I said no (I was the only one working on 3rd shift and it was the only open store in my town) my manager could not fire me for it. Because it was my right. Had I worked in a pharmacy and they had the same rules and someone I didn't like came in their to pick up their MAP or BCP's I might have been tempted to say, "I'm not filling this." I have denied people alcohol when I was working there. It was my right as an employee. When someone patrons an establishment they have no right to be served. They are at the mercy of the establishment. So while I do applaud those people for standing up for what they believe in. My stance is hurray for them for wanting to have their own rights.  

reply from: mehh

you were in a serious car accident. the doctor in the emergency room happens to be a jehovah witness. he refuses to give you a blood transfusion because it is a sin in his opinion. you die. the doctor is not held responsible because he acted based upon his moral/religious convictions.

a cashier at a grocery store refuses to sell meat at her register because she believes killing animals is wrong.

in the end: either perform your duties or dont get a job if some aspects of it are "immoral" in your opinion.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Adolf Eichmann tried the same defense, Mehh, and it didn't fly then, either.  He said his participation in the Jewish Holocaust was actually virtuous because he was performing his job duties. 

Whether your job requires you to do something immoral or not is irrelevent?  Refusing to do something that is morally wrong should get you fired? 

Let's see, then.  By your logic the bus driver who had Ms. Rosa Parks arrested for refusing to sit in the back off the bus was morally justified.  Any restraunt owner who had no problem serving blacks in the Deep South should have sold his business because serving blacks was illegal in most towns.  The police who dragged the blacks out of the restraunt were just doing their job, and any policeman who would have refused should have resigned because he was unwilling to do his job.

No, the fact is if your job requires you to do something you think is immoral, you sure as hell better resist -- quitting is the easy way out.  If you think selling meat is illegal, then stage a protest, try to get your store to quit selling meat -- don't just quit and let someone else continue the evil.

If you claim to live your life according to a principle or set of principles, you can't just ignore them when they are inconveninent or when the results would be uncomfortable.  If you only follow your principles when they are convenient, then you aren't living according to principle.  You are living according to convenience. 

The reason we have abortion, Morning-after pills, etc. is because too many people live according to convenience and not according to their principles. 

reply from: Tam

Right ON, Boris!! I wish we had an emoticon to indicate a round of applause!

I guess this is the best I can do. You deserve it. (I think it's nonalcoholic, though!)

reply from: mehh

i dont want to talk about "morally justified" or "principles" because morals and principles are specific to every particular individual. i bet mine and yours are pretty different too.

the behavior that you described is called civil disobedience, which is, of course, a way to change the system. however, one should expect to be arrested and have other legal concequences resulting from their actions. for example, when a protestor blocks traffic or enters a private property, they are fully aware of the fact that they can, and often will be arrested. however, they choose to do so regardless. because, in their opinion, they are persuing some greater good. this was exactly the case with rosa parks. and this should be the case with pharmasists. even though i agree with the former, and not the latter, it should have no relevence to the way the legal system veiws it. now if your efforts succeeded, and birth control became illegal, that would be a whole different story.

reply from: BorisBadanov

 
You started this with a statement of one of your principles:  "either perform your duties or dont get a job if some aspects of it are 'immoral'"  So, yes, I will discuss it.  It stinks and it is wrong.  It is one of the principles that allowed the Holocaust to continue.  Not only that, but your admiration for people who engage in civil disobedience show that you don't agree with your own principle -- or at least don't have the convictions to stand by it.



The key to why they are justified is your last sentence -- they are pursuing the common good.  The fact that you recognize a "common good" means you don't really believe that morals and principles are relative.  If there is a common good to pursue, there are common principles that we agree on.  I think you'll find that you and I agree on what most of those principles are.

The whole point of civil disobedience is to impact the way the legal system views these things and force the system to change.  Notice, however, I did not compare the pharmacists to Rosa Parks.  I contrasted them with the bus driver that had her arrested because it was his "duty."  He was not performing civil disobedience, he was just doing his job, and yet, I would imagine both you and I can agree that he was either a coward or a bigot or both.  The fact that he was just doing his job does not excuse his conduct or his character.

If you don't think he was a either a coward or a bigot, then you have more moral defects than I originally thought.

reply from: Tam

Yes, when standing up for a moral principle with which the law is currently in disagreement, one can risk legal problems including arrest. It certainly takes courage.

I like the idea of refusing to sell meat at the grocery store. Sure, you'd probably get fired right away. But it almost makes me want to try to get a part-time job at a grocery store JUST to get fired for refusing to sell meat. It almost sounds like fun. Easy for me to say, since I already have a job, I know. But civil disobedience has a fine tradition in this country. I highly, highly recommend Henry David Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobedience." In fact, pretty much my favorite quote of all time is from that essay.

Another good and relevant excerpt from that essay:

(Note to women: he means "a person" when he says "a man." You have to cut him some slack, because back then, they didn't know any better. They thought we were all men. Go figure!)

reply from: mehh

bus driver performed his duties. why are you so sure that he was rasist? maybe he got her arrested because he had strong respect for law, wether he agreed with it personally or not (many people are raised to respect authority above all), or maybe he was afraid of consequences of not getting her arrested (other people on the bus complaining, thus fears of being fired and not being able to feed his family). all this is speculations on my part. but you are in no position to know what was going on there either. think of iraq and soldiers that are there. while i stongly disagree with the war, i understand that the people there are simply doing their job. and some of them dont agree with the war either. however, if their only other option is jail, i cant blame them.

also, who said i admire everyone who participates in civil disobedience? hah. actually i think that some of them bike-riding-hippie-idiots could find better/more productive things to do. sometimes i agree with the cause, sometimes i dont. and even if i agree with a cause, result doesnt always justify the means.

i'm still confused where you saw that "common good". i said that, IN THEIR OPINION, they are persuing greater good. who said i agree that it is GREATER or even GOOD? (what is "common" anyway?)

reply from: BorisBadanov

mehh,

I'm trying to help you out here.  You've invoked the "Eichmann defense" twice now, and one of those was to defend a man who had a little old lady arrested for sitting in the wrong bus seat.  I really don't want to think you're the type of person who would have made a good little Nazi.

The whole point behind civil disobedience is that there are higher principles that demand our obedience that sometimes conflict with the law.  That's what makes particular laws "unjust" -- a standard of justice that stands above the law by which you can judge those laws.  That is the notion of a greater good that you invoked -- or as I called it, a "common good" which is a good that everyone can recognize regardless of law or custom.  The very fact that you find some acts of civil disobedience admirable shows me that you don't believe your own claptrap that all principles are individual, and that the only binding authority on any of us is the law.  There are higher principles than the law, and you know it. 

So please, do not invoke any sort of duty to do your job even if it involves having little old ladies arrested for sitting in the wrong bus seat.  I will have to then start referring to you as "My little Adolf"

reply from: mehhh

"That is the notion of a greater good that you invoked -- or as I called it, a "common good" which is a good that everyone can recognize regardless of law or custom."

if we all agreed on that common good there would be no such thing as wars, presidential election, democrats, republicans, court, or fox news. apparently we dont. whether you like that or not.

and the old lady on the bus. or nazi germany (which you seem to be SO fond of. assuming that you and i were born in the same country, i can understand why, since thats really the only topic thats being taught in our public schools). to stand up against nazi party would have meant giving up your life (even if it would have later started a movement). while i would like to believe that i would have been a strong enough individual to do so, i cant say what i would do if i were actually in that situation. and i cant blame people who are not willing to give up their life or freedom who actually are in these situations (aka. iraq).

a few of my friends got arrested for passing out morning after pills outside of FDA headquarters. while i completely support the cause, i dont blame the cops that arrested them. they were doing their job. the law is there to be enforced, and they were expecting to be arrested during the protest. if you dont like the law, thats one way to attempt to change it. or maybe vote and elect officials that agree with your stance on the issue.

EDIT: oh and this is still me. password problems.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Let's step back for a second -- are you really trying to say that the party or person who gets elected dictates what's right and wrong?  Might makes right? 

Or do you think that there are reasons that one group of people's agenda is good and the other people's agenda is bad?

reply from: Della22

MAN ALIVE!!! From what I'm hearing from those who think a person should do their job even if it's against their principles and the pro-choicers on here it sounds to me like you can't be an American and have principles if you want their approval. What is wrong with having morals these days?! I'm am about sick to my stomach from listening to all the garbage and poison spewing from the pro-choice side. It all boils down to "I'm not religious, I don't care, My beliefs are different." Well, my dad is an ATHIEST and he STILL doesn't believe abortion is right or the morning after pill, or what they're doing to Terri Shaivo. You don't have to believe in a god or gods. You just have to have common human decency and MORALS to see what's wrong with it! I really hope I'm right in my religion. Especially after joining these forums. I need to know that those who care not for anyone but themselves (normally we call these types of people "sociopaths,") will get what they deserve in the end. Some one who cares even less for their well being. To find out that life was just one gigantic test for an eternity of bliss or agony. Because if you can't get through to someone at the very least they should find out what's it's like to be on the short end of the stick (like Terri and the millions of unborn babies whose mothers didn't give two craps for them.)

Morals and responsibility...is that too much to ask from our citizens?!!

reply from: mehhh

what i mean is that MY right can be quite different from YOUR right. or MY right can be different from W's right. whats so hard to understand about it. example: some people think its wrong to be on welfare (aka live off other people's earnings). and i think its wrong to not help people who are worse off than you are.

some people think its wrong to have sex outside of marriage.

some people think gay sex is wrong.

some people think eating animals is wrong.

some people think eating onions and garlic is wrong (krishnas).

some people think its wrong for a woman to appear in public with her head uncovered.

some people think its wrong for a woman to appear in public period.

see now? i dont even know how else to explain this. right/wrong is not universal. might doesnt make it right. YOUR OWN OPINIONS MAKE IT EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG IN YOUR OWN HEAD. now the elected officials' job is to agree with majority, while trying to make the minorities as happy as possible.

now that we are apparently having some communication difficulties, let me specify that by "majority/minority" i mean opinions, not races/genders. k?

reply from: mehhh

speaking of morals. i think its morally wrong to force a woman to bear a child that she doesnt want.

see now? i got morals too!

reply from: mehhh

also, whats with "good agenda"/"bad agenda". i think republican agenda is bad. now i'm sure a lot of republicans would disagree.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Those are moral opinions -- and yes, you and I certainly disagree.  But what are your opinions based on?  Just some sort of arbitrary feeling, or do you have actual reasons for believeing that those things are wrong? 

reply from: mehhh

the reasons are: country/culture you grew up in, other environmental factors (such as your family, books you read, tv you watched, people you've met, experiences you had), religious training (or lack of it), etc.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Yeah, exactly, common sense based off lived experience -- whether that's your own experience or the experience of others that you acquire vicariously through culture.

Those things give us a sense of how life ought to be lived, and then we try to measure our own actions and the actions of other based off that.  That's how we form moral judgements.

It's not arbitrary.  It's not based on whim, caprice or gut feelings.  It's based on rational observations about what constitutes a good life versus what constitutes a horrible life.  That's why the references to Nazi Germany keep popping up in these discussions, because its something ALL of us know -- we don't want to be a Nazi, and we don't want to live in a world like 1930's Germany.  That's a common principle that we all share.

Now, the question is, which way does abortion move people -- away from the ideal or toward it?

reply from: mehhh

(i'm talking about my ideal here, because, as i said before "ideal","good","moral", etc is specific to every particular human being)

I THINK, the choice to have or not to have abortion allows women to have greater control over their lives (finish education, maintain a job, etc). so I THINK, having this choice is a very good thing for women.

now, if we lived in an "ideal" world, there would be no need for this conversation. and what would bring us closer to that (my) ideal is not abortions or the lack of them, but education and availability of resources that would enable women to lead quality lives no matter which choice they make.

reply from: Tam

Yes, there are pro-life people from every walk of life. Pro-life people of every religion and pro-life atheists, pro-life people from every political party and pro-life anarchists, pro-life people in every branch of the sciences and pro-life people who eschew science altogether, pro-life people from every state and every country, pro-life people everywhere. As Della says, you don't have to have some specific belief in anything divine in order to have the common sense to realize IT'S A HUMAN LIFE and the morals to oppose the taking of that life! There are so many different reasons to be pro-life. Each of us here opposes abortion for our own individual set of reasons, but we are united in our stand that it is WRONG.

reply from: BorisBadanov

mehhh,

I certainly agree with you that equal access to education, career oppourtunities, etc. for everyone is a laudable ideal.  Equality of oppourtunity is a major part of "the common good" that I said you and I would probably agree on more than we would disagree.

Wouldn't it be a better way to ensure every woman has access to education, career paths, etc. if they avoided pregnancy until they had a husband to help them raise a kid and help them access the oppourtunites that we said were ideal? 

reply from: mehhh

first of all, i'm not liking this whole "husband" thing. let me rephrase it: it would be great if women didnt get pregnant until they were ready to/wanted to/had means to give birth and raise a child.

however, it is a little silly to expect people to only have sex in order to procreate.

birth control seems like the perfect option (some people here are apparently opposed to it as well).

however, no birth control method is 100% effective (although some come close to it), still the main reason unwanted pregnancies happen is failure to use birth control/improper use.

ideally, people (both women AND men) would be educated enough to use birth control properly. unfortunately, this is not the case right now. sometimes women forget to take birth control, they might feel ashamed, pressured by men not to, simply not think about it at the moment. i dont think women should have to pay for this mistake for the rest of their lives, because it takes two people to make a baby, but very often, women are the only ones left with responsibility of raising a child.

to answer your question, i think it would be better if people learned to use birth control properly, men learned how to take responsibility for the pregnancies they contributed to, there were more resources for single parents (daycare, healthcare, flexible school schedules, etc), if a woman decided to go through with the pregnancy.

i really wish people stopped thinking that every problem a woman could ever have in her life can be fixed by a (any) husband or a (any) marriage.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Don't worry, I didn't mean to imply that a woman "needed" a husband to fix her problems. I think men should wait till they're married, too, before they father any children and I certainly think men should raise any and all children they father. It's just that I think single parenthood is a situation that ought to be avoided, no matter whther its a mom or a dad we're talking about.

I'm curious, though. If an abortion is an acceptable option in your eyes, why is it better if a woman avoids conceiving a child altogether? Why is it better to never get pregnant in the first place?

reply from: mehhh

why is it better to avoid pregnancy? because i havent met (and doubt i ever will) anyone who liked abortions. as in, cant wait to have another one! most people agree that its not necessarily a good thing, but its a good thing to have around.

i happen to value the life (life, health (physical/emotional), financial status, education, social life, etc) of an already born woman more than a zygote/an embryo/a fetus.

reply from: mehhh

also, i disagree with you on single parenthood completely. i know plenty of single parents doing so much more for their child than any "traditional" family ever could. my own mother is a perfect example (lets start with bringing me to this country and giving me a great college education, aside from unlimited attention and support (emotional and otherwise) that i always had).

its not about mom+dad, or just mom, or just dad, or 2 moms, or 2 dads. its about abilities and desires to provide a child with a loving home. and having both mom and dad around doesnt automatically equal that.

reply from: mehhh

also, what is your idea of preventing people from getting pregnant until they are married (aside from marriage doesnt = being ready to raise/support kids)?

if you really think that people will stop having sex until marriage (or stop having sex within marriage if they already had enough kids or chose not to have any more kids/have kids at all), i got news for you (just look at those abstinence pledges and how many percent of teens break them).

reply from: yoda

Well said, Della. The society that abandons morality will collapse upon itself, regardless of what excuse it gives.

reply from: BorisBadanov

You should look at census buereau statistics sometime on single-parenthood and its relationship to career oppourtunities, education and everything else we both said were ideal for everyone to have access to. 

There are an awful lot of kids out there who will never have access to these things, solely because they were raised in a single parent home.  Talking to the kids who had parents who were committed to staying together and making a marriage work, I can tell you that yes, that indeed does make a better home and environment for kids.  Not only that, but this is just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to societal problems related to single-parent homes. 

I'm curious, though.  Why do you think abortion is so bad?

reply from: yoda

Is she already carring that child, or do you mean that she is raped? It does make a difference, you know.

BTW, do you consider it morally wrong to deprive an innocent human being of their life?

reply from: yoda

Why do you put it in an "either/or" situation? Why is it necessary to choose one over the other? Why not say that both are innocent of any capital offense, and ought therefore to be allowed to live? What is it about gestation that brings up the idea of "justifying death" in your mind?

reply from: mehhh

exactly. which is why i think the stystem should be more accessible for single parents. staying together JUST for the kids and being miserable is a horrible idea. and i dont think that it is possible to make every marriage work.

also, same-sex couples can make great parents as well. unfortunately, our hick president would rather die than see it happen.

EDIT: what i was trying to say here is that it is more difficult for single parents to provide a healthy home for their kids, but not impossible. however, i believe that the system is what needs to be changed. free/cheaper daycare isnt going to stop the earth from spinning.

reply from: mehhh

Is she already carring that child, or do you mean that she is raped? It does make a difference, you know.

BTW, do you consider it morally wrong to deprive an innocent human being of their life?

first of all, i dont consider a zygote/an embryo/a fetus a human being. what it is is a human zygote/embryo/fetus with a potential of becoming a human being under favorable circumstances.

to answer your question, yes, of course, i think it is wrong to deprive any human being of their life (innocent/guilty, doesnt matter).

i dont make distinction based on the circumstances the pregnancy was conceived. in both cases, if any aspect of mother's life (happiness, etc.; not just literal life/death situation) is compromised because of an unplanned pregnancy, i think it is more important than a potential human life than can result from this pregnancy. (on the other hand, you dont really want to pass on the rapist's genes either. the recent theory of rape being an evolutionary adaptation really made me think about this)

reply from: bigc

those people should be fired and red flagged so that they can never work in any medical or drug distribution facilities ever again just think if they are that insane that they have to but there noses into someone elses buisnes  i believe if given the chance they may purposely give the wrong perscription to dupe the patient into currying long enuff for them to carry the child to full term

reply from: mehhh

Why do you put it in an "either/or" situation? Why is it necessary to choose one over the other? Why not say that both are innocent of any capital offense, and ought therefore to be allowed to live? What is it about gestation that brings up the idea of "justifying death" in your mind?

if continuation of pregnancy means emotional (or other) distress for the woman, it is an either/or situation.

i just answered the rest in the post above

reply from: mehhh

i dont think its "so" bad. but first of all, it is a serious surgical procedure, and that brings its own risks (however, the risks are still less compared to carrying the pregnancy full term).

and this is probaby the part you've been waiting for this whole time, i totally understand that a zygote/embryo is being destroyed (which is a potential human being). however, i still think that a potential human being is less important than an already born human being.

EDIT: since one is dependent on the other and cannot exist separately

reply from: mehhh

so, Boris, how are we going to make people stop getting pregnant? you forgot to answer that one

reply from: mehhh

oh hi, bored-12-year-old-person. please dont spam this thread.

reply from: Tam

I'll answer that one. People need to wake up about what causes pregnancy and how to avoid it or achieve it as desired. Ever been friends with a couple trying to conceive and having difficulties? Know how they figure out when the woman is actually fertile (capable of conceiving a child) and try to have intercourse during that narrow window of time? Ever heard of people avoiding intercourse for any reason during a woman's cycle? By avoiding the cause of pregnancy (sexual intercourse) during the tiny window of time it could result in pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy would be eliminated in all cases other than that of rape. And the problem there is eliminating RAPE! Which should be a goal shared by any moral person. The only three causes of pregnancy are: rape, ignorance, and intent. The children of those intentionally pregnant are not at risk. It is only the children conceived in rape or ignorance whose lives are forfeit. The way to make people stop conceiving in ignorance is education. The way to make people stop conceiving in rape is rape prevention. The "sex ed" kids are taught skips over the basics of how to tell whether you're fertile. But, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the same corrupt system that promotes abortion and death in so many ways also somehow manages to neglect the most important detail about how to avoid unintended conception.

reply from: bigc

reply to tam

you bring up excellent points but there is never going to be a way to prevent rapes 100% or no amount of education is going to stop teens from haveing un protected sex   its a natural curiosity that brings children to have sex  and the    IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN TO ME MENTALITY that young people have
that prevents them from useing protection while haveing sex.   unless you constanly nag on your children and give them absolutly no freedom chances are your children will be partake in sexual acts before they are married or before the age of 18   also the parrents need to realize these things and stop thinking  OH MY CHILD WOULD NEVER DO THAT  THEY ARE NOT EVEN INTERESTED IN THAT SORT OF THING  thats where half the battle should be fought   parrents get your children rubbers and get your daughters on the pill  and come to the realizeation that young children are haveing sex these days  no matter what you think

reply from: BorisBadanov

I definitely echo what Tam is saying, knowledge of fertility cycles works for delaying pregnancy. 

But the fact of the matter, and to answer your question directly -- how do you suggest sexually active people avoid pregnancy -- I don't think its possible.  Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex.  It doesn't matter how many hoops, barriers, walls and dams get thrown in the way, eventually the sperm and the egg will unite.  You've admitted yourself, mehh, no contraceptive is 100%.  In other words, people have to accept the fact that pregnancy will eventually happen if your sexually active.

Pregnancy is not the end of the world, even if your single and relaticely uneducated and without a job.  I've metnioned before, I've helped out a lot of women who had unplanned pregnancies, and with very few exceptions they continued on the life path they were on before they got pregnant.  If they were headed toward college, they went to college.  If they were moving up the career ladder, either they continued to or chose not to because they found it more rewarding to stay home with the kids.  Besides, there is nothing that says Dad can't raise the kids instead of Mom.  I do understand most single women would rather die than let that happen, but it is still a posibillity.  The fact is, if you are having sex you should be willing to be responsible for whatever child gets conceived.

And to address your comment about it being unrealistic to expect people to be chaste, I'm guessing you don't even believe that, yourself.  If you had a girlfriend come to you and confide that she was dating this great guy, they clicked -- real potential here, the whole nine-yards, but she said she just didn't feel like sleeping with the guy, would you tell her she's being unrealistic to expect him to remain chaste.  If he went on to cheat on your friend, would you then just let him off the hook because its unrealistic to expect a guy to live without sex? 

reply from: Navynate

bigc,

A childs parrrrrrrrrrents love them a whole lot more them NARAL and PP put together will ever love or care for them. Yet, PP and NARAL are the one's who want to come between teenage girls and  their parrrrrrrents all the time saying that the teen age girls have every right to get an abortion with the Parrrrrrrrents knowledge. What kind of a moron thinks that parrrrrrrents should not know and have something to say about a teen age girl getting an abortion. Unfortunately some parrrrrrrrrents have bought the lie that their daughter can't have much of a life if they do have a baby.  And force them to have an abortion.  NARAL and PP don't give a ratts butt about what happens to them after they have an abortion performed on them and they are out the door.  

reply from: Dmourning

And Operation Rescue, Right to Life Committee and the Republican Party don't give a ratts butt about what happens to children after they force them to be born. Just get born at all costs and then you're on your own!

reply from: Tam

And Operation Rescue, Right to Life Committee and the Republican Party don't give a ratts butt about what happens to children after they force them to be born. Just get born at all costs and then you're on your own!

That is not true. Well, I don't know about the stance of the organizations themselves, but about the people who comprise them. I can say that I personally have watched Operation Rescue people offer support to pregnant moms to help them be able to take care of their babies. I know a crisis pregnancy center near the local PP offers so much to help women. This center will give a pregnant woman:

a free pregnancy test
a free ultrasound
free classes on infant care

And if you keep a relationship with the center through attending these classes, you earn some kind of points that you can turn into baby care stuff. They have all kinds of really cute clothes, new or barely used (some handmade by volunteers--knitted, crocheted, etc! cute!!), diapers, just every kind of baby stuff you need, and they just give it to you. They can also help you: find a job. find an apartment. find childcare. find money for school. find food. find clothes for yourself. If you are totally broke and helpless, you can STILL make the right choice for your baby. There is so much help available, it is really amazing. I hope and expect it is this way in most communities. I live in the bluest city of one of the bluest of the blue states, and it is that way in my community.

So for moms who don't think they can afford a child and don't think they can take care of one, there IS a resource in my community--and in so many others--that helps them have the ability to choose LIFE for their child and get SUPPORT for everything.

And the same people who are volunteering their time and donating their money to help moms in crisis pregnancies in my community are: the people who are anti-abortion and want to save the lives of those little kids still in the womb. It's not whatsoever the case that after the baby is born, those people turn their backs on mom and child. It is quite the opposite. I am sure there are some people who feel they don't have the time and energy to help moms and kids after birth, and that saving the kid's life is as far as they can go, and I respect that, too. But there are many, many people who work hard to help those moms and kids (and dads! of course, the dads are encouraged to be a big part of this!) with anything and everything they need.

reply from: Tam

And Operation Rescue, Right to Life Committee and the Republican Party don't give a ratts butt about what happens to children after they force them to be born. Just get born at all costs and then you're on your own!

That is not true. Well, I don't know about the stance of the organizations themselves, but about the people who comprise them. I can say that I personally have watched Operation Rescue people offer support to pregnant moms to help them be able to take care of their babies. I know a crisis pregnancy center near the local PP offers so much to help women. This center will give a pregnant woman:

a free pregnancy test
a free ultrasound
free classes on infant care

And if you keep a relationship with the center through attending these classes, you earn some kind of points that you can turn into baby care stuff. They have all kinds of really cute clothes, new or barely used (some handmade by volunteers--knitted, crocheted, etc! cute!!), diapers, just every kind of baby stuff you need, and they just give it to you. They can also help you: find a job. find an apartment. find childcare. find money for school. find food. find clothes for yourself. If you are totally broke and helpless, you can STILL make the right choice for your baby. There is so much help available, it is really amazing. I hope and expect it is this way in most communities. I live in the bluest city of one of the bluest of the blue states, and it is that way in my community.

So for moms who don't think they can afford a child and don't think they can take care of one, there IS a resource in my community--and in so many others--that helps them have the ability to choose LIFE for their child and get SUPPORT for everything.

And the same people who are volunteering their time and donating their money to help moms in crisis pregnancies in my community are: the people who are anti-abortion and want to save the lives of those little kids still in the womb. It's not whatsoever the case that after the baby is born, those people turn their backs on mom and child. It is quite the opposite. I am sure there are some people who feel they don't have the time and energy to help moms and kids after birth, and that saving the kid's life is as far as they can go, and I respect that, too. But there are many, many people who work hard to help those moms and kids (and dads! of course, the dads are encouraged to be a big part of this!) with anything and everything they need.

*bump*
to answer salspua's question about CPCs

reply from: yoda

Tam, just a technical note: You can "bump" a thread just by hitting the edit button on a post in it, and then hitting the "edit message" button. That doesn't change a thing about the post, but it does bump the thread to the top.

reply from: Tam

I know, but I wanted to explain exactly what I was bumping, and why--and this is a long, complicated thread.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics