Well, I could have told you that, but for a completely different rationale...
However, there reasoning stems from protecting the personal convictions of pharmacists who enter their careers with the desire to promote life, not destroy it. On the flip, the article indicates that the ban is unconstitutional for the listed reasons:
"discriminates against women"
Counter argument: it doesn't discriminate against women as much as it treats humans all the same: Men, can also receive birth control chemicals, but it is a lot less likely and a lot less effective. In that respect the article singles out one population without regard to the other - that I perceive as near discriminatory than the ban is. The ban indiscriminately protects the very humanness that these "vigilante pharmacists" feel contraceptives destroy.
"violates the right to privacy"
Counter Argument: I must admit, I can not see how refusal to supply a product violates the right to privacy. Unless they are referring to the privacy that is negated after a pregnancy begins to show that the participant took place, or had a part in irregardless of will level, in the act of intercourse. Personally, I would have to say that such a physical occurrence should not be considered an issue that necessitates privacy. Guess I am just hazzy here.
"contradicts 40 years of Supreme Court precedent establishing access to birth control as a fundamental Constitutional right."
Counter: I do not know their rationale here for declining legal precedent, particularly being that UW is a public institution. Irregardless, it is not uncommon for precedents to be overturned.
just my two-cents... As for my opinion on emergency contraceptives... I'm not sure I agree with them. I will agree insofar as they are assured not to destroy a unionized conception: ie, the drug is administered in such a time as that contact of the gametes has not been made. Though, of what I know of contraceptives and birth control pills is they impair implantation, not sperm-membrane penetration. Hence, are equivalent to an abortion procedure.
As for the usage of contraceptives as a hormonal balancer, not in unison as a birth control measure; I can see no reason why they shouldn't allow this, but in honor of a non-discriminatory outlook, I guess they decided to do away altogether, and blanket ban as a measure of sparing the privacy of individuals.
I haven't seen anyone look at the bill except people just saying "It's stupid" and what not. That response was a smart response. They put thought in it.
I've thought it out and find nothing but silliness for all the wrong reasons. I've even put it out on the comments. Yet you're going to ignore it and call it an unsmart response? :P
Although you have points, and quite valid ones, I am an advocate of planned parenthood. Coming from an area where people seem to think that there is no hope for them or their future, they often have sex, and become pregnant, as young as age 10. True, a great deal of these pregnancies do not reach the third trimester, but what hope do any of the children born from such young mothers have? Even at age 16, what hope do they have?
Today's job outlook and pay-to-cost ratios don't look very promising. As the gasoline price rises, so does the cost of food. Many people look for jobs (not careers) in areas within walking, biking or short-drive distances, often opting for a pay-cut to be able to continue paying for the convieniences that they have now and the cost of gasoline.
When this happens, the job outlook becomes slim. First-time job searchers are often met with dead ends. Or dead-end jobs with a small amount of hours and even smaller pay.
A new mother with no job and, more often than not, no support from the father of the child must often make due with whatever she can get. Generally, this is a waitressing job or a part-time gas clerk's position. Juggling infant, job and school (most often not this last one, though) is a grueling task for even two married 20+ well-rooted individuals with promising full-time jobs and higher pay.
I have often said, and will continue to say, that I do not prescribe to religion. I have my own belief and it stems from people. People are people and they will always be people. They are often rash, conceited and quite full of themselves.
People spend a lot of time and, at times, a lot of money to do things they deem pleasurable. Sometimes good food, others fine wine. Alcohol, cigarettes and cigars. Drugs of any sort. Sex. Hell, even chocolate (which is said to trigger the same chemicals in the brain that are released in orgasm during sex).
Because people are often rash... and spend a lot of time and, at times, a lot of money on pleasurable things... they often do not forsee what will happen to themselves or their resultant offspring while they are blinded by pleasure.
To say that birth control should be banned completely... allows serial rapists to stick their penises into women's vaginas without consent and without fear of being pinnned as a father, should there be resultant offspring (if, of course, the woman survives... or does not commit suicide). It allows our population to grow to an insane number in a very small time-span. It allows more children to grow up without hope. Without a good education and future job-outlook.
...I don't want to sound speech-y, but I know I already have come across that way. But what if? What if we allow birth control -- we educate the populace at large the options, tell them what goes on in their bodies and what the Pill and other contraceptives do before, during and after intercourse?
Giving options is the best course of action. The Pill suits the needs of those who are both rash and looking for pleasure. Our world is full of such people -- there are not many (probably more than we all think, but certainly not enough to out-weigh the rash/pleasure types) who remain abstinant until the time that they are ready to produce offspring and allow them to grow up in a better, more promising future. Most of these, surely, use some form of contreception.
Although I do not use the Pill and cannot have a bias on this matter for that reason, I am a woman. If I wished to engage in an act that would, if not prevented in some way shape or form, concieve a child -- permitting all things went according to the way they should -- I would want to have all of my options on the proverbial table. Taking away one of those options -- an option which, to the best of my knowledge, is labelled safe by the USDA and marketed across the United States of America for prevention of pregnancy -- is discrimination to women. I don't see anyone taking any of the herbs that cause abortion from shelves and destroying them -- why should they destroy my right to choose?
I'm sorry, but pharmacists KNEW that they would be filling all forms of prescriptions. They should either find a new profession or shut the hell up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 04:34 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 04:56 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 04:48 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 04:57 pm (UTC)From:/sarcasm
I don't understand where they're coming from.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 08:42 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:18 pm (UTC)From:However, there reasoning stems from protecting the personal convictions of pharmacists who enter their careers with the desire to promote life, not destroy it. On the flip, the article indicates that the ban is unconstitutional for the listed reasons:
"discriminates against women"
Counter argument: it doesn't discriminate against women as much as it treats humans all the same: Men, can also receive birth control chemicals, but it is a lot less likely and a lot less effective. In that respect the article singles out one population without regard to the other - that I perceive as near discriminatory than the ban is. The ban indiscriminately protects the very humanness that these "vigilante pharmacists" feel contraceptives destroy.
"violates the right to privacy"
Counter Argument: I must admit, I can not see how refusal to supply a product violates the right to privacy. Unless they are referring to the privacy that is negated after a pregnancy begins to show that the participant took place, or had a part in irregardless of will level, in the act of intercourse. Personally, I would have to say that such a physical occurrence should not be considered an issue that necessitates privacy. Guess I am just hazzy here.
"contradicts 40 years of Supreme Court precedent establishing access to birth control as a fundamental Constitutional right."
Counter: I do not know their rationale here for declining legal precedent, particularly being that UW is a public institution. Irregardless, it is not uncommon for precedents to be overturned.
just my two-cents... As for my opinion on emergency contraceptives... I'm not sure I agree with them. I will agree insofar as they are assured not to destroy a unionized conception: ie, the drug is administered in such a time as that contact of the gametes has not been made. Though, of what I know of contraceptives and birth control pills is they impair implantation, not sperm-membrane penetration. Hence, are equivalent to an abortion procedure.
As for the usage of contraceptives as a hormonal balancer, not in unison as a birth control measure; I can see no reason why they shouldn't allow this, but in honor of a non-discriminatory outlook, I guess they decided to do away altogether, and blanket ban as a measure of sparing the privacy of individuals.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 08:28 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 08:49 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 08:44 pm (UTC)From:TACOOOOOOOS!
What? o_O;
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 11:32 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-25 02:04 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 08:49 pm (UTC)From:Today's job outlook and pay-to-cost ratios don't look very promising. As the gasoline price rises, so does the cost of food. Many people look for jobs (not careers) in areas within walking, biking or short-drive distances, often opting for a pay-cut to be able to continue paying for the convieniences that they have now and the cost of gasoline.
When this happens, the job outlook becomes slim. First-time job searchers are often met with dead ends. Or dead-end jobs with a small amount of hours and even smaller pay.
A new mother with no job and, more often than not, no support from the father of the child must often make due with whatever she can get. Generally, this is a waitressing job or a part-time gas clerk's position. Juggling infant, job and school (most often not this last one, though) is a grueling task for even two married 20+ well-rooted individuals with promising full-time jobs and higher pay.
I have often said, and will continue to say, that I do not prescribe to religion. I have my own belief and it stems from people. People are people and they will always be people. They are often rash, conceited and quite full of themselves.
People spend a lot of time and, at times, a lot of money to do things they deem pleasurable. Sometimes good food, others fine wine. Alcohol, cigarettes and cigars. Drugs of any sort. Sex. Hell, even chocolate (which is said to trigger the same chemicals in the brain that are released in orgasm during sex).
Because people are often rash... and spend a lot of time and, at times, a lot of money on pleasurable things... they often do not forsee what will happen to themselves or their resultant offspring while they are blinded by pleasure.
To say that birth control should be banned completely... allows serial rapists to stick their penises into women's vaginas without consent and without fear of being pinnned as a father, should there be resultant offspring (if, of course, the woman survives... or does not commit suicide). It allows our population to grow to an insane number in a very small time-span. It allows more children to grow up without hope. Without a good education and future job-outlook.
...I don't want to sound speech-y, but I know I already have come across that way. But what if? What if we allow birth control -- we educate the populace at large the options, tell them what goes on in their bodies and what the Pill and other contraceptives do before, during and after intercourse?
Giving options is the best course of action. The Pill suits the needs of those who are both rash and looking for pleasure. Our world is full of such people -- there are not many (probably more than we all think, but certainly not enough to out-weigh the rash/pleasure types) who remain abstinant until the time that they are ready to produce offspring and allow them to grow up in a better, more promising future. Most of these, surely, use some form of contreception.
Although I do not use the Pill and cannot have a bias on this matter for that reason, I am a woman. If I wished to engage in an act that would, if not prevented in some way shape or form, concieve a child -- permitting all things went according to the way they should -- I would want to have all of my options on the proverbial table. Taking away one of those options -- an option which, to the best of my knowledge, is labelled safe by the USDA and marketed across the United States of America for prevention of pregnancy -- is discrimination to women. I don't see anyone taking any of the herbs that cause abortion from shelves and destroying them -- why should they destroy my right to choose?
I'm sorry, but pharmacists KNEW that they would be filling all forms of prescriptions. They should either find a new profession or shut the hell up.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:09 pm (UTC)From:Boo, Wisconsin, Boo. And here I liked you and your cheese so much... *sniffle*