?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon
vasaris
.:: ..::. .::..:...... .::

March 2014
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon [userpic]
The things you find in Mock the Stupid

...are occasionally horrifying.

And that's not scary just for the woman who thinks that taking a birth control pill every other day will accomplish anything other than wasting money and resources. It's funny that I was talking about reproductive rights just a little bit ago because this scares me almost as much as the government deciding that you damn well better be fertile if you're gonna get married...

I suppose that what I just ran across is some kind of punishment for the fact I'm almost never home for the news anymore and the local paper is such utter crap I'm unwilling to waste 50 cents on it, but...



There are doctors and pharmacists who are denying women access to hormonal birth control, due to their own religious beliefs.

What the fucking hell?

There are numerous health related reasons for taking birth control pills. It's not just for preventing pregnancy.

And there are pharmacists who will deny women access to their medication because it might cause a 'silent abortion' that has been theorized but not proven.

There are gynecologists and Primary Care Physicians who are willing to take a woman off of her birth control pills. Who will conspire to do so without consulting her in advance.

If a gynecologist is unwilling to prescribe the pill due to religious beliefs, obviously said gynecologist shouldn't be serving women who are interested in taking it. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense medication, maybe they should find some other fucking profession or open their own damned pharmacy where they've got it POSTED that they are so pro-life that they will not dispense medications that prevent pregnancy or cause a fertilized egg to fall through the chute.

Pharmacists dispense medications all of the time that have warnings for women who are or might become pregnant because of risk of birth defects or miscarriage. Does that mean they'll stop dispensing them as well?

Who made my pharmacist the custodian of my fertility? Of my menstrual cycle (although he's welcome to take it if it means *I* don't have to go through it anymore)?

It's my body, dammit. It's my choice.

Current Mood: pissed offpissed off
Comments

That's just wrong. Screw religious beliefs and act professional.

In suburban Cincinnati, a pharmacist who considers abortion a sin regularly refuses to fill birth-control prescriptions. She cannot be a part of what she considers terminating human life.

I'm going to headdesk now due to the fact that I am pro-contraception in a large part because I am pro-life. Less unwanted pregnancies = less need for abortions. Stop the problem at its root.

I'm going to headdesk now due to the fact that I am pro-contraception in a large part because I am pro-life. Less unwanted pregnancies = less need for abortions. Stop the problem at its root.

That's so cool. I freely admit that I'm pro-choice (which does not equal pro-abortion, but that's another subject altogether) and my unfortunate experience with pro-lifers has been with the ones who are both pro-life *and* anti-contraception. (Don't even get me started on the idiots who stand outside of our local family planning clinic trying to save young women from the horrors of getting the pill... or getting their food service permits, since it shares space with the Health Department or a myriad of other things that happen there. They are obviously teh eeeeeebil.*nodnodnod*)

*bounces happily* It's awesome to meet someone else who gets the fundamental idea of not-pregnant == no need/desire to abort. Abortion should *not* be a form of contraception. Being pro-choice I'm not willing to disallow it as an option women have to choose from, but... not pregnant in the first place is the obvious place to go.

Abortion should *not* be a form of contraception.

Actually, that's the biggest use of abortion I'm against.

And it's nice to meet sane pro-choicers.

*laughs* Yep. We exist.

And even as a pro-choicer, that's the thing about abortion that bothers the hell out of me. We fight for the right to make decisions about our bodies and then fail to take responsibility for the choices (oi, that word again) that we make.

It's a choice to get the pill, get the shot, use a condom, abstain or get an abortion. It's one of many choices... it shouldn't be the one people rely on. It's easier and less traumatic to use a damn condom than to go have a form of surgery. And while being pregnant and going through labor may not be pleasant, I think adoption *should* be emphasized over abortion as well.

Most of the choicer's I know view it as an issue of having abortion as one of the *options* not as being the only solution, and in several cases (like me) are definitely more pro-contraception and pro-adoption. I can't imagine actually choosing abortion, but I am unwilling to abridge another woman's right to do so... so I label myself pro-choice rather than pro-life.

And that's basically where I differ. Because of the fact of abortions - that it kills the unborn baby - I don't believe it should be one of choices. Or, at least, I don't think it should be a choice in the general way of things.

In all honesty, I'm not a fan of abortion, but to me that's between a woman and her deity-of-choice/conscience, which is why I see it having to be available. But I do understand -- and respect your view.

I just can't agree.

Still it's nice to have some common ground, because if (and goodness knows it would be difficult, but in an ideal world) we could make it so that no pregnancy was unexpected/unwanted then pro-life/pro-choice would be a moot point. No need for abortions except in extremis -- such as rape/incest/mother's life at risk.

I respect your view, but I also can't agree. Oh well. Want to go work on the ideal world?

Sounds like a plan to me :)

I agree with vasaris about your sanity. WOO! Sane pro-lifers rock! XD

I am pro-choice but only because I feel there are extenuating circumstances in which an abortion is a valid choice. These include rape/incest and the health of the mother. But I think, on the whole, you're right that it shouldn't be a choice in the "general way of things". It's not to be used for contreceptive purposes and it's not to be used because you (general you, not you specifically) screwed up and got knocked up or because you're 16 and can't afford a baby. Here is where I agree with vasaris that adoption is the way to go.

I'm so impressed that you can talk civilly about this and I know that seems like a weird thing to say but seriously, the only pro-lifers I've come in contact with are scary fanatics that cannot seem to even fathom a coherent thought. So kudos to you! You get a cookie! YAY!

I blame it one the skwardness of the abortion positons. You are either a Republican, Bible-thumping, Bush-supporting, pro-death penalty pro-lifer, or you are a Democratic, atheist, anti-bush, anti-death penalty pro-choicer. Not everyone is like this, but when pro-choicers and pro-lifers gather in their groups, that is the standard that comes up. I personally feel that hanging out with a group of people who agree with you creates for some batshit insane positions. With no one to contradict you, it becomes acceptable to have an abortion rather than let a child have a possibly bad life in orphanage or to kill abortion doctors.

As a Democratic, agnostic, Bush-hating, anti-death penalty pro-lifer, I've had plenty of time to examine my own position.

But thank you for the compliment. ^^

Those're some good points - and it really goes both ways too. And is applicable to just about anything in life.

And you're welcome to it. I'm a strong believer in giving compliments when they are deserved. It's like telling someone you love them or whatever for no reason. You never know if it will make their day, you don't know what will happen so let's make sure the last thing you said to someone was something nice. :)

Oh, yes.

From when I was eighteen:

Teacher: You're a Democrat? But you support law enforcement, strict legal penalties, prisons and the death penalty!

Me: ...

(And no, not in all cases where it's applied, but I honestly believe that for some types of criminal it's the only a) justice and b) solution although imprisonment until death works for me too, but few states actually have that as a punishment, except where somone's imposed a 325 year penalty.)

I think my biggest gripe with the death penalty is the flaws in the system. Because, like, it's kind of a pernament thing when you have innocent people on death role.

"Oh? The new technology shows that he was innocent? And we executed him? Ah, shit. Sorry about that. Send his family some flowers or something."

I won't disagree with you there. I'm only a fan of it in cases where there is very little doubt to be had (Ted Bundy, Dahmer, and the like).

If it can't be proven to a standard where there is basically no doubt, then life (as in until they die) without parole is a better option.

Either way, it's still a kind of no-win if future technology proves the prosecution wrong, because time lost in the outside world can't be given back. But better to be able to put your hands on them and give them some freedom.

I don't understand this silent abortion stuff. I mean, I'm on the pill and it's to regulate and control. I haven't had sex in 2 years so I don't know how I'm causing a problem??? *is confused*

Well, if I understand the argument correctly, we have to begin with the idea that the woman using birth control is, in fact, sexually active.

No particular problems there until she and her partner of the male persuasion have sex. The theory is that he could inseminate an egg which then fails to attach itself to the uterine wall because of her birth control pill -- preventing pregnancy.

The argument that these doctors and pharmacists have is that since life starts at the moment of conception, the contraceptive pill is causing the abortion of a child rather than the random assortment of a few cells that have only just begun to divide.

These people have no provision for the millions of women who take birth control pills to help regulate their cycles and even out their hormone fluctuations. As far as they are concerned if you're on it, you're having sex, and having frequent, silent, impossible to prove abortions.

The reality of your situation is immaterial to the physicians and pharmacists. It's very similar to the idea that "if you show teenagers how to use condoms, they'll have sex in the halls, turn our daughters into dominatrixes and our sons into omni-sexual fiends who get polyamorous with goats." Reality has little bearing on the socio-religious fog these people operate in and the fact that they're also violating your beliefs is definitely immaterial.

*grrrrs*

Bwa ha ha! Goats. Heh sorry.

I getcha. Thanks for the explanation. But I was under the assumption that the pill prevented the egg from being released in the first place? But I guess that would probably still fit in with their argument because you're messing with the natural order of things or some shit.

That's what I thought, too... but am too lazy to try looking up the information.

And... yeah. I expect they disapprove of masturbation (at least in males) on the basis of 'wasting seed' that could otherwise be impregnating a woman.

Yup. Gotta love that old-time religion. Uh-huh.

I can see some plausibility with birth control for a teenager being seeing as permission to have sex, but it is very often a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. So I tend to lead towards the one that ends up with the least amount of unwanted pregnancies.

I can see some plausibility with birth control for a teenager being seeing as permission to have sex

True enough, I suppose, but I remember being 15 and in Health class and wondering what my teacher was on, yanno? By that time those who were sexually active already were and those of us who weren't were unlikely to see learning how to properly use a condom as permission to go out and shag everything from the tree outside to the neighbors dog.

I'm actually a huge fan of abstinence training, I just think that a) it really *is* the parents job and b) they need to start from the time that little boys and little girls realize that the other gender doesn't have cooties. Or, for that matter, that their own gender is interesting while the opposite continues to have cooties ;P.

I'm reminded of a wank months ago now in which misswindy went on and on about how it was the responsibility of parents and schools shouldn't teach sex ed because they can't teach people to read. I seem to recall some expounding upon Libertarian philosophy regarding taking responsibility (which I agree with) but never did get an answer as to what we as a society should do for vulnerable populations (in this case, children/teenagers) when their parents *don't* put some effort into this issue.

It really is a no-win issue. But I agree that coming down on the side of fewer unwanted pregnancies is really the only way to go.

I think we may have different experiences. I've seen plenty of fourteen and fifteen year old girls rebelling in all sorts of ways, one of which involves having sex. (Mind you, this does not mean having sex with someone they have been dating for a long time. It generally happens after only a short time.)

Well, that's what I mean -- by the time I was 15 (or so) the ones who were having sex were already doing so -- lecturing us to abstain from sex until we found the right person came a bit late (if they weren't already getting that message from their parents, etc.)

While I'm very glad those who were sexually active were also being taught how to do it safely, I'm pretty sure those of us who weren't having sex would suddenly think "Hey, I can have sex now!" because someone showed us how to use a condom. (Or in our case, described it because we weren't allowed to have demonstrations.)

Oh, I see what you are getting at. I also have a point, but I am getting the feeling that I can't really explain it. It's kind of the thing that you have to actually witness. (My sister went through a stage of teenage rebellion when she was fourteen.) However, I know what you mean and agree. Not allowing protection won't stop anyone from having sex.

*hmmmms*

Reviewing what was said... I think you're trying to say that there is, in fact, some percentage of rebellious kids for whom it would be a kind of permission? Or, perhaps, would go out and do it, if they knew how to do it safely, and by teaching them, it allows them an outlet?

('cause I have to admit, I hadn't quite considered that.)

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. It's not right or even all that logical, but then again, this is young teenagers I'm talking about.