"Pro-Life" Drugstores Market Beliefs

[Ugg]

Blame it on the song if you will, and then turn it off. They are still dying by the thousands daily; that's a culture of death. They are not innocent in their fate; they may not be solely responsible, but they are not innocent. However, there are humanitarian groups who are trying to help them. Mocking? Who is mocking?

A big contributor to the sub Saharan Aids crisis is poverty. Lack of proper nutrition, safe water, basic medicines, anti malarials, basic health care, etc. Certainly, there are subsets of the population that have serious issues with sex, but the same can be said for any western country as well.

Sub Saharan Africa is a part of the world that was divvied up by the colonial powers and is still trying to find its own way. However, post-colonial western policies in general and American specifically have only encouraged the tyrants of Africa to hold onto power and deny their people basic rights.

Saying they live in a culture of death is like saying Americans live in a culture of gluttony, obesity and stupidity. While it's true for many people, it's by no means applicable across the board.

Your disgust is rather potent. What caused it?

[redwarrior]

Last time I checked Africa is a continent, those people have been to every single country in Africa? or by going to South Africa for example where this specific issue happened represents everybody?

Very sorry for the generalization.


How are they not innocent in their fate? if your husband is a truck driver, and ends up spending the night with someone, and brings home more than just the bacon, is it your fault if you get a disease? is it the fault of your unborn child? :confused:
Just because the society as a whole suffers as a consequence does not mean that there were not original perpetrators. If everyone just decides that they have no responsibility in the matter, they may as well go ahead and lay down and die. To realize one's error and work to correct it begins a change and a move towards healing and life.

[themadchemist]

Blame it on the song if you will, and then turn it off. They are still dying by the thousands daily; that's a culture of death. They are not innocent in their fate; they may not be solely responsible, but they are not innocent. However, there are humanitarian groups who are trying to help them. Mocking? Who is mocking?


This is very true. We may not hear about it on the local news, but speak with people who have been there, and you will see that this is a fact.


Edit: I didn't misinterpret your statements, if you think that "blame this on voodoo" crap is true. I've been to one country in Africa, Ghana, and I will not presume to be an expert on it or any other African country. But this is no fact. It is a little Orientalist black magic conjured up by the West to continue to buy a pass on our guilt.

"Culture of death" suggests that there is not just acceptance of these circumstances, but an actual cultural value placed on it. It also suggests that there is something inherent about cultures in Africa that is creating this problem. Considering how vast and diverse the continent is, I think this is a broad overgeneralization. Instead, the combination of poverty, poor infrastructure, insufficient education (a point on which I know we agree), malnutrition (and therefore immunocompromised status), corrupt governments, and insufficient support from the rest of the world have conspired to create this situation. It's not so much the culture as just a damn tough spot.


A big contributor to the sub Saharan Aids crisis is poverty. Lack of proper nutrition, safe water, basic medicines, anti malarials, basic health care, etc. Certainly, there are subsets of the population that have serious issues with sex, but the same can be said for any western country as well.

Sub Saharan Africa is a part of the world that was divvied up by the colonial powers and is still trying to find its own way. However, post-colonial western policies in general and American specifically have only encouraged the tyrants of Africa to hold onto power and deny their people basic rights.

Saying they live in a culture of death is like saying Americans live in a culture of gluttony, obesity and stupidity. While it's true for many people, it's by no means applicable across the board.

Your disgust is rather potent. What caused it?


Thank you Ugg, for this very good post. Once we can move past this ludicrous show of blaming African culture for the AIDS epidemic, maybe we can get on to some more productive business.

[redwarrior]

A big contributor to the sub Saharan Aids crisis is poverty. Lack of proper nutrition, safe water, basic medicines, anti malarials, basic health care, etc. Certainly, there are subsets of the population that have serious issues with sex, but the same can be said for any western country as well.

Sub Saharan Africa is a part of the world that was divvied up by the colonial powers and is still trying to find its own way. However, post-colonial western policies in general and American specifically have only encouraged the tyrants of Africa to hold onto power and deny their people basic rights.

Saying they live in a culture of death is like saying Americans live in a culture of gluttony, obesity and stupidity. While it's true for many people, it's by no means applicable across the board.

Your disgust is rather potent. What caused it?
I'm sorry that my perception of their life-style came across as disgust, although I am disgusted by much of America's lifestyle! My personal feeling is one of compassion, but also helplessness. I wish I had the answers.

[flyinmac]

The best prevention would be knowing the sexual history of your partner, getting tested regularly, and getting tested together. You don't need to exercise abstinence, just a certain amount of personal responsibility.


Sure. Go ahead. Great idea. But, of course that only goes so far. The only sexual history that will assure you that they are clean is one of abstinence.

Otherwise, it's just what they know of the people they slept with before and what those people may or may not have told them of their history.



What about couples who simply do not want children at all?

Get it clipped. Or, don't have sex. Or whatever you want.

You can still buy whatever you want. You can still get it. It's not like because this one place opened it's doors that every source you've been using is going to suddenly close.

If you can get it now, you can get it tomorrow.




The topic of discussion isn't condoms, it's prescription contraceptives. Condoms you can get from lots of places, getting a prescription filled is a different matter entirely.

Again, go somewhere else. You cannot force a retailer to carry a product because you desire it.

My local pharmacies all have things that they don't carry and will not order. And, some of them are life and death medicines for the people who need them. One of my relatives is an example. They've had to fight and struggle to get the medicine they need.

I've had to personally go to every pharmacy in town just to find certain antibiotics for my own kids.

You cannot make them stock a product. They are a private retailer.

If you want an assured source, then fight for public / tax funded pharmacies and let the government serve you. But, then you'll wine about more government in places it doesn't belong.

But, as long as you want to buy from a private business, you'll get what that business offers.

And, just in-case you throw out the idea that there may only be one pharmacy in the entire driving distance available to you, let me assure you that you can easily mail-order your prescriptions.

Actually, that's more convenient, cheaper, and easier than dealing with the local pharmacy anyway.

We used to order all our prescriptions. We can get 3 months worth of medicine / prescriptions for the cost of 2 months if we order it. Not a bad deal considering it's usually $400 a month to buy prescriptions for our family (and that's with insurance covering their portion).

The thing is, you have to accept that they are not forcing their beliefs on you. It is you trying to force your beliefs on them.

You would rather force them to carry something that they don't believe in so that you won't be inconvenienced by having to go to a different location to buy your prescriptions.

In the nearest town to my home, there are only 5,000 people. A little over 3,000 of them are adults over 18. And, we have 24 pharmacies to choose from.

The next nearest town is roughly 4,000 people. You could estimate their adult population at roughly 2600 people. And, they have 10 pharmacies to choose from.

Now, in our state, we do have a number of towns with absolutely no roads out of the town. And, guess what, they still get their medicines. Some have less than 50 people, some less than 100, and many less than 200. Sadly, some even have roughly around 10 to 12. Some don't have a single child in the town. And, guess what, despite not having a local pharmacy, they still get any medicine they need. If it's critical, the local doctor has it. If it's not critical, the medicine comes in the mail.

Bottom line, just because one place doesn't have what you desire, doesn't mean that you've been forced to submit to their beliefs.

You know what, we eat a rather unusual diet. And, there is absolutely nowhere that I can go eat a prepared meal within about a 500 mile radius that I know of (honestly, I cannot think of any restaurant in the state or neighboring states that would have food on our diet).

I guess these places are all forcing their beliefs on me as well. And, yes, it is a matter of health for us. The only place I can eat is at home.

So, because we've made a choice for our families health to eat a better way, then maybe I should get a law passed that requires every restaurant in my area to serve food that is on my diet.

As it is now, I can't go anywhere to eat.

So, now if I won that fight, who would you say is forcing their beliefs on who?

I can barely even find anywhere to buy the food we eat. One store (and it's 50 miles away - I have to drive through about 7 or 8 towns to get to the town with that one store).

You can always go to another pharmacy. I can't go to any restaurant.

[.Andy]

Sure. Go ahead. Great idea. But, of course that only goes so far. The only sexual history that will assure you that they are clean is one of abstinence.
Abstinence doesn't ensure that you aren't carrying an STD. You need to brush up on your sex education.

[flyinmac]

Abstinence doesn't ensure that you aren't carrying an STD. You need to brush up on your sex education.

Well, it would definitely mean you didn't get a sexually transmitted disease from sex.

But, yes there are means to get diseases that can be transmitted through sex without having sex. But, they are less common these days.

And, while you're partner would likely disclose that they had some sort of transfusion, transplant, or other procedure done that left them with a disease that is transmittable, they likely wouldn't even know if they got one from some of the other causes.

Some of the other causes wouldn't even register in your brain as needing checked. I don't go to the doctor every time I get a cut for example.

And, generally you're not going to get something severe from making out with someone. Though you might get a cold sore.

Generally speaking, it's going to be sex that gives you a sexually transmitted disease.

No sex, will at least insure you don't get one sexually.

Otherwise, accidents and things do happen. And, if it's an accidental cause, knowing a persons history is not going to automatically tell you to stay away from them.

Again, that's where abstinence comes in. You cannot contract a sexually transmitted disease sexually if you do not have sex.

And for the Clintons in here, it is not abstinence if you are still sucking and whatever else. Just because you don't put it where it's meant to go, doesn't mean it wasn't sexual contact. And, you did not abstain. If sexual body organs were involved, then you did not abstain.

Can you get it without sex. Possibly. Not as likely. But possibly. EMT's are at risk of that every day. But, they know that.

Why do you think your doctor wears gloves when they examine you? Of course they know gloves are no guarantee.

[Iscariot]

Sure. Go ahead. Great idea. But, of course that only goes so far. The only sexual history that will assure you that they are clean is one of abstinence.

Otherwise, it's just what they know of the people they slept with before and what those people may or may not have told them of their history.

Even if they're abstinent that doesn't mean they're not infected with an STD or other communicable diseases. Everyone should get tested. There is nothing that will be able to absolutely 100% guarantee that they are 'clean'.

Again, go somewhere else. You cannot force a retailer to carry a product because you desire it.

Yes, you can. Every retailer in America is "forced" to operate under some kind of regulation. "Capitalism" and the free market isn't some kind of blanket system that absolves a business from a litany of rules and regulations that must be adhered to in order to operate legally. This is not an effective argument. The aguable question isn't whether a retailer can be "forced" to adhere to guidelines (because it can be), it's whether a pharmacy faces more stringent guidelines because of it's position in the healthcare industry.

[hulugu]

....Again, go somewhere else. You cannot force a retailer to carry a product because you desire it.

My local pharmacies all have things that they don't carry and will not order. And, some of them are life and death medicines for the people who need them. One of my relatives is an example. They've had to fight and struggle to get the medicine they need.

I've had to personally go to every pharmacy in town just to find certain antibiotics for my own kids.

You cannot make them stock a product. They are a private retailer.

If you want an assured source, then fight for public / tax funded pharmacies and let the government serve you. But, then you'll wine about more government in places it doesn't belong.

But, as long as you want to buy from a private business, you'll get what that business offers.

And, just in-case you throw out the idea that there may only be one pharmacy in the entire driving distance available to you, let me assure you that you can easily mail-order your prescriptions.

Actually, that's more convenient, cheaper, and easier than dealing with the local pharmacy anyway....

I'd submit that your local pharmacies are fully failing in their duty and that you should submit something to the local state licensing board. The pharmacy should be able to fill subscriptions, the fact that they can't means something serious has failed in the system. I could see a pharmacy letting a product deprecate because of poor sales, but actively refusing to carry a product, especially for hare-brained morality codes, sets a dangerous precedent.

The argument about government intervention continues to be a red herring in this discussion. Private businesses are already subject to a host of local, state, and federal laws. The idea that a business can do whatever it wants doesn't fit with our current reality and simply hasn't since the beginning of the 20th century.

Aren't restaurants subject to local health codes and inspections? Aren't there fire codes?
A pharmacist can't sell cocaine or opiates to anyone who asks right? These limitations are part of the agreements we as a society make for the right to run a business. We make these limitations because we have agreed at large that these restrictions and guarantees create a better environment for businesses and our society.

[flyinmac]

Even if they're abstinent that doesn't mean they're not infected with an STD or other communicable diseases. Everyone should get tested. There is nothing that will be able to absolutely 100% guarantee that they are 'clean'.



Yes, you can. Every retailer in America is "forced" to operate under some kind of regulation. "Capitalism" and the free market isn't some kind of blanket system that absolves a business from a litany of rules and regulations that must be adhered to in order to operate legally. This is not an effective argument. The aguable question isn't whether a retailer can be "forced" to adhere to guidelines (because it can be), it's whether a pharmacy faces more stringent guidelines because of it's position in the healthcare industry.

You can enforce general safety and code guidelines required for public occupancy. You can enforce that places meet a minimum standard of cleanliness. You can require that the establishment be safe. You can require that every person be able to enter the building physically. And, so on.

But, you cannot require a store to sell a specific product.

You can prohibit a store from selling certain products. But, you cannot make a person sell something that they do not wish to offer.

Funny how it's fine to force your beliefs on someone when it's in your interest. But, you'll bitch, whine, moan, and cry, while claiming that someone is doing the same to you (even if they are not).

You have a choice of where to buy things. You can choose to go elsewhere. And, if a store didn't have what I wanted, I'd shop somewhere else as well.

But, a private business cannot be forcefully made to sell certain products unless you wish to force your beliefs on them.

There is no other way to see it. You are demanding that they do something that they do not believe in. But, they are not demanding that you absolutely have no choice but to only buy what they have (you can buy anywhere else you wish).

So, who's forcing their beliefs on someone? Certainly not the retailer. They cannot force you to only buy from them. So, you can still buy what you want. Just go somewhere else.

[.Andy]

Lots of individual sentences about staying celibate
So are you going to stay celibate for fear of disease?

[flyinmac]

So are you going to stay celibate for fear of disease?

Obviously I've answered that. But, if you believe that your only choice in life is one of the following:

1) Not have sex

2) Have unprotected sex and no birth control at all

3) Buy from the only pharmacy in town that doesn't have birth control


Then, I'll go out on a limb and say you should definitely avoid sex.

And, quite honestly, if you cannot accept that sex may lead to having children (if so capable), then you honestly are not ready to have sex.

Any sexual intercourse between a man and a woman (with or without however many methods of birth control you choose) can most definitely lead to having a child.

If you are dead set against having children (and are capable of having children), then don't have sex.

Likewise, if disease is a concern for you. Then, apply the same measures as above. If it's a factor for you, and you cannot accept the risk, then don't do it. No amount of protection is a guarantee.

[hulugu]

...But, you'll bitch, whine, moan, and cry.....

This is unnecessary. Please have respect for the other posters in this forum.

[Iscariot]

But, you cannot require a store to sell a specific product.

Yes, you can. There is no precedent that says it cannot be legislated that certain prescriptions be considered essential services and that a pharmacy must fill or otherwise help to fill the prescription. Illinois, as an example, prohibits pharmacies from turning away women seeking emergency contraceptives.

Funny how it's fine to force your beliefs on someone when it's in your interest. But, you'll bitch, whine, moan, and cry, while claiming that someone is doing the same to you (even if they are not).

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I haven't argued that pharmacies must carry contraceptives. What I have done is provided counter-points to the plethora of non-factual arguments that are being used to support an obvious agenda.

[flyinmac]

This is unnecessary. Please have respect for the other posters in this forum.

Sorry if the truth hurts sometimes.

But, the very people who claim that their rights are being infringed on are usually the ones who are demanding to have their lifestyle and choices imposed on us without any regard for our beliefs. Sadly, they are the ones who are always making all the noise and the headlines.

A store or handful of stores not offering a given product is really not a huge deal. It's not a product that is absolutely essential to life. And you can still go to any other place of your choice to get it.

You want to argue from the disease point of view. Well, then go to a gas station or grocery store, or any of the other thousands of retailers and buy your condoms.

You want to argue about prescription drugs. Well find another pharmacy. You've already been using one. So, keep using that one. No one is forcing you to switch to this other place that doesn't offer prescription birth control.

And, you don't need a prescription to buy condoms. So, you cannot argue that they are forcing you to expose yourself to sexually transmitted diseases by not selling condoms.

Don't have sex.

Or, if you feel you absolutely must, then go to the gas station and buy your condoms there. It will be the cheapest thing you buy there anyway.

Go to one of the thousands of other places available. If they sell alcohol, they'll have condoms. If they sell playboy, they'll have condoms. If they sell gas, they'll have condoms. If they sell tampax, they'll have condoms. If they sell pregnancy tests, they'll sell condoms.

Just because one store isn't selling them, doesn't mean you can't buy them. Go somewhere else. You have not been forced into believing anything. You just couldn't buy it in one store.

Last I heard, the guy behind the counter at the Quickie Mart wasn't checking prescriptions for condoms.

Women, you want a pill, want a foam, want a whatever, then buy it from another pharmacy. You have not been told you cannot get something. You haven't been told that you must change religions. You have not been told that you can never have sex. You haven't been locked in a chastity belt.

Just go somewhere that has what you want. Or, order it in the mail and save yourself a bundle of money.

The only ones being forced into doing something that is against their belief is the private business owner. You all can continue to buy whatever you desire from the same places you always have. And, if one of them should desire to stop selling something, then go somewhere else.

[.Andy]

And, quite honestly, if you cannot accept that sex may lead to having children (if so capable), then you honestly are not ready to have sex.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Who can't accept that having sex might lead to a child? I can't see anyone in this thread doing that at all. To be blunt it's a strawman. It's just some of us aren't interested in having children and take measures to minimise/prevent that risk. Contraceptives, vasectomies, non-penetration etc. It's hardly rocket science. It's a completely valid option that millions of people enjoy regularly with no problems at all.

Any sexual intercourse between a man and a woman (with or without however many methods of birth control you choose) can most definitely lead to having a child.
To break down you're sneaky equivocation. Using birth control drasticallly reduces the chances of having a child. Combining two or more such as being on the OCP and combining it with spermicides and condoms effectively eliminates any chace at all. If we eliminate problems with compliance and misuse (usually from a lack of education) then it is likely that you can have sex to your hearts content with zero fear of falling pregnant.

If you are dead set against having children (and are capable of having children), then don't have sex.
Just to point this out as it's making your posts infuriatingly hard to read. You are making the same points over and over in consecutive single sentence paragraphs. It's making this thread nigh impossible to follow. This is the same point as the quote above.

edit;
Sorry if the truth hurts sometimes.
Please don't do this.

But, the very people who claim that their rights are being infringed on are usually the ones who are demanding to have their lifestyle and choices imposed on us without any regard for our beliefs. Sadly, they are the ones who are always making all the noise and the headlines.

A store or handful of stores not offering a given product is really not a huge deal. It's not a product that is absolutely essential to life. And you can still go to any other place of your choice to get it.

You want to argue from the disease point of view. Well, then go to a gas station or grocery store, or any of the other thousands of retailers and buy your condoms.

You want to argue about prescription drugs. Well find another pharmacy. You've already been using one. So, keep using that one. No one is forcing you to switch to this other place that doesn't offer prescription birth control.

And, you don't need a prescription to buy condoms. So, you cannot argue that they are forcing you to expose yourself to sexually transmitted diseases by not selling condoms.

Don't have sex.

Or, if you feel you absolutely must, then go to the gas station and buy your condoms there. It will be the cheapest thing you buy there anyway.

Go to one of the thousands of other places available. If they sell alcohol, they'll have condoms. If they sell playboy, they'll have condoms. If they sell gas, they'll have condoms. If they sell tampax, they'll have condoms. If they sell pregnancy tests, they'll sell condoms.

Just because one store isn't selling them, doesn't mean you can't buy them. Go somewhere else. You have not been forced into believing anything. You just couldn't buy it in one store.

Last I heard, the guy behind the counter at the Quickie Mart wasn't checking prescriptions for condoms.

Women, you want a pill, want a foam, want a whatever, then buy it from another pharmacy. You have not been told you cannot get something. You haven't been told that you must change religions. You have not been told that you can never have sex. You haven't been locked in a chastity belt.

Just go somewhere that has what you want. Or, order it in the mail and save yourself a bundle of money.

The only ones being forced into doing something that is against their belief is the private business owner. You all can continue to buy whatever you desire from the same places you always have. And, if one of them should desire to stop selling something, then go somewhere else.
To reiterate;
(1) this thread is not just about condoms. It's about all forms on contraceptives, which have uses besides birth control, and including those that are under prescription.

(2) Pharmacists are professional medical workers. It is part of their charter to provide their service to everyone who requires it at the best of their ability. It is not their job to second-guess or undermine doctors based on their own personal morality.

(3) Pharmacists should be the last people to be demonising the use of contraceptives. It is their professional duty to ensure that they prevent disease to the best of their ability and not be judgemental.

(4) Pharmacies provide a highly specialised medical service. It is not equivalent to going somewhere else to buy hot dogs because X restaurant doesn't serve them.

[Iscariot]

Sorry if the truth hurts sometimes.

There is no good reason outside of laziness or belligerence that one can't be respectful.

condoms.

condoms.

condoms

condoms.

condoms.

condoms.

condoms.

condoms.

condoms.


(note: accurate count)

It's not about condoms, it's about filling prescriptions.

The only ones being forced into doing something that is against their belief is the private business owner. You all can continue to buy whatever you desire from the same places you always have. And, if one of them should desire to stop selling something, then go somewhere else.

Illinois, as an example, prohibits pharmacies from turning away women seeking emergency contraceptives.

Private business owners do not have license to do whatever they please. Least of all private business owners in the health care profession. A firefighter, doctor, police officer, solider, or any other number of public servents would be in dereliction of duty if they failed to perform the basic essential services that are required of their profession. For pharmacists, this includes helping to fill a prescription to the best of your ability, not the best of you willingness to do so.

[flyinmac]

There is no good reason outside of laziness or belligerence that one can't be respectful.



(note: accurate count)

It's not about condoms, it's about filling prescriptions.


Selective quoting.

Condoms in relation to those who replied of concerns of disease and aids (read the thread).

Prescriptions in relation to those who seek pills, foams, whatever else.

And, yes, both have been mentioned and discussed by myself.

You ignore that I was addressing two different replies and concerns in those discussions. Condoms were discussed because it was suggested they were essential to protect you from disease.

Other birth control was discussed because prescription drugs were of concern.

As mentioned, prescriptions can be filled anywhere else you choose. No one forces you to a specific pharmacy.

And, condoms can be purchased almost anywhere.

But, if you seek a prescription, then simply go somewhere that has what you want.


Illinois, as an example, prohibits pharmacies from turning away women seeking emergency contraceptives.

Private business owners do not have license to do whatever they please. Least of all private business owners in the health care profession. A firefighter, doctor, police officer, solider, or any other number of public servents would be in dereliction of duty if they failed to perform the basic essential services that are required of their profession. For pharmacists, this includes helping to fill a prescription to the best of your ability, not the best of you willingness to do so.


Your other examples are funded by tax payers. They are public positions filled by employees of the state, employees of the city, or employees of the federal government.

Pharmacists are none of those. They are private citizens working as employees of a private business.

If they are provided by your city or state, then you can argue public health.

Doctors practicing in hospitals are a different case. They are required to see anyone who needs emergency care (as in they will die if they are not seen). But, they are not required to treat everyone who walks in with a splinter.

And, doctors in private practice can refuse patients if they choose. Many doctors will not even accept new patients under any condition. They have a specific number of patients they see, and they turn away anyone else. Our doctor does that as well. She provides excellent care, is one of the best in town, and will not take you in her private practice if you are not already on their list.

But, when working at the hospital as an on-call doctor, she will treat anyone who comes in the door and needs emergency care.

Honestly speaking, anything that is an "Emergency" will be handled at the local hospital. Emergency contraception / Emergency Birth Control is a polite way of saying abortion pill.

Any other form of contraception cannot be an "Emergency". After all, it's not like you're going to die if you don't have sex right this minute and get the protection you need to do so. Besides, birth control pills or other forms of prescription birth control do nothing to protect you immediately.

If you need emergency sex, then use a condom or go without.

If you need a pill to save your life, you will get that at the hospital where the emergency situation is diagnosed. If they send you to get the pill on your own, it is likely not something you need immediately that minute or you will die.

If a morning after pill, abortion pill, or "Emergency Birth Control" as some want to call it, is required to save your life, then you'll get it regardless of the one pharmacy in town that doesn't sell it.

If it's a matter of life or death, and needed absolutely right now, then the emergency care doctor at the hospital will give it to you.

If it's simply something you want as a matter of choice, then you will just have to go where you can get it.

A quick search reveals that many of the elective / chosen abortions in our state (if not all) are performed by publicly funded organizations and non-profit organizations. And, the abortion pill is provided by them.

Sadly, it appears as though this is the preferred method for many. They state that a large portion of the women elect to go without birth control of any kind, and then just go in and get the abortion pill. They show that many of them have done so more than 4 times previously.

Not what I would call an emergency.

We all know what happens when you have sex. Sex is designed to produce a specified outcome. If you don't desire that outcome, then use your ability of free choice to shop at a place that offers what you want. Just because one place doesn't offer birth control doesn't mean you have been refused the ability to obtain it. Go somewhere else (just understand it will not guarantee that sex doesn't produce a child).

"Emergency Birth Control" or abortion pills are obviously not an emergency if you were allowed to leave a hospital and go in search of a pill. They are electives. Call them what they are. Don't hide behind nice terms and delicate words.

And, you can go to non-profit and get them. And, if they don't have them right there, they'll know who to send you to. And, most likely, they'll hold your hand while you take it.

Personally, having watched a woman go through that, I cannot imagine how anyone could choose to do so willingly. It was the most emotionally heartbreaking thing for her. And, she will never be the same again.

But, if you so choose it, and want to go through it, then the refusal of one business to sell it to you will not stop you.

[Eraserhead]

Well, was it the condom or chance? Can you prove which?

Contraceptive has been proved by scientists to work. I cannot believe you are seriously entertaining the view that there is even the possibility that condoms do not help prevent disease transmission.

Such as:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606697110/fulltext

And it can even reduce the risk of certain cancers:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673602081254/abstract

We all know what happens when you have sex. Sex is designed to produce a specified outcome.

Its called an orgasm ;)

[Iscariot]

Your other examples are funded by tax payers.

Except the one about Illinois.

Emergency contraception / Emergency Birth Control is a polite way of saying abortion pill.

No, it isn't. You don't even know what an emergency contraceptive is.

[leekohler]

Yes. Quite right. And, I think my post agrees with that.

The point being, that you can never know that it was the condom that kept you disease free. Just be happy you are.

My success rate is apparently as good as if I had always used condoms. But, I suspect it was just chance.

The point being that one can never say that a condom works all the time. It is something that theoretically and ideally would permit you to control your situation. But, does not really give you that power all the time.

If you have sex, you should be sure that you are willing to have children (because you could use a condom and have her on birth control and still get pregnant).

If you obviously cannot get pregnant because you're both men (or both women), then still be prepared to accept that the condom may not protect you from disease.

In the end, it all comes down to chance.

If it all comes down to chance, then why bother using them at all? Your post sends a very dangerous message.

[redwarrior]

In the end, it all comes down to chance.

If it all comes down to chance, then why bother using them at all? Your post sends a very dangerous message.
I think more than those posts sending a dangerous message, they negate the argument. I agree with some points made, but very much disagree with others. flyinmac, if you continue to scatter irrational statements among your long posts, you do realize that most will not continue to give you audience, right?:o

[leekohler]

flyinmac, if you continue to scatter irrational statements among your long posts, you do realize that most will not continue to give you audience, right?:o

Too true. What I'm also seeing in the posts is very much a need to be "right", rather than searching for the truth. Hey- we're all human and have egos, I get it. I've got a horribly big ego.

[redwarrior]

Too true. What I'm also seeing in the posts is very much a need to be "right", rather than searching for the truth. Hey- we're all human and have egos, I get it. I've got a horribly big ego.
It is mostly a matter of opinion on this, as far as the store selling what they want. So I guess since it's all about opinions, and how can anyone really consider themselves "right." As far as your ego goes.... wait, there's another thread for that...:p

[leekohler]

It is mostly a matter of opinion on this, as far as the store selling what they want. So I guess since it's all about opinions, and how can anyone really consider themselves "right." As far as your ego goes.... wait, there's another thread for that...:p

Oh! That's a different kind of ego...;)

[Erwin-Br]

I'm going to open a bakery tomorrow, and only sell fruit.

--Erwin

[redwarrior]

I'm going to open a bakery tomorrow, and only sell fruit.

--Erwin
That sounds rather harsh. You'll probably end up in prison over that one. Bake your apples, you'll be ok.

[mpw]

I'm going to open a bakery tomorrow, and only sell fruit.

--Erwin
Well to keep to the spirit of those operating the pharmacy from the OP, you should open a bakery, but ban fruits.:rolleyes:

[hulugu]

Well to keep to the spirit of those operating the pharmacy from the OP, you should open a bakery, but ban fruits.:rolleyes:

I serve pies, but no fruit pies. Only pecan, walnut, chess.... You want fruit pie, you go somewhere else.
Pumpkin?
Pumpkin is fruit! Go away. No fruit pies.

[stevento]

The reason you don't understand is that these drug stores and people aren't pro-life, they're anti-sex. Let's call it what it is, please.

pro life does not mean anti-sex.

Well, at least if they openly advertise as such at least customers know which pharmacy to avoid so they won't run into a dangerous, egotistical, self-righteous ****** behind the counter dispensing lectures instead of medicine.
please do not subscribe the erroneous connection between the Christian right ( ie pat robertson) and the pro life movement. that's what sucks about the prolife movement. people look at it and think its a bunch of conservative ministers ranting and raving.

there is as much connection between right wing and pro life as there is between muslim culture and terrorism. extremely little, if any. so to associate the entire pro life movement with the right is the same thing as saying "well he's a muslim so obviously he's a terrorists."

[skunk]

I think it should be called the "anti-choice" movement. So much more descriptive.

[LethalWolfe]

please do not subscribe the erroneous connection between the Christian right ( ie pat robertson) and the pro life movement. that's what sucks about the prolife movement. people look at it and think its a bunch of conservative ministers ranting and raving.
I didn't use any labels in my post (Christian right, pro life, etc.,) so I'm not sure why you are brining it up.


Lethal

[leekohler]

pro life does not mean anti-sex.

Unfortunately, it does for too many people. Refusing to sell contraceptives certainly points to that.

[themadchemist]

pro life does not mean anti-sex.

He's not equating them. He's providing an alternate explanation for this irresponsible behavior.