Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The dictionary definitions supported me, not them. A fetus is part of a woman’s body, not a separate entity, not a sentient entity and not a corporation.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The dictionary definitions supported me, not them.

No they didn’t.

Regards,
Shodan

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The dictionary definitions supported me, not them. A fetus is part of a woman’s body, not a separate entity, not a sentient entity and not a corporation.

(my bolding9
A part of the body? Like the spleen or liver? Or like tooth braces? or the screws I’ve got in my left arm?
DNA is your friend here.
A fetus is not part of woman’s body.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Yes it is. It is a growth in the uterus, derived from her own tissue. It’s like a tumor.

[Zeriel]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes it is. It is a growth in the uterus, derived from her own tissue. It’s like a tumor.

In the typical case, tumors do not have DNA that is distinct enough to be identifiable as a different person (if distinct at all, beyond a common mutation or two), where a fetus does.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes it is. It is a growth in the uterus, derived from her own tissue. It’s like a tumor.

So, it’s no longer a “part of the body” now it is “a growth”. You do realise those two phraes aren’t synonyms? Will you call a tumor “a part of the body”? Does any, any at all, scitific literature call it like that?
A cyst, cancer, miomas are “growths in the uterus”.
Derived form which tissue? Not the uterine tissue, nor the Falopian tube tissue, not the ovarian tissue, nor from any tissue at all. And, how come it’s got a different DNA?

The thing is that, with your position, babies are almost formed by budding rather than sexual repordction.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Zeriel

In the typical case, tumors do not have DNA that is distinct enough to be identifiable as a different person (if distinct at all, beyond a common mutation or two), where a fetus does.

This is a completely irrelevant qualification.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Aji_de_Gallina

So, it’s no longer a “part of the body” now it is “a growth”.

I’m not interested in this kind of semantic, chickenshit pedantry.

[Zeriel]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This is a completely irrelevant qualification.

I’ll wait while you either admit that’s a statement of belief (as distinct from fact) or show me a peer-reviewed journal article proving that statement.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You’re the one making an assertion, you’re the one with the burden of proof. Prove that unique DNA is sufficient to make an object into a “person.”

[Zeriel]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You’re the one making an assertion, you’re the one with the burden of proof. Prove that unique DNA is sufficient to make an object into a “person.”

I didn’t make that assertion, Dio. What I’m doing here is “calling you out on making random, sweeping statements.”

You said a fetus was like a tumor, and I pointed out a way it was not. And then you made the assertion that it was irrelevant, which I asked you to prove since you made the assertion and you agree that gives you the burden of proof.

So go on, follow your own rules and prove your bald assertion that the differences between fetuses and tumors are totally irrelevant. I’ll wait for either that or your proof that I’ve asserted anything other than a fact that differentiates fetuses and tumors.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Zeriel

I didn’t make that assertion, Dio. What I’m doing here is “calling you out on making random, sweeping statements.”

You said a fetus was like a tumor, and I pointed out a way it was not.

It was analogy. Pointing out literal differences is specious.

And I don’t have the burden of proof. It’s those who want to deprive me of my right to terminate my own pregnancy who have the burden to prove I’m killing a “person.”

[Zeriel]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It was analogy. Pointing out literal differences is specious.

And I don’t have the burden of proof. It’s those who want to deprive me of my right to terminate my own pregnancy who have the burden to prove I’m killing a “person.”

Please stop being on my side.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I’m not interested in this kind of semantic, chickenshit pedantry.

You mean like the difference between “molesting” and “consexual sex”?

[Der_Trihs]

@Aji_de_Gallina

You mean like the difference between “molesting” and “consexual sex”?

More like the difference between consensual sex and voluntary intercourse.

[Superdude]

As much fun as this thread has become, I have a question that may actually pertain to the OP:

Accepting the law as is, is there any reason why a doctor couldn’t stock samples of the medication, and merely provide a sample packet to the patient? That would alleviate the issue with the pharmacist and save the patient some money.

I’ve lived on samples of medications from my doctor off and on for years. Whenever I get low, I call his office, and go pick up some samples. I don’t see any reason why this couldn’t work regarding the OP.

[heatmiserfl]

@Zeriel

In the typical case, tumors do not have DNA that is distinct enough to be identifiable as a different person (if distinct at all, beyond a common mutation or two), where a fetus does.

This is a nitpick, but maybe relevant among nitpicks. Due to genomic instability, some tumors can have profoundly different DNA than the person it was derived from. Even cells that don’t become tumors have been shown to undergo DNA rearrangements. They may senesce (not divide anymore) and just sit there instead (or die, which is what happens to most fucked up cells).

Also, people are mentioning a uniqueness with zygotes because they derived from sexual reproduction. There is growing evidence that the genomic instability involved in some carcinogenesis is due to activation of meiotic pathways. Meiosis is a cell division supposed to be reserved for genetic rearrangements to occur in development of the sperm or egg. Then the sperm and egg comes together following cell fusion. Tumors also undergo cell fusion as they progress. So the process of tumorigenesis may actually resemble fertilization and early embryonic development (at least to some extent).

Then there’s the parthenogenic mouse.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Mice created without fathers

Here, no fertilization is required to create a baby mouse. Amazingly, the expression of only one key development gene was needed to be repressed.

Of course parthenogenic human babies are not allowed but parthenogic human embryonic stem cells have been made.
http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nsmb.2050.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18040289

Then there’s always human cloning which is a little more artificial in that it requires nuclear transfer into an egg.

I’m not sure what the hell my point is anymore other than to say that zygotes having unique DNA and doing zygoty things is nothing special in the world of cell biology. Zygotes and early embryos have a hell of a lot more in common with any other cell or group of tumor cells, adult stem cells or fibroblasts than they do with a baby. I think that’s Dio’s point.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Der_Trihs

More like the difference between consensual sex and voluntary intercourse.

I’ll pick my examples, thank you.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@TriPolar

Because drug prohibitions like the prohibition of marijuana are based on someone’s subjective belief that marijuana is harmful enough to society that it should be banned, despite the fact there are other legal drugs that are demonstrably more harmful. That is a lack of fairness.

I think we should legalize, regulate and tax most recreational drugs, but its not subjective belief that marijuana is harmful. IF my kid started doing pot 7 days a week I’d be just as concerned as if he got drunk every night.

Divorce laws are unfair for a variety of reasons, but primarily because they are tied to marriage laws which are based on religious grounds. Marriage and divorce can be fairly based on contract law, but instead they are based on the idea of some magical property of a relationship between only certain kinds of people, without any necessity to even establish that magical quality between the participants.

Wait, I can see how marriage laws are tough to defend objectively but the divorce laws seem to have public policy underpinnings.

I didn’t get off the subject, I’ve been trying to respond to the questions you asked. I see you are responding to a lot of people in this thread, and I understand it can be difficult to maintain individual conversations under those circumstances.

Thanks I’m easily confused.

I’ll go back to my original point, this law is based on morality. It allows pharmacists to ignore a persons request to fill a prescription based on the pharmacists own concience. The government is the arbiter of the laws they create, and there is no way to resolve whether a pharmacist is acting based on their concience, or for some other reason. It implies (quite conclusively) that there are moral objections to providing medications that are prescribed as necessary by a doctor.

Would you similarly say that a doctor that performs medically necessary abortions but not elective abortions should also be forced to perform elective abortions?

I haven’t yet seen the text of this law, but let me ask you, does it even provide for consistency on the part of the pharmacist? Could a pharmacist object to providing medication to one individual based on concience, but not another?

I don’t know what these laws say but I would demand consistency.

What if person needs medication to stay alive, but his concience wouldn’t allow him to provide because he felt deeply that the person should die? This whole concept of the law recognizing concience is a mess.

Perhaps you see a mess because you want to see a mess. I think reasonable parameters can be drawn to allow a person to act within their conscience without letting them kill people.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@aruvqan

However nothing in the constitution tells me that you can jam your religious beliefs up my cunny. If i want to have abortion be my form of birth control, that is my damned choice, not yours. It is between me and my doctor.

For what it is worth, I may believe in religion, but I damned well am not your particular brand of Christian, and your so called morals are not mine.

I don’t think you have any idea what I believe. My position is not based on religious belief but on individual liberty.

You are not asking the government to leave it between you and your pharmacist are you? You are asking the government to step in and force the pharmacist to sell you stuff they don’t want to sell you. In the absence of a law, noone has to sell you anything they don’t want to sell you. The argument has been that there is something special about pharmacists that we should be able to force them to do something they don’t want to do.

Can we similarly force a doctor that will only perform medically necessary abortions to perform elective abortions as well?