Dunno. I have started refering to it as the “Ninny State.” Eg, all of those up in arms about the so-called “Nanny State” are perfectly happy to be hypocites and be a buncha whining ninnies making intrusive laws that violate common sense at a minimum.
If I believed to the best of my ability that abortion is murder, I would not particularly care if it was Woman whose rights were being impinged on to prevent murder. I would see no difference between preventing abortion and preventing a mother from killing a baby after it was born. It’s anti-women by effect, but not by cause. Again, I personally think it’s nonsense, but there are people who are not evil or anti-women who feel that way.
That’s a religious belief. It doesn’t matter how strongly they believe it. If they want to legislate it, then they are trying to force women to adhere to their own personal religious beliefs. That’s theocratic and regressive, not progressive.
Whether they want to persecute women or grow the world population or appease the Tyscotsalb, the vengeful arm-budded and legless embryo god of their religion isn’t of much consequence. What matters is the end result of their advocacy for their beliefs.
If I’m trying to give you a hug and I step on your foot in my steel-toed stompy workboots, does it hurt less because I was trying to do something nice for you?
Motivation isn’t all that relevant. When something bad happens, it isn’t made any less bad or any less real because there’s an alleged good intention behind it.
And it becomes less and less plausible that you really mean to do “something nice” when you leave person after person behind you with broken footbones. Actions speak louder than words, and for all that the anti-abortionists claim benevolent motives, their actions cause nothing but suffering and death.
I don’t get all of this “pro-life=anti-woman” comparisons. Look at an anti-abortion rally. Most of the people there are women. Do they hate themselves?
And what is this complete non-sequiter about providing for children after they are born? Why is that a necessary condition to be against abortion if you think it is murder? In other words, I would be opposed to the legal murder of my neighbor. That doesn’t mean I’m going to make his mortgage payment this month. Why does it follow that being against abortion means that you should take the financial burden of raising someone else’s child?
I don’t see anything inconsistent with the idea of “Look, you got pregnant. Now it is time to take responsibility for the child that you have created. Give it up for adoption or raise it right.”
yes, pretty much. the most vicious expressions of religious misogyny are usually perpetuated by women more than men.
If they don’t give a fuck about these babies after they’re born, then they’re lying when they say they give a fuck before they’re born. Those two attitudes don’t add up. If they’re all for letting born babies starve to death, then they have zero credibility when they wail and bawl about the fate of a clump of insentient tissue or an egg with some jizz on it.
Well, I can’t speak for everyone but I used to think that a pharmacist should be able to follow their conscience and refrain from an action but others on the other side convinced me that the Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS) seems to permit the states to determine whether pharmacists should follow their conscience and I suppose the same goes for doctors.
However, absent that SCOTUS precedent, I would say pharmacists should not be forced to carry and sell drugs they don’t want to sell. However the state always has a right to regulate how services that are being provided will be provided.
This clearly includes a consultation requirement before abortion. I don’t think you can force a doctor to disseminate false information or even force them to subscribe to a dogma such as when life begins but fetuses start feeling pain some time during their second trimester and I think you can force doctors who are about to provide abortions to people in their second or third trimester of that fact. I think you can force doctors to provide information about adoption. But absent Constitutional defect, states can regulate. I even remember telling the pro-choice crowd that they were being penny wise and pound foolish because their support for the notion that states can do this sort of thing will work against them one day and it appears that day has come.
Well, a state can certainly pass that law and it would be just as valid a regulation of how services are provided as telling doctors that every abortion must be preceded by a consultation.
The person you are responding to mentions abortifacients and then you say that “this thing that is not an abortifacient is in fact not an abortifcient, stupid pharmacists”
I’m pretty sure the pharmacists know better than you do. The pharmacists that object to this aren’t your garden variety, “abortion is evil” type of pro-lifer. They think life begins when a sperm touches an egg, so preventing a zygote from implanting is killing that zygote. For these folks, if you harvest 15 eggs and pick three of the fertilized eggs for implantation and destroy the rest, you have committed 12 murders. Its fucking weird but they seem to be sincere in their beliefs.
Yes, it is demonstrably false. Both the sperm and the egg are alive before conception. No new life begins at that moment.
a sperm and an egg are gametes and are not capable of ever being anything other than a sperm or egg. The fertilized egg is alive in ways that a sperm cell or an unfertilized egg is not alive.
I don’t think they can force him to lie but they can force him to disseminate info. Perhaps a link to the law would clear up how much the state is requiring him to lie.
While some religions believe that human life begins at conception, plenty of people who believe that do so all by themselves, not because it’s a religious belief. It’s not a far-fetched belief.
I think its about what drugs they should be forced to dispense. Their refusal to dispense the drug does not equal someone’s inability to take the drug.
What constitutes informed consent is not a subject of “medical knowledge” Can someone link to the law. Does the law literally say that the doctor must repeat the words “life begins at fertilization”?
Yes, you can fire that zealot but you can’t force the zealot to dispense drugs they find morally repugnant.
You don’t sign away your conscience when you adopt a profession.
I think its been established that this is up to the states.
By that logic, I’m not alive now since most of the cells of my body are also incapable of being anything but what they are.
:rolleyes: When the “info” in question is a lie, then that is forcing them to lie.
Yes and he can suffer the commercial consequences of having that belief.
I think most people agreed that you should be able to fire someone for refusing to do their job based on religious beliefs or whatever.
If it is not a religious belief, what kind of belief is it? It is not backed up by any verifiable scientific knowledge.
Shall we call it non-religious superstition? Do you have a preferred term?
So you think its OK that you can tell your boss, no I won’t protect scabs but a pharmacist cannot stand on her beliefs?
And they’re regulations not programs. No money goes towards them at all except perhaps in the form of enforcement.