I don’t get this sentiment. Why is a baby worth less because the parents are related? If people are truly against abortion because they value the life of a child why is that particular child’s life not as valuable as another?
Sorry, I meant to say incest or rape. (And I believe incest is often rape?) It’s not that the parents are related that matters, it’s that the baby is unwanted by the mother because of the manner in which the baby was conceived. I think that child’s life is still valuable, but I also would never wish a woman to have to bear a child conceived in a traumatic manner if she didn’t want to, because I believe that would be cruel and damaging to her mental health. I realize this is a grey area, and that I may have derailed the thread with my hijack. My point was that for at least one person (me), the pro-life/pro-choice issue IS an issue of the baby’s life and not an issue of trying to control a woman’s reproductive rights. Just because some nutjobs like to spew idiocy doesn’t mean that all pro-lifers support them.
(As a woman, I fully support women’s reproductive rights, and education so that if an abortion is desired, it can be obtained within the first 14 weeks.)
Dare I? Erg, okay, continue derailment…
Why should the manner in which the child was conceived matter? If you believe the pregnancy will, in itself, add to the trauma, then you’re making a moral judgment as to who has the right to consider her pregnancy traumatic (and unwanted) and who doesn’t. And all too often the underlying message in exceptions for rape when it comes to abortion is that women who conceive while having consensual sex get what they deserve.
ETA: Viagra vs. The Pill. Both can increase the frequency of intercourse and enhance sexual pleasure (the former allowing men to get and maintain erections, the latter by partially removing the worry of pregnancy). The latter has legitimate medical use beyond pregnancy prevention. I suppose the pharmacy could argue that its religious mandate means sex is only for reproduction, so women should have no protection and men should have all the, uh, ammunition they can get. Of course, I’m not sure why God gets to decide how many babies women should have but needs a little help as far as men’s boners are concerned. (And I’m not sure how this argument is adjusted to workplace health insurance).
You hit a point there, Not everybody lives in big cities and can drive down the street to another drugstore. It could be a big problem in a small town. It is not just an inconvenience .
Here’s your problem: if you believe an abortion is murder, then it’s still murder if you allow it in cases of rape or incest.
Without wanting to put to fine a point on it, any anti-abortion position other than the absolute, ie. “abortion should be illegal in any and all cases” is self-contradictory.
*unless you base your position entirely on religious teachings, in which case your position probably isn’t logical but may not be self-contradicting; or, you believe life begins when the foetus develops a functioning heartbeat or X level of brain activity or whatever and therefore allow abortion up to that point
As I understand it, IVF and other fertility treatments require the patient to take certain drugs and/or hormones. It would be interesting to see if this pharmacy carries those.
Honey, being pregnant almost always involves suffering, giving birth almost always involves suffering, and being a parent always involves suffering. And I say that as a happy mother of two, who considers her birthing experiences wonderful, powerful, and awe-inspiring. Most people who choose to be pregnant and choose to give birth consider the suffering more than compensated by the good stuff. That doesn’t mean that there is no suffering. It also indicates to me that someone who is pregnant against their will would probably have more difficulty finding the good to outweigh the bad.
As for why pharmacists might reasonably be forced by the state to provide prescriptions, how about the fact that they are granted a monopoly by the state? If a state requires licensure to perform a certain job, I say it can dictate parameters for how that job is done.
ETA: Hmm, I swear those second two pages weren’t there when I posted! I admit, I’m pretty sleep deprived (see above, re: suffering as part of parenting). Please disregard anything I’ve said that is redundant.
You favor same-sex marriage?
What if I told you you could have it in the United States, except Alaska? Would you say, “Forget it – I want it everywhere. If I can’t have that, get outta here!”
Politics includes compromise. Someone may favor an exception for rape and incest because the vast majority of abortions do not involve rape or incest, and by accepting this limitation the law will pass.
I’m not talking about passing legislation. I’m talking about personal beliefs. 
OK. That wasn’t clear to me; you said “…any anti-abortion position…” which struck me as referring to a political position as well as a personal position.
Well, ideally, one’s political position mirrors one’s personal belief*. In the real world, one’s political position mirrors the personal belief of just over half of one’s constituents, as you say.
*except in the case of religiously motivated personal beliefs, from my perspective, though probably not yours.
Put another way, I’m fine with mixed legislation like “no abortion except in cases of rape and incest” (although not that specific legislation), so I’d be happier with civil unions than with no gay marriage rights at all.
And equally, we can imgine an ardent pro-lifer who nonetheless says: “I will support the ‘except for rape and incest’ law and work for its passage, knowing I am passing a bill that will save the majority of unborn children and is the only version that has a reasonable chance at passage.” He’s not happy with it, but he’s happier than no abortion restrictions at all.
Sure, but that’s not what they say; I mean, I’ve never heard that from you, for example.
The point’s never come up here in a conversation involving me.
I disagree. I believe that the woman’s health is important and needs to be considered just as much as that of the fetus. If the baby should endanger the health of the mother, either physically or mentally, then abortion is the necessary alternative that must be made available. A fetus conceived during rape or incest could definitely endanger the mental health of the mother.
You seem to accept the exception for a fetus endangering the health of the mother, but not the exception for rape or incest. But if you consider rape/incest as part of the “health of the mother” then I don’t think this is a self-contradictory argument.
Whats the problem here? I doubt it will be the first time someone goes into a store and can’t find what they want. Know what I do? Go to a different store! Thats the free market for you. If there is demand for contraceptives and these pharmacies don’t supply them they will suffer economically.
They should show the courage of their convictions. They should be required to have a big sign on the widow saying they do not carry birth control. morning after pills , contraceptives etc. Then customers do not have to find out in a crisis.
And if NONE of the ones nearby will offer any ? Not that you care.
The free market isn’t the magic solution you think it is. Besides, it’s imaginary; there’s never been and never will be the pure free market people like you babble about.
Then open your own pharmacy and get rich.
True, not particularly. It’s not something thats going to cause a health problem if it takes awhile longer to obtain. It’s contraceptive for gods sake not heart medication.