We were on the same side until you implied that I should back off from Shodan due to his belief in ‘life begins at fertilization’.
Then we parted ways.
I don’t think his argument has any merit even if Plan B causes an inability of a blastocyst to implant, so therefore whether he proves it does or not, doesn’t matter. Medically speaking, no pharmacist is being asked to participate in abortion by dispensing Plan B. Roe doesn’t enter into it, and neither does abortion.
Nope, you inferred I thought you should back off from Shodan. What I actually said implied that repeating the same argument that he’s already argued against would probably not be as useful as refining the argument further. I was trying to pull this very loopy thread out of yet another spiral.
Thanks, Your Highness, but he hasn’t actually ‘argued against’ anything. The point he keeps denying is not an ‘argument’.
It’s a medical fact, not a philosophical viewpoint, that prior to the implantation of the blastocyst in the endometrial wall there is no pregnancy.
It’s a simple fact, and there is no way to refine it further. The onset of pregnancy happens when the blastocyst implants into the endometrial wall and begins to form a placenta, releasing the hormone Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG).
That Shodan refuses to admit he is wrong does not behoove me or anyone else to continue to lend any kind of credence to his continual false statements casting Plan B as potentially causing abortion - the statements he is making are categorically false, and can be refuted unequivocally using only medical fact.
His ‘argument’ is predicated upon a lie. Why would you even bother to dignify it by giving him even an inch of ground regarding the prevention of implantation? He sees it as validation of his factually incorrect viewpoint that Plan B can terminate a pregnancy, and uses it to reinforce this erroneous belief every time someone humors him by pretending it matters whether Plan B prevents implantation of a blastocyst.
I’m not about to humor him by playing to false ‘facts.’
Our legal system is designed to try and prevent tyranny of the majority, many of your arguments about religious freedom assume s/he shares your POV. If for example catholicism REALLY wanted to go on an anti birth control crusade, its not unimaginable that the CC could start buying up condom companies to shut them down, or start sponsoring full ride scholarships to catholics wanting to go into pharmacy school under the requirement that they refuse to fill BC prescriptions.
The state does place intrinsic value on human life, the problem is where that life begins (see 83,000 prior threads).
Unfortunately the rules need to be written in a religiously neutral form as much as possible for fear of discrimination claims. What guideline do we use to establish where the line is drawn?
I’m almost afraid to resurrect this monster, but thePeoria Journal Star reports that the judge upheld the right of pharmacists to refuse dispensing Plan B.
I’m going to go cry now.