|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 73 of 526:
| 
Feb 16 21:34 UTC 2006 |
re #70
The only thing wrong is that men feel any entitlement to decisions about
another person's body: Namely women
|
edina
|
|
response 74 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:03 UTC 2006 |
Re 72 Oh for God's sake....you're quoting "ER"??? Way to make a plausible
argument.
|
bru
|
|
response 75 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:13 UTC 2006 |
no, if a child is viable at 6 months, it must be recognized as a life all its
own.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 76 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:14 UTC 2006 |
And on Boston Legal, there was a case where a rape victim was brought
into a Catholic hopsital, they refused emergency contraception, and so
they were sued for two point something million dollars. Also William
Shatner tried to do magic tricks.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 77 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:17 UTC 2006 |
On The Shield there was this guy who last season moved to Farmington
from Texas, and Texas told the cops he was suspected in a lot of serial
killings, but nobody could tie him to anything. Apparently next week
they catch him for killing a lady that looks like one of the LAPD
detectives who badgered him about his missing sister this week.
|
edina
|
|
response 78 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:31 UTC 2006 |
Re 75 Viable by what standards? Yours? A doctor's? With or without
medical intervention? Lots of kids out there being born that 30 years ago
wouldn't have stood a chance.
My personal belief is that if a woman delivers a baby at 6 months, it's
viable.
|
richard
|
|
response 79 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:40 UTC 2006 |
it was a real drug they were using on E.R., I'll think of the name of it
|
edina
|
|
response 80 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:44 UTC 2006 |
|
happyboy
|
|
response 81 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:47 UTC 2006 |
my vagina is FINE nannystate-nate!
|
edina
|
|
response 82 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:48 UTC 2006 |
Or, as I was saying, COME ON!! Quoting a TV show isn't the way to make a
plausible argument.
I mean, we have a differing approach on BCP, Richard. I think they should
be prescribed - you don't. I think they bear monitoring by a dr. or nurse
practitioner, as to the risks involved. You feel that they are no more
harmful than aspirin. Ok, fair enough. I also like that you have to see a
dr., as they are generally prescribed at the conclusion of a gynecological
exam. I think trackning a woman's gynecological health is a good thing.
YMMV.
As for emergency contraception being available OTC - if you don't think it
will be abused, you are out of your mind.
|
tod
|
|
response 83 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:49 UTC 2006 |
re #75
Its recognized as alive when it comes out and breaths. That's why you get
a birth certificate: To show you are alive
Like I said, wishful thinking anytime before actual breaths are taken.
|
edina
|
|
response 84 of 526:
|
Feb 16 22:49 UTC 2006 |
My long-haired brethren from WA slipped...
|
happyboy
|
|
response 85 of 526:
|
Feb 16 23:14 UTC 2006 |
/looks at bottom of shoe
|
tod
|
|
response 86 of 526:
|
Feb 16 23:18 UTC 2006 |
I don't have time to explain right now. -Jack Bauer
|
richard
|
|
response 87 of 526:
|
Feb 17 00:42 UTC 2006 |
re #82 edina, if bcp's were over the counter, they wouldn't be NEARLY
as abused as other drugs that ARE available over the counter-- such as
alcohol for one. edina you must favor prohibition since she doesn't
think that any drug that would be widely abused should be available
over the counter.
|
tod
|
|
response 88 of 526:
|
Feb 17 00:57 UTC 2006 |
You think viagra should be over the counter, too?
|
keesan
|
|
response 89 of 526:
|
Feb 17 01:24 UTC 2006 |
If medical exams and prescriptions were free, people would not care if it were
over the counter or prescription. Lots of people can't come up with $200 for
an exam.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 90 of 526:
|
Feb 17 03:49 UTC 2006 |
$200? Your doctor charges $200 for a visit?
|
gull
|
|
response 91 of 526:
|
Feb 17 04:01 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:38: If someone has religious problems with dispensing some
medications, maybe they shouldn't be a pharmacist, any more than someone
with religious problems with charging interest on loans should be a
banker. It's a pharmacist's *job* to dispense drugs, not to dispense
religious lectures. The end result of passing laws that say otherwise
would be to make medications like birth control completely unavailable
in some highly religious parts of the country -- which is, of course,
the goal of people pushing those laws.
|
tod
|
|
response 92 of 526:
|
Feb 17 05:24 UTC 2006 |
re #90
I'm sure my doc charges more than that since he checks out my heart with the
funky wires, etc
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 526:
|
Feb 17 08:07 UTC 2006 |
The FDA committee in charge of deciding whether the Morning After Pill could
be sold OTC came out almost unanimously in favor of doing so - but then a
Republican political appointee in the FDA refused to permit it. The problem
wasn't with the pill, it was with the politics.
|
klg
|
|
response 94 of 526:
|
Feb 17 12:05 UTC 2006 |
What if the "problems" with dispensing some medications is
not "religious?"
Why cannot people of certain beliefs have the freedom to choose their
occupations? (I thought this was the United States.) Should the
government assign people to occupations?
|
keesan
|
|
response 95 of 526:
|
Feb 17 13:24 UTC 2006 |
Annual physical exam - $188, plus $50 if you are a new patient. For this we
both talked to him for 45 minutes and he checked my lymph nodes and prescribed
a few minor tests that we asked for (but forgot to bill one as preventive
rather than diagnostic so we are still phoning back and forth about fixing
it). The insurance pays 80% of preventive but nothing for diagnostic, and
it also has an arrangement with the hospital for a 45% discount on doctor's
services. Someone without insurance would be billed $188 (plus maybe $50).
I bet a lot of people would take their chances on the side effects of a
morning-after pill rather than pay $200 for a doctor's visit.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 96 of 526:
|
Feb 17 14:12 UTC 2006 |
I'm looking forward to the logical result of kludgie's position, where a
police officer can refuse to apprehend a suspect on the grounds the
officer's religion doesn't permit violence against others. Thus, requiring
the officer to do so would violate his religious beliefs.
|
jep
|
|
response 97 of 526:
|
Feb 17 15:40 UTC 2006 |
re resp:91: It is not a pharmacist's job to just dispense pills on
request, like a vending machine. A pharmacist is a medical
professional with a doctor's degree. As you describe the position, a
high school dropout could do it as well as anyone.
I understand what you're saying, of course. I'd probably find it
irksome if a pharmacist had ethical objections to something I wanted
and/or needed. However, I'd probably also take steps to not depend on
a pharmacist like that, by making sure I could get to another pharmacy,
or not putting myself in the position to need what that particular
pharmacist refuses to provide.
|