Rape Victim Denied Pill

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]rainjack wrote:
No - she should have done exactly what she did, and go to her ob/gyn and get the script from him/her. [/quote]

Yeah, and now at least four people have been involved in getting her a damn pill. No wonder medical care is so fucking expensive.

It’s called the day-after pill. It’s best you get it soon after the insemination has occured. While there is some leeway, do you really think a rape victim wants to go from doc to doc until she finds one that actually can do his job?

I don’t know. Is a sperm alive? It’s half a potential person. Do you cry for each own that drips out that limp dick of yours?

Do you keep Jana’s tampons in a box and refer to them as “our kids?” There are half beings in there, you know. Maybe whole ones, depending on you method of birth control. Abstain much?

See? There’s no clear cut answer to that question.

But all that is beside the point. The doctor didn’t do his job and that’s all.

He certainly added to her anguish by having her have to jump through additional hoops in a time of her life when she needs and deserves better than that.

I guess you think “Do no harm” only covers the physical body?

42

[quote]pookie wrote:

Only a certified pillgiverologist should be trusted.[/quote]

LOL

Kinda ironic that the pillgiverologist would actually prevent a delivery.

If I ever wake up with an organism growing against my will in my lower abdomen and the doctors refuse to give me the pill to stop it, I want you in my corner.

43

[quote]tme wrote:
rainjack wrote:

If it is her choice to kill a kid - then she should go find a doctor that agrees with those sorts of protocol - not get pissed at an ER doc.

I still think you’re pretty confused, rainman. RU486 and “the morning after pill” that she was looking for have absolutely nothing in common. Two very different treatments for two very different situations.

RU486 terminates an established pregnancy, effectively an “abortion”. Hence it’s known as an abortion pill. The “morning after pill” is simply high-dose birth control that can prevent a possibly fertilized egg from implanting, and must be taken within 72 hours. So for a rape victim, getting treatment within that window could very much be considered an emergency.

I guess some of you fanatics consider any egg a potential human and so any fertilized egg that doesn’t implant is therefore “murdered”, but that’s just fucking ridiculous. The NIH released a study back in 99 that showed that roughly one third of all embryos fail. So every woman who’s period was “late” but then started has probably killed a kid by your reasoning.

Maybe you need to start earlier in the day, or switch to something a little stronger.

[/quote]

This was a good post. By making her wait, there is a good chance the doctor made the difference between simple birth control and any concept of “abortion”. This was why I brought up the pharmacist in Texas who wouldn’t even give out a woman’s order for birth control. Do people like this truly consider birth control itself an act against God? At what point do you simply stop practicing your religion and instead start doing what you were trained to do?

In that last case, the pharmacy apologized and the woman was quickly mailed her prescription.

44

[quote]hspder wrote:

  1. The fact that she’d rather blame her parents’ “mockery” of religion for her troubled teen and adult years than that pivotal, highly damaging, event that is a much more likely culprit[/quote]

I just want to clarify. I don’t blame my parents for any of my behaviour. I can’t stand it when people blame others for things they have done. I was just responding to a statement you made that all the kids you knew who grew up in religious homes ended up rebelling while all the kids you knew who grew up in non-religious homes turned out good.

[quote]
2. The fact that although I thoroughly explained in another thread that NOWHERE in the Bible there is any condemnation of abortion as being akin to murder, not even in the Old Testament, and neither there is absolutely any mention of ensoulment before birth (in fact, all mentions of the subject point to ensoulment only occurring after the first month) she continues to believe that by aborting she indeed committed murder – even though she presented no argument against my analysis.[/quote]

I have been meaning to, but you know on that that other thread I felt like I was one person sword fighting against half a dozen others and after a few rounds I was too exhausted to even know where to start. As several Christians pointed out to me, its not a very good use of my time.

But I did feel like our discussion was civil and reasonable, so I do plan on going back and answering more of your questions.

You mentioned a lot of scripture that I would have used to prove my side and you used it to try and prove your side. I still think my interpretations of those scriptures are accurate, and you are really not going to like this, but it is true that a person can’t understand scripture accurately unless they have the Holy Spirit helping them to interpret it. You also didn’t include one of my favorite scriptures on this issue, found in Luke Chapter 2. After Mary finds out she is pregnant with Jesus, she goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth who is pregnant with John the Baptist. When Mary comes up to Elizabeth, the unborn John the Baptist leaps for joy inside of Elizabeth, and the scriptures say that at that moment Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Sprit so she can explain this to Mary.

Nobody on the pro-abortion side can claim to know for certain when life begins. I don’t know of anyone who would not be bothered by a third trimester abortion (although this still happens). Many people are bothered by a second trimester abortion. Medical science now alows us to save a preemie as young as 22 weeks, and yet 10% of all US abortions occur in the second trimester. I just don’t see how a woman could ever say to herself with certainty, “that wasn’t really a life”.

Why do people get abortions? Why are 46 million children aborted each year? The reason almost always is because the mother (or the father or her parents), does not want to have to sacrifice any part of her own life for the sake of the child. The child will interfere with her life, therefore she gets rid of it.

I got the following stats from the California pro-life association (and before you question my source, ask yourself who else would be willing to publish something like this):

Nearly all of the 1.3 million abortions (In the US) a year are done because the woman did not want to be pregnant at that particular time (although 70% say they intend to have children in the future). The majority of women undergoing an abortion give one or more of the following reasons:

?a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities (75%)

?cannot afford to have a child (66%)

? do not want to be a single parent or have problems in the relationship with their husband or partner (50%)

?Only 1% of women aborting say they have been advised that their unborn baby has a defect, and only I% say they became pregnant by rape or incest. (Facts in Brief, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)

Even in the case of a child who might be born with a defect, what is the motive? Do the parents not want the hassle of having a child like that? Does that child not have the right to live their life anyway? I know several badly handicapped children who are wonderful kids, who are loved and who touch others in such a special way.

And, as I said before, there are so many people who wait for years and pay large sums of money in order to adopt unwanted children. In light of this, what excuse does the mother have? She doesn’t want to be inconvenienced for nine months? She does not want to get fat?

Now do you think that this kind of self-centeredness is acceptable to God? This is the God who told us in Philippians 2:3 “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”

[quote]
Hopefully one day she will realize that in fact, she certainly did not kill a child. She simply exercised her God-given right to avoid (or correct) a horrible mistake. And that no crime is worse than torture – and rape IS one of the most horrible forms of torture.

Part of me wishes her assailants do burn in hell for all eternity. Assuming I believed in hell – because sometimes I really wish I did. Even if it was exclusively for all rapists and torturers.

I need to go punch something now. Hard. Maybe one of the Hoover Institution guys is around… ;-)[/quote]

I don’t know for sure that I killed a baby, cause I don’t know if I was pregnant. I was just going off my own opinion that murder is worse than rape. But you might be right about the torture thing. I think torture might be worse than murder.

Now these guys were really horrible and they even smashed my head against a log over and over to stop me from struggling. But I don’t hope that they go to hell. I really hope that they will be saved and go to heaven. The Lord has taken all bitterness away from me.

45

[quote]JPBear wrote:

Nobody on the pro-abortion side can claim to know for certain when life begins.
[/quote]

Who do you know of that is “pro-abortion”? I know I’m not and would never plan to have an abortion for a child I helped create. However, I am Pro Choice because I don’t think it is the government’s job to determine what a woman should do with her own body. Pro choice does not mean “pro abortion”. I would hope as much education about the responsibilities of sex is doled out as possible. Why do so many people think it is their duty to regulate the lives of others? What happened to choice?

46

[quote]JPBear wrote:
I just want to clarify. I don’t blame my parents for any of my behaviour. I can’t stand it when people blame others for things they have done. I was just responding to a statement you made that all the kids you knew who grew up in religious homes ended up rebelling while all the kids you knew who grew up in non-religious homes turned out good.[/quote]

My point is that you should look at the emotional impact that moment had in your life, and how it affected your behavior afterwards, rather than pointing out your parents where non-religious. Basically, my point is that in your personal case other factors were far more important, and hence your personal case cannot be used to evaluate how repression (or lack of it) affects a teen’s behavior.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
I still think my interpretations of those scriptures are accurate, and you are really not going to like this, but it is true that a person can’t understand scripture accurately unless they have the Holy Spirit helping them to interpret it. [/quote]

You do realize that makes it pretty much impossible to actually have a civil discussion about scripture, right? If you resort to an intrinsically non-provable but also non-falsifiable claim to support your point of view (which makes it also un-scientific and irrational), there’s no way anyone is going to waste any time arguing with you – so you will not be able to convince anyone of anything either.

Honey vs. vinegar.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
You also didn’t include one of my favorite scriptures on this issue, found in Luke Chapter 2. After Mary finds out she is pregnant with Jesus, she goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth who is pregnant with John the Baptist. When Mary comes up to Elizabeth, the unborn John the Baptist leaps for joy inside of Elizabeth, and the scriptures say that at that moment Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Sprit so she can explain this to Mary. [/quote]

No, I did not include that scripture because, in all honesty, I could not imagine that you would leap from it to the conclusion that ensoulment occurs at conception. There is no reasonable way you can make that leap from that passage. And even reading your “explanation” I can’t fathom how you got to that conclusion from that passage.

If what I lack is the help of the Holy Spirit to make that leap, well, my wife and my father-in-law told me they can’t see how did you make that leap either – which means, according to you, they must not have the help of the Holy Spirit either, which is something THEY most certainly are not willing to accept. As you might understand, they respond by saying you’re the one lacking the help of the Holy Spirit here, not them.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Nobody on the pro-abortion side can claim to know for certain when life begins. [/quote]

Professor X already addressed that very clearly (I am NOT pro-abortion, neither is anyone in my family – we are pro-CHOICE), and I’d only be repeating his words. Hopefully he will have more credibility with you than I have. Unless you’re going to argue he is not being helped by the Holy Spirit either – which I’m pretty sure he is not that willing to accept.

47

Sorry, almost forgot this part…

[quote]JPBear wrote:
And, as I said before, there are so many people who wait for years and pay large sums of money in order to adopt unwanted children. In light of this, what excuse does the mother have? She doesn’t want to be inconvenienced for nine months? She does not want to get fat? [/quote]

First Newsflash: people are selfish. Second newsflash: Right-wing Capitalism, that you defend, is based on the premise that selfishness is good, monetary or otherwise. If you were a liberal, you would have much more leverage to frown upon selfish people – since you have defined yourself as a right-wing conservative, you have no leverage to complain about the very behavior you protect when it comes to other issues.

The way civilized countries removed that selfish conundrum from the equation is by offering full support to pregnant women, and through intense education to explain all the available options. But in order for that policy to be effective, not only one needs a Social Democratic government, with broad educational policies and free universal healthcare, it also requires abortion to be a legal option on the table, without any parental notification – because only then women will have absolutely no reason to NOT go to a proper government-run facility to talk to a qualified counselor. They need to know they will not be judged, that all options are open, that they have nothing to fear, and that, whatever option they choose, they will have full support from the Government, both financial, physical and emotional.

As I mentioned before, The Netherlands was spectacularly successful with these policies, and they enjoy the lowest abortion rates – by far – on the planet.

Again, it’s all about using honey to catch flies.

Repression and Judgment ALWAYS backfire.

And, by the way – as any poor pregnant unmarried woman without a health insurance in the US will gladly testify, those nine months are much more than an “inconvenience”. And being fat is far from being the problem – in fact, the problem is, more often than not, getting enough food for her and her baby to stay alive.

This is not Canada. We might have better weather, but we pay dearly for it. And if you keep voting conservative, you will soon start paying too…

48

[quote]tme wrote:
rainjack wrote:

If it is her choice to kill a kid - then she should go find a doctor that agrees with those sorts of protocol - not get pissed at an ER doc.

I still think you’re pretty confused, rainman. RU486 and “the morning after pill” that she was looking for have absolutely nothing in common. Two very different treatments for two very different situations.

RU486 terminates an established pregnancy, effectively an “abortion”. Hence it’s known as an abortion pill. The “morning after pill” is simply high-dose birth control that can prevent a possibly fertilized egg from implanting, and must be taken within 72 hours. So for a rape victim, getting treatment within that window could very much be considered an emergency.

I guess some of you fanatics consider any egg a potential human and so any fertilized egg that doesn’t implant is therefore “murdered”, but that’s just fucking ridiculous. The NIH released a study back in 99 that showed that roughly one third of all embryos fail. So every woman who’s period was “late” but then started has probably killed a kid by your reasoning.

Maybe you need to start earlier in the day, or switch to something a little stronger.

[/quote]

Types of ECPs
Emergency hormonal contraception is available in two main forms: the original version is the combined or Yuzpe regimen which uses large doses of both estrogen and progesterone taken as two doses at twelve hour intervals. This technique is believed to be approximately 75% effective depending on how soon it is taken after unprotected intercourse. With this regimen being less effective, and causing more side effects, than the more recently introduced progesterone-only method, specific products are being withdrawn (Preven in the United States, Schering PC4 in the United Kingdom and Tetragynon in France).

The progesterone-only method uses the progesterone levonorgestrel in a dose of 1.5 mg, either as two 750 μg doses 12 hours apart, or more recently, as a single dose. This method is now known to be more effective (up to 89%) and better tolerated (less nausea or vomiting) than the Yupze method [3], and is available in the U.S. and Canada as Plan B, in the UK as Levonelle, and in France as NorLevo.

“Dedicated products” such as Plan B and Levonelle are specifically designed and marketed as emergency contraceptive pills. It is also possible to obtain the same dosage of hormones, and therefore the same effect, by taking a number of normal Progesterone only pills.

The drug mifepristone (RU486) may be used either as an ECP or as an abortifacient, depending on the dosage given. In the USA it is most commonly used in 200- or 600-mg doses as an abortifacient[4], but in China it is commonly used as an ECP. In this latter role, a 10-mg dose is equally effective; however, as of 2000 the smallest dose available in the USA was 200mg.[5] A review of studies in humans found that the contraceptive effects of the 10-mg dose were due to its effects on ovulation, as with the levonorgestrel ECP.[6]

ECPs are most effective the sooner they are taken[7]. The limit of 72 hours is based on a study by the WHO[3]. A subsequent WHO study has suggested reasonable effectiveness continues for up to 120 hours (5 days)[8], however many doctors (particularly in the UK) advise alternative methods for between 72 and 120 hours. These are covered below.

As you can see RU486 is one option for the “morning after pill”.

It looks like it is not quite as simple as pookie would have it.

Perhaps having a qualified doctor such as an OB/GYN make the choice is better than having an ER doctor make the choice since it appears to only have a 75% success rate for some of the treatments.

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Perhaps having a qualified doctor such as an OB/GYN make the choice is better than having an ER doctor make the choice since it appears to only have a 75% success rate for some of the treatments.[/quote]

It still makes me wonder why his religious preference came into this at all instead of simply referring her to another doctor. If I make a referral, there is no place in any of my patients records for me to put down what my religion is.

50

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It still makes me wonder why his religious preference came into this at all instead of simply referring her to another doctor. If I make a referral, there is no place in any of my patients records for me to put down what my religion is.[/quote]

He was just really eager to pass judgment…

I guess his beliefs don’t include the concepts of empathy or kindness towards others. Very sad, considering his line of work.

If they did, he would have worried first about the emotional state of a rape victim. He did not need to express his disapproval or judgment – he could have simply and directly pointed out he was not qualified to prescribe such a drug, but empathically and kindly refer her quickly to a doctor that could, as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, as it seems, his desire to pass judgment overrode all that.

The fact that there are so many people who seem to accept this is troubling. The culture of incompetence continues to spread.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Perhaps having a qualified doctor such as an OB/GYN make the choice is better than having an ER doctor make the choice since it appears to only have a 75% success rate for some of the treatments.

It still makes me wonder why his religious preference came into this at all instead of simply referring her to another doctor. If I make a referral, there is no place in any of my patients records for me to put down what my religion is.[/quote]

Everything Mennonites or Amish do around here gets press.

This was a local story. The reporter probably thought it was interesting that the doctor was Mennonite so he dug deeper into that aspect of it.

It is kind of the same way every story about Landis, the winner of the Tour de France always mentions he is Mennonite.

What I find bizarre is that this story was picked up on a national level, but of course it does have the religion and abortion element as well as first pharmacy being out of stock.

Basically it is an interesting and sad story but not really political or worth much debate. So of course I made a million posts.

52

It just stuns me how certain reporters spin things.

After rereading the article and hearing the radio coverage it is almost like they are talking about two completely different events.

The Patriot News seems to be pushing an agenda, which is nothing new.

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:

Would you force the doctor to perform an abortion on a rape victim if it was against his beliefs?

I would ask that doctor to do his job or change careers. That is my honest answer. As a PROFESSION, regardless of whether the person I am working on is a card carrying Klu Klux Klan member, it is my job to do what I have been trained to do and treat them with the same respect I do everyone else. Someone who truly is that conflicted probably shouldn’t be OBGYN.
[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but I don?t think it?s the same. Your example would imply some aversion to the person. The pharmacist isn?t saying that they are refusing to give the meds based on who or what the person is, but on what the medication is or does. Did I miss the point? I?m sure that there are other pharmacists.

Me Solomon Grundy