Store Owners Refuse to Stock Plan B Abortafacient for “Moral” Reasons, Activists Threaten Boycott

LifeSite News ^ | June 23, 2006 | Gudrun Schultz

[SAMS]

“Many women are feeling intimidated when they ask for emergency contraception, so being turned away or being told to go someplace else can further traumatize someone,” she said."

Very weak excuse. With all the hype this is getting in that community, of women know the drug is not there,they are not going to go and ask for it.

[4woodenboats]

Tacoma News Tribune posted a dumbed down version a couple days ago that leaves out Gregoire's threats to fire the pharmacy board. Comments are accepted;

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/northwest/story/5855315p-5203314c.html

[ffusco]

Of course its an organism- "but not a person"

I understand your argument, you want the unborn, at any age, to have the same rights as any other person. To do this you must grant person status to a single cell. Perhaps you are using "person" in a purely political way, i.e. a sovereign human individual with a distinct identity. Most people do not think of a single cell as a person, or a baby- because they aren't.

[hocndoc]

ffusco, you are merely making statements, with nothing except your own personally held belief to support them. Are you able?

Babies do not have all the rights that their parents do. But, they have the right not be killed or enslaved, and those rights are protected in the US. But not in other places and not in other times.


If we each insist on our own personal beliefs, then the strongest will get his way. If we insist that current law is "right" (what ethicists call "is" equals "ought"), then we make our Declaration of Independence and the emancipation of slaves everywhere and everytime invalid.


Why should the baby have any more status that the embryo, just because you want it to be so? Why shouldn't the baby be killed if his death could help mom and dad have a better life for other children, as Singer has proposed?

What reason would you give Singer and his students for the notion that a baby is worthy of more protection than a grown dog? Singer calls such an attitude "speciesism."

Some nut in Spain is calling for rights for apes.

[ffusco]

There is no right not to be killed. This is a conditional statement. people are killed every day by bullets, bears, cancer, falling rocks and automobiles. The law determines whether this is murder, manslaughter, accident, negligence or act of God.

Try using concrete language. You want the rights of human beings to include single celled embryos. This is a nobile goal.

And yet: A 1celled embryo is not a baby or a person.

[ffusco]

People who argue for animal rights do not elevate animals to the level of humans. They lower humans to the level of animals. By making human/ animal worth a matter of judicial opinion, they lower human worth to the whims of a fickle judiciary.

[hocndoc]

Of course the right is a "right not to be killed." Aqinas, Bastiat, Locke and many other classical ethicists have used this very language in order to be as precise as possible. (making the distinction that I don't have to act to keep you alive at the risk of my own life, but I must not cause your death by my actions, except where you are threatening me.)

The law you cite determines whether there was an act that killed, and the degree of culpability.


I would like to hear why you consider it appropriate to lower the human embryo to the level of animals. And why the baby should not be devalued the same way that Singer proposes.

[tiki]

If there was a Ralph's here I'd sure shop there.

[ffusco]

I never devalued human life to the level of animals. I don't care what Singer said: I't not relevant to my argument that I will state I more time; Embryo's aren't babies and aren't people. They are Human organisms, they should be protected. They should be permitted to be born unharmed BUT: A cell is not a person.

[4woodenboats]

Theologians haven't been able to resolve for centuries when the soul enters the picture. Thanks for clearing it up for us so neatly on a message board!

Would you give us a brief synopsis on your research that led you to that assumption?

BTW, my son and I both got our driving permits when we were 15, thousands of miles and a few decades apart.

I think it's starting to catch on.

[4woodenboats]

Thanks for post # 60. I saved it for future reference

[MHGinTN]

In Post # 109, you offered the following: They are Human organisms, they should be protected. They should be permitted to be born unharmed BUT: A cell is not a person. We may trace the origin of your daughter back to the single first cell of her lifetime. We call that first age of your daughter her zygote age. THAT cell was YOUR DAUGHTER at her earliest age. Subsequent to that age, she went on in her lifetime to make a placenta and a body which she will use when she’s born into the air world. She will discard the placental organ she relied upon for survival in the water world of her mother’s body. Your daughter began the process of building her placental organ within the first three days of her existence, at around the 16 cell age called morula, and that age was prior to her blastula age when she achieved implantation in her mother’s uterine organ.

To make a noble statement like post 109 starts with, then step all over that noble sentiment by making a false comment is not reasonable. When you state that a zygote is not a baby, you are making a technically correct statement. Not because the zygote isn’t the being who is later the baby but because development of that individual brings about difference we perceive; ‘a baby is not a New York Giants middle linebacker’ is just as valid a comment, but it doesn’t address the heart of this discussion regarding the human worth of the embryo.

To focus upon the one cell, earliest age in a lifetime does not scientifically dehumanize the person, though you use this assertion when dismissing the science. To state that the baby has greater rights than the embryo and thus the embryo is not a person doesn’t work either since that approach is tantamount to my saying a baby doesn’t have the same rights as an adult therefore the baby may be terminated as a non-adult. The lack of ethic is just as glaring. According to science, the first cell age is unique in the individual’s lifetime because it is at that age when ALL the information in the individual’s DNA is armed/activated for expression (and the 'expression' process starts at first cell age and continues throughout an entire lifetime of perhaps eighty years). As Lejeune related (post #60 above), it is the methylation at each stage of gestational development which causes the embryonic person to ‘forget’ steps in development in order to focus upon more specific steps in development. Each step is a vital expression living the earliest age of the being.

If we are to have rational reasons for protecting embryos from harvesting for exploitation, we must define the whys with truth rather than emotional imperatives. If we are to extend the unalienable right to LIFE to the embryo age of humans, we must show why these embryos are human beings. I’m doing my best to explain this exact concept because this discussion is valuable in the broader debate over embryonic stem cell exploitation and cloning (as I offered in that free book to which I linked you earlier).

Now, as a father-in-waiting would you like to discuss the advent of the soul with the individual body? [That’s a religious approach I’ve tried to stay clear of for my own reasons since presenting the scientific information is what I prefer. But we can get into that aspect if you wish.]

[ffusco]

Your statements are all clinically accurate. All life starts as a single cell. But single cells aren't people, any more than eggs are chickens.

Any discussion of the soul would assume we are both of the same faith.

[hocndoc]

I'm glad that you agree that human embryos should be protected and allowed to be born alive.

Words shouldn't be so important, should they?

I count a human deserving of this sort of protection at all stages of life, simply because they are offspring of human parents. However, those ethicists I mentioned would only protect those they call "persons," and they do not count the baby as a person. And current law does not count those embryos, month old fetuses or even 39th week fetuses as persons,

although you and I know that they are the same organism that will be designated as a person and called a baby.

[MHGinTN]

Interesting dissemble: "But single cells aren't people, any more than eggs are chickens." Single skin cell or single gamete is not a person, but the first cell of your daughter --that zygote we've referred to-- was your daughter. Your switch to eggs and chickens is obtuse. Care to elaborate?