Posted on 10/12/2006 4:45:33 PM PDT by wagglebee
However, the "reproductive rights" crowd WANTS more abortions.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The FDA doesn't sell pills.
Do we sell any other drug to minors OTC? I'm not sure if a minor can even buy cough syrup.
I'm fairly certain they can buy asprin and things like that.
How so?
Just wondering where the list of Moral Absolutes might be found ?
St. Jerome
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . "
Is there some deeper Hell for virgins who go further then simply "fall " ?
You're quibbling over the first sentence? How 'bout the rest? It is a sin to kill. That is a moral absolute.
Minucius Felix
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).
"You're quibbling over the first sentence?"
Nope - just wondering where the borders of an "absolute" are -
Maintanence of viginity appears not to be it.
... just checking
Just that there seems to be alot of manipulation of efficacy data (withheld data, late studies etc.) across the entire pharmaceutical industry. The Vioxx case, of course, comes to mind...Another, in my opinion would be the Vaxgen HIV vacine that was allowed to "skip" some crucial trials. Scientifically, everyone knew the vaccine was going to tank based on the structure of the antigen and that's why NIH gave up on it..but the company was shrewd and went from a small no name company to a recognized company by continuing the work, then got a sweet governent Anthrax contract before the HIV vaxcine results crapped out. Another thing, is that the pharmaceutical companies (smaller ones in particular) are now outsourcing their clinical trials to 3rd world countries to reduce cost...Now tell me, that's not gonna make the problem worse?!...Lastly, I also hear stuf that I keep to myself...
Aside from the above, I am skeptical of the "direct advertizing" going on, which puts patient pressure on physicians to prescribe certain medication, often with razor thin marginal benefits over placebo. If you ever get physician samples, read the statistical data in the package inserts...For some drugs, it's a total waste. But of course so little numbers of drugs have been comming through the pipeline, the industry has to rely on direct advertizing and there's pressure on everyone, physician, insurance, FDA to get more drugs approved. I believe it was the WSJ (two years ago) where I read that industry dividend payouts were 10 times R&D investment for that year. Look at the crap they're marketing..."restless legs syndromes!?!?! For cryin' ouy loud. For the industry, it's still all about "consolidation" and slick marketing for these "amorphous syndromes".
Don't get me wrong, generally speaking, despite its problems, I think the FDA is one of the better governmental organizations.
Now, as for the Barr labs in particular, should anyone trust a company that puts babies in buckets?
Borders of an absolute? That would depend if we are speaking of long established rules of moral behavior or rules for football.
St. Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator, 2:10, 202 A.D.
"If we should but control our lusts at the start and if we would not kill off the human race born and developing according to the divine plan, then our whole lives would be lived according to nature."
"Women who resort to some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo, but, along with it, all human kindness." Ibid, 23:174
"Borders of an absolute? "
Is there a problem with that ? ...
an absolute MUST have defined borders ... and if they are long established they should be easy to define ...
Like ... if you lose your virginity and are not married you are going to hell ...
Is there a problem with that being a Moral Absolute ?
Not at all, I apologise, mis-understood you. There always must be a defining line. In the context of Church teaching, the losing of your virginity before marriage is a sin. That is clearly defined. Murder is also a sin (in all it's forms). I was mearly demonstrating how the Church's teaching on abortion has not changed, nor can it be since it a commandment of God and not subject to revision.
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22: 36-40)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.