Sal, thanks for the example of a Reductio ad absurdum <link>.

But "Saletan science" is simply an absurd starting point when contemplating the moral or ethical values of human beings. Something the Taco Bell Chihuaha seemingly won't ever comprehend.

Do you have an actual argument to refute Saletan's point, then? Calling it absurd is not going to cut it. Please, explain: why are some abortifacients ok to ban but not others?

Quite a few states have already passed legislation to protect a pharmacy employee's "right" to refuse to dispense a legal prescription for birth control measures if the employee finds it morally unacceptable. That's not an absurd starting popint at all; it's the law in quite a few states.

why are some abortifacients ok to ban but not others?

Does is it hurt? The simple answer is that one is a manufactured substance with a purpose while the other examples are incidental in their effects (I feel so used and dirty having to explain that.)

And his examples are probably more anecdotal science than factual science (I'm sure if you eat way too many cucumbers it would be an abortifacient). Lay terms for science which Saletan might one day learn to differentiate. After all he is a gifted jewish 5 head.

Boney, has anyone told you how Saletan bought into white supremacist dogma because it put his jewish ass on a pedestal? He thought out loud about how whites might paternalistically help out brown people and then bitches when they ban fast food in brown neighborhoods.

As a brown I could do with a REAL apology from the chihuaha. Please find only mocking in these words. There is no hate as it were, just probably malicious funning I'm hoping will afforded the "pulpited" a moment or two of introspection.

Does is it hurt? The simple answer is that one is a manufactured substance with a purpose while the other examples are incidental in their effects

Does what hurt? You're 0-for-1 by the way. Preventing implantation is an incidental (and possibly imaginary) effect of taking oral contraceptives.The purpose of OC's is to prevent ovulation. Got anything else? Anything valid, I mean?

spiker:

...The simple answer is that one is a manufactured substance with a purpose while the other examples are incidental in their effects...

So? To a crazed Right-to-Lifer - it's still MURDER.

You take a prescription for a specific purpose, period.

You lactate and breast feed for a specific purpose. If it incidentally prevents another pregnancy that IS incidental.

I really don't have a clue why you don't get that or why in the first case people aren't allowed to decline providing a service based on a consciencious objector like status. People are entitled to their moral beliefs as much as you are yours. This belief is reasonable and well founded.

When was the last time an abortion doctor was killed or an abortion clinic bombed?

When was the last time a crazed atheist ran into a church and butchered the people?

Are you one of those crazed atheist sympathisizers? Are you sitting at home saying, "Yeah DUDE!!! Shoot those mofo believers! It ain't murder."

spiker, I think you are the one who does not understand what I'm saying.

You take a prescription for a specific purpose, period.

Yes!! You take oral contraceptives to prevent ovulation (and therefore pregnancy). Or to lessen severe cramps or to treat ovarian cysts. The claim that OC's may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg is incidental. Nobody takes the pills specifically for that purpose. How is that not clear to you?

The Plan B pill, however, is taken for that purpose, but that's not what we're talking about here. That is why your first argument is not valid.

And by the way, objecting to birth control is anything but reasonable. It's your religious belief, fine, but you have no right to force it on society, especially where it may have a negative effect on the health of others.

you have no right to force it on society, especially where it may have a negative effect on the health of others

What .5% of society may object to birth control? And then you manufacture an idea that this large, huge, huge, moral majority is trying to block the sale of birth control. Or that they could even marginally be successful in the attempt. How pathetic. You can't even force Catholics to breed like rabbits. Ask the Italians.

Some people do not want to be complicit in what they perceive to be immoral. Yet they are involved in the health care industry and could be discriminated against for their beliefs. Why can't their sensibilities be protected? Because breast feeding kills?

Hahaha...

Now I beleive we agree on the issue of access to birth control and women reproductive rights in general (I'm 100% pro-choice), but I don't know if I agree with your POV here about forcing their religious belief in this SPECIFIC type of case (pharmacy worker that doesn't want to give out something because of religious objections).

One point on the paradigm of 'forcing' is that the state uses its power to FORCE an action. Well in this case someone wishes to NOT perform an action (e.g. not hand out Plan B pill).

If the state says they have to hand out Plan B than it is clearly the STATE that is FORCING an action.

I have NOT made up my mind on this issue, but I don't feel you have framed in fairly either.

I'm agnostic and as secular as they come but I don't know IF I want some religious person fired from their job because they have a religious objection to passing out Plan B. That doesn't sound to liberal to me!

As far as breastfeeding as contraception : there are women who breastfeed for this incidental reason. Granted, they breasfeed for the good of the baby, but also, many of them, to prevent pregnancy in the early months. This is not foolproof of course, but it does work most of the time. In the days prior to BCP, that's how it was done.

Just wonder where you stand on this type of law? With regards to same-sex-marriage CA just ruled the other way. State employees do NOT have a right to NOT perform a same-sex-marriage. One small county has closed down the office that gives out marriage licences because of the CA ruling (so NO ONE can get married in that county and must go to the next one all becuase of one religious employee!).

In my reply to bonyass I admit I'm torn here.

Kind of interesting to think that breast feeding prevents further pregnancies. The biological implications seems self-evident in that it is probably in the interest of the mother and the yet breast feeding child.

How did people know that breast feeding prevented pregnancy in the days prior to BCP?

It is incumbent upon the state to provide the service. If an employee is legitimately unwilling to participate in some duties for religious freedom reasons the state must hire another employee who is willing. And the state must not, cannot, discriminate on the basis of religious belief.

Now if this belief was made up on the spur of the moment it would be reasonable to require the employee to perform the duties in their job description. But given objections to homosexual BEHAVIOR by Christianity for quite some time now, it is not reasonable to force an existing employee to enable gay marriage.