Next Honor Harrington?

"Delf" <delf20k.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:4050ed02@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

> Do all stores that sell drugs in the us have to keep all the drugs
> there are?

No pharmacy carries every single drug that exists, not even a hospital
pharmacy with the exception of a teaching hospital. Generally a
hospital, pharmacy chain and pharmacists will look at various medicines
and select one that fills the need for as many of the problems as
possible.



> Over here most stores that sell drugs are owned buy the pharmacist and
> if they object to a drug they don't stock it.

Generally, here if the medicine is the industry standared for treating a
disease and they don't carry it, they generally are required to send you
to a pharmacy that does have it. For the most part, refusing to carry a
medicine that they find morally objectionable is their decision, unless
they have a contract with a company, government agency or the like,
which requires them to dispense it.



> There has been a case over here were the baby survived an abortion
> attempt but was badly affected and on becoming an adult sued the
> doctor ,if the same thing happened with a pill could the pharmacist or
> doctor be at risk in the US?
>
Generally, most abortions which have failed to terminate the pregnancy
have either been illegal ones and/or clandestine ones. Generally
speaking, a medical abortion is sufficient to ensure that the pregnancy
is terminated, even if it is not completely successfful in removing all
the tissue involved.

Pharmacutical abortions are a bit different. RU382(?) or whatever it
is, is not always successful and requires a surgucal abortion to remove
the dead tissue inside because the body has not expelled and rarely,
from my understanding of the medical literature, to complete the
abortion. It is not recomended that a woman continue a pregnancy where
RU382(?) has been used and failed, because of the damage it might had
done as to be expected.

In any case, a doctor and/or a pharmacist that attempts to end a
pregnancy with such a pharmecutical abortion is not liable for damages
if the attempt fails and they exercise due caution and follow recognized
medical practices.
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <Alv4c.1195$F91.897@lakeread05>,
> Stephen Cooper <nupreacher.TakeThisOut@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>I guess the real problems start when you have someone who, for one
>>>>reason or another, chooses to believe that pregnancy begins with
>>>>fertilization itself.
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly, and many anti-choice advocates profess to believe exactly
>>>that.
>>>
>>
>>I do, because life begins at conception.
>
>
> You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe that
> life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life begins at
> conception?
>
Because it's true. If there was no life in the fertilized cell, it would
grow at all.
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <Alv4c.1195$F91.897@lakeread05>,
> Stephen Cooper <nupreacher.DeleteThis@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>>I guess the real problems start when you have someone who, for one
>>>>reason or another, chooses to believe that pregnancy begins with
>>>>fertilization itself.
>>>
>>>Exactly, and many anti-choice advocates profess to believe exactly
>>>that.
>>
>>I do, because life begins at conception.
>
> You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe that
> life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life begins at
> conception?

Let it go. This is evidently part of a belief system which, as such, is
impervious to logic and reason. Some irrational belief systems are
beneficial (viz. RAH's comment about women and their children) and some
are amusing ("magic underwear," sexual disfunction among those who "save
themselves for marriage" and "creation science" come to mind). The only
time irrational belief systems become dangerous is when their adherents
attempt to impose those beliefs upon others or try to co-opt the power
of the state to do it for them.

Just my 2 zorkmids' worth.

--
-- Marten Kemp
(Fix name and ISP to reply)
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:37:04 -0600, Stephen Cooper
<nupreacher.RemoveThis@mailinator.com> wrote:

>I do, because life begins at conception.

Then God is the biggest abortionist in the world.




Anyway, if life begins at conception, what are the sperm and
egg--dead???
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

"Stephen Cooper" <nupreacher.RemoveThis@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:npE4c.1626$F91.1257@lakeread05...
> > You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe that
> > life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life begins at
> > conception?
> >
> Because it's true. If there was no life in the fertilized cell, it would
> grow at all.

But it doesn't...unless it successfully attaches to the uterine wall. So,
since without the uterine wall it doesn't grow...

Andrew Lannon
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

Andrew Lannon wrote:

> "Stephen Cooper" <nupreacher RemoveThis @mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:npE4c.1626$F91.1257@lakeread05...
>
>>>You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe that
>>>life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life begins at
>>>conception?
>>>
>>
>>Because it's true. If there was no life in the fertilized cell, it would
>>grow at all.
>
>
> But it doesn't...unless it successfully attaches to the uterine wall. So,
> since without the uterine wall it doesn't grow...
>
> Andrew Lannon
>
Even before it attaches the cell starts dividing.
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <npE4c.1626$F91.1257@lakeread05>,
> Stephen Cooper <nupreacher RemoveThis @mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe
>>>that life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life
>>>begins at conception?
>>>
>>
>>Because it's true.
>
>
> That's circular reasoning.
>
>
>>If there was no life in the fertilized cell, it would grow at all.
>
>
> I assume you mean "it would not grow at all." But that doesn't answer
> the question. Do not the sperm and egg have life?
>
> Further, as others have pointed out, what about in vitro fertilization?
> What about spontaneous abortions? What about miscarriages? What about
> fertilized eggs that do not implant?
>

And don't forget something called an ectopic pregnancy. That's where it
doesn't implant, but it stays in the fallopian tube.
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:27:10 -0600, Stephen Cooper
<nupreacher.RemoveThis@mailinator.com> wrote:

>Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> In article <npE4c.1626$F91.1257@lakeread05>,
>> Stephen Cooper <nupreacher.RemoveThis@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe
>>>>that life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life
>>>>begins at conception?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because it's true.
>>
>>
>> That's circular reasoning.
>>
>>
>>>If there was no life in the fertilized cell, it would grow at all.
>>
>>
>> I assume you mean "it would not grow at all." But that doesn't answer
>> the question. Do not the sperm and egg have life?
>>
>> Further, as others have pointed out, what about in vitro fertilization?
>> What about spontaneous abortions? What about miscarriages? What about
>> fertilized eggs that do not implant?
>
>And don't forget something called an ectopic pregnancy. That's where it
>doesn't implant, but it stays in the fallopian tube.

Or if you want to be real interesting, there's at least one extremely
rare form of cancer I've heard of where a fertilized egg turns into
malignant cells (gestational trophoblastic cancer, IIRC). Where does
THAT fit in?

--
Michael Bruner
mbruner18.RemoveThis@comcast.net

Fear the Claw

"Yes, I am a servant of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial."
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

Michael Bruner wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:27:10 -0600, Stephen Cooper
> <nupreacher DeleteThis @mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <npE4c.1626$F91.1257@lakeread05>,
>>> Stephen Cooper <nupreacher DeleteThis @mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You believe that pregancy begins at conception because you believe
>>>>>that life begins at conception, but why do you believe that life
>>>>>begins at conception?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because it's true.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's circular reasoning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If there was no life in the fertilized cell, it would grow at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>I assume you mean "it would not grow at all." But that doesn't answer
>>>the question. Do not the sperm and egg have life?
>>>
>>>Further, as others have pointed out, what about in vitro fertilization?
>>>What about spontaneous abortions? What about miscarriages? What about
>>>fertilized eggs that do not implant?
>>
>>And don't forget something called an ectopic pregnancy. That's where it
>>doesn't implant, but it stays in the fallopian tube.
>
>
> Or if you want to be real interesting, there's at least one extremely
> rare form of cancer I've heard of where a fertilized egg turns into
> malignant cells (gestational trophoblastic cancer, IIRC). Where does
> THAT fit in?
>

Actually, there is only one form of that disease that has to do with the
egg. It is called a hydatidiform mole. the mole can either be partial
or complete. A complete mole has no fetal tissue.
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 13:25:20 -0600, Stephen Cooper wrote:

>> But it doesn't...unless it successfully attaches to the uterine wall.
>> So, since without the uterine wall it doesn't grow...
>>
>> Andrew Lannon
>>
> Even before it attaches the cell starts dividing.

Yes, surprisingly, unfertilized eggs can divide (more than once) with the
right stimulus.
However, I really doubt you will define unfertilized eggs as alive.
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington? 

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:07:35 +0200, Uri David Akavia
<uridavid DeleteThis @netvision.net.il> wrote:

>Yes, surprisingly, unfertilized eggs can divide (more than once) with the
>right stimulus.
>However, I really doubt you will define unfertilized eggs as alive.

What are they, then--dead??
 >> Stay informed about: Next Honor Harrington?