freecounterpoint: Time for change

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Time for change

I wonder if pharmacists who don't believe in tylenol shouldn't be allowed to refuse dispensing it too.

12 comments:

Pepe le Pew said...: i would if i'd enlisted.; 8/22/2008 4:41 AM
Mr roT said...: PFC Pepe Le Pew, berserker. Interesting. But doctors aren't enlisted.; 8/22/2008 1:54 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: that the best you can do ?; 8/22/2008 9:21 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Ah, Planet Pepe, where the Oath of Hippocrates has undergone a slight mutation.
It now reads;
"When you do harm, begin with the little children".; 8/23/2008 5:44 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: At what point do balls of cells become chldren, aa?; 8/23/2008 11:45 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: At what point do you reduce children to "balls of cells", Le Pew?; 8/23/2008 5:05 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: at conception. what about you ?; 8/23/2008 8:48 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: As always, Le Pew is coyly unclear. Do you mean that the moment of conception defines children as a mere assemblage of cells thereafter, or do you mean that the last time they can be judged as being a mere assemblage of cells is at conception?
If the first, then all human life after conception is just a mere assemblage of cells. So there is no implied upper limit to killing a human and having it just considered an abortion. I could kill Pepe, for example, and simply be exercising my right to choose. If the second, then any abortion--post the moment of conception-- would be the killing of a human [unless Pepe goes Singerian on us and denies humanity to children]. Which would then make Le Pew an apostle of murder. This would perhaps be exactly what the Lord of Planet Pepe intends. But, given his history of a most challenged semantics, we should allow him the chance to clarify his words and so properly convey the meaning he intended.
So, Pepinho, go for it.; 8/24/2008 6:02 AM
Pepe le Pew said...: It's pretty clear (except perhaps for the most dogmatic prolifers) that the assemblage of sperm and egg slowly migrates towards what we understand as life during gestation, and that it isn't binary. I would be comfortable with the existence of a developed nervous system as a good criterion but there may be others - I don't know. Certainly the biblical notion that it happens at the very instant that sperm meets egg strikes me as being rather arbitrary.

Happy to argue about this in an interesting manner, but if you want to go along the lines of "there goes versailles in all of its baby-killing narcissistic and self-indulgent splendor", don't bother - I won't reply.; 8/24/2008 1:21 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Of course you wouldn't reply,Le Pew. The surface irridiscent splendor of Versailles can dazzle many into silence...[it's what's behind that surface that so disappoints]

Now that Versailles has been temporarily set aside, let's see first if we agree on what is your starting point. Tell me if what follows is a fair enough capture:

"At conception, there is an assemblage of cells, at birth a human being. In this progression a reasonable criterion for understanding there now is human life is the existence of a developed nervous system"

The keypoint might well be what is meant by "developed", but let's hold off on that until the above statement passes muster with you.; 8/24/2008 3:07 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Sure. And the human being part obviously happens at some point during gestation and certainly before birth.; 8/24/2008 3:24 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Man, for once I thought we were off to an interesting conversation, and all I get are blog balls.; 8/25/2008 4:18 PM