wispfox: (Default)
wispfox ([personal profile] wispfox) wrote2004-10-29 12:16 pm

[link] birth control

I feel like I've seen this on LJ already, but I can't remember where. So...

growing numbers of doctors and pharmacists across the US are refusing to prescribe or dispense birth control pills

Having intensely strong reminders of "The Handmaiden's Tale", here...

[identity profile] ratatosk.livejournal.com 2004-10-29 06:34 pm (UTC)(link)
You know, I'm not sure which offends me more -- my disagreement with their values, or the fact that they are applying their values to unproven facts and then glossing over the fact that they are unproven. Willful disregard of factual proof, or application of faith to sets of facts is an annoying habit of the right. Whether it turns out to be true or not, the fact that it gets to be regarded as true _now_ based on one or two theoretical papers is exactly the sort of thinking that leads to not teaching evolution in schools, declaring homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice, and all sorts of other offensive paternalism. Grr.
rosefox: Me pulling hair away from my face, trying to see. (confused)

[personal profile] rosefox 2004-10-29 06:51 pm (UTC)(link)
What's offensive about declaring homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice?

[identity profile] wispfox.livejournal.com 2004-10-29 08:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Assuming that wasn't a typo, perhaps because it implies that if it's a choice, one can choose to love someone of the opposite gender instead?

*guessing*
rosefox: Green books on library shelves. (Default)

[personal profile] rosefox 2004-10-29 08:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Why is that offensive, though?

[identity profile] ratatosk.livejournal.com 2004-10-30 12:52 am (UTC)(link)
Good point -- nothing! That was not what I meant to write. What I should have said was "making a decision about the biological bases for homosexuality based solely on faith and then using that as the justification for oppressive public policy decisions you were going to make anyway." That's wordy, though. :)