I'm not arguing for omniscience, I'm arguing for the most basic awareness.

Which is to say, I think that most people who object to Plan B probably DO understand exactly what it does, and so I find their argument that they don't want provide people with it incredibly disingenuous.

Convince them of what? If they don't understand the very basics of human reproduction and the very basics of how drugs work, then perhaps they are not qualified to be pharmacists.

I'm getting tired of saying this all over the comments on this post, but I'll say it at least this time more: there. is. no. fetus. There is no—as they might see it in the case of someone seeking an abortion—person inside. Plan B prevents pregnancy, it does not end one that has already started. So not filling…

Which lives? There isn't even a potential life, because there is no fetus. Plan B prevents pregnancy, it is not for ending a pregnancy.

There is no human living inside. Plan B prevents pregnancy, it does not end one that is in progress.

Abortion? Aren't we talking about Plan B, which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or fetuses, but in fact simply prevents pregnancy from starting in the first place?

...what person? There isn't even a fetus.

But Plan B prevents pregnancy, it has nothing to do with a fetus, because there isn't one.

Wait, stop talking about bigotry, both of you—when you talk about problems, you're actually causing them.

All of this, yes!

Exactly!

Yeah, those parents who are struggling to buy sneakers for their kids might be quite pleased to have co-pay-less contraception available to them, so that the struggle to buy sneakers doesn't suddenly become an entire other person (or more, yay for multiples!) to pay for.

While there are some people who view their bodies as their own and as belonging to the gender with which they identify, regardless of conventional categorizations, some people do not. These are the people who significantly benefit from these kinds of surgery, and since waving scalpels around is usually not done…

YES, I was going to comment that!

That makes a lot of sense to me, actually.

But it's not retroactively reneging consent, she consented to sex that seemed uncomfortable, and then discovered that what she was having was sex that severely damaged her cervix. I mean, I'm not particularly (that is, at all) aware of how my cervix feels at the moment, so it's totally possible that she didn't connect…

But...I didn't say he was a rapist. In fact, I said that he wasn't. I was asking if we could imagine a scenario where she could come to understand what happened as rape WITHOUT her boyfriend being a rapist.

But...that's my point, that he didn't know and (as far as I can tell, please correct me if I'm wrong) couldn't have known, and as far as he did no, she explicitly consented to sex. Just not the kind of sex (sex that can damage a cervix that way), the kind of sex neither of them realized was happening.

Hold on. If they both thought that x was going on, but she later realizes that y was also happening, and she had NOT consented to y, could it not be that it was rape, but he's not a rapist (because he thought what he was doing was x and only x and didn't realize that y was also happening, and it's the fact that y was…