NationStates Jolt Archive

Pill propelled into abortion debate
By Jill McGivering
BBC correspondent in Washington

The birth control pill revolutionised women's health - and grew to become one of the most popular forms of family planning. But it is now under attack from pro-life groups in the US.

A growing number of doctors and pharmacists are now refusing to dispense it, on the grounds that it is actually a form of abortion.

A woman taking the Pill does not usually release eggs. But occasionally she might - and it is possible that egg could be fertilised.

The hormonal conditions created by the Pill mean, if that happened, the fertilised egg would not be implanted or survive.

Mainstream medicine does not define that as a pregnancy. But some of those strictly against abortion do.

Dr Cynthia Jones-Nosacek - a family doctor in Milwaukee - now refuses to prescribe the Pill. She opposes it on moral grounds, arguing it is a form of abortion.

"The contraceptive pill doesn't always prevent ovulation. As often as 30% of the time, ovulation may occur and if that happens, fertilisation may occur," Dr Jones-Nosacek says.

"Then there are other mechanisms that can prevent that being from surviving. It's called a chemical abortion."

'Caught off-guard'

That definition is suddenly gaining support and some pharmacists now refuse to dispense the Pill.

Julee Lacey, a mother of two, had used the Pill for nine years when a pharmacist at her local chemist in Texas refused her prescription.

"She [the pharmacist] began to tell me she personally does not believe in birth control," says Ms Lacey.

"I was a little caught off-guard and shocked... I asked her again. She said: 'No, ma'am, I don't believe in birth control. I can't help you'...

"I really couldn't believe she had the right to withhold my medication from me," she adds.

At first these were just isolated cases, mostly in the Midwest. But recently they have increased dramatically.

Pro-choice groups now call it a significant and growing trend. Lisa Boyce of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin says it is a conscious extension of the abortion debate.

"They've done so much with outlawing and restricting access to abortion that they've set their sights on birth control because there's nothing else really they can do to further restrict abortion here in Wisconsin," Ms Boyce says.

"Which is counter-intuitive because if you're against abortion in the least you'd think you would see the value in enhancing access birth control, the very means women look to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion."

Conscience clauses

And in the run-up to the election, it is a hot political topic too.

This year 12 states took steps to try to introduce so-called conscience clauses. They allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs, including the Pill, on moral grounds, without losing their jobs.

In Wisconsin, the mostly-Republican assembly passed the bill, only to have it vetoed by the Democratic governor.

Representative Curt Gielow says pharmacists should be protected.

"There was an incident where a pharmacist who worked in a retail drug store refused on conscience to fill a prescription and that individual was terminated from employment," Mr Gielow says.

"That, I believe, set the stage for concern there might be employment discrimination opportunity here if in fact you listened to your conscience instead of doing what the boss told you to do."

At the moment, the Pill is hugely popular in the US. But calling it a type of abortion opens up a whole new front in the pro-life, pro-choice debate.

This moral condemnation is a fresh challenge to one of the most used, most reliable methods of family planning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3652462.stm


People go to their doctors to get a prescription for birth control. It's the woman's RIGHT to use birth control if she wants to. It's NOT an abortion.

Apparently, now, these doctors and pharmacists don't want to dispense it because it's against their beliefs! WTF? Who cares about the doctor's or pharmacist's beliefs? They have an obligation to fill someone's prescription, no matter what! Women take the pill for a number of reasons, including: birth control (obviously), acne control, and hormonal treatments. If imposing your personal morality on others is in the way of you doing your job, then get out of that line of work. People who don't want to dispense legal drugs shouldn't become pharmacists, right?

These RW religious whackos need to be stopped! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang:

Tell these religious f***ers to go away. I'm so sick of "it's against my beliefs"! I don't give a sh** about YOUR beliefs! If a person wants to use birth control, that's their right. I think anyone who has this problem should change doctors ASAP.

you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights. you see, i have been having a very hard time deciding where i want to set up my future practice/lab, and they are helping me make the decision by giving me even more reason to leave America.

Bahaha... even Osama and his group of Muslim fundamentalist wackos haven't gone that far.. but then again, they've never been exposed to birth control I guess... http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/icons/icon10.gif


I really grieve for the state America is in. May God help the American people.. (the good souls at least, who far outnumber the sour ones... But then again, if one finger brings oil, it soils the others..)

you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights. you see, i have been having a very hard time deciding where i want to set up my future practice/lab, and they are helping me make the decision by giving me even more reason to leave America.
I hear good things about Canada.

It's great here! (Canada, to the poster above)

you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights.\

Brace yourself. If Bush gets (re)elected, then it's going to be a lot worse.

It's great here! (Canada, to the poster above)
I kinda figured. ;)

you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights. you see, i have been having a very hard time deciding where i want to set up my future practice/lab, and they are helping me make the decision by giving me even more reason to leave America.

Please don't leave, Bottle. :( America needs people like you.

\

Brace yourself. If Bush gets (re)elected, then it's going to be a lot worse.
:D If the well educated Americans start leaving the US I'm all for Bush beeing re-elected. :D

Please don't leave, Bottle. :( America needs people like you.
awww, shucks :).

i'm stuck here for at least 2 years yet, never fear...i can't leave until i pass my qualifying exams anyhow.

awww, shucks :).

i'm stuck here for at least 2 years yet, never fear...i can't leave until i pass my qualifying exams anyhow.

Two whole more years of crushing fundamentalist religious arguments out of hand, making atheists look silly, and annoying people of all political persuasions...it almost brings tears of joy to my eyes. ;)

Things are so much easier in Britain.

I remember a mini-abortion debate on TV regarding some kind of new thing, partial birth or morning after or something, the "right wing" view was taken a scientist (as opposed to a pastor or a preacher) and his position was for maintaining the status quo.

You people spew rhetoric like it's carbon laden oxygen. Birth control is *not* a right, it is a privelage. If you can't pay for it or your doctor does not prescribe it, you should not have it. It *is* a doctor's right to decide what to prescribe their patients. If a patient disagrees or wants a different opinion, they have the *right* to find a different doctor.

It's ludicrous how liberals scream at the religious right for taking a stand. Liberals talk about freedom of speech and expression in all these flowery terms and emotional diatribes, but when a conservative wants to practice their right of opinion, listen to the "pro-choice" pundits scream.

I'm not conservative. I don't believe that birth control should be banned. However, I believe that a doctor should not be compelled to prescribe anything that contradicts their religious inclinations.

Freedom is a two-edged sword. If one desires to have their own freedom, they must be willing to let others have theirs as well.

.

It's ludicrous how liberals scream at the religious right for taking a stand. Liberals talk about freedom of speech and expression in all these flowery terms and emotional diatribes, but when a conservative wants to practice their right of opinion, listen to the "pro-choice" pundits scream.

Thats becuase abortion only effects half of society and it doesn't hurt anyone else. I couldn't care less if someone got an abortion, in fact no one should.

Whoever just posted that crap last, its...well....crap. You make out that the pill is a luxury for the rich, when really you can get it from your docotr if you provide decent neough grounds, or, even as a poverty-stricken scally, you could scrape together the funds to purchase a pack.

I wish people would take ethics (how i hate that word) as being something you do for your self e.g. don't like abortion, don't get one, don't like religion, don't join. Not put pictures of cells on banners with "murderer" slogans next to it. [/rant]

People go to their doctors to get a prescription for birth control. It's the woman's RIGHT to use birth control if she wants to. It's NOT an abortion.

Apparently, now, these doctors and pharmacists don't want to dispense it because it's against their beliefs! WTF? Who cares about the doctor's or pharmacist's beliefs? They have an obligation to fill someone's prescription, no matter what! Women take the pill for a number of reasons, including: birth control (obviously), acne control, and hormonal treatments. If imposing your personal morality on others is in the way of you doing your job, then get out of that line of work. People who don't want to dispense legal drugs shouldn't become pharmacists, right?

These RW religious whackos need to be stopped! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang:

What happened to the tolerance that everyone seems so gung ho on these days? Why aren't you tolerating this doctor's decision to not prescribe something? It's not like he's compelled to because her life is in danger.

See above rant

you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights. you see, i have been having a very hard time deciding where i want to set up my future practice/lab, and they are helping me make the decision by giving me even more reason to leave America.
NOOOOO bottle
if things keep going like this
WE NEED YOU
youll get all the business you can handle just from women needing to exercise their reproductive rights

Tell these religious f***ers to go away. I'm so sick of "it's against my beliefs"! I don't give a sh** about YOUR beliefs! If a person wants to use birth control, that's their right. I think anyone who has this problem should change doctors ASAP.

And I am glad we have so many rational liberals like yourself to make all of us religious fundamentalist types look so horribly intolerant. If what that woman said is true, and using the pill can result in the death of a fertilized egg, then anyone who opposes abortion could obviously not support it. You do not have any intention of compromising your beliefs, and neither should we. Also, I like how an employee was fired because of an incident like this. I remember the recent thread on the woman who was fired because she supported Kerry. Well, now we have a person who was fired for opposing abortion. Therefore, as I pointed out in that thread, it evens out. By the way, if a majority of the representatives in Wisconsin are Republican, that would tell me that a majority of the people there are Republican. Especially since Bush is about 8 points ahead there now. So, if the majority of the people oppose birth control, it will be removed, whether you like it or not. Because they apparently don't give a sh*t about your beliefs either. As far as I'm concerned, its not a right for a woman to fuck whomever she wishes whenever she wants, without having to worry about consequences. In my opinion, the world today has serious issues due to the public's singularly dedicated interest in making life as easy and conscious free as possible.

You people spew rhetoric like it's carbon laden oxygen. Birth control is *not* a right, it is a privelage. If you can't pay for it or your doctor does not prescribe it, you should not have it. It *is* a doctor's right to decide what to prescribe their patients. If a patient disagrees or wants a different opinion, they have the *right* to find a different doctor.

It's ludicrous how liberals scream at the religious right for taking a stand. Liberals talk about freedom of speech and expression in all these flowery terms and emotional diatribes, but when a conservative wants to practice their right of opinion, listen to the "pro-choice" pundits scream.

I'm not conservative. I don't believe that birth control should be banned. However, I believe that a doctor should not be compelled to prescribe anything that contradicts their religious inclinations.

Freedom is a two-edged sword. If one desires to have their own freedom, they must be willing to let others have theirs as well.Jeez, and there was I, thinking that when conservatives preach about "duty" that they would recognise it doesn't always go the same way.

If you have a moral problem with shooting people, don't join the army. If you have a moral problem with testing on animals, don't go into the cosmetics industry. If you have a moral problem with prescribing the pill, then don't put yourself in a position where your job requires you to do that.

I anticipate this becoming the next big excuse
"Sorry boss, I have a moral problem with doing any work. But you can't fire me, cos its my personal belief"

And I am glad we have so many rational liberals like yourself to make all of us religious fundamentalist types look so horribly intolerant. If what that woman said is true, and using the pill can result in the death of a fertilized egg, then anyone who opposes abortion could obviously not support it. You do not have any intention of compromising your beliefs, and neither should we. Also, I like how an employee was fired because of an incident like this. I remember the recent thread on the woman who was fired because she supported Kerry. Well, now we have a person who was fired for opposing abortion. Therefore, as I pointed out in that thread, it evens out. By the way, if a majority of the representatives in Wisconsin are Republican, that would tell me that a majority of the people there are Republican. Especially since Bush is about 8 points ahead there now. So, if the majority of the people oppose birth control, it will be removed, whether you like it or not. Because they apparently don't give a sh*t about your beliefs either. As far as I'm concerned, its not a right for a woman to fuck whomever she wishes whenever she wants, without having to worry about consequences. In my opinion, the world today has serious issues due to the public's singularly dedicated interest in making life as easy and conscious free as possible.
Wrong, as the purposes of a law is to protect the minorities will, not enforce that of the majorities. Go back and take civics, such a law would be struck down within seconds.

I anticipate this becoming the next big excuse
"Sorry boss, I have a moral problem with doing any work. But you can't fire me, cos its my personal belief"
As opposed to the current one which we can blame liberals for.
"Hey, I'm a minority, and if you even look at me wrong I will call the NAACP and sue your ass into bankruptcy."

As opposed to the current one which we can blame liberals for.
"Hey, I'm a minority, and if you even look at me wrong I will call the NAACP and sue your ass into bankruptcy."
Which doesn't happen. Ever.

It's great here! (Canada, to the poster above)

No Canada sucks, Id get too cold and lonely and bored there. Great for roadtrips though!

You people spew rhetoric like it's carbon laden oxygen. Birth control is *not* a right, it is a privelage. If you can't pay for it or your doctor does not prescribe it, you should not have it. It *is* a doctor's right to decide what to prescribe their patients. If a patient disagrees or wants a different opinion, they have the *right* to find a different doctor.

I am thinking of many things to call you that start with the word 'pompous'. First of all the article is about 'pharmacists' NOT 'doctors', in the article the doctor has ALLREADY made the prescription and a pharmacist's job is merely to dispence medications

This situation is like a librarian working in a public library refusing to allow people to check out certain books because the librarian is morally against a particular book. Maybe she will not let kids take "Wheres Waldo" home because of the one scene where the girl lost her bikini top.


It's ludicrous how liberals scream at the religious right for taking a stand. Liberals talk about freedom of speech and expression in all these flowery terms and emotional diatribes, but when a conservative wants to practice their right of opinion, listen to the "pro-choice" pundits scream.

I'm not conservative. I don't believe that birth control should be banned. However, I believe that a doctor should not be compelled to prescribe anything that contradicts their religious inclinations.

Freedom is a two-edged sword. If one desires to have their own freedom, they must be willing to let others have theirs as well.

Once again this is not about doctors, this about pharmacists and THEY should be compelled to prescribe anything even when they THINK it contradicts their religious inclinations because they are not doctors. They do not diagnose conditions, the doctor that allready made the prescription does.

I personally know someone who takes birthcontrol pills because they help stabalize and regularize her periods, not because she has sex often. Or what if a 'pharmacist' refused to dispense AIDS medication because she thought the person who was taking it was gay and s/he was morally against gays?

repeat after me pharmacists are not doctors.






:mad:

However, I believe that a doctor should not be compelled to prescribe anything that contradicts their religious inclinations.

If the doctor doesn't want to prescibe legal drugs, then he/she should NOT be a doctor then. After all, it's part of their JOB to give people prescriptions for medicines they want/need!

And I am glad we have so many rational liberals like yourself to make all of us religious fundamentalist types look so horribly intolerant. If what that woman said is true, and using the pill can result in the death of a fertilized egg, then anyone who opposes abortion could obviously not support it. You do not have any intention of compromising your beliefs, and neither should we. Also, I like how an employee was fired because of an incident like this. I remember the recent thread on the woman who was fired because she supported Kerry. Well, now we have a person who was fired for opposing abortion. Therefore, as I pointed out in that thread, it evens out. By the way, if a majority of the representatives in Wisconsin are Republican, that would tell me that a majority of the people there are Republican. Especially since Bush is about 8 points ahead there now. So, if the majority of the people oppose birth control, it will be removed, whether you like it or not. Because they apparently don't give a sh*t about your beliefs either. As far as I'm concerned, its not a right for a woman to fuck whomever she wishes whenever she wants, without having to worry about consequences. In my opinion, the world today has serious issues due to the public's singularly dedicated interest in making life as easy and conscious free as possible.

Um, excuse me...birth control is used so there is NO fertilized egg. It prevents pregnancies. Go read up on the science of that.

As for Republicans, they have NO right to dictate what people can/can't do and to impose their religious beliefs on others. I'm not making fundamentalist republicans look bad. You guys are doing a good job doing that yourselves.

As far as I'm concerned, its not a right for a woman to fuck whomever she wishes whenever she wants, without having to worry about consequences.

It's a woman's right to fuck whenever she wants, just like it's my right. And if she doesn't want to get pregnant, the it's her RIGHT to get birth control to prevent those pregnancies.

No Canada sucks, Id get too cold and lonely and bored there. Great for roadtrips though!

Ah, come on. It only gets too cold for 6 month a year. And everything you can find in the US, you'll find in Canada.

Once again this is not about doctors, this about pharmacists and THEY should be compelled to prescribe anything even when they THINK it contradicts their religious inclinations because they are not doctors. They do not diagnose conditions, the doctor that allready made the prescription does.

Amen! If the pharmacist doesn't want to dispense legal drugs, then he/she should not be a pharmacist then. After all, it's part of their JOB to give people their prescriptions for medicines they want/need!

People go to their doctors to get a prescription for birth control. It's the woman's RIGHT to use birth control if she wants to. It's NOT an abortion.

Apparently, now, these doctors and pharmacists don't want to dispense it because it's against their beliefs! WTF? Who cares about the doctor's or pharmacist's beliefs? They have an obligation to fill someone's prescription, no matter what! Women take the pill for a number of reasons, including: birth control (obviously), acne control, and hormonal treatments. If imposing your personal morality on others is in the way of you doing your job, then get out of that line of work. People who don't want to dispense legal drugs shouldn't become pharmacists, right?

These RW religious whackos need to be stopped! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang:
must..resist..urge..to kill.fundamentalist..christians...

While I've never had a pharmacist deny me the Pill, I have had more than one doctor deny me a procedure that I deemed necessary because they felt it was wrong.

From the time I was 18 to 21, I questioned 16 doctors about getting a tubal litigation (sterilization) and was denied by 15 of those doctors. All of them told me I was too young, I would change my mind, I would regret it, etc. They all were within their rights to deny me a treatment that they felt would not benefit me. However, I was well within my right to pursue that treatment. And I did.

Doctors often disagree about which drugs/procedures are the most valid. It may be an issue of they feel one drug is safer than the other, or it may be that they feel that the goal of the drug is wrong. Regardless, let the doctor decide if they want to write prescriptions for the pill. I'll happily walk and get another doctor.

As to pharmicists, that's another question. Their job is to dispense prescriptions written by doctors. If they disagree with the script, they can call the doctor and question it. They, by no means, have the right to refuse to dispense a legitimately written prescription. That would be like signing up to be a cop and refusing to arrest anyone who commits murder, cause you think murder is fine. Any cop who did that would be fired. As should any pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription. Or any doctor who refuses to treat a patient because they don't like their race or lifestyle or some such.

I don't have a problem with someone who doesn't believe birth control is good, as long as they consent to allow me to have access to birth control.

Of course, the pill and birth control are moot points for me now. 10 years later and I've still never regretted it.

You people spew rhetoric like it's carbon laden oxygen. Birth control is *not* a right, it is a privelage. If you can't pay for it or your doctor does not prescribe it, you should not have it. It *is* a doctor's right to decide what to prescribe their patients. If a patient disagrees or wants a different opinion, they have the *right* to find a different doctor.

It's ludicrous how liberals scream at the religious right for taking a stand. Liberals talk about freedom of speech and expression in all these flowery terms and emotional diatribes, but when a conservative wants to practice their right of opinion, listen to the "pro-choice" pundits scream.

I'm not conservative. I don't believe that birth control should be banned. However, I believe that a doctor should not be compelled to prescribe anything that contradicts their religious inclinations.

Freedom is a two-edged sword. If one desires to have their own freedom, they must be willing to let others have theirs as well.
you know all that bullshit you just said? stick it in your ear

if the doctor has no better reason than its their religious belief to deny birth control, they have no reason to do so, and a pharmacist even less so because it is their sole job to dispesne medicine, nothing more nothing less, there sohuld be no decision on their end of this matter

and if the doctor is denying birth control for religious reasons, not only is said person an ignorant hypocrite (denying birth control because the inane argument that it can somehow constitute abortion at a low probablity is more than likely to cause the person to get pregnant, thus requiring a REAL abortion) they are going against the hippocratic oath and should be stripped of their license to practice


and while the loony fundamentalists are at it, why dont htey start lobbying for a law that requires a permit to have sex and outlaw all forms of contraception, oh yeah they tried that, luckily some very intelligent women in the 1900s told them to go jump in the sea and sold contraceptives anyway

A doctor does not have a responsibility to sell anything to anyone who wants something- even if it might be legal. A purchase is just a trade, though more complex- I give you money, you give me medicine. The doctor cannot force me to buy something just because he wants my money, so I cannot force the doctor to sell me something just because I want the medicine. It's a two way thing- mutual consent. An even playing field. End of story. Anything else is unfair.

I'm disgusted at all this support for mudering unborn infants. The birth control pill is just plain evil. When a woman is on the "pill" she can still sometimes ovulate. If she has sex the egg will become fertile, and at that point it's a human life. The "pill" will prevent that new human from attatching to the uterine wall, and the baby will die. It's murder, even when you are killing a being composed of one cell with no brain, no thoughts, and no emotions. Human life begins at conception, the great scientist pat robertson said so.

I'm disgusted at all this support for mudering unborn infants. The birth control pill is just plain evil. When a woman is on the "pill" she can still sometimes ovulate. If she has sex the egg will become fertile, and at that point it's a human life. The "pill" will prevent that new human from attatching to the uterine wall, and the baby will die. It's murder, even when you are killing a being composed of one cell with no brain, no thoughts, and no emotions. Human life begins at conception, the great scientist pat robertson said so.
you know that big white porcelain chair in your bathroom that has water in it? yah go drown yourself

I don't see how telling somebody to drown themself helps your point.

you know that big white porcelain chair in your bathroom that has water in it? yah go drown yourself
Wow, I guess we really _don't_ get sarcasm.

I don't see how telling somebody to drown themself helps your point.
it just makes me feel better

It wasn't sarcasm. It was just stupid.

It wasn't sarcasm. It was just stupid.
It would have been stupid if I meant it. I clearly don't. Come on, refering to pat robertson as a scientist didn't clue you in?

I'm disgusted at all this support for mudering unborn infants. The birth control pill is just plain evil. When a woman is on the "pill" she can still sometimes ovulate. If she has sex the egg will become fertile, and at that point it's a human life. The "pill" will prevent that new human from attatching to the uterine wall, and the baby will die. It's murder, even when you are killing a being composed of one cell with no brain, no thoughts, and no emotions. Human life begins at conception, the great scientist pat robertson said so.

Sarcasm is a beautiful thing.

By the way, one form of the pill prevents ovulation. The other form prevents sperm from entering the cervix. Either way, no fertilization happens.

The Right-Wing religious fundies are at it again(RE: Birth Control)...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Pill propelled into abortion debate
By Jill McGivering
BBC correspondent in Washington

The birth control pill revolutionised women's health - and grew to become one of the most popular forms of family planning. But it is now under attack from pro-life groups in the US.

A growing number of doctors and pharmacists are now refusing to dispense it, on the grounds that it is actually a form of abortion.

A woman taking the Pill does not usually release eggs. But occasionally she might - and it is possible that egg could be fertilised.

The hormonal conditions created by the Pill mean, if that happened, the fertilised egg would not be implanted or survive.

Mainstream medicine does not define that as a pregnancy. But some of those strictly against abortion do.

Dr Cynthia Jones-Nosacek - a family doctor in Milwaukee - now refuses to prescribe the Pill. She opposes it on moral grounds, arguing it is a form of abortion.

"The contraceptive pill doesn't always prevent ovulation. As often as 30% of the time, ovulation may occur and if that happens, fertilisation may occur," Dr Jones-Nosacek says.

"Then there are other mechanisms that can prevent that being from surviving. It's called a chemical abortion."

'Caught off-guard'

That definition is suddenly gaining support and some pharmacists now refuse to dispense the Pill.

Julee Lacey, a mother of two, had used the Pill for nine years when a pharmacist at her local chemist in Texas refused her prescription.

"She [the pharmacist] began to tell me she personally does not believe in birth control," says Ms Lacey.

"I was a little caught off-guard and shocked... I asked her again. She said: 'No, ma'am, I don't believe in birth control. I can't help you'...

"I really couldn't believe she had the right to withhold my medication from me," she adds.

At first these were just isolated cases, mostly in the Midwest. But recently they have increased dramatically.

Pro-choice groups now call it a significant and growing trend. Lisa Boyce of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin says it is a conscious extension of the abortion debate.

"They've done so much with outlawing and restricting access to abortion that they've set their sights on birth control because there's nothing else really they can do to further restrict abortion here in Wisconsin," Ms Boyce says.

"Which is counter-intuitive because if you're against abortion in the least you'd think you would see the value in enhancing access birth control, the very means women look to preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion."

Conscience clauses

And in the run-up to the election, it is a hot political topic too.

This year 12 states took steps to try to introduce so-called conscience clauses. They allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs, including the Pill, on moral grounds, without losing their jobs.

In Wisconsin, the mostly-Republican assembly passed the bill, only to have it vetoed by the Democratic governor.

Representative Curt Gielow says pharmacists should be protected.

"There was an incident where a pharmacist who worked in a retail drug store refused on conscience to fill a prescription and that individual was terminated from employment," Mr Gielow says.

"That, I believe, set the stage for concern there might be employment discrimination opportunity here if in fact you listened to your conscience instead of doing what the boss told you to do."

At the moment, the Pill is hugely popular in the US. But calling it a type of abortion opens up a whole new front in the pro-life, pro-choice debate.

This moral condemnation is a fresh challenge to one of the most used, most reliable methods of family planning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3652462.stm




People go to their doctors to get a prescription for birth control. It's the woman's RIGHT to use birth control if she wants to. It's NOT an abortion.

Apparently, now, these doctors and pharmacists don't want to dispense it because it's against their beliefs! WTF? Who cares about the doctor's or pharmacist's beliefs? They have an obligation to fill someone's prescription, no matter what! Women take the pill for a number of reasons, including: birth control (obviously), acne control, and hormonal treatments. If imposing your personal morality on others is in the way of you doing your job, then get out of that line of work. People who don't want to dispense legal drugs shouldn't become pharmacists, right?

These RW religious whackos need to be stopped!

I personally don't want to kill you.

You come to me with a prescription to kill you, signed by "the government".

I refuse.

You get pissy. I say go find someone who will do it for you.

You get more pissy. I tell you to leave.

You get even more pissy, and threaten me with your concealed pistol.

I shoot you, as I'm a faster draw than you.

What have we learned here today, children...?

I'm disgusted at all this support for mudering unborn infants. The birth control pill is just plain evil. When a woman is on the "pill" she can still sometimes ovulate. If she has sex the egg will become fertile, and at that point it's a human life. The "pill" will prevent that new human from attatching to the uterine wall, and the baby will die. It's murder, even when you are killing a being composed of one cell with no brain, no thoughts, and no emotions. Human life begins at conception, the great scientist pat robertson said so.

Greatest scientist is Pat Robertson???? ROFL! Pat Robertson is the leader of the RW Religious fundies!

And no. Once the egg is fertilized, it is NOT a human life. Human life doesn't start until the baby can live on its own.

So...am I killing a human life everytime I have an ejaculation? Or how about women who have their periods? After all, they are single cells being expelled from the body... :rolleyes:

Hey, it's hard to tell who's being serious nowdays. Too many stupid people. I personally don't know whether or not to support abortion. I'm definitely agains late-stage abortion. It just seems like if a woman doen't want a child, she can use birth control pills or make the guy wear a condom or something.

the great scientist pat robertson said so.

Did you just call Pat Robertson a "scientist?"

Wow. Please don't reproduce.

I personally don't want to kill you.

You come to me with a prescription to kill you, signed by "the government".

I refuse.

You get pissy. I say go find someone who will do it for you.

You get more pissy. I tell you to leave.

You get even more pissy, and threaten me with your concealed pistol.

I shoot you, as I'm a faster draw than you.

What have we learned here today, children...?
that you are a pharmacist and your job is to prescribe medicine?

I'm disgusted at all this support for mudering unborn infants. The birth control pill is just plain evil. When a woman is on the "pill" she can still sometimes ovulate. If she has sex the egg will become fertile, and at that point it's a human life. The "pill" will prevent that new human from attatching to the uterine wall, and the baby will die. It's murder, even when you are killing a being composed of one cell with no brain, no thoughts, and no emotions. Human life begins at conception, the great scientist pat robertson said so.
STOP IT
you know americans dont understand sarcasm
bad boy!

Greatest scientist is Pat Robertson???? ROFL! Pat Robertson is the leader of the RW Religious fundies!

And no. Once the egg is fertilized, it is NOT a human life. Human life doesn't start until the baby can live on its own.

So...am I killing a human life everytime I have an ejaculation? Or how about women who have their periods? After all, they are single cells being expelled from the body.
Actually you are killing countless babies when you ejaculate. Each sperm is half of a baby. Take the number of sperm, divide by two and you have the exact body count. I've personally exterminated entire continents worth of potential people.

Is anyone else around here amazed at the infantile psychoses of post originators like this one..!?

No one could POSSIBLY try to make you look as stupid and childish as you've done to yourself.

Continue your exposition of insanity and hyperbole.

It will drive the population further and further into "your enemy's" camp.

Please,... carry on.

Did you just call Pat Robertson a "scientist?"

Wow. Please don't reproduce.
I was just kidding!

Um... no

STOP IT
you know americans dont understand sarcasm
bad boy!
I'm American. Why do I get it?

I was just kidding!


Yeah, after I posted my reply, I saw your explanation.

People do grant Robertson disgusting amounts of credibility, and I thought you were one of those people. My bad.

Whoops. OOut of context

While I've never had a pharmacist deny me the Pill, I have had more than one doctor deny me a procedure that I deemed necessary because they felt it was wrong.

From the time I was 18 to 21, I questioned 16 doctors about getting a tubal litigation (sterilization) and was denied by 15 of those doctors. All of them told me I was too young, I would change my mind, I would regret it, etc. They all were within their rights to deny me a treatment that they felt would not benefit me. However, I was well within my right to pursue that treatment. And I did.

Know the feeling. I don't ever want to have children (and yes, I am certain of it whether I am young, old or whatever), but because I am under 25, I am being refused steralisation. I don't want to go out and fuck every man I meet like some idiot above implied anyone wanting to have sex and not children does. My husband and I, however, would like to have a normal sexual relationship without sprogging a brat! If they won't steralise me, I'm going to be on the pill. It is a right not to have kids if you don't want them. Just as it is the right of people to have them that do. Oh, sorry - I forgot the Bible demands that we all sprogg. Grrr.

actually if a pharmacist wanted to open up a store called "fundamentalist christian drugs" where it was understood that all your prescriptions had to pass some kind of moral test before being filled, i would have no problem with that. its his business not mine

but to have an individual pharmacist in a walgreens somehwere decide that his morality wont allow him to fill certain prescriptions should be a firable offense and deserve a reprimand from his professional board.

If you are hired to do something, you have to do it.

I'm a pizza bitch. Therefore, I make pizzas. If I felt strongly against italian food, I would've never gotten the job in the first place.

Let's say they suddenly start selling hot dogs, and I'm religiously against hot dogs. It's now my decision to either a) continue making hot dogs, or b) quit.

If I refuse to make hot dogs, and I get fired, it's not over my religious beliefs-it's because I refused to do the job I was paid to do.


I know someone who's a pharmacist. She told me that this bozo should be fired on the spot for incompetence. As someone else said earlier, if a pharmacist has a problem, he/she contacts the doctor. They do NOT simply say "no, you arn't allowed to have it."


Oh, and on the big stink about it being a privilage: NO. If a doctor says "you can have it," then YOU CAN HAVE IT. If a doctor doesn't say "you can have it," then as stated before, you find another doctor. That's the way the world works. It's not a right or a privilage to have the pill-it is a right to buy what you choose, so long as it's legal.

If a pharmacist was morally opposed to selling medicine to non-aryans would he have the right to do that? Let's say his religion told him that all non-aryans were mud people who didn't have the right to live. Can he deny them medicine?

Actually you are killing countless babies when you ejaculate. Each sperm is half of a baby. Take the number of sperm, divide by two and you have the exact body count. I've personally exterminated entire continents worth of potential people.

Looks like me and your are going to hell then! :rolleyes:

Know the feeling. I don't ever want to have children (and yes, I am certain of it whether I am young, old or whatever), but because I am under 25, I am being refused steralisation. I don't want to go out and fuck every man I meet like some idiot above implied anyone wanting to have sex and not children does. My husband and I, however, would like to have a normal sexual relationship without sprogging a brat! If they won't steralise me, I'm going to be on the pill. It is a right not to have kids if you don't want them. Just as it is the right of people to have them that do. Oh, sorry - I forgot the Bible demands that we all sprogg. Grrr.
theres probably health problems having it done that young, but dont take my word for it im just guessing

why doesnt your husband get sterilized? its much simpler i hear

So many misconceptions here. In no particular order...

Pharmacists do not prescribe medication.. they dispense it.

Doctors become doctors for a number of reasons, helping people being one. Religious people can want to help people. Religious people can become doctors. This doesnt change their religious beliefs.

Doctors run/work for businesses. It's their right to refuse service to whomever they wish (if it's a private not public business)... it's just businessly stupid to do so.

Pharmacists run/work for businesses. It's ther right to refuse service to whomever they wish (if it's a private not public business) it's just stupid to do so.

Those of you saying they should be forced to dispense medication that they personally, religiously object to are advocating forcing your will on them. Forcing them to go against their religious beliefs. Advocating violating their 1st amendment rights.

If you or anyone else runs into a doctor or pharmacist who do something that you dont believe in, you have the right to go somewhere else.

It's called tollerance people.. practice what you preach.

But this is all if it's a private buisness.

If a pharmacist refuses to give out medication-and his boss tells him too-he can get fired.

If it's a public buisness, then it's simply illegal. Or at least, I believe it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I personally don't want to kill you.

You come to me with a prescription to kill you, signed by "the government".

I refuse.

You get pissy. I say go find someone who will do it for you.

You get more pissy. I tell you to leave.

You get even more pissy, and threaten me with your concealed pistol.

I shoot you, as I'm a faster draw than you.

What have we learned here today, children...?


that you are a pharmacist and your job is to prescribe medicine?

RRRRRRRRRRRR,... Wrongo contestant #48..!

Anyone else..!?

RRRRRRRRRRRR,... Wrongo contestant #48..!

Anyone else..!?
That this analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?

If you are hired to do something, you have to do it.

I'm a pizza bitch. Therefore, I make pizzas. If I felt strongly against italian food, I would've never gotten the job in the first place.

Let's say they suddenly start selling hot dogs, and I'm religiously against hot dogs. It's now my decision to either a) continue making hot dogs, or b) quit.

If I refuse to make hot dogs, and I get fired, it's not over my religious beliefs-it's because I refused to do the job I was paid to do.


I know someone who's a pharmacist. She told me that this bozo should be fired on the spot for incompetence. As someone else said earlier, if a pharmacist has a problem, he/she contacts the doctor. They do NOT simply say "no, you arn't allowed to have it."


Oh, and on the big stink about it being a privilage: NO. If a doctor says "you can have it," then YOU CAN HAVE IT. If a doctor doesn't say "you can have it," then as stated before, you find another doctor. That's the way the world works. It's not a right or a privilage to have the pill-it is a right to buy what you choose, so long as it's legal.

If the business owner IS the dispenser of medicine, they can do as they like.

If the dispenser is not the business owner, then it's the business owner's decision as to how to deal with the situation.

You know those little signs in restaurants that say "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone."

So, pizza-bitch,... make me a human-baby-sausage pizza. Don't spare the placenta,.... bitch.

That this analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Are you truly as stupid as you would have us believe..?!

What makes no sense to you?

Try to follow:

The government has authorized me to kill you.

You want me to kill you.

I refuse to do so.

You get annoyed at me for not giving you what you (legally) want.

The point is that simply because I'm authorized to do something, doesn't mean that I'm obligated to do it.

If the government decides to take away my license, that's fine. My conscience is more important than my job.

This is the type of society that you would have us live in..?

"I vas only doing vhat mein government zaid I should be doing..!" protested the gas chamber attendant.

..Sound familiar.

I have an idea. Why don't you just leave the country and do yourself a favor, and the rest of us will be better off as well.

I'm not saying I agree with these guys, but then again, I don't like paying for welfare and I am forced to. Now that I think about it, I don't like paying for artists to put piss on the cross, even though I am an atheist. I don't like being forced to fund abortions, I don't like thousands of other things, but I deal with it. My advice to you...get another doctor, or better yet, just leave the damn country if your that much of a wuss. I think the bitching is in your favor 1000/1, but congradulations on finally finding something to bitchy about that wasn't already being funded with my tax dollars.

If the business owner IS the dispenser of medicine, they can do as they like.

If the dispenser is not the business owner, then it's the business owner's decision as to how to deal with the situation.

You know those little signs in restaurants that say "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone."

So, pizza-bitch,... make me a human-baby-sausage pizza. Don't spare the placenta,.... bitch.
And how exactly is stoping a single cell from attatching to the Uterus a human baby?

Are you truly as stupid as you would have us believe..?! Are you really the asshole you would have us believe, nancy-boy?

Try to follow:
The government has authorized me to kill you.
You want me to kill you.
I refuse to do so.
You get annoyed at me for not giving you what you (legally) want.
The point is that simply because I'm authorized to do something, doesn't mean that I'm obligated to do it.


I'm missing the part where you then shoot the patient. That remark tends to contradict your entire argument, thus making it nonsensible.

you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights. you see, i have been having a very hard time deciding where i want to set up my future practice/lab, and they are helping me make the decision by giving me even more reason to leave America.
i third the canada motion! we're not going to be outlawing birth control or abortion any time soon.

unless bush declares us his enemy and takes us over. but other countries like us better so tehy'd help us out.

ULTIMATE IRONY

they claim this to be chemical abortion in the chance that the woman ovulates and we Assume it is fertilised, so they wont dispense birth control because of these slim chances.
however of course they fail to think things through and realise there is a reason they are on birth control, and if they get pregnant there is a chance htey will actually get an abortion, and you supposedly righteous doctors and pharmacists will have sure showed them the error of their ways huh! damned birth control trying to prevent abortions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Are you truly as stupid as you would have us believe..?!


Are you really the asshole you would have us believe, nancy-boy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Try to follow:
The government has authorized me to kill you.
You want me to kill you.
I refuse to do so.
You get annoyed at me for not giving you what you (legally) want.
The point is that simply because I'm authorized to do something, doesn't mean that I'm obligated to do it.


I'm missing the part where you then shoot the patient. That remark tends to contradict your entire argument, thus making it nonsensible.

Yes,.. I AM the asshole I would have you believe..! :)

How do the "don't pick on the homosexuals" folks around here feel about the "nancy-boy" comment..? :D

Regarding the "shooting the patient" part:

That part was intended as humor (ironic, he finally DID end up killing the patient!). You also prove yourself too dense to have a sense of humor above calling people "Nancy-boy".

Get a brain. Get real. And get a bit less angry my friend. You will eventually anyway, after you graduate into grown-up pants/skirts, but it would look much better on you than your dripping hatred.

it's kind of funny how these doctors who are refusing to perscribe the pill don't realise that pregnancy doesn't even begin until the fertilized ovum is implanted.

i mean, i thought that's somethign tehy taught in highschool biology.

and you know, it can't be abortion without a pregnancy.

Wow, I guess we really _don't_ get sarcasm.


when you are being sarcastic it helps if you add sarcasm signifiers

example: <sarcasm> I like your haircut </sarcasm> ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottle
you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights. you see, i have been having a very hard time deciding where i want to set up my future practice/lab, and they are helping me make the decision by giving me even more reason to leave America.

i third the canada motion! we're not going to be outlawing birth control or abortion any time soon.

unless bush declares us his enemy and takes us over. but other countries like us better so tehy'd help us out.

Other countries help (The People's Republic of) Canadia (spelling intended)...!?

I don't think so... Heh he he he he...

Though you might get some help from Andora. Maybe.... :)


And do you REALLY think we'd help you out by conquering your scrawny asses..?

We learned our lesson after that whole "Mouse that Roared" episode.

How do the "don't pick on the homosexuals" folks around here feel about the "nancy-boy" comment..? :D Oh, but it was quite worth it to use on a troll such as yourself.

Regarding the "shooting the patient" part:

That part was intended as humor (ironic, he finally DID end up killing the patient!). You also prove yourself too dense to have a sense of humor above calling people "Nancy-boy". Humor which defeats your own argument. Weak. Are you sure you have a grip on who is dense here?


Get a brain. Get real. And get a bit less angry my friend. You will eventually anyway, after you graduate into grown-up pants/skirts, but it would look much better on you than your dripping hatred.[/FONT][/COLOR] Funny statement coming from what likely is a 15 year old attempting to type and wank off to cheap pornos at the same time. Get a brain. Stop being a troll. Maybe get a date. You seem to lack in the social grace category.

Oh, but it was quite worth it to use on a troll such as yourself.
Humor which defeats your own argument. Weak. Are you sure you have a grip on who is dense here?

Funny statement coming from what likely is a 15 year old attempting to type and wank off to cheap pornos at the same time. Get a brain. Stop being a troll. Maybe get a date. You seem to lack in the social grace category.
*cough* hypocrite *cough*

when you are being sarcastic it helps if you add sarcasm signifiers

example: <sarcasm> I like your haircut </sarcasm> ;)


Stupid freakin' Americans..<sarcasm>!</sarcasm>


(( Did you CATCH that one,... huh,... didja..!? ))

Other countries help (The People's Republic of) Canadia (spelling intended)...!?

I don't think so... Heh he he he he...

Though you might get some help from Andora. Maybe.... :)


And do you REALLY think we'd help you out by conquering your scrawny asses..?

We learned our lesson after that whole "Mouse that Roared" episode.


how the hell would conquering canada help us? i'm glad my country has actual freedoms unlike yours.

and i mean that countries all over the world tend to like us better, our leaders haven't spent the past 4 years alienating allies, if the u.s. attacked canada, i'm sure that would be the last straw for a number of nations. like when germany attacked poland at the beginning of ww2.

Pharmacists do not prescribe medication.. they dispense it.

Pharmacists run/work for businesses. It's ther right to refuse service to whomever they wish (if it's a private not public business) it's just stupid to do so.

Those of you saying they should be forced to dispense medication that they personally, religiously object to are advocating forcing your will on them. Forcing them to go against their religious beliefs. Advocating violating their 1st amendment rights.

If you or anyone else runs into a doctor or pharmacist who do something that you dont believe in, you have the right to go somewhere else.

It's called tollerance people.. practice what you preach.

We are, the pharmacists are being intollerant if they will not give us the medicine we ourselves have no moral problem using. If THEY have a problem then THEY should not use it themselves, they have no right to not give it to US or they should put up a freaking sign,

"We are religious-right-fanatics who will not give you any sort of birth control medications, condoms, and will preach abstinence while lobbying to not teach sex education in school even though statistics consistently show that sex education and providing condoms reduces STD and unplanned pregnancies, while simple 'abstinence' programs do not. AMEN!"

*cough* hypocrite *cough*
Eh, I admit I'm not one to pass up flaming a troll in return. However, only in return, which is a bit of a difference.

People go to their doctors to get a prescription for birth control. It's the woman's RIGHT to use birth control if she wants to. It's NOT an abortion.

snip!

These RW religious whackos need to be stopped! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang:

I must've missed that part of the constitution that gives women the right to birth control? Link?

As always, good old capitalism will sort this out. If people think this is a bad idea, they will just take their business elsewhere. If these "right wing wackos" agree, then their bussiness will be drawn to these pharmcies. They aren't required by law to have every possible prescription on site at all times, so they can simply refuse to stock them and the problem goes away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
How do the "don't pick on the homosexuals" folks around here feel about the "nancy-boy" comment..?

Oh, but it was quite worth it to use on a troll such as yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Regarding the "shooting the patient" part:

That part was intended as humor (ironic, he finally DID end up killing the patient!). You also prove yourself too dense to have a sense of humor above calling people "Nancy-boy".

Humor which defeats your own argument. Weak. Are you sure you have a grip on who is dense here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Get a brain. Get real. And get a bit less angry my friend. You will eventually anyway, after you graduate into grown-up pants/skirts, but it would look much better on you than your dripping hatred.

Funny statement coming from what likely is a 15 year old attempting to type and wank off to cheap pornos at the same time. Get a brain. Stop being a troll. Maybe get a date. You seem to lack in the social grace category.

Have you by chance heard of "projection". The psychological term.

Quite the case, wouldn't you say, gang...?

You folks may not like what I say, but what I say boils down to this:

*) A government that FORCES a person to go against their basic tenents is a tyrany that should be opposed.

*) A person that "does what they're told regardless of their moral convictions" is the right hand of evil itself.

And have fun with the porno Chiky... but DO clean up after yourself..! :)

I must've missed that part of the constitution that gives women the right to birth control? Link?

Just because something is not in a nation's constitution does not mean it is not upheld in law. Furthermore, just because a right is not mentioned does not mean that right is not upheld. Otherwise the constitution would be several kilometers in length to cover all the rights allowed to the people.

I wouldn't even give them the term right wing. They are just wackos and morons.

Have you by chance heard of "projection". The psychological term.

Quite the case, wouldn't you say, gang...?

You folks may not like what I say, but what I say boils down to this:

*) A government that FORCES a person to go against their basic tenents is a tyrany that should be opposed.

*) A person that "does what they're told regardless of their moral convictions" is the right hand of evil itself.

And have fun with the porno Chiky... but DO clean up after yourself..!
That belief in and of itself is fine. Your approach in delivering said belief is wretched and condescending. Much like your own attitude. If you discovered this thing called tact, it might lend you more credibility on debate threads.
Not that I expect 15 year old sexaholics to really comprehend tact yet. Maybe in another 10 years you can join the "grown up world".

I must've missed that part of the constitution that gives women the right to birth control? Link?

As always, good old capitalism will sort this out. If people think this is a bad idea, they will just take their business elsewhere. If these "right wing wackos" agree, then their bussiness will be drawn to these pharmcies. They aren't required by law to have every possible prescription on site at all times, so they can simply refuse to stock them and the problem goes away.


NO, what you DID miss is the U.S. supreme court ruling that states cannot make abortions illegal in most circumstances ala' "ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)" and since these pharmcies are refusing to give them to give them birth control pills on the basis of "abortions" they are in fact breaking the law againse a supreme court ruling, therefore they are LEGALLY required to provide the pills if the people request them.

http://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Other countries help (The People's Republic of) Canadia (spelling intended)...!?

I don't think so... Heh he he he he...

Though you might get some help from Andora. Maybe....


And do you REALLY think we'd help you out by conquering your scrawny asses..?

We learned our lesson after that whole "Mouse that Roared" episode.


how the hell would conquering canada help us? i'm glad my country has actual freedoms unlike yours.

and i mean that countries all over the world tend to like us better, our leaders haven't spent the past 4 years alienating allies, if the u.s. attacked canada, i'm sure that would be the last straw for a number of nations. like when germany attacked poland at the beginning of ww2.

(( Does your shift key not work..? ))

If America conquered Canadia, the world would laugh their asses off.

They would say "Did you hear the one about the man who conquered his poodle in his backyard..!?"

Being the 51st state of the US would be a boon to you folks,.. but that's another subject entirely.

Go take a swim, chief.... :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Have you by chance heard of "projection". The psychological term.

Quite the case, wouldn't you say, gang...?

You folks may not like what I say, but what I say boils down to this:

*) A government that FORCES a person to go against their basic tenents is a tyrany that should be opposed.

*) A person that "does what they're told regardless of their moral convictions" is the right hand of evil itself.

And have fun with the porno Chiky... but DO clean up after yourself..!


That belief in and of itself is fine. Your approach in delivering said belief is wretched and condescending. Much like your own attitude. If you discovered this thing called tact, it might lend you more credibility on debate threads.
Not that I expect 15 year old sexaholics to really comprehend tact yet. Maybe in another 10 years you can join the "grown up world".

Meanwhile,... back at "projection".

I'm terribly sorry to offend your delicate ears with words of "wretchedness" and "condescension".

When the opening post states "These RW religious whackos need to be stopped!" I imagine that replies might come in in the same geveral vein.

When my "tact" would benefit you,.. it's appropriate.

When your "tactlessness" would benefit you,.. it's appropriate.

You make an excellent show of an intellectually bankrupt intolerant adolescent mindset (whatever your actual age).

Thanks for the great show Chiky..! :D

Meanwhile,... back at "projection".
I'm terribly sorry to offend your delicate ears with words of "wretchedness" and "condescension".
When the opening post states "These RW religious whackos need to be stopped!" I imagine that replies might come in in the same geveral vein.
When my "tact" would benefit you,.. it's appropriate.
When your "tactlessness" would benefit you,.. it's appropriate.
You make an excellent show of an intellectually bankrupt intolerant adolescent mindset (whatever your actual age).

Thanks for the great show Chiky..! :D

*sighs* Yet another show of anger mismanagement. Unable to handle criticism so you must instead lash out at whoever it was making the criticism. How positively adolescent. So I must say, thank YOU for the great show. You've more than proven an to be an interesting case of the insecure agressive child.

(( Does your shift key not work..? ))

If America conquered Canadia, the world would laugh their asses off.

They would say "Did you hear the one about the man who conquered his poodle in his backyard..!?"

Being the 51st state of the US would be a boon to you folks,.. but that's another subject entirely.

Go take a swim, chief.... :)

Can I just nitpick? It would be the the 53rd State, after Britain and Iraq.


Anyway, I'd tend to agree that a privately owned business can proscribe whatever the hell it wants when authorised, but isn't obliged to. Basically, if someone won't fill your prescription, ask for someone who will. If they won't do that, you have a legitimate grudge, and shouldn't go there at all. This raise the issue of what to do in small towns with just one pharmacy, though.

As for XZanatopia's comment on "ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)", though I'm neither American nor legally trained, the summary you gave gave the impression it was about the powers of State legislature, not the rights and responsibilities of private businesses. You don't have an NHS over there, to my knowledge, and even over here pharmacies are privately owned, so there's no element of legal finality in anything a pharmacist says, it's just how they want to do business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Meanwhile,... back at "projection".
I'm terribly sorry to offend your delicate ears with words of "wretchedness" and "condescension".
When the opening post states "These RW religious whackos need to be stopped!" I imagine that replies might come in in the same geveral vein.
When my "tact" would benefit you,.. it's appropriate.
When your "tactlessness" would benefit you,.. it's appropriate.
You make an excellent show of an intellectually bankrupt intolerant adolescent mindset (whatever your actual age).
Thanks for the great show Chiky..!



*sighs* Yet another show of anger mismanagement. Unable to handle criticism so you must instead lash out at whoever it was making the criticism. How positively adolescent. So I must say, thank YOU for the great show. You've more than proven an to be an interesting case of the insecure agressive child.

"I know you are,.. but what am I..!?" said chiky.

When it gets to this point, I think we can write off any further intelligent discourse.

You think so gang..!?

And all you die-hard leftists out there... Don't forget about Camy's lovely homophobic "Nancy-boy" comment from a ways back..! :)

"I know you are,.. but what am I..!?" said chiky.

When it gets to this point, I think we can write off any further intelligent discourse.

You think so gang..!

Pot... kettle... black. I think that about covers all that needs to be said here.

Now how about we get back on topic instead of prolonging this flame fest further?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
(( Does your shift key not work..? ))

If America conquered Canadia, the world would laugh their asses off.

They would say "Did you hear the one about the man who conquered his poodle in his backyard..!?"

Being the 51st state of the US would be a boon to you folks,.. but that's another subject entirely.

Go take a swim, chief....


Can I just nitpick? It would be the the 53rd State, after Britain and Iraq.


Anyway, I'd tend to agree that a privately owned business can proscribe whatever the hell it wants when authorised, but isn't obliged to. Basically, if someone won't fill your prescription, ask for someone who will. If they won't do that, you have a legitimate grudge, and shouldn't go there at all. This raise the issue of what to do in small towns with just one pharmacy, though.

As for XZanatopia's comment on "ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)", though I'm neither American nor legally trained, the summary you gave gave the impression it was about the powers of State legislature, not the rights and responsibilities of private businesses. You don't have an NHS over there, to my knowledge, and even over here pharmacies are privately owned, so there's no element of legal finality in anything a pharmacist says, it's just how they want to do business.

We CERTAINLY don't want Iraq as a state,... unless we got some MAJOR portion of that oil of theirs. Even after they "get up on their feet" we'll probably have to destroy Baghdad AGAIN when the (hopefully not) inevitable civil war happens and the mullahs take over.

But that's an aside...

And BRITAIN..!?

ANOTHER soon to be islamic republic..!? Are you NUTS..!!? :)

No doctor (or prescriber of drugs, or handyman) should be forced to perform a procedure that they find morally objectionable.

If the government does indeed rule that people MUST perform procedures that they find morally objectionable, the uproar would bring much "slaying of the monster and destruction of the king's toys".

:)

(( Does your shift key not work..? ))

If America conquered Canadia, the world would laugh their asses off.

They would say "Did you hear the one about the man who conquered his poodle in his backyard..!?"

Being the 51st state of the US would be a boon to you folks,.. but that's another subject entirely.

Go take a swim, chief.... :)


my shift key works, but really, why would i want to go to the effort of using it when talking to such pond scum as yourself?

and i sincerely doubt the world would be laughing their asses off if america attacked canada. if you'll recall shortly before world war two, the allies allowed germany to go so far in its conquest, but then once it attacked poland, well that was it. i'm sure that if canada was attacked by the u.s., people would realsie that the u.s. is indeed starting to attack western worlds and the madness must be stopped.

i don't quite get the poodle comment... that really made no sense.

and no, i really think it would be quite a shitty state of affairs to be subject to american rule. i like my freedoms, i like that other people have their freedoms, i like my decriminalized pot and i like that we have real freedom of speach instead of "freedom of speach, if you agree with what we say." i also like my universal health care, better government, cheaper university education at a damn fine institution, lower drinking age, and better national sports.

thus ends my conversation with you as i see no reason to go on with someone who's just trying to be a jackass.

Any worker is bound by the will of the customer. Any worker cannot force their will unto customers by refusing service because of beliefs. They have a duty, failure to do their duty should result in the termination of their employment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
](( Does your shift key not work..? ))

If America conquered Canadia, the world would laugh their asses off.

They would say "Did you hear the one about the man who conquered his poodle in his backyard..!?"

Being the 51st state of the US would be a boon to you folks,.. but that's another subject entirely.

Go take a swim, chief.... [/COLOR]



my shift key works, but really, why would i want to go to the effort of using it when talking to such pond scum as yourself?

and i sincerely doubt the world would be laughing their asses off if america attacked canada. if you'll recall shortly before world war two, the allies allowed germany to go so far in its conquest, but then once it attacked poland, well that was it. i'm sure that if canada was attacked by the u.s., people would realsie that the u.s. is indeed starting to attack western worlds and the madness must be stopped.

i don't quite get the poodle comment... that really made no sense.

and no, i really think it would be quite a shitty state of affairs to be subject to american rule. i like my freedoms, i like that other people have their freedoms, i like my decriminalized pot and i like that we have real freedom of speach instead of "freedom of speach, if you agree with what we say." i also like my universal health care, cheaper university education at a damn fine institution, lower drinking age, and better national sports.

You "don't quite get" much, no..? :)

And nice name calling there, pot-head poodleman...

I love the fact that you can say what you want to say! It simply illustrates, in it's own words, the mindset of folks like yourself.

I say "More Exhibition of Folks like Dakini..!"

Keep it up..! :)

Have fun in the great land of Canadia. And fear not,... the US DOES NOT WANT YOU..!

..in fact,.. take our dregs,... please.

Any worker is bound by the will of the customer. Any worker cannot force their will unto customers by refusing service because of beliefs. They have a duty, failure to do their duty should result in the termination of their employment.

"Jahwol, mein Furher..!"

Tell these religious f***ers to go away. I'm so sick of "it's against my beliefs"! I don't give a sh** about YOUR beliefs! If a person wants to use birth control, that's their right. I think anyone who has this problem should change doctors ASAP.
Change doctors and pharmacies? Pretty soon the women will all have to cover all exposed flesh, because it encourages sexual encounters? :eek:

Hmmmmmm

What happened to the tolerance that everyone seems so gung ho on these days? Why aren't you tolerating this doctor's decision to not prescribe something? It's not like he's compelled to because her life is in danger.

Actually, it could be. Women with endometreosis (probably misspelled) have to be on a heavy-dose birth control pill. Now being on it (a) increases their chances of getting uterine cancer (b) actually decreases the amount of time they have in their lives to get pregnant - a woman who is diagnosed with this often must have a hysterectomy by the time she turns 28. This age is reduced if she is not either pregnant, trying to get pregnant, or on the pill.

Any worker is bound by the will of the customer. Any worker cannot force their will unto customers by refusing service because of beliefs. They have a duty, failure to do their duty should result in the termination of their employment.
You are misinformed as to the actual relationship between customer and business.
The phrase that the customer is always right refers to the principle that as a business you should make the attempt to always make the customer happy. A business wants to keep their customers happy so that they have repeat customers. If the business choses to place restrictions on it's customers it's their right.
The only power a customer has is his ability to take his business elsewhere. If enough of the customers take their business elsewhere, the original business will go out of business. And the customer has been proven "right".

If what that woman said is true, and using the pill can result in the death of a fertilized egg, then anyone who opposes abortion could obviously not support it.

If anyone who opposes abortion sees every fertilized egg as a true human life, then they need to start prosecuting every sexually active woman out there for neglect and putting her in jail. (and yes, this includes married women too).

You do not have any intention of compromising your beliefs, and neither should we. Also, I like how an employee was fired because of an incident like this. I remember the recent thread on the woman who was fired because she supported Kerry. Well, now we have a person who was fired for opposing abortion. Therefore, as I pointed out in that thread, it evens out.

These two examples are not equivalent. Having a bumper sticker professing a certain belief does not affect your ability to properly do your job (unless your job is driving). Not dispensing medication to a person because of a belief when you are a pharmacist is affecting your ability to do your job. Therefore, you can be fired for not doing your job.

As far as I'm concerned, its not a right for a woman to fuck whomever she wishes whenever she wants, without having to worry about consequences. In my opinion, the world today has serious issues due to the public's singularly dedicated interest in making life as easy and conscious free as possible.

Of course, there are many, many reasons that a woman may be on birth control even if she is completely abstinent. But I suppose in your little world, a woman has to be a complete slut to be on the pill.

You folks may not like what I say, but what I say boils down to this:

*) A government that FORCES a person to go against their basic tenents is a tyrany that should be opposed.

*) A person that "does what they're told regardless of their moral convictions" is the right hand of evil itself.



For your first point, no one is disputing that. None of us are saying that the government should go in, take the pharmacist's hand, and force him/her to dispense the pills.

And yes, it would be bad for a person to do what they are told regardless of their moral convictions.

However, if not doing what you are told means that you are not doing the job that you were hired to do, your employer has every right to fire you - and you have none really to complain. It is not discrimination to fire someone for not doing their job.

No doctor (or prescriber of drugs, or handyman) should be forced to perform a procedure that they find morally objectionable.

If the government does indeed rule that people MUST perform procedures that they find morally objectionable, the uproar would bring much "slaying of the monster and destruction of the king's toys".

:)

You are right, no person should be forced to perform a procedure that they find morally objectionable. However, if their job entails that they do so, and they decide not to do so - they have violated their contract with their employer and the employer has every right to fire them.

God damn Ieko.. ahh whatever. First, as a jew, I shall call you a bitch for likening forcing someone to DO HIS GOD DAMN JOB or get fired, to the nazis. It's not like anyone is going to shoot the pharmacists for not giving certain medicines, but if he's starving or something because he lost his job, it's his own fault. It's not his job to choose whether or not a patient get medicine already authorized by a medical professional, that decision was made by that medical professional. The pharmacist reads the perscription, making sure it's authentic, or whatever he does, then he gives the medicine. Give me a pharmacist with a degree in medicine and maybe I'll give a shit about what he thinks, but no person who is mentally sound would waste those years in school for a low pay, dead-end job.

And yeah, I'm Canadian, and let me tell you, we would want you no more than you want us. Our lives are very much like yours, except we don't have those religious nut jobs trying to outlaw things like birth control pills, which are all prefertilization contraceptives. You know what happens to the millions(or thousands, don't remember sex ed too well) of sperm that don't reach the egg? They die, they all die. (sarcasm) What kind or heartless bastard would murder all those innocent babies? We should outlaw sex! And you know what else? Those damn women who LET THEIR EGG DIE EVERY MONTH are murdering countless babies over their lifetime, so anyone who has a period should be put to death.(end sarcasm) And lastly, I love Canada. 11,000 Less gun murders a year, universal healthcare, AND POT, BITCHES.

One big factor in my wife and I deciding to live in Australia, rather than the US ( She's american ) is the religious nut jobs who want to take so many rights away.

Rights to her own body are, ( shock horror ) very important to her. In some countries the pill IS a right. In Australia, you get a 6 month supply for less than 1 month in the US. ( And the pharmacy will ALWAYS give it to you. )

Liberals simply want freedom of choice for all. If you don't like something, then fine, they're never forcing you to do it. the Far Right Fundies and nutjobs of conservatism on the other hand get offended if you don't live the way they tell you to. No choice, no freedom there.

My wife is very happy to not be in the US right now.

Oh, and she used to be Republican. :D

God damn Ieko.. ahh whatever. First, as a jew, I shall call you a bitch for likening forcing someone to DO HIS GOD DAMN JOB or get fired, to the nazis. It's not like anyone is going to shoot the pharmacists for not giving certain medicines, but if he's starving or something because he lost his job, it's his own fault. It's not his job to choose whether or not a patient get medicine already authorized by a medical professional, that decision was made by that medical professional. The pharmacist reads the perscription, making sure it's authentic, or whatever he does, then he gives the medicine. Give me a pharmacist with a degree in medicine and maybe I'll give a shit about what he thinks, but no person who is mentally sound would waste those years in school for a low pay, dead-end job.

And yeah, I'm Canadian, and let me tell you, we would want you no more than you want us. Our lives are very much like yours, except we don't have those religious nut jobs trying to outlaw things like birth control pills, which are all prefertilization contraceptives. You know what happens to the millions(or thousands, don't remember sex ed too well) of sperm that don't reach the egg? They die, they all die. (sarcasm) What kind or heartless bastard would murder all those innocent babies? We should outlaw sex! And you know what else? Those damn women who LET THEIR EGG DIE EVERY MONTH are murdering countless babies over their lifetime, so anyone who has a period should be put to death.(end sarcasm) And lastly, I love Canada. 11,000 Less gun murders a year, universal healthcare, AND POT, BITCHES.

You really dont know what a pharmacists job entails do you? You just talk from what you see when you go to the drug store to buy your pot?

A pharmacist isnt just someone who reads a prescription, validates it and then gives the medicine. A pharmacist has to be schooled rather extensively on drugs, their affects and possible interactions with other drugs. It's a lot of information he has to keep straight, as there are a lot of different drugs out there. He also has to know about the differences between name brand and generic drugs.
Assuming that the pharmacist is the boss in his own pharmacy, he most assuradly has the right to refuse service to someone, just as that someone has the right to seek service elsewhere. Suggesting that the pharmacist be forced to do something that his personal (be it religious or some other system) beliefs are against is very much like what the nazi ghestapo would do.

One big factor in my wife and I deciding to live in Australia, rather than the US ( She's american ) is the religious nut jobs who want to take so many rights away.

Rights to her own body are, ( shock horror ) very important to her. In some countries the pill IS a right. In Australia, you get a 6 month supply for less than 1 month in the US. ( And the pharmacy will ALWAYS give it to you. )

Liberals simply want freedom of choice for all. If you don't like something, then fine, they're never forcing you to do it. the Far Right Fundies and nutjobs of conservatism on the other hand get offended if you don't live the way they tell you to. No choice, no freedom there.

My wife is very happy to not be in the US right now.

Oh, and she used to be Republican. :D
Yet, here it's the Far Left Radicals and nutjobs of liberalism that want to curtail someones freedom of choice. That pharmacists/doctor's freedom of choice to not prescribe the pill.
They exist on both sides (shock horror).

No, your argument falls down when one places their own moral judgement over someone else. No one is forcing someone to be a pharmacist...while you can't help being a woman. ( in most cases, especially if you're born one! )

Besides, it's a business transaction. Morals should be kept out of it.

No, your argument falls down when one places their own moral judgement over someone else. No one is forcing someone to be a pharmacist...while you can't help being a woman. ( in most cases, especially if you're born one! )

Besides, it's a business transaction. Morals should be kept out of it.
It's a business transaction. That woman, if she doesnt like the service given at a particular pharmacy, can go to another one.

Im arguing for freedom of choice for everyone. You're arguing for the forcing of your will on someone else, denying them their rights.

Again, it's a little thing called tollerance.

"75% of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed from her body during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs! So basically, what these pro-life people are saying is that any woman who has had more than one period is a serial killer!" -George Carlin.

You and I both know there is no such thing as 'true freedom'. We bring laws in to stop say...a pharmacist from not serving someone simply because they're black etc etc.

The pharmacist is showing his intollerance. He has a choice yes. The womans choices are much more stark than ' will I sell something to this person today'. besides...he can always hand it over to his assistant etc.

Sometimes, there is no other pharmacy or place to get things though. What then?

Ultimately, my wife made a large choice. She chose another country over the US for the time being. Not everyone has that choice though.

You and I both know there is no such thing as 'true freedom'. We bring laws in to stop say...a pharmacist from not serving someone simply because they're black etc etc.

The pharmacist is showing his intollerance. He has a choice yes. The womans choices are much more stark than ' will I sell something to this person today'. besides...he can always hand it over to his assistant etc.

Sometimes, there is no other pharmacy or place to get things though. What then?

Ultimately, my wife made a large choice. She chose another country over the US for the time being. Not everyone has that choice though.

In todays age, in this country, there is no place where there is no choice. Other choices might not be so convenient, but they are there. No other pharmacies? Go to the internet. No electricity? Mail order. There is always something.
In my scenario, no one gets forced to do anything against their will.
In your scenario, you are forcing someone to do something against their will.
Which shows more tollerance for all parties involved?

Right now the Bush admin is trying to put an end to internet and mail order pharmacies for fear that people might "reimport" drugs from Canada. Hmmmm... That doesn't sound like choice to me in terms of consumer freedom or alternatives for a woman who has been denied access through a pharmacy.

Plus, what about the choice for said pharmacist on his chosen profession? If he didn't want to fill particular orders, perhaps he should have become a newsagent instead. It's healthcare! I mean, we expect an ER doctor to work on a car accident victim regardless of their race, creed, or circumstances of said accident. Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable for "tolerance" sake for a doctor to let a patient die because, "Sorry, I only work on secularists and I see a crucifix around this person's neck am assuming that he's a living assault to my personal views on religion. My personal choice!"

I don't know in the US but in Canada (look at the spelling, Iakeokeo, it might help your argument spelling it right) the pharmacyian has sworn an oath (just like doctors and lawyers) and refusing to give birth control pills to someone with a legitimate presciption is against that oath. The doctor should be reported.

I don't know in the US but in Canada (look at the spelling, Iakeokeo, it might help your argument spelling it right) the pharmacyian has sworn an oath (just like doctors and lawyers) and refusing to give birth control pills to someone with a legitimate presciption is against that oath. The doctor should be reported.
i personally just like the ignorant hypocrisy of the whole thing of denying some one birth control pills because of the slim chance the egg would be fertilized then "killed" instead of letting them have it so they wont have a REAL abortion later after htey get pregnant cuz the nut job wouldnt let them have birth control pills

It's basically like refusing service in a grocery store because the person is black..

Or, even, refusing to give the right to a wedding ceremony because the people are gay?

Funny how it's always the right-winger peoplezorz that are always telling you how you should live your life. The only difference is that when crazy religious nuts do it they're telling you how to live, while in this case the crazy liberal is only telling you that you be required to sell a perscription that a doctor already prescribed that may or may not be used for birth control. Isn't it discrimination anyway to refuse service to a woman? You could always bring that up. Go sue-happy people!

It's a business transaction. That woman, if she doesnt like the service given at a particular pharmacy, can go to another one.

If there is another one.

Im arguing for freedom of choice for everyone. You're arguing for the forcing of your will on someone else, denying them their rights.

No, we are simply arguing that if your job calls for you to do something. And you say "I'm sorry, I can't do that because it is against my moral beliefs," then you are not doing your job and can be fired. You cannot be *forced* to give someone medication, and if you find a pharmacy to work in that doesn't carry birth control, then that is fine. But if part of your job description (very few pharmacists have their own shop these days) is dispensing the pill and you don't do it - then there is adequate cause to fire you.

Again, it's a little thing called tollerance.

Nothing intolerant about asking someone to do the job they signed up to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

You folks may not like what I say, but what I say boils down to this:

*) A government that FORCES a person to go against their basic tenents is a tyrany that should be opposed.

*) A person that "does what they're told regardless of their moral convictions" is the right hand of evil itself.

For your first point, no one is disputing that. None of us are saying that the government should go in, take the pharmacist's hand, and force him/her to dispense the pills.

And yes, it would be bad for a person to do what they are told regardless of their moral convictions.

However, if not doing what you are told means that you are not doing the job that you were hired to do, your employer has every right to fire you - and you have none really to complain. It is not discrimination to fire someone for not doing their job.

And I ABSOLUTELY agree with on everything you've just said..! :D

Excellently put,... and I'm humbled in your presence.

God damn Ieko.. ahh whatever. First, as a jew, I shall call you a bitch for likening forcing someone to DO HIS GOD DAMN JOB or get fired, to the nazis. It's not like anyone is going to shoot the pharmacists for not giving certain medicines, but if he's starving or something because he lost his job, it's his own fault. It's not his job to choose whether or not a patient get medicine already authorized by a medical professional, that decision was made by that medical professional. The pharmacist reads the perscription, making sure it's authentic, or whatever he does, then he gives the medicine. Give me a pharmacist with a degree in medicine and maybe I'll give a shit about what he thinks, but no person who is mentally sound would waste those years in school for a low pay, dead-end job.

And yeah, I'm Canadian, and let me tell you, we would want you no more than you want us. Our lives are very much like yours, except we don't have those religious nut jobs trying to outlaw things like birth control pills, which are all prefertilization contraceptives. You know what happens to the millions(or thousands, don't remember sex ed too well) of sperm that don't reach the egg? They die, they all die. (sarcasm) What kind or heartless bastard would murder all those innocent babies? We should outlaw sex! And you know what else? Those damn women who LET THEIR EGG DIE EVERY MONTH are murdering countless babies over their lifetime, so anyone who has a period should be put to death.(end sarcasm) And lastly, I love Canada. 11,000 Less gun murders a year, universal healthcare, AND POT, BITCHES.

I seem to be in a rather agreeable mood today..! :)

I agree with you on the "killing eggs and sperm" question. I personally have no more problem with killing off sperm or "non-advanced stage embryos" than I do shaving,.. or scraping my tongue,... which it could use right now, by the way.

But no one should be forced to do ANYTHING that they feel morally objectionable by the government, or anyone else (employer, clergy, cop, etc).

If it means they get fired, that's just dandy, and that pink-slip should be worn as a badge of courage.

I'm VERY happy you are happy with Canada. It's such a beautiful country. And the people are even more beautiful than the vast expanses of lovliness.

I'm NOT being sarcastic. It truly is a marvelous place. I just find Canadian "chauvinism", just like American (USian) "chauvinism", or Andorian (http://www.andorra.ad/) "chauvinism" to be cause for ridicule.

And, yes Virginia,... you DO have religious nuts just like everyone has religious nuts.

Why can't people just use condoms?! That way innocent babies will not be slaughtered.

One big factor in my wife and I deciding to live in Australia, rather than the US ( She's american ) is the religious nut jobs who want to take so many rights away.

Rights to her own body are, ( shock horror ) very important to her. In some countries the pill IS a right. In Australia, you get a 6 month supply for less than 1 month in the US. ( And the pharmacy will ALWAYS give it to you. )

Liberals simply want freedom of choice for all. If you don't like something, then fine, they're never forcing you to do it. the Far Right Fundies and nutjobs of conservatism on the other hand get offended if you don't live the way they tell you to. No choice, no freedom there.

My wife is very happy to not be in the US right now.

Oh, and she used to be Republican.

Liberals do want freedom of choice for all. And, curiously, that is the same thing that Conservatives want.

So, there's something else going on here...

Is it truly "liberal" to force someone to do something they find morally objectionable? (assist in "murder" [their viewpoint!])

Is it truly "conservative" to force someone to do something they find morally objectionable? (stand by and watch someone be persecuted for their sexual orientation?)

The far-left "fundies" are just as perverse as the far-right "fundies".

(( I find the term "fundies" to be hilariously "5th grade" by the way. ))

Pick your battles wisely, folks. And most importantly, think for yourselves and don't blindly follow anyone!

Right now the Bush admin is trying to put an end to internet and mail order pharmacies for fear that people might "reimport" drugs from Canada. Hmmmm... That doesn't sound like choice to me in terms of consumer freedom or alternatives for a woman who has been denied access through a pharmacy.

Plus, what about the choice for said pharmacist on his chosen profession? If he didn't want to fill particular orders, perhaps he should have become a newsagent instead. It's healthcare! I mean, we expect an ER doctor to work on a car accident victim regardless of their race, creed, or circumstances of said accident. Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable for "tolerance" sake for a doctor to let a patient die because, "Sorry, I only work on secularists and I see a crucifix around this person's neck am assuming that he's a living assault to my personal views on religion. My personal choice!"

Can a doctor refuse to treat a patient (for whatever reason)... YES..!

Will that doctor be severely disciplined... YES..!

I don't know in the US but in Canada (look at the spelling, Iakeokeo, it might help your argument spelling it right) the pharmacyian has sworn an oath (just like doctors and lawyers) and refusing to give birth control pills to someone with a legitimate presciption is against that oath. The doctor should be reported.

My spelling, especially of Canadia ( :) ), is almost ALWAYS intentional.

I don't know what oath a "pharmacyian" swears to, assuming you mean "Pharmacist", and I really don't care.

The point is that no one should be forced to perform a procedure (business transaction, muffler job, root-canal, etc) that is morally objectionable to them.

If the price of their refusal to do it is to be fired, so be it.

Your type SEEMS to be arguing that they MUST do it.

My (admittedly sarcastic) response to that is "Jahwol, mein Furher..!"

Tell these religious f***ers to go away. I'm so sick of "it's against my beliefs"! I don't give a sh** about YOUR beliefs! If a person wants to use birth control, that's their right. I think anyone who has this problem should change doctors ASAP.

The whole point of using birth control pills is to avoid abortions. Don't people get that. Why the hell did religion come in between :confused:

Quote:
Originally Posted by East Canuck
I don't know in the US but in Canada (look at the spelling, Iakeokeo, it might help your argument spelling it right) the pharmacyian has sworn an oath (just like doctors and lawyers) and refusing to give birth control pills to someone with a legitimate presciption is against that oath. The doctor should be reported.

i personally just like the ignorant hypocrisy of the whole thing of denying some one birth control pills because of the slim chance the egg would be fertilized then "killed" instead of letting them have it so they wont have a REAL abortion later after htey get pregnant cuz the nut job wouldnt let them have birth control pills

That is an amazing irony, isn't it..! :)

I don't know in the US but in Canada (look at the spelling, Iakeokeo, it might help your argument spelling it right) the pharmacyian has sworn an oath (just like doctors and lawyers) and refusing to give birth control pills to someone with a legitimate presciption is against that oath. The doctor should be reported.
The oath that doctors swear (in the US) is called the Hippocratic oath. Part of it that is of particular importance to this thread :

I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never to do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

It states that the doctor may use his ability and judgement. Judgement as to what is right and wrong. If the patient disagrees they have the right, and should search out that second opinion.

Well I want to know when the 'Christian' right wing is going to come out against 1War, did not Jesus condemn war?. 2.The interest system, that is contrary to Biblical teaching,A lot of right wing 'Christians' have both credit cards and bank accounts. 3. The extreme cruelty with which animals on farms are treated, which is so bad it goes against the law of the 'limb of the living' It is one thing to eat animals, it is another to keep them in conditions of cruelty, to kill them routinely in a cruel way, 4.the extreme immodesty seen even in their 'churches', They could as a group in their own churches and social groupings, actually DO somthing about that one but they are afraid to, in case their ignorant people stop going to church and giving their church money over this.

I have an acquaintence who is with his wife do missionary work, he and his wife went to Africa, and he complained that the African Christians expected his wife to wear a skirt to her ankles, and three quarter sleeves 'EVEN on our day off!' and I said 'ah how dare those African Christians expect an American Christian to actually dress like a Christian is supposed to dresss! and I thought the work of the Lord did not have days off! C'mon it's not like they asked her to wear a burqa!'

They expected her to dress with at least as much modesty as the female followers of Jesus were expected to dress, do you think the Virgin Mary went around in bermuda shorts on a hot day? She was only ever totally naked in the mikva, to take her monthly bath and otherwise was dressed modestly, The nerve of those Africans expecting her example be followed!


It's funny how they act when you 'out right wing' these people, you find out that their commitment is not to self control, but that they are the same tired control freeks all other religious extremists are and that mostly they don't bother with logic. They keep saying that the Christian is freed from the Law of Moses in ALL it's particulars when in fact only the extremes of that Law are dispensed with, it is not a good argument for when inadequate study and practice are called into question.

Back to the birth control question. Ceaucescu the dictator in Romania (for those of you in Rio Del, he was an extreme Communist dictator) wanted Romania to be a country with a huge population, so that his nation could dominate the Balkans. He outlawed EVERY form of birth control, and of course abortion as well. The examinations women were subjected to could actually CAUSE abortion in many instances but if that happened the WOMAN was guilty not the people giving these exams. Families often did not have the means to feed all their children, Romania was and still is a very poor country. They put their children into orphanages, and the orphanages could not feed all those children, or care for them adequately. There are prisoners of war in terrible wars who are treated better than these poor innocent children! Their heads were shaved, They sat naked in rooms, and were crawling with lice. No one hugged the little babies, and they were not fed enough. When a child was very malnourished, sometimes they recieved blood transfusions, to keep them alive. Then after a time HIV-AIDS ripped through these orphanages. This all started with an extremist attitude to abortion and birth control, and it had no 'religious' basis, religion was illegal in Romania, it was a Communist country.
This policy had terrible effects that Romania still has to deal with. This is the result of a total ban on ALL forms of birth control, abortion, and the fact that women really in most societies still do not have the power to say no, and if they did men don't listen.

When I hit a right wing 'Christian' with the results of a society totally banning all forms of birth control, none of them really want to live with that kind of mess either.

Right now the Bush admin is trying to put an end to internet and mail order pharmacies for fear that people might "reimport" drugs from Canada. Hmmmm... That doesn't sound like choice to me in terms of consumer freedom or alternatives for a woman who has been denied access through a pharmacy.
Ever hear of Planned Paranthood? :rolleyes:

Plus, what about the choice for said pharmacist on his chosen profession? If he didn't want to fill particular orders, perhaps he should have become a newsagent instead. It's healthcare! I mean, we expect an ER doctor to work on a car accident victim regardless of their race, creed, or circumstances of said accident. Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable for "tolerance" sake for a doctor to let a patient die because, "Sorry, I only work on secularists and I see a crucifix around this person's neck am assuming that he's a living assault to my personal views on religion. My personal choice!"
Telling a person that since they chose the job pharmacist in the first place, they now have no choice but to issue any prescription is like saying that the since the woman chose to have sex in the first place, she now has no choice but to carry any pregnancy to term. In today's age, neither position is right.

It's basically like refusing service in a grocery store because the person is black..

Or, even, refusing to give the right to a wedding ceremony because the people are gay?

Funny how it's always the right-winger peoplezorz that are always telling you how you should live your life. The only difference is that when crazy religious nuts do it they're telling you how to live, while in this case the crazy liberal is only telling you that you be required to sell a perscription that a doctor already prescribed that may or may not be used for birth control. Isn't it discrimination anyway to refuse service to a woman? You could always bring that up. Go sue-happy people!

.."It's basically like refusing service in a grocery store because the person is black"..

And the owner of the grocery store has the "right to refuse service to anyone".

As they should.

Of course,.. they won't stay in business very long,.. if indeed the building they occupy isn't reduced to ashes within very short order...! :)

So, the stupidity of the store owner has brought his own doom. That's a good thing.


This adolescent preoccupation with "the right-wing nuts always telling us what to do" sounds SO much like the rantings of a 15 year-old.

I realize that most, if not all, far-left type folks (and those taught and raised by them) are indoctrinated into a semi-permanent "arrested adolescence", but doesn't that ever wear on you..?

Of course the answer to that is "No,.. we get quite a lot of 'community spirit' and 'energy for activity' from being pissed off all the time!"

..which is, indeed, a major motivator for the rebellious adolescent.

Anyway,. that's natural enough. Keep it up, as it keeps the "grown ups" from falling into the static stupor of complacency.

..but eventually, on an individual basis, we all grow up. :)

Why can't people just use condoms?! That way innocent babies will not be slaughtered.
because condoms are only 80-90% effective
meaning that sooner or later you WILL get pregnant
the pill is over 99% effective.
the best (but rather obsessive) plan is to use both the pill AND a condom. more disease protection and more pregnancy protection.

as i recall the original post/link the issue is that EMPLOYEES are choosing to refuse to fill prescriptions for the pill and are wanting the state governments to pass a law saying they CANT be fired for it.
thats a whole nother kettle of fish than a business owner deciding that his pharmacy will only fill MORAL prescriptions.

oh the other hand i think there have been laws passed allowing hospitals to refuse to do abortions and for the protection of individual employees working at hospitals that perform abortions to refuse to participate in any abortion related job and not be fired for it.

because condoms are only 80-90% effective
meaning that sooner or later you WILL get pregnant
the pill is over 99% effective.
the best (but rather obsessive) plan is to use both the pill AND a condom. more disease protection and more pregnancy protection.

as i recall the original post/link the issue is that EMPLOYEES are choosing to refuse to fill prescriptions for the pill and are wanting the state governments to pass a law saying they CANT be fired for it.
thats a whole nother kettle of fish than a business owner deciding that his pharmacy will only fill MORAL prescriptions.

oh the other hand i think there have been laws passed allowing hospitals to refuse to do abortions and for the protection of individual employees working at hospitals that perform abortions to refuse to participate in any abortion related job and not be fired for it.
yeah maybe they shouldnt dispense prescribed meds to black people because they dont beleive black people are really people

and dont go on about how that is different, its not.

My spelling, especially of Canadia ( :) ), is almost ALWAYS intentional.

And it pisses me to no end. Do I say the UAss? No. So if you can't even have the basic decency to say Canada, I would ask you to fuck off.

I don't know what oath a "pharmacyian" swears to, assuming you mean "Pharmacist", and I really don't care.

The point is that no one should be forced to perform a procedure (business transaction, muffler job, root-canal, etc) that is morally objectionable to them.

Right, Pharmacist. The problem of having english as my second language.

When you swear an oath, you are to respect it. If you don't respect it, there will be severe consequences. The pharmacist in this instance is violating his oath and shoul be fired, sued and prevented to continue practicing.

Your type SEEMS to be arguing that they MUST do it.

My (admittedly sarcastic) response to that is "Jahwol, mein Furher..!"

They ARE under the law and their oath required to provide the pill. End of story.

Ever hear of Planned Paranthood? :rolleyes:


Telling a person that since they chose the job pharmacist in the first place, they now have no choice but to issue any prescription is like saying that the since the woman chose to have sex in the first place, she now has no choice but to carry any pregnancy to term. In today's age, neither position is right.

Except that the Pharmacist has signed a contract, legally binding him/her to fill prescriptions.

As Iakeokeo said, if they don't agree, they can resign... and they should. It can be their PROTEST against what they perceive as wrong, and it will open the job position up for someone who WILL do the job they were contracted to do.

3 words for you nutjobs arguing for this crazy lady

Griswald v Connecticut




lets not to mention the great irony when you the religious right start denying people contraceptives to prevent "abortions", they are going to have sex and have real abortions anyway


abstinence has NEVER worked, EVER. people are going to have sex, welcome to the real world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
My spelling, especially of Canadia ( ), is almost ALWAYS intentional.


And it pisses me to no end. Do I say the UAss? No. So if you can't even have the basic decency to say Canada, I would ask you to fuck off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I don't know what oath a "pharmacyian" swears to, assuming you mean "Pharmacist", and I really don't care.

The point is that no one should be forced to perform a procedure (business transaction, muffler job, root-canal, etc) that is morally objectionable to them.



Right, Pharmacist. The problem of having english as my second language.

When you swear an oath, you are to respect it. If you don't respect it, there will be severe consequences. The pharmacist in this instance is violating his oath and shoul be fired, sued and prevented to continue practicing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your type SEEMS to be arguing that they MUST do it.

My (admittedly sarcastic) response to that is "Jahwol, mein Furher..!"



They ARE under the law and their oath required to provide the pill. End of story.

.."And it pisses me to no end. Do I say the UAss? No. So if you can't even have the basic decency to say Canada, I would ask you to fuck off."..

Actually, UAss is pretty funny..! :) Keep using it,.. We need more UAssholes in the world..!

My use of Canadan and Canadia is, obviously, purposefully designed to piss off "shallow" Canadans.

As Foghorn would say: "It's a joke son,.. it's a joke,.. sheesh...!"

Und ven you svear ein oath to za Furher,.. you are to reschpect it, und do your duty..!

Heil..!

[COLOR=NavyI realize that most, if not all, far-left type folks (and those taught and raised by them) are indoctrinated into a semi-permanent "arrested adolescence", but doesn't that ever wear on you..?

Of course the answer to that is "[B]No,.. we get quite a lot of 'community spirit' and 'energy for activity' from being pissed off all the time!"

..which is, indeed, a major motivator for the rebellious adolescent.

Anyway,. that's natural enough. Keep it up, as it keeps the "grown ups" from falling into the static stupor of complacency.

..but eventually, on an individual basis, we all grow up. :)

No! You can't make me! I'll go to bed when I want!

.."And it pisses me to no end. Do I say the UAss? No. So if you can't even have the basic decency to say Canada, I would ask you to fuck off."..

Actually, UAss is pretty funny..! :) Keep using it,.. We need more UAssholes in the world..!

My use of Canadan and Canadia is, obviously, purposefully designed to piss off "shallow" Canadans.

As Foghorn would say: "It's a joke son,.. it's a joke,.. sheesh...!"

Und ven you svear ein oath to za Furher,.. you are to reschpect it, und do your duty..!

Heil..!

And your joke is tasteless, not funny and dowright mean. I may be a shallow "Canadans" but you sir are insulting a complete country. If you don't stop now, I will report it to a mod.

And I'm not so keen on the nazi reference too. Cut it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I realize that most, if not all, far-left type folks (and those taught and raised by them) are indoctrinated into a semi-permanent "arrested adolescence", but doesn't that ever wear on you..?

Of course the answer to that is "[B]No,.. we get quite a lot of 'community spirit' and 'energy for activity' from being pissed off all the time!"

..which is, indeed, a major motivator for the rebellious adolescent.

Anyway,. that's natural enough. Keep it up, as it keeps the "grown ups" from falling into the static stupor of complacency.

..but eventually, on an individual basis, we all grow up.


No! You can't make me! I'll go to bed when I want!

And I don't want to..! I like little children IMMENSELY..!

Coochy-cooooo,... coochy-coochy-coochy-coochy-cooooooooo...! :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
.."And it pisses me to no end. Do I say the UAss? No. So if you can't even have the basic decency to say Canada, I would ask you to fuck off."..

Actually, UAss is pretty funny..! Keep using it,.. We need more UAssholes in the world..!

My use of Canadan and Canadia is, obviously, purposefully designed to piss off "shallow" Canadans.

As Foghorn would say: "It's a joke son,.. it's a joke,.. sheesh...!"

Und ven you svear ein oath to za Furher,.. you are to reschpect it, und do your duty..!

Heil..!


And your joke is tasteless, not funny and dowright mean. I may be a shallow "Canadans" but you sir are insulting a complete country. If you don't stop now, I will report it to a mod.

And I'm not so keen on the nazi reference too. Cut it out.

:)

Report away pal.....

Your delicate tastes and fragile sensibilities are not my concern.

As some wise person (whom I can't think of at present) said "If they can't take joke, Fnoot 'em..!"

(( Slightly altered version, that. ))

The "nazi" reference is a direct representation of my view that actions such as you would represent as your own are equivalent to the greatest evils of the utterly irredeemable and inherently evil phenomena we call "NAZIISM".

You hold sympathies with the nazies..?

You would not call them evil..?

You espouse a mindset that agres with them on this topic.

Where does your thinking differ from theirs..?

When I see evil,... I call it evil.



..and don't call me "sir".

And I don't want to..! I like little children IMMENSELY..!

Coochy-cooooo,... coochy-coochy-coochy-coochy-cooooooooo...! :D

You're evil.

But funny.

How ironic. :D

As a random post that has nothing to do with the topic, but something to do with a new sub-topic:

I think the usage of the word "Canadia" is kinda funny :p. I also find UAss to be funny too :p. I also have made jokes about "Ah crap, let's just hope Bush doesn't address the people of Niger."

Lighten up a bit. I'm half canadian (see, it's canadIAn. Not canadan) and it's just a frigging joke.

As a random post that has nothing to do with the topic, but something to do with a new sub-topic:

I think the usage of the word "Canadia" is kinda funny :p. I also find UAss to be funny too :p. I also have made jokes about "Ah crap, let's just hope Bush doesn't address the people of Niger."

Lighten up a bit. I'm half canadian (see, it's canadIAn. Not canadan) and it's just a frigging joke.

I stopped to consider it a joke when I find it in every damn thread where he posts. You would come to the same conclusion if I used UAss in every thread I post in. And I would be called for flaming...

yeah maybe they shouldnt dispense prescribed meds to black people because they dont beleive black people are really people

and dont go on about how that is different, its not.

Yes it is.

Refusing service to black people is done because of a problem with who they are.

Refusing service to a woman who wants the pill is done because of a problem with what the pill will do.

Yes it is.

Refusing service to black people is done because of a problem with who they are.

Refusing service to a woman who wants the pill is done because of a problem with what the pill will do.
i'll take wrong for 200 alex

she does not have a PROFESSIONAL issue with what the pill will do, she has a PERSONAL issue with what the pill will do, so thus, you are saying she can deny people the PRESCRIBED medicine because of what she PERSONALLY believes mgiht happen? what if she personally believes all black people are drug addicts and thus refuses to give them ANY prescribed medicine?

you know, as a very well educated and (so far) successful American woman, i feel that i should thank these relgious nutters for their efforts to take away my medical rights. you see, i have been having a very hard time deciding where i want to set up my future practice/lab, and they are helping me make the decision by giving me even more reason to leave America.

Please don't. We need all the people with half a brain we can get.

I stopped to consider it a joke when I find it in every damn thread where he posts. You would come to the same conclusion if I used UAss in every thread I post in. And I would be called for flaming...

The way I see it... being neither Canadian NOR American, is that it doesn't really make a lot of difference.

Most of the Canadians and Americans I have ever met, have referred to the people from the far north of England as being "Scotch". Not "Scots", or "Scottish", but "Scotch". Do my Scottish friends complain a great deal about this? No - they roll their eyes.

I think what Iakeokeo was originally getting at is the fact that people from Canada aren't Canadan - which one would assume would be the logical extension. They are Canadian, which implies that their nation of origin is Canadia.

For an example, look at Latvians, Estonians or Albanians.

The fact that they are NOT from Canadia, is what makes it funny.

Personally, I wouldn't take it as an insult.

Please don't. We need all the people with half a brain we can get.

Don't listen to Nehek-Nehek... America has all the people with "Half a brain" it needs....

You need to stay because you can bring that average up!!!

;)

So what if a pharmacist refused to dispense heart or cancer medications for someone because they disapproved of the fact that the medicine was tested on animals?
Or if a pharmacist refused to dispense HIV medications on the grounds that "only perverts and drug addicts get AIDS?"
Are either of those justifiable?

So what if a pharmacist refused to dispense heart or cancer medications for someone because they disapproved of the fact that the medicine was tested on animals?
Or if a pharmacist refused to dispense HIV medications on the grounds that "only perverts and drug addicts get AIDS?"
Are either of those justifiable?
only if the pharmacist is a christian fundamentalist :rolleyes:

actually if a pharmacist wanted to open up a store called "fundamentalist christian drugs" where it was understood that all your prescriptions had to pass some kind of moral test before being filled, i would have no problem with that. its his business not mine

but to have an individual pharmacist in a walgreens somehwere decide that his morality wont allow him to fill certain prescriptions should be a firable offense and deserve a reprimand from his professional board.

Thank you. I agree totally. If someone *owns* a business, then it is that person's decision what legal products and services he or she wishes to provide. Employees work for the owner of the company and abide by those standards or leave. If the proposed laws were *REALLY* about protecting individual morality, then it would mean that an extreme aethist working in a bookstore could refuse to sell Bibles or other religious materials without fear of being fired, an Orthodox Jew who worked as waiter would not have to serve dishes containing non-Kosher foods, etc.

Clearly a law that would give special rights (the right to flaunt company policy without fear of negative consequences) based on one very specific moral stance is NOT in place to protect employess from having to violate their moral or religious principles. Rather is is governmental endorsement of one specific moral/religious stance and by extension a condemnation of opposing moral/religious viewpoints.

If the proposed laws were *REALLY* about protecting individual morality, then it would mean that an extreme aethist working in a bookstore could refuse to sell Bibles or other religious materials without fear of being fired, an Orthodox Jew who worked as waiter would not have to serve dishes containing non-Kosher foods, etc.

Clearly a law that would give special rights (the right to flaunt company policy without fear of negative consequences) based on one very specific moral stance is NOT in place to protect employess from having to violate their moral or religious principles. Rather is is governmental endorsement of one specific moral/religious stance and by extension a condemnation of opposing moral/religious viewpoints.

they should do that then, extend it to all religious or non-religious groups. people who consider purple to be an evil colour wouldn't have to ring through purple clothes..

that would be great, no one would buy anything just because everyone would be refusing to sell it and then they'd retract teh stupid law.

So what if a pharmacist refused to dispense heart or cancer medications for someone because they disapproved of the fact that the medicine was tested on animals?
Or if a pharmacist refused to dispense HIV medications on the grounds that "only perverts and drug addicts get AIDS?"
Are either of those justifiable?

oh, what about if someone was opposed to perscription painkillers? or anti-biotics? or hormone replacement therapy? or viagra?
though i get the feeling that the viarga one wouldn't fly.

A science teacher likes creationism, so decides to refuse to teach evolution. Same thing, but lwe should see how the right responds to that.

It's a business transaction. That woman, if she doesnt like the service given at a particular pharmacy, can go to another one.

Im arguing for freedom of choice for everyone. You're arguing for the forcing of your will on someone else, denying them their rights.

Again, it's a little thing called tollerance.

What about the freedom of choice for the *OWNER* of the pharmacy to decide what medicines will be provided to whom without having to worry about losing business because her or she can't fire a pharmacist who's morals are upset by handing out medicines that the OWNER deems proper.

Unless you support the idea that any employee in ANY job can refuse ANY goods or services to customers because which are not in line with their moral beliefs without the company being able to take punitive action, then you are not supporting tolerance for individual beliefs, but are rather supporting one particular belief.

Okay, let's suppose the Pill is banned? What will be the consequences, considering the following information?

How many children in the U.S. live in poverty?

12.1 million children lived in poverty in 2002. The rate of poverty among children was 16.7%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

Each day in America, 2,019 babies are born into poverty. This means that a child is born into poverty every 43 seconds. Almost 80 percent of poor children live in working households.

One in five children is poor during the first three years of life – the time of greatest brain development.

An American child is born without health insurance every minute – 90 percent of our nine million uninsured children live in working families.

In Minnesota, 121,691 children lived in poverty in 2002. That translates to a poverty rate of 9.6%, the second-lowest in the nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And I don't want to..! I like little children IMMENSELY..!

Coochy-cooooo,... coochy-coochy-coochy-coochy-cooooooooo...!



You're evil.

But funny.

How ironic.


I admit it.... I am evil,... much like the humpy-humpy dog is evil for disturbing the sensibilities of the assembled kennel club ladies.

I'm not sure how that's ironic though..?

I try to illuminate with my "brightness". I encourage everyone to illuminate whatever they care about as brightly as possible.

For we are ALL the children of LIGHT... and if we do anything less, we disappoint the BIG BRIGHT ONE.

What about the freedom of choice for the *OWNER* of the pharmacy to decide what medicines will be provided to whom without having to worry about losing business because her or she can't fire a pharmacist who's morals are upset by handing out medicines that the OWNER deems proper.

Unless you support the idea that any employee in ANY job can refuse ANY goods or services to customers because which are not in line with their moral beliefs without the company being able to take punitive action, then you are not supporting tolerance for individual beliefs, but are rather supporting one particular belief.

That's not what I was stating.. I was stating, and have stated in this thread, that if said pharmacist was the owner of pharmacy. If the pharmacist does not own the pharmacy, it's still his right to refuse service, however it's the owner's right to fire that pharmacist.

In my scenarios, no one is getting forced to do anything.... in the opposing views someone is forcing their will onto another.

A science teacher likes creationism, so decides to refuse to teach evolution. Same thing, but lwe should see how the right responds to that.
How is the right going to respond to this? Ok let's see.. it's that teacher's right to not teach evolution, and only creationism. It's the school districts right to not hire said teacher for his opinion.
Pretty simple.

Okay, let's suppose the Pill is banned? What will be the consequences, considering the following information?

How many children in the U.S. live in poverty?

12.1 million children lived in poverty in 2002. The rate of poverty among children was 16.7%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

Each day in America, 2,019 babies are born into poverty. This means that a child is born into poverty every 43 seconds. Almost 80 percent of poor children live in working households.

One in five children is poor during the first three years of life – the time of greatest brain development.

An American child is born without health insurance every minute – 90 percent of our nine million uninsured children live in working families.

In Minnesota, 121,691 children lived in poverty in 2002. That translates to a poverty rate of 9.6%, the second-lowest in the nation.

While I completely agree with you as to the seriousness of "population control" that's not what the issue at hand is. The issue is whether or not a pharmacist has the right to refuse issuing specific medication based on his personal beliefs.

As a random post that has nothing to do with the topic, but something to do with a new sub-topic:

I think the usage of the word "Canadia" is kinda funny . I also find UAss to be funny too . I also have made jokes about "Ah crap, let's just hope Bush doesn't address the people of Niger."

Lighten up a bit. I'm half canadian (see, it's canadIAn. Not canadan) and it's just a frigging joke.

Ooooooo... pronunciation would be VERY important in "Niger" wouldn't it..!? :) Yoinks..!

Let's see,.. Are you Canadian on the RIGHT side, or the LEFT..?

:D

You know, I'm always jolted slighty when someone says "Half American", or even "Half Canadian"..!

I think that comes from my view of what "being an American (Canadian)" means to me.

"Half American" has the same "ring" to it that "Half living upstairs" does, to me.

We are either "living upstairs", or not.

It sounds MUCH more natural, to me (my opinion, as always), for a peasant farmer in deepest darkest Cambodia to say "I am an American!" than it does to hear the son of an american father and other-national mom say "I'm half American."

It just seems "wrong",... like a faultily pronounced word,... like "nukeular".

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goed
As a random post that has nothing to do with the topic, but something to do with a new sub-topic:

I think the usage of the word "Canadia" is kinda funny . I also find UAss to be funny too . I also have made jokes about "Ah crap, let's just hope Bush doesn't address the people of Niger."

Lighten up a bit. I'm half canadian (see, it's canadIAn. Not canadan) and it's just a frigging joke.


I stopped to consider it a joke when I find it in every damn thread where he posts. You would come to the same conclusion if I used UAss in every thread I post in. And I would be called for flaming...

You seem terribly concerned with "disturbing the sensibilities of others"..

PC'ness got your tongue..? :)

Yet another common syndrome of the left,... though actually, even that's derivitive of the fact that "the left" is developmentally arrested in that "very peer-pressure sensitive" period we call adolescence.

Go ahead,.. flame away. Or not... I really don't care. I've given you something to bounce off of.

Provoking Canadians is quite amusing. They tend to be (at least here) so very sensitive at their "perceived place" in the world.

I believe that Canada is a great country, with great physical features, great people, and an interesting view on the world.

I also think the UAss is a great country, with the same greatness.

Of course,... I also love Andorra,.. whatever that may imply.

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakartopia
Yes it is.

Refusing service to black people is done because of a problem with who they are.

Refusing service to a woman who wants the pill is done because of a problem with what the pill will do.

i'll take wrong for 200 alex

she does not have a PROFESSIONAL issue with what the pill will do, she has a PERSONAL issue with what the pill will do, so thus, you are saying she can deny people the PRESCRIBED medicine because of what she PERSONALLY believes mgiht happen? what if she personally believes all black people are drug addicts and thus refuses to give them ANY prescribed medicine?

.."so thus, you are saying she can deny people the PRESCRIBED medicine because of what she PERSONALLY believes mgiht happen?"..

If the commandant "prescribes" death by gas, can the obergrenadier not refuse to pull the lever..?

.."what if she personally believes all black people are drug addicts and thus refuses to give them ANY prescribed medicine?"..

Then she will go out of business,.. through various mechanisms.

.."so thus, you are saying she can deny people the PRESCRIBED medicine because of what she PERSONALLY believes mgiht happen?"..

If the commandant "prescribes" death by gas, can the obergrenadier not refuse to pull the lever..?

.."what if she personally believes all black people are drug addicts and thus refuses to give them ANY prescribed medicine?"..

Then she will go out of business,.. through various mechanisms.
its not her job to decide who gets what medicine, she can dispense it or quit, unless of course there is a PROFESSIONAL problem, like the prescription is would kill her. denying the medicine because of PERSONAL reasons is ignorant and shouldnt happen unless its her personal little store, then i hope she goes out of business

its not her job to decide who gets what medicine, she can dispense it or quit, unless of course there is a PROFESSIONAL problem, like the prescription is would kill her. denying the medicine because of PERSONAL reasons is ignorant and shouldnt happen unless its her personal little store, then i hope she goes out of business

Way to be intollerant of anothers beliefs. :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by East Canuck
I stopped to consider it a joke when I find it in every damn thread where he posts. You would come to the same conclusion if I used UAss in every thread I post in. And I would be called for flaming...


The way I see it... being neither Canadian NOR American, is that it doesn't really make a lot of difference.

Most of the Canadians and Americans I have ever met, have referred to the people from the far north of England as being "Scotch". Not "Scots", or "Scottish", but "Scotch". Do my Scottish friends complain a great deal about this? No - they roll their eyes.

I think what Iakeokeo was originally getting at is the fact that people from Canada aren't Canadan - which one would assume would be the logical extension. They are Canadian, which implies that their nation of origin is Canadia.

For an example, look at Latvians, Estonians or Albanians.

The fact that they are NOT from Canadia, is what makes it funny.

Personally, I wouldn't take it as an insult.

Making words mean "something else" is my hobby.

Actually,.. making the minds that USE those words go "FFFFPING!" would be more accurate..!

It's in the "FFFFPING!" of the mind that we find our closest connection with one and other.

Plus,... I like to see frowns turn "upside down"..! :D

Way to be intollerant of anothers beliefs. :rolleyes:
Conscidering this store is there to serve the customer, the item is stocked on the shelf, and the pills are legal one would have no reason to deny it to a customer on personal beliefs alone. If anyone pulls that one out, what the hell are they doing worknig there?

It is one thing to have a personal belief. It is quite another to deny a person because of that belief.

Way to be intollerant of anothers beliefs. :rolleyes:
its not libel until some one tries to assert it as fact.

relate:

she can state all the beliefs she wants until it interferes with her job, then shes gone too far

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
].."so thus, you are saying she can deny people the PRESCRIBED medicine because of what she PERSONALLY believes mgiht happen?"..

If the commandant "prescribes" death by gas, can the obergrenadier not refuse to pull the lever..?

.."what if she personally believes all black people are drug addicts and thus refuses to give them ANY prescribed medicine?"..

Then she will go out of business,.. through various mechanisms. [/COLOR]

its not her job to decide who gets what medicine, she can dispense it or quit, unless of course there is a PROFESSIONAL problem, like the prescription is would kill her. denying the medicine because of PERSONAL reasons is ignorant and shouldnt happen unless its her personal little store, then i hope she goes out of business

.."its not her job to decide who gets what medicine"..

"I was just following orders..!"

Do you recall from where that phrase is most famously remembered being used..?

If her employer finds her actions unacceptable, she should be fired, and she should wear that pink-slip (termination form) as a badge of courage.

If she owns the business, and is driven out of business, then she should wear her backruptcy notice as a badge of courage.

If she relents to her employer, she is a willing slave of evil itself and should wear her shame in great bold letters on her forehead.

If she relents because she values her business over her principles, then she is the greatest coward imaginable and will condemned to torment by her own conscience.

You would be one of these slaves and cowards..?

No, I would be the person that STILL HAS A JOB.

It's the person's right to choose whether they want to be on the Pill or not. The perscriber, (doctor), has OKed it. Doctors can deny people medication, if there is a solid reason why not to give them it, or if there is an alternative. Why does the pharmacist have any input into the situation?

These RW religious whackos need to be stopped! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang:[/QUOTE]


And I suppose all we conservatives eat babies, too. Leave it at religious whackos.

So what if a pharmacist refused to dispense heart or cancer medications for someone because they disapproved of the fact that the medicine was tested on animals?
Or if a pharmacist refused to dispense HIV medications on the grounds that "only perverts and drug addicts get AIDS?"
Are either of those justifiable?

"A" pharmacist is not "all" pharmacists.

Is there not room for different people to have different beliefs, and act on them,.. differently..?

I will now invoke the great evil of the leftist.... the market.

The "leftist" would have a single rule for all. A total control of all contingencies via "law".

The "non-leftist" (!?) allows the market of ideas to work, where it is "sensible" to do so.

The "leftist" is the ultimate anal-retentive control freak (which I realize is redundant).

The "non-leftist" (ie: everyone else) allows and helps the game of life to be played.

Flame away, gang.... :D

"A" pharmacist is not "all" pharmacists.

Is there not room for different people to have different beliefs, and act on them,.. differently..?

I will now invoke the great evil of the leftist.... the market.

The "leftist" would have a single rule for all. A total control of all contingencies via "law".

The "non-leftist" (!?) allows the market of ideas to work, where it is "sensible" to do so.

The "leftist" is the ultimate anal-retentive control freak (which I realize is redundant).

The "non-leftist" (ie: everyone else) allows and helps the game of life to be played.

Flame away, gang.... :D
When they are giving unsatsifactory service, they do not deserve to work in that current profession. If I took a job and told my customers that I couldn't service them, (I know. Bad me.), because me religious beleifs conflicted with my work, then I would be fired. I'd be kicked out so fast that I wouldn't even be able to pack up my desk.
That's "Life". Great cereal. Sucky game.

Diversity is perfect. Diversity is awsome. Just do your Fucking job!

Okay, let's suppose the Pill is banned? What will be the consequences, considering the following information?

How many children in the U.S. live in poverty?

12.1 million children lived in poverty in 2002. The rate of poverty among children was 16.7%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

Each day in America, 2,019 babies are born into poverty. This means that a child is born into poverty every 43 seconds. Almost 80 percent of poor children live in working households.

One in five children is poor during the first three years of life – the time of greatest brain development.

An American child is born without health insurance every minute – 90 percent of our nine million uninsured children live in working families.

In Minnesota, 121,691 children lived in poverty in 2002. That translates to a poverty rate of 9.6%, the second-lowest in the nation.

And your point is.....?

Is it that the population would expand..?

Well,... perhaps.

But what does that have to do with not REQUIRING someone to perform an action that they find morally objectionable...?

How is the right going to respond to this? Ok let's see.. it's that teacher's right to not teach evolution, and only creationism. It's the school districts right to not hire or to fire said teacher for his opinion.
Pretty simple.

Just an addition =)

Just an addition =)
Very true, thank you.

::tries very hard not to mention unions and tenure::

And your point is.....?

Is it that the population would expand..?

Well,... perhaps.

But what does that have to do with not REQUIRING someone to perform an action that they find morally objectionable...?Because they chose that line of work! They were the ones that decided to be pharamcists.

.."its not her job to decide who gets what medicine"..

"I was just following orders..!"

Do you recall from where that phrase is most famously rembered being used..?

If her employer finds her actions unacceptable, she should be fired, and she should wear that pink-slip (termination form) as a badge of courage.

If she owns the business, and is driven out of business, then she should wear her backruptcy notice as a badge of courage.

If she relents to her employer, she is a willing slave of evil itself and should wear her shame in great bold letters on her forehead.

If she relents because she values her business over her principles, then she is the greatest coward imaginable and will condemned to torment by her own conscience.

You would be one of these slaves and cowards..?
you're going to some undeveloped south pacific island with the rest of the nut job fundamentalists

All of our positions are fairly simple to express.

Im for freedom of choice, those on the other side are for forcing their will onto others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule
Way to be intollerant of anothers beliefs.


Conscidering this store is there to serve the customer, the item is stocked on the shelf, and the pills are legal one would have no reason to deny it to a customer on personal beliefs alone. If anyone pulls that one out, what the hell are they doing worknig there?

It is one thing to have a personal belief. It is quite another to deny a person because of that belief.

Und Chiky, ein more time, has prooffen zat ze mindset ov ze dutiful little gassen-chamber-puller ist alive und vell,... und vaiting to command you into the will oder ze oven ov ze furher.....

Not happy to hear that.

oh yes of course

we are forcing you to do your job, you are advocating freedom to force your opinion on other people to prevent them from donig things you dont agree with

forcing an opinion on someone to make them do as you want is only disagreeable if you dont like the opinion eh?

No, I would be the person that STILL HAS A JOB.

It's the person's right to choose whether they want to be on the Pill or not. The perscriber, (doctor), has OKed it. Doctors can deny people medication, if there is a solid reason why not to give them it, or if there is an alternative. Why does the pharmacist have any input into the situation?

Why does the corporal have any input into the (gas chamber) situation..?

*Adds*
Your job is not a place for you to preach to others about what is right and wrong, (unless, of course, you actually ARE a preacher). It is a place to WORK. What is a pharmacist's job? To give pills to people that have perscriptions.

And to ThaOneRule - I find it more than a "Choice vs Faith" arguement in here. I find an arguement about whether it's ok for someone to not do their job due to religious beleifs.

Why does the corporal have any input into the (gas chamber) situation..?
of COURSE apples arnt round or orange, they are APPLES not oranges, geez

Und Chiky, ein more time, has prooffen zat ze mindset ov ze dutiful little gassen-chamber-puller ist alive und vell,... und vaiting to command you into the will oder ze oven ov ze furher.....

Not happy to hear that.
Congratulations on making a statement that has absolutely no bearing on the actual conversation. Once again you have contributed nothing.

Again, people are allowed to believe in what they want. So long as their beliefs do not impede the rights of others.

oh yes of course

we are forcing you to do your job, you are advocating freedom to force your opinion on other people to prevent them from donig things you dont agree with

forcing an opinion on someone to make them do as you want is only disagreeable if you dont like the opinion eh?

If the customer doesn't like what the pharmacist is doing, they are free to choose another pharmacist. No forcing there.

You are the one who likes to force others who disagree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
]"A" pharmacist is not "all" pharmacists.

Is there not room for different people to have different beliefs, and act on them,.. differently..?

I will now invoke the great evil of the leftist.... the market.

The "leftist" would have a single rule for all. A total control of all contingencies via "law".

The "non-leftist" (!?) allows the market of ideas to work, where it is "sensible" to do so.

The "leftist" is the ultimate anal-retentive control freak (which I realize is redundant).

The "non-leftist" (ie: everyone else) allows and helps the game of life to be played.

Flame away, gang....[/COLOR]

When they are giving unsatsifactory service, they do not deserve to work in that current profession. If I took a job and told my customers that I couldn't service them, (I know. Bad me.), because me religious beleifs conflicted with my work, then I would be fired. I'd be kicked out so fast that I wouldn't even be able to pack up my desk.
That's "Life". Great cereal. Sucky game.

Diversity is perfect. Diversity is awsome. Just do your Fucking job!



Jahwol mein furhrer...!

If your customers were of like mind to yourself, and understood, and at least allowed you your decisions if not actually agreeing with them, then you would have customers.

He who has customers, has business.

How does this disturb your need to control every aspect of the world that you and your ilk so often display..?

Oh,.... the answer is in the question. Excuse. :)

If the customer doesn't like what the pharmacist is doing, they are free to choose another pharmacist. No forcing there.

You are the one who likes to force others who disagree with you.
damn those black people, im not giving them any medicine!

its called discrimination

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Und Chiky, ein more time, has prooffen zat ze mindset ov ze dutiful little gassen-chamber-puller ist alive und vell,... und vaiting to command you into the will oder ze oven ov ze furher.....

Not happy to hear that.

Congratulations on making a statement that has absolutely no bearing on the actual conversation. Once again you have contributed nothing.

Again, people are allowed to believe in what they want. So long as their beliefs do not impede the rights of others.

I'd like to ask everyone here....

Is Chiky really THAT dense..!?

Or simply so bad at conversation that Chiky WILL not understand a simple metaphor..?

I'm pleased that you illustrate the density inherent in your philosophy.

It makes a marvelous example.

Jahwol mein furhrer...!

If your customers were of like mind to yourself, and understood, and at least allowed you your decisions if not actually agreeing with them, then you would have customers.

He who has customers, has business.

How does this disturb your need to control every aspect of the world that you and your ilk so often display..?

Oh,.... the answer is in the question. Excuse. :)He who doesn't have satisfactory service, gets fired. He who tries to bar someone something that is PERFECTLY LEGAL in this country of ours is discriminating against that person that needs that medicine. Hell, why not go back to the ages where, as Chess says "No Blacks allowed!", or "I don't sell to blacks. They're dirty, sinful bastards".

They'd be able to do that, if you had your way.

Theonerule: "Seperate but equal" was overturned, remember?

So, will they say that everytime a woman gets her menstrual cycle, if it's not fertilized, that that's murder too?

What's next? Will they come out against anti-biotics, because God never created them, and they're not in the Bible. If people were meant to ward off disease, they'd do it naturally.

We should ban all books that don't follow their point of view? Scrap the Constitution, and eliminate the seperation of church and state. Yeehaa!! Let's set up a Christian Taliban here in the States!

I do my best to respect people's religious beliefs, but I have a hard time accepting people's intolerance toward other people, and I have little patience with ignorance in the name of some divinity. Human history has been dragged down because of anti-progressive (read: overtly conservative), anti-science, anti-reality types. These Fundi-Christians need to get out of the church once in a while and live a bit.

Heck, even Jesus hung out with prostitutes, lawyers, sinners, and other lowly people.

He who doesn't have satisfactory service, gets fired. He who tries to bar someone something that is PERFECTLY LEGAL in this country of ours is discriminating against that person that needs that medicine. Hell, why not go back to the ages where, as Chess says "No Blacks allowed!", or "I don't sell to blacks. They're dirty, sinful bastards".

They'd be able to do that, if you had your way.
and they will try to counter with apples and oranges when that is their favorite argument, but sadly it isnt, the medicine is NOT being denied on a professional basis, its a personal basis based on their religious beliefs

oh yes of course

we are forcing you to do your job, you are advocating freedom to force your opinion on other people to prevent them from donig things you dont agree with

forcing an opinion on someone to make them do as you want is only disagreeable if you dont like the opinion eh?

I'm not advocating anyone do ANYTHING that they don't want to do.

You are.

I'd like to ask everyone here....

Is Chiky really THAT dense..!?

Or simply so bad at conversation that Chiky WILL not understand a simple metaphor..?

I'm pleased that you illustrate the density inherent in your philosophy.

It makes a marvelous example.
I think that you must be on an intellectual level above that of ours,</sarcasm> because I don't see how relating to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is getting you anywhere.

I'd like to ask everyone here....
Is Chiky really THAT dense..!?
Or simply so bad at conversation that Chiky WILL not understand a simple metaphor..?
I'm pleased that you illustrate the density inherent in your philosophy.
It makes a marvelous example.

The metaphor is shaky at best. Two entirely different situations and circumstances, thereby being unrelated to each other. Thus having no bearing on the conversation at hand. Again you bring nothing to the table except flames. How typical.

To deny someone a service deemed legal by the government and which they are asking for out of personal belief is discrimination. Even one as stalwartly ignorant such as yourself should be able to recognize that.

I'm not advocating anyone do ANYTHING that they don't want to do.

You are.
you dont want to fill peoples prescriptions as a pharmacist? start your own little business or quit being a pharmacist

you dont want to teach what is on the national agenda as a teacher? quit or go to a private school

you dont want kill pigs because it is against your religion? quit your job at the slaughter house or wherever

you cant work on sunday or saturday because of your religion? now i can see this being more accomodated, but if it cant, quit.

you dont want to sell hotdogs? dont work as a hotdog salesman

oh yes i am forcing people do stuff.. the job they are PAID to do.

you are ADVOCATING that people should be wholly able to force their opinion on other people: ie abortion is bad, gay marriage is bad, birth control is bad, abstinence is good, etc etc

being forced to do things is only bad if it disagrees with your philosophy eh?

So, will they say that everytime a woman gets her menstrual cycle, if it's not fertilized, that that's murder too?

What's next? Will they come out against anti-biotics, because God never created them, and they're not in the Bible. If people were meant to ward off disease, they'd do it naturally.

We should ban all books that don't follow their point of view? Scrap the Constitution, and eliminate the seperation of church and state. Yeehaa!! Let's set up a Christian Taliban here in the States!

I do my best to respect people's religious beliefs, but I have a hard time accepting people's intolerance toward other people, and I have little patience with ignorance in the name of some divinity. Human history has been dragged down because of anti-progressive (read: overtly conservative), anti-science, anti-reality types. These Fundi-Christians need to get out of the church once in a while and live a bit.

Heck, even Jesus hung out with prostitutes, lawyers, sinners, and other lowly people.
Hey! I take offence at that!

Not really.

I must say I've been reading this thread interesting thread for a long time now, and I have my own input into the topic.

I myself am a Christian and a tolerant one at that. I also consider myself an independent conservative for that matter and am also adamantly pro-life except where their is some extreme circumstance like rape, danger to the child or mother... etc for a very simple and pretty much unarguable position, I'm an adopted child, plain and simple. However, I must admit that I agree totally with the idea of birth control pills and I am amazed that this debate is even occuring. As was brought up numerous times, if an employee does not wish to do his job for moral reasons, than that employee will almost definately be fired for not doing his job. My family and I employing around 30 people, I know what it's like to have employees that have objections to various things or just don't do their job and quite simply, they are fired because of it. Simple fact, in a capitalist system, if you're not willing to do your job, their will always be somebody else who is. If you really do want to stand up for your beliefs, you'd accept the firing anyway, because you'd be upholding your morals which you apparently believe supercede any monetary value you might be receiving for your job which would actually be the Christian thing to do if they actually believe their own teachings... (but that's besides the point... many people unfortunately twist meanings to fit their own devices...)
However, the pill is a great thing for pro-life advocates, as it has been mentioned numerous times that women who want it put can't get it will invariably get pregnant and have an abortion sometime in their futures anyway. I see no reason behind the counter arguement, if a doctor prescribes something, it's the pharmicist's job to give them the medication. I know numerous women on birth control for reasons other than wanting to have carefree sex, it has numerous other medicinal values beyond that and in the case of younger women who might be on a popular acne medication (acutane) two separate forms of birth control are required to be on the medication because it WILL cause birth defects in a child if one should be conceived. How would you feel if you had horrific acne as a young girl in high school and acutane was the only thing that worked for you and you couldn't get your medication because your pharmicist was morally objected to giving birth control medication??? Makes little sense to me and indirectly it could contribute to said girl being made fun of constantly in school causing social isolation which could result in some very bad things happening for said girl. Trust me when I say this, I know people who have thrown their lives away because people make fun of their appearance and they lose all self esteem because of it. Being an altruistic person, I am constantly trying to help other people find value in themselves, and this is just one example that I could think of off the top of my head that could happen and probably will happen if this crazy practice continues... There has to be a point where somebody's rights have to be infringed upon in order to keep society moving along, otherwise it'd all be chaos, so in this case, I'd take the girl over the pharmicist. If you need other examples, perhaps I'll come up with them another time, but hopefully it will not be needed.....

being forced to do things is only bad if it disagrees with your philosophy eh?
Ummm since when did you have to force someone to do something they agreed with?

Yes, being forced to do something that you disagree with is not necessarily a good thing.

Ummm since when did you have to force someone to do something they agreed with?

Yes, being forced to do something that you disagree with is not necessarily a good thing.
but, when it is your JOB to do that thing, I think you might have a problem there. You don't see pro-lifers staffing Abortion clinics, do you?

Ummm since when did you have to force someone to do something they agreed with?

Yes, being forced to do something that you disagree with is not necessarily a good thing.
thats not what i said

i said you only disagree with people being forced to do something if you dont agree with what they are being forced to do

being forced to do things is only bad if it disagrees with your philosophy eh?

thats not what i said

i said you only disagree with people being forced to do something if you dont agree with what they are being forced to do
Yes, that is what you said. I only disagree with forcing someone to do something against their personal beliefs. I agree with the fact that the pill should be made available to women. Obviously, you would rather have someone forced to do something for you, than to simply walk down the street to the next store.

Now we have quite a mess here.

Iakeokeo is, in my opinion, trolling. However, that does not excuse other behavior I saw in the thread.

Iakeokeo -- KNOCK IT OFF. Stop calling people Nazis, intentionally misspelling people's countries in order to annoy them, stop being intentionally annoying. You make good points but trolling, flaming, and flamebaiting are VERBOTEN. Consider yourself warned.

Chikyota: Flaming in response was not a good choice. You too, are warned.

East Canuck: Flaming in response and providing a very one-sided cut-and-paste report when asked specifically to link does not impress me either. Consider YOURSELF warned.

Everyone else: carry on, but keep it civil.

Thank you.

I didn't get warned!


: P

I must say I've been reading this thread interesting thread for a long time now, and I have my own input into the topic.

I myself am a Christian and a tolerant one at that. I also consider myself an independent conservative for that matter and am also adamantly pro-life except where their is some extreme circumstance like rape, danger to the child or mother... etc for a very simple and pretty much unarguable position, I'm an adopted child, plain and simple. However, I must admit that I agree totally with the idea of birth control pills and I am amazed that this debate is even occuring. As was brought up numerous times, if an employee does not wish to do his job for moral reasons, than that employee will almost definately be fired for not doing his job. My family and I employing around 30 people, I know what it's like to have employees that have objections to various things or just don't do their job and quite simply, they are fired because of it. Simple fact, in a capitalist system, if you're not willing to do your job, their will always be somebody else who is. If you really do want to stand up for your beliefs, you'd accept the firing anyway, because you'd be upholding your morals which you apparently believe supercede any monetary value you might be receiving for your job which would actually be the Christian thing to do if they actually believe their own teachings... (but that's besides the point... many people unfortunately twist meanings to fit their own devices...)
However, the pill is a great thing for pro-life advocates, as it has been mentioned numerous times that women who want it put can't get it will invariably get pregnant and have an abortion sometime in their futures anyway. I see no reason behind the counter arguement, if a doctor prescribes something, it's the pharmicist's job to give them the medication. I know numerous women on birth control for reasons other than wanting to have carefree sex, it has numerous other medicinal values beyond that and in the case of younger women who might be on a popular acne medication (acutane) two separate forms of birth control are required to be on the medication because it WILL cause birth defects in a child if one should be conceived. How would you feel if you had horrific acne as a young girl in high school and acutane was the only thing that worked for you and you couldn't get your medication because your pharmicist was morally objected to giving birth control medication??? Makes little sense to me and indirectly it could contribute to said girl being made fun of constantly in school causing social isolation which could result in some very bad things happening for said girl. Trust me when I say this, I know people who have thrown their lives away because people make fun of their appearance and they lose all self esteem because of it. Being an altruistic person, I am constantly trying to help other people find value in themselves, and this is just one example that I could think of off the top of my head that could happen and probably will happen if this crazy practice continues... There has to be a point where somebody's rights have to be infringed upon in order to keep society moving along, otherwise it'd all be chaos, so in this case, I'd take the girl over the pharmicist. If you need other examples, perhaps I'll come up with them another time, but hopefully it will not be needed.....

You, my friend, are the first conservative that has ever had my utmost respect. I applaud you.

I couldn't agree with you more on what you said.

i'll take wrong for 200 alex

she does not have a PROFESSIONAL issue with what the pill will do, she has a PERSONAL issue with what the pill will do, so thus, you are saying she can deny people the PRESCRIBED medicine because of what she PERSONALLY believes mgiht happen? what if she personally believes all black people are drug addicts and thus refuses to give them ANY prescribed medicine?

Am I? Where?

All I will say, is that if we let the religious right dominate politics, they'll take our condoms too.

Now we have quite a mess here.

Iakeokeo is, in my opinion, trolling. However, that does not excuse other behavior I saw in the thread.

Iakeokeo -- KNOCK IT OFF. Stop calling people Nazis, intentionally misspelling people's countries in order to annoy them, stop being intentionally annoying. You make good points but trolling, flaming, and flamebaiting are VERBOTEN. Consider yourself warned.

Chikyota: Flaming in response was not a good choice. You too, are warned.

East Canuck: Flaming in response and providing a very one-sided cut-and-paste report when asked specifically to link does not impress me either. Consider YOURSELF warned.

Everyone else: carry on, but keep it civil.

Thank you.

Thanks for your opinions Kat..! :)

I am not calling people nazis. I am drawing a parallel with the attitude that people MUST do their job, regardless of their personal morality, exemplified in the sheepish reaction of some germans (and others) to their nazi overlords, and the views I've seen expressed here.

If people don't "get" that, they are free to ask me "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!?"

You'll have to define "troll" again for me, as I rather thought that this was an ongoing discussion, with new and old people coming and going, which necessitates reiteration to engage the new folks.

Once the "Canadan" joke is "unmasked" as a play on words, the punchline is given, and the joke is no longer needed. That's why it will stop.

I love Canadians, as I've stated. Once they "get the joke" they are free to deal with my lack of using the joke again however they wish. :)

Anyway,..

On with the discussion... :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
.."its not her job to decide who gets what medicine"..

"I was just following orders..!"

Do you recall from where that phrase is most famously rembered being used..?

If her employer finds her actions unacceptable, she should be fired, and she should wear that pink-slip (termination form) as a badge of courage.

If she owns the business, and is driven out of business, then she should wear her backruptcy notice as a badge of courage.

If she relents to her employer, she is a willing slave of evil itself and should wear her shame in great bold letters on her forehead.

If she relents because she values her business over her principles, then she is the greatest coward imaginable and will condemned to torment by her own conscience.

You would be one of these slaves and cowards..?

you're going to some undeveloped south pacific island with the rest of the nut job fundamentalists

Firstly, I'm a "fundamentalist" only in that I believe in "it is", which is the single absolute thing that does or can exist. Think of "it is" as absolutely everything. It does nothing but be itself. It is not supernatural. There is no supernatural.

What "it is" DOES for me is give me comfort and direction by observing it's fragments that I'm capable of "seeing".

Secondly, have you understood ANYTHING I've said here..?

If you have, would you please repeat what you understand back to me, in as abbreviated form as possible.

..and I will, one day, relegate myself to the tropics, as surfing is the only true "institutionalized religion". :)

All I will say, is that if we let the religious right dominate politics, they'll take our condoms too.

Why..?

"We" don't WANT "you" to procreate..! :D

You, my friend, are the first conservative that has ever had my utmost respect. I applaud you.

I couldn't agree with you more on what you said.

Thanks for the compliment Misterio. I have become rather upset by the lack of respect shown for the other side by my fellow conservatives as of late and how everything seems to resort to bashing the other side. All I try to do is restore some respect for the conservative side of the arguement because, contrary to popular belief, there are many conservatives that are much like myself, I am just more active with my thoughts and read WAY too many things from all different sides of the political spectrum on a variety of topics and, from those sources, I draw my own opinions. As such I have come to understand both extremes of politics and am realatively good at finding a common ground between the two sides in many cases. Regardless, thanks again for the compliment, and no doubt you'll start to see me more in the forums as I try to spread the sensible side of the conservative way of thinking....

All I will say, is that if we let the religious right dominate politics, they'll take our condoms too.
they already tried luckily the supreme court told them they were morons and said they couldnt do it: Griswold v Connecticut

they already tried luckily the supreme court told them they were morons and said they couldnt do it: Griswold v ConnecticutKick arse. Thank Bob.

Why does the corporal have any input into the (gas chamber) situation..?
S/he seems to have an obsession with gas chambers (you're welcome to my lair after I've eaten some pea soup ;) ) and Nazis... don't get it.

Iakeokeo, you're being overly passive-agressive with the whole 'gas chamber' 'point'. Could you please stop?

Sorry, but it's really ruining the entire thread. You've made your 'point', can you stop reiterating it now please?

because condoms are only 80-90% effective
meaning that sooner or later you WILL get pregnant
the pill is over 99% effective.
the best (but rather obsessive) plan is to use both the pill AND a condom. more disease protection and more pregnancy protection.

as i recall the original post/link the issue is that EMPLOYEES are choosing to refuse to fill prescriptions for the pill and are wanting the state governments to pass a law saying they CANT be fired for it.
thats a whole nother kettle of fish than a business owner deciding that his pharmacy will only fill MORAL prescriptions.

oh the other hand i think there have been laws passed allowing hospitals to refuse to do abortions and for the protection of individual employees working at hospitals that perform abortions to refuse to participate in any abortion related job and not be fired for it.

Or people could follow the ABC rule, that's to say:

Abstinance
Being faithful &
Condoms.

Or people could follow the ABC rule, that's to say:

Abstinance
Being faithful &
Condoms.

Well, while I can agree that that would indeed work, there are a few points in rebuttal:

1. there will always be some people who don't choose abstinance (especially with the appalling state of sex-ed in many schools), and these people should be able to have a medical script filled by a pharmicist.

2. Not all birth-control is used specifically to prevent pregnency; there are a miriad of uses, ranging from acne control to preventing incredibly bad period cramps. There are even women who can die if they don't have access to birth control.

3. The main issue here doesn't seem to be about preventing unwanted births (see the Abortion thread for that debate :p). It's about people *refusing* to do the jobs they are being paid for. While a doctor has the option of refusing to *prescribe* the birth control pill, a pharmicist has no legal right to do so. They should be fired, because they are being paid soley to fill the prescription, and they also have no legal training in diagnosing patients (that's why you go to the doctor and get that handy bit of paper). They cannot judge whether a woman needs the pill for ance, a medical condition, or to prevent pregnancy, and they should not be put in a position where they think they are able to do so.

3. The main issue here doesn't seem to be about preventing unwanted births (see the Abortion thread for that debate :p). It's about people *refusing* to do the jobs they are being paid for. While a doctor has the option of refusing to *prescribe* the birth control pill, a pharmicist has no legal right to do so. They should be fired, because they are being paid soley to fill the prescription, and they also have no legal training in diagnosing patients (that's why you go to the doctor and get that handy bit of paper). They cannot judge whether a woman needs the pill for ance, a medical condition, or to prevent pregnancy, and they should not be put in a position where they think they are able to do so.
People always seem to forget how much power the avg person has. The expression comes to mind, voting with you feet, or voting with your wallet. If, for whatever reason, someone (a pharmacist) does something you dont like (refuses to fill a prescription) for whatever reason (religious/personal beliefs) then you choose another location to do your business, and let the original pharmacy know why you choose to take your business elsewhere.

Do that enough, and the original target of your ire will have to deal with the consequences of his actions. Trying to create a "law" as some people have suggested to force all pharmacists to fill all prescriptions is the wrong way to go about it. Pharmacist owned pharmacies have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions. If his customers take their business elsewhere, he just might rethink his objections.

People always seem to forget how much power the avg person has. The expression comes to mind, voting with you feet, or voting with your wallet. If, for whatever reason, someone (a pharmacist) does something you dont like (refuses to fill a prescription) for whatever reason (religious/personal beliefs) then you choose another location to do your business, and let the original pharmacy know why you choose to take your business elsewhere.

Do that enough, and the original target of your ire will have to deal with the consequences of his actions. Trying to create a "law" as some people have suggested to force all pharmacists to fill all prescriptions is the wrong way to go about it. Pharmacist owned pharmacies have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions. If his customers take their business elsewhere, he just might rethink his objections.

Hear hear. Another case where a more eloquent person posts directly after me and makes me seem foolish. Although I wasn't advocating any law... techincally there's already a law in place (here in Australia at least). A pharmicist doesn't have the same rights as a doctor, and they can't withhold medication. If one of them refused to give someone medication for an ailment, and that person had a signed script from a doctor, techincally that pharmicist is already breaking the law.

And the 'shop somewhere else' doesn't work in small towns where there's only one pharmacy.

(now, keep in mind I actually agree with you... I'm just nit picking)

Hear hear. Another case where a more eloquent person posts directly after me and makes me seem foolish. Although I wasn't advocating any law... techincally there's already a law in place (here in Australia at least). A pharmicist doesn't have the same rights as a doctor, and they can't withhold medication. If one of them refused to give someone medication for an ailment, and that person had a signed script from a doctor, techincally that pharmicist is already breaking the law.

And the 'shop somewhere else' doesn't work in small towns where there's only one pharmacy.

(now, keep in mind I actually agree with you... I'm just nit picking)
I really didnt mean to make anyone (least of all you) seem foolish. My appologies.

Here in the states, unless I am horribly mistaken, things are a bit different. A pharmacist has to undergo rather extensive training to do his job. It serves sort of as a check and balance on the Doctors prescriptions. Sort of a last failsafe. If a prescribed medication would conflict with other prescriptions the person is taking, or against falsified or "phoney" prescriptions, or against possible illicit drug use "prescriptions". For example, a pharmacist should notice if a particular doctor is prescribing oxycotin (sp?) overmuch. Or a doctor is prescribing medicinal use marijuana overmuch (which the pharmacist does not have to fill btw). Checks and balances.

Here the pharmacist is not simply an AMM (automated medicine machine ala ATM). It's a fairly important job.

I really didnt mean to make anyone (least of all you) seem foolish. My appologies.

Here in the states, unless I am horribly mistaken, things are a bit different. A pharmacist has to undergo rather extensive training to do his job. It serves sort of as a check and balance on the Doctors prescriptions. Sort of a last failsafe. If a prescribed medication would conflict with other prescriptions the person is taking, or against falsified or "phoney" prescriptions, or against possible illicit drug use "prescriptions". For example, a pharmacist should notice if a particular doctor is prescribing oxycotin (sp?) overmuch. Or a doctor is prescribing medicinal use marijuana overmuch (which the pharmacist does not have to fill btw). Checks and balances.

Here the pharmacist is not simply an AMM (automated medicine machine ala ATM). It's a fairly important job.

Hee, I wasn't saying you were *trying* to make me seem foolish... merely that your post held up my views better than my own did :p

'Tis a compliment really :D

And ah, I *thought* there was a difference in the situation... this is one reason I think debates get so messy - this being a global forum, lots of people base their points on what is usual in their state/country... and then get confused when other people seem to disagree, and it's simply due to a different baseline.

Hmm, I think I need sleep before I can debate properly ;)

And no. Once the egg is fertilized, it is NOT a human life. Human life doesn't start until the baby can live on its own.

So...am I killing a human life everytime I have an ejaculation? Or how about women who have their periods? After all, they are single cells being expelled from the body... :rolleyes:

So, your own "Great scientists" have not even told you that it takes more than ejactulating or a period to get a FERTILIZED egg.

Hee, I wasn't saying you were *trying* to make me seem foolish... merely that your post held up my views better than my own did :p

'Tis a compliment really :D

And ah, I *thought* there was a difference in the situation... this is one reason I think debates get so messy - this being a global forum, lots of people base their points on what is usual in their state/country... and then get confused when other people seem to disagree, and it's simply due to a different baseline.

Hmm, I think I need sleep before I can debate properly ;)
:::Completely off topic warning:::
What part of Australia btw? I have only visited Perth/Freemantle and Tasmania, but I have to say I was completely floored as the hospitality and friendliness of the Australian people.

:::Completely off topic warning:::
What part of Australia btw? I have only visited Perth/Freemantle and Tasmania, but I have to say I was completely floored as the hospitality and friendliness of the Australian people.

Victoria. And woo, we made a good impression :D

It's logical for most of us to be friendly to visiters from overseas, since such a large amount of us have family from overseas, or parents who traveled to Australia from overseas (ah blessed diversity :cool: )