NationStates Jolt Archive

What kind of can of worms is this going to open?

One pharmacist doesn't believe in people taking pain pills, because it's "Jesus' will for them to suffer", so some old lady with arthritis won't be able to get them? This all started when Bush neocons wanted to allow pharmacies the "right" to deny women access to RU486 and other contraceptives



Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Prescriptions For Moral Reasons

Walgreens Allows Pharmacists To Not Dispense Drugs They Object To

POSTED: 12:56 pm CDT May 5, 2005

MILWAUKEE -- A WISN 12 News investigation has discovered that a Milwaukee-area pharmacist has refused to fill prescriptions for women citing religious reasons.

A Milwaukee mother of six walked into a north side Walgreens with a prescription for the so-called morning after pill.

The woman, who 12 News is not identifying, said it was a difficult decision.

"Financially, I wouldn't be able to afford having another child," Jane Doe said.

She asked 12 News to disguise her identity -- afraid of backlash from those who might judge her.

"I mean, I guess I was desperate," Doe said.

Doctors prescribe the pill to prevent pregnancy. It should be taken within 72 hours of conception.

"It was right after New Year's weekend. I got it as soon as I could," Doe said.

But the pharmacist refused to fill her prescription.

"She just told me that she will not fill it. That she's Catholic, and it's murder," Doe said.

Then, she said, before a crowded waiting area, the pharmacist berated her.

"'You're a murderer. I will not help you kill this baby. I will not have the blood on my hands,'" Doe said. "I tried to explain to her that it's emergency contraceptives, that it's not an abortion pill. She then snatched the form from me, that the prescription was attached to, telling me the paper was full of lies, and she won't be a part of it. I was crying, shaking, upset, so embarrassed. I wanted to run out of the store and hope nobody else could get a good look at me."

"So, did you ever get your emergency contraceptives?" 12 News Senior Investigative Reporter Colleen Henry asked.

"No, I never received that one," Doe said.

"And you became pregnant?" Henry asked.

"I did become pregnant, and I had to terminate the pregnancy. It was very hard. And I didn't want to be what she called me. But that's what I ended up being," Doe said.

The woman claimed she's emotionally distressed, that Walgreens breached her privacy and discriminated against her.

Her lawyer said Walgreens failed to ensure its female customers have the same access to reproductive health care as men.

"Condoms are sold there, very easily, very accessible. Viagra ... and I suspect there is no situation where that pharmacist has said to a man, 'I think there's something wrong in you taking Viagra,'" attorney Tricia Knight said.

WISN 12 News wanted to see for itself so it sent producers wearing hidden cameras back to the Walgreens pharmacist to ask about the morning after pill.

"I won't dispense it. You have to wait until the next pharmacist comes in at 2 p.m.," pharmacist Michelle Long (pictured, right) said.

"You said you won't do it, why?" the producer asked.

"Because I'm Catholic, and it's against my religion," Long said.

Later, Long explained her position to another undercover 12 News staffer.

"It's a chemical abortion. If there is a fertilized egg, it prevents it from implanting, which causes a chemical abortion," Long said.

"Isn't this pill legal?" the staffer asked.

"It's legal. It's legal, yeah," Long said.

I'm just confused. I don't know why, if it's legal, why can't have it?" the staffer asked.

"Regular abortion procedures are legal also, but not everybody in the country believes in it," Long said.

Each time, Long was consistent in her position.

WISN 12 News went to Long to ask about the woman's complaint.

"She said that you refused to fill her morning after pill prescription, that you called her a baby-killer, and said you didn't want blood on your hands," Henry stated.

"No, I'm sure I didn't say that. No, I'm quite positive I wouldn't say that," Long responded.

"Do you fill prescriptions for the morning after pill?" Henry asked.

"No," Long said.

"Is that for religious reasons?" Henry asked.

"Yes," Long answered.

Walgreens policy allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs they object to.

"If a pharmacist does refuse, we require the pharmacist to pass the prescription on to another pharmacist at that location, or to another pharmacy," a Walgreens spokesman told 12 News.

"It's like she's trying to play God or something," Doe said.

But the woman believes Walgreens' policy is selling women short.

"What's been the hardest thing for you in all of this?" Henry asked.

"Having to have an abortion. I feel like it didn't have to get to that point. It could have been prevented. That's what I was attempting to do," Doe said.

"She became pregnant. She had an abortion. She says that it was because you wouldn't fill her morning after pill prescription," Henry told Long.

And this poor woman already ahs her own mini-clan!

Geez, they should've been charitable!

Why didn't she just go to another pharmacist?

The incident in that article is precisely newsworthy because it is sooo rare - despite the recent furor over the pharmacists right to dispense or not dispense, trade groups say that for the most part pharmacies sell what is profitable. And if a given Walgreens decides NOT to fill morning after prescriptions, why not just go to another down the road?

What strikes me as odd about this debate is the crazy role reversal. How can folks who are pro choice (Tag-line: Keep your morality off my body) not see the hypocrisy of saying others, notably pharmacists, can't exercise their own morality their own way?

And for the record, this didn't start with Bush. Pharmacists have always been able to decide which drugs they sell and don't sell.

And this poor woman already ahs her own mini-clan!

Geez, they should've been charitable!
Bush can sniff coke at Camp David but he denies pain relief and contraceptives for the people who matter

Why didn't she just go to another pharmacist?
what if it was the only pharmacist in town? should people have to drive miles out of their way because some small minded goon thinks they have the right to force their values on people? If somethings legal no one has the right to with hold it

Bush can sniff coke at Camp David but he denies pain relief and contraceptives for the people who matter
Oh, and food for thought...

Birth control pills and other forms of contraception are seen as a medium through which immoral behaviour can transpire, but yet, no such stigma is attached to viagara...

Why didn't she just go to another pharmacist?
Maybe she lived in the middle of nowhere?

And after that kind of treatment, most people would either leap over the counter and throttle the person or disappear and not come back.

The employee should have been canned.

The incident in that article is precisely newsworthy because it is sooo rare - despite the recent furor over the pharmacists right to dispense or not dispense, trade groups say that for the most part pharmacies sell what is profitable. And if a given Walgreens decides NOT to fill morning after prescriptions, why not just go to another down the road?

What strikes me as odd about this debate is the crazy roll reversal. How can folks who are pro choice (Tag-line: Keep your morality off my body) not see the hypocrisy of saying others, notably pharmacists, can't exercise their own morality their own way?

And for the record, this didn't start with Bush. Pharmacists have always been able to decide which drugs they sell and don't sell.
because it violates the Hippocratic oath

Bush can sniff coke at Camp David but he denies pain relief and contraceptives for the people who matter

Well put. It's just outright pandering to the far-right [may they shrivel and die every one of them!]

because it violates the Hippocratic oath

Nuh-uh.
First of all, pharmacists aren't doctors: they're pharmacists, and I don't think they take the Hippocratic oath.
Second, if someone believes that life starts at conception, it is certainly NOT a violation of the Hippocratic oath to refuse to supply morning after pills:
"...I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby..."
(excerpt from the Hippocratic oath)

Nuh-uh.
First of all, pharmacists aren't doctors: they're pharmacists, and I don't think they take the Hippocratic oath.
Second, if someone believes that life starts at conception, it is certainly NOT a violation of the Hippocratic oath to refuse to supply morning after pills:
"...I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby..."
(excerpt from the Hippocratic oath)

Doctors are on their side anyway. The only way to whip them into line is to stick the lawyers on them.

I think that if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences of all the medications you proscribe, and how they might "conflict" with your beliefs, you shouldn't work as a pharmacist, or other similar line of work. You don't have the right to shove your beliefs down the throat of someone else...No one does.

[may they shrivel and die every one of them!]

Just what we need! Less discussion of pressing issues, and more inflammatory statements meant to irk the other side!

Without malice of anger I say this; if a person cannot or will not perform their job's duties, they should be fired.

Is there a provision within Walgreen's employment contract that says this woman can refuse to perform her "duty"? If there is, she's fine, if there isn't she needs to be fired. If a Janitor refuses to clean up vomit because its against their religion...they shouldn't be employed as a janitor.

Perhaps if there is not they should make such a provision but they should post a message next to the counter; "We occasionally employ people who interfere with your lives for purely personal reasons, we regret any inconvenience this may have cause you. Feel free to waste valuable time waiting for a more reasonable induvidual to fill out your perscription or go elsewhere."

That would allow people to understand the situation and understand their options.

You don't have the right to shove your beliefs down the throat of someone else...No one does.

How can you NOT see the joke here? A pharmacist is not shoving his beliefs down anyone's throat - just refusing to stock certain medicine. BUT YOU ARE proposing precisely that YOUR beliefs, i.e., every pharmacist should be obligated to provide any drug at any time regardless of effect down THEIR throats!

Doctors don't have to perform abortions - and pharmacists shouldn't have to supply drugs that they feel induce abortions.

Without malice of anger I say this; if a person cannot or will not perform their job's duties, they should be fired.

Amen, brother.

But there is no law that Walgreens has to sell hard core porn, regardless of the fact that some folks who love hard core porn may have to go elsewhere to buy it. Heck, the owner of a liberal bookstore may not sell the Ann Coulter books some folks love so much, if they had ethical qualms about doing so.

Why should pharmacists be treated differently than any other person who sells goods and services?

What strikes me as odd about this debate is the crazy role reversal. How can folks who are pro choice (Tag-line: Keep your morality off my body) not see the hypocrisy of saying others, notably pharmacists, can't exercise their own morality their own way?

This is, in fact, not a contradiction.

If you advocate "keeping your morality off of my body," than you wouldn't allow an out-of-touch religious fanatic to decide what female customers may do with their bodies.

This is particularly disgusting given that pharmacy was a profession people chose to enter. Don't take a job that violates your personal moral compass. I would never work for Hamas or Islamic Jihad, as I find their actions and beliefs repugnant. If you find the accepted actions and beliefs of the medical community to be "lies" or repugnant, then don't enter pharmacy, where you do what they say.

This is particularly disgusting given that pharmacy was a profession people chose to enter.

And the next step is that doctors have to perform abortions?

Look, I have read in the paper where a pharmacist not only refused to fill a prescription (for birth control pills,) they refused to release it so the customer couldn't get it filled elsewhere. Certainly, THAT should be illegal. (In the case I quote, it was a big chain pharmacy, and the employee was fired.) But it is ludicrous to say that the only way you can exercise the freedom to live your life in accordance with your morals is if you remove the freedom of others to exercise theirs...

And the next step is that doctors have to perform abortions?

Look, I have read in the paper where a pharmacist not only refused to fill a prescription (for birth control pills,) they refused to release it so the customer couldn't get it filled elsewhere. Certainly, THAT should be illegal. (In the case I quote, it was a big chain pharmacy, and the employee was fired.) But it is ludicrous to say that the only way you can exercise the freedom to live your life in accordance with your morals can only exist if you remove the freedom of others to exercise theirs...

If you do not want to perform an abortion, don't work at an abortion clinic. geez

If you do not want to perform an abortion, don't work at an abortion clinic. geez

Exactly. And if you are a pharmacist who doesnt want to cause an abortion, work at a pharmacy that doesnt fulfill morning after pills.

Nuh-uh.
First of all, pharmacists aren't doctors: they're pharmacists, and I don't think they take the Hippocratic oath.
Second, if someone believes that life starts at conception, it is certainly NOT a violation of the Hippocratic oath to refuse to supply morning after pills:
"...I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby..."
(excerpt from the Hippocratic oath)
Sure it is ... the primary roal of the pill is NOT to effect implantation (it is simmilar to regular BC) but rather to suppress ovulation

If the pharmisists were under the hypocratic oath they would be causing their patient harm by denying them the pill

How can you NOT see the joke here? A pharmacist is not shoving his beliefs down anyone's throat - just refusing to stock certain medicine. BUT YOU ARE proposing precisely that YOUR beliefs, i.e., every pharmacist should be obligated to provide any drug at any time regardless of effect down THEIR throats!

Doctors don't have to perform abortions - and pharmacists shouldn't have to supply drugs that they feel induce abortions.
Actually, the pharmacist in this instance is working in a place where the pills are stocked. This is not their business, this is someone else's business. It is not their decision what they sell, it is their manager/franchise owner/whoever makes that decision.

Thus, since their employer has seen fit to stock and sell the pills, they should be obligated to sell it regardless. If it's a business that they own, then they can do what they want.

And also, if they knew fuck-all about the human body, they would know that morning after pills do not induce abortions. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, a pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants itself, the morning after pill prevents implantation, if the thing is implanted, nothing will happen.

How can you NOT see the joke here? A pharmacist is not shoving his beliefs down anyone's throat - just refusing to stock certain medicine. BUT YOU ARE proposing precisely that YOUR beliefs, i.e., every pharmacist should be obligated to provide any drug at any time regardless of effect down THEIR throats!

Doctors don't have to perform abortions - and pharmacists shouldn't have to supply drugs that they feel induce abortions.

I believe its a matter of professionalism and why he chose this profession.

But I really don't know what standard of professional conduct pharmacists (or doctors) are held to in the USA.

If you wanna see what Canadian standards for pharmacists are:

http://www.moh.gov.ae/moh_site/phar_med/regud/code_cond3.htm

Principle 3 – Integrity continued

Amongst other things, integrity includes;

Not taking advantage of their privileged position

3-9- A pharmacist must never allow personal benefit to interfere with their professional judgement.

3-10- They should not agree to promote or supply specific medicines or devices in response to financial benefits, gifts or hospitality.

3-11- When a pharmacist is facing a clear, or potential conflict of interests, the pharmacist should make this known and abstain from the making decisions on the affected area of policy or practice.

In other words, the pharmacist who denied access to the drug in the US, would be committing a violation of professional ethics in Canada and could have his license suspended.

Just food for thought.

Sure it is ... the primary roal of the pill is NOT to effect implantation (it is simmilar to regular BC) but rather to suppress ovulation

Conception occurs before implantation, so if they believe life starts AT conception, prevention of implantation is as much prevention of treatment to others as destruction of the fertilized egg.

Exactly. And if you are a pharmacist who doesnt want to cause an abortion, work at a pharmacy that doesnt fulfill morning after pills.
Morning after pills cannot cause an abortion.

If you knew anything about pregnancy and how the pills work, which you obviously don't, you would know this. Since you don't, how about you sit this one out instead of saying things that are flat out wrong?

Conception occurs before implantation, so if they believe life starts AT conception, prevention of implantation is as much prevention of treatment to others as destruction of the fertilized egg.
50% of all fertlized ovum do not implant themselves anyways for one thing, for another, this is not abortion.

Wow. That pharmacist is an idiot.

Amen, brother.

But there is no law that Walgreens has to sell hard core porn, regardless of the fact that some folks who love hard core porn may have to go elsewhere to buy it. Heck, the owner of a liberal bookstore may not sell the Ann Coulter books some folks love so much, if they had ethical qualms about doing so.

Why should pharmacists be treated differently than any other person who sells goods and services?
Except that Wallgreens carries the morning after pill. Any other pharmacist in that location would not have berated the woman or accused her of beign a baby killer. They would have reached behind the counter and got it for her, no questions asked.

Conception occurs before implantation, so if they believe life starts AT conception, prevention of implantation is as much prevention of treatment to others as destruction of the fertilized egg.
But the drug is not designed to effect implantation it is design to prevent conception! so life would not have started yet! even by their deffinition

I hate all of you!

That pharmacist refuses to give out the morning after pill because he believes that when an egg is fertilized it is a live human being. Using a morning after pill is exactly the same thing as getting an abortion!
The Catholic church does take a heavy stance on condoms, but Protestants have no problems with condoms, or viagra. No one in the church is going to say it's wrong to take viagra. What possible connection does viagra have with abortion? Please... Condoms are different from morning after pills. Condoms PREVENT fertilization. Morning after pills ABORT fertilizations. Is that really that difficult to understand? Would this be a controversy AT ALL if the pharmacist had refused to give a euthanasia pill to an elderly person? NO! There is absolutely no difference in his heart! How dare you people attack such a person standing up for their beliefs in PRESERVING LIFE as cold and heartless. If they were cold and heartless they would ignore their believes and hand out the pills anyway.
You people have a VERY warped view of Christianity. It's true that many Christians vote Republican on conscience (though I am not among them) but that doesn't mean that you can equate the worst policies of the Republican party with the Church.
At least take the time to find out WHY these people think this way instead of just hating them. Why is it that no one is expected to be tolerant of Christians? It's NOT a one way street!

Actually, the pharmacist in this instance is working in a place where the pills are stocked. This is not their business, this is someone else's business. It is not their decision what they sell, it is their manager/franchise owner/whoever makes that decision.

Thus, since their employer has seen fit to stock and sell the pills, they should be obligated to sell it regardless. If it's a business that they own, then they can do what they want.

And also, if they knew fuck-all about the human body, they would know that morning after pills do not induce abortions. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, a pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants itself, the morning after pill prevents implantation, if the thing is implanted, nothing will happen.

In any event, taking this to the media is not the way to solve the problem. Hit them in the pocket, and they'll start listening to you quickly. This woman was in Milwaukee, not the sticks. There are plenty of other pharmacies to fill that prescription.

I understand she was upset and not sure how to react. What she should do is march back into that Walgreen's and tell the manager that if she can't get that prescription filled there, she won't get anything else there either.

There's also the fact that this woman violated her right to privacy by publicly announcing her prescription in the store, which I believe violates policy.

You have to consider that these people beleive that if they give the women the pills they are helping her murder someone. Would you knowingly do something you beleived would help someone murder someone else? I wouldn't.

I hate all of you!

That pharmacist refuses to give out the morning after pill because he believes that when an egg is fertilized it is a live human being. Using a morning after pill is exactly the same thing as getting an abortion!
The Catholic church does take a heavy stance on condoms, but Protestants have no problems with condoms, or viagra. No one in the church is going to say it's wrong to take viagra. What possible connection does viagra have with abortion? Please... Condoms are different from morning after pills. Condoms PREVENT fertilization. Morning after pills ABORT fertilizations. Is that really that difficult to understand? Would this be a controversy AT ALL if the pharmacist had refused to give a euthanasia pill to an elderly person? NO! There is absolutely no difference in his heart! How dare you people attack such a person standing up for their beliefs in PRESERVING LIFE as cold and heartless. If they were cold and heartless they would ignore their believes and hand out the pills anyway.
You people have a VERY warped view of Christianity. It's true that many Christians vote Republican on conscience (though I am not among them) but that doesn't mean that you can equate the worst policies of the Republican party with the Church.
At least take the time to find out WHY these people think this way instead of just hating them. Why is it that no one is expected to be tolerant of Christians? It's NOT a one way street!
I dont care if you hate me ... it obviously does not help you understand what the pill does

You might want to get out and research some first

Since you don't, how about you sit this one out instead of saying things that are flat out wrong?

At least were keeping it about the issues, and not getting personal.

50% of all fertlized ovum do not implant themselves anyways for one thing, for another, this is not abortion.

Anyway you are absolutely right. But regardless of terminology, folks who believe that a life starts at conception still have ethical issues with morning after pills - and, though I think you missed this, I am NOT arguing that abortion is right or wrong, or that RU486 is immoral or not (and I'm pretty sure what I think about this would surprise you.) All I am arguing is that if someone has a serious moral objection to doing something, to the point where they believe that they are committing murder if they do it, it shouldn't be the policy of the government to FORCE them to do it....

I hate all of you!

That pharmacist refuses to give out the morning after pill because he believes that when an egg is fertilized it is a live human being. Using a morning after pill is exactly the same thing as getting an abortion!
The Catholic church does take a heavy stance on condoms, but Protestants have no problems with condoms, or viagra. No one in the church is going to say it's wrong to take viagra. What possible connection does viagra have with abortion? Please... Condoms are different from morning after pills. Condoms PREVENT fertilization. Morning after pills ABORT fertilizations. Is that really that difficult to understand? Would this be a controversy AT ALL if the pharmacist had refused to give a euthanasia pill to an elderly person? NO! There is absolutely no difference in his heart! How dare you people attack such a person standing up for their beliefs in PRESERVING LIFE as cold and heartless. If they were cold and heartless they would ignore their believes and hand out the pills anyway.
You people have a VERY warped view of Christianity. It's true that many Christians vote Republican on conscience (though I am not among them) but that doesn't mean that you can equate the worst policies of the Republican party with the Church.
At least take the time to find out WHY these people think this way instead of just hating them. Why is it that no one is expected to be tolerant of Christians? It's NOT a one way street!

Here's a news flash for you: Not every fertilized egg becomes a child. It's a scientific fact that not every fertilized egg comes to term. Many fertilized eggs are flushed from the body naturally during menstruation. Who's to blame for those "murders?" The mother? God? By your definition, all those fertilized eggs are murdered children...

You have to consider that these people beleive that if they give the women the pills they are helping her murder someone. Would you knowingly do something you beleived would help someone murder someone else? I wouldn't.
It came with the job they agreed to do ... they should have no legal recourse if they choose not to sell it and they get fired for it

I hate all of you!
Good to see you're listening to Jesus really well. :rolleyes:

Morning after pills ABORT fertilizations.
No, they don't. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A pregnancy does not begin until implantation. If implantation has occured, the morning after pill will not do anything. The morning after pill prevents ovulation, fertilization and implantation. Is that really so difficult to understand?

And the next step is that doctors have to perform abortions?


If the doctor is qualified and the procedure is necessary, of course. If the doctor is qualified and chooses to work at a facility that routinly provides elective abortions then also, of course.

However, themedical profession is a little different. Generally any qualified pharmasist is qualified to dispense any drug. Doctors tend to specialize in one area of medicine or another, although there are many general practitioners general practitioners usually aren't surgeons.

I wouldn't want my proctologist examining my eyes and I wouldn't want just any doctor to perform an abortion. I'd want a doctor who was trained to perform abortions. If a doctor trains to perform abortions then there is a fairly good chance that he or she had no moral objections to abortion going into his or her medical career.

Generally, "Its against my religion" is a stupid reason to deny a perscription because thephamist doesn't usually have all the facts. It is possible that the pill was perscribed for something other than contraception. It is possible that the baby was the Antichrist. In either situation, the Pharmist would have been wrong from both a religious point of view and a secular point of view.

My positions:

If a pharmacist is independent, or a franchise owner or whatever, it is his/her right to not stock/sell any medicine they so desire.

If a person desires to get a medicine and the local pharmacy doesn't stock that medicine, too bad. Go find another pharmacy.

If a pharmacist is an employee of a store (and therefore not the owner) and the pharmacist does not desire to sell a pill, but the owner/management does, then the pharmacist risks losing their job for not selling. But I don't want the government intervening in this sort of situation.

You have to consider that these people beleive that if they give the women the pills they are helping her murder someone. Would you knowingly do something you beleived would help someone murder someone else? I wouldn't.
I really want to know what the hell kind of education these pharmacists get in the states, here they have to take a uni degree and all sorts of chemistry, biology et c.

1) She should have gone to another phamacy. She was in Milwaukee, and I seriously doubt that Walgreens was the only phamacy there.

2) The pharmacist did nothing wrong, by Walgreen's policy, as the article clearly states:
Walgreens policy allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs they object to.

"If a pharmacist does refuse, we require the pharmacist to pass the prescription on to another pharmacist at that location, or to another pharmacy," a Walgreens spokesman told 12 News.

Maybe she lived in the middle of nowhere?
what if it was the only pharmacist in town?

I know Milwaukee isn't New York, but it's not exactly the middle of nowhere. There are other pharmacies.

should people have to drive miles out of their way because some small minded goon thinks they have the right to force their values on people?

So you want the woman to force her values on the pharmacist?

If somethings legal no one has the right to with hold it
Whoa! Sorry, but no way. Think about what you've just said. No one has the right to with hold things that are legal from others? Nothing?
Should a children's book store sell hard core porn? If a random stranger wants (legal) sex, you should give it to them, no questions asked?

I know PERFECTLY well what the RU486 pill. You obviously did not listen to a thing I just said.
Let me lay it out perfectly clear for everyone who is arguing about this.
This is what Christians believe about life-
It begins at CONCEPTION. When the sperm and egg get together, and do the DNA dance, there's LIFE THERE. That is a live human being with a soul.

This means that anything that simply prevents the sperm and egg from getting together is okay, because life is never created. ANYTHING that is done to that fertilized egg after conception to prevent it's development is taking life. Therefore, to a Christian the only difference between the RU486 and a late-term abortion is it's position on the timeline.
Does that make sense to everyone now? Can you PLEASE stop calling Christians "woman haters" for trying to protect what we believe is a LIVE HUMAN BEING? I don't care if you don't agree with us, can you at least understand our reasoning, and realize that it is noble?

At least were keeping it about the issues, and not getting personal.
What? You made it quite obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, I'm just saying perhaps you should actually find out what goes on rather than make an ass of yourself.

Anyway you are absolutely right. But regardless of terminology, folks who believe that a life starts at conception still have ethical issues with morning after pills - and, though I think you missed this, I am NOT arguing that abortion is right or wrong, or that RU486 is immoral or not (and I'm pretty sure what I think about this would surprise you.) All I am arguing is that if someone has a serious moral objection to doing something, to the point where they believe that they are committing murder if they do it, it shouldn't be the policy of the government to FORCE them to do it....
Yes, but it should be up to their employer whether they want them around or not. The government shouldn't force employers to keep them around despite berating, insulting and refusing service to customers.

Here's a news flash for you: Not every fertilized egg becomes a child.

I think, on this post, that is beside the point. We aren't arguing whether abortion is right or wrong, or if prevention of implantation is morally the same as abortion, or anything else. The argument here is IF a pharmacist BELIEVES it is murder to sell a given pill, should they still be legally obligated to sell it?

You have to consider that these people beleive that if they give the women the pills they are helping her murder someone. Would you knowingly do something you beleived would help someone murder someone else? I wouldn't.

Morning after pills can be used to murder people.

Guns can be used to murder people.

Knives can be used to murder people.

Cars can be used to murder people.

Televisions can be used to murder people.

Shoelaces can be used to muder people.

If you are willing to sell shoelaces then it would be hypocritical not to sell the morning after pill.

I know PERFECTLY well what the RU486 pill. You obviously did not listen to a thing I just said.
Wo the hell is talking about RU486? I'm talking about the morning after pill, which is an entirely differnt pill.

Let me lay it out perfectly clear for everyone who is arguing about this.
This is what Christians believe about life-
It begins at CONCEPTION. When the sperm and egg get together, and do the DNA dance, there's LIFE THERE. That is a live human being with a soul.
I'm sure there are plenty of christians here who would be insulted that you presume to know what they believe about anything.

Therefore, to a Christian the only difference between the RU486 and a late-term abortion is it's position on the timeline.
RU486 is not legal in the united states and that is not being discussed. Late term abortions are only preformed when the woman's health is at risk or the fetus is already dead.

Does that make sense to everyone now? Can you PLEASE stop calling Christians "woman haters" for trying to protect what we believe is a LIVE HUMAN BEING? I don't care if you don't agree with us, can you at least understand our reasoning, and realize that it is noble?
Lol.

I'm trying to stick up for the rights of a live human being, you're trying to stick up for the "rights" of a potential human being. And you're the only one here who has referred to anyone as a woman hater.

Explaining the Christian view of life is THE most important thing here, it isn't irrelevant at all.
The fact is, that pharmacist believes the RU486 pill is murder. To him it's no different than if you walked into the store and said "shoot me in the back of the head please." How can you DENY someone the ability to abstain from what they believe is MURDER?????? That's the question here. The government has no right to tell someone they have to do that. If the employer wants to fire him, then fine. He knows he's running that risk. That's how strongly he believes. He simply CANNOT do it.

And the next step is that doctors have to perform abortions?

Look, I have read in the paper where a pharmacist not only refused to fill a prescription (for birth control pills,) they refused to release it so the customer couldn't get it filled elsewhere. Certainly, THAT should be illegal. (In the case I quote, it was a big chain pharmacy, and the employee was fired.) But it is ludicrous to say that the only way you can exercise the freedom to live your life in accordance with your morals is if you remove the freedom of others to exercise theirs...
Taking one line out of context and refusing to answer the rest of the argument is more than a little damaging here.

You've conceeded that the pharmaceutical profession is functionally controlled by the medical one; that is, what's considered by the medical profession to be ethical dictates the ethics of the pharmaceutical practice because pharmacies simply comply with the orders of doctors. Therefore, the profession is inherently structured against the moral code that you described the pharmacist having. It's functionally like a pacifist joining the army - the equivalent of conscientious objector is not being a pharmacist. It's not like it's the only profession available. I don't have the career option of being a preacher because of my beliefs, so don't say this restricts someone's "liberty."

As for the doctors/abortions discussion, only a doctor trained in a specific way can perform abortions; namely, those trained for it. If you want to be a doctor, and don't want to perform abortions, don't get trained to do so. It's not a requisite to getting a medical license.

Morning after pills can be used to murder people.

Guns can be used to murder people.

Knives can be used to murder people.

Cars can be used to murder people.

Televisions can be used to murder people.

Shoelaces can be used to muder people.

If you are willing to sell shoelaces then it would be hypocritical not to sell the morning after pill.


LOL nice I am going to have to remember that one ...if you sell shoelaces it would be hypocritical to sell the morning after pill :) lol

I think, on this post, that is beside the point. We aren't arguing whether abortion is right or wrong, or if prevention of implantation is morally the same as abortion, or anything else. The argument here is IF a pharmacist BELIEVES it is murder to sell a given pill, should they still be legally obligated to sell it?
If it's their own shop, no, they don't ahve to stock it.
If it's not their store, then their boss should have the right to fire them on the spot.

And also, the woman should have the right to sue the pharmacist for publicly humiliating her.

Yes, but it should be up to their employer whether they want them around or not. The government shouldn't force employers to keep them around despite berating, insulting and refusing service to customers.

The article wasn't about the government forcing Walgreens to keep employees who chose not to sell a given drug. It was about Walgreens deciding it would allow employees the right to choose.

Way to read the article.
I'm just saying perhaps you should actually find out what goes on rather than make an ass of yourself.

Explaining the Christian view of life is THE most important thing here, it isn't irrelevant at all.
The fact is, that pharmacist believes the RU486 pill is murder. To him it's no different than if you walked into the store and said "shoot me in the back of the head please." How can you DENY someone the ability to abstain from what they believe is MURDER?????? That's the question here. The government has no right to tell someone they have to do that. If the employer wants to fire him, then fine. He knows he's running that risk. That's how strongly he believes. He simply CANNOT do it.
Because they made the decision to go into the field where people occasionaly come in for thing like that

They made the decision

Explaining the Christian view of life is THE most important thing here, it isn't irrelevant at all.
The fact is, that pharmacist believes the RU486 pill is murder. To him it's no different than if you walked into the store and said "shoot me in the back of the head please." How can you DENY someone the ability to abstain from what they believe is MURDER?????? That's the question here. The government has no right to tell someone they have to do that. If the employer wants to fire him, then fine. He knows he's running that risk. That's how strongly he believes. He simply CANNOT do it.
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT RU486!!!!

I don't know why you are talking about RU486, no one other than yourself has said a damn thing about it, we are talking about the morning after pill. RU486, which is not FDA approved, is an abortion pill, the morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy, thus cannot induce an abortion.

I know PERFECTLY well what the RU486 pill. You obviously did not listen to a thing I just said.
Let me lay it out perfectly clear for everyone who is arguing about this.
This is what Christians believe about life-
It begins at CONCEPTION. When the sperm and egg get together, and do the DNA dance, there's LIFE THERE. That is a live human being with a soul.

This means that anything that simply prevents the sperm and egg from getting together is okay, because life is never created. ANYTHING that is done to that fertilized egg after conception to prevent it's development is taking life. Therefore, to a Christian the only difference between the RU486 and a late-term abortion is it's position on the timeline.
Does that make sense to everyone now? Can you PLEASE stop calling Christians "woman haters" for trying to protect what we believe is a LIVE HUMAN BEING? I don't care if you don't agree with us, can you at least understand our reasoning, and realize that it is noble?


Sorry, but the perscription in question wasn't RU486. RU486 actually terminates the pregnancy. The perscription was for a morning after pill, when any educated and sane pharmacist would know prevents pregancy rather than terminating it.

If it's their own shop, no, they don't ahve to stock it.
If it's not their store, then their boss should have the right to fire them on the spot.

And also, the woman should have the right to sue the pharmacist for publicly humiliating her.
Agreed across the board

The article wasn't about the government forcing Walgreens to keep employees who chose not to sell a given drug. It was about Walgreens deciding it would allow employees the right to choose.
Someone said that the government was forcing employees to sell the pill.

Wo the hell is talking about RU486? I'm talking about the morning after pill, which is an entirely differnt pill.


I'm sure there are plenty of christians here who would be insulted that you presume to know what they believe about anything.


RU486 is not legal in the united states and that is not being discussed. Late term abortions are only preformed when the woman's health is at risk or the fetus is already dead.


Lol.

I'm trying to stick up for the rights of a live human being, you're trying to stick up for the "rights" of a potential human being. And you're the only one here who has referred to anyone as a woman hater.


yes you're right. "lol" yeah i'm the only one who said woman hater. what an incredibly relevant thing to say. fine, morning after pill, not ru486. i apologize for my mistake. the concept is the same. i realize that late term abortions are illegal. that also is irrelevant to my point. if you don't believe in the sanctity of life then i would ask you how you call yourself a christian.
excuse me for presuming to think that as a christian you believe in the bible.

you really don't get it to you? to a christian, fine, to MANY christians, it's not a "potential" person. that's the entire point. that is a PERSON. that is a SOUL. how can you say "that's not a real person until it's born" or "that's not a real person until about 4 months."
the right to your own life is greater than the right to avoid the inconvenient consequences of a mistake you made.
if my existence made your life difficult, are your rights infringed by the fact that it's illegal for you to kill me?

Sorry, but the perscription in question wasn't RU486. RU486 actually terminates the pregnancy. The perscription was for a morning after pill, when any educated and sane pharmacist would know prevents pregancy rather than terminating it.
Should have caught that myself lol
And correct anyone in the position to hand out drugs should know what they are actualy for
Its depressing that these pharmisists do not seem to know what they are despensing does

yes you're right. "lol" yeah i'm the only one who said woman hater. what an incredibly relevant thing to say. fine, morning after pill, not ru486. i apologize for my mistake. the concept is the same. i realize that late term abortions are illegal. that also is irrelevant to my point. if you don't believe in the sanctity of life then i would ask you how you call yourself a christian.
excuse me for presuming to think that as a christian you believe in the bible.

you really don't get it to you? to a christian, fine, to MANY christians, it's not a "potential" person. that's the entire point. that is a PERSON. that is a SOUL. how can you say "that's not a real person until it's born" or "that's not a real person until about 4 months."
the right to your own life is greater than the right to avoid the inconvenient consequences of a mistake you made.
if my existence made your life difficult, are your rights infringed by the fact that it's illegal for you to kill me?


Its not irrelivent ... they have compleatly different effects and objectives

Because they made the decision to go into the field where people occasionaly come in for thing like that

They made the decision

if you make the decision to become a doctor and save people's lives, but then you refuse to administer euthanasia, should you get in trouble?

after all, you made the choice to go into a field where that could happen.

if you make the decision to become a doctor and save people's lives, but then you refuse to administer euthanasia, should you get in trouble?

after all, you made the choice to go into a field where that could happen.
There is a sub devision of profession ... there is a difference if I went into HOSPICE care I would expect to have to perform euthinasia if it was LEGAL yes

Not all doctors are the same

Actually, the pharmacist in this instance is working in a place where the pills are stocked. This is not their business, this is someone else's business. It is not their decision what they sell, it is their manager/franchise owner/whoever makes that decision.

Thus, since their employer has seen fit to stock and sell the pills, they should be obligated to sell it regardless. If it's a business that they own, then they can do what they want.

And also, if they knew fuck-all about the human body, they would know that morning after pills do not induce abortions. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, a pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants itself, the morning after pill prevents implantation, if the thing is implanted, nothing will happen.

But Walgreen's policy,as stated in the article, allowed the pharmacist to refuse to fill the perscription, as long as it could be filled by another pharmacist. (The article is unclear over whether the pharmacist returned her perscription. If not, then she was in violation.)

I hate all of you!
Great way to get us to listen to you.

Tell you what, when you don't say you hate me before I've spoken to you, I'm more inclined not to summarily dismiss everything you say as drivel. Oops.

There is a sub devision of profession ... there is a difference if I went into HOSPICE care I would expect to have to perform euthinasia if it was LEGAL yes

Not all doctors are the same


if euthanasia was legal would that make it right?

Taking one line out of context and refusing to answer the rest of the argument is more than a little damaging here.
I honestly wasn't trying to distort the argument by just the one point, just trying to make a point myself. And I will concede to you (and whoever said earlier they don't want proctologists examining their eyes) that it isn't the exact same argument, Doctors and Pharmacists.
Having said that, I think you have to concede it IS in the same spirit. Many Doctors who perform abortions do obstetrics, and many doctors who do obstetrics don't do abortions.
Further, there are whole hospitals that will not allow on-demand abortions to be performed on their premises, and that is the exact same thing. People should not be forced by the government to do something they believe is amoral.
If Walgreens mandated that all pharmacists had to fill all prescriptions, it should certainly also be Walgreen's right to fire employees who violate their policy.

if euthanasia was legal would that make it right?
how do you define right?

Really, I see this woman the same way I would see a muslim or jewish person working a hotdog stand, and refusing to handle them because their religious proscriptions prevent them from touching the meat of a pig. Either she should not be working as a pharmacist, or there should be someone else on site willing and able to fill these perscriptions. Certainly the fit was unwarrented and outright rude.

Great way to get us to listen to you.

Tell you what, when you don't say you hate me before I've spoken to you, I'm more inclined not to summarily dismiss everything you say as drivel. Oops.

yes, i apologize. i was definitely out of line. that's a personal mannerism i sometimes interject into arguments with friends.
example:
friend1: Spiderman 2 was awesome!
friend2: Yeah it totally rocked!
me: AHHHHH I hate you all! That's ridiculous! That movie was awful!!

i didn't think before i spoke, and i apologize. i really didn't intend to offend you all. again, i apologize, but this is something i feel very passionately about and i got carried away.

I honestly wasn't trying to distort the argument by just the one point, just trying to make a point myself. And I will concede to you (and whoever said earlier they don't want proctologists examining their eyes) that it isn't the exact same argument, Doctors and Pharmacists.
Having said that, I think you have to concede it IS in the same spirit. Many Doctors who perform abortions do obstetrics, and many doctors who do obstetrics don't do abortions.
Further, there are whole hospitals that will not allow on-demand abortions to be performed on their premises, and that is the exact same thing. People should not be forced by the government to do something they believe is amoral.
If Walgreens mandated that all pharmacists had to fill all prescriptions, it should certainly also be Walgreen's right to fire employees who violate their policy.
I wasn't saying you were trying to distort what I was saying, just that some of the concessions you made were damaging. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

You did, however, miss the rest of the post. Doctors who don't want to perform abortions don't get trained in them. I've heard of no examples of doctors who voluntarily learned how to perform abortions refusing to do one.

Also, it's not the same spirit, because of the nature of what you sign up for. Refer to what I wrote earlier for explanation.

yes you're right. "lol" yeah i'm the only one who said woman hater. what an incredibly relevant thing to say.
It is, you accused us all of calling christians woman haters, no one has said anything like that other than you.

fine, morning after pill, not ru486. i apologize for my mistake. the concept is the same.
No, the two pills are entirely different.

i realize that late term abortions are illegal. that also is irrelevant to my point.
You're the one who brought up late term abortions.

if you don't believe in the sanctity of life then i would ask you how you call yourself a christian.
I don't. Others do.

excuse me for presuming to think that as a christian you believe in the bible.
This from the person whose first post started with "I hate you all" didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "Love thy neighbour/enemy/everyone"? Yes, I'd say you're being really good with the whole following the bible, what with your loving, non-judgemental attitude.

you really don't get it to you? to a christian, fine, to MANY christians, it's not a "potential" person. that's the entire point. that is a PERSON. that is a SOUL. how can you say "that's not a real person until it's born" or "that's not a real person until about 4 months."
Yeah, and I believe I'm a goddess, that doesn't mean that I have the right to force everyone to worship me.

the right to your own life is greater than the right to avoid the inconvenient consequences of a mistake you made.
Inconvenient. Yes, how sensitive and caring of you. Good thing you never claimed to believe in the guy who stood up for everyone, no matter how many mistakes they made in their lives and to love them and be infintely forgiving. Good thing you never claimed to be following his ways, huh? I mean, that would just make you a big old hypocrite.

if my existence made your life difficult, are your rights infringed by the fact that it's illegal for you to kill me?
Your existence has not made my life difficult, and your question is entirely irrelevant. If you were hooked up me, using my body as a life support machine, then I am well within my rights to pull the plug and let you die. In the same way that if I'm a perfect kidney donor for you, I can deceide "fuck you, I want my kidneys"

If it's their own shop, no, they don't ahve to stock it.
If it's not their store, then their boss should have the right to fire them on the spot.

And also, the woman should have the right to sue the pharmacist for publicly humiliating her.

Despite going back and forth, I think we're on the same page, Dakini (can I call you Dak for short?) The pharmacist who was publicly nasty ought to be fired for that, and she should be able to sue him.

how do you define right?


you have got to be kidding me! i can't believe you just said that.
would you find it morally objectionable to administer euthanasia? would you believe that was "wrong"?

allow me to make it even more extreme for you.
if the government ruled that it was legal to shoot people from Iowa (sorry Iowans...random choice) would you believe that it was morally acceptable to shoot people from Iowa?

But Walgreen's policy,as stated in the article, allowed the pharmacist to refuse to fill the perscription, as long as it could be filled by another pharmacist. (The article is unclear over whether the pharmacist returned her perscription. If not, then she was in violation.)
Well, then Walgreens is pretty stupid. What happened to the days of "the customer's always right"? I mean, I work at a grocery store and put up with so much shit with a smile on my face. I can't publicly humilate one of my customers because they take forever to deceide on a sandwich, so the pharmacist should not be permitted to public humilate and berate a woman who wants a perscription filled.

I wasn't saying you were trying to distort what I was saying, just that some of the concessions you made were damaging. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

You did, however, miss the rest of the post. Doctors who don't want to perform abortions don't get trained in them. I've heard of no examples of doctors who voluntarily learned how to perform abortions refusing to do one.

Also, it's not the same spirit, because of the nature of what you sign up for. Refer to what I wrote earlier for explanation.

I think it is the same thing. If we mandate today that all pharmacists HAVE to sell drugs that they believe terminate an unborn human life, would it be such a jump that tomorrow Doctors have to be trained to perform abortions? In both situations, the key issue is that folks should have the freedom to choose (pun intended.)

I think, on this post, that is beside the point. We aren't arguing whether abortion is right or wrong, or if prevention of implantation is morally the same as abortion, or anything else. The argument here is IF a pharmacist BELIEVES it is murder to sell a given pill, should they still be legally obligated to sell it?

True, but the person I was replying to implicitly stated that a fertilized egg was a human being, and that taking a pill to promote its unviability was murder. Hence my rebuttal.

you have got to be kidding me! i can't believe you just said that.
would you find it morally objectionable to administer euthanasia? would you believe that was "wrong"?

allow me to make it even more extreme for you.
if the government ruled that it was legal to shoot people from Iowa (sorry Iowans...random choice) would you believe that it was morally acceptable to shoot people from Iowa?
No law does not make right ... but I never argued that it did
I said that if (let me argue this absurdum like you) I took a job lets say guarding the boarder between iowa and minnesota I should expect to kill some iowens my selected perfession says I guard against everyone including iownens I could expect to have to do that time to time

If I found it personaly moraly objectable that I would have to DO MY JOB I should select a different job

True, but the person I was replying to implicitly stated that a fertilized egg was a human being, and that taking a pill to promote its unviability was murder. Hence my rebuttal.
I wasn't after you - I just think the issue is great, and wanted to try and pull it on topic. I've been skipping over the posts that were more "Pro-Life" vs. "Pro-Choice"; does anyone actually think anyone will change the view they already hold on that?

Yeah, and I believe I'm a goddess, that doesn't mean that I have the right to force everyone to worship me.


Inconvenient. Yes, how sensitive and caring of you. Good thing you never claimed to believe in the guy who stood up for everyone, no matter how many mistakes they made in their lives and to love them and be infintely forgiving. Good thing you never claimed to be following his ways, huh? I mean, that would just make you a big old hypocrite.


Your existence has not made my life difficult, and your question is entirely irrelevant. If you were hooked up me, using my body as a life support machine, then I am well within my rights to pull the plug and let you die. In the same way that if I'm a perfect kidney donor for you, I can deceide "fuck you, I want my kidneys"

how do you equate a belief that a fetus is alive before you think it is, with you believing you're a goddess?

i never said anything bad about women with unwanted pregnancies. i DO recognize that it is EXTREMELY difficult and lifechanging. i never said i wouldn't love them. ALL i'm saying is this- no matter what, nothing can justify taking the life of another. that's all it boils down to. you can argue my belief of when life starts, and that's your right, but can you put yourself in my, or that pharmacist's shoes and for one second think "if i believed that that fetus was already alive, would i be okay with aborting it"

if i'm "hooked up to your body for life support" and you pull the plug on me. i believe you just murdered me. anyone else want to argue that this action is a moral one they could live with?

I think it is the same thing. If we mandate today that all pharmacists HAVE to sell drugs that they believe terminate an unborn human life, would it be such a jump that tomorrow Doctors have to be trained to perform abortions? In both situations, the key issue is that folks should have the freedom to choose (pun intende.)
Heh to the pun.

As for the rest: I learned as a junior in high school that slippery slope was what's called a logical fallacy - something that sounds persuasive but has no basis in fact. There's ZERO reason to think that mandating pharmacists to fulfill perscriptions at all will cause us to force all doctors into performing abortions. The reason? Because not all doctors are gynecologists, or similar types of doctors. Neurologists don't need to perform abortions; it's not part of their job descriptions. Same way that the designated hitter isn't your pitcher. If you volunteer to be a pitcher, you're going to have to learn how to throw a fastball and a changeup. If you don't want to throw fastballs and changeups, then you can't be an effective pitcher.

Bottom line? The specialization in the medical practice significantly differs it from the pharmaceutical one.

how do you equate a belief that a fetus is alive before you think it is, with you believing you're a goddess?

What he or she means is that if I'm a pharmacist who happens to be part of a cult in which I'm the deity, and all who require medicines must pray to me, would it be fair to force a Christian or a Jew to pray to their pharmacist (recall the first/second commandments) to get the medicine they need? No, you'd say, it wouldn't. Same thing goes for Christianity. If I'm not a Christian, I shouldn't have to subscribe to Christian beliefs at my pharmacy.

No law does not make right ... but I never argued that it did
I said that if (let me argue this absurdum like you) I took a job lets say guarding the boarder between iowa and minnesota I should expect to kill some iowens my selected perfession says I guard against everyone including iownens I could expect to have to do that time to time

If I found it personaly moraly objectable that I would have to DO MY JOB I should select a different job

excuse me, but i thought a pharmacist's job was to prescribe healing medications. i don't believe that pharmacist went to college to learn how to hand out a morning after pill. if you feel that a certain pill is damaging rather than healing, how is it wrong to say "i'm sorry but i can't in good conscience give you this drug"
if walgreens wants to fire the employee, that's fine, but it doesn't sound like they would. it's not illegal to act according to your conscience.

What he or she means is that if I'm a pharmacist who happens to be part of a cult in which I'm the deity, and all who require medicines must pray to me, would it be fair to force a Christian or a Jew to pray to their pharmacist (recall the first/second commandments) to get the medicine they need? No, you'd say, it wouldn't. Same thing goes for Christianity. If I'm not a Christian, I shouldn't have to subscribe to Christian beliefs at my pharmacy.

if that cult member owns a pharmacy, he could certainly do that. i'm sure he wouldn't get much business. if he works for walgreens, then i would complain to the management, and they would decide whether they should fire him, or whether his demands are understandable.
the pharmacist is not demanding that the woman recite the lord's prayer, he is simply saying that he cannot in good conscience prescribe her that pill. he is not demanding anything of the woman, he is refusing to assist a woman end a life (in his mind).

Heh to the pun.

As for the rest: I learned as a junior in high school that slippery slope was what's called a logical fallacy - something that sounds persuasive but has no basis in fact. There's ZERO reason to think that mandating pharmacists to fulfill prescriptions at all will cause us to force all doctors into performing abortions. The reason? Because not all doctors are gynecologists, or similar types of doctors. Neurologists don't need to perform abortions; it's not part of their job descriptions. Same way that the designated hitter isn't your pitcher. If you volunteer to be a pitcher, you're going to have to learn how to throw a fastball and a change up. If you don't want to throw fastballs and change ups, then you can't be an effective pitcher.

Bottom line? The specialization in the medical practice significantly differs it from the pharmaceutical one.

You're probably right - the odds of doctors actually being forced to perform abortions is pretty slim (even though I meant OB/GYNs, not neurologists.) But the reason they would never be forced to is that people realize that doctors should be free to express their own morality by abstaining from on-demand abortions - that forcing them to perform abortions would in itself be immoral. Similarly, forcing pharmacists to fulfill a prescription for a pill they believe to be immoral or pharmacies to stock such a pill is in itself immoral.

Before I get called on it - if a doctor goes to work in an abortion clinic, he can't claim morality as a reason for performing abortions (like folks in the Army who join in peacetime & then say they are conscientious objectors when a war happens.) A pharmacist must be willing to obey the rules of the place in which he works, else he shouldn't take the job.

excuse me, but i thought a pharmacist's job was to prescribe healing medications.
Many would say the morning after pill IS a healing pill, considering the health effects an unwanted birth can have on both mother and child.

i don't wish to argue the beginning of life with you people, you obviously feel that i am an extremist religious nut who doesn't know anything about the real world. fine.
GIVEN THAT:
the pharmacist believes this pill ends a human life
THEN:
why should it be illegal for him to abstain from assisting in its use?

you may ONLY argue the second statement, the first is fact and is off limits

if that cult member owns a pharmacy, he could certainly do that. i'm sure he wouldn't get much business. if he works for walgreens, then i would complain to the management, and they would decide whether they should fire him, or whether his demands are understandable.
the pharmacist is not demanding that the woman recite the lord's prayer, he is simply saying that he cannot in good conscience prescribe her that pill. he is not demanding anything of the woman, he is refusing to assist a woman end a life (in his mind).
He should have known it was going to come at one time or another and worked in a different profession
That is a PART of the profession he was not doing his job

i don't wish to argue the beginning of life with you people, you obviously feel that i am an extremist religious nut who doesn't know anything about the real world. fine.
GIVEN THAT:
the pharmacist believes this pill ends a human life
THEN:
why should it be illegal for him to abstain from assisting in its use?

you may ONLY argue the second statement, the first is fact and is off limits
Oh so you are telling us what we can and can not argue?

how do you equate a belief that a fetus is alive before you think it is, with you believing you're a goddess?
I don't have the right to force my beliefs on others, they don't have the right to force their beliefs on me.

i never said anything bad about women with unwanted pregnancies. i DO recognize that it is EXTREMELY difficult and lifechanging. i never said i wouldn't love them.
You've already expressed hatred for every participant in this thread. I say the ship has sailed on this "I love everyone" crap.

ALL i'm saying is this- no matter what, nothing can justify taking the life of another.
Good thing that it's not a life, eh?
Also, kudos on starting a vegetarian lifestyle. That's unbdoubtedly something that goes along with not taking lives, right?

you can argue my belief of when life starts, and that's your right, but can you put yourself in my, or that pharmacist's shoes and for one second think "if i believed that that fetus was already alive, would i be okay with aborting it"
1. not a fetus in this case, a blastyoclast if I'm not mistaken.
2. Not an abortion.
3. Not the pharmacist's choice, it's the woman's choice, the pharmacist does not have the right to force their beliefs on the woman or make a choice for her. Even if it was, all the pharmacist has to say is "No, I don't believe in it." politely intead of publicly humiliating the woman.

if i'm "hooked up to your body for life support" and you pull the plug on me. i believe you just murdered me. anyone else want to argue that this action is a moral one they could live with?
I did not murder you. You do not have the right to use my body as life support. It is my body. We don't allow slavery, why should you then be allowed to use my body for your means? Screw that.

And the way you're carrying on, I think I would be fine with letting you go. It woudl be better than putting up with months of this.

how do you equate a belief that a fetus is alive before you think it is, with you believing you're a goddess?

I believe the point is that something doesn't necessarily need to be true to be believed. Belief is about faith, hence it is different from knowledge.

ALL i'm saying is this- no matter what, nothing can justify taking the life of another. that's all it boils down to.

Nothing can justifiy the taking of another's life? So, if you had a gun, and your wife and children were being attacked by a knife-wielding man, you wouldn't feel justified in shooting him, even if the shot would possibly kill him, in order to save your family?

if i'm "hooked up to your body for life support" and you pull the plug on me. i believe you just murdered me. anyone else want to argue that this action is a moral one they could live with?

Getting back on the topic of the morning-after pill, if you'd read my previous reply to you, you'll see that women pass fertilized eggs naturally during menstruation all the time. So whose to blame for those "deaths?"

You're probably right - the odds of doctors actually being forced to perform abortions is pretty slim (even though I meant OB/GYNs, not neurologists.) But the reason they would never be forced to is that people realize that doctors should be free to express their own morality by abstaining from on-demand abortions - that forcing them to perform abortions would in itself be immoral. Similarly, forcing pharmacists to fulfill a prescription for a pill they believe to be immoral or pharmacies to stock such a pill is in itself immoral.

No, the reason they wouldn't be forced is that training to perform abortions is OPTIONAL. You don't have to learn how. You can't force someone to do something they don't know how to do. They had the choice as to whether they wanted to learn how to do something they thought was immoral; they chose no. This gives the doctor full control over their morality.

Pharmacists, however, can't possibly not learn to make a morning-after pill, given the nature of the way pills are made. Therefore, joining the profession is an implicit acceptance of making pills, including the morning-after pill. If you want to join a profession, agree to the terms of entry.

Many would say the morning after pill IS a healing pill, considering the health effects an unwanted birth can have on both mother and child.

i'm sorry but i find that statement INCREDIBLY insensitive and offensive.
let's get one thing clear here- the woman chose to have sex, understanding the risk of pregnancy. the pregnancy is a direct result of that choice. i believe that the "health effects" of an unwanted child are entirely irrelevant (obviously i'm not referring to life or death cases here where one has to die here, so please don't jump on me) what is worse? to have an unwanted child you have to take care of, or to die?

if that cult member owns a pharmacy, he could certainly do that. i'm sure he wouldn't get much business. if he works for walgreens, then i would complain to the management, and they would decide whether they should fire him, or whether his demands are understandable.
the pharmacist is not demanding that the woman recite the lord's prayer, he is simply saying that he cannot in good conscience prescribe her that pill. he is not demanding anything of the woman, he is refusing to assist a woman end a life (in his mind).
That last part is inherently a demand on the woman to carry her pregnancy to term - it's not the pharmacist's right to decide whether that's moral any more than it is for the pharmacist to tell you who to pray to. You're still forcing someone to take an action and still making a moral choice for them. There's no distinction to draw here.

excuse me, but i thought a pharmacist's job was to prescribe healing medications.
So pharmacists don't give out painkillers?
Painkillers do not heal, they make a person feel as though they have less pain, but pharmacists still sell them.

i don't believe that pharmacist went to college to learn how to hand out a morning after pill. if you feel that a certain pill is damaging rather than healing, how is it wrong to say "i'm sorry but i can't in good conscience give you this drug"
Good. So I go become a pharmacist and deceide that painkillers do more harm than good, so when you've come in after recent surgery, let's say you had a root canal... and you want some nice painkillers to numb the excruciating pain... and I say no. How's that going to make you feel? You get to drive accross town in excruciating pain because I don't feel like doing my job.
Pharmacists dispense medication. That is the job they went to school to learn to do. They do not go to school to play doctor.

if walgreens wants to fire the employee, that's fine, but it doesn't sound like they would. it's not illegal to act according to your conscience.
So you're alright that the employee yelled at this woman? Humiliating her and calling her a baby killer?

i'm sorry but i find that statement INCREDIBLY insensitive and offensive.
let's get one thing clear here- the woman chose to have sex, understanding the risk of pregnancy. the pregnancy is a direct result of that choice. i believe that the "health effects" of an unwanted child are entirely irrelevant (obviously i'm not referring to life or death cases here where one has to die here, so please don't jump on me) what is worse? to have an unwanted child you have to take care of, or to die?
But the morning after pill stops her from EVER being pregnant in the first place
IT is NOT terminating the pregnancy
So the rest of your tirade is pointless as the morning after pill stoped the conception (the egg was never released)

i'm sorry but i find that statement INCREDIBLY insensitive and offensive.
Hahahahahahahaha, now you're saying when things are insensitive and offensive? You've been insensitive and offensive since you first declared your hatred for us all.

let's get one thing clear here- the woman chose to have sex, understanding the risk of pregnancy. the pregnancy is a direct result of that choice.
And when she chooses to get the morning after pill, she chooses to prevent a pregnancy, what's the problem?

i believe that the "health effects" of an unwanted child are entirely irrelevant (obviously i'm not referring to life or death cases here where one has to die here, so please don't jump on me) what is worse? to have an unwanted child you have to take care of, or to die?
No one is dying.

i'm sorry but i find that statement INCREDIBLY insensitive and offensive.
let's get one thing clear here- the woman chose to have sex, understanding the risk of pregnancy. the pregnancy is a direct result of that choice. i believe that the "health effects" of an unwanted child are entirely irrelevant (obviously i'm not referring to life or death cases here where one has to die here, so please don't jump on me) what is worse? to have an unwanted child you have to take care of, or to die?
Umm, you can't just pretend that death isn't a consequence of birth in this debate. Many women die per year from unwanted pregnancies around the world. Countries with legalized abortions and morning-after pills have significantly lower death rates. If you're not referring to life-or-death cases, then don't make absolute claims about "the sanctity of life."

For all the pharmacist knows, the woman was raped, the baby will be born brain-dead, or the woman will commit suicide after the birth because she can't deal with bringing up the baby. These consequences are unpredictable, and therefore the pharmacist may be costing a life by saving "one" (I don't agree with our hypothetical pharmacist here).

How the hell is it insensitive to say that saving a woman's life isn't a significant health benefit?

Isn't it fucking insensitive to tell a woman that they have to give birth to the child of a man who raped her for a God that she may think doesn't exist?

Think about what you just said.

Without malice of anger I say this; if a person cannot or will not perform their job's duties, they should be fired.

Is there a provision within Walgreen's employment contract that says this woman can refuse to perform her "duty"? If there is, she's fine, if there isn't she needs to be fired. If a Janitor refuses to clean up vomit because its against their religion...they shouldn't be employed as a janitor.

Read the article. It clearly states that Walgreens allows it pharmacists to not fill prescriptions that they object to. Other exceptions have been made, such as Muslim truck drivers not being forced to deliver alcohol, and no one ecpects doctors to perform abortions if they are opposed to them.

I believe the point is that something doesn't necessarily need to be true to be believed. Belief is about faith, hence it is different from knowledge.

my only point was that i'm not claiming something totally absurd. i'm not sure when you believe life begins, but i think many people believes that it begins at some point during pregnancy. i believe that point is earlier than you do. you have no scientific evidence to back that up, and neither do i. and please don't say "the brain does not develop until such and such a date" because we're talking about LIFE, which is something that science has a difficult time defining.
i personally think it's fair to say that this entire debate revolves around differing theories of when life begins. no one has any facts



Nothing can justifiy the taking of another's life? So, if you had a gun, and your wife and children were being attacked by a knife-wielding man, you wouldn't feel justified in shooting him, even if the shot would possibly kill him, in order to save your family?

....right....fine...i will clarify for every possible case not involved in this discussion...nothing can justify taking the life of an innocent baby




Getting back on the topic of the morning-after pill, if you'd read my previous reply to you, you'll see that women pass fertilized eggs naturally during menstruation all the time. So whose to blame for those "deaths?"

i did read it, and i'm sorry but i can't type fast enough to respond to every comment getting sent my way. i understand that not all pregnancies are carried through to birth. i really don't wish to debate this with you, as this is highly religious, and really doesn't involve the original pharmacist question, but i believe that God takes those unborn children, just as he takes everyone else who dies. again, i know you don't agree with me on that, so please don't debate it, it won't get us anywhere.

Read the article. It clearly states that Walgreens allows it pharmacists to not fill prescriptions that they object to. Other exceptions have been made, such as Muslim truck drivers not being forced to deliver alcohol, and no one ecpects doctors to perform abortions if they are opposed to them.
Had not heard of the truck driver example but the doctor arguement is bunk
Simple act of specilization in the field

not all doctors perform all procedures ... you dont want to perform a procedure you dont go into that field simple as that

you really don't get it to you? to a christian, fine, to MANY christians, it's not a "potential" person. that's the entire point. that is a PERSON. that is a SOUL. how can you say "that's not a real person until it's born" or "that's not a real person until about 4 months."
the right to your own life is greater than the right to avoid the inconvenient consequences of a mistake you made.
if my existence made your life difficult, are your rights infringed by the fact that it's illegal for you to kill me?

Techinially, a fetus doesn't have a soul untill 50 or 90 days, depending on what estimation you go by. To be conservative I'll say 50. That isn't my opinion, that is the opnion of great Catholic Theologians and philosophers including Agustine. So, it wouldn't be murder according to Catholic dogma.

Needless to say, a law gainst me murdering you may infringe upon my rights, and liberties and certanly limits my freedom. However, the state interest in preventing such actions far outweigh any tiny violation of my rights that this law may cause. Furthurmore, the law applies equally to everyone.
On the other hand, the state interest in preventing abortion is eclipsed by women's right to control their bodies and to have medical privacy.
On the other hand,

i did read it, and i'm sorry but i can't type fast enough to respond to every comment getting sent my way. i understand that not all pregnancies are carried through to birth. i really don't wish to debate this with you, as this is highly religious, and really doesn't involve the original pharmacist question, but i believe that God takes those unborn children, just as he takes everyone else who dies. again, i know you don't agree with me on that, so please don't debate it, it won't get us anywhere.

Not if you are catholic :P origional sin precludes the saving or asention of pre baptisim children

One of the down sides to origional sin belief

Umm, you can't just pretend that death isn't a consequence of birth in this debate. Many women die per year from unwanted pregnancies around the world. Countries with legalized abortions and morning-after pills have significantly lower death rates. If you're not referring to life-or-death cases, then don't make absolute claims about "the sanctity of life."

For all the pharmacist knows, the woman was raped, the baby will be born brain-dead, or the woman will commit suicide after the birth because she can't deal with bringing up the baby. These consequences are unpredictable, and therefore the pharmacist may be costing a life by saving "one" (I don't agree with our hypothetical pharmacist here).

How the hell is it insensitive to say that saving a woman's life isn't a significant health benefit?

Isn't it fucking insensitive to tell a woman that they have to give birth to the child of a man who raped her for a God that she may think doesn't exist?

Think about what you just said.


i believe i said that i was NOT talking about situations in which there is a medical emergency and either the mother or the baby will die. that's an entirely different discussion. i also said that i am not talking about cases of rape. i'm not talking about saving a woman's life. i'm talking about SAVING a baby's life OVER saving a woman's lifestyle.

you can't tell me that the pharmacist who believes the pill would end a life should give it out because he realizes that it is within the realm of possiblity that the mother may commit suicide.

oh and countries with legalized abortion and morning after pills also have much better health care don't they? i recognize that some mothers die from pregnancy. that really is tragic. but i also can't take away from the fact that many unborn children die from abortions. that's a much much larger number.

For all the pharmacist knows, the woman was raped, the baby will be born brain-dead, or the woman will commit suicide after the birth because she can't deal with bringing up the baby. These consequences are unpredictable, and therefore the pharmacist may be costing a life by saving "one" (I don't agree with our hypothetical pharmacist here).
Hell, for all the pharmacist knows, the woman will go home and deceide that she wants to have another kid afterall and not take the pills. The pharmacist does not know what the woman will do after leaving the store, thus there is no ethical dillema in letting her have them, really.

Except that Wallgreens carries the morning after pill. Any other pharmacist in that location would not have berated the woman or accused her of beign a baby killer. They would have reached behind the counter and got it for her, no questions asked. Way to read the article.

Wallgreens allows its pharmacists to not fill prescriptions they object to. Way to read the article.

i'm talking about SAVING a baby's life OVER saving a woman's lifestyle.
Yes, because that's all that matters here.
How dare you call anyone else insenstive.

but i also can't take away from the fact that many unborn children die from abortions. that's a much much larger number.
No they don't.

Not if you are catholic :P origional sin precludes the saving or asention of pre baptisim children

One of the down sides to origional sin belief

all christians believe in original sin. i don't know of any christians who believe that aborted fetuses go to hell.
the bible isn't the book of answers to every possible situation, okay? some things are still unkown to us.

this is directed towards the other post(trying to keep up)-
i don't care what you think you heard somewhere about some ancient church document. i have NEVER heard anyone say anything even remotely similar to a fetus having a soul after 50 days. maybe that was said, but remember, there have been differing opinions over these long years. if one person somewhere said something 900 years ago, that doesn't always mean that i believe it.

all christians believe in original sin.
No they don't. That's only catholics.

i don't care what you think you heard somewhere about some ancient church document. i have NEVER heard anyone say anything even remotely similar to a fetus having a soul after 50 days. maybe that was said, but remember, there have been differing opinions over these long years. if one person somewhere said something 900 years ago, that doesn't always mean that i believe it.
Hmm... can everyone else see the irony here?

all christians believe in original sin. i don't know of any christians who believe that aborted fetuses go to hell.
the bible isn't the book of answers to every possible situation, okay? some things are still unkown to us.

this is directed towards the other post(trying to keep up)-
i don't care what you think you heard somewhere about some ancient church document. i have NEVER heard anyone say anything even remotely similar to a fetus having a soul after 50 days. maybe that was said, but remember, there have been differing opinions over these long years. if one person somewhere said something 900 years ago, that doesn't always mean that i believe it.
Then the people you know do not know their faith and what their religious text says

Yes, because that's all that matters here.
How dare you call anyone else insenstive.


No they don't.

well then. i apologize for believing that a woman who has sex knowing the risk of pregnancy, and becomes pregnant should raise the child rather than kill it.

what are christians accused of hating women because we don't want to kill babies????????????

excuse me, but i thought a pharmacist's job was to prescribe healing medications. i don't believe that pharmacist went to college to learn how to hand out a morning after pill. if you feel that a certain pill is damaging rather than healing, how is it wrong to say "i'm sorry but i can't in good conscience give you this drug"
if walgreens wants to fire the employee, that's fine, but it doesn't sound like they would. it's not illegal to act according to your conscience.

Technically, a pharmacist doesn't perscribe anything. Pharmacists only dispense. However, that is just a matter of terminology.

The thing is that there are many reasons that the drug could have been perscribed. What if she had a medical condition that would cause pregnancy to be fatal to her? "Well she shouldn't have had sex", some people may say.
What if she has this medical condition and was raped?

What if it wasn't even perscribed for contraception? It would have been a treatment for an odd hormone imbalance for all the pharmacist knew.

Then the people you know do not know their faith and what their religious text says

what religious text? do you have any idea who augustine was? any at all? do you know what documents the church teaches from?
i didn't think so.

please don't tell ME about my religion. i don't think it's arrogant to say that i know more about it than you do.

i believe i said that i was NOT talking about situations in which there is a medical emergency and either the mother or the baby will die. that's an entirely different discussion. i also said that i am not talking about cases of rape. i'm not talking about saving a woman's life. i'm talking about SAVING a baby's life OVER saving a woman's lifestyle.

you can't tell me that the pharmacist who believes the pill would end a life should give it out because he realizes that it is within the realm of possiblity that the mother may commit suicide.
I just isolated why you can't separate death from any other consequence. You have not challenged that logic. You can't just pretend it's not a consequence. It's fundamentally unpredictable whether it is or is not going to occur, although in same cases you can tell beforehand that it will.

The point is; there's always a chance that there could be lives lost on either side, if you buy their interpretation of life. Therefore, it's an unresolvable moral dilemma.

My better reasons for opposing this "conscience" argument have been stated earlier.

oh and countries with legalized abortion and morning after pills also have much better health care don't they? i recognize that some mothers die from pregnancy. that really is tragic. but i also can't take away from the fact that many unborn children die from abortions. that's a much much larger number.
Funny, the correlation between liberal social policies and better health care...

And, more people die in the third world from unwanted pregnancies per year that fetuses terminated in the first world, most of them children dying of starvation.

Technically, a pharmacist doesn't perscribe anything. Pharmacists only dispense. However, that is just a matter of terminology.

The thing is that there are many reasons that the drug could have been perscribed. What if she had a medical condition that would cause pregnancy to be fatal to her? "Well she shouldn't have had sex", some people may say.
What if she has this medical condition and was raped?

What if it wasn't even perscribed for contraception? It would have been a treatment for an odd hormone imbalance for all the pharmacist knew.
True birth controll is used all the time for hormonal correction

well then. i apologize for believing that a woman who has sex knowing the risk of pregnancy, and becomes pregnant should raise the child rather than kill it.
The morning after pill prevents pregnancy!

what are christians accused of hating women because we don't want to kill babies????????????
No one has said that they hated anyone, let alone me. I don't hate people as a rule, I feel it's too negative an emotion, and really how would I feel superior and smug if I never came accross an idiot or two. ;) And seriously, christians like you give the rest of the christians a bad name. Most of them are smart, kind people who don't have persecution complexes and delusions of grandeur.

Also, no babies are involved in abortion procedures and certainly no babies are involved in the use of the morning after pill.

Hmm... can everyone else see the irony here?
Yes. It's quite funny.

what religious text? do you have any idea who augustine was? any at all? do you know what documents the church teaches from?
i didn't think so.

please don't tell ME about my religion. i don't think it's arrogant to say that i know more about it than you do.
Meaning the bible ;)

And I think it is arrogant specialy being that you have no idea of my backround nor MY religion

I just isolated why you can't separate death from any other consequence. You have not challenged that logic. You can't just pretend it's not a consequence. It's fundamentally unpredictable whether it is or is not going to occur, although in same cases you can tell beforehand that it will.

The point is; there's always a chance that there could be lives lost on either side, if you buy their interpretation of life. Therefore, it's an unresolvable moral dilemma.

My better reasons for opposing this "conscience" argument have been stated earlier.


Funny, the correlation between liberal social policies and better health care...

And, more people die in the third world from unwanted pregnancies per year that fetuses terminated in the first world, most of them children dying of starvation.


all i will argue from that is this- i challenge you to find reliable statistics to tell me that more women die from unwanted pregnancies (wanted ones don't apply here) who are dying because they aren't given abortions (the fact that they are dying from starvation is separate from the pregnancy), than do unborn children who are aborted.

the only way for a ban on abortions to cause MORE deaths is if the mother and the child both died in every case.

Meaning the bible ;)

And I think it is arrogant specialy being that you have no idea of my backround nor MY religion

did augustine write the bible?

did augustine write the bible?
No ... did not say he did ... I think you are geting confused I brought up biblical contradictions to the idea that unbaptised children go to heaven

While he was a great philosopher at times he is hardly the end all

I wasn't saying you were trying to distort what I was saying, just that some of the concessions you made were damaging. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

You did, however, miss the rest of the post. Doctors who don't want to perform abortions don't get trained in them. I've heard of no examples of doctors who voluntarily learned how to perform abortions refusing to do one.

Also, it's not the same spirit, because of the nature of what you sign up for. Refer to what I wrote earlier for explanation.

Your argument was stronger before you clarified There are many doctors who are trained in a particular procedure, and it is within the scope of their specialty and practice yet they still refuse to perform it. They are many types of surgery my father will not do, though they lie in his specialty and his practice and it is common for people requiring those procedures to appear in his clinic. He doess however give referals.

all i will argue from that is this- i challenge you to find reliable statistics to tell me that more women die from unwanted pregnancies (wanted ones don't apply here) who are dying because they aren't given abortions (the fact that they are dying from starvation is separate from the pregnancy), than do unborn children who are aborted.

the only way for a ban on abortions to cause MORE deaths is if the mother and the child both died in every case.
More women do die in childbirth than as the result of an abortion. Yes, even in first world countries. It would be impossible to get stats on the mortality rates of women carrying unwanted pregnancies, that's not really something you can ask the surviving family "So, your daughter who just died in childbirth, did she want this kid?"

But sadly, childbirth is still a risky venture.

I cant wait until Jahovus Witnesses will be refusing blood transfusions.

No ... did not say he did ... I think you are geting confused I brought up biblical contradictions to the idea that unbaptised children go to heaven

While he was a great philosopher at times he is hardly the end all

there are no biblical contradictions to that idea, because the bible does NOT mention it.

It is the pharmacist's job to sell those pills, if she doesn't do her job she should be fired. She didn't do her job and so she should be fired. Why does Walgreens allow pharmicists to not sell pills just becuase it's against there beliefs or whatever? It's what a pharmacist does, they sell pills. Damn bible thumpers.

Hmn... Here's a question for all of you...

Let's say for a minute that the woman went in with the perscription but her husband or life partner went with her. Do you think that the woman would have received the same treatment? Especially if the man knows and acknowledges the reason for her wanting and needing the perscription filled.

Or, here's another one...

If masterbation is a sin, why isn't menstration a sin? Both in some way prevent a life from being conceived. The egg leaves the woman's body when she menstrates, and yet, it's fine?

So, why is the birth control pill so bad? Especially if it, ironically prevents the woman from releasing an egg every cycle? And why would it be denied to her?

all i will argue from that is this- i challenge you to find reliable statistics to tell me that more women die from unwanted pregnancies (wanted ones don't apply here) who are dying because they aren't given abortions (the fact that they are dying from starvation is separate from the pregnancy), than do unborn children who are aborted.

the only way for a ban on abortions to cause MORE deaths is if the mother and the child both died in every case.
Thanks for conceeding that pharmacists should have to dispense morning after pills.

Look, dying of starvation is NOT separable from pregnancy. Most third world unwanted pregnancies stem from parents not being able to feed more children than they already have. Another one could cause the entire family to starve. An abortion could have stopped that.

That's all I need to say on this.

Oh, and one more thing:
FETUSES ARE NOT LIVES!!!!!!!
STOP REFERRING TO THEM AS SUCH!!!!
THE REST OF US DON'T BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS YOU DO!!!!
ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE PREMISED ON THIS "FACT!!!!!
WEAK!!!!!!

More women do die in childbirth than as the result of an abortion. Yes, even in first world countries. It would be impossible to get stats on the mortality rates of women carrying unwanted pregnancies, that's not really something you can ask the surviving family "So, your daughter who just died in childbirth, did she want this kid?"

But sadly, childbirth is still a risky venture.

i didn't say restate what you just said. i said show me the source for that statistic. i want to see the scientific data that shows that more women die as a result of unaborted unwanted pregnancies than fetuses are aborted.

I cant wait until Jahovus Witnesses will be refusing blood transfusions.
There have been two distinct cases of such refusals in here Canada. Two teenage female Jehovahs Witnesses, both cancer patients, refused blood transfusions. The first major case resulted in the girl dying.

i didn't say restate what you just said. i said show me the source for that statistic. i want to see the scientific data that shows that more women die as a result of unaborted unwanted pregnancies than fetuses are aborted.
I never said it in the first place. Someone else brought up the stat. Thank you for paying attention to who you were talking to.

Hmn... Here's a question for all of you...

Let's say for a minute that the woman went in with the perscription but her husband or life partner went with her. Do you think that the woman would have received the same treatment? Especially if the man knows and acknowledges the reason for her wanting and needing the perscription filled.

Or, here's another one...

If masterbation is a sin, why isn't menstration a sin? Both in some way prevent a life from being conceived. The egg leaves the woman's body when she menstrates, and yet, it's fine?

So, why is the birth control pill so bad? Especially if it, ironically prevents the woman from releasing an egg every cycle? And why would it be denied to her?
I think the lady would have been treated just the same because the pharmicist is a complete *****. Why is masterbation a sin? In the long run it's bad for you and, you keep regenerating sperm. Menstration is automatic and it also continuasly creates new eggs, until meno-pause.

It's just that bible thumpers lack this intelligence.

Well, then Walgreens is pretty stupid. What happened to the days of "the customer's always right"? I mean, I work at a grocery store and put up with so much shit with a smile on my face. I can't publicly humilate one of my customers because they take forever to deceide on a sandwich, so the pharmacist should not be permitted to public humilate and berate a woman who wants a perscription filled.

The complaint was that the pharmacist wouldn't sell it to her. The whole allegation of rudeness is a distraction from the question at hand, and I doubt anyone disagrees on it.

Thanks for conceeding that pharmacists should have to dispense morning after pills.

Look, dying of starvation is NOT separable from pregnancy. Most third world unwanted pregnancies stem from parents not being able to feed more children than they already have. Another one could cause the entire family to starve. An abortion could have stopped that.

That's all I need to say on this.

Oh, and one more thing:
FETUSES ARE NOT LIVES!!!!!!!
STOP REFERRING TO THEM AS SUCH!!!!
THE REST OF US DON'T BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS YOU DO!!!!
ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE PREMISED ON THIS "FACT!!!!!
WEAK!!!!!!

show me your "fact" that fetuses are not lives and i will.
anyone??? anyone have any facts? any data? anyone here unravelled the mysteries of life and understand exactly the moment when a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being a living child????

if anyone here can prove to me that a fetus becomes alive exactly x months y days and z minutes after conception, and i will stop arguing against abortions that take place before that date.

can someone please defend their beliefs here instead of attacking mine? i am genuinely interested in when you people think life begins, and your reasoning for it.

there are no biblical contradictions to that idea, because the bible does NOT mention it.
But it does cover the importance of baptism later reinforced by both agustine in his Epistle to Boniface and also by the council of trent stating
T"If anyone says Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema" (De Baptismo, Canon V)

Apparently I am not the only one that knows of the importance placed on the baptism for forgiving origional sin (a sacrament the un baptized have not recived)

there is the idea that they are "baptized in their own blood" but again that is even further removed then the idea that baptism is important

I never said it in the first place. Someone else brought up the stat. Thank you for paying attention to who you were talking to.

apologies, dakini. lots of people are saying lots of things. i got confused.

but can you show me the data?

There have been two distinct cases of such refusals in here Canada. Two teenage female Jehovahs Witnesses, both cancer patients, refused blood transfusions. The first major case resulted in the girl dying.
What good is modern science when you're surronded by idiots?

I think the lady would have been treated just the same because the pharmicist is a complete *****. Why is masterbation a sin? In the long run it's bad for you and, you keep regenerating sperm. Menstration is automatic and it also continuasly creates new eggs, until meno-pause.

It's just that bible thumpers lack this intelligence.
Actually, one correction I'd like to make to this; while men keep producing sperm from the time they hit puberty to god knows when, the reproductive system of the woman is different. At birth she is born with a certain number of eggs, and they are released at puberty, and menopause occurs when she no one can release eggs.

And yes, I agree with you about the treatment, though I think the pharmacist may have made less of a scene.

I think the lady would have been treated just the same because the pharmicist is a complete *****. Why is masterbation a sin? In the long run it's bad for you and, you keep regenerating sperm. Menstration is automatic and it also continuasly creates new eggs, until meno-pause.

It's just that bible thumpers lack this intelligence.
Actually, it's good for men to masturbate. It decreases the odds of prostate cancer if you ejaculate once a day.

What good is modern science when you're surronded by idiots?
It's good for keeping alive those who know religion is a crutch to reality, and making sure the wankjobs die sooner and faster. ;)

That last part is inherently a demand on the woman to carry her pregnancy to term - .

No it isnt.

There are other pharmacists/pharmacies in existence. And if there arent any in nearby, then it is her own fault for living in such a desolate area. There are tradeoffs for a persons choice of residence. It is up to that person to measure them and determine if and how much those tradeoffs might affect their lives.

Your argument was stronger before you clarified There are many doctors who are trained in a particular procedure, and it is within the scope of their specialty and practice yet they still refuse to perform it. They are many types of surgery my father will not do, though they lie in his specialty and his practice and it is common for people requiring those procedures to appear in his clinic. He doess however give referals.
I didn't clarify to that extent.

Doctors shouldn't be train in procedures they won't perform unless it's because they feel they aren't competent to perform them (NOT to be taken as an implication concerning your dad's competence. I'm sure he's a wonderful doctor.)

Giving referrals is an acceptable compromise, unless there's a timeframe and no other doctor/pharmacists who can provide the service in that timeframe.

The complaint was that the pharmacist wouldn't sell it to her. The whole allegation of rudeness is a distraction from the question at hand, and I doubt anyone disagrees on it.
I'm canadian, I don't like rudeness.

Yes, I fit that stereotype in real life.

And the way it sounded from the article, the pharmacist went to town with the insults, I would sue or at least report the incident to the manager.

No it isnt.

There are other pharmacists/pharmacies in existence. And if there arent any in nearby, then it is her own fault for living in such a desolate area. There are tradeoffs for a persons choice of residence. It is up to that person to measure them and determine if and how much those tradeoffs might affect their lives.
So now we blame the woman because she chose to live in the wrong place? Or got raped in the middle of nowhere? Speak of insensitive...

That last part of the quote is something I should have said. Here, in correct context:
People with religious objections shouldn't be pharmacists. It is up to that person to measure them and determine if and how much those tradeoffs might affect their lives.

Also, it is a demand to carry the pregnancy to term, because the morning-after pill is time-sensitive. Not only that, but if every pharmacist followed this precedent, it would be a hell of a lot harder to get the morning after pill. Refusal to give pills is a refusal to grant the woman the right to self-determination over her own body.

But it does cover the importance of baptism later reinforced by both agustine in his Epistle to Boniface and also by the council of trent stating
T"If anyone says Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema" (De Baptismo, Canon V)

Apparently I am not the only one that knows of the importance placed on the baptism for forgiving origional sin (a sacrament the un baptized have not recived)

there is the idea that they are "baptized in their own blood" but again that is even further removed then the idea that baptism is important

aye, the council of trent said that.
you know what the bible says about it?
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16

whoever does not believe will be condemned, not everyone who does not believe, or who is not baptized will be condemned. we are given no evidence in the bible of what happens to unborn children. NONE. therefore, anything we say is conjecture. i and people of my denomination have a hard time believing that since God is in control of a naturally aborted pregnancy, that he would condemn that child to hell. but we aren't told! we don't know! we can only trust that God does no wrong.

this argument is somewhat off topic.

Had not heard of the truck driver example but the doctor arguement is bunk
Simple act of specilization in the field

not all doctors perform all procedures ... you dont want to perform a procedure you dont go into that field simple as that

How little you know of doctors and medicine. According to your argument my father should quit his job because there are procedures, in is specialization, that he refuses to perform. Some because he just doesnt want to, and some because he doesnt agree with them.

what religious text? do you have any idea who augustine was? any at all? do you know what documents the church teaches from?
i didn't think so.

please don't tell ME about my religion. i don't think it's arrogant to say that i know more about it than you do.

Saint Augustine of Hippo. He was a Catholic theologian and philosophor and one of the founders of the Scholastic movement. His works helped reconcile Christian theology with rational thought and classic Greek philosophy. He was a strong follower of Aristotle and believed that the act of sex was inatly corrupt and evil.
As such abortion was immoral because it destroys the meaning behing the sex act and sex for pleasure is the most immoral type of sex. It isn't murder, however. Its no worse than masturbation or fellatio.
I have some of his books in a box somewhere.

The theory of ensoulment was also supported Thomas Aquainas. I believe he stated around 5 or 6 months, definatly at quickening. Saint Aquainas reasoned that a human soul couldn't exist in an incomplete body. It is a fairly reasonable assertion.

Quickening has generally been the standard of ensoulment. However, some writings suggest that a fetus has a soul when it has fully formed limbs. Others are even more specific. I decided to use the more conservative 50 days because it was more conservative.

I'm going to sleep.

Interesting discussion, everyone.

Goodnight!

aye, the council of trent said that.
you know what the bible says about it?
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16

whoever does not believe will be condemned, not everyone who does not believe, or who is not baptized will be condemned. we are given no evidence in the bible of what happens to unborn children. NONE. therefore, anything we say is conjecture. i and people of my denomination have a hard time believing that since God is in control of a naturally aborted pregnancy, that he would condemn that child to hell. but we aren't told! we don't know! we can only trust that God does no wrong.

this argument is somewhat off topic.

How about john (I like how you picked the one that was more ambigous0
"Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you,
Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
(John 3:5)

But your augustine also said this on the matter

"Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ' (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166)

First off, you can't sue for public humiliation, it's called freedom of speech.

People with religious objections shouldn't be pharmacists.
But pharmacists don't just sell morning after pills and contraceptives. Those only make up a portion of what they sell. If they want to be a pharmacist, then they can be one. It is up to the employer if they want to hire them, or fire them later on.

How little you know of doctors and medicine. According to your argument my father should quit his job because there are procedures, in is specialization, that he refuses to perform. Some because he just doesnt want to, and some because he doesnt agree with them.
I think that he should have thought about going into a different specialization if he can not complete his job compleatly

I personaly wouldent want him as my doctor if I was going to have to worry about him not being able because of moral reasons to preform the nessisary procedures

Saint Augustine of Hippo. He was a Catholic theologian and philosophor and one of the founders of the Scholastic movement. His works helped reconcile Christian theology with rational thought and classic Greek philosophy. He was a strong follower of Aristotle and believed that the act of sex was inatly corrupt and evil.
As such abortion was immoral because it destroys the meaning behing the sex act and sex for pleasure is the most immoral type of sex. It isn't murder, however. Its no worse than masturbation or fellatio.
I have some of his books in a box somewhere.

The theory of ensoulment was also supported Thomas Aquainas. I believe he stated around 5 or 6 months, definatly at quickening. Saint Aquainas reasoned that a human soul couldn't exist in an incomplete body. It is a fairly reasonable assertion.

Quickening has generally been the standard of ensoulment. However, some writings suggest that a fetus has a soul when it has fully formed limbs. Others are even more specific. I decided to use the more conservative 50 days because it was more conservative.


i didn't think that was originally your comment, but if it was, then i apologize if that is what it really says.
BUT
i don't believe the teachings of men.
i certainly don't lay my christian beliefs at the feet of aristotle.
i believe in the BIBLE. many in the past of the catholic church have corrupted the teachings of the bible and added their own (cf indulgences).
the bible tells us that life begins at conception.
" Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" Psalm 51:5. how can one bear original sin if one is merely a mass of cells without life.
"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:20. christ was christ from conception.


i have argued my stance over and over again.
i'll repeat the challenge i made earlier-
would any of you please present ANY evidence that proves that life does not begin at conception, but rather at any other time?

if not then i will take my leave, as my history final lies unstudied.

now is your chance to show me i'm wrong.

First off, you can't sue for public humiliation, it's called freedom of speech.
Umm... there's a difference between speaking your mind and making a spectacle of a poor woman who happened to want some pills. I'm pretty sure she can sue for emotional damages as a result of that.

:cool: Oh, and food for thought...

Birth control pills and other forms of contraception are seen as a medium through which immoral behaviour can transpire, but yet, no such stigma is attached to viagara...

We NEED Viagra because we need to have more babies so those little rugrats can feed the warmachine that will conquer the earth and put it under the supreme American hegemony!....oh wait...nevermind.....

:cool: ONe love, one heart, let's get together and feel alright

How little you know of doctors and medicine. According to your argument my father should quit his job because there are procedures, in is specialization, that he refuses to perform. Some because he just doesnt want to, and some because he doesnt agree with them.

Your father gives referals. I assume that those procedures aren't immediatly necessary. If it were a case in which the procedure was required immediatly and he was able to preform it then I would say yes.

In the case that we are refering to time was of the essence. The morning after pills are only effective up to a maximum of 72 hours. From what I understand most of those has already been used up over the weekend.

It is comporable to your father refusing to perform a procedure that was necessary to prevent permenant and irreperable damage within the next hour if he knew that no other doctor would be available for at least 3 hours.

i didn't think that was originally your comment, but if it was, then i apologize if that is what it really says.
BUT
i don't believe the teachings of men.
i certainly don't lay my christian beliefs at the feet of aristotle.
i believe in the BIBLE. many in the past of the catholic church have corrupted the teachings of the bible and added their own (cf indulgences).
the bible tells us that life begins at conception.
" Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" Psalm 51:5. how can one bear original sin if one is merely a mass of cells without life.
"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:20. christ was christ from conception.


i have argued my stance over and over again.
i'll repeat the challenge i made earlier-
would any of you please present ANY evidence that proves that life does not begin at conception, but rather at any other time?

if not then i will take my leave, as my history final lies unstudied.

now is your chance to show me i'm wrong.


I responded with john
And a fetus does not fit the deffinition of human life at early stages

But I bow to dakini at this point she has done more research into fetal development then I have at this point

How about john (I like how you picked the one that was more ambigous0
"Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you,
Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
(John 3:5)

But your augustine also said this on the matter

"Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ' (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166)


MY augustine? i just told you i believe my bible, not augustine.

"unless a 'man' " does jesus include unborn children in this term? i can't tell you. if you wanted to find a bible verse i couldn't explain congratulations, you have proved that i am not God.

MY augustine? i just told you i believe my bible, not augustine.

"unless a 'man' " does jesus include unborn children in this term? i can't tell you. if you wanted to find a bible verse i couldn't explain congratulations, you have proved that i am not God.
I did not say unborn I said un BAPTIZED there is a difference (obviously)

I responded with john
And a fetus does not fit the deffinition of human life at early stages

But I bow to dakini at this point she has done more research into fetal development then I have at this point

i asked for scientific evidence, not your interpretation of scripture.

why doesn't a fetus fit the definition of human life?

what is the definition of human life?

There have been two distinct cases of such refusals in here Canada. Two teenage female Jehovahs Witnesses, both cancer patients, refused blood transfusions. The first major case resulted in the girl dying.
You dont make me very proud to be Canadian.
Ok go back to the first post - the starting post - and read it over. Now why would i make a post saying "i cant wait until jehovahs witnesses start refusign blood transfusions". Not because its a patient - because that happens everywhere all the time, not just two isolated cases in canada - but because the DOCTOR IS ONE AND IS FORCING HIS BELIEFES ON THE PATIENT. Like the PHARMASIST who's forcing HIS/HER beliefes on the patient who needs the meds and aint getting them.

Common now canuk, keep up.

aye, the council of trent said that.
you know what the bible says about it?
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16

whoever does not believe will be condemned, not everyone who does not believe, or who is not baptized will be condemned. we are given no evidence in the bible of what happens to unborn children. NONE. therefore, anything we say is conjecture. i and people of my denomination have a hard time believing that since God is in control of a naturally aborted pregnancy, that he would condemn that child to hell. but we aren't told! we don't know! we can only trust that God does no wrong.

this argument is somewhat off topic.


She was a Catholic. We're talking about catholic dogma and philosophy. According to Catholic Dogma the unbaptized go to Limbo along with the good but ignorant Pagans and pre-christians. They're in the company of Aristotle and Plato, and Virgil. Its not Hell, but it ain't Heaven.

As Jack Chick knows, Catholics aren't Christians. They're evil Satanists. (I'm joking. This thread needs a Chick joke) :mp5:

I'm canadian, I don't like rudeness.

Yes, I fit that stereotype in real life.

And the way it sounded from the article, the pharmacist went to town with the insults, I would sue or at least report the incident to the manager.

The customer certainly was right to complain about that. The pharmacist should be repremanded (at the very least), if she did indeed do that. She claims she didn't.

But the main complaint seems to be that the pharmacist would fill the perscripton. On that, Doe really has no grounds for complaint.

I did not say unborn I said un BAPTIZED there is a difference (obviously)

well i'm sorry but we're arguing about unborn children and whether or not they are damned by lack of baptism so maybe you're looking for a different thread.

well i'm sorry but we're arguing about unborn children and whether or not they are damned by lack of baptism so maybe you're looking for a different thread.
Nope they are both forms of unbaptized humans that according to john (and man is used interchangably with human in most of the bible unless you are saying women do not have to be baptized) and that by at least one rather accepted translation they are going to hell

(that is if you believe they are alive and human)

There is no biblical base to believe that they will be saved ... it is all just wishes

So now we blame the woman because she chose to live in the wrong place? Or got raped in the middle of nowhere? Speak of insensitive...

Do you blame an alcoholic who lives in a dry town/state/country who complains about not being able to get alcohol?

Do you blame someone who lives in a crowded/expensive city who complains about high rents and crowded living quarters?

Where a person chooses to live has advantages and disadvantages.

In any case, this person lived in Milwakee. I am sure there is more than 1 pharmacist there, or she could have waited till the next one came on shift.


That last part of the quote is something I should have said. Here, in correct context:
People with religious objections shouldn't be pharmacists. It is up to that person to measure them and determine if and how much those tradeoffs might affect their lives.

That is a silly argument an you know it. Should magazine stores carry every sort of magazine? Should bars not be able to choose what liquer they serve or restaurants what food? Should ethnic/religious restaurants serve items against their religion? Should Hindus not become chefs?


Also, it is a demand to carry the pregnancy to term, because the morning-after pill is time-sensitive. Not only that, but if every pharmacist followed this precedent, it would be a hell of a lot harder to get the morning after pill. Refusal to give pills is a refusal to grant the woman the right to self-determination over her own body.

Every pharmacist doesnt. Thats what makes a free market great. Someone would come along and realize their is money to be made by catering to people who want the morning after pill. She had plenty of self determination and plenty of options. Her favorite option(going to this particular pharmacist, at that particular time for that particular item) was in conflict with the pharmacists right of self determination.

i'll repeat the challenge i made earlier-
would any of you please present ANY evidence that proves that life does not begin at conception, but rather at any other time?

if not then i will take my leave, as my history final lies unstudied.

now is your chance to show me i'm wrong.

Can a single cell survive independantly outside a woman's uterus without support? No.

Can a fetus survive outside a mother's womb within the first three months?
No.

So, if a life cannot live independantly, it is not a seperate individual. There is no brain activity, hence no personality, hence it is not a "person."

There's my evidence. As for yours, it's not credible unless you have faith in the Bible, and I don't. So your argument is invalid to me.

Nope they are both forms of unbaptized humans that according to john (and man is used interchangably with human in most of the bible unless you are saying women do not have to be baptized) and that by at least one rather accepted translation they are going to hell

(that is if you believe they are alive and human)

There is no biblical base to believe that they will be saved ... it is all just wishes
yes i am well aware that man=human. i don't appreciate the additional insinuation that i somehow hate women.
did i ever say there was solid biblical evidence that they are saved? can you show me that? cuz the first thing i said is that the bible is silenced on the issue so anything we say is pure conjecture. i would really like to stop arguing to get to things i've already said. all i want to hear at this point is evidence that i am wrong about when life starts. otherwise i'm getting back to work.

Can a single cell survive independantly outside a woman's uterus without support? No.

Can a fetus survive outside a mother's womb within the first three months?
No.

So, if a life cannot live independantly, it is not a seperate individual. There is no brain activity, hence no personality, hence it is not a "person."

There's my evidence. As for yours, it's not credible unless you have faith in the Bible, and I don't. So your argument is invalid to me.

so your argument is that life is defined by the ability to survive independently?
fair enough.

how about an elderly person on life support, in a coma? they can't survive outside the hospital.

yes i am well aware that man=human. i don't appreciate the additional insinuation that i somehow hate women.
did i ever say there was solid biblical evidence that they are saved? can you show me that? cuz the first thing i said is that the bible is silenced on the issue so anything we say is pure conjecture. i would really like to stop arguing to get to things i've already said. all i want to hear at this point is evidence that i am wrong about when life starts. otherwise i'm getting back to work.
I did not mean to insult but I felt that you were going to go on a tangent with the "MANkind" in the quote and wanted to head it off before it got started

Was not an attempt to insult you

The bible is not silent on the subject ... the john quote covers baby's as well (unless you are indid stipulating that they are not human) born and unborn
it is very clear on the subject

i didn't think that was originally your comment, but if it was, then i apologize if that is what it really says.
BUT
i don't believe the teachings of men.
i certainly don't lay my christian beliefs at the feet of aristotle.
i believe in the BIBLE. many in the past of the catholic church have corrupted the teachings of the bible and added their own (cf indulgences).
the bible tells us that life begins at conception.
" Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" Psalm 51:5. how can one bear original sin if one is merely a mass of cells without life.
"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Matthew 1:20. christ was christ from conception.


i have argued my stance over and over again.
i'll repeat the challenge i made earlier-
would any of you please present ANY evidence that proves that life does not begin at conception, but rather at any other time?

if not then i will take my leave, as my history final lies unstudied.

now is your chance to show me i'm wrong.


You have asked the impossible. No one can prove an opinion. The best one can do is provide some inconclusive supporting evidence and point out that a lot of well respected people has the same opinion.

At the same time, you can't find conclusive scientific evidence for or against anyhting spiritual. All you can find are informed opinions.

Thus, it is imposible for us to prove this to you just as it is impossible for you to prove your position to us.

Luckily for me I don't support my own opinon I'm just using Catholic philosophy to point out what an ignorant ass the Catholic Pharmacist was.

Your father gives referals. I assume that those procedures aren't immediatly necessary. If it were a case in which the procedure was required immediatly and he was able to preform it then I would say yes.

In the case that we are refering to time was of the essence. The morning after pills are only effective up to a maximum of 72 hours. From what I understand most of those has already been used up over the weekend.

It is comporable to your father refusing to perform a procedure that was necessary to prevent permenant and irreperable damage within the next hour if he knew that no other doctor would be available for at least 3 hours.

And to continue along your vein of argument, 1) there are other pharmacies/pharmacists 2) even of the 72 hours ran out, there are other options. All that can be argued with regards to the time limit is that you believe that the woman's choice of procedure outweighs the pharmacists choice of respecting her beliefs; and I would disagree with that.

No one withheld a critical life saving drug minutes before there would be no other recourse.

so your argument is that life is defined by the ability to survive independently?
fair enough.

how about an elderly person on life support, in a coma? they can't survive outside the hospital.


Even in a coma there is brain activity

I disagree with this because surely the pharmacist would realise before she started that it would violate her principles.

I have been told that the reason so many Muslims drive taxis in Australia is because the strict muslims can not work with pork and alcohol due to their religious beliefs.
So, this stop all chances of working in a bar, bottleshop, resturant, non-halal butchers and abbatoirs, and any other jobs that use pork or alcohols (Laboratories and Chemical Plants use it, but I'm not sure if ethanol counts)

While Christians are more flexible, the morning after pill hardly counts as an abortion, and it she should not be able to restrict the rights of others while exercising her rights to freedom of beliefs.

You don't see Muslims working in resturants and refusing to serve pork or alcohol, she should not be allowed to restrict the rights of women to use the morning after pill.

Good to see you're listening to Jesus really well. :rolleyes:


Don't be a pri-Oh, sorry.

I forgot we shouldn't be committed personal attacks, especially attacks on beliefs.

Wait..then..If that's true, what is this whole post doing here?

Er..maybe I'm in the wrong place, if I feel like people should act nicely to eachother.

Since I'm asking to questions, however..

What does ANY of it have to do with Bush?

I dislike Bush, but still! What's it got to do with Bush?

You know, the problem is that nobody actually tries putting up anything besides "I hate Bush so much!"

Not, "Bush is wrong, and this is why.."

Instead, "I HATE TEH BUSHES SOOO MUCH!!!!!1!!!!!!111!!1"

The whole random, unconnected attack on Bush really actually hurts your position.

After all, mud thrown is ground lost =D!

You have asked the impossible. No one can prove an opinion. The best one can do is provide some inconclusive supporting evidence and point out that a lot of well respected people has the same opinion.

At the same time, you can't find conclusive scientific evidence for or against anyhting spiritual. All you can find are informed opinions.

Thus, it is imposible for us to prove this to you just as it is impossible for you to prove your position to us.

Luckily for me I don't support my own opinon I'm just using Catholic philosophy to point out what an ignorant ass the Catholic Pharmacist was.


thank you. that's all i wanted someone to admit. (however, are you suggesting that christians aren't respected simply because of their beliefs?)

this means that you have no more right to say that that fetus isn't alive than i have the right to say it is. therefore, how does the pharmacist not have the right to say it is alive, and refuse to help kill it?

Even in a coma there is brain activity

okay, so you're changing your definition of life to "that which displays brain activity?"

okay, so you're changing your definition of life to "that which displays brain activity?"
No I was pointing out a problem with your refutal ... the poster you quoted made that claim

But I think you probably just ignored that part ... it came right after the independant survival part

Why didn't she just go to another pharmacist?


If memory serves, the article states that the pharmacist took the prescription away from her (or so she claimed). Because of this, she couldn't go elsewhere. No prescription, no pills.

No I was pointing out a problem with your refutal ... the poster you quoted made that claim

But I think you probably just ignored that part ... it came right after the independant survival part

oops...got my peeps mixed up again. sorry.

but that elderly person is still not an independent individual.

but say we define it by brain activity-
when does brain activity begin?

Dastardly Stench']If memory serves, the article states that the pharmacist took the prescription away from her (or so she claimed). Because of this, she couldn't go elsewhere. No prescription, no pills.
Wow did it I did not even knotice that ... definatly legal grounds here
Not only publicly debasing her but also taking the perscription away so she could not go anywhere else without geting in contact with her doctor again

And to continue along your vein of argument, 1) there are other pharmacies/pharmacists 2) even of the 72 hours ran out, there are other options. All that can be argued with regards to the time limit is that you believe that the woman's choice of procedure outweighs the pharmacists choice of respecting her beliefs; and I would disagree with that.

No one withheld a critical life saving drug minutes before there would be no other recourse.

Of course there were other choices. She could have had an abortion. She did. It wasn't pleasant.

They say that passing a kidney stone is the closet a man can come to experiencing childbirth. If that is the case then having one removed is the closest a man cna come to having an abortion.

Having had kidney stones removed I must say that if I were given the choice of taking a pill within the next few hours or having a claw shoved up my penis again a few days down the road I would choose the former. If the pharmist refused to fill it for religious reasons I'd be tempted to enlighten him/her by breaking his/her face.

oops...got my peeps mixed up again. sorry.

but that elderly person is still not an independent individual.

but say we define it by brain activity-
when does brain activity begin?

I believe it is the 20 week mark but ya may want to look it up its been awhile (doing some stuff with my bsd machine so opening multipul browser windows is ... well contra indicated lol)

Of course there were other choices. She could have had an abortion. She did. It wasn't pleasant.

They say that passing a kidney stone is the closet a man can come to experiencing childbirth. If that is the case then having one removed is the closest a man cna come to having an abortion.

Having had kidney stones removed I must say that if I were given the choice of taking a pill within the next few hours or having a claw shoved up my penis again a few days down the road I would choose the former. If the pharmist refused to fill it for religious reasons I'd be tempted to enlighten him/her by breaking his/her face.

i'm sorry but kidney stones are slightly different than unwanted pregnancies.

i'm sorry but kidney stones are slightly different than unwanted pregnancies.
but the point was the procedures while having the same outcome (no baby) are not equal

Because of the pharmisists decision the woman could be forced to go through a harsher and potentialy more risky procedure

so your argument is that life is defined by the ability to survive independently?
fair enough.

how about an elderly person on life support, in a coma? they can't survive outside the hospital.

Those examples are fully formed, independant people, they don't count in a discussion about when life begins. Those are functioning human beings.

If we're just talking life, everything that lives is alive. Does that mean we shouldn't kill any of it? The only thing that makes humans any better than any other life on the planet is self-interest.

A person isn't a person until it is able to live independantly and perform higher function brain activity, i.e. form a distinct personality.

thank you. that's all i wanted someone to admit. (however, are you suggesting that christians aren't respected simply because of their beliefs?)

this means that you have no more right to say that that fetus isn't alive than i have the right to say it is. therefore, how does the pharmacist not have the right to say it is alive, and refuse to help kill it?

The pharmist claimed to be Catholic. I'm just pointing out that the pharmacist's opinions were in conflict with Catholic teachings. Therefore, the Pharmacist was either ignorant or a liar. I prefer to give people the benifit of the doubt.

I believe it is the 20 week mark but ya may want to look it up its been awhile (doing some stuff with my bsd machine so opening multipul browser windows is ... well contra indicated lol)

so you believe that at somepoint around the 20th week the fetus starts displaying brain activity, and suddenly this mass of cells becomes alive?
so then do you believe it is wrong to abort a fetus after that point?

how about this for a definition of life-
at the moment of fertilization, that cell has everything it needs to grow into a full grown human being, and left to the natural course of things (please don't say that miscarriages and the like refute this...they don't) they will grow into that full grown human being. if you leave the cells alone, a baby will be born. if you destroy the cells, a baby will not be born.
so you want to tell me that yes, it does have everything that it needs to grow and develop, but until it develops a certain type of tissue and a neuron fires, we can't consider it to be alive. it's just a lump of meaningless cells until that point?

so you believe that at somepoint around the 20th week the fetus starts displaying brain activity, and suddenly this mass of cells becomes alive?
so then do you believe it is wrong to abort a fetus after that point?

how about this for a definition of life-
at the moment of fertilization, that cell has everything it needs to grow into a full grown human being, and left to the natural course of things (please don't say that miscarriages and the like refute this...they don't) they will grow into that full grown human being. if you leave the cells alone, a baby will be born. if you destroy the cells, a baby will not be born.
so you want to tell me that yes, it does have everything that it needs to grow and develop, but until it develops a certain type of tissue and a neuron fires, we can't consider it to be alive. it's just a lump of meaningless cells until that point?


The first part personaly yes after brain activity starts I personaly think it is wrong to except for extenuating circumastances

The second part just because something poseses potential to become something does not mean it is that something

You know, the problem is that nobody actually tries putting up anything besides "I hate Bush so much!"

Not, "Bush is wrong, and this is why.."

Instead, "I HATE TEH BUSHES SOOO MUCH!!!!!1!!!!!!111!!1"


After all, mud thrown is ground lost =D!

I don't hate Bush. I've never met him. I don't think he belongs in the white house, though, because he has perpetrated so many lies against the American People.

Evidence:

* The Exit Polls that point to massive fraud in two elections.

* The Memo released in Brittain and not well-covered in the American press showing that Bush had a hidden agenda and had made the decision to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11--and that he was "manufacturing" the intelligence to justify doing so.

I could go on, but...sorry, folks, but this stuff is treason. The guy who did it belongs in jail, not in the White House.

So...here's an exception to your rule. I hope that you don't mind it, and I welcome any intelligent discourse.

Those examples are fully formed, independant people, they don't count in a discussion about when life begins. Those are functioning human beings.

If we're just talking life, everything that lives is alive. Does that mean we shouldn't kill any of it? The only thing that makes humans any better than any other life on the planet is self-interest.

A person isn't a person until it is able to live independantly and perform higher function brain activity, i.e. form a distinct personality.

so then you are basing it on brain activity.
alright then, i of course will disagree with you, but thank you for fleshing out your opinion.

I disagree with this because surely the pharmacist would realise before she started that it would violate her principles.

I have been told that the reason so many Muslims drive taxis in Australia is because the strict muslims can not work with pork and alcohol due to their religious beliefs.
So, this stop all chances of working in a bar, bottleshop, resturant, non-halal butchers and abbatoirs, and any other jobs that use pork or alcohols (Laboratories and Chemical Plants use it, but I'm not sure if ethanol counts)

While Christians are more flexible, the morning after pill hardly counts as an abortion, and it she should not be able to restrict the rights of others while exercising her rights to freedom of beliefs.

You don't see Muslims working in resturants and refusing to serve pork or alcohol, she should not be allowed to restrict the rights of women to use the morning after pill.
Exactly!

The pharmist claimed to be Catholic. I'm just pointing out that the pharmacist's opinions were in conflict with Catholic teachings. Therefore, the Pharmacist was either ignorant or a liar. I prefer to give people the benifit of the doubt.

i'm sorry but how were his opinions in conflict with catholic teachings?

I have no problem with the pharmacist refusing the pill but she blatantly breached the womans confidentiality and acted in a non professional manner by publically berating her - all she had to do was say 'I am sorry I dont feel comfortable dispensing that particular medication please come back when someone else is available' and none of this would have happened

if I were the woman concerned I would nail her for breach of client confidentiality as in doing that she was in clear violation of her duties

i'm sorry but kidney stones are slightly different than unwanted pregnancies.

Only slightly. What comes out and what canal it uses. In any case the point is as UpwardThrust pointed out.

The pill is painless and uninvasive.
The alternative is the most unconfortable thing you can possibly imagine and very very invasive.
There is the thrid alternative, of course, passing is natually. In both cases passing it is excruciating painfull (The doctors do give out some nice drugs, however) and isn't nearly as safe or as simple as most people assume.

so then you are basing it on brain activity.
alright then, i of course will disagree with you, but thank you for fleshing out your opinion.

Exactly, and you're welcome. Everything a human being is beyond the physical is contained in the brain. Without that brain activity, that person ceases to exist. They may continue living physically, but who they truly are is gone.

Exactly!

that example could not have less to do with the situation. the muslim would not refuse to serve pork because he believed it would kill.
this pharmacist believes the pill will take a life.
would you fill a prescription for arsenic pills?
there is absolutely no difference. how can you force someone to do something they so strongly object to on a moral basis? isn't this country based on freedom? should i be forced to do something i find abhorrable? NO!
the employer is free to fire the employee.
do you know for a fact that this pharmacist became a pharmacist AFTER morning after pills came into approved use?

Exactly, and you're welcome. Everything a human being is beyond the physical is contained in the brain. Without that brain activity, that person ceases to exist. They may continue living physically, but who they truly are is gone.
and i would argue that higher brain activity, or the concept of the mind is attached to the soul rather than the brain.
so this is the crux of our disagreement.
now we understand each other.

Ok, so what's this topic really about? Is the bush administration trying to make it so an employer can't fire an employee if they refuse to deal in certain medications for religious reasons?

i'm sorry but how were his opinions in conflict with catholic teachings?

That would be the teaching of ensoulment. That a fetus cannot sustain a human soul untill a certain point in its devolpment. Not that it doesn't have a soul but that it cannot have a soul untill it has devolped to a certain point.

The Pharmacist claimed that the morning after pill was murder when, according to Catholic teaching, the embyro in question (if it even existed at the time. Fertilization may have not occured yet) could not have possibly had a soul. Furthermore, no ensouled fetus could possibly be killed by that pill. It was contraception, not abortion. Instead the Pharmacist potentially damned a child's soul to Limbo by forcing the woman to get an abortion instead.

The pharmacist could have been a Satanic and/or Atheist double-agent, of course.

That would be the teaching of ensoulment. That a fetus cannot sustain a human soul untill a certain point in its devolpment. Not that it doesn't have a soul but that it cannot have a soul untill it has devolped to a certain point.

The Pharmacist claimed that the morning after pill was murder when, according to Catholic teaching, the embyro in question (if it even existed at the time. Fertilization may have not occured yet) could not have possibly had a soul. Furthermore, no ensouled fetus could possibly be killed by that pill. It was contraception, not abortion. Instead the Pharmacist potentially damned a child's soul to Limbo by forcing the woman to get an abortion instead.

The pharmacist could have been a Satanic and/or Atheist double-agent, of course.

i'm sorry i'm not catholic- is that officially accepted catholic cannon that is taught in all catholic churches? i don't know if anyone here knows but i would be surprised to learn that it was

Well at least Walgreens will face a large malpractice suit, I'm sure the bitch lost her job lol, and the victim will get alot of money, perhaps she can move with her 6 kids to a town with more than one pharmacy.

okay i don't think anyone's pickin that up.

i must studystudystudystudy so i bid you all a fine farewell.

i don't hate women. i love babies.
i don't want to kill people.
seriously, okay?

I am amazed to see that there are actual "conscience clause" laws in America (mostly in conservative "red" states) that protect people like this pharmacist, however there are also laws to protect patients rights. It seems that somehow they overlap and are left up to the courts to deceide on a case by case basis.

Here is a link for State by State Action on this issue:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/factsreports/fact-050418-pharmacist-refusals.xml

At this site:
SUMMARY OF STATE ACTIONS RELATED TO PHARMACIST REFUSALS

I. PROPOSED 2005 STATE LEGISLATION RELATING TO PHARMACISTS' DISPENSING CONTRACEPTION

II. STATE LAWS THAT PERMIT PHARMACIST REFUSAL

III. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO PROTECT PATIENTS' RIGHTS TO PRESCRIBED CONTRACEPTIVES


-On a personal note, I had trouble filling birth control pills at Walgreens twice and so I never went back.

I believe that if an action a person chooses to take does not harm you, then you can bitch and whine all you want but it is ultimitely their choice. This choice, however, involves another life, the unborn fetus. BUT, the life is conceived and produced internally, which in my view, gives the parent the choice to do what they believe is best. When will we stop trying to decide personal decisions of others with legislation or by citing bible quotes?

It is the choice of the individual, and everyone here can do nothing about it.

Sidethought: From the Christian viewpoint, will the aborted fetus go to heaven? It would not be baptised, yet it had no chance of it. AND, if the child does in fact go to heaven, is it so bad then? (I personally dont believe in heaven and hell, yet it is a deciding issue for many of the devout)

And also, if they knew fuck-all about the human body, they would know that morning after pills do not induce abortions. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, a pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants itself, the morning after pill prevents implantation, if the thing is implanted, nothing will happen.

Excellent point. From what I can determine here in the article, the pharmacist seemed to have a rather incorrect view of what the morning after view pill did. In that case, how do we know that the pharmacist would know what the rest of the medications and stocked drugs would or would not do? For all we know, she could have been prescribing heroin as a pain killer.

Or perhaps rat poison as headache medication?

Due to the blatant ignorance here, I would like to see legislation requiring that all pharmacists undergo testing to ensure that they do know specifically what each and every one of their medications does. Infringing on rights? I do not think so, it is a simple thing to understand. Just as it is required that doctors are trained in the field they wish to practice in, pharmacists should be required to know specifically what their medications and drugs do rather than have a biased idea (normally from religion) of what it does.

I would be interested in seeing if anyone would oppose this idea?

Economic viability objections might have some grounds though. But then civic responsibility goes out the window.

-On a personal note, I had trouble filling birth control pills at Walgreens twice and so I never went back.

I've heard of and encountered some dirty looks when buying contraception and/or birth control. Early on I made a point of going WITH my female friends and/or girlfriends to provide moral support, and to shield them from such troubles. After a while it became routine, and I was known as a person to go to for "bodygaurd" duty.

I was surprised just how opportunistic some of these "objectors" are; they look for those who look like they cannot defend themselves before "objecting". One time someone started in on a lady friend of mine about buying contreception until I rounded the corner and asked them what they were doing. The lecture turned into a lame excuse at the sight of me looming over them.

I don't mind someone taking a stand for their beliefs, but these people were taking a stand in a most cowardly and sniveling way. It upsets me because it feels less like a principled stand and more like an opportunistic attempt to make someone feel bad. It feels more like bullying than saving someone.

EDIT: One extra note.

Does anyone seem to notice a disturbing trend of ignorance regarding just exactly what morning after pills do? Particularly among the more fiery people who say that they are similar to abortion?

I remember another thread some time ago dealing with the problem of pseudo-science being forced by the conservatives in the education board of Kansas. Is pseudo-science spreading faster than we think? It's different from ignorance because plain ignorance goes along the lines of "eh? what? never heard of it". Pseudo-science goes "thats the way it is" when science goes "nuh-uh"

Galileo might probably be going "several hundred years of human advancement and their still thinking like this...". Of course he's kind of planted so he can't do that.

I'm Christian. I like Christianity. I hate stupid Christians. You people make us loook bad.

Non Aligned States: Would you please tell me, in your own words, what the morning after pill does, and I will try to explain to you why I, and many other Christians, believe that it is like abortion.

Excellent point. From what I can determine here in the article, the pharmacist seemed to have a rather incorrect view of what the morning after view pill did. In that case, how do we know that the pharmacist would know what the rest of the medications and stocked drugs would or would not do? For all we know, she could have been prescribing heroin as a pain killer.


Heorin is a painkiller. One of the best painkillers available, in fact. Its not usualy stocked by pharmacies, however.

Non Aligned States: Would you please tell me, in your own words, what the morning after pill does, and I will try to explain to you why I, and many other Christians, believe that it is like abortion.

According to Dakini:

"[M]orning after pills do not induce abortions. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, a pregnancy is when the fertilized egg implants itself, the morning after pill prevents implantation, if the thing is implanted, nothing will happen."

Heorin is a painkiller. One of the best painkillers available, in fact. Its not usualy stocked by pharmacies, however.

Oh damn. Wrong selection then. How about cannabis? If that still doesn't work how about hmmmmm.....*snaps fingers* Cyclone B?

Oh damn. Wrong selection then. How about cannabis? If that still doesn't work how about hmmmmm.....*snaps fingers* Cyclone B?

Cannabis isn't a painkiller per se. However, it can be used to treat specific types of pain associated with cancer and cancer treatment. That would be an it depends. Never heard of Cyclone B.

If there were something I'd not want to be perscribed as a painkiller its spironolactone or any other Diuretic. Diuretics are used to treat swelling caused by fluid retention. They make you pee more often, nothing more and nothing less.

Thank you, Cumulo Nimbusland.

See, the issue here is not one of ignorance, but of belief. Many Christians including, apparently, this pharmacist believe that life begins at the moment when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Therefore, according to this belief system, preventing the blastocyst from implanting is killing a child just as surely as denying food to a three year old. The morning after pill may not, in technical medical terms, be an abortion, in the mind of those who hold this philosophy they are both similar in that they end a human life.

You can argue that this pharmacist shouldn't have the right to do what she did. (I think she should.) You can argue that she should have gone about it in a different method. (I would agree with you.) But you can't argue that she acted out of ignorance about the drug. She knew full well what the morning after pill does, and her personal belief system told her that that pill's only use was murder. She further decided that she couldn't, in good conscience distribute such a pill.

Non Aligned States: Would you please tell me, in your own words, what the morning after pill does, and I will try to explain to you why I, and many other Christians, believe that it is like abortion.

Ah, I did not see your post earlier on. Now, onto the response.

First off, I suppose I should begin with the standard pregnancy cycle, or at least up until the point where actual pregnancy begins. Mind you, I am not a doctor or gyneologist, so i will not have the proper terminology beyond what I learnt in bio-classes.

After the fertilization of the ovum, cell division begins correct? If memory serves, cell division continues while the ovum is in transit to the uthera wherein it attaches itself to the uthera walls, forming the contact which given time, will provide the neutrients for continued growth. However, if the ovum fails to do so, it is removed from the system through natural discharge. I am given to understand that this is an entirely possible even with a fertilized ovum.

A morning after pill, so far as the various sources inform me, is essentially prevents the ovum from attaching itself....no, I think I will save myself the time. From Wikipedia as follows:


Emergency birth control also known as the morning-after pill, or emergency contraception or , is a pill regimen that a woman can take up to three days after she has had sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in her uterus. The term morning-after pill is a misnomer that is falling out of use (replaced by emergency contraceptive pills or ECPs) due to the fact that it is effective for up to 120 hours after sex. Its availability is limited by its controversial status; its use as a contraceptive is held to be immoral by some groups including the Catholic Church. Others who oppose its use classify its potential to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg as an abortion.


Now we have the details in a nutshell. If otherwise regarding the details, feel free to point out. In either case, I shall continue.

Now, I believe that you will most likely use the argument that once the ovum is fertilized, it classifies as a complete living human being or an argument which will bear similar tones. If not, please, share your thoughts.

But let us consider this. Without the actual implantation within the uterus wall, the ovum has a 0% chance of continued growth. It will reach a state wherein there simply are no more nutrients from which to sustain continued subdivision. With nutrients, supplied when attached to the uthera, it will follow the basic genetic codes in built into it, beginning the construction of an eventual human being.

Of course, it has a 50-50% chance of not being implanted on the uthera walls naturally. The morning after pill as far as i know, turns that into a 100% chance.

Now, what might be the full significance here? I view it in this simple manner. Until the ovum is actually implanted on the uthera wall, it is no different than a piece of computer code, capable of carrying out its instructions but unable to do so without nutrients from the host. Much the same as with viruses and parasites I should think.

To call it murder, which the anti-abortionists seem to favor, prompts this anology.

If I keep my doors closed to a begger, who eventually dies from hunger elsewhere, does that mean I am responsible wholly for his death under the legal definition of murder?

If so, then that particular idea would have to be spread out to cover every single homeless and poor individual who has been shunned by society.

I do not expect you to change your view, oh no. I would be surprised if you did. But I would like you to respect my views. Of course, this respect would be mutual until one of us decides that the other is 'wrong' and must be persecuted for his or her beliefs.

However, as proven by the daily occurences I see everyday, that it will most likely be a futile hope.

Cannabis isn't a painkiller per se. However, it can be used to treat specific types of pain associated with cancer and cancer treatment. That would be an it depends. Never heard of Cyclone B.

If there were something I'd not want to be perscribed as a painkiller its spironolactone or any other Diuretic. Diuretics are used to treat swelling caused by fluid retention. They make you pee more often, nothing more and nothing less.

Tsk, once again I am left grasping for a suitable replacement. But I believe the chemical formulation of Cyclone B would be carbon hydride nitride. As to what it does?

Toxic mechanism – binds the iron in cytochrome a3 in cytochrome oxidase in mitochondria – inhibits electron transport. Leads to anaerobic metabolism with lactic acid production & acidosis .Symptoms can appear in seconds if exposed to high amount– death can be quick.

Symptoms
low doses
–anxiety, ataxia, vertigo, weakness, nausea, trembling, Angina & enlarged thyroid gland

High doses
breathing can stop within seconds, coma, convulsions, cardiopulmonary failure, survivors may have heart or brain damage

Personally, I think that the pharmacist didn't have the right to refuse the woman the morning after pill.

Just imagine the following situation:
A doctor asking a nurse in hospital to give a certain patient suffering from diabetes an injection of insulin. An everyday situation, right?
Now, imagine the nurse is a vegetarian and stricly opposed to using anything coming from animals (most of the insulin used today is taken from pigs. There are attenpts at creating it artificially, but for all I know this cannot yet meet the demand). So the nurse refuses to administer the injection. Would you say it is her right to do so?
I don't. She is a nurse, she is assisting a doctor, and every desicion on the treatment is up to the doctor alone.
Back to the pharmacy situation : The woman walks in with a prescription for the morning after pill. based on her beliefs, the pharmacist refuses to sell it to her.
Sure, the woman can go to another pharmacy. And the doctor could call another nurse. What do you think? Would you as a patient want to put up with this?

It appears we'll have to agree to disagree in this case. The only way I could refute your argument would be to bring in God choosing to allow a child to die vs. a human doing so. This would open up a whole can of worms that i don't want to get into. Sufficent to say, I disagree with your opinion, and you disagree with mine, and we'll just leave it at that.

I only wished to make the point that the pharmacist in question did not necessarily act out of ignorance, but personal ethics.

Personally, I think that the pharmacist didn't have the right to refuse the woman the morning after pill.

Just imagine the following situation:
A doctor asking a nurse in hospital to give a certain patient suffering from diabetes an injection of insulin. An everyday situation, right?
Now, imagine the nurse is a vegetarian and stricly opposed to using anything coming from animals (most of the insulin used today is taken from pigs. There are attenpts at creating it artificially, but for all I know this cannot yet meet the demand). So the nurse refuses to administer the injection. Would you say it is her right to do so?
I don't. She is a nurse, she is assisting a doctor, and every desicion on the treatment is up to the doctor alone.
Back to the pharmacy situation : The woman walks in with a prescription for the morning after pill. based on her beliefs, the pharmacist refuses to sell it to her.
Sure, the woman can go to another pharmacy. And the doctor could call another nurse. What do you think? Would you as a patient want to put up with this?

I don't think your analogy is apt. Perhaps if the nurse in your analogy was required to give not an insulin injection, but a lethal injection, you might be nearer to the crux of the issue. To the mind of the Christian pharmacist in this situation, giving out that pill constitutes murder, the same as giving out a cyanide pill. Perhaps the vegetarian nurse believes that killing pigs for insulin is murder on the same degree as that cyanide pill. If that is the case, then she should have the right to, herself no administer the shot. However, she does not have the right to deny the shot to the patient. Therefore, she could simply give this task to another nurse.

It appears we'll have to agree to disagree in this case. The only way I could refute your argument would be to bring in God choosing to allow a child to die vs. a human doing so. This would open up a whole can of worms that i don't want to get into. Sufficent to say, I disagree with your opinion, and you disagree with mine, and we'll just leave it at that.

I only wished to make the point that the pharmacist in question did not necessarily act out of ignorance, but personal ethics.

I think she was acting irresponsible, to be honset. Imagine a doctor who is a Jehova's Witness and therefore refuses to give any blood transfusions out of personal ethics? Imagine a policeman who refuses to arrest a drug dealer because it is his personal belief that drugs should be legal?
If your personal beliefs interfere with your job, it's time to look for another profession.

I don't think your analogy is apt. Perhaps if the nurse in your analogy was required to give not an insulin injection, but a lethal injection, you might be nearer to the crux of the issue. To the mind of the Christian pharmacist in this situation, giving out that pill constitutes murder, the same as giving out a cyanide pill.

You do realise that you are putting one believe above the other? If killing pigs means murder to that nurse, it is her belief, same as it is the belief of the pharmacist that selling the morning after pill is murder.

If that is the case, then she should have the right to, herself no administer the shot. However, she does not have the right to deny the shot to the patient. Therefore, she could simply give this task to another nurse.

Nobody has the right to force the nurse to take the insulin herself, right, but that is not the point. Nobody asked the pharmacist to take the morning after pill herself. But she has no right to deny it to the patient, or in the pharmacy case, the customer. It is her job to give those injections according to doctors orders, same as it is the job of a pharmacist to hand out perscritions, to doctors orders.

I think she was acting irresponsible, to be honset. Imagine a doctor who is a Jehova's Witness and therefore refuses to give any blood transfusions out of personal ethics? Imagine a policeman who refuses to arrest a drug dealer because it is his personal belief that drugs should be legal?
If your personal beliefs interfere with your job, it's time to look for another profession.

I fail to see the link between irresponsibility and standing on principles.

A doctor has taken an oath to save lives. If a blood transfusion will be necessary to do this, and the doctor is morally opposed to blood transfusions, then that doctor never should have sworn that oath. A police officer similarly swears to uphold the law. If that officer disagrees with the law, the oath should never have been sworn. A pharmacist does NOT swear to fill every prescription that he or she receives. Once again, you analogy is not apt.

Of all the so called 'civilized countries', only in USA must people put up with maniacs like that

I fail to see the link between irresponsibility and standing on principles.

A doctor has taken an oath to save lives. If a blood transfusion will be necessary to do this, and the doctor is morally opposed to blood transfusions, then that doctor never should have sworn that oath. A police officer similarly swears to uphold the law. If that officer disagrees with the law, the oath should never have been sworn. A pharmacist does NOT swear to fill every prescription that he or she receives. Once again, you analogy is not apt.

All right, let's turn away from professions that require oaths, there's plenty more examples all over the place:

Imagine a Jewish taxi driver refusing to drive women who are menstruating because they are "unclean" in his beliefs? Wouldn't you be offended by that? Would you say he should get away with it, that he is doing his job?
Or, to stay a bit closer to that pharmacy, just imagine the pharmacist was a conviced vegetarian and refuses to sell the insulin to a person with diabetes? Even though the person has a prescrition for it?

Of all the so called 'civilized countries', only in USA must people put up with maniacs like that

Dunno, at least you don't hear anything like that from the rest of the world. And I happen to live in one of the most Catholic countries of Europe ;)

You do realise that you are putting one believe above the other? If killing pigs means murder to that nurse, it is her belief, same as it is the belief of the pharmacist that selling the morning after pill is murder.

I never did this. I conceded that if killing pigs means murder to that nurse, then the situation is the same.



Nobody has the right to force the nurse to take the insulin herself, right, but that is not the point. Nobody asked the pharmacist to take the morning after pill herself. But she has no right to deny it to the patient, or in the pharmacy case, the customer. It is her job to give those injections according to doctors orders, same as it is the job of a pharmacist to hand out perscritions, to doctors orders.

Here is where we are apparently going to have to disagree, Cabra. I agree that she cannot deny it to the patient, but she also is not required to do it herself. The pharmacy in question gave the pharmacist the right to refuse to fill the prescription, and transfer the customer to someone else. Her methods of refusing to fill the prescription were incorrect. However, she was well within her job rights to not fill the prescription. If the store policy had required her to fill it, and she took the job and didn't fill it, then there'd be an issue. Our hypothetical nurse would be required, as part of her job description, to give insulin shots. However, if she has a moral problem with this, she can discuss this with the employer, and either they won't hire her, or they will make alternate arrangements for someone else to administer the shots when they need to be given.

Imagine a Jewish taxi driver refusing to drive women who are menstruating because they are "unclean" in his beliefs? Wouldn't you be offended by that? Would you say he should get away with it, that he is doing his job?

No, I wouldn't be offended by that. He should get away with it, because he lives in a country where he has freedom to practice his religion. However, he should not be able to leave that woman on the side of the road, waiting for a taxi. He should have to call another cab for her. That being said, this is a pretty ridiculous example. How would the taxi driver know that the woman is menstuating?

Or, to stay a bit closer to that pharmacy, just imagine the pharmacist was a conviced vegetarian and refuses to sell the insulin to a person with diabetes? Even though the person has a prescrition for it?

Yes, that person should be allowed to not sell the insulin, however, they should be required to refer to another employee who will.

Personally, I think that the pharmacist didn't have the right to refuse the woman the morning after pill.

Just imagine the following situation:
A doctor asking a nurse in hospital to give a certain patient suffering from diabetes an injection of insulin. An everyday situation, right?
Now, imagine the nurse is a vegetarian and stricly opposed to using anything coming from animals (most of the insulin used today is taken from pigs. There are attenpts at creating it artificially, but for all I know this cannot yet meet the demand). So the nurse refuses to administer the injection. Would you say it is her right to do so?
I don't. She is a nurse, she is assisting a doctor, and every desicion on the treatment is up to the doctor alone.
Back to the pharmacy situation : The woman walks in with a prescription for the morning after pill. based on her beliefs, the pharmacist refuses to sell it to her.
Sure, the woman can go to another pharmacy. And the doctor could call another nurse. What do you think? Would you as a patient want to put up with this?

Insulin doesn't come from pigs any more. We used genetic modification techniques to alter bacteria to make human insulin many years ago.

It's not a pharmacists job to decide in the morality of the things prescribed, would you expect them not to sell condoms to unmarried people? How about if they believe schizophrenics are possessed by the devil, would you expect to refuse them medication in favour of an exorcism?

That was the point. She didn't sell it herself, but she didn't get somebody else to sell it to the woman. The woman left the pharmacy without the precribed medication.
The woman came in with a prescription and it was the pharmacists job to see to it that she gets it, but that didn't happen. Instead, the woman was abused and sent away without that medication.

And that taxi driver example actually isn't as ridiculous as it sounds, I heard about that case years ago. And I've really got no clue how the taxi driver found out that the woman was menstruating.

I know this was a while back but....
Did someone seriously suggest we go to "Planned Parenthood"'s website for information? If all you want is a one sided story, by all means, go there.

Of course there were other choices. She could have had an abortion. She did. It wasn't pleasant.

They say that passing a kidney stone is the closet a man can come to experiencing childbirth. If that is the case then having one removed is the closest a man cna come to having an abortion.

Having had kidney stones removed I must say that if I were given the choice of taking a pill within the next few hours or having a claw shoved up my penis again a few days down the road I would choose the former. If the pharmist refused to fill it for religious reasons I'd be tempted to enlighten him/her by breaking his/her face.

You argue as if that was the only choice. She could have gone elsewhere. And if the pharmacist took/kept the prescription AND this forced the lady to have an abortion, that would probably be a felony and she should be prosecuted. Even in that case, she could have called her doctors/or anothers office and had the prescription phoned in, or gone to a hospital(where pharmacists probably dont have the option of not filling prescriptions).

Come on people, if this was about some other type of medication would there be such a heated willingness to infringe on what a private citizen can or cannot do?

You argue as if that was the only choice. She could have gone elsewhere. And if the pharmacist took/kept the prescription AND this forced the lady to have an abortion, that would probably be a felony and she should be prosecuted. Even in that case, she could have called her doctors/or anothers office and had the prescription phoned in, or gone to a hospital(where pharmacists probably dont have the option of not filling prescriptions).

Come on people, if this was about some other type of medication would there be such a heated willingness to infringe on what a private citizen can or cannot do?
Because that private citizen put themselves in a position to massively impose their viewpoint on other people they had no idea what the prescription was even for

It could have been a health concern she was potentially put at risk because this “private citizen” made the decision that not only that it was wrong (when she did not know what it was being used for) but that this person was a babykiller

By not doing their job they endangered the life and or wellbeing of another, if they have problems with it they should seriously look at a change in profession.

Insulin doesn't come from pigs any more. We used genetic modification techniques to alter bacteria to make human insulin many years ago.

It's not a pharmacists job to decide in the morality of the things prescribed, would you expect them not to sell condoms to unmarried people? How about if they believe schizophrenics are possessed by the devil, would you expect to refuse them medication in favour of an exorcism?
Exactly its the doctors job to make sure that what is perscribed is correct for the situation not the pharmisist

What kind of can of worms is this going to open?

One pharmacist doesn't believe in people taking pain pills, because it's "Jesus' will for them to suffer", so some old lady with arthritis won't be able to get them? This all started when Bush neocons wanted to allow pharmacies the "right" to deny women access to RU486 and other contraceptives
Businesses should be allowed to choose what products they sell. The market has this self-fixing machanism you see.

The pharmacist who doesn't sell painkillers loses that section of the market to competing pharmacist. This means that the fundamentalist loses money and may even go out of business because of their refusal to sell based on "what Jesus wants".

In a similar way, the market can also backfire against racism and homophobia.

Come on people, if this was about some other type of medication would there be such a heated willingness to infringe on what a private citizen can or cannot do?

It is a matter of trust. Trust is of the utmost importance in the medical profession. When patients can no longer trust their caregivers the system simply breaks down and that hurts everyone.

You argue as if that was the only choice. She could have gone elsewhere. And if the pharmacist took/kept the prescription AND this forced the lady to have an abortion, that would probably be a felony and she should be prosecuted. Even in that case, she could have called her doctors/or anothers office and had the prescription phoned in, or gone to a hospital(where pharmacists probably dont have the option of not filling prescriptions).

Come on people, if this was about some other type of medication would there be such a heated willingness to infringe on what a private citizen can or cannot do?

Your idea of "private action" is rather skewed. A pharmacy is not a lemonade stand. It serves a very public function. It is licensed. It is regulated. Most receive (indirectly) government money for prescriptions.

The libertarian ideal of autonomous individuals who may act as they please ignores the social contract and the reality of modern society. The pharmacist uses public roads, public utilities, and benefits from a requlated society in infinite ways.

With rights come responsibilities. Repeat: with rights come responsibilities.

The pharmacist here is abusing his so-called "rights" and ignoring his responsibilities.

Your idea of "private action" is rather skewed. A pharmacy is not a lemonade stand. It serves a very public function. It is licensed. It is regulated. Most receive (indirectly) government money for prescriptions.

The libertarian ideal of autonomous individuals who may act as they please ignores the social contract and the reality of modern society. The pharmacist uses public roads, public utilities, and benefits from a requlated society in infinite ways.

With rights come responsibilities. Repeat: with rights come responsibilities.

The pharmacist here is abusing his so-called "rights" and ignoring his responsibilities.
Exactly he accepted a job with the responsibility of distributing drugs that a qualified doctor prescribes to the patient if he can not handle his responsibilities he or she should not be in that job

Exactly he accepted a job with the responsibility of distributing drugs that a qualified doctor prescribes to the patient if he can not handle his responsibilities he or she should not be in that job

Technically, then, you're saying that he doesn't have to distribute the items that a qualified doctor does not prescribe - i.e., any non-prescription item in the store.

So let's say a pharmacist has moral objections to selling condoms (however stupid that might sound). So he stops selling them.

Is he breaking a social contract? Is it his responsibility to sell condoms?

Businesses should be allowed to choose what products they sell. The market has this self-fixing machanism you see.

The pharmacist who doesn't sell painkillers loses that section of the market to competing pharmacist. This means that the fundamentalist loses money and may even go out of business because of their refusal to sell based on "what Jesus wants".

In a similar way, the market can also backfire against racism and homophobia.

And what if there IS no other pharmacist in your town or village?

Is a girl going to say "hey, dad/mum/nan, drive me to town, I need to get the morning after pill"?

Technically, then, you're saying that he doesn't have to distribute the items that a qualified doctor does not prescribe - i.e., any non-prescription item in the store.

So let's say a pharmacist has moral objections to selling condoms (however stupid that might sound). So he stops selling them.

Is he breaking a social contract? Is it his responsibility to sell condoms?
But unlike perscription drugs he does not have to fill the order the person can grab the pack of condoms and walk up to the cashere themselfs unless you are saying the cashere also has a right to refuse to ring up items

Technically, then, you're saying that he doesn't have to distribute the items that a qualified doctor does not prescribe - i.e., any non-prescription item in the store.

So let's say a pharmacist has moral objections to selling condoms (however stupid that might sound). So he stops selling them.

Is he breaking a social contract? Is it his responsibility to sell condoms?

I think the case would have been different, if the pharmacy itself didn't sell the product (be that a prescribed medication or condoms or whatever) and therefore doesn't have it in stock. I'm still trying to figure out why, but I think in that case the pharmacist would have been within her rights. Maybe thats just my legal gut feeling or something.
But the fact that the pharmacy actually had the pills in stock and the pharmacist simply REFUSED to sell these pills to this patient and then to go even further and abuse her, that really enrages me. I think it is outrageous that customers of a pharmacy will get their medication on the days the pharmacist without moral concerns is in and on others they will be refused the same treatment...

Technically, then, you're saying that he doesn't have to distribute the items that a qualified doctor does not prescribe - i.e., any non-prescription item in the store.

So let's say a pharmacist has moral objections to selling condoms (however stupid that might sound). So he stops selling them.

Is he breaking a social contract? Is it his responsibility to sell condoms?

The difference between prescription and non-prescription items rather answers the question.

Moreoever, do you really endorse the complete autonomy idea?

What if said pharmacist won't sell to non-whites? A-OK? Should that effect his license at all?

The condom example doesn't apply in this instance. Walgreen's is a store with a pharmacy. You can take condoms off the rack and ring them up at the regular register with your aspirin, bag of chips, and blank video cassettes...the sale of condoms is not up to the pharmacist unless he also happens to be the owner of the Walgreen's franchise. Stores refuse to carry products based on the personal beliefs of their owners all the time (i.e. pornographic magazines, or CDs with explicit lyrics.)

I don't think I'd have as much of a problem with the incident if the pharmacist had acted in a more professional manner. He has no right to take away the woman's prescription if he's going to refuse her service. He has no right to verbally berate her in front of other customers, nor the right to publicly announce what her prescription is for, indirectly or not. This is basically a privacy issue. Again, this is the Milwaukee area, there are plenty of other pharmacists to go to that would fill the prescription; most supermarkets have a pharmacy these days.

What if said pharmacist won't sell to non-whites? A-OK? Should that effect his license at all?
If a pharmacist is a racist, then he'll lose the non-white market to his competition, and go out of business.

However, if there is a situation where the majority of pharmacists in the city won't sell to non-whites, then government action is needed.

If a pharmacist is a racist, then he'll lose the non-white market to his competition, and go out of business.

The problem is, it's not the pharmacist's business, it's the WalGreens (I believe that's what it was, right?) business.

So if anything, going by your logic, WalGrens should fire that pharmacist for hurting it's business.

If a pharmacist is a racist, then he'll lose the non-white market to his competition, and go out of business.

However, if there is a situation where the majority of pharmacists in the city won't sell to non-whites, then government action is needed.

As you recognize that government action is needed at some point, why set a threshold of acceptable discrimination in public services?

Shouldn't it simply be illegal to discriminate in serving the public?

What "right" is harmed?

So if anything, going by your logic, WalGrens should fire that pharmacist for hurting it's business.
That would be excellent. :)

Shouldn't it simply be illegal to discriminate in serving the public?

What "right" is harmed?
Good point, I don't really have a problem with laws banning discrimination in service. I was really just thinking of it as an extension of laws restricting discriminatory hiring policies, which I think employers should have a right to. I agree that no right is infringed upon by laws banning discrimination in service.

Good point, I don't really have a problem with laws banning discrimination in service. I was really just thinking of it as an extension of laws restricting discriminatory hiring policies, which I think employers should have a right to. I agree that no right is infringed upon by laws banning discrimination in service.

it's like a butchers hiring a muslim or jew who then abuses customers for buying pork. It's inherent in the job, if you won't do it, find a different job.




EDIT: PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMP

Your idea of "private action" is rather skewed. A pharmacy is not a lemonade stand. It serves a very public function. It is licensed. It is regulated. Most receive (indirectly) government money for prescriptions.

Hot dog/concession stand are regulated in NYC. Should THE GOVT penalize a guy because he choose to sell only non kosher hot dogs? I know you get my point without me having to elaborate. And if you hold healthcare to be some special thing(with regards to the morning after pill), then argue that you believe that all doctors who are qualified should be forced to perform abortions if so asked by their patients.

Whatever indirect subsidies are mainly aimed at Pharma companies, unless you are referring to govt mandated healthcare(employer or HMO) which brings down the cost to consume drugs for consumers thus benefitting pharmacies also. So what? Hybrid cars and solar panels for houses get subsidies, are you going to blame a particular car dealer or house builder who doesnt offer them for whatever reason?


The libertarian ideal of autonomous individuals who may act as they please ignores the social contract and the reality of modern society. The pharmacist uses public roads, public utilities, and benefits from a requlated society in infinite ways.


Your understanding of the social contract differs from mine. Because I am part of society, I am obligated to follow some norms with respect to others rights. This does not put any individuals preferances over mine. The pharmacists is as obligated to respect the customers rights/beliefs as the customers is obligated to respect the pharmacists. Since there is no common ground, and each belief/desire is valid, the only option is to not do business together. A deal is a deal where both parties benefit.


With rights come responsibilities. Repeat: with rights come responsibilities.

Agreed. Your point?


The pharmacist here is abusing his so-called "rights" and ignoring his responsibilities.

Bullshit.

On this point you argue like a NYC legistlator I saw on TV who said that a tv station was granted the license to print money by virtue of having a broadcasting license. The tv station got this license in a public auction and on top of that paid taxes on profits. But the legislator argued that because they had let them have the license AND the tv station was successful that it was all due to the govt and that the station owed the govt.

Completely discounting the effort and risk that the station put in.

You know what cat tribe, forget every argument I have made so far.

I believe you are a lawyer so I will ask you a simple question.

Do you believe that you have the right to refuse a case?

Not because you think it is unwinable.
Not because you wont be financially compensated.
Not because it lies outside your field of expertise.

Solely because you are simply dont want to or are uncomfortable arguing that particular case.

If you believe you are obligated to take all cases that come your way, tell me why. If you dont, then reconcile to me the whole rights and responsibility thing.

You are of course licensed. And depending upon your specilization, one could perhaps argue subsidized.

You know what cat tribe, forget every argument I have made so far.

I believe you are a lawyer so I will ask you a simple question.

Do you believe that you have the right to refuse a case?

Not because you think it is unwinable.
Not because you wont be financially compensated.
Not because it lies outside your field of expertise.

Solely because you are simply dont want to or are uncomfortable arguing that particular case.

If you believe you are obligated to take all cases that come your way, tell me why. If you dont, then reconcile to me the whole rights and responsibility thing.

You are of course licensed. And depending upon your specilization, one could perhaps argue subsidized.

specious analogy.

As a lawyer his ability to defend/prosecute is directly affected by his views about his client.

A pharmacist's ability to distribute medication is not.

Get back to the real point and stop using flawed analogy