NationStates Jolt Archive

The cons I listed outweigh the positives.

That's not much of a "right", then. The rest of us have been arguing all along that the positive effects of requiring licensed pharmacists to carry common medicines outweith the negatives. You are the one trying to claim that it is a matter of "right" rather than of expediency.

It is a violation of our freedoms, but the threat to our freedoms were private police force be allowed would far outweigh that violation.

Then you admit that some freedoms conflict with others, and it is the responsibility of free, democratic government to perform the best balancing act it can. If free, democratic government decides that the rights of individuals are best balanced by requiring licensed pharmacists to carry common drugs, then we are right back at the position I have been advocating: it is the pharmacist's right to protest to change the law, compromise his values, or resign as he sees fit.

The only way your argument works is if he somehow has a right that trumps the law. You seem now to be admitting that he does not.

The difference is between arguing that the law is unjust, and arguing that it is unwise. Until now, I thought you were arguing that it is unjust... but if you accept restrictions in some cases but not others, you seem to be arguing that in the latter cases the restrictions are unwise.

It is not the strength of moral beliefs that makes or breaks the law.

You are correct, his particular religious beliefs don't matter.

The more I try to explain it, the more it comes down to the fact that I don't believe he has any responsibility to provide the medication.

Goddamn it.

Ok, so you know, I don't oppose regulations, I oppose unreasonable regulations.

Then you would support his working to change the law, not his claiming that the law does not apply to him.

If the regulations are there to make sure he responsibly handles those contracts he accepts and he won't obey them, fine he's done.

But he has also accepted a general contract with the public--that's what "charters" and "licenses" are. If he refuses to perform the job for which a pharmacy exists, then he does not get to own a licensed pharmacy.

Ok, so you know, I don't oppose regulations, I oppose unreasonable regulations.
You seem to be the only one left who finds this to be an unreasonable regulation, and I can't say that it seems like you've been open-minded enough to acknowledge that you might be mistaken on this. Now, if you had your mind closed from the beginning, fine--at least have the decency to note that instead of jerking us around for the last few hours.

I was told on the thread about sex on the first date that birth control was 100%. So arguing about a morning after pill is a moot subject.


That's total crap. NOTHING is 100%. There are birth control failures. Even emergency contraception fails now and then.

The more I try to explain it, the more it comes down to the fact that I don't believe he has any responsibility to provide the medication.

If that's the case, then he would be within his rights to discriminate on the basis of race as well as sex.

After all, if he claimed a "moral belief" prevented him from making a particular sale, who are we to ask him which belief it was? And who are we to decide that a moral belief against serving black people is not acceptable, but a moral belief against preventing pregnancies is? How do we decide which moral beliefs are valid grounds for refusal?

It seems to me that the answer is simple: either you believe he has no responsibility to serve anyone or anything, a position undermining all fairness and anti-discrimination laws, or you decide that he has a responsibility to perform his job consistent with public, rather than private, moral principles. (He may, of course, obey any private moral principles that do not conflict with public ones.)

The people who want to control who has sex and when don't care about controlling when men have sex--they care about controlling when women have sex, and they want to make sure that women are always ready to receive their precious seed and that nothing gets in the way of that process....

....the anti-abortion people won't be able to punish women for having sex outside their prescribed boundaries.

Now I have no problem with the idea of going OTC with morning after anything, but these above are nothing more than attributing invented motives to anyone you happen to disagree with. Such a straw man (rather obviously) proves nothing.

Then you admit that some freedoms conflict with others, and it is the responsibility of free, democratic government to perform the best balancing act it can. If free, democratic government decides that the rights of individuals are best balanced by requiring licensed pharmacists to carry common drugs, then we are right back at the position I have been advocating: it is the pharmacist's right to protest to change the law, compromise his values, or resign as he sees fit.

The only way your argument works is if he somehow has a right that trumps the law. You seem now to be admitting that he does not.

Of coursefreedoms conflict with others. That is the nature of society, we forfeit some of our freedoms to protect others.

The difference is between arguing that the law is unjust, and arguing that it is unwise. Until now, I thought you were arguing that it is unjust... but if you accept restrictions in some cases but not others, you seem to be arguing that in the latter cases the restrictions are unwise.

Like you noticed and I said before, I pretty much consider all legislation to be unjust, they are limits on our freedoms. But you are correct that I think many regulations should be left because it would be unwise to remove them, based on the threats that they would create to our freedoms.

The most obvious example is murder laws. They are a restriction on our freedom, but the dangers of removing them are obvious.

As it relates to this, I have never liked the idea of a "right to healthcare" (this is what I didn't want to bring up earlier). It has always seemed to be a privelege of government and not a right, and as such I never thought it should outweigh the right to labor.

Now I have no problem with the idea of going OTC with morning after anything, but these above are nothing more than attributing invented motives to anyone you happen to disagree with. Such a straw man (rather obviously) proves nothing.
What other possible motive can there be? A fertilized zygote cannot be life--anywhere from 75% to 90% of them never implant in the first place, and since all the morning after pill does is help keep that from happening, it can't be called abortion, much less murder, by any reasonable standard. But it is clear that the religious right--the people behind this movement--have a vested interest in making sure that women stay subservient to men, and a large part of that, historically, has been centered around making sure they're baby carriers and little else. Control of sexuality runs throughout the Bible and through Christian tradition. So what else is there? Not so much of a straw man any more, I think.

And I haven't even gotten into the literature from the religious right on this issue, where they're far more blatant on the issue. Should I quote Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum about the idea that spousal rape is a fabrication of the radical feminist movement? Do you really want to go there?

I pretty much consider all legislation to be unjust, they are limits on our freedoms.

*snip*

The most obvious example is murder laws. They are a restriction on our freedom, but the dangers of removing them are obvious.

If, as it appears, you believe that this makes laws against killing "unjust," you have a seriously distorted and misguided concept of "justice." Based on this simple, extraordinarily fundamental difference of opinion, I believe that any discussion we try to have will only drown in the fact that we cannot agree on the most basic of all political definitions. Is this so?

Then, just to be clear, despite your earlier protestations you do not believe the government has a right to legislate against racial discrimination?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10405936&postcount=104

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10406500&postcount=150

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10406558&postcount=152

You must have misunderstood my "protestations" when discussing this earlier with CT.

My views are "sickening" to some posters on here, pro-choice and anti-abortion alike, but they always manage to tell me I am consistent. (Which is more important to me than the palatability of my ideas)


If that's the case, then he would be within his rights to discriminate on the basis of race as well as sex.

After all, if he claimed a "moral belief" prevented him from making a particular sale, who are we to ask him which belief it was? And who are we to decide that a moral belief against serving black people is not acceptable, but a moral belief against preventing pregnancies is? How do we decide which moral beliefs are valid grounds for refusal?

It seems to me that the answer is simple: either you believe he has no responsibility to serve anyone or anything, a position undermining all fairness and anti-discrimination laws, or you decide that he has a responsibility to perform his job consistent with public, rather than private, moral principles. (He may, of course, obey any private moral principles that do not conflict with public ones.)

That was the original argument I was making, but I toned it down a bit (a little subconsciously) when I got dog piled.

That is principly why I avoid topical conversations and stick to the morals of capitalism/communism, because it is doubtless that my opinions will offend someone.

Up here, there's a debate on whether to take it out from behind the counter and put it on the shelf. I support this because:

A. No having to drive all the way into Winnipef because the pharmacists in Selkirk won't give it to you
B. No embarrasing questions
C. From what I understand, these pills aren't dangerous
D. The quicker you get it, the better it works
E. Women are smart enough to read a damn box and figure it out

My views are "sickening" to some posters on here, pro-choice and anti-abortion alike, but they always manage to tell me I am consistent. (Which is more important to me than the palatability of my ideas)

When you allow one value to subsume all others, you are sickening. Very little, if anything, is so valuable as to be worthwhile "at all costs." This sort of thinking breeds fascism and tyranny.

Although your view explicitly rejects "force," holding to it with such fierce ideological "consistency" will inevitably bring you to approve force in all its most horrible manifestations. Perhaps it will not be the state trying to strike a balance among competing demands, but private entities attempting to protect themselves from the dispossessed.

Ideas do not breed terror. The refusal to compromise does. And "compromise" is the very definition of "inconsistency."

Consistency is a fine philosophical value. But it has never been a political one.

If, as it appears, you believe that this makes laws against killing "unjust," you have a seriously distorted and misguided concept of "justice." Based on this simple, extraordinarily fundamental difference of opinion, I believe that any discussion we try to have will only drown in the fact that we cannot agree on the most basic of all political definitions. Is this so?

I have been awake way too long, so I am kind swerving in my thinking right now, and I just apparently hit radical objectivism. But really, I was just trying to use murder laws to demonstrate the weighing of restricting freedoms in order to protect freedoms. I will try to explain what I was thinking in a stupid way.

Any restriction of an individual's liberty is unjust.

A private individual murdering another individual is far, far more unjust than the checks placed on an individual's soveriegnty to prevent the murder.

I can't even think straight anymore.

When you allow one value to subsume all others, you are sickening. Very little, if anything, is so valuable as to be worthwhile "at all costs." This sort of thinking breeds fascism and tyranny.

Although your view explicitly rejects "force," holding to it with such fierce ideological "consistency" will inevitably bring you to approve force in all its most horrible manifestations. Perhaps it will not be the state trying to strike a balance among competing demands, but private entities attempting to protect themselves from the dispossessed.

Ideas do not breed terror. The refusal to compromise does. And "compromise" is the very definition of "inconsistency."

Consistency is a fine philosophical value. But it has never been a political one.

You are right on there, I have advocated despotism and infanticide on here before even though I could never imagine how their practical application could turn out positive.

I can't stand democracy because of its collectivism, but I know anything else sucks.

I am trying to temper my anarchist ideas into some libertarian minarchist ideals, but I can't condone taxation or just about any public works.

Any restriction of an individual's liberty is unjust.
Then toss all of human society. Society is based on the trade off of individual liberty for the ability to work in concert in order to ease the burden on everyone. You want to be independent? Go live in an earthship, off the grid, and provide your own food, power, and security. Otherwise, you need to come to grips with the fact that you give up some amount of independence to get the benefits of industrial society.

Then toss all of human society. Society is based on the trade off of individual liberty for the ability to work in concert in order to ease the burden on everyone.

Somewhat. Society is based on the trade off of individual liberty in order to freely work for our own betterment. Society only improves because, when we allow mutual freedoms, I have to help you in order to acheive my goals, and you have to help me in order to acheive your goals.

Any restriction of an individual's liberty is unjust.

I disagree with your major premise. I believe, as you do, that liberty is good. But if I deprive you of your liberty, you are not entitled to claim "injustice" unless my action was "unjustified" or unjustifiable. If, for instance, you are about to walk over a cliff without knowing it, and I grab your arm to restrain you, I have deprived you of liberty (in some very narrow sense with which it seems you would agree). Yet when I explain my actions, you will not claim that I deprived you of liberty "unjustly." You will agree that my action was "just."

A private individual murdering another individual is far, far more unjust than the checks placed on an individual's soveriegnty to prevent the murder.

No, a private individual killing another without good cause is unjust. The checks placed on an individual preventing him from doing an injustice are not, themselves, unjust. That's why we say that when someone gets a punishment he deserves, "justice has been done."

I can't even think straight anymore.

This may be our first clear point of agreement. :D

I disagree with your major premise. I believe, as you do, that liberty is good. But if I deprive you of your liberty, you are not entitled to claim "injustice" unless my action was "unjustified" or unjustifiable. If, for instance, you are about to walk over a cliff without knowing it, and I grab your arm to restrain you, I have deprived you of liberty (in some very narrow sense with which it seems you would agree). Yet when I explain my actions, you will not claim that I deprived you of liberty "unjustly." You will agree that my action was "just."

No, a private individual killing another without good cause is unjust. The checks placed on an individual preventing him from doing an injustice are not, themselves, unjust. That's why we say that when someone gets a punishment he deserves, "justice has been done."

This may be our first clear point of agreement. :D

I did warn you that a stupid explanation was forthcoming.

The problem here is not that the pharmacist would be forced to do something that he/she doesn't believe in. The problem here is that the pharmacist(and many people in general) can't seem to understand that the "morning after pill" is simply a high dosage of hormones contained in regular birth control pills. If the pharmacist is willing to dispense any form of birth control, he or she cannot deny someone the "morning after pill" for any reason. It is NOT an abortion pill, and therefore, there should not be any kind of special moral concerns attached to it over any other medication.

AnarchyeL,

What entitles someone to a right to healthcare (please be brief)?

What other possible motive can there be? A fertilized zygote cannot be life--anywhere from 75% to 90% of them never implant in the first place, and since all the morning after pill does is help keep that from happening, it can't be called abortion, much less murder, by any reasonable standard.


I always hear different stats about this when people argue for the morning after pill. Some say 2/3 some say 3/4, some say half, you say 75-90%. Mysteriously, nobody ever provides a source.

Just logically thinking, 75-90% is absurd. Let's say a couple is trying to get pregnent and every single period the man's sperm fertilized the egg, (I'm pretty sure this is extremely unlikely, but let's continue) by your statistics, the couple would take an average of roughly 7-9 months to get pregnent. You really think that that is the case?



As a comparison, let's look at condom efficiency.
(from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-condom.xml )

"Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.* Only two women will become pregnant with perfect use.** More protection against pregnancy is possible if condoms are used with a spermicide foam, cream, jelly, suppository, or film.

*Typical use refers to failure rates when use is not consistent or always correct.
**Perfect use refers to failure rates for those whose use is consistent and always correct."


Women who use condoms imperfectly will get pregnent 15% of the time and women who use the perfectly 2% of the time over a year's span. Do you really that it's logical that that would be the case if only 10-25% of fertilized eggs implanted?

A sperm would have to get through/around the condom, then fertilize the egg and even then, only 1 out of 7.5 to 9 times would the fertilized egg implant. If that were true, even those who use condoms in a "typical" way would virtually never get pregnent. A far cry from the 15% who do now.


So where do you people pull these stats from? I've never seen any source to verify them. Do you personally know somebody who searchs women's period fluids looking for the tiny single celled fertilized egg? (I can't see where people would run into problems with that...) I'm not saying that's the only to find out, but I would be interested to read what methods people use to determine whether or not a fertilized egg implants. I would read up on it, but I can't find a source (and I've looked hard) and nobody provides me with one. ):

AnarchyeL,

What entitles someone to a right to healthcare (please be brief)?

Who ever said people have a "right" to healthcare, in abstraction?

Healthcare, like most rights worth speaking of, is a positive right. More to the point, for the present discussion, is the fact that a right to healthcare is not even at issue. (A right to healthcare would presumably include universal health coverage.)

What is at issue here is an individual's right to self-determination in matters of personal health and her own body.

AnarchyeL,

What entitles someone to a right to healthcare (please be brief)?

In Canada? Being alive. In the US, I have no idea. I think it might have something to do with the whole 'freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Maybe it might have something to do with that 'life' bit. I dunno.

And anyways, I've read the majority of this thread; I disagree with you, Vittos. Maybe it's because I'm a moral person, or something along those lines.

In order to ensure equality within the context of business-consumer relations, there are laws that seperate jurisdictions have passed that disallow denial of service based on religious, racial, or sexual factors. Good common sense says that people are people, regardless of whether they're a Black atheist lesbian or a White Christian heterosexual male.

The point behind this is that the government in Illinois, in place as the will of the people, has decreed that pharmacists have to carry certain prescriptions and fill them out for people. The pharmacist has to think no further on it than 'decide whether prescription will be harmful to the patient. if so, (a); if not, (b). ((a)fill out prescription / (b)deny service). say have a nice day'.

The Lambda Organization is planning on using California's version, the Unruh Act, against Blizzard Entertainment; they disallow players from making reference to homosexuality in the game, even in a positive light to counteract the majority who play and use phrases like 'that's so gay' yet don't get noticed and therefore don't get punished.

Blizzard is providing a service. There is legislation about how that service must be provided. The pharmacist is providing a service. There is legislation about how that service must be provided.

If I, as a governmental computer programmer, refuse to fix security holes created by other programmers, saying that it's against my personal beliefs to clean up messes belonging to other people, is it within my right to do so?

Is it my fault if the government databases get hacked and personal information like Social Security Numbers is lost or removed from the system because of something that I did not do? (Analogy to not dispensing and the customer getting pregnant, for those who missed it.)

The answers? No, and yes, respectively. That simple. Period.

Women who use condoms imperfectly will get pregnent 15% of the time and women who use the perfectly 2% of the time over a year's span. Do you really that it's logical that that would be the case if only 10-25% of fertilized eggs implanted?

It depends on what you mean by "pregnancy". Some people seem to think that you are not "pregnant" until the fertilized egg implants... but pregnancy tests recognize elevations in hormones that begin within hours of fertilization, and days before implantation. (Implantation usually occurs between 6-9 days after fertilization.) Despite what some have argued here, there is no consensus regarding whether pregnancy begins at fertilization, or when cell division begins (still prior to implantation)... or even "when you realize you're pregnant," which happens to be my preferred definition.

This definition is already in operational form... and it turns out that only 2/3 of fertilized eggs last long enough for women to realize that they were pregnant. The 1/3 that don't make it includes all of those that do not implant, plus those which fail in miscarriage before the woman realizes she is pregnant.

Anyway, my point is just that your statistics are not "proof" of anything, since your source does not provide an operational definition of "pregnant." Thus, for all we know they mean "fertilized", in which case their 15% is well in line with the 10-25% you were trying to debunk.

I was told on the thread about sex on the first date that birth control was 100%. So arguing about a morning after pill is a moot subject.


What form of birth control? A condom? An IUD? Birth control pills? Contraceptive gel? The sponge? Norplant? withdrawal? diaphragm? female condom? They all are different methods, with differing rates of failure.

Arguing from a position of miseducation is moot.

What form of birth control? A condom? An IUD? Birth control pills? Contraceptive gel? The sponge? Norplant? withdrawal? diaphragm? female condom? They all are different methods, with differing rates of failure.

Arguing from a position of miseducation is moot.

Absolutely. Everyone with any sex education knowledge knows that even using *every* form of possibly combinable contraceptives will still never raise the chance of not getting pregnant to 100%. It'll just add more nines in decimal spaces behind that 99.99%.

Pregnancies are still possible with multiple redundancy systems.

That's why morning-after pills and less preferrably, abortions, are still a necessity.

Even if one in every thousand women gets pregnant while using condoms, that's still hundreds of thousands of women in Canada alone.

It depends on what you mean by "pregnancy". Some people seem to think that you are not "pregnant" until the fertilized egg implants... but pregnancy tests recognize elevations in hormones that begin within hours of fertilization, and days before implantation. (Implantation usually occurs between 6-9 days after fertilization.) Despite what some have argued here, there is no consensus regarding whether pregnancy begins at fertilization, or when cell division begins (still prior to implantation)... or even "when you realize you're pregnant," which happens to be my preferred definition.

This definition is already in operational form... and it turns out that only 2/3 of fertilized eggs last long enough for women to realize that they were pregnant. The 1/3 that don't make it includes all of those that do not implant, plus those which fail in miscarriage before the woman realizes she is pregnant.

Anyway, my point is just that your statistics are not "proof" of anything, since your source does not provide an operational definition of "pregnant." Thus, for all we know they mean "fertilized", in which case their 15% is well in line with the 10-25% you were trying to debunk.


Weeeee more statistics without any sources to back them up.

And the statistics I used aren't my statistics, they're planned parenthood's statistics, and if you think planned parenthood defines pregnancy as the moment of fertilization, you're crazy.

I'm sure that the 15% of people who reported back that they were pregnent after condom use all took hormone tests and used those as the basis of their results. Because, let's face it, who doesn' take pregnancy tests after each time they have protected sex??

Please.

And just in case you were still, for whatever reason, uncertain of their definiton of pregnency, you could had bothered to look for yourself and seen planned parenthood's description of emergency contraception:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/ec/pub-emergency-contraception.xml
EC — Emergency Contraception

"... can prevent pregnancy after unprotected vaginal intercourse. It is also called post-coital or "morning-after" contraception.

... is available from health care providers, Planned Parenthood® health centers, and other women's health and family planning centers"

and...

"ECPs can reduce the risk of pregnancy if started within 120 hours after unprotected vaginal intercourse."


So a pill, taken within 120 hours of intercourse is touted as "preventing" (they bolded it even!) and not ending pregnancy. In fact, they're very strong about saying it isn't an abortifacient. Does that sound like an organization who thinks pregnancy starts at fertilization???



But anyway, I was just using the stats to illustrate what should already be obvious. A 75-90% implantation failure rate, would mean that it would take a couple having regular sex an average of 7-9 months to get pregnent, assuming the egg is fertilized every time, which, from everything I've heard, is far from true.

Maybe this is news to you, but it doesn't take nearly that long to get pregnent.

But hey, maybe all the married couples I know that got pregnent much more quickly than those numbers (or some of the people I know who've gotten pregnent unintentionally) are all just freaks of nature with super sperm and extraordinary eggs.

I could know for sure if you provided me a source with some of the numbers you seem to believe are true!



And on another note, isn't it interesting how bias can take perfectly intelligent people and make them throw out common sense?

I could know for sure if you provided me a source with some of the numbers you seem to believe are true!

I never said I believed the 10-25% failure rate. Indeed, like you I think that it more than strains credibility.

I was merely complaining about your irresponsible use of mathematics. You cannot compare one percentage to another unless you know that you are applying the same operational definition of the terms (in this case, "pregnancy"). At a minimum that requires the more thorough accounting you have just given.

More importantly, saying things like "if x were true, then y would only happen (on average) after interval Z, but most y's happen in a shorter time" is a truly bad application of statistical reasoning.

Say getting pregnant takes, for most people, two months... for the sake of the argument, let's assume this is pretty constant.

So maybe we have six couples. Five of them get pregnant in the normal two months. But one couple has terrible trouble getting pregnant, and it takes them 25 months. The average? Five months... more than twice the amount of time it takes the "normal" couple.

Averages are horrible measures of "normality" for skewed populations (like couples trying to have a child), because they are affected too much by outliers. The median would be better for large populations, or the mode for small homogeneous ones... in the example above, two months.

I never said I believed the 10-25% failure rate. Indeed, like you I think that it more than strains credibility.

I was merely complaining about your irresponsible use of mathematics. You cannot compare one percentage to another unless you know that you are applying the same operational definition of the terms (in this case, "pregnancy"). At a minimum that requires the more thorough accounting you have just given.

More importantly, saying things like "if x were true, then y would only happen (on average) after interval Z, but most y's happen in a shorter time" is a truly bad application of statistical reasoning.

Say getting pregnant takes, for most people, two months... for the sake of the argument, let's assume this is pretty constant.

So maybe we have six couples. Five of them get pregnant in the normal two months. But one couple has terribly trouble getting pregnant, and it takes them 25 months. The average? Five months... more than twice the amount of time it takes the "normal" couple.

Averages are horrible measures of "normality" for skewed populations (like couples trying to have a child), because they are affected too much by outliers. The median would be better for large populations, or the mode for small homogeneous ones... in the example above, two months.


As far as averages go, I said:
"A 75-90% implantation failure rate, would mean that it would take a couple having regular sex an average of 7-9 months to get pregnent, assuming the egg is fertilized every time,"

I wasn't comparing normal couples with abnormal couples, I was using a hypothetical situation (where each fertilization has between a 10 and 25% survival rate and the egg is fertilized every time) that would never happen to prove a point. Obviously, things like low spermcount etc would change the results, but who cares about that for the purposes of my argument? People can account for those types of things without me pointing it out.

My goal was to show people why 75-90% (as well as other related statistics) are not anywhere close.

Now, if I said something along the line of, "it really happens x% of the time" and gave my own percentage, then, yes, I would understand how you would want me to deal in very exact mathematics.

However, if somebody comes up to me and says 2.13 x 1.98 = 50000, I'm not going to bother running inside to grab my calculator to prove them wrong. I'd merely say that "2.13 is close to 2 and 1.98 is also very close to two. And since 2 x 2 = 4, you would expect 2.13 x 1.98 to be much closer to 4 than it is to 50000."

Anyway, I'm glad you have the common sense to see through bogus statistics, but it's very clear that others in this thread need to be shown why they aren't true.

As far as averages go, I said:
"A 75-90% implantation failure rate, would mean that it would take a couple having regular sex an average of 7-9 months to get pregnent, assuming the egg is fertilized every time,"

Right, but you gave no evidence that the average is not, in fact, 7-9 months, other than your perception (perhaps quite accurate) that it does not normally take so long. This neglects to account for the possibility that regardless of how long it normally takes, extreme outliers may pull the average into the 7-9 months range. Again, averages are poor measures of normalcy.

My goal was to show people why 75-90% (as well as other related statistics) are not anywhere close.

I know. And while your conclusion is probably correct, and your argument may have convinced the mathematically uninitiated, for those of us with a firm grasp of statistics the argument itself was wholly unconvincing.

However, if somebody comes up to me and says 2.13 x 1.98 = 50000, I'm not going to bother running inside to grab my calculator to prove them wrong. I'd merely say that "2.13 is close to 2 and 1.98 is also very close to two. And since 2 x 2 = 4, you would expect 2.13 x 1.98 to be much closer to 4 than it is to 50000."

Sure. But that kind of reasoning doesn't necessarily work in statistics. The comparable claim would be something like this: Someone comes up to you and says "the average number of x in a y is 50,000," to which you reply, "no its not. I have a ton of y's right here, and there are only 2 x's in each of them. There is no way that the average number of x in a y is 50,000"... without taking into account the fact that there are some other ys out there that have a ridiculously large number of x in them. The average could still be true.

[Unless you have a sufficiently large random sample, in which case you can be reasonably confident that the average on your sample approximates the average on the entire population... but you always have to remember that you can only be reasonably certain, and you would usually try to quantify what you mean by "reasonably."]

(Even one outlier can screw up a mean. It is the extreme case, but it proves the point. "Averages" are dangerous tools, and only under certain circumstances do they represent reality in a way that makes "common sense.")

Anyway, I'm glad you have the common sense to see through bogus statistics, but it's very clear that others in this thread need to be shown why they aren't true.

They do. But using bogus mathematics to debunk bogus statistics doesn't help anyone.

Right, but you gave no evidence that the average is not, in fact, 7-9 months, other than your perception (perhaps quite accurate) that it does not normally take so long. This neglects to account for the possibility that regardless of how long it normally takes, extreme outliers may pull the average into the 7-9 months range. Again, averages are poor measures of normalcy.

I know. And while your conclusion is probably correct, and your argument may have convinced the mathematically uninitiated, for those of us with a firm grasp of statistics the argument itself was wholly unconvincing.



Sure. But that kind of reasoning doesn't necessarily work in statistics. The comparable claim would be something like this: Someone comes up to you and says "the average number of x in a y is 50,000," to which you reply, "no its not. I have a ton of y's right here, and there are only 2 x's in each of them. There is no way that the average number of x in a y is 50,000"... without taking into account the fact that there are some other ys out there that have a ridiculously large number of x in them. The average could still be true.

[Unless you have a sufficiently large random sample, in which case you can be reasonably confident that the average on your sample approximates the average on the entire population... but you always have to remember that you can only be reasonably certain, and you would usually try to quantify what you mean by "reasonably."]

(Even one outlier can screw up a mean. It is the extreme case, but it proves the point. "Averages" are dangerous tools, and only under certain circumstances do they represent reality in a way that makes "common sense.")



They do. But using bogus mathematics to debunk bogus statistics doesn't help anyone.


Sigh...
I started a write a long rant about bell curves and how you were misrepresenting what I was saying and taking my estimations(which was more an exercise in common sense and showing people how to think things through) and attempting to pick it apart as if I was trying to write some mathematical proof....


However, I realized two things
1. You agree with me that the statistics are bogus (which is the point I want to make)
and
2. The only reasons that you are trying to pick apart what I said is that you are a) bitter because I insinuated you had no common sense b.)Am attacking the false beliefs of people who are on the same side of this debate that you are and c.)are a typical person who wants to get the "last word" and prove that he is smarter than the person he is debating. Why else would you argue such semantics (and in such a venomous way, no less) in a discussion where we agree?

You know that if a discussion about implanation rates somehow turns into a discussion about how 2x2=4 is actually comparable to "the average number of x in a y is 50,000," --- that the original point of discussing is long dead.


How about this, since you agree with me that the statistics are bogus, how about you use statistics and good solid mathematics to show why they can't be true (since my efforts were clearly underwhelming). Then, everyone who reads this thread will be enlightened and will have good solid proofs as to why the statistics in question can't be true. And when I get home from skiing tomorrow, I'll log on and see your post and hopefully I'll learn a thing or two. Then I'll be able to turn my back on silly estimations and see the light of using the strictest of mathematics in my every day life.

Afterall, the best way to show me what I've done wrong is to show me how to do it right!

I started a write a long rant about bell curves

Bell curves are great, and we scientists LOVE when things fall into them... but many things do not, and human conception is one of them. There are a lot of values that cluster rather low (within a few months), and then a few outliers (representing couples who have trouble getting pregnant. This is not a normal (bell) curve, but rather one with positive skew.

On a true bell curve, the mean and the median are the same.

you were misrepresenting what I was saying and taking my estimations(which was more an exercise in common sense and showing people how to think things through) and attempting to pick it apart as if I was trying to write some mathematical proof....

But you were. You were arguing that one number could not be true, because it would result in a mean that does not reflect the "normal" member of a set. Your mathematical assumption was that the mean should represent the "normal" members. This assumption does not hold for skewed distributions.

2. The only reasons that you are trying to pick apart what I said is that you are *snip*

Actually, none of the above. I am a mathematician and a scientist who cringes to see mathematics abused, regardless of whether I happen to agree with the conclusions being presented. I am also, as I have indicated elsewhere in this thread, an educator... so given a false belief about disciplines dear to my heart, I can hardly help but correct it!

Why else would you argue such semantics (and in such a venomous way, no less) in a discussion where we agree?

I did not realize I was being "venomous". I apologize, and chalk it up to my zeal for the subject.

How about this, since you agree with me that the statistics are bogus, how about you use statistics and good solid mathematics to show why they can't be true (since my efforts were clearly underwhelming).

Your alternative approach, comparing the numbers to the documented Planned Parenthood figures, was fine... once you provided an argument to show that the operational definition of "pregnancy" used in those figures was, at a minimum, implantation... and possibly later, given the bias of the source. It was only your hypothetical with which I took issue.

Afterall, the best way to show me what I've done wrong is to show me how to do it right!

As far as hypotheticals go, I would shy away from them altogether unless you are prepared to estimate the actual error on values calculated on a particular random sample. Making numbers up rarely works in statistical logic, because it is almost always vulnerable to the criticism, "but what if there are these other cases that you are ignoring?"

EDIT: Very frequently scientists discover numbers that "don't seem to make sense," especially doing studies in the social sciences. Rarely, if ever, is it possible to demonstrate that they are incorrect, however, without actually comparing them to another study, and arguing that the latter used better measures (or better math). Sometimes, common sense does NOT reflect reality, which is why the science of statistics tries to help us out by actually measuring reality instead of making guesses about it.

EDIT AGAIN: Even when your math is good, random samples are hard to come by, a fact which tends to prejudice our "common sense" notions. When you first invented your hypothetical, you asked (rhetorically) if it was possible that all the couples you know are super-fertile. Well, that does seem unlikely... However, if I were inclined to defend the high rate of implantation failure that you were criticizing, I might hypothesize that environmental factors, or a woman's diet, affect implanation. This is a perfectly plausible hypothesis, and if it were true it might turn out that the success rate in your area is made up for by a very low success rate in poorer neighborhoods with more pollution and worse diets. These are the sorts of things that scientists go about testing.

My point here is simply that "the people I know" are almost never a random sample for anything, and since "the people I know" probably strongly influence my "common sense" of reality, I should not be surprised when the aggregate numbers do not accord with my sense of what is likely.

The problem here is not that the pharmacist would be forced to do something that he/she doesn't believe in. The problem here is that the pharmacist(and many people in general) can't seem to understand that the "morning after pill" is simply a high dosage of hormones contained in regular birth control pills. If the pharmacist is willing to dispense any form of birth control, he or she cannot deny someone the "morning after pill" for any reason. It is NOT an abortion pill, and therefore, there should not be any kind of special moral concerns attached to it over any other medication.

What if the pharmacy simply chose not to stock it?

I think it might have something to do with the whole 'freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

Your rights never entitle you to infringe on someone else's. Of course you have a right to life. However this does not imply a right to infringe on someone else's right to property (e.g. money). Universal healthcare is not a right, it is merely a policy that may or may not be chosen.

In order to ensure equality within the context of business-consumer relations, there are laws that seperate jurisdictions have passed that disallow denial of service based on religious, racial, or sexual factors.

They do not apply without exception. How do you explain all girls' schools? All male athletics?

IIRC the definitions of exceptions are quite nebulous (if even existent).

The Lambda Organization is planning on using California's version, the Unruh Act, against Blizzard Entertainment; they disallow players from making reference to homosexuality in the game, even in a positive light to counteract the majority who play and use phrases like 'that's so gay' yet don't get noticed and therefore don't get punished.

So this "Lambda Organization" is trying to stamp out free speech? And you support this?

What if the pharmacy simply chose not to stock it?



Your rights never entitle you to infringe on someone else's. Of course you have a right to life. However this does not imply a right to infringe on someone else's right to property (e.g. money). Universal healthcare is not a right, it is merely a policy that may or may not be chosen.



They do not apply without exception. How do you explain all girls' schools? All male athletics?

IIRC the definitions of exceptions are quite nebulous (if even existent).



So this "Lambda Organization" is trying to stamp out free speech? And you support this?

If the pharmacy chooses not to stock it, then there is no issue. The pharmacist simply has to tell the customer that it is not stocked at that pharmacy, and that's the end of it. Any comments, insults, or condemnations that are added to that are certainly unprofessional and should not be tolerated.

Personally, I think part of this issue may lie in a few incidents of pharmacists behaving in an unprofessional manner.

If a pharmacist doesnt want to fill out prescriptions they should find a line of work more suited to them. Its like a vegetarian getting a job in a butchers shop and refusing to sell meat.

What is at issue here is an individual's right to self-determination in matters of personal health and her own body.

So the disagreement is that you say self-determination in a person's healthcare outweighs another self-determination of labor.

So the disagreement is that you say self-determination in a person's healthcare outweighs another self-determination of labor.

Health care trumps labors religous "morality."

If it didn't, then doctors would have the right to not treat homosexuals....

Health care trumps labors religous "morality."

If it didn't, then doctors would have the right to not treat homosexuals....

I have already told AnarchyeL that religion and morality does not matter, it is all dependant on the right to allocate labor as one see's fit.

Anything else constitutes some degree of slavery.

Maybe I am being obtuse, but I strongly oppose this. What are your thoughts.
Maybe you need to find some more important issues to care about.

Maybe you need to find some more important issues to care about.

Like what? Name one issue that hasn't been beaten into the ground.

So the disagreement is that you say self-determination in a person's healthcare outweighs another self-determination of labor.

No, I'm saying that one person's self-determination outweighs another's decision to be disingenuous in his duties. By becoming a licensed pharmacist, he took on a public trust... which fully comports with his self-determination of labor, since he decided to do so.

If I hire someone to construct an office-building, sure the contract is between me and him. Indeed, I may even be eager for him to cut a few corners (to save me a few bucks), especially if we think it won't matter for fifty years. But he still has to obey building codes, even those he thinks are stupid. If he does not like it, he can find another job.

I don't see why you think religious beliefs are above the law. Even the Supreme Court, in its freedom of religion jurisprudence, has recognized that the state may interfere with such freedoms when it has an overriding interest, a good reason. I would say that "securing the availability of prescription drugs" is a good reason, especially when it does not compel anyone to retain the job. If they don't like it, they may leave.

I'm starting to get a head-ache from going around in circles so fast.

Anything else constitutes some degree of slavery.

It gives me no end of amusement that you capitalist apologists will hyperventilate over the slightest suggestion of what you consider de jure slavery through legal restrictions, while shrugging your shoulders at the blatant de facto servitude of millions of employees to their employers.

And what do you say when we complain? "They can always find another job."

*giggles*

I have already told AnarchyeL that religion and morality does not matter, it is all dependant on the right to allocate labor as one see's fit.

Anything else constitutes some degree of slavery.

That may be the issue elsewhere but it's one's Religion and their moral view at play here.

As such "slavery" is justified. Our health professionals are supposed to want to help people.

If a pharmie wants to dispense morality then he needs to leave the job to somebody else.....

in my opinion its a personal choice what you put in your body sooooo the red tape you have to go through should be minimised

Based on the Oath of Maimonides

[From the University of Arizona's College of Pharmacy Student Handbook]

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience and skills to the best of my ability in serving the public and other health professionals.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will obey the laws governing the practice of pharmacy and will support enforcement of such laws.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral and ethical conduct.

I will address the challenges and opportunities in the profession of pharmacy and will participate in the change process.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.



.... It seems to me that if you are choosing the profession of pharmacist, you will be fully aware of the oath you are taking. You can't renege later because "God says so."

Who ever said people have a "right" to healthcare, in abstraction?

Healthcare, like most rights worth speaking of, is a positive right. More to the point, for the present discussion, is the fact that a right to healthcare is not even at issue. (A right to healthcare would presumably include universal health coverage.)

What is at issue here is an individual's right to self-determination in matters of personal health and her own body.
I did, but not in this sense. EDIT: I mean, not in the sense of provision of specific services. I meant it in the sense of one's own decisions about how one takes care of one's own health.

I was talking about having access to healthcare as being part of the right to self determination, control over one's body, and preservation of one's own life. I did not indicate how such healthcare should be provided (personally, I favor national programs). But since we are talking about healthcare and the patients who use it and the professionals who provide it, I think it is both disingenuous and downright stupid to pretend it's not part of the issue.

I believe that, for rights to exist, we must have the ability to exercise them. You can say that we have the right to preserve and protect our own lives, but if you deny us access to medicine, you are effectively erasing that right by preventing us from exercising it.

There may be no specific inherent right to be able to buy things in a pharmacy as opposed to any other source. Not having pharmacies may not be a violation of anyone's rights. The rights violation comes in when pharmacies exist and are maintained for the purpose of dispensing medicines, but a patient is deliberately blocked from accessing properly prescribed medicines by anyone -- pharmacist or otherwise -- who has no proper standing to make such a negative decision. Such a person is actively preventing me from exercising my rights for no other reason than he wishes to express a political or moral opinion at my expense. He has plenty of ways to express himself without interfering with my personal healthcare regimen.

If I suffer because of him, I think I should be able to bring legal action against that person for violation of my rights. This in addition to suing him for the extra costs I will have incurred because of him.

Explain why not carrying one prescription is ample justification to bar someone from being a pharmacist.

It doesn't bar anyone from being a pharmacist. It regulates their actions as a pharmacist. In truth, it probably regulates the pharmacy more than any individual pharmacist (if it does require each pharmacy to carry Plan B, that is). Government regulation of jobs in the medical industry is hardly a new thing.

As for why Illinois has chosen to pass this law - it probably has a lot to do with the general consensus that preventing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing - and good for the community. It also probably has something to do with idiots who want to work for Revco or CVS and still think they can dictate the way said companies run. In the end, the people of Illinois have decided that this is important enough to pass a law about it.

Being guaranteed Plan B is a privelege, choosing how to allocate your labor is a right.

You can only choose how to allocate your labor within the limits of the law.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the only thing keeping it from being available OTC is Congress. Too many members of Congress are beholden to the religious right in this country, and they claim--contrary to every piece of scientific evidence available--that a fertilized zygote is life, and therefore the morning after pill is an abortion. That's ludicrous, but far too many members of Congress are too fucking scared of this minority of people (and they are a minority--65% of people polled want to keep Roe the law of the land and this isn't anywhere close to an actual abortion) to stand up to them and say "this will actually reduce the number of abortions more effectively than any ban will" and make it an OTC product.

There is also the issue that they keep trying to claim (despite the fact that pretty much all OTC medications have been done this way) that usage and understanding testing on older teens is not enough - that children as young sa 12 and 13 must be tested and surveyed. Of course, even after the company went back and did such tests, the FDA committee blocked it. This might have something to do with Bush appointing people to the FDA reproductive medicine committee that refuse to put unmarried women on the pill and prescribe Scripture reading for extreme cramping...

Yes, I should have said "fulfill prescriptions." These licenses should be there to insure that the pharmacists are trained well and fully qualified to safely dispense medication. It should not be to control what they are forced to stock and sell.

The people of Illinois apparently disagree with you.

They should not be forced to choose between their livelihood, home, and morality.

They aren't. They are choosing between their livelihood and their wish to force their morality on others. If a pharmacist has a problem with Plan B, she shouldn't take it. If she thinks only married women should have access to birth control pills, she should only get on birth control if she is married. Beyond that, her job is to fill prescriptions that are handed to her, plain and simple. She does not regulate what medications are legal - that is the job of the FDA.

It is a privelege because it is not a universal application of rights. By guaranteeing that someone can receive Plan B, others must be denied the right to run their business as they choose.

Did you know that it is illegal for a restaurant to refuse water to someone, even if that person is not dining there? There are all sorts of laws that "deny someone the right to run their business as they choose." Why? Because the people have decided that it is in the public interest to do so.

If government made no laws relating to pharmaceutical sales, would there be no right to be a pharmacist?

No, there wouldn't. There is no "right to be X." There is a right to try and meet whatever requirements are needed to successfully be X. And that is all.

This is not about someone who isn't qualified, it is about someone who is forced to give up their livelihood because of moral convictions.

Wrong again. It is about someone who cannot gain access to the livelihood they want because of their wish to force their moral convictions upon others.

And the government is taking the options away from the pharmacist, by the threat of violence.

Violence? Does the government say it will come in and behead the guy if he doesn't fill the prescription?

This is not a question of whether they are right, it is a question of whether they should be limited from professions because of their morals.

They aren't. They are limited from being licensed in their profession in a given area because of their wish to apply their morals to others.

So the disagreement is that you say self-determination in a person's healthcare outweighs another self-determination of labor.
First off, we need to be clear about terms. You are using the phrase "self determination of labor" but in the rest of this thread, you have made it clear that you think this means that you should have the right to dictate the definition of any job and the terms under which you will do it. This is a nonsensical concept for two reasons: 1. Why should society put up with that? You can declare any definition of pharmacist you like, but if it's not something the community needs, you're not going to get hired. Nobody cares what YOU think a pharmacist should be. Society knows what it wants and needs and that's what it's going to demand. 2. Labor and profession are not the same thing. You own your labor, i.e., your ability to work, and that is something you can apply anyway and anywhere you like for whatever price you can get. But you don't own the profession of pharmacist. That has a pre-determined definition and you either conform to that or you don't get to call yourself a pharmacist. So, "self-determination of labor" DOES NOT mean that you get to do anything you like and call it by whatever job title you like.

Having cleared that up, let me address these two concepts:

SELF DETERMINATION OF ONE'S OWN HEALTHCARE is fundamental to the preservation of one's own life, which is a universally recognized human right. Self-determination in healthcare spans every decision from whether to take vitamin supplements to whether to undergo a third round of chemotherapy for cancer, including decisions about contraception and whether to carry or abort a pregnancy.

There is no circumstance in which a person may be forced or required to put their own lives at risk against their will. This applies even to people who voluntarily take on dangerous occupations, like cop or fireman or even a soldier on a battlefield. A soldier accepts the risk of getting killed and cannot refuse to enter the battlefield, but he also cannot be ordered to let himself get shot. In fact, his training and equipment are designed to help him avoid getting shot, despite the heightened risk. Why? Because you can't require anyone to suffer physical harm for you. (In fact, I believe this was part of the reasoning behind abolishing the draft.)

By taking a deliberate action to interfere with the healthcare decisions of another person, you WOULD BE violating their rights because you would be forcing them to risk harm against their will.

SELF DETERMINATION OF LABOR is a less clear-cut issue. Your rights would be violated if you were blocked from getting any kind of job so that you could not make a living at all. Your rights would also be violated if you were blocked from working in a field in which you are qualified because of some reason that has nothing to do with doing the job, such as race.

However, wanting to do a job does not create a right to do it. First, you have to be able to do it and qualified to do it. If you refuse or are not able to do all of the required parts of the job, then you cannot do it, and if you cannot do it, then you're not qualified to do it. You will not get that job, or if you do get it, you won't be able to keep it, but your rights will NOT have been violated. In other words, you have the right to do what you can do, but you have no right to do what you can't do.

Second, let's say you're fully able and qualified, you still have no guarantee because a job must be available for you to get. No one is required to provide such a job for you, and if there is not one, that's unfortunate for you, but it is NOT a violation of your rights. For instance, if you live in a small town that has one CVS and one Wal-mart, and neither of them is hiring pharmacists at the moment, you're out of luck in that town, and your rights have nothing to do with it. The world is full of people with degrees in fields they love who are driving cabs to make a living. That's just the way things go. In other words, you have a right to work but you have no right to get this or that particular job at any given time.

The difference here is intent. If there is intent to deny, then there may be a rights violation. If there is no intent to deny, then there is no rights violation.

The moralistic pharmacist INTENDS to deny women control over their healthcare decisions. Such a situation would never exist if not for the pharmacist's deliberate intent to deny something to the woman that the law says she is allowed to have.

On the other hand, a pharmacist who cannot get work may simply be a victim of circumstances that no one caused and that no one can remedy. There is no INTENT to prevent him from working.

Health care trumps labors religous "morality."

So in order to work in America you must have no morals

So in order to work in America you must have no morals
Yes. Next?

So when euthenasia is made legal with consent, all doctors should automatically accept that euthanasia not murder and morally acceptable?

Morally acceptable? No, that's a personal decision. Not murder? Absolutely. Murder is unlawful killing and euthenasia, where legal, is not illegal. It would be rather a specialty service, and is not emergency treatment, so individual doctors could decide whether or not to offer it.

Plan B, however, is legally no different from penicillin or insulin. On top of that, it is emergency medication. (Note that doctors have the right to refuse service for many reasons in normal situations, but no in emergency situations, where even an inability to pay is not a legitimate reason to deny treatment.)

When a government endorses a state religion, all other religions should accept that the government has made the right decision on what is the correct religion to worship?

Nothing about this law says, "Your religion is incorrect and you have to worship the way we say." It simply says, "This profession will have the following requirements: ... If you do not, can not, or will not meet these requirements, for any reason, you cannot be a licensed member of this profession."

So in order to work in America you must have no morals

No morals that conflict with your work, yes.

No morals that conflict with your work, yes.

How about morals that pertain to your work?

If there are as many pharmacists out there as the amount of discussion would imply, why not have them get together and set up a good-news-hallelujah-God-fearing pharmacy and only fill perscriptions for those things that they feel morally justified in filling? One very good reason: when someone goes to a pharmacy, the expectation is that their perscription is as good as there. If one had to go to a pharmacy where there was doubt that their perscription would be filled, then they would just go elsewhere and avoid all the hassle. Maybe the 700 Club has called for a boycott against a certain pharmaceutical company that makes my drugs?

And no, calling ahead is not an option.

How about morals that pertain to your work?

Eh, sure, why not. If a doctor thinks he should help people, all the better.

My post assumed that public authorities have the right to issue licenses that carry requirements. My contention is whether they are justified in issueing this requirement.

They are no less justified than if they required a pharmacy to carry penicilin or insulin as a requirement to be deemed a pharmacy. Indeed, they may be more justified in this requirement than some medicines that are often required, since this is an emergency treatment, whereas many others are not.

The employer can fire the pharmacist for much the same reason that the pharmacist can choose not to serve the medication.

So the employer of a pharmacist can fire him for appllying his moral convictions to customers, but the people cannot place a similiar restriction upon the licensing of pharmacies, essentially "firing" those who will not comply.

Isn't the company making the pharmacist choose between his livelihood and the option of applying his morality to others?

The pharmacist deserves the same soveriegnty as the customer.

And she has it. She can make her own reproductive decisions.

The pharmacist never accepted payment or responsibility for handling this prescription, therefore he is not required to do the job.

By law, getting a license carried an acceptance of the responsibility to do the job as the law prescribes.

Is the pharmacist forcing the customer to go through with the pregnancy or not use the Plan B pill?

If we are talking about a rural area and this pharmacy is the only one she can get to, yes.

I don't know why I have to keep saying it, but I do not question whether he should have requirements. I am questioning whether this is a justified requirement.

Would it be unjustified for a government to require that pharmacies stock penicilin, heart medication, or insulin in order to get a license? Would it be unjustified for a government to require that a pharmacy actually sell prescription medicine to get a license, or could a pharmacist decide that, since he only believes in herbal remedies, he is going to run a pharmacy that sold only those and call it a pharmacy?

Is it unjustified when the government places age limits on the workers in a restaraunt that wishes to get a liquor license?

No, I'm saying that one person's self-determination outweighs another's decision to be disingenuous in his duties. By becoming a licensed pharmacist, he took on a public trust... which fully comports with his self-determination of labor, since he decided to do so.

To which I have countered that being required to sell all drugs to all people should not be one of those duties that he is forced to accept.

If I hire someone to construct an office-building, sure the contract is between me and him. Indeed, I may even be eager for him to cut a few corners (to save me a few bucks), especially if we think it won't matter for fifty years. But he still has to obey building codes, even those he thinks are stupid. If he does not like it, he can find another job.

False analogy, the pharmacist is never hired by the customer.

Now if you had approached a Native American builder and asked him to build on an a tribal burial mound, and he refused, that would be a apt analogy.

I have stated over and over again that I have no problem with regulations on how someone conducts their end of a contract after they have agreed to provide service to another.

I don't see why you think religious beliefs are above the law. Even the Supreme Court, in its freedom of religion jurisprudence, has recognized that the state may interfere with such freedoms when it has an overriding interest, a good reason. I would say that "securing the availability of prescription drugs" is a good reason, especially when it does not compel anyone to retain the job. If they don't like it, they may leave.

I admitted last night (in a rare moment of clarity) that the pharmacist's morality and religion does not matter in this situation.

It gives me no end of amusement that you capitalist apologists will hyperventilate over the slightest suggestion of what you consider de jure slavery through legal restrictions, while shrugging your shoulders at the blatant de facto servitude of millions of employees to their employers.

And what do you say when we complain? "They can always find another job."

*giggles*

There is sizable chasm between losing your job because of another's free decision not to continue a contract with you, and losing your job because government will imprison you otherwise. We have agreed that society is a trade-off of liberties between individuals, and obviously you can see the difference between these two.

It doesn't bar anyone from being a pharmacist. It regulates their actions as a pharmacist. In truth, it probably regulates the pharmacy more than any individual pharmacist (if it does require each pharmacy to carry Plan B, that is). Government regulation of jobs in the medical industry is hardly a new thing.

No contention.

As for why Illinois has chosen to pass this law - it probably has a lot to do with the general consensus that preventing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing - and good for the community. It also probably has something to do with idiots who want to work for Revco or CVS and still think they can dictate the way said companies run. In the end, the people of Illinois have decided that this is important enough to pass a law about it.

No contention here either, except to say that Revco and CVS are free to fire anyone who will not sell their medication, and are very likely to do so before this law was passed.

You can only choose how to allocate your labor within the limits of the law.

Agreed.

How does not helping cause someone to impose on another? I cannot understand how refusal to oblige = imposition, while forced fulfillment of unwanted duties = tough shit.

It isn't "refusal to oblige," it is "refusal to do one's job." If I work at Wendy's and refuse to serve a hamburger, am I simply refusing to oblige the customer?

1. Government is allowed to impose restrictions upon pharmacists. (I never have denied this, and this argument is beside the point.)

It isn't beside the point at all. If the government is allowed to impose restrictions upon pharmacists, then it is allowed to impose any restriction that does not conflict with the constitution.

2. The pharmacist is imposing for not accepting the customer's morality. Society is not imposing for forcing the pharmacist to accept the customer's morality.

No one is asking the pharmacist to accept the customer's morality. She can fill the prescription while thinking the whole time, "Baby-killing slut!" She can, should a condom break or should she get raped, tell the doctor, "Nope, don't want Plan B. It's against my religion." She has the exact same rights as the customer, the right to make her own medical decisions.

No contention here either, except to say that Revco and CVS are free to fire anyone who will not sell their medication, and are very likely to do so before this law was passed.


Well, companies are always free to fire anyone for whatever reason they want, although the actual reason for firing may be completely unrelated to the documented reason for firing. Probably the #1 reason people get fired is for attendance problems, not because it's that important, but because it's objective and there are clearly defined policies for it. If they wanted to fire someone, all they would have to do is make their hours irregular and unpredictable from one day to the next. It would be only a matter of time before they were frequently late or didn't know they were supposed to work on a particular day.

Eh, sure, why not. If a doctor thinks he should help people, all the better.

i guess I could have said this before, but all I wanted to say was that just because you are working doesn't mean that you can't apply your morals to your job. How do you expect people to do what they know is wrong and live with themselves? Many people tend to think that morals are irrelevant. I think that not only are they relevant, but they are often useful.
This particular argument about the morning after pill is a bad example because the most a pharmicist should be able to do is urge a customer not to get the pill. It is the customer's right to have the pill.

What I want is for the license to insure that the pharmacist, upon accepting responsibility, is fully capable and responsible enough to handle the duty. I don't believe that a license should require someone to accept a responsibility.

This doesn't make any sense at all. If a license doesn't require someone to accept responsibility, what the hell is the point of the license?

Whoever owns the business does get paid prescription by prescription. If you own a business, chances are you don't receive and hourly wage. If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, he should be able to refuse service, if an employee refuses service, the owner can fire him or condone it.

So the owner can, in your opinion, "impose morality" upon his employees? The people as a whole, however, cannot?

You asked who introduced violence into the equation, and I said the government. That is unquestionable in this situation.

Where does the law say, "We are going to beat you up if you don't comply"?

They create a ultimatum where he must either act in complete opposition to his beliefs or lose his livelihood, that is an imposition.

So, do you think the law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, is unjust? Is that an imposition?

Sweet Jesus, does no one comprehend that the customer is asking the pharmacist to act in opposition to his religious beliefs? I gotta figure you guys know the meaning of imposition, so I don't know what is going on.

The customer is asking the pharmacist to do his job, with no regard to his religious beliefs, because they are not a part of his job.

To which I have countered that being required to sell all drugs to all people should not be one of those duties that he is forced to accept.

Why not? That's the very purpose of the pharmacy! If we just wanted "drug shops" where people could "shop around" to find what we need, that is how we would license them. Instead, we license pharmacies as the means to distribute medications.

I have said before that we very well could choose another means: we could choose to distribute drugs by government monopoly, as we do law-enforcement. We are doing pharmacists a favor by allowing them to act as independent entrepreneurs, unlike law enforcement agencies. We do not need to extend that favor if they do not want to act in accordance with the very purpose for which we have extended it.

False analogy, the pharmacist is never hired by the customer.

Well, if by "hired" you mean "enters into contract with," no. He does that with the state.

I have stated over and over again that I have no problem with regulations on how someone conducts their end of a contract after they have agreed to provide service to another.

But I suppose when the pharmacist's oath specifically states his acceptance of the public trust, that does not count?

There is sizable chasm between losing your job because of another's free decision not to continue a contract with you, and losing your job because government will imprison you otherwise.

I would say there is a more sizable difference between having to do hard labor because you have no other choice if you want to survive, and having to choose between professions involving varying degrees of moral conflict.

One is slavery. The other is a tough choice.

One question:

Should the owners of a restaurant be forced to sell meat products, because otherwise they're forcing their vegetarian beliefs upon non-vegetarians?

No, for several reasons. First of all, there is nothing inherent in "restaurant" that says, "meat". A restaurant serves food - and so long as it does so, it is still a restaurant. A pharmacy on the other hand, is not a pharmacy if it does not dispense medication, especially emergency medication.

Second of all, the restaurant business in one in which most businesses end up in specialty niches. One restaurant may be a vegetarian, another a kosher, another fast food, another Mexican, and so on and so on. Pharmacies, on the other hand, do no specialize into niches. A customer can and does expect to get medications, bandages, etc. - all their at-home medical needs - at a pharmacy.

And finallyl, the health care business is very different from the restaurant business. If someone can't get their meat at the local restaurant, they can go get it from the local grocery store and make it themselves. Can a person go make their own Plan B?

The people of Illinois apparently disagree with you.

A good deal of them, at least, and even the ones that agree with me agree for different reasons.

They aren't. They are choosing between their livelihood and their wish to force their morality on others. If a pharmacist has a problem with Plan B, she shouldn't take it. If she thinks only married women should have access to birth control pills, she should only get on birth control if she is married. Beyond that, her job is to fill prescriptions that are handed to her, plain and simple. She does not regulate what medications are legal - that is the job of the FDA.

Their job should be to sell those medications that they choose safely.

No, there wouldn't. There is no "right to be X." There is a right to try and meet whatever requirements are needed to successfully be X. And that is all.

So you agree with me that government is not necessary for someone to perform the services as commonly defined by the word "pharmacist."

Violence? Does the government say it will come in and behead the guy if he doesn't fill the prescription?

The government will enact some sort of violence to prohibit him from continuing to perform as a pharmacist.

So in order to work in America you must have no morals

Yes. Next?

I thought the question you were responding to was a strawman until you answered affirmatively.

By saying yes, you will not bat an eye when a corporation lays off 10,000 in downsizing efforts, right?

She will have to undergo a more dangerous form of abortion. Or, perhaps her own moral judgment is that the morning-after pill is NOT abortion, but that abortion itself is wrong... Now she has to either compromise her morals to have an abortion, or carry to term an unwanted pregnancy.

For the record, the morning after pill cannot possibly be considered an abortion. A medical abortion is the end to a pregnancy. If a pregnancy has begun, the morning after pill won't do anything about that. It prevents pregnancy.

[1] To which I have countered that being required to sell all drugs to all people should not be one of those duties that he is forced to accept.



[2] False analogy, the pharmacist is never hired by the customer.

Now if you had approached a Native American builder and asked him to build on an a tribal burial mound, and he refused, that would be a apt analogy.

I have stated over and over again that I have no problem with regulations on how someone conducts their end of a contract after they have agreed to provide service to another.



[3] I admitted last night (in a rare moment of clarity) that the pharmacist's morality and religion does not matter in this situation.



[4] There is sizable chasm between losing your job because of another's free decision not to continue a contract with you, and losing your job because government will imprison you otherwise. We have agreed that society is a trade-off of liberties between individuals, and obviously you can see the difference between these two.
1. Except that he is forced to accept it. If you want that changed, advocate for a change in the law. But you don't get to just ignore the law and the requirement and expect to suffer no consequences.

2. Your analogy is the false one. By accepting a license from the state, the pharmacist does enter into a contractual agreement with the state. The state dictates, in the license, how it expects the pharmacist to do his job, and if that includes dispensing all properly prescribed common and/or emergency medications to all customers, then that's what he has to do, and you have just acknowledged that it is okay for the state to demand that, once a license has been issued.

3. Rare indeed. Does this mean you agree that it is not valid for pharmacists to refuse to do their jobs for religious reasons?

4. You keep talking about what the government is going to do to you -- though I see we have downgraded from violence/oppression to imprisonment. You still have provided no evidence of exactly what the government does to pharmacists who violate the terms of their licenses, other then revoke the licenses.

It isn't "refusal to oblige," it is "refusal to do one's job." If I work at Wendy's and refuse to serve a hamburger, am I simply refusing to oblige the customer?

Wendy's will fire you.

Now, should Wendy's be forced to sell you fried chicken?

It isn't beside the point at all. If the government is allowed to impose restrictions upon pharmacists, then it is allowed to impose any restriction that does not conflict with the constitution.

Once again, because I do not deny the government's authority to apply legislation and only question whether it should apply this specific legislation, this is entirely beside the point.

She has the exact same rights as the customer, the right to make her own medical decisions.

Yes, when the pharmacist becomes a customer he/she will have the exact same rights. Likewise, I can say that when the customer becomes a pharmacist he/she will have the exact same rights.

I thought the question you were responding to was a strawman until you answered affirmatively.

By saying yes, you will not bat an eye when a corporation lays off 10,000 in downsizing efforts, right?
I was being sarcastic. It is clear that the question I was answering was meant to provoke and insult those of us arguing in favor of the Illinois law (and against you). Consider my answer as a written form of "talk to the hand."

Wendy's will fire you.

[1] Now, should Wendy's be forced to sell you fried chicken?



[2] Once again, because I do not deny the government's authority to apply legislation and only question whether it should apply this specific legislation, this is entirely beside the point.



[3] Yes, when the pharmacist becomes a customer he/she will have the exact same rights. Likewise, I can say that when the customer becomes a pharmacist he/she will have the exact same rights.

1. If Wendy's advertises that they sell fried chicken, yes they should be required to do so.

2. You've contradicted yourself enough on this for me to call you a liar at this point. You have repeatedly said that you believe most laws are unjustified impositions including laws against murder. So when you say you accept all government restrictions except this one as legitimate, you are lying.

3. According to you, that would be the same right to be denied access to medication by some self-righteous ass.

This doesn't make any sense at all. If a license doesn't require someone to accept responsibility, what the hell is the point of the license?

Responsibility in the aspect of providing a service. Licenses exist to maintain that those providing a service do it responsibly. I don't believe they should exist to force individuals to provide a service.

So the owner can, in your opinion, "impose morality" upon his employees? The people as a whole, however, cannot?

Correct.

Where does the law say, "We are going to beat you up if you don't comply"?

Violence does not always equal beating someone up.

So, do you think the law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, is unjust? Is that an imposition?

The environment and ramifications of this make it a harder to say yes it is unjust.

However, it is an imposition.

The customer is asking the pharmacist to do his job, with no regard to his religious beliefs, because they are not a part of his job.

The customer definitely does not get the benefit to decide what another's job is. However, for this discussion's purposes I am stating that the government is going to far into deciding what an individual's job pertains to.

The Lambda Organization is planning on using California's version, the Unruh Act, against Blizzard Entertainment; they disallow players from making reference to homosexuality in the game, even in a positive light to counteract the majority who play and use phrases like 'that's so gay' yet don't get noticed and therefore don't get punished.

Just for the record, Blizzard actually decided to allow the LGBT-friendly guild and the threats of lawsuits have been ended. After a barrage of player complaints, they seemed to agree that allowing a Christian-friendly guild or a Jewish-friendly guild, while not allowing a LGBT-friendly guild didn't seem quite right...


It depends on what you mean by "pregnancy". Some people seem to think that you are not "pregnant" until the fertilized egg implants...

Medically, this is true, regardless of what some people think. Pregnancy begins at conception - and conception is implantation. It is impossible to have a medical abortion - an end to a pregnancy - until one is pregnant.


As for the argument on where the statistics come from: largely from extrapolation and estimates. We know that up to 50% of known pregnancies are ended naturally. We also know that some defects, as well as getting pregnant at certain points in the cycle, can cause a lack of implantation. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a study with human beings where they actually looked for fertilized eggs that had not implanted and got a set number. That's why the numbers tend to vary so much.

One way or another, we do know that the majority of fertilized eggs never make it to being born, one way or another. The human reproductive system is optimized more for quantity of opportunity than for efficiency.

So the disagreement is that you say self-determination in a person's healthcare outweighs another self-determination of labor.

I would certainly say that someone's health and life are more important than someone else's inconvenience.

A good deal of them, at least, and even the ones that agree with me agree for different reasons.



[1] Their job should be to sell those medications that they choose safely.



[2] So you agree with me that government is not necessary for someone to perform the services as commonly defined by the word "pharmacist."



[3] The government will enact some sort of violence to prohibit him from continuing to perform as a pharmacist.
1. Then what do we need doctors for, if the pharmacist gets to make the decisions?

2. Wrap your tired brain around it: government-issued licenses are the system currently in use. So, nowadays, government IS necessary for someone to perform the services commonly defined by the word "pharmacist." It has already been stated clearly that regulation of pharmacists will always exist, no matter what the system, whether public or private. Pharmacist is a regulated profession because it is a dangerous profession involving public trust. Dempublicents was clearly not agreeing with your insane notion that you should be allowed to dispense chemicals freely and at your sole discretion. She was saying that no matter what the source of regulation, you must comply with regulations.

3. AGAIN, proof please. Evidence. Examples. Anecdotes. Anything except this propagandistic claim.

BTW, I will not stop making my points no matter how much you ignore them. Failure to answer me makes me look right.

So in order to work in America you must have no morals

You can have them all you want, but sometimes you must be ready to admit that they apply only to you, at least insomuch as you have any control.

I think they should have to fill out whatever prescription they are told to. If they don't want to then atleast they should ask another pharmicist to do it for them. Some women need drugs like that for other reasons than to prevent pregnancy. There are conditions that make the pill helpful even if you have not been having sex. In fact I use the pill (normal birth control not morning after) to make my cramps less painful because I have cramps that practically bring me to the floor sometimes. Pharmicists need to get over themselves, they can not let their morals go over someone else's.

Now, should Wendy's be forced to sell you fried chicken?

If fried chicken were medication, and Wendy's were licensed to sell medication, possibly, yes. It would depend on how important the chicken was and how quickly I needed it.

Yes, when the pharmacist becomes a customer he/she will have the exact same rights. Likewise, I can say that when the customer becomes a pharmacist he/she will have the exact same rights.

The difference is that one cannot just up and become a pharmacist. This only works if anyone and everyone can go out and get their own medication (or make it) without going through a pharmacist. They cannot.

[1] Responsibility in the aspect of providing a service. Licenses exist to maintain that those providing a service do it responsibly. I don't believe they should exist to force individuals to provide a service.

<snip>

[2] The customer definitely does not get the benefit to decide what another's job is. However, for this discussion's purposes I am stating that the government is going to far into deciding what an individual's job pertains to.
1. You don't actually know what a license is, do you? Because what you're describing would actually be a training certificate or diploma or degree, or some other proof that you had undergone training and passed competency tests, proving that you know how to do pharmacy. That's not what a license is. A license to do pharmacy is a contract with the state whereby the state dictates the terms of how pharmacists work and grants permission to the license holder to do what the state requires in the way the state requires. EDIT: And, once again, the license does not force you to provide a service because it does not force you to be a pharmacist. Licenses are not a draft.

2. Actually, in practical terms, the customer DOES get to decide what another's job is because the job exists at all in direct response to demands by customers. You are there to do what the customer wants you to do. If you do not, the customer will go away, and your job will go with her.

For the record, the morning after pill cannot possibly be considered an abortion. A medical abortion is the end to a pregnancy. If a pregnancy has begun, the morning after pill won't do anything about that. It prevents pregnancy.

Yet there is no consensus as to when a "pregnancy" begins. For political reasons, conservatives want to claim it starts at fertilization (before the morning-after pill would be used), while liberals want to claim it starts at implantation (which the morning-after pill prevents).

But these are just arbitrary boundaries. They have no scientific significance as the "beginning" of the process. In point of fact, there are steps before fertilization and between fertilization and implantation. Why do we not pick any of these as the "beginning" of pregnancy?

I am probably more pro-choice than anyone in this discussion... but I refuse to accept a definition on purely partisan political grounds. (As it happens, I think the only politically and morally useful definition of "pregnancy" is "when the woman realizes she is pregnant.")

So, call it what you want. There is no scientific consensus about "what counts." (As I've mentioned before, pregancy tests return positives long before implantation.)

Once again, because I do not deny the government's authority to apply legislation and only question whether it should apply this specific legislation, this is entirely beside the point.

Then, if you were a morally distraught pharmacist, I take it you would comply with the law while protesting that it should be changed?

Yet there is no consensus as to when a "pregnancy" begins. For political reasons, conservatives want to claim it starts at fertilization (before the morning-after pill would be used), while liberals want to claim it starts at implantation (which the morning-after pill prevents).

But these are just arbitrary boundaries. They have no scientific significance as the "beginning" of the process. In point of fact, there are steps before fertilization and between fertilization and implantation. Why do we not pick any of these as the "beginning" of pregnancy?

I am probably more pro-choice than anyone in this discussion... but I refuse to accept a definition on purely partisan political grounds. (As it happens, I think the only politically and morally useful definition of "pregnancy" is "when the woman realizes she is pregnant.")

So, call it what you want. There is no scientific consensus about "what counts." (As I've mentioned before, pregancy tests return positives long before implantation.)

The definition has nothing to do with partisan anything. It is a medical definition. People like to pretend that the biological definition of life is partisan as well, but it was arrived at without all the partisan bullshit.

When it comes down to the medical definition, pregnancy is defined as the period of time from conception (implantation) to birth, whether you are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, liberal, conservative, or anarchist.

Why was it set that way? Probably because that is the period of time in which the mother's body is pretty much the determinant of what is going on. Before that, the zygote/embryo sends out hormonal signals to control the mother's response to it, but the mother's body is not physically providing anything to the embryo that it would not be providing to a bacterium.

As for pregnancy tests giving positives before implantation, that has to do with how the tests work. They are a hormone check, and the zygote pretty much immediately starts sending out signals to change the mother's hormones. Of course, said hormone could be present even if the woman is not pregnant - hence the false positives that some women get.

The fact that you assume that the definition must be political is rather funny. Is the definition of any other medical condition political?

Edit: Pregnancy is a condition of the mother - not a stage in zygote/embryonic/fetal development. So, yes, there are stages in embryonic development before conception, but this is irrelevant. It is the mother who can be (or not be) pregnant. It describes the condition of her body from conception to birth.

Medically, this is true, regardless of what some people think. Pregnancy begins at conception - and conception is implantation.

Really? Then why is there so much disagreement between not only common usage dictionaries, but also medical dictionaries and the resources of medical practitioners? You can get some idea of the variety here:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&hs=nYk&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:conception

Check the sites listing "fertilization" as the moment of conception. You may be surprised.

Again, this is not a "political" issue for me. I don't "care" when "pregnancy" starts in a medical sense... as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't meaningfully begin until the woman knows she is pregnant. But I do feel uncomfortable being lumped in with people who are willing to twist words to their political advantage... left or right.

1. Except that he is forced to accept it. If you want that changed, advocate for a change in the law. But you don't get to just ignore the law and the requirement and expect to suffer no consequences.

Never once did I say that he should receive a free pass to ignore the law. I said that the law should be changed.

2. Your analogy is the false one. By accepting a license from the state, the pharmacist does enter into a contractual agreement with the state. The state dictates, in the license, how it expects the pharmacist to do his job, and if that includes dispensing all properly prescribed common and/or emergency medications to all customers, then that's what he has to do, and you have just acknowledged that it is okay for the state to demand that, once a license has been issued.

"But he still has to obey building codes, even those he thinks are stupid. If he does not like it, he can find another job."

His analogy accepts the existence of government as a third entity, therefore it can only apply to the relationship between pharmacist and customer.

If you want an analogy to the relationship between state and pharmacist, you must also include stipulations that state that the builder, in refusing to build the house, is also forbidden from constructing gazebos, decks, and sheds.

3. Does this mean you agree that it is not valid for pharmacists to refuse to do their jobs for religious reasons?

I noticed that you stated "refuse to their jobs", let it be known that there is a huge discrepency between your and mine definition of what their job pertains to.

As for my statement, it means that they can refuse to accept a job for any reason they so desire, making religion irrelevant.

4. You keep talking about what the government is going to do to you -- though I see we have downgraded from violence/oppression to imprisonment. You still have provided no evidence of exactly what the government does to pharmacists who violate the terms of their licenses, other then revoke the licenses.

By revoking a pharmacist's license the government creates a situation where it is authorized to impose violence on the pharmacist were he to continue that profession.

Now, if I locked you in my basement under threat of injury should you leave, that wouldn't be a violent act?

1. If Wendy's advertises that they sell fried chicken, yes they should be required to do so.

This pharmacist created no expectations that he would sell Plan B. The customer formed their own expectation out of the actions of other pharmacies.

2. You've contradicted yourself enough on this for me to call you a liar at this point. You have repeatedly said that you believe most laws are unjustified impositions including laws against murder. So when you say you accept all government restrictions except this one as legitimate, you are lying.

My comments on murder followed a convoluted thought process and were extremely poorly worded. I was trying to say that murder laws are only just because they forbid an unjust action (a very simple thought, but because my train of thought had derailed about an hour earlier, I came around the ass-end of the idea and couldn't put it into words). I believe this particular restriction forbids action that a pharmacy should be well within their rights to do.

For example, I believe in a right to free speech, but I believe that a law forcing Wal-Mart or any other retailer to sell a government mandated list of books and CDs to be wrong.

3. According to you, that would be the same right to be denied access to medication by some self-righteous ass.

Yep, I could attempt to explain to him the idiocy of his opinion and actions, but in the end all I can do is refuse to represent him in the purchase of real estate.

I would certainly say that someone's health and life are more important than someone else's inconvenience.

Strawman.

I am contrasting the positive right of health with the natural right of labor. Inconvenience is of no consequense to this.

I believe that right to free labor takes precedent over the right to free healthcare.

As for pregnancy tests giving positives before implantation, that has to do with how the tests work. They are a hormone check, and the zygote pretty much immediately starts sending out signals to change the mother's hormones.

Pregnancy is a condition of the mother - not a stage in zygote/embryonic/fetal development.

Contradict yourself much?

(As for false positives, you must be thinking of home pregnancy tests, which in fact do not detect the pregnancy until after implantation. I am referring to professional tests--with far fewer false positives--that can detect pregnancy within hours of fertilization.)

The fact that you assume that the definition must be political is rather funny. Is the definition of any other medical condition political?

I don't think it must be political, I recognize that it is. When the medical community is awash in organizations such as the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists (which insists conception occurs at fertilization, of course), it is absurd to claim that medicine is not politicized.

As for other terms? Probably.

When medicine itself has become politicized, it is disingenuous for either side to claim that "their" definition is the "correct" one.

If you want an analogy to the relationship between state and pharmacist, you must also include stipulations that state that the builder, in refusing to build the house, is also forbidden from constructing gazebos, decks, and sheds.

Depending on where he is, such laws might be in place.

I noticed that you stated "refuse to their jobs", let it be known that there is a huge discrepency between your and mine definition of what their job pertains to.

Is the job of a pharmacist not to dipense properly prescribed medicine and, if necessary, to discuss the side effects, etc. of such medication?

As for my statement, it means that they can refuse to accept a job for any reason they so desire, making religion irrelevant.

Do you not see the difference between a job in most industries vs. a job in the healthcare industry?

By revoking a pharmacist's license the government creates a situation where it is authorized to impose violence on the pharmacist were he to continue that profession.

You're going to have to define violence here. Most people define violence as causing physical injury, but I see nothing in the law that says physical injury will be brought upon a person who illegally practices as a pharmacist.

This pharmacist created no expectations that he would sell Plan B. The customer formed their own expectation out of the actions of other pharmacies.

Not out of the actions of other pharmacies, out of the very purpose of any pharmacy - to provide necessary medication.

For example, I believe in a right to free speech, but I believe that a law forcing Wal-Mart or any other retailer to sell a government mandated list of books and CDs to be wrong.

I would agree, unless said books were necessary for the life or health of a human being.

There is a huge difference between the responsibilties of a retailer of general goods and one who sells medication.


Strawman.

Not in the least. The fact that you address it shows that it gets to the very heart of the matter.

I am contrasting the positive right of health with the natural right of labor. Inconvenience is of no consequense to this.

And, as you have demonstrated, by "right of labor," you mean, "right to do your labor however you damn well please, with no inconvenience of regulation you don't agree with."

I believe that right to free labor takes precedent over the right to free healthcare.

So my right to do my job as I please trumps your right to live?

1. Then what do we need doctors for, if the pharmacist gets to make the decisions?

I have not said that pharmacists should be able to issue prescriptions.

2. Wrap your tired brain around it: government-issued licenses are the system currently in use. So, nowadays, government IS necessary for someone to perform the services commonly defined by the word "pharmacist." It has already been stated clearly that regulation of pharmacists will always exist, no matter what the system, whether public or private. Pharmacist is a regulated profession because it is a dangerous profession involving public trust. Dempublicents was clearly not agreeing with your insane notion that you should be allowed to dispense chemicals freely and at your sole discretion. She was saying that no matter what the source of regulation, you must comply with regulations.

OK, you say that licensing of pharmacist will exist, no matter if it is public or private. I fully agree with that statement. I must note, however, by making that statement you have expressed an opinion that pharmacists would, in fact, exist without the sanctioning of government.

3. AGAIN, proof please. Evidence. Examples. Anecdotes. Anything except this propagandistic claim.

All government laws are backed up by violence. It is the only way government can enforce its laws. Apparently you have never heard of police, military, or prison.

BTW, I will not stop making my points no matter how much you ignore them. Failure to answer me makes me look right.

I am not intentionally ignoring your points. It is just that you are interjecting into my reply to another's post. Invariably they make the same points you do, only more compellingly. Out of an attempt to not waste my time your points just sifted out.

When medicine itself has become politicized, it is disingenuous for either side to claim that "their" definition is the "correct" one.

Smartest thing said in this thread so far.

Contradict yourself much?

Not in the least. The fact that a zygote starts sending out signals does not mean that the woman is pregnant, or that pregnancy is not a condition of the mother, rather than a condition of the developing zygote/embryo/fetus. Anthrax sends out hormonal signals in order to control the immune system of an infected person. Does that make them pregnant?

(As for false positives, you must be thinking of home pregnancy tests, which in fact do not detect the pregnancy until after implantation. I am referring to professional tests--with far fewer false positives--that can detect pregnancy within hours of fertilization.)

...which are still hormonal tests, not actual tests of pregnancy - and can still throw false positives. Generally, for an absolute test of pregnancy, a pelvic exam is carried out.

I don't think it must be political, I recognize that it is. When the medical community is awash in organizations such as the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists (which insists conception occurs at fertilization, of course), it is absurd to claim that medicine is not politicized.

I didn't say that medicine was not politicized - a lot of the BS with the FDA recently demonstrates that it is. I said that medical and scientific definitions are not politicized.

Edit: That is not to say that they are not sometimes disputed. While all of the sources, texts, papers, etc. I have used in the past have been pretty much in agreement that pregnancy begins at implantation, all sources obviously do not agree on this point - as you have shown. I'd have to look more closely at the sources in question to determine which are trustworthy.

The difference is that one cannot just up and become a pharmacist. This only works if anyone and everyone can go out and get their own medication (or make it) without going through a pharmacist. They cannot.

That is why the emergency room situation is much more difficult to say yes or no to.

However, my rural hometown in southern Illinois had, I would guess, roughly two dozen pharmacies within a 30 mile radius, maybe more.

1. You don't actually know what a license is, do you? Because what you're describing would actually be a training certificate or diploma or degree, or some other proof that you had undergone training and passed competency tests, proving that you know how to do pharmacy. That's not what a license is. A license to do pharmacy is a contract with the state whereby the state dictates the terms of how pharmacists work and grants permission to the license holder to do what the state requires in the way the state requires. EDIT: And, once again, the license does not force you to provide a service because it does not force you to be a pharmacist. Licenses are not a draft.

A license can be any set of guidelines and procedures that must be followed in order to gain approval of the issuer. In my opinion those procedures and guidelines should only assure that the pharmacist will not issue faulty medicine.

Addressing your edit: Drafts don't force you to serve in the military because you can just leave the country or go to jail. Muhammed Ali deserved to go to jail because he knew the consequences when he stayed in this country past the age of 18.

2. Actually, in practical terms, the customer DOES get to decide what another's job is because the job exists at all in direct response to demands by customers. You are there to do what the customer wants you to do. If you do not, the customer will go away, and your job will go with her.

Agreed, but you missed the point. The point is that there must be mutual agreement for a contract to exist.

[1] Never once did I say that he should receive a free pass to ignore the law. I said that the law should be changed.



[2] "But he still has to obey building codes, even those he thinks are stupid. If he does not like it, he can find another job."

His analogy accepts the existence of government as a third entity, therefore it can only apply to the relationship between pharmacist and customer.

[3] If you want an analogy to the relationship between state and pharmacist, you must also include stipulations that state that the builder, in refusing to build the house, is also forbidden from constructing gazebos, decks, and sheds.



[4] I noticed that you stated "refuse to their jobs", let it be known that there is a huge discrepency between your and mine definition of what their job pertains to.

As for my statement, it means that they can refuse to accept a job for any reason they so desire, making religion irrelevant.



[5] By revoking a pharmacist's license the government creates a situation where it is authorized to impose violence on the pharmacist were he to continue that profession.

Now, if I locked you in my basement under threat of injury should you leave, that wouldn't be a violent act?



[6] This pharmacist created no expectations that he would sell Plan B. The customer formed their own expectation out of the actions of other pharmacies.



[7] My comments on murder followed a convoluted thought process and were extremely poorly worded. I was trying to say that murder laws are only just because they forbid an unjust action (a very simple thought, but because my train of thought had derailed about an hour earlier, I came around the ass-end of the idea and couldn't put it into words). I believe this particular restriction forbids action that a pharmacy should be well within their rights to do.

For example, I believe in a right to free speech, but I believe that a law forcing Wal-Mart or any other retailer to sell a government mandated list of books and CDs to be wrong.



[8] Yep, I could attempt to explain to him the idiocy of his opinion and actions, but in the end all I can do is refuse to represent him in the purchase of real estate.
1. Really? Then why have you continued to argue against us when we have said that objecting pharmacists are free to advocate for changing the law but must obey laws that currently exist?

2. Right, and in this case, the state is acting as the representative of the customer so that the customer doesn't have to negotiate terms anew with every pharmacist in the state. So it is a 3-way contract. Pharmacist-state-customer.

3. No, because states have separate regulations for different kinds of structures. There are plenty of builders who do gazebos and garages but are not licensed to do houses. Just like there are plenty of drugstores that sell only over the counter meds and do not contain pharmacies.

4. Exactly. They can refuse to accept the job. What they can't do is accept the job and then refuse to do it or unilaterally redefine its terms. Thank you for agreeing with me.

5. Utterly ridiculous. Are you really trying to sell the idea that revocation of a license creates a threat of violence? Get over yourself. I'm sorry. Really. :rolleyes: Let me explain something to you: When a professional license is revoked, here's what happens: That person gets fired. The revocation of the license is recorded with the apropriate state agency. And if he ever applies for a pharmacist job in the same state (and possibly in other states, depending on their requirements), he'll be turned down because he doesn't have a license. That's it. No violence. Not even jail.

Now, if his refusal to dispense medications is a violation of the law, he will be prosecuted for that, but that has nothing to do with the status of his license.

6. Uh, yeah, he did by taking a job with a company that offers Plan B for sale, or by opening his own business in a state that requires him to stock Plan B.

7. Convoluted, yes. Also wrong. Pharmacists are not within their rights to do anything which is specifically prohibited by their licenses or to refuse to do anything that is specifically required by their licenses. If the license requires the dispensing of all properly prescribed common and/or emergency medications, then that's what the pharmacies must do. No matter how many times you try this, the answer is always the same. This bush is getting kind of ragged from us running around it the same way over and over again.

8. Now what are you talking about? Are you trying to trade real estate for Plan B pills? I didn't know they were that expensive.

When medicine itself has become politicized, it is disingenuous for either side to claim that "their" definition is the "correct" one.
Do you really want to argue with your own side? Or have you just gotten bored with arguing with Vittos?

Then, if you were a morally distraught pharmacist, I take it you would comply with the law while protesting that it should be changed?

I would. I am not unreasonable enough to ignore the government in an area that it monitored so closely.

I do ignore drug laws that I think are unjust, but that is on the other end of the risk versus reward spectrum.


But this argument is about whether I should be given the ultimatum or not, not whether I should follow it or not.

Alright, since Vittos is talking in circles ('well, it should be this way, because of everyone's rights which aren't actually covered in any government document at all!'), I'm going to have to make something clear.

With regards to 'rights' / 'responsibilities', it's very, very simple. I have the right to do or say anything I want, insofar as it does not impact others negatively. Then my rights are preempted. Our rights come from the fact that we are human. But there is no 'government of humanity', so our rights come from the next best place: our governments. I don't know if the US government has anything similar to what I'm about to explain, but Canada, in Section 1 of our Charter has said that our freedoms only exist as long as the government doesn't have a valid reason to contravene them.

With regards to the pharmacist dispensing controlled substanced under license by the government, their 'right to the freedom of concience and religion' is contravened at work. And by going to school to be a pharmacist and signing the line, they stated that they knew and accepted what their job entails. They can have whatever morals they want outside the workplace, but it's not their right to refuse to serve *anyone* regardless of any factor outside their medical opinion (because, in Canada, if they are licenced by the government, they are affiliated with it, and Section 15 of the Charter states that the government and its employees (and possibly even it's licencees, we'd have to see) are not allowed discriminating for any reason, period).

As for the US, I'm not so sure, but then again, I'm not so concerned.

But finally, I reiterate: My rights extend only as far as the other person's body. People have no right to do anything when it interferes with another. In fact, they have a responsibility, when put in that situation, to do what is in the best interest of that person, from the point of view of the person that they're responsible for.
(Translation: The pharmacist, being in a position of power, has the responsibility to take on the point of view of the person coming to his counter while applying his medical opinion on whether the medication is suitable (ie, will it cause conflicts). It's not his place to use the pharmacists' counter as a pulpit to preach from, because it interferes with the customer's right to put any legal substance they want into their body.)

Strawman.

I am contrasting the positive right of health with the natural right of labor. Inconvenience is of no consequense to this.

I believe that right to free labor takes precedent over the right to free healthcare.
Well, you're wrong.

You ignored my earlier post, but I have already addressed why there is no "natural right of labor."

Do you really want to argue with your own side? Or have you just gotten bored with arguing with Vittos?

This is about sides to you?

You guys should start deciding on gang colors and a name for yourselves. My vote goes to "The Right-to-Free-Healthers."

Not in the least. The fact that a zygote starts sending out signals does not mean that the woman is pregnant, or that pregnancy is not a condition of the mother, rather than a condition of the developing zygote/embryo/fetus.

1) You say. She has elevated hormone levels as a result of carrying the germinating cells of a human being. To decide that "embryo implanted" is "pregnant" but "fertilized zygote" is not... is still an arbitrary decision.

2) If the only difference you want to make is that "pregnancy" is a condition of the mother, rather than a condition of the developing zygote/embryo/fetus, then you have already lost your argument with the pro-lifers. I am sure they would be happy to admit that the woman may not be "pregnant" until implantation, but the zygote is very much "developing" and (as they would have it) "alive"... and that is what they were concerned about in the first place.

Anthrax sends out hormonal signals in order to control the immune system of an infected person. Does that make them pregnant?

Only if the anthrax sits in their abdomen waiting to transform into another human being.

I didn't say that medicine was not politicized - a lot of the BS with the FDA recently demonstrates that it is. I said that medical and scientific definitions are not politicized.

So medicine is politicized... but that does not extend to the terms they use? Why?

That is not to say that they are not sometimes disputed.

Okay... and if terms are disputed, is one's choice of one definition over another not at least potentially political? I mean, it may be that many doctors choose a definition for perfectly objective medical reasons... but as long as more than one definition is out there, I find it hard to believe that these debates somehow remain politically insular.

That is why the emergency room situation is much more difficult to say yes or no to.

However, my rural hometown in southern Illinois had, I would guess, roughly two dozen pharmacies within a 30 mile radius, maybe more.

That's great... if you have a car.

How many are there within walking distance of any given doctor's office?

I suppose there is another thread on this somewhere, but I can't get the search function to work.

On the Daily Show, there was a story about Illinois creating a law that pharmacists were required to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill.

I am for a woman's right to her body, but I cannot fathom how a woman's right to her body can extend from her body over a pharmaceutical counter and encompass the pharmacist.

Maybe I am being obtuse, but I strongly oppose this. What are your thoughts.
If somebody has a moral objection to filling perscriptions for contraceptives or prophylactics, they shouldn't be in that line of work in the first place. Would you find it acceptable if they were (say) refusing to provide insulin for diabetics because that's cruel to animals?

If somebody has a moral objection to filling perscriptions for contraceptives or prophylactics, they shouldn't be in that line of work in the first place. Would you find it acceptable if they were (say) refusing to provide insulin for diabetics because that's cruel to animals?

He's already said yes to this. He's quite deranged, considering he believes that discriminatory policies are acceptable in the workplace as well. (I won't serve you, you're Black; you can't get in here, you're a Jew; I won't treat you, you're homosexual!)

[1] I have not said that pharmacists should be able to issue prescriptions.

[2] OK, you say that licensing of pharmacist will exist, no matter if it is public or private. I fully agree with that statement. I must note, however, by making that statement you have expressed an opinion that pharmacists would, in fact, exist without the sanctioning of government.

[3] All government laws are backed up by violence. It is the only way government can enforce its laws. Apparently you have never heard of police, military, or prison.

[4] I am not intentionally ignoring your points. It is just that you are interjecting into my reply to another's post. Invariably they make the same points you do, only more compellingly. Out of an attempt to not waste my time your points just sifted out.
1. But you do say that pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions even though that is the definition of their job, and they take an oath to do so, and they accept licenses requiring them to do os, and the doctors want them filled. So obviously, you think the individual pharmacist has better judgment as to what constitutes a proper prescription than the organization that trained him, the state that licensed him, or the doctor that wrote the prescription. So again, what do we need them for, when we have you to do the thinking for us?

2. As I have already said in earlier posts, at least twice before, and as others have also said (since you like them better than me), no, the profession of pharmacist would NOT exist without licensing and/or regulation of some sort. Does it have to be controlled by the government? No. But the government is the entity that does control it in the US currently, so that's what we are talking about.

3. I disagree with your definition of violence.

4. So you were unintentionally ignoring me in favor of more amusing correspondents? Meow, catty-kitty.

He's already said yes to this. He's quite deranged, considering he believes that discriminatory policies are acceptable in the workplace as well. (I won't serve you, you're Black; you can't get in here, you're a Jew; I won't treat you, you're homosexual!)
Oh dear.

Do you really want to argue with your own side?

A little. I find it embarassing when "my side" gets drawn into "debates" about definitions of terms that were never objective to begin with. It is no response to the pro-life argument that "life begins at conception" to declare, "no it doesn't!" Neither is it a useful argument to discuss whether "the developing child" is "there" at fertilization, or implantation, in between or at some later point.

The debate is about women's rights vs. (Christian) "life" values. I think it is politically healthy, for both sides, to keep it that way.

Or have you just gotten bored with arguing with Vittos?

Definitely.

Vittos is a broken philosophical record, repeating "property and labor, property and labor," over and over again... and without either justification, or acknowledgment that these are not the only human values.

He's like a stoned John Locke. "Dude... It's about property... and labor, man. Totally."

:D

This is about sides to you?

You guys should start deciding on gang colors and a name for yourselves. My vote goes to "The Right-to-Free-Healthers."

Yes, this is about sides. The Religious Right is playing through their puppets, the Conservative Pharmacists, the Liberal Left is playing through the people inconvenienced by this and those outraged, and then there are people asking irrelevent questions like 'Is the requirement to dispense something that you morally disagree with valid?'

OF COURSE IT IS VALID. It might be different if someone had required the pharmacist to take the drug that he or she was refusing to prescribe, but nobody is. People are asking a governmentally-licenced person to dispense something the government says that it is legal to dispense. The pharmacist is like an ATM. They're not supposed to think any more than 'will B conflict with X, Y, or Z?'

Especially not anything along the lines of 'Mary's going to burn in Hell for taking this drug'. Well, they're *allowed* thinking it. This isn't 1984. But they're not allowed acting on the thought.

1. Really? Then why have you continued to argue against us when we have said that objecting pharmacists are free to advocate for changing the law but must obey laws that currently exist?

Alright, right now I am retracting any statement that argued that pharmacists are free to ignore the law. Link me to those posts and I will put a big red retractions notice on them.

2. Right, and in this case, the state is acting as the representative of the customer so that the customer doesn't have to negotiate terms anew with every pharmacist in the state. So it is a 3-way contract. Pharmacist-state-customer.

This is correct, but it doesn't deny the fact that, by inserting the government into the role of the consumer in his analogy, the analogy becomes false.

4. Exactly. They can refuse to accept the job. What they can't do is accept the job and then refuse to do it or unilaterally redefine its terms. Thank you for agreeing with me.

There is a first time for everything.

5. Utterly ridiculous. Are you really trying to sell the idea that revocation of a license creates a threat of violence? Get over yourself. I'm sorry. Really. :rolleyes: Let me explain something to you: When a professional license is revoked, here's what happens: That person gets fired. The revocation of the license is recorded with the apropriate state agency. And if he ever applies for a pharmacist job in the same state (and possibly in other states, depending on their requirements), he'll be turned down because he doesn't have a license. That's it. No violence. Not even jail.

Now, if his refusal to dispense medications is a violation of the law, he will be prosecuted for that, but that has nothing to do with the status of his license.

Sole-proprietary pharmacies do exist. You can be a pharmacist without having an employer.

6. Uh, yeah, he did by taking a job with a company that offers Plan B for sale, or by opening his own business in a state that requires him to stock Plan B.

I actually do think he worked for a pharmacy he didn't own, but I don't know how the actual pharmacy handled it. Also, the law was passed in 2005, and I don't know of any grandfather clauses.

But that is beside the point, because the expectations are created by the law, and were the law to be removed, there wouldn't be a problem.

7. Convoluted, yes. Also wrong. Pharmacists are not within their rights to do anything which is specifically prohibited by their licenses or to refuse to do anything that is specifically required by their licenses. If the license requires the dispensing of all properly prescribed common and/or emergency medications, then that's what the pharmacies must do. No matter how many times you try this, the answer is always the same. This bush is getting kind of ragged from us running around it the same way over and over again.

Alright,

Statement #1
Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.

If I say statement 1, refer to this.

8. Now what are you talking about? Are you trying to trade real estate for Plan B pills? I didn't know they were that expensive.

I am saying that I wish to practice real estate, and were people allowed to refuse service to someone based on any reasoning they like, I could refuse to give him service in response to his refusal.

We could get into the nature of labor exchange in the capitalistic model, but that would be ridiculous.

I am saying that I wish to practice real estate, and were people allowed to refuse service to someone based on any reasoning they like, I could refuse to give him service in response to his refusal.

Whoo-hoo!!!! Now you've really made me laugh!

So, your response to the pharmacist who will not give you the emergency medicine you need is, "Haha! Sooner or later, you will want to buy a house... and boy, will I get you then!"

[1] A license can be any set of guidelines and procedures that must be followed in order to gain approval of the issuer. In my opinion those procedures and guidelines should only assure that the pharmacist will not issue faulty medicine.

Addressing your edit: Drafts don't force you to serve in the military because you can just leave the country or go to jail. Muhammed Ali deserved to go to jail because he knew the consequences when he stayed in this country past the age of 18.

[2] Agreed, but you missed the point. The point is that there must be mutual agreement for a contract to exist.
1. It's funny you mentioned this, because it turns out you're wrong.

I'm in the midst of reading a big fat history book called "The Cousins' Wars" about the interconnected political/social/religious issues that drove various conflicts within Britain and the US from the English Civil War to the US Civil War. And just this morning I read in it an explanation of government licensing that made me think of you. (It seems licensing abuses was one of the many issues behind the English Civil War.)

Apparently, governments (or more properly, kings) began issuing licenses and charters for people to conduct various professions before the advent of the Industrial Age because it was presumed in those days that the government/king owned all the professions, services, labor, and resources within the country (in fact anything within the country that could produce revenue) and had the power to grant or revoke the privilege of doing that work to citizens.

So, in fact, a license is NOT a set of guidelines at all. A profession is licensed when the state decides that doing it is a privilege and that they get to grant permission for people to do it and dictate the terms of how they will do it and, incidentally, charge a fee for that permission under those terms.

Now, obviously, that original system was just asking for abuse, and indeed, the Stuart kings of England abused the crap out of it. The various English uprisings did eliminate the older system of licensing, but interestingly, they replaced it with other systems of licensing, not no system. Why? Because licensing is a way to guarantee a societal standard of quality and business ethics. So even those anti-autocrat revolutionaries still recognized that doing some professions amounts to a privilege in society and that society has a right to dictate terms for the privilage of doing them.

2. You entered into the contract with the customer by taking both a license from the state representing said customer and taking a job at a pharmacy. The customer is the beginning and end of all of this. If customers did not demand pharmacists, there would be no such thing as pharmacists, and no such thing as pharmacy licenses, and neither controversy nor job for you. The license issued by the state reflects the demands of customers of pharmacies, so by accepting that license, you have already promised the customer that you will do certain things for her. You bound yourself in contract to her long before she ever set foot in your shop.

Alright, since Vittos is talking in circles ('well, it should be this way, because of everyone's rights which aren't actually covered in any government document at all!'), I'm going to have to make something clear.

You are right, so here we go:

Statement #1
Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.

Statement #2
I am opposed the the application of this particular guideline because it restricts the right of the pharmacist to apply his labor in the way he sees fit by forcing him into contracts that do not require mutual agreement.

Statement #3
Society operates as a trade-off of freedoms as a result of self-interest. In the absense of society there are only those rights that are inherent to existence as limited by nature. Once we enter society, we agree to exchange a portion of our rights and liberties in exchange for the safety of other's limited rights.

Statement #4
In this situation I believe the natural right to labor (the liberty to freely work for one's own survival) outweighs another's positive right to healthcare.

This should address all of the repeated points made by others, so please refer to these statements before replying to my posts.

Well, you're wrong.

You ignored my earlier post, but I have already addressed why there is no "natural right of labor."

Link it to me, I will address it.

That's great... if you have a car.

How many are there within walking distance of any given doctor's office?

None, so you are fucked either way if you don't have a car.

Hooray capitalism!!!!

He's already said yes to this. He's quite deranged, considering he believes that discriminatory policies are acceptable in the workplace as well. (I won't serve you, you're Black; you can't get in here, you're a Jew; I won't treat you, you're homosexual!)

Impractical probably, deranged not at all.

By believing people should be allowed freedom, I am not required to agree with what they do with it. I support free speech, but I hate what Jerry Falwell does with it.

Vittos is a broken philosophical record, repeating "property and labor, property and labor," over and over again... and without either justification, or acknowledgment that these are not the only human values.

He's like a stoned John Locke. "Dude... It's about property... and labor, man. Totally."

:D

I did not want to turn this into an argument about the legitimacy of property and labor rights, and I thought no one else did either, but now I have been called out on it twice.

(I will take that last line as a compliment.)

Yes, this is about sides. The Religious Right is playing through their puppets, the Conservative Pharmacists, the Liberal Left is playing through the people inconvenienced by this and those outraged, and then there are people asking irrelevent questions like 'Is the requirement to dispense something that you morally disagree with valid?'

OF COURSE IT IS VALID. It might be different if someone had required the pharmacist to take the drug that he or she was refusing to prescribe, but nobody is. People are asking a governmentally-licenced person to dispense something the government says that it is legal to dispense. The pharmacist is like an ATM. They're not supposed to think any more than 'will B conflict with X, Y, or Z?'

Especially not anything along the lines of 'Mary's going to burn in Hell for taking this drug'. Well, they're *allowed* thinking it. This isn't 1984. But they're not allowed acting on the thought.

I would say that to be responsible you would have to question your own "side" as well.

But I am definitely not in the religious right, and I only have a passing acquaintance with the liberal left. I am more in the minarchist center.

In this situation I believe the natural right to labor (the liberty to freely work for one's own survival)...

Considering that the natural right to labor is, in fact, grounded in a right to work for one's survival, your argument using it now to defend a right not to work--to refuse money useful for one's survival--appears pretty flimsy.

It's not as if the government tells pharmacists to hand over medication for free. (Even under universal healthcare, someone pays them.)

It does not even tell them what to charge! Instead, it just tells them that they must earn money on an exchange--they must labor for their own survival--even if their morals tell them not to.

You are right, so here we go:

Statement #1
Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.
Any other professions you feel should be entitled to ignore the law of the land and vocational guidelines, or is it just chemists?

Statement #2
I am opposed the the application of this particular guideline because it restricts the right of the pharmacist to apply his labor in the way he sees fit by forcing him into contracts that do not require mutual agreement.
Actually, it forces him/her to exercise their business in a proffesional manner and makes them accountable for refusing to fill perscriptions over superstitious hang ups.

Statement #3
Society operates as a trade-off of freedoms as a result of self-interest. In the absense of society there are only those rights that are inherent to existence as limited by nature. Once we enter society, we agree to exchange a portion of our rights and liberties in exchange for the safety of other's limited rights.
Yes, but this does not extend to refusing to provide drugs you find objectionable if you work in a chemist.

Statement #4
In this situation I believe the natural right to labor (the liberty to freely work for one's own survival) outweighs another's positive right to healthcare.
I find it extraordinary that you can seriously try to argue this. You have this precisely arsebackwards: one's right to buy perscription drugs over rides the right of somebody who doesn't actually want to do their job to work as a chemist.

(I will take that last line as a compliment.)

In calling you out as a stoner, I compliment you... yes.

But John Locke... smart guy, solid epistemologist, horrible political theorist.

1. But you do say that pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions even though that is the definition of their job, and they take an oath to do so, and they accept licenses requiring them to do os, and the doctors want them filled. So obviously, you think the individual pharmacist has better judgment as to what constitutes a proper prescription than the organization that trained him, the state that licensed him, or the doctor that wrote the prescription. So again, what do we need them for, when we have you to do the thinking for us?

See Statement #1 and #2

Add

Statement #5
The pharmacist should be allowed to refuse for whatever reason he so chooses. Whether the judgement is based on religion, disagreement with the doctor, or finance is irrelevant.

2. As I have already said in earlier posts, at least twice before, and as others have also said (since you like them better than me), no, the profession of pharmacist would NOT exist without licensing and/or regulation of some sort. Does it have to be controlled by the government? No. But the government is the entity that does control it in the US currently, so that's what we are talking about.

Good enough, so everyone has a right to be a pharmacist, however, the right is restricted by government.

3. I disagree with your definition of violence.

That's good enough for me. Moving on....

4. So you were unintentionally ignoring me in favor of more amusing correspondents? Meow, catty-kitty.

I did intentionally ignore your posts, but it was because of the content not the poster.

Considering that the natural right to labor is, in fact, grounded in a right to work for one's survival, your argument using it now to defend a right not to work--to refuse money useful for one's survival--appears pretty flimsy.

This pharmacist believes that he is maintaining the survival of more than his physical body. Neither I nor you are in a position to tell him he is wrong.

It's not as if the government tells pharmacists to hand over medication for free. (Even under universal healthcare, someone pays them.)

It does not even tell them what to charge! Instead, it just tells them that they must earn money on an exchange--they must labor for their own survival--even if their morals tell them not to.

So then, if he determined a monetary value he would take for it and offered to sell Plan B for $5 million a dose, we wouldn't have a problem?

That is why the emergency room situation is much more difficult to say yes or no to.

I don't see much of a logical difference between a doctor refusing to provide emergency treatment and a pharmacist refusing to provide emergency medication.

However, my rural hometown in southern Illinois had, I would guess, roughly two dozen pharmacies within a 30 mile radius, maybe more.

This has been my experience as well, but not all areas are like that.


1) You say. She has elevated hormone levels as a result of carrying the germinating cells of a human being. To decide that "embryo implanted" is "pregnant" but "fertilized zygote" is not... is still an arbitrary decision.

Not really. Implantation is the point at which the woman's body becomes physically connected to the developing embryo and begins providing more for it than it would to any given bacterium or other parasite. There is a physical difference between "before implantation" and "after implantation." If I were to set the beginning of pregnancy at, for instance, the moment at which the fingers begin to develop, that would be rather arbitrary.

2) If the only difference you want to make is that "pregnancy" is a condition of the mother, rather than a condition of the developing zygote/embryo/fetus, then you have already lost your argument with the pro-lifers.

What argument is that? The fact that pregnancy is a medical condition of the mother is not in dispute - it is a fact. If it weren't, we wouldn't say, "She is pregnant." Instead, we would say, "She has a pregnancy going on." And the argument against pro-lifers (by which I suppose you mean, "Anti-abortion persons who wish to force their morality on others through law," rather than simply "anti-abortions persons.") is actually bolstered by this fact. It is a medical condition of the mother, and she has the right to treat it as she wishes, up until the point at which the government has an interest in protecting the fetus.

I am sure they would be happy to admit that the woman may not be "pregnant" until implantation, but the zygote is very much "developing" and (as they would have it) "alive"... and that is what they were concerned about in the first place.

Tying the beginning of life or development to the point at which the woman can be said to be pregnant is rather illogical. In the, "Is it life or isn't it?" argument, I think we should look for the best objective definition we can find and stick with that. However, the fact will still remain that the woman has the right to determine the medical procedures she will undergo until such a time as we can say that the government has a compelling interest in regulating them.

Only if the anthrax sits in their abdomen waiting to transform into another human being.

Then your statement that I had somehow contradicted myself was clearly incorrect, as changes in the hormones of a person due to signals sent out by something inside of them does not equal pregnancy.

So medicine is politicized... but that does not extend to the terms they use? Why?

Because the overall medical community, like the scientific community, works on principles outside of politics. Politics tend to intrude upon them (ie. recent occurrences at the FDA), but do not determine them. Politics has nothing to do with whether or not drug A helps disease B.

Okay... and if terms are disputed, is one's choice of one definition over another not at least potentially political?

Potentially, yes, on an individual level. This is the reason that I don't look at individuals, or at political organizations, for definitions. There are people out there who have decided to change the definition of science (read: the government of Kansas), and injected politics into it. However, the general consensus of the scientific community is that those guys are wrong, not because of politics, but because of the very nature of science. This generally occurs in medicine as well.

Any other professions you feel should be entitled to ignore the law of the land and vocational guidelines, or is it just chemists?

See Statement 1...oh, wait...

Note that I said that they should NOT be allowed to ignore the law, I only said that they should not have to ignore the law.

I find it extraordinary that you can seriously try to argue this. You have this precisely arsebackwards: one's right to buy perscription drugs over rides the right of somebody who doesn't actually want to do their job to work as a chemist.

Your opinion is obviously not universally applicable, as you would obviously not force a cook to fix you a hamburger. Because of this you can only say that it is a judgement call and not some black and white dichotomy.

This pharmacist believes that he is maintaining the survival of more than his physical body. Neither I nor you are in a position to tell him he is wrong.

Then why don't we legalize human sacrifice while we're at it?

Implantation is the point at which the woman's body becomes physically connected to the developing embryo and begins providing more for it than it would to any given bacterium or other parasite.

So? Prior to that the there is already the "germ" ;) of an infant in there, cell division has begun, etc. Why should the line be drawn at "physically supports a developing human" rather than "physically contains a developing human"?

It is an essentially arbitary distinction, certainly with respect to the abortion debate.

There is a physical difference between "before implantation" and "after implantation."

There is also a physical difference between "before fertilization" and "after fertilization". Why pick one rather than the other?

If I were to set the beginning of pregnancy at, for instance, the moment at which the fingers begin to develop, that would be rather arbitrary.

I agree, but not more arbitrary than any other physical change. One could just as well say that a woman is not pregnant until after her first missed period (a practical definition used by physicians to measure the length of the pregnancy and estimate the due date); or that she is not pregnant until the further physical difference of "showing." There are plenty of physical differences to choose from. I fail to see why we should objectively choose one over another.

In the, "Is it life or isn't it?" argument, I think we should look for the best objective definition we can find and stick with that.

Your faith that there is an objective definition is astounding. As a scientist, I don't believe in objectivity.

However, the fact will still remain that the woman has the right to determine the medical procedures she will undergo until such a time as we can say that the government has a compelling interest in regulating them.

Here we agree. I just think that it is facetious to claim that you know the objective definitions of "life," "developing life," and "pregnant," especially since others (including medical professionals) disagree, and your definitions (like most other partisans) conveniently happen to support your political beliefs.

Then your statement that I had somehow contradicted myself was clearly incorrect, as changes in the hormones of a person due to signals sent out by something inside of them does not equal pregnancy.

No, you contradicted yourself by claiming that pregnancy involves a change in the mother, but denying that a change in the level of hormones caused by a developing zygote/human would count as that change. Obviously, changes caused by other things do not make one "pregnant." It is the change due to a particular cause that was at issue, not "change" in general.

Because the overall medical community, like the scientific community, works on principles outside of politics.

They may pretend to, but every honest account of scientific discovery that I have ever read has included all sorts of political moves. Moreover, it is simply naive to believe that human beings can actually insulate themselves from their own political beliefs, regardless of how hard they try. The most honest scientists acknowledge their biases; we do not deny them.

Politics has nothing to do with whether or not drug A helps disease B.

No, but politics does have a lot to do with whether the curative effects of drug A are listed as "effects" or "side-effects." Say, what is that difference anyway? Oh, yeah... the "effects" of a drug are the ones that the drug company wants to attract your attention to, while the "side-effects" are the ones they want you to ignore. It is a spurious difference: they are all effects that the drug has on people's bodies. The same thing happens with "product" and "bi-product" in industrial processes... the process produces them both, but certain parties want to distract you from that fact.

Potentially, yes, on an individual level. This is the reason that I don't look at individuals, or at political organizations, for definitions. There are people out there who have decided to change the definition of science (read: the government of Kansas), and injected politics into it. However, the general consensus of the scientific community is that those guys are wrong, not because of politics, but because of the very nature of science. This generally occurs in medicine as well.

Try to actually practice science, and you will quickly discover that the "text-book definitions" of the "scientific method" have little (sometimes nothing) to do with how science actually occurs. Read Kuhn for an overview of the idea... then read The Double Helix for a description by scientists actually engaged in discovery.

(NOTE: NOT an endorsement of "intelligent design.")

So? Prior to that the there is already the "germ" ;) of an infant in there, cell division has begun, etc. Why should the line be drawn at "physically supports a developing human" rather than "physically contains a developing human"?

Because the first physical change that is truly specific to childbearing comes at that point. We are talking about the begining of a medical condition known as pregnancy, not development of an embryo/fetus. If the embryo does not implant, the large-scale (some permanent) physical changes associated with pregnancy will never occur.

It is an essentially arbitary distinction, certainly with respect to the abortion debate.

What you fail to realize is that the distinction has nothing at all to do with the abortion debate. It is simply a description of a medical condition that a woman may have.

There is also a physical difference between "before fertilization" and "after fertilization". Why pick one rather than the other?

See above.

Your faith that there is an objective definition is astounding. As a scientist, I don't believe in objectivity.

Then you aren't a scientist. The entire point of the scientific method is to examine things objectively. Individually, that isn't fully possible, but this is the entire point of peer review and repetition of experiments by others.

Here we agree. I just think that it is facetious to claim that you know the objective definitions of "life," "developing life," and "pregnant," especially since others (including medical professionals) disagree, and your definitions (like most other partisans) conveniently happen to support your political beliefs.

(a) I don't claim to know the objective definition of life, developing life, etc. There are all sorts of ways it can be defined. I claim to know an objective definition of pregnant - one that has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, politics, or any other such ideas. A woman will always be pregnant once implantation occurs, until such time as she miscarries or gives birth.

As for objective definitions of life, developing life, etc., I just go with the most objective. Thus far, I have yet to see a completely objective definition that didn't exclude something that we would deem life or include something that we wouldn't. But I go with the closest one we have.

(b) Once again, this has nothing at all to do with politics. First of all, you don't even know what my political opinions are, so suggesting that the definitions I have learned (not ones I made up, mind you) somehow support my political beliefs is a bit silly. And secondly, I am far from being a "partisan", considering that I think partisan politics is a sham and refuse to be associated with any political party.

No, you contradicted yourself by claiming that pregnancy involves a change in the mother, but denying that a change in the level of hormones caused by a developing zygote/human would count as that change.

The quote you used did not say, "Pregnancy involves a change in the mother," it said that pregnancy is a condition of the mother, not one of the zygote/embryo/fetus. I never defined that condition as "a change in the level of hormones."

Try agsain.

They may pretend to, but every honest account of scientific discovery that I have ever read has included all sorts of political moves.

That's funny, since I have yet to see one. Those things that are infected by politics are not truly science, and can be largely ignored until repeated in a less political arena.

Moreover, it is simply naive to believe that human beings can actually insulate themselves from their own political beliefs, regardless of how hard they try. The most honest scientists acknowledge their biases; we do not deny them.

Individuals cannot fully insulate themselves from their political beliefs, although those in professions that have objective bases should certainly try as best they can. However, with systems like those in science, an overall bias can be largely avoided.

Try to actually practice science, and you will quickly discover that the "text-book definitions" of the "scientific method" have little (sometimes nothing) to do with how science actually occurs.

I do practice science. Daily. I'll never have my Ph.D. if I don't.

I believe that right to free labor takes precedent over the right to free healthcare.

Ahh so free labor takes precedent over things? You would have done well in the 1800s.

Worker safety laws violate your principles.
Environmental laws and superfund violate your principles.
The SEC violates your principles.

Sorry but you have a misguided view of labor.....

Because the first physical change that is truly specific to childbearing comes at that point.

So? Why is "physical change truly specific to childbearing" a better definition than "physical change caused by the process of childbearing"?

We are talking about the begining of a medical condition known as pregnancy, not development of an embryo/fetus.

Fine. I just don't see why we draw the line at one change rather than another. It's arbitrary.

If the embryo does not implant, the large-scale (some permanent) physical changes associated with pregnancy will never occur.

If the egg is not fertilized, those same large-scale (some permanent) physical changes associated with pregnancy will never occur. Moreover, many implanted embryos miscarry long before those large-scale changes, so that women whose embryos implanted never knew they were pregnant... just as if they have never implanted at all. So again, why pick one change over another?

What you fail to realize is that the distinction has nothing at all to do with the abortion debate. It is simply a description of a medical condition that a woman may have.

If it had nothing to do with the abortion debate, I doubt anyone would bother to dispute it. Who would care, other than perhaps the most pedantic and anal scientists, whether pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation?

Then you aren't a scientist. The entire point of the scientific method is to examine things objectively.

No, the whole point of the scientific method is what we scientists call "epistemological reflexivity"--we explain how we came to our conclusions so that others can replicate them. "Objective" knowledge would be knowledge that is true of the world regardless of how it is measured, or by whom. We don't know anything about that kind of knowledge. It may well be a theoretical impossibility.

I claim to know an objective definition of pregnant

There is no such thing as "an" objective definition. There is either "the" objective definition (as in, "could not be defined in any other way") or there is no objective definition.

The quote you used did not say, "Pregnancy involves a change in the mother," it said that pregnancy is a condition of the mother. I never defined that condition as "a change in the level of hormones."

I know. But that change is a condition, and why you would choose not to recognize it as such is truly a mystery.

That's funny, since I have yet to see one.

The Double Helix. Fantastic book, about the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA.

Individuals cannot fully insulate themselves from their political beliefs, although those in professions that have objective bases should certainly try as best they can. However, with systems like those in science, an overall bias can be largely avoided.

That is an entirely different claim. First of all, "objectivity" demands more than a lack of "bias." One can be unbiased, yet still subjective. Academics try to be unbiased by, for instance, presenting our opponents in a fair light, avoiding straw man arguments, and acknowledging evidence that contravenes our conclusions. Rarely do we try to pretend we are "objective," as if we are not attempting to make a point with which others will disagree.

This is just as true in the physical sciences as in other academic disciplines. Rarely does anyone publish a paper with which they expect no one to disagree... indeed, the whole point of the paper is usually to convince other scientists that "I am right, and those other interpretations are wrong." After the paper is published, other scientists will publish criticisms... and out of this highly subjective procedure of review, consensus may (or may not) emerge... but non-bias and consenus are a far cry from "objectivity."

I do practice science. Daily. I'll never have my Ph.D. if I don't.

Well, perhaps your graduate department should be advised to begin your education with a course in general epistemology and the philosophy of science. I was required to take such a class my first year, and without it I might still have your faith in "objectivity."

So? Why is "physical change truly specific to childbearing" a better definition than "physical change caused by the process of childbearing"?

For one, fertilization isn't part of the "process of childbearing," it is part of the "process of development." The two are linked, but are not the same.

Fine. I just don't see why we draw the line at one change rather than another. It's arbitrary.

If it were arbitrary, I wouldn't have an explanation for it. You can disagree with my reasoning, or with the reasoning of others, but your disagreement doesn't make it arbitrary. Arbitrary would be picking a point with no reason to pick that point whatsoever - just for the hell of it.

If it had nothing to do with the abortion debate, I doubt anyone would bother to dispute it. Who would care, other than perhaps the most pedantic and anal scientists, whether pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation?

Anyone seeking to use a proper definition. (For the record, I tend to be rather pedantic about *all* definitions).

No, the whole point of the scientific method is what we scientists call "epistemological reflexivity"--we explain how we came to our conclusions so that others can replicate them. "Objective" knowledge would be knowledge that is true of the world regardless of how it is measured, or by whom. We don't know anything about that kind of knowledge. It may well be a theoretical impossibility.

Have you found a measurement yet that suggests that matter does not exert a gravitational pull on other matter?

There is no such thing as "an" objective definition. There is either "the" objective definition (as in, "could not be defined in any other way") or there is no objective definition.

A definition is only subjective if it is based in something subjective (ie. morality/politics) or it changes based on subjective measures. We have objective definitions for many things that could possibly be objectively defined another way, btu we have chosen a certain definition. For instance, we define colors by set wavelengths - an objective definition. However, we could have chosen different wavelengths and red could have been blue.

I know. But that change is a condition, and why you would choose not to recognize it as such is truly a mystery.

I didn't say it isn't a condition. I said it isn't pregnancy. Being infected with anthrax is a condition. Being in shock is a condition. Having sperm swimming around in your cervix is a condition. But none of these things are pregnancy.

Well, perhaps your graduate department should be advised to begin your education with a course in general epistemology and the philosophy of science. I was required to take such a class my first year, and without it I would probably still have your faith in "objectivity."

These are things I can, and have, researched on my own. Sounds like you had a rather biased prof.

For one, fertilization isn't part of the "process of childbearing," it is part of the "process of development." The two are linked, but are not the same.

Is the "process of chidbearing" something other than "the process of having the process of development occur within one's body"?

If it were arbitrary, I wouldn't have an explanation for it. You can disagree with my reasoning, or with the reasoning of others, but your disagreement doesn't make it arbitrary. Arbitrary would be picking a point with no reason to pick that point whatsoever - just for the hell of it.

That's true. "Arbitrary" is overly harsh. But it is still "subjective," in the following sense: it requires someone to make a value judgment about what changes in a continuous process are "significant" and which ones are not. When processes are continuous, the lines we draw between different parts of them reflect our subjective judgments.

It's like trying to decide when "dawn" occurs. Does it occur with the first lightening of the sky before sunrise? When the sky reaches a particular degree of brightness? Which degree? Or does it occur at sunrise? But wait, when does sunrise occur? When the first direct light from the sun hits your location? When the sun is halfway above the horizon? The instant the sun is fully above the horizon?

I am quite sure that if we ask an astronomer or a meteorologist when "dawn" or "sunrise" occurs, he/she will have a very specific answer, and one on which the scientific community has agreed... probably just for convenience' sake, to have a common "standard"--and doing it for convenience does, actually, make it essentially arbitrary.

Anyone seeking to use a proper definition. (For the record, I tend to be rather pedantic about *all* definitions).

Me too. But "proper" in this context is "what experts can agree on." There is no "objective" definition, as if aliens studying human pregnancy would necessarily come to the same conclusion we do as to when it begins, or as if different cultures would necessarily reach the same conclusions... we can explain "why" we set the boundary where we do, but this "explanation" is really a discussion of values: what aspects of the continuous process we consider "relevant" or "significant."

There is nothing in the world itself, separate from human judgments, that says "pregnancy" = "implantation."

Have you found a measurement yet that suggests that matter does not exert a gravitational pull on other matter?

Well, I know that if I drop a ball, it falls toward the earth... and I know that if I perform specified observations on astronomical objects, I will observe that they tend to move toward one another. But these are epistemologically reflexive statements: I can tell you how to make the same observations, and we agree that they are true. What an "objective" measurement would look like, I do not know.

A definition is only subjective if it is based in something subjective (ie. morality/politics)

You are using an overly narrow definition of "subjective." In the context of knowledge, an appropriate definition of the term is "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind."

Again, subjectivity is not the same thing as "bias." We are all subjective creatures, whether we want to be or not. We need not, however, also succumb to our biases. (Although we may never be completely successful, we can take steps to account for our own bias and neutralize it.)

We have objective definitions for many things that could possibly be objectively defined another way, btu we have chosen a certain definition.

Then they are not, by definition, "objective," i.e. "independent of mind."

For instance, we define colors by set wavelengths - an objective definition.

No, a subjective and to some degree arbitrary definition. We agree on the set wavelengths for sake of convenience not because one wavelength is "really" (objectively) a different color than the next.

I didn't say it isn't a condition. I said it isn't pregnancy.

Why? It is a condition due to carrying a developing human being. Why is it not pregnancy, other than that some scientists may choose to regard a different change as more "important" or "essential" or "basic" to the process of childbearing... all of these being very subjective valuations, regardless of whether other scientists (who may share the same values) agree with them or not?

These are things I can, and have, researched on my own.

Really, what epistemologists have you read? My favorite is Quine, although of course I have to give a nod to Popper. And don't we all?

Sounds like you had a rather biased prof.

Not biased, but definitely subjective. ;)

For one, fertilization isn't part of the "process of childbearing," it is part of the "process of development." The two are linked, but are not the same.

Is the "process of childbearing" something other than "the process of having the process of development occur within one's body"?

If it were arbitrary, I wouldn't have an explanation for it. You can disagree with my reasoning, or with the reasoning of others, but your disagreement doesn't make it arbitrary. Arbitrary would be picking a point with no reason to pick that point whatsoever - just for the hell of it.

That's true. "Arbitrary" is overly harsh. But it is still "subjective," in the following sense: it requires someone to make a value judgment about what changes in a continuous process are "significant" and which ones are not. When processes are continuous, the lines we draw between different parts of them reflect our subjective judgments.

It's like trying to decide when "dawn" occurs. Does it occur with the first lightening of the sky before sunrise? When the sky reaches a particular degree of brightness? Which degree? Or does it occur at sunrise? But wait, when does sunrise occur? When the first direct light from the sun hits your location? When the sun is halfway above the horizon? The instant the sun is fully above the horizon?

I am quite sure that if we ask an astronomer or a meteorologist when "dawn" or "sunrise" occurs, he/she will have a very specific answer, and one on which the scientific community has agreed... probably just for convenience' sake, to have a common "standard"--and doing it for convenience does, actually, make it essentially arbitrary.

Anyone seeking to use a proper definition. (For the record, I tend to be rather pedantic about *all* definitions).

Me too. But "proper" in this context is "what experts can agree on." There is no "objective" definition, as if aliens studying human pregnancy would necessarily come to the same conclusion we do as to when it begins, or as if different cultures would necessarily reach the same conclusions... we can explain "why" we set the boundary where we do, but this "explanation" is really a discussion of values: what aspects of the continuous process we consider "relevant" or "significant."

There is nothing in the world itself, separate from human judgments, that says "pregnancy" = "implantation."

Have you found a measurement yet that suggests that matter does not exert a gravitational pull on other matter?

Well, I know that if I drop a ball, it falls toward the earth... and I know that if I perform specified observations on astronomical objects, I will observe that they tend to move toward one another. But these are epistemologically reflexive statements: I can tell you how to make the same observations, and we agree that they are true. What an "objective" measurement would look like, I do not know.

A definition is only subjective if it is based in something subjective (ie. morality/politics)

You are using an overly narrow definition of "subjective." In the context of knowledge, an appropriate definition of the term is "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind."

Again, subjectivity is not the same thing as "bias." We are all subjective creatures, whether we want to be or not. We need not, however, also succumb to our biases. (Although we may never be completely successful, we can take steps to account for our own bias and neutralize it.)

We have objective definitions for many things that could possibly be objectively defined another way, btu we have chosen a certain definition.

Then they are not, by definition, "objective," i.e. "independent of mind."

For instance, we define colors by set wavelengths - an objective definition.

No, a subjective and to some degree arbitrary definition. We agree on the set wavelengths for sake of convenience not because one wavelength is "really" (objectively) a different color than the next.

I didn't say it isn't a condition. I said it isn't pregnancy.

Why? It is a condition due to carrying a developing human being. Why is it not pregnancy, other than that some scientists may choose to regard a different change as more "important" or "essential" or "basic" to the process of childbearing... all of these being very subjective valuations, regardless of whether other scientists (who may share the same values) agree with them or not?

These are things I can, and have, researched on my own.

Really, what epistemologists have you read? My favorite is Quine, although of course I have to give a nod to Popper. And don't we all?

Sounds like you had a rather biased prof.

Not biased, but definitely subjective. ;)

Then why don't we legalize human sacrifice while we're at it?

If the subject is found to be legally competent and consents, go for it.

If the subject is found to be legally competent and consents, go for it.

Why should he have to be legally competent and consenting? Surely his right to life on Earth does not trump my right to defend my immortal soul! Who are you to make that judgment for me?

Worker safety laws violate your principles.

Those laws that insure that an employer will reasonably uphold his end of a contract do not go against anything I have said so far.

Environmental laws and superfund violate your principles.

Sometimes, yes they do.

The SEC violates your principles.

Not in the least.

One's job should not be determined by the government, nor should you be limited from a profession based on your morality.
If your morality prohibits you from preforming your job, you sure as hell should.

I'm a vegetarian, if I become a butcher and then refuse to kill animals, then I should be fired. I wouldn't expect any less.

Why should he have to be legally competent and consenting? Surely his right to life on Earth does not trump my right to defend my immortal soul!

We have gone down this road before.

You may have missed this, as it was in a different post from the rest of my statements:
Statement #5
The pharmacist should be allowed to refuse for whatever reason he so chooses. Whether the judgement is based on religion, disagreement with the doctor, or finance is irrelevant.

The morals behind the reasons do not matter, all that matter is free acceptance.

Remember, you are the one who is attempting to force someone to accept a contract not me.

Who are you to make that judgment for me?

You are the one who is forcing someone to subjegate themselves to another, not me.

If your morality prohibits you from preforming your job, you sure as hell should.

I'm a vegetarian, if I become a butcher and then refuse to kill animals, then I should be fired. I wouldn't expect any less.

He has no moral aversion to dispensing medicine, only to dispensing this particular medicine.

But before we continue:
Statement #5
The pharmacist should be allowed to refuse for whatever reason he so chooses. Whether the judgement is based on religion, disagreement with the doctor, or finance is irrelevant.

Now tell me my views are reprehensible, and I can avoid chasing around the same logical arguments again.

I don't see much of a logical difference between a doctor refusing to provide emergency treatment and a pharmacist refusing to provide emergency medication.

The consequences are less dire to someone who does not receive a morning after pill than someone who does not receive treatment for a mortal wound.

Hospitals receive enormous amounts of public funding.

He has no moral aversion to dispensing medicine, only to dispensing this particular medicine.
Then he should either refuse to work somewhere that carries this medicine or quit his job.

To change my analogy, if I view that veal is cruel and then go work for a company that has us slaughter all animals, even baby cattle and I refuse to kill the baby cattle, then I should either quit my job for that company and find a company that lets me be a butcher without killing baby animals or be fired.

But before we continue:
Statement #5
The pharmacist should be allowed to refuse for whatever reason he so chooses. Whether the judgement is based on religion, disagreement with the doctor, or finance is irrelevant.

Now tell me my views are reprehensible, and I can avoid chasing around the same logical arguments again.
Pharmacists go to medical school now? Why should they know better than a doctor how to treat a patient then? Their job is to look for conflicting medications, not to say "oh hey, this nice herbal treatment would be better than this tested medication that actually works and your doctor reccomended" and how one person gets to force their religious views on another through their employment is beyond me. If you don't believe in certain medications, don't get a job that involves working with them.

The consequences are less dire to someone who does not receive a morning after pill than someone who does not receive treatment for a mortal wound.
The consequences are less dire? What about the consequences for a woman who has been told explicitly that a pregnancy would put her in grave danger? The morning after pill prevents pregnancy and eliminates the need for another not so pleasant procedure - abortion.

The consequences are less dire to someone who does not receive a morning after pill than someone who does not receive treatment for a mortal wound.

So the distinction is your subjective opinion of the seriousness of the consequences?

Hospitals receive enormous amounts of public funding.

Not all hospitals. And pharmacies receive enormous amounts of public funds -- Medicare, etc.

Speaking of politics and definitions...

I have just come across the claim that the consensus medical definition of conception used to equate it with fertilization, but that beginning in 1964 advocates of intrauterine devices decided to alter the definition to equate it with implantation instead. Thus, such devices could be labeled "contraceptives" even if they acted by interfering with implantation rather than fertilization.

Very interesting. My source, however, does have a clear bias, and I would like to verify it more reliably before I accept it as fact.

Speaking of politics and definitions...

I have just come across the claim that the consensus medical definition of conception used to equate it with fertilization, but that beginning in 1964 advocates of intrauterine devices decided to alter the definition to equate it with implantation instead. Thus, such devices could be labeled "contraceptives" even if they acted by interfering with implantation rather than fertilization.

Very interesting. My source, however, does have a clear bias, and I would like to verify it more reliably before I accept it as fact.It wouldn't surprise me--if memory serves, Griswold was decided in 1963, and it dealt specifically with the sale of contraceptives, so it would make sense for manufacturers to try to get IUDs included in the definition.

Vittos, it does truly pain me that you seem incapable of grasping my irony.

Is the "process of chidbearing" something other than "the process of having the process of development occur within one's body"?

Yes, although the two are connected. The process of childbearing would refer exclusively to those changes that take place in the mother's body. They are due to the development, but not the same as the development.

That's true. "Arbitrary" is overly harsh. But it is still "subjective," in the following sense: it requires someone to make a value judgment about what changes in a continuous process are "significant" and which ones are not. When processes are continuous, the lines we draw between different parts of them reflect our subjective judgments.

It isn't really "value" judgement. I'm not saying, "Implantation is more important than fertilization." I am saying, "Implantation is the first point at which pregnancy-specific changes occur in the woman's body and the childbearing process begins."

Me too. But "proper" in this context is "what experts can agree on." There is no "objective" definition, as if aliens studying human pregnancy would necessarily come to the same conclusion we do as to when it begins, or as if different cultures would necessarily reach the same conclusions... we can explain "why" we set the boundary where we do, but this "explanation" is really a discussion of values: what aspects of the continuous process we consider "relevant" or "significant."

You are confusing "objective" with "absolute".

There is nothing in the world itself, separate from human judgments, that says "pregnancy" = "implantation."

There is nothing int he world itself, separate from human judgements that defines any word as any definition. We define things ourselves.

Well, I know that if I drop a ball, it falls toward the earth... and I know that if I perform specified observations on astronomical objects, I will observe that they tend to move toward one another.

Observations that can be made and confirmed with different methods of measurement - and none thus far has proven contradictory.

You are using an overly narrow definition of "subjective." In the context of knowledge, an appropriate definition of the term is "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind."

Such a definition would make the distinctions useless. All things involving human beings would be subjective and nothing, at least to us, would be objective. There really is no point in such distinctions if they aren't useful.

Why? It is a condition due to carrying a developing human being.

No, it is a condition due to having a developing zygote/embryo that happens to be inside of you. A person isn't truly "carrying" it until it is attached. Until then, it could be a chia pet, for all the body response is concerned.

Why is it not pregnancy, other than that some scientists may choose to regard a different change as more "important" or "essential" or "basic" to the process of childbearing... all of these being very subjective valuations, regardless of whether other scientists (who may share the same values) agree with them or not?

It really has nothing to do with "more important" or "essential" and more to do with "different."

Really, what epistemologists have you read? My favorite is Quine, although of course I have to give a nod to Popper. And don't we all?

I wasn't referring to epistemologists so much as I was referring to the philosophy of science.


The consequences are less dire to someone who does not receive a morning after pill than someone who does not receive treatment for a mortal wound.

By whose determination and in what specific cases?

Aha! Here is where it actually happened:

ACOG Terminology Bulletin, Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus, Chicago, American College of Obstetrics ad Gynecology, No. 1, September 1965.

With no scientific evidence whatsoever to justify the change, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) suddenly decided that conception is synonymous with implantation, not fertilization.

Why would they do such a thing?

Perhaps they were listening to the advice of researcher Bent Boving, who remarked in 1959 that "Whether eventual control of implantation can be reserved the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend upon something so simple as a prudent habit of speech." Bent Boving, "Implantation Mechanisms," in Mechanisms Concerned with Conception, ed. C. G. Hartman (New York: Pergamon Press, 1963), 386.

Or perhaps Dr. Tietze, who observed in 1964 that "if a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen." Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Intra-Uterine Contraception, held October 2-3, 1964, New York City, ed. Sheldon Segal, et al.., International Series, Excerpta Medica Foundation, No. 86, page 212.

I could go on. The history seems clear. In the pre-Roe political climate in which contraception was increasingly allowed, but abortion was still illegal in most places, the medical community chose to change their terminology in order to better serve their patients.

An admirable goal, to be sure. I do not criticize them for it. It does, however, demonstrate the malleability of terms in science, often due to political and other subjective pressures.

Yes, although the two are connected. The process of childbearing would refer exclusively to those changes that take place in the mother's body. They are due to the development, but not the same as the development.

A fine distinction. However, the changes taking place in the mother's body go hand-in-hand with development.

It isn't really "value" judgement. I'm not saying, "Implantation is more important than fertilization." I am saying, "Implantation is the first point at which pregnancy-specific changes occur in the woman's body and the childbearing process begins."

Yes, but you have to use some criteria (values) to decide which "specific changes" count. More importantly, as you should see in my other posts, our discussion here has become essentially moot in light of the historical evidence that the terms are, in fact, political... and have been for some time.

You are confusing "objective" with "absolute".

No. Something might be objectively true (true of the world independent of mind) yet not absolutely true (true of the world no matter what). I am not confusing the terms. You are.

There is nothing int he world itself, separate from human judgements that defines any word as any definition. We define things ourselves.

Precisely.

Such a definition would make the distinctions useless. All things involving human beings would be subjective and nothing, at least to us, would be objective. There really is no point in such distinctions if they aren't useful.

Precisely.

People used to think that they could speak "objectively"... then they actually started to try to figure out how to do it, and realized that it was a chimera. There is no such thing as objectivity.

No, it is a condition due to having a developing zygote/embryo that happens to be inside of you. A person isn't truly "carrying" it until it is attached.

It is words like "truly" that reveal your value judgments.

Until then, it could be a chia pet, for all the body response is concerned.

So? It is not, actually, a chia pet. The cause of the reaction is significant in defining the condition. If I throw up tomorrow morning because there is a virus in my body, you might say that am sick and should see a doctor. If I have exactly the same symptoms because I get wasted tonight, you will say that I am hungover and should drink less.

If a woman has a chia pet in her fallopian tube, you will say that she is a miracle, and should see a surgeon. If she has a fertilized egg in the same place, you will say that she is pregnant and should see an obstetrician. The two are NOT the same.

(Okay, you won't say that she is pregnant, but a reasonable person can see that it makes just as much sense to say she is pregnant now as when the embryo has implanted. There may not be much chance that she'll still be pregnant in a week or two, but why say she's not now?)

It really has nothing to do with "more important" or "essential"

No, just "truly", right?

and more to do with "different."

We have been through this before. Every stage in the process is "different" than the one before it. But at some point, you decide that this "different" constitutes "different enough" to have a different name. Why not wait until she's showing? Why not wait until she's missed her first period? Why pick this different over those? Obviously, because of your definition of "truly," which is a subjective term.

I wasn't referring to epistemologists so much as I was referring to the philosophy of science.

And Quine and Popper are not philosophers of science? Popper's key text, so important to the development of positivist science and the notion of "falsifiability," was titled, after all, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

At the very least, you must have read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. How can one study the philosophy of science without it?

[1] Alright, right now I am retracting any statement that argued that pharmacists are free to ignore the law. Link me to those posts and I will put a big red retractions notice on them.

[2] This is correct, but it doesn't deny the fact that, by inserting the government into the role of the consumer in his analogy, the analogy becomes false.

[3] There is a first time for everything.

[4] Sole-proprietary pharmacies do exist. You can be a pharmacist without having an employer.

I actually do think he worked for a pharmacy he didn't own, but I don't know how the actual pharmacy handled it. Also, the law was passed in 2005, and I don't know of any grandfather clauses.

[5] But that is beside the point, because the expectations are created by the law, and were the law to be removed, there wouldn't be a problem.

Alright,

Statement #1
[6] Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.

If I say statement 1, refer to this.

[7] I am saying that I wish to practice real estate, and were people allowed to refuse service to someone based on any reasoning they like, I could refuse to give him service in response to his refusal.

[8] We could get into the nature of labor exchange in the capitalistic model, but that would be ridiculous.
1. Throughout this thread, you have been saying that pharmacists who want to refuse to fill certain prescriptions should be able to do so regardless of whether that would be in violation of the law. You base this on your assertions (which are disputed) that most laws are unjust impositions on personal liberty, that laws dictating how licensed professions must be conducted are unjust impositions, and that every individual as a "natural right" to do pursue whatever career they choose on whatever terms they desire. You have also disputed the fact that the state has the right and power to dictate the terms of licenses it issues (whether that right and power are natural to the state or usurped by it), in spite of the fact that that's clearly how the system works in reality. You have insisted that pharmacists can exist without regulation and/or licensing from the government, again in contradiction of reality. Are you now saying that you DID NOT mean that pharmacists should ignore such laws/regulations/licenses? Are you saying that you've just been arguing theory here? And are you now saying that pharmacists who do break such laws/regulations/licenses deserve to be punished for it?

2. The way I read the analogy, it seemed to account for a 3-way contract with the state as a participant, so I still disagree on this, but who cares?

3. Who says you can't chop down a forest with a grapefruit spoon? Not me.

4. But you can't run a sole-proprietor pharmacy without a state license, and if the state license for pharmacies has the same restrictions as the license for pharmacists, you're right back where you started.

5. Only the law hasn't been removed. I refer to item 1 above.

6. Go ahead and object -- and feel free to argue it for 2 days :D -- but in practice no one's objection matters unless and until they succeed in getting the rules changed. See item 1 above.

7. Only they're not allowed to. As a licensed real estate broker or agent, you would not be allowed to refuse to sell a house to someone because you don't like their politics or religious beliefs.

8. Another point of agreement. Thank you.

You are right, so here we go:

Statement #1
Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.

Statement #2
I am opposed the the application of this particular guideline because it restricts the right of the pharmacist to apply his labor in the way he sees fit by forcing him into contracts that do not require mutual agreement.

Statement #3
Society operates as a trade-off of freedoms as a result of self-interest. In the absense of society there are only those rights that are inherent to existence as limited by nature. Once we enter society, we agree to exchange a portion of our rights and liberties in exchange for the safety of other's limited rights.

Statement #4
In this situation I believe the natural right to labor (the liberty to freely work for one's own survival) outweighs another's positive right to healthcare.

This should address all of the repeated points made by others, so please refer to these statements before replying to my posts.
But isn't statement #4 rendered moot by statements 1, 2 and 3? Who cares whether you (or I or anyone else) thinks one right trumps another if society decides otherwise? (BTW, I still dispute the existence of a natural right to labor based on the definition of labor you seem to be using here.)

A fine distinction. However, the changes taking place in the mother's body go hand-in-hand with development.

Certainly.

Yes, but you have to use some criteria (values) to decide which "specific changes" count.

The thing is that all the changes "count", just certain ones delineate certain conditions. Why do we call a zygote something other than "sperm and egg combined"? Why do we say that the development of a new human being begins at fertilization instead of at meiosis? Why do we delineate meiosis as having a beginning and ending? And so on.....

More importantly, as you should see in my other posts, our discussion here has become essentially moot in light of the historical evidence that the terms are, in fact, political... and have been for some time.

You have shown that others use the terms in a political manner. When it comes right down to it, mine was not. I was taught the term a certain way, and, while it was not justified in this way in any class, I was able to justifiy it without any reference to contraceptives or abortificants. Your original post seemed to be suggesting (and you much more clearly stated later), that my use of a given term was political. The fact that some use it politically is something I have already conceded.

No. Something might be objectively true (true of the world independent of mind) yet not absolutely true (true of the world no matter what). I am not confusing the terms. You are.

If something is true of the world, it it is true of the world.

It is words like "truly" that reveal your value judgments.

I'm just going by the general definition of "carrying". It isn't a value judgement - it is a use of words.

If a woman has a chia pet in her fallopian tube, you will say that she is a miracle, and should see a surgeon. If she has a fertilized egg in the same place, you will say that she is pregnant and should see an obstetrician. The two are NOT the same.

If a woman has either in her fallopian tube, I will have no way of knowing it is there until later on, when further symptoms develop. So, as far as I could tell, they might be.

We have been through this before. Every stage in the process is "different" than the one before it. But at some point, you decide that this "different" constitutes "different enough" to have a different name.

Every different could constitute having a different name. Many do. Although they are not commonly used, there are terms such as the "quickening" that used to be the poitn at which abortions were no longer legal.

We are talking about how to define a particular term, not every single possible term that could be defined along the way.

And Quine and Popper are not philosophers of science?

I'm sure they are. They are names I have heard, but not authors I have read thus far.

Of course, I don't see philosophy as simply a study of reading the opinions of others. It is important to do so, but it is more than that as well.

Link it to me, I will address it.
My search function isn't working so, rather than read back through the thread, I'll lay out my point regarding labor again:

You make reference to a "natural right to labor" and you use this as the reason why pharmacists should be able to dictate the definition and terms of their job rather than comply with state regulation. You seem to use "natural right to labor" to mean a right to work at what you like the way you like.

I say that's a misunderstanding of what labor is and what the right to labor is.

Every human being has the right to their own labor. This means that right to benefit from the fruits of their own labor (i.e. get paid for work). But this principle does not say what kind of labor we're talking about. That's because we're not talking about any particular kind of job. We are talking about the ability to work. You own your abilities. My ability to do secretarial work or teach art or do graphic design belongs to me. Your ability to broker real estate deals belongs to you. A pharmacist's ability to dispense medicines belongs to him. Nobody has the right to force us to do work for them to deny us the benefit of our own ability to do work. That is our right to our labor. The right to use it to benefit ourselves.

But just as we cannot be forced to do work, so other people cannot be forced to give us work. So the right to labor is NOT the right to do a job. It's just the right to benefit (i.e. get paid) IF we do a job.

So who then has the right to dictate the terms of a job? That right is shared by two parties -- the employer who owns the job and the state which represents the interests of the community in which the job exists.

If you look for a job in someone else's company, then your employer will dictate the terms of the job because he knows what he needs, and that's what he will pay for. Nothing else. Haven't you ever passed on a job because the job description was something you didn't want to do? That's not the employer's fault and it's not a violation of anyone's rights, either. He's offering you money to help him realize his dreams, not yours.

Let's say you decide to open your own business. Then you do own the job you're doing, but you still share control of it with the state which still has the power to dictate some of the terms, and that affects everything from the cost of running your business to requirements to get a license. Like the private employer, the state is looking to satisfy its own interests, not yours. They have the right to do so as long as they are benefitting society at large by it. Your own 4 statements admit that.

No one is obligated to give you work. They are even less obligated to give you work you like. Your right to labor is not the same as your right to happiness. Not being able to do a job the way you want to is not a violation of your rights.

Let's say you decide to open your own business. Then you do own the job you're doing, but you still share control of it with the state which still has the power to dictate some of the terms, and that affects everything from the cost of running your business to requirements to get a license. Like the private employer, the state is looking to satisfy its own interests, not yours. They have the right to do so as long as they are benefitting society at large by it. Your own 4 statements admit that.

Exactly. I cannot run any business exactly as I might like. I might think it is immoral to put a limit on serving alcohol, but I cannot get a liquor license if I serve alcohol to minors.

As a server, had an obviously pregnant woman ever ordered alcohol, I would have been morally obligated (by my own view) to refuse. My employer likely would have fired me and, had the license I had to get to serve alcohol required me to serve it without regard to my personal moral views, might have lost my license as well. (Yes, the county I used to work in individually licensed servers to serve alcohol in addition to giving out a general liquor license to a restaurant - they made more money that way).

<snip>
Statement #5
The pharmacist should be allowed to refuse for whatever reason he so chooses. Whether the judgement is based on religion, disagreement with the doctor, or finance is irrelevant.

The morals behind the reasons do not matter, all that matter is free acceptance.

Remember, you are the one who is attempting to force someone to accept a contract not me.

You are the one who is forcing someone to subjegate themselves to another, not me.
Statement #5 not only contradicts reality, it contradicts the specific realties you acknowledge in Statements 1, 2 and 3. If the limitations imposed by society are legitimate, then why should the pharmacist be allowed to violate them?

On the subject of subjugation -- According to you, the pharmacist can claim that being required to follow the law is a violation of his rights, even if it does not violate the rights of other pharmacists. According to you, he can also claim that being required to follow the law would be an unjust subjugation of his rights to the state or to someone else's rights.

Okay, but doesn't it work both ways? Can I, as the female customer denied my emergency contraception and thus forced to undergo a pregnancy or abortion, claim that you have violated my rights by subjugating my rights to yours?

If you should be able to protect your rights by refusing to follow the law the requires you to dispense medicines, why can't I protect my rights by refusing to follow that law the prohibits robbery? Why shouldn't I just take the emergency medications I need, if you refuse to sell them to me?

The thing is that all the changes "count", just certain ones delineate certain conditions. Why do we call a zygote something other than "sperm and egg combined"?
Convenience, I expect.
Why do we say that the development of a new human being begins at fertilization instead of at meiosis?
Good question.
Why do we delineate meiosis as having a beginning and ending?
Convenience, again.

Look, scientific discussions would get extraordinarily wordy and difficult to read (as if they are not already) if we did not invent terms and decide upon standardized "beginnings" and "endings" to continuous processes. We only make a mistake when we forget that "we" did, in fact, invent these conventions. They are not "real" "objective" distinctions that could not have been made elsewhere without hurting the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Thus, scientists should continue to use the accepted terminology, unless they have a good reason to change it (such as, for instance, it is misleading--again, a matter of expediency rather than "fact").

The problem is when people start to use these terms in political debates as if scientific conventions are more than conventions.

You have shown that others use the terms in a political manner.

They certainly do.

I was taught the term a certain way, and, while it was not justified in this way in any class, I was able to justifiy it without any reference to contraceptives or abortificants.

So, you knew it was right because your teacher told you so, and then you constructed a justification for that view. No doubt other scientists justify it in the same way. Historically, however, the terminology preceded the justification, as I have shown--just as it did in your personal experience.

Your original post seemed to be suggesting (and you much more clearly stated later), that my use of a given term was political.

Only if you believe that the term describes an "objective" reality that could not have been as accurately described otherwise. In that case, whether you personally intend it to be used politically, you contribute to a culture that thinks we can win political debates by referring to the "definitions" of terms--which are themselves subjective, even if the subjective reasons that you hold them are not political. (In your case, the fact that your teacher told you so seems to be the subjective root of your definition.)

If something is true of the world, it it is true of the world.

Sure. And one can determine a continuous chain of events that begins with sperm finding an egg (even this beginning is subjective... there are other events without which this would not have happened), and which may conclude in the birth of a child (again a subjective end). What is not "true of the world" is these beginning and end-points. The world does not have beginning and end-points. We make them up to make sense of the world.

I'm just going by the general definition of "carrying". It isn't a value judgement - it is a use of words.

I know some people who are "carrying" HIV. I have myself been the "carrier" of various bacteria and viruses over the years. It would seem that the "general definition" (even in medical usage) of "carrying" is "bearing in one's body."

If a woman has either in her fallopian tube, I will have no way of knowing it is there until later on, when further symptoms develop.

So? What happened to, "If something is true of the world, it it is true of the world." Either she has a developing human in her tubes, or a chia pet, or nothing... regardless of whether you know at the time. Right?

I thought I was the one who advocated "when she knows" as a suitable definition of pregnancy?

We are talking about how to define a particular term, not every single possible term that could be defined along the way.

Right. But the point is that we choose some of those terms as "important"--important enough, for instance, that more people than just specialists "should" know them--while others are regarded as unimportant.

Value judgments. You can't escape them.

Of course, I don't see philosophy as simply a study of reading the opinions of others. It is important to do so, but it is more than that as well.

Of course it is. We are engaged in the philosophy of science right now. You are supporting the now-defunct position that science is objective. I am practicing the twentieth-century criticisms of this view.

It's like a beautiful dance.

;)

They would most likely get very sick.
They are not meant to protect the well being of society, they are meant protect the well-being of the individual.
Meant to as in intended to, or meant to as in according to the will of Vittos Ordination2? If the former, you are incorrect, if the later, that is a matter of opinion (ie subjective) so not something we can settle on in the same matter as we can settle 'matters of fact'.

However, all of them are restrictions that make sure the person providing the service is qualified to provide the service. This legislation makes no judgement on the qualification of the service provider, it only forces them to perform a specific service.
There are many restrictions applying to professional standards and the provision of services, many of them do not relate to qualifications of staff/service providers, but to the manner in which the service provision is carried out.

I know that, but my comment was stating that the standard was unjust.
I have no idea why you bothered to do so - so far as I can tell it's niether here nor there in the specific context of my comments....unless there is some point I have entirely missed?:confused: :confused:

What is the source of rights outside the context of government?
In societies that do not have government it may be tradition, the will of community members, or the will of some community members, and usually it is some admixture of two or more of the above.

That is a privelege not a right.
No it is a right in a great number of societies. More to the point it is an example of an actual right in the particular society we are discussing.

It is a privelege because it is not a universal application of rights. By guaranteeing that someone can receive Plan B, others must be denied the right to run their business as they choose.
In the US there isnt an unqualified right to run a business as one pleases. This right you refer to simply does not exist.

If government made no laws relating to pharmaceutical sales, would there be no right to be a pharmacist? In the absense of government, does one require a license to be a pharmacist?
Irelevent.

The fact of the matter is that the government restricts a great deal of the population from being pharmacists, it doesn't grant people the benefit of being a pharmacist.
I'm not sure what you think you mean, a privledge is something that can be granted or not - ie it is discretionary. You are simply saying that being a pharmacist is a benefit that is granted on a discretionary basis - that's what posters have been trying to tell you - it is a privledge.

This is not about someone who isn't qualified, it is about someone who is forced to give up their livelihood because of moral convictions.
It is about someone whose choices leave them unqualified to do the job. Being qualified isnt just about knowledge and certificates, it is about capacity to do the job in the particular context concerned. It is tautological to state that if an aspect of being a pharmacist in a particular context is meeting the requirement to provide plan B on presentation of a perscription, then a pharmacist who wont do so is not qualified to be a pharmacist in that context.

And the government is taking the options away from the pharmacist, by the threat of violence.
The government takes away the option to drive a car if you refuse to abide by relevent laws.

This is not a question of whether they are right, it is a question of whether they should be limited from professions because of their morals.
NO, it is a question as to whether or not some particular personal moral choices of some particular people should over-ride law.

Consider a driver's license. The state has said that it is a bad idea for anyone to be able to drive therefore in order to gain permission one must pass a test and recive state permission in the form of a license b/c then we know the person is capable of driving. The state also requires the person to follow various laws when driving if they wish to maintain this license, including new laws that are issued after he gets the license, even if they conflict w/ a moral belief. If Bob has 20/40 vision and has a religion that opposes corrective lenses and the state changes the law for minimum eyesight to drive from 20/45 to 20/35 he must wear glasses or find a new mode of transportation.

Now consider a pharmasist's license. The state has said that it is a bad idea for anyone to be able to sell certain types of drugs as they could be dangerous if not distributed properly therefore in order to gain permission one must pass a test and recive state permission in the form of a license b/c then we know the person is capable of distributing drugs properly. The state also requires the person to follow various laws when practicing if they wish to maintain this license, including new laws that are issued after he gets the license, even if they conflict w/ a moral belief. If Bob opposes plan B and the state passes a new law requiring pharmacists to sell it, he must either suck it up and agree to sell or he must find a new line of work.

Consider a driver's license. The state has said that it is a bad idea for anyone to be able to drive therefore in order to gain permission one must pass a test and recive state permission in the form of a license b/c then we know the person is capable of driving. The state also requires the person to follow various laws when driving if they wish to maintain this license, including new laws that are issued after he gets the license, even if they conflict w/ a moral belief. If Bob has 20/40 vision and has a religion that opposes corrective lenses and the state changes the law for minimum eyesight to drive from 20/45 to 20/35 he must wear glasses or find a new mode of transportation.

Now consider a pharmasist's license. The state has said that it is a bad idea for anyone to be able to sell certain types of drugs as they could be dangerous if not distributed properly therefore in order to gain permission one must pass a test and recive state permission in the form of a license b/c then we know the person is capable of distributing drugs properly. The state also requires the person to follow various laws when practicing if they wish to maintain this license, including new laws that are issued after he gets the license, even if they conflict w/ a moral belief. If Bob opposes plan B and the state passes a new law requiring pharmacists to sell it, he must either suck it up and agree to sell or he must find a new line of work.
It seems so simple, doesn't it? And yet some people have a problem with it.

Unfortunately, I must bow out at this point. I'll try to keep up, but it'll be spotty for a week because I'm quitting my job (:D) and I have to train the temp whose replacing me. No forum-ing when there's someone staring over your shoulder all day long. Vittos, I leave you in the capable hands of all these others.

pharmacists should be obliged to follow standard procedures.. I mean.. what would happen if the police and judges didn't really bother with the law because they didn't believe in it, and rather followed their own laws?


That is a completely different situation. Healthcare isa buisness as enforcing the law is a matter of public safety.

Look, scientific discussions would get extraordinarily wordy and difficult to read (as if they are not already) if we did not invent terms and decide upon standardized "beginnings" and "endings" to continuous processes. We only make a mistake when we forget that "we" did, in fact, invent these conventions. They are not "real" "objective" distinctions that could not have been made elsewhere without hurting the advancement of scientific knowledge.

They are "objective" distinctions, insofar as anything can be objective. But I never suggested that we did not decide upon a standard.

The problem is when people start to use these terms in political debates as if scientific conventions are more than conventions.

I can't think of a debate in which the particular instance that is the beginning or ending of pregnancy would actually be useful in the first place.

Only if you believe that the term describes an "objective" reality that could not have been as accurately described otherwise.

I've pointed out more than once that we could have described it otherwise. We could call the period of time from fertilization to implantation "bracket", the period from implantation to the beginning of movement "smadge", and the period from there to birth, "stoof."

Sure. And one can determine a continuous chain of events that begins with sperm finding an egg (even this beginning is subjective... there are other events without which this would not have happened), and which may conclude in the birth of a child (again a subjective end). What is not "true of the world" is these beginning and end-points. The world does not have beginning and end-points. We make them up to make sense of the world.

The beginning and endpoints are certainly there - and therefore true of the world. We don't make them up. We simply choose definitions of our words based upon them (making them beginnings and endings).

I know some people who are "carrying" HIV. I have myself been the "carrier" of various bacteria and viruses over the years. It would seem that the "general definition" (even in medical usage) of "carrying" is "bearing in one's body."

One who is carrying HIV has it attached to their own DNA - attached to their bodies.

So? What happened to, "If something is true of the world, it it is true of the world." Either she has a developing human in her tubes, or a chia pet, or nothing... regardless of whether you know at the time. Right?

Right. But the distinction is useless to me if I cannot tell.

I thought I was the one who advocated "when she knows" as a suitable definition of pregnancy?

"When she knows" means that a woman could give birth without ever being pregnant. Is that really a useful medical distinction?

Of course it is. We are engaged in the philosophy of science right now. You are supporting the now-defunct position that science is objective.

I have seen nothing to dispute this. The processes of science are objective. Human beings are not.

Meanwhile, when it comes to purely philosophical discussions, there really is no such thing as a "defunct" position.

That is a completely different situation. Healthcare isa buisness as enforcing the law is a matter of public safety.

You don't think healthcare is a matter of public safety?

They are "objective" distinctions, insofar as anything can be objective.
That is to say, not at all.

I can't think of a debate in which the particular instance that is the beginning or ending of pregnancy would actually be useful in the first place.

Not only did this discussion begin with one, but it also instigated the change in usage in the first place. People who get upset over "abortion" regard it as "terminating a pregnancy." While many of them also find "contraception" distasteful, they are generally more willing to listen to reason if a procedure is considered "contraception" rather than "abortion." Thus, the point at which conception occurs and pregnancy begins is highly significant to discussions of particular procedures... as, for instance, the "morning-after pill."

One who is carrying HIV has it attached to their own DNA - attached to their bodies.

And the fertilized egg manages not to touch anything on its way to implantation? Even if it doesn't, you're really stretching. If a virus attaches only to my blood cells, is it attached to me? I still "carry" it, just as a woman "carries" cells that are floating around in her bodily fluids.

"When she knows" means that a woman could give birth without ever being pregnant. Is that really a useful medical distinction?

Well, considering that if she never knew she never would have sought medical treatment... yeah, why not?

I have seen nothing to dispute this. The processes of science are objective. Human beings are not.

Well, until you can get human beings out of the "processes of science," they are in the same boat.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore the evidence that the "process of science" that decided pregnancy starts at implantation and not fertilization was anything but "objective."

Meanwhile, when it comes to purely philosophical discussions, there really is no such thing as a "defunct" position.

"Defunct," meaning "no longer living, existing, or functioning." In the context of the philosophy of science, "no longer informing active professional debate." It is of purely historical interest.

You'll note this is not an objective definition. Clearly I value "professional" debate over non-professional debate, and define "defunct" accordingly.

:)

[Redundant wheel-spinning omitted.]

Can't this thread be sumed up thusly?
Vittos Ordination2: People should not have to keep their statutory or contractual obligations if at some point they decide they don't feel like it for religious reasons.

Assembling mob: WTF?! A Nooooooo.

Can't this thread be sumed up thusly?
Vittos Ordination2: People should not have to keep their statutory or contractual obligations if at some point they decide they don't feel like it for religious reasons.

Assembling mob: WTF?! A Nooooooo.

That about covers it.

Actually, I think something closer would be something along the lines of:

Vittos: I disagree that anyone, especially pharmacists, should have to do any particular thing at work, regardless of their job description, because that would be in violation of their natural right to self-determination of labour! *begins defining terms in a completely capitalist way, completely counter to good sense or even reality, and expects everyone else to debate him with regards to the terms despite the fact that they make discussion extremely cumbersome*

Assembling Mob (Person 1): WTF.
Assembling Mob (Person 2): I think my brain just broke.
Assembling Mob (Person 3): *nose starts bleeding*
Assembling Mob (Person 1): Ow. Ow... Owowowowow...

I don't believe any free (read: not in prison) American should be forced to take any action that violates his principles or his conscience. Freedom is a right for the pharmacists, just as it's a right for the ladies in question.

Of course, pharmacies also have the right to not hire pharmacists who refuse to perform their assigned duties.

I don't believe any free (read: not in prison) American should be forced to take any action that violates his principles or his conscience. Freedom is a right for the pharmacists, just as it's a right for the ladies in question.

Not really. It's more of a responsibility than a right in my opinion. A KKK member who becomes a patrolman in a black neighborhood with the intent of not carrying out his duties (keeping the peace/law enforcement/protect and serve) because it violates his principles should be sacked on the spot.

Same with any pharmacist who works for a company that stocks such goods so he can go "Nyah! Nyah! You can't have them because I say so"

When you take on a job with a company, you agree to render a service to that company in exchange for remuneration. Thats a trade of service and responsibility for cash. By not rendering that stipulated service (filling prescriptions that do not interfere with other drugs) because it goes against your own principles is no more than a statement by that person that he will no longer comply by the contract that was established when he signed on.

The company is completely within its rights to sack the person for willfully sabotaging the business by refusing to work, even if it is for certain cases only.

If you cannot fit yourself to the job, then you damn well don't work in it. People trying to fit jobs to themselves, especially in a regulated business like pharmaceutical dispensaries, cause disruptions and like any disruptive presence in the operation of business, should be fixed or removed.

I don't believe any free (read: not in prison) American should be forced to take any action that violates his principles or his conscience. Freedom is a right for the pharmacists, just as it's a right for the ladies in question.

Of course, pharmacies also have the right to not hire pharmacists who refuse to perform their assigned duties.

You make the gross assumption that you have a right to have a job.

Your "rights" are limited for good reason. For example, if your rights overrided your responsibilities:

A doctor can refuse treatment of a homosexual because they are an affront to his religion.

A doctor can refuse helping an injured person because they can't pay.

and so on.

If you have problems doing the job, then get another one.

A pharmi is supposed to dispence medicince, etc. Not morality.....

I suppose there is another thread on this somewhere, but I can't get the search function to work.

On the Daily Show, there was a story about Illinois creating a law that pharmacists were required to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill.

I am for a woman's right to her body, but I cannot fathom how a woman's right to her body can extend from her body over a pharmaceutical counter and encompass the pharmacist.

Maybe I am being obtuse, but I strongly oppose this. What are your thoughts.
It dosent but what does is his fucking job requirements.

If you are stupid enough to choose a job filling perscriptions when you are incapable of fufilling it for everyone ... get a different job you are obviously not qualified

I don't believe any free (read: not in prison) American should be forced to take any action that violates his principles or his conscience. Freedom is a right for the pharmacists, just as it's a right for the ladies in question.

Of course, pharmacies also have the right to not hire pharmacists who refuse to perform their assigned duties.
He dosent he can get another fucking job

Same reason vegans (moral) shouldent work in a meat packing plant.

You got to be an idiot to pick a job you know you cant do

I usually find Vittos most reasonable, but I think he's wrong on this.
If you are going to work for a chain that fills these prescriptions, you fill them. It's different if you own you're own shop. But your employer has a right to demand you do your job. Don't like it, quit.

I usually find Vittos most reasonable, but I think he's wrong on this.
If you are going to work for a chain that fills these prescriptions, you fill them. It's different if you own you're own shop. But your employer has a right to demand you do your job. Don't like it, quit.
Agreed

Personally I would not be hurt if some of the pharmacies that consistently let their workers discriminate against clients get bitch slapped with a few discrimination lawsuits

I usually find Vittos most reasonable, but I think he's wrong on this.
If you are going to work for a chain that fills these prescriptions, you fill them. It's different if you own you're own shop. But your employer has a right to demand you do your job. Don't like it, quit.

I disagree. If you're going to get into a business that is already regulated by the government, then you should follow those regulations exactly. If you don't like the fact that you might be forced to dispense medications that you disagree with, don't get into the business of dispensing medications to begin with. It is different if you're refusing to stock condoms because it violates your morals; condoms are not controlled substances. Getting a license to be a pharmacist is the government entrusting you to handle products that are otherwise illegal to sell. If you violate that trust by refusing to dispense a medication for anything other than a medical reason, out you go.

I disagree. If you're going to get into a business that is already regulated by the government, then you should follow those regulations exactly. If you don't like the fact that you might be forced to dispense medications that you disagree with, don't get into the business of dispensing medications to begin with. It is different if you're refusing to stock condoms because it violates your morals; condoms are not controlled substances. Getting a license to be a pharmacist is the government entrusting you to handle products that are otherwise illegal to sell. If you violate that trust by refusing to dispense a medication for anything other than a medical reason, out you go.
Maybe this should be handled on the business end as well, The pharmacies themselves are a government permit regulated level themselves. If you can not live up making sure your business can do business without discriminating you should not be allowed to dispense drugs at all.

Maybe this should be handled on the business end as well, The pharmacies themselves are a government permit regulated level themselves. If you can not live up making sure your business can do business without discriminating you should not be allowed to dispense drugs at all.

It will eventually come to that. A friend who is a peds infectious disease doc said he will prescribe the pill for women to regulate their cycles.

How would a "moralist" know that? For that matter why does he even have to know that?

I can't remember where but he read about one ass who would not give out the pill because it was immoral.

Sorry dude, GTFO. Let somebody who wants to help people do the job.....

Maybe this should be handled on the business end as well, The pharmacies themselves are a government permit regulated level themselves. If you can not live up making sure your business can do business without discriminating you should not be allowed to dispense drugs at all.

Pharmacies operate on the good graces of the federal government; without their approval you cannot be a pharmacy, with good reason. If you refuse to fill a prescription because it violates your morals, then you clearly cannot be trusted to be a pharmacist as it is defined by the government, and you should no longer be able to be a pharmacist.

The thing that it seems escapes some people is that these people aren't selling apples and bananas. These are controlled substances. Otherwise completely illegal to posess or distribute. There's no "right" to distribute these drugs as you please. You must distribute them exactly as the law dictates.

Pharmacies operate on the good graces of the federal government; without their approval you cannot be a pharmacy, with good reason. If you refuse to fill a prescription because it violates your morals, then you clearly cannot be trusted to be a pharmacist as it is defined by the government, and you should no longer be able to be a pharmacist.

The thing that it seems escapes some people is that these people aren't selling apples and bananas. These are controlled substances. Otherwise completely illegal to posess or distribute. There's no "right" to distribute these drugs as you please. You must distribute them exactly as the law dictates.

Exactly. Take for example Scientology. If you heard Tom Cruise, then depression is a bunch of BS. If we had a scientologist Pharmi.....

Exactly. Take for example Scientology. If you heard Tom Cruise, then depression is a bunch of BS. If we had a scientologist Pharmi.....
Yeah personally I am not for morals dictating job performance ... that is too loose.

Of course and they never allow exceptions for anything but the major religions. Everyone else would be thrown out on their ass.

See Statement 1...oh, wait...

Note that I said that they should NOT be allowed to ignore the law, I only said that they should not have to ignore the law.
If they're refusing to do the job they're being paid to without legal coercion, it would at least give their employers the opportunity to fire the swine without being sued for discrimination.

Your opinion is obviously not universally applicable, as you would obviously not force a cook to fix you a hamburger. Because of this you can only say that it is a judgement call and not some black and white dichotomy.
Strange: I rather get the impression from most of this thread that you're convinced that your own opinion is universally applicable.

Ewww ewww I forgot one!

A Christian Scientist Pharmacist!

"You don't need insulin! You just need to pray!!!"

Ewww ewww I forgot one!

A Christian Scientist Pharmacist!

"You don't need insulin! You just need to pray!!!"
But some how I am sure they would not be allowed use their morals as justification for not doing their job but others are ... gah

Maybe if more guys were not so cavalier with this attitude
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/regis.jpg

and thought about birth control, there would be less need for a morning after pill. Not that anyone should be denied one, but there are better methods.

Prevention is not only the woman's problem, which I think is where we get a lot of this "morning after" idea from.

Ewww ewww I forgot one!

A Christian Scientist Pharmacist!

"You don't need insulin! You just need to pray!!!"
There have been a few cases of Christian Scientists refusing to allow their kids to be perscribed insulin: at least a couple I've seen cited ended with the kids dying. Mercifully, these bastards are unlikely to want to work in a chemist in the first place.

That is to say, not at all.

That all depends on your definition. Like I said before, I reject your definition of objective because it is effectively useless. If you define something as impossible, it is quite obviously impossible.

Not only did this discussion begin with one,

No, it didn't. This discussion began with a dispute as to what constitutes a pregnancy and what does not - and nothing more. You might have been trying to prove a political point, but I was not.

People who get upset over "abortion" regard it as "terminating a pregnancy."

Wrong. I have yet to see a person who cared at all about whether or not it was terminating a pregnancy. The question has always been whether or not it is killing a human being, which has little to nothing to do with when the condition known as pregnancy starts.

And the fertilized egg manages not to touch anything on its way to implantation?

It manages not to be attached to anything.

If a virus attaches only to my blood cells, is it attached to me?

Of course it is. It is attached to cells that make up a part of your body.

Well, considering that if she never knew she never would have sought medical treatment... yeah, why not?

It becomes a useless definition that delineates nothing.

Well, until you can get human beings out of the "processes of science," they are in the same boat.

The process itself does not have to be subjective for people to inject subjectivity into it.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore the evidence that the "process of science" that decided pregnancy starts at implantation and not fertilization was anything but "objective."

I haven't ignored anything, and find it rather interesting. It is, of course, rather bad science. It wasn't, however, published in a journal or anything - it was simply a terminology change, ostensibly for unscientific reasons. Names of genes and processes get changed the same way - and one must simply either justify things in a different way, or realize that some distinctions are completely unnecessary. Why are certain proteins in insects named something different than in human beings and why is insect blood called "hemolymph"? You want the honest reason? People don't like to act like humans and insects are at all related. So an honest scientist simply has to ignore the silly distinctions.

"Defunct," meaning "no longer living, existing, or functioning." In the context of the philosophy of science, "no longer informing active professional debate." It is of purely historical interest.

Perhaps to you. Most scientists I know wouldn't consider it defunct. Of course, the fact that some people once upon a time decided they didn't agree with something, from a philosophical point of view, doesn't make it "defunct". Pure philosophy is one of the most subjective areas we can get into, and thus nothing can automatically be said to be wrong.

Maybe if more guys were not so cavalier with this attitude
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/regis.jpg

and thought about birth control, there would be less need for a morning after pill. Not that anyone should be denied one, but there are better methods.

Prevention is not only the woman's problem, which I think is where we get a lot of this "morning after" idea from.

Most of the need for a morning after pill comes from possible failures in regular contraception (ie. broken condom/missed regular birth control pills) or rape. There are the occasional, "Wow, I wasn't planning on having sex last night and I did, and there was no condom," but they aren't really the majority of women who use the morning after pill - especially considering it can have some hefty side-effects.

1. Throughout this thread, you have been saying that pharmacists who want to refuse to fill certain prescriptions should be able to do so regardless of whether that would be in violation of the law.

Statement 1

You base this on your assertions (which are disputed) that most laws are unjust impositions on personal liberty, that laws dictating how licensed professions must be conducted are unjust impositions, and that every individual as a "natural right" to do pursue whatever career they choose on whatever terms they desire.

Statement 2

This law is unjust as it forces someone into a contract where there is no mutual agreement.

Laws that require someone to reasonably uphold their end of a mutually agreed upon contract are just.

You have also disputed the fact that the state has the right and power to dictate the terms of licenses it issues (whether that right and power are natural to the state or usurped by it), in spite of the fact that that's clearly how the system works in reality.

Statement 1

You have insisted that pharmacists can exist without regulation and/or licensing from the government, again in contradiction of reality. Are you now saying that you DID NOT mean that pharmacists should ignore such laws/regulations/licenses? Are you saying that you've just been arguing theory here? And are you now saying that pharmacists who do break such laws/regulations/licenses deserve to be punished for it?

I have already stated that I am willing to retract any statement that says that pharmacists can disobey the law.

I have been arguing that pharmacist should and are required to follow the law or they will lose their livelihood, meaning the law should be removed.

4. But you can't run a sole-proprietor pharmacy without a state license, and if the state license for pharmacies has the same restrictions as the license for pharmacists, you're right back where you started.

(How am I the one going in circles?)

You were addressing my comment about violence being used to stop people from practicing pharmaceuticals without a license.

If you attempt to run a sole-proprietary pharmacy without a state license, you are violently stopped from doing it. But we have already found that your definition of violence and mine differ.

5. Only the law hasn't been removed. I refer to item 1 above.

I am going in circles because people keep taking me back to my initial statement.

THE LAW SHOULD BE REMOVED.

6. Go ahead and object -- and feel free to argue it for 2 days :D -- but in practice no one's objection matters unless and until they succeed in getting the rules changed. See item 1 above.

Agreed

7. Only they're not allowed to. As a licensed real estate broker or agent, you would not be allowed to refuse to sell a house to someone because you don't like their politics or religious beliefs.

Statement #3
Society operates as a trade-off of freedoms as a result of self-interest. In the absense of society there are only those rights that are inherent to existence as limited by nature. Once we enter society, we agree to exchange a portion of our rights and liberties in exchange for the safety of other's limited rights.

If I give the right of the pharmacist to receive service, I retain the right to refuse service. Trade-off.

I had that problem once. I ran out of Humalog insulin while on vacation and the ONLY pharmacy on the island had some guy working who wouldn't give it to me on the basis that "If God wishes me to live, I'll live." It took a LOT of will power to not slap that man.

Honestly, I do not see the difference between that refusal to give a person a prescription and the refusal to give a person any other prescription.

You can disagree with my views; that's fine. I'm just putting out my opinion on the matter.

If I had been there, I might have slapped him for you (than run in case he calls cops).
But I agree a prescription is a prescription.

(On a side note, why would a person like that decide to be a pharmacist?)

For the power! He can choose whether you live or die! He has absolute control over your prescriptions. :D

There have been a few cases of Christian Scientists refusing to allow their kids to be perscribed insulin: at least a couple I've seen cited ended with the kids dying. Mercifully, these bastards are unlikely to want to work in a chemist in the first place.

I know a guy who grew up in a Christian Science family - he was on the football team at a Christian Science high school and has bones that still don't sit properly because of it. He is also pretty rabidly anti-religion.

The area of healthcare is one of the few areas that I tend to think parents should not be able to legally force their religious views on their children. There's no way that Christian Scientist parents should be allowed to watch their children die just because of their own belief that a person shouldn't seek medical care. But, it is perfectly legal for them to do it.

Of course, once upon a time, it wasn't legal, and the problems were still pretty major. My advisor is an anesthesiologist in liver transplants. With Jehovah's Witnesses, they do all they can to avoid giving a blood transfusion, as Jehovah's Witnesses (who often will take organ donations) believe that receiving a blood transfusion is a mortal sin. These days, if the person signs all the paperwork, they don't give a transfusion - even if it means the person will die. But it wasn't always that way. They did a transplant on a young girl, and although they tried to get through the surgery with no blood from another person, there were complications and they ended up giving her a transfusion. Upon being informed of this, her parents put her up for adoption, because they didn't want to raise someone who was going to hell.

*Sigh*

I am omitting most of your response, not because I do not find it interesting, but because we clearly disagree about the definition of "objectivity" on a most fundamental level, and that does not appear likely to change.

If I may make a scientific inference, however, based on others' experience... If you actually do become a scientist, no sooner will you have "gotten into the game" publishing your own articles and attending scientific conferences, than you will realize that the text-book definitions of the "scientific method" and the "objectivity of science" have little or nothing to do with how science is actually practiced.

But, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It is, of course, rather bad science. It wasn't, however, published in a journal or anything - it was simply a terminology change, ostensibly for unscientific reasons. Names of genes and processes get changed the same way - and one must simply either justify things in a different way, or realize that some distinctions are completely unnecessary. Why are certain proteins in insects named something different than in human beings and why is insect blood called "hemolymph"? You want the honest reason? People don't like to act like humans and insects are at all related. So an honest scientist simply has to ignore the silly distinctions.

Subjective definitions... and precisely what I've been saying. An honest scientist has to recognize the difference between defensible scientific findings (which are still subjective, if at least at the level of what a scientist decides to study and what he/she decides to ignore), and definitions and distinctions that are highly subjective, even when the scientific community has reached a consensus (or near consensus) about their subjective usage.


Finally, if you really are planning to become a scientist, I would strongly encourage you to read some legitimate philosophy of science... or, if nothing else, James D. Watson's The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. At the very least, you should find that interesting as a student of biology... but I find it even more interesting as a budding young scientist trying to figure out how science actually happens, rather than how we like to tell the public it happens.

:)

That all depends on your definition. Like I said before, I reject your definition of objective because it is effectively useless. If you define something as impossible, it is quite obviously impossible.

Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to continue the "objectivity" debate, but I couldn't resist this one.

Who says a definition has to be useful or possible?

Try "omniscient," or "omnipotent." If they apply to anything, it is certainly not in this natural world... and I for one suspect they apply to nothing at all.

The same is true of "objective."

Every human being has the right to their own labor.

Exactly.

While regulations on how you handle your own labor are just, regulations on who gets your labor are not.

This means that right to benefit from the fruits of their own labor (i.e. get paid for work). But this principle does not say what kind of labor we're talking about. That's because we're not talking about any particular kind of job. We are talking about the ability to work. You own your abilities. My ability to do secretarial work or teach art or do graphic design belongs to me. Your ability to broker real estate deals belongs to you. A pharmacist's ability to dispense medicines belongs to him.

If the right to labor only gives us the right to benefit from our labor, do we have no right to choose what labor we perform? Do you really believe that government can tell you what profession you have to take?

If the government were to take a psychological survey and then decide that you were required to be a janitor, you would not be opposed to that because you don't have the right to choose what specific labor you perform, right?

I seriously doubt you would because the right to labor includes the right to control your labor.

Nobody has the right to force us to do work for them to deny us the benefit of our own ability to do work. That is our right to our labor. The right to use it to benefit ourselves.

Correct, except you want to force the pharmacist to use his labor to benefit the customer. The pharmacist obviously does not believe he would benefit, otherwise he would freely sell the medication.

But just as we cannot be forced to do work, so other people cannot be forced to give us work. So the right to labor is NOT the right to do a job. It's just the right to benefit (i.e. get paid) IF we do a job.

That IF is the right to labor. The only way we can control whether we truly benefit from labor is the ability to refuse, otherwise (because our labor is the application of our abilities and not a specific job) others would be deciding what truly benefits you, and they will invariably make decisions that are biased towards themselves.

If you look for a job in someone else's company, then your employer will dictate the terms of the job because he knows what he needs, and that's what he will pay for. Nothing else. Haven't you ever passed on a job because the job description was something you didn't want to do? That's not the employer's fault and it's not a violation of anyone's rights, either. He's offering you money to help him realize his dreams, not yours.

Correct, but I cannot be forced to apply my labor to his benefit, because I have the right to control my labor. Likewise, this pharmacist should not be forced to use his labor to the benefit of the customer, he has the right to refuse if he feels he will not be benefitting from his own labor.

Let's say you decide to open your own business. Then you do own the job you're doing, but you still share control of it with the state which still has the power to dictate some of the terms, and that affects everything from the cost of running your business to requirements to get a license. Like the private employer, the state is looking to satisfy its own interests, not yours. They have the right to do so as long as they are benefitting society at large by it. Your own 4 statements admit that.

My own four statements admit that the state can require the business owner to run his business in a way that he will fulfill the end of his contract. While the right to labor allows someone to control their labor, it does not allow the person to harm another.

I have NOT said that government should require you to work for the benefit of society.

No one is obligated to give you work. They are even less obligated to give you work you like. Your right to labor is not the same as your right to happiness. Not being able to do a job the way you want to is not a violation of your rights.

Not only is no one obligated to give you work, it is impossible for anyone to give you work. Only you can create your own work.

So what you mean is that no one is obligated to pay you for work.

In this sense, your right to labor gives one the ability work in anyway one sees fit, but one don't have the right to benefit from it. You could build 20 chairs in your garage, but if no one buys them, you are left with 20 chairs that you don't need and do not benefit.

Where government intercedes is in determining when someone uses their labor to deny the rights of others. As is obvious in my first post, I do not believe the pharmacist is denying the rights of the customer in this situation, so there is no need to revoke his right to labor.

Then he should either refuse to work somewhere that carries this medicine or quit his job.

To change my analogy, if I view that veal is cruel and then go work for a company that has us slaughter all animals, even baby cattle and I refuse to kill the baby cattle, then I should either quit my job for that company and find a company that lets me be a butcher without killing baby animals or be fired.

You are asking this particular pharmacist to leave his religion, leave his home, or leave his career.

Pharmacists go to medical school now? Why should they know better than a doctor how to treat a patient then? Their job is to look for conflicting medications, not to say "oh hey, this nice herbal treatment would be better than this tested medication that actually works and your doctor reccomended" and how one person gets to force their religious views on another through their employment is beyond me. If you don't believe in certain medications, don't get a job that involves working with them.

They do not know better, they should not be allowed to prescribe alternative medicines, however they do know best whether their own labor will benefit or harm them. They should not be forced to use their labor if it personally harms them.

Now please remember my the first part of this post before you say that they can choose to use their labor elsewhere.

Statement 1

Statement 2

1. This law is unjust as it forces someone into a contract where there is no mutual agreement.

Laws that require someone to reasonably uphold their end of a mutually agreed upon contract are just.

Statement 1

2. I have already stated that I am willing to retract any statement that says that pharmacists can disobey the law.

I have been arguing that pharmacist should and are required to follow the law or they will lose their livelihood, meaning the law should be removed.

(How am I the one going in circles?)

3. You were addressing my comment about violence being used to stop people from practicing pharmaceuticals without a license.

If you attempt to run a sole-proprietary pharmacy without a state license, you are violently stopped from doing it. But we have already found that your definition of violence and mine differ.

4. I am going in circles because people keep taking me back to my initial statement.

THE LAW SHOULD BE REMOVED.

Agreed

Statement #3
Society operates as a trade-off of freedoms as a result of self-interest. In the absense of society there are only those rights that are inherent to existence as limited by nature. 5. Once we enter society, we agree to exchange a portion of our rights and liberties in exchange for the safety of other's limited rights.

If I give the right of the pharmacist to receive service, I retain the right to refuse service. Trade-off.


It seems clear to me from this post that you have been arguing theory, not reality, but your understanding of certain facts is still flawed, such as:

1. The "contract" is mutual. The terms and obligations are clearly set out in both the professional oath of pharmacists (so they know that they will be asked to voluntarily comply with laws dictated by the state), and in the license issued by the state which they should have read before signing, just like any other contract. By signing these documents, the pharmacist acknowledges that he has been informed of the requirements of the job and that he voluntarily accepts them. One of the terms of all government issued licenses is that laws passed after the date of issuance of the license will have the same effect and be as binding as if they had existed at the time of issuance. Even with that proviso, the pharmacist still goes ahead and signs, thus voluntarily binding himself in advance. He has no basis later to claim that he is being coerced into doing something against his will. Escpecially as he can choose to quit being a pharmacist in the state that passed the law he doesn't like and go be a pharmacist somewhere that doesn't have such laws. So -- mutual consent, informed consent, no force, everything voluntary.

2. The following statement was posted after you said you would retract all statements to the effect that pharmacists should be allowed to ignore or break the law. Please either retract it, or clarify that you are merely speaking theoretically:

FROM POST #389:
[QUOTE]Statement #5
The pharmacist should be allowed to refuse for whatever reason he so chooses. Whether the judgement is based on religion, disagreement with the doctor, or finance is irrelevant.

The morals behind the reasons do not matter, all that matter is free acceptance.[QUOTE]

3. And because of that disagreement, I reject your claims that any action that might be taken by the state against a licensee who violates a license will automatically counts as "violence." The revocation of a license is not a violent act. I dismiss such claims as histrionic propaganda typical of anarchistic arguments that claim there is no validity to the existence of "society" as an entity. Since, in 3 out of your 5 Statements, you have acknowledged the legitimate existence of society and the legitimacy of its right to impose certain limitations on private citizens, this particular line of argument becomes even more meaningless. You cannot argue on the one hand that the law is legitimate and on the other hand that its enforcement is "violence" against a person or a person's rights. (PS: You also can't reasonably argue that you used perjorative terms like "violence" but only meant it in a nice way.)

4. That's not what you've been saying. You've been saying that pharmacists should not have to comply with the law, not that the law should be changed. If that's what you meant to say, then you should start saying it, viz, Statement #5 above.

5. If you accept something from someone, you still get to refuse something to them? In other words, you get to keep what they give you and give nothing in return? Like a pharmacist collecting a paycheck but not dispensing medicine? How is that a "trade off"?

You are asking this particular pharmacist to leave his religion, leave his home, or leave his career.
If this particular pharmacist sees his religion and his career as mutually exclusive, then he should be obliged to give up one or the other in any case. You don't get Jewish pork butchers, and you shouldn't get pro life chemists.

Now please remember my the first part of this post before you say that they can choose to use their labor elsewhere.
Training for a job you know in advance that you're not going to attempt to perform conscientiously and thoroughly is an absurdity that shouldn't be indulged.
Perhaps, though, given your conviction that a pharmacist has a much better idea what's good for his patients than some mere doctor, you could explain how many people with penicillin allergies you're expecting such an approach to injkure or kill?

This law is unjust as it forces someone into a contract where there is no mutual agreement.
The bulk of pedophiles feel that laws that stop them from screwing children are unjust; the more rabid elements of the Islamic faith feel that the sale of alcohol is an abomination: you'd be happy to have somebody from the first group running your daughter's creche and from the latter running your local bar, I take it?

Statement #5 not only contradicts reality, it contradicts the specific realties you acknowledge in Statements 1, 2 and 3. If the limitations imposed by society are legitimate, then why should the pharmacist be allowed to violate them?

There is no contradiction.

Statement 1, states that licenses are justified in determining what the pharmacist is allowed to do. Statement 5 says that they should be allowed to refuse for any reason. This can only be construed to mean that a pharmacist's license should allow them to refuse.

On the subject of subjugation -- According to you, the pharmacist can claim that being required to follow the law is a violation of his rights, even if it does not violate the rights of other pharmacists. According to you, he can also claim that being required to follow the law would be an unjust subjugation of his rights to the state or to someone else's rights.

You said earlier: "Nobody has the right to force us to do work for them to deny us the benefit of our own ability to do work. That is our right to our labor. The right to use it to benefit ourselves."

Okay, but doesn't it work both ways? Can I, as the female customer denied my emergency contraception and thus forced to undergo a pregnancy or abortion, claim that you have violated my rights by subjugating my rights to yours?

That is the question I was hoping to address with the first post.

For my answer:

Statement #4
In this situation I believe the natural right to labor (the liberty to freely work for one's own survival) outweighs another's positive right to healthcare.

If you should be able to protect your rights by refusing to follow the law the requires you to dispense medicines, why can't I protect my rights by refusing to follow that law the prohibits robbery? Why shouldn't I just take the emergency medications I need, if you refuse to sell them to me?

Statement 1

If this particular pharmacist sees his religion and his career as mutually exclusive, then he should be obliged to give up one or the other in any case. You don't get Jewish pork butchers, and you shouldn't get pro life chemists.

Pro life chemist isn't an oxymoron. They can work: some times they don't; when it involves fetuses for example.

How about Prolife abortionist! The guys who run abortions. Does this combo exist?

Also try this one: Neo-conservative is an oxymoron. They are not conservative and they aren't new.

The bulk of pedophiles feel that laws that stop them from screwing children are unjust; the more rabid elements of the Islamic faith feel that the sale of alcohol is an abomination: you'd be happy to have somebody from the first group running your daughter's creche and from the latter running your local bar, I take it?

Wait, how do we know they are pedophiles and not just catholic preists? (sorry couldn't resist).

Consider a driver's license. The state has said that it is a bad idea for anyone to be able to drive therefore in order to gain permission one must pass a test and recive state permission in the form of a license b/c then we know the person is capable of driving. The state also requires the person to follow various laws when driving if they wish to maintain this license, including new laws that are issued after he gets the license, even if they conflict w/ a moral belief. If Bob has 20/40 vision and has a religion that opposes corrective lenses and the state changes the law for minimum eyesight to drive from 20/45 to 20/35 he must wear glasses or find a new mode of transportation.

Now consider a pharmasist's license. The state has said that it is a bad idea for anyone to be able to sell certain types of drugs as they could be dangerous if not distributed properly therefore in order to gain permission one must pass a test and recive state permission in the form of a license b/c then we know the person is capable of distributing drugs properly. The state also requires the person to follow various laws when practicing if they wish to maintain this license, including new laws that are issued after he gets the license, even if they conflict w/ a moral belief. If Bob opposes plan B and the state passes a new law requiring pharmacists to sell it, he must either suck it up and agree to sell or he must find a new line of work.

Statement #1
Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.

Tell me, does your driver's license come with the requirement that you drive around elderly people when they ask you to?

Statement #1
Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.

Tell me, does your driver's license come with the requirement that you drive around elderly people when they ask you to?
Only if they have right of way I think. Pedestrians, usually if not always, have right of way according to handbook.

Otherwise, run 'em over (just kidding).

Exactly.

1. While regulations on how you handle your own labor are just, regulations on who gets your labor are not.



2. If the right to labor only gives us the right to benefit from our labor, do we have no right to choose what labor we perform? Do you really believe that government can tell you what profession you have to take?

If the government were to take a psychological survey and then decide that you were required to be a janitor, you would not be opposed to that because you don't have the right to choose what specific labor you perform, right?

I seriously doubt you would because the right to labor includes the right to control your labor.



3. Correct, except you want to force the pharmacist to use his labor to benefit the customer. The pharmacist obviously does not believe he would benefit, otherwise he would freely sell the medication.



4. That IF is the right to labor. The only way we can control whether we truly benefit from labor is the ability to refuse, otherwise (because our labor is the application of our abilities and not a specific job) others would be deciding what truly benefits you, and they will invariably make decisions that are biased towards themselves.



4. Correct, but I cannot be forced to apply my labor to his benefit, because I have the right to control my labor. Likewise, this pharmacist should not be forced to use his labor to the benefit of the customer, he has the right to refuse if he feels he will not be benefitting from his own labor.



5. My own four statements admit that the state can require the business owner to run his business in a way that he will fulfill the end of his contract. While the right to labor allows someone to control their labor, it does not allow the person to harm another.

I have NOT said that government should require you to work for the benefit of society.



6. Not only is no one obligated to give you work, it is impossible for anyone to give you work. Only you can create your own work.

So what you mean is that no one is obligated to pay you for work.

7. In this sense, your right to labor gives one the ability work in anyway one sees fit, but one don't have the right to benefit from it. You could build 20 chairs in your garage, but if no one buys them, you are left with 20 chairs that you don't need and do not benefit.

8. Where government intercedes is in determining when someone uses their labor to deny the rights of others. As is obvious in my first post, I do not believe the pharmacist is denying the rights of the customer in this situation, so there is no need to revoke his right to labor.
1. Wrong. You do not have unlimited freedom as to whom you can sell your labor too or how you can use your labor. For instance, you have no right to hire yourself out to criminal gangs as a safecracker or assassin, even if you are very good at that and could make a lot of money at it. You also don't have the right to go into those businesses for yourself. More realistically, you don't have the right to accept a job from an employer who is breaking the law by, say, not paying payroll taxes.

2. Propaganda again? We're jumping from the realities of the job market to Brave New World all of a sudden?

You have every right to choose the career you would like. You DO NOT have the right to redefine your chosen job to suit yourself and then complain when you can't get hired or get fired from the job you decided to change. Even if you are self-employed, if you redefine your job so much that it no longer suits the desires of society, you will lose the job by losing your customers.

You also HAVE NO RIGHT to get a job in your career. Being a pharmacist -- having the degrees, even having the license -- does not guarantee that you will work in that field. You have a right to get paid for the work you actually do, but you do not have a right to demand that taht work be in your chosen field. This is because the government does not intefere, not the other way around.

3. The sole purpose for a pharmacist's existence is to serve customers. It is a service position. He is a kind of servant. Deal with it. If there are no customers, there is no pharmacist. There is only a guy in a white jacket chewing gum behind a counter. Therefore, the pharmacist who refuses to serve customers, negates the existence of his own job.

4. Have you ever held a job? All jobs are agreements under which you agree to let someone else use your labor in exchange for money commensurate with the labor. So, yes, by taking a job, you agree to let someone else use your labor for their benefit, because the benefit you will get out of it is the money. And they can make you do it, as long as you keep the job and they keep paying you. Get it? So you are, in fact, selling yourself, much like a whore. Fun thought, huh? If you are self-employed, then you are just a slightly more desperate whore, because you have no agreement in advance that anyone will pay you for the work you do. Maybe we could call that a "gambling whore."

And as for employers making decisions about you that are biased towards themselves -- that's why we have labor unions.

5. But if you agree to abide by the terms of the license which express the will of society and society says Plan B is not harming anyone, then you have no argument for any supposed right of yours to refuse to sell it. And I never said you could be forced to work for the good of society, either. I said that, just like the biased private employer, the licensing entity is also biased in favor of its own interests. In this case, those interests happen to be society's interests. So if you agree to abide by the terms of the license, and those terms are designed for the "good of society," then yes, you are working for the good of society, by default.

6. So are you claiming that you own your job at Wendy's and therefore have the right to redefine it if you like? How do you reconcile that with your earlier statements that private employers can demand things from workers and fire them for non-compliance without violating their rights, but the state can't do the same? If you own the job, what right has Wendy's to take it from you?

You own your ability to flip burgers. You don't own the burger restaurant. Unless you do own the burger restaurant. Do you own the burger restaurant? If not, then you have not created your work, except in collaboration with the company that owns the job, to which you sell your ability to do it.

And, again, you're wrong: If you do the work, then they are obligated to pay you for it.

7. If you are a self-employed chair maker, then yes, you run that risk. That would be the gambling whore losing the bet. If you work for a furniture company and you make 20 chairs for them, you must be paid for it, whether they make any money off those chairs or not.

8. Your beliefs about rights are irrelevant. The government doesn't need to care about rights in this instance. It only needs to care about whether you are obeying the law and whether you are holding up your end of your agreement with the state, whereby you were granted a license. If not, they can revoke your license. The issue of rights need never come up.

Statement #1
Pharmacists are bound by law. If a law is imposed upon them, they are required to obey it or lose their license. As such I am not opposed to the enforcement of licenses, only the application of this particular guideline.

Tell me, does your driver's license come with the requirement that you drive around elderly people when they ask you to?

So, you don't oppose the government requiring licenses, but you do oppose the government maintaining qualifications to be entitled to said license?

Tell me, does your driver's license come with the requirement that you drive around elderly people when they ask you to?

No, but that isn't a good analogy for this situation. A better analogy (although still not the same, as healthcare is more important than car choice) would be if the government specifically gave licenses to those who wanted to drive others around for money, and stipulated that the cars they were driving must have certain features. For instance, in the case of such a license, the government could require that you have a car-seat on hand in case you are to drive for an adult with an infant and a toddler. It could require that you have a car with cloth or covered seats, in order to prevent people from burning their legs in the summer. It could require that your car have a barrier between you and the passenger. You might personally, or even morally (maybe you hate kids and don't think they should go anywhere or you're morally opposed to parts of the process used to make the cloth seats or covers), be opposed to some of these things, but the government has deemed them to be in the best interest of the public and therefore will not license you without them...

Edit: This isn't a completely crazy idea, mind you. There are all sorts of laws about licensing cab companies. I believe one was proposed in my hometown recently that would require cabbies to carry seeing-eye dogs along with their owners.

Can't this thread be sumed up thusly?
Vittos Ordination2: People should not have to keep their statutory or contractual obligations if at some point they decide they don't feel like it for religious reasons.

Assembling mob: WTF?! A Nooooooo.

Actually, I think something closer would be something along the lines of:

Vittos: I disagree that anyone, especially pharmacists, should have to do any particular thing at work, regardless of their job description, because that would be in violation of their natural right to self-determination of labour! *begins defining terms in a completely capitalist way, completely counter to good sense or even reality, and expects everyone else to debate him with regards to the terms despite the fact that they make discussion extremely cumbersome*

Me: Forcing people to sell this medication is an unfair requirement to maintain a pharmacist's license. No one should be forced to use their labor to benefit another person under penalty of a lost career.

So you are both wrong, but it is something that there is actually a discussion that is attempting to determine what my argument is. I guess it is difficult to be clear when you are responding to ten people at once.

If they're refusing to do the job they're being paid to without legal coercion, it would at least give their employers the opportunity to fire the swine without being sued for discrimination.

Correct

Strange: I rather get the impression from most of this thread that you're convinced that your own opinion is universally applicable.

I have stated that any person should be allowed to refuse to serve any other person regardless of the reason. Any profession, and position, any reason.

Maybe if more guys were not so cavalier with this attitude
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/regis.jpg

and thought about birth control, there would be less need for a morning after pill. Not that anyone should be denied one, but there are better methods.

Prevention is not only the woman's problem, which I think is where we get a lot of this "morning after" idea from.

Note to anyone paying attention:

I do not agree with this statement. It is not related to my argument at all.

I have stated that any person should be allowed to refuse to serve any other person regardless of the reason. Any profession, and position, any reason.

I thought you said you agreed with the principle that doctors cannot refuse emergency treatment...

1. The "contract" is mutual. The terms and obligations are clearly set out in both the professional oath of pharmacists (so they know that they will be asked to voluntarily comply with laws dictated by the state), and in the license issued by the state which they should have read before signing, just like any other contract. By signing these documents, the pharmacist acknowledges that he has been informed of the requirements of the job and that he voluntarily accepts them. One of the terms of all government issued licenses is that laws passed after the date of issuance of the license will have the same effect and be as binding as if they had existed at the time of issuance. Even with that proviso, the pharmacist still goes ahead and signs, thus voluntarily binding himself in advance. He has no basis later to claim that he is being coerced into doing something against his will. Escpecially as he can choose to quit being a pharmacist in the state that passed the law he doesn't like and go be a pharmacist somewhere that doesn't have such laws. So -- mutual consent, informed consent, no force, everything voluntary.

Once again you are justifying licenses, while our dispute is only on this particular requirement of the license.

Statement 1

2. The following statement was posted after you said you would retract all statements to the effect that pharmacists should be allowed to ignore or break the law. Please either retract it, or clarify that you are merely speaking theoretically:

FROM POST #389:
Statement #5
The pharmacist should be allowed to refuse for whatever reason he so chooses. Whether the judgement is based on religion, disagreement with the doctor, or finance is irrelevant.The morals behind the reasons do not matter, all that matter is free acceptance.

Pharmacists are not allowed to operate outside the terms set by a license. Therefore, to refuse service would require the removal of this particular term. I have never argued for the removal of licenses, or the ignoring of licenses. I have only supported removing this law.

Determining whether this law is valid or not is the only input any of us here have (assuming none of us are pharmacists), so why should I argue anything else.

3. And because of that disagreement, I reject your claims that any action that might be taken by the state against a licensee who violates a license will automatically counts as "violence." The revocation of a license is not a violent act. I dismiss such claims as histrionic propaganda typical of anarchistic arguments that claim there is no validity to the existence of "society" as an entity. Since, in 3 out of your 5 Statements, you have acknowledged the legitimate existence of society and the legitimacy of its right to impose certain limitations on private citizens, this particular line of argument becomes even more meaningless. You cannot argue on the one hand that the law is legitimate and on the other hand that its enforcement is "violence" against a person or a person's rights. (PS: You also can't reasonably argue that you used perjorative terms like "violence" but only meant it in a nice way.)

Do you willfully misunderstand everything I say?

I am not saying that removing a license is violent, I am saying that the government created ramifications of operating without a license are violent.

Do you disagree with that because you don't think the government can use violence?

5. If you accept something from someone, you still get to refuse something to them? In other words, you get to keep what they give you and give nothing in return? Like a pharmacist collecting a paycheck but not dispensing medicine? How is that a "trade off"?

Typo. It should have said:

"If I give the right of the pharmacist to refuse service, I retain the right to refuse service. Trade-off."

Me: Forcing people to sell this medication is an unfair requirement to maintain a pharmacist's license. No one should be forced to use their labor to benefit another person under penalty of a lost career.

So you are both wrong, but it is something that there is actually a discussion that is attempting to determine what my argument is. I guess it is difficult to be clear when you are responding to ten people at once.
People are obligated to live up to the obligations they take upon themselves or that are demanded of everyone by the republic or they accept (perhaps involuntarily) the consequences. That is the very nature of a republic.

Pharmacists aren't in pharmacutical sales. That job is for ex-nfl cheerleaders. They exist to as a gatekeeper and saftey technician for legal medicine to those people who've fullfilled their Republic imposed statutory obligation to obtain a legal perscription from a medical expert. They don't sell drugs. They don't run ads on TV promoting Viagra. They sell a statutory service. They can't start picking who will and won't get lawful access to healthcare from the government mandated choke point based on the magic bullshit they happen to ignorantly believe in.
While regulations on how you handle your own labor are just, regulations on who gets your labor are not.
A good urban legend example that underlines the ridiculously flaws in your viewpoint is the story of how Dr. Charles Richard Drew supposedly died. He basically invented blood storage as we depend on it today. He died on April 1, 1950, after a car accident in in rural North Carolina. The legend is that he died as a result of being denied a blood transfusion and medical care from a "whites-only" hospital. This would be murder. In your world, it's the unfortunate occasional cost of doing business. It's been a while since that was an accurate representation of life in a developed nation. No one misses it.

Tell me, does your driver's license come with the requirement that you drive around elderly people when they ask you to?
?

No but if the gov't passed a law saying that, I would have to stop driving until the law changed or agree to drive them around regardless of any moral beliefs that may conflict.

1. Wrong. You do not have unlimited freedom as to whom you can sell your labor too or how you can use your labor. For instance, you have no right to hire yourself out to criminal gangs as a safecracker or assassin, even if you are very good at that and could make a lot of money at it. You also don't have the right to go into those businesses for yourself. More realistically, you don't have the right to accept a job from an employer who is breaking the law by, say, not paying payroll taxes.

Perfectly true. In Point 8, I agree with you that no one should maintain the right to their own labor when it is used to undermine another's rights.

I left that out for no good reason other than it is irrelevant to the topic.

2. Propaganda again? We're jumping from the realities of the job market to Brave New World all of a sudden?

You have every right to choose the career you would like. You DO NOT have the right to redefine your chosen job to suit yourself and then complain when you can't get hired or get fired from the job you decided to change. Even if you are self-employed, if you redefine your job so much that it no longer suits the desires of society, you will lose the job by losing your customers.

You also HAVE NO RIGHT to get a job in your career. Being a pharmacist -- having the degrees, even having the license -- does not guarantee that you will work in that field. You have a right to get paid for the work you actually do, but you do not have a right to demand that taht work be in your chosen field. This is because the government does not intefere, not the other way around.

You initially said that a right to labor gives you only the right to benefit from your own labor. Now you say that you have every right to choose the career you like, tacitly meaning that you have every right to choose how you wish to allocate your labor.

So which is it, do we only have the right to benefit from our labor, or do we also have the right to control the allocation of our labor?

Let me make it easier for you. We have both, as the only way we can guarantee that we benefit from labor is in having the right to refuse to perform labor for others. Only by having the right to refuse can we work in our own interest.

3. The sole purpose for a pharmacist's existence is to serve customers. It is a service position. He is a kind of servant. Deal with it. If there are no customers, there is no pharmacist. There is only a guy in a white jacket chewing gum behind a counter. Therefore, the pharmacist who refuses to serve customers, negates the existence of his own job.

I don't know what you are trying to prove with this. Even with the last sentence you state that the existence of his job is contingent on his choice to serve customers and not whether he benefits from it.

Tell me this, if the pharmacist worked completely pro bono, received absolutely no benefit from the job, would he still be allocating his labor as a pharmacist. No personal benefit but complete personal choice.

4. Have you ever held a job? All jobs are agreements under which you agree to let someone else use your labor in exchange for money commensurate with the labor. So, yes, by taking a job, you agree to let someone else use your labor for their benefit, because the benefit you will get out of it is the money. And they can make you do it, as long as you keep the job and they keep paying you. Get it? So you are, in fact, selling yourself, much like a whore. Fun thought, huh? If you are self-employed, then you are just a slightly more desperate whore, because you have no agreement in advance that anyone will pay you for the work you do. Maybe we could call that a "gambling whore."

And as for employers making decisions about you that are biased towards themselves -- that's why we have labor unions.

You have not yet earned the right to make condescending remarks, the idea that the right to labor is not the right of choice but the right to benefit is ludicrous. Your own statements have countered it multiple times.

Alright, as to your point, you have changed the parameters of this to the relationship between employee and employer, when I specifically used the relationship between customer and provider. The enormous difference between the two: By having a employee/employer relationship, there is already an expressed contract requiring the exchange of labor for wages. There is none between the customer and provider.

So yes, because of contractual requirements the employee is required to apply his labor to the benefit of the employer.

Also, there is no way to exist in society without being a "whore" as you put it. All must apply their labor to the benefit of others for society to even exist.

Finally, I fully support labor unions as a method for laborers to maintain control over their labor.


5.a) But if you agree to abide by the terms of the license which express the will of society and society says Plan B is not harming anyone, then you have no argument for any supposed right of yours to refuse to sell it.

b)And I never said you could be forced to work for the good of society, either. I said that, just like the biased private employer, the licensing entity is also biased in favor of its own interests. In this case, those interests happen to be society's interests.

c)So if you agree to abide by the terms of the license, and those terms are designed for the "good of society," then yes, you are working for the good of society, by default.

(I just had to split this one up because it is a mess, and I need help trying to sort it out.)

If you can't get around the point you make in 5.a we're just going to have to quit. You once again say that, by agreeing to abide by the license set down by society, you lose your right to refuse to sell. I have agreed with this statement at least five times already. Just so you can be sure, read Statement #1.

Now please read this carefully, my issue is not with society's issuance of licenses, but this particular requirement they have included in this license.

I am going to address this in the exact same terms as you, and this will be the last time I say this to you:

But if you agree to abide by the terms of the license which express the will of society and society says Plan B is not harming anyone, then you have no argument for any supposed right of yours to refuse to sell it. But if you believe that you are being harmed by your selling of Plan B, you have every right to protest society's ruling and work to have it changed.

If you do disagree with that, post your disagreement and I will address that, if you agree with that statement then we will move on and address whether the protestations are valid, but whatever you do, do NOT reword that same statement and post it again.

I was responding to this:

"They have the right to do so as long as they are benefitting society at large by it. Your own 4 statements admit that."

Firstly, I denied having said that in my statements. I made no comment on what you had said.

Now, I took this to meant that government has the right to force people to run their business for the benefit of society, so explain to me what you actually meant.


As for 5.c, a license is required run your business. If a license states that you must run your business for the good of society, then one is being forced to run their business for the good of society, correct?


6. So are you claiming that you own your job at Wendy's and therefore have the right to redefine it if you like? How do you reconcile that with your earlier statements that private employers can demand things from workers and fire them for non-compliance without violating their rights, but the state can't do the same? If you own the job, what right has Wendy's to take it from you?

When you said "work" I misunderstood it as meaning labor, not a job. Let us from here on use only the terms labor and job, as work is synonomous with both.

Insert the word "labor" in for "work" and here is what I said:

"Not only is no one obligated to give you labor, it is impossible for anyone to give you labor. Only you can create your own labor.

So what you mean is that no one is obligated to pay you for labor."

You own your ability to flip burgers. You don't own the burger restaurant. Unless you do own the burger restaurant. Do you own the burger restaurant? If not, then you have not created your work, except in collaboration with the company that owns the job, to which you sell your ability to do it.

Either way you create your own labor, if you do own the burger restaurant you also create your own job.

And, again, you're wrong: If you do the work, then they are obligated to pay you for it.

They are only obligated to pay you for your labor if you have a contract in the form of a job. If you just jump over the counter and start making a burger, you are lucky if they don't kick you out, let alone pay you.

You must agree with that, so you must also agree that the right to labor is in the choice and not the benefit.

7. If you are a self-employed chair maker, then yes, you run that risk. That would be the gambling whore losing the bet. If you work for a furniture company and you make 20 chairs for them, you must be paid for it, whether they make any money off those chairs or not.

So you admit that labor rights do not naturally carry a right to benefit.

8. Your beliefs about rights are irrelevant. The government doesn't need to care about rights in this instance. It only needs to care about whether you are obeying the law and whether you are holding up your end of your agreement with the state, whereby you were granted a license. If not, they can revoke your license. The issue of rights need never come up.

The first sentence should read "I was wrong about labor rights, but it doesn't matter because I am going to restate the same fallacy that I have made over and over and over again."

Reread Statement 1 and then continue.

Government cares about rights when they are deciding to inact or revoke the law. Since we are discussing the validity of the law to force someone to sell Plan B to maintain a license (at least I am trying to), and not the actual enforcement of a license, rights do matter a great deal.

Me: Forcing people to sell this medication is an unfair requirement to maintain a pharmacist's license. No one should be forced to use their labor to benefit another person under penalty of a lost career.

So you are both wrong, but it is something that there is actually a discussion that is attempting to determine what my argument is. I guess it is difficult to be clear when you are responding to ten people at once.

No actually you are wrong. You are arguing that as if a plumber shouldn't loose his job because he didn't want to take on a job.

Sorry but a pharmicist directly affects a persons HEALTH!

If he won't do the job, then he don't keep the job.

No, but that isn't a good analogy for this situation. A better analogy (although still not the same, as healthcare is more important than car choice) would be if the government specifically gave licenses to those who wanted to drive others around for money, and stipulated that the cars they were driving must have certain features. For instance, in the case of such a license, the government could require that you have a car-seat on hand in case you are to drive for an adult with an infant and a toddler. It could require that you have a car with cloth or covered seats, in order to prevent people from burning their legs in the summer. It could require that your car have a barrier between you and the passenger. You might personally, or even morally (maybe you hate kids and don't think they should go anywhere or you're morally opposed to parts of the process used to make the cloth seats or covers), be opposed to some of these things, but the government has deemed them to be in the best interest of the public and therefore will not license you without them...

Edit: This isn't a completely crazy idea, mind you. There are all sorts of laws about licensing cab companies. I believe one was proposed in my hometown recently that would require cabbies to carry seeing-eye dogs along with their owners.

I do not oppose any of those regulations as they insure that the cab driver is fulfilling his contractual duty to transport the person safely and responsibly.

I do not oppose any of those regulations as they insure that the cab driver is fulfilling his contractual duty to transport the person safely and responsibly.

So what it boils down to is not the question of unfair labor practices but you don't like abortion in any form.

:sniper: why do it at all just make abortion illeagle there ya go problem solved

So what it boils down to is not the question of unfair labor practices but you don't like abortion in any form.

No, I support full-term abortion and have no clue if Plan B qualifies as abortion or contraception.

What it boils down to is that I think the pharmacist should only be required to safely dispense the medicines he chooses to sell. I do not think he should lose his license because he refuses to stock one medication. Especially a medication that can be prescribed and purchased in advance of its necessity, can be taken as late as three days after the unprotected sex has occurred.

No, I support full-term abortion and have no clue if Plan B qualifies as abortion or contraception.

What it boils down to is that I think the pharmacist should only be required to safely dispense the medicines he chooses to sell. I do not think he should lose his license because he refuses to stock one medication. Especially a medication that can be prescribed and purchased in advance of its necessity, can be taken as late as three days after the unprotected sex has occurred.
And I think morals should not be a justification to not fulfill what is most defiantly part of your government regulated job description.

And I think morals should not be a justification to not fulfill what is most defiantly part of your government regulated job description.

It is not part of the job discription in many states. I don't think it should be a required "part of the job" in any state.

Could you find a law that requires pharmacies to stock all drugs that are available?

I have been over this before:

The morality doesn't matter, it should be his choice for whatever reason.

I believe it should be taken out of the government regulated job discription.

Also, in this situation, if anyone is taking away this woman's right to self-determination, it is the FDA who refuses to offer it OTC. The FDA's own panel states that it is safe for OTC sale, you don't need a doctor to get a prescription, and Canada has approved it for OTC sale.

The pharmacist is only looking out for himself. He believes he will cause himself great harm by selling this. The government is only making it OTC to make it difficult on the women.

I suppose I should just put it this way:

Realistically, if I allowed my personal prejudices (read: religion/politics) to rule who I helped and didn't help, there'd be many people dying, literally.

Give me a break, let this selective services and watch the world end.

I suppose there is another thread on this somewhere, but I can't get the search function to work.

On the Daily Show, there was a story about Illinois creating a law that pharmacists were required to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill.

I am for a woman's right to her body, but I cannot fathom how a woman's right to her body can extend from her body over a pharmaceutical counter and encompass the pharmacist.

Maybe I am being obtuse, but I strongly oppose this. What are your thoughts.

I believe it should be taken out of the government regulated job discription.
And I dont someone charged with providing for public health should do so un equivocally, otherwise they are not qualified.

There is no contradiction.

Statement 1, states that licenses are justified in determining what the pharmacist is allowed to do. Statement 5 says that they should be allowed to refuse for any reason. This can only be construed to mean that a pharmacist's license should allow them to refuse.

Not really. A pharmacists license only allows them to refuse on the grounds of medical judgment, not moralistic or religious. Financial reasons (can't afford), are allowed because it is a business. If we go your way, we get people refusing to prescribe insulin, heck, any form of anti-bacterial medication, to emergency cases on religious grounds.

Taken to it's logical extreme, your pharmacist would be allowed to effectively withold vital medicines that could save lives just because he felt like it.

Expanding this to all careers, it would mean the collapse of commerce because Joe would refuse to sell to Stan because he didn't like his face.

The only winners would be the lawyers who would run the lawsuits for all the discrimination suits.

I believe it should be taken out of the government regulated job discription.
You'd rather it was regulated by bronze age hygiene laws?

And I dont someone charged with providing for public health should do so un equivocally, otherwise they are not qualified.

They are not charged with providing for public health, they are accepting the role of providing for public health. The pharmacist has not been hired by society, and as such has no obligation to it.

If the government hires pharmacists to run government pharmacies then those pharmacists can be charged with providing for the public health. As for private pharmacists they should be charged with safely dispensing medicines.

They are not charged with providing for public health, they are accepting the role of providing for public health. The pharmacist has not been hired by society, and as such has no obligation to it.

If the government hires pharmacists to run government pharmacies then those pharmacists can be charged with providing for the public health. As for private pharmacists they should be charged with safely dispensing medicines.
You're wrong about that one: the qualifications they take have guidelines on how they should run their business.

Not really. A pharmacists license only allows them to refuse on the grounds of medical judgment, not moralistic or religious. Financial reasons (can't afford), are allowed because it is a business. If we go your way, we get people refusing to prescribe insulin, heck, any form of anti-bacterial medication, to emergency cases on religious grounds.

Actually, I don't know if they are presently allowed to refuse on the grounds of medical judgement (maybe you could provide proof).

As for moral reasons, the State of Illinois, where this law was inacted has thise jewel in their legislation:

Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

The General Assembly finds and declares that people and organizations hold different beliefs about whether certain health care services are morally acceptable. It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of health care services and medical care whether acting individually, corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious convictions in refusing to obtain, receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or arrange for the payment of health care services and medical care.


Link (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapAct=745%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=58&ChapterName=CIVIL+IMMUNITIES&ActName=Health+Care+Right+of+Conscience+Act.&Print=True)

This law to force pharmacists to sell Plan B obviously denies this right explicitly provide by the Illinois government.

Expanding this to all careers, it would mean the collapse of commerce because Joe would refuse to sell to Stan because he didn't like his face.

Do you think Wal-Mart will seriously start discriminating based on someone's looks? Will they allow that big of a profit hit to allow that? That is not a logical extreme (if an extreme can be logical).

The only winners would be the lawyers who would run the lawsuits for all the discrimination suits.

The lawyers would have no grounds for lawsuits, as the store owner's actions would be legal.

You're wrong about that one: the qualifications they take have guidelines on how they should run their business.

You are the 15th person to say that, and so far everyone of you have been right.

This thread has gone like this for so long:

Me: Pharmacists shouldn't be forced to sell Plan B
All: They are required to by license, why should they be able to break the law?
Me: It should be removed from the qualifications required by the license.
All: But the license only makes them do their job, to serve public health.
Me: No, a pharmacists job is sell medicine.
All: No, they have a obligation to serve the public.
Me: They only have an obligation to themselves and those they choose to serve.
All: But they accepted a license that requires them to serve the public.



Everytime I make a point as to why this requirement should be taken off of the license, the inevitable response is "But the license says they have to follow that requirement."

They are not charged with providing for public health, they are accepting the role of providing for public health. The pharmacist has not been hired by society, and as such has no obligation to it.

If the government hires pharmacists to run government pharmacies then those pharmacists can be charged with providing for the public health. As for private pharmacists they should be charged with safely dispensing medicines.
Fine we will go with your definition

If they accept the role of providing for public health they should be required to do so un-equivocally otherwise their offer should be rejected by society.
It has to be accepted by both parties ... the societal party should reject any that is unable to do so for all members of that society

You'd rather it was regulated by bronze age hygiene laws?

Yes, Cahnt, that is exactly what I want.:rolleyes:

Fine we will go with your definition

If they accept the role of providing for public health they should be required to do so un-equivocally otherwise their offer should be rejected by society.
It has to be accepted by both parties ... the societal party should reject any that is unable to do so for all members of that society

Why should society refuse the agreement?

Why should society as a whole have the right to refuse? Why not allow the individuals of a society decide?

Why should society refuse the agreement?

Why should society as a whole have the right to refuse? Why not allow the individuals of a society decide?
Because they are not fulfilling caring for all societies members.

Why should government accept someone that wont care for all its constituents by choice?

Because they are not fulfilling caring for all societies members.

Why should government accept someone that wont care for all its constituents by choice?

Now don't be discriminating against Christian Scientist Pharmicists!

Prayer solves everything!

Also, in this situation, if anyone is taking away this woman's right to self-determination, it is the FDA who refuses to offer it OTC. The FDA's own panel states that it is safe for OTC sale, you don't need a doctor to get a prescription, and Canada has approved it for OTC sale.

The pharmacist is only looking out for himself. He believes he will cause himself great harm by selling this. The government is only making it OTC to make it difficult on the women.

Nice job of contradicting yourself.

It should be OTC but the pharmacist is justified in refusing to sell it someone with a prescription. Which is it?

Nice job of contradicting yourself.

It should be OTC but the pharmacist is justified in refusing to sell it someone with a prescription. Which is it?

He has done that in other places. Laws and regulations on pharmacists is wrong and yet they are ok for cab drivers......

It is not part of the job discription in many states. I don't think it should be a required "part of the job" in any state.

Could you find a law that requires pharmacies to stock all drugs that are available?

I have been over this before:

The morality doesn't matter, it should be his choice for whatever reason.

I believe it should be taken out of the government regulated job discription.

Ah, but it does. You, in fact, have made your own moral distinction about this type of transaction versus other types of transactions.

You don't believe the needs of the woman for emergency contraception are significant. That is your moral judgment, repeated multiple times in this thread.

He has done that in other places. Laws and regulations on pharmacists is wrong and yet they are ok for cab drivers......

I have high respect for VO, but I keep checking on this conversation to see where in the circle it is now.

As for moral reasons, the State of Illinois, where this law was inacted has thise jewel in their legislation:

This law to force pharmacists to sell Plan B obviously denies this right explicitly provide by the Illinois government.

You must have missed Section 6: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care."

Also, it is not clear that the law applies to pharmacists. They certainly are not mentioned in particular (and it mentions a LOT of particular jobs), and the intent of the law seems to allow physicians and medical personnel to refuse to participate in actual procedures... the pharmacist who does not prescribe, but who merely hands over a medication prescribed and advised by another, is not clearly covered, although one could make a decent legal argument that he/she is.

Why should society as a whole have the right to refuse? Why not allow the individuals of a society decide?

Because history has taught us that individuals acting alone are unlikely to secure collective goods. The "free rider" problem is too difficult to overcome without collective action.

In this case, the problem takes the following form: most people, as individuals, do not care what a pharmacist stocks until they, personally, need something. When they do need something that the pharmacist will not sell, it is too late... and while theoretically we could each, as individuals, refuse to buy things from pharmacists who refuse to sell critical medications, we are inclined to be free-riders: let other people boycott, I'll buy my medicine at this pharmacy because it is convenient, rather than going to the next town over... until, that is, it is too late and we wish we would have paid that price all along.

To solve this free-rider problem (and many, many more), we institute governments which "force" us all to pay for collective goods (through taxes, for instance). The legitimacy of this force rests on things like participation, democratic government, and free speech, ensuring that we have a voice in determining the taxes we pay and the laws we must obey.

Government procures the things we all want, but which we will only pay for if we think everyone else is paying, too.

The funny thing is that you support a different form of the same thing: earlier you stated that you support labor unions. Yet labor unions work on a similar principle: left to themselves, individuals would never be able to negotiate decent labor prices (in many industries), so they unite as unions... unions which violate individual "rights" to "contract" between employers and employees in exactly the way you claim to hate.

So, which is it? Are we allowed to solve the free-rider problem through collective activity (e.g. unions and government), or not? Will you slide another step into the stinking cesspool of so-called "labor" rights that already includes racial discrimination, or is this your breaking point?

Nice job of contradicting yourself.

It should be OTC but the pharmacist is justified in refusing to sell it someone with a prescription. Which is it?

Where is the contradiction?

The pharmacist chooses what medication he sells, and the customer is no longer required to go to the pharmacist.

Because they are not fulfilling caring for all societies members.

Note that this pharmacist would sell contraceptives to anyone, he would not, however, sell this particular drug. He (presumably) treats all customers equally. His discrimination is against the drug, not the customers.

Why should government accept someone that wont care for all its constituents by choice?

Because the individual members of society may prefer to choose when and how they serve other people. At least I would prefer to choose when and how I serve other people, and by wanting that, I must afford other members of society that right.

He has done that in other places. Laws and regulations on pharmacists is wrong and yet they are ok for cab drivers......

Statement 1, look it up.

I have high respect for VO, but I keep checking on this conversation to see where in the circle it is now.

My initial point was that the law requiring pharmacists to sell Plan B to maintain their license should be removed.

This only circles around when invariably someone says "But society issues licenses and pharmacists have to obey them."

Then I have to explain why that is completely beside the point, and I am stuck repeating my initial statement.

By the way, I do NOT support the Plan B or any other emergency contraceptives and abortifacients being sold over-the-counter. While doctors and pharmacists are bound by explicit codes of ethics and confidentiality rules, Wal-mart clerks are not.

Why should this matter? After all, condoms and some other contraceptives are sold OTC. Why not these?

Well, no matter how much I would like for people to get over their ridiculous moral hangups (especially about other people's bodies), the fact remains that these emergency contraceptives and abortifacients remain controversial, and some women who use them may struggle with a sincere moral choice.

Women should not be forced to make this choice in front of the gossiping clerks at the front counter.

Second, for all that it has been approved by various committees, we need to recognize that they experience pressures from pharmaceutical companies that may bias their decision, and the morning-after pill is, for all its benefits, a major dose of hormones that often has severe side-effects. A doctor, at a minimum, should be aware that someone has taken it, and even the pharmacist should have the right to refuse the drug if he/she believes it is a danger to the woman taking it. While it appears generally safe for healthy women, how might it affect a girl who is, for instance, already dangerously anorexic or otherwise ill? Indeed, while we may like to believe that its being "just a female hormone" or "just a higher dose of 'the pill'," hormones (and even the pill) can be dangerous. I know more than one woman who was seriously messed up by the birth-control pill (one of the reasons it still requires a prescription), and my own girlfriend is still dealing with hormone issues relating to a prescription of Depo-Provera--over three years ago!!

I fully support these medications, and I think they should be made widely available. I also think we should educate people to understand their use and their availability, and encourage women who have unprotected sex (for whatever reason) or who suspect a failiure of regular birth-control, to avail themselves of emergency contraceptives and early abortifacients.

Note that this pharmacist would sell contraceptives to anyone, he would not, however, sell this particular drug. He (presumably) treats all customers equally. His discrimination is against the drug, not the customers.

Yes, but according to you his "morals do not matter." He should not have to tell us why he refuses to distribute the drug. So, if it just happens that the only drugs he refuses to sell are used exclusively by women, or treat illnesses that only people of African descent are likely to contract... well, I guess that's just a coincidence. At any rate, we have no right to complain about it (according to you).

Because the individual members of society may prefer to choose when and how they serve other people. At least I would prefer to choose when and how I serve other people, and by wanting that, I must afford other members of society that right.

Yes, but like every other right that we would "prefer" to have, when we enter society we agree that it may be subject to certain limitations. No "right" is absolute. Not even, I would say, the right to "life," insofar as society is within its rights to draft its members into military service--in which they may literally be ordered to their deaths--for the protection of the whole. (Incidentally, I think this only applies to defensive wars, or wars that are legitimately justified as attacking an imminent threat. I do not believe the state has a right to order its members into war for any reason other than the preservation of the association.)

You must have missed Section 6: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care."

Considering that Plan B often does not require a prescription, rarely requires a doctor's visit, can be obtained at any national pharmaceutical chain, can be obtained in advance, and can be taken 3-5 days after sex has taken place, I question how necessary this particular pharmacist is.

Also, it is not clear that the law applies to pharmacists. They certainly are not mentioned in particular (and it mentions a LOT of particular jobs), and the intent of the law seems to allow physicians and medical personnel to refuse to participate in actual procedures... the pharmacist who does not prescribe, but who merely hands over a medication prescribed and advised by another, is not clearly covered, although one could make a decent legal argument that he/she is.

"Liability. No physician or health care personnel shall be civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, public or private entity or public official by reason of his or her refusal to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or health care personnel."

"'Health care' means any phase of patient care,"

Since the opposing argument claims that pharmacists are responsible to society because they are healthcare providers and the Act includes any phase of patient care, I don't think it is reasonable to say that Pharmacists aren't covered by it.

Where is the contradiction?

The pharmacist chooses what medication he sells, and the customer is no longer required to go to the pharmacist.

Problem is that there aren't always other pharmacists in town let alone a "reasonable" distance.

Ah, but it does. You, in fact, have made your own moral distinction about this type of transaction versus other types of transactions.

You don't believe the needs of the woman for emergency contraception are significant. That is your moral judgment, repeated multiple times in this thread.

My judgement in this does not depend on the morality of the provider, it depends on what I believe is a right to self allocation of labor. It is contingent upon my morality, but not contingent on the morality of the person refusing service. The person should be allowed to refuse service for whatever reason.

And I don't believe the necessity of mandatory sell of emergency contraception are significant enough to make this pharmacist apply his labor in a manner that seems unbeneficial to him.

My judgment in this does not depend on the morality of the provider, it depends on what I believe is a right to self allocation of labor. It is contingent upon my morality, but not contingent on the morality of the person refusing service. The person should be allowed to refuse service for whatever reason.


No that is not right at all. It is one thing to refuse selling a drink to a drunk and it's another to refuse selling contraception to a woman.

Giving people that right says a cop, a fireman, a doctor and a soldier can have the right to not apply their labor in a beneficial manner to them.....


And I don't believe the necessity of mandatory sell of emergency contraception are significant enough to make this pharmacist apply his labor in a manner that seems beneficial to him.

Ok how does making a sale seem not beneficial to him? After all his service is to sell meds.....

Because history has taught us that individuals acting alone are unlikely to secure collective goods. The "free rider" problem is too difficult to overcome without collective action.

In this case, the problem takes the following form: most people, as individuals, do not care what a pharmacist stocks until they, personally, need something. When they do need something that the pharmacist will not sell, it is too late... and while theoretically we could each, as individuals, refuse to buy things from pharmacists who refuse to sell critical medications, we are inclined to be free-riders: let other people boycott, I'll buy my medicine at this pharmacy because it is convenient, rather than going to the next town over... until, that is, it is too late and we wish we would have paid that price all along.

I have never been a fan of the "because people don't act, we should force them to act" argument. That is a very basic disagreement between the two of us.

Nevertheless, the demand and method of distribution for Plan B is large enough and consistent enough to render the free rider problem pointless.

To solve this free-rider problem (and many, many more), we institute governments which "force" us all to pay for collective goods (through taxes, for instance). The legitimacy of this force rests on things like participation, democratic government, and free speech, ensuring that we have a voice in determining the taxes we pay and the laws we must obey.

I don't know how this applies to this topic. What is the collective good that we are all paying for? This pharmacy is not publically run, nor is Plan B publically funded (in this instance at least, it has been freely distributed by public institutes).

Government procures the things we all want, but which we will only pay for if we think everyone else is paying, too.

The only individuals who are paying for this are the pharmacists who do not wish to sell. It is obvious that the costs of this legislation is far greater for them as opposed to the rest of public. If you want to argue for collective action, let us at least insure that it costs everyone equally.

The funny thing is that you support a different form of the same thing: earlier you stated that you support labor unions. Yet labor unions work on a similar principle: left to themselves, individuals would never be able to negotiate decent labor prices (in many industries), so they unite as unions... unions which violate individual "rights" to "contract" between employers and employees in exactly the way you claim to hate.

So, which is it? Are we allowed to solve the free-rider problem through collective activity (e.g. unions and government), or not? Will you slide another step into the stinking cesspool of so-called "labor" rights that already includes racial discrimination, or is this your breaking point?

I have no problem for collective action. I have stated on NS that I hope that free collective action will bring about a stable anarchy. However, government sponsored collective action can never be true collective action. It will be a majority of society agreeing to work collectively with a minority being dragged along and suffering more than their fair share of the costs.

As such I support the workers free right to act collectively without government endorsement or restriction to protect their labor value. The key is freedom, and only someone left their own decisions can be free.