Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 seriouslyfunnylady
Joined: 5/10/2005
Msg: 34
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?Page 2 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Sweet in answer to wether or not it is for moral reasons or for religious reasons.


Associated Press | Posted November 11, 2005 03:12 PM

Target Corp. is defending its policy on filling prescriptions for emergency contraception after the Planned Parenthood Federation of America accused the retailer of disrespecting customers' reproductive rights.

Target allows pharmacists to choose not to fill requests for emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, if it is against their religious beliefs.


source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/11/target-says-its-pharmacis_n_10503.html


I also found this article:


Bill introduced to protect pharmacists’ refusal to sell emergency contraception


In the wake of a lawsuit filed last week that challenges the Illinois rule mandating pharmacies in the state dispense the morning-after pill without delay, State Representative Kurt Granberg, D-Carlyle, has filed a bill that would allow a pharmacist to decline filling a prescription for the controversial pill, because of moral or religious beliefs.

“Healthcare professionals have a right to refuse actions that contradict their moral or religious beliefs. While critics continue to mislead the public about the safety of the morning-after pill and its role in an abortion, it is my belief that life starts at the fertilization of an egg,” Granberg said. “This legislation, if passed, will ultimately protect a pharmacist’s right to not provide chemical abortions with the morning-after pill.” ...


Source:http://www.salem-tc.com/news/2005/1230/Published_Articles/

So it does appear that it very possibly is a religious issue. And that it seems to be a big question as to whose rights come first. Looks like something has to give. Maybe the bigger pharmacy's should have 2 pharmacists if they are employing someone that doesn't feel right about despensing the morning after pill. I wonder if they are Catholic if they also refuse to fill birth control pills.
 plentyofrick
Joined: 11/30/2006
Msg: 35
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/2/2007 11:24:49 AM
no, never, it's not their business to decide what to dispense and what not to. they are there simply to follow a doctors orders (someone qualified to make the decision).
What if the druggist is a Jehovah's witness, would he be able to say sorry I won't dispense anything because god will fix you up? What about if I don't think pain killers are moral? what next, being refused a prescription by some christian fundamentalist because you're going to burn in hell any way so why waste it on you.
 honest_nice_guy
Joined: 9/18/2006
Msg: 37
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/2/2007 12:59:34 PM
Pharmacies are buisness, and as such have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

and an African American walks into the Pharmacy and he says "sorry, I dont wish to serve you" and the query is "why not? is it because I am black?" and the repsonse is " I just choose not to serve you - I can choose that for ANY REASON".

What do you think the jury will say to that one?
 ant1ers
Joined: 5/12/2004
Msg: 38
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/2/2007 4:43:59 PM
It all depends on who owns the pharmacy in question. If it is Walgreens or another national chain, then the individual pharmacist needs to abide by corporate requirements. If he/she does not agree with those corporate requirements for moral issues, than he or she should go work for someone who agrees with their moral view of the world.

If the pharmacist is the owner of the pharmacy, however, they absolutely have the right to refuse to distribute the morning after pill. At that point, it is his/her business, and he/she can run it however he/she wants to. Walmart refuses to stock certain CD's and movies due to content - this would be no different.

Just let the market work it out. By my house, there are 3 pharmacies at 1 street corner. If 2 refused to stock it, I guarantee you that the third would simply to **** over its competitors. If it ever got to the point where all of them refused to stock it, all I can say is that the triumph of morals over money is so rare that at that point, it would likely be reflective of national attitude towards the product.
 Mouseketeer
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 39
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/2/2007 4:59:02 PM

It ain't the store's fault.


Not if the store doesnt CARRY the EC, but if it DOES carry it, then its employees are bound by their employer to sell any medicine they need to. However, this is no longer a problem in my state. We get it over the counter now. I dont know if this is all states, but in FL its OTC.


Now just change that for a some chick who got knocked up and really what's the difference?

It's not mom and pop's problem that you got knocked up is it?


OK emergency contraception is just that- CONTRAception. It is an antagonist to sperm and the uterus. What it does is prevent pregnancy from happening. Nobody uses Emergency Contraception to have an induced abortion. It is not the same thing as a medical abortion. It IS the same thing as birth control pills. It is basically like taking a hormone vitamin- it increases the amount of progesterone in your uterus, and creates a hostile environment towards sperm, so that they cannot survive long enough to fertilize the egg. If the egg happens to become fertilized, it also creates a hostile environment in the uterus so that the fertilized egg cannot implant (a VERY common and natural occurrence- but this makes sure it happens the way we want it to) and the egg gets released. This is not a pregnancy or an abortion. A fertilized egg must implant in the uterus in order for a woman to be preggers.


So why do they have to provide medicine if they have some religious problem with it?


Well, the pharmacy itself shouldnt have to carry Plan B, but if it does, then again, its employees have an obligation to sell it.
Dont work in a porn shop if you dont want to sell the toys.
Dont work in a restaurant if you cant bring someone a beer.

Thats just how it is. Tough.. lol...
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/4/2007 1:00:07 AM
I agree with the idea of boycotting Pharmacies or any other business which refuses to sell a perfectly legal product.
It's amazing how Gods opinion on things can change when money gets involved.
 Mouseketeer
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 41
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/4/2007 6:26:07 AM
Its not Gods opinion, though- thats just the religibots ridiculously pathetic crutch that they use to justify their kneejerk reaction to abortion, which has now trickled down into contraception matters, like Plan B.

But yes, I agree with your sentiment, lol...
 garry1949
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 42
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/4/2007 10:32:40 AM
One of the factors we shouldn't overlook is the hypocrisy of the "me" or "boomer" generation. When they were young they wanted abortion on demand regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Now that they're older and less inclined to engage in sex even within marriage, they seem to want to vent their frustration by laying down the Christian law on the new young people.
Merciful Jesus is well aware of the carnal inclinations of the young body. Certainly he will see the elimination of something less than a zygote as a far lesser sin than the wanton killing and wounding of the fully grown.
 sayalla
Joined: 2/18/2007
Msg: 43
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/4/2007 11:15:29 AM
No. Dispensing a legally prescribed drug is their job. Their personal beliefs should have nothing to do with them doing their jobs. If that were the case, probably none of us would have jobs.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 44
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/4/2007 12:23:12 PM
Did you hear about the morning after pill for men?
You take it the next day and it changes your blood type

If the pharmacist owned the store, I suppose he could sell and not sell whatever he wants to.

If the pharmacist was an employee, he should follow company rules. If the company allows their employees to screw over their business with their religious beliefs, then fine - the pharmacist is allowed to deny selling plan B, band aids, tylenol, whatever. If the company doesn't allow its employees to deny selling items for religious reasons, then its pharmacists should act accordingly. Pharmacists with such beliefs should let the pharmacy owner know at the outset that they are incapable of completely fulfilling their job.

I agree with most people on this thread, and disagree with everything brightazriel said.
 dbz77
Joined: 12/5/2006
Msg: 45
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/4/2007 1:26:33 PM

Pharmacy workers have the right to refuse to dispense the morning after pill on the grounds of religion . Is this right? Isnt this a case of one persons religious will being forced on others?

They should. It is no different than someone refusing to serve pork for religious reasons.

If their employer has a problem with it, they can go find another job.


Michael
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 47
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/5/2007 1:19:18 AM
sorry for gettin your name wrong bright1raziel (think I got it that time)
Its mainly your rationale for things I disagree with I suppose. And I'm not sure where the pharmacologist stuff you keep talkin about came from, so I won't address it.


but no one has the right to force you to do something against your will (this is called slavery...
ahh yes, slavery. What a lovely and overdramatic term you have there. We want the pharmacist to do his job, and you equate that to slavery. Following this reasoning, I suppose we could equate every job to slavery.


I've said it before and i'll say it again, get of your fat &$$ and walk to the next store!) to get it, thus protecting both peoples rights.
And when the next pharmacist refuses stuff for their religious reasons, go to the next one. And when the doctor refuses medical treatment for religious reasons, just find another doctor. And when your employer fires you for religious reasons, go find another job. And if the laws don't work well for you, go move to another country.

I've seen people mention these "go somewhere else" solutions many times, and they just aren't solutions. You mentioned that going to the next pharmacy is "protecting both peoples rights" but it isn't, the pharmacist's rights were protected, but the consumer's was trodden on. The pharmacist is paid to provide a service, not to impose his religious will on consumers. And when you "move onto to the next one" you endorse such behaviour.
 Feral
Joined: 4/10/2005
Msg: 48
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/5/2007 3:37:59 AM

ahh yes, slavery. What a lovely and overdramatic term you have there. We want the pharmacist to do his job, and you equate that to slavery. Following this reasoning, I suppose we could equate every job to slavery.

Actually, tha's a bit inaccurate, considering what Raziel's trying to say. If you'll direct your attention to the majority of the thread, he's basically saying that to enact legislation to force pharmacies to honour all prescriptions would essentially equate to slavery, in that the pharmacist would have no option but to provide something he may not be willing to provide. Coercive measures such as that, honestly, would amount to government enforced labour. Hence, slavery.

And when the next pharmacist refuses stuff for their religious reasons, go to the next one. And when the doctor refuses medical treatment for religious reasons, just find another doctor.

Precisely. Nothing constrains service providers to provide services they are unwilling to provide. Find one who is willing, patronise his establishment, make him a rich man, and he will continue to provide. Meanwhile, those with ideological axes to grind have no moral quandaries about to keep them from the taxing work of finding ways to advertise businesses that are falling behind the market. Win/win situation, basically. "Ah, I love the smell of commerce in the morning!"

And when your employer fires you for religious reasons, go find another job.

Fortunately, this is one of those things that are happily protected in some countries. The whole "freedom of religion" and "anti-discrimination" thing. "It's a good thing." Oh, by the way, no, this doesn't actually parallel the topic, so I'll just leave it there.

And if the laws don't work well for you, go move to another country.

True that. The option exists. On the other hand (the one with different fingers), in representative democracies, there's also the option to put one's energy and effort into changing those laws. Ain't it a groovy world?

You mentioned that going to the next pharmacy is "protecting both peoples rights" but it isn't, the pharmacist's rights were protected, but the consumer's was trodden on.

How so? If the service is available, and a person is willing to pay for it, then how is that person being denied his rights?

The pharmacist is paid to provide a service, not to impose his religious will on consumers.

True. But it has nothing to do with rights. I go to a store, see if they've got what I want, and they don't, do I have a right to demand that they carry it in future? Or, do I have a right to find a place that provides what I want? Here's the kicker:

And when you "move onto to the next one" you endorse such behaviour.

I don't endorse anything by doing that, except the business of the establishment I do wind up going to. Capitalism is a funny thing, see? If I were to move on from the place that doesn't have what I want, they don't get my business. Other people wanting the same thing wind up passing on the place, the establishment doesn't get their business, either. Law of supply and demand, yatta, yatta, the place just isn't as successful as it could have been. No rights get screwed, nobody goes home stupid-mad (except those with an ideological stake in what other people do), and life goes on. Happy, happy life; gotta love it!
 SweetTreat
Joined: 11/15/2005
Msg: 49
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/5/2007 3:45:30 AM

Sweet in answer to wether or not it is for moral reasons or for religious reasons.



Target allows pharmacists to choose not to fill requests for emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, if it is against their religious beliefs


Hrm...that's such a slippery slope. I mean is it at every store the pharmacist can decide to not offer it if they choose (as in the owner of each particular pharmacy) or the other pharmacists that work within the pharmacy that dispence the drug? I'd say if the owner of the target in question carries it, than any pharmacist that works there should have to dispense it if it's requested.

I don't think a pharmacy should deny carrying it for religious reasons, but at the same time...if the company as a whole is allowing that policy, unless people boycott target...there's not much that can be done. Because you can walk to another target and get it there.

Money talks in the end..if one company finds out that they are losing $$$ in the end by not offering it, you'll see how quickly they'll turn their policy around.
 tdybear1
Joined: 2/18/2007
Msg: 51
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/5/2007 11:15:23 AM
pharmacists are in a position of power since people have to go through them to get their medication. Since they have this position, it is their moral obligation to society to provide medication to people who have been prescribed it. So, thier situation is not like many other business owners.

I think Plan B is sold over the counter now, though. They don't have to stock it for over the counter use.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/6/2007 4:28:27 PM

The Dramacy, of my statements Makes no diferance to the efficacy of the information provided therein.

The drama was the only effective thing in the statement. Equating something with slavery makes for great shock-appeal, and does a good job of distracting people from the fact that requiring a pharmacist or any other professional to do their job is not slavery at all. Every line of work involves people doing things they don't want to do.

Lets ask my friend, wikipedia, what a slave is:
Slaves are deprived of their personal freedom and compelled to provide their labour or services. The term also refers to the status or condition of those persons, who are treated as the property of another person or household. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation in return for their labour. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labour.


No you couldn't, nice Straw-Man though. If you actualy read what I said, it will become evident that I was stateing that FORCING Pharmacists to perform a job against thier will, is tantemount to slavery, just as forcing someone to pick cotton in a field is.

The only straw man I saw was when you branched off and started talking about pharmacologists.
And unless the pharmacist is captured by the company, forced to work for zero pay, and refused the right to quit and work somewhere else, he isn't a slave.

In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that a professional should act like one at the workplace. If I was a pharmacist, I would be considering other people's beliefs, not enforcing my own. If you choose a career that may conflict with your beliefs, you don't ask the world to subject itself to your beliefs, you suck it up.

And having to go to the next store has little or nothing to do with why people get mad when someone else enforces their beliefs on them.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 53
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/6/2007 6:08:26 PM
Absolutely NOT! They should not be pharmacists if they are imposing their religious views on other people. Rape victims should ALWAYS be able to take a morning after pill ASAP!!
 Feral
Joined: 4/10/2005
Msg: 54
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 1:38:22 AM
Every line of work involves people doing things they don't want to do.

See, and that's the point, isn't it? Harping on a word choice is a nice smoke-and-mirrors tactic, too, but it doesn't address the issue. Simply put, a laissez-faire capitalist system, such as we have in the US, makes it possible for providers of goods and services to make available only what they want to provide. Sounds fair to me, you know? If a pharmacy doesn't carry a product, for whatever reason, and I'm not a member of the board of directors or a shareholder or whatever, I don't have a right to demand that they carry it. I do, however, have the right to patronise an establishment that does. My rights are not infringed in the slightest that the Christian bookstore doesn't carry Susan Estrich's books (hypothetical - I haven't actually checked), so what I do, see, is I go to the major retail chain. Easy. For the government to jump in and insist that a product be made available -- let's say that the Christian bookstore be required to carry the Necronomicon and the Satanic Bible, would be imposing the government's will on that business against its will. Essentially, it could be described as corporate slavery, but that's neither here nor there.

Slaves are deprived of their personal freedom and compelled to provide their labour or services.

Sounds like mandating that all pharmacies carry stuff they're unwilling to, to me. Thanks.

...I was stateing that FORCING Pharmacists to perform a job against thier will...

See?

And unless the pharmacist is captured by the company, forced to work for zero pay, and refused the right to quit and work somewhere else, he isn't a slave.

Perhaps not in a conventional, colloquial sense, but according to the definition you've provided, it seems pretty clear he is.

In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that a professional should act like one at the workplace.

Define "professional".

If you choose a career that may conflict with your beliefs, you don't ask the world to subject itself to your beliefs, you suck it up.

Or, you avoid conflict by not getting into "disputed territory" by making it clear that some goods and services are not provided by your establishment.

And having to go to the next store has little or nothing to do with why people get mad when someone else enforces their beliefs on them.

I agree with this. Unfortunately in Western civilisation, we embrace a particular "culture of entitlement" that allows us to exercise our right to indignation at literally any point that our desires are not immediately met by those we feel should do so. Sad, innit?

Absolutely NOT! They should not be pharmacists if they are imposing their religious views on other people. Rape victims should ALWAYS be able to take a morning after pill ASAP!!

I agree that the means should be available, and I think hospitals should make such things available for those in their care, if they need them. But, does this mean that we need yet another law to demand that Joe Blow at Walgreens has to provide? Until the drug itself is banned and/or taken off the market, it will be available. Not all providers may carry it or provide it, but that's the point. Someone else will, because it's a sale. Free market GOOD!
 dbz77
Joined: 12/5/2006
Msg: 55
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:19:02 AM

I agree with this. Unfortunately in Western civilisation, we embrace a particular "culture of entitlement" that allows us to exercise our right to indignation at literally any point that our desires are not immediately met by those we feel should do so. Sad, innit?

This is sad.

A lot of people do not believe in God because He does nothing to prevent evil, even though God has no duty to do anything for us.


Michael
 dbz77
Joined: 12/5/2006
Msg: 56
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:23:46 AM

I'd say if the owner of the target in question carries it, than any pharmacist that works there should have to dispense it if it's requested.

Only if YOU are the owner or manager.

The decision to deal with pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain drugs rests with management; they can fire those pharmacists or promote them to management.


Michael
 dbz77
Joined: 12/5/2006
Msg: 57
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:27:29 AM

You mentioned that going to the next pharmacy is "protecting both peoples rights" but it isn't, the pharmacist's rights were protected, but the consumer's was trodden on. The pharmacist is paid to provide a service, not to impose his religious will on consumers. And when you "move onto to the next one" you endorse such behaviour.

So then if I am at McDonald's and I suddenly feel like having lobster bisque, instead of going to another place serving lobster bisque, I should demand that McDonald's be legally required to put lobster bisque on the menu.

What if the manager of a McDonald's franchise is Jewish? Is he imposing his religious views by refusing to put lobster bisque on the menu?


Michael
 Mouseketeer
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 58
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:36:05 AM
Its not about whether the pharmacy carrys it or not, I dont think thats the issue. The issue is whether a pharmacist who works FOR the pharmacy should have the right to refuse selling you a particular prescription.
If the pharmacy refuses to carry it, then its a "dont shoot the messenger" kind of thing. Clearly, you dont go to McDs for lobster, and you dont go to a bar to have communion. Some bars you go to for just beer, and thats all they have, and if you want some scotch, you get that somewhere else. OK so thats NOT the issue. Private companies (IMO) have the right to carry or not carry whatever they choose to. Their employees, on the other hand, must dispense whatever the pharmacy carries, regardless of their personal view on it.

Now, in the US, in my state, Florida, we dont need a prescription for Plan B, we can get it over the counter now, which is a big relief when the sh!t hits the fan, and you will not have 500 bucks to spare in a month or two for a possible abortion. I would much rather pay 25-40 bucks for a pill, thanks!

I want to add to this- I am so sick of all the p!ssing and moaning about all this birth control stuff. If people are so anti abortion, then why not make birth control more readily available? Doesnt it make MORE sense to do that, rather than have women and teens needing abortion services so frequently?
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 59
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:56:57 AM
Mouse,
You hit the nail on the head especially in that last paragraph!!!!!!!
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 60
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 11:45:21 AM

So then if I am at McDonald's and I suddenly feel like having lobster bisque, instead of going to another place serving lobster bisque, I should demand that McDonald's be legally required to put lobster bisque on the menu.

What if the manager of a McDonald's franchise is Jewish? Is he imposing his religious views by refusing to put lobster bisque on the menu?

No, and no. This is a poor comparison.

A relevant comparison would be like this: You go to McDonald's to order a hamburger. The guy at the counter is East-Indian. He has plenty of hamburgers in the restaurant he could serve you, and his employer does have them on the menu, but the East Indian considers the cow sacred and refuses to issue them to customers. He tells you to go elsewhere for your burgers.
 Feral
Joined: 4/10/2005
Msg: 62
view profile
History
should Pharmacists have the right to refuse morning after pill?
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:24:55 PM

A lot of people do not believe in God because He does nothing to prevent evil, even though God has no duty to do anything for us.

Sorry, Mike. My bad. I completely fail to see the relevance. Could you explain?

The decision to deal with pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain drugs rests with management; they can fire those pharmacists or promote them to management.

Which is exactly my point. This issue rests with the management of the establishment and is, ultimately, based on the financial bottom line. It has nothing to do with morality, and therefore should not be treated as though it does. Truly, a customer or two will be offended by the apparent religious autocracy exercised by a pharmacist enacting his or her will on a potential sale, but there are options. Go to management, go to another pharmacist, go to another pharmacy. When it is recognised by the management of a given establishment that there is a conflict between the overall business policy and the religious beliefs of one or more pharmacists in their employ, it is management's responsibility to make a decision. Not the government's, not the customer's. Management's. If they decide that their pharmacy will not provide a given pharmaceutical, for whatever reason, then that is their call, period.

So then if I am at McDonald's and I suddenly feel like having lobster bisque, instead of going to another place serving lobster bisque, I should demand that McDonald's be legally required to put lobster bisque on the menu.

Precisely.

The issue is whether a pharmacist who works FOR the pharmacy should have the right to refuse selling you a particular prescription.

Which, he or she does[/]. If I were so weak in my conviction that everyone has the right to make up their own minds, and someone came into the bookstore where I work looking for a book that I didn't like, it's my right not to find the book and hand it to them. Let some other bookseller do it, then. And, let the customer complain to management. It'll get back to me, yes? And, in the case of the pharmacist, it'll get back to them. But, they do have the right.

Their employees, on the other hand, must dispense whatever the pharmacy carries, regardless of their personal view on it.

Whereas, I disagree. The employees must fulfil the obligations of the job for which they're hired, granted, but they are not constrained by law or morality to do so. If there's a conflict, it is well within the purview of management to give them a different job. Back to me in the example before. Again, I'm a devout fearer of intellectual freedom (hypothetically speaking, lol), so I refuse, bold-faced, to take the customer to a section and give them the book they want. Management says, dude that don't fly, we're putting you in the receiving room. You don't have to sell anything, just receive and set up the stock. Ta-da! Nobody's rights get screwed, and there's no call for anyone else to get involved.

Doesnt it make MORE sense to do that, rather than have women and teens needing abortion services so frequently?

Technically, the answer to that goes into religiopolitical motivations that I'm not sure are appropriate in this thread. I'll just say it's not about the pill or the abortion, it's about control, and leave it at that.

No, and no. This is a poor comparison.

In actuality, it's a perfect parallel. Unless we're talking about the server vs. the establishment, like the whole argument of the pharmacist vs. the pharmacy. But, that's already been covered.

A relevant comparison would be like this: You go to McDonald's to order a hamburger. The guy at the counter is East-Indian. He has plenty of hamburgers in the restaurant he could serve you, and his employer does have them on the menu, but the East Indian considers the cow sacred and refuses to issue them to customers. He tells you to go elsewhere for your burgers.

Okay, we'll go that route. First off, this is ridiculous, since an East Indian with a love of cattle probably wouldn't be working at a beef-serving burger factory, anyway. But, okay, let's play. Once again, technically, said server has the right, the Constitutionally defended right to refuse to serve you. He also has the option to seek employment elsewhere, as he's either going to get fired or never get promoted. And likewise, you have the right to turn your head a maximum of ninety degrees, raise your voice a decibel or so, and accost a different server who will provide what you desire. Once again, while offensive and annoying, this doesn't directly infringe upon your rights, unless you insist that to be served immediately precisely what you want "with no backtalk from no peon", is a right. Culture of entitlement, again.

Msg 61

Dammit, Raziel! You beat me to the punch! I'm still going to leave mine, because my fingers demand their work be recognised. Otherwise, good on ya!
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >