Posted on 11/09/2004 8:23:53 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
Edited on 11/09/2004 8:39:31 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ya, to fill the prescription.
The question for him was whether he could in good conscience give it back. He couldn't, under the circumstances.
Bull. By what right does he refuse to return someones property to them?
Sorry, but this sounds really dangerous to me. You mean something like Hillary said, (paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact quote) "we will take more from you to benefit the greater good." Sorry, property rights should take a back seat to nothing that isn't life-threatening.
And if he didn't give it back, she'd just go back to the doctor and get another, so he should have stolen her car, and perhaps shot her in the kneecaps.
I agree totally with the notion that an INDEPENDENT can make those choices. Such was not the case here. She chose not to follow procedure, and as such is subject to termination. As it should be.
If you have a job that you believe is "forcing" you to do something immoral, wouldn't you just quit as opposed to taking a shotgun to them?
I'm just betting that when use the word right, you're going to limit me to legal rights - right?
Do you really want lawyers or pharmacists to be making pharmaceutical decisions in our country?
Does everything have to wind up in a court? ;-)
" There are no rights being defended when conception has not yet occurred."
Do some homework. Even Planned Parenthood and the drug companies that make the BCP advertise that an embryo will be prevented from implantating in the uterus. Conception has already occured.
Wise up, people.
"Personally, I think this whole thread should be pulled. It's becoming fodder for ridicule from the DUers."
Speaking as a foreigner, I'd say they could on the contrary draw some lessons from this thread, about open speech and honest debate, and the ability to bring sound contradiction in a civil manner.
Birth control pills, in fact, ARE abortifacients...they do kill a living unborn baby, albeit in a very early stage of the process.
If I were a pharmacist I wouldn't fill a prescription for an abortifacient...that would be like filling a prescription for Zyklon B for the local SS.
Ed
As opposed to what, imaginary rights?
Precisely. And I think that poster "Scenic Sounds" is a troll attempting to bait us into looking bad.
How about an analogy? A person goes to S-mart to buy a 12-gauge double-barrel Remington. At the sporting goods counter he hands over his driver's license for the paperwork/age verification/etc. purposes. The clerk believes guns are evil, and refuses to sell one. He also suspects the customer will just go somewhere else to buy one, so he refuses to return the driver's license.
The only reason you look bad is because you refuse to answer the arguments except to scream to mommy.
what are you, 9?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Absolutely, there are no pigs more equal than other pigs despite what you may think.
It does no such thing.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If through employment negotiations they arrived at an agreement that they will not have to dispense medicines they find objectionable, fine. If they do not have such an agreement with their employer they have 3 choices: Quit, dispense the medicine, start their own business and run as they see fit.
You finally got one right philospically but several of the states have already decided to expand the rights of conscience by passing laws in their respective states so in essence you got this one wrong too.
You don't look bad and no one else can make you look bad. You just disagree with the pharmacist. LOL. ;-)
Well he forced his will when he refused to the 'script back to her, no? Or is that sort of force ok in your moral handbook?
sorry, CC, I didn't mean to send the reply to you.
got ahead of myself with the "post" button.
apologies.
Please, madam. I answered the question SEVERAL times.
Private property is one of our most important rights.
Private property is one of our most important rights.
Private property is one of our most important rights.
Private property is one of our most important rights.
There. Now I've said it four more times. If private property is not important any more, then we may as well live in Iran or Korea or China.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.