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]
A doctor opposing abortions would of course seek a job at an abortion clinic... NOT!
No, I don't. If they did, Muslim terrorists would be free to murder indifels without being punished. After all, their morality calls for them to violate infidels' legal right to not be blown up.
What kind of oil should I change to?
Yes, government has played a big role in aviation. But words mean things. And "created" has a specific meaning. And government did not "create" aviation.
And a K-Mart salesperson does not have the right to refuse to sell you ammunition to prevent you from killing someone?
"Billy Cowart and Julie Elaine Cowart, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Richard Glenn Cowart, Deceased (collectively, the Cowarts), sued Kmart Corporation (Kmart) for negligently selling ammunition to Manuel Carrasco and James Gabriel that another person, Leonard Bell, used to shoot and kill Richard Cowart."
-- Cowart v. Kmart Corp., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex.App.-Dallas [5th Dist.] 2000)
The old, "Damned if you do and damned if you don't", huh?
You opened this screen name a long time ago but just recently started to post. It's an old trick. All your posts are liberal. You have been outed by the best TROLL detective on FR.
You will be gone soon and posting under a different name. Watch and learn
Yes, Bella_Bru, I do realize that your point of contention is that they refused to give her back her prescription.
If his job description required him to dispense abortaficants, then I would tend to agree he may have breached his employment contract. I'm unwilling to jump to the conclusion in the absence of evidence that he breached his employment contract.
On the other hand I am sure that pharmacists have the discretion to refuse to fill prescriptions for a wide range of reasons. To suggest that they have a unqualified duty to fill any script handed to them is unreasonable.
You're right. Religion calls for the person to renounce other ties and place them above everything else. This is why we have the people on this website that believe that stealing or other illegalities are all right if it prevents something that they find immoral.
Ha hahahahahahahahahah! Very funny!
You know what is even more amusing is the thought of a Christian Scientist with appendicitis!
That sounds like one of Michael Moore's discredited lines.
If K-Mart knew you would use the ammo to go murder someone, then they have a moral duty not to sell it to you. However, they should not be legally prevented from doing so nor should they be held liable if you go kill your wife.
It's only because of guys like John Edwards that a company can be sued for selling a legal product that is later used illegally.
The prescription allows her to do something he considers morally offensive. To you, that's grounds for not filling it, but not grounds for retaining it?
How do you justify this?
Now, enjoy the time you have left on this forum. You are toast.
Irrelevant. The issue does not concern sex, and is unlikely to concern birth control generally.
The specific problem is that the pill is an abortafacient (I probably misspelled that). This means that the pill does not prevent conception, but prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. If one holds the position that life begins at conception then there is little logical difference between this and abortion.
Indecently, the article is wrong about RU486 concerning a similar issue. RU486 does not prevent fertilization, it causes the expulsion of the fertilized egg even if it has already attached. Again, the destruction of life.
I agree that the woman should have been given back her script, but I disagree that pharmacists should be forced to choose between keeping their jobs and abiding by their morals.
I am also rather surprised that so many here are presumably aligned with John Kerry on this. Unrestricted fetal stem cell research is opposed by President Bush because fertilized eggs (people) will be destroyed in the process. One can argue all day as to when life begins, but if the instant is unknown then should we not support the safest course?
You have a right to speak. You have no right to demand that government force me to agree with you.
That's correct. If a doctor prescribes somethiing that would negatively interact with a drug the patient is already taking, the pharmacist is required to contact the doctor and not fill the script until the problem is sorted out. There are other exceptions, too.
False... But then I guess you are not used to have other in the conservative camp not share your values...
A pity!
So what is your justification for the pharmicist keeping her personal property?
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.