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]
Whoa now. I agree as well, but come on this is the liberal media were talking about. Lets not all jump to conclusions and think that this is widespread. Remember everything the media or liberals say should be taken with a grain of salt. We know they are liars - one isolated occurrance is not evidence.
As I have said, if a pharmacist doesn't want to fill the script, fine. But give it back. Why would that be so hard? Does he think he accomplished anything? Does he think he made a difference? No. Instead his company is going to get screwed.
Happy to.
Is there any occassion where you (personally) think you would be within your rights to consciously interfere with the immoral acts of another human being whose actions have nothing to do with you?
(By nothing to do with "you", I mean you or your family, your business, etc.)
You shouldn't be. They are just like the left says they are. They want to enact their religious views into law. And like the left, they rarely have the courage to express them vociferously. They want to obtain power using a stealth agenda, then spring into action.
On that case it seems appropriate and feasible to reduce that number by one.
That is logically, and fundamentally dishonest. There was an implied contract when the prescription was handed over.
BTW, I found the business of the founder of terrorism on your profile page fascinating. I never knew anything of that person who I have since looked up.
There's a good reason the meaning of the word "silly" changed from "pious" to "foolish"
Bull$hit. You have the right to take your neighbor's knife from your neighbor's hand if he's threatening someone with it. Don't give me this "property is property" crap, especially when we're talking about a piece of paper that was easily replaceable with minor inconvenience.
Did he have a "right" to take it? Do you mean did we, as society, give him the legal power to keep that prescription?
Of course not.
Given his beliefs, did he think he had the moral right to retain the prescription?
Of course he did. As a matter of fact, returning it to be filled by someone else would make a mockery of his beliefs.
Your figure is incorrect. I've been on several football teams in my life. There were many females in fairly close proximity and none, zilch, zip, zero ever "accommodated" the entire team whether they were on birth control or not. Your comment is a misogynist's slur.
Yes, if those acts violated the rights of those people. So many, many times.
Now if you have tired of attempting to besmirch me personally, can we return to the subject matter and away from you trying to change the subject to me?
At the risk of being the odd man out here. I think it is within his right not to fill a prescription he doesn't feel is right. Remember, abortions are legal yet a doctor can choose not to perform them. Actually we are thankful more doctors do not. So what is the difference here? Granted if he is breaking a corp policy (his company) he can and should be dealt with. But morally I think it is up to him just as it is a doctor who does not perform abortions.
Keith
Actually, they are both in their respective businesses for the money!
I agree. Also many men that voted for Bush.
Not to amp up the rhetoric, but the same could be said about the 9/11 hijackers. Or eco-terrorists. After all, what is more moral than saving the planet or fighting your religion's enemies?
Funny
He should have given her the prescription back the moment he told her he wouldn't fill it. Until he processed it, it was her possession, not the pharmacist's.
My point is, he is under no obligation to fill the prescription. If he is violating a corporate policy by refusing to fill the prescription that is between him and CVS.
People seem to think that the person presenting the prescription is ENTITLED to have it filled where ever and when ever. I asked a co-worker her opinion. She said "Well the pharmacist HAS TO fill it, it came from a doctor". Um, no.
If CVS has a policy not to provide abortifacient drugs (or other controversial drugs), is it your position that they should be forced to do so? I think this is the bottom line... whether it be a corporation or a small pharmacy.
Bears repeating.
Me, for one. Read the thread for others.
You did agree that he had the "right" not to fill the prescription, didn't you?
Sure. That doesn't mean his employer has to keep him on, though. (though it seems that CVS does have a morals exception)
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.