Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.
Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: 'I won't fill it for moral reasons,' " Polzin said.
Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."
The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?
No one knows how many pharmacists in Minnesota or nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents -- and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.
"Five years ago, we didn't have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We're not dumbfounded now. We're very concerned about what's happening."
But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.
"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Flippant arrogance is a good way to turn off those who might come around to your side.
God calls us to witness for him and to bring others to him. You could be using your faith to teach us, to bring us closer to God. But you chose to belitte and insult. That also requires a good confession.
That's as good an analogy as I could think of. Conscientious objector pacifists in a volunteer army.
Why is this so important to you? We disagree.
To put it very bluntly, because I'm right, and they aren't.
Drawing a wild analogy to make a point is not a cause of sin, unlike say, providing an apologia for birth control.
Hitler disagreed with you concerning the humanity of the Jews. Was his opinion also valid like you think yours is?
There is only one point at which life can begin. If we can't agree on it, so be it, but obviously one of us is right, and the other wrong.
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not." 65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. 66
****************************
Obviously, an ectopic pregnancy is not an "aggressor" in any kind of culpable way, but the other life does indeed present a real and lethal threat.
SD
The difference is that, politically, it may be possible to ban abortions in the third and (maybe) second trimesters. It is highly unlikely that such a ban will ever happen for first trimester abortions, however.
A pharmacist working for another party as appears to be the case here can fill the prescriptions presented of be subject to firing. One working for himself is not. A physician working for another has the same options.
Those employed by others do not have the freedoms those working for themselves do.
Interesting that you do care for the self-proclaimed "rights" of the patients but support those of this pharmacist. Looks like some "rights" are more equal than others.
They would, of course, say the same thing.
I'm gonna disagree with you here. The child does indeed pose a threat. The child, of course, is not at fault or culpable for the situation. Nevertheless, the threat is real. This is about the only situation I can think of where it is true, but one need not give up one's life in this type of situation.
Self-defense is legitimate.
SD
Politicis does not dictate morality. I am all in favor of any law reducing abortions, but that does not mean that I think it is okay for some abortions to be legal.
I'd like to know what basis you have for your beliefs. You must have some point when you think "life" begins, and you must have some reason for thinking that, right?
SD
Yes they would, and I won't begrude them that. And may the stronger politically win. All law is a legislation of morality. That being said, I am certainly not going to abdicate my morality when it comes to advocating laws.
Exactly. I was not talking about political coalitions. I was speaking to beliefs about the origin of life.
In a rational world our laws would have a basis in the facts of life.
SD
I very much doubt you can find me a citation anywhere that says that. But please do go ahead and try.
From Catholic-pages.com:
"NFP is only OK when the couple have serious social, psychological, physical or financial reasons to avoid another pregnancy" and "Pope Paul VI makes it clear that the first question to ask is 'Do we have grave reasons for avoiding a pregnancy at this time?'"
Sure, but you have to accept the political reality that, barring some form of theocratic takeover of the country, an outright ban on abortion in this country is highly unlikely. A ban on contraception is even more of a pipe dream.
Even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, that would just mean that the individual states would decide the legality of abortion. Other than a few places like Utah, I doubt that pro-life political forces would be able to do any better than 2nd and 3rd trimester bans on abortion.
But hate in your heart, which might be true, I don't know, is a sin.
Okay, you're right. You happy now?
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.