Posted on 10/15/2007 7:41:49 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
The story is on top and the poll is on the bottom
Simply put, human life is a little more important than money or the retail business...
Look, personally I'm 100% pro life. I mean it works for me and I believe in it. The reality in America in 2007 is there is a lawfully sanctioned prescribed medicine available to Americans who don't agree with your religious convictions. Like it or not our Constitution guarantees them that right. I'd rather see you attempt to convert them religiously rather than attempt to take away rights of and from religion our Constitution guarantees.
I don’t think the clue stores are open this late so you may have to wait ‘till tomorrow to go get one. It was a rhetorical illustration regarding reliance on government approval to determine what is right (FDA) and the willingness of individuals to ignore the moral implications of a situation. If you actually are sincere regarding your statement you are an idiot. And if you are not you are a liar. Frankly, I can’t tell – perhaps it’s a mix of both. I mean that in all sincerity.
Have you seen pictures of what children look like when aborted? Severed limbs, portions of faces. How about the burns from saline abortions... seen those? Are you familiar with the babies born alive during an abortion that were left to die? How about those that lived? How about so called partial birth, comfortable with that? "Just shut up and do your job doc I came to get a service!" Would it be ok with you if a “mother” decided to choke the baby a few days after being born? A few hours? But a few hours before being born is ok, right? What about weeks before? Months before?
Oh but wait. This is a morning after pill. The child is not yet formed. True enough, but since no one can say when a person becomes a person why do murder zealots such as you insist on erring on the side of death? Insert some reason and logic into your thinking. The issue is where to draw the line. I can understand disagreement, I could probably provide a better argument for placement of that line somewhere later than conception that you could, given your displayed level of knowledge and reason. But willful ignorance when it comes to lives is pathetic. Courts in the late 40s said it was criminal, but then, we live in a brave new world now, don't we?
The money to be made with mills and pills does a fine job of buying Democrat and RINO support for the murder industry, and that is the side you are on. Cozy are we?
Like it or not the whole of abortion is plenty comparable to the holocaust, except for the numbers, of course.
Please excuse me. I gotta go put some ointment on this burn./s
What part of "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." don't you understand?
I think my integrity as a person and the way I live my life would speak more volumes than to take part in dispensing a drug that would end a life.
No part of it, but you know that. However I do understand that it cuts both ways. Again, I respect your constitutional right to believe the way you do. That's what we treasure, fight and die for in our country. By the same token the Constitution guarantees me as an American that your beliefs don't trump my own. You may believe your religion does but thankfully we don't live in a theocratic society. Having said that, if every institution in our country chose to identify itself soley based on a religious litmus test we'd never live up to the ideals that have made us the envy of the world.
The pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions and sell medication. I know plenty of people get upset that the drug exists, but if it is sold at a store, and is legal for me to buy, it should be my right to buy it.
Once again the issue is where a line of reason should be drawn. The state has a compelling reason to stop me from pummeling you with a bat regardless of my beliefs - so please stop using simplistic lines of logic to build your straw man. The issue is; does the state have a compelling argument to remove or curtail a persons free exercise of religion in not participating in the dispensing of an abortafacient drug? I contend they do not. When you can provide a compelling argument that a life is likely to be ended because a Muslim cashier scanned pork I will be willing to listen.
And that's fine, you are perfectly within your right to not dispense the legally prescribed drug. However, wouldn't you make a stronger statement if you chose not to accept employment/compensation from a company that does dispense the offending drug? Wouldn't it do more for your integrity if you were not employed by a company that dispenses pharmaceuticals you find morally objectionable?
This article needs to be reposted.
If I recall correctly, around 1850 or so the state said it was ok for you to end the life of your property if you wanted to. Would it be ok for you accept money to kill for them? Would it be ok for you to knowingly sell poison to someone who was going to kill one of their slaves? It was legal to do, so it was a “right”, correct?
Yes
Yes.
(oops) Yes, but that is a seperate issue from whether a pharmacist can be compelled to dispense medication that will arguably end a life against his/her sincerely held religious beliefs.
The one on the downside,is the fetus.
Anyway, if the pharmacist doesn’t own the store, they have
to listen to the BOSS(as long as it’s legal).If they don’t
operate the hospital, they gotta listen to the director of
the pharmacy.
The pharmacist can alway ask for a waiver to not fill those
meds they feel are being immorally used. The state has
no right to force them to sell anything they know will harm
someone(read fetus) or possibly the mother.
This situation is seen every day with other drugs. As an example,
if a doctor orders a dose of medication or orders a medication
to be given in a way that will kill or harm the patient (example,
potassium chloride, or super high dose of digoxin) the pharmacist
and the nurse on duty have the duty to not administer the
medication. If they did without protestation to the physician
they would be liable themselves. So this ridiculous argument
that you gotta give what the doctor orders is nonsense.
If one knows for example, that a patient might be
allergic to the birth control pill, but fills the
prescription anyway, they are liable for any harm.
So since, the pharmacist knows the pill is harmful to
the developing fetus, they have a duty not to dispense it.
QED.
I think we need to come down to the article though. It states that the employer is trying not to let the state make him sell these drugs. Hopefully he will win. Otherwise, there won’t be many pharmacist comfortable working in this area of expertise who are pro-life.
I'll tell you what it means - you don't get to insist that someone else violate their beliefs simply because you don't hold to them. Soooo - you don't get the drug (at least not from me). Thanks for the affirmation.
If that clause was in his contract I'd agree with you. I admire standing on principle. What I don't admire is not fulfilling your duties in the job you were hired to do. Again if your personal convictions were so strong you owe it to your employer to inform him before you accept employment. Otherwise don't cry when he cans your ass for not doing the job he hired you to do.
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.