Posted on 10/30/2007 5:37:03 AM PDT by NYer
I really don’t feel bad for the rape victim who’s unable to abort her baby. I wish to Jesus Christ in all sincerity that the mother would accept the baby and leave open the possibility for adoption considering stress and age.
Like I said before. Rape is terrible; but, abortion is far worse.
Apples and oranges comparison. If the “terms of employment” for a doctor requires him to perform abortions and he accepts employment under those terms - yes! Usually, a doctor sets his own terms of employment; a pharmacist does not.
If a pharmacist wants to set up his own independently owned and operated pharmacy he can refuse to dispense any drug he desires for any reason. His clients can go elsewhere to get their prescribed drug - or not!
“I really don’t feel bad for the rape victim who’s unable to abort her baby”
That statement is fair enough. The problem is that we should feel bad for a rape victim. They have experienced a trauma and violation which can be debilitating and devastating. That doesn’t mean I believe they should be able to abort their babies, but I do feel bad for them. We all should. As a follower of Jesus, I would hope this is true for you as well. They are victims too, which many seem to forget.
Like I said, I don’t believe a baby should be aborted because it is conceived in a rape. Preventing the pregnancy from occuring is another matter. If the patient hasn’t ovulated, prevention can safely take place. Plan B can do this. There is much research which indicates that Plan B may not prevent implantation, as previously thought. I am not 100% convinced, but I am close. It would be a wonderful thing if rape victims had a means to prevent pregnancy, which did not result in the possible abortion of the child. I am encouraged by the studies I have read.
“If a pharmacist wants to set up his own independently owned and operated pharmacy he can refuse to dispense any drug he desires for any reason.”
Unless the law requires him to dispense these drugs.
This girl was slipped something in her drink, and then raped, so there were most likely no symptoms of violence. IMO this doctor did a good thing, and provided a suggestion that I will personally pass along to ER physicians. I would think he is right about most pharmacists being willing to fill scripts for EC and for birth control pills if the doctor explains the situation.
As for the substitute of a D&C for the availablility of EC, that isn’t even logical, and even if it was, it would be terribly traumatic at age 14. Birth contol pills can work as a substitute, but the dosing isn’t exact, because that isn’t their intended use. If he believed it would be easy for this family to fill a script, that would have been the obvious choice.
My apologies to the original poster, for not copying him on this post. I am in a bit of a hurry.
Shouldn’t a good Catholic pharmacist also refuse to sell birth control pils, diaphrams, spermicidal foam and condoms? All kill off POTENTIAL children and are not allowed by the church.
It’s arrogance to assume someone is doing something evil based on no evidence. Because a thing CAN be abused is no reason to believe that anyone who has that thing is abusing it.
That said there are drugs that have no approved medical function. I believe the Holy Father is actually objecting to those.
And a good vegan grocery checker should refuse to sell meet, eggs, chicken and fish because each kill off animals.
Where does it stop?
If he accepts the "terms of employment" set by any authority from which he accepts employment (private or gubmint), he is bound by those terms. If he doesn't like or can't accept the dictated terms of employment for the profession he has chosen, he has the "right" to seek employment elsewhere and/or to change professions!
Regardless of what the Pope thinks or says (or anyone else for that matter), neither a pharmacist nor a sewer cleaner has the the "right" to set his own terms of employment unless he is his own employer. Even then, he is bound by the laws regulating his chosen profession if he wants to practice that profession.
Where does it stop?
And Muslims should be able to not ring up pork if they are a cashier at a grocery store. Or transport alochol in cabs.
Or.....
“Shouldn’t a good Catholic pharmacist also refuse to sell birth control pils, diaphrams, spermicidal foam and condoms? All kill off POTENTIAL children and are not allowed by the church.”
Yes, he should refuse to sell birth control. A pharmacist, by choosing to become (or remain) Catholic, shouldn’t sell these items. But, for every Catholic pharmacist who refuses, there are plenty of non-Catholic pharmacists who don’t. Thus, it’s pretty much a non-issue (unless it can be used as a means to criticize that authoritarian old man in Rome who just can’t seem to get with the times!)
“It’s arrogance to assume someone is doing something evil based on no evidence. Because a thing CAN be abused is no reason to believe that anyone who has that thing is abusing it.”
I’d rather not live with such a possibility on my conscience. Further, it’s arrogance to assume that the pharmacist has assumed anything about the morality of another person’s actions. He’s primarily responsible for his own soul.
“If he accepts the “terms of employment” set by any authority from which he accepts employment (private or gubmint), he is bound by those terms. If he doesn’t like or can’t accept the dictated terms of employment for the profession he has chosen, he has the “right” to seek employment elsewhere and/or to change professions!”
Including cases in which the law was changed after he’d already become a pharmacist, and had already been exercising his conscience?
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.