Posted on 11/23/2004 7:36:40 PM PST by LouAvul
That said, in areas like this, he shouild be at least nice enough to post signs to that effect, to spare people (customers) the embarassment and added difficulty. That would be the polite, decent thing to do, and no one would be inconvinienced or troubled.
The fact that some pharmacists DO NOT take that rather obvious step, but prefer to get a customer to the desk and preach while still refusing to serve them, is patently rude and suggests that they WANT that opportunity to be a jerk.
I really have no problem with people acting on strong beliefs, if they do not violate another's rights. No one's rights were apparently violated here, but the proprietor certainly did behave as a jerk.
It would be a great idea for the GOP to frame the Abortion Question in this very Context.
Anyone who has ever used Birth Control is an Abortionist.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it's a person... I'm just trying to argue that whether or not its a person is the only relevant issue. "choice", etc. has nothing to do with it if it is in fact a person.
"Anyone who has ever used Birth Control is an Abortionist."
If the GOP did this, it would be consigned to electoral oblivion, and branded a hopelessly extremist party. And rightfully so.
I've seen people advocate banning ALL contraception here.
You're ok with cut-n-paste, are those your thoughts as well?
"So personhood as defined by the brain starts at about 22 weeks of gestation...
Until then, abortion should be on demand... After only if the health or life of the woman host is at risk... Which actually would be perfectly OLK with Roe v. Wade... "
But NOT Doe-v-Bolton, the companion case.
But you failed to answer my questions, care to try? Or is cut-n-paste the extent of your interest?
How is an abortificant "medicine"?
I don't know how to define "medicine" so I just used a simple, common word, for my thought.
Did you understand? Would it satisfy you if I substitute "pharmacy products" for "medicines?"
It has the same meaning, either way.
Do you agree or disagree with my MAIN point?
truth_seeker,
And in California, where I also live, a Pharmacist cannot prescribe drugs, as that is the responsibility of guess who, the Doctor.
I know,
Why stop at Drugs and prescriptions...
Let's say you injure your ankle, and the doctor says you need to use crutches.
But guess what, the local Pharmacy (Child Killers R Us), doesn't sll them.
Now we have disenfranchised liberals running all over town with injured ankles... What a Travesty....
Where does it stop, why only these pills?????
My stores don't carry my favorite BBQ Sauce, Open Pit...
Should we boycott them, write to newspaper editors all over town and demand my rights to BBQ Sauce and Crutches have been abused.
Face it folks, we are not all entitled to every single thing in the world. No store carries every single Drug either.
Should we boycott Ace Hardaware because they don't carry Washing Machines, and Home depot does?
This Pharmacist has a right to sell whatever he wants to or does not want to.
Regards,
Joe
"Would it satisfy you if I substitute "pharmacy products" for "medicines?""
I dunno, could you agree to suicide pills and other murder weapons in your definition of "pharmacy products"?
"I dunno, could you agree to suicide pills and other murder weapons in your definition of "pharmacy products"?"
Sure that is okay. Too many legitimately prescribed pain pills, become deadly.
Self-administered, I suppose you could call them "suicide pills."
Too much pain can kill, too. So is the doctor killing by prescribing, or for failing to prescribe?
You are taking me round and round, with your word games.
Under various circumstances I suppose these pain medications could also be suicide pills, and even murder weapons.
I quit. You win. You are smarter.
Thanks, glad to help in your search for truth. It appears, that for you, the truth is that death and medicine are co-equals. Freedom is Slavery. Peace is War.
That is a distinction without a difference. YOUR logic is quite flawed, but your argument is with mother nature, not me.
So because you got an abortion you cannot admit that its a life? I've seen people in road accidents that probably looked exactly like your period too, I guess nobody really died because they no longer LOOKED human.
Yes. I'm one of them. Artificial contraception is THE alpha of the gay rights movement. It is malum in se. And no one who practices it should pretend to be a Christian.
First, do you support a LEGAL, government-enforced ban on artificial contraception of all types?
Second, given that not all Christians are members of sects which proscribe contraception, isn't it a bit, well, rude to suggest they aren't Christian? They certainly believe in Christ's divinity, just not RC dogma on that subject.
Third, what has contraception to do with gay rights? Some forms of it can reduce the chance of HIV infection, but that's only one form. Gays don't NEED contraception.
"It is Malum in Se"
Why? While it might run counter to some sect's dogma and beliefs, this does NOT make it "evil in and of itself".
And finally, myself and my wife have one child; we do not wish for another for a year or two. Given that we are of no particular religious sect banning contraception, why should we be banned from its use based on yours?
If you were NOT advocating a LEGAL ban, then my questions are mostly moot. Well, they are anyway, as no such ban is ever likely to gain any serious support, but I am curious as to the mindset of advocating such.
Huh ? This could not have been intended for me. I am Presbyterian and agree completely with Roe v. Wade and its progeny cases. Public policy and constitutional interpretation should not be dictated by religiously driven ideology or the imposition of a particular religious dogma on the subject as it relates to the options available to rational adults.
Huh? What does contraception have to do with the gay rights movement? The pill is not really necessary for lesbians or gay men, just as one example.
And no one who practices it should pretend to be a Christian.
Perhaps that is what your Church teaches, but not all Christians agree with that interpretation.
In any event, even if you can make an argument that the pill is equivalent to abortion and should therefore be banned, there is no way you can make the same argument for every type of contraception, such as condoms.
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.