Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Ah, I didn't see that part. I would be ok with a pharmacist who refuses to fill a script for BC, as long as he MUST hand the script to someone who does.
The "some cases" are enough cases to oppose it. If only "some people" would be murder on a given day and they might be your children, you'd think differently. Especially considering that you're sacrificing human lives for convienent sex. Not fair.
I'll take instructions from people I actually know and care about, thanks.
My convictions will go with me into marriage, despite the fact that I'm not Catholic. It's not moot. Opposing abortion at any stage in any way is never moot. This is not a religious mandate, it's my personal opposition to killing unborn babies even "some percent of the time"
There are unabortive methods, Disphragms, spermicides, condoms, sponges, film... So my opposition is not to your using birth control, it's using the killing kind.
Why choose the abortive kind for reasons other than convienence?
I think there are people who oppose some contraceptives because they can cause abortions,
And I think there are other people who oppose any kind of contraception because they believe that sex without risk of pregnancy is sinful,
And I think there are still other people who oppose contraception because contraceptives have provided women with more power and freedom.
At least that's what I hear. ;-)
Your mind is very closed.
I'm sorry, I am not against bc pills.
Ok, hypothetical situation.
Someone needs to take birth control, and has no other options. Yet she still wishes to have relations with her husband. What if she abstains on ovulation days (Catholics support the "rhythm method", and now you know which days these will be thanks to the pill), and also used other precautions, such as a condom or diaphragm? The pill would then never be an abortificant.
Is that ok?
The post was about birth control and child spacing. That was all. If you are not Catholic, you are morally able to use a condom.
And we are all one big happy family!
Love it, you made my day in one logical post.
As a customer, you have the right to fire him by not going back. Likewise, if you dislike his behavior, you can fire his boss by not returning to the store.
That is entirely between the pharmacist, the store owner, and the customers.
I won't by ammo at the local Walmart because of their lame policies, but they have every right to have them.
When the doctor, Titius, was called to a pregnant woman who was seriously sick, he gradually realized that the cause of the deadly sickness was nothing else than pregnancy, that is, the presence of the fetus in the womb. Therefore, to save the mother from certain and imminent death one way presented itself to him, that of procuring an abortion, or ejection of the fetus. In the customary manner he adopted this way, but the means and operations applied did not tend to the killing of the fetus in the mother's womb, but only to its being brought forth to light alive, if it could possibly be done, although it would die soon, inasmuch as it was not mature.Yet, despite what the Holy See wrote on August 19th, 1889, in answer to the Archbishop of Cambrésis, that it could not be taught safely that any operation causing the death of the fetus directly, even if this was necessary to save the mother, was licit, the doubting Titius clung to the licitness of surgical operations by which he not rarely procured the abortion, and thus saved pregnant women who were seriously sick.
Therefore, to put his conscience at rest Titius suppliantly asks: Whether he can safely repeat the above mentioned operations under the reoccuring circumstances.
The reply is:
In the negative, according to other decrees, namely, of the 28th day of May, 1884, and of 19th day of August, 1889.
But on the following Thursday, on the 25th day of July . . . our most holy Lord approved a resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers, as reported to him. (Reply of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Cambrésis, July 24, 25, 1895)
It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning. (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on procured abortion §14)
In this case, the pharmacist didn't just refuse to fill the perscription, he refused to return it to the woman or to transfer it to another store where she could get it refilled. This guy was a #1 sphincter and deserved to be fired. He was on shaky grounds by failing to fill it and it was just reprehensible that he used his power and authority to dictate his moral views on someone else. He deliberately interfered in the doctor-patient relationship by, not denying the woman his services (which can be argued were reflecting his views), but by cutting off service to her in any way. That cross the line from personal opinon to controlling of others. I support trying to change peoples attitudes, but have no use for people that resort to coercion. From the article: "Pharmacists have the right to exercise their conscience in a case like this, but the health and safety of the patient has to be the overriding issue," said Michael Bettiga, a Green Bay pharmacist who directs the state pharmacy examining board.
Do they still sell corks in drugstores?
You point is more than reasonable. After reading more about the circumstances in this case, the pharmacist took the perscription from the girl and refused to give it back so she could go elsewhere. If the understanding of the issues is up front and honest, it's a different story. If, like in this case, the pharmacist decided to dictate how this girl should live, then he's crossed the line and deserves discipliary, and possibly, legal action.
I do not believe an unimplanted egg that leaves a woman's body is ending a human life. A woman's own hormones can cause this, too. I know many people here feel passionately the opposite about this and if these people, like Freepinforterri, wish to aviod birth control pills, I have no problem with it. I do take issue with people that see surgical abortion as convenient escape. I do not put birth control pills in that category. And I think it is great that we can discuss and/or argue about it like mature adults, even though we disagree. I do have a problem when pharmacists, like the one in the article, use coercion to deny not only their services, but anyone's services, to a patient. That's using your personal beliefs to control someone else and that is wrong.
There are many medications that can cause termination of a pregnancy or the death of a fetus. Even drinking alcohol can do that. Oral contraceptives do serve other functions and that should not be denied to people that need them.
That's exactly true. Don't become smug and/or arrogant in your views. It's killing the Dems.
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.