The "Moral" Pharmacist?....

[Qdrop]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/national/19pill.html?hp&ex=1113969600&en=7b067f84a90f74ef&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Pharmacies Balk on After-Sex Pill and Widen Fight in Many States
By MONICA DAVEY and PAM BELLUCK

Published: April 19, 2005


CHICAGO, April 18 - As a fourth-generation pharmacist whose drugstore still sits on the courthouse square of his conservative small town downstate, State Senator Frank Watson knew exactly what side to take when Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich ordered pharmacies to fill prescriptions for women wanting the new "morning after" pill, even if it meant putting aside their employees' personal views.

"The governor is trying to make a decision that must be left to the pharmacy," said Senator Watson, whose family business, Watson's Drug Store in Greenville, Ill., does not stock the pill. "It's an infringement on a business decision and also on the pharmacist's right of conscience."

Senator Watson, the Republican leader of the Senate, and Governor Blagojevich, a Democrat, are the latest combatants in a growing battle over emergency contraception. In at least 23 states, legislators and other elected officials have passed laws or are considering measures in a debate that has attracted many of the same advocates and prompted much of the same intensity as the fight over abortion.

In some states, legislators are pushing laws that would explicitly grant pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense drugs related to contraception or abortion on moral grounds. Others want to require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription for birth control, much like Governor Blagojevich's emergency rule in Illinois, which requires pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to dispense it without delay. And in some states, there are proposals or newly enacted laws to make the morning-after pill more accessible, by requiring hospitals to offer it to rape victims or allowing certain pharmacists to sell it without a prescription.....

-------------------
unfucking believable.........
"moral" pharmacists forcing thier religious beliefs on others......in the most deplorable of ways....

[Qdrop]

Bill Maher's response from "Real Time w/Bill Maher":

"....And finally, New Rule: Pharmacists have to fill prescriptions.
As our audience seems to already know, more and more American pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control because of their personal moral objections.
Hey, you know what would really teach us a lesson? If you took off your pretend doctor jacket and got another job.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe cutting off the pill doesn't even go far enough. Yeah, it's high time activist drugstores stopped coddling sluts on every aisle.
Let's not sell any more makeup either. A good woman doesn't paint herself.
And no more deodorant. You should smell bad. Keep the boys from getting ideas.
And no suntan lotion. I've seen what happens at the MTV Beach House, you whore! You want to avoid melanoma, buy a veil!

Why is this country becoming Utah?!

You know, I know the conservatives are always saying that the coastal elites don't really get it about them because we just fly over. Okay, maybe. But, you know what? You guys don't get us either.

We need to fuck.

Refusal to provide birth control threatens our economy and our very way of life here in Southern California. There's a lot of hot chicks out here, man. We need birth control! I mean, seriously, how do you think movies get made?

Now, of course, I know the other side is saying, yes, but this is a moral issue.
Yeah, but the problem is, not everyone gets their morals from the same book. You go by the book that says slavery is okay but sex is wrong until after marriage, at which point it becomes a blessed sacrament between a husband..... and the wife who is withholding it.

In conclusion, let me say to all the activist pharmacists out there, the ones who think sex is bad.... probably because sex with them always is;
Fellas, a pharmacist is not a law-giver, not even a doctor. In the medical pecking order, you rank somewhere in between a chiropractor and a tree surgeon.
You don't answer to a law above the laws of men. You work for Sav-On. The doctors are the ones who make medical decisions because they went to medical school, whereas you were transferred from the counter where people drop off film. "

[EN[i]GMA]

Aren't you imposing beliefs on them by saying they have to dispense the drugs, against every moral precept of their religion?

How is what the lawmakers are doing any different than imposing moral beliefs on people, against their wishes?

Just because their belief lines up with yours it's o.k.?

It's wrong for one person/establishment to tell you "No, you can't have this" but right for another establishment to tell that establishment to tell the other establish "No, you can't abstain from selling this drug".

What kind of hypocrisy is this?

I would almost say this:

unfucking believable.........
"moral" legislators forcing thier religious beliefs on others......in the most deplorable of ways....

How is that any different? The legislators are forcing their moral belief (They think it's wrong to prevent the sale of these drugs) on others, in a deplorable manner.

[EN[i]GMA]

And when all of these pharmacists quit because of this issue, leaving their town without ANY drugs, who's going to look like a stupid cunt?

Whoever proposed this legislation.

People don't take offences to their morality lightly. I know it's beyond our atheistic understanding, but if someone won't sell these drugs now, what's some 'earthly law' going to do to persuade them?

They'll just quit, and leave this (likely small) town without a drug store.

Great.

[Qdrop]

first off, none of these pharmacists are gonna quit shit....

these are old pharmacists who have no intention of picking and moving or anything of the sort.

get of the "slippery slope" ride...

second,
the job of a pharmacist is to fill perscriptions. period.
it is a medical service for those in need.
it is not a counseling service, or a ethics service, or religious...you get the picture.

their job is to fill perscriptions correctly and safely, and see that the recipients take them correctly.

a pharmacist has no business bringing personal moral beliefs into his service then the President does.

come on now....let's just call this exactly what it is: an excuse for anti-abortion conservatives to stop people from getting abortions and for the moral christian right conservatives to try and force people to not have sex out of wedlock.
that's it, plain and simple.

don't dodge the real topic.

[STANKY808]

What about the other side of that slippery slope. Is it not logical that other service providers will start to decide when to fulfill their obligations as an employee? Say a firefighter arriving at a home on fire with a "sinner" of one sort or not trapped inside? Will he say "let the sinner burn"? Or a cop that sees a bunch of guys beating up a "queer" and decides well, since he's a "fag/sinner" we'll let him get trounced.
If these pharmacists were so morally opposed to these birth control pills, why did they become a pharmacist? They know going in what is expected of them.

[Qdrop]

What about the other side of that slippery slope. Is it not logical that other service providers will start to decide when to fulfill their obligations as an employee? Say a firefighter arriving at a home on fire with a "sinner" of one sort or not trapped inside? Will he say "let the sinner burn"? Or a cop that sees a bunch of guys beating up a "queer" and decides well, since he's a "fag/sinner" we'll let him get trounced.
that too is quite the slippery slope...
but i see you point.

those that provide such an important public service.....CANNOT bring personal morals into it.....not when those morals can cause prejudice and/or discrimination or care in ANY way.


If these pharmacists were so morally opposed to these birth control pills, why did they become a pharmacist? They know going in what is expected of them.
yes! exactly!
if you cannot perform your duties in their fullest, than you must leave the proffession...

[EN[i]GMA]

first off, none of these pharmacists are gonna quit shit....

these are old pharmacists who have no intention of picking and moving or anything of the sort.

get of the "slippery slope" ride...

second,
the job of a pharmacist is to fill perscriptions. period.
it is a medical service for those in need.
it is not a counseling service, or a ethics service, or religious...you get the picture.

their job is to fill perscriptions correctly and safely, and see that the recipients take them correctly.

a pharmacist has no business bringing personal moral beliefs into his service then the President does.

come on now....let's just call this exactly what it is: an excuse for anti-abortion conservatives to stop people from getting abortions and for the moral christian right conservatives to try and force people to not have sex out of wedlock.
that's it, plain and simple.

don't dodge the real topic.

What gives you any right to tell anyone how to run their business, aside from making sure they aren't commiting any crimes?

What gives you any right to tell him how to run his business?

a pharmacist has no business bringing personal moral beliefs into his service then the President does.

Bullshit. He can do whatever he wants in his own establishment. He can sell you any drug or refuse to sell you any drug. He can refuse to sell you purple drugs if that's his prerogitive.

And it's your option not to shop there.

You can't compell him to sell purple pills any more than he can compell you to shop there.

And forgive me for stealing a line from the Douchebag-in-Chief, but I think you 'hate freedom'.

How can you be a supporter of freedom and not allow people to do as they damn well please, short of harming another individual?

Personally, I wouldn't shop at this establishment, but if people continue to, than obviously they agree with his stance.

[EN[i]GMA]

What about the other side of that slippery slope. Is it not logical that other service providers will start to decide when to fulfill their obligations as an employee? Say a firefighter arriving at a home on fire with a "sinner" of one sort or not trapped inside? Will he say "let the sinner burn"? Or a cop that sees a bunch of guys beating up a "queer" and decides well, since he's a "fag/sinner" we'll let him get trounced.
If these pharmacists were so morally opposed to these birth control pills, why did they become a pharmacist? They know going in what is expected of them.

Well those people are either public servants (Meaning they have to serve their community as a whole) or private contractors (Part of their contract stipulates who they have to serve. Not serving a 'fag' would breach their contract) so the analogy doesn't work.

If your town contracted it's pharmacists, than no, they wouldn't be able to do that.

Unless their contract stipulated it.

But I don't think you find many elected pharmacists.

[EN[i]GMA]

that too is quite the slippery slope...
but i see you point.

those that provide such an important public service.....CANNOT bring personal morals into it.....not when those morals can cause prejudice and/or discrimination or care in ANY way.

A public service? Like they are hired by the general public as opposed to being a private citizen?

Yes, a public servent has no right to do this, but a private citizen filling the same role does.

[STANKY808]

GMA']Well those people are either public servants (Meaning they have to serve their community as a whole) or private contractors (Part of their contract stipulates who they have to serve. Not serving a 'fag' would breach their contract) so the analogy doesn't work.

If your town contracted it's pharmacists, than no, they wouldn't be able to do that.

Unless their contract stipulated it.

But I don't think you find many elected pharmacists.

No, but they are providing a service to the public. And as I tried to point out, they know what is entailed in their job when they start schooling for it, so it would seem to me these folks are just using their position to foist their morals on others. From the "Oath of a Pharmacist" which begins with, "At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy."

And I'd dare say there are some of these places (as in the original posting I think) that only have one phamacist and if the pharmacist won't fill the scrip, who will? Oh sorry, part of the free market is you're free to have an unwanted pregnancy cause they won't give you a pill to stop it. The ladies must love you!

So you support the Michigan law which allows doctors ("private citizens") to refuse to treat an individual on moral grounds?

[STANKY808]

GMA']A public service? Like they are hired by the general public as opposed to being a private citizen?

Yes, a public servent has no right to do this, but a private citizen filling the same role does.

So in your corporate utopia, all services would be provided by private citizens and therefore according to you, they can refuse anyone at anytime based on their personal morals.

Nice.

[EN[i]GMA]

No, but they are providing a service to the public. And as I tried to point out, they know what is entailed in their job when they start schooling for it, so it would seem to me these folks are just using their position to foist their morals on others. From the "Oath of a Pharmacist" which begins with, "At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy."

And I'd dare say there are some of these places (as in the original posting I think) that only have one phamacist and if the pharmacist won't fill the scrip, who will? Oh sorry, part of the free market is you're free to have an unwanted pregnancy cause they won't give you a pill to stop it. The ladies must love you!

So you support the Michigan law which allows doctors ("private citizens") to refuse to treat an individual on moral grounds?

Yeah, those poor women. Aside from the women who are raped, I really don't have much sympathy or much care for them.

Play with fire, get burned.

And do I support a law which allows doctors to refuse to treat individuals on moral grounds?

No, because I don't think that should be a be law, I think it should be obvious.

A doctor should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, whether it's good, or bad, or stupid, or sensible.

You must think people are horrible if you think you need to legislate every single action of theirs. I can only imagine how depressing your thoughts must be, if you think that a law needs to exist that tells doctors to not allow people to needlessly die.

What's your outlook on humanity if you assume people are this bad and need to be lead like sheep lest they do something bad?

And an area has to be pretty remote to have only one pharmacy within reasonable driving distance, though such a situation is certainly understood when one chooses to reside in such an area.

I guess you think people aren't able to move from areas that are extremely rural and backwards?

And if they choose not to, obviously having multiple pharmacies isn't something they value very much.

[EN[i]GMA]

So in your corporate utopia, all services would be provided by private citizens and therefore according to you, they can refuse anyone at anytime based on their personal morals.

Nice.

Yes it is nice, how I trust other people to do what's best not assume that they're racist, homophobic, xenophobes who need to be constantly slapped on the wrists to prevent their true self from showing through.

And I like how you put in 'corporate' as if it was corporations and not individuals that were the prime practitioners of racism in this country.

Let's use some logic here. Two hotel companies, Company A and Company B exist. Company A only allows white people to stay there, Company B allows anyone.

Which one of these companies has the competitive edge because it has more possible customers?

Now possibly Company A can exist because such a large percentage of the people are racist, but of course this means that a significant portion of the population is already racist and any attempt to make things fair via laws would be futile as you can't make a law that says "Be nice to black people" or "Don't be racist".

And do you believe most, or many, people are racists or homophobes or xenophobes?

[Schmeltz]

I would say that legislators, democratically elected officials representing the interests of the general population, have every right to dictate the terms on which any business can be offered to that population. Jerkoff wants to take my hard-earned cash, I'm going to let him know exactly what right he has to do so.

Even private medical establishments are held to certain legally defined standards of hygiene and are shut down if they fail to meet them. Do legislators have a right to tell those people how to run their business, or should we just assume that such establishments will shut down because people will just go to the cleaner ones? Private restaurants are likewise held to legal standards of health and safety - is that freedom hating? Is that tyrannical government interference in private business? Should we retract those legal standards because restaurants that don't follow them will fold thanks to the self-regulation of the market?

You're being dogmatic and ridiculous. People have every right to dictate which rights will be granted to those wishing to offer them business and to define the terms on which they will permit said businesses to operate. The self-regulation of the market is an illusion; it's up to us to protect ourselves from nutters who think they can use freedom to flout the common good.

[EN[i]GMA]

I would say that legislators, democratically elected officials representing the interests of the general population, have every right to dictate the terms on which any business can be offered to that population. Jerkoff wants to take my hard-earned cash, I'm going to let him know exactly what right he has to do so.

Jerkoff can't get your hard-earned cash unless you give it to him.


Even private medical establishments are held to certain legally defined standards of hygiene and are shut down if they fail to meet them. Do legislators have a right to tell those people how to run their business, or should we just assume that such establishments will shut down because people will just go to the cleaner ones? Private restaurants are likewise held to legal standards of health and safety - is that freedom hating? Is that tyrannical government interference in private business? Should we retract those legal standards because restaurants that don't follow them will fold thanks to the self-regulation of the market?

I'm not completely convinced government health standards are necessary. Why can't the free market do it?

Even if it is necessary to have the government do it, it should be optional. The establishment should be given the option of inspection and if it complied, a notice would be posted saying this place is clean and if not, no such notice would exist.

Very quickly people would realize there is no assurance of their own safety in restaraunts without the seal and they would quickly change their habits. Would you eat at a restaraunt that was never inspected for health standards? Would anyone? Than how does your argument hold any weight, that measures need to mandatory?

Should the government inspect food I prepare and give to you as a friend? If I make you pay? If I do this daily, with many of my friends? If I allow anyone to come in and eat? Where do you draw the line?

Honestly, do you think any restaraunt would refuse health inspections, knowing full-well that people will very quickly learn that said establishments can be dangerous?



You're being dogmatic and ridiculous. People have every right to dictate which rights will be granted to those wishing to offer them business and to define the terms on which they will permit said businesses to operate. The self-regulation of the market is an illusion; it's up to us to protect ourselves from nutters who think they can use freedom to flout the common good.


You're wrong.

Rights cannot be 'granted', only priviledges can be granted and private property, and therefore private enterprise, is a right.

Rights are absolute and exist outside of society.

If my right to private property can be taken away by society, can my right to life?

If not, what makes one right better than the other?

[Schmeltz]

Why can't the free market do it?


Because it won't, which is where the government-mandated standards came from in the first place. The free market will cut every corner possible in the quest to maximize profits. This is only logical, it's happened before and it will happen again if we let it. Even with legally mandated inspections restaurants break the rules whenever they think they can get away with it - and don't try to tell me different, because I work in a restaurant where the lounge is routinely filled way beyond its legal capacity, which is good for business but really damn dangerous (thankfully that's as far as we go in violating the legal standards, but I've heard stories that would make you think twice about going out to dinner legal inspections or not). And you seriously think that businesses will bother to adhere to standards if the legal basis for them is repealed? The way you talk about the free market makes me think you've never had a job.


The establishment should be given the option of inspection and if it complied


This doesn't make any sense. If nobody eats at any restaurants except the ones that comply with the optional inspections, why bother making the inspections optional? Why not, instead, make them mandatory for every restaurant and eliminate the possibility, however small in theory, that some restaurants will continue to operate without regard to the public good? Again - dogmatic ideology is poor practice when it comes to running a society halfway efficiently; safeguarding the public good takes priority over fanciful, purely conjectural notions of the invisible hand.


Where do you draw the line?


The line's already been drawn: businesses have to be licensed (ie their rights and practices have been delineated in specific legal terms) in order to operate. If the government finds out you're running a restaurant without a license, you'll be looking at some jail time or a fine. You can make your own beer or wine, but you can't sell them to your friends. Do you think these hypotheticals through before posting them?


Rights are absolute and exist outside of society.


Empty, dogmatic ideology completely out of touch with reality. What rights exist outside of society, exactly? Society defines both rights and privileges on the basis of negotiation between various social actors, as I've said time and time again. In strictly natural - ie extra-societal - terms you are not born with a right to anything, even your own life; the very notion that you are born with any rights at all is a product of the social discourses that emerge from the relationships that make up our society.* Certainly things haven't always been this way and they still aren't this way in certain areas of the globe - how can you claim that there are absolute rights when, across space and time, the very notion of rights has varied so substantially? Rights are an invention of civilization and are valued and defined only in terms of the social discourses and relationships that form it. There is no such thing as an absolute right, free of association from the social terms in which it is defined - how could there be? That's a total contradiction in terms.


If my right to private property can be taken away by society, can my right to life?


Yes, if your society deems that you've sufficiently transgressed the formally delineated basis for moral life it could remove your right to pursue it. In fact, I think that might have happened a few times in the past already.

*I feel compelled to point out, before the onset of the hysterical finger-pointing that accompanied our last discussion, that I firmly believe in basic human rights and would take up arms before I saw them repealed.

[EN[i]GMA]

Because it won't, which is where the government-mandated standards came from in the first place. The free market will cut every corner possible in the quest to maximize profits. This is only logical, it's happened before and it will happen again if we let it. Even with legally mandated inspections restaurants break the rules whenever they think they can get away with it - and don't try to tell me different, because I work in a restaurant where the lounge is routinely filled way beyond its legal capacity, which is good for business but really damn dangerous (thankfully that's as far as we go in violating the legal standards, but I've heard stories that would make you think twice about going out to dinner legal inspections or not). And you seriously think that businesses will bother to adhere to standards if the legal basis for them is repealed? The way you talk about the free market makes me think you've never had a job.

Firms would exist that would inspect and regulate. If a firm was poor at inspecting, lazy and corrupt, it would be beat out by a more effective firm.

And no, I haven't had a job, though I'm rather haphazardly looking into one.


This doesn't make any sense. If nobody eats at any restaurants except the ones that comply with the optional inspections, why bother making the inspections optional? Why not, instead, make them mandatory for every restaurant and eliminate the possibility, however small in theory, that some restaurants will continue to operate without regard to the public good? Again - dogmatic ideology is poor practice when it comes to running a society halfway efficiently; safeguarding the public good takes priority over fanciful, purely conjectural notions of the invisible hand.

If it's option, and therefore requires consent it's no longer an abridgement of freedom. When it's mandatory, you very obviously cannot refuse and it's taking away your freedom.


The line's already been drawn: businesses have to be licensed (ie their rights and practices have been delineated in specific legal terms) in order to operate. If the government finds out you're running a restaurant without a license, you'll be looking at some jail time or a fine. You can make your own beer or wine, but you can't sell them to your friends. Do you think these hypotheticals through before posting them?

That's the point I was trying to make, that government licensing of business seems unecessary.

Let me first point out that I don't really oppose governmental health inspections and standards because I don't think they're an egregious abridgement of rights, merely that I think it would ideally be served by the market. I don't want to come off as saying he definitely should do this, merely that I see no reason why we shouldn't or couldn't.

But my hypthetical was meant to show how it IS an abridgement of rights for government to dictate what we can and cannot do in our own home.


Empty, dogmatic ideology completely out of touch with reality. What rights exist outside of society, exactly? Society defines both rights and privileges on the basis of negotiation between various social actors, as I've said time and time again. In strictly natural - ie extra-societal - terms you are not born with a right to anything, even your own life; the very notion that you are born with any rights at all is a product of the social discourses that emerge from the relationships that make up our society.* Certainly things haven't always been this way and they still aren't this way in certain areas of the globe - how can you claim that there are absolute rights when, across space and time, the very notion of rights has varied so substantially? Rights are an invention of civilization and are valued and defined only in terms of the social discourses and relationships that form it. There is no such thing as an absolute right, free of association from the social terms in which it is defined - how could there be? That's a total contradiction in terms.

A lot of good all that does you when society deems your life forfeit and kills you. Now I know you don't support that, but you come off almost fatalistic in regards to society's whims.

I maintain that rights have always existed, whether people acknowledged them or not.

People always had a right to life, people always had a right to bear arms and people always had a right to do what they pleased.

It was society that took these rights away and society was not justified in doing it.

It might be reality that these rights are taken away all the time, but it doesn't make it right or acceptable.


Yes, if your society deems that you've sufficiently transgressed the formally delineated basis for moral life it could remove your right to pursue it. In fact, I think that might have happened a few times in the past already.

*I feel compelled to point out, before the onset of the hysterical finger-pointing that accompanied our last discussion, that I firmly believe in basic human rights and would take up arms before I saw them repealed.

And now we get into some troubles, namely, do you forfeit your own rights by infringing on the rights of others. I say so; that society isn't taking your rights away, but that you gave them away.

A small distinction, perhaps, but one necessary for my philosophical framework.

And it was wrong of me to insinuate that you didn't uphold basic human rights, I just don't like this relative speach regarding rights.

It makes me think of gulags and holocausts.

[Qdrop]

GMA']Yeah, those poor women. Aside from the women who are raped, I really don't have much sympathy or much care for them.

Play with fire, get burned.
hmm..
you're still a virgin, huh?

when you start having sex, and see what passion can do to your logic.....you'll switch up your view a little.


And do I support a law which allows doctors to refuse to treat individuals on moral grounds?

No, because I don't think that should be a be law, I think it should be obvious.
well according to this article i posted, it's not so "obvious" to quite a few people.
what now?


A doctor should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, whether it's good, or bad, or stupid, or sensible.
hmmm...you don't say?

so can he refuse service to a black man...because he doesn't like blacks?
that's a pretty stupid reason.

can he refuse to service a jew....cause he hates jews?
that's pretty stupid.

the laws say no.

but he can refuse to service a woman who wants to get an abortion and/or have premarrital sex....because he doesn't like people who follow such ethical beliefs?

how do YOU draw a line between being a bigoted racist....and being a bigoted moralist?

please, tell me.


that's my point. you can't allow selective service to the public based on moral beliefs.
racism is moral belief after all.....


You must think people are horrible if you think you need to legislate every single action of theirs. I can only imagine how depressing your thoughts must be, if you think that a law needs to exist that tells doctors to not allow people to needlessly die.

What's your outlook on humanity if you assume people are this bad and need to be lead like sheep lest they do something bad?
you're definately forcing alot of Orwellian structure on us....which isn't fair.

but when you get into the real world after school....you will see that humanity CAN be pretty fuckin evil....and the idea of "innate virtue" or "the noble savage" will disapear quickly.


And an area has to be pretty remote to have only one pharmacy within reasonable driving distance, though such a situation is certainly understood when one chooses to reside in such an area.
dude, that's pretty common.
not everyone lives in the suburbs....


I guess you think people aren't able to move from areas that are extremely rural and backwards?
yeah, people are gonna fucking move to another city because the pharmacist won't give out birth control....
yeah.....right.


And if they choose not to, obviously having multiple pharmacies isn't something they value very much. gee, or maybe they CAN'T AFFORD TO FUCKING MOVE!
maybe they don't have that option!

[STANKY808]

GMA']
And I like how you put in 'corporate' as if it was corporations and not individuals that were the prime practitioners of racism in this country.



WTF? You are the one that makes a distinction between "public servants" and "private citizens". And maybe I'm reading too much into it, but from your history here, I thought you believed everything should be privatized so therefore all services would be dispensed by "private citizens". Which to me is a "corporate utopia", which doesn't mean the corporations were racist (although I think Texaco has story to tell there) just that it was a corporate wet dream to have no gov't oversight (unless it's protectionism).


Get a job.

[Qdrop]

Get a job.

he should be happy that he can.

if he had his way, the very corporate world that he wants to be free of regulation and have complete market freedom,... would probably just outsource his job to pull a bigger profit.

but hey, it's free market, right?

[STANKY808]

GMA']Yeah, those poor women. Aside from the women who are raped, I really don't have much sympathy or much care for them.

Play with fire, get burned.

And do I support a law which allows doctors to refuse to treat individuals on moral grounds?

No, because I don't think that should be a be law, I think it should be obvious.

A doctor should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, whether it's good, or bad, or stupid, or sensible.

You must think people are horrible if you think you need to legislate every single action of theirs. I can only imagine how depressing your thoughts must be, if you think that a law needs to exist that tells doctors to not allow people to needlessly die.

What's your outlook on humanity if you assume people are this bad and need to be lead like sheep lest they do something bad?

And an area has to be pretty remote to have only one pharmacy within reasonable driving distance, though such a situation is certainly understood when one chooses to reside in such an area.

I guess you think people aren't able to move from areas that are extremely rural and backwards?

And if they choose not to, obviously having multiple pharmacies isn't something they value very much.

And in all of this you have conveniently ignored one fact - the pharmacist knows what's expected of her when she goes into the field. If morally opposed to aspects of the job - why are they there?

[STANKY808]

GMA']You must think people are horrible if you think you need to legislate every single action of theirs. I can only imagine how depressing your thoughts must be, if you think that a law needs to exist that tells doctors to not allow people to needlessly die.

What's your outlook on humanity if you assume people are this bad and need to be lead like sheep lest they do something bad?



Given the apparent lobbying effort that went into this legislation, I would guess there are at least a few that want this otherwise HOW DID IT GET BEFORE THE MICHIGAN HOUSE? Cause some doctors want it. That means some doctors are ready to discriminate. And if there is even one, then there is a problem. Of course being a young white male, you will never have to deal with these issues.

[Qdrop]

Of course being a young white male, you will never have to deal with these issues. if he ever get's his girlfriend pregnant...then he will.
and his entire world will flip.....

[ASsman]

Hahaha.... Another gay thread by your's trully.

Excellent.

Anyways, I partially see Enigmas turd of a point. The problem goes deeper, like our lack of universal healthcare, and idiot christians (not lack of). Enjoy this country, for it will be your last.

[Qdrop]

Hahaha.... Another gay thread by your's trully.


??

[ASsman]

??
Not you.

[Qdrop]

Not you.

that's what i mean....

you said "by your's truly"...which means "by me"...

but you didn't make the thread...



never mind...i don't care.

[ASsman]

Oh really? Wow, I guess I... nevermind...exactly..

At any rate, spiraling crap hole of a country.

I'm going to go watch that rap video again.

[Qdrop]

I'm going to go watch that rap video again.


:p i've watched it 5 times.....

[ASsman]

:p i've watched it 5 times.....
I'm feeling the last dude with the dreads, flowin' like a mug.


----
Getting back on topic. All we need now is that Michigan law to pass, that lets doctors choose if they want to treats gays or not.

(y)

[EN[i]GMA]

hmm..
you're still a virgin, huh?

Damn! You caught me!


when you start having sex, and see what passion can do to your logic.....you'll switch up your view a little.

I probably will, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.


well according to this article i posted, it's not so "obvious" to quite a few people.
what now?

Than perhaps humanity truly is doomed.


hmmm...you don't say?

so can he refuse service to a black man...because he doesn't like blacks?
that's a pretty stupid reason.

can he refuse to service a jew....cause he hates jews?
that's pretty stupid.

the laws say no.

but he can refuse to service a woman who wants to get an abortion and/or have premarrital sex....because he doesn't like people who follow such ethical beliefs?

how do YOU draw a line between being a bigoted racist....and being a bigoted moralist?

please, tell me.

That is a very difficult line to draw, a line that I maintain is impossible to draw, so I simply refuse to draw it.

You can do whatever you please with your own time, money and inclination. The government has no right to force any person in the United States to treat anyone else, if they personally don't wish to.

That's slavery you know, being forced to do something against your will.

Clear this up for me, how are you not a slave if the government has every right to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home or establishment?

This laws are an usurpation of liberty. They may be right, I fully believe everyone should be able to recieve quality medical care, but the government derives no right to enforce this law that clearly curtails your liberties.


that's my point. you can't allow selective service to the public based on moral beliefs.
racism is moral belief after all.....

Let's play some devil's advocate here:

What if those racists are right in their beliefs and you're really wrong? How then does dynamic change? What if their morality is correct and theirs is incorrect?

Furthermore, since morality can get pretty subjective depending on the individual/s involved, how can you make blanket statement in regards to a moral issue like racism, where no axiomatic law can be established?


you're definately forcing alot of Orwellian structure on us....which isn't fair.

but when you get into the real world after school....you will see that humanity CAN be pretty fuckin evil....and the idea of "innate virtue" or "the noble savage" will disapear quickly.

So if humans are bad, and the world sucks, and everyone just wants to hurt everyone else, why even continue?

If the human race is that morally decrepit, let it destroy itself, let evolution occur.


dude, that's pretty common.
not everyone lives in the suburbs....

I live a good hour away from the city in a pretty rural area, and drug stores are in no short supply.

But I see your point.


yeah, people are gonna fucking move to another city because the pharmacist won't give out birth control....
yeah.....right.

Well then obviously having a drug store near by isn't as big priority to that person as another factor.


gee, or maybe they CAN'T AFFORD TO FUCKING MOVE!
maybe they don't have that option!

That's a possibility.

[EN[i]GMA]

WTF? You are the one that makes a distinction between "public servants" and "private citizens". And maybe I'm reading too much into it, but from your history here, I thought you believed everything should be privatized so therefore all services would be dispensed by "private citizens". Which to me is a "corporate utopia", which doesn't mean the corporations were racist (although I think Texaco has story to tell there) just that it was a corporate wet dream to have no gov't oversight (unless it's protectionism).


Get a job.

Public servent very obviosly implies that are a 'servent', or to use a synonym, a slave.

People in a free-society are neither servants or slaves, they are private citizens.

Your terminology distresses me, it makes me think that YOU think people owe you something, that they somehow serve you.

And I do believe most everything should be privatized, but in many cases the gains would be so minute I don't make it a point of contention.

And it wouldn't be a corporate utopia, that would be todays society with it's anti-labor laws, it's tarrifs, it's subsidies, it's government cartels and it's flagrant pro-business bias via legislation, all of which I would have removed.

I support a free-market, not a slanted one.

And I'm sure bagging groceries for 6 bucks an hour at the local store is really hell on earth, that being the job I'm thinking about taking.

[EN[i]GMA]

he should be happy that he can.

if he had his way, the very corporate world that he wants to be free of regulation and have complete market freedom,... would probably just outsource his job to pull a bigger profit.

but hey, it's free market, right?

Yeah, those grocery bagging jobs are all moving to India, WHY CAN'T THOSE DOT-HEADS FIND THEIR OWN JOBS!!?!?!?!?

[EN[i]GMA]

And in all of this you have conveniently ignored one fact - the pharmacist knows what's expected of her when she goes into the field. If morally opposed to aspects of the job - why are they there?

Good question.

I'm not fit to answer, not being on of these pharmacists.

[EN[i]GMA]

Given the apparent lobbying effort that went into this legislation, I would guess there are at least a few that want this otherwise HOW DID IT GET BEFORE THE MICHIGAN HOUSE? Cause some doctors want it. That means some doctors are ready to discriminate. And if there is even one, then there is a problem. Of course being a young white male, you will never have to deal with these issues.

Yay, I get to ride in the front of the bus!

And how could you guess my race? Because I'm pro-capitalist? You racist!

But how is it your responsibility or even your business what this person does?

[STANKY808]

GMA']Yay, I get to ride in the front of the bus!

And how could you guess my race? Because I'm pro-capitalist? You racist!

But how is it your responsibility or even your business what this person does?

Good work at not addressing the point, that obviuosly there are health care workers that want to discriminate otherwise why is there this legislation?

And why is it my business? Well it could be my fuck mate trying to get that scrip filled after the condom broke. It is absolutely my business then.

So you are saying you are not a young white male? Interesting, I could have sworn your age and race were a topic of discussion at one point on this board. That was where I drew from. And you should be careful about the language you choose, while my calling you a young white male could be considered bigoted, it's certainly not racist.

And if you are not fit to answer why a pharmacist would go into a profession knowing full well it may conflict with their "morals" then everything else you say is useless in this debate. I bet you think soldiers who volunteered for military service can't now complain about being sent to war. Why would it be any different for this profession?

[EN[i]GMA]

Good work at not addressing the point, that obviuosly there are health care workers that want to discriminate otherwise why is there this legislation?

And why is it my business? Well it could be my fuck mate trying to get that scrip filled after the condom broke. It is absolutely my business then.

So you are saying you are not a young white male? Interesting, I could have sworn your age and race were a topic of discussion at one point on this board. That was where I drew from. And you should be careful about the language you choose, while my calling you a young white male could be considered bigoted, it's certainly not racist.

And if you are not fit to answer why a pharmacist would go into a profession knowing full well it may conflict with their "morals" then everything else you say is useless in this debate. I bet you think soldiers who volunteered for military service can't now complain about being sent to war. Why would it be any different for this profession?

A pharmacist very obviously fills out orders for pills, but that in no way means they are obligated to fill out orders they disagree with moreso than soldiers are compelled to kill, but are in the right in not killing infants, or innocents.

Using your logic, since soldiers 'knew what they signed up for', they should be able to kill infants, innocent Jews and anyone else if order decrees it.

I take it you think individual German soldiers who shoved Jews into furnaces were in the right?

The difference is that they are doing something, in both cases, that goes against their own morals, and following orders can be a very bad thing in some situations.

And yeah, there might be health care workers that want to discriminate; that's their prerogitive, as horrible as it may be.

It's your business to assure that she doesn't get pregnant, yes. It's not, however, the pharmacists business, unless he chooses to make it his business.

Age and race may have come up before, I really don't remember.

And it very certainly could be considered racist, not that I'm saying it was.

[STANKY808]

GMA']A pharmacist very obviously fills out orders for pills, but that in no way means they are obligated to fill out orders they disagree with moreso than soldiers are compelled to kill, but are in the right in not killing infants, or innocents.

Using your logic, since soldiers 'knew what they signed up for', they should be able to kill infants, innocent Jews and anyone else if order decrees it.

I take it you think individual German soldiers who shoved Jews into furnaces were in the right?

The difference is that they are doing something, in both cases, that goes against their own morals, and following orders can be a very bad thing in some situations.

And yeah, there might be health care workers that want to discriminate; that's their prerogitive, as horrible as it may be.

It's your business to assure that she doesn't get pregnant, yes. It's not, however, the pharmacists business, unless he chooses to make it his business.

Age and race may have come up before, I really don't remember.

And it very certainly could be considered racist, not that I'm saying it was.

You and your strawmen. No one said anything about obeying illegal orders. A soldier isn't expected to have to commit a war crime, just show up. The anology was strictly one in which the pills being dispenced are legal and the war being fought is "legal". Both individuals know that going in. A soldier can't pick and choose which wars they want to fight in (note - I'm not referring to illegal orders!). A pharmacist shouldn't be alloweed to pick and choose which scrips to fill. Again, if the dispensing of pills or the fighting of a war are against their morals neither should be in the respective jobs.

"And it very certainly could be considered racist, not that I'm saying it was.'

Short term memory problem? Your quote was "You racist!"

[EN[i]GMA]

You and your strawmen. No one said anything about obeying illegal orders. A soldier isn't expected to have to commit a war crime, just show up. The anology was strictly one in which the pills being dispenced are legal and the war being fought is "legal". Both individuals know that going in. A soldier can't pick and choose which wars they want to fight in (note - I'm not referring to illegal orders!). A pharmacist shouldn't be alloweed to pick and choose which scrips to fill. Again, if the dispensing of pills or the fighting of a war are against their morals neither should be in the respective jobs.

"And it very certainly could be considered racist, not that I'm saying it was.'

Short term memory problem? Your quote was "You racist!"

I was kidding. Making fun of the seeming hypocrisy, even though none truly existed. Do you really think I'm offended by you calling me white?

And the orders the German soldiers carried out weren't illegal, are you aware of the state of Germany at that time period? Jews weren't citizens and it was perfectly legal to kill them.

Now was it MORAL? Of course not, but they didn't see it that way, just like the pharamacists don't see these drugs as moral.

And World War II was an illegal war, need I remind you.

[STANKY808]

Yes I know about WWII so please do not condescend to "remind me" of anything. I'm referring to now. Those orders given to an American soldier now would be illegal.

Again I am referring to is present day. And a soldier given a lawful order must fulfill that order. They know that going in. As do pharmacists.

And honestly, "Making fun of the seeming hypocrisy, even though none truly existed." (?)

[EN[i]GMA]

Yes I know about WWII so please do not condescend to "remind me" of anything. I'm referring to now. Those orders given to an American soldier now would be illegal.

Again I am referring to is present day. And a soldier given a lawful order must fulfill that order. They know that going in. As do pharmacists.

And honestly, "Making fun of the seeming hypocrisy, even though none truly existed." (?)

Yes, it would be wise to maintain that this is today in the US because that's a convenient way to shield your argument.

But what if, say, abortion were made illegal? The underlying morality or immorality of act means nothing in regards to the law, so then should that pharmacist hand out the pills, because it's the morally correct thing to do, though it's in contradiction with the law?

And I was making light of the fact that your labeling me white could be construed as an attempt to stereotype me along racial lines, even though both you and I knew that wasn't what you were attempting to do.

[STANKY808]

Sorry whitey (ha ha) I forgot, you are the one who is always right and why would I think to be so narrow minded as to focus on here and now as that was where the post started.

As for the law vs morality, that was what I was getting at. People should not be imposing their morals on others and that is what the pharmacist would be doing. If abortion was criminalized, then anyone with a problem should try to change the law.
I don't agree with the death penalty, but I wouldn't condone busting out a condemned person because of it. Again, try to change the laws.

[EN[i]GMA]

Sorry whitey (ha ha) I forgot, you are the one who is always right and why would I think to be so narrow minded as to focus on here and now as that was where the post started.

As for the law vs morality, that was what I was getting at. People should not be imposing their morals on others and that is what the pharmacist would be doing. If abortion was criminalized, then anyone with a problem should try to change the law.
I don't agree with the death penalty, but I wouldn't condone busting out a condemned person because of it. Again, try to change the laws.

So you wouldn't do things to fight against that law, like become an activist?

You wouldn't, say, not sell abortion pills if you were anti-abortion?

[QueenAdrock]

I think that one of the crazy conservatives from my Biblical history class stole my birth control pills. And if I get preggerz, then I'm gonna find out who stole them, and throw the fetus at their car.

[STANKY808]

GMA']So you wouldn't do things to fight against that law, like become an activist?

You wouldn't, say, not sell abortion pills if you were anti-abortion?

A brick wall I tell ya. I said fight to change the law. Part of that could be by becoming an activist.


Now I remember why others give up with you.
Which reminds me, didn't you once pledge to never come back to this board?
Look once you've actually lived a bit of a life, then you might get a better grip on the real world.

[EN[i]GMA]

A brick wall I tell ya. I said fight to change the law. Part of that could be by becoming an activist.


Now I remember why others give up with you.
Which reminds me, didn't you once pledge to never come back to this board?
Look once you've actually lived a bit of a life, then you might get a better grip on the real world.

So let's just stipulate here, that the law says "Kill Jews". Do you continue the culling while coming before the Reichstag occasionally?

Of course not.

The laws diction states that you need to kill Jews, and you most certainly don't want to do this. But what recourse do you have? By your logic, you should continue killing, correct?

Or should you disobey the law for a higher moral purpose?

Isn't that what these people think they're doing?

You can't seperate the two simply because you wish to. A persons morality is very often defined by that very person, and it's an abridgement of his personal freedom to deny him the right to behave in a manner in accordance with his basic set of morality.

Trust me, I would considerer conceding if you had a salient case, but you do not. Your position is intellectually inconsistent and directly opposed to individual liberty.

And if I was an old geezer and maintained this position, would my argument somehow be more appealing?

Or is it not relevent at all to the topic?

I don't know if I pledged to never come back, I may have, but I really don't see the point of holding up that obligation, if I did indeed make it.

Would this board be better if I was gone? I don't know. It would certainly be more insular, which might be something you prefer, but I see no reason why opposing viewpoints shouldn't be expressed.

[STANKY808]

GMA']So let's just stipulate here, that the law says "Kill Jews". Do you continue the culling while coming before the Reichstag occasionally?

Of course not.

The laws diction states that you need to kill Jews, and you most certainly don't want to do this. But what recourse do you have? By your logic, you should continue killing, correct?

Or should you disobey the law for a higher moral purpose?

Isn't that what these people think they're doing?

You can't seperate the two simply because you wish to. A persons morality is very often defined by that very person, and it's an abridgement of his personal freedom to deny him the right to behave in a manner in accordance with his basic set of morality.

Trust me, I would considerer conceding if you had a salient case, but you do not. Your position is intellectually inconsistent and directly opposed to individual liberty.

And if I was an old geezer and maintained this position, would my argument somehow be more appealing?

Or is it not relevent at all to the topic?

I don't know if I pledged to never come back, I may have, but I really don't see the point of holding up that obligation, if I did indeed make it.

Would this board be better if I was gone? I don't know. It would certainly be more insular, which might be something you prefer, but I see no reason why opposing viewpoints shouldn't be expressed.

Yes. Do you feel better now.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yes. Do you feel better now.

Yep.

Now I'm free to enter the post-debate name calling.

YOU HATE FREEDOM YOU GOD DAMNED FASCIST!

How's that?

[STANKY808]

GMA']Yep.

Now I'm free to enter the post-debate name calling.

YOU HATE FREEDOM YOU GOD DAMNED FASCIST!

How's that?


Great! I hope you loose your nuts to cancer!

[EN[i]GMA]

Great! I hope you loose your nuts to cancer!

To late for that, I already lost them in a horrible chapstick accident.

[STANKY808]

GMA']To late for that, I already lost them in a horrible chapstick accident.

Next time read the label.