RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill

RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I find it's often prudent to make ad absurdum arguments. Tends to be easier to point out to someone that their arguments are obliviously silly since it's a little harder rationalize. Not that I'm one to underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies. Reductio ad absurdum arguments never function to point out genuine flaws in another's arguments. Reductio ad absurdum is a form of logical fallacy (forgive me for using the term correctly here) intended to bury an opponents point in your own concocted exaggeration of their argument (for instance, 'if you believe pharmacists have no right to apply their morality to your choices you must approve of prostituting nurses'). Reductio ad absurdum is not at all suited to clarification or instruction - it is used to mock, annoy, confound and to cover for the absence of cogent ideas on the part of the absurdist. Hardly surprising that you do not "underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies" since it overstatement and invention are you main stock in trade on this board. And before you engage in further whining about insults and the like, consider your own words in the preceding posts. Pot / kettle / black, and all that. Z. Thank you! Well put and spot on. Thanks also, for the heavy lifting.I tire quickly,and don`t feel the need to explain things, as if I was talking to a child. But they do,and will always have to be explained,and re-explained,till we`re dead in the ground.That`s life....

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:51:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I find it's often prudent to make ad absurdum arguments. Tends to be easier to point out to someone that their arguments are obliviously silly since it's a little harder rationalize. Not that I'm one to underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies. Reductio ad absurdum arguments never function to point out genuine flaws in another's arguments. Reductio ad absurdum is a form of logical fallacy (forgive me for using the term correctly here) intended to bury an opponents point in your own concocted exaggeration of their argument (for instance, 'if you believe pharmacists have no right to apply their morality to your choices you must approve of prostituting nurses'). Reductio ad absurdum is not at all suited to clarification or instruction - it is used to mock, annoy, confound and to cover for the absence of cogent ideas on the part of the absurdist. Hardly surprising that you do not "underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies" since it overstatement and invention are you main stock in trade on this board. And before you engage in further whining about insults and the like, consider your own words in the preceding posts. Pot / kettle / black, and all that. It is your position that ad absurdum may be made only to "mock, annoy, confound and to cover"? This strikes me as a rather silly limitation. This sort of argument is the most basic of the mathematical arguments, last time I checked. I'd encourage you to read up on it. Edit: Actually, since from your tone, I sort of doubt you're actually going to look up anything.. One says, "A linear equation can be defined by y=b", ad absurdum can be used.. "Okay, what of y=x? y=0 for x=0, but y=1 for x=1. This statement implies that 0=1, which is absurd." (Sorry, I just knew you were going to throw more insults, claiming that your statements are inheriently correct. Forgive my "whining", I'm just not up for this silliness. Please, logic only.)

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:55:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Therefore, it is not logically unreasonable to say that a pharmicist can not opt out of a portion of his job that he finds to be absurd? A pharmacist who finds dispensing medicine "absurd" might want to think about a new line of work. Then would you say that a nurse who would not service the physical needs of her pacients should find a new line of work? I think we need to pause and define "physical" in this context. If you're truly talking about a patient's basic needs--to given appropriate medical care, to have wounds tended and IVs inserted, to have medications administered as prescribed, even to be fed and cleaned if necessary--then I'd say, yes, a nurse who wasn't up for this should probably think about a career change. If you're talking about meeting a patient's sexual needs, then I'd say the job falls outside the scope of a nurse's duties (except, perhaps, in porn flicks). quote: who is to say that such a pill is a medicine? The Food and Drug Administration.

Zensee -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:00:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee ORIGINAL: subrob1967 The whole point of the OP and article was that pharmacists DON'T have to sell the product thanks to a judge. The regulations by "The People" coincide with certain pharmacists beliefs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. The opinion of one judge coincides with a certain opinion held by a subset of the general public. Big difference. Please educate us oh wise one on the "big difference" between what I said and you said. quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 ORIGINAL:Goddess20 Its just another thing that stupid people haven't looked in to and don't understand but have some 'moral' objection to without having the knowledge to know what they are objecting too! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I kinda think a pharmacist knows a lot more about the pills they're dispensing than your average Goddess. After all, they go to school for six years to learn this shit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No again. While a pharmacist might refuse to fill a prescription for reasons like drug incompatibilities or counterindications, their professional knowledge of drug efficacy does not extend to knowing and interpreting the will of "god". What does my pointing out that your average pharmacist isn't stupid, have to do with God? I didn't mention God once in my post, you assumed pharmacists subscribe their morals to religious teachings, which you couldn't possibly back up with any source whatsoever. The judge issued an injunction which, as I understand it, is a temporary suspension of a law, regulation or some such, preventing or permitting the continuance of a practice, while leaving the matter open for further legal exploration and a later finding. It is not a "regulation(s) by "The People" coincid(ing) with certain pharmacists beliefs." It is one judge's opinion about whether or not pharmacists (in one jurisdiction at least) shall be obliged to do something they don't want to do until the matter is decided by higher-ups. While it is a presumption on my part that the objections of many pharmacists to dispensing Plan B (or other contraceptives) are on religious grounds, it is not a wild or unfounded presumption. Nor is specifically relevant to my point. Whatever the source of their moral opinion, and refusing legal products to a person, based on your own prejudice is a bit like playing god, pharmacists should only be able to refuse do dispense any drug for sound and objective medical reasons, not simply because it squicks them. Z.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:01:04 PM)
I hope to point out to you that the American Psychological Society, or whatever it's called, defines sex as a primary need. If the nurse follows such a guideline, this is she not obligated to follow in it the same manner the the pharmicist is due to the FDA's guidelines? I know that I considered a pharmacy job. If I took it, one of the reasons would be to promote life; do not many pharmicists have this in them? How, then, could one be so callous as to demand them participate in the taking of life? I assure you, many of these are educated men; their willingness to fight these battles shows the strength of their conviction. How can those without such a deep understanding for the effects of these pills claim to have such a superior view?

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:01:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's absurd, certainly; since I can draw it to the pharmist-having-to-do-his-job bit, it's analogous. This argument points out the fallacy of the reasoning. Therefore, it is not logically unreasonable to say that a pharmicist can not opt out of a portion of his job that he finds to be absurd? Further, does this inclination strike as unjustifable on the basis that you can not empathize, or do you find there to be some difference? Over, since I suppose this isn't the driving point of your argument, then allow me to ask.. do the courts not have the obligation to serve to protect the rights of individuals' constitutional rights, such as the freedom of religion, which, in practice, extends to the freedom of philosophical stance? Pardon me if it seems that I pick on you, but I assure you, it's for fondness's sake. No...but then I can be a bitch that way, albeit a "Classy Bitch". If you don't like what is going on, then you leave. Or you make arrangements to cover that distasteful area of your job with the blessings and agreement of the PTB. Or become the PTB and do it the way you want it. Like I said...accept it along with your paycheck, or go find somewhere else to make the paycheck. How many philosophical stances must we cater to? Whose philosophical stance is more important? I hate the fact that I cannot smoke in My favorite karaoke bar any longer. I don't mind going outside. It really is not a big deal to Me. I hate the fact that a bunch of people got on a bandwagon and said "We don't care that these are private businesses and that the owners should make their private policies". We are now telling you how it is going to be". Now we have employees dictating to business owners to what extent they will do their job, because a Judge said it was alright? So where is the line drawn? We are already way over it. And this will continue to happen as long as people do not wake up and smell the BS. I do not sanction the legislation of morality. And I will never santion to interference of government/courts in the personal choices and and perfectly legal matters of private homes and businesses. What's next? This is no longer a joke.

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:06:57 PM)
quote: I hope to point out to you that the American Psychological Society, or whatever it's called, defines sex as a primary need. If the nurse follows such a guideline, this is she not obligated to follow in it the same manner the the pharmicist is due to the FDA's guidelines? CL, you and I both know that providing sexual services is not part of a nurse's job. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:13:01 PM)
I suppose the deeper point to address before this, then, is what is the basis of legality if not morality? Who are we to have laws against murder, rape, or anything else if morality is irrelevant; further, isn't denying morality as a basis for law a moral in and of itself, and therefore a contradiction? If denying morality into law is a contradiction, and therefore inconsistent, then are we to accept either legality based on morality or anarchy? If anarchy is embraced, does it not allow for legality based on morality of the free citizens, as no such rule would exist in anarchy to contradict the basis for legality? Then, therefore, are we not forced to accept the validity of moral law in a population in which moral individuals are surficiently powerful to enforce it? If we follow this further, then is not legality a function of the morals with regards to strength and outgoingness of their respective holders? Then is it not only reasonable to acknowledge that law will be decided by morality, and that the nature of this morality will likely come from individuals in positions such as the courts and professional institutions?

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:15:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I hope to point out to you that the American Psychological Society, or whatever it's called, defines sex as a primary need. If the nurse follows such a guideline, this is she not obligated to follow in it the same manner the the pharmicist is due to the FDA's guidelines? CL, you and I both know that providing sexual services is not part of a nurse's job. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. And we both know it's not part of a pharmicist's job to take part in an abortion. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:18:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I hope to point out to you that the American Psychological Society, or whatever it's called, defines sex as a primary need. If the nurse follows such a guideline, this is she not obligated to follow in it the same manner the the pharmicist is due to the FDA's guidelines? CL, you and I both know that providing sexual services is not part of a nurse's job. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. And we both know it's not part of a pharmicist's job to take part in an abortion. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. What you call taking part in an abortion, others would call dispensing legally approved and (in some cases prescribed) medicine, which seems to me to be the essence of a pharmacist's job.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:21:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice What you call taking part in an abortion, others would call dispensing legally approved and (in some cases prescribed) medicine, which seems to me to be the essence of a pharmacist's job. Would it not be intellectually dishonest to ignore either point of view?

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:27:36 PM)
I'm not ignoring either point of view. Indeed, I'm still pondering what decision I'd make if I were a judge faced with this question. That said, I went back and looked at the article the OP posted and learned that the drug in question, Plan B, does not work on pregnant women, which makes it hard for me to see it as a form of abortion.

Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:31:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I hope to point out to you that the American Psychological Society, or whatever it's called, defines sex as a primary need. If the nurse follows such a guideline, this is she not obligated to follow in it the same manner the the pharmicist is due to the FDA's guidelines? I know that I considered a pharmacy job. If I took it, one of the reasons would be to promote life; do not many pharmicists have this in them? How, then, could one be so callous as to demand them participate in the taking of life? I assure you, many of these are educated men; their willingness to fight these battles shows the strength of their conviction. How can those without such a deep understanding for the effects of these pills claim to have such a superior view? ROTFLMFAO I hope to point out to you that the American Psychological Society, or whatever it's called, defines sex as a primary need. If the nurse follows such a guideline, this is she not obligated to follow in it the same manner the the pharmicist is due to the FDA's guidelines? Goes from the ridiculous ,to the sublime... Had me there for a second.I thought you wanted a intelligent discussion. I`ll take the belly laugh, instead. Thanks dude...

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:32:38 PM)
Ah, it does end pregnacies, just very early ones. It disrupts part of the early pregnancy process; it doesn't work reliably on pregnancies past the first three or so days since the part it disrupts is typically complete by then. If one takes such a pill before intercourse, it basically works as a very poweful birthcontrol pill (and isn't an abortion). This is often brought up to mislead people into believing that the morning-after function is also pregnancy prevention, but I'm afraid this isn't the case. PS- I'm sorry, but the irony in discussing this is that it's coming at the expense of my time to study Biology! I'll probably be on/off- Karana knows I'm too easily distracted to memorize all these damn facts as this next test is little more than a trivia exam- but I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond as appropriate for such a discussion. I hope the night goes well for you, incase I'm not able to respond adequately for the remainder of this evening.

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:35:19 PM)
The Plan B website specifically states, "it will not work if you are already pregnant."

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 6:40:59 PM)
They're probably using a slightly modified definition of "pregnant" to avoid pro-life having a distaste for them. I'm sorry, I have to take a break from this to study for Monday, but I'm pretty sure you can find an article on the mechanism by which it works to clarify this. I'd recommend avoiding their site as I'm sure they're going to side-step aggrivating pro-life sentiments as much as they can justify. (PS- What I mean is that they're just saying that pregnancy doesn't truly start until like a week after conception or something. Which, well, legally, I suppose they're free to. Still, I define pregancy as happening at conception.)

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice What you call taking part in an abortion, others would call dispensing legally approved and (in some cases prescribed) medicine, which seems to me to be the essence of a pharmacist's job. Would it not be intellectually dishonest to ignore either point of view? IIRC, the ONLY way the Pharmacist enjoys legal protection is if he refers the patient to a Pharmacist with it in stock and ready to sell. Isn't it AS wrong to point someone towards a providing Pharmacist, as it is to supply it themselves?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:17:44 PM)
It's not analogous. Since when is masturbating patients a normal part of a nurse's routine? If it WERE, and a nurse agreed to work under those conditions, then you might have a point. But in fact it's NOT, and most nurses would NOT agree to work under those conditions. Meaning... You don't have a point. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's absurd, certainly; since I can draw it to the pharmist-having-to-do-his-job bit, it's analogous.

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:21:17 PM)
quote: I'm sorry, but the irony in discussing this is that it's coming at the expense of my time to study Biology! First things first: Go study, and good luck on the exam!

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:32:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster It's not analogous. Since when is masturbating patients a normal part of a nurse's routine? If it WERE, and a nurse agreed to work under those conditions, then you might have a point. But in fact it's NOT, and most nurses would NOT agree to work under those conditions. Since when were morning-after-pills part of a pharmacist's job? Do you think that they knew they'd be forced to sell abortion pills when they were studying for this however long ago when they were back in school, working for the major? Do you think that many of these people started their careers in the last couple of years when this stuff became an issue? And, perhaps most obviously of all.. did these men ever agree to do this? Did a soldier agree to kill civilians in Iraqi? You think you'd object if one didn't follow orders and do so? Why?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875