quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

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!

quote:


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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BootBlackBlast

To change this thread up a little bit, what if there were a cure pill for HIV contraction?

Should the pharmacists morals allow him to refuse to provide the pill as well?

After all accidents happen, condoms break, rapes occur of both men and women, is this ruling about health care or politics and moral beliefs?

quote:

And I'm a smoker!
Actually, it is amazing how much less mail I get now that I don't fall into the preferred age parameters of so many profile surfers!

quote:

Actually it is very simple. The Republicans are whiners again. The druggist is the person who started opposing freedom: the freedom of any person to sell whatever drugs they want and make a profit on it. The druggist doesn't want the local bodega owner to have that freedom; the druggist wants a monopoly, awarded by the state, that significantly reduces competition, and significantly raises his salary. Then, when he gets the monopoly that blocks the freedoms of others, he whines when people actually want him to do the job he was given the monopoly to do.

quote:

If you can't do the work of a druggist for moral reasons don't be a druggist. If you're a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, don't insist on your right to become a surgeon while demanding that you be permitted to skip transfusions. If you think that Black people are the spawn of Satan, don't ask to become a cop and then insist on your moral right to ignore helping crime victims if they're black. etc. etc.

It really is simple: if you accept government regulation to benefit yourself and hurt the other citizens, don't complain about the regulation.

quote:

Keep in mind that PHARMACISTS are LICENSED by the State.

You either: (1) Do what the State fucking tells you to do..

OR

(2) Surrender your Pharmacist License, and find a different line of work.

No-one held a gun to their heads and forced them to beg for a license.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

Again I will disagree with you.
You should know that I am not a debater.  I do approach things logically, but not necessarily from a purely intellectual standpoint.  And I do differentiate between intellectualism and intelligence/common sense.  That said...
 
We deal with social morality and personal morality.  Social morality is dictated by the will and the tolerance of the masses.  Most have come to be complacent and accept things such as abortion and preventative measures such as "Plan B".  It is justified in various ways in order to appease the natural conscience.  As a result, this bit of morality has fallen by the wayside, and the local clinic goes about their business with little objection. 
I am opposed to abortion.  I am opposed to an option like "Plan B".  It is legal.  Therefore, if I was to work in an industry that forced Me to participate in these legal activities, I would have three choices. 
1.  Swallow hard and do My job   
2.  Work out an alternative solution with My employer so that I could work according to My personal morality
3.  Get a new job
 
I feel the courts have one job.  That is to assist in the serious decisions concerning criminal matters.  But we now have so many laws on the book, and so many ways these laws can be tested and twisted, that we run to the Judge every time we have a question, instead of using some common sense.  Small Claims Court, traffic court, civil court, divorce court, family court, criminal court, justice court, kiddie court, Superior court, Supreme Court, and let us  not forget Judge Judy's Court.  Guess who's making all the money?  The lawyers! And the judges.
 
This discussion has come so far away from the original idea.  Which is, quite simply, that if one is a Pharmacist, and they work for a private business or chain of stores that dispenses medications legally, then  the choices are written, 1. 2. 3.  above.  This decison did not make it illegal for Plan B to be sold.  It did not determine that all drug stores anddrug chans have to make it available.  This decision said "You may own a private business, but I am telling you now that if you have a Pharmacist in your employ who is morally opposed to dispensing this drug, you may not shrug your shoulders.  You, the business owner will either lose profit by not selling it at all, or you will bear the additional expense of making sure that another Pharmacist is on hand who is willing to dispense this medication."
This was not a matter of testing the legality or the morality of the drug.  It was one or 20 (who knows how many) Pharmacists going to court and stating that they find this morally repugnant and wanted a ruling that they could keep their jobs, but not have to dispense a legal medication that made them personally uncomfortable.  Better that they had gathered hundreds or thousands who felt the same way, and stated that they would not dispense it, therefore it would not be available at all.  They did nothing to solve the deeper social problem.  They simply found a way way around their personal comfort.  That doesn't garner any respect from Me.   
Sorry...you are not going to change My mind that this is wrong, and it never belonged in any court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BootBlackBlast

To change this thread up a little bit, what if there were a cure pill for HIV contraction?

Should the pharmacists morals allow him to refuse to provide the pill as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BootBlackBlast
After all accidents happen, condoms break, rapes occur of both men and women, is this ruling about health care or politics and moral beliefs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Is biology a required subject for a major in Mental Masturbation? I thought that was a Fine Arts degree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord


I'm under the impression that you feel that these pharmacists are trying to shirk off their jobs that their employers want them to do?  Some of the things you said in the way of facts about the case that the article doesn't seem to agree with; I'd just like to point these out here.

-The case was brought up by two pharmicists and one store owner.  (It wasn't two pharmacists sueing for their jobs.  They all just didn't want the state forcing them to sell this.)
-Store owners are also being forced.  This injunction over-turned that.  (It's protecting both pharmacists and their employers.)

I'd also like to mention that there's no intention to change your mind.  I simply enjoy debate since it helps me to both find new view points and put my to trial by fire.

quote:

In an injunction signed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source. Pharmacists' employers also are protected by the order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetDommes

I'm not reading the whole thing through, but I do have this to say.

If I had gone to a doctor or pharmacist after any of my rapes, tried to get the morning-after pill, and been refused ... I would have most likely committed suicide - how is that a good thing for the potential baby?  I know someone who did that, and know of many others.  I'm sorry, but my mental health was bad enough without being refused treatment.  If I kill myself (or another potential mother kills herself), then the baby dies anyway, and any future children that might be had lose their chance as well. 

Forcing someone to go against their morals isn't right, but neither is refusing treatment to someone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Do you know about the case involving Islamic cab-drivers in Minneapolis who refuse to drive passengers carrying liquor?

http://www.nysun.com/article/41264

You'd say that they should be permitted to service or not service anyone they damn well please, right?  After all, who told those poor innocent cab-drivers that they might occasionally have to drive people carrying liquor?