Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Zylka]

Edited by MtG:

You know, Z, it's been a long time since I've busted you.

[Spiffor]

If you look at how much she breathes, it's freaking scary. She looks like she has to pump the entire atmosphere to provide such effort

[Combat Ingrid]

That so called "rape victim" is an evil, vicious murderer! Burn her at the stake!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
That so called "rape victim" is an evil, vicious murderer! Burn her at the stake!

Pah! Burning is for sissies. We should draw her to the gates of the city, and stone her to death there! Just like the Bible teaches us to do!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Zylka:

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MtG:



Considering both of your examples. How can the libertarian be held personally responsible, by his own beliefs, by charging a tax on an item? He is not personally benefiting from the tax. As for the conservative opposed to welfare, would it be better to let that person starve, or to accept their payment with food stamps? I would think that their philosophy would give them a stark option of either charity, or accepting their food stamps. Since he cannot offer charity to compensate for all of these people, he has no option but to give the food stamps.

In other words, you're reserving the right to determine what is and what is not acceptable as a "matter of conscience" which employers must accomodate in a private workplace when both religious and political views are subject to First Amendment protection? One's "conscience" is more requiring of accomodation than another's, depending on subjective evaluation of the gravity of the matter or whether you agree with the employee's position?

Now, compare this to our example. A Catholic, who dispenses the morning after pill, would consider themselves to be an accessory to murder. True, the pill may not cause an abortion, but the purpose of the pill is to prevent the implantation of the unborn child. There is no other purpose for the drug. That to me should seem considerably different grounds than even my own contraceptive example to allow for freedom of conscience.

And an Islamic fundamentalist might consider that women who walk into the store uncovered and without a male relative escorting them should be flogged to protect public morality and prevent vice. Should we accomodate that? Or him simply shouting to the uncovered whores that Allah condemns them and they should leave the store at once until they come back properly covered or escorted?

The law does not consider that any homicide has taken place, and regardless of the intent of the pill, the pharmacist does not know for a fact - he speculates. I don't see anything vaguely resembling a compelling reason the employer should be required to accommodate the employee's speculative exercise and refusal to serve a customer who has a lawful, properly issued prescription. The employee could certainly resign rather than do so, but IMO, that's the remedy.

Why not similarly speculate about any medication which can be abused in a manner that leads to death?

That's a seriously questionable analogy, MtG. Are you claiming that pregnancy is a medical condition like an STD?

Where did I say it's an analogy? Pregnancy is a medical condition. So is exposure to a communicable disease. They are different, but in both cases, it is a medical issue to decide how to deal with them. In the case of the morning after pill, the intent is to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by DaShi
Damn Christians. Their ****ing God hasn't spoken to them in 2 thousand years, and they're tellin' us what to do.

Why don't you show some respect to people.

[Guynemer]

This is positively vile behavior on the part of pharmacist. There is no excuse.

As for Ben, well, I've come to expect this sort of nonsense.

[mrmitchell]

Ben:

I don't like killing people. Thusly, I can't work as the executioner at a prison.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not clear that even if one believes epilepsy is a curse by God, that one should not intervene to treat the epileptic.

I'm not saying that you personally believe this, I'm saying its quite possible for someone to believe this and therefore refuse to treat the disease since that would be defying God's judgement and acting against his concience.

This sort of philosophy has been practiced in the past. For instance, as a Ken Burns documentry on Ben Franklin noted, when Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston and a house was hit by lightning, the fire department for the city would put out any fire that spread to a neighboring house, but would let the house hit by lighting burn because it was presumed to be God's judgement!

(A link to the documentry I'm refering to can be found here.)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007KE63/ref=nosim/justaboutever-20/102-7629703-4884109?dev-t=D2Y5TUCCVJ7DGE

Obviously the firefighters knew that they were capable of putting out the fire of the house struck by lightning, but chose not to because they felt it was not the right thing to do as a result of their religious beliefs.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Zylka
Edited by MtG:

You know, Z, it's been a long time since I've busted you.

Haha, what did he say?

I always enjoy a good, offensive Zylka post.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I wonder if this pharmacist filled that nice young man's prescription for sulfuric acid. Seems his slut of a fiance got herself knocked up.

[Zylka]

wh

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

at

[MrFun]

do