Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not in France. Such 'non-demeaning ways' now extends to all such accessories worn in a classroom by a student.

Whats really interesting is,
that it´s not just the western christian countries which regulate which clothes students are allowed to wear and which not.

Also Turkey, as an islamic Country has some strict Clothing regulations in Universities and administrative Buildings.
Students and People who work für the Administration are not allowed to wear a Fez or a veil.
Kemal Atatürk introduced them at the Beginning of 20th century as an effort to diminish the power of islamistic movements within Turkey and to turn Turkey into a modern western State.
And I think he was somehow successful, because, despite Turky having some Flaws (such as the Struggle with the Kurds) it is still a more secular country where also Women possess a lot of freedoms they don´t have in other islamic countries.

[The Templar]

Re: Re: Re: Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I disagree. Although I am not 'pro-life', I don't think anyone should be forced by their employers to do anything immoral. He should have just passed her on to one of his colleagues though. Also, presumably she didn't tell him she was a rape victim.

You have a whole new theory of employment here. I hold that it is immoral to destroy the environment. So if I take a job at a Wall Street law firm and all the work one month is defending Monsanto against CERCLA (environmental liability) or finding ways to skirt CAA regs on a new plant, the firm should pay me my $15-$20K for the month and let me sit on my thumbs?

I like this idea!

[Rogan Josh]

So you would be happy to do any immoral things that your employers demand without objection?

Interesting work ethic....

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I fail to see why convenience to women should override freedom of conscience. Pharmacists should not have to prescribe a drug to which they are morally opposed.

Y'know what? You will likely never get raped. You will never get pregnant. You will never be forced to bear a child and raise it with scant help from the outside world. You will never be looked down upon by the snotty conservative types as a whore ('cause, after all, all single women with babies obviously couldn't control themselves around those innocent saints that men are).

No, that won't happen to you. You're a male.

Gatekeeper

[Ben Kenobi]

[qutoe]
So you would be happy to do any immoral things that your employers demand without objection?
[/quote]

Difficult and disliked sections sure. I never said anything about immoral.

Y'know what? You will likely never get raped. You will never get pregnant.

So what? Neither will you. It's not just male catholics who have a problem, my pharmacist friend is female and she has a problem with the morning after pill. So does my girlfriend. So why is gender an issue?

[quote]
You will never be forced to bear a child and raise it with scant help from the outside world.
[/qutoe]

Where do I advocate not helping women who are raped? I would rather give them proper counselling and support rather than giving them a pill and saying, there you go. All is well.

You will never be looked down upon by the snotty conservative types as a whore ('cause, after all, all single women with babies obviously couldn't control themselves around those innocent saints that men are).

Where do I call these women whores? I don't blame them for beign raped.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
So you would be happy to do any immoral things that your employers demand without objection?

Interesting work ethic....

You always can throw in Objections.
But, if you just refuse to do your Job and it is not an authorized strike, your employer hs the right to fire you.

As for the Pharmacist:
I assume he knew long ago that there were Stockpiles of the Morning After Pill in the Pharmacy where he was employed.
But did he ever object to his company selling them? Obviously not and of course he must have known, that he also would some day have to sell those pills.
Obviously he never ever showed any indication, that in his opinion selling those Pills is immoral.
It wasn´t as if he he openly told his Bosses: "O.K., I wo0rk in the Pharmacy, but if anyone wants the Morning After Pill I´ll refuse to sell them"
If he had done so and his Employer willingly accepted the risk he shouldn´t suffer any consequences.
But as it wasn´t the case, his Employer obviously has every right to punish him for not doing his job properly.

[Mordoch]

Ben, are you going to address my real life example since it eliminates the problem you had with my previous one?

[Ben Kenobi]

Mordoch:

It's a wonderful point, and I had to think about it before replying. I think I have a good reply now, that I did not have last night.

Converts to a religion are unlikely to stay in their previous occupation if the occupation violates their current beliefs. This is part of sloughing of the old life and starting anew.

This condition would apply to the pharmacist who converts to the church of scientology.

That leaves us with someone who is a member of the church of scientology, then becoming a pharmacist. I don't really see that happening because they do not accept converts until they are older, and likely have chosen their occupation.

So I do not believe you would ever find a member of the church of scientology in such a conflict.

[curtsibling]

What I see from this thread.

Some religionists think that a women deserves to suffer birthing the child of a rapist monster.

Well, it's good to see some male 'believers' have not mentally progressed beyond 900AD.

I bet if it happened to their daughters, it would be a different story.

[Kuciwalker]

I saw BK's response to the question of what he would do if his GF was raped... now I wonder what he would do if his GF was raped by her brother. Is incest horrific enough to warrant abortion, BK?

[curtsibling]

People who harp about the 'sanctity of life' no matter the situation, have lost the plot in my book.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Some religionists think that a women deserves to suffer birthing the child of a rapist monster.

Surely this is not an isuue about rape. It makes no difference whether or not she was raped since the child-to-be is innocent (or do you ascribe the sins of the father to the child?). If very early abortion is wrong, then such abortions in rape cases is wrong too. It is an issue of abortion, and in this case worker's rights.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh Surely this is not an isuue about rape.

Read the thread title.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh It makes no difference whether or not she was raped since the child-to-be is innocent

The women was forced to be impregnated against her will.

That is the true evil.

If you blind you eyes to that fact, then you are lost to common intelligence.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh (or do you ascribe the sins of the father to the child?).

There is no such thing as 'sin', in my eyes.

Only human actions, for good ends or bad.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh If very early abortion is wrong, then such abortions in rape cases is wrong too.

Abortion is crucial in some cases.

I find it totally outrageous that you would wish a woman to bear a rapist's product.

I find it quite mad in fact.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh It is an issue of abortion, and in this case worker's rights.

It's a case of human and women's rights.

Something a medieval theologist would not comphrehend, I see...

[Gatekeeper]

So what? Neither will you. It's not just male catholics who have a problem, my pharmacist friend is female and she has a problem with the morning after pill. So does my girlfriend. So why is gender an issue?

I could care less if a pharmacist — male or female — has moral objections to dispensing certain types of medications. If we're going to have allowances for religious concerns to supercede the law, imagine what other sort of allowances society is going to have to allow.

Gender is an issue only in the fact that you and I will never be raped and impregnated. We will never experience that type of horror, at least not in this lifetime. The key word is experience. We can debate it all we want, but in the end, a person who has experienced it will have more weight on the matter than either of us ever will.

So, with that in mind, I find it hard to condemn the rape victim for attempting to prevent an unwanted pregnancy ... which is why it sort of set me off to see a *male* pharmacist inserting himself into her life in that crude manner. My reaction would have been the same if it'd been a female pharmacist.

Now, if we had a female pharmacist who'd been raped herself and given birth to a beautiful bouncing baby and cared for it and was loved and supported by her family (and the rapist's) along with the outside world who did this to to the rape victim in question, it would've raised my eyebrows more than anything else.

Where do I advocate not helping women who are raped? I would rather give them proper counselling and support rather than giving them a pill and saying, there you go. All is well.

Any integral part of rape aftercare is, if the woman wishes, having the fundamental right to not bear the rapist's child. Your support for counseling and support is rather admirable, but hollow if it means the woman will be forced to bear an unwanted child nonetheless.

Where do I call these women whores? I don't blame them for beign raped.

I was speaking based on my experience with local conservatives and hoighty-toity types that populate my immediate area of the world. A number of them do view such women as whores.

The direct reference to you was meant in the sense that, as a male, you can never experience what it's like to be presumed a whore, *not* that you necessarily considered such women to be whores or that you blamed them for getting pregnant. Others who subscribe to your views do view them that way, however, and an unfortunate number of them live in my area, which colors my view of religious types negatively.

Gatekeeper

[Pekka]

I think the bottom line here is, that religious beliefs and other beliefs as well are not an excuse to override the laws and the regulations. If so, then it's a free ticket for everyone to interpret religion and personal beliefs and implement that in action against people who do not share the same beliefs, PLUS I might add that the woman was in trouble and was a victim of a rape. In this situation, there is no room for this kind of action and behaviour. Like many have said, if this pharmacist didn't want to give the drugs that the DOCTOR had prescribed (which is his job), then he shouldn't be working there in the first place.

It's like slipping sleep pills into your troops coffee cups, so they can't wake up to the early ambush, to prevent from killing the enemy soldiers. If you can't handle it, then you shoudln't be there in the first place, and if its against your morals, it should be your ass that is in the line of fire, not the other ones. You can't do that to other people who are not likely thinking the same way.

It's like force aborting rape victims, because you believe in that they are evil spawns of the rapist sperm, and give morning pills instead of aspirin for the head ache. You just can't do that.