Announcement

**Drogue** · September 17, 2004, 05:33

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm imposing my moral code when I refuse to assist a suicide too. Your point?

If your job is to assist a suicide, then yes, you'd be in the wrong, IMHO. It's like saying "I want to be a soldier, but I won't kill someone". It's part of the job. If you don't want to kill someone, don't be a soldier. If you don't want to dispense prescription medication, don't be a pharmacist.

**Potassium** · September 17, 2004, 23:02

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Thank god I'm not a woman.

I'd be self-hitting it 24/7

The women are also glad you're not one.

I have nothing to add, except that if I want an abortion, for whatever reason, it is not your business to say whether or not you think I should get it. If you don't agree with it, congratulations, have a frickin cookie. Not that I could ever go through with an abortion, but for those that would, outlawing it will do nothing but make them go to shady doctors with no qualifications to perform abortions, and the women run a greater risk of health problems afterwards. What a wonderful idea!

**Agathon** · September 17, 2004, 23:05

Many pharacists here own their own store. You're going to require a business to carry products they are vehemently against?

What do you do to doctors who refuse to perform abortions?

Hopefully nothing.

But if there are women who can't get access to medical services they are entitled to by law, then it's licence yanking time. Doctors are there to provide a service to the community, not to indulge their own religious prejudices.

**Agathon** · September 17, 2004, 23:08

Oh and

@ Che's comment.

Major pwnage.

**Ned** · September 17, 2004, 23:15

I don't really understand why person A refusing to help person B have an abortion is person A IMPOSING their ideology on person B. Person B can still get the abortion, just not with A's cooperation. If the law were to the contrary, where person A was FORCED against their will in assisting in the abortion, then I can clearly see that person B has IMPOSED their ideology on person A.

It seems, therefor, that the people who are complaining the loudest about some imposition of ideology are the very people trying to do it.

**Ted Striker** · September 17, 2004, 23:16

Not really.

It was an easy setup, I was willing to toss out to the first person that wanted it.

**Ted Striker** · September 17, 2004, 23:19

Originally posted by Potassium

The women are also glad you're not one.

I have nothing to add, except that if I want an abortion, for whatever reason, it is not your business to say whether or not you think I should get it. If you don't agree with it, congratulations, have a frickin cookie. Not that I could ever go through with an abortion, but for those that would, outlawing it will do nothing but make them go to shady doctors with no qualifications to perform abortions, and the women run a greater risk of health problems afterwards. What a wonderful idea!

Sweet, if you want to murder someone, that's nobody else's business.

**Agathon** · September 17, 2004, 23:20

I don't really understand why person A refusing to help person B have an abortion is person A IMPOSING their ideology on person B.

And the state forces its ideology on medical practitioners all the time by preventing them from doing certain things and by making them do certain others.

If people have a problem with this, they shouldn't become doctors.

As I said, compelling people to perform abortions is a last resort, but it is a necessary last resort.

John Irving wrote a good novel about this, called The Cider House Rules.

**Agathon** · September 17, 2004, 23:21

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Not really.

It was an easy setup, I was willing to toss out to the first person that wanted it.

Yes, I know.

**Agathon** · September 17, 2004, 23:22

The women are also glad you're not one.

That comment could be taken any number of ways. Hmmm....

**chequita guevara** · September 17, 2004, 23:23

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Not really.

It was an easy setup, I was willing to toss out to the first person that wanted it.

Like it's not true for every guy in the world anyway.

**Agathon** · September 17, 2004, 23:24

Like it's not true for every guy in the world anyway.

Not for me. I have a wife for all that stuff.

**chequita guevara** · September 17, 2004, 23:26

Most guys still self-hit it even when they have a healthy sex-life with a partner.

Remember, you need at least 21 orgasms a month for good prostate health.

**Agathon** · September 17, 2004, 23:27

Most guys still self-hit it even when they have a healthy sex-life with a partner.

Only those men of low virtue who tend to the squalid.

**notyoueither** · September 17, 2004, 23:28

Originally posted by Drogue

If your job is to assist a suicide, then yes, you'd be in the wrong, IMHO. It's like saying "I want to be a soldier, but I won't kill someone". It's part of the job. If you don't want to kill someone, don't be a soldier. If you don't want to dispense prescription medication, don't be a pharmacist.

One, soldiers (even volunteers) may become conscientious objectors, and may not be forced to kill people.

Two, pharmacists do a whole lot other than dispense abortive substances. That profession is one that a lot of people have decided they would like to persue as a career for various reasons. Most of those people started their careers before abortion drugs were ever heard of. They should have no opinion and just mindlessly follow 'orders'? Even if they own their own shop?

Three, what about doctors who don't perform abortions? Should they change professions? How are they different from pharmacists?

Announcement

ARTICLE: Thank God I'm Not a Woman!!!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment