Catholic Pharmacist?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What will happen if (hypothetically speaking) ¾ of pharmacists were scientologists and they refuse to dispense anti-depressants because they don't believe in psychopharmacological medicine?

This is a good point, and I'm glad you brought it up. In this case, the other 1/4 of pharmacists that DO believe in dispensing anti-depressants will be making a fine profit from the others' refusals and they will devise ways in which to maximize this profit as well as the benefits to the patient by meeting the demand for these medications. This is how a free market works. Demand exists, supply arises to meet this demand. Too bad for those 3/4 of pharmacists that miss out, but at least they get to practice pharmacy without harming their souls or being forced to transgress their personal beliefs, but their beliefs will not come without a cost financially.

Another note... obviously if someone isn't doing their job, they should not be protected from a PRIVATE business firing them. If a pharmacist refuses to dispense, then their job should not be automatically protected. I think this is a much better method for policing this issue than enacting mandatory dispension laws. If someone is willing to potentially sacrifice their livelihood, they should be able to, but if the employer is willing to work with their beliefs or they are independent, then so be it.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
So here's a question for you:

How do you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses becoming doctors? Would you be all right with a refusal to give you a blood transfusion? Would you consider that a viable expression of religious freedom?

I'm no expert on blood tranfusions or Jehovah's Witnesses, so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but I would not have a problem with them becoming doctors. Obviously no ER would hire them, nor should they seek employment as an ER physician. This would directly and immediately cause harm to the patient, so it is different... unless there is another qualified person right there at all times to do blood transfusions as necessary.

The key here is that each potential moral question for a group of practitioners has to be critically examined to see if there would be immediate and tangible physical damange or death to the patient by not receiving the treatment or drug. If this were the case, then the rights of the practitioner would be trumped by the rights of the patients. For example, let's say, hypothetically speaking, a physician is qualified to perform abortions but does not believe in it, but for some reason a woman will die if she does not receive an abortion within 15 minutes. The physician must perform the abortion if s/he is able. Inconvenience does not qualify as immediate bodily harm.
 
This is a good point, and I'm glad you brought it up. In this case, the other 1/4 of pharmacists that DO believe in dispensing anti-depressants will be making a fine profit from the others' refusals
So you are saying to hell with rural America, then?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This is a good point, and I'm glad you brought it up. In this case, the other 1/4 of pharmacists that DO believe in dispensing anti-depressants will be making a fine profit from the others' refusals and they will devise ways in which to maximize this profit as well as the benefits to the patient by meeting the demand for these medications. This is how a free market works. Demand exists, supply arises to meet this demand. Too bad for those 3/4 of pharmacists that miss out, but at least they get to practice pharmacy without harming their souls or being forced to transgress their personal beliefs, but their beliefs will not come without a cost financially.

Another note... obviously if someone isn't doing their job, they should not be protected from a PRIVATE business firing them. If a pharmacist refuses to dispense, then their job should not be automatically protected. I think this is a much better method for policing this issue than enacting mandatory dispension laws. If someone is willing to potentially sacrifice their livelihood, they should be able to, but if the employer is willing to work with their beliefs or they are independent, then so be it.

Hah hah. That's one possible outcome.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

good rebuttal.
 
Nope, it may be perfectly OK for Baptists. I'm dismissing the claim that it represents Christianity in general.​


Oh yes, as compared to Christians who do NOT believe in the Bible? That's a lame dig. Sophistry doesn't suit you.
For that SUBJECTIVE CLAIM to be factual, it would mean that there is no life before conception, that sperm and egg are not live cells. Also a bogus premise.
Clearly false, per the above.
Biblically, individual life (not just generic and simplistic, "life") begins at Nemeth, first breath. So that also is not an accurate, not absolutist claim, your assertion none withstanding. I suggest you are more careful about making absolutist claims.
A very generic term, utterly useless. You eating a piece of lettuce means that you kill cells. So you need something much more specific. Platitudes really won't gain you anything here.
I am not with the Baptists. To claim that I am not with God, that's a flat-out lie. Now you are bearing false witness and distorting God's message for the sake of your political agenda. That's despicable. Pure blasphemy.​
And when you are bearing false witness, then you clearly are NOT "with" Jesus in any way.
Yes. Your license is you accepting the laws, rules and regulations of your profession. If you cannot reconcile your beliefs and Faith with your license, then your acceptance of your license is a false oath.
Terri Schiavo, a person in a persistent vegetative state merely had her life support measures terminated, as happens many times daily throughout the American medical system. Her grand-parents, politicians and the political establishment behaved disgracefully in their interventions and their many lies spewed in that case. So yes, I agree with Terri Schiavo's husband and disagree with the grand-parents, politicians and the religious establishment that decided to play dirty and dishonest politics with a person's dignity. You have a problem with that?
What about it? If the prosecution is not doing their job, then they are at fault. If there is not sufficient evidence, then how do you know that it is a "known" child molester? Because you decided the person is guilty merely per the accusation? Your disregard for the law or evidence required for a guilty-charge is also duly noted. It is beginning to look pretty bleak for your integrity here. Basing your argument on moral outrage without any factual foundation really does not put you in a good position.
Yes.
At any and all times, they become personally accountable to God. They do NOT become accountable to you or to a uniquely Baptist interpretation of God.
Correct. part of you obtaining a license is that you work for your patients, not for your religious dogma.
Oh, numerous reasons. Suffering from the polycystic ovary disease you refuse to provide treatment for. Treatment of the dysmenorrhea you refuse to provide treatment for. The pregnancy that causes harm to the woman's body at varying levels, the unwanted pregnancy that causes hardship and may cause the woman to seek out an abortion instead, having to endure a medical procedure instead of taking a pill. It causes harm in many different ways on many different levels. If you want to determine what medication is prescribed, then you should have gone to medical school instead.
And so does medical science.
Utterly irrelevant, as no person's life is ended through the regular use of contraception. The zygote is not a person, your emotional histrionics none withstanding.
Ah, spewing selective verses, quote-mining the Bible. Shame on you. You missed the other ones:

Hosea 9:11-16 The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."

Numbers 31:17 “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”

Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
2 Kings 15:16 At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.
Ezekiel 9:5-7 Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."
1 Samuel 15:3 This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'
Psalms 135:8 He struck down the firstborn of Egypt, the firstborn of men and animals.
Psalms 137:9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”
Judges 11:31-39 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break." "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin

Psalms 137:8-9 0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.”
Exodus 12:29-30 And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died
Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”
Isaiah 13:15-18 Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Jeremiah 51:20-26 "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.
Joshua 6:20-21 When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.

Hahahahaha. This showdown is getting heated. I need to be the moderator lol
 
I'm confused how condemning someone else's dearly held, age-old religious beliefs is open-minded. Just because you're progressive enough to believe in all sorts of women's rights and enlightened enough to know the difference between a zygote and an adult human doesn't mean everyone else HAS to be. Aren't you enforcing your value system on everybody else here?

I just want you to be consistent with your open-mindedness.

Being open minded means you are willing to listen to other's opinion and willing to admit when are you WRONG. It is okay to believe that Person A is a murder, it is okay to believe the grass is purple, and it is okay to believe condoms causes aids (Pope anyone? :laugh:)....But being open minded means you are able to LISTEN to other people and you are ABLE TO ACCEPT the fact that you are indeed PROVEN WRONG.

Close minded people refuse to listen to anyone and refuse to use logic and scientific facts and most of all they refuse to admit that they are WRONG when they are proven wrong. That is close mindness...I am not perfect, I make mistakes but I am open minded enough to LISTEN to others and know when I am wrong. ;)
 
Is there a different between a producer of weapons and a pharmacist who sell plan B?

a person who is in the assembly line to produce a gun, knows that when that weapon is fired that it could and often do kill another person. So when the gun is actually fired and killed another person, is the person in the assembly line responsible for the death morally?
 
Last edited:
that the patient is at least 18 years old.

News just came out:

Reduced to 17 w/o an Rx.
 
I am new to this forum so please bare with me. I am a senior in high school and am considering a career in pharmacy. I have a moral dilemma and that is that I am catholic and do not want to put myself in a situation that might compromise my religious beliefs as far as the dispensing of birth control pills and abortifacients. No, I don't need a speech telling me I should just dispense and go against my religious beliefs. I am wondering if a career in pharmacy is possible without having to deal with such drugs. Would specializing in a certain area of pharmacy such as pediatric pharmacy or toxicology prevent me from being in a position I am not morally comfortable with? Please no judgements. I am not asking if a pharmacist has the "right to refuse," I'm looking for a way to not be in that situation to begin with. Thank you.


I don't know if anyone has said this already, but if you look at hospitals (to work at once you are a pharmacist) you will find at least a couple of them that are Catholic based and require employees to sign an agreement that they will practice based on Christian beliefs. In looking, I found one in Concord, NH and I know I've come across others. So there are hospitals out there that not only allow for your beliefs, but support them. You just have to know that this may be uncommon, which means you need to be picky about where you work. Don't expect a job to bend to your beliefs. Look for a job where the organization already practices your beliefs. They are out there.
 
Is there a different between a producer of weapons and a pharmacist who sell plan B?

a person who is in the assembly line to produce a gun, knows that when that weapon is fired that it could and often do kill another person. So when the gun is actually fired and killed another person, is the person in the assembly line responsible for the death morally?

Weapons also save lives. A bad guy comes into my house when I am home, his intention is to harm or kill me. My weapon will save my life.

So that's not the correct analogy for Plan B.
 
Is there a different between a producer of weapons and a pharmacist who sell plan B?
Yes.
a person who is in the assembly line to produce a gun, knows that when that weapon is fired that it could and often do kill another person. So when the gun is actually fired and killed another person, is the person in the assembly line responsible for the death morally?
Rather irrelevant to the questions regarding Plan B, as no persons are being killed.
 
:lol: I think it is so funny how people get up in arms about birth control but don't bat an eye at other medications like Viagra. Are you going to verify that the man coming in for that prescription is married? Or better yet, using it with his wife?

The "morality" knife always seems to cut one way.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Weapons also save lives. A bad guy comes into my house when I am home, his intention is to harm or kill me. My weapon will save my life.

So that's not the correct analogy for Plan B.

Random side-track note:

Oh the irony between saving a life and ending a life - It takes many years of training in med school, pharm school etc. to obtain a license in helping save lives but it takes only filling out some papers to obtain a license to own a gun and end a life. Not everyone can become a clinician, but almost anyone can own a gun.

disconcerting no?
 
I'm having basically the opposite problem that the OP has. I'm a (future) pharm student, a women's studies major, a feminist, and a pro-choice advocate, but I've been going to a Catholic church for about a year now and would like to join it. It's hard to balance those values with the values of the Church. Honestly, I think it will work though. God seems to be about love and acceptance and I really don't think I'm going to hell for dispensing birth control or directing someone to the abortion clinic. I am on birth control and plan to select the proper time for me to have child through that method so that I can properly provide time and resources for my family. I really doubt that the Church or God will strike me down for that reason.

Everybody sins... we are all sinners and there is no way around that. Also, one sin is no worse than the next in the eyes of the Church. Being a "perfect" christian in the pharmacy field will be next to impossible, and I really doubt it will drastically change your values. I believe in abortion, but I'm not sure if I would have one or not... I'm going to do my best to not put myself in that situation... but that doesn't give me the right to dictate someone else's life. If someone wants birth control and you don't believe in it, I feel you should give it to them and just not use it yourself.

In my opinion the issue of birth control and abortion is just a tiny piece of what makes up the churches values. Unfortunately it's one of the most publicized parts... There are so many other positive things that I can easily get past this disagreement. My Priest says that we should be kind to and embrace and help people even if they decide to abort or otherwise sin so maybe they won't be forced into that option in the future. After all, Mary was a 13 year old pregnant girl who had not completed or consummated her marriage. Not exactly the definition of a perfect christian, lol. go figure...
 
:lol: I think it is so funny how people get up in arms about birth control but don't bat an eye at other medications like Viagra. Are you going to verify that the man coming in for that prescription is married? Or better yet, using it with his wife?

The "morality" knife always seems to cut one way.

Duh, that's because no one cares where the menfolk stick their dicks. Boys will be boys! Women, on the other hand, are supposed to be the gatekeepers. Anyone who uses the pill is obviously just a slut with no self-control.

I take BC to manage my PCOS, and that's none of my pharmacist's business. Thank god I live in a civilized area...I can't imagine being somewhere rural and not having access to it. For the record, the OP is an ignorant twit and probably won't make it to pharm school anyway.
 
Random side-track note:

Oh the irony between saving a life and ending a life - It takes many years of training in med school, pharm school etc. to obtain a license in helping save lives but it takes only filling out some papers to obtain a license to own a gun and end a life. Not everyone can become a clinician, but almost anyone can own a gun.

disconcerting no?

Actually, not quite an accurate analogy either. Yes, anyone can save a life. It doesn't take a special degree to feed the starving, or donate to a kidney transplant hopeful, or provide a homeless person shelter from the freezing cold. And, no, not anyone can own a gun. People with a violent criminal record cannot own a gun. Which is ironic since they can now get in the military. Most crimes are committed by people who illegally have a gun.
 
To those who condemn others for their choices concerning abortion, be wary of casting stones because you never know what situations you yourself may face in the future. Trust me, from my own personal experience, you never know what may be thrown in your life and what hard decisions you may have to face in the future.
 
Actually, not quite an accurate analogy either. Yes, anyone can save a life. It doesn't take a special degree to feed the starving, or donate to a kidney transplant hopeful, or provide a homeless person shelter from the freezing cold. And, no, not anyone can own a gun. People with a violent criminal record cannot own a gun. Which is ironic since they can now get in the military. Most crimes are committed by people who illegally have a gun.

True. I just don't think that there are a lot smart people out there who i trust with a gun (ie former vp dick cheney). Quite frankly, I don't even fully trust the NYPD carrying fire arms. LOL - It's pretty obvious where i stand on strict gun control (don't get me started)...this is off topic.
 
Weapons also save lives. A bad guy comes into my house when I am home, his intention is to harm or kill me. My weapon will save my life.

So that's not the correct analogy for Plan B.


well it is killing regardless to me.

or do you say that the bad activitites of others decrease their worth as a human being?
 
Duh, that's because no one cares where the menfolk stick their dicks. Boys will be boys! Women, on the other hand, are supposed to be the gatekeepers. Anyone who uses the pill is obviously just a slut with no self-control.

I take BC to manage my PCOS, and that's none of my pharmacist's business. Thank god I live in a civilized area...I can't imagine being somewhere rural and not having access to it. For the record, the OP is an ignorant twit and probably won't make it to pharm school anyway.

:lol: Right, that is what I thought:rolleyes:. I have two sisters with PCOS so I understand.

For the life of me, I can't understand how you can help a man get his rocks off but won't give women a means to control their fertility.
All I ask is consistency ya know....don't beat the bible on one issue to justify your actions but then turn a blind eye on others.
 
well it is killing regardless to me.

or do you say that the bad activitites of others decrease their worth as a human being?

When it is my life or theirs, and they are the one who came into my home intending to do me harm, then yes I feel their bad activities decrease their worth below my own.
 
well it is killing regardless to me.

or do you say that the bad activitites of others decrease their worth as a human being?

Would your worth as a human being decrease after getting pregnant from rape or incest? (hypothetically speaking)
 
Would your worth as a human being decrease after getting pregnant from rape or incest? (hypothetically speaking)

Again, not a correct analogy. We aren't discussing killing pregnant women because they got pregnant (by whatever means). The question would be, is the worth of a child decreased because they are unwanted?
 
well it is killing regardless to me.
So is eating lettuce. Or using antibiotics. After all, cells die. Compromising science for irrational dogma is a very disturbing trait in a professional who is supposed to be about science.
 
Would your worth as a human being decrease after getting pregnant from rape or incest? (hypothetically speaking)

absolutely not, even some Christian are accepting the use of EC for these cases that you mentioned.
 
True. I just don't think that there are a lot smart people out there who i trust with a gun (ie former vp dick cheney). Quite frankly, I don't even fully trust the NYPD carrying fire arms. LOL - It's pretty obvious where i stand on strict gun control (don't get me started)...this is off topic.

In theory I agree with what you said. However, there also aren't a lot of smart people out there who can be trusted to have sex responsibly. So if we can take away their guns, can we please sterlize them also? And the question is, where does this thinking end?

If an adult wants the individual right to choose, I say let them have that right, be it birth control or guns. I am objective enough to know that my beliefs are just that, my own beliefs, and cannot be forced upon another.
 
Again, not a correct analogy. We aren't discussing killing pregnant women because they got pregnant (by whatever means). The question would be, is the worth of a child decreased because they are unwanted?
But then, there is no child until after birth, anti-choice revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

So other than emotional histrionics, is there any actual, current relevance to a non-implanted cell, making it acceptable to try to enslave and control a woman for the sake of said cell?

Is there ANYTHING other than a theocratic goal of control of women in a fundie patriarchy that is a reason to deny the woman access to Plan B?
 
So is eating lettuce. Or using antibiotics. After all, cells die. Compromising science for irrational dogma is a very disturbing trait in a professional who is supposed to be about science.

you are not a lettuce nor are you bacteria. You are special, which is why people have to go to so many years of school and training to treat and help you properly.

Did you know that for pure science certain Nazi scientist dissect Jews like pigs. They did atmospheric pressure test on them, drugged them, exposing them to extreme heat and cold. There are even twins that are combined together via their back for experiemental test.
 
absolutely not, even some Christian are accepting the use of EC for these cases that you mentioned.
So the issue is HOW and WHY she had sex. You are saying that pharmacists are the morality police, controlling and judging the worth and righteousness of a woman's sexual activities?

And your "even some Christian" is crap. "Even some Christian" have no problem with any form of contraception or abortion for any reason whatsoever. Trying to show an extremist, restrictive and controlling position as mainstream is bogus.
 
you are not a lettuce nor are you bacteria. You are special, which is why people have to go to so many years of school and training to treat and help you properly.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a zygote to begin with. You are again reaching for the emotional histrionics here.
Did you know that for pure science certain Nazi scientist dissect Jews like pigs. They did atmospheric pressure test on them, drugged them, exposing them to extreme heat and cold. There are even twins that are combined together via their back for experiemental test.
What an utter and irrelevant non-sequitor. So what!!!!!!
 
So the issue is HOW and WHY she had sex. You are saying that pharmacists are the morality police, controlling and judging the worth and righteousness of a woman's sexual activities?

And your "even some Christian" is crap. "Even some Christian" have no problem with any form of contraception or abortion for any reason whatsoever. Trying to show an extremist, restrictive and controlling position as mainstream is bogus.


Not about How or Why

Are you kidding me, the original question as a about a woman who was raped or forced into incest.
 
But then, there is no child until after birth

Again, that is your belief. And if you are objective you understand that your belief should not be forced upon others.

Just as I said, if an adult wants the individual right to choose, let them have it. I wouldn't condemn someone for using Plan B. On the other side of that, my personal beliefs should not be condemned either. I have the right to choose my own personal beliefs.
 
Not about How or Why

Are you kidding me, the original question as a about a woman who was raped or forced into incest.
Yes, and in THOSE cases, you were fine with it, despite not in other situations. So clearly HOW she had sex matters to your reasoning in whether to give her Plan B or not.

Clearly her sexuality, why or how she has sex, under what circumstances, THAT is a factor in your determination about whether she should be given Plan B or not.

So congratulations; you have established yourself as the morality police, judging the rights and wrongs of womens sexuality.
 
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a zygote to begin with. You are again reaching for the emotional histrionics here.
What an utter and irrelevant non-sequitor. So what!!!!!!





The only reason why we respect human lives and not experiement on them like pigs is because we believe that a human has is extremely precious.

You argue for pure science, no emotion needed to do any science. I told you the result of such things in nazi camp.
 
Again, that is your belief. And if you are objective you understand that your belief should not be forced upon others.
Actually, "Child" is a developmental stage beginning after age 1.

The anti-choice crowd staring to apply "child" to the zygote is just evidence of the sophistry and deception needed for the anti-choicers to justify their arguments. When such obfuscation and deception is needed, we start looking at the real motives. And they always come down to "morality," to whether women were justified in having sex. It turns into theocratic dogma, into controlling and enslaving women into patriarchal roles the right-wing fundie dogmatists feel they should be able to inflict on women.

So claiming that the use of "child" as a descriptor of a zygote is not about belief, it is about revisionist linguistic hyperbole for the sake of deception.

Please go peddle that crap somewhere else.
Just as I said, if an adult wants the individual right to choose, let them have it. I wouldn't condemn someone for using Plan B. On the other side of that, my personal beliefs should not be condemned either. I have the right to choose my own personal beliefs.
But not to inflict it on your clients, whom you have obtained a license to help and where you got the license on the premise to serve your clients rather than proselytize to them or inflict your idea of theocratic control on them.
 
Yes, and in THOSE cases, you were fine with it, despite not in other situations. So clearly HOW she had sex matters to your reasoning in whether to give her Plan B or not.

Clearly her sexuality, why or how she has sex, under what circumstances, THAT is a factor in your determination about whether she should be given Plan B or not.

So congratulations; you have established yourself as the morality police, judging the rights and wrongs of womens sexuality.


not that I am ok with it, JUST THAT I HAVE NO CHOICE.
IT WAS A RAPE AND INCEST
 
Actually, "Child" is a developmental stage beginning after age 1.

The anti-choice crowd staring to apply "child" to the zygote is just evidence of the sophistry and deception needed for the anti-choicers to justify their arguments. When such obfuscation and deception is needed, we start looking at the real motives. And they always come down to "morality," to whether women were justified in having sex. It turns into theocratic dogma, into controlling and enslaving women into patriarchal roles the right-wing fundie dogmatists feel they should be able to inflict on women.

So claiming that the use of "child" as a descriptor of a zygote is not about belief, it is about revisionist linguistic hyperbole for the sake of deception.

Please go peddle that crap somewhere else.
But not to inflict it on your clients, whom you have obtained a license to help and where you got the license on the premise to serve your clients rather than proselytize to them or inflict your idea of theocratic control on them.


Being an extremely angry left-wing liberal is just as bad as being an extremely judgmental right-wing conservative. Both of which do no good.
 
not that I am ok with it, JUST THAT I HAVE NO CHOICE.


What a sick twisted demented logic. I'm Christian myself and I just wonder how the heck is it that some of us belong to the same religion, yet have such drastically different views. :confused:
 
Not making sense at all.

She means she didn't have sex by choice. She didn't get pregnant by choice. 99.9% of us make that choice to have sex or not. That's what she means.
 
Not making sense at all.


I know that's like shouting I'm a freaken hypocrite down to my hypocritical toes and being completely oblivious to it.

So he is against providing contraception to victims of rape but feels he has no choice ? :confused:
 
She means she didn't have sex by choice. She didn't get pregnant by choice. 99.9% of us make that choice to have sex or not. That's what she means.
Close enough.

Not that it matters. Whether sex is by choice or not has no bearing on the woman's right to control her own bodily resources.
 
Actually, "Child" is a developmental stage beginning after age 1.

The anti-choice crowd staring to apply "child" to the zygote is just evidence of the sophistry and deception needed for the anti-choicers to justify their arguments. When such obfuscation and deception is needed, we start looking at the real motives. And they always come down to "morality," to whether women were justified in having sex. It turns into theocratic dogma, into controlling and enslaving women into patriarchal roles the right-wing fundie dogmatists feel they should be able to inflict on women.

So claiming that the use of "child" as a descriptor of a zygote is not about belief, it is about revisionist linguistic hyperbole for the sake of deception.

Please go peddle that crap somewhere else.
But not to inflict it on your clients, whom you have obtained a license to help and where you got the license on the premise to serve your clients rather than proselytize to them or inflict your idea of theocratic control on them.



the way you even talk show no respect to other people views. What is "please go peddle that crap somewhere else"? where? in the psychiatry forum, is there such thing?
At least show some respect to people who are talking about a very important subject that you may never have to face as in psychiatry.
 
She means she didn't have sex by choice. She didn't get pregnant by choice. 99.9% of us make that choice to have sex or not. That's what she means.


That's not what she means. She means she feels she has to dispense contraception in that case but still feels it is against her "beliefs".
 
I know that's like shouting I'm a freaken hypocrite down to my hypocritical toes and being completely oblivious to it.

So he is against providing contraception to victims of rape but feels he has no choice ? :confused:

No, I think what they were saying was that because they didn't make the choice to have sex and get pregnant, that they felt contraceptive would be permissible. Sex (and/or pregnancy) was forced upon them. It wasn't of their own free will and choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top