New pope..

[realconan]

Originally posted by Jordan
realconan, i cant put into words how ridiculous i think your arguments are... you keep saying 'its just a pill'... buddy, its a bit more than that. its a pill that will change everything about her life for ever. also, you have a very small window to take this pill. if she cant find somewhere else to get it, she's fucked. the dudes a pharmacist... thats not the way to practice your beliefs, thats what churches and private life is for... how would you like it if i worked at a regular deli but wouldnt sell you porc because im jewish? or if i worked at mcdonalds but wouldnt sell you a bigmac because im a bodybuilder? youre right that everyone can only offer their OWN opinion, however one set of ideologies has to be decided on in order run a society... social morals CAN NOT be outlined by religious, or any other type of extremist or fundamentalist individuals. Buddy, theres just no questioning this, im sorry. Thats all i have to say, im not going to reply again.

So who should outline social morals? And who made the decision that religious groups should just shut up and leave everything alone? Where do you think social morals come from? Somebody just made them up one day? Wouldn't that be one person or group of people imposing their beliefs and views on the rest of the world? Rules that govern society can't originate from that society. Let me explain. Inmates don't make rules of conduct in prisons, children don't make rules of conduct in schools, CEOs don't make rules of conduct in the business world. Rules and the consequences for breaking those rules can't be established by the people subject to them. That just doesn't work. There are governing bodies who have been give authority to make those rules and establish those consequences. Why is it different for social morals? Why is it so "ridiculous" to believe that morals must come from an authority outside of society? If that's ridiculous, than I'm ridiculous.

So, if the pill thing is so important, why do you use two totally insignificant and unimportant examples to compare it to? Pork from Jewish delis and BigMacs from bodybuilding MacDonalds employees could never be described as life changing. As much as you like to think your word is beyond contestation, please don't assume I agree.

[Jordan]

Originally posted by realconan
I'm ridiculous.

finaaally we agree! thanks for the laugh bud

[realconan]

Originally posted by Jordan
i cant put into words how ridiculous i think.

[realconan]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
If it's "just a pill" then what is your problem with a pharmacist dispensing it, as they are required to do?

That's fine if a pharmacist chooses not to fill a prescription because of moral issues, even though they took an oath to do as much. The problem lies in places that have no other pharmacists or places to fill these prescriptions. This is especially true in rural areas and is unfair to women.


Furthermore, pharmacists are there to fill legitimate medical prescriptions from medical doctors and to check for contraindications, not impose their morality by proselytizing to their customers. And they DO proselytize in some cases. Fill the damn script or get out of the business if you can't perform the duties required for the position. If it's "just a pill" then what is the problem? The pharmacist consciencious clause is a right-to-life agenda, nothing more. If there is no one else to fill the prescription then that person has denied legally prescribed medicine to a customer and has violated their pharamcist oath. This is especially true in rural areas where women have limited choices of places to fill a prescription.


Should a muslim refuse the right to stock pork in a supermarket and keep it off of the shelves because of that person's beliefs?



A legally obtained prescription cannot be denied to the patient. If the pharmacist cannot fill the prescription due to his/her own personal religious beliefs, then a different pharmacist must be allowed to fill it. If there is no other pharmacist available, then the prescription cannot be denied if it has been legally obtained and there are no contraindications evident.


There are several states with laws against pharmacists denying legally obtained medical prescriptions. There is now a push to move these laws into a federal law. It is much needed, IMO. Denying medical prescriptions is in stark contrast to the Pharmacist Oath. Keep personal religion in the the home and out of the consumer market. Not everyone agrees with everyone else's religious viewpoints but pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions are directly infringing upon the rights of others and therefore, are violating that person's rights to freedom of religion.


Here is the current Senate Bill called Access To Legal Pharmacueticals Act


Here is a press release from Rep. Carolyn Maloney's official House of Representatives website:

Lawmakers Introduce Legislation to Ensure Pharmacies Fill All Dr. Prescriptions




**EDIT** I bet that using a quick search, I could find at least a dozen instances where a pharmacist refused to fill a valid birth control prescription and then "preached" to the customer his/her religious views on the subject. Your post was incredibly obtuse in scope. Look at the big picture and see that these things ARE happening and NEED to be addressed by legal means. Of course, if you happen to agree with allowing religious ideologies interfering with legitimate medical care then I guess thats your prerogative. Would you like to get denied a legitimate medical prescription in a one-horse town in rural America by a muslim or a buddhist if he/she didn't agree with your "morality"? I bet not. Maybe a theocratic government or influence is OK with some as long as they agree with the ideologues in charge but would they STILL feel the same if that did not agree with the theocratical ideology? Think Taliban rule in Agfhanistan. Would you want to adhere to their religious ideologies? Probably not but they took control of the government originally through a democratic process after the fall of the centralized government and ensuing civil war. If you were part of them, great. If you weren't, then you'd understand this arguement much clearer, I'd bet.


I don't think that many would support this form of religious rule here in the US but what is the difference what the ideology is in all honesty? There is still imposition present under any religious doctrine being enacted upon believers and non-believers of a particular religion.


I have come to find that there are lots of double standards with the far religious right. Many of them are avid pro-lifers when it comes to unborn fetuses but it's "Kill 'em All" when it comes to capital punishment, even if it is a severley retarded man in Texas or in some instances, a child who committed the crime. Unreal...

Neither of those links support your arguement. Neither of them contain anything that says it's illegal to refuse to fill the perscription. The act you were referring actually protects the pharmacists right to refuse, it stipulates that they must ensure that the perscription is filled elsewhere. If he didn't do that shame, on him, but he still has a legal right to refuse.

http://cruxmag.typepad.com/signs/200..._to_legal.html

Here's a site that presents an opposing point of view. It's not as one sided as you make it out to be.

Are you seriously saying that the religious influence in this country is to be compared to the Taliban? Why don't you go over there and see what they do to people who don't agree with them. You're still alive so I guess the religious right in this country isn't anywhere near that extreme are they? Double standards within the religious right just means that they're not perfect. Does it mean that they're full of crap? Hardly. I'll bet your life is full of double standards, but is doesn't mean that you're full of crap either. At least try to extend the same understanding to them that you expect from them.

Anyway...I'm done with this thread.

[Primal Instinct]

When a pharmacist physically takes your script from your hand and then refuses to fill it or give it back something is definitely wrong. Also, did you even read your web link closely? RU-486 was discussed biut it NOT the same thing as the morning after pill. You never answered my question to you. Would you feel the same about this refusal if the female was raped and had no other alternative available to her in that timeframe? What if that female was your wife, girlfriend or a relative? Would you still be gung-ho for these pharmacists to refuse to fill the script? Be honest here. Not always is intercourse planned or agreed to by the female. Would you deny this script to her then?


The "morning after pill" is not the only birth control device that a pharmacy sells and is in question. This arguement goes beyond that but also applies to RU-486, condoms, IUD devices, the pill, and other items. Restricting the right of a person to the sale of such items denies the patient the right to his/her liberty since one person's morals directly impact another's right to medication or items relating to medication. Besides that, the pharmacist is not required to take the medicine or promote the item, so they have no constitutional arguement that their personal freedoms are being infringed upon.



Here is an interesting website that has this scenario with arguements on both sides of the issue for discussion:

Laws Protecting Pharmacist's Refusal



Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me on this issue, there is a denial of service based upon religious views of some pharmacists and that is definitely impacting a portion of the citizenry in a negative way and may put the public health at risk in doing so. This isn't even about abortion either but instead about the freedom of choice being denied to pharmacy customers who may or may not have other alternatives for their meds.


Would you feel angry if you sat down at a restaurant and the waiter told you that you weren't allowed to order a meat entree from the menu because it is Friday and he feels that it violates church policy? Of course, you would have the right to eat elsewhere but in the case of birth control in rural areas, you might not have such an option. Fair- yes or no? Please don't pass judgement on the woman as being engaged in "slutty" behavior either like you implied in the ealier post. That was purely sexist and shows a true lack of respect for women.

[Primal Instinct]

Laws are what dictate right and wrong in our nation, not one religious sect's interpretation of GOD's word. This is the arguement that Jefferson made to the Baptist church leaders in his leader describing the wall of seperation of church and state. While it is true that certain laws are derived from various sources including the 10 commandments but they are are not and should not be based soley upon them either. You can be a "moral" person and uphold or break the law just as you could be an "immoral" person and uphold or break the law. Our system of government is a republic (as opposed to a democracy), which is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the overbearing numbers of the majority. This is what makes our system of government unique and special. No one is supposed to get trampled on by those who would have us live under a theocratic government. It is highly likely that if given the opportunity, religious ideologues from various religions would seek to implement such theocratic rule of law. We are not the puritans and this isn't the 1600's in the colonies either.



Yeah, we did get side-tracked here, Bouncer. And no, I have nothing better to do this afternoon as I am watching a very sick dog and cannot leave him alone today. :(

[Lmg2701]

Hey Bouncer, I think the new pope will be a good one.

A hard nosed guy who isn't going to let the Catholic Church go ahead and fall into the compliency of the world.

On a side note I read just a few posts in this thread before it got ridiculous, but if anyone would like to really know what the Catholic Church believes how about we start a new thread?

Now I'm not talking about a bunch of Catholic bashers who know absolutely nothing about Catholocism except for what they hear from anti-catholics. I'm talking about if anyone would like misconceptions of the Catholic Church explained and cleared up, feel free to open up your mind and start a new thread!

[Shibby]

I think the subject is already done.