Dallas Observer column (Morning After Pill incident)

twhy77, this is a quote from MadMax, one of the strongest, intelligent and most consistant pro-life posters on the BBS.

"my understanding is that this pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. if you believe a fertilized egg is worthy of protection, then you might have a problem with such a pill.

having said that, these guys have no right in the world to deny this person this product. if they don't like it, they should man up and freaking quit their jobs."

So, do you look at him the same way you apparently look at anyone else who posts on this topic? I do not "get it".

 

Question: What Law was broken?

I'm willing to bet they have one of those - Right to Refuse any Customer Signs somewhere - if so . . is this not [no matter how sucky it is] - their right

Eckerds may fire the lady but I do beleive the store is in the clear.

Rocket River

 

It looks like ships passing in the night. On one hand, twhy77 is arguing why the action is morally justifiable while everyone else is explaining why it is professionally indefensible. At least get on the same subject. Twhy77, do you feel it was the professional thing to do? Flamingmoe, do you feel it was the morally upright thing to do?

Before you try it, I don't think you can trump the moral with the professional. Since when does one's responsibility as an employee override one's responsibility as a moral actor? To say that someone's allegiance to his employer should be more important than their personal ethics is ridiculous. One's allegiance to his employer stems from personal ethics. How could it countermand itself?

To me, it looks like giving out pills that you believe cause abortions of human beings is like working a gas chamber. If you provide a product that causes a death you deem a murder, can you really divorce yourself from responsibility for that murder by saying "it's the doctor's fault" or "it's Eckerd's fault" or "it's the State of Texas' fault" when you were right there handing it over and knowing what it was going to be used for? Personally, I'd rather be a hypocrit, a traitor, a thief or any other tag you'd want to hang on me than be party to something I deemed to be a murder.

Should they thought about it earlier? Yes. Should they have not worked for a company that sells drugs they have moral objections to? Yes. Does that mean they'd be absolved of the moral ramifications of their actions? Of course not. Does that mean they should shut up and submit at crunch time because they didn't do something earlier? No. They aren't perfect actors here; they screwed some things up. But, I wouldn't reproach them for trying to do the right thing.

 

The guy knew this pill was approved by the FDA, he knew his pharmacy carried it (or should of known), and he still remained an employee.

If his objection to the pill was so strong that he would refuse a rape vicitim, then he should of quit the biz as soon as the pill was approved.

The fact that he didn't and continued to work for a Pharmacy that carried the drug negates his personal moral objections IMO.

 

The right thing is for pharmacists to understand that it's not their place to deny me or anyone else any medication based on their moral judgements. They should get that going in.

 

Based on the only account we have to go on, he knew.

"The woman in this case, by the way, had been raped. A doctor at her rape exam wrote the prescription. The pharmacists knew this; they had been told so by a male friend of the woman (Buzz's tipster), who had ferried her to a number of drugstores in Denton looking for one that had the pills in stock."

 

The pharmacists are compromising the system that helps millions of people. I find that to be an immoral action.

 

yeah that's the basic premise, which nobody really wants to admit

 

So the guy has to quit his job and change his life instead of fighting back? Talk about taking away a guy's freedom. There's no way in hell this guy knew way back in pharmacy school that one day they would make this drug legal. And now they force him to quit?

Regardless what side of the issue you are on I think JaunValdez's post makes the most sense... Anything else takes away this man's freedom...regardless what the law says.

So I have to disagree with Max on this one, just like I would probably disagree with him on some other things. Doesn't mean he's not a stand up guy, our views just differ. But someone else said that if a pro lifer carries his message out to its full extent, then that includes this case and that also includes conception, as well as the death penalty.

But I won't let people treat this guy like scum just for standing up for what he believes. Sorry.

 

Quite simply, it isn't an abortion until the woman is pregnant. There are umpteen million occurences of an egg being fertilized that never attaches to the uteran wall. Nobody really knows why...it just happens. A pregnancy happens when a fertilized egg attaches to the uteran wall. Fertilizing the egg is only part of the equation.

Is an IUD an abortion? No. Same concept.

 

This drug isn't really the issue. It's about pharmacists denying people the medicines that their doctor prescribes to them. What if a pharmacist doesn't believe in giving ritilin to children, etc., etc., etc. It just can't be done, period. That they should know.

Yeah. If you can't do your job correctly you need to go. There are plenty of jobs out there I would not take based on my beliefs. Is that taking away my freedom? Nope.

 

No problem, but a point - you have no business determining the fate of any woman's reproductive system.

But, really, there is no point in arguing about all this abortion stuff again. Anti-Abortion (and I use that term because "Pro-Life" seems ridiculously misguided given the context) arguments can't be reasoned with, argued against, or accounted for by anyone but those who hold them.

Seriously, though, what's it all about? You think you're saving the world? Saving the souls of all humanity? Blah. Why not spend some effort saving those who are already here? Who have already walked their first steps and spoken their first words? Why not the same fanaticism about children in poverty? Many of them are dying, and what's worse - they've been around long enough to know they're dying.

Really, it'd be a lot easier - no one's going to argue with you and say that a 5-year-old isn't officially 'alive' yet, and you can actually see the results of saving a 5-year-old in poverty. Plus, you won't have to hurt anyone to save the 5-year-old - you won't have to make it harder on a woman who is already in a hard situation.

Why not save the 5-year-old then? Why not try and better the life, and insure the survival, of the 5-year-old? Surely God considers the 5-year-old's life just as valuable as a fetus, and no human is going to argue with you for helping a 5-year-old. It seems perfect, why can't you get passionate about helping a child who is already here, and already suffering?

I'll tell you why not.

Because Anti-Abortion crusading has absolutely nothing to do with actually saving anyone. It's about power. It's about a small segment of society desperately trying to make some small bit of influence on the world, to make the world into what they (and by "they" I mean you twhy77) believe it should be. And, what they believe it should be is this: a world where no woman can truly hold the power to bring life into the world, or can choose not to. In the Anti-Abortionist worldview, the Anti-Abortionists should be the rulers of all uteruses, and though women are born with the uteruses, the Anti-Abortionists believe that they do not belong to the woman, but to society, and particularly - to the Anti-Abortionists.

That's why you don't help the 5-year-old, why you don't feel the same passion and fanaticism for helping a child who is already here - because it's got nothing to do with the child.

It's got everything to do with your fears and insecurities, and your desperation to feel like you have some control over life - and in your desperation for control over life, you go right to the source - the woman.

Go ahead, argue with me.

Better yet - go help a starving 5-year-old. There's probably one living within 10 miles of where you are right now. She's here, she's suffering, and she needs your help. No one's going to stop you. Go help her.

Go on, I dare ya.

And God will smile on you for easing someone's suffering, I'm sure.

 

So what happens if you have a pharmacist who is a Christian Scientist? At that point you're pretty much screwed no matter the ailment.

 

Work with me here for a second.

Where on earth do you think you come from telling me that I don't want to help 5 year olds in poverty?

Is giving them money the correct way to do this? Will that make there life better? Let's see, I make about 20,000 a year, yes, my salary is going to go a long way to helping hungry children for about a week, and then what?

But this isn't EVEN the issue I've been discussing, and for a thread on that, you'll have to begin one.

This thread is about someone who stood up for his morals being blown out of the water by people like you, who think they are improving the world for everybody because they stand up for a right that they decided to make. (I won't go into the topic of men's reproductive rights here)

So before you accuse me of trying to save the world (which, hey what would be wrong with that, but I'm not going to make you do anything, its up to you to decide if you want that or not) read the thread and read the arguments I've been making. I'm pro life but I don't tread on your ground and call you names and say that you are wanting to control the world with your pro-choice ideas. So respect me before I lose every shread of respect for you.

 

Exactly.

 

Do you really belive the pro-life (or anti-abortion crowd as you call tem) is really just a small segment of society? What do you consider a small segment? The abortion issue in the U.S is roughly split 50-50.

 

I would really love to see the numbers for Americans on this "small segment", which wasn't a segment at all for this woman and her friend, but the aftermath of a brutal rape. I don't think the numbers would be "50-50" at all... I don't think it would be remotely near that. I think the overwhelming majority would think she had every right to get her prescription filled and would be completely understanding of her need to do so.

 

Hey, why not start a march against poverty? Why not vote against a president who has consistently cut funding, and jeopardized future funding, for 5-year-olds in poverty? It's not just about your 20,000 dollars - it's about all the tax money in the U.S., and all the effort Anti-Abortion crusaders expend on saving fetuses instead of saving those who are already here.

Now, you make it a point to pronounce your Anti-Abortion stance in just about any context. You started a thread about how proud you were, or fulfilled, or whatever, to march in an Anti-Abortion march. You make tiny, petty, statements about that fact in this thread, but insist that this isn't the issue you're discussing. Of course it is. This particular pharmacist incident is just a platform for you to pronounce your beliefs, and the rightness of your beliefs, and so on.....but, God forbid anyone call you on it, because that's not what this thread is about, right?

Nevermind.

...and I'm not going to even touch that "man's reproductive rights" statement you made, other than to point out that it goes further to confirm my estimation that it does to exonerate you of it. By they way - does a serial rapist have the right to see all his bastards carried to term by his victims?

Again, nevermind.

So, since you have so hastily retreated, I'll join you - you can't argue this issue with an Anti-Abortionist, whether in the microcosm of a Denton pharmacist or the marcocosm of the entire U.S.A., because those arguments are not based on rationality. They're based on your personal need, and need always trumps everything else in the view of the needy.

It's true, just ask the 5-year-old. Or the woman nervously standing in a pharmacy line to get a pill to prevent a pregnancy of rape.

But nevermind. That's got nothing to do with what's being discussed here anyway, right?

 

I believe that Thadeus was referring to the pro-life crowd in general. I do not think he was talking about this particular incident. I am not referring to this particular incident in my question to Thadeus.

 

I was actually referring to the segment of the Anti-Abortionists who are willing to be active in pursuing their anti-abortion ideas.

I assumed this is a small segment by, for example, noticing that far more people claim to be against abortion than actually march in Anti-Abortionist rallies.

Of course, I have no statistical information to back this up and it's based purely on my personal observation, which, admittedly, could be biased.

As far as what segment of the U.S. population as a whole considers themselves Anti-Abortionist (whether they act on it or not) - I have no idea. 50/50 could be right, but I've never seen any official neutral statistic on the subject.