Dallas Observer column (Morning After Pill incident)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

Generally, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 54 percent favor the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that made it so. While 42 percent want the government and the courts to make abortions harder to get, more either support the status quo, or favor fewer restrictions.

 

Thank you flamingmoe for your statistical superduperness.

 

Most people here know that while I am pro-choice, I completely understand and empathize with the pro-life position. It is just a tough, tough issue, both sides are right, both sides are wrong and moderate positions don't help much to defray the problems.

That said... Max and Refman (I think) are both pro-life and neither of them has strong objection to a morning after pill for a rape victim. twhy obviously does and considers it murder. It's important here to remember that twhy also doesn't believe in birth control. He comes to these positions through his faith and I respect that. But that said...

twhy: Would that pharmacist be engaged in a similarly righteous position, to your mind, if he refused to sell birth control pills, condoms or diaphrams?

 

twhy77;

You and JuanValdez make great points (and I only thought he made great coffee ). Yes it probably is better that someone act morally rather than just follow the dictates of the law or power when that law or power disagreed with one's moral views. Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK called this civil disobedience.

OTOH part of civil disobedience was the willingness to accept the consequences of that disobedience and Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK all went to jail and the last two lost their lives. Loss of livilihood and criticism was the least of the price they were willing to pay for their beliefs.

Now I'm not saying that this pharmacist is at the level of Gandhi or MLK but at the minimum if he is so troubled by the morning after pill that he can't follow his legal and professional obligation to dispense it he should resign. Or if he chooses to stay on Eckards should fire him for failing to do his job.

As long as the pill is legal and it is Eckards policy to dispense legal drugs according to prescription the pharmacist has to go because either he is failing to do his job or he is failing to live up to his morals.

 

Interesing. I thought Pro-Choice was a misused as well
considering there are 3 people involved . .. and only ONE gets a choice. . . . .

thank you for speaking for someone else
which u claim is what Pro-Lifers do . . . . . .


[/quotes]
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 - with actually saving anyone. It's about power. It's about a small 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. [/QUOTE]

How do you know .. folx do not have the same ferver
you just assuming here . . .

Rocket River
Potential Life > convience
Actual Life > Potential Life

 

First off: Thank you for being a voice of reason where Thadeus only insults.

I could never be in the pharmaceutical industry simply because I couldn't give birth control over to someone to use, my conscience wouldn't allow it, and at that point I would say to the pharmacist if he had the same objections to get out of that job because the pill has been around for awhile and he did know that when he signed up for the job. But, I'm guessing he doesn't have the same objections to birth control as I do, not many do.

Thad-- You do realize that you are doing the same thing you pruport me to be doing by *bashing* me over the head with your pro-death arguments (I really didn't need to do that pro-death thing but do you see what it does?) That's why I wasn't bringing up the issue. The issue was a guy standing up for his beliefs being no different from someone else doing it. Should he take the fine or whatever comes his way? Of course, he's not exempt from that, and I don't want to make it seem like that is what I was arguing; I just don't like it when everyone comes down on this man for being a crusader for something he believes in when they themselves do it all the time-- the difference seems to be the cause, and I think that is what is really upsetting people in this matter.

 

What is this? I am pro-life, I also do lots of other things to help my fellow humans (it is not my only "issue") and it is not about power it is about saving a life.

The life of the unborn child is as important to me as the life of any other child (whom I also work to help).

Making a blanket statement that the pro-life movement is not about life but about control is insulting.

Why can't you believe that someone truly cares about all life -- including an the unborn

 

Dude--

Totally in agreement with you on the pro-life tip.

I can see how he would think that pro-life people only care about that issue, and how he thinks I was being boastful in saying I went to the march for life, because sometimes people do forget about those things (taking care of all life). I don't know why he thought I was that way... I don't think he knows me

But nevertheless, getting mad at him isn't really going to help the cause.

I'd just like to say that I think its great that we have people working at all levels to help other people, the pro-lifers helping the unborn and women, other people putting more focus on helping those having to live in poverty, its all great and good!

 

First of all, I think that is a total crock of sh*t for someone to push there moral beliefs on someone...First of all, its her decision, and she was raped...How ridiculous...

 

I'd agree. I'd be disappointed if the guy tried to weasel out of the consequences of his decision now. I don't think that means that he needs to quit, though. He means he faces termination, losing his license, paying a fine or some such thing like that. But, quitting his profession or even his job is not any sort of demonstation; it's simply a surrender. You can't change the system unless you're part of the system. If all the pharmacists who had moral qualms about how the industry was run simply left, they'd be replaced by others who liked it just fine and no changes will ever be effected. Quitting practically lends your tacit support to the practice you object to because you're unwilling to fight it.

Thadeus,

Otherwise, there has been a mild secondary discussion of what exactly counts as a pregnancy. Is it at fertilization, attachment, or what. The tendency is to go into greater and greater biological precision to discover the exact instant that life begins. Given all the baggage we load onto the concept, I'm starting to feel that biological precision is a blind alley in determining something that is actually much more philosophical in nature. So, I'm turning around and going in the opposite direction: going toward a definition that is human and personal just as life is human and personal. Life begins with the sex that conceives it. Forget the details. Forget that the sperm may wait 3 days for an egg to show up and it may be another couple before the egg attaches to the uterine wall. In conceiving a child, you have all sorts of factors success depends upon, but only 2 of them are willful actors. The last thing those willful actors have to do is have sex. Everything else is mechanics.

 

I'm seeing his side more and more.

But i do think Paige's McDonalds analogy wasn't too far off. If you refuse to sell supersize to fat people you have no business behind the counter at McDonalds.

Had a pharmacy refused to carry the drug (and thus be unable to dispense it) i could be more sympathetic to their views. But a staff member taking it upon himself to refuse a doctor prescribed drug and deliver a condemnation of the customer at the same time is out of step.

 

Beautiful!!!

But thats not really the topic at hand.

 

I have no problem with your moral stance. I think it is awesome that you would stand up for what you believe in and it is commendable that life is that important to you.

The real point is that YOU have no right to force that opinion and the morality that goes with it on anyone else. God gives us freedom of choice to do whatever it is that we want to do. He IS morality and yet He does not find it necessary to force it on us. Do you think you know better than God? Do you remember the whole "judge not" philosophy?

If you don't believe in abortion then I have 4 words for you. Don't have an abortion. But don't force that on anyone else. You don't have that right anymore than I do.

 

Now this is just silly, but arguments about this statement belong in another thread.

 

What about murder then? Oh sure, I commend those who believe murder is wrong, but who am I to tell someone not to murder someone else?

There are certain things that get legislated, certain moral things.

Killing the unborn is taking away a 2nd parties right to live, and therefore is murder. This is the pro-life stance. That's why the question must revolve around when does life begin, and that's why those, who as JaunValdez so eloquently pointed out, believe that life begins at conception, believe that this is murder. That's the issue at hand. And that's what the pro-life movement fights for. You can say that the Supreme Court has ruled on this, but you could make the same argument in the past about Brown vs. the Board of Education. Just because they've ruled as such doesn't mean its 100% right.

 

I guess this is the argument that has always bewildered me. I usually skip over sentences like this because it sounds more like a mantra than an argument. If you're talking to Cesar, specifically, I don't see how he's trying to force his opinion on anyone. He's stating his opinion as anyone else would do. If you're talking about this pharmacist, I still don't see it. He made a decision about what he himself would do in terms of whether to hand out the pill. He slightly inconvenienced someone, he didn't force his opinion on her -- unless you mean he informed her of his opinion. Is there something here I'm missing.

twhy77, I know it isn't much on topic. It was just something I was thinking about while reading people try to argue that the pharmacist isn't even entitled to abortion qualms because the woman was not yet pregnant. I suppose I don't want to make this into another When Does Life Begin? things; it's just a new pet theory.

 

No I think it's beautiful, you should read the Pope's Theology of the Body if you think like that, it would be right up your alley.

 

I would sympathize with the pro-life movement more if it didn't revolve around legislation. You just admitted that it is about control. Using force to stop abortions is wrong. You will be creating way more problems then you will be solving. Sometimes I think the pro-lifers believe that outlawing abortion will be like some magic wand that will solve the problem. But in fact it would only cause more problems. I haven't heard any talk on how this would be enforced, especially with the morning-after pill. It would all go underground, black market, with "abortion houses" and the like. It would be horrible. It would be like trying to enforce prohibition again. The only way to help with this problem is through compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. Not through incarceration.

And as I have said before, the notion that life "begins" at ANY certain moment is foolish.

 

You have many rights in this country.

You have the right to your own moral beliefs.

BUT, you do NOT have the right to push your moral beliefs on somebody else...then you are violating the other person's rights.

 

Mr. Meowgi

I agree with your point that the question runs much deeper than legislation. However, imagine if murder was made legal. I imagine murders would increase in number. Putting a law against murder does not end murder. It helps curb it though. 4,400 abortions everyday. If a law was made, that number would certainly decrease. That's not making it an issue of control, its returning the issue to an issue what is right by all of life. You have a respectable position though.