Arlos, we may agree

[Langston]

If the only pharmacy around for 100 miles is owned by a devote Muslim, does he have the right to impose his religious views on women who enter his business?

NO SHIRT
NO SHOES
NO BURQA
NO MALE RELATIVE TO ESCORT YOU
NO SERVICE!

It is his business, after all.

Yes it is his business and that is his right. What's your point?

And again, drop the nonsense liberal screaming about abortion/contraception/etc. This argument is relevant. The issue here is government mandated policies on what a business HAS to sell. Let's say that the pill in question was an anti-depressant. The argument for pro-business would be PRECISELY the same.

You have bleeding heart blinders on. Try taking them off for a moment and considering the topic objectively.

[xaoshaen]

Although I already did, I'll offer another compliments of Gidan:

As for the argument of if that pharm doesn't offer just goto another. Well the town I grew up in had 1 pharmacy, the next closets one was over an hour away on a good day.

Welcome to the twenty-first century where we have internet ordering in addition to the traditional forms of mail order.

That is what we're talking about. You and the others are just to gutless to look at the big picture. You're acting like a bunch of dodgy liberals who are afraid to discuss when a fertilized egg becomes human because they don't like the answer since it violently erodes their argument for any and all abortions. Especially those liberals who are anti-death penalty.

Actually, from a legal standpoint, when an egg becomes human is irrelevant: it's the government regulation of privately-owned inventories that is the problem. Bringing out the big picture accusation is another shining moment of hypocracy for you: the issue at hand transcends the nature of the product in question. It wouldn't matter whether the retailer was being ordered to provide birth-control pills or diet soda.

This guy is nothing but another example in a long list of examples of pharmacist imposing their morality on others because their religion teaches them that birth control is a SIN! And if you help a sinner commit a sin, what does that make you? A SINNER!

Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for you to impose your morality on the pharmacist and force him to sell something he chooses not too. *cough*Hypocrite!*cough*

If the only pharmacy around for 100 miles is owned by a devote Muslim, does he have the right to impose his religious views on women who enter his business?

NO SHIRT
NO SHOES
NO BURQA
NO MALE RELATIVE TO ESCORT YOU
NO SERVICE!

It is his business, after all.

Covered under anti-discriminatory legislation, which clearly does not apply in this case. The pharmacy owner was not refusing to provide a service to a portion of his customers while denying it to others.

You can't possibly be this dumb, can you? The point I made is that if this guy believes he's responsible for what a customer does with the birth control product he sold them - in many religions using birth control is a sin - then he must also be held responsible when one of his customers become addicted to the pain killers he sold them or for all of the harm caused by him selling cold medicine to his customers, who then turn around and make Meth out of it.

Either he's responsible for what his customers do with the products he sells them or he isn't. He can't pick and choose. If he does, he's a hypocrite.

And then you turned around in the next paragraph and contradicted yourself. This makes you a hypocrite as well. I understand that you probably don't even realize how you did it, but it doesn't lessen the inconsistency. On the upside, at least it fits with your running theme of hypocracy.

I guess using your silly logic means we shouldn't lock up murderers. Whether you die at the hands of a killer or from cancer, the result is the same. You're dead! So why waste all those billions keeping killers locked up.

Not even close to being analogous. The sociological effects of punishing murderers have nothing to do with rectifying the crime for which they are being punished.

That would depend on your definition of "as human as you are". Is a paraplegic "as human as you are"? A quad amputee? How about someone who's been in a coma for 20 years and has no chance of coming out of it? "Are they as human as you are"?

Does a person who needs a ventilator to survive revert from being human to a clump of tissue? After all, they need "sufficient medical support" to survive, which seems to be your definition of being human.

Human enough to be awarded inalienable rights.

My belief on when a fertilized egg becomes human - thus deserving of rights - is based on science, not by some random roll of the bones. You on the otherhand, clearly believe that a clump of tissue MAGICALLY becomes human ***POOF*** right after birth and only after the umbilical cord has been cut.

It's fairly clear that you're entirely clueless as to what I believe, which is odd, as I clearly articulated it in my previous post. The funny thing is that everyone who picks an arbitrary point in time at which humanity is realized uses exactly the same rationalization as you do: "It's SCIENCE!". Of course, some of them can actually provide an argument to support their belief as opposed to waving their hands and proclaiming it "SCIENCE!"

[Lyion]

[Welcome to the twenty-first century where we have internet ordering in addition to the traditional forms of mail order.

Let me introduce you to the fine nostalgic people of West Virginia and Kentucky. Perhaps by the twenty second century they will learn of this Internet. These fine people need their one pharmacy in a 50 mile radius to fulfill their needs or Betty Sue will be forced to have her 5th child at 15.

Of course, it's perfectly acceptable for you to impose your morality on the pharmacist and force him to sell something he chooses not too. *cough*Hypocrite!*cough*

This is a pharmacist, not a baker. If he has moral issues that relate to dispensing medicine he should consider another field and not infringe on a persons legal rights based on his personal views in regards to prescriptions. We are not discussing an owners right not to run a pharmacy, or what heve you, but the fact a professional is refusing to do medically support his client base. It's as idiotic a precedent as having a Jehovah's Witness nurse who refuses to give someone blood because it's against their relligion. Your straw man argument notwithstanding, this is wrong from every angle.

I don't believe our federalist opinions are far apart, Xao, but I do think someone imposing their views on anything medicinal should not be allowed. I'm all for simply removing pharmacuetical licenses from those who arbitrarily decide how to run a business that is mostly state sponsored, tax payer funded, and deeply government regulated.

If you want to selectively dispense medicine, be a drug dealer. Not a pharmacist.

[Langston]

And if the people of bucolic Appalachia don't like how their pharmacist runs his business, one of them can start their own for competition and sell the medicines the other won't.

It's really that simple.

Just say NO! to bigger government.

I'm disappointed in you Lyion.

[xaoshaen]

Let me introduce you to the fine nostalgic people of West Virginia and Kentucky. Perhaps by the twenty second century they will learn of this Internet. These fine people need their one pharmacy in a 50 mile radius to fulfill their needs or Betty Sue will be forced to have her 5th child at 15.

Again, self-imposed limitations do not justify government legislation.

This is a pharmacist, not a baker. If he has moral issues that relate to dispensing medicine he should consider another field and not infringe on a persons legal rights based on his personal views in regards to prescriptions. We are not discussing an owners right not to run a pharmacy, or what heve you, but the fact a professional is refusing to do medically support his client base. It's as idiotic a precedent as having a Jehovah's Witness nurse who refuses to give someone blood because it's against their relligion. Your straw man argument notwithstanding, this is wrong from every angle.

Actually, we are indeed discussing an owner's right to run a pharmacy.

Under the emergency rule put in place in Illinois, pharmacies that do not have a particular prescribed contraceptive would be required to order some or to send the prescription to another pharmacy.

I really can't avoid constructing a straw man argument when dealing with Wrath's posts. They're constructed of nothing but weak points. I'd have been happy to address actual points, were some actually made.

I don't believe our federalist opinions are far apart, Xao, but I do think someone imposing their views on anything medicinal should not be allowed. I'm all for simply removing pharmacuetical licenses from those who arbitrarily decide how to run a business that is mostly state sponsored, tax payer funded, and deeply government regulated.

Doctors impose their views on patients as a matter of course, so your statement is too broad to be practical. Categorically describing the pharmaceutical retail industry as "state sponsored, tax payer funded" is an overly broad generalization. The fact that pharmacies are government regulated is not an excuse for state mandated inventories: as pointed out before, the food service industry also functions under strict government regulation, but the very idea of legislation forcing the adoption of coke by all restaurants is not only ludicrous, but deeply detrimental to the idea of an economy with a free market basis.

[Wrath Child]

Quote:
You can't possibly be this dumb, can you? The point I made is that if this guy believes he's responsible for what a customer does with the birth control product he sold them - in many religions using birth control is a sin - then he must also be held responsible when one of his customers become addicted to the pain killers he sold them or for all of the harm caused by him selling cold medicine to his customers, who then turn around and make Meth out of it.

Either he's responsible for what his customers do with the products he sells them or he isn't. He can't pick and choose. If he does, he's a hypocrite.


And then you turned around in the next paragraph and contradicted yourself. This makes you a hypocrite as well. I understand that you probably don't even realize how you did it, but it doesn't lessen the inconsistency. On the upside, at least it fits with your running theme of hypocracy.

I guess you are that dumb.

What would his reaction be if the police showed up at his door and arrested him on a murder charge because one of his customers died from the Meth they made from the legal product he sold them? Would he plead guilty, or would he think the whole thing was ridiculous and he's innocent of all charges?

What would you think about a pharmacist who demanded to be charged with murder because he sold someone cold tablets that they turned into Meth and died from it? Or of the family of the deceased who demanded the pharmacist be charged? You would think they're crazy!

If 2 + 4 = 6 then 6 - 2 must equal 4, right? Yet when a pharmacist who assumes moral guilt in the same manner, he suddenly isn't a nut in your opinion.

It's true that part of this equation is the erosion of freedom. And yes that part of it does bother me. But pharmacists imposing their morality on their customers is a far worse intrusion into - and erosion of - personal freedom. If you're still hopelessly clinging to the "it's not about morality" argument, then give me one logical reason why a pharmacist would refuse to provide birth control of any kind to his or her customers?

Considering the profit to be made in dispensing birth control, it clearly isn't about the money. So what else is there?

Since I'm "entirely clueless" as to when you believe a fertilized egg becomes human, when does it? Based on your "I just find the arbitrary establishment of acceptable termination dates to be incredibly entertaining" comment, it seems it's either at conception or after birth. So which is it?

[Wrath Child]

Quit flip flopping you freak.

You advocate that a fertilized egg is NOT a human, then turn around and ream Xao and claim that he thinks it's only a human after birth!

ACK!

And for your respoinsibility thing... SHUT UP!

You said that someone shouldn't be held responsible for selling METH making ingredients and rightly so! Then you turned around and said if he doesn't sell birth control or the morning after then he's responsible for the baby! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! That is what Xao was pointing out, get a clue!

You're right, Donnel, there is absolutely no difference between this



and that.



Thank you for clearing that up!

[Donnel]

You really have no idea what "following a conversation" means.

[Wrath Child]

And I'm forever surprised you have the IQ to even make a post.

[kaharthemad]

strange Wraith I was thinking the same about you Child.

[Langston]

And I'm forever surprised you have the IQ to even make a post.

Your name suits you. You're a very angry kid.

[Lyion]

Again, self-imposed limitations do not justify government legislation.

Except we are not discussing individual limitations, but moreso government regulations on health care, just the same as we would require other health industries to provide care to a certain standard. Supply and demand logic is not directly applied to an industry that again falls under a different scope than a 7-11. It is not simple apples and oranges.

Actually, we are indeed discussing an owner's right to run a pharmacy.

Again that owner is under a different set of rules due to the fact he is a 'medical' provider, and not selling soda pop to citizens solely.

Doctors impose their views on patients as a matter of course, so your statement is too broad to be practical. Categorically describing the pharmaceutical retail industry as "state sponsored, tax payer funded" is an overly broad generalization. The fact that pharmacies are government regulated is not an excuse for state mandated inventories: as pointed out before, the food service industry also functions under strict government regulation, but the very idea of legislation forcing the adoption of coke by all restaurants is not only ludicrous, but deeply detrimental to the idea of an economy with a free market basis.

I disagree. The vast majority of pharmacies are not comparitve to simple stores that provide non essential services. In my mind they fall moreso under a stricter standard, and especially in rural areas should not be allowed to arbitrarily decide what medicine to dispense and what is unethical.

Comparing a medically essential business required for many to live, and often times monopolostic in rural areas with fast food is not a good comparison any way you slice it.

[Wrath Child]

strange Wraith I was thinking the same about you Child.

Kahar just found out I spanked his wife.

[xaoshaen]

I guess you are that dumb.

What would his reaction be if the police showed up at his door and arrested him on a murder charge because one of his customers died from the Meth they made from the legal product he sold them? Would he plead guilty, or would he think the whole thing was ridiculous and he's innocent of all charges?

What would you think about a pharmacist who demanded to be charged with murder because he sold someone cold tablets that they turned into Meth and died from it? Or of the family of the deceased who demanded the pharmacist be charged? You would think they're crazy!

If 2 + 4 = 6 then 6 - 2 must equal 4, right? Yet when a pharmacist who assumes moral guilt in the same manner, he suddenly isn't a nut in your opinion.

You're exceptionally good at inventing ludicrous positions and then pretending they were mine. You seem to having trouble grasping the term "hypocrite". Your hypocracy lies not solely in your assesment of the pharmacist, but in that assesment coupled with your willingness to assign complicity in a resultant abortion to the pharmacist.

It's true that part of this equation is the erosion of freedom. And yes that part of it does bother me. But pharmacists imposing their morality on their customers is a far worse intrusion into - and erosion of - personal freedom. If you're still hopelessly clinging to the "it's not about morality" argument, then give me one logical reason why a pharmacist would refuse to provide birth control of any kind to his or her customers?

So, it's your stance that one individual deciding he doesn't want to sell a product is somehow a greater intrusion than governement mandating that an entire industry be forced to sell that product? Should be interesting seeing the logic behind that.

The pharmacist's rationale for selling or not selling a product is irrelevant. He could base it on the phase of the moon, it's not the government's place to mandate that a privately-owned consortium must order certain non-critical supplies.

Since I'm "entirely clueless" as to when you believe a fertilized egg becomes human, when does it? Based on your "I just find the arbitrary establishment of acceptable termination dates to be incredibly entertaining" comment, it seems it's either at conception or after birth. So which is it?

Here's an idea. Read what I wrote, not what you'd like to imagine I wrote. Why would either conception or birth be any less arbitrary than 25 weeks?

[xaoshaen]

Except we are not discussing individual limitations, but moreso government regulations on health care, just the same as we would require other health industries to provide care to a certain standard. Supply and demand logic is not directly applied to an industry that again falls under a different scope than a 7-11. It is not simple apples and oranges.

Actually, you were, in fact, discussing individual's self-imposed limitations, and using it as a counterpoint:

Let me introduce you to the fine nostalgic people of West Virginia and Kentucky. Perhaps by the twenty second century they will learn of this Internet. These fine people need their one pharmacy in a 50 mile radius to fulfill their needs or Betty Sue will be forced to have her 5th child at 15.

The laws of supply and demand are not limited to small-scale operations or convenience stores. Simply throwing out the line that pharmacies are somehow different than the rest of the economy does not constitute proof. You'll have to demonstrate that they can somehow exist independantly of the forces that move a free market economy if you want them to be considered exempt.

Again that owner is under a different set of rules due to the fact he is a 'medical' provider, and not selling soda pop to citizens solely.

And again, you'll have to demonstrate that this owner should be considered an economic aberration. Simply declaring that he's not subject to the laws of supply and demand doesn't make it so.

I disagree. The vast majority of pharmacies are not comparitve to simple stores that provide non essential services. In my mind they fall moreso under a stricter standard, and especially in rural areas should not be allowed to arbitrarily decide what medicine to dispense and what is unethical.

Declaring pharmacies a unique specimen demanding government intervention doesn't make it so, either. If you want to declare them an outlier, you'll have to provide some compelling evidence, particularly since the specific case we're discussing is a non-essential service.

Comparing a medically essential business required for many to live, and often times monopolostic in rural areas with fast food is not a good comparison any way you slice it.

Sure, if we just blindly accept your premise. The problem is that the pharmacies are not being required to provide "medically essential" supplies, and are not monopolistic unless the patron choose to allow them to be.

[kaharthemad]

My wife can handle her own. She does not step on my turf I dont step on hers. Secondly numbnuts all I see is you being a total moron. Shes knows what a losing battle looks like and frankly trying to teach you inteligence is like trying to teach Mindia the bible.

Problem is, in your own fucked up way your worse than Minida, you cant tell if your right wing, left wing, religious, anti religous or just stupid. What happend? Did Mindia bang Ted Kennedy and your the resulting by product of their screwed up relationship?

Growup, become a man, and start thinking with the thing between your ears. Your nothing but a small tiny shadow of a man, little boy.

[Darcler]

Veet makes my legs scream like little girls.

[Wrath Child]

My wife can handle her own. She does not step on my turf I dont step on hers. Secondly numbnuts all I see is you being a total moron. Shes knows what a losing battle looks like and frankly trying to teach you inteligence is like trying to teach Mindia the bible.

Problem is, in your own fucked up way your worse than Minida, you cant tell if your right wing, left wing, religious, anti religous or just stupid. What happend? Did Mindia bang Ted Kennedy and your the resulting by product of their screwed up relationship?

Growup, become a man, and start thinking with the thing between your ears. Your nothing but a small tiny shadow of a man, little boy.

Ahhh, I seemed to have touched a nerve, among other things.

After reading your "this is me pretending to be a 12 year old" post, I would suggest you take your own advice about growing up. Bad day at work?

It's interesting how I'm OK as long as I agree with your opinions. But when I disagree, I'm suddenly the boogieman. And here I thought this trait was restricted to liberals only. My apologies to the Lefties here.

BTW, before you start accusing someone of lacking "inteligence", you might want to learn how to spell it first!

[Wrath Child]

You're exceptionally good at inventing ludicrous positions and then pretending they were mine. You seem to having trouble grasping the term "hypocrite". Your hypocracy lies not solely in your assesment of the pharmacist, but in that assesment coupled with your willingness to assign complicity in a resultant abortion to the pharmacist.

If the pharmacist is responsible(in his deluded mind) for the death of a freshly fertilized egg because he did his job and filled a prescription, then how can he feel he's not responsible if he refuses to fill the prescription and the woman ends up having an abortion because of his inaction.

That shouldn't be too much of a logic gap for even you to cross.

So, it's your stance that one individual deciding he doesn't want to sell a product is somehow a greater intrusion than governement mandating that an entire industry be forced to sell that product? Should be interesting seeing the logic behind that.

We're not talking about just one individual. This isn't an isolated case, which has been pointed out several times. And that's the problem.

The pharmacist's rationale for selling or not selling a product is irrelevant. He could base it on the phase of the moon, it's not the government's place to mandate that a privately-owned consortium must order certain non-critical supplies.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's systematic of a wider problem that touches many areas of the separation of religion and state issue.

Here's an idea. Read what I wrote, not what you'd like to imagine I wrote. Why would either conception or birth be any less arbitrary than 25 weeks?

You know, I did that and here's what I found:

It's fairly clear that you're entirely clueless as to what I believe, which is odd, as I clearly articulated it in my previous post.

So I checked your "previous post" and found this:

And yet, you'll vehemently defend the notion that a 25-week fetus is as human as you are, despite the fact that it's largely nonviable without significant medical support. It is noteworthy that with sufficient medical support, even a fertilized egg is also viable. I don't particularly care one way or the other. I just find the arbitrary establishment of acceptable termination dates to be incredibly entertaining.

Yup. That sure is a "clearly articulated " answer. QQ

Stop being a coward and just answer the damn question. You're inanity is nearly enough to make me turn liberal.

[Martrae]

Spanked me? Hardly, I just gave up trying to have a coherent conversation with you. Your lack of anything remotely resembling logic and continuity made this whole thread worthless for any rational debate.

[Tacks]

Ok Mindia

[Martrae]

You talking to me or idiot boy?

[Tacks]

You =P What you posted is some EXACTLY like what Mindia would do. OH NOES YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO TALK TO ME SO I'M LEAVING!

[Wrath Child]

Haw!

[Donnel]

If the pharmacist is responsible(in his deluded mind) for the death of a freshly fertilized egg because he did his job and filled a prescription, then how can he feel he's not responsible if he refuses to fill the prescription and the woman ends up having an abortion because of his inaction

So you conjecture that the pharmacist would feel complicit in the death of a fertilized egg. That's you assuming something, wtg.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's systematic of a wider problem that touches many areas of the separation of religion and state issue.

Hi, pharmacies in America are not state run. You can't force a Christian book store to sell the Satanist Bible any more then you should be able to force a pharmacy to sell contraceptives. Private business is just that: private.