 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
This pharmacist should be fired, banned from the profession, and then raped in prison and denied treatment for whatever troubles he has because that would be interfering with the Lord's Will.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zylka
|
|
I'd say that's close minded, religious hating bigotry there - spiff. Hope you have the proper "rethoric" to back such up
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Well, Ben's still more mature than the name-callers and "You suck so much that I'm dedicating 15 minutes of my life to write a post about you" people in this thread.
Guys, a mature "bigot" is still better than an immature person even if they're correct.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Excellent point. I would object to a job requirement that requires a Catholic pharmacist to prescribe birth control, as well as the morning after pill. Surely, they could pass these onto another pharmacist who would be willing to do so, thus respecting the freedom of conscience of the pharmacist. |
The question is how far should a private employer be forced to go to accommodate the indirect ideological or "moral" preferences of employees. Political expression is also protected under the First Amendment, as is freedom of religion. So should employers have to accomodate the "moral" views of Libertarian cashiers and bookkeepers who consider taxation to be a form of theft? What about a run of the mill political conservative who believes that welfare is immoral, and thus wants to refuse to accept payment or otherwise deal with people paying by EBT or food stamps or similar?
The employer is not forcing the employee to do anything which is not a reasonably foreseeable part of the job description in either case, so if the employee objects, why should the employer be forced to make concessions to an individual's preferences?
quote:
Sad though, that no one has addressed one of my points. How does the morning after pill treat rape? Does it make the woman feel better about herself? Why do we prescribe powerful drugs if they do not help the woman? |
Come on, Ben - you're smarter than to play semantic games. Pregnancy and STD transmission are both possible consequences of rape. The morning after pill treats a foreseeable consequence, just as prophylactic antibiotic treatment would likely be used if the rapist was known to carry a specific STD - would you wait until it was confirmed that the woman had positive indications of the STD before you'd give treatment? Would you rather see if pregnancy occurred, then consider abortion? The whole goal of the treatment is to prevent a direct consequence of the rape, which consequence could not occur otherwise at that time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:33
|
|
MtG:
quote:
The question is how far should a private employer be forced to go to accommodate the indirect ideological or "moral" preferences of employees. Political expression is also protected under the First Amendment, as is freedom of religion. So should employers have to accomodate the "moral" views of Libertarian cashiers and bookkeepers who consider taxation to be a form of theft? What about a run of the mill political conservative who believes that welfare is immoral, and thus wants to refuse to accept payment or otherwise deal with people paying by EBT or food stamps or similar?
|
Considering both of your examples. How can the libertarian be held personally responsible, by his own beliefs, by charging a tax on an item? He is not personally benefiting from the tax. As for the conservative opposed to welfare, would it be better to let that person starve, or to accept their payment with food stamps? I would think that their philosophy would give them a stark option of either charity, or accepting their food stamps. Since he cannot offer charity to compensate for all of these people, he has no option but to give the food stamps.
Now, compare this to our example. A Catholic, who dispenses the morning after pill, would consider themselves to be an accessory to murder. True, the pill may not cause an abortion, but the purpose of the pill is to prevent the implantation of the unborn child. There is no other purpose for the drug. That to me should seem considerably different grounds than even my own contraceptive example to allow for freedom of conscience.
quote:
Pregnancy and STD transmission are both possible consequences of rape.
|
That's a seriously questionable analogy, MtG. Are you claiming that pregnancy is a medical condition like an STD?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|