Eckerd Corp. said the pharmacist considered it a violation of morals to give a rape victim, with a valid prescription, a pill that would prevent her from getting pregnant due to the sexual assault.  
 
Should pro-choicers get to force pro-lifers to act contrary to their morals?
Uhhh
fb-: American Taliban, baby. Get used to it. They'll be running facit of the country by the time Dubya is finished.
Who is forcing whom?
astranger: It is not "pro-choicers" who are forcing the pharmacist to fill the prescription; it is his employer. It seems to me that willingness to fill any legal prescription presented is a reasonable criterion for employment as a pharmacist. If the pharmacist has a moral objection to a specific drug, then it is up to him to either find an employer who is willing to accomidate his choice or find a different line of work.  
 
This is a slippery slope. Consider a pharmacist who objected to any drug which was tested on animals -- it would be a complete crapshoot as to whether or not you'd be able to get your prescription filled by such a person. Even if you agreed with the basis of his choice you might have a different definition of what constitutes "animal testing."
glitch p-udding: timbley, it is immorral to deny a legal prescription to someone who needs it. it is not this guys job to decide who gets what.
timbley: So if my boss orders me to kill someone, it's my boss who gets charged with the murder?
clu: That's a stretch. And you know it.
aktaeon: It might not be a stretch. The problem with the logic might be that the person took a job and failed to notify their boss that they would be unable or incompetent to fulfill their duties.  
 
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that this person made the entire educational investment in becoming a pharmacist precisely for this reason.
fb-: By your rational, you should be able to deny goods/services to somebody of color because you have a moral objection to "niggers."  
 
timbley: I don't believe I put forth any sort of rationale in this thread. Which rationale are you referring to?  
 
But, I agree with you - denying anything to someone because of an accident of birth is just wrong. It's just that in your example, the accident is skin colour. In my example, the accident is being conceived in the first place. Both people should have full rights accorded to them, even if a bigot (your case) or unwilling mother (my case) wishes otherwise. Good to see that we agree!
fb-: Ohhh.. so it's her fault to decide to allow herself to be brutally raped?  
 
You're one disgusting piece of shit.
timbley: I'd be upset by that if I wasn't used to seeing you twist words.  
 
Rape is evil. So is killing an unborn baby. Do 2 wrongs make 1 right in your book? The best possible scenario for this woman is to have the child, raise him/her with love and tenderness (and hopefully with the support of family, friends, and community). So rather than 1 raped woman and 1 dead baby, you have 1 raped woman and 1 baby that can make her smile and see that the power of love cannot be stolen by a pathetic criminal.  
 
Swearing only shows your inability to defend your position. I'm sorry that you have so much hate inside.
fb-: So your christian beliefs mean that everybody who conceives a child through rape should be forced to deliver it?  
 
You're one sick pup pal.  
 
It's a shame that you can't be impregnated though rape.
timbley: Of course, nobody should be forced to do anything. However, I think we live in a messed up society that teaches that killing unborn babies is better than suffering a little hardship in raising them.  
 
If you think killing babies is okay, I would say that you are the "sick pup".
fb-: Suffering a little hardship?  
 
Rape and then being forced to deliver and care for an unplanned and unwanted child that reminds you even moment of every day of the time you were horribly raped is a little hardship?  
 
Being single mother, working multiple jobs, going on welfare to pay for a child forced upon you through the brutal act of rape is a little hardship?  
fb-: I'd empty my coffers to see you raped, then be forced to take a new-born infant.
FuzzyDave: You have coffers?  
 
Man, I am SO behind the curve....
fb-: The world isn't this wonderful fantasy place where a woman that's conceived a child through rape is going to live this magically peaceful life full of riches and christ-delivered goodness if she has the child.  
 
A woman who suffered rape doesn't deserve to be forced to live with having a child conceived through rape. As if this woman's life isn't fucked enough as is, now you want to force her to be a single mother, with a child that has no father who was conceived through rape? All in the name of appeasing your chosen diety?  
 
Sick.  
 
You'd be the first person to complain when she goes on food stamps to pay for the rape child that you and your 'god' forced her to have.
jones: the power of love???  
 
dude...you've clearly never met a woman who has been raped. it's not about love. it's about feeling dirty, and violated, and hurt, and hated, and bad about yourself, and afraid of the world.  
 
and until you have done work with rape victims, i suggest you step back and think twice about judging an action that can be perceived as emotionally healthy and cleansing by these women.  
 
go sell fucked up religious right somewhere else. we're all stocked up here.
astranger: Both you and your boss would be charged with murder, because killing someone is illegal. The morning after pill is not, however, so the legal question is moot.  
 
If your boss orders you to do something which you consider immoral, you have the right to quit. Nobody can force you to do a job you believe to be immoral.  
 
IMHO you should remove the cheap shot against pro choice people from the description as it appears you made it up. Neither the story nor anything you have posted supports that conclusion.
timbley: I would argue that the rape victim seems to be pro-choice, and wants to force a pro-lifer to do something. Besides, if I removed my own italicized-to-show-it's-mine comment, I would be submitting to The Man. And I try to stick it to The Man whenever I can.
clu: I would argue that the rape victim seems to be a consumer with a legal and valid prescription from a Doctor, expecting the bean counter behind the desk to do his job.
timbley: Like the soldier in China who shoots dissidents in the back of the head is only doing his job?  
 
Okay, the analog is a bit extreme. I would say that the pharmacist in question should have actually quit on the spot when asked to fill the prescription. Or, better yet, offered to help pay for the costs of raising the baby if the woman would agree to have it.
fb-: You need a mega-dose of real worldism.  
 
Soldiers should have a reasonable expectation that they will have to follow orders unconditionably and sooner or later, kill.  
 
Pharmacists should have the reasonable expectation that they have a duty to do as ordered by a physician within the confines of law (read: law, not a chosen set of religious moralisms.) and dispense medication.
clu: Or better yet, you could offer to help for the costs of the child. You're in a position to do this with rape victims. Why don't you?
fb-: That'd be great. I'd love to see Mr. NoRealWorldExperience go counsel rape victims.  
 
Too bad he is probably way too busy building his bomb-belt to go blow up an abortion clinic for Jesus.
jones: hehe...you said bean counter.
fb-: Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If you can't fulfill the OBLIGAION and DUTIES that are included in your job, then you have the freedom to quit and find a new occupation.  
 
I'm a police office, I don't think that arresting people for crimes is morally right. So I don't have to uphold the law? Bullshit.  
 
You work at a Wal-Mart. You're catholic. You think birth control is morally wrong. Do you have the right to refuse to sell condoms to people?  
 
You're a RN working at a hospital. You're a jehovah's witness. You believe that blood transfusions are morally wrong. Do you have the right to refuse blood transfusions to dying people?  
timbley: I agree - the pharmacist should have quit.  
 
Isn't this a great dilemma? You have some interesting examples. I am glad I am a software developer and the only moral dilemma I am posed with is whether to waste my employer's money by replying to your posts on his dime.
fabulon7: Didn't you say you worked for the Ontario Government?  
 
You're wasting my dime! Now quit your prattling and back to work.
astranger: Lying is "sticking it to the Man?" The rape victim didn't force anyone to do anything; she exercised her rights as a consumer and complained to the management about the service which she felt she received. It was the management who disciplined the pharmacist, and you have no idea whether or not they are "pro-choice." You simply chose to take a cheap shot against "pro-choice" people because you disagree with them, not because you have any solid idea that "they" are behind the decision.  
 
That's a lie.
aktaeon: Hmm. I'm not sure it's a slippery slope. We can tell the difference between real pharmacists and fake pharamcists.  
 
Maybe pharmacists should take an oath to fulfill prescriptions. Make it a law that they should fill legal prescriptions, and if they don't then they lose their ability to work in the health care industry. Maybe they should do some prison time.  
 
I'm surpised people like this are even employable.