... I forgot to drag 'n' drop it.
Did you know.....
In as many as 20 states, pharmacies can refuse to fill women’s prescriptions for contraception, including the morning-after pill.
Check out the link, and take a moment to send the form letter to those pharmacy chains, demanding your right to obtain medication that your doctor has perscribed.
Men have one option, the over the counter condom sales rack. No one is stopping them from purchasing condoms, or from getting surgery to ensure they won't be able to impregnate anyone.
Why is it when it comes to women our government thinks they need to protect and mandate the female populations "morality"?
Be sure and view the short flash video also, it will give you an idea of how as women we have had to fight for our rights.
I posted this on the Phoenix board and didn't get much response except about forcing my beliefs down others throats, thought I would post it here and maybe get more opinions. I am new to the other ter boards and thought I would jump in and see what happens 
Thanks,
Malissa
that all sporting goods stores be REQUIRED to sell guns (where legal)?
That if a Quick Stop or 7-Eleven, or corner Bodega, or even a drug store decides to NOT sell cigarettes, that they also should be forced to sell them?
I am strongly pro-choice but also strongly support a business' right to sell (and not sell) the products they choose. In this day and age, there are mail order pharmacies that any person can use if their local pharmacy chooses not to sell birth control.
... I forgot to drag 'n' drop it.
This is about employees, who simply refuse to do their work, but still want to remain employed. Suppose you send out to your mail order pharmacy then, and the employee there refuses to fill it, and just "loses" it? Suppose this happens randomly and without warning, even for things like RU486, which need to be taken within a certain time frame?
There's no excuse for this; even if some legislatures are stupidly trying to excuse it. This goes to the heart of professional integrity. What if operators refused to give out objectionable numbers? Suppose other professions do this, and multiply it by every purported moral objection one can have.
a doctor (who is trained and certified to perform abortions) be required to perform abortions?
When an employee refuses to perform a task (that is legal) he is only subject to disciplinary actions from the company. If they do not discipline him then they condone the action. No one, except the company, has recourse against the employee.
-- Modified on 4/9/2005 10:33:33 PM
If companies tolerate their employees not filling these orders, then they are implicitly supporting that moral judgment. That's fine. Let those who don't approve of that policy use other pharmacies.
Everyone makes these choices more than they know. I love music with explicit lyrics and chuckle about WalMart's desire not to carry those CDs. Still, I shop there. On the other hand, I hate the hypocrisy of the Boy Scouts and never donate a cent when my co-workers solicit donations.
Liberals rightly criticize the religious right for inflicting their values on others. So why make otherwise nice people distribute products they find morally objectionable? Let the market decide.
I know we're both probably urban dwellers, but we know what's good for the horse isn't good for the cow, I hope?
That's not what I'm advocating, and you know this. The nature of being a doctor is far different. It's a very convincing argument that it would put the patient at more risk to coerce a doctor into performing what he sees as an immoral procedure. A pharmacist doesn't have the level of intimate involvement that a physician has to have. Those are two major reasons why the logic doesn't apply.
There's no slippery slope in that direction, but you better look for one in the other direction. What happens if every occupation is given its legal right to conscientious objection? Mechanics won't fix an objectionable organizations' car. A firemen won't help save a burning building? I want you to know, moral objections can take some unusual turns. Prolife people don't have a corner on them, just because contraception is hot with some people now. What if (being a recovered operator) an operator just can't find numbers to Christian Churches in general, or even the Republican party just isn't in his/her database along with all Right-to-Life groups? He or she happens to have a moral objection to them. Now, could you imagine how moral questions mulled out in this way can really hurt the economy, undermine trust with all citizens, lead to paranoia and fear and just generally, destabilize the whole country? When you take that into account, do you still think this is a good idea?
I think this behavior is so grossly beneath contempt that amounts to it a war against civilization itself. This isn't conscientious objection. Conscientious objection is aimed at a coercive authority that has a policy that the objector considers immoral. This action isn't aimed at an authority, it's aimed at the weaker party, the easy target. The authority would be the employer or the government, but this is aimed at the patient, who, if anything, is the weaker party and who depends upon the authority of the pharmacist. They are of *lower* status than the pharmacist in this situation. Conscientious objection? Actually it's simple harassment and bully tactics, and if the legislature glorifies it as "conscientious objection" it's because the legislature is run by bullies.
This is not like going to the counter of the all white diner and refusing to leave till you are served; this is more like the "volunteer" citizen mob that then harasses and harangues the objector. It has the same cultural heritage, even.
-- Modified on 4/10/2005 12:19:50 AM
i can see your objection but I don't think your examples really apply.
1) Physicians who don't perform abortions are protected not because the outcomes would be adverse, they are protected because its their right not to do the procedure. Many Catholic hospitals would be terrific at abortions if they performed them. I respect their desire not to perform them and see no harm in their choice.
2) Telephone operators are private businesses/ If they didn't give out certain numbers, eventually the market would punish them. Ever used one of those small time phone books that only have small portion of available ads? Didn't think so.
3) Firemen are a completely different issue - they're a public utility. The government must operate without the prejudice that we allow businesses to operate under. Plus, discriminating against customer groups is different than choosing which products you sell.
You're statement that the "market" will "eventually" punish "them" is riddled with errors. It's like being armed with a gun that wounds somebody 6 months after they've burglarized your home, raped your daughters, robbed the family jewels, murdered your wife and left you a quadraplegic. Boy, I feel safer knowing the market punished Ford after they sold crap and deathtrap cars for 40 years, and knowing that the executives running it retired rich and that money will always stay in their family! Also knowing that those unlucky enough to join Ford in time to reap this justice are now being punished!
Markets are amoral. There's no justice in this universe other than what we each can bring into it, and there's definitely no justice in the market. Why don't you just trust your ouiji board instead?
Physicians not performing abortions: two issues to this really. First, I have to point out that Catholic hospitals have a well-known policy, and a woman wanting to abort isn't going to be caught in a position of being referred to a physician who doesn't perform abortions, or who sabotages the abortion out of "conscientious objection." But this is what happens with these pharmacists.
The other point: I don't even see how physicians or company policy is even germaine to the subject, really, because I reject the argument that not punishing "implies" a policy. Even when, for example, condoms are displayed? Even when employee A will sell them to you but employee B won't? You can't assume "policy" here. Maybe it indicates, instead, cowardice. Maybe it says: "If we punish him, the right-to-life people will sue us for everything we got, and there's a law in our state already! We'll be boycotted! And worse, we'll probably be sued by the customer too if we admit anybody did anything wrong."
If a company has a policy regarding reproductive widgets, it should be written, I think. If it's not, and the employee doesn't sell it, then I'd say it's more like a personal insult.
Firemen might be a completely different issue-- but where do things stop, as I said, if every occupation now has to be awarded the right to "conscientiously object" to any customer? You think, since firemen are unionized, this isn't going to have problems if the rest of society fights this way?
you are confusing objection to an act (selling RU486 that would cause an abortion, in some people's eyes) with objection to a person (i.e. prejudice).
A better example would be refusing to sell RU486 to anyone vs. refusing to sell milk because I thought that the individual had an abortion, or I don't like you for....pick a reason.
Maybe you don't understand the concept of conscientious objection because your conscience is different than those you chastize?
What do you think about my question above regarding the "requirement" to sell guns and cigarettes?
Reproductive rights are very basic to a person. You object to those, you object to the person. Period. They have every reason to be at war with you after that.
(About TA: No, I just didn't get to his post, partially because I thought it was almost completely off point. Read below.)
Your "objection to acts" is erroneous. A southerner at the time of Jim Crow would often say that as long as blacks stayed in their place, there was no objection to the people. The argument could be made quite air-tight that sitting at the counter was the "act" objected to. And he wasn't being harassed before he sat there was he? There's no way to parse the argument this way without providing a strong basis to reinstate Jim Crow, or something just as accommadating to a caste system, which was what Jim Crow really was.
**Warning!** Digression:
The actual issue on reproductive rights comes down to whether to reproduce or not reproduce should be left to the mind and the will of the individual. I say that must be the default assumption, the position of human rights on the issue, because on any other basis, there's now no where for humanity to go but down. And by down, I mean perhaps, extinction.
What the conservatives say about reproductive rights, if you read closely, that reproduction must be left to the creator, as before technology. I point this out often, there's no god in this universe. If the creator is Darwinism, that's literally resigning our minds and wills to the control of our genes. The problem is, if our minds are not central to human reproduction, natural selection will do away with them. What's going on now is a struggle of the minds (the weaker party) against the genes.
**End digression.**
"Maybe you don't understand the concept of conscientious objection because your conscious is different from those you chastize?"
Do you always give out arrogant, condenscending insults so casually? That's all this is.
I very much understand conscientious objection, as I explained in my last post. If you think I don't understand, please analyze it point by point and show my misunderstanding. Your "acts vs. persons" fell a little short. Hint: instead, take what I wrote and show everybody why it's wrong. Try taking my "authority vs 'harassing the weak" and prove it wrong. The reason why you didn't, if you'd admit it, is that you've never seen this point made before; you never thought about it.
The burning question of your last statement: "What do you think about my question above regarding the 'requirement' to sell guns and cigarettes?" I believe you're presenting a point you're misunderstanding, or so I hope, because otherwise you're being deceptive, perhaps to yourself first.
Companies should have a policy. The policy should be posted for the public, especially with pharmaceuticals and medical devices, so that very unfortunate things don't happen to customers. If companies want to change the way drug stores have always done business, let them. No objection.
What's objectionable is employees making up the policy for the company, and the company still pretending to sell contraceptives and having them on the shelf. This is more like a bait and switch, which is completely illegal.
If the company has a "policy," I assume it means that employee A will sell it to you, employee B will sell it to you also. Rather than say, employee B losing your prescription, or poking small holes in your condoms for "conscientious" reasons. This is really a more accurate presentation of what's going on than yours.
If what you said were in any way accurate, the "conscientious objecting" company that refuses to sell condoms would hire employee B, but there is something wrong with that picture. Employee B wants to stay with the sinful condom seller so as to keep the evil devices from falling into sinners hands. It looks like it's perhaps, not a matter of a company policy after all. And the laws protecting these derilicts are not written to protect "company policies."
Finally: not selling RU486 vs. not selling milk. No, no confusion. I have every right to despise both equally. Why shouldn't I?
-- Modified on 4/11/2005 12:24:07 AM
that you DO think that stores SHOULD be required to sell guns and cigarettes if their business establishments are ones that normally carry such items (e.g. sporting goods stores and convenience stores).
If not, you're being quite hypocritical.
Not selling birth control huh, i admit thats going a bit to far. Especially when we consider the alternative, abortion...
I can't stand that women can kill there own flesh and blood with impunity just because the unborn in 'inconvenient' to her current lifestyle.
So, by denying her birth control, soceity is now forcing our little bastions of love, care and protection, the potential mothers across the country, to kill their own precious offspring because they couldn't purchase the alternative to genocidal actions, birth control. I think this pharmacy needs to rethink their actions.
Funny how murder, er uh, abortion, is referred to as; 'Women's Right to Reproductive Health Services' ....... What a laugh, think about it, reproductive health services??? Thats what we're calling; -selfishly killing your own flesh and blood-, reproductive health services??, whoops, i forgot to mention 'womens right'... LOL..
Food for thought; how many potential children have been killed by the women who is suppossed to love and care for them most?? Lets just focus on American abortion... I bet more potential children have been killed by abortion here in America, then all that did in our Civil War. Could it be 100 million that have died?? that would equal all the white people who died in WW2, over 100 million...To think men are referred to as violent, at least when we're at war, we are fighting for a perceived cause, right-or-wrong, against an enemy of strangers, women on the other hand, are killing the closest thing to themselves other then their parents, their children.
We talk of 'protecting' womens rights in AMerica. I think we should look to restrict womens rights. The case of giving someone an inch and they take a mile comes to mind on this subject. What have women done with their 'rights'?
well, they kill their own as easy as popping a vitamin C in the morning.
They divorce at a 75% rate. Quiting the marriage at an alarming rate.
They (white women especially) are completely careless with their genetics.
They are susceptible to false propaganda at an alarming rate.
I feel, until todays 'woman' can start acting responsibly, they should see their rights restricted.
that our nations abortion rate would be lower if men could get pregnant? While this if physically impossible, I wonder if in this hypothetical question, men would not respond as their female halves have.
Abortion has always been around when it was illegal, it still continued, there will always be women who will opt for this choice and there will always be those who will perform this legally or illegally. While I am not advocating abortion as a birth control method,(I do not think that abortion is a panacea for all unplanned pregnacies) I am stating a fact that by controlling anyones rights to their bodies, decision making, or moral thoughts is exactly like taking away a persons right to choose what is right for them. If as a country we actually taught our children from the time they are young about safe sex practices,self esteem issues, and not preached abstinence only, we could eliminate a large majority of the unplanned pregnancies out there in our nation.
Women today are acting more responsibly, they are demanding their right to birth controll. To restrict their rights is to reduce them to a mental status lower than their male counterparts, and says loud and clear, that they do not possess the mental clarity to decide for themselves what is right for their bodies.
I don't know where you gathered your short statistical rates in the above post, but the majority of your facts are merely conjecture.
Do you think that if we made a blanket statement about other groups as you have above we wouldn't have a huge public outcry as to who is the more superior being, and have civil rights groups going nuts over a statement like those?
I feel, until todays 'black community, hispanic community,handicaped community,elderly community etc' can start acting responsibly, they should see their rights restricted.
Do we as a nation have the implicit right to impose our own moral judgement on any human?
Good Morning Redbbwoo7,
In want to take a second to welcome you to the politics board. I should have done that yesterday before lambasting you with my opinions. Welcome.
Pure speculation whether men would abort their children as often as women do. I would say yes they would, because they are exposed to the same soceital pressure as todays women are. Be productive, not reprodutive. Life is to important to have kids, plus other unhealthy selfish attitudes.
'Abortion has always been around when it was illegal, it still continued, there will always be women who will opt for this choice and there will always be those who will perform this legally or illegally. While I am not advocating abortion as a birth control method,(I do not think that abortion is a panacea for all unplanned pregnacies) I am stating a fact that by controlling anyones rights to their bodies, decision making, or moral thoughts is exactly like taking away a persons right to choose what is right for them'
You are saying women will continue to abort their children. That may be true. I believe if we change peoples attitudes, they may just stop aborting their kids. We must hammer this messege that women are mothers, or potential mothers, love your children, look forward to producing them, do not murder them.
In the middle of the last paragragh i received a phone call, it was long so my mind is elsewhere at the moment. I must tend to other things. Sorry top bail out on you.
I provided a link on abortion, from what i know, there have been 35.6 million abortions from 1973-1996. Not sure if those where American or international numbers.
The number of white women having abortions is staggering, especially as; Most women undergoing abortions were young, white, and unmarried... This is very disturbing. They may have been referring to that year, or abortions in general.
This is all part of a bigger picture. I ripped into women abusing their rights in my last post to you. There supposed abuses are just symptoms of a far bigger virus. I will discuss this in another thread when i have time. Most likely next week. There have been comments in other threads, that, when included in our discussion give validity to my theory of; Symptoms Of A Far Bigger Virus...
Take care, i will try to give more detail to this thread tomorrow...
There was a guy ran for state congress in Arkansas in the 60''s on the platform, "Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen." He damn near won.
Rumor has it that Funtime was the campaign manager.
Very funny wmblake!! You have a great sense of humor!!