The first thing that came to mind is does this Pharmacist have the "right" to refuse service at a chain that provides that service? CVS is most likely an enormous provider of these pills - can an employee of that organization decide to set their own rules?
It seems to me that the corporations involved will eventually be forced to take a stand and fire those people with moral objections outright. If you can't do the job, then you lose the job. This is probably going to come to a head sooner or later. And before anybody gets up in arms about banning legal drugs remember that Michael Moore got Kmart to stop selling legal items (bullets) on moral grounds. Its not outside the realm to see a conservative movement being able to get CVS-type chains to do the same thing. This is somewhat tangential to the topic, but it highlights one of the more subtle issues; that of pregnancy control (the ability to control/stop getting pregnant) versus birth control (the ability to control/stop giving birth after getting pregnant). In this case the pharmacist claims that the pills are objectionable. Presumably because they inhibit the creation of life or, to put it blithely, they "get in Gods way". This argument has always seemed hypocritical to me (of course I may be missing subtleties) but people with this view seem perfectly willing to mold the world to their own convenience in so many other areas. I've not heard any arguments that spermatozoa or eggs need protecting (although there are many arguments that they shouldn't be "wasted") as life. To be against birth control pills is then, I think, to be against anything that interferes with the potential of life. Isn't it? It seems like a "sex only for procreation" argument to me. Does that mean that these people literally only have sex for procreation or do they try to bend the rules using the rhythm method? If the latter how is a purposeful, knowledgeable, but drug-free attempt to stop pregnancy on their part any less abhorrent? In most Christian faiths isn't intent to sin the same as sin? I know it is in Catholicism which has a lot of anti birth control history. Isn't the intent to have sex purely for pleasure in any form morally wrong? It seems to me that this kind of thinking would naturally also extend to all pregnancy control. My wife had very difficult, near-life threatening labors with both my kids and was told specifically that any more could kill her. So I got a vasectomy. What is the moral difference between the rhythm method, the pill and a vasectomy? There are superficial differences of course, difference in degree but not, as I can see, in kind. I actually understand the viewpoints of the anti-abortion lobby. I find their logic flawed but it is clear and debatable. This one however is a mystery to me and any way I look at it seems hypocritical at the core. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:135183 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
