KD in CA Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 figures you'd take a WH 'end around' that impinges women's rights and turn it into a partisan bash I turned it into a bash of anyone dumb enough to not understand the ramifications of having the federal gov't in charge of health care. No surprise that you are one of those who can't connect the dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Handing someone a box of pills is not "supporting" birth control. Its called doing your fuggin job. Your job is to fill someone's prescription, so do your job. If you have a problem with that, find a new job that doesn't interfere with your beliefs. Dont give me any "freedom of religion" crap either, because someone who isnt bothered by birth control (due to religion) should not be denied their "freedom of religion" of taking the pills. And what about the woman who is on birth control pills because it keeps her endometriosis more manageable and under control? How does the self-righteous bible thumping pharmacist decide which woman really needs it and which one doesn't? If something like this rule were enacted, i believe that anyone who believes in creationism and not evolution should be given the old antibiotics from 20 years ago. Why? Because if you dont believe in evolution, they theres no way you can believe that a bacteria evolved into an antibiotic resistant strain. Ergo, why do you need the newest antibiotic? Please, Pharmacists should be able to choose which drugs to give... it's called FREEEDOM OF CHOICE. If you don't like it, go to another Pharmacy... simple as that. Guess what? The free market will win out again, as those choosing to fill birth control prescriptions will make more money. Get your grubby government hands out of the health care market and then maybe it won't be such a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Why should a Pharmacist be required to dispense birth control pills? He has a constitutional right to freedom of religion, and birth control pills are non-essential medication; they do not treat a disease or save a life. Calling birth control a non-essential medication is an extremely naive way of looking at human sexuality, same with being against other contraceptives. People aint gonna stop having biological needs or fulfilling them simply because someone took away their birth control pill. Do you want to impose a bunch of unwanted babies on society? How about the quality of life of those children? There is absolutely zero logical reasoning behind the restriction of contraceptives by anyone, but rather an emotional reaction against it due to old traditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Please, Pharmacists should be able to choose which drugs to give... it's called FREEEDOM OF CHOICE. If you don't like it, go to another Pharmacy... simple as that. Guess what? The free market will win out again, as those choosing to fill birth control prescriptions will make more money. Get your grubby government hands out of the health care market and then maybe it won't be such a mess. Freedom of Choice works both ways. If Pharmacists don't like it, they have the freedom to GTFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Calling birth control a non-essential medication is an extremely naive way of looking at human sexuality, same with being against contraceptives. People aint gonna stop having biological needs or fulfilling them simply because someone took away their birth control pill. Do you want to impose a bunch of unwanted babies on society? How about the quality of life of those children? There is absolutely zero logical reasoning behind the restriction of contraceptives, but rather an emotional reaction against it due to old traditions. Sure there is... it's called freedom of choice. Should the pharmacy be required by law to carry a medicine that does not treat a disease? No they shouldn't. Maybe you can go to another Pharmacy, which will be more than happy to have you buy from them... but we shouldn't be forcing pharmacies to sell what they don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Freedom of Choice works both ways. If Pharmacists don't like it, they have the freedom to GTFO.They should have the freedom to operate their business the way they like. Government intervention is why our Health care is so !@#$ed up in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Sure there is... it's called freedom of choice. Should the pharmacy be required by law to carry a medicine that does not treat a disease? No they shouldn't. Maybe you can go to another Pharmacy, which will be more than happy to have you buy from them... but we shouldn't be forcing pharmacies to sell what they don't want to. What is a customer practices a religion that believes in sacrificing pharmacists Just remember, in a free country, we can do whatever we want and gas is free......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 What is a customer practices a religion that believes in sacrificing pharmacists Just remember, in a free country, we can do whatever we want and gas is free......... Uh... since when is refusing to carry a certain medication akin to sacrificing people? If a certain pharmacy doesn't carry a certain medication... GO TO ANOTHER PHARMACY. There are plenty of people who will gladly take your money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Uh... since when is refusing to carry a certain medication akin to sacrificing people? If a certain pharmacy doesn't carry a certain medication... GO TO ANOTHER PHARMACY. There are plenty of people who will gladly take your money. So a woman in rural Georgia should have to drive 3 hours to get birth control because all her local wacko pharmacists think that some invisible man in the sky is watching and waiting to send her to hell for being an accessory to the destruction of a microscopic blob of cells? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Sure there is... it's called freedom of choice. Should the pharmacy be required by law to carry a medicine that does not treat a disease? No they shouldn't. Maybe you can go to another Pharmacy, which will be more than happy to have you buy from them... but we shouldn't be forcing pharmacies to sell what they don't want to. I love the freedom buzzword as much as the next guy, but you're valuing one individual's moral views above the overall good of a pragmatic solution to a widespread societal problem, in order to accomplish a small portion of choice. Yet, you have no problem ignoring the moral issues associated with unwanted children. They should have the freedom to operate their business the way they like. Government intervention is why our Health care is so !@#$ed up in this country. Yes, the problems with the health care system in this country are due to pharmacists being forced to sell birth control pills. Makes total sense, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 So a woman in rural Georgia should have to drive 3 hours to get birth control because all her local wacko pharmacists think that some invisible man in the sky is watching and waiting to send her to hell for being an accessory to the destruction of a microscopic blob of cells? OH MY GOD!!!! 3 hours?!?!? Are you serious... such a long time.... There are always other options for birth control. PS: We should take away someone's right just because someone might have to drive a little out of their way to get birth control pills instead of condoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I love the freedom buzzword as much as the next guy, but you're valuing one individual's moral views above the overall good of a pragmatic solution to a widespread societal problem, in order to accomplish a small portion of choice. Yet, you have no problem ignoring the moral issues associated with unwanted children. Yes, the problems with the health care system in this country are due to pharmacists being forced to sell birth control pills. Makes total sense, doesn't it? No, our health care is so !@#$ed up because the government requires pharmacies to stock every drug under the sun, and insurance to cover almost everything... no matter how rare. Also, are you denying that there are other options? Drive 2 miles down the road and go to another pharmacy... problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 OH MY GOD!!!! 3 hours?!?!? Are you serious... such a long time.... There are always other options for birth control. PS: We should take away someone's right just because someone might have to drive a little out of their way to get birth control pills instead of condoms? Condoms are totally equal to BC. No, our health care is so !@#$ed up because the government requires pharmacies to stock every drug under the sun, and insurance to cover almost everything... no matter how rare. Also, are you denying that there are other options? Drive 2 miles down the road and go to another pharmacy... problem solved. Right, its not like there's a pharmacy shortage in rural America or anything. Also, is it possible to have a more simplistic view on health care problems in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Condoms are totally equal to BC. Right, its not like there's a pharmacy shortage in rural America or anything. So you are advocating taking away someone's rights because the off chance that they will not be able to obtain said drug? You people make it sound like there is 1 pharmacy per 1000 square miles. I GUARANTEE that someone will be willing to take your money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 So you are advocating taking away someone's rights because the off chance that they will not be able to obtain said drug? You people make it sound like there is 1 pharmacy per 1000 square miles. I GUARANTEE that someone will be willing to take your money. You have the right to not take birth control yourself, you don't have the right to not do your job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Condoms are 98% effective Birth control 99.7% effective Oh my god.... 1.7% what a huge deal!! It's totally a huge deal that 1 in 1000 people might have to drive a couple hours for 1.7% more protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 You have the right to not take birth control yourself, you don't have the right to not do your job. So we force people to do their jobs now? Socialism does not = good. Thats why drug and insurance prices are so high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 So you are advocating taking away someone's rights because the off chance that they will not be able to obtain said drug? You people make it sound like there is 1 pharmacy per 1000 square miles. I GUARANTEE that someone will be willing to take your money. If having "the freedom to operate their business the way they like" as you put it is a right, then every profession in America is oppressed. GUARANTEE it eh? Got any proof to back that up? Do you have any knowledge at all of the availability of pharmacies in rural America, or are you just spouting ideological bull sh--? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 So if I work in a gun store and have no problem with rifles, but object to people buying pistols, should I be allowed to refuse to sell them? Taking a job implies that I'm willing to carry out ALL of the job requirements, not just those I agree with, otherwise I should get a different job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 If having "the freedom to operate their business the way they like" as you put it is a right, then every profession in America is oppressed. GUARANTEE it eh? Got any proof to back that up? Do you have any knowledge at all of the availability of pharmacies in rural America, or are you just spouting ideological bull sh--? How about showing me that they won't be able to find another pharmacy? You can't. There may be a shortage of pharmacies, but it's not to the extent that you cannot find another. There is a thing in government called regulation within reason. Most businesses are regulated within reason, but not the medical field. You haven't given a good reason as to why these pharmacies should be forced to carry a non-essential drug. There are a million other options that a person can use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts