'Choice' means no choice

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/28/5 | Debra J. Saunders

[crail]

A pharmacist is licensed to perform a job. It is government's job to decide what we are free to buy or not buy, not a pharmacist's. The government licenses pharmacists in order to facilitate the distribution of that which they have determined we are free to have. There is an agreement here. If pharmacists refuse to perform that duty, I think it is perfectly reasonable that the government reconsider licensing them.

Anyways, I have to head out. I doubt we'll ever resolve our different viewpoints. Perhaps the answer is to let pharmacists specialize, and put the specialization area on the license. Then every moderate sized city would have pharmacies with pharmacists of various specializations, and pro-lifers not specializing in areas that would require them to distribute RU-486. It would be much as when you find a strict Muslim working in licensed restaurants, but not as a bartender. In any case, it's been an interesting debate... all the best.

[ArGee]

This isn't a perfect metaphore but you get the drift. Don't sell guns if you don't wanna sell me bullets.

It's not a perfect metaphor. A better metaphor would be, "Don't sell first aid materials if you don't wanna sell knives."

Pharmacies are in the business of despensing medicines for the purpose of helping people get well. Abortafacents kill innocent people. You shouldn't have to give up your desire to help people get well just because you refuse to aid in the slaughter of innocents.

Shalom.

[Semper]

This is about pharmacies and pharmacists that do not want to sell these life-ending drugs being forced to do so or having their licenses revoked by the government..

From the first line of the Article which is the subject of this thread:

..the left -- which used to believe in respecting choice and requiring businesses to accommodate workers' personal preferences...

THAT is what this is about, requiring businesses to accommodate workers' personal preferences, and it appears you agree with that leftist principle since it suits your agenda. Do the ends justify the means? Would you tolerate a dictatorship if it eliminated abortion? Give it some serious thought.

[Semper]

And what if a conception and subsequent consequences would seriously endanger the health of a woman? Who makes the decision about that health matter - a pharmacist, a lawyer, you, or the woman directly involved?

[The_Reader_David]

As I pointed out, it is not simply a job, but a profession that the state regulates. We do not want a society in which the state bars Christians, observant Jews, and others with stricter moral beliefs than the anything goes as long as the adults consent ethics of secular humanism from holding lucrative state-licensed professions.

Only those willing to perform abortions will get licenses to practice medicine, only those willing to dispense abortifacients get licenses to be pharmacists, only those willing to support judicial activism can be lawyers, only those willing to peddle the party line can be school teachers, any psychologist who treats a dissatisfied homosexual looses his or her license. . .

Exclusion of pious Christians and observant Jews from the professions is a secularist analog of the tactics of Islamic regimes in which perks are available only to Muslims, and should be opposed with the same vigor.

An employer should be able to fire folks who won't perform their jobs. The pious Christian pharmacist can find work from an employer who will either hire another pharmacist on the same shift so the conflice arises, or from a pious Christian pharmacy owner, or can set up his or her own business. The state should not enforce immoral behavior as a condition for professional licensure.

[The_Reader_David]

"so the conflice arises "

should have been "so the conflict does not arise"

[ArGee]

And what if a conception and subsequent consequences would seriously endanger the health of a woman? Who makes the decision about that health matter - a pharmacist, a lawyer, you, or the woman directly involved?

What if? Are you saying that you would respect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense such drugs in all other cases? I would support your desire to demand the pharmacist despense the drug if it would save the mother's life, but how would you set that up? Would the physician have to make a note on the perscription? Better yet, make all other abortions (read: child murder) illegal. That would take the guesswork out of it, wouldn't it?

But your argument is bogus anyway and I think you know it. The case of the morning after pill doesn't deal with life threatening issues. RU486 is probably not the most efficient method of killing a baby so it's not likely that the doctor would perscribe that method for a woman whose life is in danger. No, I think you know this is really a valid issue of conscience for people who do not want to be forced to be party to murder, and you don't want to address it on those terms.

Shalom.

[RedwineisJesus]

"""I will avoid any and all businesses that have anything at all to do with RU-486."""

Ahh ... give it up ... it's no use ... RU is everywhere.