ABORTION.......

real life, why?

I imagine everyone's view of abortion is different...theist or not.

Personally I'd rather abortion never happened...I just think there are worse things....such as a 15 year old girl dying because she tried to have an amateur abortion due to lack of access to professional medical care.

Folks who are anti-abortion often think that those who oppose them are pro-abortion....not so.

Rape victim subject to a pharmacist's morals

The Star's view: A patient with a legal prescription should not have to worry that her doctor's orders will become subject to her druggist's conscience.

If one more group assumes moral responsibility for what is allowed in the United States, the nation may soon sink under the weight of its superfluous righteousness. A debate over the ethical implications posed by the morning after pill are a case in point.

A story in Sunday's Star illustrated the perils of allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill if they have moral or religious objections to doing so. The article described what happens when a pharmacist's personal beliefs create a barrier between a doctor and a patient in need of medicine.

The particular incident reported in the story was alarming - a rape victim goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for an emergency contraception drug, the so-called morning after pill, and the pharmacist refuses to fill it - but the broader implications of this case should send shock waves throughout society.

The medicine in question "prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg," according to Sunday's story. Religious conservatives and others opposed to abortion object to the use of the pill on grounds that it is essentially a nonsurgical abortion.

That a person has such objections and acts upon them is a personal choice. A pharmacist who objects to the morning after pill is certainly entitled to his or her opinion. But that person should not be making decisions for the rest of us.

Sunday's story noted that pharmacy chains have policies that, at least in theory, respect the pharmacists' personal principles while at the same time taking care of a customer's needs. The policies say that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense the morning after pill is obligated to find the consumer another pharmacist who will fill the prescription.

As the story in Sunday's Star illustrates, such a policy is bogus. When the rape victim called the pharmacy at Fry's, the pharmacist told her he'd fill her prescription if she got to the store before his shift ended, in 10 minutes. That was impossible because of where she lived, which left her in the position of having to wait until the pharmacist coming on duty, who would not dispense the pill, had finished his shift. Or she could find a different pharmacy.

Delays are important. Experts say the pill must be taken within three to five days after having unprotected sex, but the sooner it is taken after intercourse the more effective it is.

Finding another store that stocks the emergency contraceptive is not simple. A survey of 900 Arizona pharmacies last year found that that less than half of them stock the drug. A friend of the rape victim profiled on Sunday said she called nearly 50 pharmacies in Tucson before she located two that stocked the drug and were willing to dispense it.

Availability is clearly a major problem, but it's a problem compounded by pharmacists imposing their value judgments on women who may ultimately be in a life-or-death situation. It is not illegal for pharmacists to refuse to fill a valid prescription, but it should be.

Employers should require that pharmacists park their personal religious beliefs at the door when dealing with consumers. A woman with a legal prescription is not a criminal.

We do not suggest that a person abdicates moral responsibility when he or she goes to work for someone else. But if pharmacists are allowed to create a firewall between doctor and patient with respect to one drug, where will that end?

We may someday end up with pharmacists refusing to dispense antidepressants or blood pressure medicines because they believe prayer and meditation are solutions more compatible with their religious beliefs.

Pharmacies should fill prescriptions and leave the proselytizing to the person in the pulpit.

- S.N.

Abort meaning to cut short. Any woman who would consider an abortion should not be having sexual intercourse.

Life begins the millisesond the sperm enters the egg.

If looked at with a special camera and microscope, fertilization of an ovum would look like an explosion. The only way to explain it plainly is a burst of light or energy at the time of conception. Education is so important when it comes to the question of to have or not to have. Simply put, abortion does kill a living being.

The soul of that being however does not perish. God mourns for those being put to death by abortion as well as any human being.

I know personally women who have had abortions and all wished they would have made another choice. Ending a pregnancy on purpose is something to really think about before you do it.

Feelings of guilt can continue for many years as the would-have-been mother dreams about what the child would look like, act like, today had they made another choice, those feelings get worse especially when the woman is financially stable and has more children in the future, then she thinks to herself that she killed a sister or brother of her children. I know this because I know the women. I feel very bad for women who are in this predicament. Please do not expect or ask any woman to have an abortion, even if it is your own daughter. God is watching! ADOPTION is best!

PS... you forgot to explain why you were offended.

I do not usually post opinion pieces, but this is one concerning a local Tucson incident and I am in complete agreement with the writer. If you cannot read the whole thing, try to at least read the last few paragraphs.

Quote:

Rape victim subject to a pharmacist's morals

The Star's view: A patient with a legal prescription should not have to worry that her doctor's orders will become subject to her druggist's conscience.

If one more group assumes moral responsibility for what is allowed in the United States, the nation may soon sink under the weight of its superfluous righteousness. A debate over the ethical implications posed by the morning after pill are a case in point.

A story in Sunday's Star illustrated the perils of allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill if they have moral or religious objections to doing so. The article described what happens when a pharmacist's personal beliefs create a barrier between a doctor and a patient in need of medicine.

The particular incident reported in the story was alarming - a rape victim goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for an emergency contraception drug, the so-called morning after pill, and the pharmacist refuses to fill it - but the broader implications of this case should send shock waves throughout society.

The medicine in question "prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg," according to Sunday's story. Religious conservatives and others opposed to abortion object to the use of the pill on grounds that it is essentially a nonsurgical abortion.

That a person has such objections and acts upon them is a personal choice. A pharmacist who objects to the morning after pill is certainly entitled to his or her opinion. But that person should not be making decisions for the rest of us.

Sunday's story noted that pharmacy chains have policies that, at least in theory, respect the pharmacists' personal principles while at the same time taking care of a customer's needs. The policies say that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense the morning after pill is obligated to find the consumer another pharmacist who will fill the prescription.

As the story in Sunday's Star illustrates, such a policy is bogus. When the rape victim called the pharmacy at Fry's, the pharmacist told her he'd fill her prescription if she got to the store before his shift ended, in 10 minutes. That was impossible because of where she lived, which left her in the position of having to wait until the pharmacist coming on duty, who would not dispense the pill, had finished his shift. Or she could find a different pharmacy.

Delays are important. Experts say the pill must be taken within three to five days after having unprotected sex, but the sooner it is taken after intercourse the more effective it is.

Finding another store that stocks the emergency contraceptive is not simple. A survey of 900 Arizona pharmacies last year found that that less than half of them stock the drug. A friend of the rape victim profiled on Sunday said she called nearly 50 pharmacies in Tucson before she located two that stocked the drug and were willing to dispense it.

Availability is clearly a major problem, but it's a problem compounded by pharmacists imposing their value judgments on women who may ultimately be in a life-or-death situation. It is not illegal for pharmacists to refuse to fill a valid prescription, but it should be.

Employers should require that pharmacists park their personal religious beliefs at the door when dealing with consumers. A woman with a legal prescription is not a criminal.

We do not suggest that a person abdicates moral responsibility when he or she goes to work for someone else. But if pharmacists are allowed to create a firewall between doctor and patient with respect to one drug, where will that end?

We may someday end up with pharmacists refusing to dispense antidepressants or blood pressure medicines because they believe prayer and meditation are solutions more compatible with their religious beliefs.

Pharmacies should fill prescriptions and leave the proselytizing to the person in the pulpit.

- S.N.

Link to original story

Capital idea! So now, not only do we take away the woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, we also regulate the frequency in which she may have sex. Excellent concept, i'm sure it will catch on quickly.

Momma you are dead wrong. Sorry.

Those who oppose the abolition of abortion are not pro-abortion! That's just being deliberately obtuse.

Do you realise you've just defined yourself as "pro-abortion" by your own rules because you think there are some justifiable cases?

I hate the thought of abortion too.

I just think it's up to the women (and partly the men) who get pregnant to decide such matters for themselves up to a point, (arbitrary though that point may be) without being told by me how they should behave or what they should believe.

Strangely enough Momma, I think that this is a very good example of where you are not as respectful of others beliefs as you think...and in this case, certainly less respectful than I am !

It goes back to what I was saying about people only really respecting those beliefs that agree with, or at least don't contradict, one's own beliefs.

To see abortion "banned, period" is to impose your beliefs by law !

To be consistent, are you advocating forcing all pharmacies to stock this abortifacient?

Since less than half of the pharmacies surveyed even keep the drug in stock, why should the idea of force and coercion only be applied to the employees and not to the business owners?

Are you going to insist that pharmacies all must carry this drug or lose their business license?

Mesquite,

So, if we force pharmacists/business owners to carry this drug should we also force them to carry objectionable reading material?

I thought we live in a country where people were allowed to live by the conscience as long as they abide by the law? If someone doesn't want to sell dirty magazines they shouldn't have to. If someone doesn't want to sell a certain drug in their drug store, they shouldn't have to.

I am so amazed at how there are so many that cannot see that society becomes more and more tolerant of things that are just plain wrong. And the more wrongs society makes right the quicker the downfall of humanity.

Quote:

Capital idea! So now, not only do we take away the woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, we also regulate the frequency in which she may have sex. Excellent concept, i'm sure it will catch on quickly.

If women have the right to kill these "non-humans", I think I should have the right to kill those that interfere with me too. How about my rights? If you tick me off, shouldn't I be able to just 'abort' you? Aren't we just animals anyways?

Typical liberal idiocy....blame the gun, not the person who fired it. Don't offend anyone, oh no! Don't go to the root of the problem (choosing to have sex)

easy way out.......

real life wrote:

To be consistent, are you advocating forcing all pharmacies to stock this abortifacient?

Since less than half of the pharmacies surveyed even keep the drug in stock, why should the idea of force and coercion only be applied to the employees and not to the business owners?

Are you going to insist that pharmacies all must carry this drug or lose their business license?

No I am not advocating forcing all pharmacies to stock this emergency contraceptive which is not an abortifacient. If you read the article, then you would have seen that many stores do not stock the drug because demand is low. All businesses must make business decisions about what products to stock due to any numbers of considerations.

What I am advocating is that once business makes a decision to carry a product, individual employees whether pharmacists or checkout clerks should not be making individual choices to block a sale.