Continuing comments on the Third Wave Agenda Blog in regard to my blogging about the rights to choose for pharmacists!
The comment about what a pharmacist’s job entails was originally made to me by a good friend who is a pharmacist. Pharmacists are not “health care providers”. They are pill dispensers. They do not make choices about other people’s health care. They do what the real health care providers tell them to do, or should, if they are doing their job properly. They are very much like the guy who pushes your burger and fries through the drive-thru window, AAMOF, and this is a highly paid pharmacist who is telling me this.
I’m wondering who elected your friend as the spokesperson for professional pharmacists everywhere!! This type of argumentation is highly anecdotal and considering the information out there available about the pharmacy profession there seems to be an overall sense of pride in the profession. Perhaps your friend should seek employment that he would find more fulfilling? Just a thought.
You are very confused as to what choice entails.
Actually I think I’m pretty clear on it, especially when it comes to moral issues.
No one has a right to have everything their way all the time.
However still in this country, we have the right to make decisions and choices based on our consciences, our moral values and our religious beliefs. In that sense, yea, you have the right to make that type of decision every time.
A person believes (through choice, or exercising his or her free will) that he or she cannot possibly ever be party to supplying contraceptive therapies or abortions to women. They choose this. They believe this. Knowing this, they then go into a field that will most likely require them to do that very thing…now, just exactly how is this person being denied their choice when they have foolishly chosen to pursue a career that requires them to act against their beliefs?
Well for starters, they can work for employers who share the same pro-life philosophy, or a state that protects their rights. They can be self-employed. They can also join with groups such as Pharmacists for Life and work to protect their rights. What you are suggesting is anti-choice i.e. pharmacists must only be pro-abortion. That is wrong.
Pharmacists are paid by pharmacies to fill prescriptions. If they can’t do this, then they can’t complain if their employer fires them for not doing what they were paid to do. If an employer is willing to hire a pharmacist who can only fill out certain prescriptions but not others, then the pharmacist should make this publicly known to the physicians in his or her community so that physicians prescribing those therapies can alert their patients to go elsewhere.
I don’t disagree with that. In fact I think John B in my comment section had a good point. People will support pro-life physicians and pro-life pharmacists! My own private physician I started seeing because she will not prescribe contraceptives, she teaches NFP, and she supports large families. Her waiting room is always full!!
Definitely I agree with you – they should advertise!!
Christ gave us free will, yes, so that choosing Christ was exactly that – a choice. That means He’s well aware of the other choices, yet He never lifted a finger to remove them. It all boils down to the same thing – Christ never once acted to prevent or remove a choice.
You are totally avoiding my point in my last post on the topic. Christ NEVER REQUIRED ANYONE TO COMMIT A SIN EITHER!! Even Judas had free will. If you revisit this again, you will need to address that issue.
You’re saying it’s okay for the pharmacist to now remove the woman’s choice from her – a choice she has a legal right to make, BTW.
And you would like to remove the pharmacist’s choice – which he too has a legal right to make. The truth about the “liberal agenda” is that someone always has to give up a freedom – it’s just a question of who.
We can all throw around terms like pro-abortion and pro-fetus and pro-choice and pro-life and pro-whatever and anti-whatever, but the real issue, if you’re truly pro-LIFE, is maintaining everyone’s humanity and dignity as children of God, and that includes the abortionists, the women who abort, the people who support that choice, and those that oppose it.
Not aiding and abetting someone in an immoral choice IS the ultimate of respect for human dignity.
It is the pro-lifers who insist on placing the life of the unborn above the lives of women in desperate situations who have ensured that legal abortion will always exist in this country, not the pro-choicers.
Actually in Catholic theology, both lives are equal. As for abortion always existing? That remains to be seen doesn’t it.
It would be lovely if it were just a case of defending the poor little innocent embryos, Elena, but it’s not always that simple. Sometimes there are other lives at stake, too, and in the case of a woman who has been raped, her life may depend on her not carrying that child to term. The most horrific thing is that is a decision she ultimately has to make alone.
A couple of points here. These medications, and abortion procedures themselves are not without their own potential health risks and consequences that can be also be physically and emotionally traumatic. If a woman in this situation has only to go to her nearest Catholic Church or Catholic Hospital for support, care and guidance.
I will not stand here and call myself pro-life and then force her into a situation that would destroy her life.None of us can say how God sees this choice in each case. None of us.
Rubbish. God is the author and creator of life. You might want to read these testimonies.
http://www.righttoliferoch.org/nforgotten.htm
http://site.voila.fr/rayon_de_soleil/website/pregnant.html#Katheryn%20Madison
http://abortionismurder.org/content/rapeincestcontent.htm
The important thing is that she makes the choice, and not someone else. This pharmacist tried to make the choice for her – and out of no great concern for her,
The pharmacist made the choice for himself. Nothing was to prevent this woman from going elsewhere.
BTW, but rather selfishly for his own sake. I could choke on the arrogance.
What is choking your argument are the continued ad hominems.
Now, you can argue this anywhere you like, but there’s really not much point. Since you’re so big on proper lables, you’ve proven yourself to be pro-fetus above all else, and I am not.
I’m a mother. I support the right of babies to live. I am also a daughter and I support the right of the elderly to die in God’s good timing. This is true womanhood.
I honestly believe other people’s lives have just as much value as the lives of the unborn, and I understand that sometimes hard choices get made and that someone loses. I’m not here to force a choice one way or another in these kinds of extreme situations – I can only be here to love. Spare me the admonishment line, too. I’ve yet to meet a Christian who spouted off on his or her duty to admonish who took admonishment very well themselves, or who spent as much time humbly serving as they did arrogantly admonishing.
Again anecdotal – much like your friend the pharmacist. As much as you may dislike it, Christians are not called to turn a blind eye to the slaughter of the innocents. I will also remind you that since you mentioned Christianity and Jesus in your post than it was right and proper for me to point out that admonishment is part of being a Christian too.
Overall I’d say your discussion too could be improved if you would drop the ad hominems, and address the points raised by your debate partner.