Quote:
Quote:
Racial bigotry is based on percieved stereotypes and skin colour, which have nothing to do with whether a person is human -- regardless of anyone's convictions.


I'm sure some people will beg to differ with you on this point.


Of course, and I'm not oblivious to that fact -- I don't believe moral absolutism exists -- but society, as a whole, has at least progressed to that point.

Quote:
Quote:
The other boils down to when does "life" begin -- because it's pretty clear that wantonly taking life is wrong..........I don't know, but I think it's wrong --


Yeah, you see, there's this fundamental thing that everyone on this board has pretty much missed here.

No, you assume everyone on this board his missed it.

Quote:
Ya see, there's this funny thing about human life. IT JUST DOESN'T PROGRESS BEYOND THE BLASTCYST PHASE WITHOUT A UTERUS TO IMPLANT INTO. EVEN IF IT'S ONE OF THOSE IVF ZYGOTES COOKED UP IN A LAB. UTERUS, FREEZER, OR DEATH. NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. AND THERE'S THIS FUNNY THING ABOUT A WORKING UTERUS, IT ONLY COMES PACKAGED IN A FULL GROWN FEMALE HUMAN BEING. ONE ENTITLED TO FULL CONTROL OVER HER BODY.

Read what I've written very, very carefully, and you will note that I've never, ever argued against that.

Quote:
Now, ya see, you're making yet another mistake here.

No, you're making an assumption about my assumptions.

Quote:
You're assuming the anti-choice rapist behind the pharmacy counter will step aside and let the other pharmacist without an objection to contraception do the job

I didn't fall off the turnip truck, thanks. I'm making an assumption that an ethical pharmacist against [insert item here] would do that, yes, but I'm not making the assumption that all would -- had you actually read my posts carefully, you might have noticed that clarification.

I'm less than impressed that you accuse me of making assumptions, without seeking to clarify what might just have been an unclearly written comment.

Quote:
And if you do a little googling, you'll find many a story of prescriptions confiscated, berating the patron, and all manner of common anti-choicer terrorist tricks.

I don't consider that the behaviour of an ethical pharmacist who is against such things.

Quote:
Denying a woman contraception based on your belief [screed snipped]

Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just skim it, and fill in the blanks with what you think I meant, because part of what I wrote doesn't conform to your ideal?

Quote:
You don't want to do a job, step aside and let someone who's willing do it.

Exactly -- that's what I'm advocating. The only difference is, I'm not saying a pharmacist shouldn't have to out-and-out quit, if there is someone else available (and I'm not talking about "at the pharmacy on the other side of town", but "behind the same counter") that can fill the prescription.

All that stuff you mentioned above about customers getting harangued is just plain bad customer service. Any pharmacist that engages in that sort of behaviour should be fired -- not allowed to quit, fired -- regardless of whether it's over birth control, or acne medicine.

Quote:
Quote:
Interesting -- I've never had to deal with Plan B, so I admit to not knowing a thing about it.


I'll bet you've got no preference in brand of tampons either, and your underwear drawer has a lot less satin and lace than mine (unless you're kinky like that).

Not particularly, no.

Quote:
What we've got here is someone with no knowledge of the subject and no vested interest in it running off with an opinion. Might I ask what even makes you entitled to having one regarding something that is so not about you?

Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't realize that only women were necessary for reproduction, and were, therefore, the only ones able to educate themselves about the topic, and form an opinion.

Quote:
[snip]
  • Not my definition of pregnant.


Recognized.

Quote:
Quote:
personally, I don't care about your pussy, let alone what you do with it. Not having a pussy, I can't possibly have the same perspective you do.

Yet you've offered uninformed opinions on it, and expounded on what rights people who have beliefs differing from it's owner have to enforce those beliefs on women, and how they should be protected while doing it. And I bet you didn't even realize it, and don't see anything wrong with it.

No... I think you've been reading *way* more into what I was trying to say, than what I was saying (or, at least, thinking), which is simply that I think it is possible to ethically deal with moral issues like this in the workplace, without forcing a pharmacist (or rapist, if you prefer your needlessly inflammatory language) to quit.

Quote:
And I bet you didn't even realize it, and don't see anything wrong with it. Hell, everyone's got rights to operate within their morals, even if those morals come at the expense of something so personal and dear as the rights of another to control their own body. I mean, they're not real people, just baby factories.

Wow. That's just... so... far off from my perspective. Are you trolling me?

Quote:
If I recall correctly, you're a white christian male, aren't you? (And that's only half snark in that question)

White, yes (can't pick your parents), male, yes (I was going to say can't pick your gender, but I suppose in this day and age, you can). Christian? Raised as one, yes, but my view of Christianity (and religion in general) is that it offers some useful tenets for living a quality life, but that it's predominantly all metaphorical, and should be taken with a pretty hefty grain of salt (sized more like a salt lick, than what comes out of a salt-shaker). I'd probably describe myself as apathetically-agnostic (as in, at the present time, I don't know for sure, and nor do I really care), bordering on "something exists" (based on past experiences of either myself, or direct friends and family members). The only times I've been to church in the last several years are when I've been visiting my parents. I suppose you could say I "lost the faith" roughly mid-high school (at minimum, 15 years ago).

My personal views of birth control are that it's between (in no particular order) a) a woman and her doctor, b) a guy and his doctor, and c) partners (and if they can't agree on either use of (or not), or method of such, then they ought not to be having sex in the first place). That's it.

Oh, and I'm 100% pro-choice.

How does that fit in with your assumptions of me?

Cheers,