New Bush Legislation Uses Religion to Deny Federal Funding to Womens Clinics

It doesn't carry the same meaning when you decide to leave the first part out of it.

 

No, my opinion on this issue has always been based in my morals and the fact that I would prefer not to pay for abortions.

Don't worry GRIM. The welfare class will remain comfortable thanks to you and your ilk.

No one cares if you find a pro-life pharmacy repugnant. It is the perfect case in point. A pharmacy that does not want to participate in the abortion process. But you want to take away their freedom of choice.

Now you decide to go back to the original post after arguing post after post that "the fact that his/her only job is to dispense the medication, not knowing why it's prescribed"

Why are you minimizing your argument here? I guess now it's OK if they don't have the drugs on hand?

And now you, for the first time in this thread, decide to use the term "fetus". That's the easiest way to justify your baby killing position.

Of course it does. It's the same as when I said "You have stated that we don't get to choose what we spend out taxes on. I know that is true, but I still don't like it. I mentioned that earlier when I said something about this being a worthless discussion anyway. I didn't ever mean to argue that point with you."

Sometimes I think that you just argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Your arguments state something much different.

I disagree, they will 'remain comfortable' as you put it if you can call what they are now being 'comfortable' thanks to that of people like you who show their hate and disdain for those less fortunate than themselves.

I am by no means a liberal welfare supporting person, I however can and do know that some people do need help. People who are disabled, people who had something happen such as their spouse die and are trying to make it back onto their feet. Those are the people I will support, I will not be like you and try to act morally superior and lump all 'poor' people into one hateful group as you have done.

People like you will feed the public will to give even those who do not need help assistance from the government, your public display of hate is all they need to turn the public onto their side.

A 'pro life' pharmacy is NOT simply taking a stance against abortion, yet here you are again with your head stuck firmly up your ass and changing the entire meaning. Look at your own story, they do not sell birth control which has NOTHING to do with 'abortion' and can in fact have much more to do with other health related issues. The treatment of health issues is also not a 'freedom of choice' to put their beliefs onto others. They dispense medications prescribed by doctors, they are also given a license to dispense those medications by the state and or federal government. To try to equate a pharmacy to normal business is simply illogical, as is your brain dead stamping about 'not wanting to participate in abortion'

I love how you bypass point after point and try to twist and dodge, all the while trying to claim the moral authority when your posts are anything but.

I am not going back to anything, the original point of this thread 'do I need to give you the definition of thread' IS federal government funding. I said it 'might' not that it does, this is something totally different than the threads intent! I also do not state it does make a difference, I have gone onto explain why the job of the pharmacy is to dispense the medications of the prescribing doctor, no amount of twisting by you is going to change that.

Are you actually serious? Have you been taking some narcotics dispensed by the pharmacy?

You are trying to change and twist the topic at hand into something it is not.

The only reason it 'might' change things is based on the law of the state, while being against it, it 'might' change things if they state from the beginning they do not stock an item. Of course it's different if they do not stock an item, compared to that of a pharmacy who stocks an item but decides against dispensing it. Are you seriously this dumb?

All the while I am not stating it makes it alright I said it 'might' change things, you do know the definition of 'might' do you not?

Really? I suggest you reread the thread as I have used the term fetus before.

I unlike you do not bounce around, lie and twist.. 'but but but they are only against abortion, 'even though they do not dispense birth control' and so many others.

----

Just a few times I used 'fetus' in this thread, even though according to the almighty moral one I have not used it before.

I'm glad you were able to tell us what I have not used in this thread...

 

No I argue when people state items that are totally untrue.

Just a few paraphrased.

We pay for 'all' abortions via taxes.
Woman are to blame and should keep their legs crossed.
The poor should not be rewarded for being irresponsible.
A pharmacy not dispensing birth control is simply not wanting to be forced into participating in abortion.
A doctor should not be forced into carrying out an abortion 'never was anyone saying they should be'

and the list goes on....

 

GRIM,

You are a real piece of work. I have two points and you don't agree with either so why are you here?

1) I don't want my tax dollars to pay for anyone's abortion except in cases of violence or a crime because I don't believe it's right.

2) If a pharmacist owns a pharmacy and doesn't want to seel abortion drugs, leave him alone and do business somewhere else.

You know, I used advanced search on "GRIM" and "fetus" and it only returned one post. I stand corrected.

All your other crap is smoke.

We pay for 'all' abortions via taxes. An exageration.
Woman are to blame and should keep their legs crossed. Well, the woman has the final say. No one else will say No for her.
The poor should not be rewarded for being irresponsible. True.
A pharmacy not dispensing birth control is simply not wanting to be forced into participating in abortion. Nope never said that. Birth control would avoid the need for an abortion. You are the twist master!
A doctor should not be forced into carrying out an abortion 'never was anyone saying they should be' ??? Not sure what that's about.

Nope, you just hang around to argue, take any point made and rip it to shreds without offering any opinions of your own. Take every point to the extreme. "What about the handicapped and the mentally deficient?" Those aren't the poor that I am talking about and you know it.

"What about the man, isn't he at fault?"
"What about rape victims?"
"Pharmacists should be required by law to participate in abortions whether they like it or not because it's their responsibility under the law to hand out whatever the doctor prescribes."

And now I'm filled with hate! Incredible!!

This is perfect. Not sure why you think it means something different from what I posted.

Yada, yada, yada...

I'm pretty sure that we have taken this about as far as we possibly can. I quit. You win.

You are right. We should just open Abortions R Us next to every 7-11 and fund it with tax dollars. Arrest those a$$holes that won't sell the abortion pill and throw them in jail. That would show them what their freedom of religion is worth. No sense trying to have any opinion about abortion unless it's the one you have blessed. Live off welfare? Great! Here's some more money that you are entitled to. Why? I'm not sure. Ask GRIM.

 

Yeah I'm the piece of work, yet you're the one going on and on ranting about those damn woman crossing their legs, and those damn irresponsible poor.

Yet you also do not want to pay for the much more expensive child that will be born without the abortion.

Health related business, a business that requires state and usually federal licenses takes the pharmacy totally out of the normal business aspect of things.

Sure you did.

You know what they say, where there is smoke there is fire.

No it isn't, it's a LIE

Ahh and the man couldn't of said no, or used protection himself. Your true colors showing yet again.

You said much more than this, you went on to state which was clear to anyone a hate filled rant against the poor. Another showing of your true colors.

Are you serious? The story you linked to about 'pro life' pharmacy clearly states no birth control being sold, not even condoms. I am twisting nothing, sorry if your own lame arguments work against you. Birth control pills are not abortion pills, even the morning after pill can be used as birth control which does not equate to a pharmacist being forced into participating in abortion.

Hell a pharmacist could be participating with giving pain pills, should he/she also stop dispensing pain pills that are prescribed as they could be prescribed for pain after an abortion?

Looks pretty easy to me what it means. You continued to act like doctors themselves are forced or would be forced into actually performing an abortion which is not the case.

No I attack your points to shreds as they are so awful and incorrect it is easy to do and necessary. But by all means I should let blatant lies and 1/2 truths stand, are you serious?

You stated poor, you did not differentiate from which poor, you made a statement that was nothing more than arrogant, hate filled ignorance and left it at that.

Lies much? When did I state pharmacists should be expected to participate in abortions? Kind of hard when I don't see them participating in abortions in the first place.

One would think a person given a license to dispense medications would have to follow the law, guess I was wrong.

You are, and if you don't' see that you need some serious help.

Again are you serious? You posted it without the top half, you have posted much, much different than what that poster has stated in your own statements. They are night and day..

He has beliefs but understand his beliefs do not trump the law, you on the other hand attack everything and anything, including woman, the poor and more in order to force your beliefs onto others, including backing up pharmacists possibly breaking the law in order to do so.

They are not even close.

I don't care about winning, I care about stopping someone from posting hate filled crap that is filled with nothing more than lies.

Talk out of your ass much?

Just because I tear apart your HORRIBLE and DISTASTEFUL arguments does not mean I stand for what you claim. Even if I was pro life I would not stand for the hate filled, lie filled crap you have posted.

 

I care, and I agree with GRIM 100%.

 

Hey! I have an idea.

Everyone gets reversible surgery at birth, which makes them all sterile. Then, when a person is deemed acceptable by the government to procreate, they get to have one child - sanctioned by the government!

Doesn't that sound just spiffy!? I mean, that way no one has to worry about poor people not being able to afford an abortion that costs 120 dollars, and then raising a child on welfare which costs a few thousand dollars! Reproductive rights be damned!

...

 

Why would you require a business to carry products that are against their beliefs? It's their freedom of choice and their freedom of religion that we are talking about here. Do you really think that we should take those freedoms away because the customer wants to shop at that store?

I wish I could offer only nice warm sentiments, but we are talking about killing babies here. Call it a fetus if you like, but when our life is over and we have to explain ourselves to God, I think calling it a fetus will be a losing argument.

Sorry if I have offended you and thanks for contributing to the conversation. I have no idea how do deal with what a woman percieves. What do you think is the answer here? I would hope that the guy whould be responsible enough to be a part of this process. I see no reason that I should be held responsible via my tax dollars. I have no interest in supporting abortion but the govt has taken away my right to choose. Why can't people just be responsible for their own actions?

I'll have to pay whatever the govt decides I'll have to pay for her to get another abortion if or when that happens, but I see no reason to feel good about it.

 

In certain professions, yes. In a city like New York or Los Angeles, I would not be as concerned as the customer has many other options. In some small towns there may only be one pharmacy for hundreds of miles, and in those cases, I do not think think the pharmacist has a right to decide what medicines he will dispense based on his beliefs and ignore what the patients doctor prescribed. That person is not entitled to government license to run a pharmacy. There is nothing forcing them into a business like that.

In Minnesota, there were some Muslims cab drivers at the airport who refused to take passengers with dogs or who had alcohol in their possession - for religious reasons. Much like this issue, they were forced to carry those passengers or lose their right to drive a cab at the airport. There is a time and place to express your beliefs and in some jobs you simply can't. Don't take of those jobs if you don't like it.

 

We disagree.

Let's see what the courts have to say.

Take care.

 

Curious to see if those who back pharmacists so called rights also support the following case. Not only did this pharmacist refuse to dispense birth control based on his beliefs, he also refused to transfer the prescription to a different pharmacy.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html

 

You are correct again jkjazz. I am amazed at the level you presented the correct side of the abortion issue. It is murder. A pharmacy does have a right to choose what drugs to stock. Tax dollars should not be used to commit abortions.

1) I don't want my tax dollars to pay for anyone's abortion except in cases of violence or a crime because I don't believe it's right.

2) If a pharmacist owns a pharmacy and doesn't want to seel abortion drugs, leave him alone and do business somewhere else.

3) I wish I could offer only nice warm sentiments, but we are talking about killing babies here. Call it a fetus if you like, but when our life is over and we have to explain ourselves to God, I think calling it a fetus will be a losing argument.


4) Why can't people just be responsible for their own actions?

 

Hi Sarah,

Hmmm... I didn't mean to "call you up" at all. Some people like to avoid the killing babies issue by using a more sterile label.

I think I agree with every point you make. It's easy to call the unborn baby an "it" or a "fetus", as in "Let's kill it." or "We can abort the fetus.", but when you realize it's your kid that you are killing, opinions change. Don't call it a baby and it's so much easier to "deal with".

About, IUDs and the pill. It sounds as if you want to treat an egg and a sperm like a baby. I'm not prepared to do that. Once they have joined then the miracle begins, but before that, it's not a baby yet. JUST MY OPINION, FWIW!

I see no reason that my tax dollars need to pay for either though.

I think that when I say "Have your abortion, but pay for it yourself.", it may have sound as if I approved of abortion. I do not, but there is very little that I can do to change it. To make matters worse, the govt. takes my taxes and I end up paying for abortions that I don't believe are right. People like to make the argument that if the federal govt. doesn't fund abortion clinics, that it will interfere with their freedom of choice. I can't agree with that at all. Hence, "Have your abortion, but pay for it yourself."

I understand how a baby can change your life, and that not all women are ready to make that adjustment. Adoption is a an excellent choice. There are so many couples that would love to have a baby but can't.

I tried very hard to be clear and I hope that I haven't ruffled your feathers again.

[EDIT]BTW, how and why did you edit my revious post?[/EDIT]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_device

some people really need to do research before discussing a topic.

I guess the IUD is out of the window as well, as is most other forms of birth control. 'but but but you could have prevented the pregnancy, but but but but it's forcing a pharmacist to help with an abortion, but but but I don't want to spend my taxes on it, but but but it'll cost more for the child in taxes than the abortion, but but but I have no problem with birth control, but but but I'm going to use an example of a pro life pharmacy who wont even dispense condoms for my side.

If some peoples arguments made sense or had even an inkling of reality to them I might actually be able to support them, when they are based on falsehoods however I can not support them.

---
I guess none of the pro lifers who are all for pharmacists doing as they please will even bother to respond to the following.

 

What I am having a hard time understanding is why stand up for a "pro-life" pharmacist who won't even stock condoms when you don't want to be using your tax dollars on abortion???

Wouldn't stocking condoms prevent more abortions????

I'm not here to really argue the point about whether abortion is right or wrong, but I am here to agrue about why we shouldn't lump birth control (of any kind: IUD, condoms, pills) in with abortion. They have actual medical uses for one, and if people are so against abortion, then they need to allow people reasonable access to birth control. It's not going to work both ways.

It's totally unrealistic to deny people birth control and expect them to completely refrain from sex so they won't need abortions at all. And I still think you are missing the point that a lot of these drugs have actual medical uses besides birth control. The pharmacist HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHY BIRTH CONTROL WAS PRESCRIBED!! If your morals are going to interfere with actually providing medical treatment to someone else then pick a different profession! I don't want to die because some a**hole pharmacist thinks his morals are more important than my life!

 

Cancer is God's punishment. Therefore we should not treat it. The same with AIDS, Autism, and Diabetes. Let them all die for being sinners unto God!

...

And yes, I have heard this before. Wouldn't you just LOVE that pharmacist? He stocks nothing but bibles, and prayer is the treatment to everything. Even gunshot wounds to the head. Medicine and forks be damned.

 

I think if I want to buy cigarettes or liquor or condoms or even comic books in a pharmacy, the business owner should not be required by law to carry them, That's all. Of course, comic books are not the same as condoms. Again, I am all for condoms. I just don't think that any business should be required to carry them, that's all. The pharmacy is not denying access to birth control. You can buy that across the street at the 7-11. The majority of pharmacies are going to carry the pill anyway, so why not just be flexible and give the business owner his freedom of choice? My pharmacy downstairs does not stock Chantix. That's OK, I just went down the street.

If there is only one pharmacy town, I'll bet the doctor will stock what you need.

A little extreme don't you think? I don't believe that the only drug that would save your life could also be use for abortions.

Just because you want the pharmicist to stock something that he doesn't want to, doesn't make him an a$$hole.