Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Trolling4Dollars's Journal: What's unfair is unfair 15

Journal by Trolling4Dollars
I think the time has come for reasonable, rational people who support a woman's choice to procreate (both birth control and termination) to deny loon-a-whack doctors and pharmacists with an anti-abortion stance access to our business on the grounds that we don't believe in withholding personal choice. *credit goes to wheany for first posting this story in his Journal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's unfair is unfair More

What's unfair is unfair

Comments Filter:
  • The first studies done on using the pill as an abortifacent were done in 1968. In 1975, the Pope (Paul VI) even mentioned it in his document forbidding Catholics to use this form of birth control. What the heck took these doctors 30 years to jump on this bandwagon?

    As for T4D's suggestion, I'm all for it. By all means, if you're a woman and you believe in reproductive liberty beyond having the right to say no to sex altogether (which even Catholics support), then by all means stay away from Catholic doct
    • I think it's just a political bargaining chip for the religious right. Since they've been known to support the republicans, someone may be hoping to garner support for Bush if he steps out in favor of protecting those doctors and pharmacists at the federal level.
      • I think it's just a political bargaining chip for the religious right. Since they've been known to support the republicans, someone may be hoping to garner support for Bush if he steps out in favor of protecting those doctors and pharmacists at the federal level.

        Very likely. It's very wierd to me how the pro-life Democrats have been effectively silenced on the national stage, while Republicans paying lip service (and not much else) to this issue have effectively used it to grab the attention of lower cla
  • My response to this kind of braindead non-reasoning:

    From the article:

    A growing number of doctors and pharmacists are now refusing to dispense it[the pill], on the grounds that it is actually a form of abortion.

    If you aren't trying to have a child at every possible moment, you are depriving a possible child the right to live! So does this mean we should feel free to have sex in public because of this? Also should women feel that they are killing babies if they aren't pregnant all the time? If so I would l

  • If you're against birth control, then don't fucking use it. If you're against abortion, then don't fucking have one. Or don't have sex with someone who is likely to fucking get one. Otherwise, fuck off and leave the rest of us alone, and with the rights we deserve as normal, healthy, sexual people. Yes, sex is for fun. GET THE FUCK OVER IT!

  • Oh man (Score:2)

    by nizo ( 81281 )
    I just finished that article, and it has me seriously pissed. They want to pass a law that pharmacists can refuse to fill my perscription on the basis of moral grounds???

    This year 12 states took steps to try to introduce so-called conscience clauses. They allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs, including the Pill, on moral grounds, without losing their jobs.

    This has got to be the biggest pile of steaming crap I have ever seen. The pill is a legal drug, and if a pharmacist WON'T fill my legal perscr

    • When Angie was at Georgetown Hospital, the fuckers wouldn't give her birth control. As if things weren't fucked up enough, we had to run all over creation to get her damned medicine.

    • If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, or the pharmacy or hospital in some capacity has made a decision not to sell birth control, what right does anyone have to force them?

      The government shouldn't be allowed to tell private business what they must sell.
  • By the same logic, Chemists should refuse to dispense Viagra.
    • Or perhaps insulin, since some people believe that medical intervention of any kind is wrong (but I kind of doubt anyone with those beliefs would try to become a pharmacist). An interesting tidbit I found just now:

      However, the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not sanction harming another person in the practice of one's religion, and they do not allow religion to be a legal defense when one harms another.

      It wouldn't be hard to argue that not filling my perscription is harming me. There i

    • By the same logic, grocers should refuse to sell food to politicians, as they already spout enough crap.

      And gas, because they already produce way too much greenhouse gases.

      And medicine, because it doesn't do good to encourage parasites

      And banking services, because it's wrong to help finance stupidity.

      And while we're at it, how about compulsory sterilization, because it (being a politician) seems to be hereditary.

  • Well, there, I said it, I'm against abortion, but I am pro-choice... meaning: i personally think that abortion (as in "real" abortion, not day-after pills) is very damaging to the woman's psyche, and therefore should be avoided is possible. there are many better ways of getting rid of a child you cannot support. Adoption?
    That said, it's my personal stance on the subject, but i would NEVER have the government impose it by law. These kinds of things are way too personal and belief-related to be regulated by l

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Close