« OurTruths.org | Main | cultural differences »

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Comments

shomsdoxthish

Hello users from abortionclinicdays.blogs.com !!! Help to me pls!
you use any codecs? I put KazaLite- but all the same many films. Even [url=http://paparazzidog.com/search.php?q=Britney+Spears&aff=278&saff=0]here[/url] many good clips but I can look not all. Some I can, and some I can not.
Write to me, can eat better?
I use [url=http://nero-dvd-video-plug-in-download.mp34you.org]Nero PlugIn[/url] for burn CD-s. Only legal!

cw

Erin,

Interesting. Let me begin by apologizing to Ms. Jared for veering off into something unrelated to the main topic. She admonished me for that (it would seem only fair that she might admonish others for the same, but I digress).

> I am not, nor is anyone else, required to
> discuss the reasons behind the prescription of
> ANY medication with my pharmacists.
True. I would suggest, however, that you review the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Please note: The First Amendment actually exists. Unlike the alleged "Constitutional right" to slaughter an innocent child in the womb.) In particular, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free practice therof" (regarding religion). Being an accomplice to a mortal sin is a mortal sin. Providing someone with artificial contraception or abortifacients or drugs that will assist in sex reassignment therapy is being an accomplice. The patient clearly does not need to discuss their circumstances with the pharmacist. And likewise, the pharmacist should not be FORCED by the government to commit a mortal sin in such a situation.

The First Amendment also states that Congress shall not establish a religion. By forcing pharmacists to become vending machines (whether you feel this is the case or not, it is clearly the case in this regard), the government IS in fact establishing a religion: worship of the state. In such a situation, it is the STATE that is the ultimate decision maker of people's actions. It is the STATE that is deciding whether a human being has any value (by forcing pharmacists to dispense abortifacients). It is the STATE that has a Constitution with a First Amendment that means something to some people but something else to others based on their profession. Ultimately, it is then the state which dictates who has the right to life and who does not. All persons have an inalienable right to life given by God, NOT the state.


> to work for a Catholic organization or hospital,
That's meaningless these days. In the last few years, at least one Catholic organization recently lost a case in court and was required to provide insurance coverage of artificial contraception. If it happened once, it will happen again.

> or for another organization that opts to provide such escape clauses
> for their pharmacists,
> .....
> Drugstores/pharmacies/etc. are not obligated to continue the
> employment of any employee who chooses not to fulfill job
> requirements,
You know, this is quite interesting. In my discussion with Sarah, she too was focused on what the employer does. While I do not feel it is right for an employer to force its employees to violate their consciences (especially employers that claim not to discriminate based on religion), my focus really is not about that issue. I thought I made that clear in my messages to Sarah. My focus is on cases where the government is forcing this on pharmacists. In other words, whatever policies the employer has to allow CHOICE for pharmacists are meaningless: the GOVERNMENT is being anti-choice to pharmacists. (Of course, nothing new there. The government is anti-choice to babies by allowing their lives to be destroyed before they have the opportunity to make even ONE choice.)

> Second, as regards the idea of pharmacist "choice": the choice
> available is
In my opinion, you are imposing your view on pharmacists by defining what choice is for them. I believe that discrimination should not be made against pharmacists who want to obey their consciences.

> directly violates the professional code of ethics of the Amercian
> Pharmacists Association
The edicts of an organization of human beings are not a valid reason to mortally sin by being an accomplice to a mortal sin.

> and I have nothing but respect for them and for their educations.
That line kind of sounds familiar. During one of the Presidential debates, a woman asked John Kerry if he was going to use (she said "use"; I say "waste") taxpayer money on abortions. In my opinion, he gave a rather condescending remark akin to a pat on the head saying he respected her belief. Not to at all suggest you are intentionally being condescending, but that line made me very quickly remember Kerry's line.

> to provide them a function (denial of services) that they would have
> in no other circumstances
In other circumstances, they may not have the opportunity to be an accomplice to a mortal sin.

> nor does it extend to allowing their personal opinions
God's Holy Laws (the Ten Commandments) are divine truth; they are not a "personal opinion." Society has been permeated by moral relativism so much that every notion of right and wrong is merely a "personal opinion" these days. Or, rather, right and wrong are simply dictated by the state. Quite a number of objectively wrong activities are allowed by the state. That does not make them objectively right.

> veers further into the realm of authoritarian control
> ...
> or any person interested in democracy
If the government tells a pharmacist, as they now do in Illinois, that he or she must violate their conscience and in effect be an accomplice to someone else's mortal sin or give up their livelihood (forget whether or not an employer allows CHOICE for pharmacists) is not democracy. It is purely authoritarian.

In a country which so often claims to be against discrimination, it seems many accept discrimination against anyone who obeys the Fifth and Sixth Commandments.

May the peace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, be with you, through the intercession of His and our most Blessed Mother, the Immaculate and Ever Virgin Mary.

Trope

Brava, Erin. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Erin

cw,

I find myself moved to respond to your claims about the role of pharmacists in the making of medical decisions. I am not, nor is anyone else, required to discuss the reasons behind the prescription of ANY medication with my pharmacists. These decisions are, rightfully, between a patient and the prescribing physician, and are subject to the most intense confidentiality regulations available within the law. Are you suggesting that I have an obligation to defend or explain to a party outside of the patient-doctor relationship the reasons for a given medication? Would this also hold true for other dual-use medications, ones that are not only prescribed to women? For example, I could be taking bupropion to quit smoking, or I could be taking it because I am suicidal. Is this something that I need to have a talk with the pharmacist at my grocery store about before I can get the pills? If I am taking hormones prior to sex-reassignment surgery, must I explain this to the pharmacy tech who takes my prescription before it can be filled, to use a somewhat more "morally"-charged example?

Second, as regards the idea of pharmacist "choice": the choice available is to work for a Catholic organization or hospital, or for another organization that opts to provide such escape clauses for their pharmacists, or to find another line of work. Drugstores/pharmacies/etc. are not obligated to continue the employment of any employee who chooses not to fulfill job requirements, and employees are always free to find other employment. This is what "at-will" employment means.

Additionally, the decision NOT to respect the doctor-patient relationship directly violates the professional code of ethics of the Amercian Pharmacists Association (link in the URL box), which states that "[a] pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient: A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth...In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients."

I am certainly not trying to characterize any pharmacist as a "vending machine". I come in close contact with pharmacists and students in my line of work and I have nothing but respect for them and for their educations. As someone who takes multiple medications (including prescription birth control), I believe that the pharmacists who serve me have a better understanding of drug interactions and of my overall prescriptive needs better than anyone EXCEPT for me and my doctor. The respect that I have for them as professionals does not extend to a willingness to provide them a function (denial of services) that they would have in no other circumstances, nor does it extend to allowing their personal opinions to have an impact on my medical treatment or provide them information about that treatment simply to, in some way, have them verify that my pills are being used for what they consider to be ideologically-correct reasons. Pharmacists never have, and should not have, veto power over a prescribing doctor. My medical history is not open for the judgement of anyone, and suggesting that I have an obligation to make it so veers further into the realm of authoritarian control than I, or any person interested in democracy, can feel comfortable with.

cw

Oh and Ms. Jared, let's remember that even Jesse Jackson (NOT exactly a conservative) went down to Florida to speak against the court-ordered dehydration of Terri Schiavo. Are you prepared to call Jesse Jackson "selfish" or say he "co-opted" this?

cw

Whether or not Norma McCorvey had an abortion is immaterial. Her participation in the case originally paved the way for 45+ million innocent children being legally slaughtered. She is doing what she can in this life to perform penance for her participation. The sneers, rudeness, and lack of human respect thrown her way by self-described "compassionate" people who believe in legalized slaughter of babies in the womb is a part of the penance. Those who do this are assisting in the purification of her soul. It may be trivial, but every little bit helps.

Likewise, all human beings are sinners. The rudeness, humiliation and lack of human respect heaped upon pro-lifers is a trivial but helpful way to purify our souls.

> i'm not going to argue with you over the
> matter or over terri schaivo or anything else.
But you wanted to talk about the thirteen year old girl in FL. I complied. You have responded to but one of my many questions. And I find it fascinating that this most recent response of yours says less about the thirteen year old and more about other subjects. You complained I was talking about other issues. I gave you TWO posts about the issue you wanted to discuss. You could not even give me ONE post devoted completely to that issue.

> but the anti-choice crowd co-opted it for
> their own SELFISH purposes.
I see. So in your view, it is UNselfish to dehydrate a woman slowly over nearly fourteen days but it is SELFISH to speak out against such a an evil act? Do you not realize that there are many people who have written letters to the editor of newspapers saying that vulnerable people cost too much to keep alive? The Terri Schiavo case is the Roe v. Wade of euthanasia. However, in this case, it is not a defenseless human baby that is slaughtered. It is a defenseless, vulnerable human being who was allowed to be born.

Pro-life people would have had no idea about this case had TERRI'S relatives not announced it. Do family members not matter when it comes to saving a person's life? Why do advocates of legalized abortion not want the husband involved in the decision (if he objects to an abortion) but have no problem when the husband has relations with another woman then suddenly "remembers" that his wife ALLEGEDLY said something that allows him to have her dehydrated? Did you happen to notice the quote I mentioned from the CNN? Here it is:

"M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want... "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html


> and for what it's worth, all of your preaching and bible thumping do
> nothing to persuade those of us who are not twice born to support
> your views or see your perspective as anything more than the
> ramblings of a brainwashed sheep.
>
> i've heard/read all of your talking points countless times as i said
> before, and it's very very tired.

But you can no longer claim to be ignorant of anything that was sad. A mortal sin requires three parts: Knowledge the act is gravely wrong, the act itself, and full consent of the will. If you any two but not all three, it's not a mortal sin. If you have all three, it is.

> if you're against abortion, don't have one.
It's not that simple. An innocent human life is being destroyed in an abortion. I will continue to peacefully speak out in various ways to defend the most innocent and most vulnerable in our society.

May the peace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, be with you, through the intercession of His and our most Blessed Mother, the Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Mary. Our Lady of Guadeloupe, pray for us. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. Our Lady of Grace, pray for us. Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us. Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pray for us. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us. St. Gianna Molla, pray for us. Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, pray for us. Pope John Paul the Great, pray for us.

ms. jared

cw, norma mccorvey never HAD an abortion to regret in the first place. she just turned into a jesus freak and used her position as "jane roe" to further an anti-choice crusade when she became one of the twice born.

i'm not going to argue with you over the matter or over terri schaivo or anything else. the schaivo case wass a personal matter that should have been dealt with in private, by the family, but the anti-choice crowd co-opted it for their own SELFISH purposes. you and i are clearly not going to see eye to eye on the matter.

and for what it's worth, all of your preaching and bible thumping do nothing to persuade those of us who are not twice born to support your views or see your perspective as anything more than the ramblings of a brainwashed sheep.

i've heard/read all of your talking points countless times as i said before, and it's very very tired.

if you're against abortion, don't have one. and please keep your nose out of my uterus.

xoxo, jared

cw

Hello Soren! Now you know, this has nothing to do with the girl in thirteen who wanted to abort her child. Ms. Jared might not be too happy. At her request, I tried to stick to the topic at hand. But it was your CHOICE to do otherwise. And if one is truly pro-"choice" they should not have a problem with that.

Ah, Soren, where to start. Were you watching one of Michael Schiavo's brothers on Hannity and Colmes last night? Yes, that brother made a claim about the Schindler family. Michael Schiavo's siblings also claimed Terri told them her alleged "wishes." Strangely enough, I don't recall hearing about her allegedly saying anything to anyone other than MICHAEL and HIS relatives. If she told his side of the family, then she likely would have told HER side of the family. Frankly, I need a better source than a brother of Michael Schiavo in regards to anything the Schindlers allegedly did. But regardless, if they did do as he claimed, it was wrong to do. Even if they suggested it, Michael made a free will choice to actually do it. It is a misdemeanor in FL. Strange, but judges who "rule on the law" missed that. It is a misdemeanor in FL and a mortal sin under God's Law.

Someone who is Catholic suggesting an action contrary to God's Law does not make it acceptable to violate God's Law. It is no more acceptable than when a pro-abort "Catholic" claims it's okay to slaughter a child in the womb.

> by all doctors WHO ACTUALLY ATTENDED TO HER
Actually, there is at least one doctor who saw her who says otherwise. Let's also remember that Kevorkian was a doctor too. He's now sitting in prison, where he belongs. Furthermore, there were nurses who gave a very different story about Terri. If she had "no brain function," the nurses' claims could not be true. As such, the nurses therefore committed perjury. Any judge who "goes by the law" should have charged them with perjury. Perjury is a serious offense and should never be tolerated. Why has the judge failed to do so?

If Terri really had "no brain function," why were cameras not allowed in the room? Clearly, there would be no concern about "privacy" since Terri was allegedly unaware of anything. If her dehydration and starvation was so "peaceful," why not let the WORLD see it? Hmm? And if there was a concern about "privacy," why did Felos routinely discuss her medical condition with the media?

As to President George W. Bush, please name even one post here where I have mentioned his name (beyond this one)? Please find one post here where I have mentioned anything positive about the Republican Party. I'd invite you to look at my blog - you'll find that I routinely criticize the Republican Party and President Bush. As liberals typically say, "Stop judging me!" Don't make assumptions or try to lump me into something that is not true.

The Culture of Life is not the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. In fact, a Culture of Life does not currently exist in this filthy, immoral world of sexual obsession. My leader is God. After God, I look to our Lord's and our Most Blessed, Immaculate, and Ever-Virgin Mother, Mary. And after her, I look to Christ's Vicar on Earth, Pope Benedict XVI.

May the peace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, be with you.

Soren K

CW

In the Schiavo case, her catholic parents actually encouraged mr Schiavo to date other women.

Even the catholics allow people a life after the dead of a spouse - and since she had no higher brain function - a fact admitted by her parents and supported by all doctors WHO ACTUALLY ATTENDED TO HER, except one - the person who was mrs Schiavo was gone.

But don't take my word for it - a truckload of trials and judges examined the facts and came to the same conclusion.

Talking about culture of death - it seems strange that yuour not so honorable president mr Bush signed a law which allowed hospitals to end hopeless life prolonging treatments AGAINST the wishes of the family - in effect only allowing the wealthy the chance to find other care for their loved ones - that he should express outrage over the Schiavo case.

Looking in from the outside the "culture of life" the sad excuse for a political party called Republicans looks like so much hot air.

/Soren

cw

Ms. Jared, I'm truly sorry that I'm not even giving you time to respond. But I just have to ask one more question. (Please do at least read at least my previous post since I have LOTS of questions for you in that one.)

You have a concern about which group "cares" for this thirteen year old. What if she ends up regretting her abortion, becomes pro-life, and speaks out against abortion? What if she becomes like the former Jane Roe, Norma McCorvey? Will the other side still "care" for her in that hypothetical situation as you imply they do now?

Now remember, you wanted the discussion to get back to this story.... I'm glad to honor that request.

cw

Ms. Jared, first, apologies for writing "Mrs." Purely a misreading and nothing more.

But I do want to add something. You wrote:

> another clear example of how much the so
> called pro-lifers TRULY cared about this girl
> and weren't just using her as a media talking
> point.
Let me ask you something. Did the other side care for her before the media discussed the fact that the state was trying to protect her innocent child? Did the other side go to Florida and try to donate money for her food, clothing, education, etc.? Better yet, did the other side simply mail a donation to the shelter in honor of homeless girls? Would an article about her appear here in this forum if she was mentioned in the media for any reason OTHER than an abortion related story? (I have my own opinion over which side is making a media talking point out of her.) Will concern for her continue by the other side AFTER she has had her abortion and the media moves on? What if she ends up regretting her abortion years from now? Will the other side be there for her under those hypothetical circumstances?

Hey, you said you wanted to talk about this specific story. I'm more than willing to talk about it...

cw

Actually, Mrs. Jared, there is a common thread. If you want to complain about Terri Schiavo being brought up (one would think people who call themselves "pro-women" would be outraged by a man who was having relations with another woman ordering the starvation and dehydration of his actual wife), complain to Sarah. She was upset about the taxpayers paying to protect an innocent and vulnerable human life. I pointed out a case where a judge wasted a large amount of taxpayer money in Florida to make sure a woman was dehydrated and starved for nearly two weeks.

As to caring about the girl, I care very dearly for the girl. I am upset that thanks to this filthy and immoral culture in which we live, she happens to be pregnant. The temptations thrown at young, impressionable people these days are completely unacceptable. I am upset that thanks to a "throw away" society in which we live, she has made an IRREVOCABLE CHOICE (once the abortion takes place) which has the possibility of causing depression later on. She may not regret it now. In the future, there is the possibility that in this life she may realize that she has ended the life of an innocent human being (despite this culture which places no value on vulnerable human life). Frankly, there would be plenty of money to support this girl and all of the impoverished if people would stop wasting money on all the industries that benefit from and fuel society's obsession with sexual immorality.

As to pharmacists, Josephine brought up the concern about a forced abortion. Those favoring legalized slaughter of babies in the womb talk all about "choice." Well, a forced abortion sure isn't "choice." Just as pharmacists are being denied "choice," YOUNG WOMEN who want to wear pro-life t-shirts in some schools are being denied "choice," babies scheduled to be aborted are being denied "choice," and the list goes on. Pro-"choicers" what say you about this blatant denial of choice? Advocates of legalized abortion wrap this around "choice." Whenever abortion is discussed, "choice" usually comes up. Thus, cases where people who disagree with abortion and are being denied choice is a natural discussion point. Is there a problem with allowing choice for ALL people (including allowing innocent human babies to have the chance to make a choice)? Or should "choice" be narrow and restricted only to those who want abortions?

ms. jared

why is this thread being derailed for another terri schaivo rant? the post is about a thirteen year old who wanted an abortion but the government stepped in to deny her right. it has nothing to do with terri schaivo or this so called "culture of death" you're railing against.

another clear example of how much the so called pro-lifers TRULY cared about this girl and weren't just using her as a media talking point. it didn't work out the way they wanted it to though so now we have to go back to terri schaivo and those poor, poor pharmacists who refuse to do THEIR JOBS.

very, very tired.
xoxo, jared

cw

> A man made the decision
A man who was having relations with another woman at the time he claimed his wife made some sort of statement. A man who FAILED to make that statement prior to winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in a lawsuit. The money was supposed to go towards his wife's care - instead it went into the legal fight to end her life. A man who said he did not know Terri's wishes on NATIONAL TELEVISION. Note this quote from the CNN transcript.

"M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want... "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

> and a clear wish to not be kept alive in that state

Really? The above quote from the man (who had relations with another woman while married to Terri) who won the court case to have his wife dehydrated and starved doesn't sound like that in my opinion.

> off her life support
Terri was never on a ventilator. Receiving nutrition and hydration is ordinary care. Goodness, if we are going to call it "life support" merely because the person cannot feed themselves (of course, the judge would not even allow that theory to be tested since he ordered that NOTHING be placed in her mouth and then wasted taxpayer money by stationing police officers around her), then we could say the same about anyone who has suffered two broken arms at once. We could say the same about babies (the ones who are actually allowed to be born, that is). Would you say that babies and very young children are on "life support"?

> and him forced to watch her suffer.
Well, he had the other woman and children by that other woman...

> Death happens,
This was not a natural death; it was human-initiated.

> Unless you can change the basic principles of
> existence so that people who unconscious can
> speak with the conscious,
People unrelated to the Schindler family heard Terri state that she did not want to die. The judge refused to hear it. There is a video on the Internet that shows Terri communicating. The media failed to show it.

http://4lifeshaperite.com/rumbles/Conversations_with_Terri.html

I encourage you to watch this. Make sure your video window is as large as possible. Terri's communication is like that of a retarded person, NOT someone who is unaware of their surroundings.

> because she had no brain function
If she had "no brain function" the above video would be impossible. And really, if she had "no brain function," then why did Felos insist that no cameras be brought in the room? He claimed it was for "privacy" but then routinely discussed her medical condition with the press. If she was truly unaware of anything, "privacy" is a moot point.

And why is it that several doctors disagreed with the prognosis of no recovery and no brain function? Why is it that several nurses testified under oath (risking perjury) that Terri was communicating? If Terri was truly just sitting there doing nothing as the Culture of Death would like everyone to believe, then why has the judge failed to hold all the nurses in contempt of court? Perjury is a serious thing. If the judge's orders caused CHILDREN to be arrested, clearly, he should not have any problem charging these adult nurses with perjury.

> Especially if I had told dozens of people that before my brain turned
> to goo.
Please name the "dozens" of people she allegedly told. It seems the only people who gave the HEARSAY account of what she allegedly said were Michael Schiavo (AFTER winning the lawsuit) and HIS side of the family. Less than ten people. One dozen is twelve. So tell me about these alleged "dozens."

> where they let people get paid for not doing their jobs.
A pharmacist's job is to protect life, not to destroy it, or prevent new life from being conceived. But once again, it's "choice" to slaughter a baby but NO choice for anyone else.

> And you know as well as I that contraceptives are often prescribed
> for double uses.
The original intent of these pills was to solve health problems like you described in a previous post. It was discovered that they also typically prevent pregnancy and they became popular for that exclusive use in this filthy, sex-obsessed society in which we live.

As to your statements about sexual immorality, all I can say is that I will pray for you daily. May our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, shine His Holy Light upon you through the intercession of His and our most Blessed Mother, the Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Mary.

I find it fascinating that you have a concern for animals yet you have, in my opinion, a cavalier attitude toward the slaughter of innocent human babies and the court-ordered dehydration and starvation of an innocent woman.

> I'm not going to address then rest of your points, because I honestly
> can barely follow you. You jump from one thought to another, barely
> finishing either, then throw in some bible and some wingnut talking
> points, make circular arguements, and then insult me. I can barely
> follow you, and frankly, I'm bored now.
My apologies for insulting you. As to the rest of your statements, including the bigotted anti-Christian ones (that's a reflection on your statements, not an insult to you), this is the typical kind of dodge to be expected when one either refuses or is unable to answer various points.

Sarah

The pro-choicers don't say much about Terry Schiavo because there is nothing to talk about. A man made the decision to take his wife off her life support because she had no brain function and no chance of recovery and a clear wish to not be kept alive in that state... hohum. It happens every day in this country, every day in this world. I'm glad that neither of them was forced to live like that, her a prisioner in a body that would never recover and him forced to watch her suffer. Why don't we talk about Terry Schiavo? Because its not important enough to talk about frankly. Death happens, its an enevitable consequnce of living. People make life or death decisions for incapecitated people all the time. Sometimes people have to make hard choices, like to take their wife off life support or to have an abortion or to refuse chemo when it wont help or to not have knee surgery on the family dog. Unless you can change the basic principles of existence so that people who unconscious can speak with the conscious, its all pretty moot. The best we can do as humans is guess what is best for those who cant communicate with us and what is best for us to continue living. I think Micheal Schiavo made a good choice, its the choice I hope my future spouse would make in that situation. Especially if I had told dozens of people that before my brain turned to goo.

If a phramacist in Illinois really believes that is against his conscience to distribute contraceptives, then maybe he should move to a different state where they let people get paid for not doing their jobs.

And you know as well as I that contraceptives are often prescribed for double uses. All my friends using them for medical reasons are also using them as birth control. So is a pharmacist honoring their health if he refuses to give it to them?

I love porn. I love condoms. My sex life would not be as robust and full without them. I'm happy to give the makers of such things my money in exchange for the happiness I get from my new vibrator.

I'm not going to address then rest of your points, because I honestly can barely follow you. You jump from one thought to another, barely finishing either, then throw in some bible and some wingnut talking points, make circular arguements, and then insult me. I can barely follow you, and frankly, I'm bored now.

cw

Oh please, Sarah. You know very well that I am referring to BC for use as a contraception. If a doctor is going to prescribe it for a true health reason (and not merely to commit an act of sexual immorality), again, apples and oranges. Of course, you neglected to address the issue of abortifacients entirely.

As for pharmacists, sure, I totally believe in the notion of sacrifice for beliefs. But this is a sacrifice because the CULTURE OF DEATH MAKES IT SO. And I will continue to speak out against this kind of UNNECESSARY PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS, JEWS, AND MUSLIMS, ALL OF WHOSE RELIGIONS HAVE THE SAME FIFTH COMMANDMENT.

You write "not to do their job properly." When a pharmacist hands out an abortifacient or contraception for use as contraception, the pharmacist is not assisting in life. In the former, the pharmacist is an accomplice to the unjust killing of innocent life. In the latter, the pharmacist is an accomplice in preventing new life from taking place. Regardless of what the government and the Culture of Death have to say, handing out those kinds of pills is NOT doing the job they signed up to do. Again, my opinion is that you obviously want vending machines to replace human beings as pharmacists.

As to your comments about Walmart, they are a moot point. U.S. Senators Lautenberg (NJ) and Boxer (CA) have bills trying to force the state religion of moral relativism on pharmacists and require them to act as human vending machines. In Illinois, the governor has MANDATED pharmacists to violate their consciences and act as human vending machines. Walmart's policy on this is meaningless in Illinois. If such a bill passes the U.S. Congress or is attached to some "must have" bill and that is signed by the President, it will be the law of the land. Walmart will have to modify its policy to bow down before the Culture of Death.

At the same time, even if such a bill does not pass the U.S. Congress (and I surely hope and pray it will not), who are you to impose your views on pharmacists forcing them to work in a place they may not want to work? Why are you FORCING YOUR VIEWS on someone else?

As usual, CHOICE to slaughter an innocent human baby, but NO choice for anyone else. What a NARROW definition of "choice."

You complain about "cushy salaries." If you are concerned about the cushy salaries of pharmacists, I trust you are concerned about the cushy salaries of those involved in the various industries which trade in sexual immorality. Look at the MILLIONS made on movies and television shows that promote sexual immorality. I'm talking about mainstream movies here. I did not even get into the industry of blatant pornography in videos, magazines, the Internet, etc. Look at the millions made by condom companies (any company that can advertise on national television has to make millions). Look at the abortion industry. If there wasn't so much sexual immorality promoted in the sick and twisted society in which we live, abortion mills would not possibly be as plentiful. So please, Sarah, if you are going to really be concerned so much about salaries, concern yourself with those individuals and organizations who are making seven figure salaries FIRST. With all the taxes the government forces upon us (some of which is wasted on abortion and contraception), we ALL need six figure salaries to make ends meet.

I notice, Sarah, that you neglected to address the comments about choice to wear what one wants to wear in school. I notice you neglected to address the concerns about wasting taxpayer money stripping away the dignity of Terri Schindler Schiavo's family. If you are concerned so much about women's health, well, it's clearly NOT healthy to deny water to a woman.

I'm really curious. The groups that always stand up for a woman's right to kill an innocent child in the womb seemed to be very silent about Terri Schiavo as far as I could see. Being pro-woman would mean standing up for her right to basic care such as food and water, especially when it is being denied by a husband who has engaged in sexual relations with another woman while married to Terri.

Sarah

I find it funny that you oppose spitting in someones food because its unhealthy but have no problem with a pharmacist withholding life-saving medications from people. My best friends wife has endometriosis, and birth control pills are part of her daily regimine of pills to keep her uterine lining from growing in her arm and killing her (she's already had 3 risky surgeries because edometrial tissue has grown where it doesn't belong). My friend Erin takes bc pills because her perriods were incredibly irregular and painful, she would spend a week out of work or school to lie flat on her back. My other friend uses Seasonele because her PMS is so bad that no one can talk to her without being screamed at. I think her young children are a lot healthier now that she isn't emotionally scarring them 3 days of the month.

As for the pharmacists, you say "Are you suggesting finding a totally new career or are you suggesting finding a pharmacy job where the Culture of Death will not force its view on the pharmacist? The former could lead to financial ruin for the pharmacist." So what it really comes down to is pharmacists not willing to sacrifice for their beliefs. They want to maintain their beliefs, not do their job properly, and still pull in a 6 figure salary. Pharmacists might loose money, but I would think that if a pharmacist was reallly acting out of conscience they would rather be poor then have to do a job that goes against their morals. I would rather starve then work as Christian minister or a butcher because my morals don't allow me to do that. That makes me question how much of it is really about morals.

And one of the biggest pharmacies in the country aka WALMART does not require their pharmacists to dispense BC if it goes against their beliefs. There are jobs out there for those kind of pharmacists, I say we let the market regulate it. Its just another reason I wont shop at WalMart, I prefer my local co-op pharmacy where all pills prescribed to a patient are always filled. If older pharmacists have to give up their cushy salaries because of their beliefs and have to work at the WalMart for less, maybe they should be pushing WalMart for higher salaries.

cw

Sarah, I forgot to add something. Regarding the offensive comment about the Bible, let me also add that bigotry is a mortal sin. To say any group of human beings is "inferior" is a direct insult on God Himself Who created all human beings. Bigotry for reasons of race, sex, disability (ie - killing a child in the womb because a doctor says he or she will be retarded, have a deformity, will be disabled, etc., and such things as dehydrating a person already born over a "quality of life" excuse), status of being born or not, etc., is a mortal sin.

cw

Sarah, in my opinion, the first part of your post can be summed up as: Pharmacists should be human vending machines. People should feed a prescription into a machine, along with their insurance card (if applicable) and some form of payment, and the appropriate medication should come out.

There are many older pharmacists who spent a great deal of time and money to learn this profession BEFORE the Culture of Death decided to dictate its religion of moral relativism/sexual immorality/sacrificing vulnerable people upon them. In fact, some have been practicing pharmacists before legalized child sacrifice began in the nation - January 22, 1973. To use your narrow definition of "choice," they had none. When they decided on that career, they had no idea their ultimate boss would be the Culture of Death.

Pharmacists have a duty to save life. Providing abortifacients is CONTRARY to this. Providing birth control prevents new life from beginning.

In this country, murder is illegal. People have come up with loopholes for the most vulnerable by saying that a baby in the womb is not human (slaveowners said that slaves were not human, Hitler sent those he deemed "not human" to concentration camps). When the state forces pharmacists (as is the case in Illinois) to dispense abortifacients, the state is forcing pharmacists to be a conspirator in the death of an innocent human being. Since the state will not recognize that this is a human being, the state is therefore forcing a religion of moral relativism on the pharmacist.

> Pharmacists that have moral issues with dispensing certain legal
> drugs need to find jobs where they are not required to dispense these
> drugs. Its not that difficult.

Are you suggesting finding a totally new career or are you suggesting finding a pharmacy job where the Culture of Death will not force its view on the pharmacist? The former could lead to financial ruin for the pharmacist. For those who have had this career for many years and might have to start over because they won't kneel down before the Culture of Death and the idolatry of "convenience" and pleasure, this is really a selfish thing to ask. We hear so much from advocates of legalized abortion about the middle class. Most pharmacists are in the middle class. Forcing them to start over with a new career would surely send them to a lower class.

On the subject of the latter (ie - a pharmacist finding a pharmacy job in a place where the Culture of Death will NOT interfere), that's impossible. The devil wants to collect souls. Being an accomplice to another's mortal sin (abortion is one of the worst mortal sins possible, but contraception is also a mortal sin) makes one guilty of a mortal sin. Pharmacists who provide these types of pills with such knowledge are thus guilty of mortal sin. The devil will influence the powerful (ie - politicians) to require pharmacists to commit a mortal sin. There is NO area of pharmacy that not eventually be permeated by this evil. As such, the latter becomes moot. The former is the only option. This is asking pharmacists to risk financial ruin if they refuse to be an accomplice to mortal sin and to kneel before the Culture of Death.

As to your examples, apples and oranges. Your statements might have some validity if the pharmacist's job was narrow enough to only be an accomplice to mortal sin. However, a pharmacist typically dispenses pills that save lives or assist in health. For example, a child (one who has graciously been ALLOWED to be born - a curiosity in today's time when 4,000 babies are being slaughtered daily) may develop an ear infection. Medication is required to stop the infection. The parent presents a prescription to the pharmacist. The parent may have questions about the medication that the pharmacist will be able to answer. No moral problem there.

A person should not work in a condom factory, for example. There is nothing about the job that is not being an accomplice to mortal sin.

Furthermore, issues over whether or not to violate God's Commandments are really separate from the issues you list. Abortion is a violation of the Fifth Commandment. Usage of contraception is a violation of the Sixth Commandment since it attempts to separate the sexual act from the ability to conceive a child. In the case of a butcher, it is important that the animal not unduly suffer, but the Fifth Commandment applies to human beings alone.

As to spitting in one's food, I'll take that as a comment about YOUNG WOMEN being denied CHOICE to wear pro-life t-shirts in school. Personally, something so disgusting would never enter my mind. How did it enter yours? Were you a waitress? But again, apples and oranges. Spitting in someone's food is destruction of property. It is vandalism. Vandalism is a sin. Furthermore, it is a health hazard. Wearing a pro-life t-shirt does not destroy property. It does not harm anyone. But it is a risk to the Culture of Death in that it might lead to someone changing their mind.

As to your comment about teachers, that is blatantly offensive to me as a Catholic. Please provide chapter and verse of the Bible which makes this alleged claim. Blacks were treated as slaves. Slavery is a mortal sin. While slavery was mentioned in the Old Testament, it is a severe violation in the New Testament (btw, if anyone is going to talk about European Christians and the slave trade - they have committed a mortal sin if they were aware that the act is seriously wrong).

Who are you to impose your views on pharmacists? This really shows the true character behind so-called "tolerance." Tolerate sexual immorality, but do NOT tolerate anyone who does not go along with it. Tolerance is really a one-way street.

This shows how easily moral relativism collapses. Moral relativism, with its claims of no absolute right and wrong seems to fade away when it comes to pharmacists obeying their conscience. To those who believe pharmacists cannot have a CHOICE to obey their consciences, it is thus an "absolute wrong" for pharmacists to do so.


As to Florida, well, I guess using your logic, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation for political reasons too.

It is the duty of the government to protect the lives of human beings, especially the most vulnerable who cannot speak for themselves. You complain about the state of Florida spending taxpayer money trying to protect an innocent and vulnerable human being. Are you equally upset at the waste of taxpayer dollars on the court forcing an innocent woman named Terri Schiavo to be dehydrated and starved to death? Are you upset at all the police officers who COULD have been making the streets safe but instead were stationed in and around the hospital room to "protect" Terri from her loving family and from priests who might administer Holy Communion to her? (Let's make it clear that the First Amendment states that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Terri was entitled to DAILY Holy Communion as a Catholic. Greer's order that she be dehydrated prevented her from receiving the Precious Body of Christ. Furthermore, Terri's husband, backed by Greer's order, prevented Terri from receiving daily Holy Communion after Easter.) Police prevented Terri's loving family from being present at the time she died. Police arrested CHILDREN (children who actually were not aborted) - in the United States of America in 2005. I would expect such action in NAZI Germany from 1933-45 but not here in the United States. Are you happy about the wasted taxpayer money in this case to ensure a woman was dehydrated and starved?

Sarah

CW - Pharmacists have a choice. They can not be pharmacists. No one is forcing them to be pharmacists. But if you're going to apply for a job, you should be willing to actually do the job. I'm a pagan, so I shouldn't try to get a job as a Baptist minister, then refuse to preach Baptist Christianity because its against my moral values, and then claim that they shouldn't be allowed to fire me for not doing my job. If I'm a vegan, I shouldn't get a job as a butcher then refuse to do it because it is immoral. What if teachers started saying that it was against their moral values to teach black children since they believe that blacks are biblically inferior? What if resturant workers claimed their moral rights of expression to choose to spit in your food if they find you immoral were being violated when they are fired? Pharmacists that have moral issues with dispensing certain legal drugs need to find jobs where they are not required to dispense these drugs. Its not that difficult.

But to the point I was going to make, the state of Florida has a history as long as my arm of caring about politics (anti-abortion and anti-gay) over its wards. They didn't care enough about this 13 year old to provide her with adequate care before she got pregnant, but they'll waste thousands of taxpayer dollars to care for a fetus, that as soon as its born will be shuffled into the system and forgotten about. Just like this girl was:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/05/08/a1e_elisamoesha_0508.html

cw

Josephine, you make an interesting point when you commented about the forced abortion (killing an innocent human being in the womb) issue. What ever happened to "choice"?

Of course, it seems "choice" is invoked when it comes to those who WANT to have an innocent human being in the womb killed. But "choice" does not seem to be available for other groups.

- Pharmacists, in some states, are not allowed the CHOICE to obey their consciences in some areas. Pharmacists are NOT vending machines. It seems even certain U.S. Senators are trying to remove CHOICE for pharmacists. (Shaula, perhaps that's "blue meat"?) We hear so much about "separation of church and state." Why are some politicians trying to establish a STATE RELIGION of moral relativism?

- YOUNG WOMEN in schools who want the CHOICE to wear pro-life t-shirts are being denied choice in some schools. We hear so much about an alleged "Constitutional right" to kill an innocent human baby in the womb. Yet the very real First Amendment is null and void in some GOVERNMENT-RUN schools.

- Some advocates of legalized abortion have a problem with women having the CHOICE to get a free or low-cost ultrasound in crisis pregnancy centers. When some continue to refer to a baby in the womb as a "clump of cells," "mass of undifferentiated tissue," "products of conception," "blob of tissue," etc., it would be nice if women could see just what the alleged [pick one of the ridiculous terms mentioned above] looks like. They might find that the "clump of cells" has a head, two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc. But women should clearly have the CHOICE to learn this. The Illinois House passed a bill RESTRICTING choice in this matter.

- Babies scheduled to be killed via abortion are denied ALL choices. They won't be able to make the CHOICE of their favorite color, food they like, etc.


Why is "choice" so narrow?

Soren Kongstad

Hi Josephine

What a sad story - my heart goes out to you.

You are right that she should have help - but I would think that the home she is in now should start giving it to her!

It doesn't look like they were to worried about her before she got pregnant - then it was oh so important to make her go through the pregnancy - but wouldn't they just take her child away from her if she did give birth? And whats to stop her from running away again after birth?

Her problems are not solved by either abortion or giving birth - and they seem to stem, at least partly by no help from the state.

/Soren

Josephine

First of this 13 year old child is calling her baby a baby. Isnt this a risk factor for depression according to alan Gutamaccher(sp?) institute. So here we have the first sign that she is going to have problem. Also she is repeating nearly line for line the proabortion argument. This isnt something she wants to do she is being compelled. Someone fed her those lines. Just curious, will you be angry about her too when she shows up for her fifth and sixth abortions. Cause thats where she is headed. I was in foster care from the time I was 13 and Ive seen girls in custody run away come back pregnant abort run away again get hooked on something get pregnant abort again rinse repeat until they are outta foster care. I know one foster girl- well shes grown now- who had last count 11 abortions from the time she was 11 till she was 18. She is still in desperate need and doesnt know her ass from her elbow. People pushed her into those abortions and now shes locked in a dark little room with no visable way out.

They tried that feeding lines with me and I ran away and married my hubby. Even told me he would abandon me. When I wouldnt go along after I was about 5&1/2 months they got a court order to put me in a mental hospital sedate me and drive me for a 2 trimester abortion. You can do that if you can prove a girl incompetent. So much for being against forced abortions huh. It was supposed to happen a week after I graduated so noone would know what they had done. I ran graduation night. We have been married 11 years this June 2. And we have 5 kids we adore. That baby is probably already dead and Unless shes unconcious she is going to remember warm peices coming out of her vagina. I have had 4 of mine with little or no medication. I know what feels like to pass a warm body out of your own. I can only imagine the baby being dead when it came out... Well My last had his cord wrapped around his neck. He was supposed to be a home birth but it was too dangerous. I couldnt push on the way to the hospital because it would tighten the cord. Well I got there and started pushing and I felt him come out and the nurses hands untangling the cord. When He was born he was a score 3 on the apgar. He was a 5 ont the 5 minute. He didnt breath move or cry. I was devastated. I was afraid he would die. Now I am a 28 year old woman who had had babies before.. BTW I have 3 boys. None of them did well at birth. This is her first experience and her baby is garanteed to be dead. I doubt she has the ability to cope. She will be back to the clinic. She will punish herself for not being strong and not one prochoicerr will reach out to her with any real help. Just lay on the table and we'll get it out. So much for being prowoman-or little girl for that matter. And you can bet the next baby will be by the same guy.

Christina

Why so much focus on getting her scraped out, and so little on tracking down and locking up the man who did this to her? That's one thing I don't understand -- how it's supposed to be "supportive" and "compassionate" to scrape the girl out and return her to her abuser. She's still thinking what she's getting from this guy is "love" when he's just taking advantage of her vulnerability.

Shaula Evans

You know what? If I were 13 years old, pregnant, and the Republican red meat cause du jour, I think I might just have a "mild mood disorder" myself.

The comments to this entry are closed.