News-Record.com

I think there's a big distinction to be made between the environment in which an employee works (what hours they're scheduled for during a work week) and the services they will provide while on the clock.

If a person who works in a pharmacy decides that he needs to add his opinion into the process of prescribing any drug for a patient, then he's in the wrong business.

If these guys think that dispensing these "morning after" pills is immoral, then they should find another line of work. No one is keeping them there. Altering the services a person performs for the public does not fall under religious accommodations.

"Altering the services a person performs for the public does not fall under religious accommodations."

We're talking about terminating an early developmental human life here guys, not washing your feet in an airport privy. Now, we know good and well that a few people being able to act their conscience is not going to impact women getting their after-sin pills to any significant extent. The whole point here is not to give any ground to pro-life advocates. That's the real issue behind all the legal veneer.

Libs are all for being able to act one's conscience by picketing nuclear or animal experimentation facilities, or not having to serve in the military. Having a conscientious objection to terminating human life (even at its very genesis) is a serious and worthy issue of concern. But baby killers can’t stand ANY threat to their precious sin-eraser techniques. Gotta remove that blasted blastocyst before it becomes a darling little girl or boy - might keep me from fully expressing my libido, or mess up my college education plans . . . damned inconvenient.

"The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs."

People are free to beLIEve whatever nonsense they care to as long as they do not interfere with the legal rights of another person. Should the druggist have the right to deny a single person any sort of sexual protection based solely on their own archaic beLIEfs? Why stop there Nikos? Why not deny lung cancer patients their medications? After all, they wouldn't have lung cancer if they weren't smokers now would they? How about people with liver disease? They're all alcoholics anyway and deserve to die don't they? Let's give all the meds to the moral christians that deserve it rather than those immoral sinners that deserve all the pain they're in.

“Should the druggist have the right to deny a single person any sort of sexual protection based solely on their own archaic beLIEfs? . . .
Why not deny lung cancer patients their medications? After all, they wouldn't have lung cancer if they weren't smokers now would they? How about people with liver disease? They're all alcoholics anyway . . .”

If by “archaic beliefs” you mean beliefs that go back to the dawn of creation. Yes, my beliefs are “archaic” in that they reflect the holiness and divine value of creatures created in the very image of their Creator.

There is a vast difference in saving lives and taking them. Nurses who are compelled to participate in partial birth procedures have often opted out. I don’t see how any sane or sensitive human being could participate in such horrors. Just because the impregnated (or possibly impregnated egg) is not a fully formed human being, does not eliminate the issue for people who are convinced that the entire process, from conception on, is holy because of the holiness of the imago dei. It is a firm spiritual belief, and is typical of conscience issues. The military conscientious objector is often allowed to participate in his country’s defense in non-killing roles, and so is able to continue his military career.

There is, therefore, absolutely no reason, in line with this American tradition, why these druggists should not have the same option, protecting their consciences, in this particular area. Even children in schools are allowed to opt-out of certain classes that violate their consciences (witchcraft, sexual issues, etc) and still remain in school. It is only the Inquisition-like tactics of pro-death advocates to force their views on all, who would not allow a conscience opt-out in this case.

It is NOT a life or death issue for the one seeking the pill. It is not a strictly-speaking medical issue of illness or disease. It is pure and simple a desire to get out from under the consequences of their sin, to have their cake and eat it too. Even if they are married, and fornication is not involved, they are still guilty of attempting to kill a developing life in the womb. And to ask people who love and respect life from conception on to violate their conscience is a gross violation of the American tradition in this regard. They should NOT be forced out of their careers simply because they wish to opt-out in this specific area. It is only the heavy-handed squashing techniques of pro-aborts that is seeking to rob them of this option.

If a pharmacy tech or pharmacist does not believe in what medications are prescribed, then that person should exempt him/her self from that particular customer.

I find it terribly condescending using the terms, "after-sin pills" and "sin-eraser techniques." Just because a person seeks the "morning after pill" does not mean that a "sinful" sexual act has occurred! Ever heard of rape? Incest? There are only two instances. While I do not deny that some may use this medication as birth control, that is the choice of the individual. The last time that I checked, God has given humans that concept to live by!

However, to openly and seemingly unashamedly condemning people in this manner is contradictory to the Christian message. Maybe those who speak in such a way need to repent of their own sinfulness before seeking to point out the sins of others!

Shalom

Okay, so the pharmacists can also say "no" to Viagra for the old farts who can't, you know..
because they're either , like Rush Limbaugh, using those blue pills for non -procreative ( and therfore SINful) sex or, if they're trying to father kids, sinful because they're knowingly exposing their potential offspring to genetic diseases.

darryl,
are you so naive to believe that 'most' of the women who use this pill are rape or incest victims? what other instances do you believe warrant this chemical abortion?
this is an ultra convenient way to prevent a pregnancy for many who have had unprotected sex with one or multiple partners.
do you believe fornication is sin? i understand nikos sin eraser comment - but he actually mispoke ( he knows this ) - the sin eraser is actually blood....of only one man....Jesus Christ. this pill actually makes the sin unnoticeable to others, but not to God. too many Christians would simply prefer to sweep sin under the carpet and not address the decay it causes in our lives. yes you are correct that God has given free choice (wrong choice have negative consequences)- even choice to sin - are you advocating that the choice of sin is ok and that Christians ought not to address it or identify it? "The last time that I checked, God has given humans that concept to live by!".......check a little deeper and you will find God has given free will with stipulations. free will when executed properly will glorify God. when executed improperly dishonors ourselves, our fellow human beings and most importantly it does NOT glorify God. free will is NOT a free ticket to sin !

buz, if it is truly believed that I think only "that 'most' of the women who use this pill are rape or incest victims?" then I need not post any further at this time. How sad.

Shalom

The reason it’s called the “morning after” pill is clear enough. It’s designed to allow women to have sex, free and unencumbered; and then conveniently take a pill to prevent pregnancy. The male partner probably has a stake in the “free and unencumbered” part as well; although there are other good reasons to use protection. However, the right decision should be made the night before rather than the morning after. While women may take the pill for other purposes, this is the primary one. And this is why some druggists may find it morally reprehensible, not just because of the sinful activity it facilitates, but because of the taking of unborn life.

One of the terrible consequences of sin is that it compounds and complicates moral dilemmas. While we must sympathize with women who have become pregnant because of rape or incest, it does not mean that killing the new life forming in her womb is a moral good. As the old saying goes, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” There are thousands of couples waiting to take unwanted babies for adoption.

While I understand that not all women will see it this way: the wrong committed can best be overcome by nurturing the new life and providing it with a decent upbringing – by an adoptive parent, if not the one having the child. What was meant for evil can thus be turned into relative good. This is not to underplay or deny the pain that the victimized woman feels. But as I said, sin complicates moral decisions and compounds error. But easily and conveniently disposing of newly formed life cannot be seen as moral high ground either - all the more reason to advance righteousness and moral responsibility in our society, so that painful and morally complex dilemmas will be held to a minimum.

Wow, I never knew that sex, in the true sense, was sinful.

Nikos, with the exposition given on scripture, God, et al, I am surprised people are not flocking AWAY from God!

Give humans a little credit for using freewill choice will you? While I do not agree with abortion as birth control who are you to decide what another person should do with his/her body? The last time that I checked, you were not in charge of but your own life. So, while not agreeing with decisions of others, it is not your place to limit what others can/cannot do.

Shalom

"The reason it’s called the “morning after” pill is clear enough. It’s designed to allow women to have sex, free and unencumbered; and then conveniently take a pill to prevent pregnancy."

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is a free country. Two consenting adults are free to engage in sex in this country without fear of reprisal. The responses from Nikos and Buz are exactly why pharmacists can't be allowed to morally evaluate who gets what medications and why they're getting them. Their job is to fill prescriptions, not to "steer" someone to the "straight and narrow".

it would be more forthright darryl if you just refused to answer my question(s) instead of blaming me for you not posting. an artful dodge however darryl :-)
"who are you to decide what another person should do with his/her body? The last time that I checked, you were not in charge of but your own life.".......... you've been doing a lot of checking in this thread darryl......check this out.......
"1Cr 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."......

clarify for me if i am incorrect, but doesn't paul say that the husband has the right over his wifes body and likewise the wife over the husbands body?
so if i understand correctly this scripture, then your statement would then be incorrect. but i also am aware that you have issues with the pauline writtings, so you may not consider this scripture.

"..likewise the wife over the husbands body?"

Lorena
Bobbitt

rSnaKe,
i don't believe i stated that i thought the actions of the pharmacists were appropriate. i have no problem with people who decline to serve for reasons of conscience however.
no matter what profession one might pursue (including Christians), they must weight the possible consequences of their actions. a Christian police officer may have to discharge his weapon.....what is the consequence, a Christian judge may sentence someone to death......what is the consequence, a Christian doctor seperating cojoined infants may have to choose which one live and which dies.........what is the consequence. darryls solution is to simply exempt oneself from making those tough choices.....another choice is to stand firm in your convictions. as a Christian myself i cannot be "their" collective conscience for them (i can and do however speak on issues of conscience). if i were a Christian pharmacist i suppose i could dispense this morning after pill along with condoms, sponges, diaphrams, spermicides etc. just as i can give a panhandler/homeless person a dollar and offer blessings on it - i can in no way be responsible for them spending that dollar on food or booze - it was given with clear conscience and intent.

alice,
your ignorance can be overlooked.....you have not the Spirit of Christ, therefore you cannot comprehend the scriptures. to you they are words, to believers they are the words of life everlasting. you apparently do not understand the context of the scripture i quoted.
how about the wedding vows "to have and to hold,for better or worse etc." could we misinterpret that to mean that the wife can cut off her husbands penis
(this would be the "worse" part of that vow) and be actually fulfilling the vow ? it's all about context alice.......not emotion !

Gee, Buz, not everyone's married, yet you posted words about husbands and wives owning each others' bodies as if such words applied to everybody regardless of marital status or belief in the relevance of those words. Talk about ignorance- and arrogance!

But based upon prior posts of yours, I'm glad you believe in God, eternal punishment, the wages of sin, etc. SOME people need the fear of hell to keep those pesky murderous impulses in check - while others of us just believe such behavior is wrong because it harms others.

alice you are a speaking contradiction.....

now that you have qualified yourself as one with intelligence above all believers - should i now consult you to help me thru those pesky murderous impulses that i reguarly experience ? i'm curious to know how you have become so superior ?

focus on context and comprehension alice........

I wasn't aware you still had those murderous impulses. I thought God kept you from wiping folks out?
It's just that you're so determined to make what YOU believe to be the law of the land- I'm just hoping your belief in God's giving you the impulse control not to wipe out those who don't believe as you do. Or imprson them. Or whatever it is you christian-types dream about.

“others of us just believe such behavior is wrong because it harms others.”

Wow, we have a great deal of common ground then, Alice. That is precisely the intent of the golden rule and all the teachings of Jesus and Paul, as well as the Mosaic Law – don’t kill, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness – love your neighbor. The problem is that rebellious man does not understand what harms others and what doesn’t. You may be free to cheat on your spouse, and it may “feel good,” but that is NOT the criterion for what harms another. It is based squarely on the fact that God created the marital covenant to be holy and inviolate and the key to a happy and productive homelife, so that neither spouse nor children are “harmed.” Sinning ALWAYS causes harm. Would you not agree that breaking the second table (half) of the Law harms people – you know, killing, stealing, committing adultery (children) etc. The real problem is that sinful, rebellious man is impelled by lusts (power lust, sexual lust, materialism lust) to break God’s Law, and then attempts to rationalize or excuse his sins to alleviate his guilt and shame.
“to allow women to have sex, free and unencumbered; and then conveniently take a pill to prevent pregnancy - And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is a free country.”
There IS something absolutely wrong with that. It cheapens God’s wonderful design for covenantal union. Your view simply reflects the naturalistic, evolutionary view that man is just another animal, free to copulate at the drop of a lust. The primary reason that children are having such a hard time of it these days is that this view of sex has shattered the American home through unfaithfulness and divorce. That is HARM! If you had been with me as I counseled many victims of broken homes, you would agree. Without a comprehensive moral overview people simply pick and choose in a chaotic manner what they want to do – regardless of the consequences. “Harming” others is relegated only to direct and immediate physical or mental harming. The repercussions down the road for children, STD’s, the spouse and society are totally ignored in the face of immediate sense gratification. The Bible calls this “the deceitfulness of sin.”

And, as I pointed out, there are numerous cases and historical precedents for people being able to opt out of narrowly defined activities because of moral and spiritual matters of conscience. The REAL issue in the druggists’ case is that the combined forces of moral relativism, women’s “lib” and their political arms can’t allow any breech in their monolithic tyranny of compulsory compliance with THEIR moral standards (“free” sex/abortion). They are just as surely IMPOSING their values on the druggists and ALL those who do not believe in baby killing. Again, only one moral/spiritual worldview can exist in a culture on a long term basis. Some morla standard will be “imposed.” – ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE – it’s justa matter of which ONE.

Again, I assert that freedom is not freely indulging one’s lusts (even if no one is being “hurt” directly or immediately) but rather, it is flowing in the Creator’s designated moral and social paths – designed for MAXIMUM happiness and peace. IMO the druggists have a perfect right, morally, spiritually and constitutionally to seek exemption from a morally offensive act. They should be accommodated no less than the conscientious objector to wartime killing.

" I thought God kept you from wiping folks out? "...
your statement demonstrates that you believe Christians are puppets on strings which God pulls.....you could not be further from the truth alice. you've seen too many space movies where ones mind is controlled by an alien force.
the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead is the same Spirit which lives in each true believer - this Spirit of God intercedes for us when we don't know how to do it for ourselves, this same Spirit gives us an unction (anointing) to want to please God - He (Holy Spirit) does not force me not to have murderous impluses rather He speaks in a small voice reminding me of the love of the Father and of the sacrifice Jesus made in my place, thereby pointing me in the direction that God wishes me to go - not by force but by anointing. i am not proud to say how many times i have overridden this leading of the Spirit and moved in the fleshly desire - but praise God for Jesus Christ and His atonement, for God is faithful to forgive me when i confess and repent. believe me when i say that God could take an ardent unbeliever as yourself and melt your heart with His love.