Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?
Comments
- 
            
+1. The pharmacists job is to properly dispense the medications. They should have very little to say in terms of patient care, unless they see some obvious contraindication of the new script with something the patient is already taking. Otherwise, shut up and fill the request. The only time I'm looking for help from the pharmacist is to figure out the cheapest option for my meds. I certainly don't need any sort of lectures about morality from someone whose life is guided by their belief in mythology. And if that is the case, why are they in a science-based career? Go write a life coaching book if you want to tell people how they should live their lives.PJ_Soul said:
And depending on the woman, how freaked she is, or nervous or whatever, especially if we're talking about very young women, one denial (and brow beating) from her local pharmacist could be enough to make her scared to try again. I think it's disgusting that it's legal for a pharmacist to deny any customer any item that's legal to sell to them. I think it is SO dangerous to allow pharmacists to apply their personal morals in their jobs at all.mace1229 said:
They just go somewhere else to fill it. It’s not like one pharmacy denies it and they bam anyone else from doing it. Would just be an inconvenience. An unnecessary one I agree.PJ_Soul said:
I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?mace1229 said:
I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I was shocked and think that law is dumb.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 - 
            
I've asked this same thing of my brother (born again baptist/bio chemical engineer). his take, one that I've heard here and elsewhere, is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.jeffbr said:
+1. The pharmacists job is to properly dispense the medications. They should have very little to say in terms of patient care, unless they see some obvious contraindication of the new script with something the patient is already taking. Otherwise, shut up and fill the request. The only time I'm looking for help from the pharmacist is to figure out the cheapest option for my meds. I certainly don't need any sort of lectures about morality from someone whose life is guided by their belief in mythology. And if that is the case, why are they in a science-based career? Go write a life coaching book if you want to tell people how they should live their lives.PJ_Soul said:
And depending on the woman, how freaked she is, or nervous or whatever, especially if we're talking about very young women, one denial (and brow beating) from her local pharmacist could be enough to make her scared to try again. I think it's disgusting that it's legal for a pharmacist to deny any customer any item that's legal to sell to them. I think it is SO dangerous to allow pharmacists to apply their personal morals in their jobs at all.mace1229 said:
They just go somewhere else to fill it. It’s not like one pharmacy denies it and they bam anyone else from doing it. Would just be an inconvenience. An unnecessary one I agree.PJ_Soul said:
I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?mace1229 said:
I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I was shocked and think that law is dumb.
imagine if cops were allowed to not provide their service based on morality.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 - 
            Women's medical rights = bad
Assault rifles = good
Classy black president = bad
Repugnant orange president = good
Red State America0 - 
            
 - 
            
Or firefighters....HughFreakingDillon said:
I've asked this same thing of my brother (born again baptist/bio chemical engineer). his take, one that I've heard here and elsewhere, is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.jeffbr said:
+1. The pharmacists job is to properly dispense the medications. They should have very little to say in terms of patient care, unless they see some obvious contraindication of the new script with something the patient is already taking. Otherwise, shut up and fill the request. The only time I'm looking for help from the pharmacist is to figure out the cheapest option for my meds. I certainly don't need any sort of lectures about morality from someone whose life is guided by their belief in mythology. And if that is the case, why are they in a science-based career? Go write a life coaching book if you want to tell people how they should live their lives.PJ_Soul said:
And depending on the woman, how freaked she is, or nervous or whatever, especially if we're talking about very young women, one denial (and brow beating) from her local pharmacist could be enough to make her scared to try again. I think it's disgusting that it's legal for a pharmacist to deny any customer any item that's legal to sell to them. I think it is SO dangerous to allow pharmacists to apply their personal morals in their jobs at all.mace1229 said:
They just go somewhere else to fill it. It’s not like one pharmacy denies it and they bam anyone else from doing it. Would just be an inconvenience. An unnecessary one I agree.PJ_Soul said:
I wonder what would happen if someone was denied a medication by a pharmacist on moral grounds, and then the person ended up suffering disability or death as a result of not getting it? Could the pharmacist and/or pharmacy be successfully sued?mace1229 said:
I saw this on the morning news about a week ago. I was surprised to hear but they said what he did was perfectly legal that in AR, and several other states, a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if they have a moral objection. That person then has the right to go to a different pharmacy.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I was shocked and think that law is dumb.
imagine if cops were allowed to not provide their service based on morality.0 - 
            0
 - 
            We must have our choice!Pine Knob, MI Lollapalooza 1992 / Soldier Field, Chicago 1995 / Savage Hall, Toledo 1996 / Palace, Detroit 1998 / Palace, Detroit 2000 / Pine Knob, MI 2003 / Showbox, Seattle 2004 / MSG, NYC 2008 / Key Arena I & II, Seattle 2009 / Eddie Vedder Beacon, NYC 2011 / Eddie Vedder Benaroya, Hall Seattle 2011 / Barclays, Brooklyn I &II 2013 / Wells Fargo, Philadelphia II 2013 / Wuhlheide, Berlin, Germany 2014 / Wells Fargo, Philadelphia 1 2016 / Madison Square Garden, NYC 2 2016 / Wrigley 2, Chicago 2016/ Fenway 1, Boston 2018/0
 - 
            
 - 
            0
 - 
            
yes this can't be denied ....my2hands said:Women's medical rights = bad
Assault rifles = good
Classy black president = bad
Repugnant orange president = good
Red State Americajesus greets me looks just like me ....0 - 
            Let the liberals scrape all they want.0
 - 
            
Easily denied. Again these are generalizations made from extremes.josevolution said:
yes this can't be denied ....my2hands said:Women's medical rights = bad
Assault rifles = good
Classy black president = bad
Repugnant orange president = good
Red State America
Women’s medical rights = bad ? Where does this come from, one single issue of abortion? And ignore the thousand other medical issues that everyone agrees on
Assault rifles = good ? While I will admit there are plenty who do want access to assault rifles, almost every poll I’ve seen indicates most republicans are for restrictions on these. So again a generic action from one extreme example.
Classy black president = bad? Color has nothing to do with it. He did a lot of good things, but things like Obamacare have clearly failed and people were lied to to get it passed. Let’s lets leave color out of it when referring to people who didn’t like him.
Orange President = good. Only when compared to other bad options we’ve had. Many, like myself are not happy with a lot that he’s done. But give me a better option next time0 - 
            I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.hippiemom = goodness0
 - 
            
Sure it is. Forget the pretty obvious notion that nothing like this would ever be done to men...(i.e., if men could have babies, they'd get to abort at will).cincybearcat said:I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.
Forced birth is the ultimate in control over someone. And the rationale as to why they're wrong is because they're a slut (shoulda kept your legs closed, enjoy the next nine months). Men are literally forcing something upon women that they'll never have to do.
And this is going to apply to rape victims (particularly since it's almost impossible to convince a rapist at all, much less before the third trimester) and 13-year-old victims of rape and incest. Why? Because we care more about a fetus, which is nowhere near having hopes and dreams than we the person who's life it's going to impact.
And then when the baby is born? Whatever.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 - 
            
I'm pretty sure the decision on Roe v Wade is boiled down in a nutshell to a persons right to medical privacy.cincybearcat said:I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.
And thankfully, yes, the majority of the country agrees with that
Post edited by my2hands on0 - 
            cincybearcat said:I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.
I find it amazing that in the 21st century... we still have people clinging to the idea that there is an omnipresent god that knows what 8 billion people are up to at any given moment and listens to millions of individual prayers at one time.
I find it further amazing that this coocoo belief is allowed to drive policies which affect human beings."My brain's a good brain!"0 - 
            
I too find that 1st part pretty amazing. Doesn’t drive my decision makingThirty Bills Unpaid said:cincybearcat said:I find it amazing that the left has completely turned abortion into “women’s medical rights”. And the majority of the country has bought in. Sad.
I find it amazing that in the 21st century... we still have people clinging to the idea that there is an omnipresent god that knows what 8 billion people are up to at any given moment and listens to millions of individual prayers at one time.
I find it further amazing that this coocoo belief is allowed to drive policies which affect human beings.hippiemom = goodness0 - 
            Here's a Supreme Court question.....
Lots of people are suggesting that if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. My question is how can they do that? Shouldn't that case be closed? Shouldn't every case be closed if no new evidence comes to light? What would be the argument to even consider overturning it? "We have different people to vote on it now"?
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 - 
            
I made this point before. It can't just be overturned based on judges personal feelings. There has to be a legal precedent to change it and a case has to come before the court to be heard. Most likely it will never be overturned on a national scale but will fall to each state to decide. of course there are plenty of backasswards states that will make it mostly illegal. don't get knocked up in the South ladies.Ledbetterman10 said:Here's a Supreme Court question.....
Lots of people are suggesting that if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. My question is how can they do that? Shouldn't that case be closed? Shouldn't every case be closed if no new evidence comes to light? What would be the argument to even consider overturning it? "We have different people to vote on it now"?0 - 
            
How would that process work? Whose decision would it be for it to be decided on by the states? Congress?pjhawks said:
I made this point before. It can't just be overturned based on judges personal feelings. There has to be a legal precedent to change it and a case has to come before the court to be heard. Most likely it will never be overturned on a national scale but will fall to each state to decide. of course there are plenty of backasswards states that will make it mostly illegal. don't get knocked up in the South ladies.Ledbetterman10 said:Here's a Supreme Court question.....
Lots of people are suggesting that if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. My question is how can they do that? Shouldn't that case be closed? Shouldn't every case be closed if no new evidence comes to light? What would be the argument to even consider overturning it? "We have different people to vote on it now"?
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 
Categories
- All Categories
 - 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
 - 110.1K The Porch
 - 278 Vitalogy
 - 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
 - 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
 - 39.2K Flea Market
 - 39.2K Lost Dogs
 - 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
 - 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
 - 29.1K Other Music
 - 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
 - 1.1K The Art Wall
 - 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
 - 22.2K A Moving Train
 - 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
 - 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help
 











