Why don't Pharmacists refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions?

[bleedingheart]

If the sanctimonious pharmacists feel that filling the morning after pill is against God's will, then why not refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions, cuz if God determined that Mr. America's dick should be out of commission...then why not leave it that way?

Clearly male impotence might be a sign from the Lord and why interfere with what the Lord has seen fit to do?

Same goes for fertility drugs, if God has determined that you should not bear fruit and multiply...then why allow people to interfere with God's wishes?

I wonder how the media would react if a bunch of pharmacists started adhereing to these policies?



**Disclaimer, I believe people have the right to choose what drugs they choose to take and for what ever reason.

[Canuckistanian]

1. That's right, these are LEGAL drugs

Someone should bring this to the SC on the grounds of hampering interstate commerce.

[bleedingheart]

2. what really yanks my chain is that instead of respecting people's privacy

the GOP has fostered an atmosphere in which neb-nosing is a high art form.

[jobycom]

3. Not that I agree with pro-lifers in ANY way,but

the abortion pills in their mind cause a murder if taken. The issue isn't about interfering with what God has seen fit to do, it's about their belief that a human life is ended.

As I said, I don't agree with them.

Maybe you could ask why conservative Christians don't refuse to sell cigarettes, or handguns, or other instruments of death? It would be a closer parallel, though still not a good one.

[bleedingheart]

5. but most maladies that afflict people could be seen as a sign from God

and that is my point...if we are not to interfere with God's plan....then pharmacists could come up with a boat load of reasons not to fill prescriptions.

[jobycom]

10. But that's a false argument, they aren't claiming it interferes with God's

plan, they are claiming the abortion pill causes a murder.

There are groups of people who follow "God's plan" that closely, but they are few and far between, and usually make news by refusing any medications for their children.

The average Fundie sees doctors as guided by God's hand, not as some interference in God's plans. The only prescription they are refusing to fill is one that in their minds commits murder.

Again, i don't agree that it commits murder, I'm an atheist so I don't even agree that there is a God, but frankly, I can see their argument.

[bleedingheart]

15. I can see your point but yet murder is committed daily

and yet they don't protest that? They don't interfere with supplying the drugs for a lethal injection....they are selective because the morning after pill is one murder they associate with the idea of going against God's will...

[jobycom]

26. Because they believe in capital punishment, therefore

they don't consider it murder. It seems more likely that someone against the death penalty, like me, would refuse to fill such an order. Frankly, I would. If a pharmacist refuses to fill an order for lethal injection serum, would they be hammered the same way around here? Somehow, I think they'd be heros.

But my main point is that the OP's comparison was a faulty one.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

12. It isn't an abortion pill

It PREVENTS pregnancy. It does not terminate a pregnancy.

Emergency contraception works by preventing either ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of the the ovum on the uterine wall. It doesn't "kill" anymore than condoms do.

[abluelady]

19. Exactly.

If a guy can't get it up, that prevents pregnancy, too, but that doesn't seem to matter. Such hypocrits. I can't stand it.

[jobycom]

24. What are you talking about?

Are you saying that Mifepristone prevents an egg from being fertilized before conception? Because that's not how I understand it. Or are you talking about actual contraceptives?

Either way, it's irrelevant. The OP was talking about pharmacists refusing to prescribe medication such as Viagra because it alters God's will. Fundies aren't refusing to fill prescriptions based on that logic. They are refusing to fill prescriptions that they believe commit murder.

How would we feel if they came up with the proverbial pill to "cure homosexuality?" Would we want the right for our pharmacists to refuse to fill them on moral grounds?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

28. The morning after pill is not Mifepristone

The OP mentions the morning after pill. This is an emergency contraceptive pill, that is all. It is not a chemical abortion drug but rather a high does of hormones that are the same as the ones found in regular birth control.

Here's some quick info on the morning after pill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill

[jobycom]

34. My bad, but the morning after pill still prevents a fertilized egg

from attaching to the uterus wall, according to your link. For those who believe life starts with a fertilized egg, it's still an abortion.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

59. Well, some may see it that way

But, legally it's a zygote. Any woman can do the same thing, though with less safety, by taking multiple birth control pills at one time.

Let me toss out a hypothetical situation here. Say we have a woman who forgot to take her pill for four days and she had sex. She then took her four pills she had missed to "catch up". Is this anyone else's business but her and her doctors? In effect that is the same thing that the morning after pill is, a one time high does of hormones.

The morning after pill is a legally listed emergency contraceptive pill. When someone begins to think they have a right to deny me, or any other woman, a doctor prescribed contraceptive they are treading on a slippery slope. If we permit this then is it a stretch to think we will see other pharmacist who don't believe in any form of womens contraceptives refuse to disperse them?

I took the pill for years, but I couldn't have any more children even if I didn't due to a medical condition. Being pregnant could very well kill me (it almost has) and even if I live I will lose the baby. Is it the right of some pharmacist to second guess what my doctor says is best for me?

Answer: It's neither his business nor his job to let his beliefs threaten my life.

[jobycom]

61. And that is completely irrelevant to any point I made

I'm not arguing against contraceptives or abortion. I'm arguing against forcing an individual to violate his or her most sacred religious belief, possibly the corp of their identity, rather than letting that person hand a prescription off to a co-worker. I'm talking about the freedom to practice their own religious belief, whether it's rational or not. (I'm an atheist, I know of no religious beliefs that seem rational to me).

You make the pharmacy responsible. You make it their duty to accomodate the religious views of their employees. You don't make a person choose between their religion and their job. No matter what that religion is. We make greater exceptions for other religions. Why is this so offensive to people?

This doesn't stop anyone from getting their medication. I've never implied that. This is simply allowing someone to honor their own beliefs. Your body isn't his or her business, but his or her conscience is, and not yours. You have no more right to dictate their beliefs than they have to dictate yours.

And it will come back. If we begin to act as dogmatically as they do, then the pendulum will eventually turn. If we choose to break the mold and act with understanding, then maybe when the pendulum swings they will have learned to respect us, too.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

63. Okay

I was replying to what you said in your post to me. Not the entire thread and the points you've made in them. Some very good points I must say.

I admit, I just replied from 'my posts' and when I saw your current reply realized I'd missed some vital element of the conversation.

Having caught up to date with where you're at, I see nothing wrong with a pharmacy being required to have a second pharmacist there to fill prescriptions if one pharmacist feels uneasy doing so. We both know they won't want to spend the extra money and they will be forced to solve the problem themselves. Nice idea, I like it. Hit them in their wallets and bring them to their knees.
:)

[gkhouston]

29. no. If someone *wants* to "cure" their homosexuality

that's their choice and I don't think pharmacists have a moral right to prevent that just because they (or I) feel that homosexuality isn't something that should or can be remedied. Whether a treatment is appropriate is something best decided between a patient and the prescribing physician. The pharmacist's role is to intervene only when the physician has unwittingly prescribed a medication that conflicts with other medications the patient is taking, written incorrect dosing instructions, etc. In such cases, the proper course of action is to consult with the prescribing doctor, not pull out a soapbox. Those are medical decisions, not moral ones.

[jobycom]

37. Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I would

I'm not talking about a soapbox. I'm talking about doing something that you believe morally reprehensible simply because a doctor orders it. I'm talking about handing a prescription off to someone else in the pharmacy because you believe it's wrong to fill it. You haven't blocked what the doctor and the patient have agreed to do, and what, presumably the law allows. All you've done is refuse to do it yourself.

If a parent came to me with a prescription for an anti-homosexuality pill for her minor child, I would have difficulty filling it. I would certainly make someone else do it if I were not the only pharmacist. (Not that I'm a pharmacist, just hypothetically.)

[gkhouston]

40. that's a much tougher question...

because now we've introduced a third party (the parent) and are venturing into an area where the patient doesn't want the medication (either the minor actively doesn't want the anti-gay med, or you believe they're being coerced). That's a whole 'nother can of worms, and I'd have a lot of difficulty with that.

With the morning after pill, women are being denied something they're asking for. Perhaps a better question would be how we'd feel about filling the prescription for a parent if we felt a minor was going to be coerced into taking it, even if she didn't want to?

[jobycom]

42. But, and I hate taking this side, but

Pro-lifers, at least those who aren't using this all as a cynical political ploy or throwing tantrums, honestly believe that a third person is involved. That's the issue. To us, it's about the woman. To them, it's about the woman and the baby.

I don't give their argument enough credibility to change my opinion on abortion, but it just seems like trying extra hard to rub their faces in it to say that not only are we not going to pass laws agreeing with them, but we are also going to force them by law to violate their own consciences because it disagrees with what we believe.

Even the military allows consciencious objectors.

[gkhouston]

52. there isn't a third person

a fetus is not yet a person. A fetus might become a person, after a woman has spent several months risking her health and her life to bring a pregnancy to term. There is a significant difference between a potential person and an actual person; ask anyone who's suffered a miscarriage.

Pro-lifers can make any choice that pleases them for themselves. but they don't get to make my choices based on their beliefs. Any pharmacist who thinks otherwise had better hope there are some other people on staff willing to dispense the "objectionable" prescriptions or had better start looking for another job. Or... :think: they could realize that it's None Of Their Fucking Business and simply dispense the medication. What a concept!

[jobycom]

53. So you can dictate to them what their personal beliefs are, but they can't

tell you what to believe? If you are saying that they are wrong in their personal belief that a fetus is a person, you are telling them what to believe.

I've stated in almost every post that I'm not saying they should be allowed to block a prescription, only that they should be able to pass the prescription on to someone else, if they believe that strongly. It would be up to an employer who knows of this belief to be sure he or she had another means to fill the prescription.

[gkhouston]

57. Nope. If they want to believe

that their fetus is a person, fine. If they want to insist that my fetus is a person, tough. It would be nice to believe that there's always going to be someone there to hand the script off to, but I suspect the easy way out won't always be available. What happens then? What happens when we're talking about pain meds and the pharmacist's morals dictate that you, as a patient, shouldn't need all that medication for your chronic pain problem? How much are you willing to suffer to accomodate the personal beliefs of your pharmacist?

[jobycom]

60. Red herring on pain meds

As for what happens when someone else isn't available--you make it the job of the pharmacy to make someone else available. Hold the pharmacy responsible. Businesses have to accomadate workers religious beliefs all the time, not to mention their disabilities and other issues. This is America--you don't force someone to violate their religion or personal beliefs, whether it's letting an Orthodox Jew off on Sabbath or allowing a Muslim woman to wear traditional garb or whatever.

This is America. That's what we're about. Protecting people's freedoms and rights, even if we don't understand or like those rights. Not putting up signs saying "English only." Not making black people and white people sit in different rooms. Not forcing our kids to say someone else's prayer. Hopefully one day not forcing the Pledge of Allegiance. Not forcing a person to do something that is morally reprehensible to them or forcing them to choose between their job or their religion.

That's American. That's liberal. That's Democratic. That's the right thing to do. I'm stunned there are DUers who disagree, but hey, this is America, everyone has the right to disagree, too. :-)

*(Some of these rights may not be available under Republican administrations.)

[gkhouston]

64. actually, it's not a red herring

a pharmacist, because of personal beliefs, declines to fill a legal prescription. The nature and origin of the personal beliefs are irrelevant; what matters is that the pharmacist, for whatever reason, isn't doing part of his/her job and the pharmacy either has to find a way to accommodate that or has to find another pharmacist. As long as my meds are there when I come by the pick-up window, I don't care how the store settles it.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

30. It's not irrelevant when you erroneously refer to it as an "abortion pill"

The info I cited comes from the US Dept of Health and Human Services.

http://www.4woman.gov/faq/econtracep.htm

No legal meds that a doctor prescribes should be denied to the patient who wants them. If someone WANTED to take an "anti-gay" med, he should not be denied it.

[jobycom]

33. Not to the pill, but to my point it's still irrelevant

My point is that that they aren't refusing to fill these prescriptions because it is against God's natural plan, but because they consider it to be murder. If THAT part is wrong, then inform me, so I can adjust my thinking.

And according to your link, it does stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, so to people (however idiotic they may be) who believe that a fertilized egg is a life, it's still murder.

It would really interest me to see if you, or anyone else here, would fill a prescription that you genuinely believed in your heart was murder, doctor or not. If so, there is a big difference between you and I. Given what's happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, I wonder where people would draw the line. Would you, if ordered by a doctor, commit murder?

And again, I'm so pro-life that I won't vote for Dennis Kucinich because he's a recent convert, so don't think I'm taking a position I agree with.

[phylny]

38. In answer to your question, if I were a pharmacist who had a moral

objection to a certain pharmaceutical agent, I would be certain to work when another, qualified pharmacist was working.

Unless the pharmacist comes across a drug interaction or something in the prescription that would harm the patient (and can verify this with the doctor), the pharmacist has no right being a gatekeeper or getting in between a doctor and his or her patient. Under any circumstances.

[jobycom]

43. I specifically ruled that out already.

I said in my first post that I wasn't talking about a pharmacist who holds on to a presription or tries to obstruct in any way. I was specifically talking about a doctor handing a prescription off to a co-worker rather than filling it. I've gotten bashed in other threads for even suggesting that.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

39. What weird hypotheticals

Would I want a pharmacist to dispense homosexual "cures." Would I "commit murder" by dispensing a legal drug a doctor ordered. And then you drag Abu Ghraib and Gitmo into it, as if they illustrate and illuminate your argument.

I would not pry open someone's jaws and drop a cyanide capsule down their throat. Short of that, if a patient wants what a doctor legitimately prescribes, the patient should get it. If the patient doesn't want it, he doesn't get the prescription filled. It's pretty simple.

[jobycom]

44. You have very different morals than me, then

I don't place science above my own conscience. I do believe in a right and wrong beyond science and the desire of a patient. They aren't wierd hypotheticals to me. The 20th century is full of exactly that decision--should people obey science or medicine to the point of doing something they consider immoral? Is there a line you would draw between what you were told to do by a boss or commander or profession and what you believed was wrong.

I listed examples where people did not draw the line, and I listed a very common medical ethics hypothetical. To the pharmacists we are talking about, they are being asked not only to support a government and a law that they believe allows murder, but to commit the murders themselves. I'm sorry, but I sympathize with that. Maybe your government has never done something you disagree with, but mine has. So I can relate to the dilemma.

If you can't, you can't.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

46. Completely, utterly besides the point

"Is there a line you would draw between what you were told to do by a boss or commander or profession and what you believed was wrong."

What I believe is wrong, and what is criminal by law, can be two different things. Emergency contraception is a legal drug, and when prescribed by a legitimate doctor, should be dispensed to the patient who wants it.

"Maybe your government has never done something you disagree with, but mine has."

Are you implying that, as a member of this board, I do not believe this government - our government - has done anything wrong? That is an implication that comes perilously close to calling me a freeper.

[jobycom]

47. No, it was right on point, and you didn't address it

"Is there a line you would draw between what you were told to do by a boss or commander or profession and what you believed was wrong."

What I believe is wrong, and what is criminal by law, can be two different things.
----

That was my point. Are you saying you'd do it anyway just because it was legal?

I'll ignore your other comment.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

49. Pffft.

[jobycom]

51. LOL! Fair enough. nt.

[The Magistrate]

41. A Couple Of Points, Sir

First, murder is not simply a killing one disagrees with personally: it is a legal term, and means a killing that is unlawful in specific ways. Use of the word in ths context is merely an imflammatory device seeking to shut down debate by over-heating it. If one followed this view out to its conclusion, then as people ought to do whatever is possible and necessary to prevent commission of a murder, one winds up endorsing the bombing of abortion clinics and killing of doctors who perform the operation.

Second, this conviction "murder" is the proper word to describe abortion will not exist without a previous coviction the conception and ensuing birth is "God's natural plan": persons who lack this will seldom be moved to regard the thing as anything but the perogative of the woman most directly affected. The fact is that in all instances where pharmacists have refused to provide this medicine, they have cited religious convictions as the basis for their actions. They have no right whatever to compel in any degree any other person to abide by their own moral views. If they feel performing their trade cannot be done without doing things they object to personally, they may seek employment in some other occupation.

[jobycom]

45. Fair points as always, M, but I have considered them.

First, I will call what Bush did in Iraq murder, whether I get legal agreement on the term or not, because "murder" is more than a legal term, it is a term people use to describe an immoral, unjust killing. If I use that right myself, I can't deny it to people I disagree with. And my intention is not to overheat the argument, but to present it in the terms used by the people we are talking about. It's an extreme word, but to them, the action warrants it.

Some have used the word to justify killing. To me, that's further proof that we should do away with the death penalty, to remove death as the ultimate punishment.

Second, I've met atheists who believed life began at conception. They do not claim this because it is part of anything's plan, but because they believe that life is precious and should not be ended voluntarily. They also oppose the death penalty, war, and assisted suicide, though the people I'm talking about believe a person should be allowed to end their own life. So the fact that so far everyone who has refused to fill prescriptions has done so for religious reasons doesn't mean that it is purely a religious issue--it is philosophically possible for others to feel that way for other reasons, thus the action doesn't have to be a religious action.

Further, the Constitution does, in all interpretations, say that a person is free to practice their own religion, even in violation of some laws, as long as no one is specifically harmed. So if this is a religious argument, they have a stronger case before the law. As I've said several times, I'm not talking about a pharmacist blocking a prescription, I'm talking about a pharmacist handing a prescription off to a co-worker to fill. No one is compelling the patient to abide by their views, they are simply refusing to, in their own belief system, help to commit murder. I think they should have that personal right. I'd want that right. So I can't deny it to someone else.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

27. Yes, thank you, it's a contraceptive not a chemical abortion!

Why is it, do you think, that so many people can't grasp that it's a contraceptive?

It's the same hormones that are in birth control pills just in a higher dose. It's a form of contraceptive not an abortion pill.

I wish people would stop confusing this with chemical abortion drugs like RU-486. They. Are. Not. The. Same.

[cassiepriam]

4. Duh. Repugs would never have sex again.

We all know that they are zero in the bedroom.
That is why they are so obsessed with everyone else's sex life.

[bleedingheart]

7. that has always been my view....people with no sex life seem obsessed

with other people's sex lives.

[leesa]

6. Because it's GOOD to be up to our eyeballs with children we can't take

care of. It's what God wants. Jesus would have used Viagra if it were available.

[bleedingheart]

8. yep...cuz they are all blessings...whether they are fed or taken care of

is besides the point.

[MountainLaurel]

(Psssst. It's not about Gawd's will.)

It's about punishing women for having sex.

[Kierkegaard]

9. Why don't they refuse to fill ALL prescriptions, then?

God intended for you to HAVE that infection, pain, illness, etc.

Good question: Why allow people to interfere with God's wishes?

[HereSince1628]

11. Because Viagra doesn't interfere with implantation?

Really trying to compare viagra and the morning after pill doesn't make sense.

I appreciate there is a desire to make this into some sort of patriarchy issue (pharmacists don't object to a sex drug for men) as that is a classic component of feminist theory.

The crux of this particular attack against choice is that pharmacists shouldn't be forced to engage in the sale of a drug whose purpose the pharmacists find objectional for moral and religious reasons.

The counter argument to be made by choice advocates should be why consumer access to legal drugs is more important than the idosyncracies of pharmacists.

[Coexist]

13. and how do these pharmacists know that these men on Viagra

are not inserting their newly erect penises,and ejaculating into the vaginas of women who use birth control pills? That is contributing to the same thing.

[bluedawg12]

14. The sacred dick and the evil uterus.

Goes back to Adam and Eve.

[mondo joe]

16. Because they feel emergency contraception results in abortion and Viagra

doesn't, I'd say.

I have to say I think this is a fallacious argument. The argument is that emergency contraception causes a fertlized egg to be eliminated.

I don't see what viagra has to do with that, even as an analogy.

Birth control is a part of basic health care, and in my opinion any pharmacist who refuses to fill the prescription for personal reasons should lose his or her licence.

But I don't think this argument makes sense.

[bleedingheart]

17. What about a Pharmacist that belongs to a religous group that

does not condone the use of certain types of drugs...

What if that Pharmacist decides to stop filling viagra and other prescriptions because he doesn't deem them necessary.

What then????

[mondo joe]

20. In my opinion, any pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for

personal reasons should lose his or her license.

I thought that was what I said earlier, but maybe I wasn't clear enough.

But I maintain that the original analogy doesn't hold water.

[LostinVA]

18. "Be Fruitful and multiple the earth"

It's Biblical.....

[bmbmd]

21. Pharmacists tend to make

things harder for their older patients.

[jmowreader]

22. You might serve God but your store manager serves mammon

Mammon sez that an average of two thousand men buying an average of two dick pills per week at an average price of ten dollars per dose are bringing an average of $40,000 per week across the transom.

If you and Jesus were costing ME $40,000 a week in lost revenues just off one product, you and Jesus would be selling Bibles down at the Christian bookstore tomorrow.

They can afford to take "moral stands" with emergency contraception because the numbers aren't there. But trust me on this: if emergency contraception sales were bringing a reliable $10,000 a week into the building, access to it wouldn't even be a question.

[madokie]

23. I believe I should have the right to do anything I want as long as

it doesn't interfere with what someone else wants to do. I hope I worded that right.

[pitohui]

25. because it's ok for men to have sex

it just isn't ok for women

[Whoa_Nelly]

31. Viagra-YES Evil Wayward Women-NO

It's about a Xtian belief that women must be CONTROLLED! They are EVIL!

It's out-and-out misogyny. If the government WILL NOT control these women who are sexually active, then BY GOD, the pharmacists who have MORALS (Xtian ones, that is) WILL interfere, WILL seek to CONTROL, and show those bad women that their morals are better than those who seek to control their own lives by choosing to NOT conceive

[spacelady]

32. What about all the extra "seed" that is spilled due the use of Viagra?

All those sad little sperms are potential babies aren't they? These fundie farmacists are playing fast & loose with women's health.

[Scout]

35. yeah, that "god's will" argument is pretty damn weak

hey, you better not take that aspirin, damn it! you wouldn't have a headache if God didn't want you to have it, so you just suffer through it 'cuz it's God's will!

fucking hypocrites

[Czolgosz]

36. Why don't they refuse to fill Methotrexate or Accutane prescriptions

The arthritis medicine Methotrexate, the acne medication Accutane, and many other medications can lead to miscarriage as a known foreseeable side effect.

Do these same pharmacists refuse to fill these prescriptions too?

If not, that raises the question whether these pharmacists are really worried about the health of the fetus or if they are more truly concerned about the conduct of the pregnant woman.

[retread]

48. Because of stiff opposition? n/t

[flyarm]

50. screw like a bunny..........

and get the little gals barefoot and pg..thats the rethug motto!!!!!!!!

keep the little woman down..rethugs..like it that way..mindless women...with caveman men!

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


fly

[Oeditpus Rex]

54. Because of the 'Not Noel Coward Song'

from "Monty Python's 'The Meaning of Life'":

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis?
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?
It's swell to have a stiffy.
It's divine to own a dick,
From the tiniest little tadger
To the world's biggest prick.
So, three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas.
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake,
Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend,
Your Percy, or your cock.
You can wrap it up in ribbons.
You can slip it in your sock,
But don't take it out in public,
Or they will stick you in the dock,
And you won't come back.

[Amaya]

55. Because having a hard on for five hours is of greater importance...

Jeez, didn't you get the memo?
:eyes:

[WI_DEM]

56. because most of those pharmacists are middle aged males with limp dicks

themselves, and use Viagra!

[Sgent]

58. Joby...

I agree with much of what you've said. From our opponents point of view, our arguments are specious and off the point. Personally I think we would make a lot more traction attacking the death penalty.

On another topic, I have two issues -- referral and continuity of care. In my opinion a pharmacist (or physician) has no obligation other than life threatening situations to take anyone on as a patient -- he can choose to work with someone the same as an attorney or accountant does. That being said, once a patient, he then owes the person continuity of care. So if an existing patient presents a script, I think he has an obligation to fill it or have it filled on a timely basis -- although he would be within his rights to refuse refills, and ask the patient to change pharmacists (30 days notice).

I know people who honestly believe that abortion -- including taking a birth control pill for pregnancy prevention -- is murder. As an honestly held moral belief, I think we as a society owe them the same respect we ask for our beliefs. To restrict them to certain jobs, or to certain areas of society, is religious persecution of the first order.

Finally, someone mentioned accutane and other drugs that have a side effect of misscarrige. The respons from these people is simple -- the drug was not taken with the primary purpose of causing a muder.

[goodboy]

62. AND sex is ONLY for procreation, or else you'll burn in hell (nt)

[MarsThe Cat]

65. Viagra doesn't kill babies.

is pretty much how they'd respond.

btw- if you're going to use the "god's will" argument- then that would apply to ALL medications- might as well close up ALL the pharmacies, and let's all become christ scientists.