I’ve been following and commenting on this thread on the
Third Wave Agenda Blog
regarding the pharmacist who refused to pass out “emergency contraception” and was fired from Eckerd Pharmacies.
Elena’s arguments are the type of nonsense that give the pro-life movement a bad name…
A not-so-subtle ad hominem attack that the writer then fails to support.
A _pharmacist_ is merely someone who is paid obscene amounts of money to move pills from a great big bottle into tiny little bottles.
Another ad hominem and unsupported ridicule fallacy which totally ignores the amount of time and effort a person must put in to become a pharmacist.
Here is some of the course work: Pre pharmacy
He is requested to do so by actual doctors, who are aware of his or her patients’ needs. A pharmacist is not in the position, either professional or moral, to unilaterally decide whether or not the prescribed therapy is beneficial to the patient or not.
And here is the crux of the argument. I am not saying, and neither did Gene Herr, that the pharmacist has the right to decide for the patient, but rather the pharmacist has the right to decide for him or herself whether to perform certain actions. The question is, do health care providers have a right to “choose” to follow their individual consciences or not? Right now there is no law that prevents them from following their consciences. They still have a “choice.”
One could make the argument that a pharmacist should catch issues with contraindications for those customers requiring multiple medications, but even that’s not much of an argument these days since the computers do all the work anyway.
Another ad hominem comment. The anonymous author makes it sound that passing out medications is very similar to pushing the burger and fries through the drive through window.
If a pharmacist feels that his personal belief system precludes him from fulfilling the job he is _paid_ to do, he has a moral obligation to remove himself from the job. Period. It is completely immoral for him to interfere between a doctor and his or her patient.
This comment once again making my point that as far as the pro-choice crowd is concerned, pro-life citizens shouldn’t have choices. Their perspective is that being pro-life prohibits one from working as a pharmacist for starters.
And it would do Elena well to remember that Christ never prevented anyone from making a wrong choice.
He also didn’t require anyone to make a sinful one either. Even Judas had a choice and free will.
He did not come to change the laws in order to remove temptation or evil. The entire point of us having free will in the first place is to make choices, lousy or otherwise.
Uh.. Actually that’s not the point. The point is that God wants you to have the free will to love and choose Him freely. It isn’t free will for free will’s sake.
As for this journalist being pro-choice only if the choice is _for_ abortion or contraception, you’re absolutely wrong, Elena. The point is the choice must _include_ contraception or abortion. There is a difference, my dear.
In reality, pro-choice is a euphemism because the term “pro-abortion” is so abhorrent. This isn’t really about choice, and it never has been. It’s about abortion rights.
I am pro-life. That means all life.
Exactly! It means life from the very moment of conception. Life that cannot defend itself. A person with a truly pro-life perspective understands that fundamental right to life.
It means I understand that people will make decisions that I will not agree with, that may come back to hurt them down the road, and that may be downright wrong. However, I respect their lives enough to allow them to exercise their free will, especially when they’re operating under circumstances I have been blessed not to have to deal with on a personal level.
Love the sinner hate the sin in other words. Exactly.
However, in the Catholic tradition we also have an obligation to speak the truth in love, to educate the ignorant and to admonish the sinner. That is true respectfulness.
It is my responsibility to love unconditionally any woman who chooses to abort, to use emergency contraception, or to make any number of choices I might not make. It is not my business to remove her choices “for her own good”. That’s as anti-Christian and as anti-life as it gets, IMO.
It is anti-Christian to destroy life that God has created in the womb. It is the responsibility of Christians to defend innocent life. All innocent life. To not do that is truly anti-Christian and definitely anti-life.
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!
