The War on Fornication

Comments

[Aresen]

I surrender.

[J sub D]

Here goes the ol’ pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Reasonable people are hereby excused.

[jackanapestarian]

I’d be more concerned if I were getting more.

[Nick]

I remember that Hager fuckwad. He must have the smallest cock ever if he could anally rape his wife without waking her up.

But that begs the question, how did she know?

[jimmydageek]

Stains on the bed?

[J sub D]

But that begs the question, how did she know?

Santorum?

[Sexrag]

I am no lies virgin because I promised Jesus that I wouldn’t have sex until marriage if I could pull off some big money dealings which I done did.

[val]

Here goes the ol’ pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Reasonable people are hereby excused.

I know we often have these life vs. choice debates that go upto 200 posts, but Im not sure there are that many people on H&R in the pro-life camp that consider the plan-B pill a ‘baby-killer’. Or are there?

[Alan Vanneman]

Caroon pornography! About fucking time!

[Alan Vanneman]

OK, cartoon pornography! I was excited! Excuse the fuck out of me!

[Jonathan Hohensee]

I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen a zygote smoking a cigar in a comic. In fact, I think it’s the first time a zygote has ever been seen smoking a cigar.

[Abdul]

The Hager story came from an interview the former Mrs. Hager gave to the Nation magazine, and it’s one Dr. Hager has always denied. As to how she could be raped in her sleep, she claimed to have narcolepsy. There’s little to corroborate her story, but that’s often the case in marital rape scenarios. It’s basically he-said/she-said.

[Chris Potter]

As Mr. Bagge demonstrates, this issue is so much simpler when you assume the other side is populated exclusively by lying hypocrites. Then, instead of actually engaging the issue, you can just poke fun at hypocrites, examples of which can be found in any large movement.

[Abdul]

you can just poke fun at hypocrites, examples of which can be found in any large movement.

I just had a large movement and there were no hypocrites in it. There was some corn, however.

[Lamar]

Thank god we don’t have to illustrate our comments.

[kl]

How is this cartoon any less bigoted than racist cartoons?

[Chris Potter]

Oh, and the Catholic Church has considered zygotes human persons since zygotes were first discovered in the 1700s. It’s not a new doctrine promulgated to control sexuality in light of late 20th century pharmacology, as Bagge implies.

[sage]

When I read this strip in the print issue, I noticed that Bagge claims that Viagra is responsible for an increase in STDs among the elderly, yet he doesn’t bother to cite his source for this. Has anyone else heard of this?

[anon.]

“If public humiliation is the goal, why not go all out and give female customers the full Taliban treatment?”

I think Plan B should be available over the counter, I think less of pharmacists that don’t offer it, and I support Bagge’s right to criticize them. However, conflating a private merchant’s refusal to sell a product on the free market with the state-sanctioned violence against women in the Islamic world is ridiculous. The latter is a rights violation, the former is not.

[kl]

It’s fun showing religious people, one and all, as idiots. Kinda like the Ron Paul letters stereotyping blacks as ghetto criminals. What’s different?

[crimethink]

“If public humiliation is the goal, why not go all out and give female customers the full Taliban treatment?”

Probably the same reason that we consider it mildly annoying that tax money is spent humiliating smokers in TV ads, but would have quite a different reaction if smokers were getting 40 lashes in the public square.

[Kolohe]

sage-
I have heard of this, but it’s a 2nd order causation thing.

viagra has caused old timers to go from no sex to some sex. and between a combo of not worried about preggers, and not using condoms even when they were in their prime, std’s in old folks homes have gone up. don’t have a link though

[Qbryzan]

Sage,

I have heard of it:

“Once Viagra reared its little blue head into sex, aging people were able to have even more sex,”

[Brandybuck]

This issue has also re-exposed the fact that many “pro-life” activists are opposed to the use of contraceptives in general…

I gross misconception, in the US at least. “A few” would be a bit closer to the truth. While this is the official Roman Catholic doctrine, most US Catholics have no problems using contraceptives. Among protestants, the only contraceptives that are controversial are IUDs, but they have little problem with pills or prophylactics.

Yes, there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. But characterizing pro-lifers as being anti-contraception is an erroneous deception, as silly as characterizing pro-choicers as being promiscuous feminists.

[Chris Potter]

Well, it’s good to see there’s more sense in the comments section than in the editorial staff on this issue. Here’s to us, fellow little people.

[Calidore]

Chris Potter,

Though I’ve nver read any primary sources on the subject, in the secondary sources I’ve seen I think I recall that only in in the 1860s did a Pope declare that stage of embryo creation was the point at which life starts.

[Dangerman]

kl-
1) Religion is completely voluntary, outside of areas where it is mandated by the State. The U.S. is not one of these places.

2) It is silly to respect someone’s sensibilities only because they believe in Omniscient Guy Who Made Everything And Will Tell Us How To Behave.

[Nick]

“It’s fun showing religious people, one and all, as idiots. Kinda like the Ron Paul letters stereotyping blacks as ghetto criminals. What’s different?”

Religion is a choice. Color is not.

[dbcooper]

It seems to me that the issue with pharmacists who refuse do dispense contraceptives is primarily one for the organisation that licences them. Personally, I find it outrageous that they would allow licensed pharmacists to behave in this manner. It seems highly unethical to burden a patient with your own personal beliefs.

[Chris Potter]

Calidore,

You’re thinking of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which was promulgated in 1854, and wouldn’t make much sense if Mary wasn’t a person immediately after conception. But the idea of life beginning at conception had been rooted in Catholic thought since the process of conception was first understood by Italian biologists in the 1700s. This is in contrast to the oft-quoted speculations of Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians that ensoulment occurred 40 days after insemination.

[brotherben]

Me and mrs brotherben lived in sin for 2 years prior to sentencing. Folks told us premarital sex was a sin. My wife responded that the way I did it was more of a crime.

[LarryA]

However, conflating a private merchant’s refusal to sell a product on the free market with the state-sanctioned violence against women in the Islamic world is ridiculous. The latter is a rights violation, the former is not.

1. I seem to remember the burka cops are mostly citizens who march to the orders of the religious leaders. They are tolerated, but not sponsored by the government.

2. Did you read the top of page 4? Most of the restrictions on the sale of Plan B are state-sanctioned, and continue to be so.

[Other Matt]

I remember that Hager fuckwad. He must have the smallest cock ever if he could anally rape his wife without waking her up.

I kinda wondered the same thing myself.

Religion is a choice. Color is not.

And a stereotype is a stereotype. You’re kind of heading down the road that homosexual attraction is not a choice, but acting on it is a choice, so that’s really ok. Is that what you mean to say?

Personally, I find it outrageous that they would allow licensed pharmacists to behave in this manner.

So you would tell a lawyer that he or she must represent every single individual that comes to his or her door that has money? You would tell the engineer that he or she has to design for whomever calls them with money? If not, why is this any different, and a matter for regulation boards?

[Other Matt]

Clarification “So that’s really ok” to mean “it’s ok to discriminate on that basis”. Sorry, got distracted in mid sentence there.

[brotherben]

oh, and other than that lame ass joke, I’m gonna leave this alone as I see no profitability to be had by either side.

ever.

[mediageek]

I found the comic both funny and insightful.

Even if Bagge isn’t completely even-handed.

[de stijl]

Here’s something I’ve always been puzzled about – why is Natural Family Planning a-okay for Catholics but every other method is not?

I was googling around and found an answer that astounded me. The Catholic version of NFP means that there must be coitus and the husband ejaculates in his wife’s vajayjay. You’re not allowed to pull out!

I had no idea until I read it that good Catholics can’t pull out and do the ol’ tummy dump.

You learn new stuff every day.

[crimethink]

So, if you say that all Democrats are communists and all Republicans are fascists, that’s OK, and they have no standing to criticize you for it, because being a Democrat or a Republican is a choice.

[de stijl]

So you would tell a lawyer that he or she must represent every single individual that comes to his or her door that has money? You would tell the engineer that he or she has to design for whomever calls them with money? If not, why is this any different, and a matter for regulation boards?

Raise your hand if you thought the Somali cabbies at the MSP airport should not be allowed to deny passengers that were carrying booze.

[Calidore]

Chris Potter,

Actually, I was thinking of this

[crimethink]

de stijl,

It would be pretty silly if pulling out was allowed, but condoms weren’t, don’t you think?

I don’t know if you found the answer to your question, but the difference is that in NFP the participants do nothing to render conception impossible, merely taking advantage of fertility’s natural periodicity. It is deliberately impeding conception that causes a problem, not a particular technique.

[Nick]

“Religion is a choice. Color is not.

And a stereotype is a stereotype. You’re kind of heading down the road that homosexual attraction is not a choice, but acting on it is a choice, so that’s really ok. Is that what you mean to say?”

I’m saying criticizing (or even ridiculing) someone who makes a choice to believe (or think) something is different than criticizing someone for being pigmented a certain way that is no fault of their own. The question was “what’s the difference?”

[Chris Potter]

Calidore,

They’re referring to a change made in the text of canon law in 1869. That’s a lagging indicator. The Pope declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, saying that Mary’s soul was free from sin from the moment of her conception. Clearly, this would make no sense if the soul did not yet.

[Chris Potter]

…soul did not exist yet.

[Calidore]

crimethink,

…but the difference is that in NFP the participants do nothing to render conception impossible, merely taking advantage of fertility’s natural periodicity.

In both instances one is trying to avoid pregnancy, thus I am curious why I should draw a distinction between the two.

[de stijl]

crimethink,

I wasn’t raised Catholic and I guess I always assumed that coitus interruptus was the accepted way to prevent pregnancy, but if I had thought it through it makes sense that it wouldn’t be. Otherwise, why the eight kids, ya know.

It was just an instance of something that you think you know and understand the rationale behind and then it turns out to be entirely untrue.

[dbcooper]

Other Matt,

A pharmacist is neither a lawyer nor an engineer. They do not commit their resources to a client for an extended period, they merely take pills from a big container and put them in a smaller container at the request of the patient. Indeed, for prescription medicines they have no part in the decision making process. Their only concern is that you are not taking another medication which contraindicates the prescribed drug. Their professional role is to dispense what a doctor has prescribed (they have no power to prescribe, to make decisions as to what medication is medically appropriate), and check for contraindications and knowledge of imbibing procedure. Given this I find it difficult to imagine an analogy involving a lawyer or an engineer.

I think a more apt analogy would be an accountant at an HMO who refused to sign off on a doctors recommended blood transplant or treatment with blood derived products because he was a Jehovah’s Witness.

Professional (private) organisations have often pre-dated goverment regulation and have, in part, sought to ensure reasonable and ethical from their members.

Now, if this pharmacist could not refer you(in a timely manner – most important for Plan B) to an alternative, do you think that this would be ethical or reasonable? Do you think that a professional body should tolerate this behaviour, this imposition of personal beliefs onto patients, from one of its members? I find it outrageous that they should be able to maintain a licence. If they want to assume the role of doctor, nay FDA, nay religious authority, I think it is outrageous professional behaviour.

[Calidore]

Chris Potter,

Well, it sounds like to me that the how the issue was viewed was evolutionary and controverted in nature for quite some time.

Clearly, this would make no sense if the soul did not yet.

Unless of course the 1854 pronouncement didn’t didn’t consider that implication.

[Zeb]

Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers. Is it OK for him to refuse to fill those prescriptions?

[Danny]

“The War on Fornication”

Now, if there’s any war we can win, SURELY this is it! People don’t like sex anymore, do they?

[smacky]

I think Plan B should be available over the counter, I think less of pharmacists that don’t offer it, and I support Bagge’s right to criticize them. However, conflating a private merchant’s refusal to sell a product on the free market with the state-sanctioned violence against women in the Islamic world is ridiculous. The latter is a rights violation, the former is not.

It’s not a conflation at all. Both actions are patronizing, condescending, and seek to exert personal control over the choices of other free individuals. Anyway, you are incorrect — it’s not about a private merchant’s refusal to sell a product on the free market, it’s about employees of that private merchant letting their own personal bigotries affect their ability to do their job ethically. Their job is to dispense medication, not give moral counsel.

Kudos to Peter Bagge! That was a great installment.

[sage]

Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers.

The guy should not be working in the medical field, period. Go carve furniture on the prairie or something.

[Russ 2000]

they merely take pills from a big container and put them in a smaller container at the request of the patient.

The pharmacist doesn’t do that, the tech does that. The pharmacist fills out and submits all the insurance forms, he doesn’t have time to do silly shit like count pills.

[Abdul]

Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers. Is it OK for him to refuse to fill those prescriptions?

Because opiate painkillers are frequently dealt on the black market, it is my understanding that many pharmacists are stingy about doling them out and will call doctors to make sure the prescriptions aren’t fraudulent, etc. It’s not quite the same thing as the Plan B dance, but it’s an implied moral judgment that imposes an extra step between the patient and the pill.

[smacky]

Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection to antibiotics, or opiate pain killers. Is it OK for him to refuse to fill those prescriptions?

Zeb,

No, it is not okay. That pharmacist should have gone into a different career. It is not right for him to deny other people their prescribed medications because their taking them would hurt his wittle feewings. The fact that you are even asking such a question is another symptom of a hyperindividualistic society.

[Russ 2000]

The pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B won’t put up any stink about dispensing any other contraceptive. To me, that doesn’t speak of policing morals as much as it does malpractice.

[jackanapestarian]

Suppose a pharmacist had an ethical or religious objection

That’s fine with me, unless he took an oath similar to a doctor’s to deal with individuals regardless of his personal beliefs. Then he would be obliged to fill the prescription and keep his opinions to himself.

[J sub D]

If the pharmacist is also the owner, no problem here. If he works for me, or is a franchise holder, he gets sacked/contract termination immediately. If the Somali cabdriver is an independent agent, it’s OK by me. If he works for me, or uses my dispatch services, he gets sacked/contract termination right then.

It seems rather simple, doesn’t it?

[Warren]

However, conflating a private merchant’s refusal to sell a product on the free market….

Ah but a pharmacist isn’t exactly a private merchant is he? To be a merchant in prescription drugs, you have to be licensed by the state. That makes him, at least in some sense an agent of the state.

[Marcvs]

As a former Catholic, I did always find it amusing that a bunch of men who never had sex were dictating rules of sexuality to the rest of us. I’m sorry, “interpreting God’s law about sexuality for us.” And no, I don’t need to respect your religious beliefs, especially when they affect mine, or my girlfriend’s, rights.

[smacky]

Citing the Bible (or the Koran) lends moral authority to these outdated rules and restrictions…even though these ancient tomes happen to be the most unabashedly misogynistic books ever written!

This bears re-reading…over and over and over again…until it gets through people’s thick skulls.

Peter Bagge, you’re my hero!

[Nick]

But smacky, God loves us :l

[Lamar]

Doctors can refuse to do abortions, so why can’t pharmacists refuse to dispense drugs that the Jesusers hate? I think those people are evil people, and I would hope that NOW types would picket their stores relentlessly, but I don’t see why a pharmacist should be forced into going against their stupid Jesuser ways.

Of course, Plan B should be available over the internet too.

[smacky]

Doctors can refuse to do abortions, so why can’t pharmacists refuse to dispense drugs that the Jesusers hate?

Because if a company that a pharmacist is voluntarily working for opts to carry that drug, then they do not have any say on whether it is going to be sold or not. The appropriate course of action would be for the pharmacist to quit his lucrative job and go home and suck his thumb while reading the Bible.

[Lamar]

“Because if a company that a pharmacist is voluntarily working for opts to carry that drug, then they do not have any say on whether it is going to be sold or not.”

Then the company fires them, problem solved. A few ugly picket lines should do the trick. Free markets, free minds, Crazy Jesusers go home and engage in the less than free Jesus market.

[Lamar]

Big Pharma companies should sign deals with any pharmacy they sell to that the pharmacy will dispense all drugs without Jesuser judgments.

[Nick]

Wouldn’t a pharmacist simply be able to say “we don’t have that drug (Plan B) here” because they flushed the shipment when it arrived at the store? No, instead they get all preachy and act like a holier-than-thou asshole.

[R C Dean]

Wotta lotta horseshit, that pharmacists who don’t carry every single frickin’ product on the market are jack-booted thugs trampling the rights of women and should be driven from the profession.

That pharmacist is exercising is personal, individual, right to do what he wants.

To me, that is plainly and obviously different from a law banning anyone anywhere from doing something that I really cannot grasp how anyone could confuse the two.

[smacky]

Because if a company that a pharmacist is voluntarily working for opts to carry that drug, then they do not have any say on whether it is going to be sold or not.

Then the company fires them, problem solved.

Exactly. I think I misworded my initial statement. What I was trying to say is that at that point, the pharmacist in question should not have a say whether it is going to be sold or not. Either he STFU and sells it as he was hired to do, or he gets fired, or he quits on principle (but of course what is the likelihood that such a judgmental sack of shit would have the integrity to willingly give up such a good job?).

[Lamar]

“That pharmacist is exercising is personal, individual, right to do what he wants.”

We agree on that point. I think where we disagree is that I think that pharmacist is a semi-worthless piece of moralizing crap, and I would hope an organization would exercise their personal right to picket the hell out of that pharmacists store.

[smacky]

R C Dean,

Nobody is accusing independent pharmacists who don’t carry that product of anything. What people are upset about are the moralistic individuals working for companies who do carry the product but who are interfering with the business transaction.

[jj]

Religion is a choice. Color is not.

What the fuck does this mean? It’s okay to be a mean-spirited SOB if someone chooses, but it’s wrong to be one if they can’t?

Because a man chooses to say a prayer it’s okay to call him a knuckle-dragging troglodyte?

Mean-spirited generalizations are wrong. Period.

[jj]

Nobody is accusing independent pharmacists who don’t carry that product of anything. What people are upset about are the moralistic individuals working for companies who do carry the product but who are interfering with the business transaction.

Then let the company fire them. Perhaps the company sees them as more valuable than their view on one silly, controversial product.

[Abdul]

It is not right for him to deny other people their prescribed medications because their taking them would hurt his wittle feewings.

Crazy Jesusers

what is the likelihood that such a judgmental sack of shit would have the integrity to willingly give up such a good job?

a semi-worthless piece of moralizing crap

I’m confused. It seems that those who made the above comments don’t like moralists who are pharmacists, they seem to be just fine being moralists who criticize moralists who are pharmacists.

[SugarFree]

Mean-spirited generalizations are wrong. Period.

Fine. When religious people stop making them, so will I.

[Lamar]

Abdul: It’s alright to be a moralizing sack of crap, as I am much of the time. It is NOT alright to impose that on other people.

[dbcooper]

I think that some of you are missing the point that the government has granted a kind of semi-monopoly license to pharmacists, in exchange for protection of the consumer. So I do not think that it is as simple as an individual “exercising is [sic] personal, individual, right to do what he wants.”

If you could buy Plan B from the supermarket, or anywhere, then I would not see a problem with refusal to dispense. But you can’t. First, the federal government has to licence it for sale, then you have to go to a doctor to get permission to buy and consume it, then you have to be able to buy it from a pharmacist. Of course they may be out of stock. If however, they are then refusing to give it to you, on moral concerns, when they are the official government monopoly holder, then how is this not a horrible outcome in the mind of a libertarian?

Could this not be resolved by requiring the pharmacist to provide a reasonable alternative to the patient? From a quick review, it seems that many state licensing boards do not allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense, other than as part of “professional judgement”. New York however, has a policy guideline (not a firm rule I think) that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense on moral grounds, that states:

“When a pharmacist recognizes that his/her religious, moral, or ethical belief, or any other factor, will result in the refusal to fill a prescription that is otherwise available in a pharmacy, the pharmacist has a professional obligation to take appropriate steps to avoid the possibility of abandoning or neglecting the patient.”

Would this not be a far more reasonable standard to expect from a government licenced gatekeeper?

[Lamar]

There’s also something morally repugnant about abusing one’s status as a gate-keeper.

[Dangerman]

Because a man chooses to say a prayer it’s okay to call him a knuckle-dragging troglodyte?

I didn’t say anything of the sort, although others have. What I am saying is that as soon as a person’s beliefs begin to dictate how other people should live their lives. I do think that most religion is silly at the least, and destructive at the worst. And people who make a choice to validate their actions by pointing to the Bible or Koran or Torah are setting themselves up for ridicule, and they deserve it. I will not treat irrational people with any kind of gravitas. Teh R Da KraZY.

[Paul]

Aren’t we kind of getting a full-court-press from both conservatives and progressives on reproductive rights in general? Aren’t progressives pushing for this same kind of scrutiny with fertility clinics (or the fertility ‘industry’ as they call it)?

[smacky]

Dangerman, it’s not just irrationality. The Bible and the Koran are openly misogynistic. The fact that they are still so widely revered is a testament to the fact that misogyny is not understood and accepted as a real bigotry in mainstream society the way that racism is. If there were blatantly racist religious texts, do you think any free-thinking individual would still acknowledge them and revere them as relevant? Hell no! However, these texts blatantly place women as inferior to men, yet inexplicably they still remain popular, and not only that, people defend them! It’s absolutely insane! That is why I have difficulty taking religious people seriously, regardless of their defenses of their beliefs. If you are a deist, great, good for you. But there is no defense for the misogynistic, hateful crap spewed about women in these so-called classics.

[Danny]

“Mean-spirited generalizations are wrong. Period.

Fine. When religious people stop making them, so will I.”

I agree with you, SugarFree, though I generally shy away from the childish “I’ll stop when you stop!” mentality.

I think that most un-religious people care less about what religious people do in their spare time (unless it interferes with the rights of the un-religious) than the religious about the un-religious. The religious want to save the rest of us from “ourselves” and “satan”, whereas we, the un-religious, would rather they just shut up and live their own lives.

From a statistical, and therefore most general, point of view, the religious are the most oppressive.

[Nick]

Time for Godwin’s Law.

Calling all Nazis idiots is fine because they have made a choice to be Nazis. Calling all blacks criminals is not fine, because no one can choose the color of their skin and being black does not make one a criminal. Now, remove “Nazis” and insert “religious people,” and it works, if you think religious people are all idiots. I never said I did, but I was responding to a question.

See, there’s a difference, which is the question I was responding to when I first said, “Religion is a choice. Color is not.” I’d like to thank those of you who get it.

[de stijl]

Where’s a Key Master when you need one?

Hello, I’m looking for the keymaster. Are you the keymaster?

[smacky]

de stijl,

R U gay? Just wondering. I thought you would be looking for the gatekeeper. I’m looking for the keymaster.

[smacky]

de stijl,

In case you weren’t aware, the gatekeeper and the keymaster are analogous to the male and female reproductive roles. Or am I being master of the obvious now?

[Nick]

I’m looking for vagina. How’s that for mastering the obvious?

[de stijl]

Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

PS – I am looking for the gatekeeper. Not that there’s anything wrong with keymaster / keymaster or gatekeeper / gatekeeper relationships.

[Lamar]

I’ll be happy to get out of work and gatemasterbate. I’m lonely.

[Lamar]

Or would that be keymasterbate? I’m not sure. Perhaps its masterkeygate.

[de stijl]

Or am I being master of the obvious now?

So, you’re still master of your domain?

[SugarFree]

Danny,

I reduce all of this to a childish taunt in order to stop screaming obscenities.

[Reinmoose]

I thought gatekeeper/keymaster were Ghostbusters references. Am I mixing things up?

[de stijl]

I thought gatekeeper/keymaster were Ghostbusters references. Am I mixing things up?

I’m throwing in some Seinfeld as a little sugar.

[de stijl]

[slaps $100 down on counter]

I’m out!

[Calidore]

smacky,

Well, like them or not they are classics (as much Homer’s Iliad is). I personally think that they are worth reading if only for an appreciation of how influential they have been on various human cultures.

However, these texts blatantly place women as inferior to men, yet inexplicably they still remain popular, and not only that, people defend them!

Well (and you likely already know this) often people lift from the texts that which they admire and drop the rest.

[Brandybuck]

Here is an analogy to ponder. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I do think it’s worth considering. Since many pro-lifers consider abortion to be murder, a pro-life pharmacist might consider “Plan B” to be murder as well. So what if a pro-choice but anti-murder pharmacist saw a prescription not for Plan B, but for an infanticide agent. Further imagine that infanticide was legal (as it has been in some cultures in the past (and for which some modern feminists still advocate)). You know that this client is going to use the agent to kill her born child. Would you feel morally obligated to provide that drug? Should the state compel that pharmacist to dispense that drug (perhaps indirectly through licensing certifications)?

People are arguing much the same thing here. They are saying that if abortion is legal then the pharmacist MUST morally provide the abortificant. That the only other recourse is to abandon the entire career. Any pharmacist who refuses to dispense abortificants will have their state-granted license to dispense Robitusson revoked.

Call me a hyperindividualist paleo, but somehow I cannot reconcile libertarianism with the belief that the state must compel pharmacists to dispense abortificants.

[brotherben]

Religion is a choice and color is not

So if Heath ledger made a choice to be in a movie about homos, (not that there’s anything wrong with homos,) knowing that the movie will be offensive, then the jesusers can picket his funeral or whatever. And some will suggest that gayness is a choice. So we can bash them too right?

You are all perfectly able to believe whatever you want without my ridicule, as long as it’s the same as me. That be your joe pesci given right.

[de stijl]

Brandybuck,

Plan B is not an abortifacient.

[smacky]

Brandybuck,

You are a hyperindividualist paleo. 🙂

The state isn’t compelling anyone to dispense anything. The pharmacist is free to leave his line of work for another line of work that allows for more partiality. Being a drug dispenser requires impartiality.

[val]

I wonder if these same pharmasists stock condoms. If they dont, no-one raises a stink, because they are not the governement sanctioned distributors of condoms. However with presecription medicine, the government grants them a monopoly on distribution. The day you can buy plan B in any corner store, is the day the amount of people complaining about moralistic pharmasists drops by 99.9%

BTW: I had a problem with NY cabies no providing service to alcohol carrying/intoxicated passengers for the exact same reason as above. NY City grants a limited number of taxi medallions, again making cabies quasi state sanctioned agents.

[smacky]

The day you can buy plan B in any corner store, is the day the amount of people complaining about moralistic pharmasists drops by 99.9%

val,

That’s not true at all. Plan B is over-the-counter and has been for about 2 years now. It is available in most corner stores. The point is, there are moralistic douches working behind the counter who are still interfering with the business transaction even though they really have no right to do so under their contract of employment (unless Walgreens allows their employees to discriminate against their customers, but I highly doubt that).

I hope every last one of those pharmacists who morally condescends against their customers is fired by their parent company and unable to find work.

[dbcooper]

Smacky, doesn’t it still require purchase from a licensed pharmacy, and for under 18’s a prescription? Where as condoms are available at pretty much anywhere.

[val]

It is available in most corner stores

No Shit? I didnt know that. If this is indeed true ignore everything I just said.

[Danny]

“I hope every last one of those pharmacists who morally condescends against their customers is fired by their parent company and unable to find work.”

Unfortunately, smacky, mostly of those people would feel justified in their resolution, and probably be “stronger” in their “faith” because of it…

[smacky]

dbcooper,

Yes.

val, if that’s what you meant by buying it “in any corner store”, then please disregard my objection.

[val]

dbcooper,

Yes.

val, if that’s what you meant by buying it “in any corner store”, then please disregard my objection

Yep thats what I meant. Consider everything I just said reinstated.

[Russ 2000]

Plan B is not an abortifacient.

That’s why I wonder why the pharmacists who won’t dispense Plan B (it’s non-prescription but it’s BTC, not OTC) aren’t getting sued for malpractice; religious belief won’t be much of a defense.

[de stijl]

Russ 2000,

They might have an out if they also didn’t fill birth control prescriptions because of religious belief.

Are there any other drugs that are BTC besides Plan B and whetever your state decided to do with cold medicines that actually work? Lots of times condoms are behind the counter, but that’s because they are frequently stolen, not because it’s required. I can’t think of anything else.

Are there any other age-restricted drugs where if you’re under 18 you need a prescription, but not if you’re over 18?

[J sub D]

Because a man chooses to say a prayer it’s okay to call him a knuckle-dragging troglodyte?

I’ve made no secret about my ateism over the years. Do you think I’ve been called worse than a knuckle dragging troglodyte?

I’ve no beef with theists. I don’t go out of my way to insult them. But when religion enters a conversation, I’ll call ’em as I see ’em.

[J sub D]

The state isn’t compelling anyone to dispense anything. The pharmacist is free to leave his line of work for another line of work that allows for more partiality. Being a drug dispenser requires impartiality.

An independent pharmicist has every right to stock or not stock a product. Licensed by the state doesn’t enter into it. Go to your local liquor store and ask for Tullamore Dew. He’s licensed by the state as well.

If you encounter a rude employee, you know what to do. It doesn’t involve the government at all.

[Marcvs]

How come I have the feeling that these same “religious objectors” behind the counter are so willing to “stand their ground” on this religious issue, but you are just as unlikely to see them working in a soup kitchen on the weekends..

I’m just saying, it’s a lot easier to do the negative religious stuff than the positive.

[dbcooper]

Is the comparison between a liquor store and a pharmacy a valid analogy? I don’t think so.

If you can’t get Tullamore Dew what could you substitute it for. I dunno, maybe Jamesons, maybe another type of whiskey, maybe a nice port, a bottle of wine, hell even some beer. It will still do the trick in a pinch. The whole store might be out of liquor, but presumably you don’t have a medical need for it. They may even refuse to stock Havana Club over a moral objection to what Bacardi did. Probably isn’t going to be of much consequence though. They probably don’t have much of an ethics code about putting the needs of the customer first either.

How about if the pharmacy refuses to stock/order Plan B or another medicine. What are you going to substitute for those to fill your medical need? What if there is only one timely source of medication? (I concede that Walgreens.com may be possible.) Refusal to dispense/stock would seem to be a real problem with govt licensed gate-keeper/monopoly status for pharmacists, particularly when they do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Refusal to stock your favourite brand at the liquor store would seem to be a problem of much lower importance.

DISCLAIMER: I used to go to “pourings” all the time, I am in no way disregarding the importance of getting the right drink when you want it!

[smacky]

Ok, what did Bacardi do now?

[J sub D]

If you can’t get Tullamore Dew what could you substitute it for.

There is no substitute for Tullamore Dew.

[J sub D]

Hey, I’m all for Plan B. I don’t want the government to mandate business practices. Not in healh care, not in drinking establishments, no in used car sales.

I do not like them
in a house.
I do not like them
with a mouse.
I do not like them
here or there.
I do not like them
anywhere.

[dbcooper]

Smacky, I guess this might be some kind of IP rights purity/litmus test or something. From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Havana_Club_(Bacardi)

“Havana Club rum, was first created by Jos? Arechabala in 1934 and sold throughout the world from his family-owned distillery in Cuba. After the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the distillery and company was nationalized by the Cuban government and the Arechabala family emigrated to the United States. The Arechabala family allowed the trademark to lapse in 1973.[1]

In 1994 Bacardi entered into an alliance with the Arechabalas, and in 1997 the Arechabalas sold their residual rights to Havana Club to Bacardi, which, among other things, included the recipe for the original Havana Club rum.

During 1995 and 1996, Bacardi made a trial production of the rum in the Bahamas and was sold in the United States.

However, the Havana Club trademark was in the hands of Havana Club International (a business entity formed by the Cuban Government owners, and Pernod Ricard, the French owners of the Cuban Government brand) and owned the trademark in the United States through Inter-American Conventions.

After more than 10 years of legal struggles between the parties, on August 8, 2006, 5 days after the Cuban version of the trade mark was denied renewal (in the United States), Bacardi released their own version of Havana Club (produced in Puerto Rico).”

I vaguely remember something about Bacardi getting legislation passed to deny Pernod-Ricard ownership of the trademark. I may be mistaken.

[smacky]

I find Bacardi guilty. Guilty of being tasty!

…Did I pass?

[dbcooper]

There is no substitute for Tullamore Dew.

The my latent elitist/authoritarian streak says that you should be drinking Lagavulin 16!

As far as govt mandating business practices, they already are in that sector, so it just seems difficult to me to take a completely hands-off stance when there are already so many regulations and restrictions of competition. If I could buy the stuff like I can condoms, then no problem.

[J sub D]

The my latent elitist/authoritarian streak says that you should be drinking Lagavulin 16!

Never tried it. What’s it go for? Tullamore Dew is downright reasonable ~$20.00 a fifth.

[dbcooper]

I think it’s up to around $60 a (750mL, think that’s ~ a fifth) bottle now, which is a lot more than what I paid for it a few years ago (around $30 to $40 I think, or free if my buddy could get it from work), so I don’t drink it very often now. It’s got a “strong” flavor but not so much as something like Talisker.

[Brandybuck]

The state isn’t compelling anyone to dispense anything. The pharmacist is free to leave his line of work for another line of work that allows for more partiality. Being a drug dispenser requires impartiality.

A state licensing board is what is requiring that impartiality. The state compells him to dispense! The libertarian solution is not to increase the penalties on recalcitrant pharmacists, but to completely disband the licensing board!

[dbcooper]

…Did I pass?

Solid B grade, more original effort required for honors.

I do wish I could write witty.

[Russ 2000]

They might have an out if they also didn’t fill birth control prescriptions because of religious belief.

Yes, but then it probably wouldn’t be malpractice.

I’m more concerned that licenses are being given to quacks. The whole fucking point of licensure was to reduce quackery, and now the religion argument is being used to ensure quacks get licenses. Take away the licensing, and you know there will be a provider even out in the sticks; put licensing in and you open up the possibility that the ONLY provider in a certain area is a quack.

[x,y]

Religion is a choice. Color is not.

Perhaps you missed Soul Man with C. Thomas Howell.

[Tacos mmm...]

A state licensing board is what is requiring that impartiality. The state compells him to dispense! The libertarian solution is not to increase the penalties on recalcitrant pharmacists, but to completely disband the licensing board!

No, the libertarian solution would be to allow you to get plan B without a pharmacist, period.

[Chris Potter]

So, I guess having a driver’s license makes me an agent of the state. So, New York State has the right force me to transport people for a “reasonable” fee whether I wish to do so or not, right? I mean, if I have a problem with doing that, I can always just ride the bus, no?

The question isn’t whether the state licenses something. It is whether the state limits the number of licenses it gives out, thus limiting competition. This doesn’t really happen with pharmacists (though it does happen with other occupations).

As for the guy upthread talking about how pharmacists are state-sanctioned monopolies, I need some of whatever you’re smoking. I can’t spit in any direction in this town without some of the flegm landing on a pharmacy.

[dbcooper]

And what are you smoking, straw? You have lots of pharmacists in your area, well good for you. Thanks to the government having very strict licensing requirements many people don’t.

What’s that, it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to get a license to operate a pharmacy than to get a drivers license, and price was never mentioned before? And of course, you can just buy a car for yourself, you don’t have to get approval from a government licensed gatekeeper to buy one, and if the hypothetical gatekeeper thinks that its a moral outrage against the environment, then you can still have one. Wow, would that make your analogy utterly ridiculous, I guess so. A drivers license is obviously a very different beast to a pharmacists license.

The government limits you to purchasing Plan B from a rigorously licensed gatekeeper. In many areas they are effectively a local monopoly. Why would a libertarian be satisfied with a situation where this gatekeeper is the only option for purchase of a MEDICAL product (the need for which is often very much time based), but can refuse sale on personal moral grounds, and has no duty to provide an alternate source?

Like it or not, they are operating in a very restricted, government licensed field, that denies patients the benefits of competition that are available for other goods. There may be good reasons for limiting sales of these products to certain professionals, but giving them moral control over your medical product purchasing needs is not one of them. The government has already regulated this industry to a high degree, moral judgment based denial of medical products should not be a consequence of their regulation. I’m not arguing that pharmacies should be perfect, I’m just arguing that the gatekeeper role should not be abused.

[crimethink]

dbcooper,

The reason some places don’t have multiple pharmacies is because of scattered demand, not govt regulation. Most of those areas probably only have one grocer, too. Does that mean that the govt should force grocers to sell burn cream and condoms?

[R C Dean]

I think where we disagree is that I think that pharmacist is a semi-worthless piece of moralizing crap, and I would hope an organization would exercise their personal right to picket the hell out of that pharmacists store.

I’m cool with free speech.

Nobody is accusing independent pharmacists who don’t carry that product of anything.

Read some of the above posts a little more carefully. I think you’ll find some calling for those pharmacists to lose their licenses.

What people are upset about are the moralistic individuals working for companies who do carry the product but who are interfering with the business transaction.

That’s the company’s business, not mine (or yours).

To be a merchant in prescription drugs, you have to be licensed by the state. That makes him, at least in some sense an agent of the state.

You have a state-issued license to drive a car. Are you an agent of the state when you drive to the store for some milk?

The my latent elitist/authoritarian streak says that you should be drinking Lagavulin 16!

The nectar of the gods. Truly, if it wasn’t $80 a bottle, I’d have a snort every day after work.

[val]

The reason some places don’t have multiple pharmacies is because of scattered demand, not govt regulation. Most of those areas probably only have one grocer, too. Does that mean that the govt should force grocers to sell burn cream and condoms?

You dont have to buy condoms at a grocery store. You can buy them at the gas station, or drop a dollar bill down the vending machine in the local pub.

On the other hand alot of these places only have one hospital because of scattered demand not governement regulations. Next thing you know the government will require hospitals to cary gauze and antibiotics or face malpractice suits and loss of license if they fail to do so. Oh wait..

[Nike Dunk Low]

is good

[ugg bailey button triplet]

is good

[mbt shoes clearance]

good

[sacs birkin hermes]

Fornication?

[????? ??????]

Thanks