Here are the social issues that could govern the nation and that the "south's values" will decide. Libertarians, look away now. This might mean more hypocrisacy on your part:

 

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

 

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions [...]

 

We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

 

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

 

 

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...setogiveoutpill

 

One of the main reasons I vote pro-choice even though I lean pro-life is because I know what the Christian right wants. Ive talked to these people. They wont stop until they step into my house, burn all indecent material, and put crosses on my wall.

 

Any of the ubersocial conservatives on here wanna actually stand up as to why Griswald should be overturned or are you just gonna avoid it and let the evangelics do the fighting?

Hypocrisy you say? The abortion issue is perhaps the most complicated issue for a true libertarian (meaning ideologically not partisanly). The govt should not interfere in our personal choices, BUT here is wher eit gets shaky. If the fetus is a viable human being (as it has been proven already by biology, though not by any psychological measures) then i am against abortion b/c you are depriving a human being of its right to live, and as we know our principles are life, liberty, and property, where life supercedes liberty and property. The other hand is that if the fetus is not viable, then govt should not be able to interfere in the private choices made by a citizen on their own bodies. The birth control issue in the article is not a govt issue but a private issue, and the pharmacy should take care of that employee the way they see fit

Hypocrisy you say? The abortion issue is perhaps the most complicated issue for a true libertarian (meaning ideologically not partisanly). The govt should not interfere in our personal choices, BUT here is wher eit gets shaky. If the fetus is a viable human being (as it has been proven already by biology, though not by any psychological measures) then i am against abortion b/c you are depriving a human being of its right to live, and as we know our principles are life, liberty, and property, where life supercedes liberty and property. The other hand is that if the fetus is not viable, then govt should not be able to interfere in the private choices made by a citizen on their own bodies. The birth control issue in the article is not a govt issue but a private issue, and the pharmacy should take care of that employee the way they see fit

612214[/snapback]

 

Like I said, Im more pro life on the abortion issue. But the religious right is not about abortion. Its much more. The vision they have will not stop at abortion.

 

As far as the government element, I should have posted more of the article. But here:

 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.

 

 

What right does a pharmasict as an employee have to decide what to sell to people? If his company says he has to sell it, he should sell it. But when government tells companies they cant fire people for not complying with their policy of selling a product, isnt that libertarian encroachment?

My major flaw is that i usually dont read entire articles due to lack of time, i just read what you posted on the board itself. Problem here is im against federal funding going to these types of programs at ALL. So if the house is punishing them by limiting the money that goes to them thats great news. If anything the government is correcting the previous mistake it mad eby giving funding to those programs in the first place. So this can be spun either way. If the govt would raise taxes on private businesses that perform abortions then id be appalled

see this is why the religious right wing needs to stay away from politics.

 

 

preach to your congregations as to what is right and what is not right morally.

 

 

there doesnt have to be laws prohibiting 'sins' to make it illegal...because lo and behold...the christian religion is not the only religion in this nation.

 

 

myself personally, i'm against abortion.

 

legally, i dont and shouldnt have a right to say what one can or cannot do...define life at some point...whatever that is...it has never been defined and has generally been accepted as being somewehre between third trimester and birth i believe.

on that argument of there not being laws prohibiting "sins". killing & stealing are sins, you mean they shouldn't be illegal because it would be imposing religious believes?

The problem with abortion is if the fetus is viable then its govt assisted murder of an innocent person, unless your for legalizing murder then its far more complex than just a religious issue.

indeed.

 

as to a pharmacist not wanting to fill up the prescription, i think that's a personal decision and government should not get involved, nor should it get involved if the pharmacy decides to fire him/her.

on that argument of there not being laws prohibiting "sins". killing & stealing are sins, you mean they shouldn't be illegal because it would be imposing religious believes?

612315[/snapback]

Ill turn that right back on you? Its a sin to have premarital sex...should that be illegal?

 

Murder and stealing being wrong are not exlusive to the bible. Thats obvious and you know what. Im surprised you would try and make that argument. Those things are more than immoral, they are horrible for society. Wanna make the argument that contraceptives should be illegal the way a lot on the right feel they should be?

on that argument of there not being laws prohibiting "sins". killing & stealing are sins, you mean they shouldn't be illegal because it would be imposing religious believes?

612315[/snapback]

Ill turn that right back on you? Its a sin to have premarital sex...should that be illegal?

 

Murder and stealing being wrong are not exlusive to the bible. Thats obvious and you know what. Im surprised you would try and make that argument. Those things are more than immoral, they are horrible for society. Wanna make the argument that contraceptives should be illegal the way a lot on the right feel they should be?

612351[/snapback]

 

Your rights end where mine begin. That should be the determining factor. And before anyone tries to say that abortion doesnt fit the criteria, again it does if the fetus is a viable human being, then the abortionist is infringing on the right to life of the child

the only argument here is to look at the situation in its context, and not oppose it or favor it because of religious believes and such.

One of the main reasons I vote pro-choice even though I lean pro-life is because I know what the Christian right wants. Ive talked to these people. They wont stop until they step into my house, burn all indecent material, and put crosses on my wall.

 

612204[/snapback]

 

You my friend, are so far gone... :lol

One of the main reasons I vote pro-choice even though I lean pro-life is because I know what the Christian right wants. Ive talked to these people. They wont stop until they step into my house, burn all indecent material, and put crosses on my wall.

 

612204[/snapback]

 

You my friend, are so far gone... :lol

612429[/snapback]

 

Am I?

 

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

 

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

 

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

 

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/...nionletters-hed

 

 

You cant ignore the nutjobs over there forever.

Yeah, F_M, they're only on the right wing too.

 

Here I come to burn your CD's and books! Run for it!

The problem with abortion is if the fetus is viable then its govt assisted murder of an innocent person, unless your for legalizing murder then its far more complex than just a religious issue.

612331[/snapback]

 

 

 

hence why you need to have some point in the development of the fetus where it is considered a life.

 

 

did you not read what i stated?

on that argument of there not being laws prohibiting "sins". killing & stealing are sins, you mean they shouldn't be illegal because it would be imposing religious believes?

612315[/snapback]

 

 

 

please.

 

 

thats a dumb arguement and you know so.

 

 

what about prostitution..that is legal in nevada, yet it is a sin.

 

 

and like stated, premarital sex is a sin...yet its legal.

 

 

 

stealing and murder are not mutually exclusive to the christian ethos.

indeed.

 

as to a pharmacist not wanting to fill up the prescription, i think that's a personal decision and government should not get involved, nor should it get involved if the pharmacy decides to fire him/her.

612333[/snapback]

 

 

 

pharmacists need to do their jobs.

 

 

their job = filling prescriptions.

 

 

not making moral decisions. if they feel it is...then they are in teh wrong line of work.

indeed.

 

as to a pharmacist not wanting to fill up the prescription, i think that's a personal decision and government should not get involved, nor should it get involved if the pharmacy decides to fire him/her.

612333[/snapback]

 

 

 

pharmacists need to do their jobs.

 

 

their job = filling prescriptions.

 

 

not making moral decisions. if they feel it is...then they are in teh wrong line of work.

612479[/snapback]

 

 

the government however should not tell the pharmacist what to do in that situation. is like going to the autoshop and the mechanic telling you he doesn't want to fix your car. do you think it is right for the government to force that guy to fix your car? of course no, you go find another mechanic.

indeed.

 

as to a pharmacist not wanting to fill up the prescription, i think that's a personal decision and government should not get involved, nor should it get involved if the pharmacy decides to fire him/her.

612333[/snapback]

 

 

 

pharmacists need to do their jobs.

 

 

their job = filling prescriptions.

 

 

not making moral decisions. if they feel it is...then they are in teh wrong line of work.

612479[/snapback]

 

 

the government however should not tell the pharmacist what to do in that situation. is like going to the autoshop and the mechanic telling you he doesn't want to fix your car. do you think it is right for the government to force that guy to fix your car? of course no, you go find another mechanic.

612488[/snapback]

 

Why is it when the discussion gets into a unlibertarian conservative view, you are no where to be found? When people are arguing that what goes on in someone's bedroom(gays) should decide whether they are treated unequally or not, you are conveniently silent. But when the shoe is on the other foot, there are you dragging the discussion of one persons rights encroaching on another into a libertarian perspective. Are you ok when these same people push for federal funds to be cutoff to health care providers who make their employees do their frikkin job?

 

A pharmacist works for a company. He is breaking company policy for no reason other than he personally doesnt want to do it. If he doesnt want to do his job, then why do it? Whats next? Nyquil off the market because it contains alchohol? Tynenol off the market because we should heal our pain through God? I know for you the only thing that matters is whether the government is involved or not. But your views can extend to how society is heading a certain direction you know. And this stuff is victorian era idiocy. But youll sit there until the private sector idiocy effectivley makes the government an extension of themselves. Then you can raise the flags while nobody listens.

This is very disturbing to hear. I don't think this is right at all. Don't be a pharmacist if it goes against your morals because it's wrong to deny people their prescriptions.

indeed.

 

as to a pharmacist not wanting to fill up the prescription, i think that's a personal decision and government should not get involved, nor should it get involved if the pharmacy decides to fire him/her.

612333[/snapback]

 

 

 

pharmacists need to do their jobs.

 

 

their job = filling prescriptions.

 

 

not making moral decisions. if they feel it is...then they are in teh wrong line of work.

612479[/snapback]

 

I completely agree.

I do agree that religion needs to stay out of politics, I never like what happens when the two meet. This is another example of what I dislike.

indeed.

 

as to a pharmacist not wanting to fill up the prescription, i think that's a personal decision and government should not get involved, nor should it get involved if the pharmacy decides to fire him/her.

612333[/snapback]

 

 

 

pharmacists need to do their jobs.

 

 

their job = filling prescriptions.

 

 

not making moral decisions. if they feel it is...then they are in teh wrong line of work.

612479[/snapback]

 

 

the government however should not tell the pharmacist what to do in that situation. is like going to the autoshop and the mechanic telling you he doesn't want to fix your car. do you think it is right for the government to force that guy to fix your car? of course no, you go find another mechanic.

612488[/snapback]

 

Why is it when the discussion gets into a unlibertarian conservative view, you are no where to be found? When people are arguing that what goes on in someone's bedroom(gays) should decide whether they are treated unequally or not, you are conveniently silent. But when the shoe is on the other foot, there are you dragging the discussion of one persons rights encroaching on another into a libertarian perspective. Are you ok when these same people push for federal funds to be cutoff to health care providers who make their employees do their frikkin job?

 

A pharmacist works for a company. He is breaking company policy for no reason other than he personally doesnt want to do it. If he doesnt want to do his job, then why do it? Whats next? Nyquil off the market because it contains alchohol? Tynenol off the market because we should heal our pain through God? I know for you the only thing that matters is whether the government is involved or not. But your views can extend to how society is heading a certain direction you know. And this stuff is victorian era idiocy. But youll sit there until the private sector idiocy effectivley makes the government an extension of themselves. Then you can raise the flags while nobody listens.

612504[/snapback]

 

 

dude, calm down. if i haven't participated in an unlibertarian conservative thread is because i haven't seen it. i don't follow every discussion on the board. and when it starts in one topic i don't care about and drifts to one i do care i probably don't read it because if i didn't care about the initial topic then i don't follow the thread. and besides, who the hell told you i'm a libertarian? there's a lot of things i agree with the libertarians, but there are a whole bunch i disagree with.

 

the truth is the government shouldn't be the one telling a non-government employee what to do, it should be that person's employer. is a matter of who's business is it, nor of conservatism and libertarianism.

 

and whatever topic you say i'm conveniently silent about, start a thread with it and lets debate it. i don't shy away from any topic. i have my views and i deffend them, and i don't label them under any philosophy either; if anything i would label them orishaism lol.

The biggest problem with this types of arguments is that the religious fanatics are not the only crazy ones. So are the anti-religious fanatics. I am in no way religious but I am against the killing of another human being, like Das Texan said, when is the fetus viable, and how do we determine this. Forget about religion vs. anti-religion and focus on when is it murder to a human and when is it still part of the womans body. Argue find a consensus. The nuts will never agree to either of these, but without compromise this will truly get out of hand. As for the pharmacist, if his/her boss doesnt like it, fire him/her. Period. No Government, nothing. And abortion, even though its been adopted by the religious right as a religious issue, is far more complex than a seperation of church and state issue, and if people cant see that, they are either blind, want to believe whatever they feel like without factual evidence, or are mentally retarded

The biggest problem with this types of arguments is that the religious fanatics are not the only crazy ones. So are the anti-religious fanatics. I am in no way religious but I am against the killing of another human being, like Das Texan said, when is the fetus viable, and how do we determine this. Forget about religion vs. anti-religion and focus on when is it murder to a human and when is it still part of the womans body. Argue find a consensus. The nuts will never agree to either of these, but without compromise this will truly get out of hand. As for the pharmacist, if his/her boss doesnt like it, fire him/her. Period. No Government, nothing. And abortion, even though its been adopted by the religious right as a religious issue, is far more complex than a seperation of church and state issue, and if people cant see that, they are either blind, want to believe whatever they feel like without factual evidence, or are mentally retarded

613350[/snapback]

 

 

Roe v Wade is a great comprimise but it has been attacked anyway. Im not sure how many have read it, but here is how it is set up. A women has the right to choose. That is clear. But the state has an compelling interest in protecting life and protecting the life of the mother. So the greater the viability of a fetus surviving outside of the womb, and the greater the danger the procedure is to a women, the more a state can outlaw the procedure. Since Roe however, these two interests have gone opposite directions. Abortion no longer is dangerous to a women as a procedure so this compelling interest is gone. But a fetus is more viable in second trimester than before. In all likelihood, a women can have an abortion in the first trimester since a fetus is not viable at that time.

 

But therein lies the issue. The extremists have pushed the envelope on this compromise. Not only are they saying that life begins at conception(and in doing so, outwardly rejecting a women's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester), but now they are arguing that life begins right before these birth control and morning after pills operate. This is nuts. It leaves no room for comprimise.

 

Roe v Wade and subsequent cases absolutley take into account the idea of a child being killed. But like you said, its an issue of when it is murder and when it is part of the women. For those people, its always murder. We know a lot about pregnancy now. Can you accept that? I ask you this, taking into account Roe v Wade's test, are you willing to say that it is murder of a child to terminate in the wee stages of pregnancy? Because thats the issue right now. Not the third or second, this first trimester.

 

This is what Im talking about when CF accuses me of being so far gone. Its like if you support birth control, you are anti life with some people. The envelope has been pushed so far that we are debating birth control now. Who is winning?