Though I agree with Barry, I think his focus is wrong. I am a physicist who has lifelong managed to “opt out” of what I consider immoral or even distasteful work, and I will not now take any job that requires drug-screening, for example, as I am morally opposed to government interference with any person’s drug life.
This effectively disqualifies me from working for the Federal Government or any federal contractor, which is not a serious problem, as I can still do the rocket science I used to do for private or even foreign firms, just as Von Braun and the displaced Russian physicists have done.
Fortunately, physicists, mathematicians and software engineers do not need to be licensed. If they did, I would no doubt be in the position of pharmacists, physicians and lawyers who have to do all sorts of things they consider immoral or distasteful.
The solution to the problem is to terminate all government licensing, so that practitioners who do not hew to the government line, whether Amish, Evangelical, Christian Scientist, alternative medicine providers or pharmacists could freely practice medicine to their liking. The consumer would have vastly increased choice in medicine.
Why is it we have infinite choice in religion and almost none in medicine?
This is the way the world was for millennia until medical and legal practitioners got in bed with the government, the better to outlaw chiropractice, homeopathy, napropathy, hypnotism and anything else the AMAs and ABAs of Amerika feel to be threats to their oligopsonies.

Jimbino, oligopsonies? I agree with your sentiment about government frowning on homeopathy, etc. to protect the doctors’ income, and I always learn a new word besides!
Barry, in case you read these comments, boy are you spot on! Before abortion became the issue of the day, the religious right focused its wrath on the birth control pill. Before the birth control pill was available, they opposed all other forms of family planning except what was called “the rhythm method.” I’m old enough to remember when doctors even refused to fit a woman with a diaphragm unless she presented her marriage certificate.
Why on earth the religious right sees fit to insist that every sex act must be open to procreation is beyond me, but apparently they do!
While it’s true that Margaret Sanger’s later advocacy of eugenics has tarnished her reputation, she crusaded for birth control because she had learned, as one of eleven children, how large families seemed to stifle any creativity and intelligence those children might have possessed. She chose to work in New York’s slums in order to make birth control information available to poor women whose poverty was exacerbated by just having so many mouths to feed.
I wonder what sort of life the religious right envisions for women now? Perhaps one of unrelenting poverty and hard work as they struggle to support and raise the children they are forced to bear? Well, that would certainly make life a “vale of tears” wouldn’t it? But it would make it so for them as well. Wonder if they’ve thought about that?

I wonder what sort of life the extremist anti-Christian left envisions for women? Oh yeah, slaves to their massahs who hand them high potency steroids that have a documented 150 negative effects on the body. How silly of anyone with 7 years minimum training to question the liberal dogma of sex and steroids with anyone and anything, despite volumes and decades of proof they cause mental problems, broken relationships, divorce, blah, blah, blah…..
Go ahead, just remember, God always forgives, man sometimes, nature never,,,,

==I wonder what sort of life the religious right envisions for women now? Perhaps one of unrelenting poverty and hard work as they struggle to support and raise the children they are forced to bear?==
Nobody be fo’cing anybody to bear kids. It’s the WOMAN who made the mistake, not the pharmie, and the pharmie ought not be required to bear the conscience burden of her mistake any more than wartime conscientious objectors who put more of a burden on everybody else. The burden of HONEST, well-founded conscience is a burden we were told the rest of us should bear. “Professional responsibility” is outweighed by honest conscience.
There is no Right to fo’ce a particular pharmie to violate his conscience; the woman may find another pharmie at that place, or another, who doesn’t have the scruples God gave geese.
Besides, it is not the jurisdiction of others to judge/question another’s honestly-held conscience.

Why is it that some religious groups get priviliges over others? Jehovah’s Witness nurses are allowed to graduate from Nursing school, and practice within the nursing fields and don’t have to give blood based on their beliefs. As a nurse, I find it no different than the pharmacists that are not willing to give abortion pills to women who aren’t using appropriate birth control. I believe that rules and laws need to be fair. I don’t believe that President-elect Obama will change any of the laws that stand and women will need to either find another pharmacy or get her act together.

Mr. Incredible, I do believe it is telling that you seem to think that if a woman gets pregnant, it is all her fault. Apparently, no other person was involved.

Lost Left Coaster,
It is not a matter of fault, but of responsibility. The trend in law and economics today, in the interest of economic efficiency, is to place the burden of responsibility on the person with the greatest opportunity to learn the facts and control the situation, regardless of another person’s “involvement.” In the case of pregnancy, that is clearly the woman, not the least because the man has no right to terminate or continue the pregnancy unilaterally, as does the woman. He may also be entirely lacking in information about the pregnancy.
A woman who wishes to continue the pregnancy or, on the other hand, terminate it, against the wishes of the man, should have every opportunity to negotiate with the man, as would be the case in deciding whether to improve a joint-owned yacht or just sink it.

Men should get THEMSELVES fixed if they don’t want to pay child support!

The discussion here only adds credence to the notion that the anti-contraceptive movement is thinly-veiled misogyny. The disrespect for women as a whole that I’m seeing here is disturbing. And I’m really sick and tired of hearing contraception equated with abortion (or that a woman who uses birth control doesn’t have the scruples God gave geese – the contempt for women in that statement is appalling!). Since anyone who enters the pharmacy field knows well in advance what will be expected of them, ie, professional responsibility, perhaps pharmacists who don’t want to dispense birth control should find another line of work. How far do we go with this matter of allowing special privileges for conscience? Should pharmacists be able to refuse ANY medication to a woman of childbearing age, on the outside chance that she could be unknowingly pregnant and the medication could harm the embryo? Should employers be permitted to hire only those of their own faith? Should people be allowed to disregard laws that do not reflect the tenets of their faith?

I understand that these are difficult times in which it’s not easy to pick up and find another job, but that’s what pharmacists with troubled consciences need to do.
A pharmacist is not an independent contractor who can pick and choose who he serves. He is a servant to the doctors who write prescriptions as well as the women who present those prescriptions to be filled. If he does not intend to serve, his conscience should tell him to leave his position.
Obama plans to create millions of new jobs. Hang in there!

Don’t forget we have freedom of religion in this country. If a Muslim woman can sue and win in order to wear her head garment, a pharamcist should certainly be able to defer what he considers an immoral act to someone who sees it differently.

“It’s the WOMAN who made the mistake…”
An argument that goes completely out the window when you’re talking about women (or girls) who got pregnant as a result of rape.

Daniel Rotter,
True. But statistically how many pregnancies are terminated because or rape versus being terminated for other reasons.
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions. Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:
25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
Should we can’t base the entirety of the argument on 1% of abortions.

Oops…it should read “Should we base the entirety of the argument on 1% of abortions?”

Wayne, you are right. We cannot argue abortion on the merits of only 1% of the abortions. What we can do, though, is to address the other reasons why women have abortions. For instance, if she cannot afford a baby, then perhaps we need to look at the pay scale in the U.S., particularly for those jobs that employ fairly uneducated and unskilled people. Also, we need to look at the minimum wage, since even earning minimum puts an individual with a child at the poverty level. If a woman feels that she cannot interrupt her education, why not have affordable day care facilities for women at the high school and college levels. And ask ourselves why an education is important as well, i.e. the importance of getting a good job that pays well, etc. I don’t know what to do about someone who simply does not want any more children. I’d need to know why that is before I could form any opinion on it. But I think you can get the point. If we truly want fewer abortions, we need to create a climate in which women have fewer reasons to want abortions.

Your Name,
I agree with you 100%. I believe the things you wrote about are truly not considered enough.

Your Name,
Let me clarify. I hope it was not misunderstood. I meant that what you wrote about need more attention given to them.

It’s really nobody’s business why a woman wants to have an abortion, especially during the first two trimesters. This is a personal decision that is rarely taken lightly. The anti-abortion lobby is also anti-contraception and anti-feminist and almost totally made up of fundamentalist Christians whose true goal is simply keeping power out of the hands of women. We aren’t going to let a group of delusional believers in myths and fairy tales turn women in the United States into breeding pigs. I think the fundies should find something else to devote their time, energy and money to, like feeding the poor, taking care of the sick and minding their own business.

Boris,
As I have said before but you won’t believe it. Anti-abortion has NOTHING, and I repeat, NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING POWER OUT OF HANDS OF WOMEN. So please quit using that utterly false excuse.

Wayne I don’t believe you because you are a Christian and I’ve never met a Christian who wasn’t a shameless liar. Again the anti-choice agenda is nothing more than a male dominated religion attempting to keep power out of the hands of women. This is a fact and denying it only proves what a liar you are.

Boris,
What you can’t judge are people’s intentions. You’ve never met me, you don’t know me, so you can’t say what my motivation is. You say, “this is a fact.” And I say….prove it. The fact is your bigotry and hatred towards Christianty moves you to assume things about everyone when you have no idea what you’re talking about. Granted, there may be some people that are anti-woman, but you can’t say that about everyone, because you haven’t met everyone.
I know my intentions, which have been stated in previous posts, and you can’t say for sure whether what I say is true or not. Until I let you know otherwise, or until you can prove me a liar, one must assume that I am telling the truth. In that case, you saying the contrary makes YOU the liar.
You have much knowledge, and I respect you for that. But stating your OPINION as FACT without proof (which you stating people’s motives can never be proven) only damages your credibility.

Wayne,
I said the anti-choice agenda comes from a male-dominated religion. YOU aren’t a woman so it is YOU who has and can have NO understanding of the abortion issue. It is your religious beliefs that made you adopt a stance on this issue because they caused you to falsely believe you could understand a problem when there is no possible way you could. So you don’t have and cannot possibly have a clue as to what your real motivations are. You need someone else to tell you what they are and I have done this.

Wayne,
I know that only a very small number of abortions occur because of rape, but that wasn’t my point. I was responding to “Mr. Incredible’s” claim that pharmacists shouldn’t have to dispense abortion- dispensing drugs to women with unwanted pregnancies because it was “the woman who made the mistake”-in other words, it was the woman who participated in the behavior that led to her having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. As my response indicates, that argument wouldn’t apply when it comes to rape-related unwanted pregnancies.

yikes, should have been “…abortion-inducing drugs…”

“So you don’t have and cannot possibly have a clue as to what your real motivations are. You need someone else to tell you what they are”
Are you serious?!!
For sake of argument, let’s say I don’t fully understand the abortion issue. That still has nothing to do with WHY I fight against it. Even if I was 100% wrong, my motivations would be the same if I was 100% right. My motivation is that I believe that a fetus is a human being and has rights. Even if you say 1000 times that I want to control women’s bodies, that does not make it true.
Do you understand the abortion issue? If so, since you are a man, someone had to tell you your motivations and give you your understanding of abortion. If you do understand it, who helped you?….women…medical doctors? I have talked to many women and many medical doctors (I have worked in appx 6 hospitals in my professional career)who believe the same as I, not all of which are “fundies”. So, I may have some understanding.
Again, you don’t have and cannot possibly have a clue as to what my real motivations are.
By the way, my religion doesn’t force me to do anything. I choose to do it.

Wayne,
You said: For sake of argument, let’s say I don’t fully understand the abortion issue. That still has nothing to do with WHY I fight against it. Even if I was 100% wrong, my motivations would be the same if I was 100% right. My motivation is that I believe that a fetus is a human being and has rights. Even if you say 1000 times that I want to control women’s bodies, that does not make it true.
Boris says: Why do you believe a fetus is a human being though? Because your religion tells you so even though science has proved this to be false. You also believe that your God put the fetus in the woman’s womb and imbued it with a magical boogy spirit that can live forever – something also disproved by science. So all your motivations are based purely on bogus religious superstitions.
You said: Do you understand the abortion issue? If so, since you are a man, someone had to tell you your motivations and give you your understanding of abortion. If you do understand it, who helped you?….women…medical doctors? I have talked to many women and many medical doctors (I have worked in appx 6 hospitals in my professional career)who believe the same as I, not all of which are “fundies”. So, I may have some understanding.
Boris says: Have you ever paid for an abortion? I bet you have no personal experience with an abortion. So again, just because you hate women doesn’t give you the right to judge them or what they do with their bodies. You don’t want to be judged but you judge EVERYBODY else because you are a Christian hypocrite.

Boris,
Well, I’ll have my opinion and you’ll have yours. But by the way, when and how did science disprove that God through natural processes put the baby in the womb? And when and how did science prove that man has no spirit?
– “Why do you believe a fetus is a human being though? Because your religion tells you so even though science has proved this to be false. You also believe that your God put the fetus in the woman’s womb and imbued it with a magical boogy spirit that can live forever –something also disproved by science. So all your motivations are based purely on bogus religious superstitions.”–
Previously, you questioned what my motivations are, not what their based on.
–”You don’t want to be judged but you judge EVERYBODY else because you are a Christian hypocrite.”–
Check out my previous posts. I’ve never said anything about anyone. I’ve never condemned anyone. I’ve never said nor do I believe that I’m better then anyone. I just believe a particular procedure is morally wrong. So, I haven’t judged anyone.
–”So again, just because you hate women…”–
I love women.
– “Your motivations are to turn American women into breeding pigs. That’s what they are and denying it is futile and dishonest.”–
Again, that’s untrue. And you saying it over and over is futile and dishonest.
–”You CHOOSE to be ignorant, arrogant, uneducated, ill-informed and stick your nose in other people’s business? No dice. Your religion FORCES you to be that way. It demands it of ALL believers.”–
You’re right. The Bible demands following it’s teachings to be a true believer. But one CHOOSES to be a believer. I know what the Bible says and still CHOOSE to accept it. So, again, it’s a choice. By the way, I would rather be right with scripture / God and wrong with society. So, if you see me as ignorant, arrogant, uneducated, uneducated, and ill-informed, because I believe the Bible, then that’s fine with me. I still choose the Bible and it’s teachings.
Jesus loves you and died for your sins.

Wayne,
Now if your God doesn’t approve of premarital sex why in the world would he put a baby in an unmarried woman’s womb? Also Genesis (1:28) implies that God has nothing to do with the actual being fruitful and multiplying. Science doesn’t have to prove man has no ‘ghost in the machine’ that can somehow fly off to a magical kingdom ruled by a magic fairy or be tortured for all eternity because its owner didn’t buy into the dogma, doctrine and fairy tales of a particular religion. This belief is an ancient superstition and we know where it comes from.
The problem with Bible believers is that they are worshiping a paper idol instead of a God. I don’t choose not to believe or follow the Bible I CANNOT. The stories are absurd and totally unbelievable and the Bible is full of all kinds of defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. As far as Jesus dying for my sins, I’m quite sure that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed.

I’d like to write a book on How the Pro-Choice Movement Killed America and give a statistic on how many precious, innocent lives have been extinguished either by suction or puncture wound since the inception of this movement.

Wow, so many good posts here earlier in the fray!
To the basic point of Bonnie’s opinion: “…a pharamcist should certainly be able to defer what he considers an immoral act to someone who sees it differently.”
Pharmacists, as Jimbino pointed out, are licensed. They follow established guidelines. People have a right to expect legal medicinals from the dispensary. (Not sure I could agree with his interesting idea of laissez-faire medicine. Letting anyone practice brain surgery? Yes, word would get around…but…!)
To the deeper held issues of whether or not it is moral to allow contraception or abortion, Wayne said: “My motivation is that I believe that a fetus is a human being and has rights.”
The law of the land says otherwise. I understand you disagree. The high court has erred in the past. Blackmun got it right to leave broad liberty to the people. We the people (each) can decide. Fine with me. I tend to agree with Mary Lee when she wrote: “Why on earth the religious right sees fit to insist that every sex act must be open to procreation is beyond me,…”
Precisely, the sex act does not equate to a desire or ability to become a parent. Most sex, the VAST majority, is committed despite that possibility and hoping for it not. This is fact. I would go further, believing in gender equality, and say that the same right to decide upon whether to parent should be given to men, whereas now it is not. I would agree, he cannot force a sexual partner to carry a fetus to term, nor abort one; but neither should the government confer upon women the right to decide for a man that he shall become a parent. That gives her the right to choose not only for herself, but for him as well–not proper under gender equality law as I see things.