Quote:
Originally posted by arch13
His personal beliefs are irrelevant and obviously incombatible with his choosen proffesion.
|
Pay very close attention to that statment Foolthemall.
Surely we can agree that regardless of his personal belief, as a representative of the company he works for he is employed to dispense the drugs the company has decided to sell regardless of what he may personaly believe. If he doesn;t like that, he should open his own pharmacy. On someone elses dime, his personal opinions are not wanted or relavent and should not affect how he performs his job when he's being payed to do it.
Surely we can also agree that while we may disagree on if the law is right, that is the job of our court system, not us or him to decide. The courts are there to represent the will of the majority's beliefs in such matters and the morality and nature of birth control and womens choice is something for that venue, not his personal pulpet.
Also, from a scientific point of view, Anomaly_ is correct. the 72hr pill prevents ovulation, and if ovulation has not occured, then there is no clump of cells for us to argue semantics about. Are you arguing that we should not prevent ovulation and the chance that brings at insemination? Becuase then you are arguing that birth control is wrong, not abortion.
If ovulation is prevented, then nothing ever existed.