Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[kandrathe]

You don't seem to understand the point. The pharmacy in question had the drug. The victim of the rape was not in their right mind due to the duress they had been put under. A Doctor had given them the prescription to be filled. The pharmacist in question refused to fulfill the prescription and then gave the victim a hard time because of they felt it was morally objectionable. The victim had every right, once in a calmed state and looking back on the situation to legally sue the pharmacy and pharmacist in question for not fulfilling the prescription or telling the victim where they could go to get the prescription fulfilled.

Then, the court would be the correct place to resolve the issue. These are the types of situations that need adjudication. If the person who refused to sell the product was an employee of the pharmacy, then the pharmacy as a business would bear the loss for hiring this person who has moral objections. Just as it would be for a trucking company to hire a trucker who refuses to haul toxic waste.

If you refuse to given a patient information or point them to where they could get the information because you find it morally objectionable even though it will improve the quality of life of the patient, you should not be a medical practitioner. Your job as a medical practitioner is to improve the quality of life of your patients, if you refuse to do so because you find aspects morally objectionable, then you should go find another position where you would not be put into that moral dilemma.

Then no one who has a conscience will be a medical practitioner. You will always find a limit beyond which most people will not go, and this is doubly true in medicine. The duty of medicine is not to "improve the quality of life", it is to heal.

Also, to speak to you analogy, you do realize that most conservative thought is that abortion is valid in the case of rape, incest, or mother's life is in jeopardy. It is only the far right fringe that believes that the child should take precedence over the mother (a very dark ages mentality). You're 10 people in 7 man raft is the epitome of a straw man argument in this case. You should not force someone to have to die to have a child or was forced into a situation where they became pregnant against their will, and most conservative thought agrees with that stance.

According to a recent (Jan 2008) Washington Post-ABC News Poll - question 25 - 21% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases, and 15% believe abortion should be illegal in all cases. So in this case, extreme fringe means 15% of the sample. In that poll, 57% believe that abortion should be mostly available, and 40% believe it should be mostly unavailable. The poll also needs to be understood within its sampling of (e.g. 39% Democrats, 27% Republicans, and 29% independent). Also, I'm not presenting a stand on the issue, only reflecting what most opinion polls are showing.

Would it be ethical to kill or sell our young children because it would improve the quality of our lives? That is the justification for the majority of abortion procedures, with the only difference being postpartum. Most abortions are an economic choice, rather than one of morality or ethics. I don't think the life raft is a straw man argument. If you needed to lose one person and had 6 useful people (for the survival of the 7) in the raft, and an unnecessary mother with an infant, would you choose to toss one or both of them overboard?