Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Curious what folks think about this...


  • Please log in to reply
398 replies to this topic

#351 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,253 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:33 PM

Joker and Deb, on the brink of divorce, visit a marriage counselor.
The counselor asks Deb, "What's the problem?"
She responds, "My husband suffers from premature ejaculation."
The counselor turns to Joker and inquires, "Is that true?"
Joker replies, "Well not exactly, she is the one that suffers, not me."

#352 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,493 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:47 PM

A guy dies, goes straight to hell.
On day one, he is given a tour. They walk by a room, and Saddam Hussein is in a vat of boil oil.
Satan says: Yes, Saddam was a very bad man...
The next door opens, and there is Idi Amin getting bamboo shoved under his fingernails
Satan says: Yes, Idi was a very bad man
The next door opens, and there is Joker, in bed with Kristen Stewart, having sex.
Satan says: Yes, Kristen was a very bad woman....

#353 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,253 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:00 PM

Joker walks into a bar and tells the bartender to line up 10 glasses and start filling them up with beer.
So the bartender starts filling the glasses up with beer, and Joker is right behind him drinking them straight down.
The bartender says, "Hey buddy, whats your hurry?"
Joker says, "If you had what I have you would do the same thing."
The bartender backs up and says, "What do you have?"
Joker says, "About 75 cents."

#354 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:04 PM

So, since this is now 7 pages long i'm not reading the entire thing. The first page and a half were enough ;)

Joker, your statement that women as a species have survived without certain medications does not mean each individual woman has lived to 71 without modern meds. What a silly thing to say.

Aside from hormonal therapy for many conditions, thousands of women have died in childbirth because their bodies were simply not strong enough to give birth. Those are just some of the medical reasons for BC pills.

Second, birth control pills do kill anyone, they prevent pregnancy, and as far as I know is the only type of birth control you get from a pharmacy (ladies correct me if I'm wrong). All other methods are fitted/inserted by the OB/GYN.

The notion that BC pills are immoral comes from the idea that if God wills you to get pregnant that you should get pregnant. If that is the case then if God wills you to get sick you should not try to cure yourself. It was Gods will that you get sick and you should suffer/die with peace in your heart that it was God's will.

That BC pills are the target stems from patriarchal views that women should not be in control of their own bodies, and men's fears that they are not in control of their wives, daughters and reproduction in general, and has nothing to do with real faith.

The question then is, why do these pharmacists not have a moral dilemma giving out any medications when they are so concerned with messing with God's will? Seems hypocritical and targeting just women and reproduction.

As for Tim's initial question, should they be forced .. maybe a better question should be, should all medical professionals decide on the spot whether or not to be medical professionals on a patient by patient basis, based on their personal religious or moral beliefs? seems that mindset would throw our medical profession into very iffy territory. maybe i will treat you, maybe i won't.

like the days when black people could not get treatment at a white hospital because supremacist didn't think they should mix with white people. We can't give this sort of leeway to only Christian men. We would need to make this concession for all religions and all moral belief systems. We would need to make this concession for the Islamist pharmacists who believed in Sharia, or the Buddist pharmacist who believe you should try eastern cures first.

Are we really willing to do that?

#355 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:15 PM

no. I'm not willing to do that. When your right to practice your religion stifles my right to health and happiness, then there is a problem.

#356 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,253 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:16 PM

Dear Little Frog,

You're really missing out on some serious conversations with your tl;dr attitude.
Might I suggest that you take a few minutes to read the whole thread, and you just might be surprised at what you find.

Love,
JBetty

#357 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,587 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:28 PM

Time to get more popcorn...


:popcorn1:

#358 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,280 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

So, since this is now 7 pages long i'm not reading the entire thing. The first page and a half were enough ;)

Joker, your statement that women as a species have survived without certain medications does not mean each individual woman has lived to 71 without modern meds. What a silly thing to say.


Yes, it is a very silly thing to say. The thing is, I didn't say that, you did.

Aside from hormonal therapy for many conditions, thousands of women have died in childbirth because their bodies were simply not strong enough to give birth. Those are just some of the medical reasons for BC pills.

Second, birth control pills do kill anyone, they prevent pregnancy, and as far as I know is the only type of birth control you get from a pharmacy (ladies correct me if I'm wrong). All other methods are fitted/inserted by the OB/GYN.

The notion that BC pills are immoral comes from the idea that if God wills you to get pregnant that you should get pregnant. If that is the case then if God wills you to get sick you should not try to cure yourself. It was Gods will that you get sick and you should suffer/die with peace in your heart that it was God's will.

That BC pills are the target stems from patriarchal views that women should not be in control of their own bodies, and men's fears that they are not in control of their wives, daughters and reproduction in general, and has nothing to do with real faith.

The question then is, why do these pharmacists not have a moral dilemma giving out any medications when they are so concerned with messing with God's will? Seems hypocritical and targeting just women and reproduction.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't see how you could possibly know the reason why each person who would refuse to fill the script and to suggest that it has nothing to do with real faith is a big reach.

Is the only reason they'd refuse to give out any medication because they believe they'd be messing with God's will or is that just what you believe it to be? Perhaps there could be other reasons?

I'd agree if they were giving out similar medication and withholding BC it would be hypocritical but I haven't seen anything to suggest that's what's happening.

#359 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:32 PM

the real question should be: After this incompetent pharmacist gets fired, should they be eligible for unemployment?

#360 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:12 PM

Yes, it is a very silly thing to say. The thing is, I didn't say that, you did.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't see how you could possibly know the reason why each person who would refuse to fill the script and to suggest that it has nothing to do with real faith is a big reach.

Is the only reason they'd refuse to give out any medication because they believe they'd be messing with God's will or is that just what you believe it to be? Perhaps there could be other reasons?

I'd agree if they were giving out similar medication and withholding BC it would be hypocritical but I haven't seen anything to suggest that's what's happening.


yes, you did imply that, or are you suggesting that it's ok for some women to die young as long as the species survives? don't twist this jack, i know you and trying to change the meaning of what you said because it was dumb will not hold water with me.


please, tell me why they are withholding BC? i think this is an important question.

#361 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:13 PM

Dear Little Frog,

You're really missing out on some serious conversations with your tl;dr attitude.
Might I suggest that you take a few minutes to read the whole thread, and you just might be surprised at what you find.

Love,
JBetty


i just don't have time .. are there cliff notes?

#362 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:18 PM

Here is the cliff notes

Posted Image

#363 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:08 PM

A guy dies, goes straight to hell.
On day one, he is given a tour. They walk by a room, and Saddam Hussein is in a vat of boil oil.
Satan says: Yes, Saddam was a very bad man...
The next door opens, and there is Idi Amin getting bamboo shoved under his fingernails
Satan says: Yes, Idi was a very bad man
The next door opens, and there is Joker, in bed with Kristen Stewart, having sex.
Satan says: Yes, Kristen was a very bad woman....



Joker walks into a bar and tells the bartender to line up 10 glasses and start filling them up with beer.
So the bartender starts filling the glasses up with beer, and Joker is right behind him drinking them straight down.
The bartender says, "Hey buddy, whats your hurry?"
Joker says, "If you had what I have you would do the same thing."
The bartender backs up and says, "What do you have?"
Joker says, "About 75 cents."


not sure how the thread turned to this .. but :lol:

(see, i read a little of it)

#364 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:13 PM

did you get to joke's snafu yet? that really is the highlight.

#365 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:28 PM

page please :)

#366 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:43 PM

BUT it is not the pharmacy OWNER that gets to make the call. It is the PHARMACIST. The Pharmacy owner is in a bind. They can't refuse to hire someone based on religion. They can't fire someone for refusing to fill a prescription. Even if the owner does not share the same beliefs.

So, a man and a woman can walk into a pharmacy. He can buy condoms, and the woman can be refused. Can the checkout person refuse to sell condoms? and NOT be fired?

If it's their business they should be able to decide how they operate and what they will and will not do. If they're not breaking any laws, I don't see any problem with it.

So it's ok for a pharmacist who owns the pharmacy, but not for the pharmacist who is just an employee?

That sounds right to me.

But that's not what the law says. It says the individual pharmacist may refuse.
So you're NOT ok with this law?


notice the large gap of time...

waiting...(around page 2-3...)

I would have to see the law but I would say that no employee should be forced to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.


?

#367 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:53 PM

aahh .. cliff notes. no surprises there ;)

"i said what i didn't say but i didn't say what i said ... are you confused yet? because this is the only way i can win an argument" joker~

((((deb)))

#368 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,364 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:29 AM

The notion that BC pills are immoral comes from the idea that if God wills you to get pregnant that you should get pregnant. If that is the case then if God wills you to get sick you should not try to cure yourself. It was Gods will that you get sick and you should suffer/die with peace in your heart that it was God's will.


I don't see it that way. Religious objections to contraception well predate the invention of hormonal pills. And to my knowledge, those religions viewed as wrong any sort of contraception, whether it was used by a man or a woman.

That BC pills are the target stems from patriarchal views that women should not be in control of their own bodies, and men's fears that they are not in control of their wives, daughters and reproduction in general, and has nothing to do with real faith.


I disagree. Surely, there are those who have come from that mindset, and have used it to oppress women. But many of them come from a place of feeling sanctity for life, and they belief that contraception is counter to that deeply held belief.

Seems hypocritical and targeting just women and reproduction.


I don't know that that's the case. To my knowledge, there aren't any birth control meds available to men. If there were, and a pharmacist were willing to fill those, or sell condoms, and not female birth control, he'd deserve a kick in the nads.

As for Tim's initial question, should they be forced .. maybe a better question should be, should all medical professionals decide on the spot whether or not to be medical professionals on a patient by patient basis, based on their personal religious or moral beliefs? seems that mindset would throw our medical profession into very iffy territory. maybe i will treat you, maybe i won't.


Medical professionals, guided by what they think is right, decline to "treat" people all the time. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes not. And I'll reiterate that what we're talking about, in the context in which we're talking about it, is an elective treatment, not a medical necessity.

Again, I believe that everyone should have access to birth control. I also believe in the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. And on balance, when someone can go to another pharmacy to have a prescription filled versus someone having the state tell him what he (or she) must do when it's in violation of his (her) religious convictions, I continue to lean toward protecting that individual's freedom.

YMMV. Last I'll prolly say on it.

#369 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:46 AM

fetus doesn't have a soul

#370 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:49 AM

we will have to agree to disagree Tim. "sanctity of life" in this case is another form of control imho, because again, the pharmacist has no idea why the patient was given the hormone pills and it is not his place to ask.

I'm not sure why you'd ask my opinion and then try to prove my opinion wrong. I gave it, that is how I feel. Take it or leave it. If it comes to a vote I will vote for provoking the license of a pharmacist who refuses to fill a BC prescription. I don't care how he/she feels.

#371 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:56 AM

either you can do the job or you can't.

what if porn stars refused to do their job for religious reasons? Did you think of that?

#372 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,364 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:56 AM

I'm not sure why you'd ask my opinion and then try to prove my opinion wrong. I gave it, that is how I feel. Take it or leave it. If it comes to a vote I will vote for provoking the license of a pharmacist who refuses to fill a BC prescription. I don't care how he/she feels.


I'm not trying to prove you wrong, LF. I'm giving my opinion. Free exchange of ideas, dialogue, conversation and alla that.

I'm not sure why I'd be expected not to do that...

#373 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:00 AM

but earlier you said that a business owner ought to be able to fire someone for any reason including religious.

how does that work if employees can refuse to do anything due to religious convictions?

again, the snafu.

#374 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,364 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:07 AM

but earlier you said that a business owner ought to be able to fire someone for any reason including religious.

how does that work if employees can refuse to do anything due to religious convictions?

again, the snafu.


First off, we're talking about a well-recognized religious conviction, not just anything.

But it works pretty well, I think. If an employee was refusing to do his job, his employer would have the right to find someone who would do it.

#375 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:13 AM

First off, we're talking about a well-recognized religious conviction, not just anything.

But it works pretty well, I think. If an employee was refusing to do his job, his employer would have the right to find someone who would do it.


no offense or anything, but I think your above post really sums up the entire essence of the confusion.

In my ideal world, larger companies would have to hire them and accommodate their special needs much like they have to hire disabled people today.

Smaller companies could fire them, but the employee would be eligible to collect unemployment and/or social security (or disability).

In other words, they are disabled and should be considered such. I hope that doesn't offend any disabled people. I'm not trying to insult anyone.

#376 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:26 AM

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, LF. I'm giving my opinion. Free exchange of ideas, dialogue, conversation and alla that.

I'm not sure why I'd be expected not to do that...


free exchange of ideas .. w/arguments against mine

"I disagree" and "I don't see it that way" = debating .. not opinion seeking.

#377 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:58 AM

nobody seems to really care how the dolphin feels about it, let alone the dog.

#378 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,364 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:06 AM

no offense or anything, but I think your above post really sums up the entire essence of the confusion.

In my ideal world, larger companies would have to hire them and accommodate their special needs much like they have to hire disabled people today.

Smaller companies could fire them, but the employee would be eligible to collect unemployment and/or social security (or disability).

In other words, they are disabled and should be considered such. I hope that doesn't offend any disabled people. I'm not trying to insult anyone.


I respect that. Though I think that convictions sometimes can and ought to carry consequences, and that if someone refuses to do the job he's been hired to do, that he shouldn't expect compensation for it. But I see where you're coming from...

#379 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,364 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:37 AM

free exchange of ideas .. w/arguments against mine

"I disagree" and "I don't see it that way" = debating .. not opinion seeking.


As for Tim's initial question, should they be forced .. maybe a better question should be, should...


Asking questions invites a response, no? And not necessarily one which agrees with the premise you've laid out.

Please also consider the forum we're posting in.

It's nothing personal- I'm responding to your opinions, not you. And I respect your opinions, even if I don't agree with them. Don't expect I'll change your mind, and I'm not trying to.

Further, yours aren't the only opinions I've responded to in this thread.

I don't expect you to agree with me. But I'm also not going to be quiet and not let my thoughts be known. As long as I do so respectfully, I hope you'll respect my right to do so.

#380 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:06 AM

it is written, "fetus ain't got no soul." ~ The book of Dookie, red letter edition, chap. 1, v.1

It's the double negative that's been confusing mankind ever since.

#381 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,364 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:12 AM

:mrgreen:

#382 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,493 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:07 AM

I respect that. Though I think that convictions sometimes can and ought to carry consequences, and that if someone refuses to do the job he's been hired to do, that he shouldn't expect compensation for it. But I see where you're coming from...

I think this is the entire conundrum right here.
And, BTW, I don't believe it should matter if it is a big company or a small company.
And, remember, that some of these laws are state laws, while laws pertaining to hiring are federal. But here is the issue, as I see it.

A Pharmacy company "XYZ", could be either a big company, or a small little drug store, needs to hire a pharmacist.
The philosophy of the store owner is to provide medications (legal) to all valid prescriptions.
Store owner hire pharmacist A. Does a background check, no red flags. Does a drug test, no red flags. Was top of his class at pharmacy school.
On day 1 of his employment, a long term customer says that she will never step foot in this store again, that she had never been so embarrassed in her life. That she was made to feel as a lowlife. And storms out of the store.
Store owner goes to newly hired pharmacist to ask what is going on.
He says that he refused to fill the script. And refused to send the script to another pharmacy. As is his right.

Pharmacy owner calls his lawyer. Nope, you can't fire him. Nope you can't force him to fill BCP scripts. No, sorry, you would not have been able to ask prior to employment whether he was a devout christian.


Still think this is a good law?

#383 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,493 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:13 AM

When this thread started, most, including the OP (I Think, correct me if I'm wrong) thought this was about a Pharmacy OWNER having the ability to say "We don't sell BCP."

But it is not. Most of these laws were brought to court via Pharmacists For Life International. (www.pfli.org). This is NOT about protecting the shop owner, although many of the laws do cover shops that refuse to carry BCP. This is about protecting the pharmacist, who believes that supplying BCP is immoral.

I think many conservatives do not understand what is at stake here. (many do...).
Moral of the story. Be careful who you get in bed with. (yeah, pun intended)

#384 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:15 AM

signs should be clearly visible from outside that say which pharmacies are Birth Control Free

#385 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,493 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:16 AM

signs should be clearly visible from outside that say which pharmacies are Birth Control Free


But that may be only when certain pharmacists are on duty, you wouldn't know.

#386 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,493 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:37 AM

And BTW, I can't find ONE reference to viagra on www.pfli.org

#387 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,388 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:34 AM

But that may be only when certain pharmacists are on duty, you wouldn't know.


Get a neon sign that says "NOW DISPENSING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS" whenever a non zealot pharmacist is on duty. Preferably in huge blinking red letters.

#388 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

thanks for the explanation tim. in my opinion, as a women who has experienced discrimination already from the medical field, this would make me furious, especially if I were the woman who was refused my scripts because some man thought it was his right to decide what I am allowed to do to my body. some total stranger whose opinion i did not ask and am not interested in. as long as i am not breaking the law it is none of their business what i do with my body. if he has no respect for my beliefs he can expect none in return.

again, i would vote to revoke his/her license in cases like these.

#389 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,493 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:44 PM

Get a neon sign that says "NOW DISPENSING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS" whenever a non zealot pharmacist is on duty. Preferably in huge blinking red letters.


Switches to "SLUTS, HARLOTS, AND FORNICATORS NEED NOT ENTER" when zealot pharmacist is on duty...

#390 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,253 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:51 PM

not sure how the thread turned to this .. but :lol:

(see, i read a little of it)



Very good, LF.
Your next assignment is the cassady thread. :devil:

#391 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:04 PM

Very good, LF.
Your next assignment is the cassady thread. :devil:


:nikkiblue:

#392 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,253 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

There's some useful information in there.

#393 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,280 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:55 PM

Naturally frogboy couldn't be honest and quote me in context instead choosing to make it look like I was responding to Depends rather than JBetty. Par for the course there :lol:

Oh and the break in time was when I went downstairs to care for my sick father, sorry to keep you on the edge of your seat like that

#394 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:07 PM

why don't you just admit that it took you 2 hours to make a pitcher of orange juice because the label said concentrate?

#395 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,388 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

Switches to "SLUTS, HARLOTS, AND FORNICATORS NEED NOT ENTER" when zealot pharmacist is on duty...


Thats outrageous :lol:

#396 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,388 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

There's some useful information in there.


Worst thread on the entire whole internet.

#397 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,978 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

has a nice ring to it though

#398 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,493 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

I have broken the code as to why condoms come in 1 packs, 3 packs and 12 packs

1 packs are for guys in their late teens/early 20's. They need one for either friday night, or saturday night
3 packs are for guys a little older. One for friday, one for saturday, and one for sunday.
12 packs are for married guys. One for January, one for Feb, one for March, ....

#399 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,364 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

thanks for the explanation tim. in my opinion, as a women who has experienced discrimination already from the medical field, this would make me furious, especially if I were the woman who was refused my scripts because some man thought it was his right to decide what I am allowed to do to my body. some total stranger whose opinion i did not ask and am not interested in. as long as i am not breaking the law it is none of their business what i do with my body. if he has no respect for my beliefs he can expect none in return.

again, i would vote to revoke his/her license in cases like these.


I get it. I really do. :)