I await the day - surely not too long off - when a pharmacist refuses to sell sanitary pads, on the grounds menstruation is the immoral waste of a living cell that should have been allowed to become a baby.
Here, in the UAE, the MAP seems to be illegal. So gynaecologists prescribe women in need a packet of birth controls pills, and explain to take five immediately, and five 12 hours afterwards. And regardless of your marital status, they put “Mrs” on the prescription 
Duffer: Here are the licensure requirements from the state of Texas where this incident ocurred.
From the Texas State Board of Pharmacy
This question/point has been raised a couple times now, and unless I missed it, I haven’t seen anyone who is against the MAP try to tackle it.
From MsRobyn’s post earlier in the thread – being that one of the three things that Orthotricylen does is make the endometrial lining of the uterus hostile for implantation. Also given that people are human and make mistakes (like forgetting to take your pill at the same time every day, or forgetting it altogether) – regular old Ortho likely prevents pregnancy in the same manor in which the MAP does, in a great many cases.
If you are opposed to the MAP, how are you not opposed to Orthotricyclen (and other similar acting BC pills) ?
I would have no issue with the owners of the pharmacy deciding not to stock the drug.
I would have no issue with the owners of the pharmacy telling the pharmacist, “you’re in charge here, stock and sell whatever you want” and then the pharmacist deciding not to stock the drug.
In fact, I have no issue with Mr. Pharmacist taking a moral stand and then taking the consequences like a man.
Let’s recap. The pharmacist has a legal right to make a protest like he did. His employers have a legal right to terminate said pharmacist for derelicton of duty and violation of company policy. The preceding are facts. The following is opinion. The man is a self rightous, insensitive asshole. If he worked for me, he’d be fired along with the other two pricks who violated my legal company policy and I’d put a full page apology in the Denton Gazette.
Haj
I guess not.
Amazing that somebody eager to point out errors in other poster’s claims (duffer) doesn’t have the honesty to own up to his own errors.
Funny, that.
Ok, reading the posts, I see how this pharmacist was wrong. I was using the argument of the store owner’s rights, but appearently I was wrong.
Throw me a bone. If the owner said “No”, would you agree to that? Hypothetical, of course.
Off to wash my psyche in acid for agreeing with these godless left-wing kooks. grumble
you all can’t imagine the pain I feel
great, wait for a post to take hold while someone comes in to support me.
I suck so bad
All the stuff you’re linking to happens after implantation.
Just out of curiosity, do you think the birth-control pill should be banned?
The store owner would have the right, but he should post any such policies in a prominent place so that customers don’t have to waste their time.
I still think it’s ignorant and stupid, though. Thankfully, pharmacists are about to be removed from the equation. The MAP is going to become available over the counter, no prescription needed.
You’re such a fucking liar.
I’ll review.
jarbabyj says that the time between fertilization and implantation is “tiny” (with the implication IMHO that nothing really happens during that time)
I point out that the time frame is something like a week from fertilization to implantation AND that some embryonic development DOES occur in that week (providing a cite)
You say that there IS no pre implantation embryonic development AND that there is no embryo til after implantation.
I offer TWO more cites to support my assertion that there is INDEED embryonic development prior to implantation and make a request for proof that there is not.
You decline to offer proof instead claiming that a blastocyst is NOT an embryo.
I offer FOUR additional cites that contradict your unsupported claim. and make yet ANOTHER request that you back your initial assertion that no embryonic development occurs prior to implantation.
You say that “All the stuff you’re linking to happens after implantation.”…not even bothering to read the actual damn cites. The blastocyst stage in those cites was occuring IN VITRO you fucking moron…then transferred to a uterus for implantation. I only included those cites (and hell…theres dozens more) to counter your claim that “blastocysts are not embryos”.
You’ve claimed
=> no embryonic development occurs prior to implantation…I offered THREE cites that specifically discuss pre implantation embryonic development. Three standard, non-pro life cites.
You’ve claimed
=> “a blastocyst is not an embryo”…I offered FOUR cites that specifically refer to a blastocyst as an embryo
So far, you have offered NO cites.
Again…for someone who delights in pointing out the mistakes that other posters make…you have an amazing ability to ignore the rod in your own eye…and then lie your way past accountability.
The MAP only works within 72 hours. What happens after a week is irrelevant.
None of the stuff you were linking to would be affected by the MAP.
The regular birth-control pill has the same tiny, thoretical chance of preventing the implantation of a fertilized (non-embryonic) egg. Is the birt-control pill an “abortion pill?” should it be banned?
Which has NOTHING to fucking do with my point or your specious claims.
My ONLY initial claim was that there was a week between fertilization and implantation AND that some embryonic development occurs in that time frame. I wasn’t even addressing the MAP in those statements…I was correcting jarbabyj’s notion about a “tiny” window between the 2 events.
Indeed, I already supplied my opinion on this matter of using the MAP(which if you had bothered to actually read my first post…you would know)
Instead of admitting that some embryonic development occurs in the time frame I mentioned AND admitting that a blastocyst IS an embryo…you dodge and weave. Is it really that hard to admit you’re wrong on those 2 biological points (which AGAIN, have fucking NOTHING to do with the MAP)?
I guess for you…it is.
[deep breath]
Ok, you got me on the embryonic development part, Beagle, I was wrong and I shouldn’t have shot my mouth off.
[slinking away]
Wow, Dio, baby – first duffer admits he was wrong, and now you? Does this thread have magical powers?
I gotta say, regardless of whose side I’ve been on in this thread, I am impressed. Well done, both of you! 
:: scuttles away before someone confronts her with one of her boners ::
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.
Actually, that’s just a general statement of corporate policy and a statement that they’re looking into it. Not terribly meaningful. And a business can make an accomodation after the fact if it wishes – again, if the employee is valuable enough, management might simply decide to overlook such violations of corporate policy. That’s a perfectly legitimate business decision, even if it’s one you wouldn’t make if you were in charge.
Obligated? On what grounds? Not posting that information might be a bad business practice, one that might drive away miffed customers, but there’s nothing that demands the opposite.
It might be nice, and it might be a good business decision, but again that’s a judgment call for management that could legitimately go either way. If the loss of business from miffed customers is less than the expense of keeping another person on duty, a business could rationally decide not to have such a backup employee on hand.
This corporation has chosen not to make an accomodation after the fact, considering that the pharmacist has been disciplined. Obviously they don’t feel this guy is “vauable enough” that they’re willing to let him piss all over a rape victim.
I didn’t mean that it was legally obligated, just morally obligated.
Oh hell. If Dio can do it, I can.
Sorry for over reacting blowero. I read your post within five minutes of reading someone else wishing rape on someone in prison and that’s a real hot button with me. I’ve started threads on it in the past and I get riled up about it.
Sorry. here, have a string cheese.
That’s nice of you to say. No problem.
Look, I think firing him would be appropriate. I think letting the incident go would be appropriate. I think a middle ground would be appropriate. My point was that the best way to handle this is a business decision, and that there is no one “correct” response to this incident. Depending on the value of the employee and the seriousness of the incident, management may want to take a firmer or looser hand. I don’t think you can fault them either way – if you disagree, don’t patronize their store, but I don’t think you can call any of the spectrum of possible responses illegitimate.
And I do note that the pharmacy’s response was less than what you and others apparently wanted (you, specificially, suggested that “if he has a big fucking problem with doing his job then he can find another fucking line of work.”). They didn’t fire the guy, they disciplined him.
Which is entirely appropriate. It isn’t a binary choice between firing and doing nothing.
Fine. Upon what moral principle do you make that assertion? I can understand why you might find it inconvenient that a store making accomodations for its employee’s religious viewpoints doesn’t post the existence of those accomodations on a sign, but I sure as hell don’t see how you can call it immoral.