# Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850 "2011-05-14T00:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pazu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pazu/32/15522_2.png) [@Pazu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pazu)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/41 "2011-05-14T18:06:02Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > Which is fine if your city happens to have 3 CVSs 8 Walgreens and two Walmarts, but if you’re a frightened 16yo kid with no car living in Podunk IA and the next pharmacy is 100 miles down the road, then you’re SOL. Yeah, well, you force enough girls and women in Podunk IA to have babies, eventually Podunk’s population will be large enough to support a CVS. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/42 "2011-05-14T18:17:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > An interesting opinion, but one that is not based on factual evidence. Except of course for such laws being backed by anti-woman groups and always being implemented in a way hostile to women. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nope. It’s a complete _non sequitur_, and makes no logical sense. No, it makes an obvious comparison between how the genders are treated. You are just bending over backwards trying to pretend that this isn’t about persecuting women. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/43 "2011-05-14T18:40:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except of course for such laws being backed by anti-woman groups and always being implemented in a way hostile to women. > > No, it makes an obvious comparison between how the genders are treated. > > You are just bending over backwards trying to pretend that this isn’t about persecuting women. You can’t possibly say that anyone who is anti-abortion from the belief that human life begins at conception are really against it because they want to persecute women. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/44 "2011-05-14T18:43:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, I found the law (or at least the Senate version of the law). There is just one line that says a physician must tell the patient, orally, that “human physical life” begins at conception. I see no reason that the physician can say what I proposed, above, and both be in compliance with the law and not violate his or her own personal beliefs. How about because it’s factually false? Why should a doctor be forced to tell an objective lie. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/45 "2011-05-14T18:44:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except of course for such laws being backed by anti-woman groups and always being implemented in a way hostile to women. Nope. > [@](#): > > No, it makes an obvious comparison between how the genders are treated. > > You are just bending over backwards trying to pretend that this isn’t about persecuting women. Pffft. Forcing someone to do “x” and allowing someone to opt out of “y” are completely different things. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/46 "2011-05-14T18:44:36Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > You can’t possibly say that anyone who is anti-abortion from the belief that human life begins at conception are really against it because they want to persecute women. I can infer exactly that when they they show that they don’t give a shit about the baby after it’s born. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/47 "2011-05-14T18:47:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I can infer exactly that when they they show that they don’t give a shit about the baby after it’s born. You can propose that inference, but you’ll have to back it up with more than just your say-so. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/48 "2011-05-14T18:52:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I can infer exactly that when they they show that they don’t give a shit about the baby after it’s born. Those are two completely separate things. I know numerous people who believe that abortion is murder who are in fact progressive women. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/49 "2011-05-14T18:55:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You can propose that inference, but you’ll have to back it up with more than just your say-so. I don’t to back up an inference. My inferences belong to me. They may or may not be accurate, but they are still what I infer. In this case, that inference is hard to disagree with, though. The same political faction that screams the most about “unborn babies” is unwilling to spend a penny of public money to help them after they’re born. It therefore becomes extraordinarily difficult to take them seriously when they say that care about the fetuses. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/50 "2011-05-14T18:56:32Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > Those are two completely separate things. I know numerous people who believe that abortion is murder who are in fact progressive women. Do they believe that women should be allowed to make that choice for themselves? If not, then they aren’t progressive. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/51 "2011-05-14T19:01:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t to back up an inference. My inferences belong to me. They may or may not be accurate, but they are still what I infer. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to use your opinion as a point of debate. > [@](#): > > In this case, that inference is hard to disagree with, though. The same political faction that screams the most about “unborn babies” is unwilling to spend a penny of public money to help them after they’re born. Ot therefore becomes extraordinarily difficult to take them seriously when they say that care about the fetuses. My, what a broad brush you have, **DtC**. Not to mention the absurdity of requiring people provide sustenance for person “x” in order to prove that those people don’t want to kill person “x” for any other reason than they abhor killing. Religious institutions, often opposed to abortion, have traditionally helped fund orphanages and arrange adoptions. It takes a certain mindset to think that aid can only arrive through the arm of the state. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/52 "2011-05-14T19:13:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to use your opinion as a point of debate. I didn’t. I said I made an inference. > [@](#): > > My, what a broad brush you have, **DtC**. Who am I brushing? I have said nothing about all pro-lifers. I have said that I can fairly make an inference about the sincerity of _those who demonstrate a contradictory attitude_ in later circumstance. There really is no other reasonable inference to make. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Why are you even arguing? > [@](#): > > Not to mention the absurdity of requiring people provide sustenance for person “x” in order to prove that those people don’t want to kill person “x” for any other reason than they abhor killing. The fact that they don’t give a shit about the babies after they’re born belies their claims that they abhor "killing’ fetuses. By the way, wanting the government to force women to carry pregnancies to term IS wanteing the government to “provide sustenance.,” They just wasnt they support to stop the second the baby is out of the woman/. ASfter that, they’re perfectly content with letting the baby starve or freeze or die from lack of health care. Maybe that doesn’t sound hypocritical to you, but I’m incapable of the gymnastic kinds of rationalization that must take. Why can’t you just call a spade a spade? > [@](#): > > It takes a certain mindset to think that aid can only arrive through the arm of the state. tell that to your precious pro-lifers. They’re the ones who want the government to create these burdens. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/53 "2011-05-14T19:22:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I didn’t. I said I made an inference. In GD. Anything posted here is assumed to be a debate point unless otherwise noted. > [@](#): > > Who am I brushing? “The same political faction…” > [@](#): > > I have said nothing about all pro-lifers. I have said that I can fairly make an inference about the sincerity of _those who demonstrate a contradictory attitude_ in later circumstance. There really is no other reasonable inference to make. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Why are you even arguing? Because it’s not hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > The fact that they don’t give a shit about the babies after they’re born belies their claims that they abhor "killing’ fetuses. Now you’re just restated the same unsubstantiated claim as before. > [@](#): > > By the way, wanting the government to force women to carry pregnancies to term IS wanteing the government to “provide sustenance.,” No, it’s not. > [@](#): > > They just wasnt they support to stop the second the baby is out of the woman/. ASfter that, they’re perfectly content with letting the baby starve or freeze or die from lack of health care. Maybe that doesn’t sound hypocritical to you, but I’m incapable of the gymnastic kinds of rationalization that must take. Why can’t you just call a spade a spade? Because it’s not a spade. > [@](#): > > tell that to your precious pro-lifers. They’re the ones who want the government to create these burdens. I have no association with pro-lifers. I just don’t demonize them all. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/54 "2011-05-14T19:22:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Do they believe that women should be allowed to make that choice for themselves? If not, then they aren’t progressive. A person who believes that murder is occurring doesn’t distinguish between who is making the decision. It’s no less murder to them if the woman herself is making the decision or a congressperson. I agree that the effect is to persecute women. And that some people are quite happy to have that effect. But that’s not what’s motivating a lot of the people who believe that human life begins at conception. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/55 "2011-05-14T19:35:57Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > You can’t possibly say that anyone who is anti-abortion from the belief that human life begins at conception are really against it because they want to persecute women. That’s the whole reason for that particular idea in the first place. It isn’t consistent with anything else about how we view human life, nor does it have a scientific basis. It’s a definition of “human life” tailored for the sole purpose of justifying reducing women to breeding animals. And again; anti-abortion groups the world over consistently act to harm women, and nothing more. They show no concern for the life of the babies they force to be born, much less the mother. If there are actually people in the anti-abortion movement that care in the slightest about the “babies” they are vanishingly rare. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Pffft. Forcing someone to do “x” and allowing someone to opt out of “y” are completely different things. What are you babbling about? We are talking about _forcing_ doctors to lie and _forcing_ women to serve as brood mares. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/56 "2011-05-14T19:43:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In GD. Anything posted here is assumed to be a debate point unless otherwise noted. This is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > “The same political faction…” That is factually true. > [@](#): > > Because it’s not hypocrisy. The hell it isn’t. > [@](#): > > Now you’re just restated the same unsubstantiated claim as before. It is self substantiating, and frankly irrefutable. Demostrable hyocrisy is demonstrable hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. Yes it is. They want to government to step in and force an unwilling citizen to be a life support system for a parasitic organism. > [@](#): > > Because it’s not a spade. You say that, but you haven’t offered a bit of argumentation as to why it’s not a contradiction. > [@](#): > > I have no association with pro-lifers. I just don’t demonize them all. Neither do I. You’re trying to create a strawman,. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/57 "2011-05-14T19:45:34Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > A person who believes that murder is occurring doesn’t distinguish between who is making the decision. It’s no less murder to them if the woman herself is making the decision or a congressperson. You didn’t answer my question. Do they think that women should have the legal choice to terminate a pregnancy or don’t they? I’m not interested in whether they think abortion is murder. I’m asking what they think the law should be. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/58 "2011-05-14T19:59:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You didn’t answer my question. Do they think that women should have the legal choice to terminate a pregnancy or don’t they? I’m not interested in whether they think abortion is murder. I’m asking what they think the law should be. I have not asked. If they follow their convictions to the end, it could very well mean they would be against legal abortion. That doesn’t necessarily make them anti-women. As I said, if they believe strongly enough that abortion is murder, then they can very well believe that one can’t legalize murder. Not all anti-abortion believers are anti-women. eta: Yes, I did answer your question. > [@](#): > > A person who believes that murder is occurring doesn’t distinguish between who is making the decision. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/59 "2011-05-14T20:13:43Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > I have not asked. If they follow their convictions to the end, it could very well mean they would be against legal abortion. That doesn’t necessarily make them anti-women. It would mean that they aren’t “progressive,” as you claimed. It also mean they support takinmg at least one important right away from women, which is not exactly PRO-woman. eta, no you did not answer my question. I asked you if they wanted to make abortion illegal. You told me their religious belief about abortion. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/60 "2011-05-14T20:25:52Z")
Reading this thread, it looks like: 1. The law prevents doctors from performing their duties properly by making them provide misleading information to outright lies to patients. (Telling a patient that ‘life’ begins at conception is misleading at best. The issue is whether a person begins at conception and that is not a doctor’s place to judge. Also, emergency contraceptives are not abortifactents (sp). Finally, current science holds that a fetus cannot feel pain until sometime during the third trimester). 2. The law allows a licensed pharmacist to refuse to do the job he/she was licensed to do. So, it prevents one health professional from doing his/her job properly and allows another to not do his/her job properly. Reminds me of that creepy gun law in which a pediatrician can’t even talk about gun safety to parents. Jesus, how did this country get so fucked up? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=4)