# Pitting Fundie Pharmacists Who Won't Fill Birth-Control Prescriptions **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 28, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620 "2005-03-28T16:46:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/21 "2005-03-28T18:01:37Z")
> [@overlyverbose](#): > > This has been my line of thought, too. Does any church or established religion have a specific stance on the use of Viagra? Because it seems they should. More sexually functional members of a religion usually results in MORE members of that religion. Its always been my belief that this was the logic behind almost every religious restriction on sexual behaviors. Can’t marry outside the religion…might not have babies of religion X Can have sex with someone who is not your spouse … because they might make members of another religion. Cant have abortions or use birth control…fewer new members of the religion. ---
**Author:** ![jk1245](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/49beb7/32.png) [@jk1245](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jk1245)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/22 "2005-03-28T18:03:29Z")
Just to clarify, I am not supporting this in any way. My opinion that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to fill extends as far as handing the scrip to another pharmacist (out of the patient’s sight) and saying “Can you handle this one please”. Anything else should be illegal and put the pharmacist at risk of losing their license. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/23 "2005-03-28T18:09:43Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Lots of people are going to come in here and bitch about how they (the pharmacists) should be allowed to make their own moral choice. :rolleyes: x 1000. I think (and hope) you’ll be pleasantly surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/24 "2005-03-28T18:09:44Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Too bad your line of thought is idiotic and irrelevent. The church doesn’t have a stance on viagra the same way they don’t have a stance on fertility treatments. The objection isn’t to women messing with their reproductive organs, the objection is to artifically preventing the creation of life. And your line of argument is ignorant and wrong. The church, if you’re talking about the Catholic church, does INDEED have a stance on fertility treatments-they’re not allowed, same as birth control. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/25 "2005-03-28T18:10:05Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > The church doesn’t have a stance on viagra the same way they don’t have a stance on fertility treatments. The objection isn’t to women messing with their reproductive organs, the objection is to artifically preventing the creation of life. That’s rather strange, because fertility treatments, including but not limited to _in vitro_ fertilization, involve fertilizing a greater number of eggs than the recipient intends to turn into children. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/26 "2005-03-28T18:10:32Z")
If this is being done by individual “renegade” pharmacists, then yes, I agree it is an outrage. And the story linked seems to indicate this is indeed the case - in most of the situations described. _But_ it’s not entirely clear if that is what’s happening in **all** cases. It has been left open to speculation that refusals might be being made as a directive of the company’s management. Where this might be true (and again, I can’t say if it is, or isn’t), then your outrage holds no water. Companies are perfectly free to determine for themselves if they wish to sell birth control prescriptions - as long as they’re fulfilling the contracts they’ve negotiated with both the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. > [@](#): > > If I were a geologist for a petroleum company, would I have the right to keep my job if I objected to helping plan the ANWR drilling, if I believed it was immoral on environmental grounds? Hell, no. If I were working for a company that got a contract relating to the Iraq war, would I have the right to keep my job while refusing to work on that? Nope. You might. I’m not sure this is as absolute as you make it out to be. It may depend on your contract with your employer, the position of corporate management on these issues (although I rather doubt a company with such strong reservation about the Iraq war would bother bidding on a such a contract), and whether there was ample other work to which your employer could assign you. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/27 "2005-03-28T18:13:57Z")
> [@The Sonoran Lizard King](#): > > Ok, how long until we have a Jehovah Witness EMT who wants to be able to refuse to give a blood transfusion? Or a Christian Scientist Emergency Room physician! ---
**Author:** ![MaddyStrut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@MaddyStrut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaddyStrut)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/28 "2005-03-28T18:21:24Z")
> [@UrbanChic](#): > > I’m totally for a pharmacy owner’s _rights_ to not stock birth control pills or morning-after pills. If a pharmacist works for such a pharmacy, he or she can tell the prescription-holder that the place doesn’t carry it. If a pharmacist elects to not fill a prescription he or she finds morally reprehensible, I am not in favor protecting his/her job if his/her employer disagrees with and wishes to fire him/her because of his/her decision. I agree with this (even though I think the pharmacists in question are being complete asses and if I knew any pharmacies that did this I’d never shop there). However, I think the pharmacists who don’t return prescriptions are guilty of theft. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/29 "2005-03-28T18:25:27Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > It has been left open to speculation that refusals might be being made as a directive of the company’s management. In which case the straightforward answer is “this pharmacy doesn’t stock oral contraceptives.” (If they don’t intend to sell them, they surely don’t stock them. And a business with a stated policy of selling contraceptives to some people but not others - for instance, married women but not single women - might find itself in legal trouble.) > [@UncleBeer](#): > > > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > > If I were a geologist for a petroleum company, would I have the right to keep my job if I objected to helping plan the ANWR drilling, if I believed it was immoral on environmental grounds? Hell, no. If I were working for a company that got a contract relating to the Iraq war, would I have the right to keep my job while refusing to work on that? Nope. > > You might. I’m not sure this is as absolute as you make it out to be. It may depend on your contract with your employer, the position of corporate management on these issues (although I rather doubt a company with such strong reservation about the Iraq war would bother bidding on a such a contract), and whether there was ample other work to which your employer could assign you. I think you misread me. I was referring to _statutory_ protection, as indicated by the succeeding paragraphs of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/30 "2005-03-28T18:25:31Z")
(Bolding mine) But the church _does_ have a stance on sex outside marriage: they’re agin it. So, if pharmacist denying BC to women isn’t also demanding proof of marriage from men who request Viagra, the pharmacist is helping them violate the church’s edict. A pharmacist is working for a private employer, but they are also acting as an agent of government in controlling access to drugs. Someone in another thread made a very good analogy: suppose a DMV employee was a Muslim who didn’t think women should be allowed to drive. Should they be allowed to refuse licensing women drivers, and keep their job? > [@Neurotik](#): > > Too bad your line of thought is idiotic and irrelevent. **The church doesn’t have a stance on viagra** the same way they don’t have a stance on fertility treatments. The objection isn’t to women messing with their reproductive organs, the objection is to artifically preventing the creation of life. > > My line of thought is the same as **UrbanChic’s**. It should be between the employer and the employee. If the employer has no problem with the employee not filling them out then OK, but the employee should get no protections if the employer doesn’t approve of his refusal. ---
**Author:** ![sj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@sj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sj2)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/31 "2005-03-28T18:46:07Z")
These places need BIG signs in the front of their stores announcing their policies…so we, the ones who _need_ this medication to handle a medical problem (like the ones stated), can know which ones to avoid (~or egg~). If some dolt did this to me, there’d be a need for a special extraction team to remove my foot from his/her ass. ---
**Author:** ![hiebram](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5fc32e/32.png) [@hiebram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hiebram)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/32 "2005-03-28T18:51:56Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > No, _not filling it_ should be grounds for revoking licenses. That is their _job_. Their chosen _career_. I don’t really care what their morals are, you leave them at home, and if you really disapprove of something **legal** , you leave the job. The belief that we should leave our personal identities behind when we clock in and assume our role as a worker for and representative of the Business seems problematic to me. First, as the OP demonstrates, a lot of people just don’t buy into it, so before we start castigating people for breaking the rules, there are other meta-issues to be decided that will determine the boundaries for the argument. So far, it seems like quite a few people on this board agrees with the OP, but that doesn’t hold across the entire culture. There is a pretty severe difference in priorities that make a lot of arguments on both sides irrelevant to the other side. Second, there have been huge scandals in the past about people making unethical decisions for the advancement of their business. There have definitely been problems when people leave their ethics behind for personal gain. I recognize that it’s a different scenario when the issue is selling a legal product to a willing customer, but this is a view that can be reasonably drawn somewhere down the line. To say that personal beliefs have no place in business is risky, and this seems to me to be the path that leads us there. Finally, to tell the pharmacist that he/she has an obligation to respect the autonomy of others is an ethical decision that we seem to expect everyone to honor. It’s one I agree with, but I still understand it to be an ethical statement. If that’s so, then the issue is not that pharmacists are bringing ethics into business, but that they’re using ethics I don’t agree with. I think it’s important to recognize the distinction. Hiebram ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/33 "2005-03-28T18:54:10Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > (Bolding mine) But the church _does_ have a stance on sex outside marriage: they’re agin it. > > So, if pharmacist denying BC to women isn’t also demanding proof of marriage from men who request Viagra, the pharmacist is helping them violate the church’s edict. The Church makes no distinction between married and unmarried people using artificial birth control - no Catholic is supposed to use it. But, I do agree that if a pharmacist is refusing to fill a birth control prescription without proof of being married should do the same for Viagra to be consistent. > [@](#): > > A pharmacist is working for a private employer, but they are also acting as an agent of government in controlling access to drugs. Someone in another thread made a very good analogy: suppose a DMV employee was a Muslim who didn’t think women should be allowed to drive. Should they be allowed to refuse licensing women drivers, and keep their job? Except, a DMV employee is, AFAIK, actually a direct employee of the government. The pharmacist is not. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > That’s rather strange, because fertility treatments, including but not limited to in vitro fertilization, involve fertilizing a greater number of eggs than the recipient intends to turn into children. Hmmm…fertility treatments was perhaps the wrong phrase. I should have said fertility drugs. IVF is indeed considered out of bounds by the Catholic Church. LTOT and GIFT are considered borderline and I believe the Church is still deciding on it. I think the consensus is that LTOT is going to be approved, but GIFT is going to remain controversial. Right now the Church leaves it up to the individual’s conscience - which is what they should do on more issues, IMO. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > The church, if you’re talking about the Catholic church, does INDEED have a stance on fertility treatments-they’re not allowed, same as birth control. Only some are disallowed. Others are completely OK. Fertility drugs fall into the latter category. ---
**Author:** ![NoPretentiousCodename](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/82dd89/32.png) [@NoPretentiousCodename](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoPretentiousCodename)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/34 "2005-03-28T19:04:39Z")
Any pharmacist who does this is pretty unlikely to have his job/carreer/license put in jeopardy for the simple reason that there is a shortage of pharmacists nationwide (USA). Supposing that the employer of the pharmacists objected to their behavior, they wouldn’t be likely to fill that vacant position in a timely manner if they terminated the employee. Regardless, that pharmacist would have many other career options open to him/her even if the employer did let them go. Likewise, it seems people would be none too anxious to de-license qualified health professionals in a field where there is a shortage. Gross negligence, sure they’ll revoke a license. Regardless of your view on the situation, these are practical aspects of it (as I see it). That said, I think I’ll stay out of armchair-regulating/passing-judgment-on a career that I know very little about. Until they start telling me how they think I should do my job, anyway. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/35 "2005-03-28T19:05:32Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Too bad your line of thought is idiotic and irrelevent. The church doesn’t have a stance on viagra the same way they don’t have a stance on fertility treatments. The objection isn’t to women messing with their reproductive organs, the objection is to artifically preventing the creation of life. > > My line of thought is the same as **UrbanChic’s**. It should be between the employer and the employee. If the employer has no problem with the employee not filling them out then OK, but the employee should get no protections if the employer doesn’t approve of his refusal. As several people have pointed out, the church _does_ have a stance on fertility treatments, and has for several years. Also, here’s information on the Catholic church’s stance on sexual activity: [What sexual activity is accepted?](http://catholicism.about.com/cs/sex/f/sexfaqaccept.htm) and [Roman Catholic Church and Homosexuality](http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom.htm). According to this, men and women should only have sex if they’re married, and, although the church has become slightly more lenient about it, still holds that sex is ethical only if there is a possibility for conception. In other words, they accept that sex does have a “unifying” effect in a marriage, but still hold that sex is primarily for procreation. By the above definition, having sex for reasons other than having children is considered unethical by the church. So, if a man is taking viagra solely to enjoy the pleasure of sex, he’s committing what might be deemed a morally reprehensible act, at least by the definition of the Catholic church. Unless he’s having sex in order to be open to the possibility of having children with his wife, he should not be taking viagra - he doesn’t need it unless he’s trying to have a child with his wife. So, if you take this further, you could argue that a) a single man doesn’t need viagra because sex outside of marriage is fornication and therefore a sin, b) a man whose wife is no longer capable of having children does not need viagra because he can’t have sex outside of marriage, and if his wife can’t have kids, neither can he and c) a man who knows that he is sterile and incapable of having children doesn’t need viagra because if he were taking it only to have sex, then he’d be doing something unethical. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/36 "2005-03-28T19:30:54Z")
True, there is a difference between a private-sector pharmacist and a government employee. But you have to go through a pharmacist to get a prescription filled – there is no alternative. A pharmacist who wanted to avoid personally providing the BC should be willing to return the prescription, so the customer could go to a pharmacist who had no such objections. If the pharmacist refuses to return the prescription, IMO he’s using his government license to legislate his religion. Which brings up something I didn’t notice at first: if a woman seeking birth control is not Roman Catholic, why is the pharmacist appealing to the church’s rules? They don’t apply to her. And I don’t see how any extant rules apply to the pharmacist’s act of _providing_ the BC. (Correct me if I’m wrong – but any such rule would seem to require, e.g., that Roman Catholics divest themselves of any stock in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture BC). > [@Neurotik](#): > > The Church makes no distinction between married and unmarried people using artificial birth control - no Catholic is supposed to use it. > > But, I do agree that if a pharmacist is refusing to fill a birth control prescription without proof of being married should do the same for Viagra to be consistent. > > Except, a DMV employee is, AFAIK, actually a direct employee of the government. The pharmacist is not. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/37 "2005-03-28T19:31:25Z")
As something of a Libertarian, I find it hard to think of a good reason why pharmacists should be forced to do something they think is wrong, however stupid I find that view. Then again, I also fully support the ability of a business to fire such a person, or customers to boycott said establishment if they don’t. While there is some recourse in the “professional standards” area, it makes more uncomfortable than the problem it is solving. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/38 "2005-03-28T19:46:47Z")
> [@overlyverbose](#): > > As several people have pointed out, the church _does_ have a stance on fertility treatments, and has for several years. You are correct. The Church has a stance on fertility treatments. However, it is not universally against them (fertility drugs are OK) and none of their opposition has anything to do with messing with reproductive organs per se. For example, as **RTFirefly** notes, the Church’s main objection to IVF has to do with multiple eggs being fertilized and then having most of them destroyed because they are not needed. From the [US Conference of Catholic Bishops](http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.htm): > [@](#): > > Any number of morally acceptable interventions may be used to overcome infertility. For example, surgery can overcome tubal blockages in the male or female reproductive system which prevent fertilization from taking place. Fertility drugs may also be used, with the caution that large multiple pregnancies may put mother and infants at risk. > \ > Most theologians consider the procedure known as LTOT, or Lower Tubal Ovum Transfer, to be morally acceptable. This involves transferring the wife’s egg beyond a blockage in the fallopian tube so that marital relations can result in pregnancy. > [@overlyverbose](#): > > By the above definition, having sex for reasons other than having children is considered unethical by the church. So, if a man is taking viagra solely to enjoy the pleasure of sex, he’s committing what might be deemed a morally reprehensible act, at least by the definition of the Catholic church. Nope, because there’s also the unifying aspect. You can have sex whenever you want with your wife, as long as you’re not artificially blocking the possibility of conception. Viagra does not artificially block the possibility of conception, so you’re OK. > [@](#): > > Unless he’s having sex in order to be open to the possibility of having children with his wife, he should not be taking viagra - he doesn’t need it unless he’s trying to have a child with his wife. Eh? Nonsense. You don’t have to always be trying to have a child with your wife. The church has no problem with natural means of birth control. > [@](#): > > So, if you take this further, you could argue that a) a single man doesn’t need viagra because sex outside of marriage is fornication and therefore a sin, Correct. > [@](#): > > b) a man whose wife is no longer capable of having children does not need viagra because he can’t have sex outside of marriage, and if his wife can’t have kids, neither can he Bzzzt. You can still have sex within a marriage even if you can’t have kids. There’s always the unifying aspect. > [@](#): > > and c) a man who knows that he is sterile and incapable of having children doesn’t need viagra because if he were taking it only to have sex, then he’d be doing something unethical. Only by using the most tortured logic is this correct. ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/39 "2005-03-28T19:48:35Z")
> [@overlyverbose](#): > > So, if you take this further, you could argue that a) a single man doesn’t need viagra because sex outside of marriage is fornication and therefore a sin, b) a man whose wife is no longer capable of having children does not need viagra because he can’t have sex outside of marriage, and if his wife can’t have kids, neither can he and c) a man who knows that he is sterile and incapable of having children doesn’t need viagra because if he were taking it only to have sex, then he’d be doing something unethical. This isn’t quite true, actually: Catholic teaching holds that sex within marriage where one of the partners is unable to have children is perfectly all right if the couple doesn’t use artificial means to prevent conception. So there’s nothing unethical, from the Church’s POV, about a postmenopausal or otherwise infertile married couple having sex, with or without Viagra. The idea is that couples are supposed to be open to the _possibility_ of conception, even if it’s only a hypothetical one, not that it’s the _only_ permissible reason to have sex. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620/40 "2005-03-28T19:50:39Z")
> [@Katisha](#): > > This isn’t quite true, actually: Catholic teaching holds that sex within marriage where one of the partners is unable to have children is perfectly all right if the couple doesn’t use artificial means to prevent conception. So there’s nothing unethical, from the Church’s POV, about a postmenopausal or otherwise infertile married couple having sex, with or without Viagra. The idea is that couples are supposed to be open to the _possibility_ of conception, even if it’s only a hypothetical one, not that it’s the _only_ permissible reason to have sex. Thanks, **Katisha** , for the clarification. I appreciate it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-fundie-pharmacists-who-wont-fill-birth-control-prescriptions/296620.md?page=3)