Jump to content

Home

Morning After Pill: Eckerd's Refuses Rape Victim


SkinWalker

Recommended Posts

In Denton, Texas, near my own home, a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for the Morning After Pill to a woman who had been raped!

 

He apparently told her that this medication was intended to kill a life and therefore he could not sell it to her.

 

I'm not kidding. Get the story here: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=4276237

 

The result of his refusal was to create a protest near the store as well as a publicity storm in the region. Hell, I wanted to get out and protest :)

 

Where does an individual get off setting policy for a community, particularly when he may or may not have all the facts? (it's not clear whether he knew she had been raped, only that a Doctor prescribed the medication).

 

To top it off: The story made the front page of the Denton Record-Chronicle, so Eckerd's employees hand-clipped the story from the pages of newspapers it was selling!

 

Does Eckerd Drug think it can mold society in to its own values? Moral stands on contraceptives; censurship of local newspapers.... what's next?

 

One thing's for sure: I'll be giving my business to Walgreens and CVS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I agree that contraceptive drugs are wrong, but you're right - it's this guy's job to fill prescriptions, and he had no right to do what he did.

 

The use of contraceptives is a personal choice. If this guy felt this strongly about it, I can see him trying to talk her out of it, but he definitely took it too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Nevertheless, if the woman was high or drunk, I really would not feel any pity for her.

 

What are you talking about? She's a rape victim. Period. Why would you even suggest "if she were high or drunk?" Are these conditions that justify rape? Is there some pre-conceived notion that anyone who "lets themselves be raped" must be "high or drunk?"

 

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

But then again we have to think about the kid...damn it's more complicated then it seems.

 

What kid? There was no kid. That was the point of the prescription to prevent one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

What are you talking about? She's a rape victim. Period. Why would you even suggest "if she were high or drunk?" Are these conditions that justify rape? Is there some pre-conceived notion that anyone who "lets themselves be raped" must be "high or drunk?"

 

He was merely saying that if she weren't rape but just high or drunk and had consentual sex that he wouldn't feel such pity, that he does since she was raped.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

What kid? There was no kid. That was the point of the prescription to prevent one.

he was stating that if there was a kid, that it would be worse than not having one, poining out that, the kid would lack a father figure, thus leading more certain psychological issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Well it depends, contraception is necessary.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Indeed. The birth control pill doesn't just prevent birth, but it also helps control some hormonal issues.

 

That may be, but if my understanding of the morning-after pill is correct, it is designed to "prevent" pregnancy after fertilization has occured, which some (myself included) believe is the equivalent of an abortion, which is tantamount to murder.

 

I'm not defending the man's actions - it was his job to fill prescriptions...well, I've already said this. Read my last post for my opinion, this is just a clarifying point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rccar328

That may be, but if my understanding of the morning-after pill is correct, it is designed to "prevent" pregnancy after fertilization has occured, which some (myself included) believe is the equivalent of an abortion, which is tantamount to murder.

 

Bollocks. After insemination, there can be a period of up to two days before fertilization takes place and another five to seven days before a blastocyst reaches the uterus. Implantation of this blastocyst can be another two to three days.

 

So taking a pill a day, even a week is no more "tantamount to murder" than using a spermicide on a sponge to kill the sperm prior to reaching the egg.

 

A sparkling example of the ignorance that fundamentalist christian forces in this country have seeded. I'm speaking of the so-called anti-abortion crusaders, some of which see it as their god-given duty bomb clinics, assasinate doctors, and issue death threats along with seeding their brand of ignorance throughout society.

 

It's no wonder the fundamentalist christian movement fears science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wonder what they call the procreation of a child "via" raping. and wouldnt that child be a "bastard" in their sense?

 

oh. i know. the MORNIG AFTER MARRIAGE could fix these problems.

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

murder? is giving birth to a child already murder, because it's pretty sure it will die? and also if it's "murder" depends on the definition of "murder" which is somewhat connected to what someone beliefs and KAZZOOOUM!!! there, again.. what is black, what is white, what is the meaning of the name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sparkling example of the ignorance that fundamentalist christian forces in this country have seeded.

 

Probably, yeah. Like I tried to convey, I didn't really understand the concept of the morning-after pill, just what I'd heard (mainly from anti-abortion, Christian sources, no less, but not the fundamentalist crusaders you refer to). Thanks for correcting me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...