Another Moral Dilemma For You To Feast On

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

No, you are the guy here advocating for placing your desire above the rights of this woman.

Says the guy advocating for placing the desires of the capitalist over the rights of women in the town mentioned.

Obviously not a true statement. The woman's rights are the only rights at issue here.

There is no such thing as a right to the time/effort/labor of other people.

I fully agree. Which is why capitalism must be abolished.

Well that would obviously violate the rights of the people who choose to interact with each other in a capitalist fashion.

Your hatred of capitalism does not give you any justification for subordinating others

Replace a couple words and this literally sounds like an anti-capitalist argument, not even shitting you.

Your love for class society does not give you any justification for subordinating the masses.

That's the thing, if you've bothered to read my posts, then you've seen that I've never suggested subordinating anyone. That was you

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Obviously not a true statement. The woman's rights are the only rights at issue here.

And all the women being denied the pill but sure let's just brush the entire fucking issue being talked about to the side I suppose

Well that would obviously violate the rights of the people who choose to interact with each other in a capitalist fashion.

An all-encompassing capitalist system is in no way voluntary. No one is choosing shit. When your "choices" are sell your labor or die, there is no fucking choice. The capitalist, by their very nature, is an oppressor and exploiter of the working class. Their relationship with society is parasitic.

That's the thing, if you've bothered to read my posts, then you've seen that I've never suggested subordinating anyone. That was you

You've endorsed capitalism a number of times now so that's a bald-faced lie.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Obviously not a true statement. The woman's rights are the only rights at issue here.

And all the women being denied the pill but sure let's just brush the entire fucking issue being talked about to the side I suppose

Women continue to be just as free as before to produce, purchase, use, etc medications to their hearts' content.

Well that would obviously violate the rights of the people who choose to interact with each other in a capitalist fashion.

An all-encompassing capitalist system is in no way voluntary. No one is choosing shit. When your "choices" are sell your labor or die, there is no fucking choice. The capitalist, by their very nature, is an oppressor and exploiter of the working class. Their relationship with society is parasitic.

There is no such thing as an all-encompassing economic system that is voluntary, since there is no one system that everyone agrees with. Don't sell your labor if you don't want to do so. Do the subsistence thing if that is what you like.

That's the thing, if you've bothered to read my posts, then you've seen that I've never suggested subordinating anyone. That was you

You've endorsed capitalism a number of times now so that's a bald-faced lie.

So you are, in fact, lying. I endorse capitalism. That has nothing to do with suggesting subordination of others. I respect your right to endorse another economic system.


Tell you what, when you're done calling people names and being dishonest about them, come on back for a discussion.

[Zoice]

I explained very clearly how you are abusing the words hypocrisy and slavery. Your response was "nuh uh!".

Well, since you've yet to ever come up with any real case that I was mistaken in any way, your 'nuh uh' can be easily dismissed. You even helpfully posted definitions illustrating my point.

I explained very clearly how you are misusing slavery and hypocrisy. Here it is again. Note the bolded text explaining how you are wrong.

Slavery is defined variously as: the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune.

No, that doesn't apply here. No one has absolute power over anyone, the state is simply regulating her business to ensure that women everywhere get their right to healthcare.

the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

No again. She is not being forced into work, any more than a worker is forced by their boss into work. She can always step back, there is no force.

severe toil; drudgery.

No, that's not what's going on here. This woman became a pharmacist of her own free will, and continues to do so of her own volition. The only thing I'm saying is that the government should extend already existing regulations on her business to include the stipulation that she offers the drug over the counter.

As for hypocrisy; the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Again, that does not apply. If I were a pharmacist and I also refused to give out the drug over the counter, while at the same time I said that she should have to do it, then I would be a hypocrite. Alternatively if I said that a random person should be forced to drop their career and become a pharmacist, while I myself wasn't willing to do that, then I would be a hypocrite. But that's not the case, and you're being incredibly over dramatic with your accusations of hypocrisy and slavery.

Some sectors like healthcare, national security, law enforcement, firefighting, shouldn't be done privately. It is too important that they are done effectively and equally to let it be a private unregulated system. Hence why pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics should be carefully controlled by The Man.

And you can have as many government pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics as you desire without involving this woman in any way.

No, I can have government pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics as necessary, and she has to meet those same standards.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Well, since you've yet to ever come up with any real case that I was mistaken in any way, your 'nuh uh' can be easily dismissed. You even helpfully posted definitions illustrating my point.

I explained very clearly how you are misusing slavery and hypocrisy. Here it is again. Note the bolded text explaining how you are wrong.

Slavery is defined variously as: the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune.

No, that doesn't apply here. No one has absolute power over anyone, the state is simply regulating her business to ensure that women everywhere get their right to healthcare.

the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

No again. She is not being forced into work, any more than a worker is forced by their boss into work. She can always step back, there is no force.

severe toil; drudgery.

No, that's not what's going on here. This woman became a pharmacist of her own free will, and continues to do so of her own volition. The only thing I'm saying is that the government should extend already existing regulations on her business to include the stipulation that she offers the drug over the counter.

As for hypocrisy; the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Again, that does not apply. If I were a pharmacist and I also refused to give out the drug over the counter, while at the same time I said that she should have to do it, then I would be a hypocrite. Alternatively if I said that a random person should be forced to drop their career and become a pharmacist, while I myself wasn't willing to do that, then I would be a hypocrite. But that's not the case, and you're being incredibly over dramatic with your accusations of hypocrisy and slavery.

Let's look at slave:

"someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay"

"a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something"

"a person held in servitude as the chattel of another"

"one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence"

"a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant."

"a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person"

"One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude."

"One who is subservient to or controlled by another"


So forcing someone to involuntarily provide their labor...making them subservient to your desires...controlling their time, effort, and services.....that's clearly treating them as a slave



Let's look at hypocrisy:


"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

"the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel"

Well, obviously that would apply to the claim that people should have to do something despite one's own refusal to do the same. It would also apply to claiming that people have a right to be given something and then not giving it to them when requested.


You've never been able to come up with any actual rebuttal to that.

And you can have as many government pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics as you desire without involving this woman in any way.

No, I can have government pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics as necessary, and she has to meet those same standards.

Which brings us right back to your actual motivation. You don't want the government to have pharmacies, hospitals, etc so much as you want people to be prevented from having them. You desire the control over others

[Tmutarakhan]

I hate to tell you this, but ANY job you take, for the rest of your life, is going to involve you being told to do things you don't really like doing it. You have the choice of doing the job, or not.

By your fucking boss. This is not about doing or not doing your job it is about whether or not the government should foist upon you a new duty in the name of a very limited public need. The private sector is not and should not be an arm of the government. If people have a fundamental right to these pills they're taking it up with the wrong fucking person.

Licensed professions are required to perform a set of duties defined by governmental regulation (and are well compensated for doing so). Not knowing the details of New Zealand's regulation of pharmacists, I am not competent to answer whether she violates the duties as presently defined, but I am failing to see any moral "dilemma" in the position that she OUGHT to be required to meet the needs of patients regardless of any private beliefs, and if her beliefs are too strong to permit her to do so, then she needs to choose a different career. I have no sympathy for special rights given to "religious" beliefs.

[Zoice]

I explained very clearly how you are misusing slavery and hypocrisy. Here it is again. Note the bolded text explaining how you are wrong.

Slavery is defined variously as: the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune.

No, that doesn't apply here. No one has absolute power over anyone, the state is simply regulating her business to ensure that women everywhere get their right to healthcare.

the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

No again. She is not being forced into work, any more than a worker is forced by their boss into work. She can always step back, there is no force.

severe toil; drudgery.

No, that's not what's going on here. This woman became a pharmacist of her own free will, and continues to do so of her own volition. The only thing I'm saying is that the government should extend already existing regulations on her business to include the stipulation that she offers the drug over the counter.

As for hypocrisy; the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Again, that does not apply. If I were a pharmacist and I also refused to give out the drug over the counter, while at the same time I said that she should have to do it, then I would be a hypocrite. Alternatively if I said that a random person should be forced to drop their career and become a pharmacist, while I myself wasn't willing to do that, then I would be a hypocrite. But that's not the case, and you're being incredibly over dramatic with your accusations of hypocrisy and slavery.

Let's look at slave:

"someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay"

"a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something"

"a person held in servitude as the chattel of another"

"one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence"

"a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant."

"a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person"

"One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude."

"One who is subservient to or controlled by another"


So forcing someone to involuntarily provide their labor...making them subservient to your desires...controlling their time, effort, and services.....that's clearly treating them as a slave

The important aspect that you've glossed over is "absolute" or "complete". The pharmacist would not be absolutely or completely controlled, this is a single aspect that is no different from requiring her to be licensed, or educated in pharmacology.

Let's look at hypocrisy:


"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

"the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel"

Well, obviously that would apply to the claim that people should have to do something despite one's own refusal to do the same. It would also apply to claiming that people have a right to be given something and then not giving it to them when requested.


You've never been able to come up with any actual rebuttal to that.

Yes I did. Again, here it is.

As for hypocrisy; the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Again, that does not apply. If I were a pharmacist and I also refused to give out the drug over the counter, while at the same time I said that she should have to do it, then I would be a hypocrite. Alternatively if I said that a random person should be forced to drop their career and become a pharmacist, while I myself wasn't willing to do that, then I would be a hypocrite. But that's not the case, and you're being incredibly over dramatic with your accusations of hypocrisy and slavery.

No, I can have government pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics as necessary, and she has to meet those same standards.

Which brings us right back to your actual motivation. You don't want the government to have pharmacies, hospitals, etc so much as you want people to be prevented from having them. You desire the control over others

My desire is not to control others, that's ridiculous. The desire is for everyone to have good healthcare. If that means that pharmacies and hospitals are government controlled, then so be it.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Let's look at slave:

"someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay"

"a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something"

"a person held in servitude as the chattel of another"

"one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence"

"a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant."

"a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person"

"One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude."

"One who is subservient to or controlled by another"


So forcing someone to involuntarily provide their labor...making them subservient to your desires...controlling their time, effort, and services.....that's clearly treating them as a slave

The important aspect that you've glossed over is "absolute" or "complete". The pharmacist would not be absolutely or completely controlled, this is a single aspect that is no different from requiring her to be licensed, or educated in pharmacology.

Let's look at hypocrisy:


"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

"the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel"

Well, obviously that would apply to the claim that people should have to do something despite one's own refusal to do the same. It would also apply to claiming that people have a right to be given something and then not giving it to them when requested.


You've never been able to come up with any actual rebuttal to that.

Yes I did. Again, here it is.

As for hypocrisy; the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Again, that does not apply. If I were a pharmacist and I also refused to give out the drug over the counter, while at the same time I said that she should have to do it, then I would be a hypocrite. Alternatively if I said that a random person should be forced to drop their career and become a pharmacist, while I myself wasn't willing to do that, then I would be a hypocrite. But that's not the case, and you're being incredibly over dramatic with your accusations of hypocrisy and slavery.

Which brings us right back to your actual motivation. You don't want the government to have pharmacies, hospitals, etc so much as you want people to be prevented from having them. You desire the control over others

My desire is not to control others, that's ridiculous. The desire is for everyone to have good healthcare. If that means that pharmacies and hospitals are government controlled, then so be it.

Let's see, so you didn't bother to actually read the definitions, you claim to have done something rather than actually ever do it, and you won't stick to your story when called on it.

Before, you stated that what you wanted was government control of all pharmacies, hospitals, etc. Now you pretend that you don't, even though your contradicting statements are still there to see.

[Zoice]

The important aspect that you've glossed over is "absolute" or "complete". The pharmacist would not be absolutely or completely controlled, this is a single aspect that is no different from requiring her to be licensed, or educated in pharmacology.





Yes I did. Again, here it is.

As for hypocrisy; the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Again, that does not apply. If I were a pharmacist and I also refused to give out the drug over the counter, while at the same time I said that she should have to do it, then I would be a hypocrite. Alternatively if I said that a random person should be forced to drop their career and become a pharmacist, while I myself wasn't willing to do that, then I would be a hypocrite. But that's not the case, and you're being incredibly over dramatic with your accusations of hypocrisy and slavery.


My desire is not to control others, that's ridiculous. The desire is for everyone to have good healthcare. If that means that pharmacies and hospitals are government controlled, then so be it.

Let's see, so you didn't bother to actually read the definitions, you claim to have done something rather than actually ever do it, and you won't stick to your story when called on it.

Before, you stated that what you wanted was government control of all pharmacies, hospitals, etc. Now you pretend that you don't, even though your contradicting statements are still there to see.

. . . The fuck? I said that I want government control because I want healthcare for all. That doesn't contradict the post you quoted.

Explain exactly where what I said is wrong. Because you're just saying "uh uh!" and it's fucking tiresome.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Let's see, so you didn't bother to actually read the definitions, you claim to have done something rather than actually ever do it, and you won't stick to your story when called on it.

Before, you stated that what you wanted was government control of all pharmacies, hospitals, etc. Now you pretend that you don't, even though your contradicting statements are still there to see.

. . . The fuck? I said that I want government control because I want healthcare for all. That doesn't contradict the post you quoted.

Explain exactly where what I said is wrong. Because you're just saying "uh uh!" and it's fucking tiresome.

I already explained your mistakes. You really should do a better job of reading posts before responding.

You took the position that government run hospitals, pharmacies, etc to provide care for everyone wasn't enough...you wanted control over private ones as well. Now you try to change your tune

[Zoice]

. . . The fuck? I said that I want government control because I want healthcare for all. That doesn't contradict the post you quoted.

Explain exactly where what I said is wrong. Because you're just saying "uh uh!" and it's fucking tiresome.

I already explained your mistakes. You really should do a better job of reading posts before responding.

You took the position that government run hospitals, pharmacies, etc to provide care for everyone wasn't enough...you wanted control over private ones as well. Now you try to change your tune

No... control over all of those businesses because that's the only way to ensure everyone gets healthcare.

This thread has gone on a long time. I went back and dug up the exact post I made, it'd be nice if you could so the same or I won't know what you mean.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

I already explained your mistakes. You really should do a better job of reading posts before responding.

You took the position that government run hospitals, pharmacies, etc to provide care for everyone wasn't enough...you wanted control over private ones as well. Now you try to change your tune

No... control over all of those businesses because that's the only way to ensure everyone gets healthcare.

This thread has gone on a long time. I went back and dug up the exact post I made, it'd be nice if you could so the same or I won't know what you mean.

The only way? Why can they not just use your government institutions?

[Zoice]

No... control over all of those businesses because that's the only way to ensure everyone gets healthcare.

This thread has gone on a long time. I went back and dug up the exact post I made, it'd be nice if you could so the same or I won't know what you mean.

The only way? Why can they not just use your government institutions?

The same reason why you can't practice medicine without a license, to ensure it meets a certain standard.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

The only way? Why can they not just use your government institutions?

The same reason why you can't practice medicine without a license, to ensure it meets a certain standard.

Um, you didn't address the question. For everyone to get healthcare, why can they not just go to your proposed government institutions?

[Zoice]

The same reason why you can't practice medicine without a license, to ensure it meets a certain standard.

Um, you didn't address the question. For everyone to get healthcare, why can they not just go to your proposed government institutions?

Because the presence of other pharmacies and hospitals that don't follow the government standard would mean that some people get substandard care.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Um, you didn't address the question. For everyone to get healthcare, why can they not just go to your proposed government institutions?

Because the presence of other pharmacies and hospitals that don't follow the government standard would mean that some people get substandard care.

You obviously didn't think that through.

Take our two pharmacies: one offers a drug OTC and the other offers it by prescription only. Anyone wanting it OTC purchases it from the pharmacy that offers it OTC. How is it "substandard care" for everyone to get what they wanted? The answer, obviously, is that it is not

[Zoice]

Because the presence of other pharmacies and hospitals that don't follow the government standard would mean that some people get substandard care.

You obviously didn't think that through.

Take our two pharmacies: one offers a drug OTC and the other offers it by prescription only. Anyone wanting it OTC purchases it from the pharmacy that offers it OTC. How is it "substandard care" for everyone to get what they wanted? The answer, obviously, is that it is not

It's a lot easier and cheaper to just have every pharmacy do it right rather than having to put up a new one every time a pharmacy doesn't meet the code. It's better to do something right the first time than to have to fix it afterwards.

[Murray land]

It isn't the job of a pharmacist to decide moral dilemmas, just sell the damn pill it's not this woman's job to decide what is best for others. Besides how is it fair to a couple of teenagers who didn't know any better (because all of us young people can be pretty stupid about certain things) to be refused a contraceptive that will prevent a few things like parents flipping out because their chld has knocked up some girl or has been knocked up by some guy. Or the peer judgement that WILL happen when you're sixteen and pregnant, also most young people aren't mature enough to take care of a child which would be a disservice to the very lives this women is claiming she is trying to protect.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

You obviously didn't think that through.

Take our two pharmacies: one offers a drug OTC and the other offers it by prescription only. Anyone wanting it OTC purchases it from the pharmacy that offers it OTC. How is it "substandard care" for everyone to get what they wanted? The answer, obviously, is that it is not

It's a lot easier and cheaper to just have every pharmacy do it right rather than having to put up a new one every time a pharmacy doesn't meet the code. It's better to do something right the first time than to have to fix it afterwards.

Which isn't what you were asked. I see that you're dead set on avoiding questions rather than answering them. It looks like you're embarrassed by your position

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

It isn't the job of a pharmacist to decide moral dilemmas, just sell the damn pill it's not this woman's job to decide what is best for others. Besides how is it fair to a couple of teenagers who didn't know any better (because all of us young people can be pretty stupid about certain things) to be refused a contraceptive that will prevent a few things like parents flipping out because their chld has knocked up some girl or has been knocked up by some guy. Or the peer judgement that WILL happen when you're sixteen and pregnant, also most young people aren't mature enough to take care of a child which would be a disservice to the very lives this women is claiming she is trying to protect.

Actually, it is the job of this woman to do what her employer (this woman) decides the job should entail. As she is the boss and not you, she gets to define the job...not you.

As for deciding moral dilemmas, she has only decided for herself. Everyone else remains free to decide for themselves

[Zoice]

It's a lot easier and cheaper to just have every pharmacy do it right rather than having to put up a new one every time a pharmacy doesn't meet the code. It's better to do something right the first time than to have to fix it afterwards.

Which isn't what you were asked. I see that you're dead set on avoiding questions rather than answering them. It looks like you're embarrassed by your position

Please stop acting as if you can read my mind and going off in wild directions like saying I'm embarassed.

It is the potential for substandard care if pharmacists and doctors etc. do not have to meet government standards.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Which isn't what you were asked. I see that you're dead set on avoiding questions rather than answering them. It looks like you're embarrassed by your position

Please stop acting as if you can read my mind and going off in wild directions like saying I'm embarassed.

It is the potential for substandard care if pharmacists and doctors etc. do not have to meet government standards.

I didn't say you were embarrassed. I said that's what it looks like when you remain so set on avoiding questions rather than answering them.

I do notice the fact that you still cannot come up with anything substandard in care about being able to purchase the medication at two different pharmacies.

Come on, don't be shy, try answering the question

[Greed and Death]

No, it doesn't because she isn't seeking any kind of religious exemption. The thing she doesn't want to do isn't a required thing. Whether you don't want to buy a dog for religious reasons or just because you don't like dogs is irrelevant when nobody is forcing you to buy a dog.

The reason she isn't taking the course is because, and she said it, it goes against her morals. She's forcing people to go see a doctor when the morning after-pill can very easily be sold OTC. A medication, I may add, that has a narrow window opportunity to work. Not everyone will be able to get a prescription in the allotted time. So she is indeed having her morals dictate how she's going to do her job and how others will get the morning-after pill.

At the same token I do not see forcing her out of the economy because her morality forbids action as beneficial to society. She is the pharmacist for this town because she either is the only one willing to do it (few grad school graduates want to live in BFE making a fraction of what they could in the city), or she is the most efficient at it. Either way closing up shop hurts the town by depriving them of their most efficient and possibly only pharmacist.

Yes women may have to drive 2 hours round trip or take the bus 3 hours round trip to get the pills OTC, or go to a clinic (that likely knows local conditions and has a expedited scrip process for Plan B pills). But the alternative may be everyone must drive to the next town not just women in on particular situation.

[Sanctissima]

To be frank, she's a private business owner. She should be allowed to sell what she wants.

That being said, her reasons for not selling the morning-after pill are a bit odd, since all it does is prevent fertilization.

[Greed and Death]

To be frank, she's a private business owner. She should be allowed to sell what she wants.

That being said, her reasons for not selling the morning-after pill are a bit odd, since all it does is prevent fertilization.

Some people have a religious objection to condoms.