Gyah! Argh! Aaauurgh!
May. 7th, 2006 02:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philenaSo a few evenings ago I was listening to the classical music station (Chicago's classical music station, WFMT 98.7 is excellent, by the way), and instead of orchestral classics they were broadcasting a folk-music revival. One song that was very cute was called "I want to preach to the choir," the idea being that the speaker is sick of being hated, misunderstood, and just once wants to know that the people who are listening understand and support her. I don't particularly want to preach to the choir, but I do often find it pleasant to be a member of the choir. The article published in this week's Sunday Times is definitely preaching to me. I wholeheartedly share the author's scorn for the people arguing against contraception (not abortion--contraception) on the basis that it removes the goal of procreation from sex and therefore encourages sexual deviance--such as homosexuality. I'll let you mull on the logic of that claim for a while.
However, even as a member of the choir I cannot be happy when I come across a passage like this one (italics mine):
Ron Stephens is both a pharmacist and a Republican state legislator in Illinois, one of the states that are currently battlegrounds between pharmacists who claim the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and women's and civil rights groups that argue that pharmacists must fill all prescriptions presented to them.Stephens not only supports the pharmacists' right of refusal but he also refuses to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception himself.He does, however, fill prescriptions for the birth control pill. When I asked him recently to explain his thinking on the two drugs, he said:"It's the difference between stopping a pregnancy from happening and ending a pregnancy. My understanding of the science is that the morning-after pill can end a pregnancy, whereas birth control pills will make a woman's body believe she is already pregnant so that the egg will not be fertilized." And what if studies show that, in fact,both drugs can prevent implantation? "Everyone has their natural prejudice," Stephens replied. "I'm going to understand it my way, and the issue is that you should not be forced to do something you believe is immoral."
NO, YOU SELF-PROCLAIMEDLY PREJUDICED FOOL! The issue is not whether you should be forced to do something you believe is immoral. The issue is that by the logic you use (is there any logic behind it at all?) to declare something moral or immoral, your decision to fill birth control prescriptions but not emergency contraception prescriptions is faulty. Saying that you have a "natural" prejudice does not excuse your reasoning, because all it says is, "in addition to being illogical (if I even care to use logic), I am also prejudiced, and do not allow science/reason/facts to inform my decisions, and I think that that is perfectly acceptable." It's people like you, Mr. Stephens, who make me ashamed whenever I feel a slight pang of sympathy for the pharmacists who have moral objections to filling these prescriptions. My mistake was clearly to assume that these pharmacists could reconcile their objections with their jobs (which they should not hold if they are not willing to perform the required duties, which include filling prescriptions of any kind that a licensed doctor prescribes and that your pharmacy as a whole makes it a policy to honor) if they knew all the facts.
However, even as a member of the choir I cannot be happy when I come across a passage like this one (italics mine):
Ron Stephens is both a pharmacist and a Republican state legislator in Illinois, one of the states that are currently battlegrounds between pharmacists who claim the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and women's and civil rights groups that argue that pharmacists must fill all prescriptions presented to them.Stephens not only supports the pharmacists' right of refusal but he also refuses to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception himself.He does, however, fill prescriptions for the birth control pill. When I asked him recently to explain his thinking on the two drugs, he said:"It's the difference between stopping a pregnancy from happening and ending a pregnancy. My understanding of the science is that the morning-after pill can end a pregnancy, whereas birth control pills will make a woman's body believe she is already pregnant so that the egg will not be fertilized." And what if studies show that, in fact,both drugs can prevent implantation? "Everyone has their natural prejudice," Stephens replied. "I'm going to understand it my way, and the issue is that you should not be forced to do something you believe is immoral."
NO, YOU SELF-PROCLAIMEDLY PREJUDICED FOOL! The issue is not whether you should be forced to do something you believe is immoral. The issue is that by the logic you use (is there any logic behind it at all?) to declare something moral or immoral, your decision to fill birth control prescriptions but not emergency contraception prescriptions is faulty. Saying that you have a "natural" prejudice does not excuse your reasoning, because all it says is, "in addition to being illogical (if I even care to use logic), I am also prejudiced, and do not allow science/reason/facts to inform my decisions, and I think that that is perfectly acceptable." It's people like you, Mr. Stephens, who make me ashamed whenever I feel a slight pang of sympathy for the pharmacists who have moral objections to filling these prescriptions. My mistake was clearly to assume that these pharmacists could reconcile their objections with their jobs (which they should not hold if they are not willing to perform the required duties, which include filling prescriptions of any kind that a licensed doctor prescribes and that your pharmacy as a whole makes it a policy to honor) if they knew all the facts.
