When an abortifacient can prevent the implantantion of an embryo rather than prevent the fertilization of an egg by the sperm, then that is an abortion!

Since when does one have the right to force a pharmacist to violate his/her conscience to "serve" the public in destroying human life through abortifacients? This calls for a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the civil rights of the unborn in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

THE BOTTOM LINE: It is a pharmacist's JOB to dispense medications prescribed by a doctor. They have the right to express any opinion they want, but to refuse to dispense medication prescribed by a doctor means they are not performing their jobs correctly and SHOULD BE FIRED. If they feel the need to assert their moral beliefs onto others in the workplace, a career change is in order.

In the 1940's, the Nazis also had a job to do & they followed orders quite well in killing many Jewish people. In looking back, we wonder how so many could have been so "morally handicapped" in blindly obeying the laws of the land. One day, we too shall look back with disgust at how moral blindness permitted the killing of unborn babies. "Remember Laci & Conner Peterson!"

LF, completely not a valid argument in this context. You fail to take into account that patients are asking for these prescriptions to be fulfilled; it is not forced upon them. I doubt many Jews asked for their fate during the Holocoust.

AC: The main comparison is focused on the consequences of blindly following the "law" just because it is the "law."Moral law trumps governmental law. Immoral federal & state laws are passed all the time. Not everyone behaves like a robot without thinking about what is morally right & wrong. Governmental laws need to be disobeyed when immoral; immoral laws must be challenged & ultimately changed!Please don't forget that you were, at one time, also an unborn fetus before you were born. Thankfully, your mother did not force a "choice" upon your innocent life. Now that you have been given life, it's easier to legally subject other unborn babies to the "choice" of death. Do any unborn babies ever have a choice in the matter of abortion? Obviously, no! It is forced upon them every single time!Abortion is terribly anti-female also. Please remember that at least half (or more) of abortions are directed towards female unborn babies. Civil rights for female babies? Not now, but maybe someday as more Americans are learning the truth. Please check out: "Justice For All" at http://www.jfaweb.org/

not to get into this no-win pro-life vs. pro-choice argument, but if you bring up morality, you're going to have to talk about *whose* morality. morality certainly changes, but it's generally determined by the prevailing views of the majority of people in a culture. and in the united states, in survey after survey, the majority of americans are in favor of choice. *not* in favor of abortion, but in favor of leaving it up to the mother and/or both parents to decide.

on the contrary...polls are moving towards preserving LIFE...also, election 2004 elected more pro-life senators and representatives...the Truth is getting out...abortion stops a beating heart...ultrasound technology provides the scientific foundation of evidence...conner peterson is called "unborn baby" by the mainstream media, not "fetus"...Life & Truth will prevail over pure profit & greed at abortion mills in time...moral relativism allows for such confusion in our country about abortion...how sad when masses of people are blinded from the consciences of their hearts...As Abortion Drops, Polls Show Americans Turning Pro-LifeBy Jeff JohnsonCNSNews.com Congressional Bureau ChiefJanuary 16, 2003Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Surveys of abortion facilities around the U.S. released Wednesday show the year 2000 with the fewest number of abortions performed since 1974. Pro-life activists said that, combined with new polling data on the country's attitude about abortion, prove that "America is turning pro-life."The Alan-Guttmacher Institute, a research organization created by abortion clinic group owner Planned Parenthood, reported in the January/February 2003 edition of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health that in 2000, there were 21.3 abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age, down from an all-time high rate of 29.3 abortions per 1000 women in 1980 and 1981.In 2000, abortions ended a total of 1.31 million pregnancies, down from the highest total of 1.61 million abortions in 1990. Of the 1.31 million abortions in 2000, 93 percent were provided in so-called abortion "clinics."The number of abortion providers decreased by 11 percent in 2000 to 1,819. Of those, 46 percent were abortion-only facilities, 33 percent were hospitals and 21 percent were private physicians' offices. Only 13 percent of U.S. counties had an abortion facility, as did only 86 of the nation's 276 metropolitan areas."More research needs to be done both to understand why abortion service provision is changing and the impact on women on the small number and geographic concentration of providers," wrote authors Lawrence Finer and Stanley Henshaw. "In addition, further work is needed to determine the causes of declines in abortion rates."But Janet Folger - president and founder of Faith2Action, a new pro-family organization currently focusing on the abortion issue - said Wednesday the answer to both questions is simple: reduced demand."The bottom line is, 30 years of chanting 'choice' cannot overshadow what it is that's being chosen," Folger said. "A child, even the child of an abortion supporter, can recognize that that being in the womb is a human being, that being is a baby."Faith2Action released the results Wednesday of a national survey of 1001 adults that asked two questions:"In light of recent medical advances such as in-utero surgery and 3-D ultrasound technology, which reveals the unborn child's body and facial features in detail," the poll asked, "are you in favor of restoring legal protection for unborn children?"Respondents favored legal protection for unborn children by a margin of 68 to 25."Would you favor judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court," respondents were asked, "who would uphold laws that restored legal protection for unborn children?"Two-thirds of those answering, 66 to 28 percent, agreed that Supreme Court nominees should be committed to upholding such laws.The poll was conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide and has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.Folger said the results confirm what pro-life activists have been saying since abortion was legalized in 1973."Where is the pro-life movement 30 years later?" she asked rhetorically."We are stronger. We are more united. We are standing with truth, backed by technology," Folger continued, "and the vast majority of the American people."Faith2Action is a coalition of 35 pro-life groups that have joined together on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade decision. One of those groups is Concerned Women for America, led by President Sandy Rios."Just as we now look back at our nation's history and ask how decent men and women could have tolerated and defended such horrors as slavery, segregation and discrimination," Rios said Wednesday, "so the next generation will ask how decent men and women could tolerate and even welcome such abominations as abortion, euthanasia and cloning."The Faith2Action coalition is calling on Congress to enact such legislation, beginning with a ban on all human cloning, whether for research or reproductive purposes. The group then hopes Congress will again pass the ban on partial-birth abortions vetoed by President Clinton. President Bush has said he would sign such a prohibition."It may be years before we achieve our goal of legal protection," said Thomas Glessner, president and founder of the National Institute of Family Health and Life Advocacy (NIFLA)."But during the next few years, we are going to see a decreasing number of abortions nationwide," Glessner predicted, "because of the efforts of pregnancy health centers providing medical services, including ultrasound, to empower women who are considering abortion to choose life."NIFLA research indicates that up to 90 percent of women who see their unborn child using new "3-D" ultrasound technology choose to carry the baby to term.Pro-abortion activists have called providing access to such ultrasound equipment "intimidation," and have taken legal measures to block such access. Glessner's group provides legal representation and helps pregnancy health centers become licensed health care facilities to avoid legal problems.The White House Wednesday issued a proclamation declaring Sunday, Jan. 19, 2003, "National Sanctity of Human Life Day." President Bush said Americans must "reaffirm the value of human life.""As we seek to improve quality of life, overcome illness, and promote vital medical research, my administration will continue to honor our country's founding ideals of equal dignity and equal rights for every American," Bush said in the proclamation."Every child is a priority and a blessing, and I believe that all should be welcomed in life and protected by law," he said.Tracy Ammons, chief Senate lobbyist for the Christian Coalition of America - another member of the Faith2Action alliance - said having pro-life figures in power in the White House, Senate and House of Representatives is encouraging."We are here to just give notice today: This is the 30th anniversary of Roe versus Wade," he concluded. "But, if we have anything to say about it, there won't be a 31st anniversary."

Pharmacists who refuse to do their job should be fired, period. They knew what it entailed when they became pharmacists - if they disagreed, they should have chosen another line of work. The Nazi argument is specious. The other side can use it to describe the Christian Coalition, which has MANY things in common with the Nazis, but that too is wrong, and doesn't help to further any kind of rational debate on the issue.AZ: 'Abortion stops a beating heart' is a moronic argument. So does slaughtering a cow, but I doubt you're a vegan. Anyone who makes that argument against abortion and is not a vegetarian is a complete hypocrite (even frogs have as much awareness as a fetus). Plus, a cow knows pain, fear and even panic when going to slaughter - much crueler than an abortion. A fetus may experience very short-lived pain, but definitely does not understand enough to panic or be fearful. Also, the vast majority of abortions are done in the 1st trimester, when it is doubtful that pain can yet be experienced.So-called Christians who argue a hard line against abortion are being misogynists themselves - they value the 'unborn child' more than the mother, who they will let die rather than allow an abortion to save her life - even though the majority of times, the fetus is too small to live and so they would both die, anyway.Christians who claim some sort of religious or Biblical basis for their anti-choice stance are misguided at best. There is only one reference to the killing of a fetus in the Bible, where it says in Exodus that, if you kill a woman and cause the death of her fetus, your punishement is the same as if you killed her. In Biblical times (and until very recent human history), a woman was not considered pregnant until the 'quickening,' or first movements could be felt by the mother, which is generally around 20-22 weeks. I am currently almost 20 weeks pregnant and excitedly waiting to feel those first movements myself! But, technically, although my belly is starting to swell and I already know, by U/S, that it's a girl, in Biblical times I would not yet be considered pregnant, so no one could be held responsible for the death of my fetus.Jesus never addressed the issue, although he did say many times that one should 'judge not, lest ye be judged.' God supposedly gave us free will, to decide whether to believe in her or follow her laws - if we don't, we choose to go to hell, I guess. It is not your place to make those decisions for anyone else. Jesus was very clear about that.

LM: Hallelujah, Sister!