General discussion

Locked

Freedom of Choice

By ProtiusX ·
Why is it when leftists (American Liberals) talk about "freedom of choice" they are only referring to their freedoms? They will scream from the roof tops that they must have the right to kill the unborn but one should not be able to choose what they will sell in their own store. They will trample the free choice of others to protect their freedoms and not see the inconsistency of their actions or rhetoric.

Here in Washington there are several pharmacists and companies that chose not to carry the "day after pill" which is also euphemistically called the "morning after pill". These companies are privately owned and operated and are in the vast minority when it comes to businesses that have chosen not to carry this drug.

The liberal media has pounced on these companies and are attempting to slander them out of existence. So where is the choice? Aught not an individual proprietor be allowed to choose the products that he or she will or will not sell?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/283106_planb30.html

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Yes the proprietor should make their own choice

by JamesRL In reply to Freedom of Choice

Walmart chooses to not distribute some Rap albums. Their choice.

If there was a monopoly, that might be one thing.

We've had the morning after pill longer here, and we haven't had those kinds of things come up to my knowledge.

James

Collapse -

It's still their choice

by The Old Man In reply to Freedom of Choice

It's their choice. But some choices are not easy and we all have to live with our decisions.

It's also the media's (liberal or not) choice to throw out their opinion.

It's the public's choice to read and react.

It's the advertiser's choice to continue supporting the paper.

It's the customers choice to decide if they are going to change where they buy stuff from.

Welcome to America!

Collapse -

I agree with ProtiusX

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Freedom of Choice

That's got tio be a turn up for the books!

It's their store , their livelihood, it is available elsewhere. Such a choice is no better or worse than any other based on personal or even group ethics.
I personally chose not to work for a firm that did testing on animals, I've chosen not to go for jobs in the attack industry.

Like the fella says to deny their choice, means that I could be forced to program machines to make knives to stab capuchin monkeys.

So yes, they are free not stock this pill, to stock it, to make a profit on it, to give alternative advice, to take the advice or take the pill. It's an all or nothing proposition, either your free to make your personal choices or someone's is a hypocrite.

Collapse -

One interesting aspect in the article

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Freedom of Choice

was the mention of another state where they passed a law forcing the pharmacists to carry the product. I just wonder who will reimburse the pharmacists for any that gets thrown out as expired.

Each week, pharmacies check their drug stocks for items about to expire and dispose of them as too dangerous to sell. They base their stocking levels and the like on frequency of sale, in order to minimise such waste and loss.

However, I do have one suggestion to the pharmacies required by law to stock the item. Most pharmacies place routine drug orders on a monthly basis. So buy only one pack, then when that's sold place the purchase of the item on the monthly restock list. Anyone else comes in, you can truthfully tell them that you're 'out of stock and it's on the reorder list, but not due for delivery for a few weeks' That will meet the legislative requirements while minimising your capital risk. Then when you have to throw it away as none is sold (people get used to you being out of stock and go elsewhere), you have a valid complaint to the legislators.

But on the basic issue, every shopkeeper has the right to decide what they will or will not stock and sell. Pharmacies have a different professional requirement regarding presciption drugs to non-prescription drugs. The reason for existence is to be available to dispense drugs prescribed by doctors for medical reasons, thus they have to have certain drugs on hand to do that. But once you get beyond that requirement, anything else is purely their choice.

Collapse -

Queen Christine

by ProtiusX In reply to One interesting aspect in ...

Her majesty the Royal Governor of the Peoples Republic of Washington says that she is proposing a compromise where the store owners won't have to carry drugs they object to as long as the customer can fill the prescription without leaving the store. What does this mean? What absolute hogwash!

Collapse -

As I understood the article

by NickNielsen In reply to Queen Christine

The idea was that the objecting pharmacist need not fill the prescription, another pharmacist could. In this case, I don't think it would do any good, since there's only one pharmacist.

Collapse -

Not relevant in this case

by Deadly Ernest In reply to As I understood the artic ...

this was for a product that is sold over the counter, not on a prescription. Also there are other pharmacists in the area, 21 of them, and he has a list to give people.

Collapse -

He wants to be morally superior

by Too Old For IT In reply to Not relevant in this case

And it is his freedom to. As someone said up above, his customers can take their business elsewhere.

Ain't a free market grand? Atlas hasn't shrugged yet.

Collapse -

How do you get that?

by jdclyde In reply to He wants to be morally su ...

He is just being what he considers Moral. He isn't stopping anyone from purchasing the product from anywhere else.

How do you take someone having standards and following them trying to be somehow "superior"?

If you believe stealing is wrong, and someone else wants you to go in and steal with them, is your refusal to do something you don't belive in you trying to be "superior"?

Are you not judging him for judging the ethical use of this pill? Does this mean you are trying to be superior now?

Collapse -

Actually, DE

by NickNielsen In reply to Not relevant in this case

This particular product is a prescrption drug if you are under 18.

Related Discussions

Related Forums