wardmd

Not to delve into the abortion question too much, but should not that same logic hold true for when abortion is no longer "ending an unwanted pregnancy" but becomes "killing an unborn child"? It seems to me (and the Supreme Court will be examining the issue) that at the point when medical science can reasonable expect the fetus/child to survive out of the womb, then I think it's hard to argue that it's not a life (wanted or otherwise), and thus, abortion at THAT point should not be allowed (any more than we allow killing of a child after birth). BUT (and I'm not a "supporter" of abortion), BEFORE that point (which would, of course, always change, based on current medical technology), I think abortion SHOULD be allowed. All we need, now, is a legislature and judiciary which is willing to use some common sense...

The principle of the thing is NOT birth control (Morning After Pill), the principle point is whether the Government can (or should) FORCE a private business to sell (or not sell) ANYTHING... If Wal-Mart (or your corner drug store) decides (for whatever reason) to NOT stock cold remedies, AND, as a result, they lose business (because people decide that they would prefer to take their business elsewhere), well, then good-ol' Mom and Pop corner drug store is going to go out of business... CES attempted to make some idiot point some posts back, about an ONLY doctor in an E.R. not treating someone because they personally disliked the patient... Of couese, that comparison is bogus, because Wal-Mart is NOT the ONLY pharmacy in town - and that's the point... You are FREE to take your business elsewhere... NO ONE is stopping you from going to the Mom and Pop corner drug store to get your morning after pills... Wal-Mart is being targeted because they're a big EVIL corporation which has the audacity to make their OWN decisions on what they will, or will not, sell in their stores (how dare they?). I MIGHT agree with the requirement, forcing Wal-Mart (or any other pharmacy) to fill any prescriptions IF they were the ONLY pharmacy available (but they are not)... I don't give a rats ass if the drug in question is the Morning After Pill, or aspirin... Wal-Mart (and Mom and Pop) have a RIGHT to decide what they will and will not sell... And it's not a matter of the Morning After pill being LEGAL... Wal-Mart doesn't sell a LOT of LEGAL products (that's why there are other stores still in existance even after a Wal-Mart moves into a community). If you want something that they don't sell, go somewhere else (where they sell what you want)... It's that simple.

You know, maybe Wal-Mart can, simply, REFUSE to accept ANY Health Insurance programs (EVERYONE PAYS CASH for their prescriptions)... Then only wealthy Republicans (and Hollywood Liberal Elites) can get prescriptions at Wal-Mart. You KNOW Hollywood Liberal Elites won't shop at Wal-Mart, 'cause Wal-Mart is "anti-Union", so that leaves Wealthy Republicans. So, you see Wal-Mart will never have to fill those prescriptions, will they, CES? 'Cause we all know that Republicans don't believe in birth control, do they, CES? Moron!

Nobody's whining here... And YOUR analogy is off... NO, I doubt ANY doctor would refuse to treat ANY patient whose LIFE is in jeopardy... Are YOU suggesting that NOT filling a Morning After pill prescription is the EQUIVALENT of not treating a dying patient? YOU'RE FUCKING INSANE! You've got the two scenarios EXACTLY REVERSED, you moron... The doctor (even a bible thumping evangelical) WOULD save the life of the sorry excuse for a human being in the E.R.... Filling a prescription for the Morning After pill is HARDLY saving a life, now is it? Isn't the WHOLE PURPOSE of the Morning After pill to ensure that LIFE does NOT OCCUR? CES, you have, again, demonstrated what a fucking moron you are! Can't you draw a REALISTIC scenario? Jesus! Honestly, what's the WORST thing that can (realistically) happen, if a woman does not get the Morning After pill? She, later, gets an abortion (still legal, isn’t it?), or WORSE – a CHILD is born (Oh God, not that, how horrible!).

Agreed. That's the LAW... The point of disagreement, though, is that the LAW is STUPID, and a Governmental INTRUSION into the operation of a PRIVATE business (pharmacy, doctor's office, restaurant, ANYTHING)... It's NOT a question of Wal-Mart not wanting to have the drug sitting on the shelf; they, simply, do not believe they should be FORCED to sell the damn thing (whatever the "damn thing" is)... In THIS case, it happens to be the "morning after" pill, but that is NOT the point... My point IS valid (just because it is beyond your ability to comprehend does not make it any less valid)... The argument, here, is GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION INTO THE OPERATION OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS (whatever that business is)... Geez! Personally, I'd suggest that Wal-Mart CLOSE all of its pharmacies in Massachusetts. Two can play at that game...

CES, you and Hugo have some valid arguments... However, the stupid law REQUIRING pharmacies to provide the drug not only infringes on a company's right (however stupid they may be in exercising that right) to sell whatever products THEY choose, but it also would make it financially prohibitive for a small business to offer, say, JUST the "morning after pill" (presumably at a "reasonable" cost, in those areas where Wal-Mart [and others] decide NOT to sell the drug). There DEFINITELY is a place for Government Oversight from drug research to prescription issuance. But, to suggest that the Government has a RIGHT (or obligation) to force a pharmacy (or any other private business) to sell (or not sell) any specific product (for whatever reason) is fascism. As a private business owner, I (and I alone) SHOULD be free to alienate whomever I wish (and be driven into bankruptcy as a result of my moronic decisions)… However, those moronic decisions SHOULD be mine to make… Why do you think that Starbucks has been so successful (even though supermarkets sell coffee, and restaurants offer prepared coffee, too)? Because they offer something that people WANT to buy… If there’s such a HUGE demand for the “morning after pill”, then some enterprising individual (or more liberally minded pharmacies) can make a fine profit selling them. The reality, of course, is that there is NOT a huge demand for them, and the Liberals want to FORCE private businesses to stock them for the convenience of a tiny minority (who, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to take appropriate PREVENTATIVE measures). The bottom line, CES, is that in a FREE society, YOU (and everyone else) has a RIGHT to NOT do business with whoever you wish… You don’t like Wal-Mart? FINE. NO ONE is forcing YOU to shop there… Let me present the following scenario… We all know that Abortion is (currently) the “law of the land”… Using the Massachusetts standard, cannot the Government REQUIRE every doctor in the United States to perform abortions, on demand? As you know, there are specialized clinics whose “sole” business is performing abortions. THEY seem to be able to remain profitable, while “General Practitioners” who do not offer abortion services, ALSO seem to remain profitable… How do you explain that? Simple, when there is sufficient DEMAND, then the supply will be created by those willing to provide the product or service. The problem with this particular issue is that you want the Government to FORCE the supply, when there is not a corresponding demand… Hell, why can’t the Government REQUIRE every restaurant to serve every food product known to man? Everyone has to eat, you know… SOME people even have special dietary needs (or preferences), so, since restaurants are LICENSED, TOO, why shouldn’t the Government step in, and FORCE McDonalds to offer Filet Mignon, and Cr

I think CAPS is just as effective as bold or pathetic "smileys"...

First, has it been determined that the broken pencil was a DELIBERATE ACT of sabotage, or was it, simply, a mistake made by a skull full of mush? If by the erosion of a “sense of authority and spine” you mean that teachers and/or administrator are losing (or have lost) control over unruly students, then I agree… I FULLY SUPPORT kicking trouble makers OUT OF SCHOOL (personally, I rather wish we could FORCE PARENTS to come to school and baby-sit their little MONSTERS, rather than simply kicking the kids out of school). Unfortunately, the tendency is to not want to hurt their poor little “self-esteem” – rather than to even SUGGEST that they should be responsible for their actions (and that goes DOUBLE for parents who, obviously, have no business having children [because they just push them off onto the schools as glorified day-care centers]). However, we have a SIMILAR problem with unruly TEACHERS. Perhaps you missed my family history… BOTH of my grandmothers WERE teachers; My MOTHER WAS a teacher; and my SISTER IS a teacher (so don’t go preaching to ME about how difficult a teacher’s life is…) There are MANY problems facing our educational system… Teachers getting paid too little (for the crap they have to endure) Lack of Discipline in the classroom Lack of ENFORCEMENT of PUNISHMENT for those who are disruptive Lack of dedication to academics (in favor of “Liberal Arts” huggy-feely crap) Social Promotion (“graduating” MORONS, and calling it an “education”) The Liberal MORONS (Unions and the Courts) are the ones destroying it… If an unruly kid is disruptive in class, the teacher SHOULD be able to kick that kid out of class (AND the Administration SHOULD back the teachers)… BUT that usually does NOT happen… The teacher is FORCED to endure the kid (day after day), because the linguini spined Administrators refuse to KICK unruly kids out of school… However, when a TEACHER acts inappropriately, then the TEACHER must be called on the carpet for THEIR actions, too… What YOU are suggesting is to simply accept ANYTHING that teachers say (whether it be right or wrong) – THAT, too, has led to the erosion of the ACADEMIC standards (teachers indoctrinating kids into their political, social, religious [or lack thereof] ideologies)… If teachers would concentrate on TEACHING (academics), and leave the MORAL, ETHICAL, RELIGIOUS beliefs of the students to the PARENTS, and/or stop making a federal crime out of a broken pencil in a fucking pencil sharpener, perhaps there would not be 50% of our COLLEGE SENIORS (in 4 year universities) and 75% of “seniors” (in 2 year colleges) who cannot determine which of two credit card offers is better… SOME of those MORONS may very well end up as teachers (and get tenure in a few short years) – THEN what are we stuck with? Bottom line, if MY child DELIBERATLY broke a pencil in a sharpener (or otherwise disrupts class) – I want to know about it, and I will take appropriate disciplinary action… BUT, if a teacher gets out of line, I expect my daughter to tell me that, too – and, again, I will take appropriate action.

I'm not suggesting that the teacher was, in fact, going to go through with the identification of the fingerprints... BUT what does the actions of the teacher TEACH our kids? That it's OKAY for an authority figure to do whatever they want, just because? My point is that the more you tolerate the CRAP that our "Educators" foist upon our kids, the more CRAP we're going to get... We've seen, time after time, STUPID Liberal Policies - openly embraced by the vast majority of the Education "elite"... We got Ebonics (as opposed to teaching English, so that people have a better chance of getting a decent job)... Teaching kids in their native languages (as opposed to English Emersion [even though the vast majority of KIDS do far better picking up English by emersion], AND that the vast majority of voters [even in BLUE California]). And how can we "graduate" kids who are functionally ILLITERATE (50% of seniors in 4 year universities, and 75% of

As for me, I could care less if a police officer followed me around 24/7... Yeah, I'd probably take longer to get places (I might actually have to stay BELOW the speed limit ALL the time), but would that be a BAD thing? Other than that, I don't think I make a habit of breaking the law... So what's the big deal? I know the basic "Fifth Amendment" protection against self-incrimination, but that does NOT include a protection of self-IDENTIFICATION... If that were the case, the police would not be allowed to photograph you and take your fingerprints when you are arrested, nor would you be required to correctly identify yourself (give your real name). The Fifth Amendment does NOT provide a loop-hole for you to break the law with impunity

NO! NO! NO! You don't want a PERSONAL apology; you want a PUBLIC apology... You should offer to come to the teacher's class, where the principal and the teacher can BOTH apologize to you AND YOUR DAUGHTER IN FRONT OF THE CLASS... I'm afraid, however, that THAT offer would be rejected by the school (funny how they don't seem to have a problem with the mass-accusation of the entire class and/or fingerprinting the kids, but to admit that THEY were WRONG [publicly] - don't hold your breath)... My guess, also, is that you'll get the typical "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by what happened." type of non-apology... THAT wording DOESN'T say that they are sorry for WHAT THEY DID, but that they're sorry that YOU got offended by what they did (implicit in that wording is NO admission of wrong doing on their part).

Yep... When you're right, you're right (for now)...

Holy SHIT! CES... You and I are on the same page on this one! Screw the ACLU! Hell, we give our fingerprint (here in California, only our thumb print) and our picture when we get a Drivers license. Then think of all of the electronic information about you which is tracked by the various sources (Credit Card usage, cell phone locations [cells used], etc.). Granted, this information is (or so we believe) "owned" by private parties (and that "Big Brother" has to get a warrant to get it [or, at least to USE it against you). Personally, I don't give a shit if "Big Brother" knows where I go, and what I do ('cause I'm not breaking the law)... Of course people who try to get away with everything they can are opposed to having a cop on every corner, but the rest of us would just as soon have all you law breakers off the streets... As to the topic at hand... You know, if the dip-shit punk who actually BROKE THE FUCKING PENCIL simply admitted their error (or, heaven forbid, actually informed the teacher of the "problem" in the first place) - NONE of this Finger-Print crap would have come up at all.. It is, after all, the STUPID, PUNK kid (who refuses to take responsibility for their own actions) which is the CAUSE of the problem... Yeah, the teacher probably over reacted, but I don't give a shit if every kid is finger printed... But, the bottom line STILL is, that the stupid punk KID is the one who caused the problem... It would be one thing if he/she super-glued a pencil into the sharpener, but a simple broken pencil - give me a break... If my kid broke a pencil in a shapener, and told the teacher - and THEN the teacher had a fit (over the broken pencil) - THEN I'd have a field day with that teacher (I LOVE giving teachers and administrators SHIT when they go over the edge)... FYI, BOTH of my grandmothers were teachers, my mother was a teacher, and my sister IS a teacher...

We hoped for more than pety insults; but as we've noted in the past, when you (and those like you), don't have FACTS on your side, you attack the messenger. Chanting Bumper Sticker slogans is NOT an argument... But don't let that stop you - chant away.