Wal-Mart must stock morning-after pill !!

[hugo]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them trying to make money. They shouldn't pretend to have a moral stand though. It's just like the stupid "Happy Holidays" **** at Christmas time. They act as if they are on the side of right wing Christian groups when it comes to music selections, movies and this morning after pill but why didn't they take that stand and allow their employees to say, "Merry Christmas". They didn't want to get sued.

If money is your only motive then admit it. **** Wal-Mart.

That would be poor PR and would reduce profits. It is Wal-Mart's duty to maximize shareholder wealth, not live up to George Washington's mythical never tell a lie standard.

 

[ImWithStupid]

That would be poor PR and would reduce profits. It is Wal-Mart's duty to maximize shareholder wealth, not live up to George Washington's mythical never tell a lie standard.

I know that. I, myself would have more respect for a person or company that actually stands for their beliefs as opposed to riding both sides of the fence to appease the masses.

I know that it wouldn't be as profitable for them to take a stand but, I understand the motives to the action but I also don't have to like it.

I don't expect them to do anything different. I'm just voicing my preference.

 

[TheJenn88]

Well Hugo's right. The company solely exists to make money. If it takes catering to people's whims, then they need to do that to make money. Otherwise I think they call it a non-profit organization.
But you can't make me murder someone if I don't want to. If the laws are screwed up so that I must. I will have to dis-obey the law!


Fight for what you belive in!

Yeah the company exists to make money. You'd be a damn ruddy businessman if you didn't make profit. But the company exists because it has a market to cater to. A store can open with the intent to sell, but may only stock ...(insert absolutely useless item here). But because they don't have a customer base, they're not going to profit very much.

I see it as: They exist to serve customers with the intent to profit.

Same difference?

 

[TheJenn88]

Wal-Mart has decided that not filling certain prescriptions makes many of their customers happy. I do agree some bimbo who is too stupid to find another supplier, if Wal-Mart exercises what should be it's right under natural law to refuse to fill her prescription, don't need to be having children.

Every business class teaches that a corporations purpose is to increase shareholder wealth. I used to go to a Mexican Restaurant which had excellent service and the best Mexican food I ever ate. Wrong location . They served their customers quite well. Did not make money. No longer in business. Maybe they should have sold abortificants on the side.

I agree and know that a huge factor in making money is location.

But the thought of a customer boycotting a store because of a product they sell, and wouldn't use, boggles my mind. People like that should be put down :| It ain't their damn business to feel offended by what the rest of wal-mart's customer base is doing. I see more of a problem with the customers than wal-mart itself! It's as ridiculous as a vegetarian not shopping at a general grocery store because they sell meat.

I'm not versed enough in economics and what not, but would Wal-mart take a serious financial blow if they all stocked this drug? I can't get over the fact that people would get their panties in a knot over this...

damn bible thumpers

 

[hugo]

I agree and know that a huge factor in making money is location.

But the thought of a customer boycotting a store because of a product they sell, and wouldn't use, boggles my mind. People like that should be put down :| It ain't their damn business to feel offended by what the rest of wal-mart's customer base is doing. I see more of a problem with the customers than wal-mart itself! It's as ridiculous as a vegetarian not shopping at a general grocery store because they sell meat.

I'm not versed enough in economics and what not, but would Wal-mart take a serious financial blow if they all stocked this drug? I can't get over the fact that people would get their panties in a knot over this...

damn bible thumpers

Nothing kills a debate like agreement.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Nothing kills a debate like agreement.

Put down the crack pipe before you get hurt...

Nobody here except maybe snafu (and he doesn't count) is agreeing with you. Moron.

 

[wardmd]

I agree and know that a huge factor in making money is location.

But the thought of a customer boycotting a store because of a product they sell, and wouldn't use, boggles my mind. People like that should be put down :| It ain't their damn business to feel offended by what the rest of wal-mart's customer base is doing. I see more of a problem with the customers than wal-mart itself! It's as ridiculous as a vegetarian not shopping at a general grocery store because they sell meat.

I'm not versed enough in economics and what not, but would Wal-mart take a serious financial blow if they all stocked this drug? I can't get over the fact that people would get their panties in a knot over this...

damn bible thumpers

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.

 

[hugo]

Put down the crack pipe before you get hurt...

Nobody here except maybe snafu (and he doesn't count) is agreeing with you. Moron.

The reply was to the quote I supplied of Jenn's, idiot. Go to Moscow and kiss Lenin's ass.

Seems like wardmd agrees with me also. It is a question, not of religion, but of private property rights. Transactions should be between two willing parties.

 

[italiano_Pride]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/life_contraception_walmart_dc

What the hell is this ?? Forced abortions ??
.
.

NEWS FLASH: You don't HAVE to buy the pills, it's strictly CHOICE. They are not FORCING anyone to buy it.

 

[TheJenn88]

NEWS FLASH: You don't HAVE to buy the pills, it's strictly CHOICE. They are not FORCING anyone to buy it.

We've sorta already been through that. Haven't read the whole thread, have you?

 

[builder]

We've sorta already been through that. Haven't read the whole thread, have you?

You can't buy that **** here, Jenn. It's still a coathanger in a backroom for the desperates.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You can't buy that **** here, Jenn. It's still a coathanger in a backroom for the desperates.

This is a tragedy.

 

[hugo]

This is a tragedy.

A government induced tragedy.

 

[builder]

This is a tragedy.

Actually the snivel libertarians and the Australian Medical Association are still haggling over the issue of "is the debate about health, or ethics".

Then a gov minister jumps in and claims that we are aborting ourselves out of existence, and we will be a muslim nation by 2060.

**** still hitting fan.

Oh, and I was being emotive. There are clinics all over the country which provide adequate facilities and trained staff.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Actually the snivel libertarians and the Australian Medical Association are still haggling over the issue of "is the debate about health, or ethics".

Then a gov minister jumps in and claims that we are aborting ourselves out of existence, and we will be a muslim nation by 2060.

**** still hitting fan.

Oh, and I was being emotive. There are clinics all over the country which provide adequate facilities and trained staff.

Right. Fair Dinkum mate.

 

[smutt butt]

If abortion is not murder why will i be charged with double murder if i kill a pregnant woman??????????????????????????

Scott peterson????????????????????

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

If abortion is not murder why will i be charged with double murder if i kill a pregnant woman??????????????????????????

Scott peterson????????????????????

Simple.

Fetal homicide laws are on the books in some states, including California, yet their placement there is always with the full contextual understanding that these laws exempt legal abortions.

---------

The point I cannot get into people's heads is this.

I am neither Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion.
Every living person is Pro-Life including myself.
I am for access to legal, safe, medical abortions as opposed to illegal abortions of old.

Do I think abortions are done too much. Yes.
Would I like to see them outlawed again. No.

 

[angie]

If abortion is not murder why will i be charged with double murder if i kill a pregnant woman??????????????????????????

Scott peterson????????????????????

From my understanding, you will only be charged with a double homicide if the fetus was old enough and capable of surviving out of the womb. Peterson's child fell into that catergory.

 

[wardmd]

From my understanding, you will only be charged with a double homicide if the fetus was old enough and capable of surviving out of the womb. Peterson's child fell into that catergory.

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...

 

[Lethalfind]

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...

I have to agree with you there. I am not a medical person and only what know what I have read about partial birth abortions but that just seems barbaric to me and the next best thing to murder.