What is a miracle ?

[Newscaster]

In organized religions, and disorganized for that matter, miracles play a very large part. Some say miracles happen every day, Maybe so.
But I am not sure what must be present for an event to be labeled a miracle.
Someone survives an accident and its called a miracle.
Some gives birth to a baby after years of trying and its called a miracle.
Something does not happen and as a result, no one is hurt. They call that a miracle.
Then of course there are many priests and nuns who have been elevated to sainthood because there were confimable miracles in their life.
How does one determine what is or is not miraculous and in addition to the event itself, must something else happen to make it qualify for miracle status?
And can a miracle be rescinded? Can they suddenly decide that something was not miraculous and someone's sainthood credentials are taken back. Look what happened to St Nicholas.
These questions are asked in all seriousness.
:innocent:

[April15]

Miracles are what you perceive uncommon occurrences to be.

[underdawg]

I think this world is an amazing and beautiful place yet I have yet to witness anything I would concider a miracle. Some people might think they see the image of the virgin Mary in a toasted cheese sandwich, but come on, have they actually ever seen a picture of the virgin Mary? Could they actually pick her out of a police lineup? I think not. I think people are so eager to believe in miracles they would claim anything was a miracle.

[mammalicious]

A miracle is something that is unexplainable by all other means.

Just like 'war' (war on drugs, cola wars), it has lost it's punch with being overused as a generic adjective for something special.

[Newscaster]

I can acceopt a miracle as being some unexplainable thing....but remember, that same idea can be expressed this way......."We dont know what the hell it is so lets call it a miracle and leave it at that." Sounds like the folks who determine miracles reach a dead end and take the easy way out.

[JohnM81]

Simply put it is an act of God. It can be common place or wonderous. The key is that its an act of God.

[Newscaster]

Its it really an act of God. Listen to a baseball game on radio or on TV and an outfielder makes an amazing, impossible catch and the announcer calls it a miracle. Did God make that catch or did a highly talented player.
I dont think God was even paying attention to thr game nor is he a baseball fan.

[JohnM81]

Its it really an act of God. Listen to a baseball game on radio or on TV and an outfielder makes an amazing, impossible catch and the announcer calls it a miracle. Did God make that catch or did a highly talented player.
I dont think God was even paying attention to thr game nor is he a baseball fan.


Someone saying its a miracle (the announcer) doesn't make it one. Its a miracle if it actually is an act of God. Be it catching a ball, creating earth, or water to wine.

[Newscaster]

I simply believe the word "Miracle" is used far too often and far too freely and soon, the word will lose its meaning. Its the same with cuss words. At first, you are shocked to hear those words but the more you hear them, the less shocked you become and the less shocking are the words thmselves.
If something is unusual, or wonderful or beautiful and you mean a super person on the street, give them the praise due it or them but when you overdo it.....value is lost. I use the term overdo it because lets face it, you dont know whether the thing being called a miracle was a work of God, or just an accident or coincident and you, in all reality, will never know.

[JohnM81]

I simply believe the word "Miracle" is used far too often and far too freely and soon, the word will lose its meaning. Its the same with cuss words. At first, you are shocked to hear those words but the more you hear them, the less shocked you become and the less shocking are the words thmselves.
If something is unusual, or wonderful or beautiful and you mean a super person on the street, give them the praise due it or them but when you overdo it.....value is lost. I use the term overdo it because lets face it, you dont know whether the thing being called a miracle was a work of God, or just an accident or coincident and you, in all reality, will never know.




Of course you and I will never know. Obviously those who use the term miracle either authentically believe its an act of God or are missusing the term.

[Newscaster]

Most people who use the term "Miracle" do not use it with a religious connotation. To them it is just another version of the word "Wow !"
Those who are religious and use the word "Miracle" do use it as a religious word related to the works of God, but they also use it as everyday language which again takes away the meaning of the word.
If a medical researcher, in his lab, working hours, days, weeks and years, comes up with something that will cure some disease........it is called a "miracle cure" but the idea that God created the medicine or even guided the researcher rarely if ever enters the picture. The term "miracle" is an advertising term.

[moses2792796]

The true definintion of a miracle as far as I am aware is God directly projecting his will into physical reality. That is to say, taking an active role over the form of the universe rather than passively letting the natural laws take their course.

[Newscaster]

Lets face it guys, the universe is pretty darn big, with all sorts of planets, solar systems etc contained within. Parts of the universe is still forming and there are many forms of life. If there is as we believe, one God, then that God must be incredibly busy taking care of all the things that are happening or are about to happen. I am sure he is far too preoccupied to take care of puny little things on this puny little planet in an equally puny solar system. We believe that if we pray, God leaps to attention to take care of our request immediately. That sir is your ego at work.
If God did indeed create all this, then he built in the ability for things to fix the poblem or to allow LUCK to play a role. Or maybe, he also created scientists and doctors to do the job for him when he is too busy.

[I Like Beer]

To me, a miracle is an event that defies any possible explanation or is 'impossible' based on the physical laws which govern the universe.

As examples, if you flipped a coin 1000 times and it came up heads every time, I wouldn't consider that a miracle even though the odds against it are staggering (it is still possible).

However, if a human being started to fly (and there was irrefutable evidence that this occurred), then I would consider that a miracle.

Personally, I have never experienced anything, or read of anything (for which there was irrefutable proof) that I would consider a miracle.

[Newscaster]

Beer, yoiu are correct. Far too many call certain events or occurences miracles when in reality, they are examples of luck, coinsidence or happenstance. Look how long it take for the Catholic Church to validate a "miracle" before someone is made a saint and even then, there is really no proof or the event considered miraculous is far less.

[moses2792796]

Lets face it guys, the universe is pretty darn big, with all sorts of planets, solar systems etc contained within. Parts of the universe is still forming and there are many forms of life. If there is as we believe, one God, then that God must be incredibly busy taking care of all the things that are happening or are about to happen. I am sure he is far too preoccupied to take care of puny little things on this puny little planet in an equally puny solar system. We believe that if we pray, God leaps to attention to take care of our request immediately. That sir is your ego at work.
If God did indeed create all this, then he built in the ability for things to fix the poblem or to allow LUCK to play a role. Or maybe, he also created scientists and doctors to do the job for him when he is too busy.


You're right in saying that egotism is the centre of most people's religious belief. This is clearly a defense mechanism for the fearful.

You're wrong in assuming that God has limitations or that you know them.

[AnnEsthesia]

I think people use 'miracle' in place of saying it was something they really wanted and thank goodness it worked out. For example, someone gets gravely ill and if they pull through, it MUST be a 'miracle' rather than just chance that the meds or surgery or whatever worked and their body was strong enough to heal itself.

I find it insensitive and insulting when people say that X had cancer and it was a miracle, that god saved them. It makes me want to bitch slap em. Be thankful that someone pulled through, but they insult and hurt anyone who has NOT had someone pull through. And the messed up sentiment of "It was god's will that they die" is just as bad.

[Deadshot]

Q:What is a miracle?
A:If the Kansas City Chiefs win a game this year...:bye:

[Newscaster]

I never place limitations on God but consider that he cant, wont or simply doesnt place the same importance on every prayer request he gets. If we pray for someone to survive a horrible illness, it surely must take presence over a kid praying he passes his math test even though he didnt study.
And when someone does survive that horrible illness, I usually praise the doctor first since he was the hands on guy doing the dirty work and we really dont know what role God played.
And what about the very serious prayers for miracles that do not get answered and the person dies or the request is not fulfilled? How come? Not miraculous enough?

[JohnM81]

I never place limitations on God but consider that he cant, wont or simply doesnt place the same importance on every prayer request he gets. If we pray for someone to survive a horrible illness, it surely must take presence over a kid praying he passes his math test even though he didnt study.
And when someone does survive that horrible illness, I usually praise the doctor first since he was the hands on guy doing the dirty work and we really dont know what role God played.
And what about the very serious prayers for miracles that do not get answered and the person dies or the request is not fulfilled? How come? Not miraculous enough?




Sometimes the answer to prayers are ....no. A hard truth.

[Newscaster]

I think people these days ascribe far too many abilities to God, far too many thoughts, like and dislikes with no grounds for making such statements. They will say God doesnt like this or that without having a clue what God likes or doesnt like.
Oh boy, here I go again.......Would God consciously create a sinner? Why would he? If the sin is soooo bad, why many more people who will commit the nasty deed. I refer to the constant birth of homosexual people. If God creates us all then he must also create gay peope and if he does, it much mean he approves of them living among us and doing what they do. And if thats the case, then its only man who disapproves and usually out of fear.

Okay...here we go again.

[JohnM81]

I think people these days ascribe far too many abilities to God, far too many thoughts, like and dislikes with no grounds for making such statements. They will say God doesnt like this or that without having a clue what God likes or doesnt like.



Sure they do. If they read his inspired word.



Oh boy, here I go again.......Would God consciously create a sinner? Why would he?


He doesn't create sinners. He creates people. And it is people who choose to sin or not.


If the sin is soooo bad, why many more people who will commit the nasty deed. I refer to the constant birth of homosexual people. If God creates us all then he must also create gay peope and if he does, it much mean he approves of them living among us and doing what they do.


You are assuming people are born homosexual instead of choosing it.


And if thats the case, then its only man who disapproves and usually out of fear.


It isn't the case. And most who disaprove of the homosexual lifestyle don't do it out of fear. That is a over used steriotype by those who don't understand or choose not to understand the arguement to the contrary.

[Newscaster]

John, if you insist on subscribing to your kind of bigotry, thats your business. I dont believe that homosexuality is a choice, not when science is rapidly learning more and more about the how and why of the situation. A four year old child does not and cannot make such a choice but ask any gay person when they first suspected they might be gay and the majority will say when they were children. The toys and games they played with gave it away. And no person would consciously choose a lifestyle that would subject them to discrimination, beatings, murder, and a whole menu of terrible things and let everyone know. And if being homosexual is a choice, then heterosexuality must also be a choice. When did you choice NOT to be gay? Did you ever sit down and make a list of the benefits of being gay as opposed to not being that way? Was it every a problem for you or did your heterosexuality come about with no conscious thought?
And so I repeat the question....if homosexuality is so bad, why does God continue to produce gay people?

[mammalicious]

The true definintion of a miracle as far as I am aware is God directly projecting his will into physical reality. That is to say, taking an active role over the form of the universe rather than passively letting the natural laws take their course.


Why would God interfere in mundane matters when there are bigger issues to deal with? Why would God 'allow' terrorists (according to 'reverends' Falwell and Robertson) to hit the WTC and result in the chain of events we have seen, and do nothing in Darfur, or Iraq? God doesn't walk among the masses as he once did...why? God went from 'micromanagement' to no management. Why would God encourage war, strife, starvation, disease, etc...when he had the power to eliminate it and create a utopia? Why would he even create beings with the CAPABILITY ot anything other than harmony?[hr]
John, if you insist on subscribing to your kind of bigotry, thats your business. I dont believe that homosexuality is a choice, not when science is rapidly learning more and more about the how and why of the situation. A four year old child does not and cannot make such a choice but ask any gay person when they first suspected they might be gay and the majority will say when they were children. The toys and games they played with gave it away. And no person would consciously choose a lifestyle that would subject them to discrimination, beatings, murder, and a whole menu of terrible things and let everyone know. And if being homosexual is a choice, then heterosexuality must also be a choice. When did you choice NOT to be gay? Did you ever sit down and make a list of the benefits of being gay as opposed to not being that way? Was it every a problem for you or did your heterosexuality come about with no conscious thought?
And so I repeat the question....if homosexuality is so bad, why does God continue to produce gay people?



Great post!:worship:

[JohnM81]

I dont believe that homosexuality is a choice, not when science is rapidly learning more and more about the how and why of the situation.


Actually science is the problem for those who claim homosexuality is innate. The innability to scientifically explain examples of twins growing up in identical environments and one being gay and the other straight is the major obstacle.


A four year old child does not and cannot make such a choice but ask any gay person when they first suspected they might be gay and the majority will say when they were children.


Really? The majority? Although its irrelevent to the topic at hand I was just wondering if you have evidence to support you claim or if you were just gift wrapping your opinion as fact?


The toys and games they played with gave it away.


Now who is being steriotypical?



And no person would consciously choose a lifestyle that would subject them to discrimination, beatings, murder, and a whole menu of terrible things and let everyone know.


Really? Christians did just that during the roman persecution. Christians got together and lived in christian commune type communities. Talk about painting a big ol bulls eye on yourself.



And if being homosexual is a choice, then heterosexuality must also be a choice.


Why is that?



When did you choice NOT to be gay? Did you ever sit down and make a list of the benefits of being gay as opposed to not being that way? Was it every a problem for you or did your heterosexuality come about with no conscious thought?


You are assuming that I believe both life styles you bring up are equally a choice.


And so I repeat the question....if homosexuality is so bad, why does God continue to produce gay people?


He doesn't. He makes people with free will. Those people are the ones who decide to live a life style that God condemns in his word.

[Newscaster]

John, I have debated CHOICE so many times, I am getting fed up with the subject but you do offer a couple of new ideas that I will answer.
1. The idea of identical twins being different in personality, etc, is an environmental enigma, not gandular. Homosexuality is a glandular anomaly that occurs shortly before birth and the scientists are trying to see why it happens and can it be reverse. It will take time but you dont condemn a peron for something that is not his fault, especially while efforts are underway to understand it.

And that last comment about God giving us free will. Yes he does but its free will to be good people, to be law abiding people, to be concerned about our fellow man and to treat them as we would wish to be treated. Free Will does NOT involve homosexuality.

2. Yes, I do have evidence. Close friends have three children. Their youngest who is now 14 is gay and he says he knew he was different since he was in nursery school and he NEVER made a choice. I have other friends who are gay and who also never made choices. It just happened.

3. It is not stereotypying when you see a boy child dressing like a girl and playing with dolls and seeking the company of other girls. John there are some things that are just plain obvious and which cannot be explained away by blaming it on lifestyle choice. That kind of thinking is lazy, ignorant and cruel.

4. When Christians banded togather in Christians groups, it was not at all the same as gays coming out. They banded together for protection which it totaly understandable as you yourself stated but they had more self esteem than to run and hide. I believe you would just love it if the gays ran and hide so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

5. I cannot believe you dont understand that CHOICE means one thing or the other. If being gay is a matter of choice, then NOT being gay is a matter of the same choice. You WILL be gay or you WILL NOT be gay. But since the problem of MAKING that choice is non-existent, I would not worry about it. Now if you were as they say, AC/DC which is also a glandular issue, there is a choice but it is not a lifestyle choice, its a choice of what will I do today. There, you apparently can move back and forth but that is not considered the same as full blown homosexuality.

So as I have said many times before.....you live your life as you were born to live it and leave alone those who must live another way. You dont bother them if you have no wish to hang out with them and they will leave you alone and maybe the crime of gay bashing will fade away.

[mammalicious]

Actually science is the problem for those who claim homosexuality is innate. The innability to scientifically explain examples of twins growing up in identical environments and one being gay and the other straight is the major obstacle.


No, it means they are not truly identical. I have seen seemingly identical twins many times that were NOT really...one had straight teeth, the other extremely crooked...one had freckles, the other none...one a full 3 inches taller than the other. But in EVERY OTHER aspect they were indistinguishable. SO your attempt to use science to back your argument is flawed.

[JohnM81]

No, it means they are not truly identical.


Talk about interpreting data to fit a predetermined desired outcome.


I have seen seemingly identical twins many times that were NOT really...one had straight teeth, the other extremely crooked...one had freckles, the other none...one a full 3 inches taller than the other.


Teeth, height, and even dermatologic markings are influenced greatly by environmental factors. Now its true that there is no proof that these differences are environmental, but still even your examples show how much more close twins are instead of far apart.


But in EVERY OTHER aspect they were indistinguishable.


Indeed.
[hr]
And that last comment about God giving us free will. Yes he does but its free will to be good people, to be law abiding people, to be concerned about our fellow man and to treat them as we would wish to be treated. Free Will does NOT involve homosexuality.


Free will involves any action I take. And even if it has ties to the chemical nature of the body we can choose not to partake. There are many addiction rehab programs that focus on faith and free will that have had great success with drug use to sex addicts.


2. Yes, I do have evidence. Close friends have three children. Their youngest who is now 14 is gay and he says he knew he was different since he was in nursery school and he NEVER made a choice. I have other friends who are gay and who also never made choices. It just happened.


Although Im not saying he is lying I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old has the mental maturity to reflect back upon his nursery school days. Especially while being gay in a society that demands that everyone believe being gay is innate while at the same time denegrating anyone who believes different. Thats pretty intimidating to a 14 year old.

To add to the above, its very easy to identify oneself as different and look back upon life within the scope of ones new found difference and see your self as just that. They say hind sight is 20/20 but it really isn't.


3. It is not stereotypying when you see a boy child dressing like a girl and playing with dolls and seeking the company of other girls. John there are some things that are just plain obvious and which cannot be explained away by blaming it on lifestyle choice. That kind of thinking is lazy, ignorant and cruel.


It isn't lazy, ignorant or cruel to say that we are responsible for the way we live our lives because we have free will. Its lazy to refuse to take upon the burden of responsiblity of our actions. Its ignorant to assume that free will doesn't apply to one facet of life when we can see it in action in every other aspect of existance. Its cruel to deny tell others that in some parts of their life they are slaves to the genetic hand fate has delt them. Because without free will, thats what you are a slave with no hope or ability to change it so desired.


4. When Christians banded togather in Christians groups, it was not at all the same as gays coming out. They banded together for protection which it totaly understandable as you yourself stated but they had more self esteem than to run and hide. I believe you would just love it if the gays ran and hide so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.


Nice attempt to generalize me with a preconcieved notion of how those who disagree with popular thought really are. No I wouldn't like them to run and hide. Just because I disagree with a sinful lifestyle dosen't mean I wish to be cruel or harm them. After all its mandated by the teachings of Christ to fight for his cause with compassion and kindness even if it means we have a disclaimer of disagreement.

Self esteem? Are you kidding me. A lion doesn't care how much self esteem you have, the taste is the same. That remark was laughable.


If being gay is a matter of choice, then NOT being gay is a matter of the same choice. You WILL be gay or you WILL NOT be gay.


You are assuming we come into this world at a neutral state and either choose A or B. Rather we come into this world by Gods design and we have a choice to deviate or not to. Its not a choice of one sexual lifestyle or another. Its a choice of to deviate or not to deviate from the plan that God has for all of us.


But since the problem of MAKING that choice is non-existent, I would not worry about it.


Oh ok. Thanks for the heads up.



So as I have said many times before.....you live your life as you were born to live it and leave alone those who must live another way. You dont bother them if you have no wish to hang out with them and they will leave you alone and maybe the crime of gay bashing will fade away.


You are trying to hide behind the pc wall of those who disagree need to be silenced. This isn't a matter of gay bashing, not bothering others, or even associating with others. This is a matter of expression. If someone says they agree with homosexual lifestyle I would sit down, hear them out, and express my beliefs. I wouldn't try to silence because I believe even those who are living a sinful life should be heard out. This is because every person deserves a degree of respect and unfortunately it seems I give out more than I could ever hope to get back in return from people who would rather label and use derogatory remarks...

I believe you would just love it if the gays ran and hide so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

than actually have a conversation with mutual respect that I think everyone deserves.

[Newscaster]

John, you spout statements that have been made over and over but which do not hold water. You are so caught up in the idea that being gay or stright is a simple decision....if it is, answer this.......if a young man makes that "simple" decision to be day instead of atraight and as a result, is beaten to a pulp by a bunch of homophobes, how is it is now no longer a simple decision to switch back? Men who are gay have th same level of intelligence as straight men and they can see that being gay may be hazardous to their health but somehow they stay gay, even with those alleged schools or clinics that are supposed to cure homosexuality? Why is the decision so simple in one direction but not simple at all in the other. Why cant they just say......I will and then later say I wont?

[mammalicious]

Homosexuality is not unique to the human species...so are you going to attribute the decision making abilities of humans to the animal kingdom as well?

I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old has the mental maturity to reflect back upon his nursery school days. Especially while being gay in a society that demands that everyone believe being gay is innate while at the same time denegrating anyone who believes different. Thats pretty intimidating to a 14 year old.


You don't think a 14 year olds' peers ridiculing him/her for ''choosing'' to be gay isn't intimidating??? And yet they still ''choose.'' The ones being denigrated for 'being different'' are not the heterosexuals.

[Newscaster]

John you underestimate the thinking abilities of 14 year olds. They are not stupid and know fully what is going on and why they react to thinks differently than do their counterparts and they can remember far back. John, I am 71 years old and I have a memory that dates back to when I was 4. If homosexuality is beginning to show itself in a young man or women, they know it right away. They may not want to admit the obvious but they are fully aware.

[JohnM81]

John, you spout statements that have been made over and over but which do not hold water. You are so caught up in the idea that being gay or stright is a simple decision....if it is, answer this.......if a young man makes that "simple" decision to be day instead of atraight and as a result, is beaten to a pulp by a bunch of homophobes, how is it is now no longer a simple decision to switch back? Men who are gay have th same level of intelligence as straight men and they can see that being gay may be hazardous to their health but somehow they stay gay, even with those alleged schools or clinics that are supposed to cure homosexuality? Why is the decision so simple in one direction but not simple at all in the other. Why cant they just say......I will and then later say I wont?


First let me say sorry I haven't replied back sooner. Things in Pharmacy school have been very busy and I just got done with a string of tests with 3 more next week. So expect my replies to be slow.

"You are so caught up in the idea that being gay or stright is a simple decision..."

Whoa whoa whoa. I never said I thought it was a simple decision. Everything you typed after this seems to be a rebutle with this untrue assumption.

I don't think the choice of homosexuality is simple. Rather its a extremely complex one that has influences of biological, spiritual, and free will. I will take it one step further and say that its a choice so complex that it can be made by other decisions which we have no idea what the ramifications are.

So please don't put words in my mouth.[hr]
Homosexuality is not unique to the human species...so are you going to attribute the decision making abilities of humans to the animal kingdom as well?


Wait, are you implying that animals don't have limited decision making abilities? Ya know, like fight or flight?

Beyond that I don't know what your point is.



You don't think a 14 year olds' peers ridiculing him/her for ''choosing'' to be gay isn't intimidating??? And yet they still ''choose.'' The ones being denigrated for 'being different'' are not the heterosexuals.



Of course it is. I never said there wasn't indimidation from the other spectrum.

[moses2792796]

I think it's clear to the thinking person that homsexuality is not necessarily a choice. There is enough evidence to conclude that at least in some cases, people are born gay due to chemical imbalance or other factors. A good example is a boy who, at five years old played with Barbie Dolls and only had female friends at his school (True story btw). His parents knew he was gay long before puberty because of the amount of distinctly feminine traits he showed. However I think it would also be clear that in some people, it is in fact caused by psychological factors rather than chemical ones, a very deep rooted 'fetish' if you will. This still is hardly a choice though.

[David Hume]

There is no such thing as miracles. All things have a rational explanation.[hr]JohnM81, not to change the subject, but once you become a pharmacist, will you arbitrarily deny certain prescriptions to people based on your religious presumptions?[hr]
I think it's clear to the thinking person that homsexuality is not necessarily a choice. There is enough evidence to conclude that at least in some cases, people are born gay due to chemical imbalance or other factors. A good example is a boy who, at five years old played with Barbie Dolls and only had female friends at his school (True story btw). His parents knew he was gay long before puberty because of the amount of distinctly feminine traits he showed. However I think it would also be clear that in some people, it is in fact caused by psychological factors rather than chemical ones, a very deep rooted 'fetish' if you will. This still is hardly a choice though.


My wife is a teacher in first grade. Every year she has one or two students who she simply knows are gay. She's been at it long enough that a few of these former first-graders are now grown and are "out" as a homosexual. Are some members here trying to say that a 6-year-old child is "choosing" to have gay traits that manifest as homiosexuality in adulthood?

[Newscaster]

I still want to know when this choice is made? You see, to me, a choice is the selection of one of two or more options. If the options are to be gay or not to be gay, then I would assume every man woman and child in the world consciously makes that choice. Now, I am not gay but I'll be damned if I can remember sitting down and deciding to be straight. And no gay person that I know can remember making that same decision. And what about those people who are as they have been called AC-DC or switchhitters? Are they simply people who are undecided and are still testing the waters from both sides?
Sexual orientation occur without the man or woman having to lift a finger. It is rapidly coming to the fore that it is a glandular anomaly that occurs shortly before birth. Not being a psysiologist, I won't even attempt to explain it except to say the baby experiences a rush of hormones that cannot be reversed, putting them on one side of the fence or the other. Statistics I have read say 1 in 12 babies are so affected. I dont know how accurate that is but the mammalian world is filled with homosexuals and has been since the dawn of time and I dont foresee anybody finding what they claim is a cure. The question is.....a cure for what? Homosexuality is not a disease.

[David Hume]

Homosexuality is not a disease.


Nope, but hatred based upon perceived differences is a pestilence.

[mammalicious]

Homosexuality is not unique to the human species...so are you going to attribute the decision making abilities of humans to the animal kingdom as well?


Wait, are you implying that animals don't have limited decision making abilities? Ya know, like fight or flight?

Beyond that I don't know what your point is.





You say that a person 'choosing' to be gay is a complex matter. Yet when an animal exhibits homosexual behavior, you attribute it to be akin to the 'fight or flight' response?? A BASIC natural survival instinct that is passed on from generation to generation, even in humans?

And where does the 'spirituality and free will' factor come into play when animals are making their ''choice''?

[Newscaster]

The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior. It appears to be widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."[11]

Some researchers believe it to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl and Paul Vasey point to that the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but servers to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others cast doubt on social organization theory, pointing to citing gay penguins that mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[12] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirm that permanent homosexuality occur in species with permanent pair bonds, but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.

One report on sheep cited below states:

"Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..."[13] In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species.

There is a problem in semantics. The term Homosexuality may be inaccurate in that the homo part refers to man and we are not talking about humans here. That may simply be a techniality.

There are also those who believe animal homosexuality is a myth. There are many researchers who claim that calling it a myth is not scientific and just reflects the personal attitudes of the claimant.

[underdawg]

This is very interesting. I jumped into the topic of miracles and see people discussing whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Maybe being homosexual is a miracle and a gift from God if you believe in God or miracles.

[JohnM81]

JohnM81, not to change the subject, but once you become a pharmacist, will you arbitrarily deny certain prescriptions to people based on your religious presumptions?



Yes, and I will make sure that my employer is aware of this before they hire me.[hr]
I still want to know when this choice is made?




Funny thing about free will choices, is that there isn't any set time everybody has to make them. [hr]


Homosexuality is not unique to the human species...so are you going to attribute the decision making abilities of humans to the animal kingdom as well?


Wait, are you implying that animals don't have limited decision making abilities? Ya know, like fight or flight?

Beyond that I don't know what your point is.





You say that a person 'choosing' to be gay is a complex matter. Yet when an animal exhibits homosexual behavior, you attribute it to be akin to the 'fight or flight' response??




I never said that animals exhibiting homosexual behavior was akin to the flight or flight response. I was just wondering if you think animals don't have some degree of decision making ability?

And once again, Im not following what point you are trying to make.

[mammalicious]

JohnM81, not to change the subject, but once you become a pharmacist, will you arbitrarily deny certain prescriptions to people based on your religious presumptions?



Yes, and I will make sure that my employer is aware of this before they hire me.[hr]
I still want to know when this choice is made?




Funny thing about free will choices, is that there isn't any set time everybody has to make them. [hr]


Homosexuality is not unique to the human species...so are you going to attribute the decision making abilities of humans to the animal kingdom as well?


Wait, are you implying that animals don't have limited decision making abilities? Ya know, like fight or flight?

Beyond that I don't know what your point is.





You say that a person 'choosing' to be gay is a complex matter. Yet when an animal exhibits homosexual behavior, you attribute it to be akin to the 'fight or flight' response??




I never said that animals exhibiting homosexual behavior was akin to the flight or flight response. I was just wondering if you think animals don't have some degree of decision making ability?

And once again, Im not following what point you are trying to make.



The point is that you claim the ''choice'' to be homosexual is a complex one. My question to you was are animals capable of that same complex thought, rationale, decision making ability? Because many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. If they are not, then couldn't the ''decision'' actually be something innate..therefore also innate in humans?

Here's a little something to ponder...do you think it was the environment in the Cheney household that produced a homosexual offspring? What would make one in that circumstance see an alternative lifestyle as a better choice?:fight:

As for your declaration that you would deny filling legally prescribed medications by a physician for someone that didn't share YOUR belief system is mind boggling! If you wish to impose your beliefs on others...why not join the clergy? Is it just concerning birth conrtol (funny in a way, cause of your whole stance against abortion) although the pill is used for regulating severe bleeding during menstruation, and you wouldn't know if that was the purpose....or would you deny Viagra as well? What about heart medications? Maybe God GAVE them a weak heart and they are supposed to die off...:ponder:

[JohnM81]

The point is that you claim the ''choice'' to be homosexual is a complex one. My question to you was are animals capable of that same complex thought, rationale, decision making ability? Because many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. If they are not, then couldn't the ''decision'' actually be something innate..therefore also innate in humans?


You are trying to draw the connection between animal behavior as a proof or at least evidence of certain traits or actions being innate. However, the problem with this is assuming what is true for animals is the same for humans. Animal instinct, an innate force, drives them to kill other organisms for sustenance, would you suggest that the homicide is innate and demands we see no culpability for murderers? Of course not.

Just because a trait may or may not be innate for animals, doesn't mean its the same for humans.



Here's a little something to ponder...do you think it was the environment in the Cheney household that produced a homosexual offspring? What would make one in that circumstance see an alternative lifestyle as a better choice?:fight:


Im sure it had something to do with environment. But it also had to do with biological disposition, spiritual influences, and yes... free will choice.


As for your declaration that you would deny filling legally prescribed medications by a physician for someone that didn't share YOUR belief system is mind boggling!


Then your mind must be easily boggled *shrug*.


If you wish to impose your beliefs on others...why not join the clergy? Is it just concerning birth conrtol (funny in a way, cause of your whole stance against abortion) although the pill is used for regulating severe bleeding during menstruation, and you wouldn't know if that was the purpose....or would you deny Viagra as well? What about heart medications? Maybe God GAVE them a weak heart and they are supposed to die off...:ponder:



Medications that terminate a viable zygote aka abortion is what I have personal and preprofessional objection to. It is immoral and violates my oath to treat disease not harm humans....all humans which include ones still in the womb. As I would not load the gun for a person who wanted to kill children I will not do the same in a form of a drug product even if it means my choices of where to work are reduced.

[mammalicious]

The point is that you claim the ''choice'' to be homosexual is a complex one. My question to you was are animals capable of that same complex thought, rationale, decision making ability? Because many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. If they are not, then couldn't the ''decision'' actually be something innate..therefore also innate in humans?


You are trying to draw the connection between animal behavior as a proof or at least evidence of certain traits or actions being innate. However, the problem with this is assuming what is true for animals is the same for humans. Animal instinct, an innate force, drives them to kill other organisms for sustenance, would you suggest that the homicide is innate and demands we see no culpability for murderers? Of course not.

Just because a trait may or may not be innate for animals, doesn't mean its the same for humans.



Here's a little something to ponder...do you think it was the environment in the Cheney household that produced a homosexual offspring? What would make one in that circumstance see an alternative lifestyle as a better choice?:fight:


Im sure it had something to do with environment. But it also had to do with biological disposition, spiritual influences, and yes... free will choice.


As for your declaration that you would deny filling legally prescribed medications by a physician for someone that didn't share YOUR belief system is mind boggling!


Then your mind must be easily boggled *shrug*.


If you wish to impose your beliefs on others...why not join the clergy? Is it just concerning birth conrtol (funny in a way, cause of your whole stance against abortion) although the pill is used for regulating severe bleeding during menstruation, and you wouldn't know if that was the purpose....or would you deny Viagra as well? What about heart medications? Maybe God GAVE them a weak heart and they are supposed to die off...:ponder:



Medications that terminate a viable zygote aka abortion is what I have personal and preprofessional objection to. It is immoral and violates my oath to treat disease not harm humans....all humans which include ones still in the womb. As I would not load the gun for a person who wanted to kill children I will not do the same in a form of a drug product even if it means my choices of where to work are reduced.


Humans DO kill organisms for sustenance. Lions don't kill other lions for food...humans don't kill other humans for food. Although lions will kill other lions for OTHER reasons...just like humans do...territory, dominance, mating.

So what is the biological factor in the ''Cheney case''? If it's biological, where does choice come in? The spiritual influence would be the same as her hetero parents.

On what grounds do you feel it is appropriate to supercede a physicians legal prescription for his patient? Now, if the prospective employer chooses not to hire you based on your prejudices...will you then sue them for discrimination? Again...prevention of pregnancy is not the only reason why birth control is prescribed...as you are not privvy to the medical files of the patient, you have no way of knowing. Was it intentional to use the ''loaded gun'' argument when I brought up the subject of birth control vs. viagra? As you seem to not have a problem with ''loading the gun'' of someone that you have no idea would want the ''child''. Pharmacists are not permitted to make medical diagnosis or decisions...are they? When a woman doesn't want a child, and you deny birth control...you are BREAKING the oath to ''first do no harm.'' If you refuse to do your job, will you refer the woman to a pharmacist who WILL fill the prescription? Will you work in a store that sells cigarettes? Candy? Condoms?

[Newscaster]

John, regarding when a choice is made, you say there is no set time. Then how do you account for the fact that almost every straight or homosexual person I have talked to and I am sure those that others have talked to will say they never made a choice at any time. I am sure that if a choice was needed, that would be a momentous time in a person's life and they would remember it very clearly.

[moses2792796]

Being gay is wrong because the Bible says so, the Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaur fossils were sent by Satan to trick us etc.

[JohnM81]

Humans DO kill organisms for sustenance. Lions don't kill other lions for food...humans don't kill other humans for food. Although lions will kill other lions for OTHER reasons...just like humans do...territory, dominance, mating.


Ok. So lions kill other lions for whatever reason. They do this through instinct. So again, such traits that might be innate in the animal realm don't always relate to humans.



So what is the biological factor in the ''Cheney case''? If it's biological, where does choice come in? The spiritual influence would be the same as her hetero parents.


Choice comes in with the "free will" component that I said along with the spiritual and biological influences.



On what grounds do you feel it is appropriate to supercede a physicians legal prescription for his patient?


Not supercede, just choose not to fill the Rx. A pharmacy can do this.


Now, if the prospective employer chooses not to hire you based on your prejudices...will you then sue them for discrimination?


Absolutely not.


Again...prevention of pregnancy is not the only reason why birth control is prescribed...as you are not privvy to the medical files of the patient, you have no way of knowing.


If the therapeutics of the drug product is for another reason and it doesn't harm human life of the mother or the unborn child then I would have no issue with it.


Was it intentional to use the ''loaded gun'' argument when I brought up the subject of birth control vs. viagra?


No, of us, only you made that connection.



As you seem to not have a problem with ''loading the gun'' of someone that you have no idea would want the ''child''.


How does loading a gun have anything to do with giving a life to a human that might not be wanted? It doesn't.


Pharmacists are not permitted to make medical diagnosis or decisions...are they?


All they can do is choose not to fill the Rx.


When a woman doesn't want a child, and you deny birth control...you are BREAKING the oath to ''first do no harm.''


No Im choosing not to partake in killing another human. No more no less.


If you refuse to do your job, will you refer the woman to a pharmacist who WILL fill the prescription? Will you work in a store that sells cigarettes? Candy? Condoms?


If I choose not to fill the Rx the patient has the right to use another pharmacist. I have no control over what the store owner wants to sell, but what I do have control over is what is issued by myself.[hr]
John, regarding when a choice is made, you say there is no set time. Then how do you account for the fact that almost every straight or homosexual person I have talked to and I am sure those that others have talked to will say they never made a choice at any time. I am sure that if a choice was needed, that would be a momentous time in a person's life and they would remember it very clearly.


There are two different answers I can give you. One based on the assumption that the metaphysical has an impact on the world we live in and who we are. The other is based on the decision to believe that all we see is all that exists and no other forces influence us.

I ask this because I don't know where you are coming from and I don't want to talk past you.

Which one do you want?

[AnnEsthesia]

So I guess the argument of "If a woman does not want to conceive, she should use birth control" goes out the window, since John would refuse to let them have the birth control their Dr. prescribed.

[JohnM81]

So I guess the argument of "If a woman does not want to conceive, she should use birth control" goes out the window, since John would refuse to let them have the birth control their Dr. prescribed.


1. I have no problem with birthcontrol that prevents conception.

2. They have the ability to go to another pharmacist to get their Rx. Its not right to force me to partake in an activity I think its wrong. Its not like Im forcing them to not do as they want.

3. I said I have a moral objection to birth control that kill a viable zygote. That is after conception.



Read first, then post.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, considering that the pill is one of the most effective birth control methods and the only one that is completely in the control of the woman, yes, you are against birth control if you feel that it is wrong to use it.[hr]BTW, you do not need to be rude.

[JohnM81]

Well, considering that the pill is one of the most effective birth control methods and the only one that is completely in the control of the woman, yes, you are against birth control if you feel that it is wrong to use it.[hr]BTW, you do not need to be rude.


No some types of birth control prevent conception. I have no problems with this. Other types prevent the implantation of a zygote on the uterus wall. This is where I have a point of contention.

Rude? Is it rude to suggest reading my posts before you attack them and my opinions? Talk about a case of projection.

[AnnEsthesia]

Um... dear? I read your post and that was what I was commenting on. I am well aware and well versed in what types of contraception there are and what they do.

You are still being rude, since you seem to feel that anyone who disagrees with you does not read.

As I stated in my initial post, so much for the concept that if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can just use contraception, since people such as yourself would limit what contraception she could use and leave her with methods that are inferior and are less under her control.

[JohnM81]

Um... dear? I read your post and that was what I was commenting on. I am well aware and well versed in what types of contraception there are and what they do.


Its clear you didn't. If you did you wouldn't have made assumptions on my arguement that I never made. Or perhaps I just worded it poorly.


You are still being rude, since you seem to feel that anyone who disagrees with you does not read.


No, Im being direct. Asking someone to read my post before attacking it is not rude, its good advice.


As I stated in my initial post, so much for the concept that if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can just use contraception since people such as yourself would limit what contraception she could use and leave her with methods that are inferior and are less under her control.


No, I am not forcing anyone to narrow the window of contraceptives. I just wont be the one who fills the Rx for it. Do I wish women wouldn't use contraception that kills other humans? Yes. But Im not going to force them.

[AnnEsthesia]

And I can only hope that your employer is smart enough to make sure you never work alone so that any woman who enters your pharmacy can get whatever they need, without your morals getting in her way.

In fact, if you were in my state, it would be illegal for you to work alone, since you would refuse to fill prescriptions.

You are there to serve a need, not to impose your morals on someone else, and yes, if a woman has to go and drive to another pharmacy when there is only one in the town, that is imposing your morals.

[David Hume]

John reminds me of this doctor in California who refuses to treat non-Christians. I believe he refused to treat a child because his mother had tatoos and there's a chapter & verse that mentions that inking one's skin is a sin. . .

Such nonsense. John, I have an idea. Why don't you choose a profession where you won't have to fuck people over in such an arbitrary manner?

[JohnM81]

And I can only hope that your employer is smart enough to make sure you never work alone so that any woman who enters your pharmacy can get whatever they need, without your morals getting in her way.


That is why I will make sure that my employer understands this before hiring. Yeah, it sure is an inconvience when morals get in the way of murder. But lucky for you and me there are plenty of other options that don't include me being forced to have innocent blood on my hands.



In fact, if you were in my state, it would be illegal for you to work alone, since you would refuse to fill prescriptions.


Only if it was a pharmacy that stocked that medicine. And thankfully many states are passing laws that protect the pharmacist from reprisal if they do decide not to fill a Rx on grounds of moral or professional judgement.


You are there to serve a need,


Wrong. I am there to assist in the safe and efficacious administration of medicine. And if I know a medicine will kill a human life, then it sure isn't safe now is it? Would it be ok to give out C1 controled substances? Some do have medical uses but due to be so dangerous and habit forming pharmacists are legally required not to sell them. Where is your outrage for that? Or is it something special about the license to kill given to women that allows for this selective objection?


not to impose your morals on someone else, and yes, if a woman has to go and drive to another pharmacy when there is only one in the town, that is imposing your morals.


What a rediculous comment. My objection to post-conception birth control is rooted in professional grounds just as much as it is in moral grounds. If a woman is forced to go to another pharmacist or pharmacy because I will not fill a Rx isn't imposing moral beliefs, its called NOT imposing her (and your) beliefs on me. If I were forcing her not to take the medicine of her choice THAT would be imposing my beliefs on her.[hr]
Such nonsense. John, I have an idea. Why don't you choose a profession where you won't have to fuck people over in such an arbitrary manner?


Such nonsense. David, I have an idea. Why don't you consider the professional side of my arguement such that pharmacists won't have to [----] unborn people over in such an arbitrary manner?

Or did you forget, that what we are talking about is giving out a drug product that has the intended use of killing another human?[hr]Question for David Hume and AnnEsthesia:

Lets say I start working at a pharmacy and it comes to my attention that a patient is using Class C2 narcotic analgesic and he/she is starting to show ADR effects? In addition to this the patient is also showing signs they are developing a dependency on this drug.

Should I continue filling this Rx even if the doctor has heard my objections and doesn't change the therapy?



Please note: I am not asking this from a legal stand point. I am asking this from only a professional/moral stand point.

[mammalicious]

Humans DO kill organisms for sustenance. Lions don't kill other lions for food...humans don't kill other humans for food. Although lions will kill other lions for OTHER reasons...just like humans do...territory, dominance, mating.


Ok. So lions kill other lions for whatever reason. They do this through instinct. So again, such traits that might be innate in the animal realm don't always relate to humans.

But humans are within the animal realm. Why are the same situations labeled ''free will'' in regards to human but instinct in lesser animanls??



So what is the biological factor in the ''Cheney case''? If it's biological, where does choice come in? The spiritual influence would be the same as her hetero parents.


Choice comes in with the "free will" component that I said along with the spiritual and biological influences.



On what grounds do you feel it is appropriate to supercede a physicians legal prescription for his patient?


Not supercede, just choose not to fill the Rx. A pharmacy can do this.

What grounds does a pharmacy object to a legally written prescription by a licensed physician in good standing?


Now, if the prospective employer chooses not to hire you based on your prejudices...will you then sue them for discrimination?


Absolutely not.

Good to know.


Again...prevention of pregnancy is not the only reason why birth control is prescribed...as you are not privvy to the medical files of the patient, you have no way of knowing.


If the therapeutics of the drug product is for another reason and it doesn't harm human life of the mother or the unborn child then I would have no issue with it.

And you would have NO knowledge if the drug was for therapeutic purposes to take issue with it. That is the point. You are given the prescription...not the medical file of the person presenting it.


Was it intentional to use the ''loaded gun'' argument when I brought up the subject of birth control vs. viagra?


No, of us, only you made that connection.



As you seem to not have a problem with ''loading the gun'' of someone that you have no idea would want the ''child''.


How does loading a gun have anything to do with giving a life to a human that might not be wanted? It doesn't.

The ''gun'' is the male contribution to the human life that may not be wanted...the ''loading'' is the Viagra. If the man doesn't get the ''pick me up'' he can't 'create a life' that he can abandon.


Pharmacists are not permitted to make medical diagnosis or decisions...are they?


All they can do is choose not to fill the Rx.

Again...without all the facts


When a woman doesn't want a child, and you deny birth control...you are BREAKING the oath to ''first do no harm.''


No Im choosing not to partake in killing another human. No more no less.

So harming the mother mentally, physically, financially, emotionally... doesn't count


If you refuse to do your job, will you refer the woman to a pharmacist who WILL fill the prescription? Will you work in a store that sells cigarettes? Candy? Condoms?


If I choose not to fill the Rx the patient has the right to use another pharmacist. I have no control over what the store owner wants to sell, but what I do have control over is what is issued by myself.[hr]

So much for standing on conviction.


[hr]

So I guess the argument of "If a woman does not want to conceive, she should use birth control" goes out the window, since John would refuse to let them have the birth control their Dr. prescribed.


1. I have no problem with birthcontrol that prevents conception.

2. They have the ability to go to another pharmacist to get their Rx. Its not right to force me to partake in an activity I think its wrong. Its not like Im forcing them to not do as they want.

3. I said I have a moral objection to birth control that kill a viable zygote. That is after conception.



Read first, then post.


So then rape victims are out of luck? Will you look them in the eye when you tell them that you think they should just suck it up and carry the child of their attacker to term, if they are pregnant? Or that they should have planned better? Or that you aren't harming them by adding the trauma of unwanted pregnancy from a forced encounter to the possibility that they may have also contracted a disease from the event?


You have no way of knowing the circumstances under which medications are prescribed. Just as you have no way of knowing if the blastocyst will be viable...or if there even IS a pregnancy. The morning after pill is prescribed as a precaution. So when the morning after pill becomes an OTC product, you will have no objections.

As for going to another pharmacist...that is fine if you live in a town big enough for more than one pharmacy close by. Although they may all suffer from some sort of 'god syndrome'. What happens when the next pharmacy is 100 miles away? ''First do no harm'' goes out the window.

[JohnM81]

But humans are within the animal realm. Why are the same situations labeled ''free will'' in regards to human but instinct in lesser animanls??


Oh I disagree that humans are apart of the animal realm. Sure, we are biologically speaking animals but this is the point I was trying to make. What is true for animals as being innate isn't for humans.



What grounds does a pharmacy object to a legally written prescription by a licensed physician in good standing?


Legally speaking? Pharmacists can refuse to fill any Rx.



And you would have NO knowledge if the drug was for therapeutic purposes to take issue with it.


Of course I would. As a medical profressional, I have access to the patients records via their doctor.



Again...without all the facts


Yeah we can get all the information we need.


So harming the mother mentally, physically, financially, emotionally... doesn't count


When it comes to the hard decisions that cause some sort of harm to a person regardless of the choice I make I must choose to to take the course of action that causes the least harm. Mental and emotional angst doesn't even show up on the same radar of killing a person. The choice is clear.


So much for standing on conviction.


I am standing on conviction. It is my conviction that I can't physically force people to live like I would but at least can show them there is a better way by my example.


So then rape victims are out of luck? Will you look them in the eye when you tell them that you think they should just suck it up and carry the child of their attacker to term, if they are pregnant?


There is no easy answer to this situation, but on the other hand, I am more not willing to look at an unborn human and tell them they are out of luck and they should suck it up and die for a crime they didn't commit.


You have no way of knowing the circumstances under which medications are prescribed.


Of course I do.


Just as you have no way of knowing if the blastocyst will be viable...or if there even IS a pregnancy.


So I should error on the side of murder?


The morning after pill is prescribed as a precaution.


If its therapeutic use is anything else than killing a zygote then I will evaluate that one case by case situation. With that said, if its therapeutic use is to kill a human if he/she exists I will not fill it.


So when the morning after pill becomes an OTC product, you will have no objections.


Sure I will.


As for going to another pharmacist...that is fine if you live in a town big enough for more than one pharmacy close by. Although they may all suffer from some sort of 'god syndrome'. What happens when the next pharmacy is 100 miles away? ''First do no harm'' goes out the window.


Sure is inconvenient when your medical professional wont be an accomplice to murder regardless of the reason isn't it? Murdering a person is more harm than causing an inconvenience to someone. Shame you can't see that.

[David Hume]

All I can say to this thread is that this John person, while thinking he's somehow correct, makes me wanna puke. Your religion is a sham, you're making your decisions based on mythology. Again, I say, find a profession where you'll not bring real harm to people based on decisions you make which are grounded in falsehoods.

A baby born of rape is not "an inconvenience." What if the rape victim committed suicide because she saw no other way out after the deluded pharmacist wouldn't fill her script? That blood's on your hands. . .

[mammalicious]

Oh I disagree that humans are apart of the animal realm. Sure, we are biologically speaking animals but this is the point I was trying to make. What is true for animals as being innate isn't for humans.

Well..that is all that matters...biologically. So what do you consider to be innate in humans? Or rather what is innate in OTHER animals that isn't innate in humans?



Legally speaking? Pharmacists can refuse to fill any Rx.


I didn't say legally...I said on what grounds would a pharmacy have a standing policy to not fill a legally prescribed prescription by a physician in good standing. You are not being asked to break the law...you are being expected to do your JOB.


Of course I would. As a medical profressional, I have access to the patients records via their doctor.

Not to the extent that you are suggesting.



When it comes to the hard decisions that cause some sort of harm to a person regardless of the choice I make I must choose to to take the course of action that causes the least harm. Mental and emotional angst doesn't even show up on the same radar of killing a person. The choice is clear.

A blastocyst (if there even IS one) is not a person.


I am standing on conviction. It is my conviction that I can't physically force people to live like I would but at least can show them there is a better way by my example.

By working as a ''health professionsl' in a store selling Viagra? Cigarettes? Junk food? Condoms? What example are you ''setting''? To impose your morals on others, when they are dependant due to the position you hold, is fine?


There is no easy answer to this situation, but on the other hand, I am more not willing to look at an unborn human and tell them they are out of luck and they should suck it up and die for a crime they didn't commit.

Well...that's just an absurd statement. But if you can find ''eyes'' on a blastocyst...go for it. It is not a zygote or a fetus within 72 hours (the time limit for taking the morning after pill) And viability cannot even be discerned at 72 hours.



So I should error on the side of murder?

It isn't murder...there isn't a human being involved at this point. You should do your job. There are other fields that one can work in which allows for living your faith without having to compromise your beliefs. If you choose one that conflicts KNOWING there will be conflicts...then deal with the conflict privately..don't impose on others to alleviate your ''guilt. Or you can REMOVE yourself from the conflict.


If its therapeutic use is anything else than killing a zygote then I will evaluate that one case by case situation. With that said, if its therapeutic use is to kill a human if he/she exists I will not fill it.

Then you should go into another line of work.


Sure is inconvenient when your medical professional wont be an accomplice to murder regardless of the reason isn't it? Murdering a person is more harm than causing an inconvenience to someone. Shame you can't see that.


Accomplice to murder? A little dramatic there. Again...it's not a person...it's a blastocyst(and I'm being generous here by calling it THAT....it's not even at that stage when the morning after pill would be taken). And the morning after pill doesn't kill...it prevents implantation into the uterine wall. If I put three blobs of cells on a table (all will have human DNA) can you discern which is the blastocyst? What the shame is, is that you feel that YOU should be the moral compass for all....when you are NOT privvy to detailed medical histories...or even to the individuals' beliefs.

What you are trying to do would be similar to a hindu getting a job at McDonalds' and then thinking that he can refuse to sell the burgers cause it goes against his beliefs on killing cows.

[JohnM81]

All I can say to this thread is that this John person, while thinking he's somehow correct, makes me wanna puke.


Oh?


Your religion is a sham, you're making your decisions based on mythology.


Oh please by all means rage more. It makes your position look even weaker than it was before.


Again, I say, find a profession where you'll not bring real harm to people based on decisions you make which are grounded in falsehoods.


Not bring real harm like murdering unborn humans? No sir, in fact I will be a pharmacist one day because I feel it is my calling to do so. I just wonder if God is leading me to this field because there is so many other medical professionals that care not for the unborn and their silent genocide which is taking place today..


A baby born of rape is not "an inconvenience." What if the rape victim committed suicide because she saw no other way out after the deluded pharmacist wouldn't fill her script? That blood's on your hands. . .


Being we are asking hypothetical questions let me pose this one to you sir:

And what if we promote abortion to the extent that murdering other humans is a legal right of women nowadays? And what if over the years, world wide, over 40 million children have been murdered? And what if we just "decide" to pretend these unborn children aren't humans like the nazis said the jews weren't human?

You know the difference between our hypotheticals? Mine is actually whats going on, and yours is purely conjecture. Makes ya think doesn't it?[hr]
Well..that is all that matters...biologically. So what do you consider to be innate in humans? Or rather what is innate in OTHER animals that isn't innate in humans?


And that is the assumption that is leading you to the incorrect train of thought. Biological influences is NOT all that matters. For it is our free will and spiritual influences that set us apart from the animal kingdom while biologically speaking we are animals.




I didn't say legally...I said on what grounds would a pharmacy have a standing policy to not fill a legally prescribed prescription by a physician in good standing. You are not being asked to break the law...you are being expected to do your JOB.


On what grounds? I think you really don't know the role of a pharmacist. Here is a real life example that actually took place. One of my friends in pharmacy school related this story to me a while back. There was a girl who wanted to purchase an OTC morning after pill. The pharmacist asked her a few questions and at the end she told her that she is refusing to sell her this medication because she believes she was using it as a form of birth control and its inappropriate to do so. This is not unusual. Pharmacists can deny to fill or sell meds on as they see fit. Regardless of a doctors good standing or what not a pharmacist not only has a right to be decerning when dispensing meds but is expected to by their employers and the medical field in general. This is what is the current state of this profession. Believe it or not.





Not to the extent that you are suggesting.


A pharmacist has access to all information on a patient if they wish to get it.




A blastocyst (if there even IS one) is not a person.


I will be honest with you. A blastocyst may or may not be a person in the eyes of God. I can't prove I am right or disprove you either. But what it comes down to is which side do you wish to error on? Wisdom says you error on the side of not killing a human. And so I must to.



By working as a ''health professionsl' in a store selling Viagra? Cigarettes? Junk food? Condoms? What example are you ''setting''? To impose your morals on others, when they are dependant due to the position you hold, is fine?


I see no problem selling viagra. Pharmacists don't fill Rx's for cigs so I fail to see your point. Condoms are a form of birth control that don't kill a zygote so I have no problem with them. And lastly I am not imposing my morals on anyone. I am just refusing to all allow your lack of morals to be imposed on me.


Well...that's just an absurd statement. But if you can find ''eyes'' on a blastocyst...go for it. It is not a zygote or a fetus within 72 hours (the time limit for taking the morning after pill) And viability cannot even be discerned at 72 hours.


Strictly speaking, a zygote is simply two haploid cells who have merged to form a fertilized diploid cell. Left in its natural environment it will become a human being and that is why it must be protected. It may not be a fully developed human being but it is a human. Its level of development is irrelevent to this topic because afterall children aren't fully developed humans yet they are protected.




It isn't murder...there isn't a human being involved at this point.


Prove to me there isn't a underdeveloped human there and I will concede. As of right now you can't. Neither can I prove my point of view so I must error on the side of life as it is my obligation to do no harm.


You should do your job. There are other fields that one can work in which allows for living your faith without having to compromise your beliefs.


I am doing my job. Just because you don't know what the job is of a pharmacist doesn't mean its not being done.


If you choose one that conflicts KNOWING there will be conflicts...then deal with the conflict privately..don't impose on others to alleviate your ''guilt. Or you can REMOVE yourself from the conflict.


I did enter this field knowing there would be conflict. And regardless how much you want to spin this issue I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone. I am refusing you to impose your lack of morals on me. I have no guilt because I haven't taken part in murder. I in many ways, I think God is putting me into this field because there is conflict in it and that is all the more reasons for a Christian point of view to be offered for consideration.



Then you should go into another line of work.


Oh I think this is the perfect line of work considering how much it heat I have recieved over this topic. It shows how desperate this field is for a Christian point of view.


Accomplice to murder? A little dramatic there.


Its not dramatic to describe something exactly as it is.


Again...it's not a person...it's a blastocyst(and I'm being generous here by calling it THAT....it's not even at that stage when the morning after pill would be taken).


Personally, I am glad your mother held a different point of view concerning you so that we can have this conversation today. I wonder if those who have been murdered would have held a simular point of view also?


And the morning after pill doesn't kill...it prevents implantation into the uterine wall.


I expected a better reply that that one from you. Thats like someone saying: "Honest your honor I didn't kill my child, I just prevented him from eating." Of course thats killing! Its a death sentence to starve any life form.


If I put three blobs of cells on a table (all will have human DNA) can you discern which is the blastocyst?


Irrelevent. Its not the DNA or the cell itself that makes a human worthy of life. Its the fact that its a human even if its unborn.


What the shame is, is that you feel that YOU should be the moral compass for all....when you are NOT privvy to detailed medical histories...or even to the individuals' beliefs.


How am I assuming to be a moral compass for all when I just talking about how my beliefs will dictate MY actions. You point is weak at best. I am not imposing my belief being the person can still get the product. I will not allow people with no morals to impose that world view on me. Sorry if that offends you, I would rather be in good standing with God than you.

And once again... A pharmacist has full access to all medical information on a patient.


What you are trying to do would be similar to a hindu getting a job at McDonalds' and then thinking that he can refuse to sell the burgers cause it goes against his beliefs on killing cows.


If a hindu applied at mcdonalds and before being hired told the boss he wouldn't sell burgers and was hired he is totally in the right to make good on his/her word.

[underdawg]

This thread was supposed to be about miracles. I think this is a good topic to discuss but not in this thread. It is too far off topic.

[Tsky]

A miracle is the belief that all life came from a single cell that miraculously mutliplied itself. Not only did it multiply itself and create basic life forms (which really aren't basic but very complicated) but it eventually created all life. No scientist has been able to reproduce this miracle they describe but they want you to believe in miracles and at the very same time they believe belief in miracles signifies stupidity.

Evolution...that's a miracle.

[mammalicious]

Here is a real life example that actually took place. One of my friends in pharmacy school related this story to me a while back. There was a girl who wanted to purchase an OTC morning after pill. The pharmacist asked her a few questions and at the end she told her that she is refusing to sell her this medication because she believes she was using it as a form of birth control and its inappropriate to do so. This is not unusual. Pharmacists can deny to fill or sell meds on as they see fit. Regardless of a doctors good standing or what not a pharmacist not only has a right to be decerning when dispensing meds but is expected to by their employers and the medical field in general. This is what is the current state of this profession. Believe it or not.


I will be honest with you. A blastocyst may or may not be a person in the eyes of God. I can't prove I am right or disprove you either. But what it comes down to is which side do you wish to error on? Wisdom says you error on the side of not killing a human. And so I must to.


I see no problem selling viagra. Pharmacists don't fill Rx's for cigs so I fail to see your point. Condoms are a form of birth control that don't kill a zygote so I have no problem with them. And lastly I am not imposing my morals on anyone. I am just refusing to all allow your lack of morals to be imposed on me.

Strictly speaking, a zygote is simply two haploid cells who have merged to form a fertilized diploid cell. Left in its natural environment it will become a human being and that is why it must be protected. It may not be a fully developed human being but it is a human. Its level of development is irrelevent to this topic because afterall children aren't fully developed humans yet they are protected.
I am doing my job. Just because you don't know what the job is of a pharmacist doesn't mean its not being done.

I did enter this field knowing there would be conflict. And regardless how much you want to spin this issue I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone. I am refusing you to impose your lack of morals on me. I have no guilt because I haven't taken part in murder. I in many ways, I think God is putting me into this field because there is conflict in it and that is all the more reasons for a Christian point of view to be offered for consideration.


Oh I think this is the perfect line of work considering how much it heat I have recieved over this topic. It shows how desperate this field is for a Christian point of view.

Personally, I am glad your mother held a different point of view concerning you so that we can have this conversation today. I wonder if those who have been murdered would have held a simular point of view also?


And the morning after pill doesn't kill...it prevents implantation into the uterine wall.


I expected a better reply that that one from you. Thats like someone saying: "Honest your honor I didn't kill my child, I just prevented him from eating." Of course thats killing! Its a death sentence to starve any life form.



What the shame is, is that you feel that YOU should be the moral compass for all....when you are NOT privvy to detailed medical histories...or even to the individuals' beliefs.



How am I assuming to be a moral compass for all when I just talking about how my beliefs will dictate MY actions. You point is weak at best. I am not imposing my belief being the person can still get the product. I will not allow people with no morals to impose that world view on me. Sorry if that offends you, I would rather be in good standing with God than you.


Your ''real life'' example is suspect, for I do not know in which state the morning after pill has been de-regulated to OTC status 'a while back' far enough to have this story make the rounds to pharmacy schools. It only hit the shelves in Nov. 06. Condoms are OTC...is the same interrogation given before the customer is allowed to purchase them? Are you questioning someone who is buying cigarettes, to make sure they aren't buying them for minors?Same with Viagra...will you, as a pharmacist, make sure the man is in a monogamous relationship, and not forcing his lack of morality on you? You think a doctor will appreciate having his decisions/judgement for the care of his patients altered because of YOUR religious beliefs? Apparently it's not concerned with being burdened by anothers' lack of morality, if you have no problems with promiscuous men getting their 'gear.' (last time I checked, adultery was a no-no too)

Children ARE fully developed humans...they just aren't fully matured. Children and blastocysts are not comparable, no matter how many time you try to use the terms interchageably. As for my mothers' CHOICE...well, that is the point....she had the ability to CHOOSE. Just because the choice is available, doesn't mean everyone runs out and chooses abortion. That hysteric, as well as your 'real story' are typical propaganda of the anit-choice crowd. That abortion is used as a convenient for of birth control, when it is no such thing.

You want to be in ''good standing'' with God...but you just admitted that you don't know if God considers the blastocyst human. Well...then don't 'kill' your OWN blastocyst. Like I said you don't even know if there IS one ..the morning after pill is prescribed as a precaution. You are imposing YOUR morality/beliefs on someone that may not share those same beliefs. IT is YOU that is not understanding the role of the pharmacist, John. It is not one of priest, or spiritual advisor/savior. Many pharmacists are Christians, but they are not hired in the role of Christian. Pharmacists have quick access to the list of medications used/filled by the customer (and can detect substance abuse potential)...but if you are going to suggest that the pharmacist calls the physician about EVERY prescription they are filling to get a detailed medical history, then you are incorrect. The physician will give the pharmacist a BRIEF reason for THAT prescription due to patient confidentiality issues.

I'm sorry you didn't like my response of the reality of the morning after pill. And again, your blasotcyst/child analogy is not applicable.


I think the miracle of this thread will be if you see that your role of pharmacist is an objective one...not subjective to your religious views.

[moses2792796]

A miracle is the belief that all life came from a single cell that miraculously mutliplied itself. Not only did it multiply itself and create basic life forms (which really aren't basic but very complicated) but it eventually created all life. No scientist has been able to reproduce this miracle they describe but they want you to believe in miracles and at the very same time they believe belief in miracles signifies stupidity.

Evolution...that's a miracle.


Alot of things about the universe are insanely unlikely, that just makes them more interesting imo.

[mammalicious]

A miracle is the belief that all life came from a single cell that miraculously mutliplied itself. Not only did it multiply itself and create basic life forms (which really aren't basic but very complicated) but it eventually created all life. No scientist has been able to reproduce this miracle they describe but they want you to believe in miracles and at the very same time they believe belief in miracles signifies stupidity.

Evolution...that's a miracle.


You find evolution more of a stretch to believe in, than:

An omnipotent being who ''poofed'' everything into existence and micromanaged events when He felt He wasn't getting His ''props'' only to disappear completely and not have any direct interaction at all? Why would God create an imperfect world where things needed to be ''improved'' and where man was left ignorant of the workings of the world? Sounds sadistic.

[Newscaster]

We can indeed say that life itself is a miracle as evidenced by the fact that it, so far, cannot be replicated in a lab. But there are two aspects to this "miracle" that have not been discussed. Is it a case where this miracle is a wonderful thing to all concerned or can it be a serious, unwanted problem at the same time. The other question is When does this miracle begin? Does the miracle occur before the fertilzed cells are viable (capable of living outside the womb) and have no knowledge or awareness of anything going on around them and is totally dependant on the mother for the pregnancy to continue or does it become a miracle when the baby is born into a family where everyone welcomes the child and there is a celebration over its arrival? These are all questions that can only be answered by opinions. No one has specifically said life begins at this exact point. No one can know what if anything is going on in the brain of the developing fetus. There may be no thought whatsoever and that far from fully developed brain is working on structural development rather than mental. And we know that up to a certain point, the fetus is not capable of survival outside the womb. Maybe the miracle occurs when the fetus finally becomes viable. Thats all just my opinion. I give it no more validity than that.

[piratemonkey]

We can indeed say that life itself is a miracle as evidenced by the fact that it, so far, cannot be replicated in a lab.

By that criterion, the following are miracles (and then, by definition, cannot be explained by science):
the Earth
the Sun
volcanoes
earthquakes
lightning
the Pyramids of Giza

None of those things can be replicated in a lab.

[Newscaster]

Pirate, I think you might want to check that list again. Each asnd every one of the items you designated as inexplanable miracles are not miracles at all. Each can be explained scientifically in a lab.....maybe not on the same scope and size as the real life event but volcanos, earthquakes, lightening plus sun and earth can and have been explained. The Pyramids at Giza are man made objects and also can and have been explained. The only thing that has not been FULLY explained is life and how it begins. But even in a lab, scientists know what elements are necessary for there to be life but taking those elements, putting them together and have the result get up and walk around...so far that has not been achieved but I suspect that within a reasonable period of time, it will happen.

[piratemonkey]

I think we are on the same page, here. I was just nit-picking semantics. Too many people out there have the false belief that replication=scientific proof.

replication/=explanation

Why is this distinction important? Because evolution and life can be explained scientifically, but not replicated... at least not yet. ; )

Cheers!

[Newscaster]

okay....that word apparently is too short and they want a longer message.

Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy y. How's this?

[JohnM81]

Your ''real life'' example is suspect, for I do not know in which state the morning after pill has been de-regulated to OTC status 'a while back' far enough to have this story make the rounds to pharmacy schools. It only hit the shelves in Nov. 06.


You can choose to believe the story or not but is true. As far as 'a while back' phrase, I don't know why you are assuming that is some period in the distant past. I never said it was. In this case a while back was only a few months.



Condoms are OTC...is the same interrogation given before the customer is allowed to purchase them?


Are you asking me what the pharmacist in the real life story I told you does? Or are you asking me what I would do?


Are you questioning someone who is buying cigarettes, to make sure they aren't buying them for minors?


If I was selling cigarettes I would most definately make sure the person buying them is over the age and they understand the law.



Same with Viagra...will you, as a pharmacist, make sure the man is in a monogamous relationship, and not forcing his lack of morality on you?


Viagra isn't an adultery pill. Its simply a vasodilator. Taking viagra doesn't have the direct intention of killing another human. Now being you love hypotheticals so much lets go further. Lets say I knew someone was a child molester and needed viagra to continue this evil act. Knowing this would I fill their Rx? Absolutely not.

Answer you question?


You think a doctor will appreciate having his decisions/judgement for the care of his patients altered because of YOUR religious beliefs?


Popularity is irrelevent when it comes to following the will of God. And with that said, nothing I am doing here would be forcing a patient or doctor to chance their treatment. Im not sure if this is an attempt at spin or what.


Apparently it's not concerned with being burdened by anothers' lack of morality, if you have no problems with promiscuous men getting their 'gear.' (last time I checked, adultery was a no-no too)


What? Im not following you. Are you suggesting that by selling condoms I am condoning promiscuous behavior? If so, read my reply about viagra.


Children ARE fully developed humans...they just aren't fully matured.


No they aren't fully developed. They have not DEVELOPED all of their tissue systems that an adult has. They are still developing, hense not fully developed yet.


Children and blastocysts are not comparable, no matter how many time you try to use the terms interchageably.


If you can prove this to me as a matter of fact I will concede all my points and sell medication that is intended to harm/kill a zygote. But you can't. So you will choose to error on the side of death. I am bound to an oath to do no harm and so must error on the side of life. By the way, why do you keep using the term blastocyte? I mentioned zygote and not blastocyte for a reason.


That hysteric, as well as your 'real story' are typical propaganda of the anit-choice crowd. That abortion is used as a convenient for of birth control, when it is no such thing.


Concerning the story I told you, its not propaganda when its true. And to add to that I never even touched upon the subject if abortion is used as birth control. The point of my friends story was to show that pharmacists currently do choose to sell or not to sell products based off their judgement. And by the way the state where this happened was Florida.



You want to be in ''good standing'' with God...but you just admitted that you don't know if God considers the blastocyst human.


Yeah, hence that whole error on the side of not murdering another human. Got it?


Well...then don't 'kill' your OWN blastocyst.


I don't see a difference between the person who pulls the trigger and the person who loads the gun for them. I will have no part in it. And if my council is asked for I will discourage that form of treatment altogether.


Like I said you don't even know if there IS one ..the morning after pill is prescribed as a precaution.


Its OTC remember? And knowing if there is one or not is irrelevent. Its a medication that is designed to end a human life. My oath to do no harm prevents this. My faith in God prevents this.


You are imposing YOUR morality/beliefs on someone that may not share those same beliefs.


And around and around we go....
No I am not imposing my beliefs on them. They are free to use another pharmacist at the same store or go to another store altogether. I am simply not allowing them to impose their morals upon me.

Hey, why don't make this point again, maybe next time my response will be different......or maybe not.



IT is YOU that is not understanding the role of the pharmacist, John.


With the amount of times you have stated incorrect things about the role of a pharmacist in this thread I doubt your opinion as credible concerning the above remark.



It is not one of priest, or spiritual advisor/savior.


I wasn't aware I had to be a priest, spiritual advisor, or savior to not allow this sinful world to make me an accessory to murder.


Many pharmacists are Christians, but they are not hired in the role of Christian.


Which is why my employer will know about my stance on this topic before they hire me. If they have a problem with it, they can choose not to hire me. I have no problem with this.


Pharmacists have quick access to the list of medications used/filled by the customer (and can detect substance abuse potential)...but if you are going to suggest that the pharmacist calls the physician about EVERY prescription they are filling to get a detailed medical history, then you are incorrect.


I never suggested that a pharmacist requests information on every patient. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I just stated that a pharmacist can request information relevent to the Rx.


The physician will give the pharmacist a BRIEF reason for THAT prescription due to patient confidentiality issues.


The doctor has the right to choose what he/she wants to release. And the Pharmacist has the right to deny filling the Rx because they feel they lack the needed information.


I'm sorry you didn't like my response of the reality of the morning after pill. And again, your blasotcyst/child analogy is not applicable.


I didn't dislike it. Besides me "liking" your response is irrelevent. But my unborn/child analogy is applicable. I'm sorry if you don't like that response also.


I think the miracle of this thread will be if you see that your role of pharmacist is an objective one...not subjective to your religious views.


Do you believe in miracles?