In my previous article about Muslim cabbies, someone mentioned how long till a Muslim pharmacist denies a woman the ‘morning after’ pill. For those who are unfamiliar, this pill basically prevents a pregnancy from occurring. It’s meant to be taken the day following your sexual encounter.
I wondered how long it would be till this actually occurred. In the states we have seen this already with Christian freaks, but not with Muslims. Well the wait is over and you can thank the UK for this one. A Muslim pharmacist at Lloyds Pharmacy denied a 37-year-old woman the pill in Thurcroft, Rotherham. When she asked why, she was told that the pharmacist was a "deeply religious Muslim".
The woman’s response was quite appropriate when she said,
It’s my choice, not his. It’s his religion, not mine. He’s a dispensing chemist and his job is to dispense drugs.
What’s even more fascinating about this is that he was completely in the right on this, at least in a legal sense. There is a "conscience clause" in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s ethic code, saying:
It states that if supplying the morning-after pill is contrary to a pharmacist’s personal, religious or moral beliefs they are entirely within their rights not to supply it.
How long is it till a Catholic clerk won’t sell condoms to a customer. How long is it till a Jehovah’s Witness won’t sell birthday candles to a customer. Oh the humanity!
As far as I’m concerned, your personal beliefs do not trump those of others. Your personal beliefs are just that, personal. I would not tolerate someone else judging my actions under any circumstance. It’s highly unprofessional and utterly rude. I honestly don’t believe one can argue against me on this one in any logical sense. I welcome anyone to try.
Related posts:
- Crazy Muslim Assaults Life-Saving Doctor
- Muslim Cabbies Ditch Common Sense In Favor Of Islam
- Muslim Hypocrites Have A Dirty Little Secret
- Muslim-Only Bathrooms In La Trobe University
- Muslim Mickey Mouse Preaches Hatred To Kids
October 17th, 2006 at 11:42 am
once again, this is complete lunacy. it doesn’t matter if someone’s a muslim or xtian or whatever. if you’re not able to perform your job because of your crazy ass religion, then quit the job. join the clergy or whatever.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Plan B or the morning after pill does not terminate a pregnancy, but prevents the zygote (egg) from attaching to the uterus. If zygote has already attached, then nothing happens.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Actually, the plan B pill prevents conception. So it basically works like the regular E-pill. The comparison to not selling condoms is thus apt. I recall that PZ Myers of Pharyngula has written about this.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
how long until a bartender refuses to sell alchahol
dude get a new job
October 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
This trend probably continues as long as the ‘victim’ of the lunacy is a common man or woman. When some highpowered or othervise influential person must face such behaviour they probably raise enough noise about it that things will change.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
For those who care to know:
In my deeply religious moslem village you’ll be hard pressed to find anything such as a “condom” or “morning after pill”, in fact, some people think these are some mystical kinds of food here:D
October 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
In my deeply religious moslem village you’ll be hard pressed to find anything such as a “condom†or “morning after pillâ€, in fact, some people think these are some mystical kinds of food here:D
Well, condoms do go in the mouth at times.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Sounds like to me he can do his job just fine 99% of the time and I’m sure that this woman was probably able to get her contraception from a different pharmacist so no one really lost in this one. No one’s rights were infringed upon and everything he did was legal and above board so he shouldn’t lose his job.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Actually that isn’t the point. Sure there are other locations that will distribute the morning after pill, but forcing someone who is probably already distraught to have to go find one is ridiculous. The guys job is to dispense the medication, not to make moral judgements based upon his personal tribal myths. If he wants to pass moral judgements, or more accurately, if he wants to base what he does on his religious beliefs, then he really needs to be in a different field. Does he not hand out medicines in an alcohol suspension? Is he sure that what is distributing isn’t based upon extracts from an animal that he would consider unclean?
October 17th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
“”"here is a “conscience clause” in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s ethic code, saying:
It states that if supplying the morning-after pill is contrary to a pharmacist’s personal, religious or moral beliefs they are entirely within their rights not to supply it.”"”
Well, I do agree that pharmacists SHOULD deny people drugs, but only in cases where it is obviously bad for them, ie. someone stubling in, asking in a slurred for “sum mor pain-killy candy.” or when the same customer comes in for the fifth time that month.
Your personal believes (still) do not play a part in your job.
That being said, there is also a rule for the RPSGB that states that they “should ensure acces to facilities and equipment necassary to provide services to professionally accepted standards” So no denieing customers/patients any pills.
also, there it is certainly forbidden to discriminate based on anything, including religion or lack thereof.
So, let’s start sueing him right now?
October 17th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
I see a lot of posts saying that the guy should not be a pharmacist because of this, but it’s another thing where one shoudl be careful. Certainly if I was employing this guy I’d tell him to get lost. And I think people in the healthcare business should be obligated to put caring for the patient (and their wishes) above their own personal views. I think the morning after pill is also something that is akin to a medical emergency; just saying that she can buy it somewhere else is no good if you happen to have no car and live in a small remote town with only one pharmacy (one imagines there are at least some situations where it would be extremely problematic).
On the other hand, take condoms (since they were already brought up). Suppose a business with a pharmacy decides to only sell condoms to those 18 and over. Now I know it’s retarded, and they’re not helping the young kids who can’t buy them there, but I also don’t see that it should be regulated by law that they can’t do that. I also think that if they don’t have such a policy in place and a devoult Christian/Muslim/whatever won’t sell condoms to teens they should be fired and the law sure as hell should not protect them.
For the express purpose of medical care (especially emergency care) I think the law should not allow people to flaunt their religious beliefs above the health of patients. But otherwise the law should not be involved. Including letting Jehovah’s Witnesses start restaraunts where birthday celebrations are not allowed, and including letting managers of secular restaraunts fire Jehovah’s Witnesses that won’t sing “Happy Birthday.” Oh, also it’s fine for the Jehovah’s Witness to fire you for singing “Happy Birthday” in the establishment if you go to work for him/her. You heathen.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
“For those who are unfamiliar, this pill basically terminates a pregnancy.” - People spoke about this above but the Morning After pill prevents concenption by preventing an egg from being released from the ovary and it prevents implantation to the uterus. The birth control pill has the same effects. Do we call that an abortion control pill?
It is not an abortion pill, the pill that does that is RU-486 which is not used as a morning after pill. It prevents pregnancy and does not terminate it.
MorningAfterPill.com says:
“How do hormonal ECPs work?
According to the FDA, “EC pills … act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation).” (FDA, Federal Register Notice, Vol. 62, No. 37, Feb. 25, 1997). These properties of OCs have long been acknowledged, but it is impossible to determine which mode of action is responsible in any given cycle for a woman’s failure to conceive or maintain pregnancy after “unprotected” intercourse. It is important to note that “ovulation is not always stopped, … cervical mucus is not always made impenetrable, … the lining of the womb is not always rendered unreceptive to a fertilized ovum every cycle, … and Fallopian tube activity does not always inhibit sperm and ovum unification. …” (Wilks, J., A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, 2d edition. Stafford, VA: ALL, Inc., 1997. Numerous citations omitted.) Breakthrough ovulation and pregnancy occur even with “perfect” use of OCs. (Ibid., pp. 3-10).”
October 17th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
I just find it weird that you can basicaly accept a set number of rules inherent to the work/building/position/society then just blast through then, not by proving them ‘bad’ but by brandishing the intouchability of religion as your main weapon.
As an engineer, I would not work for a business that requires me to lie, cheat or take any other potentially harful actions against the public for the sake of profit. Wouldn’t deliberately working somewhere where your personnals convictions are at stake illogical?
October 18th, 2006 at 9:24 am
“forcing someone who is probably already distraught to have to go find one”
A) She had to go find one in the first place.
B) Why assume she is probably distraught? In most cases I would imagine that the sex was consentual. Some preplanning in that case would have prevented the need and I think you actually have more than a few hours to get this pill. And if you can’t then abortion is still an option, no?
“The guys job is to dispense the medication, not to make moral judgements based upon his personal tribal myths. If he wants to pass moral judgements, or more accurately, if he wants to base what he does on his religious beliefs, then he really needs to be in a different field. Does he not hand out medicines in an alcohol suspension? Is he sure that what is distributing isn’t based upon extracts from an animal that he would consider unclean?”
Agreed. If it interferes with his job to that degree then certainly management would probably need to get involved or yes perhaps he should choose to work in an envrionment that would be more in line with his beliefs.
Also, I find it interesting that this guy is getting lambasted for “passing judgment”. Perhaps he isn’t judging the woman at all. Perhaps he believes that the act of prophylaxis is bad and he would be wrong for contributing to it. So it’s not so much that he doesn’t want the woman to “sin” since he knows that she can go elsewhere and get it, but that he doesn’t want to be part of that “sin” himself.
It’s also amusing that some of you are passing judgment when you yourselves would not like to be judged.
“Wouldn’t deliberately working somewhere where your personnals convictions are at stake illogical?”
Certainly. That’s not the case here since he’s not required to do anything that would run contrary to his convictions. This is more like working at a place where lying happens frequently, but you yourself elect not to lie. That’s not illogical at all.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:02 am
well..
Birth Control Pills, Birthday cakes, and condoms…
when will it stop?
October 18th, 2006 at 11:03 am
“It’s also amusing that some of you are passing judgment when you yourselves would not like to be judged.”
Sometimes judgment needs to be passed. If someone raped your mother, would you not pass judgment? If no one ever judged anyone, how would we know what people thought of our actions? Surely it doesn’t hurt to atleast know what other people think.
“Certainly. That’s not the case here since he’s not required to do anything that would run contrary to his convictions. This is more like working at a place where lying happens frequently, but you yourself elect not to lie. That’s not illogical at all.”
It is if lieing is part of your job description. If you can’t lie, then find other work. Let the laws dictate what you can and can’t do at a job, and if you don’t like it, find another job and try to change the law.
“A) She had to go find one in the first place.
B) Why assume she is probably distraught? In most cases I would imagine that the sex was consentual. Some preplanning in that case would have prevented the need and I think you actually have more than a few hours to get this pill. And if you can’t then abortion is still an option, no?”
Preplanning can’t stop condoms from breaking, and although you do have more than a few hours, you want to take the pill as soon as possible. An abortion is still an option, but it’s not a pretty one.
By the way, I don’t see how it even matters if she’s already distraught or not. Why should anyone be forced to spend all day looking for a pill? What if these people are the only pharmacists in town? What if you live in the middle of nowhere and there was only one pharmacist within a reasonable distance?
The point is, if you can’t do your job properly, then find another one.
October 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Bottom point for me is, the one have all rigt to do not sell something in same way someone else have right selling it. It’s his right to do not sell or have it in inventory for any reason.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Lets say that my religion states that it is wrong to sell you medicines that aliviate childhood illnesses because I believe that it is then that we learn through suffering that humans are puny creatures and need a higher force in our lives.
Am I now within my right to refuse to fill any perscription that is for a mother with a child under the age of 18?
October 18th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
“Sometimes judgment needs to be passed. If someone raped your mother, would you not pass judgment? If no one ever judged anyone, how would we know what people thought of our actions? Surely it doesn’t hurt to atleast know what other people think.”
Point being that the website owner says
that he would not tolerate anyone judging him, yet he judges religious freaks daily. I happen to agree that religious extremism is bad, I’m just not sure that this qualifies. Of course that’s a judgment on my part.
“It is if lieing is part of your job description. If you can’t lie, then find other work. Let the laws dictate what you can and can’t do at a job, and if you don’t like it, find another job and try to change the law.”
Dispensing meds is part of his job description but the law allows him latitude to dispense those he finds appropriate and allows for “personal, religious or moral beliefs”. So he was within his legal rights and his employer can’t say boo about it. Odds are he wasn’t the only dispensing pharmacist at this place.
“Preplanning can’t stop condoms from breaking, and although you do have more than a few hours, you want to take the pill as soon as possible. An abortion is still an option, but it’s not a pretty one.”
Condoms rarely break and according to most statistics I’ve seen are over 95% effective. And can’t she get one of these to keep in her purse. And no abortion isn’t pretty. But if you aren’t willing to take the chance of getting pregnant then don’t have sex. Mind you I’m not saying that this pill shouldn’t be available. It’s just another form of contraception and my religious beliefs don’t prevent contraceptive use. I’m just saying that this guy did nothing illegal or immoral.
“By the way, I don’t see how it even matters if she’s already distraught or not. Why should anyone be forced to spend all day looking for a pill? What if these people are the only pharmacists in town? What if you live in the middle of nowhere and there was only one pharmacist within a reasonable distance?”
Lot’s of what ifs. No one is forcing her to do anything. She chose to have sex. She chose not to get one of these beforehand. She made all kinds of choices that led her to this. None of which are his problem. If she doesn’t want to be pregnant there’s only one way to make sure.
“The point is, if you can’t do your job properly, then find another one.”
As defined by the law he can do his job just fine. Who are you to say otherwise?
October 18th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
“Lets say that my religion states that it is wrong to sell you medicines that aliviate childhood illnesses because I believe that it is then that we learn through suffering that humans are puny creatures and need a higher force in our lives.
Am I now within my right to refuse to fill any perscription that is for a mother with a child under the age of 18? ”
There more than just a little difference since you can’t make the choice not to get sick and you can make the choice to get pregnant. But if you believe that (and Seventh Day Adventists come pretty close) then sure you would be. Again theres a considerable rift between your example and what really happened. Here’s a big difference. In the US the market would drive you out of business in this case and that would be fine. To make a law that tells you that you’re requires to commit acts against your will to do your job is not good and that what it sounds like you want. Let the market decide.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Heck this woman is thirty seven with two kids. Maybe she should get fixed if she doesn’t want kids.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Scott, at the same time you can make the decision to drastically reduce your chances of getting sick by living in a bubble. Or reduce them some by not ever touching another human being. Or reduce them a little by washing your hands regularly. Now if I see you leave the restroom in the store without washing your hands, it’s ok for me to not sell you medicine. After all, you could have done more to prevent it.
Granted you can be more certain of not getting pregnant, but if we assume for a minute that sex is ok to be had (even if only between two married and opposite gendered people) then there is a chance of pregnancy. Even with precautions. Maybe it’s one in a million, but do you think that the local pharmacist should be the one deciding who’s the one in a million and who’s just a dumb slut who should’ve known better and deserves what she gets? Like someone once said, I’d rather see 10 dumb sluts not pregnant than one innocent woman with child.
Other people don’t want a law that forces you to do something against your will to do your job; they want a law that requires you to get a job that you are willing to do. As devil’s advocate, obviously this can’t be done literally because we don’t want employers requiring their waitress to perform oo-max to keep their jobs. But hey, like you said, the free market should decide; the employers who don’t require sexual favors will get better, cheaper employees.
But here’s where it breaks down. Suppose you’re traveling through an unfamiliar territory and have a heart attack. You go to the hospital, and the doctor there decides he doesn’t want to treat you because you’re of a different religion and his religion forbids helping you. Now you’re dead, and can’t really just go to the next hospital in the next town which may or may not give you the same (non) treatment. I understand you’re contending that pharmacists dealing morning after pills aren’t emergency healthcare professionals, but your argument basically seems to be giving them carte blache on deciding what is necessary and is not when it may be a matter of life or death. I’m glad you trust the judgement of pharmacists everywhere above your own when it comes to your health, but there are those of us that feel otherwise.
I think you’d have more luck arguing against the legality of morning after pills in the first place, rather than say that anyone can be an asshole with impugnity even if it has devastating consequences for others.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:10 am
The morning after pill does not terminate a pregnancy! Please do not tell people this! So many people around me think plan B is an abortion pill and that’s why these things happen to women. Please change your article.
If the woman is pregnant, the pill does nothing. If the woman is not pregnant, it does everything “the pill” does. Her body will not release an egg, she produces more mucus to hinder sperm movement incase an egg has already been released, and the jury is still out on whether or not it makes her uterus wall unable to accept a zygote.
Scott:
“To make a law that tells you that you’re requires to commit acts against your will to do your job is not good and that what it sounds like you want.”
“Heck this woman is thirty seven with two kids. Maybe she should get fixed if she doesn’t want kids.”
Do you see the double standard in what you’ve said? If his beliefs prevent him from filling all prescriptions (aka doing his job properly) then maybe he shouldn’t have been a pharmasist. But for whatever reason you have no problem thinking all women who don’t want more children should undergo major surgery (which always comes with the risk of death)so they don’t make anyone else uncomfortable over their beliefs.
It’s not even relevant! The morning after pill DOES NOT abort a pregnancy! If he’s a pharmacist and he doesn’t know that he REALLY needs a new job!
October 19th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Bones, it’s not my argument. It’s Britain’s law, not mine. Heck I’m not even a British citizen. It’s not this pharmacist she should be mad at, it’s her gov’t. And regarding this guy he’s not deciding arbitrarily based on who’s a slut and who isn’t. Apparently he doesn’t want to dispense it to anyone. And yes I trust a pharmacist to know when somehting is life or death and when it isn’t since they (in theory) know more about dispensing drugs than I do. In fact there have been cases where pharamcists have decided not to dispense drugs that doctors have prescribed since they were aware of drug interactions with something that the patient was taking at the time. So being a pharmacist is more than “Look at a piece of paper and dump the required pills in a bottle”. At least it is in the US.
Tracy, I know that the MA doesn’t terminate a pregnancy and I’m willing to bet that the phrmacist here does too. Like I said it may be such a thing that he doesn’t want to dispense any prophylactic. And accoridng to British law that’s okay. Not according to me, not according to you, according to the law. Maybe it’s a stupid law, but since other people are stretching this then I will too. Suppose a doctor could prescribe a pill that’s sole purpose was to cause a guaranteed suicide. Should I as a pharmacist (I’m not one) be required by law to dispense it if I think suicide is a bad thing, regardless if my belief is informed by a religion or not?
“If his beliefs prevent him from filling all prescriptions (aka doing his job properly) then maybe he shouldn’t have been a pharmasist.”
If you think that a pharmacist’s job is to fill all scrips carte blanche then you need to talk to a pharmacist. They have to make judgment calls all the time and some of them are life or death. Some pharmacists know more about what their customers are taking than their customer’s doctor. I owuld imagine that pharmacists also probably stay moer on top of the latest drug interaction research.
And a tubal ligation isn’t really major surgery, but if they don’t want to go that route the guy can have an outpatient procedure done that will reduce their risk. I’m syaing that this is definitely a good idea if she doesn’t ever want to have any children. My wife had it done after her last c-section. If for some reason she didn’t want to or couldn’t have done that then I would have gotten snipped. Of course neither of the operations are guaranteed any more than any form of prophylaxis, and if we get pregnant then we’ll deal with the consequences of our actions. That’s what adults do.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:50 am
and if we get pregnant then we’ll deal with the consequences of our actions. That’s what adults do.
But dealing with the consequences of one’s actions doesn’t always have to equate to just let the results caused by them happen. Sometimes the best way to deal with the consequences is to try to make things right. I get a little riled at stories of people restricting access to prophylactics and family planning resources mostly because here in the US there are people that think outlawing all of them would solve some of our social problems. To me, and my significant other agree’s, the government needs to stay out of women’s reproductive organs and leave the decisions to them. Women that don’t believe in contraception and abortion won’t use them or have them. Those that do will. Laws like this allow someone else to impose their religion’s views on this onto others that don’t hold the same views.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Not just their religious views. This law allows for personal views as well. So if I thought that the MA pill was “icky” I could refuse to dispense it. Like I said it may be a “stupid” law, one certainly open to abuse, but there it is. I agree that generally speaking the gov’t needs to stay out of the business of sex a long as no minors are involved. Of course in this case it’s not the gov’t that’s interfering. And like someone up the thread said, a business has a right not to carry certain things or not to sell certain things to people under certain circumstances. If folks don’t like it hten I’d much rather see them vote with dollars or public protest/outcry than to see gov’t get involved.
October 19th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Okay, bit confused now, what law you are talking about Scott?
October 19th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I don’t think so. If I go to the pharmacy to fill my heart medication and my pharmacist says “this could interact with your bloodpressure medication” then it’s not his place to simply not fill my prescription. He needs to get on the phone with my doctor and talk about alternative choices, or explain to me that I need a prescription for a new bloodpressure medication before I start taking these heart pills. Agreed the pharmacist’s job is to understand drugs, their side effects, and their interactions, but the pharmacist is not my physician. He doesn’t know my medical history, what consequences there may be if I don’t take this medication, if my medication was lost and I’ve already missed a day, if it’s ugent… It is not his place to simply say “you’re not getting this drug from me”.
If you can’t sell guns don’t work in a gun shop.
If you can’t euthanize animals don’t work in an animal hospital.
If you can’t sell contraception don’t work in a pharmacy.
It’s your job!
October 19th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
“Okay, bit confused now, what law you are talking about Scott?”
Looking back just now I realized that it’s not a law, but the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s ethic code. My bad.
And anon, while working that out with your doctor he still hasn’t filled your scrip. “If you can’t sell contraception don’t work in a pharmacy.” How much of that do you reckon he does? I don’t think that’s a deal breaker in the same way that your other two exampes might well be.
My feeling is that as long as his professional society sees that there might be a justifiable ethical reason for not filling an order, then there just might be one. It’s not like ordering a hamburger.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Sometimes these ‘deeply religious’ types get these positions just so they can cause a fuss and impose their beliefs on others. If the pharmacist cannot or will not do his job, he should find another. I find it odd that, at least with the case of Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medicines, they cherry pick their way through the Bible and their beliefs looking for ways to inconvenience and outrage others. If not, they should obey every word of the Bible.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
i live in thurcroft its just pathetic having a muslim chemist , if you go to the chemist around lunch time you will probably be told you cant have any drugs that are prescribed as THE MUSLIM CHEMIST is out praying so what if your on your lunch break and thats the only time you can go basically your skrewed
February 19th, 2008 at 6:22 am
i am a muslim, and i believe that muslims have the right to refuse.
however, i therefore think it should be possible that there is an alternative way e.g. another person who is not a muslim. eitherway its her problem, she should have made sure she had the drugs before having her fun. islam is ever beautiful and that is why sexually transmitted diseases are so low in islamic countries and muslims
i now await the person who wil now critisise this comment because deep inside they dont likle they way islam works….
true islam is beautiful and ever so perfect…
February 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“i now await the person who wil now critisise this comment because deep inside they dont likle they way islam works”
Well you are right with that comment. Enjoy the moment :)
“eitherway its her problem, she should have made sure she had the drugs before having her fun.”
Okay moment over.
Its not her problem that the pharmacist has a problem. His job is to do his job - enforcing his personal morale on his customers is not his job.
Would you Muslimboy accept that a hindu fireman could refuse to put out a fire in a mosque because his religion forbids him to enter another religions temple?
Of course not - he must do his job. Everybody must. How would society works if everybody demanded to be treated as handicapped people like the muslims seems to want.
“I can’t work here if I cant wear the cloth I want”
“I can’t work here if I must touch pig meat”
“I can’t work here if I must work with people of the opposite sex”
“I can’t work here if…” and so on..
For the sake of the rest of the world - Grow up!
February 19th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I have to say that I agree with muslim boy here. But I also think that the Muslim’s employers have the right to fire, or not hire someone based on their inability (moral or otherwise) to preform the job.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Agreed with Sid.
If you don’t want to do a part of your job, quit and look for something you’re capable of doing.
I’m a vegetarian, so i’m not going to apply for a job at the butcher, but demand I don’t have to touch the meat.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I don’t think anybody disagree with you guys
May 30th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I AM A B PHARMACY FRESHER FROM INDIA.I AM SEEKING A JOB FOR PHARMACIST.I HAVE BEARD AND I WANT TO DO SALAH FIVE TIMES A DAY.SO I AM SEEKING YOUR HELP TO ACCESS A JOB IN ABROAD WHICH WILL NOT AFFECT MY RELIGIOUS ASPECTS. IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC JOB I AM READY FOR ANY OTHER JOB.PLEASE HELP ME
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 am
I bet this is another fake article to attack muslim.
And one more thing yeah it’s good that someone stood up against the genocide of killing babies inside the wound
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 am
You people talking about religion and i say anyone religious or not, who is in the right state of mind does understand that murder is murder. just cause the babies can’t protest doesn’t mean that we have to murder them
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Yasser, your argument is a tired one. Define “baby” vs. “fetus”, and consider the stages of development of a fetus in regard to the possible meaningfulness of “protest”. And while you’re at it, give this a watch.