Holy shit, that was supposed to be funny? I thought you were actually offering advice. Was the joke supposed to be something about how people say they're not OK with lying but we lie our asses off to our kids. Hahahahaha!!! Wow... never thought of that one before. Zing! You sure got us pegged. Genius!

"You can force them, which is a time-tested technique for raising a sociopath."

Did you at least object when Gawker posted the full set of pics? Send them a nasty e-mail? Think for moment about how hypocritical it must all seem? Did it occur to you to save your Urrrghs and Gahs for your fellow epmloyees at Gawker Media?

Encourage? Bastards? They put up the shots on Gawker. I guess the people at Jezebel have no say abotu how Gawker Media makes money.

"no pharmacist worth their salt (nor anyone who passed biology in 10th grade, for that matter) would be using because they know it is factually, semantically incorrect"

What I think it is doesn't matter. What the pharmacist thinks it is does matter. The pharmacist obviously, wrongly, thinks Plan B casues an abortion. As I said about 30 times now, feel free to go debate that with the pharmacist, that is what I'm encouraging people to do, go debate it instead of just telling the…

No, not in my mind. In their mind. The pharmacists. Because they, like some actual scientists, wrongly think Plan B is for abortions. So the pharmacist the soldier and the non discriminator all think they are righting an injustice. .

Where at all have any of my objections been pro life? I'm going to leave no since you obviously can't read.

Nice use of "troll" to charcterize a perfectly civil discussion that you don't like.

So the pharmacist makes certain commitments in taking on their job and recieves many benefits from doing so and so should not reneg on that implicit contract and still expect the benefits it affords them? Do I have it about right?

There were doctors and scientists that, up until this year, were confused about how Plan B worked. Look around the interent, even the National Institute of Health had misinformation on their website as of a year ago.

If you look around you'll see that there's been a tremendous amount of misinformation, some from scientific sources like the National Institute of Health, about that question.

You could be here all day, but you're completely missing the point. Right or wrong the pharmacists see themselves as saving a human life. That makes this case different from all the other ones you proposed. What the intention is matters.

I think you just made my point for me. There was unclear labelling, there was poorly understood/bad evidence floating around, people in charge of getting out good evidence (the FDA) have been slow to change... all of which would tend to confuse the average pharmacist.

If your job is to follow orders how do you rationalize disobeying them and not torturing someone? And if torturing people is too much for you to bear then I guess you should never have signed up to serve your country.

"pretty much the only people who doubt that are the anti-abortion activists."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

I thought it was just that most of our rights, the non contractual ones are negative rights, the right not to have things done to you. If you have a right to life am I obligated to keep you alive? At any cost to myself? Or am I only obligated to not kill you.