Firstly (in my opinion), killing is killing. If you permit killing babies in womb, than you should also permit killing childs (this is hypothetical obviously), for example, beyond age 3 or something like this ("they still aren't able to think as human beings", other such nonsense) or maybe beyond even 18 years old if parents finds these kids unwanted later. Or maybe also let's make it possible to kill old and ill people for their kids and grandchildren if they thinks that these people are too hard to take care off. Where the world is going?.. (and rape has nothing to do here because the child isn't responsible for the rape. And it is NOT a property of woman. No human beings can be property of other human beings, regardless of how incapable to look after themselves they are. Unless you believe in slavery, nazism or things I mentioned above).
Now back to the topic - I do understand the pharmacist, because he didn't wanted to take part in, although unpanished, killing (it is about equal to giving weapons for a murder). However, there is a second thing - in USA abortions are legal, and because of this, every pharmacist should know that he would have to sell these pills. If he doesn't wants it (and I, yet again, completely understand him), he shouldn't work there (unless, As Cfalk said, he owns the pharmacy). Same as, for example, I doubt Gestapo soldiers could have complained about the fact that they had to kill Jews - such were laws at a time.
And, by the way, despite of what I have said above, there are certain cases on which I would agree with abortion. Just that I would never deny that it is killing. I could agree with killing in some cases (e.g. death penality, wars, euthanasia), but I do completely understand that there are people who can't.
[Edited 2004-02-12 20:30:58]
[Edited 2004-02-12 20:31:48]
[Edited 2004-02-12 20:40:07]