Well, Jay, I think your
"victory" in the
First, on the merits, it seems unlikely
that the courts will create some new "right" to allow licensed
professionals to "opt out" of any practice they find religiously
objectionable. Second, to the extent that your suit alleges violations of
federal regulations, I would hope that President Obama would move quickly to
rewrite any regulations which you read to advance the kind of broad
circumvention of professional responsibility you apparently desire.
As a number of comment posters have already indicated, once you open the "claim of conscience" exception to licensed professional conduct, it is extremely difficult to see where it can end. Even conscientious objection to military service has raised concerns about whether religious objectors are given "preferential" treatment over those motivated by other non-theistic or even political worldviews.
I do find one element of
your case, however, particularly fascinating. The claims being raised by
some pharmacists make it clear that they are not simply
"anti-abortion"; they are really
"anti-contraception." I'm not aware of what you believe on this
matter personally, but many on the "Religious Right" do oppose
virtually all artificial contraception because they believe it to be the moral,
legal, and medical equivalent of, say, a third term abortion. (This was
always the view of Nellie Grey, the founder of the March for Life.) I find
this preposterous of course.
Increasingly, there is a
renewed war on contraception. Many would like to take us back to a
time before Griswold v.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Wayne,
You said: For sake of argument, let's say I don't fully understand the abortion issue. That still has nothing to do with WHY I fight against it. Even if I was 100% wrong, my motivations would be the same if I was 100% right. My motivation is that I believe that a fetus is a human being and has rights. Even if you say 1000 times that I want to control women's bodies, that does not make it true.
Boris says: Why do you believe a fetus is a human being though? Because your religion tells you so even though science has proved this to be false. You also believe that your God put the fetus in the woman’s womb and imbued it with a magical boogy spirit that can live forever – something also disproved by science. So all your motivations are based purely on bogus religious superstitions.
You said: Do you understand the abortion issue? If so, since you are a man, someone had to tell you your motivations and give you your understanding of abortion. If you do understand it, who helped you?....women...medical doctors? I have talked to many women and many medical doctors (I have worked in appx 6 hospitals in my professional career)who believe the same as I, not all of which are "fundies". So, I may have some understanding.
Boris says: Have you ever paid for an abortion? I bet you have no personal experience with an abortion. So again, just because you hate women doesn’t give you the right to judge them or what they do with their bodies. You don’t want to be judged but you judge EVERYBODY else because you are a Christian hypocrite.
You said: Again, you don’t have and cannot possibly have a clue as to what my real motivations are.
Boris says: Your motivations are to turn American women into breeding pigs. That’s what they are and denying it is futile and dishonest.
You said: By the way, my religion doesn't force me to do anything. I choose to do it.
Boris says: You CHOOSE to be ignorant, arrogant, uneducated, ill-informed and stick your nose in other people’s business? No dice. Your religion FORCES you to be that way. It demands it of ALL believers.
Boris,
Well, I'll have my opinion and you'll have yours. But by the way, when and how did science disprove that God through natural processes put the baby in the womb? And when and how did science prove that man has no spirit?
-- "Why do you believe a fetus is a human being though? Because your religion tells you so even though science has proved this to be false. You also believe that your God put the fetus in the woman’s womb and imbued it with a magical boogy spirit that can live forever –something also disproved by science. So all your motivations are based purely on bogus religious superstitions."--
Previously, you questioned what my motivations are, not what their based on.
--"You don’t want to be judged but you judge EVERYBODY else because you are a Christian hypocrite."--
Check out my previous posts. I've never said anything about anyone. I've never condemned anyone. I've never said nor do I believe that I'm better then anyone. I just believe a particular procedure is morally wrong. So, I haven't judged anyone.
--"So again, just because you hate women..."--
I love women.
-- "Your motivations are to turn American women into breeding pigs. That’s what they are and denying it is futile and dishonest."--
Again, that's untrue. And you saying it over and over is futile and dishonest.
--"You CHOOSE to be ignorant, arrogant, uneducated, ill-informed and stick your nose in other people’s business? No dice. Your religion FORCES you to be that way. It demands it of ALL believers."--
You're right. The Bible demands following it's teachings to be a true believer. But one CHOOSES to be a believer. I know what the Bible says and still CHOOSE to accept it. So, again, it's a choice. By the way, I would rather be right with scripture / God and wrong with society. So, if you see me as ignorant, arrogant, uneducated, uneducated, and ill-informed, because I believe the Bible, then that's fine with me. I still choose the Bible and it's teachings.
Jesus loves you and died for your sins.
Wayne,
Now if your God doesn’t approve of premarital sex why in the world would he put a baby in an unmarried woman’s womb? Also Genesis (1:28) implies that God has nothing to do with the actual being fruitful and multiplying. Science doesn’t have to prove man has no ‘ghost in the machine’ that can somehow fly off to a magical kingdom ruled by a magic fairy or be tortured for all eternity because its owner didn’t buy into the dogma, doctrine and fairy tales of a particular religion. This belief is an ancient superstition and we know where it comes from.
The problem with Bible believers is that they are worshiping a paper idol instead of a God. I don’t choose not to believe or follow the Bible I CANNOT. The stories are absurd and totally unbelievable and the Bible is full of all kinds of defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. As far as Jesus dying for my sins, I’m quite sure that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed.
I'd like to write a book on How the Pro-Choice Movement Killed America and give a statistic on how many precious, innocent lives have been extinguished either by suction or puncture wound since the inception of this movement.
Wow, so many good posts here earlier in the fray!
To the basic point of Bonnie's opinion: "...a pharamcist should certainly be able to defer what he considers an immoral act to someone who sees it differently."
Pharmacists, as Jimbino pointed out, are licensed. They follow established guidelines. People have a right to expect legal medicinals from the dispensary. (Not sure I could agree with his interesting idea of laissez-faire medicine. Letting anyone practice brain surgery? Yes, word would get around...but...!)
To the deeper held issues of whether or not it is moral to allow contraception or abortion, Wayne said: "My motivation is that I believe that a fetus is a human being and has rights."
The law of the land says otherwise. I understand you disagree. The high court has erred in the past. Blackmun got it right to leave broad liberty to the people. We the people (each) can decide. Fine with me. I tend to agree with Mary Lee when she wrote: "Why on earth the religious right sees fit to insist that every sex act must be open to procreation is beyond me,..."
Precisely, the sex act does not equate to a desire or ability to become a parent. Most sex, the VAST majority, is committed despite that possibility and hoping for it not. This is fact. I would go further, believing in gender equality, and say that the same right to decide upon whether to parent should be given to men, whereas now it is not. I would agree, he cannot force a sexual partner to carry a fetus to term, nor abort one; but neither should the government confer upon women the right to decide for a man that he shall become a parent. That gives her the right to choose not only for herself, but for him as well--not proper under gender equality law as I see things.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.