No. I do not see how that works.
The woman in question was 11 weeks into the pregnancy. Far, far before viability of the baby outside the womb.
If mom dies, baby dies. Period.
And you are still dodging the question.
I guess we’re done discussing it if you don’t understand. I’ve explained my position as best I can. If it’s not 100% then there is room for ethical disagreement as to whether the doctor should have to perform an abortion. If it were me I’d have discussed this before conception (with my wife) so as to cede to her wishes but I don’t control a doctor’s ethics.
We’re not talking about RU-486, we’re talking about birth control pills and Plan B, which is in fact just very high-dosage birth control pills. The primary way in which they work is to suppress ovulation. There isn’t any “growing human” because there is no egg from which one can be made. If for some reason an egg is released (a minor chance) and is fertilized (an even more minor chance on top of the initial minor chance) it won’t implant. Just like more than 50% of all fertilized eggs in women who aren’t using hormonal contraceptives at all.
If contraceptives cause the “destruction of a growing human” they do so less frequently than nature itself. And in fact, since the majority of fertilized eggs never implant at all, (and there’s rarely any physical evidence of their existence) it’s impossible to know whether the vanishingly rare fertilizations that occur in women using contraceptives didn’t implant because of the contraceptives or didn’t implant because they never would have to begin with.
So, the law changes listing a “must-carry, must-sell, no-questions-asked” list of medicines and the pharmacist goes to prison.
It is interesting that a rational atheist goes bible-thumping fundamentalist with moral absolutes. Do you moreal absolutes have a chemical formula? Can they be found with double-blind studies? Can I describe the using the scientific method? Or are they your deeply-held pesonal opinions which you want forced on ohers?
We agree, then. In legals matter, follow the law and principles are more important than results, i.e. the principle of carrying certain pills is more impoiratnat than the result of maybe nor having a pharmacy for a while.
[purely technical stuff]Excommunication in the case of abortions are automatic or Latae sententiae, nobody needs to pronounce it At most it is confirmed.[/purely technical stuff]
The directives of the Catholic Church in the (statistically very rare) cases of the mother’s life being in danger because of the pregnancy are clear. Direct killing is never allowed, so no abortion, but the embryo/fetus can be removed even if there is a medical certainty that no matterwhat we do it’s going to die. It’s the difference between killing and allowing inevitable death.
One-trick pony all the way.
I’ll try one more time to make my point. After you indicate you understand the point I’m trying to making, whether you agree with it or not, we can discuss your increasingly absurd hypotheticals.
If the courts were to hold the conscience clause exemptions invalid, the government would be one step closer to becoming * the* moral compass of our medical professionals. It should be an individuals right to exercise moral/ethical/religious judgment, not the government’s duty to legislate that judgment. That’s what’s being discussed here. Not whether women deserve the medical care they need.
The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception.
once more…
The above is an opinion, not a judgment on the morality of contraception.
[QUOTE=Villa]
So explain to me why a Catholic pharmacist should be protected but a Christian Science pharmacist or a Christian Identity pharmacist shouldn’t. In a constitutional way of course.
[/quote]
It seems as if your “point” is an absolute avoidance of the question. Should or should not Christian Scientists and/or Christian Identity phamacists have the right to let their religious beliefs guide how and if they dispense medicines? (edited to add)This is not avoidance of your point, but a clarification of its application.
Since Morgenstern disdains “increasingly absurd hypotheticals”, how about this quite realistic situation I postulated earlier in the thread?
Would you agree that the law should protect a Conscience Pharmacist refusing to dispense under these circumstances, or not?
Or perhaps I’m avoiding participating in a Reductio ad absurdum argument.
Pharmacist who don’t dispense any medications, are’t pharmacists are they?
Hate groups aren’t recognized religions are they?
Edited to add.
My point, once again, is that I’m against the government legislating morality, in any form. Whether it’s who you marry, sleep with, or what color socks you wear on Monday.
I’m sorry, I didn’t know you had to belong to a recognized religion to have religious beliefs. I believe the law pertains to religious beliefs, so should a Christian Identity Movement pharmacist be allowed to dispense medicine as guided by his religious beliefs?
I am holding my breath while eagerly awaiting your direct reply to the question.
But you’re perfectly fine with individuals forcing their religious views on everyone else. Religion and personal beliefs have no business being involved in a doctor patient relationship. If a pharmacist can’t handle that, they need to find another profession.
Actually, what you are doing is exactly placing the government as the moral compass of medical professionals. You are having the government make the decision that opposition to contraception and abortion are “important” enough beliefs that a person should be allowed to maintain their job while refusing to perform it; whereas other beliefs, such as those held by Christian Scientists and Christian Identity members are not sufficiently important.
These laws are the government holding certain beliefs up as more important than others. They’re placing the government in a position where it ranks the validity of different religious beliefs, in absolute violation of the First Amendment.
I’m intrigued to see how you argue that religious opposition to abortion/contraception should be protected, and religious racism should not be, without making “a judgment on the morality of contraception.”
It’s not that I don’t understand your point, it’s just that your point is completely wrong.
You’re asking me whether a hate group, whose dogma is based on racial or ethnic discrimination based on a belief that maligns an entire class of people for their immutable characteristics, should have an honest religious/ethical/moral exemption form participating in a specific act based on that belief? Is that what you’re asking?
I’m asking more whether you can rationalize, under the First Amendment, giving such an exception to some religious beliefs and not others, while still maintaining you are not making a judgment on the morality of those beliefs…
Discussing such things with your wife ahead of time is all well and good.
However, you are in no position to diagnose your wife if she becomes critically ill. If that happens you do what anyone will do which is get her to the nearest hospital ASAP.
Now, should the hospital have a sign on the door spelling out what procedures their ethics will not let them perform? Are you going to take the time to read it? Are you going to get back in the car and drive 30 more minutes to another hospital? Heck, you do not even know what is wrong with her yet. After some tests the doctor tells you the problem and they will do nothing about it. Time has been wasted, bundle up your wife and drive to the next hospital and hope they will save her assuming she doesn’t die before you even get there.
You have a right to expect lifesaving care from a hospital and not some lesson in their personal morality while your wife dies.
Is there something so complicated and/or mystifying about this question:
that you cannot answer it without playing the “In Other Words” game? What I am asking is contained within that quote, and I’m not going reword it into something you think you might be able to answer without embarassing yourself.
Nonsense. We are not talking about interfering with the professional judgment of pharmacists. We are talking about pharmacists deciding to ignore their professional training and duties so they can indulge in religious persecution.
One-trick pony all the way.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly, I’m just pointing out the obvious. If a pharmacist or hospital can deny a woman an abortion out of religious malice, in order to punish her for her “sins”, then “killing the bitch because she deserves it” is exactly what they are doing on the occasions she dies from it. And it is an obvious and direct consequence of these so called “conscience” laws.
No, that’s what you are saying should happen.
Do I need to point out that one is patent discrimination, disguised as a religion, and clearly violates public policy?
What the hell do you mean “disguised as a religion”?
That you simply don’t see you are sitting there and suggesting the government say “this religion good” and “that religion bad” is amazing. What you are doing is the absolute antithesis of the First Amendment.
I know women who are against abortion. Does that mean that they want to oppress women too? I have a very hard time making any since of the argument that antiabortion = dosn’t like women.