The point where your belief affects your ability to do your job without personal prejudice, is the point where you should change your vocation. I would boycott completely anyone who did this.
No, the gvmt doesn't force them to go against their religious beliefs. They let them be mechanics, food servers, or clerks (Radar in MASH)
yup. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Its the Indian in me. We're not allowed to impose our beliefs on anyone else, it would make civil society impossible. You can talk me to death on your beliefs, but you dare not refuse me a service.
And it makes a lot of sense. I think every civilized country has those rules.. I would be very surprised if some did not.
exactly right orleander, if they dont want to deal with these sorts of things then they can work in other area's of health care like aged care for instance where the morning after pill isnt an issue. if they want to work on the front line (so to speak) then they dont get to be "conciencious objectors" they do there job or they lose the RIGHT to do that job and could end up in prision
Well its not against the law in India either, we just don't frequent people who refuse us any service a second time. Or if they are rude. And we tell everyone we know, so other people don't go there either. Nothing like public opinion to shut down a store in India.
I'm not saying it's against the law, although I wouldn't be surprised if it actually is in certain lines of work.
S.A.M: Why can't they refuse you a service, especially if they find a said service morally reprehensible? I mean, would you say the same if a rapist asked his pharmacist for a date rape drug?
emnos: He's not. He's deciding for himself what drugs he makes available to others. If the customer doesn't like this, they can shop elsewhere. The fact that there are people on this forum who would force a pharmacist to engage in what he believes is an act of murder is just mind-boggling.
They cannot, its part of their work ethic. They cannot pick and choose what they will serve and to whom. Can you imagine going to a restaurant and the steward saying he cannot serve you a nonvegetarian dish because its against his religion to eat animals? Its ridiculous.
James R, The disparity between the value of human life and animal life certainly is vast enough for such differences. It’s foolish to deny the evident disparity between human and animal life, James. You, too, whether you’re oblivious to the glaring fact or not, support this disparity. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that everybody recognizes this disparity, and everybody lives their very life by it, to some degree or another. Also, I would like to comment on your summary of my standpoints: please refrain from using baseless words such as “happily”, because it simply is flat-out false; secondly, the only situation wherein I advocate the killing of animals is when they’re used as a food source. In addition, the method of killing should be as quick and painless as possible. Certainly, my description is a completely different reality from your grandiloquent description of me “happily killing” animals (for no apparent purpose, either, according to your post). James, James, James … where do I start? First of all, the animal issue originated from you - not me. Secondly, the life of an animal certainly isn’t of “negligible importance” to me, and I’m offended that you would say such a thing. I have already said that the killing of animals for sport, or in excess, is highly immoral in my eyes. In addition, torturing animals is also highly detestable, which is not reflective of somebody who sees animals as having “negligible importance”. Even animals used for food sources should be killed in a way wherein minimal pain is inflicted. Your attempts to paint me as a barbaric animal-killer have failed miserably, so I suggest you lay off the disrespectful speculations from hereon in. I have never used "intelligence" as an argument against abortion; I merely brought up the intelligence issue as a general remark to the “humans versus animals” superiority debate. Humans, in general, are superior to animals through intelligence, although that admittedly isn’t an adequate or satisfactory argument for justifying my anti-abortion stance. My reason for valuing humans more than animals, as I have detailed before, is seemingly quite simple - they are a different species from us. All species of animals treat their species favourably in comparison to a “foreign” species, which is an innate characteristic we, as humans, shouldn’t ignore or feel ashamed of. Let me reiterate: this discussion is, as far as I'm concerned, finished. As a human being, I value the life of humans more than I value the life of animals (which doesn’t mean I don’t value animal life). There is no shame in admitting this; there is only shame in denying it. Because I don’t see the direct equivalency between humans and animals, any argument whose premise is comparing the killing of an animal to the killing of a human is irrational and counterproductive. In summary, my views on abortion cannot be discredited or invalidated because of my views on animals. Ignoring your question’s blatant errors, I will answer with an emphatic “no!”. If I waited a week, how many cells would that embryo become? If I waited a month? If I waited several months? Pretty soon, what was once a single-celled embryo would become a fully-functioning human being. Of course, killing a one-celled embryo is less severe than killing a more developed embryo, if that's what you're asking. However, in the grand scheme of things, it's still an immoral practice, and it should be outlawed completely, even if it is better in some circumstances than others. Are you seriously comparing a sperm cell to a developing human being? Not surprising, coming from you, although it truly is becoming increasingly difficult attempting to overlook your argument’s idiotic comparisons. A sperm cell’s only purpose is to fertilize a woman’s egg; whether or not a man ejaculates to give his sperm cells that particular "chance", they will still eventually die. That sperm cell will never, in and of itself, develop to a living, breathing human being. In one way or another, that sperm cell will inevitably die, and it will always die in the same state it was created. A human child, despite being a single cell during one point in its lifetime, will not die in that state. I certainly couldn't evade the law for murder by saying "we're all murderers for killing sperm!", could I? So then, let nature take its course! I’m doing everything in my power to remain professional, but you really are “grinding my gears” with these ludicrous comments. If that single cell is to develop, then leave it be; if that cell is to die off, then let natural causes determine that. Neither you nor any woman have the right to use unnatural intervention to halt the development of natural life, especially not by using the “it could have died, anyway!” argument. You realize your example has no merit whatsoever, right? Your biggest mistake is comparing a material and inanimate object (money) to a living human organism. Your second mistake is witnessed by the mathematical argument of odds: the chances of you winning the lottery are astronomically low, especially in comparison to the chances of a child developing to the point where it can live outside of its bearer’s body. Thirdly, your example implies that children shouldn’t be able to develop (under all circumstances), just as a person gambling with the lotto logically shouldn’t be awarded until he or she wins. There is no comparison here, James, much to your dismay. It was a commendable effort though, I will proudly admit; in all honesty, responding to this particular analogy is the only time within this entire thread that an argument of yours got me to seriously think. The rest (and no offense to you, by the way) I have been able to deal with promptly and efficiently, thanks to rich experience in dealing with the same old, tired arguments from "pro-choice" individuals. Look, 98% of abortions in the U.S. are done for “personal reasons”. I know the U.S. doesn’t represent the entire world, but I think it’s safe to say that these statistics are quite accurate in portraying the worldwide abortion cases. If 98% of people having abortions are not doing it because they were raped/involved in incest sex and experience no direct health hazards, then most of the concrete, tangible reasons for abortion are thrown out the window. The reasons for abortion now boil down to “personal reasons”, which constitute an overwhelming 98%. What are these “personal reasons”, you ask? The women in question aren’t “ready” to take care of their developing children; the women in question simply don’t want their developing children; the women in question already have “too many” children; the women in question want to avoid adjusting their life to take care of their developing children; etc., etc., etc. Do any of these reasons seem mature or reasonable? Of course not! They’re reflective of young women who simply want to enjoy sex with multiple men, but are faced by a unique predicament: they are impregnated with a baby(ies) due to actions they knowingly and willingly committed. Too bad! If you’re biologically prepared to have children, and you’re psychologically willing to have sex, then you’re most definitely able to take care of a child. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I regard both the mother’s and the father’s interests in low value, because both are triumphed by the baby’s rights. Unless the mother in question doesn’t want the child because she was raped/involuntarily had incest sex, or if the baby’s existence poses a lethal health hazard to the mother, then undergoing abortion should not be within her realm. I didn’t speculate at all! My exact words were, “you don’t like me”. This is true, isn’t it? Just because you don’t like somebody, doesn’t necessarily mean you hate them. But, I agree - let’s please move on from this particular topic altogether. It’s making me strangely uncomfortable. But they don’t! And the reason for that is completely beyond our control. Naturally, who has more responsibility: the mother who physically carries the baby(ies) for nine months and deals with all of the symptoms/pains, or the father who goes through none of these hardships? Indisputably, the mother has more responsibilities than the father. Yet … you say, “they should have equal responsibility”. Yes, ideally they should, shouldn’t they? But alas, biology disharmonizes with your "admirable' pipe-dream of ultimate equality. S.A.M., You’re not getting off the hook that easily, my dearest Sam. You said that there was virtually no difference between killing a baby within a mother’s body and a baby outside of a mother’s body, supporting this argument by saying the child outside of the body still needs a caregiver to survive. If you think people should have the right to undergo abortion, then should people also be given the right to kill their born baby(ies)? According to you, there isn’t a difference, right? Logically, they should either both be legalized, or they should both be outlawed. Supporting one and not the other is highly hypocritical, whether you want to recognize it as such or not. Kadark the Dream
S.A.M: What the fuck is 'work ethic'? And does this so called 'work ethic' apply to soldiers who are ordered by their superior to butcher innocent civilians? Hey, it's all part of the job! Um, yes they can. Restaurants do this all the time, S.A.M. Try ordering a meat dish in a vegetarian restaurant, or try to dine in a posh restaurant while wearing thongs and slacks. If the steward owns that particular business, or is simply expressing the wishes of the owner, then yes. It happens all the time. The business owner decides what will be served to the customer, not the customer. If the customer doesn't like this, they can shop elsewhere. That's the beauty of capitalism.
And damn, my response to Bells didn't post, and I can't be assed re-typing it. Just for the record, that Winston guy needs to brush up on his basic biology. A pre-requisite in order for parasitism to occur is that the host and the 'parasite' be of a different species, which clearly isn't the case in pregancy.
I've seen women let off in courts who had drowned their children. Shit happens. Re: other post. The business owner decides his position based on business. No one will open a vegetarian restaurant where people eat only meat and vice versa. The customer still dictates what is served. I go to many restaurants where I order off the menu, simply because I am a known customer.
Could you imagine going to a pharmacy anywhere in Australia to buy some condoms and being told by the pharmacist that he won't stock it because any form of contraception goes against his religious beliefs? The pharmacists who refuse to stock or sell birth control pills don't do it because they think its usage is murder. It is because they think any form of birth control is bad because it prevents life from taking hold. It is immoral for them to impose their beliefs upon others. What if it's a small town with only one pharmacy? What are the people who do not share the pharmacist's beliefs meant to go to for their medication? Just as a pharmacist can deny the sale of contraception in his pharmacy, then so can a doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness deny patients the right to a blood transfusion because it goes against his beliefs. Do you think that would be acceptable for you? My guess is no. If you are in a profession that will result in your having to do things that go against your personal beliefs and you are unable to separate the two for work reasons, then you should find another profession. It is not for you to impose your personal beliefs upon others so that they impact on the lives of other people, sometimes in a manner that could have severely negative effects. It's like Christian owned hospitals who refuse rape victims the morning after pill because it goes against their religious ethos. It is highly immoral to impose your beliefs upon others in such a fashion.
Not for me, but do I bomb the courthouse? Nope. I also don't bomb the courthouse everytime they give out a death penalty. Think about it.
Hm? What are you talking about? Besides, you have yet to answer my question. You’re not getting off the hook that easily, my dearest Sam. You said that there was virtually no difference between killing a baby within a mother’s body and a baby outside of a mother’s body, supporting this argument by saying the child outside of the body still needs a caregiver to survive. If you think people should have the right to undergo abortion, then should people also be given the right to kill their born baby(ies)? According to you, there isn’t a difference, right? Logically, they should either both be legalized, or they should both be outlawed. Supporting one and not the other is highly hypocritical, whether you want to recognize it as such or not. Put some effort into your replies, woman. Kadark the Deranged
I think there is no difference. But other people disagree. If most people in society come to a consensus that women should be allowed to throttle their children, I will learn to live with it. I'll still disagree with it, as I do with abortion and the death penalty.
