Why should "abortion be the only matter of conscience favored by federal protection?"
Sometimes I do interviews by email. Others are taken over the phone, or in person, live or taped. This is an example of one done by email, which some people might find interesting. In Italics are the questions from the reporter, and in regular text are my answers.
Reporter: I cover faith/values for the AOL news site PoliticsDaily.com. I’m working about a piece about the conscience clause – the legal and moral implications. While researching the topic, looking for health care professionals in favor of the conscience clause,I came across your site. Here is the question I’m trying to explore:
Is there a principled reason why abortion should be the only matter of conscience favored by federal protection? Health care workers are hardly the only people who could be asked to perform duties that profoundly offend their conscience.
Pharmer: This question is based upon a false premise. The US military has long respected the conscientious objectors who refuse to kill humans, and there is federal protection of these people from abrogation of their conscience.
That the human organism is of same species throughout development is long acknowledged in the science of Biology and Developmental Biology. (No developmental biologist was consulted for the Roe V Wade decision. ) Induced abortion at any stage forward from completed fertilization (or other assembly of the full human genetic complement), is willful killing and no one should be obligated to participate.
Reporter: What about a teacher required (as in my home state of Texas) to teach abstinence-only sex education and who believes that it not only contributes to more unwanted pregnancies – but more abortions?
Pharmer: It is recognized in Biology that one must have the kind of sex which allows the sperm to reach the secondary oocyte, in order to become pregnant. Abstinence is the avoidance of that kind of sex.
There are many Religious beliefs held by people these days which fly in the face of direct scientific observation. While I find them fascinating, I will not address them exhaustively.
Reporter: Or, a teacher required to teach evolution but who believes that’s pushing his/her students to eternal damnation (a fate quite literally worse than death)?
Pharmer: I do not believe that education should be within the purview of the federal government, so this issue is outside the parameters of federal protection. Education is a local issue and I cite the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for that opinion.
Reporter: Or even a cashier at Burger King who believes that giving an obese person a giant order of fries is hastening their death?
Pharmer: If I chose a job at Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S., I would not ask for protection from participating in their main industry.
Reporter: Like abortion, they are all at least life-or-death issues for people whose conscience is offended. And I could list many other examples.
Pharmer: Health professionals know that french fries are not a critical life or death issue.
Fries have been a religious issue to Muslims since the oil mix pf a major producer was found in the past to contain pork products. I respect the objection of the Muslims, but do not believe in feeding lawyers excessively from the inconsideration of hidden pork. The producer's act to remove the pork showed good consideration.
Reporter: One might say these people should find another line of work. But that same argument would apply to health care workers and abortion.
How should we draw the line?
Pharmer: It is a human right to choose to avoid direct involvement in killing another human in health care practice.
Leftists choose to relegate this human right to a lower priority than
1) their own access to recreational sex,
2) making very young individuals more available for sex, and
3) protecting rapists from prolonged prison sentences or other deterrents.
Those three things are higher in the leftist hierarchy of human need than the human right to avoid killing other humans.
My respect for human life is highest priority, and this places me at extreme odds with today's leftists.
Reporter: I cover faith/values for the AOL news site PoliticsDaily.com. I’m working about a piece about the conscience clause – the legal and moral implications. While researching the topic, looking for health care professionals in favor of the conscience clause,I came across your site. Here is the question I’m trying to explore:
Is there a principled reason why abortion should be the only matter of conscience favored by federal protection? Health care workers are hardly the only people who could be asked to perform duties that profoundly offend their conscience.
Pharmer: This question is based upon a false premise. The US military has long respected the conscientious objectors who refuse to kill humans, and there is federal protection of these people from abrogation of their conscience.
That the human organism is of same species throughout development is long acknowledged in the science of Biology and Developmental Biology. (No developmental biologist was consulted for the Roe V Wade decision. ) Induced abortion at any stage forward from completed fertilization (or other assembly of the full human genetic complement), is willful killing and no one should be obligated to participate.
Reporter: What about a teacher required (as in my home state of Texas) to teach abstinence-only sex education and who believes that it not only contributes to more unwanted pregnancies – but more abortions?
Pharmer: It is recognized in Biology that one must have the kind of sex which allows the sperm to reach the secondary oocyte, in order to become pregnant. Abstinence is the avoidance of that kind of sex.
There are many Religious beliefs held by people these days which fly in the face of direct scientific observation. While I find them fascinating, I will not address them exhaustively.
Reporter: Or, a teacher required to teach evolution but who believes that’s pushing his/her students to eternal damnation (a fate quite literally worse than death)?
Pharmer: I do not believe that education should be within the purview of the federal government, so this issue is outside the parameters of federal protection. Education is a local issue and I cite the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for that opinion.
Reporter: Or even a cashier at Burger King who believes that giving an obese person a giant order of fries is hastening their death?
Pharmer: If I chose a job at Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S., I would not ask for protection from participating in their main industry.
Reporter: Like abortion, they are all at least life-or-death issues for people whose conscience is offended. And I could list many other examples.
Pharmer: Health professionals know that french fries are not a critical life or death issue.
Fries have been a religious issue to Muslims since the oil mix pf a major producer was found in the past to contain pork products. I respect the objection of the Muslims, but do not believe in feeding lawyers excessively from the inconsideration of hidden pork. The producer's act to remove the pork showed good consideration.
Reporter: One might say these people should find another line of work. But that same argument would apply to health care workers and abortion.
How should we draw the line?
Pharmer: It is a human right to choose to avoid direct involvement in killing another human in health care practice.
Leftists choose to relegate this human right to a lower priority than
1) their own access to recreational sex,
2) making very young individuals more available for sex, and
3) protecting rapists from prolonged prison sentences or other deterrents.
Those three things are higher in the leftist hierarchy of human need than the human right to avoid killing other humans.
My respect for human life is highest priority, and this places me at extreme odds with today's leftists.
posted by pharmer1 | 7:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home