(July 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(July 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm)Irrational Wrote: The difference is that physicians aren't being put at risk of dying in the scenario being debated.
I don't disagree. The illustration was an imperfect one, to be sure - that's why I asked the reader to imagine scenarios where that might *be* the case, and why that mad compelling physicians to act untenable.
I'll note that we have been discussing two different scenarios a) being compelling doctors to perform abortions, a b) compelling doctors to save lives.
In the case of a) what is being asked of them is to do is something that they believe to be tantamount to murder, that will put their immortal soul at risk of damnation. Who am I, who are WE, to compel someone to perform such an act? In the case of b) what is being asked is that they, amongst other things, put themselves at risk of personal liability.
(July 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm)Irrational Wrote: There are certain rights that are far more important than religious rights that, if necessary, should override these religious rights.
Are there? Such as?
We have very different notions of what "rights" are, if one's rights are allowed to override those of another.
Right to medical service, free education, safety, be in control of one's body ...
I say most rights that are reasonably important should override religious rights when necessary. I don't have sympathy/empathy whatsoever for people having to forgo their religious right in certain scenarios if necessary.