(July 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(July 2, 2014 at 3:04 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: No. It's not a valid comparison. Owning another person is defined as illegal. It doesn't matter if someone wants (for some reason) to be a slave, it is still illegal to own another human, and they cannot be owned.-That right simply cannot be waived, agreed
Quote: Abortion is not illegal. It is a legal, important, helpful (sometimes necessary) medical procedure.Agreed
Quote: If someone wants to become a doctor, they need to hold the standards of practice that comes with the profession. If their religion doesn't like it, tough, they took an oath to serve their patient's wellbeing first.-So that right can...and should, be waived. Agreed.......but......
Seeing as how we can't waive the first one (regardless of whether or not we should or would want to) - I'm faced with a problem regarding the broad application of what is or is not a right and how it may or might or could or should be waived. :gasps for air:
IOW, I can't hold my anti-slavery position as a sacred cow. I have to allow that perhaps a person can - and perhaps a person should be willing or able to sell themselves into slavery - I cannot force them to excercise that right, nor can I deny it to them.
Better?
I think that's more clear. I'm just saying that if someone is going to voluntarily enter an association of professionals (a damn important profession at that, which deserves both the highest respect and scrutiny), the standards of that association are what they must follow. Just like any other profession with any ethics code, they don't get to pick which bits they like and which bits they'd rather not follow, and still get the same accreditation as someone who does follow the standards.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson