Idle musing

For all those pharmacists and nurses and doctors out there who think that they ought to be able to have a conscience clause regarding abortion? To the point of not even referring patients to willing medical practitioners?

What do you think about the idea that a pacifist should be able to join volunteer as a sniper (edited for clarity) in the military and expect to draw a pay check and advance in rank while exercising a conscience clause with respect to weapons that kill people?

More trivially, what do you think about the idea that a car salesyard should have no recourse to fire a salesperson who exercises a conscience clause with respect to lying about how the proprietary finance plan is by far the best option to pay for this here car?

I’m guessing that, at least if you are honest, you see those two examples would never fly with exemptions made for conscience clauses. What a grandiose sense of entitlement, to claim recompense for not doing what the nature of the job patently requires, and which nobody ever concealed about the nature of the job, either.

So why do you think that it is reasonable to demand that health professions make provision for your particular conscientious objections?

If you don’t want to be associated with abortions, then (a) don’t enter fields of employment where abortion is part of the range of practice, and (b) don’t whine about how that field of employment is oppressing you by requiring certain things that you are unwilling to do.

QED.

Similar Posts:

• Victorian upper house votes on decriminalising abortion today by tigtog
• “Pro-life” Archbishop Hart’s murderous misogyny by Lauredhel
• Angst in the papers by tigtog
• Guy Barnett pushing another punitive bill amendment on abortion by tigtog
• Melbourne Anglican Diocese supports the decriminalisation of abortion by Lauredhel

Tagged as: abortion, car salesyard, conscience clause, conscientious objection, entitlement, military, peeves, pharmacist