[quote="JReducation]These posts don’t allow much room for one to write a complete thesis on a point, if you know what I meanJR:)
I’ll grant that.
I’m a little baffled by this statement. I don’t know of any evidence that the Church doesn’t want to engage in particular hypothetical arguments. One of the things that I consider great about the Church is the intellectual richness that has in the past, and continues to engage in all manner of hypothetical arguments.
I also don’t understand why you claim we cannot engage in such arguments at this time. It seems to me crucial to establishing a coherent line of reasoning, and a consistent course of action on the issue of government restrictions of licensed professionals’ rights of conscience.
It’s not a very good argument for me to say this is how things should be, because that’s how I like it - I should be able to provide logic to back the argument. Just as importantly, I should be able to either accept the conclusion when the argument is carried to its extreme, or I should be prepared to amend that argument with a limitation, itself backed by logic.
It seems to me that if we accept that the government has no right to interfere with ethical choices by its citizens, except when those choices violate others’ human rights, we either must accept that citizens also have the right to discriminate against Catholics when compelled by their faith, or we must inflate the meaning of human rights to prevent any type of discrimination on the basis of religion. In which case, we can’t very well allow discrimination against those whose conscience dictates they need particular medications.
I think it’s far better to accept that the state can compel those it licenses to perform certain acts, even if they violate the conscience of the professional. The more logical battleground is what acts are reasonable for the state to compel, not whether the state can do so at all.