You didn't watch the presidential debate last night

Whereas the correct answer would be "If I believe abortion is wrong, I don't have to perform one, because I'm not put in a position where that's a thing that could happen"

I don't get why someone with a moral objection to the work they would reasonably be expected to do is doing the work they object to. It'd be like a Butcher turning vegetarian (which is fine), deciding he no longer wants to work with dead animals (which is fine), then continuing to run his butcher's store but insisting nobody can buy meat (which is baffling).

 

These are my views as well on those issues

 

You might end up in a situation despite never having expected it.

 

My point was more 'If you have a moral objection to providing abortions that is strong enough to prevent you from doing so, you should not be working a job where you may be called upon to provide abortions.'

This goes for anything. Don't want to work with meat? Avoid jobs where you'd be expected to do so. Don't want to provide marriage licences to LGBT+ couples? Don't work a job that expects that of you. Don't want to interact with the public at your workplace? Take an office job without public interactions.

Your personal moral objections to something do not give you an excuse to not perform a duty you would reasonably be expected to carry out. If I went to an NHS practice and was refused a vaccination on the basis that my GP didn't believe in them, I would be furious.

 

same!

 

what is the issue americans have with ensuring womens health and family planning trough goverment funds? they're all going to have to use more tax money with all the crippled women and unwanted impoverised babies.

it seems like such a waste to me to spend more tax money to work damage control because you disagreed with using it to sustain a service to prevent the problem.

Its like you'd stop spending money on maintaining the roads but provide compensation to people who go into car repair shops with broken axles and wheels, except we are talking about a large percentage of the population and not vehicles.

 

I am one person. I do my best to recycle any paper/plastic/glass/scrap metal in my trashcan. I don't purchase meat products and I only use water when I really need it. I want to live off the grid and implement all the cool stuff this guy makes videos about. Not possible at the moment as I am studying airconditioning and refrigeration technology.

PRIMITIVE TECHNOLOGY

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA

 

Have you watched the movie this gif is from BurnPyro? HotFuzz is one of my all time favorites. Funny how they chant " For the greater good" before they murder someone. Mob mentality scary stuff.

 

I certainly know that while working at the photography store I've occasionally been asked to provide an abortion with no medical professionals available.

I literally have no idea what you mean by this. Doctors and Surgeons are expected to provide medical care in the best interests of their patient, this will sometimes include abortions. If a Doctor/Surgeon had a moral bias against providing an abortion strong enough to prevent them from doing their job, then they should recuse themselves from the situation and provide another Doctor/Surgeon who will do their job. Their employer should be made immediately aware of this medical professional's biases on recruitment, and ensure that it won't hinder services for patients.

The influence of your personal beliefs stop at your own skin. If they're stopping you from doing your job, you've made a poor choice of your job and should probably be replaced by somebody more qualified. To expand on what I said in a previous post, if I learned my GP was anti-vaccination I would be disappointed as I would have a medical professional who ignores all evidence on the efficiency of vaccinations, but that would be their choice. I'd probably still question their fitness for the job, but if it was kept strictly as a personal choice, then there would not be a problem. If that GP then refused to give vaccinations, even if it was one that was desperately needed, on the basis that they believed it caused Autism/contained lethal mercury content/used aborted fetuses (I've genuinely heard all of these), then I would be angry with them. At this point their belief stops being about themselves, and starts being about forcing their lifestyle onto others, frequently to the detriment of those they're doing it to, even if they're doing so with the best intentions.

If you're suggesting that an individual, knowing they will always refuse to perform, or even enable, an abortion, is placing themselves in a job where that will always be a possibility and that they would be the only one capable of doing so, then I would declare them unfit for the work. If you're seriously suggesting that there's a not unreasonable possibility that someone who is not a healthcare professional would be called upon to provide an abortion, then I think that speaks volumes about the state of woman's healthcare.

 

primitive technology is a great youtube channel.

the cornetto trilogy is also great.

and mob rule is scary hence Donald = bad.

 

Always so dramatic. Let's say a muslim baker was asked to write "Allah sucks" on a cake. Hep robably didn't think of that happening when he took the job.

 

I don't think cake writing and providing medical aid are quite the same thing to be honest.
obviously the question does not have a yes or no answer and requires further expansion.

should a worker in a goverment building refuse to give people documents like passports or ID cards on the basis that this worker disagrees with the lifestyle of these people? no
should a doctor refuse medical service based on the religion of the patient not being the same as his? no
should a person be able to refuse comitting an act that is violation of his beliefs? yes.

I think the problem here is comissar and I interprent this question as the first two and you (I think falsely) interprent it as the third.

 

Well said.

 

Why falsely? There are situations where I would say that your duties override your beliefs - like saving lives - and there are times where I would say that your beliefs override your duties. Everything is a sliding scale, making absolute decisions and declarations is silly.

 

He could refuse based on it being (particularly poor) hate speech. Same reason you could refuse to produce a cake declaring LGBT+ to be abominations, or Christians to be worthy solely of beheadings. Regardless, this is false equivalence to the issue you brought up. As Gerben said, equating medical aid to making a cake is absurd. One frequently has life or death implications, even if we forget that in our era of advancement, whilst the other merely might influence if the groom's father thinks your cake choice is lacking.

Employee's have, and should have, the right to refuse service to individuals, but they should only do so if they have just cause to do so. It might be something as simple as 'he's unbearably rude', or 'what you're requesting is not something we can reasonably provide', but it cannot be 'It's against my belief's to do so'. To open that door is to invite bigotry and hate masquerading as belief systems. If you think I'm being dramatic, you only have to look at the stigma many LGBT+ people need to deal with when organising weddings, or the stigma women have to face when going for an abortion. 'It's against my religion' entitles you to refuse it for yourself, it does not entitle you to refuse it for other people.

 

this is mostly what I said, and I think we are just not understanding eachother.

lets suppose I say the tow truck driver should not refuse to tow a car based on the brand of car or its bumper stickers.

Comissar says the same and adds that a person that has chosen to drive a tow truck as his job should tow cars regardless of how he feels about the morality of towing cars and is free to find other employment. but should tow cars as long as that is the job he applied for and is employed as. and it was dumb of the tow truck driver to become as such given the nature of his expected duties in that role.

you say a person should not be forced to drive a tow truck and tow a car if that is against his religion.

are any of us wrong? I do not think so. which one of these is the question we are trying to find an answer to exactly? hence I believe that while you are not wrong you are misinterprenting the question about wether a person should or should not where the answer to mine and comissar's question is "Yes, the person should perform" and the answer to yours is "no, the person should not"

so instead of discussing which answer is correct we should first discuss which question we are having disagreement over. we are literally trying to figure out wether "yes" or "no" is the answer without first having agreed on what the question/ statement is.

 

I mean, we agree. Medical service has deep implications onto topics as critical as the right to life and safety, while a cake is just a cake. My support for people to be able to refuse service does not extend to such critical matters.

I'm actually saying ... well, let's say a tow truck driver of a speculative religion X is not allowed to enter the temple grounds of his speculative religion without removing his shoes. He is now asked to tow a car from the temple grounds. He is not allowed to operate the tow truck without boots. He is now forced to violate his religious beliefs due to a set of circumstances that would have been highly unlikely or otherwise unreasonable to see as a reason to not get a job.

Personally, I think the right call is interreligious cooperation. Christians have always worked for Jews on Saturdays, and Jews have always been moneylenders for Christians.

If someone feels that fulfilling something that is technically his duty is in violation of his beliefs the ideal cause of action would, imo, be finding a colleague to do it for you. Not a perfect solution, for example when there is only one person in an administrative function or when all colleagues share the same problem, but really ... tolerance should go in every direction.

 

this religioun allows cars but not shoes inside temples?
and he and the other members are unwilling to compromise for the sake of removing a car from the temple?

fair play,as you say, leave the car or find a different solution but this is still firmly the 3rd category category and I disagree that this is the hypothetical situation that the initial question was about.

now a different person is brought in to do the towing, agreed to do the towing as described, but then refuses upon discovering that the temple in question is jewish. so he doesn't want to do the task solely because of a factor outside of the parameters of the task required.

 

I love politics