Danny ChaiApparently no one has noticed, but yeah, I’m password protecting my pictures and videos area now. There are just too many weirdos out there. Don’t be shy in asking me or Jieun for a password though, I’m happy to share with people I know. That’s why it’s there.
Maybe I’m just a bad Christian, but I agree with the NYTimes editorial and disagree with you, John. Your position is just not defensible; you basically refute it yourself, when you say that truly wacko doctors should not be able to withhold legitimate treatment options. So a line must clearly be drawn somewhere, you can’t just let any cuckoo doctor do whatever they think is morally right. And what you’re basically saying is that crazy doctors shouldn’t be allowed to do and not do whatever they want, but Christian doctors should.
And you just can’t defend that line, because it’s not the line of the law. Either you have to say any doctor should be able to do whatever they feel is morally right, or all doctors should let their patients know their legal treatment options. And the first is just crazy, it’s essentially allowing every doctor to be a law unto themselves. People doing whatever is right in their own eyes is always bad. And yes, we believe the Christian standard is the best one, but this country’s laws aren’t Christian, and we just can’t say Christian doctors are justified in being guided by their morals, but wacko Christian Science doctors who withhold casts for broken limbs aren’t.
I think our fundamental disagreement is where you say “The thing is, i would think that even pro-choice people would agree in principle that doctors should have a right not to participate in medical practices they deem immoral nor should they have to facilitate a patient towards such a practice (through the practice of referrals).” I think I disagree. I’m more inclined to agree with the Times when they say “Physicians have a right to shun practices they judge immoral, but they have no right to withhold important information from their patients.” It’s one thing to act upon your morals; it’s another to impose your morals on another.
It doesn’t even have to be a crazy case. Like, some Christians are against all birth control pills, not just the morning-after pill. I disagree with them, but respect that point of view. But if a pharmacist with this mindset denied his customers the pill or any information about how to obtain it, I have a problem with that. Deny birth control pills, and you’ll have more unwanted pregnancies. More unwanted pregnancies lead to more abortions. I personally think abortion is far more grievous than birth control pills. So yeah, I respect their opinions as fellow Christians, and I don’t think they should necessarily be forced to offer the pill, but I have a problem if they withhold information from others on how to obtain it – I think it has a bad result. And I don’t think it’s right for them to impose their moral choice on their customers, when their customers might not have access to other information or options.
Whatever, it’s easy for me to say, I don’t have to deal with these kinds of choices of moral gray so what do I know.