Posted on 04/08/2009 1:56:05 PM PDT by NYer
You miss my point. Conscience is in the mind of the ‘practicer’, not in the eye of the beholder.
Where ever conscience may reside, legislation that would force action against conscience is in the public square, supposedly under our power. The right of conscience, the right to free exercise of religion, is one of those “inalienable” rights.
Inalienable rights are held by the individual and are actually negative rights. Not to be killed, not to be enslaved, not to have one’s possibilities limited by arbitrary custom or law.
My right to conscience is the right not to be forced to act against my conscience, not the right to act as I see fit. I can’t give medicine that is not in the patient’s best interest, but I can refuse to act, to withdraw or withhold my labor, signature or voice.
The fact is that the controversial acts *are* controversial, and not associated with acts of healing or improving health.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.