Acting Against Conscience

[Rey Reynoso]

This is NOT about Obama. This is NOT about Bush. Make it about either and I'll pout in thread.

The President is planning to reverse an executive order (The Conscience Clause and here) that allowed medical professionals the right to refuse carrying out a procedure if it went against their moral stance. CNN has the story here.

The reasoning is that they "do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place."

In essence, there are a group of people who see contraception as immoral and this reversal will force these people to have to speak about contraception. In so doing that it has broadened the rule to allow that information to enter the discussion (and saying that it might reduce abortions).

Here are the questions:

A) Is it morally wrong to demand that people act against their conscience (even if that conscience is confused about its position)? How come?

B) Is it better to allow another Power to be in charge of the moral decisions while those under just obey (and thus alleviating the person in said position)? How come?

C) Is it more wrong to have a stubborn people who refuse to obeyto do certain things (even if those things are beneficial) but do so on the basis of their conscience? How come?

[Marv]

A. Yes. Who was it who said: To act against conscience is neither right nor safe? (Hint: initials are ML). But putting medical services under Fed $$$ is a great way to wriggle your way into the conscience of the people (Subtle invocation of the O-man: just cuz I want to see some in thered pouting, Rey :->)

B. Either NO or No comprendo. Clarify question please.
C. Clarify again plz: "do so" means (1) obey or (2) refuse?

Also the "reasoning" that you cite: "do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place."

That is a beaut of convolution.

[Rey Reynoso]

::in thread semi-pout beginning::lol

B) I just rephrased it in the OP but basically what I'm seeing is since this potentially removes the moral conundrum from those under it can't those under it say "Well, I'm just doing what I'm told" and thus abrogate moral responsibility to a higher power (in this case the government). Now is that a bad or better thing?

C) Now here this question looks at it from the POV of the higher power (in this case the government) and seeing the actions happening "below". Is it morally more-wrong to allow people to continue on doing what they see as right if the Reigning Power is in a position to change that stance.

[Otsukafan]

God help us that we are at the point where these questions have seriously entered the conversation. Rey you are right in that these are now relevant, but to reply to any gives them further consideration. I guess relevance has passed me by and left squarely outside of the conversation.

[Char]

I'd say that generally it would be wrong.

But one would have to ask what is the nature of the Power? And what is the cause of the disobedience? Those are not so easy to answer, for I can give several examples that would go either way.

[Rey Reynoso]

Well then give examples, Char! That's why I didn't want it to be O but rather about the nature of Power and moral conscience in respect to that power.

[Marv]

I'm afraid I still don't understand C.

But since "I are one" (medical professional) I would say it certainly does NOT simplify the morality for the uppers or the lowers to give orders and me just to say "jawohl."

I'm not sure that "I vass only following ordersss. I know nossing, nossing" got one very far at Nuremberg.

[Rey Reynoso]

Let me try to rephrase C: Is it more wrong to have a higher power that doesn't force one to make moral choices but allows those beneath to act according to their conscience even if that means that they make wrong choices--sometimes even drastically wrong choices?

[Rey Reynoso]

BTW: I'm cracking up when I read this aloud.

Marv said:

I'm afraid I still don't understand C.

But since "I are one" (medical professional) I would say it certainly does NOT simplify the morality for the uppers or the lowers to give orders and me just to say "jawohl."

I'm not sure that "I vass only following ordersss. I know nossing, nossing" got one very far at Nuremberg.

[Marv]

Let me try to put a couple of cookies down on a lower shelf. Just to make these random, I'll use two blood types: B and O.

Let's say, person B allows individuals to refrain from performing a service if performing that service would violate that individual's conscience.

Then let us say that person O insists that said individual must perform said service even if it violates said individual's conscience.

Then let us say, as I think you are saying, that said service is in fact (1) beneficial and (2) not really morally wrong (I.e. the said individual's conscience just flat has it wrong.)

If that is your premise, I would say the person O situation is "wronger" in that:

(1) To force an underling to violate his/her conscience is a moral violation, and also, I believe, a violation of the "free exercise" clause of Ammendment 1.

(2) This premise as I understand it specifies that the individual's conscience is somehow wrong. I don't think that person/power B or O has authority to declare that.

(3) Anyway, if said individual won't do it, it usually is not that hard to find someone else who will. So the situation in which the said could not be performed simply because that one said individual refused to do it would be very rare indeed. So person/power O has no compelling need to impose this rule on said individual.
>>Let me try to rephrase C: Is it more wrong to have a higher power that doesn't force one to make moral choices but allows those beneath to act according to their conscience even if that means that they make wrong choices--sometimes even drastically wrong choices?

[Marv]

And remember you promised to pout.

[Kathy]

A) Yes, it is morally wrong to demand that people act against their conscience.
B) Because we answer to God, not man, it is not better to allow another power to make our moral decisions for us.
C) How do you decide between "Do not Kill" and "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" Both are in God's word. I believe God gave us a heart of balance should we choose to use it. I also believe that as we see Hebrew history unfold....watching their constant disobedience to God's law (including moral law).....watching God judge them for their disobedience.....I believe this causes us to think carefully about our response to current political rule. We must, as commissioned, stand strong in the faith. We must submit to our governments but we must be active in molding that government. Too often, we sit on the sidelines, in a free country no less, and allow those with opposing moral opinions (which contradict God's law) to mold ideologies which conflict with our Christian understanding.......without even vocally opposing these ideas. Whatever happened to Jas 4:17 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. "

Then again, Jesus tells us, "Joh 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." Herein lies the problem....most often than not, Christians do not judge with right, balanced judgment. Many time, we fail to be lights in the darkness. Instead we bring huge sledgehammers and do not speak truth in love, gentleness and respect.

[Otsukafan]

Actually a very profound reply.

Marv said:

I'm afraid I still don't understand C.

But since "I are one" (medical professional) I would say it certainly does NOT simplify the morality for the uppers or the lowers to give orders and me just to say "jawohl."

I'm not sure that "I vass only following ordersss. I know nossing, nossing" got one very far at Nuremberg.