Other professions do not have it so easy (like our wives). They must weigh their decisions against far more abstract ideas such as ‘do no harm.’ (Harm can be relative, I think) While it might not be fair to make them state up front any conscious objection they may have to fulfilling what are considered regular duties (how can we expect anyone to foresee any ethical dilemma that might arise?), we should ask them to make it clear that in principle they might find some roles objectionable.

I once interviewed with a company whose major clients included companies who make cigarettes and others who produce a large amount of pollutants. They indicated their attitude was to help their clients comply with the absolute minimum standards and no more. If I had any ‘green’ sensibilities, it was made clear I’d be unhappy. I politely declined to pursue the position any further. I suppose some other engineer came along and is doing the job, which makes a zero-sum, but my conscience wouldn’t allow me to do it. As a professional, I have a duty to my employer. If I personally disagree with their clients pollution or practices, then I must pursue change in that area outside of my capacity as an engineer. I cannot use that capacity to subvert what is currently legal. Of course, this is more anecdotal argument, but hopefully helps to clarify how I feel about the issue of professionals fulfilling their roles in spite of personal objections.

As far as that fence goes, we all walk it for the most part. Many of us lean one way or the other depending on which way the wind blows, myself included. However, I think the most important thing is to think out a consistent set of principles and follow them. We base these on religious views or on other principles. Not easy, but does help as a guide.

Do you know of parties on the other side of the fence? As I mentioned, I had a hard time finding further descriptions of these women’s stories and the PP page had some summaries of most I’d read about previously. I didn’t mean to endorse them or their detractors, either. I had (at one point) found a web site for pro-life pharmacists and other health-care workers, but have since lost it. So, they’re out there, and do have some points to make in their argument. (Here’s one, and it’s not pretty. Not the one I found 10 months ago.)

Sorry to ramble. Hey, like you say, it’s my blog, and rambling is encouraged. Further, I’d say we’re in much more agreement than not.

My take on this is that life is full of choices and all too often these choices that we must make interfere with other choices. This is life. I personally struggle with what exactly is the moral thing to do when it comes to contraception (pre or post conception) and lots of other issues (when does life begin?, etc). I fully admit that I do not have the answer and I sit the fence, mostly.

As to your concern about offending people; it’s your blog man. Regardless of people’s opinions we should all be able to friendly disagree.

One more thing: One of the problems with letting the internet do our bidding is that it doesn’t always come back with answers that address the opinions of those on both sides an issue. I am pretty sure that Planned Parenthood stands squarely on one side of the fence on this issue. Do you know of parties on the other side of the fence (even if the method of their argument is flawed)?

Sorry to ramble.