CatWithKittens I leave any fair and objective readers to judge whether or not that amounts to an accusation of wilful ignorance, dishonesty (by untruthfulness) and immorality, and if so, whether it was abusive.
Later she lectures me on fundamental human rights. Having been awarded a First in Jurisprudence from one of the older Universities, I can assure her that I am well aware both of the existence of law designed to protect rights and of some of its fundamental flaws. I hope that answers her next descent to abuse
Err, I haven't been in the slightest bit abusive. I simply pointed out that discriminating against women, since it is a fundamental right under the European Charter (not ECHR) and protected by Art. 18 TFEU in a very special way by the relevant institutions, is unethical.
I suspect the difficulty for many people on this thread is that they cannot answer the real question which needs to be answered, namely: why should we not protect rights of individual conscience, especially in matters of life and death? I note nobody has answered my earlier question as to whether those in favour of overriding individual consciences in the interest of others would require a conscientious objector to fight and kill because other people have a right to be defended?
As I said earlier, because of the principles of supremacy, proportionality and the rule of law. Article 49 TEU reminds us of the requirement of States to respect the values in Article 2 TEU, which include the rule of law, and Article 7 TEU, although it has never been used, creates a remedy for breach of those Article 2 values by a Member State. See also Raz, Hayek, Dworkin, Dicey, Rawls, and Solange I and II, for starters...
All I am saying is that it is entirely proper that A should be able to say that he or she will not help B to avail herself of a law which permits, but does not require, B to take a course of action which A finds conscientiously repugnant. Nobody has answered the point, which does not actually arise in this case that requiring doctors to place obedience to the law above their principles has led in the past to behaviour which nobody could support. In this instance, of course, both doctors and patients have been given rights by law - the patient to contraception and the doctor to follow his or her conscience. That is another reason, in this instance, why criticism of the doctor is unfounded on the basis that the patient's legal ights are being trampled on. And, yes, I do say, unreservedly and without repentance, that the real issue goes beyond the particular in this case and that it is societies which reject the right of individual conscience which are more likely to forget other rights by an almost imperceptible slide with each slithery step down well argued, in an apparently good cause, in society's interest and so it goes on.
Sorry, but that is drivel. Its clearly "written" (and I use that word lightly - get rid of the fake pseudo attempts at sounding academic) by someone who had perhaps, at most, read some introductory seminar introductions to a course of study they would have liked to embark upon. There is no way that anyone who doesn't understand the principle of the rule of law has even completed first year jurisprudence at the two UK universities which offer that very specific (and rather useless) undergraduate course as a subject on its own.
I absolutely cannot abide frauds on the internet. I find it absolutely immoral to be so obsessed about a topic to the point that you want to control others and inflict your viewpoint upon them, by saying or doing whatever untruth is necessary to do so.
each slithery step down well argued, in an apparently good cause
Do I have your permission to use that an example of how not to write well?