First, let me agree that my analogy is flawed.
Next, let me say I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Both of the people I am familiar with who claimed CO status did so in peace time, so the ultimate issue was not war. I also vaguely recall some stories about CO in war time becoming medics, and not directly taking lives. I have no idea it those are true, do please do not ask me to source them. My understanding is that it depends on the individual involved. Some would be willing to accept a support role, and some would object to even that.
I see no reason the same thing would not apply to medical professionals, which is why I chose the CO analogy in the first place. Some doctors might have no problem with assisting in an abortion as long as they were not doing it themselves, and others might object to working in a hospital that preformed them at all. It is up to each person as an individual what does, and does not, violate their conscious.
Like I said, I am not sure what are asking, but I hope I clarified my position for you.
Thank you.
However it did have certain interesting aspects which in our attempts to both be "right" seemed to have slid past each other.
In this issue social liberals and social conservatives are the opposite side of the same coin, each wanting to use government to override private will. In the case of the liberals, they want to mandate the actions of the individual. In the case of conservatives, they want to mandate the employer. The liberals cry "but think of the patient" we should be able to tell the employee what to do. The conservatives cry "think of the employee" and have no problem telling the business what they can do. (Don't think so, go back and read post #335 where I posted the law. It tells employers they cannot require job duties that offend a health care professionals conscience, it says that they must accommodate such employees, and it mandates the employer cannot discriminate against someone not doing their job if they claim it was because of conscience.)
The point being, in my opinion (which was expressed prior to the whole CO side trip) both are using the government to enforce what they want when in fact the performance of job duties is between the EMPLOYER and the EMPLOYEE. If the employer says "these are the medicines we stock, if a prescription comes in you mist fill it" - then that is the performance of the job. If the employer says "these are the medicines we stock, if a prescription comes and you don't want to fill it" - then that is the performance of the job, with the rules set by the employer.
Now how does this relate to the CO status in the Military? Because it's basically the same thing. If you join the military and then request to become a CO, no problem - THE EMPLOYER gets to set the rules for future action. The employee (i.e. soldier, sailor, marine, or airman) does not get to dictate the terms. The military will decide what happens and the process is neither hassle free or easy. It is a long process involving an investigation and multiple interviews by members both inside and outside the chain of command. Then the request is reviewed and the military gets to decide to accept or reject the application. DoD Directive 1300.6 (Conscientious Objector) clearly states "8.3. Persons who are assigned to non-combatant duties, and persons who are assigned to normal military duties by reason of disapproval of their application, will be expected to conform to the normal requirements of military service and to perform satisfactorily such duties to which he or she is assigned. Violations of Reference (g) by these members will be treated as in any other situation." [Reference (g) being the Uniform Code of Military Justice.] As such CO status is not a defense for the commission of crimes in the military. If you are designated a CO (Class 1-O) the military will discharge you, but it's the military's choice. If you are designated a CO (Class 1-A-O) they
may opt to keep you in a non-combatant role, but again it's their choice.
The ultimate point, IMHO, is that duties performed should be between the employer and the employee. Those big government individuals that say "hey it's OK to demand that businesses do this..." are just as bad as those individuals that say "hey it's OK to demand that an individual do this...".
But that's just MHO of course.
