osewalrus posted
an excellent essay on conflicts between religion and one's profession. He and I agree: you are completely free to practice your religion,
but if doing so causes complications in your life,
you -- not the rest of society -- need to deal with that.
Re: A particular about changing situations...
Most pharmacists realize it is not an abortificient in any way, but to them, contraception is the moral equivalent of abortion.
The goal is to start with a confusing subject, get the public on their side, and then start moving the goalposts.
It's the same thing with embryonic stem cell research. Why ban that and not IVF, where (unless you are rich and willing to pay to take the precautions) a lot of embryos will probably be destroyed after you're done? Simple. IVF is currently accepted. Ban stem cells first; go after IVF down the road, after you've changed society sufficiently.
South Dakota, BTW, is a terrible disruption of this gradual process. If the pro-Choice side wins, it will be because of the legilators of Sout Dakota.
Now the person whose morals change over the years...what happens to a trauma surgeon who becomes a Jehovah's Witness? Does he (or she) have the right to refuse to give trauma victims blood?
Re: A particular about changing situations...
replace "Most pharmacists" with "Most objecting pharmacists."