and just to put the "back alley abortion" argument into perspective http://tennesseerighttolife.org/huma..._and_myths.htm

This was an actual case. The woman was scheduled to go in for an abortion. The day or two days prior, she had a premature delivery and killed the baby and was charged with murder. The argument that "life begins when the umbilical cord is cut" just doesn't make any sense.

Mat, I have some news that may come as a shock to you. You better sit down.:rolleyes:
Kids have sex anyway. you can't stop it and never will. The average age at which an adolescent loses their virginity hasn't changed in nearly 90 years despite the changes in society that have happened in that time.
If they are going to do it, they should do it safely. I'm all for giving kids in high school condoms. better safe than sorry with one extra mouth to feed and a burden to bear.
So i'm afraid i won't buy your line about more kids having more sex if we give them condoms. The amount of kids engaging in sex act's and the age at which they start hasn't signifigantly changed since the great depression.
Besides, I don't have a moral issue with adolescents having sexual relations. Their exploring and always have in that subject.
I don't see sin in "pre-marital" sex but i'm not chirstian by your definition either so perhaps i'm a hopless sinner in the eyes of some here who view all those not of their religion to be someone to convert or lost causes doomed to hell.
If and when you have a duaghter, you should be so lucky as to find condoms in her purse, because that will mean she's educated and being safe. A really good parent would teach their duaghter about condoms and how to use one and help her to understand never to depend on a guy to have or use one.
No parent has ever stopped their child from exploring their sexuality, so you need to be proactive in making sure she makes good descions when she does explore.

...and yet more news that may come as a shock to you. I'm not christian and never attempted to define what it meant to be christian and as such never implied that you were a "hopeless sinner." Being pro-life doesn't make you religious.

and i respectfully am not buying your line "kids are going to do it anyway so lets make it safe." Why stop at condoms, let's hand out clean needles at school, too.

You may not have a moral issue with adolescents having sex, but I do - and i will make sure my kids understand that. The public school system is the last place that should be undermining that effort. That doesn't mean keeping them in the dark about what sex is. That means keeping them informed about it's implications. Though the pregnancy rates may not have changed much, the rate of teen STD's and condom usage are directly proportional. Both have been rising since the early 80's. It's a PDF file if interested: http://www.projectreality.org/std.pdf .

Actually Mat, the christian part was a counter to someone else i suspect will be posting in response to my post. I'm sorry if it seemed like i was cynicaly addressing you as that was not my intent.

I agree with you that std rates have gone through the roof, and nothing will stop those that experiment sexualy from contracting them besides condoms. they are a safe and cheap solution that has a proven effectivness.
I'm sorry to say that your children will have sex before marriage statisticly and that given that the average age has stayed at 15-16 for nearly a century, the chances are good that no matter what you teach your children they will experiment.
At the same time as std's have risen with condom distrabution, teen pregnancy has actually fallen in the last decade despite what the news may say for shock value. It's a conundrum with no answer.
I hope as a parent you will not be angry or upset if your son or daughter is engaged in intercourse before marriage, but rather simply concerned that they do it safely if they are doing it.

This is a strawman. Intravenous drug use is ILLEGAL. Sex is NOT, except in circumstances where age is wildly disparate. It is NOT illegal for two 16-year-old kids to engage in sex. Your argument is ludicrous.


Well as I open this pdf I'm going to take a stab and say project reality is a morality-based organization. Survey says...wow, I was right. Leaders in abstinence-centered education since 1985? I wonder if they have any reason to present false statistics. Oh, but they cite the CDC! They must not have skewed the results. Example: "Condoms are ineffective in preventing the spread of STDs" From a study at the CDC entitled "Determinants of gonorrhoea infection among STD clinic attenders in Trinidad--II: sexual behavioural factors" from 2002, published in the International Journal of STD & AIDS:
And with about 7 seconds of searching I refuted a claim made, apparently, by the CDC. What the hell? Further, I don't buy your argument that the rate of STDs and condom use are proportional. According to the PDF, they have both increased most at the same time. That doesn't indicate a link. It's what's called specious reasoning. By that argument, I could say the downturn in the economy was due to my presence in the work force, since I was working at the same as the economy went downhill.

Yeah and we all know kids only expirement in those behaviors that are "legal." Kids experiment - and there's nothing you can do to stop it, so lets make it safe, that was the argument, right?

The fact of the matter is condom's are effective in preventing some STD's and completely ineffective at others. I won't get in a googling contest with you. The statistics are just that, statistics. You are free to interpret them in any way you want. You are free to tell your kids "they have an agenda, and are making inferences about those statistics to suit it, so here are your condoms - go have fun"

My point is I am free to do the opposite. It's a fact that the safest behavior is abstinence. This is how i would like to raise my chldren, and a public school system should not make this impossible. I am responsible for my children and I will raise them.

Okay, so that it happend in one case means everybody is doing it?

Abortions are still not LEGAL after a certain amount of time. That some crazy woman killed her baby has nothing to do with that topic.

It has to do with the point he was trying to make. One day made the difference between being charged with murder (and you calling her crazy), or having her make a responsible "choice", and letting a doctor do essentially the same thing legally.

I'm sorry, but I need some more information before I believe this.

i'll see if i can find it for you....would it change any opinion you had if it were true?

It would depend on the facts of the case.

Without seeing it, I can't form an opinion one way or another.

1st off: I was taught that drugs were illegal. I never experimented with them, even cigarettes. They were bad, they could damage my health and there was no way i could make them any safer...so, i didn't do them. Why..bc i was educated on the matter.

with sex..i was taught that there were risks, STD's, Pregnancy, etc. but i was also taught that it was natural and that there were ways to lessen the risks, std tests, condoms, birth control pills, foam, cream, whatever. As a result of my learning about these risks and ways to overcome, i have avoided any std's and any pregnancies. I admit that i would probably have had sex at the same time with or without this education, hard to tell, but at least i knew what i was getting into in both instances.

So to say condoms=fornication is ludicrous, and i'm not talking about a rapper with HUGE hair...Condoms=fornication with less risks...sure...Heck, i carried a condom for 4 months on my body at all times...did i use it? Hell no...why? bc...well, bc i was a loser at the time and had no partner :) (gotta laugh at yourself) But seriously, a lot of people forget that you really do need 2 people for sex. Anyway, I don't know how you can even rationalize that condoms are going to make people have sex. "Oh dear, there is a condom in my pocket, let me go use it"..sorry, doesnt' happen. However, "Oh dear, That guy/girl is HOT...and they are looking at me, lemme go talk to them" has a better chance of ending in coupling and i'd prefer one of those people to be carrying a condom so i don't have to listen to someone bitch that either there is another teenage pregnancy or another teenage abortion.

next up: You really can't have an abortion in the 3rd trimester. At least not from what i've seen/read. At that point, the risk is too high for complications. Your doctor can abort that late only if there is a serious problem that will likely kill the mother, but that choice is up to the mother and doctor or husband/next of kin, depends on who is there. A lady just cant walk into an abortion clinic/doctor's office at 7 months and say, "Hi, i want an abortion" Just not going to happen.

As for the backalley abortion and the stats on clinic abortions as well: Umm..that article was basically saying that legalization doesn't affect the amount of deaths either way:

"As we can see, "Never again" never was. There were not several thousand women losing their lives due to illegal abortions performed by quack doctors. Effective medical treatments helped reduce abortion related deaths and the legalization of abortion never played a significant role (and never will) in affecting the numbers of women who died from legal or illegal abortion-related deaths. That women continue to die from so-called "safe, legal" abortions (perhaps in greater numbers than we know) is a clear indication that abortion is unsafe and hurts women - legal or otherwise."

Ok, it's not safe, neither is lyposuction, breast implantation, or going to a hospital to treat a cold (you'll catch something else in the waiting room) but if its' going to be risky either way and we can keep women in "proper" health clinics, etc, then why would we force them AND THEIR DOCTORS to perform something illegally. I think you just made an outstanding case for why they should be legal. I'd prefer not having my cousin go see a doctor and try to convince him to perform an illegal abortion, or to go see a doctor who performs them on the side. It's just more sanitary, easier to keep track of, and less risky either way. you say 90% of illegal abortions were performed by doctors...make it 99% (1% at least, will still not go) I'd prefer no women went, but i think it is absolutely INSANE to say that they would have to obtain one through a doctor that is working outside the law.

""90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; ... They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is... Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."
And this proves what? that illegal or not, women will try to obtain abortions. PERIOD. I'd much rather have them do it in the safest conditions possible, a full staff, etc, not just 1 doctor doing everything while no one else is there, etc. I don't see how saying, "Oh, if abortions are illegal, women will still be able to obtain one safely" is a good argument. Maybe it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside that you're preventing murder, proclaiming "there are no more abortion clinics!"...while you know they are still going on. (i don't mean 'you' personally, i mean you as a general statement of several random people)

no luck lebell, i knew it would be hard to find which is why i didn't bother in the first place. But i don't think that changes the point behind it. Abortions are legal at points where premature births can and do happen. There is physiologically zero difference between the being being legally aborted at this point or illegally murdered.

Paq, I can't do this anymore - i really had all intentions of avoiding this argument again. There is ALOT i would like to say, but alas i've learned it would be in vein. Tired of being misquoted, taken out of context, etc, etc. The easiest example, then i'm bowing out: I never said "having a condom in ones pocket will make them have sex." I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if you take a 100 teenagers and throw condoms at them telling them it will make sex safer, then tell them if they get pregnant, they can get an abortion the incidence of sexual intercourse would be greater takening another 100 teenagers and articulating the implications of having sex, how it requires tremendous responsibility, there are condoms that can reduce certain risks - but those risks remain life threatening and/or life changing.

You totally missed the point of the article which was stated in the first sentence. It is a popular argunment on the part of pro-choicers to reference the thousands of deaths that will occur if back alley abortoins are made ilegal. This was contradicting that argument.

Well, there are a couple of things I want to say then.

First, in regards to the story, the reason I wanted to read it for myself is that it seems alittle suspicious and not beyond what some in the far right of the pro-life movement would invent or "embellish" and then tell and retell as a "SEE??? I TOLD YOU!!!"

Therefore, I don't think your story can really be brought into this conversation as proof of anything, since we can't even be sure it happened, and if it did, what the circumstances were.

Now to your other point,

After much thought (previous to this thread, btw), I've come to the conclusion that in the third trimester, it is reasonable to place some restrictions on abortions, such as only for the health of the mother. I've come to this conclusion because a) the woman has had 2 trimesters to REALLY consider her options and b) the fetus is getting closer and closer to the point that I would consider it a "person", so much so that I don't feel comfortable with a decision to abort it at this time due only to convenience.

If the mother doesn't want the baby at this point, I feel that adoption should be the option.

I think if anything thats something people on both sides can definatly agree on .

I'm sorry, but unless you come up with some evidence, links, whatever, I can't believe you.

In Sweden you can get a medical abortion up until 9 weeks, between 9-12 weeks you need surgery.. anyhow, after 18 weeks you need to apply for a special permit from a special department. If they grant it, you can have an abortion.

Max 18 weeks. No permits are granted after 22 weeks.

I think there's a big difference between 18 weeks and 39 :P

Well, it seems like you're stepping back, which I respect, but in case you come back around, I only want to take issue with this statement: Condoms are more effective than unprotected sex. Period. No googling required. If you truly believe that condoms are "ineffective at stopping some STDs", then I am afraid you have been misinformed.

Well, here's my oddball take on it all.

To me, the question of "when life begins" is entirely irrelevant. That does not mean it IS, that is just how I find it. I don't know when life "began", but I do know that it did. And to me, the sperm I produce is alive. The "eggs" my wife carries, are alive. That is how I see it. So, summa summarum, to me the point that something is a "live human being" as soon as it is conceived, is irrelevant.

The way I - and only I, I'm sure - see it, is that the embryo/fetus is a human in the making inside the mother, and as such has little rights beyond what is granted for it by the mother, the "host" if you will. If the mother does not want to complete the pregnancy, I do not see that anyone has the right to demand that she do so.

As for a fetus being human, I agree. It IS a human...a human fetus. And no, nothing magical happens to it when it is born. However...while the fetus is still inside the host, it cannot live without it. Its life is dependent on the host, and that is the timeframe which works for me in determining how long the host should have jurisdiction over it.

You can claim that a four-year-old child also needs its parents, does this mean that the parents have the right to kill it? No. But to say that would be ignoring what I already said; the fetus cannot survive outside of the host body, at least not in the early stages. If the host does not want to carry it, then that's all there is to it. IF you can come up with a way to remove the fetus and give it to someone who can somehow keep it alive and help it grow, fine.

For the record, I do not approve of someone terminating a pregnancy because they find the pregnancy inconvenient. However, that is not my call to make, and not my authority nor anyone else's, in my opinion, to tell them not to.

There's no right slash wrong beyond our own personal morals and ethics.

[edited to include something that's ON-topic, as well]

I hope the pharmacist lost his job. It's his job to fill the prescriptions, not to question the doctors who write them. Customers shouldn't have to suffer from the fact that he couldn't get into medical school.

I'm not saying he should have his license revoked or anything...or his name announced everywhere to keep other employers from hiring him. It's not like he sold sedatives to teenagers under the table or something. But losing that particular could offer a lesson in business conduct.

He did, and the three other guys with him that were refusing to fill these prescriptions.

I think the entire focus of the "Pro-life" campain is wrong. Right now the focus is on when a baby becomes a baby and other things that can be easilly debated. They should insted focus on the effects to the mother.

It is undeniable that having an abortion affects women in a terrible way. The emotional trauma that they go through is probobly pretty hard to get over and they are never the same again. The law should not be in place to save the unborn children but rather these women. Our government steps in on other issues that have negative effects on people( drugs, suicide , etc) and you dont hear people arguing that "Well its thier choice to do cociane, its thier body they can do what they want".

actually, you do have people saying, "it's their body, they can do what they want to it" about cocaine use and drug use in general. Just that those are normally libertarians :)

and i totally agree that they should focus on the effects to the mother. but then, that would level the playing field so pro-life and pro-choice could argue along the same lines.

I wasn't going to mention this before, but your post sort of made me decide it has a place here.

Years ago I met a nice young lady, sister of a friend of mine, about 20ish. We hit it off pretty well, then really well. I went to visit her at her college and laying in bed she, out of the blue, breaks down crying. He tells me this story about how she had an abortion when she was 16 after she got pregnant the first time she had sex, and how she wondered if she ever would be allowed to have children (from a will I be punished stand point) or if she even should be allowed to have children after what she did.

Now I liked this girl a lot at the time (she later broke my heart) but I didn't know her that well beyond a little casual sex, yet here she was crying about an abortion she had 6 years earlier.

Sure she was the classic 'you ruined your life' scenario, a carbon copy of the abortion in fast times at rigmont high (at least it wasn't a teachers kid), and she couldn't forgive her self after words. I doubt the rabid pro-choice people would ever even dream of having pre-abortion counseling, but this girl really could have used it.

Further I have a bit more experience then most people with the whole 'teen pregnancy' issue. I never knocked anyone up, I'm to smart for that, but my family used to take in girls from an organization known as "Catholic Charities". What we did was take teenage girls who were pregnant and let them live with us until they had the baby. That way they could avoid the problems at school and at home that being pregnant in your teens can cause. The girls then gave up the children to adoption after their 6 months or so of living with us. We did this for several girls, I can’t remember how many at this point. Sure it cost them six months of their lives, and sure they have the guilt of putting the child up for adoption, but who do think sleeps better at night?

hmm..i actually think most pro-choice people would like to see some pre-abortion counselling. Seriously, the more education the better, as long as it wasn't browbeating..

and you had casual sex..wow :) j/k.

Like hell, the liberals (tm) don't even want minors to be forced to have parental notification for an abortion.

A judge (female, I forget the name) who was given very very high marks by all groups was/is blocked to a federal judgeship, by the democrats for enforcing the LAW of parental notification in her state.

The easier it is to have an abortion the better in their book.

i didn't say i wanted them to inform their parents, i said that pre-abortion counselling would be a good thing. You gotta know what you're getting into.

as for the parents knowing..that's up to the kid and the parents...but i'm pretty sure they'd find out when she gains weight, then drops it really quickly..

As I doctor I can't do a lot of very minor things to a patient as a minor without a parental consent, YET that same minor can get an abortion without parental notification?

Something is very very wrong if anyone thinks thats a good thing.

i'd still say it's up between the minor and whomever. I'm not exactly sure where the doctor/patient confidentiality rule stops, but i'm not entirely certain on where it would fall with an abortion. i'm also pretty sure that most caring parents would know and the ones that dont' know probably aren't paying enough attention.

but no, i don't thin it's a good thing, i just think it's a necessary thing. Much like i think BCP's should be easily accessible from a doctor. It's much easier than the abortion route..

Ustwo, you don't speak for the liberals. To try to do so is arrogant presumption. Your single bit of anecdotal evidence regarding the horrors of abortion isn't overly compelling. Anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing is wrong. Anyone who thinks it isn't sometimes a necessary thing, well, I disagree with you.

I don't have to speak for you, I see what you DO.

I think the point it, it is a woman's choice, not your's, or mine.

I would fully support as much information, counselling, support as possibel be available to people considering abortion, and that they have every option - rather than being forced into doing it in any way.

Maybe the girl you talk about needed some counselling, maybe if other options available to her she would have made another choice - would she sleep better at night? It's pretty hard to judge.

Since you cared about this girl at one point, I am sure also you would be able to tell that elements of the pro-life lobby calling her a murderer is also not so much help.

But everyone facing this terrible decision, should have every option to them, but ultimately they have to make the decision, and live with it - not the state, or the church, or any group of moralists.

My mother had an abortion too, so I know how much it can hurt someone, what we need to aim at surely is helping women in these situations in any way that they need - not trying to make their decision for them.

And, surely if any doctor broke the patient confidentiality by talking to anyone else, even a parent of a minor, they would be instantly struck off.

Doesn't the Hippocratic oath mean anything?

What a Doctor is told by a patient is just as confidential as what a priest is told in confession, the state has no right to attempt to make either break this confidentially and as I said - any doctor who either refused treatment to a minor without parental permission or who broke the confidentially with the minor should be struck off, and criminal prosecution and imprisonment should be investigated as an option to further punish this action.

But it dosent make sence. Why should you need a parents concent to get a tatto or a piercing but not to get an abortion?

If you are old enough to fall pregnant, you are old enough to make a decision about that pregnancy.

I have found that generalizations are a bad thing.

One one thing, they can lead us to erroneous conclusions when we project them onto one individual.

Unfortunately, none of us here in Politics (or anywhere for that matter) are innocent of making them.

Just an FYI if you have never read it (I've bolded the part that is of relevance):

Definitely bothersome to pro-choice people, but you can't ignore it if you are talking about the Hippocratic Oath.

First, some follow up, and apologies if anyone has already posted it: the guy in question has been dismissed, but no news of any criminal charges being brought against him. There is still hope that the woman may bring a civil suit against him of course.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2399529

Pharmacists who won't dispense morning-after pill fired
Associated Press

DENTON - Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped, one of the pharmacists said Wednesday.

Gene Herr, 33, of Denton said he and two co-workers were fired on Jan. 29, six days after refusing to fill the prescription.

Eckerd has declined to comment on their employment status. Joan Gallagher, the vice president of communications for Largo, Fla.-based Eckerd only would say the company had taken the appropriate disciplinary action.

Herr said he declined to fill the prescription for the so-called "morning-after pill" because he believes it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions, it was the first time he had been handed one for a rape victim, he said.

"I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor at Denton Bible Church and asked him what he thought about it."

The two other pharmacists who were present at the time also declined to fill the prescription. Herr would not name them.

The rape victim had the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy.

Gallagher said Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons.

Herr said he did not know about that policy until his supervisors questioned him about it shortly before he was fired.

"In my mind if I agree to work for someone knowing that that's their policy, then I should submit to that policy. But I didn't even know about it," he said.

He declined to discuss his future plans.

Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills and have been sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven since 1998.

Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse, the pills are at least 75 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. They work by preventing ovulation or fertilization of an egg. If fertilization already has occurred, they prevent the egg from implanting into the uterus -- the medical definition of pregnancy.

Herr said he's disappointed but not angry or bitter.

"I'm a Christian. I feel like God gave me an opportunity to, I guess, make a stand for what is right," Herr said. "He's gonna take care of me either way."


Second

Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Interesting how threads develop.

I would say that if the Hippocratic oath has been rewritten, it is no longer the Hippocratic oath, since Hippocrates was a real person.


I would call that the "Lasagna" Oath :D


Anyway, I won't hijack anymore.

Life is generalizations Lebell. If you don't generalize you become much like the man who rules the universe. (Wonder who will get that one)

Life is also dichotomy.

Sometimes generalizations are good, sometimes they are bad.

(sounds like the philosophy board in here :) )

Oh,

It's the "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"

:D

Boo! A mod not using the edit button!

:p

I think you are all complicating matters. I am pro-life and I agree with the pharmacists point of view. A child should not die for the sins of the father, this is my view on abortions and contraceptives for rape. That stated, a pharmacist's job is to supply customers with medication given that they have a valid prescription, anything other than that is a violation of their duty and if he cannot do his job correctly, he should re-evaluate his career choice. Diciplinary action is appropriate.

I got through to half-way down page three... had to walk away while swearing and then came back to type this.

OK... If it is this pharmacists moral right to refuse to give the pill, shouldn't he have taken that up with the pharmacy? I mean... it's not like it would have been a secret to him.

At some point I imagine he had to have taken inventory or checked stock---AT SOME POINT while working noticed that there was this pill that he could not willingly give out as it is against his moral code. At that time, he should have made his objections known to the pharmacy. The company could have dealt with him then.

Now, if he never once noticed that this pill was there: he ought to get reprimanded for being either lazy, incompetent, or careless. From what I hear, attention to detail is one of those things you learn when you want to be a pharmacist, lest you drop the wrong pills into someone's bottle. No sources to back this up, only going off of what a friend that studies pharmacy tells me.

Mmmm two observations.

#1 - I was feisty.
#2 - I miss Labell.

It's funny, I thought the same thing, especially about missing Lebell.

As a circuit board designer who works for a service bureau that does work for many major tech firms, we do process a certain number of projects that are defense related. I have sympathies for those who do not want to be part of certain programs, and would understand if they had conscientious objections to working on certain defense contracts. However, they would need to make that clear at the time of employment, or at least at the earliest they realized they felt that way. If I am low on resources and have a hot project and have to go to a designer to get it done only to have them surprise me with the news that they could not work on it for moral reasons, I would be quite upset.

We all have moral questions we have to personally choose where we come down on. As an employee, we have the responsibility to tell our employer of any conflicts before they come to a head. As an employer, we need to be compassionate and considerate of employees' morals, and should work within reason to avoid asking them to infringe upon them. This can usually be done if everyone is up front about the issues. If employees are not honest, and/or employers are arbitrary, then it will not work.