In Cantor and Baum's piece "The Limits of Conscientious Objection", they describe three arguments in favor of a pharmacist's right to object to giving their patients some drug(s) that they find morally scrupulous (e.g. - Plan B). These arguments are: (a) that the pharmacist can and should exercise independent judgment; (b) that professionals should not forsake their morals as a condition of employment; and (c) that conscientious objection is integral to democracy. Of these three arguments, which do you find most compelling, and why? Be sure to explain not only which argument you find most compelling, but why it is more compelling than the other two.