There is no such part. There are anti-abortion modern versions of it penned by certain doctors that indicate this, but the vast majority of versions do not from ancient times till now.
Funny, I quoted that from a translation of ancient greek.
But hey, define my position for me some more.
The fallacies that you make is that a field medic who makes a modern oath (which does not actually include "never do harm to anyone" fallacy 1) does not have a problem with war (fallacy 2), hence, violence is acceptable to pacifists (fallacy 3). This is a totally illogical construct.
No, my argument is that if a doctor who takes a vow to mitigate harm to others and do no harm himself can enter battle, than a cleric who takes a similiar vow can similiarly enter battle.
Your fallacy, is that a cleric who goes adventuring takes a vow of complete non-violence. However, there are forms of pacifism that are pragmatic, and recognize that some measure of violence is acceptable in the defense of self or others from worse violence. Some also believe that violence is a personal moral choice, or that it is pragmatically better than violence in that it does not cost lives or resources.
And some also believe that while violence is necessary, they themselves do not have the will to carry that violence out.
And still others are simply those that are not trained in arts of violence, but excel at arts of healing.
And every single one of these situations can be covered by the Pacifist Healer feat.
The definition of a pacifist is "opposed to violence".
The definition of a D&D adventurer is "violence".
See above. 'Pacifism' isn't a single absolute state of morality. In fact, part of pacifism is accepting that absolutes are dangerous to hold and can lead to violence through non-comprimise.
As a moral upstanding member of your community, do you hang out with rapists and murderers, and watch as they perform their activities?
Well, that would be because I am anti-rape and anti-murder. Pacifism, as noted above, does not mean anti-violence, but covers pragmatic opposition to violence as a means to an end.
I'm opposed to violence, but not opposed to violently opposing a rapist to prevent him from doing his work. It's not as simple as 'Fighting is always bad.'
Presumbably no. Neither would a pacifist ever hang out with adventurers. He might know some, but he wouldn't condone their actions, nor would he adventure with them.
It depends on what sort of pacifist there is. Your sort of pacifist wouldn't ever adventure. And thus would never be a PC. And thus would never have this fert. Other pacifists' mileage may vary.
It's amazing how people can rationalize the exact opposite of the definition of a word.
It's amazing how people can make a word mean something more precise than it actually is meant to entail.
