Comments on: Calif.: Docs Can't Deny Care To Lesbians

Top Court Rules Doctors Can't Invoke Moral Objections To Refuse Treatment To Gays, Lesbians

[dan9111]

The sexual orientation is not the key problem. The fact that fatherlessness is known to cause problems, and the abuse the child experiences being denied their genetic parents, that is to be avoided if at all possible. The doctors, nor anyone else, should be forced under threat of violence to assist. If you disagree, under that theory, you should be trying to kill me and not just posting messages as nonviolent persuasion.

The reason the lesbians get mad about this is not because they want a child. They simply don''t want to bargain with a man to get the ***. If they shun us, they are just little girls who want a living doll to play with.

[wiccantexan]

If they started the process, and went that far, they should be morally bound to complete it, regardless of when they found out sexual orientation. When exactly did they plan to verify there was a father who would be involved in the pregnancy and upbringing of said child? Was counseling not done before the procedures began? Sorry, the doctors dropped the ball on this, and they should be held legally responsible for the mental, physical and emotional harm they''ve done.

[wiccantexan]

"The oath is first, do no harm."

So, going through this complicated set of procedures, without once talking to a presumed father, and then subjecting the patient to the mental anguish of a "denial of service" based on religious objections - this is your idea of not doing harm under the oath? When exactly was the doctor going to verify that there was a father involved in the process and future upbringing of said child?

[dan9111]

Denial of service is often the appropriate care when the requested service is potentially harmful. The oath is first, do no harm.

A doctor who forces a child to be fatherless is clearly harboring bad intentions. It is totally indistinguishable from kidnapping a newborn from a mother, because the child is purposely left without their genetic parent. If this were a last resort, maybe it is OK. But obviously these lesbians are not interested in negotiating with or ever including a father in the picture.

To say these lesbians are being `denied care` is ridiculous, because they are kept healthy and able to pursue whatever they want. To force others to assist is slavery, and if you can force a doctor to do this on what basis can you object other inhumane treatment? We shouldn''t stop what they do of their own initiative, but they are using court-ordered violence to mandate doctors serve them with a gun to their heads. That is obviously not just sick and twisted to religious nutjobs, but clearly inhumane child abuse even to me as an atheist.

[wiccantexan]

"One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections"

Why couldn''t this have been done at the start, rather than put a person through the mental cruelty of the denial after all the emotional, physical and mental challenges she''d been through to get to that point?

[avigil2]

The courts made the right decision.

[wolfear1]

W
ell as a member of the christian race, I would say a doctor with lesser morals would have a lower bar od Posted by gop_forever at 01:25 PM : Aug 19, 2008
______________________________________________________
When did christians become a race? Last time I check the only race that is a religion is Jewish and even that is a bit of a stretch.

[midvale3]

W
ell as a member of the christian race, I would say a doctor with lesser morals would have a lower bar od decency than a doctor with good morals.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by gop_forever at 01:25 PM : Aug 19, 2008


Thanks. I was confused there for a minute. You better get in line, it''s almost medication time.

[midvale3]

There is a difference between saving a life and inseminating someone. The morals of a doctor would, of course, save a life, but the same morals can also refuse to help bring a child into a situation that can be damaging to the child. Disgusting. They got what they wanted from a doctor with lesser morals; leave the moral doctors out of it and move on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by rosesnpearls at 12:52 PM : Aug 19, 2008


Please define your understanding of what are morals or lesser morals?

[wolfear1]

There is a difference between saving a life and inseminating someone. The morals of a doctor would, of course, save a life, but the same morals can also refuse to help bring a child into a situation that can be damaging to the child. Disgusting. They got what they wanted from a doctor with lesser morals; leave the moral doctors out of it and move on.
Posted by rosesnpearls at 12:52 PM : Aug 19, 2008
_____________________________________________________
While there is a difference between saving a life and insemenating someone there is no difference between the oath taken by a podiatrist, an ER doc, or a fertility specialist. When you decided to be a fertility specialist I am sure the first thought wasn''t "I will help everyone... Accept gay couples."

[terrapin78]

If you as a Doctor want to invoke your "morals" and discriminate against one party or another for this or that reason, go get a job in a religious hospital.

Stay out of the secular hospital environment.

My father owned a family pharmacy. In the early 1960''s when birth control pills became available, his Catholic pharmacist was given a choice, fill any Rx presented or go find a new job.

[rosesnpearls]

There is a difference between saving a life and inseminating someone. The morals of a doctor would, of course, save a life, but the same morals can also refuse to help bring a child into a situation that can be damaging to the child. Disgusting. They got what they wanted from a doctor with lesser morals; leave the moral doctors out of it and move on.

[dagrandma]

Jon2012
"There is no need for compromise when everybody can get exactly what they want: leave it to the woman to decide."

Sorry, my tongue was in my cheek when I wrote that last post.

[wolfear1]

Look this is simple. When you take the Hipocratic Oath you give up the right to choose who you care for. I am a volunteer paramedic and an African American. I have worked on at least 2 people over the years that had wh1te p0wer tattoos all over them. While yes it is against everything I know is moral. I have an obligation to treat these people just as I would any one else.

[jon2012-2009]

There is not one iota of effort by liberals toward giving men equal family rights.
Posted by Dan9111 at 12:33 PM : Aug 19, 2008

Then you must view with favor another phenomenon in g@y parenting: more g@y men are setting up households with children they raise as their own.

[mensarino]

Bitter,party of one??

[jackmayoff2]

DOCTORS GET PAID TOO MUCH!!

[wiccantexan]

"We are talking about how impressionable children are here. And how they will think that it is just fine to have two adults of the same s.e.x. sleeping together." -- You''re going with primarily American culture here, not a biological issue. Culturally, in many other countries it is perfectly acceptable, there is no sexual connotation, and we are considered quite backwards to give it such. Same-s.e.x people showing affection, sleeping arrangements being morally wrong, etc is a social thing, NOT something across the board in human beings as automatically perverse.

[dan9111]

There is not one iota of effort by liberals toward giving men equal family rights. The maternal privilege this court gives these lesbians, the right to reproduce and never be responsible financially, to have their sexual damage repaired often at taxpayer expense (while damaged men are left in the cold), and then to terminate all child-raising responsiblity at her whim, that is vastly more `rights` than men ever have.

There is no reason our gay brothers and sisters should not have equal rights. Fathers can today be kicked out of household and milked for all they are worth. Anybody who denies this is provably a liar, since there are today abused children in the hands of vast numbers of women along with modern alimony cases which prove that it is actually divorced women `who cannot commit`.

If a lesbian wants equal rights with men, then she should carry the child to term, have it confiscated by her sadistic partner, and then charged upwards of 20% on her paycheck to raise a child she can almost never see. That is the reality we live with in the straight world. Neither the moralistic nutjobs nor the socialist democrats really try to stop it.

[jon2012-2009]

So, when YOU say ANYBODY, you dont mean ANYBODY...

I think I am starting to unerstand...
Posted by DaVicar2 at 12:21 PM : Aug 19, 2008

Didn''t I agree with your post? I didn''t even see the need to make 8-year-olds a special case. No pharmacist should be in a position to block access to birth control.