Newborn Baby Almost Refused Treatment Because She Has Two Moms

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: mOjOm

What you claim happened did not happen. There was no emergency service needed, it was an appointment, and the Dr. should have every right to opt out of treating someone when another Dr. is there to provide the care needed.

With that said I disagree with the actions of this Dr., and my personal belief is they were wrong, but I support their ability to choose.

I never claimed it was emergency service needed. Don't make false claims about me and don't put words in my mouth that I never said!!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How would you know? She made an oath herself and yet she refused to take care of that baby. How would you know she would provide care in that situation where she is the only one available? How about if another doctor available is 30 minutes away? She is untrustworthy.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: mOjOm

What you claim happened did not happen. There was no emergency service needed, it was an appointment, and the Dr. should have every right to opt out of treating someone when another Dr. is there to provide the care needed.

With that said I disagree with the actions of this Dr., and my personal belief is they were wrong, but I support their ability to choose.

I never claimed it was emergency service needed. Don't make false claims about me and don't put words in my mouth that I never said!!

Your headline is almost refused treatment. Your headline. Your mouth. Your words. She was not almost refused treatment. It's a complete fabrication.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How would you know? She made an oath herself and yet she refused to take care of that baby. How would you know she would provide care in that situation where she is the only one available? How about if another doctor available is 30 minutes away? She is untrustworthy.

Awesome job at being unable to comprehend English. My statement was there is no indication what you said is true. There is not. I do not have to know anything. The problem is YOU don't know and are making baseless accusations/assumptions. The question is how do you know she would NOT provide care? If you can't answer that then you should not comment to the effect she would not.

Look folks I know it's much easier to attack me or try and rationalize your way in to thinking discrimination is a good thing or how God wants you to discriminate or whatever. It's BS and my point with this article is to show you that people are using Religion to try and hide the fact that they want to discriminate against others and pass law making Religious Discrimination a Protected Right. (I can hear your heads exploding as I type this!)

So let me give some examples as to why I say this, ok. You should see a pattern here if you pay attention. Keep in mind that some of these bills have passed, some haven't, some passed and were then vetoed later. But my point is that you should see a trend happening, ok. I'm not here to debate every last detail about each of them. I'm looking at the overall trend and the BS and lies and ignorance being used to push them through. But when you brush all that away what you have is very simple. It's Legalized Discrimination, period. It's been done in the past to Jews, Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Women, etc. and now it's being done again only this time to Gays. But it's the same damn thing whether you want to accept it or not.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Discrimination On Basis Of Religious Freedom

GOP Uses Religious Freedom Bill To Cover Up LGBT Discrimination


Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'

Kentucky Religious Freedom Bill: Lawmakers Override Steve Beshear's Veto

‘Religious freedom’ bill in Maine would lead to legalized discrimination, opponents say

Indiana bills: Discrimination or religious freedom?

Again, I'm not here to hash out the details or even my version of what I think should be done in each state or the laws or any of that. I'm just pointing out a trend that seems to be happening and that it's something to be watched.

You should ask yourself if this is really what we want??

Is this what America is supposed to be about??

This isn't about taking away anyone's right to be a bigot or discriminate on their own time, although that is still pretty bad, but hey, that's your personal choice. This is about making law protecting those who "believe" that others are less human than themselves and should be marginalized and treated as second class citizens.

The links I provided are pretty much chosen at random too so if you have a problem with them don't complain to me about them, I was simply trying to get a variety of sources about this topic. There are so many to choose from I didn't have time to read them all so if you don't like one just go pick another from google as there are plenty out there. Remember, I'm just trying to shed some light on a trend that seems to be happening here and what the possible results are, ok.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Awesome job at being unable to comprehend English. My statement was there is no indication what you said is true. There is not. I do not have to know anything. The problem is YOU don't know and are making baseless accusations/assumptions. The question is how do you know she would NOT provide care? If you can't answer that then you should not comment to the effect she would not.

You're the one who cannot comprehend English. She made an oath to take care NO MATTER WHAT. If she did this, then how can you TRUST her at all? Simple enough for you? I am not claiming to know what she will do in other situations.

a reply to: mOjOm

I don't care what your stance is, the only thing I take issue with is your claim a baby was almost refused treatment. It's false. Don't make false claims and there is no issue. As to your belief the Dr. was wrong and should have seen the child I agree. I'm a Christian, I disagree with same sex sexual relationships (though it's very possible to have a same sex relationship I have no issue with), and if I was the Dr. I would have shown them love and seen their child.

As I said, your title is wrong, that's my problem.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Awesome job at being unable to comprehend English. My statement was there is no indication what you said is true. There is not. I do not have to know anything. The problem is YOU don't know and are making baseless accusations/assumptions. The question is how do you know she would NOT provide care? If you can't answer that then you should not comment to the effect she would not.

You're the one who cannot comprehend English. She made an oath to take care NO MATTER WHAT. If she did this, then how can you TRUST her at all? Simple enough for you? I am not claiming to know what she will do in other situations.

And she did, she made sure the child was seen by a qualified Dr. It happens every day for various reasons. The child WAS cared for, the Dr. in question ensured it herself, end of story.

Just an FYI, many Dr. do not take any oath, none is needed, and technically every single Dr. performing an abortion is breaking the oath. Yes, the Hippocratic Oath specifically mentions abortions and says the Dr. will never perform or help in one.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Her Doctor, which was chosen and met with before hand and which an appointment was made did in fact Refuse to treat her. Fact. Another doctor was there to treat her. Nothing was said about it being an emergency at all.

Don't like my title, I don't care. It's not wrong. She refused to provide medical care to that baby, period. She was their chosen Doctor. She didn't tell them when they met her the first time. She wasn't even there when they showed up for the appointment to tell them then either. Another doctor was appointed to do it by the first one. Make excuses for her all you want. It's not professional. It's not right and it sure as hell isn't following any Faith that I know of.

Why not try reading the rest of it instead of picking apart my title. There is more information there that you might find useful once you stop trying to play word games. If I didn't choose the exact wording you did fine. But you complain by inserting your own words like "emergency" in there too, so I guess that makes you and me both big fat liars then doesn't it. So now that we are both equal again, why not try and look a bit deeper at the actual message rather than getting all hung up on something like the title.

a reply to: mOjOm

The child got treatment, and was not almost refused treatment. Fact. Your headline does not read "Dr refuses to care for child", which would be true, your headline reads baby almost refused treatment, which is a complete and utter lie.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And she did, she made sure the child was seen by a qualified Dr. It happens every day for various reasons.

It happened because of her belief which is against her oath. Of course with other doctors it happens for various reasons such as illness.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: mOjOm

I don't care what your stance is, the only thing I take issue with is your claim a baby was almost refused treatment. It's false. Don't make false claims and there is no issue. As to your belief the Dr. was wrong and should have seen the child I agree. I'm a Christian, I disagree with same sex sexual relationships (though it's very possible to have a same sex relationship I have no issue with), and if I was the Dr. I would have shown them love and seen their child.

As I said, your title is wrong, that's my problem.

It's not wrong. It's just not the way you would have written it. However, the fact is, that doctor refused to treat that baby. I don't care if she appointed someone else. She refused to take that appointment. Period.

Of course you're a christian and you disagree with same sex couples. Big shock there. Funny, because the doctor also said that she has nothing but love for everyone too. I disagree with both of you.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Just an FYI, many Dr. do not take any oath, none is needed, and technically every single Dr. performing an abortion is breaking the oath. Yes, the Hippocratic Oath specifically mentions abortions and says the Dr. will never perform or help in one.

LOL what a way to get out of this argument.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: mOjOm

The child got treatment, and was not almost refused treatment. Fact. Your headline does not read "Dr refuses to care for child", which would be true, your headline reads baby almost refused treatment, which is a complete and utter lie.

Too damn bad!!!! Get off your critique of my title. Sorry I'm not the word smith that is to your liking. Everyone else seems to have been able to adjust and move on to what this topic is about. I have spelling errors in there too, want to complain about those too???

You act like this was submitted as my final draft to graduate college or something. Get over it. Not everything is perfect. Sometimes you might need to think a little on your own.

Good God, man. I'll check with you from now one before I write anything ok. Will that please you??? I think the title is fine. Maybe not perfect but I guess thinking people are intelligent to adjust is too much to ask.

a reply to: mOjOm

He's the one who thinks we can't comprehend English.

That doctor was wrong to do that PERIOD. It DOES NOT MATTER if she referred them to another doctor. Doctors should not refuse to take care of anyone due to their beliefs.

... “I’ll be your doctor, I’ll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won’t be able to care for Bay.” ...


So, by default, through her action, Jesus would not have cared for a six day old baby?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And she did, she made sure the child was seen by a qualified Dr. It happens every day for various reasons.

It happened because of her belief which is against her oath. Of course with other doctors it happens for various reasons such as illness.

Against her oath? What oath is that?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: mOjOm

He's the one who thinks we can't comprehend English.

That doctor was wrong to do that PERIOD. It DOES NOT MATTER if she referred them to another doctor. Doctors should not refuse to take care of anyone due to their beliefs.

False. You can't. My claim was never it was not wrong. In fact, this is what I already stated.

As to your belief the Dr. was wrong and should have seen the child I agree.

Morally the Dr. is wrong. I said as much. Maybe you should read twice before commenting to prevent confusion.

Male or female,male-male,female-female....all you need is love ...that is all

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ok maybe we misunderstood each other. My point is that once she does this, she become untrustworthy to take care of anyone. We have seen many instances of that happening. They need to have her license revoked. Doesn't matter if we don't know what she will do if she was the only doctor available or anything. It does not matter. She became untrustworthy once she refused to take care of that baby due to her belief.