It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court: Doctors can't withhold care to gays based on religious beliefs

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Jesus enjoins us to judge not unless we be judged...
to be less concerned about the mote in our neighbors eye and more about the beam in our own.

When Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone and all the men dropped their rocks and walked away he asked the woman, who was there to judge her and she replied no on my lord... and Jesus replied and neither do I... go now and sin no more.... and if Jesus chose not to judge, then who are we to do more than he?

Jesus sat down with the sinners, the outcast, the theives, prostitutes and tax collectors, preferring their honest company to that of the "good" people.

He roundly condemned the self-rightous the scantimonious and the hypocrites.

It is these lessons that the funnymentalists, the so called moral people, the self proclaimed Christians chose to forget.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by grover]




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
OK, so we'll go down the religious pathway for awhile, then...


Originally posted by grover
When Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone and all the men dropped their rocks and walked away he asked the woman, who was there to judge her and she replied no on my lord... and Jesus replied and neither do I... go now and sin no more.... and if Jesus chose not to judge, then who are we to do more than he?
(emphasis mine)

"Go now and sin NO more."

"Sin NO more."

It seems you're being a hypocrite, then. According to these doctors, they believe it would be a sin for them to be the instrument by which a child is brought into a household run by gay parents. Are you suggesting that God's word is not infailible and changes like the wind, instructing His people to contradict themselves arbitrarily? I don't buy that. You've suddenly forced these doctors into the ultimate catch 22... they can refrain from sinning by not performing the prcedure, but in doing so they're also being judgemental according to you so they've also sinned... or they can not be judgemental and perform the procedure, thereby violating their beliefs in God's law and commiting sin. Any freaking way you look at it, one thing is abundantly clear, doctors are going straight to hell because they cannot win under your system of judge not lest ye be judged.

Budski:
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the quackery that psychology has become. I believe there was a time when it was a legitimate medical field which used experimentation, observation, and quantitative measures to analyze and achieve results. You kinda stumbled across my point... psychology ceased being a legitimate medical science the day it started altering age old, clinically proven studies that listed (among other things) homosexuality as abberent behavior purely due to political and social pressure. There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is anything other than a choice... all there is is the so-called "first hand reports" from homosexuals themselves who say "I had no choice in the matter." Hmmm, we hear the same excuse from overeaters, alcoholics, obsessive-compulsives, and child molestors... all situations in which there may be some genetic predisposition link but all illnesses which are treated agressively and considered serious psychological as well as psychophysical disorders. The only difference is that we somehow or other listed homosexuals as a protected minority group and stopped trying to cure their illness.

The animals practicing gay behavior argument amuses the hell out of me because of the convenience at which it is always used. When the topic is violence, poluting, rape, incest, canibalism, meat eating, feces throwing, or showing mercy we are bombarded with talk of how "we are evolved into civilized creatures and have a responsibillity to not act like the animals which we should be caring for." Throw homosexuality in there though, and apparently that's an acceptable holdover from the days some believe we were swinging from trees and eating our own boogers. I don't buy any of it, to be honest. Man is not an animal, we're man, dammit. We have the abillity to identify moral rights from moral wrongs, acceptible behavior from unacceptible, and we have the responsibility to hold that morality as concrete and unchanging, not alter it over the past 30+ years simply because the homosexuals have started talking louder and the political correctness movement embraced their "plight."

If my views on this lessen your opinion of me, then so be it. That's another important part of being human and holding onto your morals... you don't change them purely because you are seeking approval from people. You hold onto what you believe is right and let public opinion be damned.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I agree with the courts on this one.

Although I dont agree with Lesbian couples being artifically impregnated, this doctors refusal would be violation of the couples right and liberties. My personal preference is that gay couples adopt, because they made the lifestyle choice that prevents them from having a child naturally.

My respect to liberties and freedom however supercedes my personal opinions, and that is why I feel the doctor should do what is in his profession to do.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I've seen you cite nothing that "proves" homosexual behaviour is abherrant behaviour, other than your own opinion, which fascinating though it is, doesn't really count as conclusive evidence.

It's an age old "theory" that homosexual behaviour can be "cured" and yet nothing has ever been proved, no-one has been cured, and the psychiatric theories range from "daddy didn't love me" to "mommy loved me too much" to "that's the way I was born"

I am firmly of the opinion that most gay people are born that way - that doesn't make them less deserving of medical treatment, and nor does it make them mentally ill.
Here
is a wiki list of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people, all of whom according to your theory suffer from mental illness and should therefore be disqualified from becoming parents.

I would suggest that some of the people on those lists would be far beter parents than either George Bush's, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot or any number of other world leaders, media tycoons or CEO's of corporations who for the most part display one form or another of psychopathic behaviour, in that they care not a jot for anyone except themselves.

Should the people mentioned have been banned from being parents?
After all, if G Bush senior (for example, and not to go off on a tangent) had not become a parent, the world may arguably be in less of a mess than it is now.

I won't go into the NARTH thing, because I really do think you made a mistake in citing that.

The animal behaviour "excuse" may amuse you, but at the end of the day, we ARE just animals - just more developed intelligence wise than other animals.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Oh the shame of a demonised Christian religion, they should have been Muslims they would surely of gotten away with it.

Muslim Medical Students get picky



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by shiman
hehe. They had to TELL that do the doctors?
Shows how much the docs know.

A little off topic, i saw this book the other day and somebody is ranting in it about how the us goverment is removing all chrisian influences from public and governmental buildings. Im going to try to rant on this later. First i have to type it up in ms word.


True, even though I don't have a religious following I continually see Christianity demonised, an easy target you might say "turn the other cheek" and all, I'd much rather be in a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu religion than the one that will ultimately replace them.... thanks to the governments that is, the real conspiracy is what religion really pulls the strings in backgrounds of governments.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I doubt doctors declined treatment to homosexuals due to "Religious Beliefs."

If you catch my drift.

Homophobia is sooooo 1950's.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Um, "people who have chosen to be gay or bi"???

When exactly did you "choose" to be straight then? When did you choose to repress your "sinful thoughts", that surely originated from the most fowl, "Satan"? Is this what "sin" is then?... please

Speaking as a bisexual man I can tell you that I did not choose this orientation willfully & I cannot imagine anyone who would want to choose to be 'different' (or 'honest' as you put it) in this world where they are constantly told they are bad or wrong or broken or ill.. To people that believe any and all of those pavlovian designations concerning gay, bi or transgendered people I wholehearted in spirit, flip you off with both of my middle fingers as hard as I possibly can in perpetuity until you awaken or become enlightened enough to mind your own business.
YOU are the reason there is so much hate & confusion in this world. A lot of "normal" people are sad, uselessly judgmental, know nothing first hand & trust everything by second hand account - sheep. Go along to get along huh'?


I often do not tell new friends about my proclivities immediately because I like to first sit back & see what kind of person they are. I can count my close friends on little more than one hand. The ones who have shone through of course didn't bat an eye when I told them. The few who did say disparaging things or eventually showed themselves to be even worse, didn't deserve my time anyway.

At least I have chosen not to live my life in regret.

I'm not exactly religious, but Jesus Lord, God in Heaven, Bhudda, Shiva & whomever else.. help us all



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I heard about this ridiculous story on the Michael Medved show this afternoon. I can't believe the Court believes doctors should be FORCED to perform elective operations that they feel are against their personal moral codes. It's not like there is a shortage of capable and willing physicians who can go around impregnating lesbians or aborting fetuses or whatever. Personally, I'm in favor of homosexuals having the right to raise children (if they're capable parents and not involved in a long-term homosexual relationship) and I am pro-choice as well, but I don't like the government forcing its idea of morality onto private citizens.

As an aside, this story gave me an idea for a compromise on the same-sex marriage idea. I think both extreme sides on this issue could accept homosexual marriages being allowed by the state IF as a condition for the marriage, both parties being joined in matrimony would have to agree to be sterilized and sign legally-binding documents that would prevent them from adopting children.

Deep down, we can all agree that the sole purpose of marriage is to provide a means to bear and raise offspring. I think people oppose the idea of homosexual marriages because they don't want children born into (or adopted into) such non-conventional families and lifestyles. There is nothing wrong with two consenting adults engaging in a generally socially unacceptable behavior, but there is something harmful about doing so in front of their children and thus causing the child to think it is normal. My solution solves the issue.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Iamirrelevant]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamirrelevant
 

"I can't believe the Court believes doctors should be FORCED to perform elective operations that they feel are against their personal moral codes."


I made this statement yesterday. it's not a matter of MORALS, RELIGION, or RIGHTS.

Doctors are granted a license to practice by a taxpayer-funded Board. That means they CAN'T discriminate. Our tax dollars (lesbians included) provided them with the PRIVILEGE of practicing medicine. If they want to pick and choose who they treat, they should move to another country.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Court: Doctors can't withhold care to gays based on religious beliefs


rawstory.com

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”
(visit the link for the full news article)


There should be an exception for fertility treatments. Its one thing to refuse to give a gay person a required kidney surgery. Its another to refuse to insert a living human into them. A baby does not actually improve the health of a woman. Why would a doctor who took a job to help people be forced to do something he views as harmful? This actually may violate his oath when he accepted the position to "do no harm". If a doctor believes he is doing harm for any reason at all he needs the right to not do it. We are talking about medicine here not a cocktail restaurant.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with religion, since a doctor can be against lesbians having a baby for entirely non-religious reasons.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Homophobes, just because you have a blind hatred with no real factual support other than "I hate dem fruities!" doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

If homosexuality was a choice then so is choosing to be straight. I don't remember being given the choice. Do you? I am religious but I have actually read the Bible and not just listen to a racist bigot. I know that God loves all, and makes us.* So if someone is gay then that is what God wanted.

Unless you know better than God.

*I don't mean He makes every single one of us personally. Our parents do that, or our mother and the mail man, lol. Heck I'm not even self centered enough to think He made us period. He's there but with an entire Universe to run I don't believe for a second He wastes His time with making us. He let's things go as they are and hopes we do the right thing. He even sacrificed His Son to teach us a lesson but many of us, like these doctors, didn't learn it.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Krieger]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamirrelevant
 

Your solution is not a solution at all. Who says homosexual people are unfit parents? I've been a social worker and I have seen many, many heterosexual parents who are unfit yet they are allowed to keep popping babies. Judging parental fitness based on sexual orientation is the most asinine thing I've heard of.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I never stated that homosexuals are by nature unfit parents. If you'd go back and read the post in question you would find that I even voiced my support for homosexuals being allowed to have children as long as they're not involved in a long-term homosexual relationship! The fact is that while homosexuality is usually a genetic trait more than a lifestyle choice it also happens to be socially stigmatizing and rarely occurring. Having a person grow up in a home raised by two homosexual parents would put them at a severe disadvantage in our society and it would probably leave them confused and cause them problems as an adult.

I do not believe, as I've heard others claim, that gay parents are more likely to molest or rape their children than straight parents. I just feel that the extreme social and psychological disadvantage that may be caused by growing up with gay parents outweighs these couples' selfish desire to propagate.

I can consider wavering somewhat in my belief that homosexual couples oughtn't be allowed to adopt in extreme cases when there are abandoned children and no other, more suitable homes are available. But I think it's a crime against sanity and nature to artificially inseminate a lesbian.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I don't care who you think you are you have no right to force your religious opinions on someone else... a doctor has taken an oath and such behaviour is in violation of that oath... the same is true of pharmaists who refuse to fill birth control or RU486 prescriptions because of their religious beliefs...

... get it through your pointy little heads... NO ONE ASKED YOU.

I find it so pathetically funny that the very ones who make the most noise about individual rights and responsiblities are the quickest to violate those individual rights and responsiblities.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by grover]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Wow, here I was thinking we were living in the 21st century...
"My imaginary master tells me I have to discriminate against you."


How many times does each religion have to be left looking like they're incompetent before people will wake up?
Even if there was a god, the religions we have today are so heavily modified, it's not possible for them to be right in the slightest.
If you want to get back to your religions roots, start praying to the sun, thats where it all started. lol. Somehow I doubt the sun objects to gays.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It would be better if we could withhold medical degrees to those with a low IQ:
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...

Perhaps discrimination is warranted sometimes?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamirrelevant
I do not believe, as I've heard others claim, that gay parents are more likely to molest or rape their children than straight parents. I just feel that the extreme social and psychological disadvantage that may be caused by growing up with gay parents outweighs these couples' selfish desire to propagate.

That same argument has been used in the past against bi-racial couples having children. Yes, their lives will be a little harder than those of children from more "acceptable" families. But it is a question of existence over non-existence. To me, the children of homosexual couples would have a major advantage over other children. They would see bigotry in all its ugliness and recognize it for what it is. Surely that would be a small step in making the world a better place.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
If you want to get back to your religions roots, start praying to the sun, thats where it all started. lol. Somehow I doubt the sun objects to gays.


If someone started a sun-worshipping religion I bet it would



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
On the "should homosexuals be allowed to have children" I would look at evolution. If they can have children, together by natural means go for it. If you can't - bad luck. Just because we can do something artificially doesn't mean we should.

It doesn't mean homosexuals are bad parents, but if it's genetic, then by definition they weren't meant to be parents in the first place. Otherwise nature would have allowed same sex pregnancies.

Look at societies that have accepted same sex relationships over their history, e.g. pacific islands. Their role was one of extravagence and laughter, and were part of the community. They were never parents. What's so wrong with accepting what nature intended, homosexual or heterosexual?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join