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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sufusci
 

People walking around with pacemakers, artificial joints, and stents aren't exactly natural, either. People with fake boobs or other plastic surgery aren't exactly natural. Should we tell them to accept nature when we have technology to aid them?




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by fomalhaut
 


Well, my take on those that can't get pregnant without help is the same. Babies are made by a man and a women who are capable of having them. If you need drugs or fertility treatment then it means there IS A REASON you weren't meant to have it in the first place. The body does things for a reason. For example, if you are too fat its harder to get pregnant. There are sound biological reasons for this.

You either respect nature or you don't. While individually it may be to your benefit, it's definitely not in the populations interest.

But hey, we live in a free society, and I may have a different point of view one day if I can't have a kid or my children are gay. Cie la vie.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sufusci
reply to post by fomalhaut
 

But hey, we live in a free society, and I may have a different point of view one day if I can't have a kid or my children are gay. Cie la vie.

Oh, I see. As long as *you* are not directly affected you would have no qualms with banning artificial insemination for everyone. That caveat you added is very telling, indeed. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to make light of you or your opinion. But I think you have a little growing to do - spiritually, that is.

[edit on 8/21/2008 by fomalhaut]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by fomalhaut
 


No, that is my current position. I am open to change if a better rationale or evidence is presented. As humans it's also very easy to think globally when the situation isn't applicable to ourselves. It's very hard to do it when you are presented with the same situation, and I don't know what I would do in the situations I presented, even though I disagree with them now. Make sense?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I have known hetrosexual couples that are so toxic that they shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of a child...

I have known gay couples so loving that children all but bloomed around them....

Besides that... IT IS UP TO GOD TO DECIDE A PERSONS SIN OR GRACE... not you or some damned fool preacher to make that determination.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Let's say there was a new therapy that allowed us to live forever. Obviously this will cause problems as the populations birth:death ratio grows towards infinity. While we all know living forever is more than likely "bad" long term for the human race, I don't imagine most people would refuse the treatment.

It's like using cheaply produced goods (see storyofstuff.com) from overseas. We KNOW it's bad, unsustainable etc, but very few people including myself actually do anything about it.

There's global optimum and local optimum. Humans are almost incapable of tending towards global optimum for some reason. It's why government should make these decisions for us.

Clear as mud?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


Many doctors have refused to give women the morning after pill based on religious beliefs. And they are allowed. I have no idea how this is even legal.

If something were to happen to that girl or child during pregnancy or childbirth I think the doctor has to take full financial responsibility for the rest of their lives.

If you are too religous to treat people, don't become a doctor.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by sufusci
Let's say there was a new therapy that allowed us to live forever. Obviously this will cause problems as the populations birth:death ratio grows towards infinity. While we all know living forever is more than likely "bad" long term for the human race, I don't imagine most people would refuse the treatment.

It's like using cheaply produced goods (see storyofstuff.com) from overseas. We KNOW it's bad, unsustainable etc, but very few people including myself actually do anything about it.

There's global optimum and local optimum. Humans are almost incapable of tending towards global optimum for some reason. It's why government should make these decisions for us.

Clear as mud?

I commend you for leaving open the possibility of changing your mind when presented with evidence. Many people are not so rational.
I'm a bit confused about your example of the "longevity" therapy and cheaply produced goods and what they have to do with artificial insemination. It is a costly procedure and is not lightly undertaken by anyone. It is doubtful that allowing gay couples (a small percentage of the general population) to have children will adversely affect humankind.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by fomalhaut
I'm a bit confused about your example of the "longevity" therapy and cheaply produced goods and what they have to do with artificial insemination. It is a costly procedure and is not lightly undertaken by anyone. It is doubtful that allowing gay couples (a small percentage of the general population) to have children will adversely affect humankind.


Your last point has changed my mind. Yes, its very unlikely that allowing homosexuals to bring up children will adversely effect humankind. The only reasons I can think of are too scifi, even for me.

My points were based on the proposition that it was somehow bad for humankind - and yet I can't think of a reason why it is, perhaps its just my "natural is nearly always best" mind.
I am typically against funding Artificial insemination (as it's free in our country for up to 3 tries) as recent advances in epigenetics show us that those who are unable to get pregnant don't have as "fit" offspring. But again, your point overrides mine, as if there is no harm, why not.

Thanks for the discussion.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


That should definitely not be allowed. As I alluded to earlier, athiests should be selected to be doctors before entering medical school. It would solve all the problems with religious issues like this.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
This will be overturned by the U.S. Courts.

Once again, a state court attempts to emasculate religious beliefs. It won't work, but the liberals keep on trying.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

Would you force doctors who believe life begins at conception to perform abortions?

Do you want doctors to be told how to do their jobs by laws like the Nuremberg Laws?

Let ideas compete in the marketplace. If doctors want to lose business then "gays" can take their business elsewhere. Of course, really intelligent gays and lesbians would know that they don't need doctors to have children. But maybe they don't want to admit that marriage and family really requires a man and a woman. So they attack doctors' freedoms.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I apologize for the anonymous reply, but I recently had to reformat my primary hard drive and lost my memorized passwords. I have requested a new password.

Here are the facts of the case. The doctors in question will not perform artificial insemination on any unmarried couple, hetero included. The gay couple already have three children. The clinics rules were explained up-front to the lady, all services short of artificial insemination were offered as well as referral to a clinic that would perform the insemination. The lady accepted all of the services offered, then requested artificial insemination and sued when it was refused. This was, ultimately, a premeditated assault by a person with a clear agenda on all members of the medical profession who may refuse elective procedures based on the tenets of their personal faith. Even the military recognizes concientious objectors.

Cyclone
Clancy, Montana



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Not to beat a dead horse, but I had to weigh in here. I'm a bisexual woman, I've been married to a woman for the last nine years and we have an open relationship so I'm probably one of the most liberal posters here :-D. But this whole court case, bothers me.

My first reaction when I read the topic was right the F on, but then I read what it was actually about and got to thinking. One of the first things I did was go and check out the Hippocratic oath. That could be a whole nother topic of debate considering the classical version, versus the modern version versus the one that's ok with abortion and doctor assisted suicide versus the one that isn't so let’s just talk about freedom, because that's the underlying argument here isn't it? Rights and freedom. So, in the best interest of a free society, a doctor in a private practice should be allowed to chose who to perform non life threatening operations on. About the only thing I agreed with the poster Iamirrelevant on was when they stated - "I don't like the idea of the government forcing its idea of morality onto private citizens." And that's the scary part about this case. Because IMHOP that's exactly what happened here and it is because of that very statement that gays and lesbians can't get legally married in half the country.

Homosexuals have a legitimate beef with a lot of issues, but in this case it isn't that it's illegal for them to get an AI done, it’s just that this particular doctor didn't want to do it, but did recommend them to someone who would. I can say without question that I really wish everyone would immediately upgrade their brains and stop running older versions of windows
but in the meantime we need to be very careful that those of us on both sides of the argument don't forget to let the other side have their opinions without trying to force the government to agree with us, in the expense of supporting freedom. When we tread on that, we no longer have the luxury of being "right" or "just" anymore. These doctors, did nothing wrong. They said we can’t do this for you, please go here and in the interest of a free society they should have been allowed to do that. Just like everyone should have the right to have their marriage recognized by the federal government and have all the government issued rights that go with, however, not every Priest, Rabbi, Preacher, whatever should be required to perform those marriages. Two very, very different arguments.

Doctors are human people too, with their own private practices and in those instances should be allowed to offer services for those they want. I know that's a bold statement to make, and can pull in a lot of very sensitive issues, and trust me, I wish people were not discriminatory and loved everyone (and I believe that one day this retarded system is going to come crashing down and we will be cool like that) but in the interest of a free society that right now is currently stripping away so many of our rights behind our backs because the current popular opinion is being safe is better than being free we must, even if we don't agree with the argument surrounding it, support Freedom of Choice. Otherwise, we're not a democracy anymore and we might as well walk willingly into those concentration camps.

What I find even more f’d up about this case is that ABC news reports: “The Supreme Court did order a trial court to consider whether the Christian doctors were allowed to refuse inseminating Benitez because she was unmarried.”

I really wish everyone would unblock their chakras and get right all ready.

Oh and for that IMHOP retarded debate on whether or not homosexuality is a choice, all you have to do is ask yourself, when you walk down the street do you consciously choose who you think is hot and who you think is not. No? All righty then. Not a choice. You can’t cure someone from being attracted to ugly people anymore than you can cure them from being attracted to those of the same sex. That’s just silly :



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


Nothing anyone says or does can offend anyone. Being offended is a personal choice. No-one has mentioned the fact that this particular left coast court forgot all about the separation of church and state. Oh.... I forgot.... that only matters when they think it's appropriate. It's GOVERNMENT that has no place in medicine!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Nice try xmotex but both Matthew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:1 say that the Centurion asked that Jesus heal his SERVANT, not a boyfriend. In no way does either passage even hint that the Centurion was a homosexual or heterosexual, married or unmarried. It was quite common for Roman citizens to have servants, or more precisely to own slaves. As a matter of fact in Rome itself 1/3 of the population were slaves. Furthermore, the New Testament says that the Scriptures aren’t open to private interpretation. And despite those who claim the Bible says nothing against homosexuality it’s quite clear that Romans 1:26-27 does speak out against it.

Unfortunately, like many of the posters in this forum, you don't believe in freedom of choice unless it agrees with your views. The same people who are against a doctor performing an ELECTIVE procedure are the same ones who insist that even Catholic doctors and hospitals should be forced to perform ELECTIVE abortions or lose their licenses to practice.

The tenor of the article and most of the posts are meant to convey that Christian doctors of conscience are denying medical care for cases that are either life of limb threatening. That is not the case. But some doctors don’t believe in artificial means of impregnation even for heterosexual married couples. I don't agree with that stand but I believe that they should have that right to not engage in such practices in a free society. But in our brave new world I guess freedom of conscience is not to be permitted if it's not in accordance with the liberal Democratic agenda.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
You hire a doctor to do a job not give you his moral opinions... if he doesn't want to do the job then hire another one because he is in the wrong business.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DCStorm
 


Not to sidetrack the topic, but since you brought this up and seem to be an appropriate source for information I might as well ask. Your comment on it not being a choice combined with your self identification as a bisexual fascinates me. If we're to believe that it is all about how you're wired at birth that dictates your sexuality and not any conscious choice, then aren't we also to assume that it's a case of one path or the other? What I mean by that is, logic would seem to say that if it truly is NOT a choice then it means sometime prior to brith your system starts down either the hetero or homo pathway and the two paths diverge from each other. Wouldn't that mean bisexuality is biologically imposible and is, therefore, a choice?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I'd love to be able to comment on the biological possibility or impossibility of whom a person is attracted too but I'm not doctor
I can only say that since I am a bisexual and surely didn't wake up one morning and go, "yah know what I think today I'm going to dig women. Tomorrow, I'll dig men," then it certainly can't be that impossible can it? I'm living proof. I think George Clooney is the sexiest man alive and if I ever met him would probably get arrested for sexual assault
But I'm not particularly attracted to Brad Pitt, go figure. I think Rachel Weis is freakin gorgeous and would do her in a heart beat. Angelina Jolie, sexy but I'd pass on her for someone else. I didn't wake up this morning and choose that, it simply is. I prefer older men to younger, I prefer curvy women to skinny. Not conscious choices, again it simply is.

I know people would love to say it's a choice (which boggles my mind, why so alien a notion?) and perhaps for some it is, nothing is concrete. However, really its very basic. Ask yourself, do you CHOOSE who you are attracted too? Do you? When your looking at person A, verus person B are you choosing which one draws your eye or is your eye simply drawn there?

Believe you me, I'd have no problem saying it was a choice if it was. Visit my blog and you'll learn I'm not the type of person who dictates what they do based on the current or any opinion of the times. I simply Am.

Sorry if that messes with your world




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join