[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

In response to your hypothetical, I would first try to guide him to learning how to ride properly and about safety. If this family member came out of that and still didn't seem capable of riding safely then I wouldn't sell it to them, period.

The reason why I have a problem applying the hypothetical situation here is because the first step is possibly correctable. That is, I will not perform a transaction because I feel that it will have overall harmful to the person receiving it as they are not ready, but they can do something to make themselves ready. In the news case, the problem is homosexuality. I don't believe there is anything that can or should be done to "remedy" this "problem" (note: I'm not accusing you of calling it a problem). To go further with the analogy, if the doctor really felt that homosexuals can't properly raise a child, then that's his belief and he's entitled to it. Part of the issue is that he was willing to guide them to the same end effect... but he just wasn't willing to do it himself.

If the doctor is uncomfortable with the idea of doing it himself, then of course he shouldn't be forced to. At this point we need to admit that the reason is purely bias, whether it has its roots in religion or not. Homosexuals are physically no different than any other person. Why should their sexual preference matter to the doctor? Again, if the doctor truly felt that it would be harmful for a child to be brought into the world to be raised by a homosexual couple, then he should have said that he would not do it and he shouldn't have helped them any further. It's still biased, but if it's within his job description to be able to choose who to perform IVF for based on their qualifications as a parent then technically you could say that he was acting out of professional interest.

I do see it differently, but I have to face issues like this with some frequency since I work with teenagers, so the way I handle things with them does color my interpretation of other things.

After they do the exact same things I advised them to not do, I still have the same moral obligation to continue to support them. I refuse to aid them in doing the things I warn them against, but once they've done them they know they can come back and ask for help--even with the baggage they've picked up, which sometimes does include children. The only time that's not true is when my continued support would be "enablement"--but if they'd do it with or without my help, my support will always be available to them.

Regardless of what they've done that I object to, I am no less required to help them--and any one else they bring into the world--make the best of things. They are still human beings worthy of all the love and help I can give them. I imagine the doctor might see it the same way.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Thank you for the explanation. While I don't believe there to be an epidemic of the religious faithful discriminating openly against homosexuals, would I be wrong in stating that there is a bit of a double standard when it comes to how homosexuals are treated vs. other groups of sinners, such as criminals? I am aware that my opinion of that may partly result from the media's selective reporting.

Well, there's absolutely a double-standard in many places. People are people, after all. It's just not how they are supposed to be. Of course, ou'll almost never see the religious people who love despite their objections show up on television.

But homosexuals are about the only "group of sinners" who present themselves as a demographic, so that has social effects.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'd like to rephrase a question that I sort of put forth in a few of the posts on this topic. To anyone who believes that the doctor was acting out of his moral conscience and did no wrong, why? I've stated my reasoning before: if he refused to perform the procedure because he really felt that a child to this homosexual couple would suffer, why would he be so willing to direct them to another doctor who would perform the procedure? It makes no sense to me. What if the couple were not homosexual, but were clearly unfit to be parents. Would it make any sense to reject the procedure for them out of concern for the child, but then recommend another doctor who would probably perform the procedure anyway? I fail to see how that is following one's morals.

To use another, more practical example with my teenagers:
I make sure they know all the reasons to not have sex as a young, unmarried person, and also that they know that should they decide otherwise they shouldn't expect my help to go fornicate... but they also know that if they're going to go do fornicate, then they had dad gum better use protection while they're doing it. On the off chance that some one told me they were planning to and wanted protection, there's no way I'd drive him to the drugstore to buy it, but I'd make sure he knew, or could find, the details about what to choose and how to use it effectively.

Likewise, while this doctor may have objected to the point where he declined to perform the procedure, if he had the reasonable expectation that they could and would go somewhere else to do it, he had an obligation to make sure they knew where to find the best care--a situation I'm sure applies to more than just homosexuality.

Originally Posted by cors8

If the doctor refuses to euthanize a certain group but agrees to euthanize another, then you'd have a valid comparison, in my opinion.

The case here is that the doctor refuses his service to one group but readily agrees to perform the same service to another.

I'm curious to what standards this doctor has for heterosexual couples though.

Originally Posted by aohige

But I think that makes it an issue of discrimination, not a religious issue.
The origin of the discrimination may stem from religious reasoning, but the origin or reasoning is not relevant to the case of discrimination itself.

A question to you guys and others who think that this must be about refusing service to homosexuals rather than concern (valid or invalid) for the child...

What about single people?

Single people are another demographic often denied service by some IVF practices and occasionally referred to others. Do you see this discrimination differently?