AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat > News & Politics

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-06-19, 17:01   Link #481
Nervous Venus
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Age: 38
Regarding this issue (since I live in southern california)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystique View Post
But 7 years for a court case?
Man they sure got some sweet time to kill over there :\

Anyways, something a lil different for you all.
The two news stories in turn are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7458304.stm

Now in America, seemingly one of the most 'liberal' countries on the planet, there's already a decision for this law to be reversed and ban back in place come November.
In addition, in Sweden + UK, we got contreversial new articles and findings on the chemical make up of a brain during pregnancy playing a key factor to sexual orientation.

With both news stories in mind now, how do you see attitudes of homosexuality evolving in another 5-10 years?
or
Has this changed your personal opinions in light of the articles?

PS: Do try to keep it simple and to the news posts rather than sliding off into religion or other related topics that ties in with sexual orientation.
I'm going to do the worse and tie this in with religion, only because there's been an ongoing issue between the rights of freedom of religion vs. rights of homosexuals in California. The court insisted that allowing same-sex marriages would not diminish anyone else's constitutional rights, yet it seems that in California, people's "religious" views always get the short end of the stick. That speaks a lot about our constitution.

One such case that comes to mind. One, about a fertility doctor who refused to perform artificial insemination for one lesbian couple. He referred them to another capable doctor who was his colleage, promised there would be no extra cost, and offered to care for the woman through the pregnancy. He was sued.

Another case where Catholic charities closed down their adoption services to avoid anti-discrimination laws. They were prepared to refer same-sex couples to other providers, but that wasn't sufficient.

A Lutheran school was sued for expelling two lesbian students because it was against the school's religious standpoints. The girls lost the case (for obvious reasons), but they're now appealing.

I can understand both sides of the issue, and I believe both should have their equal rights, but I do worry about the future of religious rights and the implications about other rights in the future. Maybe it's just California, and we're all just ready to sue each other, lol. I don't know.
Nervous Venus is offline  
Old 2008-06-19, 17:21   Link #482
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nervous Venus View Post
I'm going to do the worse and tie this in with religion, only because there's been an ongoing issue between the rights of freedom of religion vs. rights of homosexuals in California. The court insisted that allowing same-sex marriages would not diminish anyone else's constitutional rights, yet it seems that in California, people's "religious" views always get the short end of the stick. That speaks a lot about our constitution.

One such case that comes to mind. One, about a fertility doctor who refused to perform artificial insemination for one lesbian couple. He referred them to another capable doctor who was his colleage, promised there would be no extra cost, and offered to care for the woman through the pregnancy. He was sued.

Another case where Catholic charities closed down their adoption services to avoid anti-discrimination laws. They were prepared to refer same-sex couples to other providers, but that wasn't sufficient.

A Lutheran school was sued for expelling two lesbian students because it was against the school's religious standpoints. The girls lost the case (for obvious reasons), but they're now appealing.

I can understand both sides of the issue, and I believe both should have their equal rights, but I do worry about the future of religious rights and the implications about other rights in the future. Maybe it's just California, and we're all just ready to sue each other, lol. I don't know.
I'd like to see articles pertaining to each of those. If they were as innocuous as you say, then I don't know that they truly would have been sued. (Of course, as you say, this is America - land of the lawsuits.) But if any one of those people or organizations made a snarky remark about how homosexuals are improper, infidels, etc., then I could see how lawsuits would have been sparked. Do you think you could get through a day without a lawsuit or a punch to the face if you went around calling African Americans escaped slaves? That sort of thing is discrimination, and people should be free to live without being made to feel inferior.

It could just be that the press likes to make the religious zealots look bad, but as far as I'm concerned it is the fanatically religious who try to impose their will and their version of society on the rest of us. Their religious rights end at being able to worship on their own and practice their religion more or less as they see fit. If they don't believe in homosexual marriage, then they shouldn't go through a marriage to someone of the same sex, themselves. That's it. The case with the doctor is rubbish, because he discriminated against two lesbians simply because they were lesbians. Does he judge all of his patients? Does he refuse to artificially inseminate people whom he deems would be bad parents? Or does he just discriminate against same-sex couples? If it's a case of the latter, that is very unprofessional. His views are irrelevant at that point, and he deserves to be called out for discriminating.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2008-06-19, 18:15   Link #483
Nervous Venus
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Age: 38
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually against those religious zealots and bible-thumpers waving their banners just as much as the next person, but in the case of this particular doctor, I waver to point the finger at him. I'm wary about hearing one person say, " You shouldn't hate us for being gay" while going around saying " We can hate you for not liking gays" , and vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
The case with the doctor is rubbish, because he discriminated against two lesbians simply because they were lesbians. Does he judge all of his patients? Does he refuse to artificially inseminate people whom he deems would be bad parents? Or does he just discriminate against same-sex couples? If it's a case of the latter, that is very unprofessional. His views are irrelevant at that point, and he deserves to be called out for discriminating.
To put it in less beautiful words: You're totallly biased. While I can understand their being distraught, and I can also respect the doctor's religious beliefs, if the couple truly were loving, honest people who wanted a child together, they would have taken into consideration the man's beliefs and taken him up on his offer, instead of sueing him for money. I can understand if they had no options available and he flat out refused without lending a helping hand, but that was not the case. I find sueing someone for his beliefs on the same level as prancing around with " GOD HATES GAY" banners. I find both sides hilariously hypocritical and blind in the eyes.

Also, the article was from Tuesday's, June 17 Los Angeles Times, by reporter Marc D. Stern, under the Opinion's column.
Nervous Venus is offline  
Old 2008-06-19, 19:20   Link #484
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nervous Venus View Post
To put it in less beautiful words: You're totallly biased. While I can understand their distraught, and I can also respect the doctor's religious beliefs. If they truly were loving, honest people, they would have taken the man on his offer, instead of sueing him for money. I find sueing someone for his beliefs on the same level as prancing around with " GOD HATES GAY" banners.

It seems that a lot of the discrimination is also being thrown at people who cannot morally accept homosexuals, but do not go out of their ways to personally defy them.
When I first read your post I agreed, and was thinking to remark about how you have zealots on both sides who want to play the victim. But as I typed it out I worked myself into a frenzy, because when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if the doctor referred them to someone else. He, as a professional, told them that he would not perform it himself simply because they were who they were.

It's not really much different than saying "blacks sit in the back of the bus" or perhaps even saying "sorry, we don't take blacks on this bus, wait for the next one" - you're offering a service, and then discriminating against people because of who or what they are. Does that seem justified to you? It becomes a prickly issue only because people claim that their religion forbids homosexual marriage. I would put it to you that any person who is against homosexual marriage should not be forced to perform the act of marrying two people of the same sex. Yet just because they're homosexuals why should they not be able to receive services pertaining to adoption, childbirth, or anything else? It's discrimination, pure and simple.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 02:52   Link #485
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
It wasn't a life threatening emergency, or even an essential service like electricity, phone, or transportation. Even accepting that getting artificially inseminated is a right, that doesn't mean you can force a particular practicioner to do it to you. If a reasonable alternative was provided, I think a lawsuit was excessive.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 10:44   Link #486
cors8
Kuu-chan is hungry
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
It wasn't a life threatening emergency, or even an essential service like electricity, phone, or transportation. Even accepting that getting artificially inseminated is a right, that doesn't mean you can force a particular practicioner to do it to you. If a reasonable alternative was provided, I think a lawsuit was excessive.
I'm not so sure. The way I see it, it's like white-owned restaurants refusing service to blacks. There were obviously alternatives but that doesn't make it right.

Discrimination is just wrong. Religion should not be used as an excuse for it.

And on the subject of religion being used as a cover for questionable practices:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/...yjKgEzdLes0NUE
cors8 is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 11:27   Link #487
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
When I first read your post I agreed, and was thinking to remark about how you have zealots on both sides who want to play the victim. But as I typed it out I worked myself into a frenzy, because when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if the doctor referred them to someone else. He, as a professional, told them that he would not perform it himself simply because they were who they were.

It's not really much different than saying "blacks sit in the back of the bus" or perhaps even saying "sorry, we don't take blacks on this bus, wait for the next one" - you're offering a service, and then discriminating against people because of who or what they are. Does that seem justified to you? It becomes a prickly issue only because people claim that their religion forbids homosexual marriage. I would put it to you that any person who is against homosexual marriage should not be forced to perform the act of marrying two people of the same sex. Yet just because they're homosexuals why should they not be able to receive services pertaining to adoption, childbirth, or anything else? It's discrimination, pure and simple.
This is not refusing services because of who they are, but because of their concerns about the repercussions. It would be very different if he had said "No, I won't give you a checkup. I don't provide services to homosexuals."

Instead, he feels that there would be harmful repercussions for the child he would be helping to bring into the world. Most physicians take some form of the Hippocratic Oath, and while the phrase "Do no harm" is not generally included outright, it is generally implied.

Whether or not any of us agree with him on that issue, it is not just a cut-and-dry case of denial of services. It is not at all uncommon for a doctor to refuse non-emergency services for various reasons where they feel it would not be in the best interests of the patient or another party affected.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 11:36   Link #488
Nervous Venus
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Age: 38
Kyuusai: I think the doctor said it was simply due to religious beliefs. He could not do the procedure, but he offered for a colleague to do it, and he would take care of the pregant partner until the birth of the child.

Also, I understand that it is, in some ways, a form of discrimination: Not against the person per se, but of his/her sexual preference. But forcing him to go through the procedure or to cough up money for it would be a little farfetched and unconstitutional anyway, since the courts have clearly promised (on paper, that is) that the rights of homosexuals and those for it will not diminish the rights of the minority. The minority now being people who are morally against gays and lesbians.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against homosexuality. I could care less what others want to do with their lives, and don't deem to interfere unless it threatens the lives of others. But I find that people forcing you to agree with them, or else be prepared to empty your pockets! a suffocating thought. I wouldn't want to live in a country under the guise of freedom, only to live in fear of other's lynching me over what I believe in. Guess all religious people should not be doctors, lawyers, restaurant workers, or anything that requires they service others, just in case they'll face lawsuits for their beliefs.

Anyway, Anh Minh said everything I wanted to say, in shorter words, too, lol.

Last edited by Nervous Venus; 2008-06-20 at 11:47.
Nervous Venus is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 12:09   Link #489
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nervous Venus View Post
Kyuusai: I think the doctor said it was simply due to religious beliefs. He could not do the procedure, but he offered for a colleague to do it, and he would take care of the pregant partner until the birth of the child.
Well, yes, his religious beliefs are what drive his moral opposition here. However, when he knows that some one is determined to do it regardless of his participation, he also has an obligation to ensure that it is done in the best manner possible, hence his recommendation.

I have to agree with you, we're reaching a frightening point in society where our ability to abide by our own morals and opinions are eroded. Culture can't seem to just stop at the happy medium of "live and let live", but for some reason must jerk back and forth from persecuting people for perceived wrongs to persecuting people for perceiving things as wrong.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 12:27   Link #490
Xellos-_^
Not Enough Sleep
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
Also want to point this guy is doctor. He took a oath to treat everyone when he became a doctor. If he can't follow the oath he took then he shouldn't be a doctor.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 12:36   Link #491
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
It wasn't a life threatening emergency, or even an essential service like electricity, phone, or transportation. Even accepting that getting artificially inseminated is a right, that doesn't mean you can force a particular practicioner to do it to you. If a reasonable alternative was provided, I think a lawsuit was excessive.
Restaurants aren't essential, yet people argued against discrimination in such places of recreation, and people agreed.

The doctor case seems like the same problem. At first it seems like he's almost apologetically helpful; but is it? A restaurant owner can say the same thing: he cannot provide the best service to the black person because of his feelings and beliefs; let's refer the customer to a black-tolerant restaurant instead!

At first suing might seem like an overreaction; it can also be read alternatively as opportunistic money-grubbing -- but consider: America considers lawsuits as statements of argument as much as they are petitions of legal redress, whether that's the viewpoint of the Law or not. Like it or not, lawsuits bring reactions, and therefore are in fact quite effective tactics at getting your point across. How many Supreme Court cases that succeeded in setting new precedent started their lives from these "petty" causes?

Of course discrimination will always exist, as long as humans remain humans that is; some are in fact necessary, or even preferable. But the core philosophy within the law seems to be to provide the most equal opportunity possible, and that certainly includes providing the most equal access to services our society has to provide as it is possible without trading too much of that "efficiency" factor away. And discrimination based on race, skin color, sex, and sexual orientation are certainly not adding to efficiency in any way.
Irenicus is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 12:55   Link #492
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
Also want to point this guy is doctor. He took a oath to treat everyone when he became a doctor. If he can't follow the oath he took then he shouldn't be a doctor.
Now, the oath isn't standardized universally, and it's not in all versions. It is certainly in some versions. The best I can find states it thusly: "I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby."

The doctor believes that the well-being of the produced child is compromised. As well, this is a general service, not denial of treatment to the ill (IVF is generally done for a person with a problem, but is certainly not treatment of an illness.). The doctor has no obligation here--nor should he.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 12:56   Link #493
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
Most medical people (doctors, pharmacists, etc) would tell you that if your religious beliefs conflict with the professional requirements of being in the medical profession --- that you should reconsider your career options.

Just as if your personal views on warfare conflicted with the fact you worked on design and manufacture of cruise missiles....

Basically, it isn't an option for a doctor to put up a sign that says "I will only treat people who conform to my views based on religion" ... does he also not treat Muslims, Buddhists, or others who might live or believe contrary to his interpretations of his religion?

Caveat: my wife is a pharmacist and has to deal with the occasional pharmacist who won't dispense a prescription that conflicts with their religious views... but is somehow okay with letting "another heathen" dispense it.... O.o
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 12:59   Link #494
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
This is not refusing services because of who they are, but because of their concerns about the repercussions. It would be very different if he had said "No, I won't give you a checkup. I don't provide services to homosexuals."
I briefly mentioned it before, but we need more information about this. Has this doctor, in the past, refused this service because he (in his professional capability) felt that a child would not be properly cared for by the couple or person who wanted to be artificially inseminated? If he has, then you could successfully argue that he was not being biased. He feels that a homosexual couple can't raise a child properly and thus refused the service. That was his unbiased professional judgement, and as a professional he has every right to make that judgement.

Without more information we can't verify anything, but I reason it a bit differently. The doctor said that he himself would not perform the act, but he would refer them to another doctor who would do it for them. In other words, the first doctor is still willing to help the couple in their endeavor (which does somewhat redeem him as a human in my mind), but he simply won't do it himself. Why not? Religious beliefs. He's entitled to his religious beliefs, but that is a personal bias, not a professional bias. It is discrimination, and it's extremely harmful.

I like to make analogies about this situation because as of now homosexuals are still a group of people who are fighting for their rights and recognition. Many of us who are not homosexual, even without realizing it, see nothing wrong with the way that they're treated because we're used to it. Consider the following:

Suppose I'm a project manager in charge of hiring for an engineering firm. Let's say that I was raised with a strong belief that women do not belong in the work force. I can't think of a religion that dictates this, but for the sake of comparison let's say that this belief is one of religious origin. Any time a woman applies for a job with the firm I turn them down. I don't even bother to make up a reason why, I tell them that they're women and I don't feel that they belong here, but (perhaps so that they don't sue me for discrimination) I have a friend who hires women and I can put in a word with him.

In a situation like that, how much sympathy do you have for me? How degraded would women feel, being treated as inferiors to everyone else? If you feel that I would be in the right I would request that you disclose your view of women and its origin so as to reveal any biases on your part and your reasoning. Otherwise, I'd imagine that most people would tear me to shreds for being biased in a ridiculous manner and for creating feelings of inferiority within society.

What I take issue with is that this was a personal issue. If the doctor felt that this would be professionaly immoral, that would be one thing. For his sake I would hope that he knows of research showing that children raised in homosexual families have a higher chance of being dysfunctional than children from heterosexuals - I know of no such research. If he knows of research like that then he could prove that he wasn't being biased, and that he was acting out of the interests of being professional. If that were the case it's still curious that he would refer them to another doctor who would supposedly perform the service in that case, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
I have to agree with you, we're reaching a frightening point in society where our ability to abide by our own morals and opinions are eroded. Culture can't seem to just stop at the happy medium of "live and let live", but for some reason must jerk back and forth from persecuting people for perceived wrongs to persecuting people for perceiving things as wrong.
I don't view this as an example of moral erosion (which is a separate issue and I agree seems to be occurring). I like to think that this is an example of people rejecting discrimination and messages of hate contained within religion.

While this may seemingly backtrack on what I wrote above, I don't like the idea that people should remove all of their personal feelings, biases, and morals when they enter a job. To that end I have sympathy for the doctor, because he clearly tried to do his best to work with both the desires of the patients and with his own moral beliefs. However I can also understand the pain and degradation that the homosexuals probably felt. This is a tragedy, because both sides are attempting to do what they feel is right and it will ultimately result in one or both sides ultimately losing.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 13:28   Link #495
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Most medical people (doctors, pharmacists, etc) would tell you that if your religious beliefs conflict with the professional requirements of being in the medical profession --- that you should reconsider your career options.

Just as if your personal views on warfare conflicted with the fact you worked on design and manufacture of cruise missiles....

Basically, it isn't an option for a doctor to put up a sign that says "I will only treat people who conform to my views based on religion" ... does he also not treat Muslims, Buddhists, or others who might live or believe contrary to his interpretations of his religion?

Caveat: my wife is a pharmacist and has to deal with the occasional pharmacist who won't dispense a prescription that conflicts with their religious views... but is somehow okay with letting "another heathen" dispense it.... O.o
There's a huge difference here, though: He's refusing on the grounds that it would be harmful to the child. His profession makes no requirement of him to perform medically unnecessary services, so he's free to make that judgement solely on his personal opinion.

I was raised by a practising homosexual, and I like to think I turned out OK... but I see no problem with a doctor being able to choose who he treats and doesn't treat just as a restaurant can when life and health are not at stake. Agree with him or not, I'd think that most people would prefer a person who at least abides by their own morality... I'd be rather frightened to go to a doctor who was willing to compromise his principles.

As for pharmacists, well, there is obligation there, no matter who doesn't like it. Still, while I can blame some one for applying to do a job they clearly can't/won't do, I can't blame some one for not wanting to have their hands in something they morally object to, regardless of whether or not it will be done without them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I briefly mentioned it before, but we need more information about this. Has this doctor, in the past, refused this service because he (in his professional capability) felt that a child would not be properly cared for by the couple or person who wanted to be artificially inseminated? If he has, then you could successfully argue that he was not being biased. He feels that a homosexual couple can't raise a child properly and thus refused the service. That was his unbiased professional judgement, and as a professional he has every right to make that judgement.

Without more information we can't verify anything, but I reason it a bit differently. The doctor said that he himself would not perform the act, but he would refer them to another doctor who would do it for them. In other words, the first doctor is still willing to help the couple in their endeavor (which does somewhat redeem him as a human in my mind), but he simply won't do it himself. Why not? Religious beliefs. He's entitled to his religious beliefs, but that is a personal bias, not a professional bias. It is discrimination, and it's extremely harmful.
I view it just the opposite. (I'm not trying to seem like a jerk by doing so, but I'm going to quote myself here)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai
Well, yes, his religious beliefs are what drive his moral opposition here. However, when he knows that some one is determined to do it regardless of his participation, he also has an obligation to ensure that it is done in the best manner possible, hence his recommendation.
He may refuse due to his own personal views, but he still has an obligation, as a doctor, to ensure that his patient receives the best care possible. To him, that meant referring them to the best care they can get to do the very thing he objected to, and caring for them, himself, afterward despite his objections.

If he'd refused them completely (because after the fertilization it absolutely becomes a health issue), that would undeniably be immoral discrimination based on their lifestyle.

It's just a hard situation on both sides. I would hope that people could deal with it in an understanding, respectful manner. Clearly, though, people on both sides of the issue can't do that.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 15:29   Link #496
Nervous Venus
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Age: 38
Best way to end this case? Let the lesbian couple win by a dollar. Everyone goes home happy

j/k.

I'm going to have to agree with Kyuusai here 100% :

Quote:
He may refuse due to his own personal views, but he still has an obligation, as a doctor, to ensure that his patient receives the best care possible. To him, that meant referring them to the best care they can get to do the very thing he objected to, and caring for them, himself, afterward despite his objections.

Ledgem, what I said was basically all the newspaper printed on the case, so what you know is as much as I do. I don't have much on it since the case is ongoing right now and they're pretty tightlipped about what's going on in the courtroom.

Last edited by Nervous Venus; 2008-06-20 at 15:41.
Nervous Venus is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 15:56   Link #497
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
There's a huge difference here, though: He's refusing on the grounds that it would be harmful to the child. His profession makes no requirement of him to perform medically unnecessary services, so he's free to make that judgement solely on his personal opinion.
...
He may refuse due to his own personal views, but he still has an obligation, as a doctor, to ensure that his patient receives the best care possible. To him, that meant referring them to the best care they can get to do the very thing he objected to, and caring for them, himself, afterward despite his objections.

If he'd refused them completely (because after the fertilization it absolutely becomes a health issue), that would undeniably be immoral discrimination based on their lifestyle.
In my opinion, these two statements do not match. If he refused to perform artificial insemination because he felt that it would be harmful to the child [to be raised by homosexuals], we could argue that it was a professional concern. That would technically be acceptable. Yet he was quite willing to essentially be an accomplice to the child being born by providing a recommendation to another doctor, was he not? By my reasoning, it would seem that he wasn't absolutely against the idea of the couple having a child. He simply refused to do it himself. Why?

WanderingKnight quoted a snip of my post before I made edits, but I'd like to ask: why is it a moral problem to perform this service to homosexuals? I'm sure that there is no single, standardized reason, but for those who are a bit more knowledgable about why homosexuality is so frowned upon in religious circles, can you venture any guesses? How does religion view homosexuals, and why?

I'll give a hint as to where I plan to take this argument: I believe that what's occurring is either aversive discrimination or covert discrimination. In other words, people are discriminating against homosexuals, whether intentionally or not, and then they justify it using a reason that may not always hold true.
__________________

Last edited by Ledgem; 2008-06-20 at 16:18. Reason: Refocused post
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 16:08   Link #498
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 35
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
It depends on the principles. How does Christianity view homosexuals? Based off of my very limited understanding, they're viewed as being twisted individuals, people who are "not right" and otherwise a perversion of humanity. I'm sure that's not all correct, so I'd appreciate some clarification. I'd also like to know what the religious justification for having such beliefs are. This has some major implications for how I'll continue to argue this situation.
I believe that's a particular interpretation of Christianity--I don't think most Christians actually hold that view.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 17:36   Link #499
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
In my opinion, these two statements do not match. If he refused to perform artificial insemination because he felt that it would be harmful to the child [to be raised by homosexuals], we could argue that it was a professional concern. That would technically be acceptable. Yet he was quite willing to essentially be an accomplice to the child being born by providing a recommendation to another doctor, was he not? By my reasoning, it would seem that he wasn't absolutely against the idea of the couple having a child. He simply refused to do it himself. Why?
Well, if he objected to it on the grounds of the child's welfare, he had three options:
- Perform the procedure despite his moral objections raised out of concern for the child, violating his conscience and his oath for sake of the child.
- Tell the couple to take a hike and let them do it who-knows-where, violating his conscience and his oath for sake of the potential future child and the mother.
or
- Decline to perform it himself, but make sure that if they did do it, they were as best taken care of as possible.

An admittedly ridiculous hypothetical: If you had a family member that wanted to buy a motorcycle from you despite having no motor skills to safely ride one and you knew there was no hope of dissuading him, would you prefer to sell it to him, refuse and wait to see how he comes out, or would you refuse and still make sure he had the number of a motorcycle instructor and safety gear should he decide to go through with it?

As well, even if the doctor had no desire to be a part of the process, he cannot discriminate this way when it becomes a health issue. Ideally, of course, he would desire to do his best for the welfare of the mother and child after the conception is achieved no matter what he thought of the conception in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
WanderingKnight quoted a snip of my post before I made edits, but I'd like to ask: why is it a moral problem to perform this service to homosexuals? I'm sure that there is no single, standardized reason, but for those who are a bit more knowledgable about why homosexuality is so frowned upon in religious circles, can you venture any guesses? How does religion view homosexuals, and why?

I'll give a hint as to where I plan to take this argument: I believe that what's occurring is either aversive discrimination or covert discrimination. In other words, people are discriminating against homosexuals, whether intentionally or not, and then they justify it using a reason that may not always hold true.
To Judaism/Christianity proper, homosexuality is the same as any other sin, period, and spiritually all sin has the same result: separation from God and harm done to self, others, or others in context of the social order. Of course, repercussions in the temporal/physical can vary vastly in duration, depth, and severity, but there are a couple of primary reasons it's considered differently:
- Its practitioners tend to treat it as a lifestyle. Rather than being a one-off sin of passion like murder or adultery often are, it's a considered a way of life. There is an argument that homosexuals can't help the way they are (regardless of the "why"), but there is a counter-argument that others with improper compulsions are expected to temper, restrain, or overcome them. This isn't supposed to be considered different from any one else who makes a lifestyle of, say, violence or fornication. But any lifestyle certainly makes an impression on a child.
- Since homosexuality involves sexuality, it's a deviation of the norm in one of the most integral aspects of humanity--after all, sexuality is weaved into our makeup at a core level, not just during the act. That creates questions, for some, of not just what else might go wrong, but what might have been wrong in the first place to have caused it.

In administering IVF, doctors are helping to create life and create a family, and frequently do discriminate based on the factors they are able to see. Many discriminate based on deviation from the traditional nuclear family, seeing it as the ideal for raising children--especially religious people, who see the nuclear family is seen as being designed by God. When one has the weight of deciding on personal moral standards for creating life and families and prefers the traditional nuclear family, homosexuality is just one of a number of disqualifiers--it's just very easy to spot.

Now, that doesn't mean that this doctor wasn't just a tool, but based only on that description I can't assume he is.

IVF specialists have a lot of issues to wrestle with in terms of their personal morality. I can't place too much blame on any one for still having issues to work out in their moral consistency. It's a heavy burden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I believe that's a particular interpretation of Christianity--I don't think most Christians actually hold that view.
That is correct, sir.

While Jews and Christians do generally believe that homosexuality is wrong--and that homosexuals may have issues that need to be worked out... They are supposed to apply that to any issue of morality.

For homosexuals to be treated differently from any other sinner (and everyone is a sinner) beyond any practical concerns is hypocrisy... and wrong.

Granted, a lot of these religious folk act completely contrary to this, but they aren't living up to the tenets of their faith.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline  
Old 2008-06-20, 18:01   Link #500
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Ledgem, you insist a lot on the whole "religious" aspect of things. I don't see how that's relevant. People have all kinds of irrational beliefs, some of which aren't religious. What does it matter, if it's religious or not?


To those who believe that such a man shouldn't be a doctor: what if it'd been about euthanasia? What if euthanasia became legal (it already is, in some places)? Do we force out every doctor who refuses to perform it himself? Can't we compromise a bit? Those who believe it's unconscionable killing stay out of the way of those who don't, and in turn aren't asked to do something that so completely goes against their conscience?

To repeat: it wasn't life threatening. It can't even be called a cure. IVF's much like cosmetic surgery, in that you're actually better off, medically speaking, without it. (No risk of dying in childbirth, for example.) Despite his belief, of whatever origin, that it shouldn't be done, he tried to be accommodating of others' belief that it was OK. Can't that be enough?

Sure, it "hurt the feelings" of that couple. Has anyone worried about the feelings of the doctor? Should we really worry about anyone's feelings?
Anh_Minh is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.