AnimeSuki Forums

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

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-06-20, 18:54   Link #501
cors8
Kuu-chan is hungry
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
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?
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.
cors8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-21, 12:41   Link #502
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Quote:
Originally Posted by cors8 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-21, 12:55   Link #503
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
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:
...
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.
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.

I do not know what rules and powers are granted to doctors who perform IVF. I have no problem with the idea of doctors being able to reject performing the procedure, but if doctors on a large scale are rejecting homosexuals alone then something needs to be done. Guidelines should be added which clearly remind the doctor that homosexuals can form stable family units and raise perfectly fine children (unless proven otherwise), and that their selectivity should not factor in homosexuality, regardless of their religious beliefs. Society does not condone those beliefs anymore, and Anh Minh is right in asking why it should matter whether it's a religious belief or not - it shouldn't.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
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?
You're right, thank you for mentioning it. Perhaps because it's been around for longer than American and many modern societies many people view religion as untouchable and non-negotiable. The religion itself will not change, and we don't want people to feel discriminated against because of their beliefs (while not genetic or physical, these beliefs often become a defining part of the person).

It can lead to problems as with this case. You can't ask either side to change who they are, but you can ask the religious person to change their activity. At that point you're imposing on the religious person. The ideal scenario would be negotiation; that is, to request that the religious person (or better yet, high religious officials) recognize that their beliefs are causing them to discriminate and to adust in order to overcome that discrimination. It's still imposing, of course, and it's somewhat ideal because it's unlikely to happen.

Quote:
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?
Combined with what you wrote about euthenesia, I think you're interpreting this differently than I did, although now that I see how you're viewing it I'm not sure that I've been viewing it correctly.

The way that I understood it was that this doctor has performed IVF before. He did not have a moral issue with performing IVF, he had an issue with performing IVF for homosexuals. The way that you seem to be interpreting it is that he does not want to perform IVF, period. If that's the case then it isn't discriminatory and unless it's an expected function for his position (which depends on what type of doctor he is) then he has every right to refuse.

If it's the case that I've read it as, then this goes beyond "hurt feelings." It's discrimination. It's the idea that people don't want to touch, associate, or perform services for you because of who or what you are. It goes against the idea that we are all equals and that we are all entitled to the same treatment and rights as everyone around us.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-21, 14:13   Link #504
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 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cors8 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aohige View Post
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?
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-21, 22:22   Link #505
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
It never occurred to me he could refuse to practice IVF in general. (If so, why the hell would that couple come to him?)

I thought like Kyuusai - whom I unfortunately can't pos-rep - that he just thought homosexual couples shouldn't raise children. While don't agree with that belief, I see his actions as consistent with it, provided he's also against abortion. Maybe even without it.

His recommending another doctor isn't hypocritical. It's a compromise with the facts that:
- it's possible his belief is wrong;
- society as a whole believes differently and has no law against homosexuals getting kids.

And once it's in her belly, well, what is he to do? Push the would-be mother down a flight of stairs?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 01:13   Link #506
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Admittedly I still don't see how refusing to perform the service himself, but making a recommendation for another person to perform the procedure clears him. I guess we'll have to settle this one with analogies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
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.
All of what you've said is fine, but I see that situation a bit differently than what happened here. In your case you are acting as a guide/mentor/teacher to people. Even if they stumble and mess up you don't give up on them. I would relate this to the doctor similarly by expecting him to still care for his patients even if they did something that he felt was perhaps not right (in this case, having a child as a homosexual couple).

The doctor's recommendation to see another doctor who would be willing to perform the procedure is far from that, in my mind. To go back to your example, kyuusai, it would be like having a young adult come to you and say that they want to have sex. To make this work more fully, let's say that your pupil is a female, and she would like to make it easy and have sex with you, but she's willing to go to someone else for it. (Female readers, pretend that your student is a male.)

The idea of having uncommitted sex is morally objectionable to most of us and to you too, I presume, so your advice would be that it's a bad idea. To tell them about condoms, birth control, and to be aware of STDs - that is, to provide information in the event that they decide to do it anyway - would be analagous to the doctor providing the couple with parenting information, just in case they decide to perform the act anyway. That the doctor provided them with a direct link to someone who was willing to perform IVF for them seems to me to be similar to you recommending a certain prostitute to your pupil. That is, you're saying that you're opposed to them performing this act that you find morally objectionable, but you're enabling them to perform it anyway.

The only area where my example falls short is that I presume that you would absolutely not have sex with any of your pupils, and thus I can't bring in the discrimination factor to show just why I'm so confused. I could modify my example a bit more, but it's already getting to another touchy moral issue. Perhaps I should start with a new analogy:

Imagine that there's a gas station run by a man who believes that anyone who is Asian, young, male, and driving a yellow sports car is a criminal and should not be given gas that would permit him to terrorize society with further criminal acts. This man refuses service to anyone fitting this description because he feels that it is the moral thing to do. Tell me, if he gives detailed instructions to those drivers for how to get to the nearest gas station that will service them, what sort of a message does it send? It shows a clear bias, but the bias no longer even makes sense. If the man feels that the right thing to do is to keep these people off the road, then why is he helping them to obtain the service that he feels would be so morally objectionable to perform?

I may be misunderstanding the religious moral dilemma that the doctor faced. I was under the impression that it was considered morally wrong to help a homosexual couple to attain a child because it would be a disservice to the child, due to the belief that a homosexual couple can't raise a child properly. That belief could also be taken farther to say that it would erode the stability and morality of society. Is that incorrect?

Quote:
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?
Yes and no. I would like to think that there are a number of guidelines for health proessionals who have the power to deny IVF treatment, and that those guidelines are based on research. This is similar to a psychiatric evaluation: psychiatrists are expected to follow the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [of mental disorders]) when evaluating patients. It ideally removes a number of potential personal biases that could arise and impair the doctor's judgement.

I don't know what research shows about children raised by single parents. However, there is a lot more that should go into the decision than a single bit of demographic information. Reasons for wanting to be a parent, the health of the individual, financial status, and current living conditions/area are some important factors that I can think of rather quickly that would matter quite a bit and could outweigh the fact that the individual is single. It makes sense, doesn't it? I'm sure that most of us can think of an example of a really excellent single parent just as we can also think of an example of two very bad parents who make up a stable nuclear family unit.

If various studies and research have shown that single parents need to be scrutinized more heavily than parents in a nuclear family, then as long as the research is credible I think that it is justified. Similarly, if research found that homosexual couples should also be scrutinized more heavily, so be it. However, to deny treatment without further consideration just because an individual is marked by a certain demographic seems wrong to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
His recommending another doctor isn't hypocritical. It's a compromise with the facts that:
- it's possible his belief is wrong;
- society as a whole believes differently and has no law against homosexuals getting kids.
If he's willing to admit that his belief is wrong... well, there's not a whole lot that I can say to that. He'd be doubting his religion. It isn't unheard of, but I wouldn't really expect it.

If it's a case of the second, then I still find his actions to be hypocritical. He's not performing the act because he finds it to be morally objectionable. I don't expect him to blacklist the couple from other IVF doctors, but he doesn't need to go out of his way to help them find a doctor who will perform the procedure. Just how morally objectionable is it?
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 01:36   Link #507
Fipskuul
τηε πιγητ ωατςη
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: τη λαnδ of веагз αnδ дг
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Admittedly I still don't see how refusing to perform the service himself, but making a recommendation for another person to perform the procedure clears him. I guess we'll have to settle this one with analogies.
If the laws require him to perform the service, then referring to another does not clear him. But, if it were me, I would try to understand his choice, as long as it wouldn't place burden on me, and the general society.

If I were to be someone targeting easy money, I would sue him to earn that easy money (I heard this kind of exploits a lot). If I feel letting that to happen might encourage similar treatments in the state or the country at higher frequency, then I would take the steps to prevent that from happening, only by making the court either cancel that person's license or give a final warning as to what he may expect if he repeats this again.

If a person knows that the laws require equal treatment to the patients and wants to follow that path by promising himself not to follow it accordingly, then he should either stop walking that path, or target to work at a place consisting of people that think and live like him.
Fipskuul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 01:50   Link #508
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fipskuul View Post
If the laws require him to perform the service, then referring to another does not clear him. But, if it were me, I would try to understand his choice, as long as it wouldn't place burden on me, and the general society.
When I said "clear him" I meant in the minds of the people here who don't find it objectionable, not in the law. The law is not logical in its dealings

I'm trying to understand him, but I'm having difficulty understanding it. My sympathy for him varies depending on what I try to visualize his decision as. As I am not anti-homosexual myself, it's the only way that I can come to understand why he did what he did. For example, let's compare it to a scenario where a doctor does not feel comfortable euthanizing (assisted suicide) a child patient. If the doctor wanted to comply with the patient's orders he could recommend another doctor who would perform the act. Such a situation seems understandable and even commendable, and I could see a potential parallel with the issue we're discussing here. I will not take this analogy any farther, however, because it doesn't parallel this issue quite so nicely.

The doctor's reason for refusing service makes a big difference. If he refused because he firmly believes that homosexuals can't raise children properly and he wants no part in bringing a child of theirs into the world, that's a bias but it's one that he's entitled to have. However, to then say that he won't serve them (simply because they're homosexuals) but he knows some other doctor who will seems very strange. What kind of a message does that send, to say that you won't do it yourself because of who your clients are, but you know of someone who doesn't mind that and will provide the service?

Quote:
If a person knows that the laws require equal treatment to the patients and wants to follow that path by promising himself not to follow it accordingly, then he should either stop walking that path, or target to work at a place consisting of people that think and live like him.
Agreed.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 02:15   Link #509
Fipskuul
τηε πιγητ ωατςη
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: τη λαnδ of веагз αnδ дг
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
What kind of a message does that send, to say that you won't do it yourself because of who your clients are, but you know of someone who doesn't mind that and will provide the service?
The first thing one can think of in a situation like this is that he wanted to avoid some kind of penalty.

But, if he is sincere in his belief of not being able to help because he thinks of himself as the one to directly answer God in the other world, then he can also see himself in a position not to let them leave without giving any guidance, as it is a help that is also suggested by the same God.

The original decision belongs to the people who came to him, so he is not responsible with how this ends. But, he may feel himself responsible for what he actively does. Well, in any case, it is not easy to understand the feelings of a religious person, as it may vary a lot depending on the character of the person. You can only see the result, so it may offend you. But, in reality what he does might just be the best he can feel he can do for you. Here, I am not sure if there is a balance between the laws and the beliefs of the society to prevent such offenses.
Fipskuul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 02:41   Link #510
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
If he's willing to admit that his belief is wrong... well, there's not a whole lot that I can say to that. He'd be doubting his religion. It isn't unheard of, but I wouldn't really expect it.

If it's a case of the second, then I still find his actions to be hypocritical. He's not performing the act because he finds it to be morally objectionable. I don't expect him to blacklist the couple from other IVF doctors, but he doesn't need to go out of his way to help them find a doctor who will perform the procedure. Just how morally objectionable is it?
I didn't mean it as an "either/or" question! And people admitting that their religious beliefs are maybe not absolutely right aren't that rare, surely? Or there wouldn't be so much premarital sex going on, would there?

And as I said - it's a compromise. Some people in this thread would have liked for him to go all the way and service the couple, homosexual or not. I'm sure some fundies would have liked for him to stick to his guns 100% and not have anything to do with them. I think recommending another doctor is just his way of meeting society halfway.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 02:52   Link #511
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I didn't mean it as an "either/or" question! And people admitting that their religious beliefs are maybe not absolutely right aren't that rare, surely? Or there wouldn't be so much premarital sex going on, would there?
Premarital sex doesn't have to do with religious beliefs, as far as I know. I'm also under the impression that people become more religious as they grow older... not that the highly religious don't go against their beliefs.

I can accept that he may have been trying to negotiate between feeling that it was wrong for this couple to have a child but still attempted to meet his professional obligations. It still feels wrong to me overall, though. Sexuality is one thing, but what if we applied this to an ethnicity situation? I think it would be considered inappropriate by everyone immediately. (That is, assuming that race alone was the deciding factor; I've been assuming that the couple's homosexuality was the reason for the doctor's refusal to perform the service, but I don't think that we can say that such an assumption is 100% correct at this point.) To those of you who feel that the doctor wasn't wrong in what he did, would you feel differently if he had denied the procedure to a couple belonging to an ethnic minority, simply for their ethnicity?
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 03:15   Link #512
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I wouldn't say he wasn't wrong, but I'd still feel like a lawsuit would be excessive.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 11:04   Link #513
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I wouldn't say he wasn't wrong, but I'd still feel like a lawsuit would be excessive.

this is america, lawsuits are the norm.

and depending on how his insurance contract reads, most likely it will be coverd by his insurance. but he will see a significant jump in premium on his renewal. With some exclusions in place or a outright non-renewal.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 14:48   Link #514
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
Premarital sex doesn't have to do with religious beliefs, as far as I know. I'm also under the impression that people become more religious as they grow older... not that the highly religious don't go against their beliefs.

I can accept that he may have been trying to negotiate between feeling that it was wrong for this couple to have a child but still attempted to meet his professional obligations. It still feels wrong to me overall, though. Sexuality is one thing, but what if we applied this to an ethnicity situation? I think it would be considered inappropriate by everyone immediately. (That is, assuming that race alone was the deciding factor; I've been assuming that the couple's homosexuality was the reason for the doctor's refusal to perform the service, but I don't think that we can say that such an assumption is 100% correct at this point.) To those of you who feel that the doctor wasn't wrong in what he did, would you feel differently if he had denied the procedure to a couple belonging to an ethnic minority, simply for their ethnicity?
Being in an inter-racial marriage in a country where UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY many states had prohibitions on "inter-racial" marriage on their law books, I can say that many/all of the complaints are identical to the ones objecting to inter-racial marriage (including religious beliefs).

I'm sorry but even the religious argument does not hold up well under scrutiny for this matter... or more exactly, its an example of very selective "pick and choose" which injunctions bother one.

(as far as religion goes... the older I get and the more i *examine* various religions - it is probably fair to say the less "religious" I get though I've come to appreciate certain value systems)
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 15:16   Link #515
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005


I'm not sure which bothers me more. Complete acceptance of a belief system, which spells blindness and thoughtlessness, but at least introduces an element of consistency to the irrationality of having a religion in the first place, or "pick and choose", which means that the believer at least did something to make the religion his own?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 17:20   Link #516
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
"Ah wants mah lahbster and mah polyester/cotton blends... but none of dat 'weird stuff'. Now scuse me while I sell my daughter according to dah rules..."

<shrug> some focus on the upbeat, forgiving, charitable aspects ... some focus on the hateful, selfish, "I'm going and you're not" aspects.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-22, 23:21   Link #517
FateAnomaly
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
The way i see it, the main concern is for the child. Logically thinking a child growing up with 2 mothers and no father will experience some trouble while growing up. When the child grows up, looking for a partner may also be a problem. The doctor may not want to be the one who is responsible (consciencely speaking) for whatever may happen to the child in the future. Of course, nothing may happen to the child. But it will be something that will bug him for perhaps the rest of his life.
I don't think its discriminatory as it is not as if he refused to help them at all. It is only the particular procedure that he refuse to do.
FateAnomaly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-23, 04:20   Link #518
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
As opposed to divorced parents? Unknown parents? Abusive parents? Neglectful parents?

If he has two loving, caring parents, regardless of gender, he's ahead of quite a few kids already.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-23, 04:32   Link #519
FateAnomaly
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Sure, if they live in fairyland where everyone is kind and nice or on a deserted island where they don't have to interact with others.
FateAnomaly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-23, 05:10   Link #520
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I don't see what you mean. Are you afraid other kids will be cruel to him? You can always find a reason a kid will be bullied. Too smart, too dumb, too black, too white, too pretty, too ugly... What's one more?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

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 04:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.