Discussion in 'The Real World' started by Professur, Aug 19, 2008.
If you ever wondered who's rights are more important .. now you know.
The Docs rights end exactly where the patient's begins and vice-versa. They signed up to be fertility doctors, not priests. Their job is to impregnate women..period. Not to judge which woman they want to or don't want to impregnate.
I'd get the same feeling if a Doctor refused to impregnate a black woman, or a Jewish woman, or a blind woman...regardless fo what moral code they decided applied at the time.
kinda interesting when you think about where all the "pro-life" stuff comes from - religiously cloaked for the sheeple but actually intended to make sure the sheeple reproduce themselves as an economically vulnerable labor force.
so while they think they are acting n a religiously proper way, these docs are actually, unknowingly denying the underlying mechanism of their belief.
hey, lesbian babies can work in the mills, too.
or soylent green
I wonder what Tyler's statement would've been if Muslim or Jewish doctors refused to treat women because of their religious beliefs.
Certainly not "Oh..that's alright then."
The only one denying this woman the "right" is herself & her choices.
Lesbians don't have sperm. Sorry.
how come this bitch don't just find herself a new doctor with a turkey baster?
Because sometimes self-righteous indignation is the most important thing?
Its become easier to play the victim and demand monetary retribution than to find someone else to do the job.
Or they are standing up for their rights.
Sorry. I don't buy that in the least. Used to be a slogan "We reserve the right to refuse service to (insert item here)". The trouble with this idea started with "Seperate but equal". I won't go into any detail on my view of that, but nobody, and I mean nobody has a right to a child. You can jump on that bandwagon if you like, and post any kind of 'statistic' you desire, but thats the bottom line. If you want a child, then either adopt, or get fucked like every other producing human being on the planet. This lawsuit is
They also used to have white and colored fountains.
They are free to discriminate all they want in their private lives, if they want to, they are free to protest with phelps and the gang
Isn't that like go fuck yourself???
I guess she found a good jewish doctor.
(why anyone would see a goy doctor is beyond me..JOKING)
or they should just stop being a fucking drama queen and get a doctor who isn't impaired by superstition?
there's no real harm to this lady when she can simply walk across the street to another physician.
They did go to another doctor, but they shouldn't have had too. It's dircrimination to refuse service on account of gender race or sexual orientation.
I always ask a new doctor how they feel about evolution.
Edit: Interestingly, I have not yet received an incorrect answer.
really? i didn't realize she was being forced to ride on the back of the bus - any bus - or use a special drinking fountain. well, better call out the national guard.
this lady had no difficulty finding exactly the quasimedical service she wanted. no difficulty whatsoever.
should the right of her ugly ass to have a kid steamroll the right of doctor yumyum to object to a very specific procedure that he finds objectionably on a religious basis, particularly when there a re a gazillion easily obtainable alternatives for her? oh did we mention that this isn't REALLY interfereing at all with her ability to procure a kid unit? hmmm... difficult choices, indeed.
underlying all of this there must be a doctrine of reasonability, unless we're really hoping to launch a new and exciting bullshit orthodoxy. yay for kneejerk!
you sound like the guys way back when saying "well, i don't get it, what is wrong with the back of the bus?"
t'wasn't the procedure the quack had an issue with..it was the person requesting said procedure. - therein lies the rub.
Like a store that sells sex aids to everyone BUT not to homosexuals.
sorry, dude, you're the one pushing your own orthodoxy on everyone else here. if anyone's wearing an armband...
and, again, she had plenty of alternatives.
if she was truly put in a position where she had to go to unusual lengths to procure the same service of level of service as the "normals" or entirely unable to secure the same, then there would be an issue. there isn't.
maybe next we can force religious christians to perform abortions, when a free koat hangar klinik is right across the street, just to show those fuckers who is boss, eh?
Actually you are the one saying a Dr. can refuse to treat a patient because of their personal beleifs.
Which in thins case is against the law, and the hippocratic oath.
Separate names with a comma.