US lesbian wins fertility battle

[Gonz]

It works....see.

It's also much easier to distinguish when Harolds TV & Stereo has a sign that says NO GOOKS outr front. Otherwise, you have to actually interact with these idiots. Hey, if Harlods doesn't like Gooks, it's his loss because Maudes, across the street, says, Harolds Sucks, Shop Here.

 

[2minkey]

Guess you missed my post, so I'll say it again...

Nobody...let's say that again with some emphasis...nobody has a right to a child.

i didn't miss your post. i just didn't think it was a very strong point.

 

[Gato_Solo]

i didn't miss your post. i just didn't think it was a very strong point.

But its the only point that counts, innit? Children are not a right. Children are a responsibility. Her hurt feelings do not change that one iota.

 

[tonksy]

At some point I gotta say that I would rather a person that genuinely wanted a child have one, regardless of their sexual orientation, over some chick that was able to get knocked up as a result of indifference or stupidity.

 

[Professur]

At some point I gotta say that I would rather a person that genuinely wanted a child have one, regardless of their sexual orientation, over some chick that was able to get knocked up as a result of indifference or stupidity.

A shitload of highschool girls made a pact to all get preggers. Suspicions arose when 17 girls in the same place all got pregnant at the same time. Genuinely wanting kids is a long, long way down my list for prerequisites to having them. Able to raise, support and nurture those kids would, on the other hand, appear rather nearer to the top.

 

[tonksy]

Granted. Let me amend my comment to genuinely wanting a child and possessing the ability to do so.

 

[2minkey]

But its the only point that counts, innit? Children are not a right. Children are a responsibility. Her hurt feelings do not change that one iota.

um, no, not really.

she's pissed because somebody said no to her because she's a lesbian, for services that would otherwise be rendered to just about anybody else. broadly, that is discriminatory.

somebody said no because of a religiously-based value preventing him from assisting with a specific service.

there is an equation here with two sets of rights that must be balanced.

right to have a child? how about simply right to pursue happiness and all that that entails? hey what a bout life and liberty? are you going to tell me that having kids is not part of "life?" try denying reproductive rights to a bunch of christian fundies in the bible belt. see what happens. no $ale. so, weak point...

 

[Gato_Solo]

um, no, not really.

she's pissed because somebody said no to her because she's a lesbian, for services that would otherwise be rendered to just about anybody else. broadly, that is discriminatory.


there is an equation here with two sets of rights that must be balanced.

right to have a child? how about simply right to pursue happiness and all that that entails? hey what a bout life and liberty? are you going to tell me that having kids is not part of "life?" try denying reproductive rights to a bunch of christian fundies in the bible belt. see what happens. no $ale. so, weak point...

Notice the bolded part there. You probably didn't mean that exactly, but there's the rub, innit? Before this goes any further, take a peek at the justice department statistics (groan) on children without a traditional family in US prisons...I won't bother to link it because you're smart enough to find it yourself.

 

[MrBishop]

The 2nd set of rights would be the doctor's right to refuse treatment to someone based on his/her own religious/moral/ethical standards.

So the question is: Did the Doctor fall within his rights (if those do exist) to refuse a patient a procedure for non-medical reasons (ie. patient has high blood pressure, is HIV positive, is addicted to crack cocaine, is too young)

She was paying for such a procedure. The fertility clinic is a business. Did he (as an employee) have the right to speak on behalf of his employer.

Ignoring the hypocratic oath f'r a second.

 

[tonksy]

Hypocratic oath has nothing to do with elective fertilization.

 

[2minkey]

1. Notice the bolded part there. You probably didn't mean that exactly, but there's the rub, innit?


2.Before this goes any further, take a peek at the justice department statistics (groan) on children without a traditional family in US prisons...I won't bother to link it because you're smart enough to find it yourself.

1. um, that's exactly what i meant. what "rub?"

2. the stats you mention are irrelevant. we're not talking about outcomes (or social engineering) here. just a self-important bitch and her superstitious doctor.

 

[2minkey]

Hypocratic oath has nothing to do with elective fertilization.

yup.

an no, bish, no one should be forced to do anything that conflicts with a deeply held, core value, no matter whether it is based on make-believe faeries and goblins, jebus, rational humanism, whatever.

or maybe we should start putting quakers in jail for not shootin' commies in 'nam?

 

[MrBishop]

Hypocratic oath has nothing to do with elective fertilization.

That's what I said. Without going into the issue of hypocratic oath at all... it doesn't apply here.

 

[MrBishop]

yup.

an no, bish, no one should be forced to do anything that conflicts with a deeply held, core value, no matter whether it is based on make-believe faeries and goblins, jebus, rational humanism, whatever.

or maybe we should start putting quakers in jail for not shootin' commies in 'nam?

Get another job, then.

As an employee, he agreed to do job X... he's being paid to do job X. He's not being asked to do job Y.

Either do job X and shut your yap or find another job or another employer.

* As an example. My last job, before I was hired. I was asked specifically what my feelings were about hunting, guns in general, the military and police etc... Why? Because my company sold hunting equipment, weapons and equipment for cops and military folx. If I had a moral issue with dealing with our end users or the products themselves..I was given an out right there..before being hired. I also had the option to quit if it got to me.

 

[2minkey]

right. we should all quit jobs if there is some remote chance of something that we object to happening.

this doctor is prolly a million year old geezer that started his job before the dinosaurs turned to oil and the arabs got rich and bought mercedes benzes. prolly didn't think about miss pooperscheit and her potential situation at all.

expel him! cast out the bad one! where are my newt noses?

 

[MrBishop]

So what's the option... turn her away because she offends his pussy sensibilities?

Again, we fall back to: what if he has issues dealing with jews next, or black people, or muslims, or people with red hair (the harlots!!) - let it all fly because, goshdarnit, it's his right to discriminate?

 

[2minkey]

no, but it is his right to hold certain "deep" values. again, two sets of rights present here, to be balanced in a reasonable fashion. you're apparently fine with steamrolling his. i'm not, despite the fact that he's an obvious asshole.

 

[MrBishop]

She's got a contract for services to be rendered. He, as an employee, has to fulfill the task given to him. Again, his deep values might have as easily have included racism as easily as it does his views on homosexuality.

He has the right to hold such values..and maintains that right (not steamrolled).

Holding such values doesn't give him the right to act on such values, especially when it contradicts the law of the land...which in this case states that he cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

It's the law that's steamrolling his values and not the woman who is simply insisting that the laws apply to everyone equally.
*If he had simply found an alternative person to perform this procedure, we wouldn't be arguing this out. He would've held his values, and she would've gotten her AI.

 

[2minkey]

he has the right to (whatever i'm starting to forget things here) but you're going to toss him out of a job because he's exercising that right?

it's not the law that's steamrolling him, exactly, and this uneven application of the law should appealed vigorously.

let's all gather round and argue against dogmatic rigidities while we enforce our own! yay! you sure you ain't from texas?

 

[paul_valaru]

he has the right to (whatever i'm starting to forget things here) but you're going to toss him out of a job because he's exercising that right?

it's not the law that's steamrolling him, exactly, and this uneven application of the law should appealed vigorously.

let's all gather round and argue against dogmatic rigidities while we enforce our own! yay! you sure you ain't from texas?

I worked at a hotel, guarantee I would be fired if I refused someone cause they wore a cross, and I am ethically opposed to the religious.

He does not have to invite her to his house, but he has to treat her like he would treat anyone else.