GFR7
New member
I am surprised there are none coming to her defense on the reviews site, but perhaps in time........
Pediatrician refuses to care for lesbians' baby
- Thread starter nikolai_42
- Start date
Morpheus
New member
You failed to answer the question. Would Christ have turned the church child of a lesbian or prostitute away without healing it? And yes, He would have developed a years-long relationship with them, although He likely would have lovingly discussed their practices. We have several examples where followers didn't immediately jump right in. Such as Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both memders of the Council who gradually came around.
Edit: And let's not forget the "sinful" woman who washed his feet with her tears. How about those awful Samaritans? Most Jews wouldn't even travel that road, but Jesus sent the adulterous woman to get Him a drink of water.
Right, let's get back to that "stand", where she wouldn't treat the kid but had no qualms sending in her co-worker.
How is that a "stand"?
I am surprised there are none coming to her defense on the reviews site, but perhaps in time........
But, there's still gonna be lesbians and their kids there because the other Doctor doesn't seem to have a problem and more importantly this Doctor herself seems to have no problem sending the other Doctor to do that which she herself won't.
Nothing says "pro-life" quite like "won't treat an infant."
shagster01
New member
How is not helping a sick child a stand against perversion?
I don't know what to call this other than disjointed, so she's "pro not gay"? Which makes her functionally "anti gay"? But has no problem sending in a co-worker to the Lesbians?
If she said "I won't treat you and I don't recommend anyone else here does either" then at least that would be consistent.
GFR7
New member
I understand this, yes. Of course.
...and very well may have been enough to get her fired. But hey, God told her what to do, so, yeah.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
To me it seems like the parable of the Good Samaritan applies pretty well to this case..
:think:
:think:
Everyone wants to go to war, wave the flag, charge the hill.
Who wants to visit the sick?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Well, no. You don't have to ignore the elephant but you don't have to beat it with a baseball bat either.
Should I assume that you implicitly support all the opinions, beliefs, and activities of every person you have ever worked with?
yes, she was right in doing so if she could not in good conscience have an appropriate relationship with the parents which is required of a pediatric doctor.
Would you want to have a relationship with a doctor you couldn't trust?
A pediatric relationship would last from infancy usually till the child is 18. Legally also a private doctor can refuse service to anyone. See the doctors letter of explanation to the lesbian parents. There would be a conflict of interest, and she was stopping it before it started.
That would be ok with me, i would want a doctor who had no conflict of interest in how my child was to be treated.
genuineoriginal
New member
Exactly
genuineoriginal
New member
The parable of the Good Samaritan was about providing emergency service, which is not the same as starting the 18+ year long relationship between a pediatrician and a family with children.
GFR7
New member
This was the doctor's whole point.:up:
lain: Isn't that like suggesting Christ's declaration concerning his physical resurrection was about living wills? Though many aren't suggesting the physician is obligated to take that on, only finding the treatment/timing scorn worthy.
genuineoriginal
New member
Kind of like a guy on a date with a girl that agrees to sex at every point until she gets her clothes off and then says "no"?
Should we scorn the girl on the date for saying "no" at the last minute?
The timing is quite upsetting to the other party, but most of the people speaking against the doctor are upset that she said "no".
When are these people complaining against the doctor's actions going to learn that "no means no"?