It's rather revealing to see the emphasis placed on the parents rather than the health and well being of the child.
Pediatrician refuses to care for lesbians' baby
- Thread starter nikolai_42
- Start date
It's rather revealing to see the emphasis placed on the parents rather than the health and well being of the child.
Considering the amount of time Jesus spent (or didn't spend) teaching about that particular sin, it is definitely weird that some who profess to follow Him, obsess so strongly about it.
genuineoriginal
New member
_____
Why so many Christians won't back down on gay marriage
Christianity's opposition to homosexuality is not the product of some dusty medieval exegete poring over obscure Old Testament verses. From the beginning, what set apart the new and strange sect called Christians from the rest of their culture was their strange sexual ethic. They refused polygamy. They refused the sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners. They refused prostitution, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, the exposure of infants, contraception — and homosexual acts.
As the British philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe noted, in this Christianity was a great equalizing force: Because of the fact of pregnancy, most premodern cultures enforce sexual restraint on women. Where Christianity's bizarreness lay is that it insisted on the same restraint on the part of men — whether gay or straight. Christians held a bizarrely exalted view of (lifelong, monogamous, fertile, heterosexual) marriage as reflecting the image of God himself, but, even more bizarrely, held up lifelong celibacy as an even more exalted state of life. From the start, alongside the refusal to worship the Roman emperor as a god and Christians' supererogatory care for the poor, this was what set Christians apart, and goes a long way toward explaining why Pagan writers could scorn Christianity as a religion of "slaves and women."
Of course, like all ideals, this was very often observed in the breach, but such is the lot of human nature. Human beings, societies, cultures, and religions have a worldview that includes moral "oughts," and that they only partially live up to, as anyone who has tried to stick to a diet knows.
But the point is clear: From the start, Christians embodied a different way of life. From the start, they understood a particular sexual ethic to be a keystone of this way of life. And they understood the logic of this ethic as prohibiting (among other things) homosexual acts.
_____
Why so many Christians won't back down on gay marriage
Christianity's opposition to homosexuality is not the product of some dusty medieval exegete poring over obscure Old Testament verses. From the beginning, what set apart the new and strange sect called Christians from the rest of their culture was their strange sexual ethic. They refused polygamy. They refused the sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners. They refused prostitution, premarital sex, divorce, abortion, the exposure of infants, contraception — and homosexual acts.
As the British philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe noted, in this Christianity was a great equalizing force: Because of the fact of pregnancy, most premodern cultures enforce sexual restraint on women. Where Christianity's bizarreness lay is that it insisted on the same restraint on the part of men — whether gay or straight. Christians held a bizarrely exalted view of (lifelong, monogamous, fertile, heterosexual) marriage as reflecting the image of God himself, but, even more bizarrely, held up lifelong celibacy as an even more exalted state of life. From the start, alongside the refusal to worship the Roman emperor as a god and Christians' supererogatory care for the poor, this was what set Christians apart, and goes a long way toward explaining why Pagan writers could scorn Christianity as a religion of "slaves and women."
Of course, like all ideals, this was very often observed in the breach, but such is the lot of human nature. Human beings, societies, cultures, and religions have a worldview that includes moral "oughts," and that they only partially live up to, as anyone who has tried to stick to a diet knows.
But the point is clear: From the start, Christians embodied a different way of life. From the start, they understood a particular sexual ethic to be a keystone of this way of life. And they understood the logic of this ethic as prohibiting (among other things) homosexual acts.
_____
in what way is the health and well being of the child being harmed?
or did you think this was a pediatrician in Qikiqtaaluk?
it's not
she's in detroit
they can find another pediatrician
TracerBullet
New member
refusing to treat a child because it's parents are members is without moral standing no matter what minority that child's parents happen to be. A physician refusing to treat a child because it's parents are black is no different from refusing to treat a child because it's parents are gay, both are acts of discrimination and bigotry.
GFR7
New member
:AMR1:
GFR7
New member
But the child will NOT go without medical care. We know that.
TracerBullet
New member
the closest He came was the woman taken in adultery
do you remember what He told her, the last five words He told her?
genuineoriginal
New member
The doctor discovered that she had a conflict of interest and voluntarily defused that conflict before any impropriety occurred.
Would you rather have the doctor suffer from a lapse in professional judgment that would have put the child at risk?
GFR7
New member
We already said (go back and read the posts, Boo Boo) that emergency care must be completely blind to race, gender, criminality, etc. This is about a doctor not wanting to routinely see the parents.
GFR7
New member
The infant is NOT ill: See OP.
Read my previous post ... there should be no *buts* in your response. The PATIENT is a child. The PATIENT is the focus. You are justifying an action against a child because ... you despise the parents.
TracerBullet
New member
what did he say to the man "taken in adultery"? Oh wait, there was no man.
genuineoriginal
New member
The doctor discovered that she had a conflict of interest and voluntarily defused that conflict before any impropriety occurred.
Would you rather have the doctor agree to treat the child after identifying the conflict of interest, knowing that the doctor's professional judgment could be impaired by the doctor's feelings towards the child's parents?
GFR7
New member
Then she would have to recuse herself - although it is a bit irrational (blacks are everywhere; most won't rape you).
TracerBullet
New member
if a doctor is so prejudiced that he/she is unwilling to treat members of minorities than that doctor's professional judgment is non-existent.
TracerBullet
New member
and yet you willingly discriminate against the poor poor minority called pedophiles
:mock:traci, so blinded to his own bogotry