Pediatrician refuses to care for lesbians' baby

[Granite]

She might possibly have believed that as a sperm donor was used, the child had been deliberately robbed of a father, which to some constitutes a form of abuse. She may not have wanted to impose this belief on them (she said as much, that she was sorry to hurt them and wanted them to enjoy parenthood). The colleague provided the medical care.

If that's what she believes, she's a total idiot.

 

[resodko]

Res;
If she doesn't want to "celebrate perversion" as you put it then why did she let her colleague treat the child?

because she cared about the child :duh:

Of course the embarrassment has nothing to do with their sexuality ...

of course - in your Christ-hating world fags don't have anything to be embarrassed about

 

[GFR7]

Res;
If she doesn't want to "celebrate perversion" as you put it then why did she let her colleague treat the child?

In your opinion, then, what was the actual reason she turned the family over to a doctor within her own practice?

 

[resodko]

... to have a colleague publicly inform them...

:think:

....as Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room...

has anybody told you lately what a lying scumbag you are?


'cause if they haven't, they should :thumb:

 

[Tinark]

In your opinion, then, what was the actual reason she turned the family over to a doctor within her own practice?

That's easy - she believed her overwhelming feelings of disgust impaired her ability to provide adequate care to the child, which includes being able to properly communicate with the parents. She felt it would lead to substandard care.

She was just too cowardly to bring up her inadequacies in person at the first meeting.

 

[resodko]

That's easy - she believed her overwhelming feelings of disgust ...

did you read the article?

 

[Town Heretic]

of course - in your Christ-hating world fags don't have anything to be embarrassed about

I think the best way to meet this is in a different spirit. So to clarify, I adore Christ. I'm grateful for the chance this sort of attempt gives me to proclaim it again. And I've been clear that I find homosexuality a sin and that all sin is contrary to the will of God.

I don't expect homosexuals will be embarrassed by their choices anymore than I expect you to be embarrassed by the choices you make here, by the lies and the hatred you wrap them in... They're both sinful and proud, worn as badges of virtue of a sort.

And all I can do for either of you is point out the error and hope you find the peace of mind that God should bring those who seek and love Him. The rest is His.

And, on topic, the doctor should have kept her word, let her yes be yes and treated the child. She could have used the opportunity as a witness, if that was really at the heart of her objection and concern. In the right spirit who knows what it might have accomplished.

has anybody told you lately what a lying scumbag you are?
'cause if they haven't, they should :thumb:

An error isn't a lie unless you know it and then repeat what you know to be untrue. I missed the exam room in my reading, though at that point it was known by at least one colleague and that in itself is inappropriate.

It's a shame the doctor didn't at the very least do her own dirty work.

 

[Tinark]

did you read the article?

Yes, she "prayed" on it. That doesn't explain her thoughts.

The article also didn't say anything about her belief treating the baby would be a "celebration" or "acceptance" of the parent's lifestyle. That's something that you made up and is something that is logically incoherent. My hypothesis explains all the facts at hand, yours does not.

 

[resodko]

So to clarify, I adore Christ.

you have nothing of Christ in you

you're a fraud

 

[GFR7]

That's easy - she believed her overwhelming feelings of disgust impaired her ability to provide adequate care to the child, which includes being able to properly communicate with the parents. She felt it would lead to substandard care.

She was just too cowardly to bring up her inadequacies in person at the first meeting.

I saw nothing to indicate that she felt overwhelming disgust.

 

[resodko]

Yes...

give me some excerpts that make you think "disgust"

The article also didn't say anything about treating the baby would be a "celebration" or "acceptance" of the parent's lifestyle.

agreed, i was speaking from my perspective based on similar threads

 

[Tinark]

I saw nothing to indicate that she felt overwhelming disgust.

What other reason do you believe would prevent her from providing adequate care? What, specifically, would impair her abilities to provide care for the child?

 

[resodko]

.And, on topic, the doctor should have kept her word, let her yes be yes and treated the child. She could have used the opportunity as a witness, if that was really at the heart of her objection and concern. In the right spirit who knows what it might have accomplished.

so go back to school, get your md and show her how it's done


poser

 

[GFR7]

What other reason do you believe would prevent her from providing adequate care? What, specifically, would impair her abilities to provide care for the child?

A moral conflict of interest. These need NOT be accompanied by powerful feelings of disgust.

From Dr. Roi's letter to the couple:

“After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationships that I normally do with my patients,” Roi wrote in her letter on Feb. 9. “I felt that it was an exciting time for the two of you and I felt that if I came in and shared my decision it would take away much of the excitement. That was my mistake. I should not have made that assumption and I apologize for that.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-parents-and-theres-nothing-illegal-about-it/

 

[Town Heretic]

so go back to school, get your md and show her how it's done

Nothing in what I noted requires a medical license to understand or apply. She's no martyr going in and hiding while she let someone else stand in on the other side of it. None of that is effective witness.

poser

Nothing of the sort, God love you. You need to get control of this before it destroys you.

 

[Morpheus]

she cared for the child by providing for her care with a qualified colleague


she cared for Christ by refusing to support a perverted lifestyle

You don't care for Christ by doing what you think is right; you show your love for Christ by doing as He instructed by word and example. Resolving the conflict is done by aligning your own heart with His. So are you actually trying to tell us that if a lesbian, or a prostitute, took their child to Him to be healed He would have turned the child away?

 

[resodko]

You need to get control of this before it destroys you.

go to hell

 

[fool]

because she cared about the child :duh:

Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?
"Too yucky for me, YOU go do it"?

of course - in your Christ-hating world fags don't have anything to be embarrassed about

No quite there yet as this story illustrates but the tide has definitely turned. New York has gay marriage for a few years now, are you planning your exodus?

 

[Tinark]

A moral conflict of interest. These need NOT be accompanied by powerful feelings of disgust.

From Dr. Roi's letter to the couple:

But how can it possibly be immoral to provide medical care to a baby and communicate the health needs of the baby with a sinner?

Is having a professional relationship with a sinner immoral? What is your basis for that?

 

[resodko]

A moral conflict of interest. These need NOT be accompanied by powerful feelings of disgust.

From Dr. Roi's letter to the couple:

and tinark reads:

I'm afraid that my powerful feelings of disgust for you would prevent me from....