i'd rep you again, if i could.
this is honestly kind of tricky, and i can see some of the concerns on the ''other side'' of this issue....
this doctor, if i have it right....i didn't read the initial article but popped in on the thread midstream so i ''gathered'' that this doc refused because he did not want to artificially inseminate this woman because she was in a lesbian relationship, there would be 2 mothers....but i think someone mentioned that he did perform this procedure for other women, in hetero relationships....
so, there is the potential of it truely being discrimination imo....thus the trickiness of it....
i can ALSO understand how this truely could be a religious objection of his....if he truely believed that he "had a calling" to become this fertility specialist Doctor, so to help loving hetero couples fulful their dream of a family unit, including a child...all fitting in with his Bible or Koran or whatever, teachings, then to be FORCED by the government or HAVE TO perform the procedure to artificially inseminate a woman who was not in this Biblically sound relationship, when that is objectional to him...I see the First Amendment, our FIRST Right in the Bill of Rights, being important and our first "right" for a reason and it being totally violated by our gvt if it forced this man to do something religiously objectionable.
But if this man refused to perform this procedure on a Black couple as was asked earlier, my answer to this is that this would NOT BE FOR RELIGIOUS reason, thus not covered under the first amendment....and would be discriminating.
Also, the fact that this procedure is not an emergency procedure but an elective procedure is also part of my decision making process in this because OF COURSE if it were some kind of "emergency, life threatening situation" all Doctors would be obligated to save ANYONES' life and religious reasons do not apply to any kind of life saving denials.
People tend to think this is a, taking one stance, type of topic but it is much more complicated than such and i could give reasons to support it going either way...but what always wins out with me, is the Constitution, and what it says about it.
Another part of that was mentioned by someone is that this doctor recommended another doctor for this procedure, who did not have any religious issues with it....that seemed fair enough, since it was not something that was urgently needed.
However, I'm not sure how i feel on the morning after pill, and the pharmacists...though I agree it could be objectional for religious reasons, if he then had another pharmacist there fill it for her, then fine....
If he has to send her someplace halfway around town to get it filled and she can't get to it that day or for another couple of days due to work or whatever, then this pharmacist could be harming her...I say this because it takes a couple of weeks in to 'pregnancy weeks', for the fertilized egg to make it to the conception stage...the stage where the egg is finally attached to the uterus....if, the morning after pill is not taken within the first 3 days after fertilization, then the chances of conception are higher, and this chemical may not work to prevent it from attaching to the uterus....it is much like the Birth control Pill and what it does, prevents eggs from attaching to the uterus...conception.
So, again, i can understand the religious objection of the pharmacist, to a degree, but i can also understand that it could be FOR Religious reasons of the woman to want to take this drug BEFORE the baby was conceived....when it reaches and attaches to the uterus....see, even naturally, i think i read over 1/3 of all fertilized eggs never make it to the attachment to the uterus stage, conception.
And if this woman had truely been through a Rape, or incest rape, she should not have to go through this kind of anguish, embarassment, etc either...
SEE...things just aren't as simple as one would like them to be imo....
The other thing that is haunting me, is the "Good Samaratan" story...where the "religious Levi and Priest" did NOT help the, 'left for dead on the side of the road man', for "religious" reasons....it was either the Sabbath, or this man was "unclean" because of his bloodiness...or something of the sort that was against the Jewish religion....but the lowly Samaratan man, who was thought of as an unholy man from a lowly tribe, knew what the RIGHT thing was to do....regardless of the Law...and that was to have compassion, and help the man on the side of the road that needed help at that time....
damn, i'm a real mess!!!! hahahahahahahaha!!!!
care
let individuals take their stance.
