Replies

So where does it end? Talk about a slippery slope. Just waiting for the doctor who refuses to treat a Muslim. Or a doctor who refuses basic treatment to a homosexual. And so on... Kinda ironic, too, considering this Catholic doctor is, in a sense, playing God with fertility.

This is all getting ridiculous.

the Catholic doctor is attempting to NOT violate the tenets of his religious faith by NOT administering artificial insemination to a woman who cannot conceive naturally because her partner is ANOTHER FEMALE. God dealt with this situation by making it impossible for a pair of females to NATURALLY produce a child. so GOD is playing GOD in this case.

can you truly not see the difference between treating a muslim or homosexual for basic care and administering a procedure which involves the artificial creation of life, in contravention of one's particular religious beliefs?

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all. This had nothing to do with "basic" or "life-saving" medical care. I doubt the doctors would have denied that at all. Furthermore, infertility can be caused by legit medical problems that can be treated. Her desire to be inseminated is only because she doesn't want to have sex with a man to get pregnant.

I agree with the other posters on this thread. Sounds like she kept her lesbo identity hidden. Gee, I don't even think they would have been treating her for infertility if they knew she WASN'T even having sex with a MAN.

You are deceived by propaganda.

The article states that the doctors refused to artificially inseminate her.

Catholics do not believe in artificial insemination and will not perform this procedure on anyone, whether they are a sexual deviant or not.

Nor will they perform an abortion or a vasectomy or a tubal ligation or a sex-change operation.

This has nothing to do with refusing anyone basic, life-saving treatment - it has to do with refusing to perform immoral elective procedures no matter the religion, race or personal conduct of the individual requesting them.

Kinda ironic, too, considering this Catholic doctor is, in a sense, playing God with fertility.

the doctor is not "playing God."

Every developmentally human being has a reproductive faculty which may be healthy or which may be injured or diseased.

A doctor's job - to treat injuries or diseases - is not "playing God."

The Catholic reproductive doctor seeks to treat reproductive injuries or diseases in order to restore the ability of the patient to naturally procreate.

... Kinda ironic, too, considering this Catholic doctor is, in a sense, playing God with fertility.

This is all getting ridiculous.

What is making it ridiculous is the ranting of people here who think a doctor should be compelled to perform an artificial insemination procedure contrary to his religious beliefs, and then have the unbelievable chutzpah to claim the doctor is "playing God".

Perhaps you fail to see the difference between treating infertility so that someone can naturally conceive a child and performing an aritificial insemination to "unnaturally" conceive a child. Or perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of prolonging an argument. I don't know.

As for your slippery slope strawman of "where does it end" consider the slippery slope in the other direction: If the courts rule that these doctors must violate their religious beliefs by performing an artificial insemination simply because they were initially treating an infertility condition, are you perfectly fine with the courts also ruling that Catholic OB/GYN's must perform abortions or face losing their medical licenses?