California Court to Hear Lesbian Insemination Case

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Marine1, May 28, 2008.

  1. Marine1

    Marine1 Guest

  2. My question is: are the doctors who refused to do the artificial insemination because she's a lesbian the same ones who treated her with fertility drugs for a year first? If so, I'd say they betrayed her trust by taking her money all that time without telling her they wouldn't complete the procedure.

    On the other hand, if they had no connection with the fertility treatment I'd say they have a case, particularly since they referred her to someone who would do the insemination.

  3. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    Hopefully, NONE of this is at taxpayer expense.

    That's my only gripe for any of this buffoonery. But if taxpayer $ goes to fund either straight or gay idiocy, that's not right.

    We have people who are really sick and need to triage the "electives".
  4. toolman

    toolman Resident Sasquatch Forum Contributor

    If she can't get pregnant the "natural" way, she doesn't need to be pregnant, IMO. I understand doctors combatting a couple's medical difficulties, but this isn't "natural" at all. Before T2K jumps on me for being a big lesbian-hating meanie, when was the last time anyone saw ANY animal other than homo sapiens, artificially inseminate one another because of a selfish desire to be a parent when they aren't willing to accept what that naturally entails? This is called having your cake and eating it too.
  5. CrazyIvan

    CrazyIvan G&G Enthusiast

    All I can say is adopt. There are enough kids in this world who need a home. I don't agree with artificial insemination. But, it is their choice. I wish, however, that they would go with the adoption route.

    Why not adopt one of those kids from that thing down in Texas where they just took all those kids from?
  6. Word history . . .

    you might find interesting is to go back in time to the Latin language
    from which root both the words media and mediocrity arose.

    We have phenominally more important problems to present to the American people via the news media.
  7. patrick70

    patrick70 G&G Addict

    thats what I was thinking
  8. jmp8927

    jmp8927 G&G Evangelist

    Eh...I'm against it so I guess I'd be considered biased by others. I say its the doctor's right to refuse it.
  9. When was the last time anyone saw ANY animal other than Homo Sapiens manufacture guns to kill their food and enemies with, instead of using the claws and teeth God gave them?:)

    As a matter of fact, when was the last time anyone saw ANY animal other than homo sapiens manufacture drugs to combat infections with, instead of curling up in a dark corner and licking their wounds? Or invent writing, so they can talk to their children after they've left the den and established their own territories?

    I'm not sure what you mean by, "a selfish desire to be a parent when they aren't willing to accept what that naturally entails." Are you saying those women have a lot of nerve, wanting to get pregnant without letting a man get his rocks off in the process? Jeez...they're some selfish, inconsiderate babes, aren't they? How dare they outsource the job to doctors?
    Last edited: May 28, 2008
  10. TexasT

    TexasT Devil's Advocate >:) Forum Contributor Forum Contributor

    Everybody thinks a doctor should have to treat a patient if they come into your office. Well the truth is that you have to stabilize a critical patient but you do not have to treat everyone that comes into your office. Doctors have rights too and should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs because of what a patient wants.

    Txplt: Yes, there is a certain amount of funds that go to the infertility doctors to help people get pregnant for free.
  11. toolman

    toolman Resident Sasquatch Forum Contributor

    LOL, I knew I'd wake ya up!:09:
    Seriously tho, the only other animals out there with opposible thumbs to facilitate building anything are apes and monkeys, and they do use weapons\tools to get what they want. I'm not going to get into other animal vs. human actions that you mentioned due to space.
    I personally don't think the whole "Ughh, man get rocks off, good!" caveman mentality has anything to do with the conversation, but I do think chilbirth\conception should be limited to a man and a woman-that's why all the parts fit and work the way they do.
  12. Again, Texas T: my question was, did those doctors charge the women for fertility treatments for a year, without telling them they wouldn't do the deed after the treatments were completed?

    If so, I think they have a good case and the doctors are hypocrites. Otherwise, it's a wobbler. For example, I don't think a doctor could get away with refusing patients simply because they're black, or Jews, or Republicans or whatever; can they turn them away on the basis of their sexual orientation?

    If the doctors weren't the ones administering the fertility treatments to begin with, I'd say the fact that they willingly referred them to someone competent to provide the medical service requested is a biggie in their favor.

    Toolman, if you go by that one, we have no business flying. We have no parts that work and fit the way that's needed for animals to fly.:)

    Obviously, my point is that the combination of an opposable thumb and a brain hooked to it means we aren't limited only to what nature, or God, or whatever you want to give a nod to, intended or allows. We can make our own rules, to a point; we don't have to require that the maternal instinct in a woman not be fulfilled unless she's willing to go to bed with men.

    The maternal instinct doesn't need sex to trigger it, you shows up anyway. If anything, we should commend those women for volunteering to deliberately bring a child into the world and nurture it, instead of the child just being a byproduct of a sexual relationship.
    Last edited: May 28, 2008
  13. TexasT

    TexasT Devil's Advocate >:) Forum Contributor Forum Contributor

    Religion does not speak against being black or a republican or things like that. It does speak against homosexuality. If a doctor isn't going to give a patient proper care because of their religious beliefs then I have no problem with them sending a referral. It's better care for the patient and you're not forcing the doctor to do something he doesn't want to do. Usually fertility treatment consists of giving the patient clomiphene and saying come back in a year or when you get pregnant. It's not like they have very intensive follow up. The drug company is getting more of the patient's money.
  14. Personally, I don't give religion much of a pass. There's already been too much stupidity in the name of God over the centuries; I don't want to encourage it.

    As you say, as long as the care was readily available elsewhere it's no big deal, especially since the doctors had references at hand for them. but if those doctors were the ones giving the fertility drugs, I have a problem with their elastic ethics. If they have a moral problem with a medical procedure, they shouldn't make money readying a patient for it; they should bow out at the very beginning.
  15. TexasT

    TexasT Devil's Advocate >:) Forum Contributor Forum Contributor

    I don't want to make excuses for them, but if you give someone fertility drugs then you kind of have to assume that they're having man-woman sex. Maybe that was their rationale.
  16. Hold on ! Am I the only one here that might of thought the doctor may not have known the woman was a Lesbian ?
    When he administerd fertility drugs.
    May be he became aware when she what'ed inseminating.

    My stand on this is Gay women should not be allowed to raise children.

    I'll give one example but I can make several.

    The child is 3 to 5 years old and wakes up during the night and foots it to Mama's bedroom.
    The child see's a harness strapped to his Mother with a thing sticking out of it and it's makeing a vibrateing humming sound and there's another person like his/her Mother in the bed with her.

    Could happen...I rest my case for now...A.H

    EDIT Sorry Ms: T I didn't read your post. About the doctor assumeing she was straight.
    Last edited: May 29, 2008
  17. TexasT

    TexasT Devil's Advocate >:) Forum Contributor Forum Contributor

    A child seeing any sexual act is traumatizing no matter what mix of people is doing it.
  18. That seems to be the conventional wisdom nowadays, but I have my doubts. Countless generations of people were raised in one-room huts, hovels, tepees, igloos or whatever, where it was almost impossible to avoid what mommy and daddy were up to. To believe that in itself would traumatize them is to believe the vast majority of people throughout the history of mankind have grown up traumatized.
  19. TexasT

    TexasT Devil's Advocate >:) Forum Contributor Forum Contributor

    They were. They just didn't know it:burnout:.