Pediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan

[alfred russel]

If women were technically given the right to vote but functionally prohibited from voting (including by threats of violence), I'd consider the results to be no more or less legitimate than if they weren't allowed to vote at all.

Illegal voting suppression = legal voting rules?  Ok then.

Democracy gains legitimacy from the expression of the will of the people through the vote, and I'd argue the people that elected not to vote.

I really don't see a democracy as more or less legitimate based on the methods used to disenfranchise people.

[crazy canuck]

Jesus, you can have a democracy where some part of the population's right to vote is suppressed. The term is rather general, and obviously encompasses a range of inclusion. Hell, women were not allowed to vote before 1920, and nobody says the US was not a democracy before then.

It was certainly LESS democratic than after 1920, of course. And right now it is LESS democratic than if we passed a law tomorrow allowing people serving time in prison to vote, or people under 18.

I think what AR is missing is that there is a democratic answer which can (in my view should and probably will be) used to remedy the problem.  That gets lost in hysterics.

[alfred russel]

I think what AR is missing is that there is a democratic answer which can (in my view should and probably will be) used to remedy the problem.  That gets lost in hysterics.

There is a moral case that a person should not refuse to help a child because their parents are gay.

Whether the law should permit that or not is separate from whether Martinus has justification to be appalled at the actions of the doctor.

[The Brain]

Jesus, you can have a democracy where some part of the population's right to vote is suppressed. The term is rather general, and obviously encompasses a range of inclusion. Hell, women were not allowed to vote before 1920, and nobody says the US was not a democracy before then.

It was certainly LESS democratic than after 1920, of course. And right now it is LESS democratic than if we passed a law tomorrow allowing people serving time in prison to vote, or people under 18.

So as long as at least one person (let's call him Führer) gets to vote it's a democracy. Gotcha.

[Martinus]

I think what AR is missing is that there is a democratic answer which can (in my view should and probably will be) used to remedy the problem.  That gets lost in hysterics.

There is a moral case that a person should not refuse to help a child because their parents are gay.

Whether the law should permit that or not is separate from whether Martinus has justification to be appalled at the actions of the doctor.

Thanks.

[crazy canuck]

Once again Marti fails at being a lawyer.  The article he posted states that Michigan is not one of the states which prohibits a doctor from refusing to provide service on the grounds of sexual orientation.  In fact Marti bolded that line.  Marti should be venting his anger at the legislative body which permits the doctor to make this decision not the Doctor who is conducting themselves within their legal obligations.

I never said this is illegal.

You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"

It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law.  That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law.  But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.

[Martinus]

Btw, is alfred russell really Dorsey?

[Martinus]

Once again Marti fails at being a lawyer.  The article he posted states that Michigan is not one of the states which prohibits a doctor from refusing to provide service on the grounds of sexual orientation.  In fact Marti bolded that line.  Marti should be venting his anger at the legislative body which permits the doctor to make this decision not the Doctor who is conducting themselves within their legal obligations.

I never said this is illegal.

You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"

It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law.  That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law.  But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.

Uhm, no. An action can be utterly immoral but be still legal.

For example, divorcing one's spouse after they suffer from a debilitating illness in order to marry his or her best friend whom you have been fucking all along is fully within the confines of law - but that would be utterly immoral. Westboro Baptist Church staging a protest at a funeral of a gay 10 y.o. who has been bullied until he or she committed suicide, with placards "XYZ entered hall" and "God hates fags" would be legal in many US states - but would also be utterly immoral.

I am surprised we are even arguing this.

[The Brain]

But Mart as you know there is at least one moral system in which legal == moral. The Way of the Pleat.

[alfred russel]

You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"

It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law.  That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law.  But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.

Martinus was making a rhetorical point. I'm certain he is aware there are moral systems that allow all sorts of horrendous actions.

[crazy canuck]

Once again Marti fails at being a lawyer.  The article he posted states that Michigan is not one of the states which prohibits a doctor from refusing to provide service on the grounds of sexual orientation.  In fact Marti bolded that line.  Marti should be venting his anger at the legislative body which permits the doctor to make this decision not the Doctor who is conducting themselves within their legal obligations.

I never said this is illegal.

You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"

It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law.  That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law.  But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.

Uhm, no. An action can be utterly immoral but be still legal.

For example, divorcing one's spouse after they suffer from a debilitating illness in order to marry his or her best friend whom you have been fucking all along is fully within the confines of law - but that would be utterly immoral.

I am surprised we are even arguing this.

There is a moral argument to be made against that.  But as usual your histrionics carried you away to make the absurd claim that there was no moral code known to "man" (interesting turn of phrase given your position) which would justify the decision.  The doctor made this decision based on their religious beliefs (a moral code) which was permitted by the law (itself based on a moral code).  They just happen to be the type of moral code you disagree with.

[crazy canuck]

You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"

It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law.  That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law.  But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.

Martinus was making a rhetorical point. I'm certain he is aware there are moral systems that allow all sorts of horrendous actions.

Very charitable and a good attempt at recovery on your part.  The simple fact is that Marti disagrees with the moral decision which was made.  Fair enough.  So do I.  But the difference is he then goes on to make an absurd claim which you defended 

[Jacob]

Well, my point went beyond that (and was purely addressing ethics, not legality) of the decision.

I can follow the logic many people here are showing if it was a gay adult that the doctor refused to treat (although that would still raise concerns viper voiced that individual discrimination can become systemic discrimination - and that is not a purely theoretical case; it happens a lot with access to abortion, for example, in countries like Poland).

But this is not about a doctor refusing to treat someone the doctor disagrees with morally. It is about refusing to treat a baby because the baby's parents are someone you disagree with morally - this is to me a groundbreaking distinction. I am just astonished how anyone could feel this way and still look at themselves in the mirror every day.

While we agree that it's a bad thing, that distinction is pretty minor to me. Practically speaking, infants and parents are one unit when dealing with pediatricians.

Secondly, refusing to deal with the parents are bad enough that extending it to the kid doesn't kick it up a notch unless we're talking about withholding care (rather than transfer to another caregiver). If it was "I'm not going to bandage your bleeding child (so she might die) because I don't like * you *" then I agree that disapproving of the parents causing withholding care for the child is even more egregious than withholding care from the parents. When it's a case of "you're yucky, so someone else will deal with you and your kid" it doesn't make a difference; it's already terrible.

[Jacob]

Btw, is alfred russell really Dorsey?

Yup.

[Martinus]

Btw, is alfred russell really Dorsey?

Yup.

Weird. I find myself agreeing with him a lot. I remember Dorsey as a disagreeable jerkass.