Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

prometeus · Feb 25, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

nota bene said:
I am not a bigot, nor am I an ignorant apologist. I do treat others with dignity and respect and wish that you would do the same. Throughout this thread you have referred to others as “morons” and "ignorant" and have frequently commented on others’ reading comprehension skills. Brush up on your own. I have posted five times on this thread, and in not one have I said anything one way or another about the issues being discussed.

To Pete EU (Post 623), I posted, “No, sir. Many, many physicians don't take the Hippocratic Oath (choosing an alternative oath instead) and haven't done so for over 30 years.”

You responded to this factual statement with “Can you cite one which condones declining treatment for a six days old child because of ignorant bigotry?” and I replied in Post 628, “Non sequitur and entirely irrelevant to my point.”

You then posted the accusatory, “You tried to excuse the bigotry because she may have taken a different version or different oath as a physician. Now when asked you know any that would condone it, it becomes irrelevant or more like you are fresh out of excuses?”

I then replied in Post 634, “Get off my ass, Prometeus. What I did was correct a factual misstatement. I have offered no opinion whatsoever on the OP; I merely corrected the very common misconception that physicians routinely take the Hippocratic Oath these days when many do not.”

Your responding post was, “Please do not delude yourself, I have do desire to get on your ass in any way shape or form. No, you did not [correct a factual misstatement]. You attempted, but the fact is that physicians today take an oath which is for all practical purposes the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath, and not a single on condones such bigotry. So the refusal to see the infant is a clear violation of such oaths.” And you also said in response to my factual statement that “ I have offered no opinion whatsoever on the OP,” “Not directly you did not, but your attempted correction, speak volumes also.”

Actually, it doesn't. I refuse to be sucked into a debate in which I do not wish to engage, and no amount of spinning or baiting or "inferring" will accomplish what you intend, so give it up.

My last response to you until now was in Post 636, in which I replied, “I don't think you understand why physicians so often choose not to take the Hippocratic Oath. I'll leave it to you to research this. What you're trying to do is suck me into a discussion I don't wish to have. I have made no comment on this particular physician's decision, and my sole purpose in posting on this thread was to correct a very common misconception. What your agenda is here with me I can't guess, but you need to find somebody else to bait.”

You are determined to see what doesn’t exist because it fits with your own malignant view of others. I can’t imagine what drives you to imagine what does not exist (or to continually insult other people), but you need never infer anything from what I post. I speak plainly, and you won’t find a hidden message. Of course, you may choose to invent one because of some need of your own, but I’ve taken the time to paste every word I’ve posted on this thread to expose your contemptible duplicity.

You have even insinuated now that I’m a bigot based on my simple and truthful statement that “what may have been lost in all these many pages is the fact that every day pediatricians do treat the children of gay couples and that this is a commonplace. Perhaps this story is news because what happened is extraordinary rather than ordinary.”

Honi soit qui mal y pense—Evil unto him who thinks evil of it. More loosely, shame on you and your dishonorable tactics.

My words are also plain and I call them the way I see them, but unlike you I do not backpedal. You have had every opportunity to clarify anything that may have been misunderstood about your post, instead you chose to divert and introduce irrelevant drivel as excuses.
When Pete called for the doctors license to be pulled you remarked that not every doctor takes the Hippocratic oath. Was that just a desperate desire to introduce irrelevant trivia into the discussion? Or the irrelevant drivel about pediatricians treating the children of gay couples? What was that supposed to add to the discussion about the bigotry of a particular doctor?
Why can't you just garner enough integrity to admit that due to your own religious views, faith whatever you can not find it in you do condemn the act, or better yet if you can not condemn it for whatever reason and neither can you publicly condone it, why did eve bother to enter the discussion. Clearly you have brought nothing to it.

prometeus · Feb 25, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Cryptic said:
Do you have a source? I dont think SCOTUS is under any obligation to accept any particular new amendment to the constitution. Rather, they can decide whether the amendment is in and of itself, constitutional.

That does not quite make sense. They have to make that determination based on what the Constitution is at any given time and not what they think is should be. They are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution not its makers.
As long as the Amendment is brought into existence by the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution, then the Amendment is constitutional. Why do you think it is so difficult to amend the Constitution? Specifically so it can not be done on a whim or recklessly. Yet I must say the we did have prohibition.

paddymcdougall · Feb 25, 2015

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Taylor said:
How about a fat guy and a woman with red hair? Or two people who happen to be very tall? Or an Irishman and his Norweigian beau? How many "protected classes" do you want to create? Race has special significance in this country, which is why you all are constantly trying to piggyback on it and can't seem to argue in favor of gays without bringing up blacks.

If you have any examples about doctors refusing treatment to the child of a couple because the woman has red hair or whatever, please do list those examples.

Otherwise, stick to the topic and to what actually happened - a doctor refused to treat a baby because the parents were lesbian.

Cryptic · Feb 26, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

sangha said:
That's a new one for me.

How is an amendment that has passed according to the requirements set forth in the Constitution unconstitutional?

Because amendments propose actions and no action is automatically constitutional. Likewsie, any new amendment cannnot void right from existing amendments. If a hypothetical super majority passed an amendment legalizing slavery, disinfranchising blacks (or whites), or voiding the second amendment, such an action would still be subject to review by SCOTUS.

I am surprised that you have difficulty with the concept.

prometeus said:
As long as the Amendment is brought into existence by the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution, then the Amendment is constitutional.

I doubt it. Just becasue an amendment passes, does not make it constitutional- espescially of it can shown that it voids an earlier amendment. If, say a hypothetical super majority passed an amendment legalizing slavery, disinfranchising blacks (or whites), or voiding the second amendment, my guess is that such an action would still be subject to review by SCOTUS.

prometeus said:
Why do you think it is so difficult to amend the Constitution?

Well, becasue it is. That aside, my contention is not whether or not it is hard to amend the constitution, just that new amendments are still subject to judicial review.

prometeus · Feb 26, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Cryptic said:
Because amendments propose actions and no action is automatically constitutional. Likewsie, any new amendment cannnot void right from existing amendments. If a hypothetical super majority passed an amendment legalizing slavery, disinfranchising blacks (or whites), or voiding the second amendment, such an action would still be subject to review by SCOTUS.

And you can support that with what?

I am surprised that you have difficulty with the concept.

What is surprising is how little you understand our Constitution.

Well, becasue it is.

Yea, that must be it.

sangha · Feb 26, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Cryptic said:
Because amendments propose actions and no action is automatically constitutional. Likewsie, any new amendment cannnot void right from existing amendments. If a hypothetical super majority passed an amendment legalizing slavery, disinfranchising blacks (or whites), or voiding the second amendment, such an action would still be subject to review by SCOTUS.

I am surprised that you have difficulty with the concept.

Well then hold onto your seat because, for someone who is obviously intelligent, you just posted what looks like a bunch of gobbledy-gook to me.

"amendments propose actions"??? "no action is automatically constitutional"???

I have no idea what that means or even what you're referring to. Amendments make law. The may prohibit actions, or they may compel action or both. But regardless, even if you were right I still have no idea of what the relevance is to what I said. The fact remains that amendments passed according to constitutional requirements are constitutional.
i
SCOTUS gets to make decisions concerning how a law is implemented and what it means, but it doesn't get to say that a constitutional amendment is not constitutional.

If a hypothetical super majority passed an amendment legalizing slavery, disinfranchising blacks (or whites), or voiding the second amendment, such an action would still be subject to review by SCOTUS.

Yes, SCOTUS gets to review laws, including amendments, to determine meaning etc, but it makes no sense to say they get to decide if parts of the constitution are constitutional or not.

roguenuke · Mar 1, 2015

Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Cryptic said:
Do you have a source? I dont think SCOTUS is under any obligation to accept any particular new amendment to the constitution. Rather, they can decide whether the amendment is in and of itself, constitutional.

Any thing in the Constitution is going to be constitutional, unless it was put in there unconstitutionally. So long as it went through the legal method to be ratified, it is constitutional.
"Amendment" means a change to a document or making something "better".

Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

prometeus

prometeus

paddymcdougall

Cryptic

prometeus

sangha

roguenuke

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency