Post by Oily on Nov 16, 2004 12:23:48 GMT -5
Performing a service that is against your moral code should be given an exemption. However, it should not be used to be held against a person.
For example, while a doctor may not want to perform an abortion if it is against their beliefs, they should not be allowed to opt out of performing a kidney transplant on a girl who once had an abortion.
Especially considering that much of the religious objections to homosexuals seems to take the line of "hate the sin, love the sinner". In this case, it should be "hate the sin, cure the sinner." Doctors do have to treat murderers, paedophiles and rapists. It's not something they enjoy doing, I should think, but it has to be done.
The doctor is not being asked to condone a person's lifestyle, or to make a moral judgement on them. The doctor is simply being asked to treat them. If the act of treatment will breach the doctor's personal moral code, the patient should be transferred on to another doctor. However, the act of treating a gay person does not mean you condone all that they do. If a thief puts his arm through a glass window, you still have to bandage that arm. That can be done without condoning the theft.
It needs to be carefully worded and drafted in order to prevent misuse or bigotry being condoned.
Guys, mass media can still be valuable. Sure, the bill is being drafted to protect certain rights. However, this article also is highlighting the fact that it can take away other rights. The article is right and true, and can be accepted. Its bias - the fact that it doesn't mention the bill is also being drafted to protect certain rights - has to be seen through. The facts still stand.
In addition, we know the article is biased. We do not know if this bias is true. Is the bill being drafted purely to protect workers' rights and some newspaper has hyped it up to make it seem like a piece of "nasty Republician" legislation? Or has it been drafted in order to push this agenda, under the pretence of workers' rights? We simply cannot know.
Read the bill, but don't dismiss this article out of hand.
It does highlight one important thing - the bill needs to be redrafted to protect everyone's rights.
For example, while a doctor may not want to perform an abortion if it is against their beliefs, they should not be allowed to opt out of performing a kidney transplant on a girl who once had an abortion.
Especially considering that much of the religious objections to homosexuals seems to take the line of "hate the sin, love the sinner". In this case, it should be "hate the sin, cure the sinner." Doctors do have to treat murderers, paedophiles and rapists. It's not something they enjoy doing, I should think, but it has to be done.
The doctor is not being asked to condone a person's lifestyle, or to make a moral judgement on them. The doctor is simply being asked to treat them. If the act of treatment will breach the doctor's personal moral code, the patient should be transferred on to another doctor. However, the act of treating a gay person does not mean you condone all that they do. If a thief puts his arm through a glass window, you still have to bandage that arm. That can be done without condoning the theft.
It needs to be carefully worded and drafted in order to prevent misuse or bigotry being condoned.
Guys, mass media can still be valuable. Sure, the bill is being drafted to protect certain rights. However, this article also is highlighting the fact that it can take away other rights. The article is right and true, and can be accepted. Its bias - the fact that it doesn't mention the bill is also being drafted to protect certain rights - has to be seen through. The facts still stand.
In addition, we know the article is biased. We do not know if this bias is true. Is the bill being drafted purely to protect workers' rights and some newspaper has hyped it up to make it seem like a piece of "nasty Republician" legislation? Or has it been drafted in order to push this agenda, under the pretence of workers' rights? We simply cannot know.
Read the bill, but don't dismiss this article out of hand.
It does highlight one important thing - the bill needs to be redrafted to protect everyone's rights.
