[Lucky Dog]

That doesn't mean I condone the homosexual act but I certainly don't condemn gays or lesbians for being the way they are... [emphasis added] and I don't believe that parents of gays or lesbians (one particular parent is a close friend and the other a relative of mine and both are conservatives) do either.

The issue is not about condemning anyone for being the way they are or about whether or not they or their parents had a choice in such. Rather the issue is about condemning someone for the way they behave. Behavior is a voluntary choice… (Otherwise, it is a psychosis and subject to psychiatric diagnosis and treatment.)

No one is a homosexual because of being the way they are. It is the fact that someone has acted on some internally felt desire that defines “being a homosexual.”

A man may have an internally felt desire to have violent intercourse with an unwilling woman. However, it is only if he actually does so that he becomes a rapist, i.e., in the absence of the act no one is a rapist. Similarly, if a supposed homosexual fails to act on his or her internally felt desire, then he or she does not qualify for the title, “homosexual,” either the male or female variety.

Any doctor would be within his or her rights to refuse to perform any purely elective, medical procedure on any particular patient. The doctor’s refusal requires no justification beyond his or her professional and personal judgment. A patient disagreeing with such a judgment is free to find another doctor who may not be so disinclined.

This woman’s law suit is a pure publicity stunt and should be dismissed as such.

[xsmommy]

Any doctor would be within his or her rights to refuse to perform any purely elective, medical procedure on any particular patient. The doctor’s refusal requires no justification beyond his or her professional and personal judgment. A patient disagreeing with such a judgment is free to find another doctor who may not be so disinclined

exactly.

[meandog]

The issue is not about condemning anyone for being the way they are or about whether or not they or their parents had a choice in such. Rather the issue is about condemning someone for the way they behave. Behavior is a voluntary choice… (Otherwise, it is a psychosis and subject to psychiatric diagnosis and treatment.)

CONCUR...

Any doctor would be within his or her rights to refuse to perform any purely elective, medical procedure on any particular patient. The doctor’s refusal requires no justification beyond his or her professional and personal judgment. A patient disagreeing with such a judgment is free to find another doctor who may not be so disinclined.

DISAGREE...The doctor may be within his rights legally but morally and ethically he is supposed to provide the medical care to alleviate his patient's affliction (in this case her inability to conceive children). After all, he's not being asked to perform an abortion (in which case I would agree with you) he is only being asked to provide the patient with treatment to enhance her fertility--which is the same request many hetrosexual women ask of physicians.