Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:11:06 PM
Predictably, the LA Times editorial board lauds the recent California Supreme Court decision forcing doctors to make babies for single people, unmarried couples, and "Party A and Party B".
This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs.
No, that’s what they tried to do. Now every doctor, if that doctor helps with fertility, must make babies for people who can’t because they are missing a father or a mother from the equation.
But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others.
Great! What happens if I demand that a doctor perform surgery on my uterus? Sure, I’m a male, but the doctor can’t discriminate!
It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.
Yes it is. It wasn’t like this doctor was leaving a woman to die in the street.
A clothing store may choose not to sell polo shirts. But once it sells polo shirts, it cannot withhold them from customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation and so forth.
No, they can’t. They should be allowed to, but that is a different story. But notice that the editorial board is equating children with merchandise.