The moral argument fails before the point at which they deny IVF to people based on sexuality. It fails when they provide IVF at all. In IVF, more fertilized eggs are created than will be implanted. These fertilized eggs that are never implanted must be consider, by their own wacko logic, to have been aborted (murdered). Further, these extra eggs that are thrown away may not be used for stem cell research which could save lives.

So, even following their own N,000 year old logic and antiquated morals, they fail the self-consistency test. This should not be a huge surprise to anyone that read the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment and then read the penalty for breaking any commandment or that read the story of Joshua at Jericho or Moses at Mount Sinai or that heard of the crusades and the inquisitions or ....

In short, people should use reason rather than religion in their lives. Basing one's life on mythology and an ancient and horrific moral zeitgeist is no way to support life.

Scott, the doctors ARE using logic. You know that voice you hear in your head? Not the one reading THIS !. The OTHER one… Yeah, that one. The one that is telling you all your brilliant ideas. The same one that is NOW telling me to type this. Scott, that’s the Holy Pedophile Prophet talking to you. The same one the doctors hear all the time too. Their “logic” is irrefutable, just as is yours - and mine.

Y'all's assuming a flawed position. The right of a woman to choose to have or not have a child is a private right. This is not subject to the control of misogynists beliefs. I have no right to decide the fate of a fellow human's zygote, and neither should anyone else. Not every sperm/egg deserves a name.

Only in primitive, superstitious america is this an issue. In the rest of the western world we focus on issues around compassion and good governance. Bridges, Faluja, Katrina, Vote Rigging, long long and expensive voting campaigns that require extensive corporate money/bribes, enviromental rape, suicidal foreign policy and on and on. Silly Americans

There are a few consistently moral souls who do picket abortion clinics AND military recruitment centers. You might accuse them of political masochism - since both positions are on the losing end in today's political climate. They might refuse sale of birth control medications. They certainly would not refuse to aid in the creation of life - even for those out of wedlock or in an immoral personal relationship. Many of these souls are trying to expedite adoption to provide an option for unwanted pregnancies. The more morally appealing options that are made available the less appeal that abortion has.

When you distill the issue down to its lowest common denomintor, If these guys perform IVF for anyone, they have to do it for everyone. Using the nonsensical excuse that the woman isn't married is just so much hogwash. Can the doctors prove they check marriage certificates on every other female who requests IVF? I doubt it very much.

Bottom line-if these guys want the bucks from IVF-a very lucrative procedure-they must perform it for anyone who comes to the door. Anything else is discrimination.

it.

Where do you draw the line about forcing an individual, in a private, voluntary transaction , to do something that they do not want to do if there is no risk to life. If the woman came in with a gunshot wound, then as a doctor it should be clear to save her life (as well as legally compelled). But why should he or she be forced to help someone reproduce who has a lifestyle that doesn't agree with the doctor? I don't agree with it and the logic applies to race, religion, etc but you can't force it on the doctor if it's not life threatening. Anything non life threatening allows the rejected patient to find a much more enlightened alternative. The fact is, fertility treatment is not a necessary medical treatment but a luxury for people with the time and money (which can be said for having kids in general)

dihydrox,

Your argument doesn't hold water. We do not tolerate bigoted discrimination in many other fields. We do not tolerate it in hiring and firing. We do not tolerate it in restaurant service. We do not tolerate when inDUHviduals attempt to discriminate in home sales. We at least try to expunge discrimination from many areas of society. We may not always be successful. But, we keep fighting the good fight. Why not in the doctor's office? I wouldn't tolerate someone who refused someone so much as a haircut based on race, creed, color, or sexual orientation. Why tolerate it in reproductive services? In fact, to do so is reminiscent of eugenics.

The doctor (quite wrongly I believe) thinks it is wrong for same sex couples to have kids and doesn't want to contribute to that process. He or she is free to make that decision. You however are not free to make them do it. This is not like black segregation where blacks were being shut out out of society, had few viable alternatives and extremely limited means to create viable alternatives after centuries of slavery and where large segments of population were benefitting/ had benefitted from it.

This service is not a haircut or a meal but an extravagant medical service. I mess up a haircut, I don't get sued for millions. I I mess up an unnecessary medical procedure, (for someone I didn't want to do the procedure for in the first place) I do.

You have a situation where an empowered couple has the means to even be able consider IVF as well as alternatives to this doctor. You and I might think the doctor is being closed minded but in his mind, he is just as offended about being forced to do it. And since his refusal does not negatively impact the couple (feelings and hopes aside) and it is in a field where there is huge incentive to cater towards same sex couples, then the best way to deal with this situation is transparency and highlighting the issue, liek Mother Jones is doing.

People are going to disagree about what is right and wrong and in this situation where there is no social barrier for the couple to go elsewhere and no use of physical or economic force, you are wrong to make doctors in a private practice do it.

dihdyrox,

The doctor is quite free to choose a profession that does not cause him/her to be a discriminatory bigot. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. If one cannot perform one's job without discriminating based on race, color, creed, or sexual orientation, one must choose another profession. Specifically, the medical profession in particular must be based on science not prejudice or mythology. If it were my choice, I would warn the doctor that s/he may lose his/her license to practice medicine for such behavior.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Why do soooo many 'Christians' forget that profound tenent of Christianity? I bet they're the same folks that forget other gems in the Bible like 'Let him without sin cast the first stone.' and 'What you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me.' What a bunch a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.