******Final entry, CONTINUED FROM BELOW******

The final point: “We're not talking about doctors who might have issue with performing an abortion or assisted suicide or lethal injection. In those cases, lives are being defended. Here, lives are being discarded.” This is also completely wrong. You say “lives are being discarded”, how do you consider that if the Bible states that life begins at conception. You cannot discard something that does not exist, if the doctor has not yet performed the operation creating conception, no life exist to discard.
This article is in very serious terms opposite to the Bibles teaching and goes directly against what Christ has taught us to be. Please consider authoring a revision, not erasing what you have in error, simply a second edition correcting your mistakes for the world to read.
I appreciate your time and hope I have been of some assistance in furthering the ministry.

****Continuation from below previous page******
If a person has already committed the sin and is visiting for something completely unrelated (the treatment of a daughters illness unrelated to the mothers tattoos or piercings), the doctor is not enabling sin in this instance as would be entering a vial of sperm to create child only to be raised in a non-traditional home. In this case of the tattoos, the doctor should have assisted her child and provided witness to their family at the same time. His conscious had no business starting up concerning something completely unrelated to the situation.
****Continued to final page****

****Pg 2, Continued from below, pg 1*****
We as Christians are slipping away in the country as non-traditional families overproduce us daily, we certainly don’t want to add any more rain drops to the flood. The statement stating that God could use a child of a homosexual for good, yes this is not undeniable. Unfortunately here, the act of creating that child in the first place is sin in and of itself. Christ will not hold that against the child, but it will be against that mother and doctor for sure.
In addition, (I’m not saying piercings and/or tattoos are or are not sin, but lets say for this context you created in your story that they are sin), the family visiting the doctor and he refusing to provide medical attention doesn’t jive with this story of creating babies out of wed-lock. *****Continued to page 3******

***Response Page 1***
Hey Shawn, I think you are grossly misguided on this subject. Several items are biblically incorrect in your statements.
The first issue is saying the doctor is wrong by not assisting in allowing the lesbian conceive, 1 outside of Biblical marriage, and 2 possibly inside of a homosexual relationship. In the context of sin is sin, this is identical of doctor assisted suicide or the get away driver of a robbery. The key here is, if the doctor is the single obstacle in the way of the person committing sin and the doctor knows the sin will occur in a result of his reaction, the doctor’s conviction of the Holy Spirit guides him away from assisting in this manner of causing the sin. The whole premise of “refusing on the grounds that society apparently will crumble if one more child is raised in a non-traditional family?” where will this end? *****Continued to the next entry, no room left*****

I would totally agree with you if you were right, but you have missed the mark entirely on this one. I was actually looking for a punch line or some kind of "gotcha!" in the article.
For you to compare a baby girl with an ear infection to a woman seeking artificial insemination is, at best, a fallacy of analogy and, at worst, disingenuous. The next step would be to force doctors to perform sex-change operations. They are playing God in both instances.

I have to say I fail to see what a child with an ear infection has to do with a self-professed lesbian seeking to have a child outside of God's plan for child rearing. The first doctor was at the least overzealous, at worst a Pharisee. A physician should have the right to draw the line at doing something he feels is against his Christian convictions and God's word. I'm sure that same doctor wouldn't think twice if the lesbian patient came to him in an emergency situation and needed treatment. However, this was not an emergency situation and she could have gone to numerous other physicians that would have been quite eager to help her. This equal rights lie is going too far. The real goal is acceptance. The day that God's people accept these so called alternative lifestyles as legitimate, moral choices approved in the eyes of the Lord, then woe to America. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, Psalm 33:12, nothing about "tolerating" every sin under the sun.

I disagree strongly with your comments about the Doctor and the Lesbian.
If I were a doctor I would not give a fertility treatment to a lesbian. Not because she is a lesbian, but because she is trying to conceive a child outside the bonds of marriage. I would treat her for almost anything else - measles, diabetes, cancer etc.

I would also not give fertility treatment to a single heterosexual woman for the same reason.

The Scriptures are very clear that it is the will of God to bring children into this world through the marriage of a man and a woman. I would not want to stand before God someday and justify why I didn't follow His clearly stated will about child bearing.

Sincerely In Christ, Johnny Johnston

I understand some women have problems which prevent them from becoming pregnant. If doctors can help them with this then they should. We all have our opinions and mine is probably a simple minded one. If a man and a woman who are capable of reproduction wish to have a child then they usually can do so in the manner most children are conceived. When two men or two woman have sex then it's just that. Sex. Zero percent chance of a child being produced.
I'm not sure a doctor should have a license to practice if he or she denies medical attention to someone who needs it for moral reasons. The action would suggest a lack of morals. But, there is the argument that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. Artificial insemination is an elective procedure and I don't believe a doctor's wrong for not helping a lesbian become pregnant. It's like the man who used to be a woman who gave birth. Somethings just shouldn't be.

I think that this sort of issue is a slippery slope, not only for we Christians. The decision is dogmatic in that it seems to establish that behavior based on ethical considerations is less important that behavior based on other criteria.

What are the implications of this ruling on professionals' use of judgement in executing their practices. Does this mean that doctors could be forced to perform procedures against their will?

To some extent, the nature of legal judgements requires the ability to set aside ethical considerations in order to eliminate bias in interpreting and applying the law, yet the right to consider one's ethics in determining a course of action is a very important safeguard to our behavior.

You are obviously not familiar with this case (which involves the clinic my wife patronizes). The doctors did NOT "refuse medical treatment" to the woman who sued them.

1. She was treated for infertility by the clinic;
2. The early treatments were ineffective;
3. Eventually, the patient needed or requested artificial insemination;
4. The clinic denied the woman's request for the insemination BECAUSE SHE WAS SINGLE (and the physicians' long-term religious conviction was to not perform this proceudure on single woman because a child should have two parents);
5. The physicians REFERRED the patient to another physician willing to perform the procedure;
6. The initial procedure failed;
7. Another procedure (invitreo insemination) worked;
8. The woman had a baby.

After having the baby, the woman decided that she had been denied "medical treatment" because she was a lesbian and sued the clinic.

The Christians treated her until their consciences would have been violated.

I guess it would depend on what you mean by 'judge'.

I believe we are called to lovingly reprove others, based on Christ's words in Matthew 7:1-5 (judging others) and Matthew 18:15-17 (discipline).

I absolutely agree that "any" person should get care & what an opportunity we have as Christians to reach out & share. The person with tattoos - wow! What an opportunity that doc lost - and what shame he brought on Believers. However, I too, if I were a doctor, would have a hard time helping a lesbian woman become pregnant - artificial insemination. I'm also thinking of the unborn baby. It's one thing to help a couple who has gone thru all the avenues of trying to become pregnant the "normal" way. If the lesbian woman had "woman problems" that is different & a medical problem that needs to be dealt with. A lot of it is the way it is handled - in love. A doc certainly can have convictions but needs to know how to address it beforehand. I personally know a doc who will not give any birthcontrol because of the abortifactant factor, but will refer to someone else AFTER sharing his concerns. He does not want to be guilty of helping kill. Docs have an awesome responsibility as we do.

Awesome article. Who are we to judge? Maybe God will use the experiences of these people later in their lives to reach others like themselves.

Sometimes we forget that the ones who are most effective for God are those who have been through what someone else has been through.

Later, this woman may become a Christian and leave her lifestyle... and then witness to other women who are going through what she went through.

Either way, it is not for us to judge, only to love.

God Bless,
Litha
www.myspace.com/faithfullylitha

I also forgot to mention that this particular lesbian also now has three children thanks to the referral this doctor gave her.....so again, while he himself could NOT treat her due to convictions...he did not leave her without medical treatment altogether.

The thing is....fertility treatments are OPTIONAL medicine and not life or health threatening. Not to mention that if you fully read all the information on this issue...the doctor did not refuse to help at all. He DID refer her to a physician who would not have an issue with treating her for fertility issues.

A little different than a doctor who refuses to treat a sick infant and who, by current law, is required to give an instant referral to an available doctor.

Basically, what you are stating is that if a doctor KNOWS someone to be a pedophile who uses their own children for sexual use, and has fertility issues...he still should provide that person with treatment (and new victims) in order to show Christ's love?

hmm....

What I'm "glad" about is that a doctor won't get to be the one who draws a personal line that probably can't be drawn regarding anyone's quest for bodily wholeness.

I'd consider myself to be on a LOT more shaky ground morally,logically, and biblically if I adopted a stance that in one of these cases the doc was clearly wrong (the tattoo case), the other the doctor was clearly right (the fertility case)."

Refusing to marry a gay couple: fine, if you think it's biblically sinful (it is).

Refusing to perform an abortion: fine, if you think it's biblically sinful (it is).

Refusing to treat someone's health issue: not fine, I'm arguing, as there is nothing inherently sinful (that I am qualified to judge) about having the condition.

And if that can be done? Woe is me if I ever break my hand punching a wall in anger, break my leg because I was speeding and had a car accident, succumb to temptation and get an STD. Should I expect my Christian doctor to withhold care from me?

I disagree. First, you make no biblical argument in support of your position. You also only briefly discuss the ruling before transitioning to another ruling, which clearly was sensible (the patient's mother having tatoos and gum chewing are not on par with fertility treatment for lesbians).

That you are glad (thanking God) that doctors will be required to do fertility treatment on unwed women (gay or not) regardless of the doctors religious beliefs is shocking. The doctor in your mind should have no right to refuse service.

I guess soon pastors will not be able to refuse to wed gay couples. Will you be thanking God if that happens?