Liberal Morality Run Amok

[Don]

I invited two friends over who work at our province's university (the University of Manitoba) and they were telling me about two people who were having trouble with the university's medical department. One was refused entry because he answered negatively to questions about abortion, euthanasia, and contraception, while another was almost refused a degree on similar grounds (he refused to learn how to perform abortions). The second threatened the university with legal action and they let him through because it was less of a hassle.

I was simply amazed to hear that this kind of thing is really going on today (even though the board is not legally allowed to ask such questions). Their response was that they just don't want to allow people who might cause problems in the future (i.e. who might refuse to do abortions, etc.). It really is getting that bad.

[Jany]

Don, what I have read in the News, Canada has "proclaimed" the Bible as "hate literature", so why are you :confused ? <><

[cinlynn]

It really is getting that bad.

Yes, it is.. that bad, and worse to come.

[Don]

Don, what I have read in the News, Canada has "proclaimed" the Bible as "hate literature", so why are you :confused ? <><
Got any references?

[Jany]

LAW OF THE LAND
'Bible as hate speech' bill nearing vote
With U.S. watching, Canada set to criminalize 'anti-gay' expression

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As some U.S. Supreme Court justices look abroad for guidance on cases related to homosexuality, Canada is set to vote on a bill opponents say would criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

Introduced by self-described "gay" House of Commons member Svend Robinson, bill C-250 would add sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation.


Svend Robinson

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if the bill becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

The Parliament is scheduled to debate the bill today and likely will call a vote today, or within the next few days. The legislation has the support of every provincial and territorial attorney-general in Canada.

The debate comes amid a battle over a government bill that would establish same-sex marriage. Yesterday, Parliament narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion reaffirming the heterosexual-only definition of marriage. The close margin in the Liberal Party-dominated House of Commons, 137-132, raised questions about whether the government bill would pass, especially if an election is called before it is brought to a vote.

Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says, ironically, his group's opposition to the homosexual marriage bill could be construed as a punishable offense under Robinson's legislation.

"Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of 'hate' speech by homosexual activists," Rushfeldt said. "When C-250 is passed into law later this fall, the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions."

He said many people are beginning to consider its potential implications.

"If my son went to school and said homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle, let alone a perversion or a sin, and they asked where did you hear that, there is the possibility I could be held liable," Rushfeldt said.

Robinson has accused Christian lobby groups of "fearmongering."

"What this bill is all about is ensuring that a group of people who are targeted more than another group for violent hate crimes, receives equal protection to those groups already covered by hate propaganda legislation," he said, according to the Winnipeg Sun newspaper.

Looking to 'wider civilization' etc, etc, etc...please look it up ... <><

[Don]

"God keep our land glorious and free" indeed. :(:

[B A N E]

Scary thought:

When man has successfully made their nation/world *God*less,
the god of this world will move in.

Apply the empty house Christ spoke of.

[Odysseus]

Just a thought, but abortions can be life saving proceedures for the mother and contraceptives are legal. If a doctor is unwilling to perform a life saving proceedure should that guy really be a doctor? I know if I was in a car accident and and for some reason my wife needed an abortion and a doctor didn't perform it because he refused to learn the proceedure I would be slightly angry with the guy.

Here's another thing. What if a Jehova Witnesses wants to be a doctor but refuses to ever give his patients a blood transfusion because he think's it's immoral?

Every perspective doctor should have realized this long before becoming a doctor, but THEY DON'T GET TO PLAY GOD. That means they don't get to only practice medicine that they find morally acceptable. Just because you are MD does not mean that you get to make moral decision for other people.

It's not liberal theology, it's common sense. No one is holding a gun to a doctors head and requiring them to perform an abortion, just have the knowledge to perform one if needed.

[Don]

Just a thought, but abortions can be life saving proceedures for the mother and contraceptives are legal. If a doctor is unwilling to perform a life saving proceedure should that guy really be a doctor?
So, every doctor should know how to treat every possible malady? Come on. And, honestly, how many abortions are performed out of necessity as compared to the ones performed because the mother doesn't want the child? This is liberal morality, not common sense. The questions the medical board asked are all related to liberal morality. They have no right to ask you if you would give contraceptives to an unwed 16 year old (which is what they asked my friend, who is not one of the two I mentioned in the OP).

[B A N E]

Abortion as a *life saving procedure* is pure propaganda.
C-section would be just as effective for *life saving* and neither would die.

Doctors specialize because:
A: there is way too much information for any one person to be competent in all fields.
B: the liability of a particular field is too high.
C: they desire to work a particular field (proctology anyone?)
D: they do NOT have to perform tasks they find immoral.
E: (list not comprehensive)

[Odysseus]

So, every doctor should know how to treat every possible malady? Come on. And, honestly, how many abortions are performed out of necessity as compared to the ones performed because the mother doesn't want the child?

Percentages doesn't matter, it can be a life saving technique in certain situations. There are plenty rare proceedures that doctors have to learn and will probably never use. How often do you see a case of the plague, but doctors still have to learn how recognize it and treat it.

Also, would you be comfortable with a Jehova Witness as a doctor who refuses to give you a blood transfusion because his religion forbids it?

If you back away from the "I'm a victim" right wing idology you'll see that requiring doctors to have information they may find objectionable is common sense, not a left-wing conspiricy. Again, no one is forcing the doctors to actually perform an abortion, just have the informatoin.

[Don]

Percentages doesn't matter, it can be a life saving technique in certain situations. There are plenty rare proceedures that doctors have to learn and will probably never use. How often do you see a case of the plague, but doctors still have to learn how recognize it and treat it.

Also, would you be comfortable with a Jehova Witness as a doctor who refuses to give you a blood transfusion because his religion forbids it?
If a JW refuses to do a blood transfusion, get another doctor.


If you back away from the "I'm a victim" right wing idology
Whoops! I'm not a right-winger nor am I espousing any sort of "I'm a victim" position. Your true colors have shown through. I'm not going to take this any further since you obviously have some kind of agenda that you're trying to push. I was honestly surprised that this kind of thing really was going on, that these people whom you claim are calling themselves "victims" really are experiencing something that validates their cries.

[janh7]

The title of this thread makes me laugh...

"Liberal Morality..."? An oxymoron me thinks>

[Chris4Christ]

:rolleyes It never ends.

This forum is called "Christian Chat." The non-Christian ideology is limited to the APOLOGETICS forum, Odysseus.

:wave

I agree with you, Don. A doctor has EVERY RIGHT to refuse to murder somebody. Just because society has deemed it acceptable doesn't make it so. Besides, there are thousands more doctors waiting in the wings who have no problem murdering babies. :(:

[american]

If you back away from the "I'm a victim" right wing idology...



:laugh :laugh :pound :pound

RIGHT WING "VICTIM" IDEOLOGY??!!!!!!!!!

Give me a ROYAL break! The only thing right wingers complain about being a 'victim' of is the WELFARE STATE CREATED BY THE LIBS!