Court ordered abortion? This is taking pro-choice too far. I thought that pro-choice was about giving the woman the right to choose for herself? As this case shows pro-choice has evolved into abortion for any reason, choice or not. As predicted by pro-lifers, allowing abortion in the first place was a slippery slope. Now we see how far down the slope we are heading. The parents lost their right to make decisions for their daughter when they were allowing (ye allowing, if you are not working to stop it then you are supporting it) her to have sex at 13. If they allowed her to make her own decision regarding having sex then they should allow her to make her own decision regarding keeping the baby.
This is a prime example of the concerns that conservatives have on all moral issues moving down a slippery slope. Take for instance gay marriage. The arguments are "they are born that way", "they should be allowed to love who they want", and my personal favorite, "it doesn't hurt anyone else". These same arguments can be used to defend gay rights, incest, bestiality, and polygamy. By opening the door just a crack to allow gay marriage the door is now set to be kicked wide open to allow for additional issues that are much worse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you on the court-ordered abortion, that is going too far. But your "slippery slope" is unjustified. Because Canada is a libertarian country, thankfully we're allowed to do whatever we want so long as we respect the law and the rights of others; gays respect our laws, why shouldn't we respect their rights which are supposed to be protected by our laws, including to be married without governmental interference. And gay marriage will not open a door "down a slippery slope" because the rest of those are violating the rights of those who can't speak for themselves (beastiality) or constitute an illegal act (incest) and polygamy isn't allowed only because the Romans Christians didn't think it was a great idea anymore, not that it still doesn't happen, just without the marriage component. Also, your blog on the left being "religious fanatics," i think you're right about them campaigning for the trendy cause, but your comment about the left lacking faith in God and struggling to find purpose is moot. Religion and government should always be separate, and hopefully always will be. Lacking purpose they may be, but God has absolutely nothing to do with it. Canada is great because it allows all to express their beliefs, but its a two-way street. It also means that people have the right not to be criticized for their lack of belief in any particular deity or religion. You talk about them like they're heretics.
anonymous...
"why shouldn't we respect their rights which are supposed to be protected by our laws"
what rights are you referring to? There is no "right" to marriage. The original definition was a union between a man and woman. The only way they gained a "right" to marry was through changing the law.
"Lacking purpose they may be, but God has absolutely nothing to do with it"
God has everything to do with it. Having a belief in God provides you with a purpose to your life. Without a belief in God you lack purpose and will search for a purpose, often grasping to random causes to satisfy the need for purpose. I am not suggesting that everyone has to believe my exact beliefs. A belief in God of any form provides purpose whether that purpose is misguided is not the point. By having a purpose you are not left searching in obscure places.
Post a Comment