I'm sure Canada was a democracy last time I looked. That being so, christian moral laws would be in place, if that really was what a majority believed was right. That's clearly not the case.
Abortion
- Thread starter Canadian Dragon
- Start date
First of all this is only a moral decision if you buy into a fetus being human.
Second of all, as noted earlier, of the roughly 70% of Canadians who claim to be Christian not all are bound to a church, nor do all that are bound to a church follow all the teachings of that church.
Third of all, not all Christian churches agree 100% with your stance.
You are trying to present all who checked off "Christian" on the last census as a cohesive group, tibear. They are not.
Polls on the subject of abortion tend to show a leaning towards freedom of choice for women. I don't want to get into the "my poll is better than your poll" game, but if you look at all the polls overall and discard leading questions from both sides, you'll find that the overall trend is for women and their doctors to make the decision without the interference of the rest of us.
Second of all, as noted earlier, of the roughly 70% of Canadians who claim to be Christian not all are bound to a church, nor do all that are bound to a church follow all the teachings of that church.
Third of all, not all Christian churches agree 100% with your stance.
You are trying to present all who checked off "Christian" on the last census as a cohesive group, tibear. They are not.
Polls on the subject of abortion tend to show a leaning towards freedom of choice for women. I don't want to get into the "my poll is better than your poll" game, but if you look at all the polls overall and discard leading questions from both sides, you'll find that the overall trend is for women and their doctors to make the decision without the interference of the rest of us.
RB,
We'll agree with not all 70% of "declared" Christians are in fact active and strict believers of the beliefs of their chosen faith.
However, the bigger question is: "Does a majority group have the right to impose their morality on a minority??"
I crude example is that the vast majority of Canadians are carnivores.(We eat meat.) Most of us go to the grocery store and buy our meat that is already butchered.
However, should a butcher be allowed to open an open market where customers can choose their animal to be killed and have it butchered on the open street.
Animal rights advocates of course would be outraged, but this happens everyday, just not in sight of anyone. Should the majority prevale and have mass slaughters of animals in open markets for everyone to see??
We'll agree with not all 70% of "declared" Christians are in fact active and strict believers of the beliefs of their chosen faith.
However, the bigger question is: "Does a majority group have the right to impose their morality on a minority??"
I crude example is that the vast majority of Canadians are carnivores.(We eat meat.) Most of us go to the grocery store and buy our meat that is already butchered.
However, should a butcher be allowed to open an open market where customers can choose their animal to be killed and have it butchered on the open street.
Animal rights advocates of course would be outraged, but this happens everyday, just not in sight of anyone. Should the majority prevale and have mass slaughters of animals in open markets for everyone to see??
RB,
Its the whole question of imposing moral beliefs onto others.
I find it interesting that the animal rights protesters show up like clockwork and have the right to demonstrate and picket all they want when the various amimal circuses show up. Yet if anyone attempts to picket in front of an abortion clinic they are immediately arrested.
Double standard???
Its the whole question of imposing moral beliefs onto others.
I find it interesting that the animal rights protesters show up like clockwork and have the right to demonstrate and picket all they want when the various amimal circuses show up. Yet if anyone attempts to picket in front of an abortion clinic they are immediately arrested.
Double standard???
This is slightly tangental, but I think it goes here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1505557,00.html
It's an article relating to an absurd peice of legislation currently being debated in the UK Parliament; it's a Bill intended to promote religious toleration, but will probably result in the exact opposite - any religious zealot will be able to attempt to prosecute anyone who so much as questions their beliefs. Apologies if it's too off-topic.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1505557,00.html
It's an article relating to an absurd peice of legislation currently being debated in the UK Parliament; it's a Bill intended to promote religious toleration, but will probably result in the exact opposite - any religious zealot will be able to attempt to prosecute anyone who so much as questions their beliefs. Apologies if it's too off-topic.
RB,
They may be arrested but not simply for being there!
Usually the animal rights people are arrested after they try to disrupt a performance whereas the pro-life protestors are arrested simply for being within so many feet of the clinic. They don't have to say anything, distribute anything. Simply walking on the sidewalk with a the words "Pro-Life" on a T-shirt will get you arrested.
If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.
They may be arrested but not simply for being there!
Usually the animal rights people are arrested after they try to disrupt a performance whereas the pro-life protestors are arrested simply for being within so many feet of the clinic. They don't have to say anything, distribute anything. Simply walking on the sidewalk with a the words "Pro-Life" on a T-shirt will get you arrested.
If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.
There is no double standard, tibear. The laws are the same. Any additional rules being applied to anti-abortion protestors are a result of court orders due to their actions in the past.
RB and HH,
I've never been arrested and in fact have never picketed an abortion clinic. However, the laws are written (at least in Ontario) that noone can picket, demonstrate or distribute information within so many feet of an abortion clinic.
I will not deny that there are some there to harrase and intimidate, however, the vast majority are simply there to walk in complete silence and don't have any interaction with anyone going to the clinics.
Unlike the animal protestors that I've encountered who ran up to my two year old and yelled in her face that she was an animal hater for going to the circus. Granted not all of them were this agressive but they were all trying to stuff their propoganda into our pockets and shouting the the circus was killing animals.
Which group is more of a threat?
I've never been arrested and in fact have never picketed an abortion clinic. However, the laws are written (at least in Ontario) that noone can picket, demonstrate or distribute information within so many feet of an abortion clinic.
I will not deny that there are some there to harrase and intimidate, however, the vast majority are simply there to walk in complete silence and don't have any interaction with anyone going to the clinics.
Unlike the animal protestors that I've encountered who ran up to my two year old and yelled in her face that she was an animal hater for going to the circus. Granted not all of them were this agressive but they were all trying to stuff their propoganda into our pockets and shouting the the circus was killing animals.
Which group is more of a threat?
The anti-abortionists are known for their extreme tactics, tibear. Animals rights activists were also banned from the entrance to the circus in the past...I believe they had to be across the street...because they were using tactics exactly like you described.
Based on some of their tactics, I'd keep them even further away, Tibear. I don't recall any circus hands being shot, for instance.
That's very true, Twila. The comparison has been made though, and the legal precedents limiting the actions of the protestors are surprisingly close. The reaction of the legal system has been in proportion to the actions of the protestors.
RB,
Show me the last time that someone was shot while pro-life demonstrators were picketing a clinic.
The cowards that do that sort of thing do it in the middle of the night. They don't want to be seen. They really give a bad name to the pro-life movement because they are suppose to be standing up for life rather than taking it.
Twila,
I'm not comparing the "stuff" going on inside the circus and clinic. I'm making the point that the right to demonstrate is very different. Anyone has the right to voice their displeasure anytime and anyplace, except for abortion clinics. Noone has the right to voice their opinions within about 3 blocks of any clinic.
Thats what I'm complaining about. The law's are imposing their moral beliefs by reducing my right to voice my opposition.
Show me the last time that someone was shot while pro-life demonstrators were picketing a clinic.
The cowards that do that sort of thing do it in the middle of the night. They don't want to be seen. They really give a bad name to the pro-life movement because they are suppose to be standing up for life rather than taking it.
Twila,
I'm not comparing the "stuff" going on inside the circus and clinic. I'm making the point that the right to demonstrate is very different. Anyone has the right to voice their displeasure anytime and anyplace, except for abortion clinics. Noone has the right to voice their opinions within about 3 blocks of any clinic.
Thats what I'm complaining about. The law's are imposing their moral beliefs by reducing my right to voice my opposition.