Friday, April 25, 2008



As you can see, that's a painfully straightforward question, and begs for a simple yes-or-no answer. Should we take any bets that SUZANNE will struggle mightily to not answer it

I would never want someone to violate their religious beliefs insofar as they are not opposed to the natural law. So no, I would not want that doctor to treat my child.

It would not be for "any reason" but for religious reasons, or for reasons that have to do with the definition of human life.

Doctors enter their profession to heal people. Not to kill them. Muslim doctors who will not treat women will refer to a female doctor. Jehovah's Witnesses may not perform transfusions, but there are substitute products one can use for blood transfusions.

Religious people who go into the healing profession care about human life, and they're there to allow people to die, even if they cannot do the saving themselves.

A Muslim doctor who felt he could not treat a female wouldn't just let someone die. See, that's the cynicism in all this: the assumption that religious people are not callous and heartless.

But Canadian Cynic think it's okay to force doctors and nurses to act against their religious beliefs, even if it means forcing doctors and nurses to perform late-term abortions on nearly full-term babies.

Who's the tyrant here? Respecting a person's conscience or forcing them to do things against their conscience?

Canadian Cynic is very adolescent in his challenges. I can just foresee the next one. "Oh yeah, well, what if...!"

He never has to answer for anything though. He's anonymous. He doesn't stand behind his words.

For more social conservative news check out