Morgentaler Get the Order of Canada??? WTF??

[grimey]

2R, IMHO comparing Nazi death camps to abortion in general is pretty extreme. I think most Canadians understand the difference.

Not really extreme at all .The numbers of humans exterminated must be getting up there in numbers .

You haven't demonstrated that a fetus is a human being.

[2R]

There is no need for any demonstration of what defines where life begins.If the man who has performed so many abortions calls them children .All be it a fraudian slip .Then he knows in his heart that they would have grown into viable humans.
There is a time for all things ,at one time the chief rabbi in europe blessed pork so that his people would not starve to death in WW2 .The exeption not the rule.
But even the Roman Catholic Church has allowed medical procedures to mothers exposed to high levels of pollution.When the medical community and the church agreed that it was necessary .It was done in Seveso ,Italy after the spillage of Dioxins that caused massive birth defects causing the fetus to mutate into something non-viable and in some cases endangering the mothers.This is the only time that i am aware of the Catholic Church has officially condoned this medical procedure to my limited knowledge.It was the exception not the rule.

Abortions are not free .Most are done in private money making clinics.Where the doctors are well paid to do the deed.

I wonder if i will live long enough to see the other death clinics set up .Dr.Kovorkian drive thru emporiums of death .Why stop at unwanted inconvenient babies.Why not other humans as well ??? The first will be the old as most of them want to die anyway. And the old will not put up much of a fight.So the big question will be ;Who will be next after the old ???

Not so strange when the exeption becomes the rule.Fashions change and what may seem an abhorance and abomination today may become the situation normal in a hundred years from now.They may have to change the Doctors oath as well from "doing no harm" to "we will follow orders "so that if fashions change again they can say they were only following orders.And perhaps they could give those doctors nice new uniforms and shiny new big boots as well
When they get new hats watch out something bad always follows severe changes in hat design.

[xsbank]

I think that most of you who decry the Morgentaler thing are afraid that somebody, somewhere, is getting away with something?

Shouldn't you be praising him for confronting a very difficult societal ill and be praising him? Wouldn't it be great if others rose up to confront prostitution, drug addiction, biker gangs, racism?

Yes, there frequently is a motive of personal gain, but so what? Doesn't he deserve our respect for confronting the issue that many of you posters still argue as if it was the 50s?

And for the poster that compared/contrasted him to the nazi thing, that was beneath contempt. Specious.

[grimey]

There is no need for any demonstration of what defines where life begins.If the man who has performed so many abortions calls them children .All be it a fraudian slip .Then he knows in his heart that they would have grown into viable humans.

But we're no longer talking about Morgentaler, we're talking about abortion in general.

Abortions are not free .Most are done in private money making clinics.Where the doctors are well paid to do the deed.

So it's immoral because someone profits from it? That's your criteria?

The difference you seem to ignore is that jews didn't exactly volunteer to go to death camps. Morgentaler and Kevorkian weren't breaking into people's houses to preform abortions or euthanasia against their will.

Not so strange when the exeption becomes the rule.Fashions change and what may seem an abhorance and abomination today may become the situation normal in a hundred years from now.They may have to change the Doctors oath as well from "doing no harm" to "we will follow orders "so that if fashions change again they can say they were only following orders.And perhaps they could give those doctors nice new uniforms and shiny new big boots as well
When they get new hats watch out something bad always follows severe changes in hat design.

Maybe you should actually read the Hippocratic oath before using it as an example. The number of people who would die today if it were strictly adhered to is somewhat large. Doctors technically can't perform surgery, according to the oath. It was written at a time of limited medical understanding, and that has improved over time.

But no, lets keep doing what religious texts and other documents written 1900-6000 years ago say. There's no way they could be wrong.

[mcrit]

You haven't demonstrated that a fetus is a human being.

Nobody has demonstrated that it isn't. Doesn't it deserve the same benefit of doubt that the legal system affords accused criminals?

[grimey]

You haven't demonstrated that a fetus is a human being.

Nobody has demonstrated that it isn't. Doesn't it deserve the same benefit of doubt that the legal system affords accused criminals?

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Quebec Charter or Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Supreme Court of Canada, they are not.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1989/1 ... 2-530.html

A foetus is not included within the term "human being" in the Quebec Charter and, therefore, does not enjoy the right to life conferred by s. 1. The Quebec Charter, considered as a whole, does not display any clear intention on the part of its framers to consider the status of a foetus. It is framed in very general terms and makes no reference to the foetus or foetal rights, nor does it include any definition of the term "human being" or "person". This lack of an intention to deal with a foetus's status is, in itself, a strong reason for not finding foetal rights under the Quebec Charter. If the legislature had wished to accord a foetus the right to life, it is unlikely that it would have left the protection of this right in such an uncertain state. As this case demonstrates, a foetus' alleged right to life will be protected only at the discretionary request of third parties.

If you want to re-define that, go to court.

[JakeYYZ]

Historically, birth was not necessarily viewed as a transition to life. Common law in England presumed that a child was born dead. According to early Jewish law, an infant was not deemed viable until it was thirty days old. During the 1950s the chief rabbi of Israel, Ben Zion Uziel, said that if an infant who was not yet thirty days old was killed, the killer could not be executed because the infant's life was still in doubt. In Japan, a child was not considered to be a human being until it released its first cry, a sign that the spirit entered its body. Scientists and ethicists continue to disagree about when life begins, fueling the moral debate surrounding abortion and infanticide. The twenty-first-century moral philosopher Michael Tooley contends that neonates are not persons and as such neonaticide should not be classified as murder. Tooley has suggested that infanticide should be allowed during a brief (e.g., thirty-day) period after birth.

http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Infanticide.html

And now that we know that the brain isn't fully formed until the age of 20 or so, just think of the possibilities.

[grimey]

Then he knows in his heart that they would have grown into viable humans.

Also, if we're going to accept a freudian slip as the definition of life, then surely it follows that we should accept your definition of a human being. By saying that they will eventually grow into viable humans, you strongly imply that they arn't humans when they are fetuses.

[fantome]

Thanks Hedley for providing the link to -

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Cut to -

"Get that one, will you, Deidre?"

Cut to -

"Too silly! Too silly for words!" (Graham Chapman playing a military stuffed shirt.)

And thanks Cat Driver.

It would be interesting to know how many men were thinking " this load is to make a baby that I want " just as they come.

Brings to mind many a seminal moment, many years ago. (Aahhh . .. the imagery. Aahh . . . the intimacy, and ahhhh . .. . the sweet nostalgia of never to be forgotten moments. Sorry . . . .bit carried away there.)

More to the point . . . did the man deserve the gong? And did the father instruct the son, handing over frangers - dicks for the containment of?

Cop pulls over woman driving Mini with ten kids crammed inside. "Madam, are these children all yours?" "Oh yes, officer, everyone." "Well all I can say is your husband deserves a knighthood." "Oh I know. I got him one but the bugger refused to wear it."

[just another pilot]

Jonathan Swift had a Modest Proposal.

Dr. M. got the award for advancing (equity not equality) women's rights. The abortion debate will always be...well debated. Ethical quandries are tricky notions - when you view them from a consequentialist (the most good for the most people) and non consequentialist perspective (rights of individuals). An unborn child has no rights in Canada, only the mother (sentient being).
As far as the medical oath "do no harm" goes, one must consider the consequence of not conducting surgery; will the physician be doing greater harm? Ah, ethics...

[mcrit]

Hi Grimey, I don't put much faith in what the law thinks a human being is. After all, there was a time when the law said that a woman was property and a black man was worth 2/3 of a white man. I suspect they got it wrong this time to. I would be more interested in what the scientific community thinks on the issue.

[grimey]

Hi Grimey, I don't put much faith in what the law thinks a human being is. After all, there was a time when the law said that a woman was property and a black man was worth 2/3 of a white man. I suspect they got it wrong this time to. I would be more interested in what the scientific community thinks on the issue.

What is your view on fertility clinics? Assume they don't perform what would typically be thought of as abortions, that they only help people conceive. Do they commit murder when they destroy human embryos that aren't used?

[Doc]

grimey, where to "draw the line". I hears ya. I never said I agree, or disagree with abortions. Sometimes they are a good idea. Sometimes they are just an "out". I just don't think Morgentaler rates "up there" with some Canadians who have received the Order of Canada. Way too much controversy in his selection. Try, for example, to find someone willing to debate the appointment of, say a Wayne Gretzky? Or, Roberta Bondar? Glen Gould? Good luck on that. Lets face it, a good many (right or wrong) consider him a murderer. He may not be Paul Bernardo. He sure as hell isn't Mother Theresa.

[AUGER9]

From the Supreme Court of Canada R. v. Morgentaler

The question is: at what point in the pregnancy does the protection of the foetus become such a pressing and substantial concern as to outweigh the fundamental right of the woman to decide whether or not to carry the foetus to term? At what point does the state's interest in the protection of the foetus become "compelling" and justify state intervention in what is otherwise a matter of purely personal and private concern?

In Roe v. Wade, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that the state's interest became compelling when the foetus became viable, i.e., when it could exist outside the body of the mother. As Miss Wein pointed out, no particular justification was advanced by the Court for the selection of viability as the relevant criterion. The Court expressly avoided the question as to when human life begins. Blackmun J. stated at p. 159:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

In the early stages the woman's autonomy would be absolute; her decision, reached in consultation with her physician, not to carry the foetus to term would be conclusive. The state would have no business inquiring into her reasons. Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state's compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions. The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes "compelling" I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester. Indeed, according to Professor Sumner (p. 159), a differential abortion policy with a time limit in the second trimester is already in operation in the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Sweden, the Soviet Union, China, India, Japan and most of the countries of Eastern Europe

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1 ... s1-30.html

[grimey]

grimey, where to "draw the line". I hears ya. I never said I agree, or disagree with abortions. Sometimes they are a good idea. Sometimes they are just an "out". I just don't think Morgentaler rates "up there" with some Canadians who have received the Order of Canada. Way too much controversy in his selection. Try, for example, to find someone willing to debate the appointment of, say a Wayne Gretzky? Or, Roberta Bondar? Glen Gould? Good luck on that. Lets face it, a good many (right or wrong) consider him a murderer. He may not be Paul Bernardo. He sure as hell isn't Mother Theresa.

Don't get me wrong... while I think it should be legal, I think there are better options in most cases. I don't think it should be used as general form of birth control. But I also don't think I'm qualified to decide what restrictions, if any, should be put on it. And so I fall back on my political views, where I feel that fewer government restrictions are generally a better thing. As far as Morgantaler is concerned, I think there are far better people to use as a symbol of women's rights or the pro-choice side of the abortion debate than him. I do not agree with his getting the Order of Canada, as I made clear in my first post in the thread. At this point, I'm only arguing about whether abortion should be legal or not, and attempting to counter some of the more hysterical arguments from 2R. I don't like Morgantaler, but comparing an abortion clinic to a nazi death camp is a bit extreme.

[2R]

Don't get me wrong... while I think it should be legal, I think there are better options in most cases. I don't think it should be used as general form of birth control. But I also don't think I'm qualified to decide what restrictions, if any, should be put on it. And so I fall back on my political views, where I feel that fewer government restrictions are generally a better thing. As far as Morgantaler is concerned, I think there are far better people to use as a symbol of women's rights or the pro-choice side of the abortion debate than him. I do not agree with his getting the Order of Canada, as I made clear in my first post in the thread. At this point, I'm only arguing about whether abortion should be legal or not, and attempting to counter some of the more hysterical arguments from 2R. I don't like Morgantaler, but comparing an abortion clinic to a nazi death camp is a bit extreme.[/quote] wrote grimey

My original point was not to try and give a full comparision of the similarities between the two systems of mass murder .Merely to point out that a Human like that man could not be exposed to such brutalities and still retain their compassion and love for their fellow humans.He is not acting out of love for his fellow humans.But as he said "so that the children would not grow up to be criminals".The same arguement used by the eugenics poicies of the Nazies.Ironic eh? so who would say he was not influenced by that experience that shaped his later lifes work.
As to comparing the similarities of the two systems of death and mass murder:
-At the Entrance to most death camps was a sign that read "Freedom through Labour " that was a big fooking lie.
-Most Abortion Clinics have signs that say Womens Health Clinics that is stretch of the truth as they do little for the spirtual and mental health of women forced into such circumstances.They only treat the inconvenience of society in her womb.
Although the timing is different the numbers being killed will eventually catch up to the numbers killed in the death camps.
Doctors have always performed abortions since roman times.It is between the Doctor and patient . It has always been between doctor and patient .Most big cities have always had doctors who would do this procedure to help women.Just like most Doctors will end a patients life when the they have too.It should not be promoted as a lifestyle choice of of convenience.Or made so legitimate that doctors who do not want to kill are faced with career choices .Career choices that a female Doctor friend of mine was faced with when she refused to do anymore non-medical essential DNC's.They transferred her to the VD clinic as a punishment (no that is not where i met her )
It is only a matter of time when the demographic time bomb will kick in and the selfish generation of childless people will find the old folks homes overcrowded and someone will start a suicide center just like the one in Solent Green.

It is ironic that the word Hysterical was used to describe my observations.Hysterical being a misogynistic word to describe the rantings of a woman at certain times of the month.
Thanks for caring enough to have an opinion and sharing your thoughts .As only by listening to all sides will we get it right.And that is why the Judges in the supreme court get the big pay checks as they have to listen to all sides and get it right for our times .

Anyway i stick to my first rabid ranting post "It is a shame his mother did not have an abortion"

[fantome]

2R reckons -

As only by listening to all sides will we get it right.And that is why the Judges in the supreme court get the big pay checks as they have to listen to all sides and get it right for our times .

And I reckon debates of this kind involving morality will go on forever. Back and forth. Back and forth. It is simply not possible for even the most enlightened minds to come to a consensus. And certainly no judiciary can ever be expected to. The wisdom of Solomon aside.

Anyway i stick to my first rabid ranting post "It is a shame his mother did not have an abortion"

Laugh! Damn near died! 2R, you'd like what Freddy Truman said to a not so quick county player who'd failed to stop a four that went straight and low right to him when that rustic said to Freddie as they walked off for lunch, "Oh ahm sarry Fred. Shoulda kep' legs t'gather." "Nah nah lahd, fookin' muther shoulda."

[grimey]

He is not acting out of love for his fellow humans.But as he said "so that the children would not grow up to be criminals".

How many women did he force into his clinics?

The same arguement used by the eugenics poicies of the Nazies.Ironic eh? so who would say he was not influenced by that experience that shaped his later lifes work.

Hitler also built the Autobahn. Shall we tear up the 401?

As to comparing the similarities of the two systems of death and mass murder:
-At the Entrance to most death camps was a sign that read "Freedom through Labour " that was a big fooking lie.
-Most Abortion Clinics have signs that say Womens Health Clinics that is stretch of the truth as they do little for the spirtual and mental health of women forced into such circumstances.They only treat the inconvenience of society in her womb.

I know plenty of women who would disagree with you (and plenty who would agree with you). But this is a ridiculous stretch. Women go to an abortion clinic for one reason: to (shockingly) willingly have an abortion. I'm not sure how many Jews willingly went to Auschwitz because the job opportunities in Warsaw were bad, but I'm fairly certain it was a low number. You can continue to make this comparison all you want, the fact that you don't see that it is totally ridiculous is telling, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Although the timing is different the numbers being killed will eventually catch up to the numbers killed in the death camps. Doctors have always performed abortions since roman times.

Violating the Hippocratic oath you previously stated hinted that they should follow.

It is between the Doctor and patient . It has always been between doctor and patient .Most big cities have always had doctors who would do this procedure to help women.Just like most Doctors will end a patients life when the they have too.It should not be promoted as a lifestyle choice of of convenience.

I must have missed the "come kill your baby now!" posters on the bus last week. Show me one ad advocating abortions.

Or made so legitimate that doctors who do not want to kill are faced with career choices .Career choices that a female Doctor friend of mine was faced with when she refused to do anymore non-medical essential DNC's.They transferred her to the VD clinic as a punishment (no that is not where i met her )
It is only a matter of time when the demographic time bomb will kick in and the selfish generation of childless people will find the old folks homes overcrowded and someone will start a suicide center just like the one in Solent Green.

So one anecdotal case of a doctor being punished for refusing to conduct an abortion makes it a systematic problem? I don't think she should have been punished, but this isn't evidence of anything but incompetence on the part of her superiors.

[Sheila]

B.C. priest gives back his Order over Morgentaler
'A Terrible Mistake'; Revoke abortion doctor's award, churches say

Katie Rook, National Post, with files from The Telegram

A Catholic priest in British Columbia is returning his Order of Canada after Dr. Henry Morgentaler was named a member, calling the controversial abortion doctor's induction into the Order "a terrible mistake."

Father Lucien Larre, who was inducted into the nation's highest order in 1983 for his work with troubled youth, said in a news release yesterday that he felt "compelled in conscience to return my Order of Canada."

The priest, based in Coquitlam, B. C., said he did not want to show disrespect to the Governor-General or to condemn Dr. Morgentaler, but added, "I believe in my heart that he is horribly wrong and the advisory committee made a terrible mistake."

Reaction yesterday to the announcement that Dr. Morgentaler would be elevated to the Order of Canada was mixed, but Father Larre's response was typical of many who were shocked by the choice.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday decried the naming of Dr. Morgentaler, issuing a terse news release calling it an "inadmissible affront" to Canadians that undermines the significance of the award.

"Far from improving our country, Mr. Morgentaler's actions continue to create controversy and division in our nation," the conference of bishops said.

"In the name of freedom of choice, he has encouraged the development of a culture of death and has thus attacked the most vulnerable, the unborn."

The CCCB joined the Lutheran Church-Canada in denouncing the appointment of Dr. Morgentaler.

Rev. Ralph Mayan, president of LCC, called on the Order of Canada to reconsider its decision.

"Revoking an Order of Canada award is not without precedent," he said.

"[But] Dr. Morgentaler has not yet received the award, and so we believe the committee responsible should reconsider its decision."

Reverend Raymond Roussin, the archbishop of Vancouver, said he was "appalled" by the decision.

Newfoundland Conservative MP Norm Doyle also suggested the Governor-General rescind Dr. Morgentaler's Order because there is not a community consensus that the award is deserved and appropriate.

"Dr. Morgentaler, his contribution has been his fight to legalize abortion, which has really divided the country, so I don't think it's appropriate at all that he be given his Order," said Mr. Doyle, the longtime MP for St. John's East.

"The award is not about causing division, so it's not appropriate that this individual, given the fact that he has created such division in the country, should be given the award."

Mr. Doyle had not polled his constituents on the issue, but believes he speaks on their behalf, he said.

But others applauded the 10-member advisory council for their "brave" decision.

Lois Wilson, a former Senator and first female moderator of United Church of Canada, who was named to the Order of Canada and then promoted as a Companion of the Order, welcomes Dr. Morgentaler's appointment.

"My experience with the Order of Canada is long-standing. They really investigate the person nominated very thoroughly and do the pros and cons. I know several people who were turned down.

"So, I have a great deal of faith in the objectivity of that panel, it's very widely based," she said in an interview yesterday.

"I know and recognize that there are many who think [abortion] is murder and are totally opposed to it, but that should not negate the option of choice for those who take a different view."

Ms. Wilson, 81, recalled how dangerous it once was for women seeking an abortion.

"When I was young -- way back, way back, way back -- I knew women for whom there was no abortion allowed; it was a criminal offence.

"These women took their lives in their hands," she said.

"I think he's done a great service to the women of Canada who are now able to choose. He's given them the option for a safe abortion.

"I really applaud the decision. I think it's very brave of the Order of Canada to do it because they must have known it would bring a huge amount of controversy."

Joyce Hancock, spokeswoman for the Newfoundland and Labrador Feminist Coalition, said she believes Dr. Morgentaler made a very courageous stand in his life to champion women's reproductive rights, and she is pleased with the Governor-General's choice.

"He's an elderly man now, and the Order of Canada is given to people who made significant contributions in their life, and I think it is justly deserved and it's great to see that he will be receiving the award."

Abortion is becoming a non-issue for many Canadians who have grown up with legalized abortion, the morning-after pill and other reproductive options for women, Ms. Hancock said.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=628476

[C23flyer]

Father Lucien Larre, who was inducted into the nation's highest order in 1983 for his work with troubled youth, said in a news release yesterday that he felt "compelled in conscience to return my Order of Canada."

The priest, based in Coquitlam, B. C., said he did not want to show disrespect to the Governor-General or to condemn Dr. Morgentaler, but added, "I believe in my heart that he is horribly wrong and the advisory committee made a terrible mistake."

Reaction yesterday to the announcement that Dr. Morgentaler would be elevated to the Order of Canada was mixed, but Father Larre's response was typical of many who were shocked by the choice.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday decried the naming of Dr. Morgentaler, issuing a terse news release calling it an "inadmissible affront" to Canadians that undermines the significance of the award.

Perhaps his good conscience should have led him to give it back when they started outing his colleagues.

[Dex]

It is ironic that the word Hysterical was used to describe my observations.Hysterical being a misogynistic word to describe the rantings of a woman at certain times of the month.

Haven't run into a dictionary which gives the definition of "hysterical" as you've described it above.

[grimey]

It is ironic that the word Hysterical was used to describe my observations.Hysterical being a misogynistic word to describe the rantings of a woman at certain times of the month.

Haven't run into a dictionary which gives the definition of "hysterical" as you've described it above.

The origin of the word (a few hundred years ago, with the greek root being much older) is essentially as he describes it. Its meaning has been altered over time.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hysterical

[Hedley]

B.C. priest gives back his Order over Morgentaler

Hm. If I was a member of the Order of Canada, and it
was awarded to a B.C. priest, I would be tempted to
give it back, too. Those dudes have done an awful lot
of bad stuff for a long, long time. I know I wouldn't
leave my kids with them.

[mcrit]

Grimey, that's a good point about the unused embryo's. I had not considered that. My take, (and that's all it is), is that these would not yet be considered humans given that there is no nerual system yet formed. I'm sure that there are others who have a different take (ie, it is a human because it has unique DNA).
I'm not a supporter of completely banning abortion, but I do believe it needs to have some curbs placed on it (just look up 'partial birth abortion' and think about it)

[Dex]

It is ironic that the word Hysterical was used to describe my observations.Hysterical being a misogynistic word to describe the rantings of a woman at certain times of the month.

Haven't run into a dictionary which gives the definition of "hysterical" as you've described it above.

The origin of the word (a few hundred years ago, with the greek root being much older) is essentially as he describes it. Its meaning has been altered over time.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hysterical

Still can't see the "irony", can you?