Henry Morgentaler Given Honour?

[Black Dog]

Babies, fetuses and embryos are all human. Prior to being born they have no rights. If we are to call ourselves defenders of human rights shouldn't we be defending the human rights of the unborn?

The problem with arguments over the status of a fetus is that they miss the point completely. It doesn't really matter whether a fetus is "human" or not. What matters is that abortions will happen regardless. One can bury one's head in the sand or accept the fact and craft policy accordingly.

I repeat again - Henry thought he was killing potential Nazis - that makes him crazy---if our greatest honour is to be given to the insane - so be it...I want no part of it.

I think what we have here, given the quote I cited (versus the quote you invented), is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Or rather, the case of a nutjob calling someone else crazy.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Black Dog

[MontyBurns]

It doesn't really matter whether a fetus is "human" or not. What matters is that abortions will happen regardless. One can bury one's head in the sand or accept the fact and craft policy accordingly.

IMO it does matter if it is "human" because if it is then "human rights" should apply to it. In Canada we apply "human rights" to people such as mass murderers that would be executed in many other countries. We have armies of leftists in Canada willing to go to bat for mass murderers in the name of "human rights". But in the case of an unborn human we make a convenient omission in our "human rights" philosophy.

Don't you think we should be more supportive of an innocent unborn child than a convicted mass murderer?

[Remiel]

A mass murderer can experience the loss of their life. A fetus in early development, having no brain function, cannot.

[capricorn]

The problem with arguments over the status of a fetus is that they miss the point completely. It doesn't really matter whether a fetus is "human" or not. What matters is that abortions will happen regardless. One can bury one's head in the sand or accept the fact and craft policy accordingly.

Crafting policy around abortion is practically impossible, since some Canadians think that a fetus is comparable to a wart on a person's body that can be easily eradicated. One poster here made that very point and the more I thought about it, the more I think it reflects how most Canadians view a fetus within a woman's womb. A fetus can be as much nuisance as a wart.

Perhaps we should just leave things as is, i.e. have no law on abortion period. We could then turn our attention to peripheral questions like, who pays for it and (God forbid) should prospective fathers have a say in the decision. You know, things we could really argue about rather than go round and round about that pesky unwanted thing that can happen after sex.

[WIP]

IMO it does matter if it is "human" because if it is then "human rights" should apply to it. In Canada we apply "human rights" to people such as mass murderers that would be executed in many other countries. We have armies of leftists in Canada willing to go to bat for mass murderers in the name of "human rights". But in the case of an unborn human we make a convenient omission in our "human rights" philosophy.

Don't you think we should be more supportive of an innocent unborn child than a convicted mass murderer?

Yeah, sure it's about human rights! That further illustrates the screwed up, mixed up notions of morality that religious dogma can lead you to! This is our future if prolife whining becomes real law:

And this was why I had come to El Salvador: Abortion is a serious felony here for everyone involved, including the woman who has the abortion. Some young women are now serving prison sentences, a few as long as 30 years..............

.........In El Salvador, a mostly Catholic country, abortion first surfaced as a potent political issue in 1993, when conservative members of the Assembly proposed that Dec. 28, the Catholic Feast of the Holy Innocents, be declared a national day to remember the unborn..............

...........The pope's appointment of Lacalle 11 years ago brought to the Archdiocese of San Salvador a different kind of religious leader. Lacalle, an outspoken member of the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei, redirected the country's church politics. Lacalle's predecessors were just as firmly opposed to abortion as he was. What he brought to the country's anti-abortion movement was a new determination to turn that opposition into state legislation and a belief that the church should play a public role in the process. In 1997, conservative legislators in the Assembly introduced a bill that would ban abortion in all circumstances. The archbishop campaigned actively for its passage.

"The ban was part of a backlash," I was told by Luisa Cabal, the legal consultant for Latin America at the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights organization based in New York. The proposed bill, Cabal said, was a result of "the church's role in pushing for a conservative agenda." With the archbishop's vocal support of the ban and conservative groups fully energized, opposition soon became difficult. Any argument in favor of therapeutic abortion was met with a religious counterargument. .............................

.............When the woman is first detained, the form of custody can vary. Wandee Mira, an obstetrician at a hospital in San Salvador, told me that she had seen "a young girl handcuffed to her hospital bed with a police officer standing outside the door." ...............................

.............In El Salvador, the law is clear: the woman is a felon and must be prosecuted. According to Tópez, after a report comes in from a doctor or a hospital that a woman has arrived who is suspected of having had an abortion, and after the police are dispatched, investigators start procuring evidence of the crime. In that first stage, Tópez has 72 hours to make the case to a justice of the peace that there should be a further investigation. If enough evidence is collected, she presents the case before a magistrate to get authorization for a full criminal trial before a judge. ............................

................Indeed, the evidence suggests that the ban in El Salvador disproportionately affects poor women. The researchers who conducted the Journal of Public Health study found that common occupations listed for women charged with abortion-related crimes were homemaker, student, housekeeper and market vendor. The earlier study by the Center for Reproductive Rights found that the majority were domestic servants, followed by factory workers, ticket takers on buses, housewives, saleswomen and messengers................................

..............A policy that criminalizes all abortions has a flip side. It appears to mandate that the full force of the medical team must tend toward saving the fetus under any circumstances. This notion can lead to some dangerous practices. Consider an ectopic pregnancy, a condition that occurs when a microscopic fertilized egg moves down the fallopian tube — which is no bigger around than a pencil — and gets stuck there (or sometimes in the abdomen). Unattended, the stuck fetus grows until the organ containing it ruptures. A simple operation can remove the fetus before the organ bursts. After a rupture, though, the situation can turn into a medical emergency.

According to Sara Valdés, the director of the Hospital de Maternidad, women coming to her hospital with ectopic pregnancies cannot be operated on until fetal death or a rupture of the fallopian tube...............................

................n prosecutors' offices in El Salvador, as in prosecutors' offices anywhere, longer sentences are considered better sentences. "The more years one can send someone away for," I was told by Margarita Sanabria, a magistrate who has handled several abortion cases, "the better it is for the prosecutors." She cited this motivation to account for what she has observed recently: more later-term abortions being reclassified as "aggravated homicide." If an aborted fetus is found to have been viable, the higher charge can be filed. The penalty for abortion can be as low as two years in prison. Aggravated homicide has a minimum sentence of 30 years and a maximum of 50 years. ...................

................I was there to see Carmen Climaco. She is now 26 years old, four years into her 30-year sentence. She has three children, who today are 11, 8 and 6 years old. We talked about them for a while. Since she was the only person in the family who worked, her children's financial situation is precarious; they now stay with their grandmother..

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine...amp;oref=slogin

[White Doors]

Ironically, Drea's hero would view her as a pariah due to her previously expressed views for the man to be able to have a legal say in wether the woman can have an abortion or not. Drea has also previously favoured restrictions on abortions after a certain time period has passed in the pregnancy - something Morgantaler would fight vociferously against. I guess Drea should learn more about her 'hero'. lol

It's not that Morgantaler is for abortions, it's that he is for NO rights for the fetus up to the moment of delivery. That is an extremist view by most people's accounts.

Most reasonable people would be in favour of limiting abortions where the health of the mother and fetus are normal after 3 or 4 months. Most reasonable person has no problem with that. Morgantaler and his ilk DO NOT believe in that at all and are 100% against it. That is not a main stream view. It is extremist.

I don't think the Order of Canada should be given to extremists.

[charter.rights]

IMO it does matter if it is "human" because if it is then "human rights" should apply to it. In Canada we apply "human rights" to people such as mass murderers that would be executed in many other countries. We have armies of leftists in Canada willing to go to bat for mass murderers in the name of "human rights". But in the case of an unborn human we make a convenient omission in our "human rights" philosophy.

Don't you think we should be more supportive of an innocent unborn child than a convicted mass murderer?

Under the law a fetus isn't considered an individual human. Thus your argument falls apart. The fetus is only a growth inside the woman.

[Drea]

Ironically, Drea's hero would view her as a pariah due to her previously expressed views for the man to be able to have a legal say in wether the woman can have an abortion or not. Drea has also previously favoured restrictions on abortions after a certain time period has passed in the pregnancy - something Morgantaler would fight vociferously against. I guess Drea should learn more about her 'hero'. lol

Because I am pleased that he recieved the honour and am pleased that people (men!) like him have fought for my rights... does not necessarily make him my "hero". But it's just more fun to put words in people's mouths isn't it?

It's not that Morgantaler is for abortions, it's that he is for NO rights for the fetus up to the moment of delivery. That is an extremist view by most people's accounts.

and it is the rare abortion that occurs that late. But there are circumstances where it is necessary and Morgentaler fought for that right. If a woman was in late stage pregnancy and found out the fetus had spina bifida she would want to abort... or do you think a woman should be forced to carry a mutilated fetus and give birth to it... which of these would be more tramatizing for the woman you think?

Most reasonable people would be in favour of limiting abortions where the health of the mother and fetus are normal after 3 or 4 months. Most reasonable person has no problem with that. Morgantaler and his ilk DO NOT believe in that at all and are 100% against it. That is not a main stream view. It is extremist.

I don't think the Order of Canada should be given to extremists.

The Catholic is an extremist. He got the order. He's not done a thing that thousands of others before him (including the abuse) have done before. He is just a priest doing his job (is his job to mess with children? I'll suppose it is as it's so common in that sphere).

Edited July 9, 2008 by Drea

[Riverwind]

Don't you think we should be more supportive of an innocent unborn child than a convicted mass murderer?

Do you agree that killing of innocents during the invasion of Iraq was justified in the name of preventing a greater evil? If so then you should accept that the majority of people beleive that allowing the killing of human fetuses is justified to prevent the greater evil of an unwanted child. Edited July 9, 2008 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

IMO it does matter if it is "human" because if it is then "human rights" should apply to it. In Canada we apply "human rights" to people such as mass murderers that would be executed in many other countries. We have armies of leftists in Canada willing to go to bat for mass murderers in the name of "human rights". But in the case of an unborn human we make a convenient omission in our "human rights" philosophy.

And you still have not addressed the following: Should human rights first apply at: a) the creation of a sperm cell in a man's testicles, conception, c) the embryonic stage, d) the fetal stage, e) the pre-natal stage, or d) birth.

Edited July 9, 2008 by g_bambino

[Black Dog]

IMO it does matter if it is "human" because if it is then "human rights" should apply to it. In Canada we apply "human rights" to people such as mass murderers that would be executed in many other countries. We have armies of leftists in Canada willing to go to bat for mass murderers in the name of "human rights". But in the case of an unborn human we make a convenient omission in our "human rights" philosophy.

Don't you think we should be more supportive of an innocent unborn child than a convicted mass murderer?

So tell me: at what point does a collection of cells in a women's uterus vbecome deserving of human rights? At fertilization? Implantation? When you can see the widdle fingers on the ultrasound?

It's not that Morgantaler is for abortions, it's that he is for NO rights for the fetus up to the moment of delivery. That is an extremist view by most people's accounts.

about a third each of Canadians support the view on one end of the spectrum that human life should be legally protected from conception on and on the otherend of the spectrum that it should be protected only from birth on. Another third think it should be protected prior to birth but some months after conception.

link

If all these views are held by an equal portion of the population, can any one of them said to be extremist?

Most reasonable people would be in favour of limiting abortions where the health of the mother and fetus are normal after 3 or 4 months. Most reasonable person has no problem with that.

No true Scotsman...

That is not a main stream view. It is extremist.

Again if the above poll (commissioned by a anti-abortion organization, no less) is to be believed, then the view that a fetus is deserving of no legal protection until birth is just as extremist as the view that a fetus should be legally protected from conception.

[M.Dancer]

So tell me: at what point does a collection of cells in a women's uterus vbecome deserving of human rights? At fertilization? Implantation? When you can see the widdle fingers on the ultrasound?

Definately the widdle fingers...

[White Doors]

I think when the higher brain functions start to get going, the third trimester. If all are healthy there should be no right to abort after that time in my opinion. If the woman hasnb't made up her mind by that time then I think that she should have to have it. I don't think that is unreasonable. I am not saying that that scenario happens alot, but I do think they fact that it is perfectly legal to do so - is wrong.

[White Doors]

Thanks for the link BD.

From your link:

Majorities across the country believe that human life should receive legal protection some

time prior to birth, but this view is highest in Saskatchewan (70%), and lowest in British

Columbia (63%, up 10 points from 2005) and Ontario (63%, up 5). However, since 2005,

this view is up noticeably in British Columbia and to a lesser extent in Ontario.

The view that human life should be protected from conception on is highest in Manitoba

(36%) and lowest in British Columbia (26%). Support for this view also continues to be

higher among women (34%) than among men (28%, up 4 points), but has increased among

the latter.

The view that human life should receive legal protection only from the point of birth is

similar among women (29%) and men (31%), and has declined among the latter since 2005.

So the majority of Canadians do NOT support no legal rights for a fetus until birth, a position the morgantaler supports.

so, thanks for proving my point.

[Black Dog]

So the majority of Canadians do NOT support no legal rights for a fetus until birth, a position the morgantaler supports. so, thanks for proving my point.

Except, your point wasn't that a majority of Canadians believe in protection for fetus. You claimed the view that a fetus should have no protection was an "extremist" position that no "reasonable" person would adhere to. And yet a third of Canadians do just that. Which means one of a few things:

1) a third of Canadians are extremists

2) When confronted with evidence that the position you define as extreme is actually widely held, you are moving the goalposts

or 3) You've decide to define extreme down to the point where it is synonymous with "minority." In which case, I'd like to introduce you to Canada's extremist Conservative government.

[M.Dancer]

editted due to confusion of the double negative

Edited July 9, 2008 by M.Dancer

[White Doors]

editted due to confusion of the double negative

....

Majorities across the country believe that human life should receive legal protection some

time prior to birth

that better?

[White Doors]

Except, your point wasn't that a majority of Canadians believe in protection for fetus. You claimed the view that a fetus should have no protection was an "extremist" position that no "reasonable" person would adhere to. And yet a third of Canadians do just that. Which means one of a few things:

1) a third of Canadians are extremists

2) When confronted with evidence that the position you define as extreme is actually widely held, you are moving the goalposts

or 3) You've decide to define extreme down to the point where it is synonymous with "minority." In which case, I'd like to introduce you to Canada's extremist Conservative government.

He is in the minority. Abortion is a no-win argument for anyone to make, but a clear majority of Canadians DO support some sort of fetal rights. Morgantaler is definitely among the minority.

I would also suggest that alot of the people who support zero fetal rights, are, extremist as I would also say that alot of the people in no abortions are extremists.

Would you be ok with an extremist anti abortion rights person received the order of Canada?

[Black Dog]

White Doors today at 04:59 AM

It's not that Morgantaler is for abortions, it's that he is for NO rights for the fetus up to the moment of delivery. That is an extremist view by most people's accounts.

Most reasonable people would be in favour of limiting abortions where the health of the mother and fetus are normal after 3 or 4 months. Most reasonable person has no problem with that. Morgantaler and his ilk DO NOT believe in that at all and are 100% against it. That is not a main stream view. It is extremist.

I don't think the Order of Canada should be given to extremists.

White Doors today at 09:25 AM

He is in the minority. Abortion is a no-win argument for anyone to make, but a clear majority of Canadians DO support some sort of fetal rights. Morgantaler is definitely among the minority.

I would also suggest that alot of the people who support zero fetal rights, are, extremist as I would also say that alot of the people in no abortions are extremists.

This is as fine an example of rhetorical ass-covering as you're likely to see on a web board. We've gone from Morgentaler and those who, like him, believe in zero protection for fetuses being unreasonable extremists to those same people being a mere minority who happen to have extremists in their midst. If I'm being excessively pedantic here, I would say it's because I hate to see the term extremist devalued in such a way as to mean "unpopular or minority opinions".

Would you be ok with an extremist anti abortion rights person received the order of Canada?

No. But then my whole point in this exchange is that we aren't dealing with an extremist here.

[M.Dancer]

I think those who feel the fetus has no rights until birth are not only extremists, they are not logical or sane.

How can one say that an 8 and 1/2 month fetus has no rights but a preemie of 6.5 months gestation does?

Why would it be okay to end the life of a living 9 month fetus but not a new born baby?

The vaginal birth canal is not a magic door that bequeaths special privileges to the initiated.....

[White Doors]

I do belive morgantaler is an extremist. I do believe alot of the people who believe in ZERO rights for a fetus up until birth are extremists as well. I do however, believe that there are those that are misled in that camp as well.

My point remains but feel free to keep dancing around it. Morgantaler is a polarizing figure in the abortion debate and one only needs to see the backlash of him being awarded the order of Canada to see this.

He did not bring people together and make this a better country. He divided us when it was not necessary to do so. The old abortion laws needed to be changed but the bar went too far the other way and now Canada is the wild west on the abortion issue in the western world. No other western country affords no protection for the fetus like Canada. I feel, as do the majority of others, that this needs to be changed.

Edited July 9, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

I think those who feel the fetus has no rights until birth are not only extremists, they are not logical or sane.

How can one say that an 8 and 1/2 month fetus has no rights but a preemie of 6.5 months gestation does?

Why would it be okay to end the life of a living 9 month fetus but not a new born baby?

The vaginal birth canal is not a magic door that bequeaths special privileges to the initiated.....

Agreed 100%

[Black Dog]

I think those who feel the fetus has no rights until birth are not only extremists, they are not logical or sane.

How can one say that an 8 and 1/2 month fetus has no rights but a preemie of 6.5 months gestation does?

Why would it be okay to end the life of a living 9 month fetus but not a new born baby?

The vaginal birth canal is not a magic door that bequeaths special privileges to the initiated....

The same logic leads us to legal protection for a just-fertilized egg cell. You clearly accept that defining when something is human is totally arbitrary, so it's just a matter of where you draw that "magic" line. The vaginal birth canal is no more arbitrary or ridiculous a criteria than "higher brain functions" or widdle fingers.

I also think the fact that less than 10 per cent of abortion occur within the third trimester indicates that the whole question of rights until birth or not is a red herring.

I do belive morgantaler is an extremist. I do believe alot of the people who believe in ZERO rights for a fetus up until birth are extremists as well. I do however, believe that there are those that are misled in that camp as well.

So what are you basing this on? That's what I want to know.

My point remains but feel free to keep dancing around it. Morgantaler is a polarizing figure in the abortion debate and one only needs to see the backlash of him being awarded the order of Canada to see this.

He did not bring people together and make this a better country. He divided us when it was not necessary to do so.

That's highly debatable. Morgentaler, his supporters and thousands of women across Canada would suggest that the change in abortion laws was a very necessary step. In fact, you pretty much concede that point in your very next sentence,

The old abortion laws needed to be changed but the bar went too far the other way and now Canada is the wild west on the abortion issue in the western world. No other western country affords no protection for the fetus like Canada. I feel, as do the majority of others, that this needs to be changed.

And yet Canada's abortion rates are comparable to those in many other western nations: in fact they are lower than the rates in nations with more restrictive measures. So what's to be gained by changing?

[M.Dancer]

The same logic leads us to legal protection for a just-fertilized egg cell.

Not at all. One is a fetus, the other a zygote. While I do not believe that a fertilized egg in a petri dish has the same gravitas as one in a mother....I think by the time that an embryo has become a fetus, and certainly by the time a fetus is capable of living outside the womb, that their are certain inalienable rights associated with life.

But I do agree...even the just fertilized egg needs some legal status....even if it is only to ensure that only a trained doctor or approved method can abort it.

[Black Dog]

Not at all. One is a fetus, the other a zygote. While I do not believe that a fertilized egg in a petri dish has the same gravitas as one in a mother....I think by the time that an embryo has become a fetus, and certainly by the time a fetus is capable of living outside the womb, that their are certain inalienable rights associated with life.

The point remains: the definition is arbitrary and inexact (few if any fetuses can survive outside the womb without artificial support). What you're saying is that, at some point, the rights fairy comes along and waves its wand and poof! we have a human. Given that, it seems absurd to dismiss the notion of birth as the determinant when, to me, it's equally as valid a criteria as the ability to exist outside the womb (provided the fetus is hooked up to various machines enabling it to do so).