Henry Morgentaler Given Honour?

[M.Dancer]

(few if any fetuses can survive outside the womb without artificial support).

What does that have to do with anything? Few if any open heart surgery patients can survive after the operation without life support, Does that mean they have no right so we can kill them?

[M.Dancer]

What you're saying is that, at some point, the rights fairy comes along and waves its wand and poof! we have a human.

Well I have a wand....and it waved...and poof, we made a human...but please don't call me a fairy.

Life begins at conception, what we are doing is trying to decide when it's okay to kill it.

[M.Dancer]

.... 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).

I think you misunderstood me....I feel that human rights should be extended far before when the fetus is viable....and an abortion when a fetus is viable is in no uncertain terms premeditated murder.

[Black Dog]

What does that have to do with anything?

I dunno, but you brought up the theoretical ability to survive outside the womb as a criteria for rights, citing 6 month old premature babies who can't actually survive outside the womb on their own. I'm hoping maybe you can expand on that and why that should be a determining factor.

Few if any open heart surgery patients can survive after the operation without life support, Does that mean they have no right so we can kill them?

No because they've already passed through the magic vag and received their certificate of humanity. Duh.

[Black Dog]

Life begins at conception, what we are doing is trying to decide when it's okay to kill it.

How about any time until birth. That works.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Black Dog

[M.Dancer]

How about any time until birth. That works.

Only if you feel that selfishness is legitimate grounds for murder.

[M.Dancer]

I dunno, but you brought up the theoretical ability to survive outside the womb as a criteria for rights, citing 6 month old premature babies who can't actually survive outside the womb on their own. I'm hoping maybe you can expand on that and why that should be a determining factor.

No because they've already passed through the magic vag and received their certificate of humanity. Duh.

I would but none of those things you say I have said I have said in the contyext you have framed them....

to clarify: If an abortion takes place when a live baby can be delivered, it's murder.

[M.Dancer]

I dunno,

I realize that...I am asking what the life support has to do with anything...do you think life support makes their case for life less worthy?

[Black Dog]

Only if you feel that selfishness is legitimate grounds for murder.

Selfishness is legitimate grounds for abortion. Whether abortion is murder or not is clearly up in the air.

If an abortion takes place when a live baby can be delivered, it's murder.

Except viability varies from fetus to fetus so there's no real way to pin that down.

More.

No baby has ever been successfully delivered before the middle of the 22nd week. Babies delivered during the 22nd and 23rd weeks weigh just over a pound. Their lungs have barely formed and their airways are not developed enough to inhale. Circulation depends on the use of ventilators and injections of hormones. A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged, either by lack of oxygen (from poor initial respiration) or too much oxygen (from the ventilator). Neonatologists predict that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed.

Probability of survival increases for babies born later in pregnancy: 25 percent in the 23rd week, 42 percent in the 24th week, 57 percent in 25th week. By the 30th week, when a newborn doesn't require a ventilator to breathe, it has a 90 percent chance of survival. And only after the 30th week do the risks of long-term brain damage begin to substantially subside. Because premature babies depend on technology, survival rates vary based on access to that technology.

I realize that...I am asking what the life support has to do with anything...do you think life support makes their case for life less worthy?

It makes them unviable, which, by your criteria, makes them fair game.

[M.Dancer]

Selfishness is legitimate grounds for abortion. Whether abortion is murder or not is clearly up in the air.

Except viability varies from fetus to fetus so there's no real way to pin that down.

More.

It makes them unviable, which, by your criteria, makes them fair game.

Again, you are purposely misstating what I have written. That is not only dishonest, it's irratating.

As a matter of fact, life support makes them viable so not only are you being irrating, you are being wrong.

No baby has ever been successfully delivered before the middle of the 22nd week.

and so is your source.

James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy.[31][32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth#Records

[g_bambino]

Life begins at conception, what we are doing is trying to decide when it's okay to kill it.

And the un-joined egg and sperm cells are not alive? By all definitions, they are as much living tissue as a zygote is. Life is a continuum; we don't know when it began. But, of course, that doesn't negate your point of our debate centring on when to end it.

[Black Dog]

As a matter of fact, life support makes them viable so not only are you being irrating, you are being wrong.

Your definition of viability is different from most. The AMA defines viability as "when (a fetus) reaches an "anatomical threshold" when critical organs, such as the lungs and kidneys, can sustain independent life." Basically, you're argument is "a fetus is viable when I say it is."

Fact remains, fetal viability varies on a case by case basis, which means you can't use that as a means of determining "murder."

And I guess the fact that, in rare instances (two, to be exact) and due to extraordinary measures, fetuses can survive before 22 weeks means...well, not much at all from a policy standpoint. They are statistically insignificant.

Anyhoo, it seems silly to even bother with the question of viability, given that you've already stated that three month old, barely-formed, tadpole-like creatures are deserving of the same protections as babies and adults. If it's murder to terminate a "viable" fetus, then it's also murder to terminate an unviable fetus, is it not? If not, why not?

[Black Dog]

Too add: these debates inevitably degenerate into discussion of how many fetus can dance on the head of a pin. This one is no exception. But going back to my earlier point, all of that is academic.

Murder or not, right or wrong, abortion is and will always be a reality. The question is: how do you accommodate this reality? According to the United Nations, about one in 10 pregnancies in the Arab world ends in abortion, just half the rate of the United States, despite what can be lightly termed as strict anti-abortion laws. Latin America holds some of the world's most stringent abortion laws, yet it has the developing world's highest rate of abortions. Western nations with liberal abortion laws have among the lowest rates. An interesting correlation that underscores the ubiquity of abortion and the futility of restrictive and coercive measures to control it.

[jazzer]

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.

So if a pregnant women is murdered, don't we charge her murderer with two counts?

[M.Dancer]

And the un-joined egg and sperm cells are not alive? By all definitions, they are as much living tissue as a zygote is. Life is a continuum; we don't know when it began. But, of course, that doesn't negate your point of our debate centring on when to end it.

Not at all they may be living tissue but they are not in themselves alive. Ejaculate in a cup and see if the cells multiply.

[M.Dancer]

Your definition of viability is different from most. The AMA defines viability as "when (a fetus) reaches an "anatomical threshold" when critical organs, such as the lungs and kidneys, can sustain independent life." Basically, you're argument is "a fetus is viable when I say it is."

By oindependat life thy mean outside the womb. With a repserator they can., independant of the mother.

I have a little experiance with this subject as my daughter was born 10 1/2 weeks early weighing 1 lbs 15 oz.

[capricorn]

I have a little experiance with this subject as my daughter was born 10 1/2 weeks early weighing 1 lbs 15 oz.

Gee Dancer, what a heart wrenching experience. I hope everything turned out OK.

[M.Dancer]

Gee Dancer, what a heart wrenching experience. I hope everything turned out OK.

Yeah, she is a normal 9 year old pain in the arse ....normal in every way...her weight finally hit the lower end of average last winter.

I will say though, the last 2 trimesters and the first 6 months were so traumatic I have pretty nearly wiped them from my memory. It all averages out....my son was born 10 days late and weighed near 9lbs.....

[capricorn]

Yeah, she is a normal 9 year old pain in the arse ....normal in every way...her weight finally hit the lower end of average last winter.

I will say though, the last 2 trimesters and the first 6 months were so traumatic I have pretty nearly wiped them from my memory. It all averages out....my son was born 10 days late and weighed near 9lbs.....

The resilience and strength of the human species never ceases to amaze me.

[M.Dancer]

The resilience and strength of the human species never ceases to amaze me.

That and modern science. Had she would not have been born 40 years ago....my wife would have either miscarried or she would have been still born.

[g_bambino]

Not at all they may be living tissue but they are not in themselves alive. Ejaculate in a cup and see if the cells multiply.

Well, that's at least a task I could enjoy! Ahem... anyway... As it's called living tissue, the tissue must therefore be alive; cells need not be able to multiply in order to qualify as living; and dying is not the same as dead. Therefore, a sperm and an egg cell fused at the point of conception are alive; those cells are actively performing their designed function. However, is what they've just formed considered to be a person? Do two mushed together cells qualify as needing the same protection and rights as a fully developed being?

I don't think the question is answerable, and the rabid, right-wing "pro-lifers" don't really want to address the ambiguity around the point when two disparate cells actually become a person. They emphatically say life begins at conception; it's catchy, easy, and feeds on the ancient notions of conception as a magical event (especially those of the immaculate kind). Yet, as their ads always have images of precious, fully formed babies, and not globs of zygote tissue in a womb, what they actually seem to be talking about is when the potential for a human life begins; those two cells could become a person, and aborting them means the end of their development into what could have been a human being. But, that same logic also expands to cover birth control, non-coital sex, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, and menstruation: each disallows the forming of a potential human being. Then again... there are some religious kooks who do believe that all of the above is a sin that will lead to damnation. It's strange that they didn't make as big of a stink when Sue Johansen was appointed to the Order of Canada, what with her telling teenagers the best ways to kill their could-have-been children, and all.

I share the opinion of others here that the practice of abortion - like birth control, non-coital sex, masturbation, etc, - will always be a part of human existence. However, like everything else, it needs to be managed with responsibility, not religious fanaticism, or even the politically correct zeal of women's rights. Regulated, medically supervised, involving both parents if possible, and dealt with on a case by case basis, as it is for most other medical procedures. Like with alcohol, banning abortion outright will only lead to more problems than benefits.

Edited July 10, 2008 by g_bambino

[White Doors]

Who on this thread advocated for an outright ban on abortion?

I was saying the pendulum swung too far the other way after strinking down our old abortion laws. Currently we have none. No other western country in the world has none. You don't have to be a 'right wing religious wacko' to believe that this is wrong.

The problem with the abortion debate is that one side always cites the other's fanatics. The moment of conception no abortion types and the birth canal types where you can have an abortion right up to that time.

Neither view is correct but we are stuck with one extreme. We need legislation that reflects Canadians attitudes that lie somewhere in the middle. Legal fetal protection at a defined stage of development barring health issues.

Pro-choice until the passage of time that the fetus has rights too.

Back to the OP, Morgantaler is a fanatic at one end of this spectrum. I would not expect a representative from either polarizing spectrum to receive the order of Canada.

Your non-sensical arguments not-withstanding, there is room to negotiate on this issue without changing the basic facts of freedom and morality.

[g_bambino]

Your non-sensical arguments not-withstanding, there is room to negotiate on this issue without changing the basic facts of freedom and morality.

Hmm... I'm sorry you find my opinions to be non-sensical. I really can't be that far off base, as others have said essentially the same things, in regards to your comments, no less. Perhaps it's because you incorrectly took my comments as applying solely to you? Or you should read more carefully? I certainly did not ever point to you directly, and, whether or not there are participants in this thread who've called for an outright ban on abortion (I suspect there are, but they just dilute their appeals into less targetable vagaries), there are still people who do. What else would be meant by "life begins at conception" other than to say that abortion at any stage of pregnancy should be disallowed?

Actually, I quite agree with you that there should be laws in place; that you felt the need to tell me so only enhances my feeling that you didn't read what I wrote. How else could you have missed it when I said: like everything else, [abortion] needs to be managed with responsibility, not religious fanaticism, or even the politically correct zeal of women's rights. Regulated, medically supervised, involving both parents if possible, and dealt with on a case by case basis, as it is for most other medical procedures. You see? I take neither of the extremes as my side.

[Black Dog]

I was saying the pendulum swung too far the other way after strinking down our old abortion laws. Currently we have none. No other western country in the world has none. You don't have to be a 'right wing religious wacko' to believe that this is wrong.

But why is it wrong?

Neither view is correct but we are stuck with one extreme. We need legislation that reflects Canadians attitudes that lie somewhere in the middle. Legal fetal protection at a defined stage of development barring health issues. Pro-choice until the passage of time that the fetus has rights too.

And what practical effect will that have? An overwhelming majority of abortions are performed before the time in which you think fetal rights should be recognized. Most late term procedures are performed for health reasons. So your legislation would have no practical impact, which raises the question of why you want to legislate the status quo Again, Canada's abortion rate is not out of whack with those of other states, including those with far greater restrictions. So it seems to me that what you are offering is a solution in search of a problem.

Your non-sensical arguments not-withstanding, there is room to negotiate on this issue without changing the basic facts of freedom and morality.

Abortion should be regulated to ensure that is is safe and available. Beyond that, I think a individual's right to choose the time, manner and means of their reproduction is non-negotiable. It's be a shame to think that makes me an extremist in your world. If I cared, that is.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Black Dog

[MontyBurns]

Neither view is correct but we are stuck with one extreme. We need legislation that reflects Canadians attitudes that lie somewhere in the middle. Legal fetal protection at a defined stage of development barring health issues.

Pro-choice until the passage of time that the fetus has rights too.

Yes. Some sort of middle ground may be the best answer. One that gives choice to women up to a point but takes the child into account after a certain stage of development.