Henry Morgentaler receives Order of Canada

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by evman150

I approve of abortion.

Child rapists are human beings. Unborn fetuses are not. Child rapists have rights, unborn "babies" do not.

My view is at least logically consistent. Yours however, is not. You find it perfectly acceptable to kill some humans, yet find it morally repugnant to kill "others". How do you reconcile this inconsistency?

So in other words, yes, you fail to grasp simple logical concepts once again.

You've selected what life is worth you're label, and what life is of no consequence. I do not find it perfectly acceptable to kill some humans. I did not approve of the particular supreme court ruling, here was my relevant comment:

Originally Posted by Gozer

I agree with Jammies that death should not be permitted by society under any circumstances - but that is not the ruling the court made. The court ruled raping children isn't as bad as murder. I disagree with that.

I freely admit that there are cases (such as the aforementioned supreme court case) that is in a blurry area of my moral 'venn diagram', where I think an individual should die but we shouldn't kill them.

You can assert your claims as logical as you please, you've taken a stance I consider morally repugnant.
If we extrapolate your stance, smoking while pregnant is morally the same as smoking otherwise. Beating a pregnant woman is morally the same as beating otherwise. The worthless cluster of pre-humanity is clearly beneath basic rights.

I find the contention that unborn feti are human is a very simple logical concept. I "once again fail" to embrace your "simple logical concept" that the unborn are worthless.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I find the contention that unborn feti are human is a very simple logical concept. I "once again fail" to embrace your "simple logical concept" that the unborn are worthless.

A decent post, but then you add this nonsense. Non sequitur, straw-man, ill placed sarcasm.

Not needed at all.

[evman150]

Oh and as for your argument, it is clearly lacking.

As you would have it, I would find it perfectly fine to needlessly kill a dog walking down the street. It's not a human after all. This clearly doesn't follow.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you find it morally pugnant to tell other people how to live there lives?

I do not find it morally repugnant to restrict the ability of an individual to execute another.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you think it should be outlawed and that the government should insist private citizens have babies?

I'm not sure what I do believe, to be honest. Outlawing abortion won't work and will lead to other unpleasantness (as this character the thread is about knows all too well), but generally speaking that is what I want.

I've considered a 30-day jail term for an abortion, but I think that would end up as the worst of both worlds. Rape victims getting jail terms, shamed teens killing themselves, etc.

I don't know what my solution is, but I do know that I vehemently oppose awarding The highest degree of merit to Canada and humanity, an outstanding level of talent and service to Canadians, or an exceptional contribution to Canada or Canadians to an abortionist.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by evman150

Oh and as for your argument, it is clearly lacking.

As you would have it, I would find it perfectly fine to needlessly kill a dog walking down the street. It's not a human after all. This clearly doesn't follow.

Only if you grossly mischaracterize what I said.

"If we extrapolate your stance, smoking while pregnant is morally the same as smoking otherwise. Beating a pregnant woman is morally the same as beating otherwise. "

I'm not suggesting you think beating women is groovy, just that beating a pregnant woman is no worse.

Edit: As I reflect further, I suppose you think my human rights / worthless categorization is a needless dichotomy, and to a point you're right. A fetus can have worth without having the value of a "real" human. However, I still consider that distinction morally repugnant.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by evman150

A decent post, but then you add this nonsense. Non sequitur, straw-man, ill placed sarcasm.

Not needed at all.

Nor was your comment about me not being able to comprehend basic logic.
Edit: IRONY!

It was not a non-sequitur, it fit in fine with the bulk of my comments, it was just a little over the top.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Only if you grossly mischaracterize what I said.

"If we extrapolate your stance, smoking while pregnant is morally the same as smoking otherwise. Beating a pregnant woman is morally the same as beating otherwise. "

I'm not suggesting you think beating women is groovy, just that beating a pregnant woman is no worse.

Actually, no. I'm not mischaracterizing what you said at all, let alone grossly so.

You are further harming another live being. What you are saying I'm saying is that beating a woman and a dog is no worse than beating merely a woman. This is a gross mischaracterization of my position.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by evman150

Actually, no. I'm not mischaracterizing what you said at all, let alone grossly so.

You are further harming another live being. What you are saying I'm saying is that beating a woman and a dog is no worse than beating merely a woman. This is a gross mischaracterization of my position.

You are right, please reference my edit above.

My example/extrapolation was not accurate, but I stand by my broader point.

An unborn child is it's own entity, is human, and is worth protecting.

[Kipper is King]

If someone kills a 1 year old baby, everyone would be up in arms. Why is killing babies that are younger (still developing in the womb) considered acceptable?

[HOZ]

A Catholic's point of view
But they don't count, right?


This distinction bestowed upon Morgentaler is really not about the man himself. It is another battle in the long, long campaign to exalt abortion rights as a “Canadian value” — a notion so embedded in the self-identity of Canadians that no one can question its rightness. It is an attempt to put the right to unfettered access to an abortion in the same pantheon of other “Canadian values” as universal health care, tolerance for diversity and being a helpful fixer on the world stage. Those who dare to to challenge the morality of abortion rights court a deluge of condemnation from the country's opinion makers and movers and shakers.

My personal view is that I don't see winning a Supreme Court case as worthy of this award. Especially what this issue has turned this into. Women having access to abortion whenever and wherever vs abortions of children right up to term (cliflip, girl, etc...)

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

If someone kills a 1 year old baby, everyone would be up in arms. Why is killing babies that are younger (still developing in the womb) considered acceptable?

Because people who support pro choice generally believe that a fetus isn't a baby during the months when abortion is legal, and hasn't achieved self awareness and conscience.

I personally think the fetus in early stages of pregnancy is not those things and thus aborting is not murder.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Thor

Because people who support pro choice generally believe that a fetus isn't a baby during the months when abortion is legal, and hasn't achieved self awareness and conscience.

I personally think the fetus in early stages of pregnancy is not those things and thus aborting is not murder.

Just to throw a wrench in this discussion. Hypothetically: A woman (person #1) is pregnant and wants to keep the child. Another person (person #2) comes injures the woman to the point where the fetus is lost. Has person #2 committed murder? Just throwing it out there for discussion.

[Hemi-Cuda]

good for him. abortion needs to be legal for the simple fact that this planet is overpopulated as it is. with the food and energy crisis we're seeing that will only get worse, why force yet another consumer of those resources on parents who don't want it?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

If someone kills a 1 year old baby, everyone would be up in arms. Why is killing babies that are younger (still developing in the womb) considered acceptable?

you just answered your own question, because they aren't fully formed, thus aren't human

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Just to throw a wrench in this discussion. Hypothetically: A woman (person #1) is pregnant and wants to keep the child. Another person (person #2) comes injures the woman to the point where the fetus is lost. Has person #2 committed murder? Just throwing it out there for discussion.

I'd imagine in a society where abortion is illegal a case could be made for that.

But of course I don't see it as that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

good for him. abortion needs to be legal for the simple fact that this planet is overpopulated as it is. with the food and energy crisis we're seeing that will only get worse, why force yet another consumer of those resources on parents who don't want it?

Lots of kids get born to parents who don't want them.

Should we just start killing off all of them to avoid 'overpopulation' issues?

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'd imagine in a society where abortion is illegal a case could be made for that.

But of course I don't see it as that.

The sad thing about that, however, is that the woman's choice is not being respected and would likely view her fetus as a child. Even though society would not view this as murder the woman likely would.

One of the reasons I bring this up is that many people have brought up in this thread giving a woman the right to choose, and yet in a situation like this the choice of the woman is not respected and the person who would force the fetus to abort would likely not face as severe a penalty because it wouldn't be called murder.

[flylock shox]

All the abortion chatter aside, I have some suspicions about bestowing this award to Morgentaler.

I'll bet there's not a single person on this board who, had they been asked to come up with a list of 10 Canadians worthy of the Order, would have even thought to add Morgentaler to the list. And it would have been obvious to any selection committee that it would be a controversial selection. So one has to ask: why Morgentaler, and why now?

I wonder who's behind the push to get him the Order. Does anyone know? I've read next to nothing about this, but it just seems like the same type of thing that special interest lobby groups manage to achieve in the political sphere: pushing through a position which isn't beneficial to the majority, and which the majority in all likelihood wouldn't endorse through any means other than apathy.

Just seems a wee bit suspicious is all...

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

The sad thing about that, however, is that the woman's choice is not being respected and would likely view her fetus as a child. Even though society would not view this as murder the woman likely would.

One of the reasons I bring this up is that many people have brought up in this thread giving a woman the right to choose, and yet in a situation like this the choice of the woman is not respected and the person who would force the fetus to abort would likely not face as severe a penalty because it wouldn't be called murder.

That's simply incorrect. The woman's choice to have a child has not been interfered with by anyone other than the 'killer'. Society would simply not be accepting that woman's definition of the status of the foetus, assuming that she actually even thinks that way rather than this being a projection of your beliefs on to this hypothetical person. I'm not saying I agree that the situations aren't different, that is that beating a pregnant woman not being worse than a non-pregnant one, but your argument does not logically follow from your premises which are themselves dubious.