View Full Version : Morgentaler awarded honorary degree
Goofball
06-17-2005, 00:47
For those of you who don't know, Dr. Morgentaler was a pioneering doctor for the pro-choice movement in Canada.
What impressed me about this story was the levelheadedness shown both by the protestors at the ceremony, and by Morgentaler's supporters. No violence, no nastyness, just a clean bit of civil disobedience, which is everybody's right.
Well done.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1118916491171&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
PanzerJaeger
06-17-2005, 01:00
Is that how you treat murderers up there? ~:eek:
A horrible person indeed, who deserves a jail term, not an award. But hey, its bizzaro-America up there!
IrishMike
06-17-2005, 01:18
If I am not mistaken we have abortion here in the states as well. So panzer, we are indeed muders aswell here in the states are we not? (if you believe such a thing) Bit harsh to call him a murder while we allow it to happen here.
Why must things like this be done? This is already a sensitive issue, why inflame it with awards? Just can't people leave things alone.
DemonArchangel
06-17-2005, 01:18
Well, Panzer, let's take it to the opposite extreme, shall we?
Your wife is forced to get an abortion by the local authorities, who bear a personal grudge against you, possibly because you were caught speeding one too many times or something.
(Guess what nation I'm talking about)
Now the way I see it. You can keep voluntary abortions in America, or you can have state mandated, compulsory abortion.
PanzerJaeger
06-17-2005, 02:21
If I am not mistaken we have abortion here in the states as well. So panzer, we are indeed muders aswell here in the states are we not? (if you believe such a thing) Bit harsh to call him a murder while we allow it to happen here.
Yes, those who do not act against abortion in this country are guilty to some degree of murder just as the German people who stood idly by while the jews were murdered.
At least we dont give awards for it though..
Well, Panzer, let's take it to the opposite extreme, shall we?
Your wife is forced to get an abortion by the local authorities, who bear a personal grudge against you, possibly because you were caught speeding one too many times or something.
(Guess what nation I'm talking about)
Now the way I see it. You can keep voluntary abortions in America, or you can have state mandated, compulsory abortion.
Im trying to understand what that first part meant, but my answer to the second bit would be a third option: no needless abortion at all. :bow:
DemonArchangel
06-17-2005, 02:35
What's your obsession with the sanctity of life? Life is just life, there's nothing sacred or holy about a biological process.
PanzerJaeger
06-17-2005, 03:05
If we dont protect the most innocent among us, what does that say about society?
I can see you dont understand where pro-life people come from, and thats ok, its like spirituality or religion - you either have it or you dont.
But to put it in a different frame, do we really want to go down in the history books as a group of people who allowed the killing of millions of innocent children each year, but spent millions of dollars trying to rehabilitate criminals? Something is backwards there.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-17-2005, 03:10
What's your obsession with the sanctity of life? Life is just life, there's nothing sacred or holy about a biological process.
So you admit that abortion is the termination of life?
IrishMike
06-17-2005, 03:17
I suppose I am pro-life to a certain extent. The first trimester is in my eye's alright for an abortion. 2nd is iffy because i'm not sure of the medical development. 3rd is off limits in my opinion, by then the baby is formed and has assumed life funtions to some extent.
^ Just a little summery of my beliefs there.
Overall as I said earlier why must people just keep rubbing salt in these wounds. Clearly this issue is sensitive, almost taboo, so why give this guy an award. They knew it would just inflame the issue again.
DemonArchangel
06-17-2005, 03:31
Hell yea son!
Then again, my cultural background is entirely different from either yours or Panzer's.
glorifying a mass murderer, a modern-day Hitler with an "Honorary Degree". just goes to show how utterly evil society is nowadays
could anything possibly be any more sick?
probably not
wonder if they also gave the original Hitler his post-humous "Honorary Degree" yet.
Byzantine Prince
06-17-2005, 08:02
They're giving him an honourary degree because he's contributed greatly to chyrourgical science that some people find is a great achievement. I don't agree that what he did was good, but it definetly takes some skill so good for him. He deserves a degree for what he did. Doesn't have anything to do with right and wrong.
Remember it's good to learn, even from your enemy. :book:
He was a pioneer for women's rights. He was not being honoured for aborting fetuses, a truly horrible thing to do (yet that must be allowed), but for giving women a choice regarding their own bodies.
Abortion is horrible and sad and terrible. Having a man being able to dictate terms to a woman regarding what she does inside her own body is worse.
Nobody is pro-abortion - they are pro-choice. They insist a woman has utter and complete control over her entire body. That is the point. To be pro-abortion you would be telling women who want to have babies to abort them. I don't think anyone anywhere is doing that. Except amongst the commies and facists perhaps.
Al Khalifah
06-17-2005, 12:08
And while we're at it, why not roll out the red carpet for people who put severly disabled people to death? They're such an inconvenience on society don't you pro-choice people think?
A featus is a life. Therefore by basic human rights it has the right to live. It hardly seems like pro-choice at all, because the life in question didn't decide whether it would live or die.
UglyandHasty
06-17-2005, 13:54
Abortion is horrible and sad and terrible. Having a man being able to dictate terms to a woman regarding what she does inside her own body is worse.
My thoughts exactly. Wanting to remove the womens their rights to abort is closing on facism.
You know Beirut, when we dont talk politics, we kinda think alike... ~:cheers: Must be the woodmans heritage...
And while we're at it, why not roll out the red carpet for people who put severly disabled people to death? They're such an inconvenience on society don't you pro-choice people think?
I don't think anyone here ever said anything like that.
A featus is a life. Therefore by basic human rights it has the right to live. It hardly seems like pro-choice at all, because the life in question didn't decide whether it would live or die.
The entire point is whether a woman has the right to control her own body. The answer has to be yes. Is the woman's right to control her own body more important that that of the fetus inside her? Yes. It has to be. A woman cannot lose her right to self-determination the moment she is pregnant.
Al Khalifah
06-17-2005, 14:51
Granted a woman has the right to control her own body, however, an unborn child is a body in its own right too. Does that child not have the right to control its own body?
PanzerJaeger
06-17-2005, 15:12
^Exactly.
If pro-abortion people are so worried about people's rights over their own bodies, why dont they care about the child's body?
^Exactly.
If pro-abortion people are so worried about people's rights over their own bodies, why dont they care about the child's body?
Sigh.. how... many... times....
*faints*
People do care, as do I, about the unborn. A pregnant woman is the, should be, most protected living being on the planet. Who would not sacrifice themsleves to save a pregnant woman?
But a woman's body is her own. And as sad and terrible as abortion is, there is no choice but to have woman retain and maintain complete controol over their bodies, regardless of the condition it is in.
As I said, I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. In the same way that I do not want any child to be hit but I still condone a parent's right to spank their kid.
Al Khalifah
06-17-2005, 16:36
OK then. Take this hypothetical scenario. A mother has given birth to a child, but the child has such serious mental/physical disabilities that the mother is unable to look after the child and maintain any semblance of normal life. Does the mother have the right to have the child killed?
Goofball
06-17-2005, 17:05
As I said, I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, they are pro-choice.
That's where you are very wrong Beirut, my woodland friend. At least according to the pro-life crowd you are. According to them, us pro-choice, oops, sorry, pro-abortion folks fight for abortion rights not because we care about women, but because there is nothing that satisfies us more than the thought of a fetus being torn from its mother's womb. According to the pro-life folks, we think abortions are more satisfying than the smell of bacon frying over a campfire early in the morning.
Anyway, don't shatter their illusion. They feel happiest when perched upon a mountain of self-righteousness, and when they're happy they are at least less likely to notice my wanton fornication and smite me with more preaching from on high...
~;)
According to the pro-life folks, we think abortions are more satisfying than the smell of bacon frying over a campfire early in the morning.
~;)
Good Lord. As deranged as the thought that they view us as so might be, it's possibly true. But I do hope not.
I can certainly understand where the pro-life people are coming from and I respect their stance on the sanctity of life. But if, in the end, it's comes down to another person having authority over's a woman body (now there's a thought... :wiseguy:), then the answer must be that a woman has authority over her own body.
This might be stretching it a bit (a lot), but if a woman does not have the right to end a pregnancy, could that extend to her not having the right to refuse being impregnated in the first place? And if she must carry the baby to full term, against her wishes, by order of the state, what responsibilities does the state have towards her raising that child?
If the mother and father are responsible, by law, for any child they create, and if both agree with the idea of an abortion and are overruled by the state and the child is born, does not the state now carry a burden of responsibility to the child exceeding that of what is owes to a child born "voluntarily" since the the child is alive only because of the state's wishes?
PanzerJaeger
06-17-2005, 19:42
People do care, as do I, about the unborn. A pregnant woman is the, should be, most protected living being on the planet. Who would not sacrifice themsleves to save a pregnant woman?
But a woman's body is her own. And as sad and terrible as abortion is, there is no choice but to have woman retain and maintain complete controol over their bodies, regardless of the condition it is in.
So, in your opinion, an unborn child is nothing more than a part of the mothers body - like an apendage? ~:confused:
What about children who have been cut out of their dead or dying mothers due to an injury? Would you allow such a child to be killed if the mother wasnt hurt and decided she didnt want it?
The further science progresses, the more premature babies are surviving. Hell, we can even grow them in tubes! I dont know how anyone can claim that a being that can exist completely separated from a woman is somehow part of that womans body? HAve you seen a fetus - is that not a body also? Where are its rights?
No scientist can accurately say when a fetus changes from "a clump of cells" into a being so the only logical solution, if you believe in erring on the side of life, is to protect that clump of cells that will be a human in a matter of weeks anyway.
A mother has no right to kill her child after its born, why should they have the right to kill their child before its born - especially since we now know so many children can live long before natural birth. ~:confused:
This issue is the ultimate liberal hypocrasy. How can such "humanists" be so callace toward obvious humanity... Is it because a fetus has no personality? Is it because a fetus wont be grateful? I fear that for many liberal politicians, a fetus simply cannot vote.. :no:
So, in your opinion, an unborn child is nothing more than a part of the mothers body - like an apendage? ~:confused:
Of course not. I'm not sure anyone, certainly not myself, views the matter as lightly as you suggest we do. I admit to all of this being terribly sad and unfortunate, I'm just not sure I see any way around it for now.
What about children who have been cut out of their dead or dying mothers due to an injury? Would you allow such a child to be killed if the mother wasnt hurt and decided she didnt want it?
No. Once that kid hits the air, it is life unto itself.
The further science progresses, the more premature babies are surviving. Hell, we can even grow them in tubes! I dont know how anyone can claim that a being that can exist completely separated from a woman is somehow part of that womans body? ...is that not a body also? Where are its rights?
The rights of the fetus are inherently the rights of its mother. Indistinguishable. While a fetus is inside a woman that fetus is part of the woman and subject to the woman's self determination.
Have you seen a fetus -...
Seen one? I was one. ~:cheers:
No scientist can accurately say when a fetus changes from "a clump of cells" into a being so the only logical solution, if you believe in erring on the side of life, is to protect that clump of cells that will be a human in a matter of weeks anyway.
A mother has no right to kill her child after its born, why should they have the right to kill their child before its born - especially since we now know so many children can live long before natural birth. ~:confused:
This issue is the ultimate liberal hypocrasy. How can such "humanists" be so callace toward obvious humanity... Is it because a fetus has no personality? Is it because a fetus wont be grateful? I fear that for many liberal politicians, a fetus simply cannot vote.. :no:
All of this is very heavy stuff and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but having the state take control over a woman's body and her reproductive system is absolutely not the answer. it sets a precedent that can have outlandish consequences.
And, if you can or would, would you be so kind as to answer, for my benefit, the questions I posed about the state's responsibilties towards a child it insists be born. I am curious as to your views.
Ironside
06-17-2005, 20:23
A mother has no right to kill her child after its born, why should they have the right to kill their child before its born - especially since we now know so many children can live long before natural birth.
Well, in all countries that aren't trapped in a fanatical battle between two extremes :dizzy2: , the abortion period is limited to the period before a festus can survive in any way outside the mothers womb.
But to put it in a different frame, do we really want to go down in the history books as a group of people who allowed the killing of millions of innocent children each year, but spent millions of dollars trying to rehabilitate criminals? Something is backwards there.
Considering the development of genetical and mental research, I'm going to guess that in the first case they won't care much and in the second case they are probably going to think that it was on the right track, but much less effective than with thier own methods. A bright future? Perhaps..., but certainly different.
Most Pro-lifers are also conservatives; correct me if I'm wrong. So if they got their way what would happen?
Well first of all the number of adoptions and deaths through childbirth will skyrocket. Now we have the conundrum, social services and their orphanages are already under funded, and with thousands more babies each of which will require 16 years of care. The results of which are not pretty, the figures of children coming out of care going into crime are alarmingly high.
What this translates into is an even greater burden on the Government's already stretched budget...and here we get to the crux of the issue, conservative politicians have always had the agenda of spending less, unless it involves the military. So if abortions are banned it will mean a bigger hit on your wallets, and considering most of you would rather be taxed less and see a homeless guy die in the street or young children become mal-nourished because their families aren't getting enough in benefits...
Then we have the other thing, instead of foetus's ding you'll be condemning the mother. Even if you ban it there will be failed doctors and fakes who will cash in by offering illegal abortions. Most of these will be ill-performed and extremely dangerous to the patient. End result instead of a foetus that may or may not be even self aware you will be condemning people, whose life cannot be argued with, to disease, infection and even death.
He was a pioneer for women's rights. He was not being honoured for aborting fetuses, a truly horrible thing to do (yet that must be allowed), but for giving women a choice regarding their own bodies.
Abortion is horrible and sad and terrible. Having a man being able to dictate terms to a woman regarding what she does inside her own body is worse.
Nobody is pro-abortion - they are pro-choice. They insist a woman has utter and complete control over her entire body. That is the point. To be pro-abortion you would be telling women who want to have babies to abort them. I don't think anyone anywhere is doing that. Except amongst the commies and facists perhaps.
this argument makes no sense at all. it's irrational, illogical, and outright insane
there is never any justification for murdering any baby. if humans as a species were not evil and insane, there is no possible way it would be allowed
"giving a choice" is just a ludicrous euphemism meant to "gloss over" acts of murder and genocide.
if i "choose" to use my body to murder someone, that is really not a 'choice' that lets me off the hook for murder. i can't say "i was choosing to use my own body in a way which murdered someone else, but since it was my choice that is therefore A-ok!"
nor is it for anyone who commits murder via "abortion"
DemonArchangel
06-17-2005, 21:53
Navaros, it's ok to kill.
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is so 10th century B.C
Yeah, maybe we should get right down into it and determine just how murder is wrong.
this argument makes no sense at all. it's irrational, illogical, and outright insane
Well! You told me.
:stars: :smash: "You are illogical, irrational and insane! Bad Beirut!"
What do you suggest then? To what extent are you willing to go to prevent a woman from doing with her body as she sees fit? Unless you are willing to jail her, tie her down for nine months, and give her drugs to induce labour, your argument is void.
And what will you do with the babies from these jailed mothers? Will they all go up for adoption? Will the state seize all the children from these jailed and restrained women?
Will you charge all women who have backroom abortions with murder? Will they, if living in Texas, face execution? And what if they are pregnant when it is discovered they have had an illegal abortion? Will they be executed after they have the child even though the child she is now bearing is wanted by her and her husband? What if her husband was an accesory to the abortion? will you execute the mother, jail the father and seize the second child once born?
How far will you go to control a woman's reproductive functions?
DemonArchangel
06-18-2005, 00:00
Navaros is basically the Christian Khomeni. You tell me Beirut.
Byzantine Prince
06-18-2005, 00:04
this argument makes no sense at all. it's irrational, illogical, and outright insane
there is never any justification for murdering any baby. if humans as a species were not evil and insane, there is no possible way it would be allowed
"giving a choice" is just a ludicrous euphemism meant to "gloss over" acts of murder and genocide.
if i "choose" to use my body to murder someone, that is really not a 'choice' that lets me off the hook for murder. i can't say "i was choosing to use my own body in a way which murdered someone else, but since it was my choice that is therefore A-ok!"
nor is it for anyone who commits murder via "abortion"
I agree with this. The "pro-choice" people haven't addressed why they think that what they are doing is any more moral then letting someone kill an adult individual.
PanzerJaeger
06-18-2005, 00:07
And, if you can or would, would you be so kind as to answer, for my benefit, the questions I posed about the state's responsibilties towards a child it insists be born. I am curious as to your views.
Its really quite simple. The state owes the same responsibility toward a child, a citizen, no matter if the dead-beat mother has had the child or not.
It really doesnt matter if the mother wants to murder the baby by having it torn out or leave it in a trash can - the state has a responsibility to care for unwanted children.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-18-2005, 00:27
Beirut - you said "Once that kid hits the air, it is life unto itself." Nevermind being pretty funny, it made me wonder - what about pre-mature babies?
Is a child at 8 months a "life unto itself" if it is still inside the woman?
Is a child at 8 months a "life unto itself" if it has been born pre-mature?
And I think there are pro-abortion people out there - NARAL and those types. But the average libe- I mean pro-choice person probably isn't pro-abortion.
Its really quite simple. The state owes the same responsibility toward a child, a citizen, no matter if the dead-beat mother has had the child or not.
It really doesnt matter if the mother wants to murder the baby by having it torn out or leave it in a trash can - the state has a responsibility to care for unwanted children.
Thanks.
Do you think it's unreasonable for a mother the state forced to give birth to ask for supplementary income from the state since it was the state that forced her to have the child even if she decides to keep it once born?
Does the state now have "parental responsibilities" even if she keeps the child since it is purely because of the state that the child was born?
In situations where abortion is the only way to prevent the loss of the mother's life, it is justified though still tragic. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, then hopefully the woman will seek help very early, when chemical, rather than physical intervention, is all that's necessary. Unfortunately, the victim is often too distraught to seek help.
If I may, I have a question for Beirut with regard to the issue of self-determination: if a child is conceived and carried to term, the parent(s) will become the legal guardians of the child. They have newfound responsibilties to the infant, the abandonment of which allows the state to declare the parents negligent and intervene on the child's behalf. The parents are not freed from their obligations until the child has reached adulthood. My question is, should not this obligation be extended to the unborn child? The born child is under the protection of its legal guardians, just as the unborn child is under the albeit more physically concrete protection of its mother. The mother's right is just that: self-determination. The child is not of the same essence. Of course it is biologically dependent on the mother body, but does not this dependence continue outside the womb? The child must still be fed, nurtured and sheltered (all functions of the womb), yet is considered a separate individual. Distinguishing between a warm bed and the womb, breast/spoon-feeding and the umbilical cord is unecesary. Either way, the mother is responsible, even if the care for the unborn child is more automatic and indirect. In the case of the born child, the mother has the right to self-determination only insofar as she does not impinge on the same right of child, whose rights, since it is so helpless on its own, supercede that of the mother. It's a one way street: she is under obligation to the child, who owes her nothing, being a consequence of her choices. Why not extend this to the unborn child? It seems to me that there's not much change in the situation whether the child is inside or outside the womb.
Beirut - you said "Once that kid hits the air, it is life unto itself." Nevermind being pretty funny, it made me wonder - what about pre-mature babies?
Is a child at 8 months a "life unto itself" if it is still inside the woman?
Is a child at 8 months a "life unto itself" if it has been born pre-mature?
And I think there are pro-abortion people out there - NARAL and those types. But the average libe- I mean pro-choice person probably isn't pro-abortion.
This is where it gets murkier and subjective, and where the pro-choice argument teeters on the verge of doublespeak.
I do not for a moment agree with late term abortions. As much as I insist that a woman has the right to abort a fetus early in the pregnancy, I don't think late term abortions (8 months for example) are anything short of insanity. Lest it be to save the life of the mother or because the baby has something tragically wrong with it that would doom it's existence beyond subjectivity. I don't know what would fall into this description, but it is possible conditions exist.
Any baby born is its own self and has all the rights due any individual.
Don't know about NARAL, but I think anyone who supports abortion merely for the act of aborting is a sick individual. For example, there are many on these boards who support the death penalty. This does not mean they support death itself. I support the right of a woman to chose her own course, I do not support the act of tearing a fetus out of her womb. Granted, the pro-lifers will see this as a cowardly view that removes responsibility from the pro-choice people, but it is the line that separates the two.
Any woman who choses to have an abortion, lest she be an idiot, realizes the gravity of her situation and will doubtlessly see it as a life altering experience. I'm sure these women don't do it with the slight regard some think they do.
Tribesman
06-18-2005, 01:33
Most Pro-lifers are also conservatives; correct me if I'm wrong. So if they got their way what would happen?
Well Zelda in the interest of restoring traditional values a return to the 1927 laws would be in order , especially concerning pregnancy of women outside of wedlock .
Women who engage in pre-marital sex are mentally deficient , they must be institutionalsied until the term of the pregnancy is over when the State will take the child and place it in an orphanage until it is either adopted or reaches the age of majority . The mother due to her enfeebled state of mind will either remain institutuionalised for the sake of stable society until she is past child bearing age unless she is able to find a husband (a little bit tricky when you are in a mental home) or sterilised as a condition of her release .
It then goes on to set conditions for mixed race adoptions and the practice of placing those with not so noticable negroid features with white adoptive families in the hope that they can pass as almost white and marry a white person and gradually dilute the undesirable negroid features in further offspring .
Back to the "good" old days of family values and upstanding morality , definately the way forward :embarassed:
It seems to me that there's not much change in the situation whether the child is inside or outside the womb.
The change is physical, metaphysical, and moral.
Until that baby sees the light of day and is breathing on it's own, it is a part of the mother. Once born, it is apart from the mother. While the baby is inside the womb, it is subject to the mother's intentions and actions in every way. It is indisdinguishable from the mother. As are its rights. To a very large degree, the only rights the fetus has are those rights that the mother enjoys.
It may be a symbiotic relationship, but it is the mother's rights that must supersede the rights of the fetus most if not all of the time. To see it in the opposite viewpoint would make the situation both untenable and ridiculous. A pregnant woman may eat Twinkies, drink beer, and smoke cigars all day long. There is no law broken here except the law of common sense. But if she gave Twinkies, beer and cigars to a newborn, she would doubtlessly be in a lot of trouble. Would you subject the pregnant woman to the same laws of child abuse vis a vis the Twinkies and beer as you would the mother of a newborn? Where does the line get drawn? Where would you draw it?
Colovion
06-18-2005, 10:49
good for him
Colovion
06-18-2005, 10:53
there is never any justification for murdering any baby. if humans as a species were not evil and insane, there is no possible way it would be allowed
lots of humans have aborted babies for very justifiable reasons
many inhabitands of the Polynesian islands maintained their environment at a constant for hundreds of years by aborting many generations of babies so that they would not kill their whole population by over-consumption
yeah I know that's nit-picking but it was too easy
PanzerJaeger
06-18-2005, 18:58
Do you think it's unreasonable for a mother the state forced to give birth to ask for supplementary income from the state since it was the state that forced her to have the child even if she decides to keep it once born?
Does the state now have "parental responsibilities" even if she keeps the child since it is purely because of the state that the child was born?
If a woman was raped, and assuming the raper didnt have anything the state could take and sell for cash, then yes - she is a victim of a crime and the state should step in and help her.
If the woman is just so stupid or lazy to not use any sort of contraception, then she should have to pay for the baby herself.
Of course if she cannot, the state would have to just like it does today.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.