Morgentaler awarded honorary degree

[DemonArchangel]

Hell yea son!

Then again, my cultural background is entirely different from either yours or Panzer's.

[Navaros]

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]

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.

[Beirut]

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]

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.

[Beirut]

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]

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?

[UglyandHasty]

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... Must be the woodmans heritage...

[Navaros]

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]

Navaros, it's ok to kill.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is so 10th century B.C

[GoreBag]

Yeah, maybe we should get right down into it and determine just how murder is wrong.

[Beirut]

this argument makes no sense at all. it's irrational, illogical, and outright insane

Well! You told me.

"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]

Navaros is basically the Christian Khomeni. You tell me Beirut.

[Byzantine Prince]

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.

[Colovion]

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]

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.