Morgentaler awarded honorary degree

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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.

[Beirut]

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?

[Taohn]

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]

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]

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

[Beirut]

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]

good for him

[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.