Abortion Dr. Morgentaler among those named to Order of Canada

[Verv]

Abortion is such an impossible thing to argue about.

Some people believe that sex is not an acceptable recreational activity but rather an act that has a lot of significance; belief in the notion that you shouldn't kill unborn babies...

Other people just hold none of these views. Sex is a recreation. Why not kill what comes from your sex if you can and you don't want it?

It really helps draw the line between people who take the hard right over the easy wrong; from people who have high values and people who are essentially going the path of the hedonist.

 

[SaintInChicago]

Yay, more bigots who want to force their beliefs on society and does not care about the rule of law. Only now they're patting each other on the back for their hatred.

 

[cantata]

It really helps draw the line between people who take the hard right over the easy wrong; from people who have high values and people who are essentially going the path of the hedonist.

Since when has something being easy made it automatically wrong?

 

[Avatar]

Yay, more bigots who want to force their beliefs on society and does not care about the rule of law. Only now they're patting each other on the back for their hatred.

I'm not following. I'm pro-life. Am I the hate-filled bigot? Or are you saying pro-choicers are?

I don't think your charecterization fits me very well, nor would I call pro-choicers that.

 

[Exhausted]

Abortion is such an impossible thing to argue about.

Some people believe that sex is not an acceptable recreational activity but rather an act that has a lot of significance; belief in the notion that you shouldn't kill unborn babies...

Other people just hold none of these views. Sex is a recreation. Why not kill what comes from your sex if you can and you don't want it?

It really helps draw the line between people who take the hard right over the easy wrong; from people who have high values and people who are essentially going the path of the hedonist.

Some people are sane, some are... not.

Can you demonstrate that sex is an act of universally high significance? Can you demonstrate that :killing unborn babies" is a bad thing, detrimental to society?
Can you demonstrate that it would be "right" to force a woman who is unable and/or unwilling to raise child to have that child?
Can you demonstrate a need for more people in the world?
Can you demonstrate that hedonism is a bad thing?

I can go on.

 

[RobertByers]

I am Canadian and pro-life.
First the order of Canada lost meaning long ago because it was used to promote agendas/causes of left-wing leaning.
Abortion is a left wing cause and so they reward their workers who in the past fought for it. simple. They would never give a pro-lifer such a reward. Therefore thew reward is not from the values of the Canadian people but from the establishment and a minority opinion of people in the country.

To give this reward is an attempt to officially dismiss opposition to abortion as legitamate and mainstream.
In fact it has made a mockery of the order of Canada. Its about time.

 

[CCGirl]

I am Canadian and pro-life.
First the order of Canada lost meaning long ago because it was used to promote agendas/causes of left-wing leaning.
Abortion is a left wing cause and so they reward their workers who in the past fought for it. simple. They would never give a pro-lifer such a reward. Therefore thew reward is not from the values of the Canadian people but from the establishment and a minority opinion of people in the country.
He is not a canadian but a Jewish immigrant and never came from the intelligence and morality of Canadians and French Canadians.
To give this reward is an attempt to officially dismiss opposition to abortion as legitamate and mainstream.
In fact it has made a mockery of the order of Canada. Its about time.

Of course a `pro-lifer` isn`t getting the award, they are too busy trying to deny women`s rights.

 

[Avatar]

Of course a `pro-lifer` isn`t getting the award, they are too busy trying to deny women`s rights.

Or busy trying to stop hundreds of thousands of women from be denied the right to life before they ever leave the womb.

Just sayin.

It's not a man vs women thing. Plenty of women pro-lifers and male pro-choicers out there. The question that determines which side of this enormous divide one is on is when is a child entitled the status of human being with all the rights that entails. Is it at birth? At conception? After the first trimester? The second? Only after birth? What our own morals tell us is where we come down in this debate. I don't think there's anyone evil on either side.

I don't think pro-lifers are out to deny women's rights. We believe another life is at stake. And that killing that life isn't a right to be denied because it isn't a right. Morally speaking.

Maybe we're wrong, but that doesn't mean we wake up in the morning and say 'hmm, what rights can I deny women today?' That's not what it's about at all. We aren't mysogynists. Anyone who knows me can attest to that.

 

[cantata]

The question that determines which side of this enormous divide one is on is when is a child entitled the status of human being with all the rights that entails.

I should think if you believe in natural, unalienable rights, they arrive at conception, but I'm not really sure what they're supposed to be, so as far as I'm concerned, they're a non-issue.

My concern is with suffering, and suffering alone. It has nothing to do with rights.

 

[Avatar]

I should think if you believe in natural, unalienable rights, they arrive at conception, but I'm not really sure what they're supposed to be, so as far as I'm concerned, they're a non-issue.

My concern is with suffering, and suffering alone. It has nothing to do with rights.

Remind me not to give you power of attorney if I'm horribly injured and fighting for life.(kidding)

Anyway, your focus on suffering is actually one I agree with, but you see one person, where I see two. So I don't see it as right, to alleviate the suffering of one by eliminating the existence of the other.

Of course, you see it differently, I get that. We just disagree.

 

[cantata]

Remind me not to give you power of attorney if I'm horribly injured and fighting for life.(kidding)

Anyway, your focus on suffering is actually one I agree with, but you see one person, where I see two. So I don't see it as right, to alleviate the suffering of one by eliminating the existence of the other.

Of course, you see it differently, I get that. We just disagree.

I don't see non-existence as suffering.

 

[Avatar]

I don't see non-existence as suffering.

Not sure what you're saying. I didn't say that. Never even thought it.

I was referring to this that you posted:

My concern is with suffering, and suffering alone.

I assumed that you meant the suffering of the mother.

Thus the rest of my post:

Anyway, your focus on suffering is actually one I agree with, but you see one person, where I see two. So I don't see it as right, to alleviate the suffering of one by eliminating the existence of the other.

If you meant the suffering of someone else please clarify.

 

[cantata]

I assumed that you meant the suffering of the mother.

I did indeed. This is the only suffering I believe is possible (leaving aside the father and other indirectly involved parties) in relation to pregnancy and abortion.

It doesn't matter how many people there are in the situation or what you define as a person. An unthinking, unfeeling first trimester foetus, whether or not it is a person, is incapable of suffering, and therefore I have little concern as to its wellbeing, except insofar as its mother values its existence. The question of whether it is a person is absolutely irrelevant, because suffering, not personhood, is my primary criterion for judging whether abortion (or anything else) is acceptable.

 

[Avatar]

I did indeed. This is the only suffering I believe is possible (leaving aside the father and other indirectly involved parties) in relation to pregnancy and abortion.

It doesn't matter how many people there are in the situation or what you define as a person. An unthinking, unfeeling first trimester foetus, whether or not it is a person, is incapable of suffering, and therefore I have little concern as to its wellbeing, except insofar as its mother values its existence. The question of whether it is a person is absolutely irrelevant, because suffering, not personhood, is my primary criterion for judging whether abortion (or anything else) is acceptable.

And I was clear before. I don't believe the alleviating of the suffering of one person is justification for the denial of existence of the other. I also acknowledged that you see the equation differently, as not involving more than one person.

Not sure why you're making me repeat myself. I understood your position, acknowledged it, stated how we differ, and stated that I understand that we differ and why we differ.

Why the extra go around on the merry-go-round?

 

[cantata]

And I was clear before. I don't believe the alleviating of the suffering of one person is justification for the denial of existence of the other. I also acknowledged that you see the equation differently, as not involving more than one person.

Not sure why you're making me repeat myself. I understood your position, acknowledged it, stated how we differ, and stated that I understand that we differ and why we differ.

Why the extra go around on the merry-go-round?

Because you keep insisting on talking about personhood. The foetus can be called a person if you want it to be; it doesn't make a difference.