Does Dr. Henry Morgentaler deserve the Order of Canada?

Didn't life begin through immaculate conception? Or was it the big bang. I'm so confused...

grumpy old man wrote:Didn't life begin through immaculate conception? Or was it the big bang. I'm so confused...

No..."a" religion began through immaculate conception...life began through playing with sand and making it wet )

A miscarraige and abortion are two different things. The comparison isn't valid.

The idea of a couple thinking about not having sex because there was no contraception is pretty funny!
All you have to do to see who is getting knocked up in the USA (not a very good example), is check out the Moray show in the sfternoon, where lots of very poor people are trying to find out who te "real" father of "her" baby is!
Do you want another example of unprotected swx, take a look at the 3rd world countries, where there is no cablevision, so the only thing left to do is screw everything and anything that moves.
The result is millions dying from aids.
If controversial people should not get the award, as I think I read that somewhere then, Morgentaler certainly does not deserve the award.
Does anyone know what the reqirements are? It has to be written somewhere!

I love the Catholics returning their award, that should mean there are a few extra available at a discounted price!

So people are no better than animals in heat. Unable to control their urges. Just b/c sex is natural it doesn't mean that you should do it whenever and with whoever. Eating is natural and healthy but what happens when you gorge or eat unhealthly? You dont' eat at A&W anymore do you? Why is that? B/c it's not healthy for you. Having sex in an irresponsible manner is no different.

AGEsAces wrote:

rosencrentz wrote:I think life starts at conception!

Why would you say that?
Can an embryo be removed and survive without extreme measures?

Would you then accuse any woman who had a miscarriage of murder? Or illegal disposal of a dead body? Most miscarriages end up going down a toilet somewhere...or thrown in the trash.

I think the only way to determine when "life" begins...is biologically. When that fetus can be extracted (either through normal childbirth or c-section) and survive without EXTREME measures. (few tubes and a sanitary cube are not extreme...they are the same thing they would provide an adult who was having medical issues).

Using your logic, any baby wouldn't be considered as having "life" because no baby can exist without help.

I would say that when cells are dividing, it's an indication of life no?

It is the women's choice as it is her body and her task to guide the life inside to adult hood . face it men we do very little in most cases this is her decision . If there is the man involved he should also have a say but no one else it is there business.
And yes he doe's

grumpy old man wrote:Is this a religious issue? A freedom issue? A personal and private issue? Does ANYONE have a right to tell women what they can and cannot do in this matter?

So the question is has Morgentaler done anything of such significance that he merits the Order of Canada?

I'm not so sure.

Well, im sure this issue has been debated fiecly.. but the buttom line seems to be where you draw the line between when the child is actually alive... is a fetus alive? how long can the woman carry the child before it would be considered an "illegal act" to terminate the pregnancy.

I come from the group that says if you conceive a child, that child the whole way through. Terminate the pregnancy and you should facing criminal charges.
End of story.

libermom wrote:What actaully happened is that the abortion law was struck down and now we have a vacuum. There is no law. Technically a women can abort up until her due date, provided she could find a doctor willing to do that. I know Calgary hospitals preform late term abortions. What pro-life people want is what most other countries have. A limit set on how late a women can abort. I think most countries it is around the 20th week or so. However pro-choice people see that as meaning making abortion illegal.

Well, i hear them.. i guess the issue is when does a child become "concious" and alive... when does the mind form and the child becomes a person.

Anybody have any statistics on this issue? What could even be a test? When does the child stop becoming a part of the mother and begin being its own life?

My feeling is that the second a kid is conceived he/she is alive...whether they need facilities from their parents to live or not.

Just my thoughts,
u?

JTF wrote:Question: When does a tree become a tree?

yes, exactly. I argue that a tree is a tree the second it comes into existence.

LivingDead wrote:

JTF wrote:Question: When does a tree become a tree?

Did you know that Tree's sing. It was discovered by accident by a guy doing sub-sonic research. Tree's sing at such a low frequency that most animals can not detect it.
.

HUH! what do you know.. what do they sing? Maybe a little Tori Amos if they're feeling good? Maybe some black sabbath when they're feeling bad?

I beleive life begins at conception, but also that it is valid to decide to terminate a life if the caretaker of that life decides it is in the best interest of that life to be terminated due to a negative outlook on the quality of life - that goes for abortion and for euthanasia. Abortion should be legal for the simple fact that making it illegal will push it below the radar into unsafe practices.

Any kid...no matter what stage of life...will die without care and nurturing from someone (parent/guardian).

If a kid is born full term and just left there...it will die. It NEEDS food, care, cleaning, etc.

But...in the developmental process of a standard birth...there is a turning point where through natural child birth and/or a standard C-section birth, a child will survive with just the basic necessities of life (food, water, air, shelter). There are ALWAYS exceptions...illnesses, disease, etc.

Whatever that turning point is in that biological process...THAT is where the line should be drawn for abortions...maybe even subtract one extra week to provide a "buffer" zone.

The simple facts are that we are biological beings...who demand certain things to survive. That demand takes those things away from others who also demand them. Bringing unwanted and additional lives into the world who will demand those things is unfair to that life, as well as those who it effects.

Preventing that biological process is simply protection for that being, as well as those around it. Protection from uncertainty and risk of neglect.

Climbing on a Bible and preaching how it is "immoral" because God says so, does not change the biological function. If He created mankind in His image...then He KNEW what would come, and the choices that would be made. If He really didn't want abortions to happen...He would have included it in His design.

I DO agree, that abortion should not be a "contraceptive device". There are other methods out there that are more effective and less risky to everyone. If someone REALLY doesn't want children...they should use one of them...but humans ARE flawed. People DO make mistakes. And sometimes the choice to make is not necessarily a pleasant one, but the best one to make at that moment....for everyone involved.

If they want to make rules about abortion...it should be based upon biological standards...NOT moral or religious ones. An abortion is simply an operation done, just like any other. Multiple abortions, however, are a biological risk to the woman. So, IMO, if a woman has more than one abortion...she should be required to be "fixed"...since it's obvious she doesn't want kids anyway.

In some cases, I would endorse retroactive abortion....but that's another story.

libermom wrote:Actually killing babies is nothing new. Ancients did it all the time. A baby wasn't a person until it was named. All we have done was to improve on the methods to kill infants and decided infants weren't persons until they were born.

Wow..that's scary...even more scary if you were one of the decided babies...

FlyingRat wrote:I beleive life begins at conception, but also that it is valid to decide to terminate a life if the caretaker of that life decides it is in the best interest of that life to be terminated due to a negative outlook on the quality of life - that goes for abortion and for euthanasia. Abortion should be legal for the simple fact that making it illegal will push it below the radar into unsafe practices.

Hmm..well, you could say that about any law, really.. "if you make a practice illegal there will be many people who will take it under the radar".
I also don't agree with the "abortion if the situation is deemed bad"... who's going to be doing the deeming and if it is so bad, i would support euthinasia for a shitty situation....

in the case of abortion, the mother. In the case of euthanasia, someone with power of attorney, or the doctor on record if there is no one else.

JTF wrote:I would say that when cells are dividing, it's an indication of life no?

No.Cancer cells divide, but I wouldn't consider them life.

They (cancer cells) are very much alive.

Sure, they might be considered a living organism, i.e., not inorganic material. But I wouldn't consider them a sentient lifeform worthy of legal protection.