Reaction Strong To Abortion Doctor's Award
Pro-Life angered by Order of Canada
Regina Pro-Life Association is angered by the decision to award the Order of Canada to abortion doctor Henry Morgantaler.
President Bob Waldegger describes the move as deplorable citing it as another example in his opinion, of the country's continued moral decay.
He hopes the public speak out.
The national and provincial wing of Regina Pro-Life will be taking action and writing to the Prime Minister.
Comments
Sadly mistaken
Decay of morals or decay in intelligence. It is morally wrong to force a women to have a baby when it is her body not societies. It is morally wrong to force women to terminate pregnancies using the services of back alley agencies (coat hangers come to mind) and other cruel and dangerous procedures. It is morally wrong to ever look down on someone who wrestled with the hard decision and choose differently then you would have (we are the wost offenders but remember Catholics are taught not to judge)
It shows a lack of intelligence and proper education on the part of Bob Waldegger to state that the country is in a state of moral decay. Canada is a great nation and on the day following our celebrations we have to hear someone claiming otherwise. We in Canada are one of the most tolerant, respectable, and polite nations on the earth. Moral decay is not in the Canadian story-line, it is the opposite... Canada is blazing new trails of equality and justice for all citizens.
women's rights
To contest the enforcement of morality on society is understandable. It is impossible to legislate morality, and even more so to enforce.
However, to continue paying for abortions with tax dollors of those who morally dissapprove is anonther issue. Regardless of your level of so called intelligence, everyone is entitled to their own convictions and should be able to have a democratic say in how their tax dollars are spent. The moral decay that I see is the forcful hand of government and pro-choice against those that are strongly opposed to all the abortion issue entails.
Let women choose how to govern their own bodies, but let them pay for it out of their own pocket - not mine. And let the pro choice movement honor their own heros thorugh thier own means instead of the public coffers filled by many who dissapprove.
Society
"sherrob" your argument that society should not have to shoulder the cost of an abortion is idealistic but you should expand your notions.
1. If we make people pay for their own abortions (no longer covered by the Canadian Health care system) we would find that if someone cannot afford the legal, clean method then they will turn to an alternative method. This will cause harm to their bodies and likely cost society more to heal them.
2. Secondly many may disapprove but majority rules in a semi-democracy such as ours. This means that as long as enough people feel that women have the right to choose then we as a society are approving. Taxes are collected in a nation to pay for many things that as individuals we may disagree with. We do not get to decide how each dollar of our tax money is spent, instead we elect officials to best represent our beliefs and hope for the best.
As much as you have implied otherwise I want to point out that in my comment I did not state my approval or disapproval for Mr. Morgantaler being nominated to receive the Order of Canada.
right to life
Mr. Baker, you are misusing the vocabulary of morality, which of course concerns itself with what is right and what is wrong. Before you can speak of rights, you need to address jurisdiction - once a human life has started its development, no one has jurisdiction to end that life. This will sound archaic to your atheistic ears, but we cannot "play God" with who gets to live or die. Once started, our job is to nourish that life until its natural end. The first right is the right to life. It is never a right for anyone to declare as morally permissible that which is in nature and in reality truly not so. The real problem is not unwanted pregnancies, because people can become reconciled to their pregnancy. The real problem is unwanted abortions.
Freedom of Religion
Mr. Stephaniuk, let me respond to your comment by first stating something that you seem to have either misinterpreted or just incorrectly assumed. I am Catholic and I also believe in pro-life. Abortion is never an option for my family and it never will be.
I spoke of morality in response to Mr. Waldegger's claim that Canada is in a state of moral decay. If you wish to contest the discussion of morality please direct your attention to Mr. Waldegger.
Now that I have stated that let me point out that my neighbor, or co-worker or whomever may not be pro-life and may in fact see that their religious views in such a way that to them life does not begin until sometime after conception. Science is unable to prove when the moment life begins so we have been forced as a society to rely on what little scientific data we have. If we were to choose a religious doctrine to determine the moment life begins we would be forcing our religious beliefs upon others. This is something we have done in the past and it has scared and destroyed generations of people and cultures without getting the desired results.
Instead society choose to follow science (equal ground for all) and there-by allow my family to continue practicing our religious beliefs of pro-life while protecting the rights of people who do not feel that a fetus is a human until birth. These people have rights, feelings, and desires and it is not my business or right to infringe or judge them.
There is no jurisdiction issues to a family who does not have the same faith as you or I since to them (and Science/Society) a fetus is not a human. This is their right and if we truly want to change this we would need to fund scientific research into proving the moment human life begins, not into lobbying the government to follow our religious viewpoint.
Science has determined that human life begins at fertilization
Science has determined that human life begins at fertilization. What you are describing is politics not science. Natural law is based on what nature and biology itself tell us, and is accessible to non-believers. In 1983 Joe Borowski and his lawyer, Morris Shumiatcher brought a court case to the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan. They called nine expert witnesses from around the world, including former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who all testified to the scientific conclusion on when human life begins: at fertilization. There is only one truth, whether arrived at through science or faith. This is why abortion is morally wrong and insult is added when women are coerced into abortion.
Thank-you for that
Thank-you for responding to my scientific comments without crossing back into a religious discussion. I can respect and appreciate your comments and methods.
However as in all things being studied and researched using the scientific method the results are being fine tuned and adjusted until a formal conclusion can be determined. I have not read the published researched papers written by Mr. Joe Borowski, Mr Morris Shumiatcher or Mr Bernard Nathanson, this is largely due to the fact that they have not published said papers. In fact you have grossly overstated the scientific position and done so incorrectly. The scientific methods (despite what people have testified in the courts) do not state that life begins primarily conception.
Let me take a moment to provide you with a short education into the state of research on this subject. I am by no means an expert but I do enjoy a little bit of research. There are several analysis methods to determining the point a human life begins and each brings with it a point of beginning. These are:
Metabolic View - There is no one moment when a new life begins, instead is it a gradual process and can take anywhere from 20 - 22 hours after the egg has been fertilized. A key note is that some definitions under this viewpoint state that a life begins at conception. (justifying your point perhaps)
Genetic View - A unique human life does not begin until the end of the zygote stage of development. This is due to the fact that many zygotes either fail to develop further, split into 2 structures (twins), recombine into one structure, etc. Thus the genetic view is that a human does not exist until their genetic material has reached a stage where they are unique and different then any others, which is the end of the zygote stage
Embryological View - The cells that develop into a life can split as late as 12 days after fertilization, meaning that two humans could form (2 souls). This viewpoint says that due to the chance of two humans coming from the fertilized egg that late, the cells are not considered a human until this phase has completed. This is defined as the end of gastrulation.
Neurological view A - Human death is defined as the end of EEG patterns, therefore life begins with the same patterns. The embryo produces these patterns at 24 - 27 weeks of development. Therefore the neurological view uses this as the standard measurement for the beginning of human life.
Neurological view B - The embryo cannot produce a proper EEG pattern however the tools for this begin to develop early on and the main tools are in a basic form developed by as early as 8 weeks. This viewpoints states this moment as the beginning of life since the tools are partially in place.
Neurological view C - This view expands upon viewpoint B in that the embryo has the basic version of the tools at 8 weeks but has not fully developed the thalamus section of the brain until 20 weeks. The thalamus is the region of the brain that brings the nervous system together and integrates them. This viewpoint then comes to the conclusion that human life does not begin until the thalamus has developed at 20 weeks.
Ecological / Technological view - This viewpoint states that human life begins at the point at which the fetus can exist outside of the womb on its own. Due to the wonderful state of our health systems the fetus can begin to breath at 25 weeks, even before the lungs have developed. This viewpoint then says human life does not begin until the 25 week point.
As you can see there are many areas of research in the field and many different scientific viewpoints. These viewpoints each have merits and methodologies that define their reasoning but the accepted standard is based upon the neurological or technological viewpoints. If pro-life is a movement that wishes to change the minds of society then fund research into proving the belief that life begins at conception through scientific means not theological. As I stated before, you cannot push your religious views onto others, history dictates that when we have done this it has backfired each and every time.
Mr. Stephaniuk, thank-you for taking the time to respond to my comments and thank-you for doing so in a respectable and polite manner. I have had a good time further researching and discussing this issue with you, and I think you could say the same. :)
Morgentaler should not be given order of Canada
Would like to vote against honoring Henry Morgentaler for order of Canada
Add New Comment