Good work, Canada, and it’s an honor long due.
Now 85, Morgentaler, a Polish Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Montreal after the war, opened his first abortion clinic in 1969 and performed thousands of procedures, which were illegal at the time.
Morgentaler, a trained family physician, argued that access to abortion was a basic human right and women should not have to risk death at the hands of an untrained professional in order to end their pregnancies.
Morgentaler’s clinics were constantly raided, and one in Toronto was firebombed. Morgentaler was arrested several times and spent months in jail as he fought his case at all court levels in Canada.
His victory came on Jan. 28, 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law. That law, which required a woman who wanted an abortion to appeal to a three-doctor hospital abortion committee, was declared unconstitutional.
Feminist and author Judy Rebick told the Globe and Mail on Monday that it is about time Morgentaler is honoured for his long battle.
“Dr. Morgentaler is a hero to millions of women in the country,” she said. “He risked his life to struggle for women’s rights … He’s a huge figure in Canadian history and the fact that he hasn’t got [the Order of Canada] until now is a scandal.”
Conservatives and the anti-choice crowd are squealing over it, but who cares what the ignoramuses say? This is a man who has improved the lives of human beings.
Oh, that we could have such sanity here in the states!
Good work Canada, perhaps you can stay free of the religious nuttery we are struggling with.
I’m thrilled that we’ve finally honoured him, and perhaps it’ll even help with the abortion issues in other countries!
This is a man who has improved the lives of human beings.
Not to mention saved the lives of human beings. When abortion is illegal the maternal mortality rate goes way up. See the Romanian experience. Among others.
Canada is looking better all the time, especially when you take hash bars into account.
I remember when a woman here (western Canada) had to get permission to act in accordance with her own beliefs. About 6 years or so before that outrageous law was struck down I was subjected to such disrespect. Because of my age and my propensity to travel, I have lived through much of the change concerning how women are treated in what we deem the civilized world. As a young woman, for example, I couldn’t buy a sewing machine on hire-purchase (with my own salary) without my husband’s written permission. Given Morgentaler’s early experiences, I suspect he was able to viscerally understand what freedom means and forcing a woman to ask permission to act upon her own body is not it.
But this isn’t the whole story. You’ll appreciate the irony here PZ…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080704.BCPRIEST04/TPStory/National
Roman Catholic priest Lucien Larre is returning his Order of Canada in protest. The same Lucien Larre who was convicted of physically abusing children in his care. The same Lucien Larre who was then later suspended from the College of Psychologists of BC due to “serious public protection concerns and immediate risk to the public”. And yet he retained his Order of Canada until he returned it voluntarily!
Yes, it’s past time we honoured Dr. M. As a side benefit, at least one Catholic priest is returning his Order of Canada, in protest. I don’t think he gets how silly he looks. Remember all those who returned their Royal honours when the Beatles got the O.B.E.? Same diff.
Congrats, Dr. M. I know you’re still fighting to provide services in two provinces, but it’s a just battle.
I am very proud of my adopted home.
Boomer (#6):
Sounds like a win-win situation.
It sounds to me like Lucien Larre may be returning his Order of Canada not only as a protest, but also as an opportunity to get rid of it before he gets in enough trouble to have it stripped from him.
Go Canada!
I’m a bit worried about abortion access these days. I think a lot of people in our generation take it for granted. They don’t realize how bad it was beforehand. Sure, rich folks (including supposedly pro-life ones) could still secure abortions, but in my mother’s neighborhood in the Bronx a woman would throw herself down a flight of stairs to induce a miscarriage.
The only way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate people about sexuality, take the stigma away from contraceptives and make them really easy to get, and provide social programs for orphans and mothers and children. No more unwanted kids = no more abortions.
Awesome news! Dr. M. is absolutely right on this.
Also, I hope the anti-choice ignoramuses who so wrongfully liken abortion to the Holocaust take note of this. This is a man who actually went through the Holocaust, and I bet you he’s appalled at the comparison.
The only way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate people about sexuality, take the stigma away from contraceptives and make them really easy to get, and provide social programs for orphans and mothers and children.
In the long run, I think I’d rather just pay for the abortions. Or Norplant.
Hey, if it were up to me, abortions would be available for free at kiosks in malls, available to all ages and no questions asked. School lunches would be quietly laced with levonorgestrel. And any sex ed must include a visit to see AIDS patients in later stages of the illness.
Looking for a safe stance on abortion and birth control? Me neither! :-)
School lunches would be quietly laced with levonorgestrel.
Bad plan. Increased risk of thrombosis and other complications. Plus it doesn’t protect against STDs, including HIV. Just hand out free condoms in all the bathrooms and have done with it. Make sure latex free options (plastic not sheep intestine) are available.
And there’ll still be a need for abortion. Condoms fail. BCP fail. Surgical sterilization fails. There is at least one case on record of double failure of a tubal ligation and vasectomy which resulted in a baby being born. (Probably misplaced fatalism.) Furthermore, sometimes things change during pregnancy. The fetus is ancephalic. The pregnant woman develops acute leukemia. The society collapses and bringing a new life into the world no longer seems like such a great idea. It will never be safe to ban abortion absolutely.
I read a half-joking suggestion – I think it was in an old ‘Daedalus’ column – that birth control pills be made addictive. That way you wouldn’t forget to take it, and conception would require an effort of will.
Let ’em squeal. It would be the most appealing sound that has come out of their mouths in a long, long time.
My mother had a patient who had one child after a BCP failure, another after the husband’s vasectomy, and twins after her tubal AND his new vasectomy. Anyway, those kids were 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Mom said, take it out–take it ALL out.
This seems like an honour which was actually deserved, unlike many such things (which are generally disgustingly ill-fittingly bestowed).
The same Lucien Larre who was then later suspended from the College of Psychologists of BC due to “serious public protection concerns and immediate risk to the public”. And yet he retained his Order of Canada until he returned it voluntarily!
It is very hard to lose membership in the Order of Canada, just like the British awards it is based on. Consider that Robert Mugabe only just lost his GCB.
“Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus a violation of the security of the person.” – Chief Justice Brian Dickson, 1988
A rightful man and I salute him. It’s great that he finally got recognition for his work.
Oh, and pro choice folks? BITE ME.
(Sorry, as a woman I feel the need to hate them.)
…Okay I feel like a complete total idiot. Of course I like Pro Choice people, I’m one of them. I’m just having a brain freeze from ice cream here.
I meant “fuck pro life folks”. I didn’t mean to be so nice with them anyway. I would not bite them. They’re not tasty.
It’s been fun reading the letters to the editor here in our nation’s capital. Someone pointed out that most of the writers decrying the award were male, and said in effect (my favorite line from “Friends”), “No uterus, no opinion.”
I have the uncomfortable position of having both the pro lifers and pro choice people hating me. I personally think abortions should be legal only up to the point of brain activity. Similar to how we decide when to pull the plug, as it were. Unfortunately in Canada you can’t have a discussion on abortion, you just get yelled at, by both sides, as so we have no definite laws on the issue. Legally you can abort right up until labour, though it’s rarely done. While I congratulate Dr Morgeentaler, I wish we could have rational discussions up here.
DEATH TO ABORTIONISTS!
– Pro-Lifer
(nope, no double standard there.)
Oh Canada, you’re a bit saner than US…
@Scott #24: Up to the point of brain activity? Well I’m more of the “It’s in my body I can decide whenever it comes out” clan. Frankly, if it’s a living individual, let’s see it cope on its own. I’m offering it a service here you know.
It seems to me that there is a simple dipshit test for Canadian politicians. If they are squawking about Dr. Morgentaller’s order of Canada, they are a dipshit. My very conservative MP Carol Skelton and an MLA Maurice Vellacotte were both squawking in the local Star Phoenix. Skelton opposes same sex marriage and wanted to reopen the issue once Canada allowed that to happen. Vellaccotte used tax payer money to promote racism towards first nations people. That we have these two representing me is a constant embarassment.
“@Scott #24: Up to the point of brain activity? Well I’m more of the “It’s in my body I can decide whenever it comes out” clan. Frankly, if it’s a living individual, let’s see it cope on its own. I’m offering it a service here you know.”
We recently had a parlimentary debate here in the UK over reducing the standard time limit on abortions from 24 to 22 or 20 weeks (*). I am gladf to say the proposed reduction was deafeated, but what stuck me was the main argument used. The person putting forward the proposal (which was an amendment to legislation on human fertility) argued that since some children born before 24 weeks survive, it was therefore wrong to abort at 24 weeks. No one had the sense to ask the proposer (a former nurse) if she would support the right for women to be induced at 24 weeks, but somehow I think she would have said no.
(*) Where the mother’s life is at risk there is no time limit.
It’s funny & sad at the same time – several ‘religious’ recipients of the Order, are planning to return their medals in protest.
Heavens forbid a person who advanced the rights of women would be rewarded.
I often find it ironic that people attack the man (sometimes violently) for giving people the FREEDOM of choice.
@22 Michelle –
“I meant “fuck pro life folks”. I didn’t mean to be so nice with them anyway. I would not bite them. They’re not tasty.”
But you’d do the nasty with them? Ewwwww!!
Canada really does top us in so many ways. (several puns intended)
Two wonderful occurances, I believe, over the last week have happened!! The slithering, blithering southern Idiot “Finally” became room temp. and our neighbors to the North have finaly given an award that should have occured long ago! About the time that the bastard should have past!!!
@ Michelle #26 I am assuming that was very very tongue in cheek. In the same vein of, we should see if sick people can survive on their own, who needs public health care. My tax dollars are providing a service you know. I can think of many more similar arguments off the top of my head. This just goes back to my point about not being able to have a rational discussion. Things like, if there is brain activity, is it human with rights? I know both sides start yelling like crazy this point, saying of course, or of course not, but both sides have not given me good SCIENTIFIC reasons. That’s all I am really looking for. A renowned ethics prof at Uvic explained to me how we don’t own our own bodies, so the whole Cartman “I can do what I want” does not work. It’s why you can’t sell yourself into slavery. Anyways, grats again to Dr Morgentaler.
Article about Canada vs. US:
How Canada stole the American Dream
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113
another reason to be a proud canadian.
some more good reasons
1. yes the hash bars
2. drinking age is 18 (in my province)
3. we don’t have a discovery institute
4. hockey
5. 3 down football
6. healthcare
7. no ID debates
8. funny looking money
9. strong beer
10. stronger whiskey
Sorry Michelle, my computer only loaded your first paragraph. I have no idea about the situation in the UK. I am speaking from a Canadian perspective.
Scott, what is your def for brain activity? Any electrical signal? Proven rational thought?
The old ‘quckening’ was pretty useful, except women still died. How about we just leave it up to the femmes up to birth. Any time before is the choice is hers.
But this isn’t really a scientific issue, but an ethical one. We have a pretty good idea scientifically of the nature of the fetus at various stages of development — there is no scientific fact here that would change the ethics of the issue, any more than there would be regarding the basic notion of capital punishment, or same-sex marriage.
If you want a good ethical reason why abortion should be legal, I’d argue that an individual has no obligation to support another human being with their body. We do not force organ donation, we do not legally require that people give blood. Even if a fetus is a full “person”, that still does not give it the right to another’s body.
At least two Order of Canada awards have been returned over this – a priest who has been accused of multiple child abuses, and a hate filled Catholic group. So this one was a three-fer.
I realised looking at this again that there’s an error in the title of the article. Canada wouldn’t honor Morgentaler, certainly not, we’d honour him ;-)
Conservatives are pro-choice. That is party policy, I was there when that policy was officially adopted (a few years ago). I do not think it’s fair to say Conservatives are squealing over it.
@24: I don’t think it’s legislation we need. Very late abortions are rare for all kinds of good reasons, from personal (if things are that far along, you’ve probably already decided to carry to term) to medical (Doctors are, quite reasonably, reluctant to abort a late-term fetus without a serious medical reason). Why do we need a law about this, which will either need complex exceptions to allow for various kinds of medical issue or will risk criminalizing people who have made a difficult decision in unhappy circumstances– and most likely both? As for the basic ethical issue, I’m with #37, and Judith Jarvis Thompson (I think the only way around that argument is via a dubious appeal to natural teleology, which I don’t believe in for a moment). BTW, #32’s suggestion that we don’t own our own bodies ‘because we can’t sell ourselves into slavery’ is a bit off the mark– the reason we can’t sell ourselves is because our rights in our own body are absolute and inalterable– even if I contract to give you some blood or a kidney, if I balk in the end and refuse, no court will order specific performance, although it could order some other form of compensation.
I’m going to disagree a bit here; while I am pro-choice and an atheist too (and Canadian, woohoo!), I have some issue with a black and white view of the issue of abortion. I don’t think that a ball of cells has any particular rights, but I also don’t think that there’s a magical change that occurs at the moment of birth, endowing a baby with full rights either. I think it’s pretty obvious that development is continuous, and my feeling is that a fetus should receive some protection as it nears birth.
For example, I don’t think a hypothetical woman at 38 1/2 weeks pregnant with a healthy pregnancy should turn around and decide to abort. From an extreme pro-choice perspective it’s fine, it’s her body etc., and the fetus has no rights yet, but I have an issue with the thought. We’re no longer talking about a ball of cells, and if removed from the body the baby could easily survive with relatively little intervention most likely.
Of course, this is a rather odd example. I doubt it is a situation that would come up (at least, not regularly), but it was to illustrate a point.
Secular morality generally looks at the efects of actions to come to decisions, and while one person has the right to freedom of expression, another has the right not to be harrassed with death threats. Rights are curtailed by the rights of others, and I think tht it’s foolish to draw an arbitrary line in the metaphorical sand and declare, “here you become human.” Clearly the situation becomes complex; once you give rights to the unborn you enter into a world of grey, rather than black and white.
I was listening to one of our talk show radio programs while driving – this station is certainly filled with right-wing conservatives and the host was interviewing a woman who had written an article about Morgantaler. Sorry, I just can’t remember her name. She was ranting that Morgantaler is not remorseful about performing abortions and she insinuated that he “loves” to do it. Also – she was upset because when a woman comes into one of his clinics they get an abortion without any counciling – meaning that they don’t try to talk her out of it.
I get the impression that this woman really wants pregnant women to be remorseful and upset about having an abortion. And it bugs her if they are not.
Often prolifers cite that women who have abortions will become depressed…well no shit – you keep harping at them about it and telling them how horrible they are to do such a thing.
The pro-lifers don’t give a damn about the child after it’s born.
If one doesn’t want an abortion – don’t get one, but leave those who seek one the hell alone and let them have access to safe, medically supervised abortions.
I am a proud Canadian and happy that Morgantaler received the O of C. He advanced the rights of women. Thank you Dr. Morgantaler.
I’m an atheist pro-lifer, so I have mixed feelings at best. I can appreciate that Morgentaler beieves and has actually improved and saved lives, but to me the unborn, at least the late stages, are in the cross fire.
@#&!! It was reading of the OT passages in the bible where god ordered the killing of children, babies and pregnant women that first got me to question his “morality”.
I would not force anyone to have a child they didn’t (or couldn’t want) but I’d ask them, if I was somehow brought into this mess, to see if there were any alternatives and check them out if available. It’s not my decision, and not my business, of course.
***Obviously, if the mother’s health is at stake, just take whatever advice the doctor says to save her life!***
The “morning after pill” I regard as a “miracle of science”!
Hooray for Dr. Morgentaler! It’s about* time.
On a side note, how come those who claim personal relationships with Jesus can’t help but comment incessantly on what everybody else is doing with everybody else? Why doesn’t Jesus ever say something to the effect of “Eyes front Mr./Ms., you’re on a date with ME!”
And Epinephrine is correct, PeeZed: it’s honour not honor, as in “Weu honoured hium wiuth theu Ordeur ouf Canadau.”
*Sorry. I meant, “It’s aboot time.”
Boomer at #6, I forgot about that preacher; he was in the Edmonton Sun a few days ago in an article saying that he was giving up his order of canada…the Sun was good enough to mention the “problems” that character had in his own past.
How a person with a criminal record like him could have gotten it in the first place is beyond me.
Reynold Hall, probably because it is fairly recently that the term catholic priest has become openly synonymous with criminal :)
As I understand it, the laws allowing the order to be withdrawn for impropriety by the holder was made after his ‘trouble’ and could not be acted upon retroactively.
Reynold – if you wouldn’t force a woman to birth a child she doesn’t want, then you’re not “pro-life”, you’re pro-choice. Face up to it.
(Also, I think it probable that pregnant women already consider their options very carefully indeed.)
When I found out that David Ahenakew (Native Canadian anti-semite) lost his Order of Canada for making racist remarks, but Lucienne Larre, child abuser and twice-convicted fraudster still retained his, I was more than a little steamed at the double standard. If what John Phillips has to say is true, then that makes a bit more sense, but at first, it read rather like “Let’s dogpile the Indian guy and wink at the white guy.”
Anybody making the argument that nobody should have the right to abort a healthy late-term fetus should actually, you know, realise that’s a huge, late-term strawfetus. Nobody actually does that. The vanishingly small percentage of late-term abortions happen because of something with the woman or the fetus going catastrophically wrong in the late innings — the fetus dies, the mother contracts a horrible medical condition, et cetera.
That said, I’m also one of these “abortion on demand, no apologies” types. To me, there is no ethical issue. Either you respect my bodily integrity all the way and stop claiming that my right to do what I want with my body gets trumped by a potential person, or you shut up when I stop respecting your bodily integrity all the way. That argument to me is very much akin to telling me that your right to swing your fist ends beyond the end of my nose, so long as it’s for my own good, of course. Trust women, don’t patronise them.
Probably technically true, but as I see it, a pro-choicer wouldn’t have even said one way or the other what there opinion of what the women should do.
I would have said what my opinion was, and left it at that. I’m pro-life, just anti-coercion.
Peter @#40: That is true, but I heard on the radio (CHOM) that they will revisit the whole issue during their party meeting in November. Let’s never forget that Harper is a member of the Bush fan club.
On an interesting sidebar. Before being everybody’s abortion poster boy, Dr. M is an accomplished obstetrician. My wife’s sister wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for his skill. All doctors had abandoned the case, saying my mother-in-law would never bring another baby to term (this after numerous miscarriage). Dr. M. found a way, back in the 70s. And now, my wife’s sister has a baby of her own.
I’d say he’s beyond pro-abortion and truly pro-choice. “You want a baby? I’ll help you.” “You don’t want this baby? I’ll help you too.”
My remark was in reply to MissPrism, in case anyone was wondering. Another post got in there.
Me, I’m just not one of those “abortion on demand, no apologies” types. The analogy fails because when you’re punching someone out, you’re just harming one person’s body. The pro-lifers figure that there’s another body that needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to abortion.
I’m just not going to push my views on anyone stuck in that situation, is all.
This post kind of clarifies even more that I’m not pro-choice, but rather a pro-lifer who just doesn’t go for coercion.
http://www.artmonthly.org.au/article.asp?contentID=670
Philippe: That’s what no one seems to have mentioned in this entire debate, yes!
—-
On an interesting sidebar. Before being everybody’s abortion poster boy, Dr. M is an accomplished obstetrician. My wife’s sister wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for his skill. All doctors had abandoned the case, saying my mother-in-law would never bring another baby to term (this after numerous miscarriage). Dr. M. found a way, back in the 70s. And now, my wife’s sister has a baby of her own.
I’d say he’s beyond pro-abortion and truly pro-choice. “You want a baby? I’ll help you.” “You don’t want this baby? I’ll help you too.”
—-
I wish this had come up 36 hours earlier; not only would it be marginally less overdue but it would have made a useful example in an argument I got into with an idiot who [url=http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=34855&view=findpost&p=403759]seconded Jesse Helms’ comparison of abortion to the Holocaust[/url] (which has now been locked by administrators who “prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.” :/
@42 I think you summed up what I was getting at much better than I did, thank you. Obviously a bunch a cells is not a “human”, but somewhere along the way that happens. I agree and just don’t think it’s black and white. I just privately think that if you wanted to make some sort of line, a type of brain activity would be a good way of doing it. I must admit, it’s not my own idea, but it was pointed out to me by several different chemists, nurses and biochemists. To me that made sense. I like your point about not needing legislation, and had not looked at it like that before.
I think that’s actually a majority position among pro-choice folks, or at least close to it.
Apparently they give out renown in cracker jack boxes; that’s an idiotic argument. We certainly “can sell ourselves into slavery” to the extent it’s possible to do so without the legal structures on which the past institutions of slavery depended (in other words, by making a voluntary agreement to obey someone else’s instructions; there are entire subcultures based around this), and the reason those legal structures are no longer in place is that they are unethical and abusive.
So explicitly grant women the right to demand a premature live delivery at the point where it becomes feasible (since an abortion, at that point, would be at least as invasive and almost as dangerous anyway). Problem solved.
@Interrobang
Oh, I agree that it (late development abortion of healthy fetuses) likely never comes up. That doesn’t solve the rational ethical question of what the rules should be if the situation were to come up.
Practically (barring the strawfetus), I’m 100% pro-choice, but I object to a dogmatic statement that it is always the woman’s prerogative to abort – perhaps I should say that I 100% support the woman’s right to cease hosting the fetus; abortion is defined by the death of the fetus before birth.
But why concentrate on the rational ethical questions of what happens when a non-existent nine months pregnant straw-woman wants an abortion on a fickle girlish whim, when there’s people working day in and day out to take painful, hard-thought-out choices away from real live actual women who do exist?
It bothers me that this argument so often dissolves into whatiffery. These things aren’t so hypothetical for those of us with uteri.
Mice also have brain activity, but most people think that (humanely) killing them is acceptable. Terry Schiavo had residual brain activity, but most people think it was OK to unplug her.
The existence of mere brain activity may be a necessary condition for personhood, but it is not a sufficient condition.
Miss Prism@60,
Agreed. The whatifery here is reminiscent of the discussion of torture in the Hitchens thread here recently, where a moral imbecile by the name of silentsanta kept insisting that we needed to prove that there were absolutely no circumstances in which it would be right to torture someone.
It’s the ticking time bomb scenario of abortion…
The morality of abortion is questionable because it is cutting short a human life, religion should have nothing to do with the reasoning. The human organism begins it’s development after conception. You have to weigh the pain and suffering that a woman has to undergo for nine months of pregnancy versus the against the immorality one may find in ending a human life. Similar to killing kids in orphanages, or a new born baby that a family may be unable to support, are these kids too much of a burden to allow them to continue to live? How much do we want to protect our young?
It may be argued that the embryo is not conscious and will not suffer if killed and therefore is not worth protecting. Then is an adult worth protecting in his/her sleep? The sleeping adult has the potential to become conscious in a few hours (or seconds if woken up), and if killed in his/her sleep will suffer nothing. On the other hand, the developing embryo has the potential to become conscious, the difference is it is at a greater length of time. Does this mean that the worth of the life is any less? If it were known that an adult in a coma would become conscious in 9 months, would it be murder to kill that adult?
In the past, in order to justify killing or oppressing others, the way to do it is to deny their humanity. To justify abortion, the present and future humanity of the developing human organism is denied.
It would be helpful if replies included logic, not merely outrage…
The very late term fetus argument is really irrelevant. By that stage of pregnancy, the safest and easiest (for the mother as well as the fetus) means of removing the fetus from the mother’s body (thus terminating the pregnancy) is to induce a live birth or a C-section, and would therefore be the only ethically appropriate medical option.
Personally, I think any woman who willingly becomes pregnant (or willingly engages in conception-related activities knowing there was a risk of pregnancy) has a moral obligation to carry the fetus to term, if doing so is physically safe. However, under no circumstance should she be compelled to do so. Abortion should be available on demand, but society should make every non-coercive effort to persuade women to carry their pregnancies to term. (This would include the offering of inducements.)
APL: you have a kidney someone else needs. Please report to your nearest hospital and have it removed for transplant.
amphiox – “conception-related activities”? Do you mean sex?
Leaving aside the fact of whether life for its own sake is worthwhile as compared to a life worth living, aren’t you forgetting an important part of the equation?
Well, one can see from graphs of the timeline for abortion that abortion diminishes with fetal age (at least past a certain point); the data is right skewed, with abortions up to the legal limit in the case of the UK.
Without a limit, what would the graph look like; I find it hard to belive that there would be 0 cases past the magical 24 month breakpoint, and while it’s possible (probable, even) that there are 0 cases at the 38 1/2 week point, there may be some at 30, 32 weeks? So taking the more extreme example out of the picture, one can then address whether the situation with abortion should change to (as mentioned in post #58) early delivery rather than abortion past a certain point.
Note that I am thrilled that Dr. M is being honoured, and I view it as a wonderful step forward for women’s rights.
On a slightly related subject, I am conflicted by the use of pre-natal screening and abortion to determine the sex of children. On the one hand, I am for a woman’s right to choose whether to abort; on the other hand, I see how the combination of pre-natal screening and abortion amounts to a form of sex discrimination. I’m curious how you see it, though it’s certainly going off topic.
Judith @#23, I must say that I don’t quite agree with the “No uterus, no opinion” approach.
The man in an established relationship is allowed an opinion, and must voice his opinion in an adult, enlightened discussion with the woman. But, he must accept that all he can do is give is opinion/advice, and like all advice, it can be ignored. The ultimate choice will, and should, always rest with the woman.
Now, I did say “an established relationship”. In a one night fling, the guy gives up any right to opinion/comment/advice the second he walks out the door…
My 2 cents…
I am happy that Dr Morgentaler is being honoured with the Order of Canada, and award that is surprisingly uncontroversial for the most part. I had the honour of meeting Dr Morgentaler in 1983(or abouts) at university. I also visited his Montreal clinic with a former girlfriend who decided to terminate her pregnancy. I supported her decision at the time, but there are times when I wonder what my 20 year old child would be like, that’s probably natural. But I still support the woman’s right to chose.
And am now finally happy to be the father of a 2.5 year old boy.
I got into an online argument with some doornob of anti-abortionist (pro-life, fuck off, I’m more pro-life than you ever will be jackass!) anyway, I digress. I told him that for women the age (37) of my partner (wife, whatever) the incidence of spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) is estimated to be 25% of all conceptions. He wouldn’t believe me and called me a liar. I told him that I wasn’t lying, and indeed was subjected to the pain of a miscarriage just this past February, and that I had never known such sadness, mostly because of the horrible sadness that my partner was going through (damn tears still). Anyway, that shut him the fuck up, although I doubt that he believed me.
ps. Don’t drink coffee if you are worried about miscarriage or are in an high risk group, there have been some studies that I’ve read recently suggesting a link. Better safe than sorry.
Apologies if my arguments aren’t as clear as they might be; I have a fucking idiot coworker next to me who is supposed to be working but instead is talking at me about rumors he’s heard about how casinos operate.
Do you actually not see a difference between an organism that lacks the physical brain structures required for consciousness and an organism that simply isn’t using them for consciousness at present?
Acknowledging the pain and suffering of the woman involved would be a start, yeah.
However, you’re forgetting the consequences of being born without parents able to take care for you. This life-meaning-biological-existence fetishism ignores many of the most important elements of human morality.
Atheist Pro Lifer: you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one. It’s that simple. There is an argument to be made that there are too many humans on the planet, isn’t that a moral option?
I live in a pretty conservative city (London, Ont.). Here we get the indignity of seeing anti-abortion ads featuring fetuses on our public buses.
Not to mention anti-abortion protests on our university campus…
Our society cuts short human lives on a regular basis with full legal sanction. Soldiers routine kill and are killed. Police kill suspects threatening violence. Condemned murderers are executed. Brain-dead patients are removed from life support.
What is the principle you are using to say that abortion is problematic, but these other cases are not?
If you woke up one morning to find an adult in a coma medically hooked up to you against your will, and that individual had to continually share your blood in order to stay alive and become conscious 9 months later (with a risk that you might die when disconnected at that point), would it be immoral for you to disconnect them? As Bryson notes, the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson (from whom this example is borrowed) has argued that even if we accept the full personhood of a fetus, that still does not mean that abortion is necessarily wrong — we do not necessarily owe the use of our bodies to other persons.
I think I disagree with ‘no uterus, no opinion’ too. I have opinions on lots of legislation that doesn’t involve me.
But I will say that most men do not fully understand either
a. quite what a huge, life-changing, body-draining deal pregnancy and birth is (look at PLA’s single glib mention of it up there), or
b. the concept that without safe legal abortion, my body is State property – as if he could be kidnapped in an ambulance and have one of his kidneys or eyes forcibly taken for transplant.
Seriously #64, you don’t see any logic being used here?
It really is simple, if you assume the fetus to be a person, then they have even less rights to use someone else against their will.
If you came up to me and convinced me that you would indeed die if i didn’t give you some money, even if it were true, it would be perfectly legal for me to tell you to go away. and that’s just money.
For a pregnancy you have to alter that scenario to include all the health effects and life alterations (women still get fired for becoming pregnant) that come with the whole using of blood and organs.
no one, and i mean no one has the right to force someone else to give of their own body for someone else. that goes no matter who the giver is, male or female, and no matter who the receiver is, baby, man, woman, old, sick, or what have you.
Now, as for the idea of removing the unborn child if it could possibly survive, i might be for that. i’m not sure though as that also needs to be looked at more in depth. sure the child might survive, but maybe in a state that is almost unlivable. should we save them if they will have horrible mental problems because of the procedure? is it even ethical to ask that?
ah well, that is the debatable part.
MissPrim @#75
While true that most men do not fully understand your first point, that statement probably applies too to woman who’ve never had a pregnancy.
And you are making “men” the enemy (up the a point, don’t worry, I don’t feel overly threatened ;-) ), but in this case, that is just the old patriarchal kneejerk reaction of “gotta control everything, particularly them thar wimminfolk”, but the hardest, craziest, no-holds barred pro-lifers I’ve known have been woman.
Philippe – you’re right there, possibly on both counts. I’ve never knowingly been pregnant myself and so I can’t fully understand it either. But I still think it’s considerably easier to imagine the bodily cost of pregnancy and grasp the importance of abortion access if you’ve got the bits involved. That’s all I meant by the “men don’t understand” line, and I didn’t mean to suggest that menz iz eevil.
As an example of what I mean, I’m 100% against drafting young men into war, and I’ll write to my MP in a heartbeat if it looks like being reinstated, but I can’t truly feel the fear that someone’s going to do it to me.
Not just write to my MP of course, ‘cos he’s a scientifically-illiterate right wing fuckwit with “pro-life” leanings, and might well be fully in favour of sending young men to die in a war they didn’t start. That’s why those quotation amrks are around “pro-life”.
I definitely second the observation that men seem to be clueless about what pregnancy actually entails (some, like the famous Ian “pregnancy is an inconvenience” Spedding). I think this is significant, and I observe that every single anti-choice atheist I have ever known has been male.
I was so happy when news of this award came out. When I first moved to Toronto, I lived just around the corner from the Morgentaler clinic. People were constantly being harassed, going into the building. There were bomb attacks and threats upon the staff and volunteers. The anti-abortion activists were the scariest group in my neighbourhood.
I have nothing but contempt for the militant “pro-lifers” who want to enforce their morality and views upon others, especially when it comes to demonizing abortion providers. It’s still not that easy to get an abortion here in Canada if you don’t live near a major centre — Dr. Morgentaler’s done a lot, but the rest of us have a lot more to do to ensure that a right to choice is there for everyone.
Azkyroth @#80 : The “my pro-lifer is worst then your pro-lifer” argument is useless, so I’m not going to touch it.
And while it’s hard to imagine what it would be like to try to push a melon-sized head thru my vagina (mainly because I don’t have one, and spare me the simile involving ureter and anuses, the structures involved aren’t similar), the rest of the changes, like the heart increasing in size and actually changing place, the hips changing configuration, the increased pliability of tendons, etc., I can have an idea of the stress involved with contemplating those changes happening to ones body.
Just like MissPrim (#78) mentions that while she wouldn’t feel the immediate visceral fear that a young male would facing a reinstatement of the draft, she can still empathize with the situation. And so can men empathize, up to a point, with the stress and uncertainty and fear that a woman would have to deal with.
Notice that I say “can”. Obviously, it’s not all men that chose or make the effort to empathize. Sadly for us all.
Assuming that MissPrism’s post at #66 was meant for me…
APL: you have a kidney someone else needs. Please report to your nearest hospital and have it removed for transplant
There’s two flaws…
1) My kidney is still part of my (singular) body. It’s not a different body growing within me.
2) I said that I wouldn’t force my views on any one else.
By your comment above (in jest, I’m sure, to make a point) by telling me to do something with my body is further than I’d go as an “atheist pro-lifer” in dealing with someone who’s considering an abortion. I’d ask them to consider any option that’s available then I’d leave them along. I wouldn’t actually give any orders.
Remember, I did say that the decision was none of my business, right?
3) If I could get a good enough price for my kidney and be assured that my other one wouldn’t go out on me, I’d probably do it. Thing is, neither is a certainty right now.
Sucks, I could use the money.
MissPrism, if your remark at #66 was not meant for me, then just ignore this post.
Whoops. Oh shit, there IS a person here going by “Atheist Pro Lifer”. Ok, I thought MissPrism was talking to me since I had said that I was an atheist pro-lifer in my first post here.
Nothing to see here…just some sod who didn’t take the time to read all the comments here before jumping in.
Reynold, it was meant for Atheist Pro Lifer, hence the APL. You’re clearly not a forced-birther despite calling nyourself pro-life, so you get no further ire from me!
I’m pretty glad about this, but most people around here aren’t. Someone last week wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper about how the OC is tarnished (he also used the ‘abortion=holocaust’ gripe). I wrote back to set him straight.. although I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t print it. Once you get outside of Toronto and its suburbs, Southern Ontario is very conservative.
I am a Canadian pro-lifer.
This is a , typical, unjust silly decision.
First this person is a Jew and not Polish. That means also a foreigner. This person like all these left wing europeans was contemptious of the will and the law of the canadian people. The only way for the people to get their way is by politics. Otherwise establishments control.
This person broke the law and the establishment liked the reason why. Eventually a few lawyers called judges annouce abortion is okay. Apperently now the pro-abortion law is to be obeyed.
This person who came from problems stemming from lack of law and justice confirmed his oppressers tactics.
To give a agitator on one side a medal is to announce which side was right. Canadians don’t say this and accept it is fair to disagree. This medal says it is not. They would never give amedal to a pro-life agitator.
Its a humbug. it has no substance like true national recognition of achievment. Its propaganda and imposing a absurd moral judgement.
Its stupid. Not the first time.
It is a attempt to officialy dismiss and denigrate opposition to something most canadians are opposed to on some points or all.
This abortionist is of no consequence to the progress of human rights in the world and just a establishment favorite.
This person doesn’t come from the intelligence and morality of Canadians and French Canadians. This person is not and never will be a Canadian.
You want him. Just smell the air for the shed blood of children ripped from their mothers bodies.
I think we can just stop right there.
Waita go Canada!
I remember when my previous University (University of Western Ontario) honoured Dr. Morgentaler with an honourary doctorate at the Science convocation ceremony a few years ago. I was really impressed with my school… but oh, the drama it caused! Many kids and their families boycotted their own convocation because if it. Many of us were very proud though, and so we are again!
On behalf of Canadians everywhere, I apologize for Robert Byers. This person doesn’t come from the intelligence and morality of Canadians and French Canadians. This person is not and never will be a Canadian.
Azykroth: “I think we can just stop right there.”
But wait, I want to know where is the list of nationalities we can refer to so we know who is a foreigner and who isn’t. It must be…. somewhere. Oh yeah, it’s in Byers’ deluded mind!
After many paragraphs of garbage, we get to the end where he says he can actually smell blood of children ripped from their mother’s bodies. Crazy head thoughts, again. Besides, these mothers pay good money to have the embryo sucked out. No blood to speak of, so I don’t know what he’s smelling. Byers really goes in for some heavy emotional visuals, as made up as they are.
Robert Byers – you’re an ignorant idiot.
Like Janice, I used to live around the corner from Morgentaler’s Harbord Street Clinic. I never once saw a protester who was female and in her reproductive years…it was always men and post-menopausal women.
Morgentaler is an awesome man – dedicated to his clients, and as someone else mentioned, a stellar obstetrician.
I say this O.C. is well overdue.
Tulse #90, re Robert Byers.
That’s too much like the “no true christian” argument. If Robert Byers is telling the truth about his nationality-if he has Canadian citizenship, then he is Canadian. Just not a very nice one. Or a very smart one, if his grasp of grammer is any indication.
I lived around the corner from the Harbord St. clinic when it was firebombed into rubble. The action was a lovely illustration of the supposedly “pro-life” arguments of those who did it.
Apparently, everyone who lived in the neighborhood, shopped in the neighboring stores or rented apartments above them (I was around the corner, on Robert) was an evil, guilty human being who deserved to die.
And I’m proud we honoured Morgentaler, too: the man’s personal courage changed Canadian law for the better. But I’m disturbed by the credit the media gave to the anti-choice crowd: the fuss was all about the ‘controversy’, not about Morgentaler’s Order of Canada, and the media gave the anti-choice groups a huge platform for their arguments.
I guess the irony was too subtle…amphiox, try re-reading the end of his post (#87), and then re-reading mine (#90).
You got me there, Tulse. Byers original post was so insipid that my eyes must have glazed over and I missed those last few lines, I guess.
You, on the other hand, write most clearly, so I picked up all your lines.
If you woke up one morning to find an adult in a coma medically hooked up to you against your will, and that individual had to continually share your blood in order to stay alive and become conscious 9 months later (with a risk that you might die when disconnected at that point), would it be immoral for you to disconnect them?
That depends. Did you cause them to become dependent upon you?
Let’s say you left your door unlocked at night.
If he’s Canadian, he’s a Canadian pig…
(Insert “Canadian Bacon” pun here).
Not sure how that answers my question, really.
Well, say you left your bedroom door unprotected…
You’re getting creepier, Tulse.
I assume what he’s getting at is the anti-choice assertion that having sex is equivalent to agreeing to carry a pregnancy to term.
Robert Barlow: “This abortionist is of no consequence to the progress of human rights in the world and just a establishment favorite.”
The word is favourite, asshole. You’re no Canadian.
LOL.
Bang to rights…
He’s doing a poor job of it.
What Thompson’s analogy doesn’t take into account is whether parents might have obligations toward their children that the person in her essay doesn’t have to a random violinist.
What your argument doesn’t take into account is that a genetically human organism without a functioning brain might not be equivalent to a born child.
You might want to go back and read the thread again; this particular subthread started with a comment stipulating (for the sake of argument) “even if we accept the full personhood of a fetus”.
I recall reading about Dr Morgentaler back when his clinic was burned. He’s a good guy, and highly deserving of this honour.
Jen R., my apologies…I have no wish to creep you out. I was merely trying to analogize the point I (mistakenly) thought you were making when you asked “Did you cause them to become dependent upon you?” I though you were implying that those who engaged in unprotected sex were responsible for the consequences. In the case of the thought experiment, I see this as being equivalent to leaving your door open so that the “dependent” (Thomson’s violinist) can come in and be hooked up to you without your explicit consent. Even in such case, and even if you might anticipate that a sickly violinist would attach himself to you if you didn’t lock your door, I don’t think you’d be morally responsible to remain attached and keep him alive. (Thomson deals with this issue in her article with a different scenario, but the point is the same.)
Ah, so that’s what you meant. Sorry to have misinterpreted. However, I don’t think this issue is relevant. Even if we accept the full personhood of the fetus, that doesn’t mean that such “person” is what we would consider the woman’s “child” at that point. “Parent-child” is a relationship that has a lot of social meaning, meaning that I argue derives from (or at least is dependent upon) their interactions after birth. Such a relationship isn’t supported in this scenario under discussion. Even if it were, I think relying on that particular aspect won’t do the kind of moral heavy lifting required without any explication of what those responsibilities might be in such a case. (This move also potentially has rather intrusive implications for any pregnant mother, where actions that a might endanger the fetus would be treated the equivalent to child abuse.)
In any case, I would think that if you do believe that women bear some special obligation to fetuses as real persons, then the whole issue of miscarriage and failure of implantation becomes a huge moral concern. (The fact that even the most staunch pro-lifer doesn’t seem to view things this way suggests that they don’t in fact view fetuses as full persons for whom a pregnant women has special responsibility.)
Slightly off topic, but a thought about all these counseling and waiting period laws that some states and countries have…Wouldn’t they be better applied to a different situation: people who are considering entering the military? People who enter the military are definitely at risk for becoming murderers. They are entering an organization which has as its purpose the destruction of life (living, breathing, thinking human life, not just clumps of cells or even pre-sentient late fetuses). They are at high risk of entering a situation in which they will be forced to commit crimes against humanity.
Therefore, I think that before people are allowed to enlist they should have to undergo counseling in which they are asked questions like, “Have you considered that if you enter the military you might be ordered to torture innocent taxi drivers?” and “Do you have any ethical qualms about dropping bombs on civilians?” They should also be shown pictures of the results of bombings, including pictures of small children missing limbs, collapsed buildings with people underneath them, etc. They should then be required to wait at least 24 hours before signing anything binding in order to consider their decision carefully. What do people think?
Good for Canada. I am a retired American living in Europe and am totally ashamed of my country. Canada please don’t let the plague that is trying to take over the U.S creep into your country. I am speaking of religious fundie nuts who will destroy everything.
A new survey reports that 60 % of Canadians support giving Morgentaler the Order of Canada:
Three out of five Canadians support the controversial appointment of pro-choice crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada, according to a survey done as some groups were calling it a disgrace to the country.
The exclusive Angus Reid Strategies online poll done yesterday and Monday – a week after the Canada Day announcement – showed that, of the 1,016 Canadian adults surveyed, 60 per cent supported Morgentaler getting the honour while 29 per cent opposed it. Another 12 per cent weren’t sure.
Asked whether Morgentaler was a hero to millions of Canadian women, 66 per cent said they agreed, 26 per cent disagreed and 9 per cent weren’t sure.
The results don’t reflect what Morgentaler critics have called widespread national condemnation of the decision.
Tulse said:
Canadians, now you are just showing off your awesomeness!
Atheist Pro Lifer (Comment #64):
Anti-abortionists seem very fond of bandying about such loaded and imprecise terms as “humanity” and “human being” without bothering to explain what they mean by them. In common parlance, “human being” is often used more-or-less synonymously with “person”, but a foetus isn’t a person – not in the normal usage corresponding to “self-aware agent”. So in that sense, denying the “humanity” of a foetus is entirely justified, because it is demonstrably less-than-human in that particular regard. On the other hand, if you’re referring to something other than personhood by your use of these terms, perhaps you could elaborate?
As for the “future humanity” of a fetus, please explain why you think this is a significant moral consideration. I don’t think any pro-choice individual would deny that (miscarriages and other mishaps aside) a foetus has the potential to develop into a human being/person. What they are more likely to deny is that mere potentiality carries any significant moral weight.
Being an atheist, you presumably have no truck with supernaturalist accounts of what it is to be human (souls, divine plans and related whatnots). So in your view, what is it precisely that gives an entity innate moral worth? To put it another way, in virtue of what properties or characteristics does an entity become something of value (or, if you like, become a bearer of rights)? Because unless you believe that all living things are intrinsically and equally of value, I’m a little sceptical that you’d be able to come up with a plausible or consistent case for considering a foetus and an adult human being as being of equal moral worth.
hahah i was born one day before that
Um, congratulations?
(WTF is that supposed to mean?)
“Canada” did not honor this man. A small group of people made the poorly thought out decision and seriously devalued the award by giving the Order of Canada to a person that many Canadians despise and revile. It is unfortunate but this award is now seriously tainted by its activist handlers. Too bad. They might as well close up shop and stop handing them out. Every time they hand one out from now on, there is a good chance that the chosen recipient may decline it on the basis of this one incident.
TC, see the poll figures, you narcissistic jackass.
Actually, a person that a significant majority of Canadians respect and admire, judging by the poll cited above. For perspective, going by that poll nearly twice as many Canadians respect and admire Morgentaler as voted for the current government — by your logic, should Harper therefore step down?
Of course, there have been Order recipients who are despised and reviled… such as Lucien Larre, the Catholic priest who was convicted of child abuse, and who, in a profound blindness to irony, did indeed return his Order to protest Morgentaler. If those are the kind of people we have to worry about declining the award in future, I’m all in favour of it.
A few more thoughts:
1. Henry Morgentaler is one of the most deserving recipients of this award to come along in a long, long time. Frankly, when we consider some of these past recipients, the Order of Canada is a bit of a joke.
2. I think abortion is, in fact, immoral in most (not all!) circumstances.
Why? When a woman consents to sex (or IVF for that matter, though it is probably less likely for her to change her mind and seek an abortion in that case) she consents to the risk of pregnancy, and part of this risk is an certain obligation/responsibility towards the fetus. Her choice resulted in the creation of the fetus, and creators have moral obligations to their creations. (In a parallel vein, any man who consents to sex also consents to the risk of his partner becoming pregnant, and that risk includes for the man certain moral obligations and responsibilities to the mother and potential child.)
3. Despite #2, and in fact even if abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances, abortion must be legal and available freely. A pluralistic free society must not legislate questions of morality. The only possible exceptions are those issues on which there is near-universal consensus, on the order of “murder is wrong.” Even in this case I think the position is open to valid criticism.
I’d like to put a little perspective on this.
Steve Smith (Red Green) has an order of Canada for his Red Green show.
They are considering giving one to Don Cherry.
In other words, these things are really meaningless.
I think that’s why the Harper clan hasn’t raised any fuss over this.
Love my Country but have lost any interest in the Order of Canada years ago.
Miss Prism: #66. The analogy becomes closer if I and another person voluntarily caused the person to become dependent on my kidney and only my kidney. In that case, there is a moral obligation to help.
Azkyroth #71 said: “Do you actually not see a difference between an organism that lacks the physical brain structures required for consciousness and an organism that simply isn’t using them for consciousness at present?
Of course I do. It’s much easier to identify the one that looks and acts more like myself, I have more of an innate desire to preserve that one. Similarly when the baby is born, I have an innate desire to protect it, even though it doesn’t have the full capacity for personality yet. But maybe my capacity to identify is not a good basis for a moral decision. Historically, oppression of others is based on a lack of ability to identify.
What is the harm we do to someone we kill without emotional and physical pain? We cut short the victim’s life. This result is the same whether we end the life at 30, 3, or 3 months after conception. We are processes in time, not entities or souls as our religious heritage would have us believe.
Azkyroth #71 said: However, you’re forgetting the consequences of being born without parents able to take care for you.
Then by the same reasoning we should kill orphans. I’m not sure about that step..
Jacques #72 Atheist Pro Lifer: you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one. It’s that simple. There is an argument to be made that there are too many humans on the planet, isn’t that a moral option?
I’m not sure about that: who’s to decide which ones we get rid of?
Tulse #74 said: Our society cuts short human lives on a regular basis with full legal sanction. Soldiers routine kill and are killed. Police kill suspects threatening violence. Condemned murderers are executed. Brain-dead patients are removed from life support. What is the principle you are using to say that abortion is problematic, but these other cases are not?
I never said they are not.
Tulse #74 said: …even if we accept the full personhood of a fetus, that still does not mean that abortion is necessarily wrong — we do not necessarily owe the use of our bodies to other persons.
What if one pair of Siamese twins depends on the organs of the other for survival? Kill that one so the other has a better life?
Cat of many faces #76 said: no one, and i mean no one has the right to force someone else to give of their own body for someone else.
I agree with that. But I see the persons that created the fetus responsible for the situation, not the fetus. I don’t see the fetus coming up and demanding to be taken care of as you describe.
Azkyroth #80 said: every single anti-choice atheist I have ever known has been male.
Perhaps there are fewer females with that perspective. The males, after all, are not on the front lines (and are no doubt less often interested in feminist literature.) Consider the destruction of Indian nations in the old West. No doubt the ones far from the danger were more likely to question the morality of what was going on.
Iain Walker #115: See the first answer to Azkyroth #71: Also a new born baby is not self-aware. Ok to kill it?
Thanks for the replies…
Been away but to finish up about the foolish, albeit useful for pro-lifism, decision to dismiss the values and opinions of a majority of Canadians. The poll does not represent Canada as she is. In Canada identity is everything. It is most likely most French Canadians and immigrant groups that support abortion activism. Yet amongst Canadians the support for this decision is less. The poll shows the great divide in opinion and confirms the nonsense of pretending abortion activists represent common Canadian values.
Firther abortion in Canada was taken from the publics right to decide and given to Judges. so why now suddenly is democracy being brought up to give legitamacy to this kooky decision?
Humbug
A slight majority of Canadians oppose most or all abortions being legal. More so outside Quebec. A small minority are pro-choice. The slight majority who like the decision just means the pro-choicers and some more who accept abortion for some reasons and easily don’t mind activists getting rewards.
The decision tries to ignore what the poll is brought up for. The relevance of public opinion on contentions affecting values of millions of Canadians.
The decision ,like abortion, is absurd in any claim of human rights and relationships of a nation.
It is a however a useful point for pro-lifers to demonstrate that abortion is a establishment cause and never was a cause of the people. Pro-life is a cause of the middle class Canadian (Not French Canadian or ethnic groups) folk. More reasonable and more sharp about the right and wrong of abortion and its politics.