The Shotgun Blog
« More on food price inflation and biofuel... | Main | The Countdown begins »
Monday, July 07, 2008
National Treasure 3: The Search for the Lost Moral Compass
No wonder the "advisory council" decided to welcome Henry Morgentaler into the Order of Canada. It seems that the National Abortion Federation has already declared him a "National Treasure." Next up: the National Action Committee on the Status of Women declaring him a Living Saint?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 7, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553a8891a8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference National Treasure 3: The Search for the Lost Moral Compass:
Comments
heh, I just wanted to say: excellent title!
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-07 3:03:44 PM
Terrence,
Well, from a Terence to a Terrence: thanks for the compliment!
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-07-07 3:16:58 PM
Well now isn't that an interesting press release. Note the date. July 1, 2008. How is it that an American pro-abortion organization can have a press release ready to go on the very day the Order of Canada announcement was made. In light of the fact the announcement was held back until after the huge rally on Parliament Hill July 1, I find it curious that they were able to have such an articulate defence of the award ready to go. Me thinks something smells a little orchestrated.
Posted by: Servant | 2008-07-07 3:41:04 PM
http://www.prochoice.org/blog/labels/Dr.%20Henry%20Morgentaler.html
The NAF website also had this quote from the Canadian Labour Congress President Georgetti speaking for Union members in Canada wthout even asking them.
“It is more than fitting that as we celebrate Dr. Morgentaler’s historic legal victory for women in the Supreme Court of Canada 20 years ago – we honour his amazing contribution to the advancement of human rights, women’s equality, and progressive change,” Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, told delegates.
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-07-07 6:56:14 PM
Who'll get the next Order of Canada? Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka? Ernst Zundel? Robert Pickton?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 7:01:26 PM
For the love of Pete, WHY? The man is a notorious Holocaust denier. Most would see him as a nuisance, but in Toronto he'd be a hero.
No.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 7:48:41 PM
Unfortunately, it's the boomer elites who currently run the show. And as we have known since the 1960s, they have no moral compass, and they shredded all the maps in a fit of reefer madness. I hear the sound of sirens singing...
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 8:40:10 PM
Who'll get the next Order of Canada? Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka? Ernst Zundel? Robert Pickton?
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 7-Jul-08 7:01:26 PM
Jim Keegstra, Jeremy Steinke, Jasmine Richardson?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-07-07 8:51:11 PM
While everybody likes to slam into Morgenthaler for "opening the flood gates of abortion" in Canada, you jokers are aware that the ruling of the Supreme Court in his case wasn't really all that prohibitve for the Government to rewrite it, right? That Deathkneel came a few years later with Tremblay vs. Daigle, those darn Quebecers.
"The Court ruled that it was not necessary to deal with the issues of Canadian federalism raised by the appeal; the issue of fetal rights would suffice to solve this particular dispute and prevent similar legal incidents in the future. The fetal rights were said to be anchored in the rights to life in the Canadian Charter, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Civil Code of Quebec. Moreover, it was argued Tremblay had a right to protect his "potential progeny." The Supreme Court considered and rejected all these arguments. As the Court noted, its role was to consider the fetus's legal status; it would not rule on its biological status, nor would it enter "philosophical and theological debates." As far as the Court could tell, there was no legal precedent for fetal rights under the Quebec Charter, and this Charter is written in "very general terms" and does not specify whether the rights within it were available to fetuses. Although the Charter does say its rights belong to humans, whether the fetus is a human is a merely "linguistic" question that would not solve the issue of what the National Assembly of Quebec actually meant in the Charter. Moreover, if the National Assembly had meant for the Quebec Charter to apply to fetuses, it seemed questionable as to why they would not explicitly state this, rather than leave "the protection of this right in such an uncertain state."
Regarding the Civil Code, the Court considered the argument that since the Code deals with fetuses as "juridical" persons, fetuses must legally be human beings. Human beings, under the Code, have rights. Once again, the Court expressed skepticism as to the nature of the term "human being", noting the linguistic nature of the argument. While the Code does give fetuses some similar treatment to legal persons, the Court replied that this does not necessarily imply other fetal rights exist. In the places where fetuses are recognized as juridical persons, the Court claimed this is a "fiction of the civil law".
The case next turned to Canadian law and common law. With some historical review, it was noted that while fetuses have usually had some protection under the law, abortion has not usually been viewed as being comparable to murder. Thus, a fetus is not a person under common law. The Court also declined to address the question of fetal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, noting that the Charter applies to government; it has no force in legal disputes between private citizens, which was the case in Tremblay v. Daigle.
Finally, the Court ruled that there was no precedent for men's rights to protect their "potential progeny.""
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 8:51:21 PM
I definitely am by no means telling women I don't know, what to do with there lives, but an abortion doctor getting the Order of Canada? How many other Canadians would be more deserving of this award?
Posted by: glen | 2008-07-07 8:55:47 PM
Snowrunner, Morgantaler turfed thousands of unborn for no method other than sheer profit, and perhaps an unhealthy affectation for the sight of death, similar to what motivated Jack Kevorkian, many of whose fawning adulators would also like to pin a medal on him, even after he left the corpses of their loved ones to decompose in vans parked out the front of hospitals he didn't like. Your attempt to muddy the issue with legalities does not change this.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 8:58:59 PM
Celebrating this 'humanists' advancements of eugenics?
Oxymoron?
...again, all in the prospect of advancing womens equality, much the same rethoric as with feminism. So many disgraces and inequalities vanquished to the patsy of feminism.
Posted by: cana | 2008-07-07 9:07:28 PM
Morgantaler turfed thousands of unborn for no method other than sheer profit, and perhaps an unhealthy affectation for the sight of death, similar to what motivated Jack Kevorkian, many of whose fawning adulators would also like to pin a medal on him, even after he left the corpses of their loved ones to decompose in vans parked out the front of hospitals he didn't like. Your attempt to muddy the issue with legalities does not change this.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 8:58:59 PM
Yes Shane, I am sure Morghentaler was running down the street chasing pregnant women with a huge butterfly net so that he could indulge in his hobby.
And yes, these courts really are obnoxious they constantly interfere in the life of people, wether they want it or not, sometimes they even enlist the help of the police to keep their business going.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 9:12:07 PM
P.S. The court's arguments are not convincing; they sound like a Rube-Goldberg legal runaround to avoid what modern science (or for that matter, 19th-century science) can explain in a couple of paragraphs. Until 1988 abortion was illegal because the right to life of the fetus was recognized; there is no other reason to outlaw it, and there was no reason to consider fetuses a separate legal entity from born humans, so there was no separate entry in the law for them. If fetuses aren't human, what are they? Amphibians?
This crew's so-called deliberations sound little different from a 19th-century Indiana Congress that wanted to set, by law, the value of pi at 3.0. Elaborate legal constructs to obscure simple truth are nothing new.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 9:16:18 PM
Snowrunner: "Yes Shane, I am sure Morghentaler was running down the street chasing pregnant women with a huge butterfly net so that he could indulge in his hobby."
No need. He kept them--and their money--flowing into his office by reputation alone. Some people with pay much to evade responsibility, some will even murder--or pay another to do it for them, so they can tell themselves, "My hands are clean."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 9:19:09 PM
No need. He kept them--and their money--flowing into his office by reputation alone. Some people with pay much to evade responsibility, some will even murder--or pay another to do it for them, so they can tell themselves, "My hands are clean."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 9:19:09 PM
Okay, so: Let's just rehash:
- Morgenthaler decides to provide abortions, because he sees money in it (by your opinion, got proof for that?)
- Women seek him out because they need / want an aborition (in your words: "They wanted to dodge responsiblity", got proof for that by any chance? Or are you just making this up because it fits into your view of the world / women?).
- Morgenthaler is found out and charged.
- Morgenthaler then (in your opinion because he wants to keep the buck rolling in) fights this thing all the way to the supreme court where the Surpreme court decides that his conviction was not in line with his rights an tosses the law under which he was charged and convicted out.
So, just to clarify, the only reason why Morghenthaler (in your opinion, unless you have proof) went all the way to the Surpreme Court was because he wanted to keep the dough rolling in, it had nothing to do with him maybe not wanting to end up in jail and thus he exhausted all the avenues that the legal system offered him?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 9:23:13 PM
P.S. The court's arguments are not convincing; they sound like a Rube-Goldberg legal runaround to avoid what modern science (or for that matter, 19th-century science) can explain in a couple of paragraphs. Until 1988 abortion was illegal because the right to life of the fetus was recognized;
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 9:16:18 PM
I know this whole legal thing-a-ma-jing is hard for you to understand, but let's try this:
Abortion wasn't illegal because the rights of the Fetus was recognize, abortion was illegal (or a criminal act actually) because some law makers decided that this be the case. The law had , up until then, never been challenged, and until a law has been confirmed by the Supreme Court nothing has been recognized.
Just because YOU personally have the opinion that this is this way doesn't make it law.
-------------------
there is no other reason to outlaw it, and there was no reason to consider fetuses a separate legal entity from born humans, so there was no separate entry in the law for them. If fetuses aren't human, what are they? Amphibians?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 9:16:18 PM
There are two different "humans" in law. There is the "legal" human and there is a physical one. You can be physical alive but not legally a human, e.g. if the courts have decided that you do not have the brain capacity to actually make decisions for yourself, in which case the court can appoint a guardian. The question for the court was if the Fetus is a LEGAL person and it ruled under Canadian law it was NOT (and no, the charter didn't play into this, because as the court pointed out the charter only applies to Government action, not civil suits).
------------------
This crew's so-called deliberations sound little different from a 19th-century Indiana Congress that wanted to set, by law, the value of pi at 3.0. Elaborate legal constructs to obscure simple truth are nothing new.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 9:16:18 PM
Yeah, only for people who have zero understanding about the basic principles of civil or common law.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 9:29:28 PM
I choose life.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-07 9:59:33 PM
You are an asshole Karolak.
People have been asking you for years not to spam the threads like that.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-07 11:24:37 PM
And now, your moment of Zen...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related
Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-08 1:14:35 AM
Morgentaler always struck me as a Joseph Mengele wannabe
Posted by: Condor | 2008-07-08 8:20:06 AM
Snowrunner wrote: “Abortion wasn't illegal because the rights of the Fetus was recognize, abortion was illegal (or a criminal act actually) because some law makers decided that this be the case. The law had , up until then, never been challenged, and until a law has been confirmed by the Supreme Court nothing has been recognized.”
Actually, Snowrunner, according to several medical textbooks from the 19th and early 20th centuries, a fetus that died prior to birth was considered to have had a “separate life” and a death certificate was required.
Snowrunner wrote: “Just because YOU personally have the opinion that this is this way doesn't make it law.”
No. But scientific facts do make it true.
Snowrunner wrote: “There are two different "humans" in law.”
Yes—slaves and freemen. Fetuses, of course, fall into the former group.
Snowrunner wrote: “There is the "legal" human and there is a physical one.”
Sounds like a legal fiction to me.
Snowrunner wrote: “You can be physical alive but not legally a human, e.g. if the courts have decided that you do not have the brain capacity to actually make decisions for yourself, in which case the court can appoint a guardian.”
Does that mean people on life-support or in comas are not considered human, either? Are their Charter rights suspended until they wake up? What about sleeping people?
Snowrunner wrote: “The question for the court was if the Fetus is a LEGAL person and it ruled under Canadian law it was NOT (and no, the charter didn't play into this, because as the court pointed out the charter only applies to Government action, not civil suits).”
Apparently the Supreme Court found a fetus sufficiently inhuman that it did not warrant the protection of the Charter.
Snowrunner wrote: “Yeah, only for people who have zero understanding about the basic principles of civil or common law.”
A mealy-mouthed defense of the legal corner into which this country’s top jurists have painted themselves—and us—does not amount to a negation of fact, which is the point. The judges in the case of Morgantaler had enormous latitude, yet couldn’t even reach a consensus as to why they wanted the existing law removed, only that they wanted it removed. Also, common law has only limited influence on judges. At common law a man was allowed—at one time even required—to carry a weapon for his own defence, but good luck finding a judge willing to support that these days.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-08 8:27:05 AM
what is going on with Karolak? Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? what are you talking about?....in reference to the issue that we are discussing I agree with glen, there must be others that are more deserving of the Order of Canada other than someone who specializes in death. I agree with having abortion as a choice, as it is a decision that they will have to live with forever. Again, the Order of Canada should have been bestowed on someone to whose works have a more positive connotation. How is it decided who recieves the Order? I am not familiar with the process.
Posted by: maya | 2008-07-08 8:40:28 AM
A wee bit of poetry for an abortionists "work."
Canada’s “hero?”
By Stephen J. Gray
With fervour he plies his bloody trade
Killing the innocents that God made
Lauded and applauded for his deadly work
Canada’s “hero” does not shirk
Dedicated to killing innocent life
This is a “hero” who causes much strife
His innocent victims cannot escape
For his murderous attention, they just wait
Sleeping peacefully in their Mother’s womb
Soon it will be a deadly tomb
The “hero” will kill them by “choice”
For these little innocents have no voice
The “hero” has courage, so we are told
By some in the media, who are heartless and cold
The truth of the “hero’s” bloody atrocities
Are suppressed and hidden with outrageous verbosity
Slaughtering his victims has won him an award
This is a “hero” who causes discord
An abortionist “ruler” like Mad Nero
This is a man who is Canada’s “hero?”
Stephen J. Gray
July 6, 2008
graysinfo@yahoo.ca website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-07-08 8:43:01 AM
Stephen, I love it! Well done!!
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-08 11:56:58 AM
Mogentaler and Kavorkian will share the same room in Hell. They are both perverts that get off on watching living human beings die.
Posted by: atric | 2008-07-08 3:37:18 PM
This eloquent poem is about the only 'honour' that the abortion-loving Morgentaler deserves.
Posted by: Ricky Martin | 2008-07-08 9:13:11 PM
One wonders where will all this insanity end? An award for KILLING human life?
Humans with No Human Rights
By Stephen J. Gray
“Each passing year brings new and more bizarre delusions being held up as truth”
( David Kupelian, “ The Marketing of Evil” )
The truth is there are no human rights for the most vulnerable in Canada today, namely the innocent child in the mother’s womb. This little innocent can be killed right up to the moment of birth, provided she/he is not wanted. The killing of these little innocents is disguised under the evil marketing slogan of “choice.”
When animals are killed the media shows the bloody mutilated bodies. We see eagles, whales, bears, dogs, cats, seals, rabbits etc. subjected to inhumane acts. And one media article had the headline, “Rabbit-kill research may breach cruelty law”
( article at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rabbitkill-research-may-breach-cruelty-law/2008/02/02/1201801098905.html )
Yet, people are criticized by most of the media if they show the cruelly dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled bodies of little babies slaughtered in abortion clinics, all because this evil is a considered acceptable “choice.” What a dishonest and depraved society we live in that will not show the evidence of the mutilated bodies of humans, but will show the mutilated bodies of animals.
Lifesitenews.com had this headline: “Mother of Seven Arrested Without Warning for Showing Abortion Image” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06092702.html
The article stated: “Six to eight police officers arrived and forcibly put [Mrs. Ryan] in a paddy wagon, while confiscating her sign and umbrella….”
The article goes on to quote the lady’s husband Peter Ryan,
"Here's the analogy," he said. "The Nazi death camps are exterminating Jews. Outside someone protests with an image of the Holocaust. The camp staff complains to police. The person is arrested as a criminal. The slaughter goes on. That's where we now are in this country."
I believe he is bang on with that statement; this arrest smacks of Gestapo-like tactics. Just like Germany under Hitler, you can now get arrested for showing and speaking the truth in this country.
Furthermore, Canada’s political “leaders” are lacking in courage on this butchering of the innocents who are denied their human rights. Witness the political party leaders in the last election where all these political parrots were trying to outdo each other in their support of abortion -all of them noisily squawking from their political perches that they were supportive of “freedom of choice.” What hellish statements from the mouths of supposedly intelligent people. And these “people” want the citizens of this country to vote for them. How can anyone with principles vote for any of them when they do not have the courage to speak out and stop the slaughter of the innocents who have no human rights.
But wait, the politicians are all in agreement that the country will have a “human rights museum.” What a bunch of hypocrites. There are no human rights accorded the child in the womb but they can give multi-millions of taxpayers dollars for a “human rights museum.” One wonders will this museum have a section for the atrocities committed on these little victims who have NO HUMAN RIGHTS. Somehow, I doubt it. This type of killing is “legal” in Canada, and it must be kept hidden from sight.
“Out of sight out of mind,” so the saying goes. We are a country that has lost its sanity of mind. A university “honors” the foremost abortionist in the country. This man is hailed as a “hero” by some and his gory work is acclaimed as “helping women.” And what is this “help” he gives them? As a practitioner of “choice” he kills their unborn children.
And “choice” on abortion at a number of universities seems to be the only speech allowed. Student pro-life clubs have been refused legitimacy and their free speech has been suppressed by the student brown shirts on campus. A few years ago at the university of B.C. a pro-life display was attacked and vandalized by the student supporters of “choice.” But, this is the state of Canada today, where free speech and free expression is under the heel of the jackboot, and the innocent child in the womb is denied his/her human rights.
Stephen J. Gray
March 8, 2008.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Note: to see the atrocities of “choice” go to http://www.AbortionNo.org
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-07-08 9:20:50 PM
Abortionists free women from the consequences of sex, from the nuisance of child bearing and raising, from the responsibilities of motherhood and parenthood, and from the fear of a life-style change. Abortionists allow women to 'have their cake and eat it too'. It seems a good deal for women.
Abortionists also help to reduce the carbon footprint by keeping populations smaller. Maybe women should seek compensation from the government for electing abortion for this reason. After all, they are giving up their child for the betterment of the environment.
Acne and fetuses can be cured.
Posted by: dewp | 2008-07-08 9:34:46 PM
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 8-Jul-08 8:27:05 AM
Once you've read some books that don't contain pictures and have gotten your head out of your own ass come back and try have a discussion.
Until then, enjoy your "nananana I can't HEAAAAR YOUUUUUU".
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-09 6:45:05 PM
You're really losing it, Snowrunner. You didn't even manage to post the quote that time. You're just babbling to yourself. Don't even think this e-wedgie you've tried to administer amounts to a rebuttal. Now play nice or I'll tell your daddy on you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-09 8:08:58 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.