Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Will the rural renaissance bring a new liberty? | Main | One thing leads to another »

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

The good, the bad and the ugly: Canadians respond to Morgentaler's Order of Canada

I’ve written before that my views on abortion don’t go much beyond the position that it should not be an insurable service within our public health care system. Abortion rights advocates can not claim to be pro-choice as long as they demand that pro-lifers finance, with their tax dollars, what they consider to be murder.

My view on Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada may seem equally weak. I can see why pro-lifers are upset, but I would hate for this honour to become a political football...subject to mass opinion and political correctness. For instance, Western Standard columnist, Dr. Jan Narveson, is a member of the Order of Canada. He’s also an anti-statist and a global warming denier. It would have been a shame if his distinguished academic career had been deemed unworthy of the highest recognition because his views are controversial or contrary to conventional wisdom.

That being written, I did read most of the responses to Morgentaler’s Order of Canada that filled my inbox, and they range from reasonable to just plain gross. Here are the good, the bad and the ugly:

The good

In a July 1, 2008 press release, ProWomanProLife.org, the grassroots organization of pro-life Canadian women, issued this strong but reasonable statement:

We condemn the choice of Dr. Morgentaler for membership in the Order of Canada because he is known exclusively for advocating and carrying out the destruction of human life. His actions have not benefited but rather have damaged women’s health, both mental and physical. Honouring him with the Order of Canada amounts to nothing less than a celebration of abortion, which is a painful and traumatic procedure for so many women.

We also oppose the anti-democratic process which led to his nomination. “Whatever you think about Dr. Morgentaler,” says Andrea Mrozek, founding director of ProWomanProLife, “we condemn the lack of democratic process. Honouring him goes against the will of Canadians, as was clearly shown by the public outcry in February 2008 when there were public media reports about the possibility of his nomination. ProWomanProLife is deeply concerned that due process was not followed in choosing him as a member.”

The bad

Today, staff at the Madonna House, an Ontario-based Catholic community, returned the Order of Canada that was awarded to the community’s founder, Catherine Doherty.

LifeSiteNews reported that Catherine Doherty, who died in 1985, was awarded the Order of Canada in 1976 in recognition of "a lifetime of devoted services to the underprivileged of many nationalities, both in Canada and abroad."

Fr. David May, a director with the Madonna House, said he prayed about the issue and then decided to return the award, which was not his to return, in order to make a media splash. I’m sure May’s motives are pure, but since it is impossible to know whether or not Doherty would have chosen to return her Order of Canada in protest, this seems like a bad move.

The ugly

Pro-life activists will know the name Bill Whatcott. Whatcott is a grassroots anti-abortion activist who runs www.freenorthamerica.com. When he heard the news of Morgentaler’s Order of Canada, Whatcott responded viscerally:

“I got an image of the Order of Canada, crapped on it, wrapped it up and mailed it to the Governor General to communicate my utter contempt of her office, her arrogance, her anti-Christian/ anti-life bigotry and the now corrupted and irrelevant Order of Canada in general.”

There’s a picture that accompanies Whatcott’s email statement, but I’ll leave that to you to dig up.

So there you have it – the good, the bad and the ugly from pro-life Canadians not yet ready to abandon the abortion debate.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on July 9, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5539037228833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The good, the bad and the ugly: Canadians respond to Morgentaler's Order of Canada:

Comments

Events such as these always bring out the fanatics.....from both sides. The one side of the issue that pro-lifers never address is the amount of deaths of women prior to having access to legal abortions....but maybe those lives don't matter as much to them. I am for choice...whatever it may be as no one has to live with that choice but the person who makes it.I don't understand why people feel fit to judge others and the choices they make.

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-09 9:45:46 AM


"...but I would hate for this honour to become a political football.." - Matthew Johnston

Too late Matt! The Good, the Bad and the Ugly pretty much describes the awards recipients from all viewpoints. By its nature the order of Canada has to be a political (PC) football. The Order should be abolished and awards of accomplishment should be left to NGOs or agencies within the related fields so as not to represent the nation as a whole.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-07-09 9:50:03 AM


Truth is beautiful, lies are ugly. Not quite as ugly as Matthew Johnston's hideous and poorly concealed hate for social conservatives, but still ugly.

I only know Bill Whatcott from Google and his posts at FreeDominion. He may be a bit "off" and his graphics leave much to be desired, but it is pleasing to see a Canadian courageously speak his mind and counterattack the anti-Christ haters and the rest of the PC crew that is destroying Canada. He speaks the truth, which is beautiful.

I think Canada needs more men like Bill Whatcott, and fewer men like Matthew Johnston.

Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-09 10:49:54 AM


Hey, Mocker. When Bill Whatcott was in one of his legal battles as a result of his pro-life activism, I provided him and his law firm with free advertising in the Western Standard so that they could promote their case and raise money.

I'm not hostile toward so-cons. In fact, I've been outspoken on the need for a socially conservative culture in the libertarian movement.

I am, however, hostile toward statism.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-09 11:00:16 AM


See the work of abortionists at: http://www.AbortionNo.org Then ask yourself is this slaughter of the innocents deserving of an award. Also ask yourself why the "investigative" media doesn't show the atrocity? So much for "truth" in journalism.

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-07-09 11:41:06 AM


Why is it impossible to know what Catherine Doherty would have done? She's left behind a great body of work in both writings and people she has influenced. I've seen the lady in action... I think Fr. David May was likely restrained by comparison.

Posted by: Frank Russo | 2008-07-09 1:03:40 PM


Thanks for the comment, Frank. While there may be little doubt that Doherty was pro-life, I doubt you'll find in her writings a specific reference to what she might do if Morgentaler were to receive the Order of Canada.

Perhaps she may have wanted to use her membership in the Order of Canada to affect change from within. I'm only speculating now, of course.

Also, her Order of Canada recognition was for her work unrelated to anti-abortion advocacy.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-09 1:35:28 PM


"Maya" should return to primary school and learn basic maths. The number of women who died from illegal abortions is many orders of magnitude less than those unborn babies murdered by such as Dr. Morgentaler or George Tiller The Baby Killer of Kansas, USA.

Does she regret that her mother did not have an abortion for her?

Posted by: James Pawlak | 2008-07-09 2:33:36 PM


See full article at:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070903.html

Prominent North American Rabbi Condemns "DisOrder of Canada" Award to Abortionist
"A terrible reflection on a country that can honor a person based on his self-professed elimination of 100,000 preborn children"

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, July 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a spokesman for the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, and the Rabbinical Alliance of America with a combined membership of well over a thousand Rabbis, has forcefully condemned the award of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler.

"I think that the award presented to Dr. Death Morgentaler should more aptly be called the 'Disorder of Canada' because it's a terrible reflection on a country that can honor a person based on his elimination - self-professed elimination of 100,000 preborn children," Rabbi Levin told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview today.

Speaking in his capacity as spokesman for over a thousand Rabbis in the United States and Canada, Rabbi Levin stated: "I want to forcefully condemn whoever is responsible for misrepresenting millions of Canadian citizens, misrepresenting their love and respect for God's gift of life by giving an award to such a monster." He added: "This is another giant step down the slippery slope towards wholesale murder of babies, old people and undesirables."

Speaking of Morgentaler's Jewish roots, Rabbi Levin said, "As a Jew this man is a tremendous embarrassment to us and opposes Genesis 9:6 which indicates that feticide is a capital offence from the earliest times of the world's history."

The Jewish leader praised the actions of honored Canadians who were returning their Order of Canada awards in protest of the decision to award Morgentaler. "We all stand with the courageous and noble awardees who have returned their awards because of this outrage," he said.

In conclusion, Rabbi Levin stressed that faithful citizens must understand that "until the clergy of the various religious speak out constantly, courageously, and uncompromisingly to the powers that be, criticizing them, even if its politically unpopular or incorrect or uncomfortable," we will not succeed. "Until the religious leaders totally take on the corrupt justices in the various countries, the corrupt courts, the corrupt political leaders and name them and prohibit voting for such people based on religious reasons - until this happens we are going to continue to see the other side taking unfair advantage and further polluting the culture and brainwashing a younger generation as to the basic standards of right and wrong."


Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-07-09 4:37:13 PM


James Pawlak....
making personal attacks on me only illustrates that the you have no valued input on the subject. My point still stands....we will never truly know how many women died during botched attempts at abortions. Common sense would indicate the persons responsible for these deaths certainly wouldn't want it brought to light how and why the women died. Home abortions have been happening as long as women have been getting pregnant...I certainly don't think James that you have ever carried a child let alone delivered one which further reduces the value of your ignorant opinion.

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-09 5:19:31 PM


maya,

Personal attacks are not necessary and cancel any value the argument had.

If I cannot convince society that abortion is murder, then I would only ask that I not be made to pay for it.

I would say though that the idea of choice and judgment are not exclusive to one side or the other. If, for example, a person believes that stealing is wrong, they will pass judgment on the person who steals. They do not need to ever have known anyone who had anything stollen, nor do they need to have ever owned anything worth steeling, to be right in passing judgment.

If I believe that an unborn baby is as human and unique as you are from me, my son is from me, then I would also consider an abortion to be as moral as killing my one day old son.

You and I believe murder is wrong and will pass judgment on murderers. Neither of us need to ever have known anyone who was murdered. We pass judgment but draw the line at a different point.

Also, if I believe that the unborn are humans, unique from their mother or father, then I would submit to you that they have to choice in getting killed in an abortion.

From that perspective, the pro life advocates are more pro choice than the pro choice camp. In addition, the pro life advocates would at the very least, ask to have a choice about paying for abortions. Yet again, there is no choice about this.

Finally, as a man, I respect other's freedoms. But I also speak out against wrong. You would expect me to speak out against abortion if I believed it to be ending another humans life.

Put yourself in the shoes of a pro life woman who sincerely believes the unborn are humans. Imagine paying for abortions by force, then seeing the order of Canada bestowed upon the most prominent abortion activist in Canadian history! It truly brings tears to my eyes.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-09 7:30:29 PM


The good,the bad,and the ugly. How about the ridiculous,Don Newman recieved the order of Canada for displaying the 'integrity of the media' or something as equally silly. No,he got it as a consolation prize for not being named a GG.

Posted by: wallyj | 2008-07-09 7:59:45 PM


You're forgetting, Maya, that most of the rationale for these "home abortions," i.e, shame, disgrace, and social marginalization, no longer apply. A woman no longer need fear her entire reputation ruined by an ill-considered dalliance. And with adoption agencies crying for healthy children, there really is no excuse left for abortion.

If you don't want to get pregnant, then drink it, inhale it, wrap it, dissolve it, screw it, press it, bang it, or whatever. Make sure it's in there and in there good, because dismembering an unborn infant alive is not an option for an ethical, rational being.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-09 8:06:42 PM


If I cannot convince society that abortion is murder, then I would only ask that I not be made to pay for it. ---TM

I understand your point..... the cost of abortion being funded by health care however is not something that any of us (the little people)have any say in. There are many things that our tax dollars are used for that bring tears to my eyes however it does not change the fact that I still have to pay my taxes. As I previously stated...I am for choice, what my choices would be are personal but I firmly beleive in women having access to that choice (abortion) without persecution. I also think that there are more befitting recipients of the Order of Canada, but again it is not up to us to decide. Which is really sad because as it is labelled it sounds as if we the "Canadians" have a say, and we do not. The abortion issue will be debated until the end of time (or unwanted pregnancies), and really there are valid arguments for both sides. I can say that I feel lucky to have never been faced with such a decision as my pregnancies were wanted. I have a friend who had to make the choice at too young an age, and not due to having consensual sex. Do we ask a 13 year old girl to carry the reminder of the most terrifying experience of her life for 10 months? To always wonder if the result of that might someday track her down and want to know why they were given up (to reference adoption as an option). I don't want it to be assumed either that I am saying well it's OK but only if it was rape, becuase I am not. That is just an experience that I have knowledge of that I feel shows how many factors there are in this debate. There are just too many situations to have a black and white answer, we each have to do what we feel is right and live with that choice. Being pregnant, creating a life was the most amazing,magical and really just the best experience of my life, being a mother defines who I am. But I had that kind of experience because I was ready, loved and ready to love another. I truly and sincerley appreciate the points you have made...and I appreciate your opinions being presented in a respectful manner- thank you. Through debates such as these that force us to look at ouselves and our beleives we grow stronger...even if we disagree.

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-09 8:29:57 PM


shane mathews,
sadly it sounds as if you, like many are making the assumption that all unwanted pregnancies are a result of dirty girls out getting laid not thinking about the consequences. That is just not the case. Plain and simple my stand is this....there are just too many situations to have a black and white answer, we each have to do what we feel is right and live with the choices we make. I also really beleive and I mean this with respect, that men do not have the full understanding of what it means to be pregnant. And I am sure that's going to open a whole new can of worms...but I beleive it all the same.

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-09 8:45:36 PM


maya,

Thanks, and I appreciate your words and your honesty.

Regarding your comment about men not understanding, it is true. Just like I can't adequatly explain what it is like to be a dad for the first time. Just consider though, that when you believe as I do, that the unborn are unique, separate from the mother. Viewed this way, men have as much right to comment as anyone. On this point I am sure we will agree to disagree.

Until next time...

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-09 10:22:04 PM


Again, Maya, with the sob stories. Too young an age, non-consensual, impoverished and pregnant, facing a life of ruin...these do not describe all, or even a large minority, of the 110,000 women a year who get abortions. I know it and you know it. Painting extreme cases as an example of the norm is downright deceitful. Bad cases make for bad law.

Also, that "we do what we feel is right and live with the choices" horsecrap is just that--horsecrap. A thief could say the same. Or an arsonist. Or a murderer. We have laws for a reason, and that is because some people can live with a hell of a lot. What about the rest of us who may be their victims? Especially those who as yet have no voice?

Finally, the claim that "men have no understanding what it means to be pregnant" is the oldest red herring in the book. It is an appeal to emotion, and emotion has no place in the making of public policy. Just because men never get pregnant doesn't mean they lose the right to look at a set of medically accepted facts and arrive at a conclusion. The fetus is alive because it has a heartbeat and brain waves, not because the mother says it is. Ownership of the fetus as pro-abortion types demand amounts to slavery.

All belief is always irrelevant when making sound and just public policy. They require no proof, no justification, and can be held to no standard. The only two things that matter are facts and ethics, and neither of these is on your side.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-09 10:55:12 PM


"A thief could say the same. Or an arsonist. Or a murderer. We have laws for a reason,"
Thats correct..we have laws for a reason and abortion is currently legal. "It is an appeal to emotion, and emotion has no place in the making of public policy." As human a human being we all have emotions and to say that they can be turned off sounds quite ridiculous. Unless you plug yourselve in at night, your emotions affect every part of your day and all your decisions. Granted that all emotion should be tempered by logic so we can reasonable in our actions and thoughts they are still a factor. I absolutely did not state that men do not have a right to an opinion, only that they do not have the first hand experience to include in there opinions. You say that " Painting extreme cases as an example of the norm is downright deceitful. Bad cases make for bad law." However as I previously stated "That is just an experience that I have knowledge of that I feel shows how many factors there are in this debate." Are the majority of abortions the result of poor contraception planning or none at all...perhaps but no one really knows but those women, to claim that you know seems far fetched. The choice to carry to term or not is still the womens until medical technology advances to the state that men can carry a fetus. When that day comes it will be interesting to see if the topics of debate for and against abortion change. Here it is.....I personally (and I wasn't going to go here but I think it clarifies my stand) have never and could never abort a fetus, but that does not mean I entitle myself to make that same choice for all. Another related topic, that I am curious to hear the pro-life stand on is persistent vegetative state. This came into mind with your comment, "the fetus is alive because it has a heartbeat and brain waves"......just curious

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-10 6:21:56 AM


I am puzzled why you slotted the Madonna House return of the Order of Canada into the bad category. Anyone who witnessed TV news coverage of the event could see that it was done with dignity, and respect.

Your assertion that the Order of Canada went to Madonna House founder, the late Catherine Dougherty and was not their's to return is baseless. The current Madonna House administration addressed this issue directly. When she received her Order of Canada, Ms. Dougherty made a point of stating that it really belonged to Madonna House and all those whose work built and sustained the organization. Therefore it was their's to return if conscience compelled them to do so, which it clearly did.


Nothing bad about any of that.

Posted by: JMD | 2008-07-10 6:38:56 AM


Maya wrote: Thats correct..we have laws for a reason and abortion is currently legal.”

Not so much legal, as not illegal. However, slavery was at one time legal, and in this respect still is. And this is a complete reversal of your early point that people should simply be left to do as they please and “have to live with it.” Which is it, Maya?

Maya wrote: “As human a human being we all have emotions and to say that they can be turned off sounds quite ridiculous. Unless you plug yourselve in at night, your emotions affect every part of your day and all your decisions. Granted that all emotion should be tempered by logic so we can reasonable in our actions and thoughts they are still a factor.”

Emotions are a factor in governing individual behaviour. They are not a factor in creating policy that EVERYONE has to follow, simply because they require no justification, no rationale, no justice, and can be held to no standard. If you cannot separate emotion from facts and ethics, you have no business in helping create public policy. Just because you can’t imagine taking a decision without consulting your feelings doesn’t mean others can’t, don’t, or shouldn’t.

Maya wrote: “I absolutely did not state that men do not have a right to an opinion, only that they do not have the first hand experience to include in there opinions.”

Mothers have the first-hand experience of a child growing and kicking in their womb and yet are still able to flush it if their convenience is at stake. All this argument does is reinforce the fact that female pro-abortionists today already know all the medically relevant facts, and simply don’t care. People like this are the ones who drown puppies in sacks filled with bricks, or worse, pay someone else to do it.

Maya wrote: “However as I previously stated "That is just an experience that I have knowledge of that I feel shows how many factors there are in this debate."

The relevant factors are these: 1) Use protection; and 2) If you don’t, it’s the next nine months of YOUR life, baby. Why should someone else pay for your mistake? Do you really believe yourself to be that special?

Maya wrote: “Are the majority of abortions the result of poor contraception planning or none at all...perhaps but no one really knows but those women, to claim that you know seems far fetched.”

Horseshit. You know, for the same reason that everybody knows. There were 110,000 abortions in Canada last year, one for every three live births. Unless you can make a case that they were all rape or incest, that only leaves carelessness.

Maya wrote: “The choice to carry to term or not is still the womens until medical technology advances to the state that men can carry a fetus.”

The time for choosing is before conception, not after there’s a life kicking in your belly. Making this into a male/female wedge issue is a craven cop-out. It would be the easiest thing in the world for parents of already-born children to say, “The decision whether to let them live or not is ours unless someone else is willing to raise them.” After all, parenthood takes twenty YEARS of your life, not nine stinking months.

Maya wrote: “Here it is.....I personally (and I wasn't going to go here but I think it clarifies my stand) have never and could never abort a fetus, but that does not mean I entitle myself to make that same choice for all.”

And yet that is exactly what you do whenever you vote. You’re simply ducking having to make a stand. I fail to see why this one issue should be placed so completely outside the legal system.

Maya wrote: “Another related topic, that I am curious to hear the pro-life stand on is persistent vegetative state. This came into mind with your comment, "the fetus is alive because it has a heartbeat and brain waves"......just curious”

People should not be allowed to starve a patient any more than they should be allowed to Hoover up a fetus. If they can breathe on their own, there’s not a lot of justification for leaving them to die of hunger and thirst, is there?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-10 8:02:00 AM


Pregnancy terms are 40 weeks shane, thats 10 months not 9. I dont't drown puppies in sacks and certainly don't ask anyone to do so for me. "And this is a complete reversal of your early point that people should simply be left to do as they please and “have to live with it.” Which is it, Maya?" How is this a complete reversal of my stand? I still say that each individual is entitled and responsible for THEIR choices. Whether the choice is legal/illegal is another issue completely. "Emotions are a factor in governing individual behaviour. They are not a factor in creating policy that EVERYONE has to follow, simply because they require no justification, no rationale, no justice, and can be held to no standard." If people make the polices (which we do, not the cats and dogs of the world) then emotion is involved whether you recognize it or not. Yes you are correct, I guess my 13 yr old friend should have asked her 19 yr old neighbour who raped her (got into her home after school by saying that his power was out and needed to use her phone) to use a condom. what was she thinking? "The time for choosing is before conception, not after there’s a life kicking in your belly. Making this into a male/female wedge issue is a craven cop-out. It would be the easiest thing in the world for parents of already-born children to say, “The decision whether to let them live or not is ours unless someone else is willing to raise them.” After all, parenthood takes twenty YEARS of your life, not nine stinking months." Only 20 years... I plan on my children being the focus of my care and concern for the rest of my life. You seem quick to point out the responsibility of the women to plan and prepare the contraception....what about the man? baby making takes 2! I agree that contraception should be thought of beforehand, and is readily available in most cities through health units. That still does not negate that safe abortions should be available when neccessary. It is disgusting if a women were to use abortion as a means of birth control,on that you and I agree. Maybe someday a process could be divised by which the fetus could be safely removed and put in an incubator or who knows another woman..or man? Who is to say what science will come up with. "And yet that is exactly what you do whenever you vote. You’re simply ducking having to make a stand. I fail to see why this one issue should be placed so completely outside the legal system" Um I can't think of any time is the last 15 yrs that I have been voting that any politician has said...hey maya what do you want us to do with your taxes? HAve you been asked? If so I am sure you are the only one. We all know the BS that gets tossed around when it comes to platform time so don't pin that abortions are covered by healthcare on this cat. At the end of the day (I have to get back to work) thanks for the brain food.....your opinions are always well stated and you are obviosuly intelligent enough to present your opinion without being rude or abusive. Have a good one!

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-10 9:19:21 AM


People not being allowed to " Hoover up a fetus" is a good point, but if it isn't done cleanly & safely,alternative ways will be found and I "shudder" to think.....

Posted by: Glenn Schneidmiller | 2008-07-10 9:52:25 AM


Glenn, that's like saying that if people aren't allowed to shoot their enemies quickly and cleanly, they'll go back to using knives and clubs, and therefore shooting people should be legal. The solution is to make murder illegal regardless of the means.

Will passing a law eliminate undesirable behaviour? No. But we pass them anyway because with these laws we can MINIMIZE the undesirable behaviour. At 110,000 abortions per year, the numbers really have no place to go but down.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-10 10:04:47 AM


1. Wrong, Maya. The average number of days in a calendar month is 30.4, which means there are 4.4 weeks in a month, not 4.0. Works out to 9.2 months.

2. Maybe you don’t drown pups, but some people do, and using the logic with which you defend abortion, it should be both justifiable and legal, for the same reason. It’s not, of course, which is my point.

3. You stated that abortion is legal, appealing to respect for the law. But you would not respect the law if it said the opposite, instead appealing to making the person “free to make the choice and live with the result.” You can’t have it both ways.

4. I know emotion is involved in policy-making. It shouldn’t be. Abortion laws (or lack thereof, a world first) are a very good example of what happens when emotion trumps reason. For that matter, so are the Nazis. The fact that none of us is Mister Spock doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aspire to it when appropriate.

5. What happened to your friend, while terrible, was a rarity. It doesn’t become less so because you know her personally. The entire body of case evidence must be considered. The point stands—bad cases make for bad law.

6. Of course you’ll be involved with your children for the rest of your life (with any luck). But after 20 or so years they’ll be able to support themselves and will no longer be a burden to you (also with any luck). The point is, if it’s not okay to kill young children to avoid the hassle of bringing them up, why should it be okay to kill the unborn for the same reason? The answer is, it isn’t.

7. Yes, it’s the woman’s job to prepare the contraception. Because the woman has full right of refusal, and it is she who gets pregnant, not the man. Of course a responsible and prepared male is great, but if he’s neither responsible nor prepared, she can always turn him down, and should avoid him thereafter.

8. I agree abortion should be available if necessary. But it’s only necessary if the woman’s life is in danger. Any other time it’s not a necessity but a convenience—and convenience, by definition, is not a necessity.

9. There have been several referenda in the last few years. Also, whenever you vote in elections, you’re voting for a government that has promised to do this, this, and this, and by voting for them you agree, yes, the law should say this and should be able to compel people to do this. You agree to this even if they don’t ultimately do it, because it was your rationale for voting for them. On the other hand, you don’t vote, you lose all right to complain about either government or the laws.

10. Thanks.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-10 10:29:21 AM


I disagree with the Order of Canada being given to Morgentaler. If he is all about women's rights, and keeping women safe, then why doesn't he check out all of the statistics that prove that there is more destruction done to a women after an abortion, then if she was to carry full term. Also if he was so concerned about "women's rights" then why doesn't he give some of his $11 million to help with the damage a woman experiences after an abortion!

Some statistics show, an increased suicide rate after an abortion, a connection to several different types of cancer, a high potential of death the year after an abortion, possibly never being able to conceive again, and the list goes on and on.

If we are all about pro choice because it is in the best interest of the woman, then why aren't we educating women to the life time of depression and torment they will experience after their choice for an abortion because it is "better" for them!

Somethings we should ask Morgentaler and everyone else that is pro choice!

Posted by: Amy | 2008-07-10 11:47:38 AM


Shane, passing more laws is great idea, but you know as well as I do that people break most of the laws out there right now because the government won't or can't enforce them.

Posted by: Glenn Schneidmiller | 2008-07-10 11:51:13 AM


Oy, Maya. Could you please use paragraph breaks next time? I'd like to see what you have to say, but it's rather difficult parsing a huge, monolithic block of text.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-10 11:56:50 AM


8. I agree abortion should be available if necessary. But it’s only necessary if the woman’s life is in danger. Any other time it’s not a necessity but a convenience—and convenience, by definition, is not a necessity.

"6. The point is, if it’s not okay to kill young children to avoid the hassle of bringing them up, why should it be okay to kill the unborn for the same reason? The answer is, it isn’t."

I couldn't agree with you more on # 6.

I think maybe you and I agree more than we think, I also beleive that abortion is an absolute last resort when no other option is available as it certainly is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Perhaps a resolution to the issue (of the cost being covered by healthcare) is to have some kind of screening done by the doctors to determine whos procedure is necessary and who's is not? I really don't know what the current process is, but perhaps something like when it is determined to be not necessary the women are required to pay for it themselves might be a solution. If there are women who are repeats for abortions....mandatory counselling?

"9. There have been several referenda in the last few years. Also, whenever you vote in elections, you’re voting for a government that has promised to do this, this, and this, and by voting for them you agree, yes, the law should say this and should be able to compel people to do this. You agree to this even if they don’t ultimately do it, because it was your rationale for voting for them. On the other hand, you don’t vote, you lose all right to complain about either government or the laws."

I always vote, so that I can feel entitled to complain (lol)! But lets be truthful about party agendas...it is pretty tricky to navigate through the dung sometimes.

Sorry terrance...I am working and blogging at the same time.

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-10 2:19:04 PM


I'm pretty darned sure that, were she alive, Catherine Doherty would have returned the Order of Canada seeing as Henry Morgentaler has been awarded it.

Madonna House (not "the Madonna House" of the above article) is the fruit of Catherine Doherty's life of poverty and sacrifice for the poor of the world, the "little ones" of the world. The community left with her legacy, after her death in 1985, I'm quite sure can confidently speak for her--and, I expect, she would expect that. (I'm sure they would have prayed about this decision, and come to a concensus.)

I can't concur that Madonna House's returning Catherine Doherty's OC is "bad." Her whole life's work was to restore God's creation to wholeness, so that His creation "in the image of God" would be honoured.

It is inconceivable that, once someone whose sole purpose has been to fragment and dishonour the crown of God's creation--human beings made in the image of God--was given the highest citizenship award in Canada, Catherine Doherty and the community she founded would NOT feel compelled to return this "honour," now tarnished beyond recognition.

Posted by: batb | 2008-07-11 7:50:42 PM


You wrote that Fr. May "said he prayed ... then decided to return the award ... in order to make a media splash." I think the way you worded it might be unintentionally putting words into Fr. May's mouth -- I don't believe he actually _said_ that God told him to do this purely for media attention.

Not to say that wasn't his motive -- just that your opinion in your post should probably be more distinguishable from the other person's actual words. ;)

Posted by: Mecandes | 2008-07-15 9:31:49 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.