…and this is a 
Canada honors Dr Henry Morgentaler
Category: Reproduction
Posted on: July 8, 2008 9:38 AM, by PZ Myers
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.
Politics
Comments
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.
Posted by: Britomart | July 8, 2008 9:44 AM
I'm thrilled that we've finally honoured him, and perhaps it'll even help with the abortion issues in other countries!
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 8, 2008 9:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Dianne | July 8, 2008 9:45 AM
Canada is looking better all the time, especially when you take hash bars into account.
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 8, 2008 10:03 AM
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.
Posted by: MaryLupin | July 8, 2008 10:05 AM
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!
Posted by: Boomer | July 8, 2008 10:11 AM
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.
Posted by: Chris | July 8, 2008 10:11 AM
I am very proud of my adopted home.
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2008 10:12 AM
Boomer (#6):
Sounds like a win-win situation.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 8, 2008 10:17 AM
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.
Posted by: tceisele | July 8, 2008 10:19 AM
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.
Posted by: Zar | July 8, 2008 10:23 AM
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.
Posted by: Darwin's Minion | July 8, 2008 10:23 AM
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! :-)
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | July 8, 2008 10:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Dianne | July 8, 2008 10:48 AM
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.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 8, 2008 10:53 AM
Let 'em squeal. It would be the most appealing sound that has come out of their mouths in a long, long time.
Posted by: amphiox | July 8, 2008 10:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2008 10:57 AM
This seems like an honour which was actually deserved, unlike many such things (which are generally disgustingly ill-fittingly bestowed).
Posted by: SEF | July 8, 2008 10:58 AM
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.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | July 8, 2008 11:27 AM
"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
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 8, 2008 11:29 AM
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.)
Posted by: Michelle | July 8, 2008 11:33 AM
...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.
Posted by: Michelle | July 8, 2008 11:36 AM
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."
Posted by: Judith in Ottawa | July 8, 2008 11:38 AM
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.
Posted by: Scott | July 8, 2008 11:52 AM
DEATH TO ABORTIONISTS!
- Pro-Lifer
(nope, no double standard there.)
Oh Canada, you're a bit saner than US...
Posted by: Bumba | July 8, 2008 11:56 AM
@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.
Posted by: Michelle | July 8, 2008 11:57 AM
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.
Posted by: Tanya Derbowka | July 8, 2008 12:01 PM
"@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.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 8, 2008 12:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Scott W | July 8, 2008 12:05 PM
@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)
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 8, 2008 12:09 PM
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!!!
Posted by: ebo tebo | July 8, 2008 12:15 PM
@ 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.
Posted by: Scott | July 8, 2008 12:15 PM
Article about Canada vs. US:
How Canada stole the American Dream
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113
Posted by: MJAH | July 8, 2008 12:16 PM
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
Posted by: Blaker6666 | July 8, 2008 12:18 PM
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.
Posted by: Scott | July 8, 2008 12:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Mold | July 8, 2008 12:26 PM
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.
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2008 12:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger | July 8, 2008 12:36 PM
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 ;-)
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 8, 2008 12:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Peter | July 8, 2008 12:44 PM
@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.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | July 8, 2008 12:51 PM
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.
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 8, 2008 1:00 PM
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.
Posted by: djt | July 8, 2008 1:00 PM
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"!
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 8, 2008 1:09 PM
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."
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 8, 2008 1:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 8, 2008 1:20 PM
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.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 8, 2008 1:28 PM
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.)
Posted by: MissPrism | July 8, 2008 1:29 PM
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.
Posted by: Interrobang | July 8, 2008 1:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 8, 2008 1:42 PM
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."
Posted by: Philippe | July 8, 2008 1:49 PM
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.
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 8, 2008 1:52 PM
http://www.artmonthly.org.au/article.asp?contentID=670
Posted by: Spinoza | July 8, 2008 1:54 PM
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."
----
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 8, 2008 1:55 PM
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." :/
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 8, 2008 2:04 PM
@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.
Posted by: Scott | July 8, 2008 2:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 8, 2008 2:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 8, 2008 2:17 PM
@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.
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 8, 2008 2:19 PM
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.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 8, 2008 2:27 PM
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.
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2008 2:31 PM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 8, 2008 2:39 PM
It's the ticking time bomb scenario of abortion...
Posted by: windy | July 8, 2008 2:43 PM
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...
Posted by: Atheist Pro Lifer | July 8, 2008 2:53 PM
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.)
Posted by: amphiox | July 8, 2008 2:58 PM
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?
Posted by: MissPrism | July 8, 2008 3:02 PM
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?
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 8, 2008 3:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 8, 2008 3:04 PM
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...
Posted by: Philippe | July 8, 2008 3:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Jacques | July 8, 2008 3:08 PM
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.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 8, 2008 3:10 PM
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?
Posted by: Jacques | July 8, 2008 3:10 PM
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...
Posted by: katie | July 8, 2008 3:11 PM
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.
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2008 3:17 PM
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.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 8, 2008 3:18 PM
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.
Posted by: Cat of many faces | July 8, 2008 3:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Philippe | July 8, 2008 3:35 PM
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.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 8, 2008 3:45 PM
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".