Re: Morgentaler named to Order of Canada
Henry Morgentaler has a dismal record when it come to taking orders but he seems more than willing to accept this one. In fact, he even said he deserved it. Some have insisted he was joking, but that’s one of the problems with these awards. It gets to where you’re not sure if anyone’s being serious. Remember when Henry Kissinger, the hawk who so relentlessly promoted the Vietnam war, won the Nobel Peace Prize? Perhaps they were thinking of a different Henry Kissinger but somehow he ended up with it. And this is nothing new. Way back in 1521 Henry VIII got the Pope award for “Defender of the Faith”. Embarrassing eh? And the Queen’s still using it on her letterhead just to rub it in. But at least Henry didn’t disgrace the award until after he got it.
Now, if you haven’t already guessed, I’m pro-life. I think Dr Seuss got it exactly right when he said, “A person’s a person no matter how small”. I think the unborn are the “Whos” of our time, and the womb is our “Whoville”. People are people, and to intentionally kill one, if not always murder, is always homicide. But, thanks largely to the courageous efforts of Dr. Morgentaler, abortion, though clearly the intentional killing of someone, is nothing at all in this country. The Supreme Court has decided it’s not a human someone, so it’s herbicide? Clearly not. Pesticide? A bit harsh, but I think we’re getting warmer. It’s whoicide, plain and simple, and I don’t think whoicidal people should get national awards.
But, as they say, it’s an ill wind that blows no good. The folks who decide who gets the OC are clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel, so my name should be coming up soon. And when it does I’m planning to turn it down. It’s not that I think I’m too good to be associated with a man like Morgentaler, it’s just that I’m such a snob. I simply want to continue to be a part of that diminishing company of Canadians who don’t have one.
1 comment:
Good post,
But I'm not sure that the Supreme Court really decided that the fetus isn't a human person. The original abortion law included circumstances under which a woman could procure a legal abortion, i.e. if the continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the woman. This would be determined by a therapeutic abortion committee at a hospital. But, in practice, most women didn't have access to these committees. This was found by the Court to be in conflict with the fundamental principles of justice as, if there are exculpatory circumstances, the determination of this should be accessible to all, not just to the wealthy or to those who live in certain cities. That is why the law was struck down.
This left the path wide open for a new law that would address this problem. But politicians have found it more convenient to avoid the flak of trying to pass a new law and push the responsibility on to the Court.
Parliament's hands are tied not by the Supreme Court but by its members' cowardice and refusal to stand up on one side or the other.
Nathan
Post a Comment