ProWomanProLife

  • The Story
  • The Women
  • Notable Columns
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for Morgentaler

A note from the past

November 30, 2015 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

The source needs to remain anonymous, but someone just emailed me this:

Just read a letter from a doctor to the Therapeutic Abortion Committee of a hospital from 1979 where the family doctor requested approval for a therapeutic abortion. The reason it was “recommended” was that the father was a married man who had been living apart from his wife but who had since gone back to her. Then, I read the description of the procedure which occurred at 17 weeks gestation. Horrific. But it demonstrated that abortions really were granted for just about any reason at all.”

This lends credence to the decidedly anti-feminist proposition that abortion serves to conceal a man’s indiscretions. The woman lives with the consequences regardless.

 

Filed Under: All Posts, Featured Posts Tagged With: Morgentaler

Jean Vanier and making room for the unwanted

December 2, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 5 Comments

The Globe and Mail of all places had an interesting exchange on abortion between Ian Brown, who has written about his struggles with his son’s disabilities before, and Jean Vanier, who has also been awarded the Order of Canada for his work.

I am less interested in Ian Brown’s points, if only because he is basically asking a question of Jean Vanier: How could he keep his Order of Canada? (Brown expresses discomfort with abortion, especially the kind that would see his son killed in the womb but then says he can’t get away from a woman’s choice. I would merely suggest “choice” is not a value. “Faith, hope, love and choice, and the greatest of these is choice”? Um, not really.)  

I read Vanier’s thoughts closely. I first read them with sadness and then, as I began to consider them more, with a sense of respect–finally, I came around and thought–this is a type of pro-life discourse that could bring even the uninterested Globe reader around. It is, in the end, pro-life discourse.

In his letter, Vanier says he is keeping his Order of Canada. He doesn’t say abortion is wrong, or evil. There’s also a fair amount of mundane “motherhood and apple pie” statements.

He gets at what make this country great:

It is important that we re-find this identity, that we encourage the young of our land (in whom we should have much hope) to discover the beauty of being Canadians with our own specific culture – peacemakers, people who give life, who become a sign that peace is possible in our world; to discover that our land is called to be a place of welcome not just for wealthy and competent people from other lands but also for refugees, for people from war-torn and poverty-stricken lands.” (emphasis mine)

In short, he is saying that Canada should be a place where the unwanted are welcome. (Even unwanted babies, one could add. )  

He speaks of the sexual urge that “flows from a deep cry of loneliness.” There are few who sleep with someone for the cheap thrills, rather, it is because people are lonely. We all want to be known. We want companionship. And having a baby may be the furthest thing from our minds…

I really agree with him that loneliness is a terrible driver, both of sleeping with someone who doesn’t know you, not really, and then subsequently having an abortion. “And then too often,” he writes, “we see the shame, anger and despair of a woman who finds she is becoming a mother… her anguish makes her seek an abortion.”

I can see this.

“I do not want to say such a person in anguish is a ‘killer’. I would like to walk with her—maybe cry with her.”

Sure, and that’s the point of PWPL. Though I do think I’d like to prevent her from killing, while walking and crying with her. But still, I see his point.

Then he writes, “so we are not in front of something which is either ‘abortion’ or ‘not abortion,’ ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice.’ We are in front of something so much more complex.”

Pro-lifers are in this habit of saying abortion is not complicated, it is all so very simple. They are right, because abortion takes a life, and that is simple. And pro-choicers are in this habit of saying it is all very complex—and they are right, because that is how it feels to the people involved–there are many factors driving her to the clinic.

He then says:

Maybe the real question is: What is the meaning of our life? What does it mean to be human?”

Aha. And that is indeed a good question. I happen to believe if more women asked this, and more people responded appropriately, with encouragement, then we’d see more and more women empowered to “choose life” (understanding that we’d rather not choose killing as a routine course of action). (Too many women in the moment of a crisis are not asking big, philosophical questions, but rather the detailed short-term ones. Can I afford this? Can I finish school? Will he stick around? Do I want him to? etc.)

Anyway, Vanier’s life is compelling, compassionate, and if he doesn’t want to fall into all the ancient, unproductive and shrill rhetoric from both camps—then TRUST ME–I’m AOK with that.

On the notion of keeping the Order of Canada, he says the Order should go to those who “give and foster life.” Vanier sounds like a smart man—he must know that’s not what Morgentaler does. In that sense, he is keeping his Order of Canada perhaps so the Order is not devoid of those who do great things: give and foster life.

I don’t agree, I’d give mine back pronto. (If I had one.) But I see his point—Canada is a great country, and if we have such honours then they might as well be peopled by great men (and women). (Put your knickers back on, my feminist friends, it’s a turn of phrase).

Morgentaler should be the one to go. In due time, I believe he’ll be removed, as we hang our heads and reassess a time in Canadian history where we did not make room, we had no time–for those we chose to call “unwanted”.  

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Ian Brown, Jean Vanier, Morgentaler

Now he’s a “catalyst for change”

October 11, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

I didn’t watch the awards ceremony for Morgentaler. It’s a very busy season, right now, but even if it weren’t, I’d probably prefer root canal.

I note from this article that Morgentaler

was praised as “a catalyst for change and important debate.”

Important debate, yes. Except that my opponents have been arguing since I was born that there is no debate. That’s over, done. Resolved. No one questions “abortion rights.”

Summarizing, then, the freedom of speech issue–when you support abortion, you are a catalyst for an important debate. When you are against abortion you are a pesk, some spending time in jail, others sidelined from their working spheres, be it politics, law, medicine or journalism.

Again, euphemisms are the hallmark of the “abortion rights” world. It’s almost exclusively through concealing what they stand for that they win.

________________________

Véronique adds: The headline of the day, from my local French newspaper (Le Droit). A quote, presumably taken from the award ceremony (I couldn’t say, I was not invited.):

Une société plus humaine” (A more humane society).

With less humans in it.

That makes sense. Doesn’t it?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Governor General MIchaelle Jean, Morgentaler, Rideau Hall, Show the truth

Honours

September 8, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek 1 Comment

An ad in today’s Hill Times asks for a review of how the Order of Canada Advisory Council works. Wouldn’t we all like to know.

As an aside, just found out two of my favourite historians are members: Michael Bliss and Michael Marrus. (Yes indeed, I have “favourite historians” and a growing collection of signed books. Imagine how lucky a girl is when she has signed copies of books by Martin Gilbert and Norman Davies. But I digress.)  

Here’s the problem–Bliss and Marrus deserve real honour. Michael Bliss never taught me, Professor Marrus did, and his was easily one of the best classes I ever took in five years at UofT. Thing is, he was a stickler for using the right words…

Could he possibly think that Morgentaler getting this award for “health care” is accurate? That supporting “a woman’s right to choose” for all its “truthiness,” makes any sense at all?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Henry Morgentaler and Order of Canada, Hill Times, Michael Marrus, Morgentaler, Order of Canada, truthiness

Not very impressive, no matter where you look

August 18, 2008 by Brigitte Pellerin Leave a Comment

I found this news story added very little to anything. But good grief, have a look at the kinds of comments readers have left, here. Sheesh.

___________________________

Andrea adds: From the Globe article:

In light of the role that she has assigned to herself, I’d be surprised if many people would have a problem with the way that she carries out that particular role,” Chief Justice Scott added.

“The role she has assigned herself”? Is this truly the way the system works? At that level? The Chief Justice sits on the committee to do whatever she assigns herself to do? There are also conflicting reports. Some say she never involves herself, and this story says she votes in cases of a tie. So which is it? I might also add, it is August 18. This controversy came up July 1. Is that the amount of time it takes for some communications specialist in the Governor General’s office to explain how things work? Since no one’s talking, they can hardly be surprised–Justice McLachlin can hardly be surprised–that people don’t know what to think and that there’s “misinformation” and “rumours” swirling.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Beverley McLachlin, Morgentaler

Perceptions of bias

August 14, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Media writes that conservative Christians have filed a complaint against Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin for her role in getting Morgentaler into the Order of Canada–when abortion is a matter that may yet come before the courts.

First off, a bronze medal to the mainstream media for doing no research and for exhibiting a bias in the opening line of the report. It’s good to know that some things never change, like death and taxes. Life rolls on at a quick quip and I personally, as a small-c conservative, like to know that some traditions are constant, nay, immutable, like the rocks of Easter Island, and as receptive to change and new ideas, too. (A gold would have been achieved by ignoring the story all told. I suppose in that sense, the MSM fell behind their usual high standards.)

As a small aside, last I checked, Physicians for Life is not a conservative, Christian group. But no matter. Let’s say it is exclusively conservative Christians who are concerned about Justice McLachlin being intimately involved. If that is the case, I have one question: Why aren’t more people concerned? Tis merely a matter of justice and equality in our court system, I suppose. Booooooorrrrrring.

________________________

Tanya adds: Let me get this straight, then.  Using the term ‘Christian’ here doesn’t make the article more eye-catching, and it doesn’t make it more accurate.  So what does it do?

 

It again marginalizes pro-lifers to some off-shore religious sub-culture.  Don’t tell me the media doesn’t have a political agenda. (Perish the thought!)

 

By the way, what are all these “Christians” getting so wound up about?

 

The conduct of Advisory Council Chair, Chief Justice McLachlin, throughout the process of awarding Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada demonstrates bias, political agenda and a wanton disregard for the Constitution of the Order of Canada and time honoured regulations,” said the letter.

 

“The complaint letter alleges Morgentaler should have been disqualified from the award under its constitution because he had been “subject to official sanction” when his medical licence was revoked for one year in 1976, his nomination had been rejected twice before by previous advisory councils and because at least two council members dissented on his selection.”

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: courts, equality, justice, Justice Beverly McLachlin, Morgentaler

Where are the women?

August 10, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Why is it Morgentaler–that infamous champion of “women’s rights”–who is challenging New Brunswick’s abortion laws? Why not find one of those many women supposedly denied access? Could it be that those women don’t exist–or perhaps on the flip side, they now have a child and don’t really regret that lack of access after all?

The province had argued Morgentaler could not have standing because only a woman who needed to use the clinic had the right to challenge abortion policy.

Morgentaler: Profit (in 2002 the paper Le Droit revealed his gross annual revenue was $11 million) seems more of a motivation than “women’s rights.” Honestly. Where I generally have no problem with men fighting to defend women, this is one case where I’d rather the women fought for themselves.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Le Droit, Morgentaler, New Brunswick, profit

Confidentiality or secrecy?

July 30, 2008 by Tanya Zaleski Leave a Comment

I’ve been writing the Governor General’s office pretty religiously regarding Morgentaler’s Order of Canada. I received a whole file of identical responses from the GG’s office just recently. I got as many emails as I had sent to [email protected]. The response went:

In order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of the Canadian Honours System, the Chancellery of Honours does not comment on any decision made by the Advisory Council for the Order of Canada, an independent council chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada. This practice applies to all nominations to the Canadian Honours System. The Advisory Council reviews all nominations and transmits its decisions to the governor general. Please rest assured that your comments will be shared with the Advisory Council.

I’ve thanked the Chancellery of Honours for their offer to share my comments with the Advisory Council. I’ve nonetheless expressed my desire to communicate my opinion to them directly, not via a third party. I’m therefore waiting for on them to send me the appropriate contact information. Would anyone like to hold their breath with me?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Morgentaler, Order of Canada

If Morgentaler isn’t sure, why are you?

July 23, 2008 by Andrea Mrozek Leave a Comment

Just a question. Here’s the exchange, quoted from this article:

‘I’m like a newborn baby,’ Dr. Henry Morgentaler told the CBC’s Evan Solomon about surviving a recent stroke and heart operation. ‘I enjoy being alive.’ The irony wasn’t lost on Solomon, who then asked the Canadian abortion doctor ‘how does a guy who’s seen so much death (in Auschwitz and Dachau, where he was imprisoned as a youngster) fight for a cause which many people believe is a form of killing?’

‘I won’t deny there’s an inconsistency,’ Morgentaler answered. ‘Maybe I’ve deluded myself.’

Maybe?

____________________________

Important update: This from John Jalsevac writing in from Lifesite-

Unfortunately the author of the Starphoenix piece where you got this from rather irresponsibly pulled the quotation from Morgentaler in this interview WAY out of context. When Morgentaler admitted that there may have been an “inconsistency” and that he may have “deluded himself”, he wasn’t speaking about abortion at all. By that point in the interview, which comes some 15 minutes or so after Solomon asks this question about the holocaust and Morgentaler’s choice for a cause, they are talking about Morgentaler’s treatment of women. Morgentaler admits that his philandering ways may not be consistent with the love and concern he professes for the female sex on the whole. He’s not expressing doubts about abortion.

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: CBC, Evan Solomon, killing, Morgentaler, Order of Canada

Not so fast, Rabbi

July 17, 2008 by Rebecca Walberg Leave a Comment

A Saskatchewan rabbi criticizes a Catholic bishop who is protesting Morgentaler’s Order of Canada medal.  Here is the full text of the news article:

Saskatoon’s Roman Catholic bishop is calling on followers to protest the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortion-rights crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler earlier this month. However, Bishop Albert LeGatt’s initiative is being criticized by a rabbi who says Dr. Morgentaler has done more for women’s rights than the Catholic Church. Saskatoon Rabbi emeritus Roger Pavey of the liberal congregation Agudas Israel said Bishop LeGatt was misguided, adding that even Orthodox Judaism considered abortion acceptable in some cases.

First, it is facile and offensive to suggest that Morgentaler has done more for women’s rights than the Catholic Church.  It reflects naked hostility to Catholicism that is unbecoming in a senior clergyman, profound bias, or ignorance of recent history, or most likely some blend of the three.  I’ll simply point out that given what we know about abortion and depression, breast cancer, and problems with subsequent pregnancies, Morgentaler has caused direct harm to many women quite apart from the actual damage women sustain when choosing to terminate a pregnancy.  The Catholic Church, like all massive and long-lived institutions, is imperfect, but in recognizing the sanctity of motherhood and encouraging women and men to form lifelong marriages, among others, it has certainly added to the net happiness of women in the world.

Next point: Rabbi Pavey points out that “even Orthodox Judaism” permits abortion in some circumstances.  This is absolutely true.  Rabbi Pavey assuredly knows, though, that those circumstances are very narrow, and in fact bear no resemblance to the circumstances in which Morgentaler has performed abortions.  Jewish law permits (and in some cases requires) abortion if continuing a pregnancy would kill the mother.  Note, please, that this is a vanishingly rare situation in 21st century Canada.  It is also noteworthy that there is no “mental health” exemption, which has been used to such mischief in some jurisdictions; since depression during and after pregnancy are largely treatable, the vast majority of Jewish legal authorities do not consider mental distress at an unwanted pregnancy to be a reason to abort. 

There are also abundant sources indicating that, as a developing life, a fetus has great value and sanctity – but not quite as much as an existing life, so that when there is a mortal conflict between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother, we must choose the mother.  By the time either the head or the majority of the body has emerged from the womb, though, the baby has equal status as the mother, and it is forbidden to choose between them – no partial birth abortions permitted, in other words.  Also significant is that the conflict between the life of the fetus and an existing life applies only to the mother, ie the life that would be directly threatened if the pregnancy continued; destroying a fetus to save a third life, or many other lives, is also forbidden.

Here we get to the real intellectual dishonesty of Rabbi Pavey’s words.  Pavey is the Rabbi Emeritus of a Conservative congregation in Saskatoon.  Conservative Judaism, like Orthodox Judaism, believes in the binding and eternal nature of the covenant between God and the Jews.  Unlike Orthodox Judaism, which believes (to reduce a complicated issue to one phrase) that Jewish law is fixed, and can be applied to new situations but must not be adapted, Conservative Judaism believes that the component of the law that is subject to human interpretation can and must evolve as the understanding, wisdom and knowledge of humans evolve.  Nonetheless, Conservative Judaism recognizes that not all abortions are permitted by Jewish law.  The official position of Conservative Judaism on the politics of abortion is to oppose any law that might prevent abortions in the (extremely narrow set of) circumstances in which it is permitted by Jewish law.

Abortion to save the life of the mother has been permitted in Canada throughout Morgentaler’s career.  The slightly more lax circumstances in which Conservative Jewish law finds abortion acceptable (abortion to prevent serious injury to the mother, or severe mental anguish) have also been accommodated in practice in Canada throughout Morgentaler’s career.  Abortions that are permitted within Jewish law, in other words, already were permitted within Canadian law, and this has nothing to do with Morgentaler.  On the contrary, the very essence of Morgentaler was to shatter this status quo in favour of abortion at any time, for any woman, for any reason, and ideally at the taxpayer’s expense.  And he was most successful.

To discard a human life in a cavalier manner is profoundly contrary to the Jewish tradition, law and ethos.  To oppose laws that restrict abortion on the grounds that such laws might infringe upon the (incredibly rare) situations in which Jewish law permits abortion – the official position of Conservative Judaism – strikes me as extreme, unnuanced, but logically coherent.  To celebrate a man who devoted his life to making life disposable – the most sacred earthly thing in Judaism, such that we are permitted to break almost any other law in order to save a life – is reprehensible, and deeply unJewish.

Rabbi Pavey undoubtedly knows the position of his own movement on abortion.  He almost certainly knows that Orthodox Judaism (and until this century all of Judaism) sees abortion as a last resort, a tragic measure to be taken only to save the life of the mother.  I don’t know what he is trying to gain by this statement, but he has managed to fit contempt for women, Jewish law and tradition, both Orthodox and Conservative, and Catholicism, all into a couple of sentences.  There are better ways he could be using his time – teaching Jews and non-Jews alike that our religion holds all life to be sacred, even a developing life in the womb. How about that?

Filed Under: All Posts Tagged With: Judaism and abortion, liberal Judaism, Morgentaler, Order of Canada, orthodox Judaism, Rabbi emeritus Roger Pavey, Roger Pavey and Morgentaler, Saskatoon

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 5
  • Next Page »

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssby feather

Notable Columns

  • A pro-woman budget wouldn't tell me how to live my life
  • Bad medicine
  • Birth control pills have side effects
  • Canada Summer Jobs debacle–Can Trudeau call abortion a right?
  • Celebrate these Jubilee jailbirds
  • China has laws against sex selection. But not Canada. Why?
  • Family love is not a contract
  • Freedom to discuss the “choice”
  • Gender quotas don't help business or women
  • Ghomeshi case a wake-up call
  • Hidden cost of choice
  • Life at the heart of the matter
  • Life issues and the media
  • Need for rational abortion debate
  • New face of the abortion debate
  • People vs. kidneys
  • PET-P press release
  • Pro-life work is making me sick
  • Prolife doesn't mean anti-woman
  • Settle down or "lean in"
  • Sex education is all about values
  • Thank you, Camille Paglia
  • The new face of feminism
  • Today’s law worth discussing
  • When debate is shut down in Canada’s highest places
  • Whither feminism?

Categories

  • All Posts
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Charitable
  • Ethics
  • Featured Media
  • Featured Posts
  • Feminism
  • Free Expression
  • International
  • Motherhood
  • Other
  • Political
  • Pregnancy Care Centres
  • Reproductive Technologies

All Posts

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in