Letters...

YOUR FORUM FOR DISCUSSION. The Gem vigorously encourages dissent and contro- versy and prints all letters to the Editor except those of a malicious nature. Letters must be signed and include the authors phone number. However, names can be withheld from publica- tion by request. Deadline for letters is Monday,

5:00pm.

Abortion a right?

Dear Editor:

On the occasion of the Supreme Court’s ruling that Canada’s abortion las _ is unconstitutional, the jubi- lant Henry Morgetaler in- sulted his opponents (i.e., the anti-abortionists) by call- ing them ‘“uncomprehend- ing, ignorant, stupid peo- ple” and, as a justification of his pro-abortion stance, he said, “Every child a wanted child, every mother a _ will- ing mother.” (‘““Morgen- taler backers jubilant”, Cal- gary Herald, p. A12, Jan- uary 29, 1988.) As an anti- abortionist who does not ap- preciate being called names, and — more importantly — as a Canadian citizen who does not like to see his soci- ety duped by lies couched in sleazy slogans, I would like to take this opportunity to forward the following three _ points:

1. In the current abor- tion debate the works “every child a wanted child” conjre up in the minds of most peo- ple an attitude of compas- sion and caring. Mr. Mor- gantaler, however, uses these words to disguise the sim- ple truth that instead of en- hancing the wanted ness of unwanted pre-natal children, abortion kills them. conse- quently, instead of providing an environment of compas- sion and caring things nor- mally associated with the words “every child a wanted child”), Morgantaler pro- vides facilitties for the delib- erate destruction of human beings.

2. Of course, every child should be a wanted child. However, aborting —killing- those children who are “un- wanted” is a terrible dis- placement of the responsibil- ity for their wantedness. The point is this: the responsibil- ity for the wantedness of an innocent child doesn not rest

with the child, rather, the re-.

sponsibility of wanting an in-' nocent child rests with the adult. (to better understand, read the next sentence care- fully.)

Because pre-natal chil- dren have no control over their wantedness (this is elf- evident); because very child should be a wanted hcecild (this is even in accord with Henry Morgantaler’s own position); and because adults are the ones who do the wanting (in the child-adult relationship, wantedness is a relational concept, and want- edness is the responsibility of the party who is able to dot he wanting): because of the aforementioned, we can cor- rectly conclude that adults (male and female) have the repsonsibility ot provide an environment of compassion and caring for children and that adults should not make efforts to kill children for their (i.e., the adults’ irre- sponsibility.)

3. finally, in view of the fact that most abor-

tions do not arise out of the circumstance of rape (ac-

cording to the US surgeon General, rape almost never results in pregnancy), and in view of the above dis- course concerning responsi- bility, Mr. Morgentaler’s slo- gan “every mother a willing mother” can only mean that every woman should exercise her will (re: motherhood) before she becomes pregnant with child — not after. In view of Mr. gentaler’s comments, then, I am inclined to think that Canada’s supreme Court rul- ing on abortion marks not only the occasion of a gov- ernment sanctioned abortion of the innocents, but also the occasion of the corporate abortion of the Canadian in- tellect. Smarten up, Canada, Mortentaller’s slogans apply just as well to the post-natal

Mor-

abortion of all children... Af- ter all, “every child a wanted child, every mother a willing mother.”

Mr. Morgentaler has also justified his pro-abortion stance as follows: “One brick is obviously not a house. A human being is made up of billions of cells. How can you consider that one cell js a whole house?” (Morgentaler tells of God’s guidance,” Medicine Hat News, January 18, 1985, p. 1.3; similar

reasoning is found in Mor-

gentaler’s book, Abortion & Contraception [Toronto: General Publishing Co. Lim- ited, 1982] pp. 143-144.) Be- cause someone may accuse my of less than generously reconstructing Mr. Morgen- taler’s justification of his pro- abortion stance, I would also like to take this opportunity

to forward one additional point — namely, that Morten-

taler’s analogy is false. Through his ogy, Morgentaler compares the single cell at conception with a single brick, and then enlightens us with the in- significance of the single cell. In other words, he attempts to make us think that just as destroying a single brick is not the same as destroy- ing a whole house, so too the

anal-

’ destruction of the single cell

of conception is not the same as destroying a grown human being.

Morgentaler, how- ever, fails to appreciate the reality of his own analogy. A single brick does not become a whole house — but the is- ngle cell at conception does become a whole adult. Con- sequently, just as destroying a single brick that could be- come a whole house would be comparable to destroying

Cont. on page 5

“Newspapers: Nobody’s business in print”

— Anon.

Derrick Webber, Editor-in-Chief

Ian Mollison, Production Editor Derrick Cameron, Advertising Manager Darrell Cole, Sports

Karen Cullen, Photographer

Dolly Bhatia, CUP Editor

Darlene Llewellyn, Typesetter

James Connolly, Systems Manager

STAFF MEMBERS:

Dawne Chappelle, Kaberi Dasgupta, Cora Lee Des Roches, Anne Irving, Bobbi Sue Keat ing, Jim McGrath, David MacKinnon, — Iai Mollison, Lisa Murphy, Claire Murray, Mar Walker, Matthew Beardsley, Sam Okello, Elle Perry, Dan Mullen and Chris Vessey.

This Week’s Contributors:

Laurie Reeves, Monica McQuaid, Prof. Mu jeeb Rahman, Vivian Huizenga, the Business s0 ciety, the Engineers. Sponsored by the letter ‘Pi

Anyone can contribute articles to The GEM announcements, letters, or just plain ideas cal be dropped off at the Barn, sent through VA} MAIL to GEM, or stuck on our door down i! the basement of the utility building. If yo have something special you would like printed though, please check with us first. :

We cherish typed and double spaced sul missions and submissions on computer disk 0 through VAX mail. For legal reasons, all submis sions must include the author’s name and phot number. However, names will be withheld fro publication on request.

Deadline for submissions is Monday, 5:00p"

The GEM is published by the University ° Prince Edward Island Student Union. Views e% pressed are not necessarily those of the GE staff, the UPEI Student Union, or of anyone particular.

We reserve the right to edit submissions d' to space or taste limitations.

Our office is buried in the UTILITY BUILD ING, Rm.01. Phone 566-0629 or 566-0530 ® send VAX mail to account GEM.