Author Topic: Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]  (Read 33921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online PMedMoe

    is now a flat-faced civvy.... :).

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 246,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,018
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2012, 12:06:33 »
Moe: I can accept most of your caveats most of the time but even there, there is room to quibble over details - case dependent.

Yes, that is true.

I will clearly state that if it comes to a toss up between sacrificing the daughter I know and the grandchild I haven't met then I would encourage my daughter to sacrifice her child and my grandchild.

Having a daughter as well, I agree with you on this one.   :nod:
"A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
~ Lao Tzu~

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2012, 18:57:51 »
Of late, the GOP is backing away from their attempts to curtail women's health care (abortion, contraception, Planned Parenthood funding). They seem to be reading the tea leaves after the party, and don't like the backlash they are getting.

Several states have either killed or sent back for more consideration various pieces of legislation which address abortion rights, coverage of women's health, etc.

Even Arizona legislators are reconsidering the whole lie to your patient or go to jail bill (wonder why?).
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2012, 22:57:11 »
Sorry TV, I know you can speak for yourself...

Because from his point of view, abortion is murdering another human being. You wouldn't expect your argument, "I don't believe murder is wrong, so don't force your belief that it's wrong on me by making a law against it and putting me in jail if I murder someone," to hold weight.

Christopher Hitchens, one of the most proud atheists to ever live, was also against abortion for the same reasons. It sure wasn't because he was brainwashed by religion to think so.

And also to provide full disclosure, I'm an agnostic rationalist and I'm pro-choice and pro-contraception.

No because I also come to my conclusion basis on logic and science - exactly as he has said he's done.

1) It is a scientific fact that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a foetus is not developed enough to live should the mother go into labour. At this stage, it is simply not a viable lifeform capable of living and breathing outside of the womb. Find me one case where a foetus 'born' (miscarried) in this trimester has survived to take a single breath.

2) There are quite seperate laws dealing with later-term abortion etc that are applied in later stages of pregnancy exactly because scientific fact shows that a woman's natural labour at those stages would result the birth of a viable lifeform who may be capable of breathing (ie "living") outside of the womb.

3) My logic therefore follows, based upon scientific fact, that a woman who has an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not terminating a viable lifeform at that point.

4) My logic also therefore follows that the arguement that she "is" indeed terminating (or as rapid pro-lifers would state: "murdering") a "child's life" at this point of the pregnancy is not based upon scientific fact, but rather morals - very often religious based morals.

5) If she had a miscarriage at this point in time would she be a murderer (because there has not ever been a child in the world who has survived for a single breath born at this point of the pregnancy)? No. Did she naturally go into labour? No. So then, why does logic for some people hold that if she makes the choice to terminate rather than "gawd or nature" that she must be a murderer?

Gawd isn't part of the equation unless one allows him to be (and that is a personal choice / religious viewpoint). That leaves her "going against nature" <--- and science has shown that nature has yet to produce a single viable human lifeform that is capable of "living" on it's own at this point in time to date.


And, let's be clear: I would never have an abortion (that is my moral choice) and have had 5 miscarriages in my attempts to have my two wonderful children. But, for me, (I'm an athiest) gawd is not part of the equation (and everyone else claims it's not part of their logical reasoning either) so we can take it off the table. Only "nature" then comes into play and, my morals tell me that I have no right to tell her that she can not terminate "a scientifically non viable lifeform", because in the first trimester, that is exactly what she would be aborting.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 100,196
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,982
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2012, 23:23:40 »
No because I also come to my conclusion basis on logic and science - exactly as he has said he's done.

1) It is a scientific fact that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a foetus is not developed enough to live should the mother go into labour. At this stage, it is simply not a viable lifeform capable of living and breathing outside of the womb. Find me one case where a foetus 'born' (miscarried) in this trimester has survived to take a single breath.

2) There are quite seperate laws dealing with later-term abortion etc that are applied in later stages of pregnancy exactly because scientific fact shows that a woman's natural labour at those stages would result the birth of a viable lifeform who may be capable of breathing (ie "living") outside of the womb.

3) My logic therefore follows, based upon scientific fact, that a woman who has an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not terminating a viable lifeform at that point.

4) My logic also therefore follows that the arguement that she "is" indeed terminating (or as rapid pro-lifers would state: "murdering") a "child's life" at this point of the pregnancy is not based upon scientific fact, but rather morals - very often religious based morals.

5) If she had a miscarriage at this point in time would she be a murderer (because there has not ever been a child in the world who has survived for a single breath born at this point of the pregnancy)? No. Did she naturally go into labour? No. So then, why does logic for some people hold that if she makes the choice to terminate rather than "gawd or nature" that she must be a murderer?

Gawd isn't part of the equation unless one allows him to be (and that is a personal choice / religious viewpoint). That leaves her "going against nature" <--- and science has shown that nature has yet to produce a single viable human lifeform that is capable of "living" on it's own at this point in time to date.

I guess you ignored the part where I said I am an agnostic rationalist and pro-choice or you wouldn't have written all this out for me to read. I have already agreed to it all.

my morals tell me that I have no right to tell her that she can not terminate "a scientifically non viable lifeform"

This is the only part you wrote that is relevant to your question about why someone who is pro-life wants to impose laws against pro-choice people. Their morals tell them that you have no right to kill another human being, and therefore they *do* have the right to intervene. The fact that you don't think it's murder is IRRELEVANT to THEM.

If you thought *insert random act here* was murder, would you not then be morally obligated to try and prevent it from happening?

If every time I watched South Park some kid in Africa died, but I didn't believe you when you told me watching South Park was killing kids in Africa, and said "Piss off with your nonsense Vern, I'm not harming anyone"... would you not feel morally obligated to try to stop me from watching South Park???

If your answer is yes, then you would be doing the same thing that pro-lifers are doing.
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline exabedtech

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 91
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2012, 23:30:07 »
Religion rules US politics.  In a nation at war, gripped by recession and burning through a trillion dollars more a year than it has, take a look at what sort of topics are discussed in the GOP race or US politics in general.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, the fact is that the drive in US for/against IS a religious thing.  If it were based on anything else, it would have been resolved decades ago.

I'm so very thankful that we haven't followed them down that road...  Lets keep it that way.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2012, 00:17:37 »
I guess you ignored the part where I said I am an agnostic rationalist and pro-choice or you wouldn't have written all this out for me to read. I have already agreed to it all.

No, I wrote all that because you spoke to "TV considers this to be murder" (a word he never utilized). He stated that he utilized logic. I quoted you as you brought the word "murder" into it (under TVs name) while quoting my post about "logic". I therefore laid out why I do not consider this "to be murder" and further spoke to the "logic" I used to come up with my original response to TV.

Quote
This is the only part you wrote that is relevant to your question about why someone who is pro-life wants to impose laws against pro-choice people. Their morals tell them that you have no right to kill another human being, and therefore they *do* have the right to intervene. The fact that you don't think it's murder is IRRELEVANT to THEM.

If you thought *insert random act here* was murder, would you not then be morally obligated to try and prevent it from happening?

If every time I watched South Park some kid in Africa died, but I didn't believe you when you told me watching South Park was killing kids in Africa, and said "Piss off with your nonsense Vern, I'm not harming anyone"... would you not feel morally obligated to try to stop me from watching South Park???

If your answer is yes, then you would be doing the same thing that pro-lifers are doing.

It is not irrelevant to the discussion. They have used their logic to determine that it is "murder", I have simply stated my logic to say why I believe it is not. Just as my logic may be irrelevant to them, theirs is irrelevant to me.

The law allows for early term abortions, and treats late-term abortions quite differently in law and circumstance, exactly because of life viability. The law does not consider early-term abortions to be murder based upon that science. They may, but that is their choice based upon personal morality (and, quite often religion). Obviously my morality says differently.

Currently, the law agrees.

As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually did die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 00:20:23 by ArmyVern »
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 100,196
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,982
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2012, 00:35:50 »
It is not irrelevant to the discussion. They have used their logic to determine that it is "murder", I have simply stated my logic to say why I believe it is not. Just as my logic may be irrelevant to them, theirs is irrelevant to me.

It is completely irrelevant to your question "why do they think it's okay to push it on other people." How both parties came to the conclusion they did is irrelevant. The point is, some people feel it's murder, and therefore they have to stop it. Our logic tells us "no harm, no foul," much like someone chewing tobacco in their own home, so we don't care.

There's a big difference, as a result of the conclusions pro-lifers and pro-choice have come to, in what action they feel the are morally obligated to do.

As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually did die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.

No, it wasn't irrelevant drivel, I was trying to get you to stand in a pro-lifers shoes for a second, which you haven't done because you took the example so literally. :facepalm:

I assumed you asked because you wanted to understand where the pro-lifers were coming from in thinking that it was okay to legislate against abortion, and as a pro-choice person that thinks the pro-lifers have a point and are justified in trying to push it on people, that maybe I'd be a good person to try and shed some light on it.

I think I assumed wrong, I think you meant for it to be rhetorical, and that you just meant to get your point across that you don't think they should push their beliefs on people. That's fine I guess, I will stop this circus. :argument:
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2012, 01:33:52 »
...
No, it wasn't irrelevant drivel, I was trying to get you to stand in a pro-lifers shoes for a second, which you haven't done because you took the example so literally. :facepalm:
...

Keep slapping yourself.

My entire response to your silly question was:

Quote
As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually did die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.

As it is not my fault, is there any ethical and moral obligation to do anything about it? No. Could/should/do I do anything about that? Yes. Am I going to insist to others that they need to send their 30 bucks a month in to prevent death over there? No.

You want to bring starving children in Africa into a discussion about abortion? Then here you go; here's where I say we start fixing this 100% preventable problem at:

Is there something morally existent that a certain entity that keeps preaching to those particular persons that they should not use birth control, should continue having children that can not be supported or fed, that they should go forth and multiply (so sayeth the Lord) as that is God's will, could do about it? You're damn right there is. And when their own morality sees the richest entity in the world step up, feed, financially support, and rear those children that their religious reasonings have caused to be created and be born into that place - you'll see me stepping up to do my bit to attempt to correct that situation that is 100% preventable. When they start supporting the right-to-live of actual already-born human beings (not just those on death row  ::)) and preventing all those needless deaths in Africa caused by blind adherence to religious doctrine based morals, then they can start on the unborn.

That is not just a matter of childbirth either, it is a matter of health. Aids is also rampant in this area, yet some -claiming superior morality- do insist upon their subjects that practicing safe sex is a mortal sin itself (Note, TV has already stated he is not in this category). And yet, they have spoken out about practicing safe sex too as it would also prevent birth and thus be a sin. How moral and ethical is that?

The question is rhetorical and I do not actually want an answer from you. Morals are one thing, but if one wants to start tossing religion into the matter it becomes very, very different. There are ethical based morals and religious based morals.

I am quite sure this post is sure to draw wrath, I really don't care. The Pope wants all those children to be born, then allow him to ante up the funds and resources to support them. THAT would be the ethical thing to do if one wanted to claim superior "morality".
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 01:38:10 by ArmyVern »
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline canada94

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 14,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 337
  • Adversity breeds character
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2012, 01:42:25 »
I wanna say my opinion but I am afraid I'd be eaten alive LOL

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2012, 01:49:01 »
I wanna say my opinion but I am afraid I'd be eaten alive LOL

Contrary to popular belief, I am not a cannibal.  ;D

I hold no grudges against others just because we should have differing opinions on whatever matters.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline canada94

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 14,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 337
  • Adversity breeds character
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2012, 01:52:15 »
Contrary to popular belief, I am not a cannibal.  ;D

I hold no grudges against others just because we should have differing opinions on whatever matters.

Hehe I'm just trying to lighten the mood, abortion is a very touchy issue for some people!



Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2012, 03:05:03 »
Hehe I'm just trying to lighten the mood, abortion is a very touchy issue for some people!

It is indeed; that touchiness is certainly not limited to one side of the fence either.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline canada94

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 14,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 337
  • Adversity breeds character
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2012, 12:19:37 »
It is indeed; that touchiness is certainly not limited to one side of the fence either.

Very true! Both sides are quite true to their beliefs.. when me and my sister debate the issue it is all out war haha

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,335
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2012, 15:08:21 »
Interesting stuff.

I think that ultimately when you allow someone to choose, you aren't forcing anyone to do something.  They choose to do it based on their own convictions.

I wonder how the pro-lifers would feel if the state said that people under the age of 18 must abort. What I'm getting at is that that is how some pro-choicers feel they are being treated by some governments that are anti abortion.

I'll keep my personal opinion to myself but it helps to look at both sides of the coin.
Optio

Offline Jed

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 43,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 986
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2012, 16:36:08 »
.... By your argument, given how many fertilized embryos fail to implant, I've seen a tongue-in-cheek argument made that god is the greatest abortionist of all. However, I also could rack that up on this board of dumb things. The reality is that while the definition of life may well be debated, but the law of the land in most cases makes clear that it's birth. I don't think any woman can (let alone should) be forced to carry a pregnancy to term that for any reason whatsoever she does not want. It's that simple. If there's no access to legal, safe abortion, then women will seek solutions elsewhere, regardless of the potential costs. It's really that simple. I hope that these laws blow up in the faces of those who pushed them.

So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?

I don't think that is the case.

In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.
As the old man used to say: " I used to be a coyote, but I'm alright nooooOOOOWWW!"

Offline TheHead

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 220
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2012, 16:59:05 »
So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?

I don't think that is the case.

In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.

Jed, under the Criminal Code of Canada

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.


I don't know what it's classified under in the United States though.  If someone has an official link that would be appreciated.

Offline Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 334
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2012, 16:59:47 »
Jed,

I think that that is, in essence, the current law of the land.  One of the more important cases on point is Tremblay v. Daigle, a 1989 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.  The full case report is here: http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii33/1989canlii33.html

The headnote (a summary of the case, which is not prepared by the judges) reads:

Quote
The parties ended their relationship after five months of cohabitation.  The appellant was 18 weeks pregnant at the time of the separation and decided to terminate her pregnancy.  The respondent, the father of the unborn child, obtained an interlocutory injunction from the Superior Court preventing her from having the abortion.  The trial judge found that a foetus is a "human being" under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and therefore enjoys a "right to life" under s. 1.  This conclusion, he added, was in harmony with the Civil Code's recognition of the foetus as a juridical person.  He then ruled that the respondent had the necessary "interest" to request the injunction.  The trial judge concluded, after considering the effect of the injunction on the appellant's rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 1 of the Quebec Charter, that the foetus' right to life should prevail in the present case.  The injunction was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal.

   Held:  The appeal should be allowed.

   The injunction must be set aside because the substantive rights which are alleged to support it -- the rights accorded to a foetus or a potential father -- do not exist.

   A foetus is not included within the term "human being" in the Quebec Charter and, therefore, does not enjoy the right to life conferred by s. 1.  The Quebec Charter, considered as a whole, does not display any clear intention on the part of its framers to consider the status of a foetus.  It is framed in very general terms and makes no reference to the foetus or foetal rights, nor does it include any definition of the term "human being" or "person".  This lack of an intention to deal with a foetus's status is, in itself, a strong reason for not finding foetal rights under the Quebec Charter.  If the legislature had wished to accord a foetus the right to life, it is unlikely that it would have left the protection of this right in such an uncertain state.  As this case demonstrates, a foetus' alleged right to life will be protected only at the discretionary request of third parties.

   The difficult issue of whether a foetus is a legal person cannot be settled by a purely linguistic argument that the plain meaning of the term "human being" includes foetuses.  Like a purely scientific argument, a purely linguistic argument attempts to settle a legal debate by non‑legal means.  What is required are substantive legal reasons which support a conclusion that the term "human being" has a particular meaning.  As for the differing usage of the terms "human being" and "person" in the Quebec Charter, it does not lead to the conclusion that a foetus is included within the term "human being".  The more plausible explanation is that different terms were used in order to distinguish between physical and moral persons.

   A consideration of the status of the foetus under the Civil Code supports the conclusion that a foetus is not a "human being" under the Quebec Charter.  The provisions of the Code providing for the appointment of a curator for an unborn child and the provisions granting patrimonial interests to such child do not implicitly recognize that a foetus is a juridical person.  Articles 338 and 345, like art. 945, simply provide a mechanism whereby the interests of the foetus described elsewhere in the Code can be protected.  They do not accord the foetus any additional rights or interests.  In addition, the realization of the patrimonial interests of the foetus under arts. 608, 771, 838 and 2543 of the Code is subject to a suspensive condition that the foetus be born alive and viable.  The recognition of the foetus' juridical personality is only a "fiction of the civil law" which is utilized in order to protect the future interests of the foetus.  In view of the treatment of the foetus in the remainder of the Code, the term "human being" in art. 18 of the Code, which provides that "Every human being possesses juridical personality", cannot be construed as including foetuses.  The Civil Code, therefore, does not generally accord a foetus legal personality.  A foetus is treated as a person only where it is necessary to do so in order to protect its interests after it is born.

   While Anglo-Canadian law is not determinative in establishing the meaning to be given to general terms in the Quebec Charter, it is instructive to consider the legal status of a foetus in that body of jurisprudence.  In Anglo‑Canadian law, a foetus must be born alive to enjoy rights.  In light of the treatment of foetal rights in civil law and, in addition, the consistency to be found in the common law jurisdictions, it would be wrong to interpret the vague provisions of the Quebec Charter as conferring legal personhood upon the foetus.

   The Canadian Charter cannot be invoked in this case to support the injunction.  This is a civil action between two private parties and there is no state action which is being impugned.  The respondent pointed to no "law" of any sort which he can claim is infringing his rights or anyone else's rights.  The issue as to whether s. 7 of the Canadian Charter could be used to ground an affirmative claim to protection by the state was not raised.  This Court should generally avoid making any unnecessary constitutional pronouncement.

   Finally, there is nothing in the Quebec legislation or case law, to support the argument that the father's interest in a foetus he helped create gives him the right to veto a woman's decisions in respect of the foetus she is carrying.  The lack of legal basis is fatal to this argument.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2012, 17:06:28 »
So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?

I don't think that is the case.

In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.

Actually, that is exactly when the law of the land states life has begun. A child born prematurely is considered alive. An abortion at that same stage of the pregnancy is considered to be a "late-term abortion" and therefore quite different rules and requirements must exist to allow for that late-term abortion under the law <--- ie: these are very, very rare and usually only occur if there is immediate risk to life and limb of the mother. A miscarriage in the first trimester is not equal to a premie being born alive.

So, the law does indeed already recognize that a foetus becomes a viable lifeform later in the pregnancy; the point at where a foetus may possibly live outside of the womb (not that they all will, but some will <--- those that do are considered your "premies"). This "life viability" does not occur in the first trimester of the pregnancy. That is why they are two separate things treated by the law in two entirely separate manners.

I'm glad to hear that your child's birth mother's choice has benefited and blessed your lives. I am glad she was able to make the choice that was what she considered best for herself.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 17:09:59 by ArmyVern »
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2012, 21:03:28 »
Jed, under the Criminal Code of Canada

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.


I don't know what it's classified under in the United States though.  If someone has an official link that would be appreciated.

Unlike Canada which has a criminal code that applies across the entire nation, in the US each state has it's own criminal statute, as well as a federal statute.

But essentially they all appear to folow the same concept that a child, under criminal law, does not need to be born to be deemed a person for murder chagres to be proffered if a pregnant woman is killed, and the unborn child is lost.

From the standpoint of abortion law however, it is more nuanced and varies from state to state. Hence why the flavour of the month for the pro-life movement is to have states amend their constitutions to confer personhood from the time of conception. The problem is that the extention of personhood at that point opens up a huge can of worms, particularly with respect to individual rights of both the fetus and the mother, and possibly criminalizes what are legal and moral acts, like using methods of contraception which prevent implantation of the embryo, aborting an ectopic pregnancy, or even smoking during pregnancy.
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline ttlbmg

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 79
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2012, 21:34:31 »
I have found that in my time on Earth, and call me a waffler, that I honestly don't know if I could decide, unequivocally, that I am a complete pro-life or pro-choice person. I've have laid witness to many girls that have chosen to use abortion as a method of birth control. I can remember saying to myself, how could someone that does that to themselves deserve to have a child when they "feel" like it? It is this point that I have stuck in the back of my mind that gives me pause to a pro-choice stance. But there are always people that will abuse anything. I think it also touches a part in me, when I speak to friends that have miscarried over the years. I see the pain from that and I can't help but pause and think, if life does not start at conception, then why would a woman otherwise feel that pain? But I don't know, I have never gone through that, I am lucky.

That being said, you can witness everyday, women who are victims of rape, women that have ectopic pregnancies, women that are unable to mentally or psychologically bear and raise children. And I think, why put someone through that? Who am I to say that a woman has no right over her body. The woman in me looks on legislation, meant to shame and guilt a woman into a pregnancy, and is disgusted that someone else is condescending enough to know what is best for every woman.

That being said, I have always maintained a conscious decision, that planned or not, risk factors, possible complication, and regardless of results of genetic testing, I don't think I could have an abortion. However, I hope that every woman, faced with this choice, really thinks about her options. I think many do, as I don't think that an abortion is a light decision. I guess I am pro-thought then...

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #45 on: March 24, 2012, 04:53:17 »
Wow! ttlbmg, what town do you live in?

I'm 43 years old and I know a few girls who have had abortions, yet not a single one did so as an act of "birth control". And I only know a few. You must come from some hedonistic place I've never heard of if you know tonnes who use it as a verifiable "birth control method". Holy cow.

But, it does raise a good point. Here in Canada, one does not see "abortion used a routine method of birth control" (unlike, I guess ttlbmg). Nor do we even see a "high" number of abortions occurring for other reasons. This is precisely because Canada has and does provide for sex education in our schools, and access to and availability of affordable birth control (note: I did not say "free" birth control however quite a few jurisdictions' health plans and insurance plans also provide for that). We do this precisely because we actually exercise that separation of Church and State.

Unlike in the United States where many jurisdictions prohibit:
sex education in schools,
any discussion of birth control methods other than abstinence until marriage,
access to or availability of any type of affordable (note again, I didn't say "free") birth control to persons under age of majority.

That's right, no safe sex allowed if you're under 18 in some states - (well, No LEGAL safe sex allowed if you're under 18 anyway)! Can you imagine having to show ID to prove your 18 to buy a condom!!?

The above restrictions are based upon religious morals. For if they were not, discussion of condoms and access to purchase them would certainly be allowed based upon sexual health and the prevention of disease. Unfortunately, this also overlaps with the religious view of contraception is bad and evil as it prevents conception from occurring. So, in some places, that religious view has actually won.

It is estimated that 22% of pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. Texas having one of the highest rates (as does California, but they also rule in population) and states where condom access etc is restricted to legal age. States such as North and South Dakota see the lowest rates - coinciding with states where there actually is a separation of church from state.

Studies have also shown that the abortion rate has dropped an average of 2% per year since the majority of states got rid of laws that restricted access to affordable birth control ~ 1990.

I think that's telling. Anybody want less abortions? Then start teaching kids about birth control and make sure that they can access various forms of affordable birth control. Abstinence is not for everyone (Obviously!! Just look at the abortion stats!). For any state to take the religious stance as law any deny this education, access, and affordability, then further attempt to deny via "having doctors lie to their patients if they think it may make them chose to have an abortion [hey Arizona!]" abortions or make women lay through an ultrasound while the doctor drones on about "life" are ultimately the direct cause of their own statistics! Separate the church from the state and get it over with already.

Unless and until that happens in the US ... politics there will always be this retarded and we'll continue to see 16 and 17 year old American kids posting questions about sex to the internet and asking "what is AIDs?" (yep, just google it) and asking if anybody knows any stores that would sell them a condom without an ID card - or whether anyone knows an 18 year old who is willing to go in and buy condoms for them. That amazes me.

Thank frig I live in Canada where we keep that religious stuff out of our laws.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline ttlbmg

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 79
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2012, 08:47:22 »
You would be surprised.

To contradict your statement on sexual education in schools, I would say this. I am a junior high teacher, and have taught health education previously. Where I taught, there was no talk of sexual education classes. In some schools and school districts, if there are a majority of parents that believe that sexual health education should not be taught, it isn't, plain and simple. (and keep in mind this was not a stereotypical rural setting- it was in a larger urban area) There in lies the problem however, in both Canada and the US in regards to this issue. Those that do not believe in educating their children don't. Those children then go on to make poor choices and endure the consequences. That being said, I don't think that I have the right to push my opinion that "birth control and contraceptives are what you're children need." If I do that, I am no less ignorant or condescending.

Abortions are a different thought process, feeling, and decision for all people. To each his own. That being said, I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 202,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,470
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2012, 10:45:47 »
You would be surprised.

To contradict your statement on sexual education in schools, I would say this. I am a junior high teacher, and have taught health education previously. Where I taught, there was no talk of sexual education classes. In some schools and school districts, if there are a majority of parents that believe that sexual health education should not be taught, it isn't, plain and simple. (and keep in mind this was not a stereotypical rural setting- it was in a larger urban area) There in lies the problem however, in both Canada and the US in regards to this issue. Those that do not believe in educating their children don't. Those children then go on to make poor choices and endure the consequences. That being said, I don't think that I have the right to push my opinion that "birth control and contraceptives are what you're children need." If I do that, I am no less ignorant or condescending.

Abortions are a different thought process, feeling, and decision for all people. To each his own. That being said, I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.

Here's where we'll differ: educating someone about sexual health, birth control, condoms does not equal "pushing onto them that this is what they need" because we also cover abstinence etc. What that education does is allow those kids to:

Make their own informed decisions of what may/may not be right for them.

In no way whatsoever, do I find that informing those kids of all the choices, abstinence included, makes me ignorant or condescending. Refusing to allow them to be informed of anything except religious 'abstinence until marriage' on the other hand ...
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 10:48:38 by ArmyVern »
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 477,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,972
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2012, 11:31:05 »
Abortions.....I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.
I do.

Offline ttlbmg

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 79
Re: Abortion Issues - Keep It Here
« Reply #49 on: March 24, 2012, 16:42:51 »
My problem with sexual health education within the school system is the bias that can be held. It is very difficult for a teacher, educating young people, on proper sexual health education. I do not believe, for the most part, that proper sexual health education is being taught in schools. (that is an entirely different topic though!) Inevitably, a teacher, will teach sexual health education, and almost any subject, with a bias. You can present all options, abstinence, birth control, condoms, Plan B, IUDs, but there will always be that kid, that looks at you and says, "but really what do YOU think, what do YOU practice?" Your opinion, is, unfortunately, out there, and that will impact a child's decision. It is a slippery slope.

In my opinion, proper sexual health education should start in the home, but I am not honestly sure if that occurs. However, I am woefully underqualified to pose as the morality police and dictate what parents should and shouldn't share with their children. it is a heavy subject to talk with young people about.

As for people being backwoods or God-fearing because they believe in abortion? There are many people, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, that do not believe in abortion. I don't look down on them, just as I don't look down on someone choosing to terminate a pregnancy. See, my house is made of glass, and I really don't like rocks.