In regards to the whole debate on when life begins, I thought this was already determined through law that they are not alive until they are born, therefore have no rights.... which is why the current abortion laws exist. Therefore, the topic ends there on that matter.
Law can't declare science away. Dividing cells, a beating heart, and brain activity make a fetus a living thing by scientific definition.
Canadian law does NOT, in any way shape or form, legally define a fetus, because what Canada has is a decided lack of abortion law. There is no law, except one that states that writing laws limiting a woman's access, would violate HER rights. Not one word about fetuses from what I've seen.
In the Criminal Code of Canada it states, “A
child becomes a human being when it has
completely proceeded, in a living state, from the
body of its mother”.
A sea sponge is living too.... shall they have human rights? Just because a fetus looks like a human and has many parts like a human, doesn't mean they automatically get those rights we all have.
If you look at a fetus of a chimp, it'd have many of the same characteristics as a human fetus.... should they have human rights too?
Based on a PDF document I just found that compares Jewish religious views to Canadian law in regards to the rights of a fetus/newborn compared to a drug addicted mother:
www.motherisk.org/JFAS_docume...AS7001F_e1.pdf (external - login to view)
Seems pretty clear and a done deal.... their argument, along with many of the pro-life arguments are based on emotional appeal and attempting to find a method to trump the rights of the already living.
While I agree there's an issue with drug addicted mothers and the affects on the child they wish to carry through, it does explain the above description of when a person is considered alive.