Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate

[Cliffy]

The tricky part is that by ensuring that women have the right to abort, you also strip them of the right to hold that fetus in their hearts as a person.

karrie,It could also be argued ( and I'm sure some religious types have already done so) that birth control will take the procreation of life out of lovemaking. It will dehumanize (or animalize) the very act of sexual union. It was the argument in the 60s.
In the end, no matter how you approach the subject, it is all about morality and government has no business in morality. That is the realm of religion. Like I have said before, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

 

[karrie]

The tricky part is that by ensuring that women have the right to abort, you also strip them of the right to hold that fetus in their hearts as a person.

karrie,It could also be argued ( and I'm sure some religious types have already done so) that birth control will take the procreation of life out of lovemaking. It will dehumanize (or animalize) the very act of sexual union. It was the argument in the 60s.
In the end, no matter how you approach the subject, it is all about morality and government has no business in morality. That is the realm of religion. Like I have said before, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If the government has no place in morality, then you need to scrap most laws. And I'm not about to get into what other arguments one could make about other issues such as birth control. I'll stick to the discussion at hand.

It is perfectly possible to grant a woman's pregnancy protection under the law, in so far as that pregnancy does not violate her security of person. Plain and simple.

 

[Cliffy]

If the government has no place in morality, then you need to scrap most laws. And I'm not about to get into what other arguments one could make about other issues such as birth control. I'll stick to the discussion at hand.

It is perfectly possible to grant a woman's pregnancy protection under the law, in so far as that pregnancy does not violate her security of person. Plain and simple.

The reason I brought up birth control is that many religious, particularly the catholic church, believe it is the same as abortion and carries the same weight morally.

But the whole abortion issue revolves the out dated belief in the sacredness of life. Humans have a really bad history of treating living things, including humans, rather badly but for some strange reason are more concerned with the unborn than the living.

The planet is over populated as it is, so I just don't get the whole abortion issue. But mostly I don't get where some people think that everybody else should live by their rules and convictions. That to me is tyranny. And governments, although they love to deal in tyranny, have no business dealing with it.

 

[Praxius]

The reason I brought up birth control is that many religious, particularly the catholic church, believe it is the same as abortion and carries the same weight morally.

But the whole abortion issue revolves the out dated belief in the sacredness of life. Humans have a really bad history of treating living things, including humans, rather badly but for some strange reason are more concerned with the unborn than the living.

The planet is over populated as it is, so I just don't get the whole abortion issue. But mostly I don't get where some people think that everybody else should live by their rules and convictions. That to me is tyranny. And governments, although they love to deal in tyranny, have no business dealing with it.

Agreed.... I kind of find it slightly hypocritical and a bit silly for some to focus so much attention to unborn fetuses and their chances at life, when very little is done to make the lives of those already living, worth while.

There is already so much suffering and death throughout the globe as it is...... if nothing is going to be done to help those people in those situations, then why would they or those who relate to them want to bring children into that sort of life?

Don't have sex then?

What business is it of your's to tell anybody not to have sex? Then again, what business is it of your's to tell someone if they can have children or not?

If you're not in the relationship, it's none of your business..... it ain't your child in question, it ain't your life. If you want that sort of input, go and adopt a kid in Africa or somewhere.

Stop pointing your fingers at everybody else from the side lines and throw some responsibility on yourself for a change. Already have kids? Well then put some of that concentration on them so their lives are better and make an example.

 

[Praxius]

It is perfectly possible to grant a woman's pregnancy protection under the law, in so far as that pregnancy does not violate her security of person. Plain and simple.

Then how do you propose one goes about doing that?

How do you give rights and protection under the law for a fetus in a manner that wouldn't violate a woman's "Security of Person?"

Security of person
In general, the right to security of person is associated with liberty and includes a right to habeas corpus. Security of person can also be seen as an expansion of rights based on prohibitions of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. Rights to security of person can guard against less lethal conduct, and can be used in regard to prisoners' rights.

Habeas corpus
is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming himself or being harmed by the judicial system. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

How do you propose one can give rights to a fetus that also could avoid the woman to have arbitrary state action or being harmed by the judicial system? That Harm in this situation can be pretty subjective and fought all kinds of ways.

What about cruel and unusual punishment? That can take a messy road if there are medical issues involved in the situation that may harm the woman if she has to carry the fetus to full term.

In other words, no matter what rights you try and give a fetus, the woman's rights will trump them everytime.

There isn't much more one can do then what is already being done without violating the above for the woman, unless you have any suggestions.

 

[Machjo]

The tricky part is that by ensuring that women have the right to abort, you also strip them of the right to hold that fetus in their hearts as a person.

karrie,It could also be argued ( and I'm sure some religious types have already done so) that birth control will take the procreation of life out of lovemaking. It will dehumanize (or animalize) the very act of sexual union. It was the argument in the 60s.
In the end, no matter how you approach the subject, it is all about morality and government has no business in morality. That is the realm of religion. Like I have said before, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If you believe government has no place in morality, then we ought to decriminalize random killing. If you believe random killing should be illegal, then you believe that government has a place in morality. And believe it or not, we could prbably get into a whole discussion of where to draw the line in that grey area between accidental killing and assassination. There's a whole spectrum of ideas out there.

 

[karrie]

Praxius, the law as it functions right this moment already grants you rights as a human being, but prevents you from fulfilling those rights at my expense. It's pretty simple. You have a right to medical treatment, but you can't get it by forcing me to give up organs for example. Why exactly would the issue of rights for a fetus be any different exactly? Not one person in here has really been able to explain that to me. If a fetus is not violating its mothers security of person (which was the legal basis for allowing abortion), why does it not deserve protection under the law?

Then how do you propose one goes about doing that?

How do you give rights and protection under the law for a fetus in a manner that wouldn't violate a woman's "Security of Person?"



How do you propose one can give rights to a fetus that also could avoid the woman to have arbitrary state action or being harmed by the judicial system? That Harm in this situation can be pretty subjective and fought all kinds of ways.

What about cruel and unusual punishment? That can take a messy road if there are medical issues involved in the situation that may harm the woman if she has to carry the fetus to full term.

In other words, no matter what rights you try and give a fetus, the woman's rights will trump them everytime.

There isn't much more one can do then what is already being done without violating the above for the woman, unless you have any suggestions.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius, the law as it functions right this moment already grants you rights as a human being, but prevents you from fulfilling those rights at my expense. It's pretty simple. You have a right to medical treatment, but you can't get it by forcing me to give up organs for example. Why exactly would the issue of rights for a fetus be any different exactly? Not one person in here has really been able to explain that to me. If a fetus is not violating its mothers security of person (which was the legal basis for allowing abortion), why does it not deserve protection under the law?

Because it is not a living, breathing, conscious human being which warrents any human rights to protect it. A fetus is just building blocks leading up to a human being that can breath, think, interact and fuction on it's own. Until it is seperated from the mother and can function on it's own without any need from the mother's body and resources, it is not a human being in the sense it should have any rights..... no more then an organ, a cell, a blood vessel.

I can not have any of the above at your expense because you are like I..... an equal living human being with an independant life, an independant consciousness.

And we can get into the long debate over when a fetus can have enough brain developed to hold a consciousness, but there is no proof other then someone's own assumptions of what they see on a black and white screen in the doctors' office, or what they feel..... as a kick or movement of a limb can simply be electrical twiches through the development of muscles and other body parts, which does happen.

That is why there is not enough grounds to warrent a fetus any human rights, because nothing is proven for certain in regards to any actual "Life/Consciousness" within a fetus. And if there isn't any until birth and we give them rights, many women may have their own rights over ruled by a fetus, based on assumptions and emotional appeal.

That's the problem I have.

 

[karrie]

I completely disagree. So, that pretty much ends that.

 

[Praxius]

I completely disagree. So, that pretty much ends that.

Unless you explain why, then I guess so.

 

[karrie]

Unless you explain why, then I guess so.

Science has proven that brain activity is the defining factor of consciousness, and is the benchmark they use in hospitals to decide if someone is dead or alive. So long as a fetus has brain activity, it is as human as your or I. Requiring the full protection of its mother, yes, but human and alive nonetheless.

 

[Machjo]

Because it is not a living, breathing, conscious human being which warrents any human rights to protect it. A fetus is just building blocks leading up to a human being that can breath, think, interact and fuction on it's own. Until it is seperated from the mother and can function on it's own without any need from the mother's body and resources, it is not a human being in the sense it should have any rights..... no more then an organ, a cell, a blood vessel.

Going by that standard, the baby could be killed as long as he's attached by an umbilical cord.

 

[Praxius]

Going by that standard, the baby could be killed as long as he's attached by an umbilical cord.

No because you're excluding the other factors I explained in regards to breathing and consciousness.

And besides, I never said anything about being "Killed." One has to prove there is a life to kill first.

 

[Machjo]

As an aside, it's interesting how different cultures understand abortion. In China, for instance, I remember seeing a video explaining why Buddhists don't kill. its main focus was on killing and eating animals for meat and fur (which didn't surprise me at all), but I was surpized to find that in part of the video, they equated killing a feotus to killing an animal. What I found interesting was the lack of distinction. They presented a feotus just as they would any animal.

Though I never asked anyone else, I did ask myself on occasion how a Buddhist would thus perceive a meat-eating Christian who opposes abortion? Oximoron?

It's just interesting to look at issues from alternative cultural perspectives.

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic. Carry on.

 

[Machjo]

Science has proven that brain activity is the defining factor of consciousness, and is the benchmark they use in hospitals to decide if someone is dead or alive. So long as a fetus has brain activity, it is as human as your or I. Requiring the full protection of its mother, yes, but human and alive nonetheless.

I'd have to disagree. I'd say it's a legal, not scientific, definition. Consciousness and life are such abstract concepts that they can by no means be defined scientifically; the best we can do is establish legal benchmarks.

After all, how would you go about carrying out an experiment to see if without brain activity there is no consciousness? The person can't respond and is likely to die soon after. So we could never ask him if he was conscious at all? What about NDE's?

And how do we define life exactly? By breathing rate, heart rate? A person could still be alive for a short time even without breathing and heartrate. And again, as for no brainwaves, then we can't even begin to conduct the experiment to find out. So in fact, none of this is entirely scientific. Science plays a role to establish legal benchmarks based on the limited knowledge we do know, but that's as far as it can go.

 

[karrie]

as a side ponder....

I can't help but feel to a certain degree that men have been programmed in recent decades to believe that women's rights are granted only through the removal of status from others, and that they supersede all else in all other ways.

That a human fetus, with a human brain, functioning like any other human brain, a beating heart, moving limbs, scientific proof of dreaming, would be brushed off as something less than human, less than alive, 'just incase' will never cease to blow me away.

 

[Praxius]

Before I respond to other comments made:

Abortion debate will not be reopened: PMO
Abortion debate will not be reopened: PMO

The Prime Minister's Office has reaffirmed its position that the government has no intention of reopening the abortion debate following a Conservative MP's comments that the issue needs to be addressed.

"Throughout his political career, the prime minister has been clear on this issue," Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister, told the National Post. "We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion."

Although the issue has come up during election campaigns, Harper has insisted that it will not part of a Conservative government agenda. While he has not been specific about his own views, Harper has said they fall somewhere "between the two extremes."

.......... continued

The rest is just the same information from previous reports.

 

[Tyr]

as a side ponder....

I can't help but feel to a certain degree that men have been programmed in recent decades to believe that women's rights are granted only through the removal of status from others, and that they supersede all else in all other ways.

That a human fetus, with a human brain, functioning like any other human brain, a beating heart, moving limbs, scientific proof of dreaming, would be brushed off as something less than human, less than alive, 'just incase' will never cease to blow me away.

functioning like any other human brain

Does it breath? Does it reason? No

 

[karrie]

functioning like any other human brain

Does it breath? Does it reason? No

Does it circulate oxygen? Yes. And just like you, if that oxygen supply is cut off it dies.

As for reasoning, it reasons as well as any new born baby's brain does.

 

[Machjo]

functioning like any other human brain

Does it breath? Does it reason? No

It does in fact breathe, albeit a little unconventionally by our standards once we're out into the open. As for reasoning, can we prove that it can't reason?

I'd rather be safe than sorry, and so as for me, I'd define life as starting at conception, not at some random rounded off time during pregnancy.