Is the MP making assumptions? I wish someone like he would bring forward real cases with all of the facts so a factual discussion can be argued before proposing amended constitutional rights.
Parliamentary group wants to reopen abortion debate
- Thread starter Francis2004
- Start date
I think he's definitely making assumptions. Real life cases are impossible to get given the nature of FOIP. It sounds to me that what he's asking for is written assurances that what pro-choice advocates say is true, and doctors are limiting late term abortions.
As it is, the way the law is written, those doctors who are doing as pro-choice says, are, btw, breaking the law. By limiting a woman's access to abortion based on ANY criteria, they are violating her constitutional rights.
What you wrote in response to Kreskin sounded as though you are referring to rights - as in the fetus' rights to life. No? Anyway, that's what I was asking, not about viability or medical assessments.
A person is considered to have rights once they've been born. What would be wrong with giving the medical profession the ability to decide if a fetus has been born or aborted, depending on fetal development and viability? They draw a line already when it comes to defining miscarried or pre-mature birth. Don't get too hung up on one word.
What I have a problem with is that potentially, and likely, the law would be written for cases that don't exist. And it could never cover the issue comprehensively, thus it will be subject to interpretation and likely have unintentional consequences. A complete waste of time and an attack on personal rights is more likely what we'll get out of it.
Like I said right off the hop in this thread... with people like him leading the discussion, it will go nowhere.
Is it supposed to go somewhere? Or is it simple something to distract you so that you aren't likely to think about the real problem?
If a person's errant way of life steps on someone else's toes, then I would agree with you. Between a woman and her conscience is no place for laws to tread. Unfortunately, a fetus has no more rights than a wart in medical or legal terms. Personally, I'm inclined to believe something controversial is just what's needed to focus rage away from Harper's non-government.
And if a fetus can survive once delivered outside of its mother? Where do your morals come in then? If a life can survive without its mother, does she still have the right to extinguish it?
That is the whole issue and why it is such a hot topic.. People are not willing to take responsibility for their actions.. Hence we must legislate everything to the point that we are no longer free.
Yet we expect Government to leave us alone.. We cannot have it both ways..
Believe it or not I agree with you that Abortion should only be used in Medical cases or circumstances that cannot be prevented otherwise.
This happens all the time. Its very easy to take a situation out of context and twist the facts to represent your side. Lawyers do this as part of their court tactics..
Parlament is closed, the economy is still loosing ground and Afghanistan is heating up.
Why in the world do we need to pick now to start talking about Abortion laws? We have a minority government that is at the moment ducking a confidence vote. That an MP would suggest talking about it, more so a Conservative MP suggests that they would like some of the attention off the obvious problems we're facing.
If someone doesn't want you to look at something, that they have created, don't you think it's possible they have an alterior motive?
More so because it's one of the most controvercial topics to discuss?
It's my humble opinion abortion is wrong. I believe life starts at conception. Certainly, at some point - and usually long before it can survive outside the womb - the li'l bugger is kicking from the inside out. How can anyone deny it's alive? Law doesn't distinguish between a day-old mass of cells and a full-term fetus and I think that's where the line has to be drawn.
I also have an issue with those who want to protect the rights of others but will not permit those who are fully "of right mind" the right to die. To me it is inhumane to watch someone die in pain when all hope is gone yet we let someone suffer in horror as the rest of the family must watch a family member whither away before their eyes.
I am not talking about someone with no ability, or mentally handicapped to make a clear judgement call, but someone still in full capacity of judging whether their quality of life will every improve and the possibility of every recovering is possible and both answers are NO.
At what point do we finally give them the right to relief.
I disagree... the key point in our abortion law has nothing to do with the definition of a fetus, and everything to do with our legal stance that no woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy, because to do so violates her security of person. There is nothing that says that the fetus has to be killed in order to return her security of person. Now, granted, the number of abortions it would apply to is miniscule to (according to pro-choice) non-existent, but, I'm merely talking about the law as written and its theoretical extrapolation. It wouldn't even change a single thing about the rights of a fetus, or the rights of a mother.
The Conservatives are bringing in a bill that says that if a pregnant woman is murdered then the person will be charged for killing two people instead of one.
When this law comes in it’s only a matter of time of whoever performs an abortion will be charged with murder.
The person who wrote this bill was looking at the case of banning smoking where cigarettes are legal while smoking is illegal in a majority of places.
Eventually if a woman terminates her pregnancy herself she will be charged with murder.
Then the abortion law will just fizzle to nothing and join the rest of the hundreds of laws that are out of date.
When this law comes in it’s only a matter of time of whoever performs an abortion will be charged with murder.
The person who wrote this bill was looking at the case of banning smoking where cigarettes are legal while smoking is illegal in a majority of places.
Eventually if a woman terminates her pregnancy herself she will be charged with murder.
Then the abortion law will just fizzle to nothing and join the rest of the hundreds of laws that are out of date.
If the medical establishments have figured out what to do (and how to pay for it) in the instances where the mother does not want the fetus, the doctor can chose if and when he wants to take matters into his own hands - is what you're getting at, more or less?
And I don't know what word you mean.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I mean.
and as for the word, you'd expressed confusion because I'd used the word 'right' in terms of the docs being able and allowed to make a medical decision.
Why not force the mother to carry the baby to term, instead? Seriously, if someone else is opting to keep the fetus alive when the mother had decided that she doesn't want it, why take risks with a premature birth? I'm not being facetious, just tossing some things out there. I can just hear the pro-lifers on that one.
Actually, the confusion had more to do with context of several words put together. But I don't tend to waste time on semantics - as much as I hate Socratic dialogue, I prefer to ask for clarification.