The rights of the Unborn still a "hot potato"!

[Praxius]

The fundamental integrity of our society, economy, freedom and justice system rests on this issue.

No it doesn't. You can't simply generalize every aspect of our lives to this one debate..... as there are way too many factors and situations that have no relation to what occurs to a fetus.

A society without a comprehension of its future in the lives of its most vulnerable citizens, the unborn, is a society that is annihilating itself.

Unborn fetuses are not Citizens, that is where you are ruining your argument. A fetus usually doesn't have a name, has no form of identification, no ability to do anything.... and until it is registered at the hospital.... after it is born.... can it be claimed a citizen of the country.

It's not an issue you can sweep under the carpet and ignore, it is one that lurks in crevices and attacks with stealth and avengance.

Nobody swept it under the carpet.... it's already said and done with.... a fetus is not a living human being.... let alone a citizen of the nation.... you're stretching beyond logic.

 

[Praxius]

Great statement! Nailed on head!! That should give the pro-abortionists something to think about!

Nope, sorry loon, it didn't..... as stated in my previous post, a fetus is not a citizen of the country.... if that was the case then perhaps our government should start registering the fetus at conception..... but now that would just simply be silly now wouldn't it?

 

[no color]

The fundamental integrity of our society, economy, freedom and justice system rests on this issue. A society without a comprehension of its future in the lives of its most vulnerable citizens, the unborn, is a society that is annihilating itself. It's not an issue you can sweep under the carpet and ignore, it is one that lurks in crevices and attacks with stealth and avengance.

Well put. The unborn is indeed the most vunerable in our society, as the unborn cannot defend itself. As a society, we've got a lot of explaining to do. We've eliminated the death penalty for convicted killers, yet we've authorized it for innocent unborn babies. How anyone can accept this in our society is reason enough to worry. And worry we should as we've given up on any value we previously had on innocent human life. Makes one wonder what will become of mankind as we continue in this direction...

 

[Praxius]

According to Wiki:

Abortion in Canada is not limited by the law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortions. Regulations and accessibility varies between provinces.

Indeed, but you're skewing the perspective..... Canada as a country doesn't have one big rule book on what abortions should be allowed and which shouldn't...... as it states in your own link, that is left to the provinces / local communities.... AKA: to suit the beliefs and desires of those in that area.

That doesn't mean there are no laws and rules in place.... there are.... they're just regulated by each province.... as it should be.

 

[Tonington]

In that same argument, so does Cancer.... There are many things that affect the host.... but does that actually make it human?

A human doesn't multiply it's cells through division beyond a set of parameters, that's the difference.

Where the organism gets it's resources from matters not in defining a living thing. All humans start out as "parasites" or "symbiosis". How could that be something which excludes that life stage from being called living?

I don't see the big deal though. A new Bill doesn't change our Charter, which is where you have to define a person if you want to give rights to the unborn. This Bill gives rights in an offhand way, the same way that animal cruelty bills grant rights to animals, but not entrenched rights like those in Constitutional documents. Huge difference.

 

[karrie]

imo, life starts at implantation. But I'm willing to accept what Canadian law states about a woman's right to choose. Given that choice, a fetus has the rights its mother grants it. If its mother has granted it the right to life, then anyone who takes that away without her having signed a document stating that she has approved such action, is committing murder.

 

[Praxius]

Well put. The unborn is indeed the most vunerable in our society, as the unborn cannot defend itself.

An unborn fetus is not part of our society.

As a society, we've got a lot of explaining to do.

There is no additional explination required.... a fetus is not considdered a living, breathing human being..... it is called a fetus.... hince the term.... fetus. If it was a human, then we'd call it a human.... but it's not..... it's a fetus.

We've eliminated the death penalty for convicted killers, yet we've authorized it for innocent unborn babies.

They are not babies, they are fetuses, no matter how many times you call them a baby. A baby, or better yet, an infant, is not considdered as such until it is born. What's to argue?

How anyone can accept this in our society is reason enough to worry.

Well you're worrying over nothing.

And worry we should as we've given up on any value we previously had on innocent human life.

There is no worry, because there is no Human Life in question. There is the potiential of human life, but that's it..... and if you want to argue the Potiential, then I guess we should make it illegal for women to have their tubes tied, hysterectomies or men getting
vasectomies, as they are all processes to the potiential of human life. A line must be drawn, and that is at birth.... it's simple, it's easy to identify with, and there are no questions that can defend the death of a newborn baby.

Makes one wonder what will become of mankind as we continue in this direction...

A lower increase in human growth around the world, the planey will be able to recover much of its resources and land, food consumption will reduce and the world would be better off then it is now.

All sounds good to me.

 

[Praxius]

A human doesn't multiply it's cells through division beyond a set of parameters, that's the difference.

Cut your skin and see how it gradually heals itself by creating new cells.... how does it create those cells? Everything that has created the human structure has be structured around this process.... the egg is one cell, which devides into two cells, then four, etc etc.... We shed dead hair and skin for new skin and hair until we die.

It is the process of development for most things on this planet. That doesn't give the excuse that those things should be given Human Rights.... if that was the case, then why not impose human rights for all living creatures on the planet? Why not plants/trees? Dogs, Pigs? Whales?

Shall we allow Dolphins to vote?

Where the organism gets it's resources from matters not in defining a living thing. All humans start out as "parasites" or "symbiosis". How could that be something which excludes that life stage from being called living?

Because it is not independant "Living".... as it is using resources from the host/mother, due to it's own inability to produce those resources on its own independantly, which is why I don't considder a fetus a living human being until it is born, cut from the mother and takes it's first independant breath.

I also have a spiritual explination I can give you, if you like in this process.

I don't see the big deal though. A new Bill doesn't change our Charter, which is where you have to define a person if you want to give rights to the unborn. This Bill gives rights in an offhand way, the same way that animal cruelty bills grant rights to animals, but not entrenched rights like those in Constitutional documents. Huge difference.

Indeed.

 

[Praxius]

imo, life starts at implantation. But I'm willing to accept what Canadian law states about a woman's right to choose. Given that choice, a fetus has the rights its mother grants it. If its mother has granted it the right to life, then anyone who takes that away without her having signed a document stating that she has approved such action, is committing murder.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Tonington]

Cut your skin and see how it gradually heals itself by creating new cells.... how does it create those cells?

It won't form a tumor...it is bounded growth, which I already said was a key difference.

Everything that has created the human structure has be structured around this process.... the egg is one cell, which devides into two cells, then four, etc etc....

No, the egg joins with a sperm, and the result is a single diploid cell, which then begins dividing into two cells, four cells, etc. etc. When it is diploid, it is now a human cell with a full set of chromosomes.

It is the process of development for most things on this planet. That doesn't give the excuse that those things should be given Human Rights

I never said it did My position is anyone who thinks a growing mass of cells in a womb isn't a human life is either: a) ignorant, b) delusional, or c) an ideologue. I actually favour a woman having the choice in any event.

.... if that was the case, then why not impose human rights for all living creatures on the planet? Why not plants/trees? Dogs, Pigs? Whales?

That's the slippery slope this discussion leads to. Why not indeed?

Shall we allow Dolphins to vote?

Depends if they show up to vote. Of course not.

Because it is not independant "Living".... as it is using resources from the host/mother, due to it's own inability to produce those resources on its own independantly, which is why I don't considder a fetus a living human being until it is born, cut from the mother and takes it's first independant breath.

So, then hospital patients who need a machine to save them, or an artificial heart valve aren't 'Living'? That's a dubious argument. In such a case there are many non-living humans walking around...

 

[Nuggler]

Life begins at 40

:idea:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

When you look at examples like this one below and you can be sure this is not one isolated case. All over the world you see stupid scenarios like this where a 14 year old girl doesn’t have control of her life. Pro life will tell us that the girl had no control of her life but the baby did……………So F UCKING STUPID TO THINK LIKE THAT. ONE MILLION UNWANTED BIRTHS TAKES PLACE EVERY YEAR AND JAILS WILL NEVER STOP HAVING NEW COMERS. SUICIDES WILL NOT STOP FROM PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THIS LIFE WAS A MISTAKE FOR THEM.
A TRULY DARK STUPID WORLD FOR THEM…………..
BEFORE THREE MONTHS THE MISTAKE SHOULD BE ABORTED IF IT POSES DANGER FOR THE CHILD OR THE MOTHER………

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - A newborn baby abandoned outdoors in winter by her 14-year-old mother was found safe in a dog pen with a mother dog and her brood of puppies near the city of La Plata, Argentine media reported on Friday.

[SIZE=-2]ADVERTISEMENT[/SIZE]

Farmer Fabio Anze found the naked baby girl on Thursday, being kept warm among his dog China's puppies, La Nacion newspaper said. Anze called the police and the baby was taken to a hospital.
Egidio Melia, director of the Melchor Romero hospital, told television and newspaper reporters that the baby was just a few hours old when she was found, and was in good health although she had some bruises.
Nighttime temperatures are chilly but not freezing in the Southern Hemisphere winter in the rural area around La Plata, 40 miles (60 km) south of Buenos Aires.
Police said they had located the 14-year-old girl who gave birth to the baby outdoors during the night.
It was not clear whether the mother left her baby in the dog's pen or whether the dog found the baby outdoors and carried it in to join her puppies.

 

[Praxius]

It won't form a tumor...it is bounded growth, which I already said was a key difference.

Tumor, Tomato... it's all the same, and they all grow, just with different desired effects, just because you like one over the other doesn't change anything.

No, the egg joins with a sperm, and the result is a single diploid cell, which then begins dividing into two cells, four cells, etc. etc. When it is diploid, it is now a human cell with a full set of chromosomes.

What I stated is still correct, as a "Single Diploid Cell" is still a single cell.... what's your point?

And Chromosomes alone do not mean life.... it is simply a step towards it.

I never said it did My position is anyone who thinks a growing mass of cells in a womb isn't a human life is either: a) ignorant, b) delusional, or c) an ideologue. I actually favour a woman having the choice in any event.

As do I, however none of your options above match my position, nor are they positive explinations of "Human Life" only stages with lead up to it.

That's the slippery slope this discussion leads to. Why not indeed?

One step at a time.

Depends if they show up to vote. Of course not.

And yet, dolphins hold far more humanoid traits, intelligence, etc. then a fetus.... yet they deserve less rights then a blob of human-look-a-like meat in a womb?

So, then hospital patients who need a machine to save them, or an artificial heart valve aren't 'Living'? That's a dubious argument. In such a case there are many non-living humans walking around...

No, you misunderstood.... they have already started their lives, have already been registered as a "Citizen" and their individuality exists.... there is an existing life to save, with a fetus, nothing has started except development towards life.

 

[quandary121]

At what point does a unborn child have a soul.?

 

[dancing-loon]

Indeed, but you're skewing the perspective..... Canada as a country doesn't have one big rule book on what abortions should be allowed and which shouldn't...... as it states in your own link, that is left to the provinces / local communities.... AKA: to suit the beliefs and desires of those in that area.

That doesn't mean there are no laws and rules in place.... there are.... they're just regulated by each province.... as it should be.

Fine, no argument here.
But I would like to ask you whether you have ever considered that the foetus does experience pain when being killed? You say it is not a person or even a human being until it is born.

 

[L Gilbert]

As far as I am concerned no-one should have the right to deny the rights of a human fetus to develop into a complete human except the mother and/or the physician who is concerned about the life of the mother. Anyone else should keep their nose in their own business. Harm coming to a human fetus would probably also harm the mother of the fetus.
As to whether a human fetus is human or not, what else could it be? It certainly wouldn't be amoeba, aardvark, alder, or Andean duck.
This is a mountain made from a molehill, IMO, and a bit dumb, too.

 

[Unforgiven]

It's a pair of shoes until it can make it's way out of the host and survive away from that host. Then it has all the rights and privilege you and I enjoy. Until then, it's property and within certain rules it can be dealt with accordingly.

Fact is that this very divisive subject being tossed into the mix is nothing more than, as Nuggler points out, a smoke screen. So why get all caught up in a non-issue while there are so many legitimate issues just waiting for adoption by informed voters?

 

[Praxius]

At what point does a unborn child have a soul.?

What's a soul?

In other words.... you're trying to start an argument with something unprovable..... kind of a lose / lose situation for both sides of the argument.

But as I touched a little about my "Spiritual" explination, I will say that based on my belief, the "Soul" or "Spirit" of individuality and conciousness doesn't enter the body until the first breath.... before that, it is just a vessel.... much as when you die, your body is just a vessel. The moving, kicking, twitching and such within the womb can easily be explained as regular muscle reflex during development of the muscles, nothing more...... if it wasn't, then the body would be born with severe muscle atrophy.

Same as when in a lab, if you take electrodes to muscle tissue, it will flex and/or twitch.... giving the impression of life.... even though we know there isn't any.

Everything the fetus is, has been taken and extracted 100% from the "to be mother" hince, is part of the Mother, therefore, she still should have every right to make the decisions that affect her directly.... the fetus secondary.

 

[Praxius]

Fine, no argument here.

But I would like to ask you whether you have ever considered that the foetus does experience pain when being killed?

You say it is not a person or even a human being until it is born.

No it doesn't feel pain.... there would have to be a consciousness for that to occur, and since I believe there isn't one until birth, then it would stand to be logical that it also does not feel pain.

Everytime I've ever seen a birth, be that natural or C-Section, they pull the baby out limp as a noodle, and doesn't exert any motion, sound or breathing until breathing is induced.... so to me, I don't see any life.... certainly not Human life..... and certainly no consciousness.

 

[Nuggler]

:angry3: Ah, this thread, started by a luddite, munky2 is getting a bit tedious, going nowhere but round and round as does most of the "so and so is in deeeeeeeeeeeeep trouble" threads.

All we do is change the colour of the troll and the direction of the boat.

Time for coffee. Maybe a timbit.

num num

:tongue8: