Renegade

It is interesting that "in the best interests of the children" is only an overridding factor when the parent is the one involved in the dsipute as is used as justification to override justice. Why isn't it a factor in other cases? If for instances, the woman had defrauded her employer for 16 years, and had due to misrepresentation defrauded her employer of a substantial sum of money. Once the employer found out, the employer demanded full repayment and penalties. Would a court also consider the "the best interests of the children" as the overriding factor to prevent payment of restitution to her employer?

Then there is no way you will ever believe that such an action is possible because whenever it occurs you will always dismiss it as a mental health issue or the act of a seriously unblanced person. You must also believe that we don't need laws against peadophlia either in Canada since no normal person would commit peadophlia and if they do, they must have a mental health issue or (as demonstrated by their action) are unbalanced. By that standard I can't prove that peadopheila occurs in Canada either. Personally I'm not willing to pay that price, and I believe there are many who agree. You believe that the law will cause "grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent". Personally I don't agree that that would be the outcome. Virtually all developed countries outside Canada have laws which restrict abortion. Do you have any evidience from any of these other countries whcih both permit abortion access, yet set limits on late term abortions, that "grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent" has resulted? I'd like to be convinced but currently I'm not. There are a number or areas in which I woudl see exceptions to a law which restricts late-term abortions. Certainly fetus which have significant birth defects, and dead and dying babies are others. Many laws provide for exceptiona circumstances, and there is no reason why an abortion law couldn't accomodate exceptional cases.

I agree 100%. There is a void in law because today in law the only time an individual is considered to have rights is after birth. Politicians in general do not have the courage to venture into this area because of the difficult issues whch are affected. Agreed. If the fetus didnt develop into a living being in the womb then there would be no need to set any limitation and the woman can abort at any time. If there was a definitave and measurable way to measuring the development of a fetus, I would be all for it as a measure. However even if there was, the mother would need to constantly assess the development of the fetus to make sure she did not broach any limit on when abortion could take place based upon fetal development. IMV this is too onerous and a time period is a much clearer way to put limits around the abortion decision. BTW, we should distinguish between fetal viability and at what point the fetus is considered an individual with rights. If significant milestones of human life are achieved, then IMV, the rights of the fetus must be considered even before fetal viablity. Oh but I am, and I (or my designate) have a right to my body and possetions after I'm dead. IMV, the interest of society do not overrule individual rights. IMV, The family (or whomever the person's beneficiary is) has the absolute right to do whatever they want with the body. If we allow the state to decide that its interest override individual rights, where does that end? Can the state take the persons financial assets because it is running a budget deficit because the state's need is greater? If the state has a great need for organs, IMV they should put the right incentives in place for the individual or the famly to voluntary transfer the organs.

It is more like he was defrauded into taking that role and when he discovered teh fraud he objected. If I defrauded the government into providing me welfare payments for 16 years, and the govenrment found out, would the government be right in asking me to pay back the welfare, or should the government resign itself to the fact that it payed for so long that it has accepted its role as welfare payor?

It is a good question. It seens like more a contractual violation then a criminal act. Usually the penalty for contractual violations is monetary damages.

I don't really know. I suppose it depends when your consultation was. There were limitations in place prior to them being struck down by the SCC. I know of no limitations except ones which are adopted as ethical guidlines by medical associations. If you know legal limitaitons, I'd be intereted in knowing more.

Then I would say it is not a "limitation" at all. It's more like a suggested "best before" date.

What exactly was the dad supposed to do? He acted as any reasonable father would. He took his wife's word as to the kid's paternity and acted accordingly both during and after the marriage. IMV thsi misrepresentation by the wife should not be left unpunished. Perhaps paternity should be established at birth via mandatory DNA testing. I wonder how many other fathers are unknowkingly brining up kids which are not rightly their procreation. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of the mother's apparent memory loss.

yes, I agree. I misspoke to say Molly is adovocating for abortion at the ninth month. What I should have said is that she is willing to legally permit abortion in the ninth month simply at the mother's discretion. I am unable to understand how Molly or anyone else can understand what the motivation of someone who does a late-term abortion. It surely cannot be the same for all women, any more than you can conclude that all people who commit infanticide have the same motivation. Of course not. It is not a normal act so a normal person would not do it. I guess I'd like to understand if you have any evidence that the ONLY reason someone would abort at the late stage is due to mental health issues. Post-partum depression is also a mental health issue, but we do not provide a blanket exclusion for mothers who kill their infant children. Given your reasoning, I am unclear why you would agree to any limitations at all. If you truly belive that a mother's choice trumps all, why even have a limitation? Since you do not agree that abortion at any stage is a criminal act, and you agree to 5-month limitaitons, what exactly do you propose as the penalties for any mother who trangressses the 5-month limit. Afterall, a limit without enforcement is pretty much useless.

Actually, Molly just answered that she would.

Yes that is the one. Mental health is an issue for ANY law including murder. It doesn't negate the fact that the law is necessary so that an examination of whether mental health was an appropriate defense or not. BTW, how exactly did you conclude that mental health was an issue? Also, there are multiple reasons for laws, and penalties. Prevention is only one of those reasons. Retribution is another. Even if a law doesn't always prevent someone from breaking it, to be just, it should punish those who do.

But the circumstance DOES exist. I have shown you that it does and has happened. Perhaps you are referring to the mothers when you refer to: "harrassment to innocent folks who are already in an unimagineably horrible situation" but that statement can equally if not appropriately more apply to the unborn child. You cite your experience driving your position. I don't know your experience but it would seem that it has influnced you to the point where you do not look at this issue rationally and with consistency to the other laws and principles we abide by in society. You are a self-described zealot. IMV, zealotry on either side of the argument does a disservice to the position they claim to support because the extreme position taken seems so irrational.

Man must pay support though twins not his For me this seems to be a case of justice gone wrong. The commitment to fidelity in marriage was clearly violated by the mother. The father may have been mislead as to his paterity and has been penalized by being forced to incur responsibilties which were not his.

Molly, I'm not sure if have already answered this, if you have my apologies. Do you believe it should be legal for a person to abort a pregnancy, immediately prior to birth, where there is no extraordnary circumstances (such as threat to health of the mother)? And by "abort the pregnancy" I do not simply mean simplying refusing use of her body, I mean actually killing the unborn child (for example via chemical injection). I fully realize that 99.9999% of the population would not do so even without a law, but I have already shown that such a situation has happened in the past.

OK, I'll bite. So, has the definition evolved for the better or worse and is it a bad thing that the definition evolve?

But we are not talking about what a normal person would do. We are talking about laws which legislate extreme behaviour. A practical human may not commit murder or robbery, yet we have laws to limit that behaviour because some individual will not be driven by practical rational though but rather emotion or desperation or other motivaitons. It is true that "Sometimes, folks do the right thing, even without laws saying that they must, or facing the threat of jail", but the collary is that "Sometimes, folks don't do the right thing, without laws saying that they must, or facing the threat of jail"

So could the definition of "consent" for rape. So why hasn't that been "redefined with every tiny shift of the political wind". BTW, what prevents "balance of competing interests" from being "redefined with every tiny shift of the political wind" or makes it more resistant to balance shifts? I couldn't disagree with you more on this. It is the current situaion which has no rules, is the wide-open barn door. Without some form of consent you have to either agree that state can impose its will on mothers without her consent (for example in banning late term abortions), or you would have to permit unrestricted access to late-term abortions. Either option is an extremely egregious rights violation.

To be honest Molly, don't think at all the current situation is a result of "balance of competiing interest". Currently the only interest respresented is that of the mother and she can legally abort right up to the moment of birth without regard to the unborn baby's interest.

Given that you don't seem to be an expert on libertarian philosophy, I'm not sure your definition is very usefull to me. As I've said libertarians as well as anyone else are everyone else are faced with tradeoffs in their choices of state representation. A libertarian may agree with homosexual marriages, pro- choice and free markets. A "conservative" party may support only some of those policies. A "liberal" party may support others. A libertarian is left to choose which policies are most important to him to have implemented and align with the appropriate party. I think if you actually were able to make an argument that you can increase liberty, you may get more support from libertarians. Positions which forcibly extract more taxes, do not seem consistent with more liberty. It's your right to be pissed off. I'm pissed too at the lack of choice in how much and where my tax dollars go. So... welcome to the pissed off club.

No, I don't think that libertaian ideology is a ideolgy of anything goes. It recognizes that some impositions are necessary. What it sees to do is maximize freedoms and to do so, recognizes that some limits are necessary. ("Your ability to extend your arm ends where my face begins")

Since we are taking about the hypothetical, I was assuming that it wasn't any more invasive than abortion. Is the invasiveness the only issue? It is interesting that you are concerned that the deformity may haunt "her". Should you also be conserned that the potentially deformity may haunt the father? Why would deformity from an expelled fetus only be a concern to her? Agreed. But in this case we are talking about what say she should have once it is no longer in her body. What we have not discussed and is equally interesting is what say if any the father should have in assuming the obligations of parenthood. Many in the pro-choice movement advocate that act of sex is not sufficient to infer that mother has consented to become a parent. Should the father also have that choice? Now I am not talking about the father deciding to abort a child during the pregnancy, that is clearly up to the woman. I am talking about post-birth whether the father should have the option to consent to assuming the duties of fatherhood.

Molly, It is precisely for the reasons you outline that I advocate a clearer definition of what constitutes irrevocable consent. In the case of pregnancy, because we have not defined exactly what actions or lack of actions constitute irrevocable consent, we leave room for arguments from pro-lifers that the act of sex is enough to imply irrevocable consent. By defining specficly what constitutes irrevocable consent, it nullifies the argument that anything less would be considered irrevocable consent as some of the pro-life movement would have the public believe. Let us use the example of rape. The only difference between consensual sex and rape is the notion of mutual consent. In order to avoid arguments of "implied consent" being given due to dress or provocative behaviour, we have had to clearly define that consent is construed by the positive actions of the participants OR the lack of dissent from someone capable of disenting (ie "No means No") I'm preplexed as to why the pro-choice community seems to be resistant to defining what constues irrevokable consent. By not clearly defining it, ammunition is given to pro-lifers to use the loosest possible ( and frequently irrational) definitions of implied consent to argue that consent was given.

I picked 3 months as an example. We can debate what constitutes a reasonable period. You must misunderstand what I mean by implied consent. I do not believe that having sex, whether unprotected or protected is enough to imply consent. Given that preganancy is only one possible outcome of sex, it seems reasonable that you cannot infer intent to consent to pregnancy from simply participation in sex. The only ones who maintain that participation in sex is enough to imply consent are zealots such as Mr Canada and they do it without any support of legal precedence. Even if you assume participation in sex implies consent, there is no reason why such consent is irrevokable. So the question is what would a reasonable person interpret as a woman's consent to carry a pregnancy to term? IMV, a clear set of rules that define that the lack of abortion after a specfic period, constitutes irrevokable consent to carry the pregnancy to term. A woman knowing these rules can either choose to abort within that term or not, but knowing that by not aborting she is in effect giving irrevokable consent. Yes I agree with this, however there is a margin of error. Some of of the earliest babies which have survived have been less than 22 weeks. I'm not knowledgable enough to know but I'm skeptical that in those cases significant activity would only have started 2 weeks before. IMV, 20 weeks is too close to the time when provable viable fetus have been developed. I would favour a cut-off period earlier than 20 weeks. For example 16 weeks. I fail to see that it is a significant intrusion on women to make a decision within 16 weeks in lieu of 20 weeks. Yes I agree with your view. In the case of the violinst, there has been no consent given so she not obliged to continue the life-saving action. To use the violinst analogy, if the violinist were given the option to disconnect and had a reasonable period to think about it, and she knew that by not disconnecting when given the option, she was consenting to continue the life-saving action without the option of revoking consent, then I think constent can be implied and the procedure carried out to completion. Because one of the principles we hold to in society, and I agree with is the notiion of one's right to oneself. In death that determination of what to do with one's body falls to the person one designates (ie one's family). The state should not have the right to intefere in removing choice in what to do with oneself regardless if one is dead or alive.

You did. You said that she owns her live, she doesn't own her fetus. That makes fetal cells an exception to what she is considered to "own". Why?

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm examining a hypothetical situation which may or may not ever become reality. You advocate choice without any seeming boundries on that choice. Let's say a woman chooses not to allow her body to host a pregnancy. Also let's say technology allows the doctor to retrieve the fetus intact. Should she and she alone have to choice to detemine if that fetus is implanted somewhere else and carried to term? Should the father also have a say as it is his DNA being propogated? Should society have a say in where it is implanted? It is no longer a question of "my body, my choice" as the woman would have already denied use of her body.