TreeBeard

I can try and explain it better. I want a discussion with anyone…. Not just to whom I replied…. This is an open board and an open topic. The poster was claiming that someone with the COVID virus shouldn’t be counted as dying from COVID if there were other factors. So I am trying to see where the poster is coming from on this…. Trying to understand their viewpoint, because I am having trouble grasping it…. Maybe I’m slow in the head. So, I changed the virus in my example to HIV-AIDS. If someone dies of pneumonia, when the have AIDS, the medical community counts that as a death from AIDS. The person woulnd’t have died from pneumonia if they didn’t have AIDS. People who die with COVID wouldn’t have died if the didn’t have COVID, so I am wondering why the poster wouldn’t count that as a death from COVID….?

So in Canada you think it’s not a right, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is? Did I get that correct?

I guess you answered a question I didn’t ask…. So in Canada it’s a right? But you disagree with SCOTUS, and, in your expert legal opinion, they violated the 10th Amendment (you need to tell the lawyers down there about this) so you think the right in the USA is null and void because of that? (tbh, I have no idea who brought up abortion in a thread about protesting at hospitals…. But here we are)

If someone dies of pneumonia, because they have the virus that cause AIDS and they wouldn’t have died of pneumonia otherwise, would you say that they died from pneumonia?

Do you think the fact that they were “liberal judicial activists” has any bearing on the legality of abortion the way it currently stands in Canada? By that I mean, you may disagree with the ruling, but does the fact that you disagree mean that it is not a right? Didn’t these “liberal judicial activists” have the legal power to define what a right is?

So why would a fetus have more rights to use a parent’s body than a 10 year old?

Was someone talking about a doctor’s rights and I missed it? Can you explain why the court said it was a woman’s right without referring to doctor’s rights?

Well, I am conversing with someone who doesn’t seem to know whether a parent has to actually help child get to a hospital, or even feed them. Here is the point: We force parents to keep their child healthy and even clean. A parent cannot even leave a child at home alone without facing repercussions. To not do so is illegal. However, we won’t even make the parent give blood if their child is dying. The difference is bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is sacrosanct above even the life of a child. We won’t even make a parent give up some fluid that their body will replace quickly to save a child’s life. Do you think a fetus’ life is more valuable than a 10 year olds’ life?

I’ll recap: You said the difference is actively killing a child vs not saving a child. So I asked if not actively saving a child with a disease would be illegal. And you said that the disease killed the child I pointed out that this is illegal A parent MUST save a child if they can. They can’t just let a disease kill a child. And here we are…. I still don’t know if you think it is legal to let your child starve to death?

So the judgement has been updated since then? There’s a new ruling from the court that says Section 7 doesn’t apply to abortion? Or are you just giving an opinion of what you think it should be?

So you think a parent is allowed to just not bother seeking medical treatment for a sick child? Can a parent allow their child to starve to death? “Your Honour…. Starvation killed that child, not me”. That argument didn’t work: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/meningitis-trial-verdict-1.3552941

So a parent can let their child die of a disease rather than bringing them to a hospital? Cuz…. Not saving them is not murder according to you But I am near 100% certain that this would be illegal. Do you want to revise your answer?

So, you’re saying that one must actively kill the child to infringe upon the child’s right to life?

Hmmm… interesting take. Can you explain why the courts struck down the law because it infringed upon a woman’s right under Section 7? Why would the court have said it violated a woman’s rights, if it wasn’t a right? The law was found to violate Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringed upon a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.”

It actually doesn’t concern me…. Just curious. I think there’s a plan in place to either get them vaccinated, or not have them in the job. That works for me.

But you don’t see the 10 year old child’s right to life overriding a parent’s right to bodily autonomy, correct?

Didn’t you mention that the news needs to be balanced and not biased? Which is it?

Zuckerberg is funding climate science? Tell me more…

If it’s not part of a woman’s body, then I guess it can just be removed? Or is it more complicated than you let on?

I guess they’ll be trying to find new employment soon. I’d be curious as to how many of these folks are doctors vs nurses vs cleaning/admin/support staff. Is this a Quebec problem?

How was it disrupted over the past 1.5 years?

Are you hearing things, or did you have a source for this?

Are the rights of protestors more important than the rights of a patient to have healthcare without being disrupted?

The analogy is perfect. Is it apples and oranges because you think that a woman’s bodily autonomy is worth less than a fetus? I see this as giving a fetus more rights than a 10 year old child. Giving blood is simple. Life saving. And yet, the parent’s bodily autonomy is worth more than the life of a 10 year old child.

We don’t even force parents to give blood to their 10 year old child if it will save their life. Bodily autonomy rights of an individual trumps the life of a 10 year old child. Why should we make an exception for a fetus in this regard?