Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Legally, yes, but in any practical sense, not even close. It is the practical human understanding that competing interests exist that makes it difficult to the point of near impossibility. Sometimes, folks do the right thing, even without laws saying that they must, or facing the threat of jail . 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" Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 "So could the definition of 'consent' for rape. So why hasn't that been 'redefined with every little shift of the political wind'?" It has been! Drastically and often! OK, I'll bite. So, has the definition evolved for the better or worse and is it a bad thing that the definition evolve? Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Molly Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Just because I am willing to admit that speaking of such a balance has merit doesn't mean that I would endorse balance of competing interests as a basis for writing up new law to limit access to abortion. I categorically do not. I categorically do not believe that any such law is either necessary nor even vaguely desireable at this time. I do, however, believe it behooves us well to talk about the sticky bits-- the things for which we all have to explore the right and wrong, the responsibility vs. rights, the questions of who decides, because the day will come when some court ruling, or some technological advance will force us to be ready with our souls well-searched. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Just because I am willing to admit that speaking of such a balance has merit doesn't mean that I would endorse balance of competing interests as a basis for writing up new law to limit access to abortion. I categorically do not. 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. Edited January 8, 2009 by Renegade Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Molly Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 That's a more complcated question than it looks like. I don't think it would be right. (Competing interests and all.) But legality is a different issue. If a circumstance does not exist, then writing law to cover it, particularly when it is such such an extraordinarily high-risk law, is an idiots game, and I just won't go there. That's the theory part. The practical and very personal part goes like this: Even if it does happen, but is rare, I'm absolutely not willing to pay the price in harrassment to innocent folks who are already in an unimagineably horrible situation, that would be the cost of putting something like that on the books. I don't expect others to share that perspective because they don't share my experiences-- but if they did, they would. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Molly Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) By the way, where have you shown that such a situation has happenned in the past? Are you speaking of the young woman with the pellet gun? ('cause if that's the one, I don't think it's an effective case to cite. Mental health issues alone would stand in her defense, and law certainly wouldn't have prevented it.) Edited January 8, 2009 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) But legality is a different issue. If a circumstance does not exist, then writing law to cover it, particularly when it is such such an extraordinarily high-risk law, is an idiots game, and I just won't go there. But the circumstance DOES exist. I have shown you that it does and has happened. The practical and very personal part goes like this: Even if it does happen, but is rare, I'm absolutely not willing to pay the price in harrassment to innocent folks who are already in an unimagineably horrible situation, that would be the cost of putting something like that on the books. I don't expect others to share that perspective because they don't share my experiences-- but if they did, they would. 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. Edited January 8, 2009 by Renegade Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Shady Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) After looking at the poll results so far, who in the world would advocate abortion at 9 months? OMG, talk about infanticide. Edited January 8, 2009 by Shady Quote
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 By the way, where have you shown that such a situation has happenned in the past? Are you speaking of the young woman with the pellet gun?('cause if that's the one, I don't think it's an effective case to cite. Mental health issues alone would stand in her defense, and law certainly wouldn't have prevented it.) 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. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 After looking at the poll results so far, who in the world would advocate abortion at 9 months? OMG, talk about infanticide. Actually, Molly just answered that she would. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Actually, Molly just answered that she would. Actually if you read her posts, Molly is not advocating for abortion at the ninth month. She is saying that anyone who would have an abortion that late in the pregnancy (for no discernable reason that a third person can determine) must be suffering horrendously to begin with and does not deserve criminal prosecution. Your belly is huge, you feel the baby kicking... very very very few women would abort at this stage. Perhaps someone with extreme mental health issues but no normal person. So the "punishment" for doing so should not be based on "the normal person". We do not need laws that criminally prosecute women who abort. No matter what stage. I agree on limitations to the 5th month or so, but I do not agree that abortion should be considered a criminal act in any way shape or form. Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
Shady Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 We do not need laws that criminally prosecute women who abort. You're right, just the doctor. Quote
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Only if he uses a coat hanger or bleach or some other dumb ass thing (which would be the only option if anti-choice folks get their way. "Woman's life -- fck her, she needs to pay for her "mistake". Pro-Life my ass. Pro-control women who dare to have sex is more like it. Cheers! Here's to hoping your daughter gets pregnant. Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Actually if you read her posts, Molly is not advocating for abortion at the ninth month. She is saying that anyone who would have an abortion that late in the pregnancy (for no discernable reason that a third person can determine) must be suffering horrendously to begin with and does not deserve criminal prosecution. 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. Your belly is huge, you feel the baby kicking... very very very few women would abort at this stage. Perhaps someone with extreme mental health issues but no normal person. So the "punishment" for doing so should not be based on "the normal person". 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. We do not need laws that criminally prosecute women who abort. No matter what stage. I agree on limitations to the 5th month or so, but I do not agree that abortion should be considered a criminal act in any way shape or form. 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. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 I agree with limitations but not prosecution for those who abort after the "abortion expiry date". It's just not feasible. I am not sure "what to do" with those who abort later... at least if there were limitations perhaps fewer late term abortions would occur. Women need to know that if they choose abortion they won't be harassed or picketed when they go to a clinic. I can imagine some women would be afraid of these "protesters" and put off her abortion. Me I went to Women's Hospital, didn't see a single picket and came out 20 minutes later all done. Now if protesters had forced me to leave the clinic or threatened my life, I may have had to put off the abortion until I felt safe enough to go to the clinic. Perhaps that would be past the "abortion expiry date". As I said before, when I was five months along (and stressed) my doctor asked me if I wanted to go to Seattle for an abortion. Obviously 15 years ago there was some limitation here in BC or he would not have suggested I go to the US. Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 I agree with limitations but not prosecution for those who abort after the "abortion expiry date". It's just not feasible.I am not sure "what to do" with those who abort later... at least if there were limitations perhaps fewer late term abortions would occur. Then I would say it is not a "limitation" at all. It's more like a suggested "best before" date. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 So if there are no limitations in place... why did my doctor suggest I go to Seattle? Why not Vancouver? I think there are limitations and it's the very rare abortion that occurs late term. I think anti-choice folks are using scare tactics..."OMG!! women are aborting babies that could survive outside the womb... millions upon millions of 'em!!" Perhaps next time I see my family doctor I will ask. Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 So if there are no limitations in place... why did my doctor suggest I go to Seattle? Why not Vancouver? 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 think there are limitations and it's the very rare abortion that occurs late term. I think anti-choice folks are using scare tactics..."OMG!! women are aborting babies that could survive outside the womb... millions upon millions of 'em!!" 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. Quote “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson
Mr.Canada Posted January 8, 2009 Author Report Posted January 8, 2009 The Catholic Church is still pushing the doctrine that contraception is a violation of Natural Law; but in the West, at least 90% of their parishoners ignore these rules anyway. Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the 1.1+ Billion Catholics around the world? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Shakeyhands Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the 1.1+ Billion Catholics around the world? re-read what was said. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
WIP Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 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. The only way to settle this issue, and other bordering issues such as embryonic stem cell research, is to define more clearly when human life begins. If it's considered a human life, then its right to live can outweigh other considerations, such as the privacy rights of the pregnant woman who is hosting a growing embryo or fetus. 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. And the only reasonable reasons to set a "specific period" is because it has become a determining factor for considering it to be a human life with guarantees of rights and protection from harm. 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. Yes, and that's because not every baby developes at the same rate. This is why using a set number of weeks is not as good a guideline as using fetal viability as the standard. A fetus can be as old as 28 weeks and still not be ready to survive outside of the mother's womb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Variation_in_growth Because one of the principles we hold to in society, and I agree with is the notiion of one's right to oneself. And, you are certainly not yourself after you're dead and buried. 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. What if it's in the interests of society as a whole (especially one with a desperate shortage of available organs) to have all available organs for donation? What is the interests of the family who want to deny any option to use one of the deceased's organs to save another life? Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Mr.Canada Posted January 8, 2009 Author Report Posted January 8, 2009 Here is a good question for Mr Canada. What if a new test could determine wether a fetus was genetically predisposed to homosexuality? If you knew your potential son was likely to be a homosexual would you have a different opinion? Oh oh what if that test was 100% accurate after say 4 months? What would you do then MrCatholic? Would you allow the birth and love your gay son? Would you disown the son and put him up for adoption? Would you disown the wife for giving birth to a baby who was gay? Or would you walk your new gay son down the aisle of the church that he chooses to marry his gay immigrant man-bride in; giving up all your homophobia and thanking God for sending the gift of such a wonderful son who taught you not to be a bigoted a-hole? Well first you'd have o prove to me that homosexuality is genetic, which it isn't. It's a choice but lets just say it's genetic so I can answer you. Next no abortion at all ever, we're Catholic. Additionally, I have strong male hetro genes and no child of mine will be gay but lets play along and say it was true. He would be taught that homosexual acts are a sin and he's not to give in to these feelings or he'll land his eternal soul into the fires of hell for all eternity being ripped apart over and over again. He would join the seminary if he is admitted and become celibate and become a priest if he got the call from the Bishop. He would have no choice as I, his father calls the shots not him. I'm the boss of my children not the other way around like so many seculars. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Mr.Canada Posted January 8, 2009 Author Report Posted January 8, 2009 The Catholic Church is still pushing the doctrine that contraception is a violation of Natural Law; but in the West, at least 90% of their parishoners ignore these rules anyway. Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the millions of Catholics in the western world? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
madmax Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the millions of Catholics in the western world? Only by condom companies test marketing in Latin America. Quote
blueblood Posted January 8, 2009 Report Posted January 8, 2009 Well first you'd have o prove to me that homosexuality is genetic, which it isn't. It's a choice but lets just say it's genetic so I can answer you. Next no abortion at all ever, we're Catholic. Additionally, I have strong male hetro genes and no child of mine will be gay but lets play along and say it was true. He would be taught that homosexual acts are a sin and he's not to give in to these feelings or he'll land his eternal soul into the fires of hell for all eternity being ripped apart over and over again. He would join the seminary if he is admitted and become celibate and become a priest if he got the call from the Bishop. He would have no choice as I, his father calls the shots not him. I'm the boss of my children not the other way around like so many seculars. And you have walked into a trap... Forcing repressed homosexuals into the clergy is poison. Why should some alter boy pay for your headcaseness? Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.