Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

[Born Free]

Abortion is one of the only issues in which the left refuses to acknowledge scientific fact. It's a rather interesting reversal of their love and devotion to all things science. I call them deniers.

And in this case, the term denier is more than appropriate. Because abortion is tantamount to the holocaust.

Your comparison is poppycock. It has an Ann Coulter ring to it.

Lots of people on the left dont support abortions and lots of people on the right support abortions. Go figure. I support the womans choice.

[Shady]

I support the womans choice.

I support science.

[Born Free]

I support science.

I support trigonometry.

[Smallc]

I support science.

The science, in this case, is far from settled. Almost all non essential abortions take place within the first two trimesters. You really have nothing on this point.

[Shady]

The science, in this case, is far from settled. Almost all non essential abortions take place within the first two trimesters. You really have nothing on this point.

I'm afraid I do. Actually, not me, but science in general. The 2nd trimester includes month 6 of a pregnancy. If you condone the terminating an unborn baby at 6 months than you're something worse than a monster. Take a look at a 3D ultrasound. Watch a baby move, and kick, and breath, and smile and suck its thumb. Watch it's heartbeat etc. And then tell us how it isn't a living human being.

Only knuckle-dragging neanderthals or political radicals, ignore that type of scientific evidence!

[Smallc]

Even if it is alive (and it isn't independently alive), it isn't yet a person.

[Smallc]

Anyway, most abortions happen within the first 20 weeks (according to my reading, over 98%). After 25 weeks, it gets hard to say what is a life and what isn't. Before that, it isn't difficult. It's a potential life, and nothing more.

[bush_cheney2004]

Even if it is alive (and it isn't independently alive), it isn't yet a person.

That's an arbitrary decision for Canadian law. When is a person...a person?

[Smallc]

That's an arbitrary decision for Canadian law. When is a person...a person?

When they have the capacity for rights and duties. That is, of course, a natural person, something that the US Constitution also talks about.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

When they have the capacity for rights and duties. That is, of course, a natural person, something that the US Constitution also talks about.

This has nothing to do with the US Constitution...fetal homicide laws are common in many US states.

Canada side steps the issue entirely by declaring that a person has the attribute of having been born alive. Causing the death of a 35 week old fetus in Canada is not a crime in and of itself.

[Smallc]

Causing the death of a 35 week old fetus in Canada is not a crime in and of itself.

That's correct. Unless the fetus actually because a baby and functioned on its own, it isn't alive. I rather agree with that assessment, brain activity notwithstanding. There is an argument to be made after 25 weeks....there is no argument that a baby that has been born is alive. You can keep your fetal homicide laws.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's correct. Unless the fetus actually because a baby and functioned on its own, it isn't alive. I rather agree with that assessment, brain activity notwithstanding. There is an argument to be made after 25 weeks....there is no argument that a baby that has been born is alive. You can keep your fetal homicide laws.

This is clearly an arbitrary legal view without "scientific" foundation. Clearly the 35 week old fetus is alive (medical status), it's just lacks legal status in Canada. As a class, viable fetuses could probably prevail in court were it not so politically divisive.

So in Canada, and mostly just in Canada, the "birth canal" (or C section incision) takes on magical legal powers to transform the "unliving" to "living". Amazing.....

Edited April 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Actually, it isn't without scientific basis. Until something has taken a breath on its own and had its body systems function on their own, it hasn't been independently alive, even if it has the potential. Potentially, I could be an astronaut. I'm not, so I won't call myself one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, it isn't without scientific basis. Until something has taken a breath on its own and had its body systems function on their own, it hasn't been independently alive, even if it has the potential. Potentially, I could be an astronaut. I'm not, so I won't call myself one.

It's not that simple. Babies (not just fetuses) can remain alive in utero regardless of the mother's status under special circumstances, just as "persons" can remain alive by artificial means. "Independently alive" is another arbitary hurdle that has no basis in medical status with current technology.

[Smallc]

Actually, it does have basis. There is a clear line between an independent being and one that is attached and still part of another. Or to put it another way...Canadian don't care what you think of our laws. We don't seek your approval...nor do we need it.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

Actually, it isn't without scientific basis. Until something has taken a breath on its own and had its body systems function on their own, it hasn't been independently alive, even if it has the potential. Potentially, I could be an astronaut. I'm not, so I won't call myself one.

This still seems arbitrary. It is not a good argument for either side.

For one, what does it mean to be "independently alive"? How long must an organism be capable of surviving independently to be considered "independently alive"? A human infant of a few months of age could not survive for long independently, they require the care of other humans to survive.

Secondly, why should being independently alive be an important distinction to begin with? Is a human whose life is sustained by some life support system no longer considered a "person"? Someone on a heart and lungs machine? Someone with a pacemaker? An astronaut in a spaceship kept alive only by the billions of dollars worth of advanced systems around them?

Again, something being "independently alive" is an entirely arbitrary and meaningless divide in this debate, just as is the point of "conception", and any other date or age that people propose as a "cutoff".

[Smallc]

For one, what does it mean to be "independently alive"? How long must an organism be capable of surviving independently to be considered "independently alive"? A human infant of a few months of age could not survive for long independently, they require the care of other humans to survive.

You're missing the point. It's when the body systems become their own, separate from the mother, without support, outside of the womb, that under Canadian law, life begins. If the baby is alive at that point, then it is alive. If it dies before that, it never was. It was simply a miscarriage.

Secondly, why should being independently alive be an important distinction to begin with? Is a human whose life is sustained by some life support system no longer considered a "person"? Someone on a heart and lungs machine? Someone with a pacemaker? An astronaut in a spaceship kept alive only by the billions of dollars worth of advanced systems around them?

Again, something being "independently alive" is an entirely arbitrary and meaningless divide in this debate, just as is the point of "conception", and any other date or age that people propose as a "cutoff".

The actual beginning of independent function isn't arbitrary at all...and a brain dead person who no longer posses and control of bodily functions often isn't considered to be alive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, it does have basis. There is a clear line between an independent being and one that is attached and still part of another. Or to put it another way...Canadian don't care what you think of our laws. We don't seek your approval...nor do we need it.

...and so..he throws in the towel...not surprised. I only wish you were so keen on not needing approval when it comes to other nation's laws.

[Smallc]

It seems I was a bit wrong on Canadian law. The difference is whether the fetus is inside or outside of the womb. If it's outside, it's alive. If it isn't, it's still simply part of the mother. I was thinking of New York law, where the fetus has to breath. That law actually makes more sense to me than ours. Every jurisdiction sets a line though, and each has some basis in scientific fact.

And BC, give it a rest. Your schtick gets old. I, like Canada, don't need your approval, nor do I want it.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

It seems I was a bit wrong on Canadian law. The difference is whether the fetus is inside or outside of the womb. If it's outside, it's alive. If it isn't, it's still simply part of the mother. I was thinking of New York law, where the fetus has to breath. That law actually makes more sense to me than ours. Every jurisdiction sets a line though, and each has some basis in scientific fact.

Krikey...that makes a lot more sense. What you were saying was just too cocked up.

And BC, give it a rest. Your schtick gets old. I, like Canada, don't need your approval, nor do I want it.

Just remember that the next time you want to piss and moan about laws in other nations, or rescue some Canadian who got their tits in a foreign wringer just because Canadian law is "different".

[Bonam]

You're missing the point. It's when the body systems become their own, separate from the mother, without support, outside of the womb, that under Canadian law, life begins. If the baby is alive at that point, then it is alive. If it dies before that, it never was. It was simply a miscarriage.

So the process of cutting the umbilical cord creates life? Extraction from a uterus creates life? Whatever the legal definitions are, surely you can see that they are arbitrary. What is so important about an entity being "separate"? Many species go through their whole lives and undergo a variety of symbiotic relationships. Should these then not be considered alive?

The actual beginning of independent function isn't arbitrary at all...and a brain dead person who no longer posses and control of bodily functions often isn't considered to be alive.

And yet is a fetus brain dead before it has been extracted from the womb? Clearly not. Brain death is our definition of when a living human has ceased to be alive. It has nothing to do with defining a "cutoff" for abortion. The examples I referred to dealt with individuals who required life support to live, not who were brain dead.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just as a footnote question, if fetuses are little more than the undead in Canada, then I assume that no civil tort action could be brought against a perp who caused the death (wait....uh...it's not alive...unless "it" crosses the border into US or Mexico)...err.....caused the unviability of a fetus. Is that correct?

[bloodyminded]

Abortion is one of the only issues in which the left refuses to acknowledge scientific fact. It's a rather interesting reversal of their love and devotion to all things science. I call them deniers.

And in this case, the term denier is more than appropriate. Because abortion is tantamount to the holocaust.

Then you are exactly akin to the citizens who stood by and let the Holocaust happen. Shame on you.

[bloodyminded]

This has nothing to do with the US Constitution...fetal homicide laws are common in many US states.

But not in all of them.

And since you stand by and let "infanticide" occur, you are utterly complicit. Good job.

[Molly]

So the process of cutting the umbilical cord creates life? Extraction from a uterus creates life?

Irrelevant to the question of abortion. No law can/should require the sharing of ones body with anyone or anything else. In all other circumstances, killing to defend ones own physical integrity is perfectly acceptable, so if denying occupancy of ones uterus results in death of a living human occupier, so be it.

Life/not life is not meaningful to ones right to refuse to host it.