betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) The evil of Hitler lasted only for a few years. If we are horrified at what Hitler had done, what more when it is mothers who seek the killings of their own children - with the blessing of society. For what??? So a woman need not be encumbered, inconvenienced for 9 months! Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Don't give up your day job. Your stupidity shines through. Go ask your son what that means, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Bonam never said life has no value. He disagrees with you on where this value lays. ?? You're asking Bonam if he is a psychopath? Let me ask you: is it a Christian "value" to attempt to drive people away from your message? To what end? Same with your "baby-killers" theme. PErhaps you enjoy the fight itself more than wish for a change; else you'd want to change people's minds about abortion. Calling pro-choicers "baby-killers" is a guaranteed method for driving them away. So you don't wish to change their minds about abortion? Of course Bonam is a psychopath!!! Is'nt it obvious????? I would agree that Betsy's position is fairly extreme,however,I'm not necessarily in disagreement... I'm loathe to get invloved in these morality discussions and arguements because I think they are personal.As such,I don't think it would be fair to lord my morality on you,or vice versa.... However,your prhaseology of "pro-choice" I have always found problematic....Here's why... I think,on this particular issue,one is either for or against (I realize their might be a few qualifications).One really cannot be passive and use the "Pro-Choice" moniker.I find it almost like a soft pedal sales pitch.One is either okay with a woman being able to abort a fetus,or they are not. In other words,one is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion,and the rest is just cutesy wootsy semantics about something that's fairly ghastly... Edited February 19, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) One of you atheists here argued that life is deemed more valuable because you only have that one life and you're gone. What about that poor baby you sanctioned to be killed? He never even got a chance at life at all. Anyway, for those who are interested: • In Canadian law, under section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a fetus is a "human being ... when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has completely breathed, it has an independent circulation or the navel string is severed." Much opposition to legal abortion in the West is based on a concern for fetal rights. Similarly many pro-choice groups oppose fetal rights, even when they do not impinge directly on the abortion issue, because they perceive this as a slippery slope strategy to restricting abortions.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights Creative ways to sidestep that law. I forgot what it's called but some doctors maneuver the baby so that it is still partly in the womb when they kill him. Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Betsy: You continue to make a fool yourself. I invite you to read the actual text of the Criminal Code of Canada. Read Section 233 and then 287. Once you have done that I will post those sections and we can proceed with the meaning of these two sections. Edited February 19, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. R.S., c. C-34, s. 216. Abortion Procuring miscarriage 287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. Woman procuring her own miscarriage (2) Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Definition of “means” (3) In this section, “means” includes (a) the administration of a drug or other noxious thing; ( the use of an instrument; and © manipulation of any kind. Exceptions (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to (a) a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person, or ( a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage, if, before the use of those means, the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited or approved hospital, by a majority of the members of the committee and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of the female person has been reviewed, © has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and (d) has caused a copy of that certificate to be given to the qualified medical practitioner. Information requirement (5) The Minister of Health of a province may by order (a) require a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital in that province, or any member thereof, to furnish him with a copy of any certificate described in paragraph (4)© issued by that committee, together with such other information relating to the circumstances surrounding the issue of that certificate as he may require; or ( require a medical practitioner who, in that province, has procured the miscarriage of any female person named in a certificate described in paragraph (4)©, to furnish him with a copy of that certificate, together with such other information relating to the procuring of the miscarriage as he may require. Definitions (6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) and this subsection, “accredited hospital” « hôpital accrédité » “accredited hospital” means a hospital accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation in which diagnostic services and medical, surgical and obstetrical treatment are provided; “approved hospital” « hôpital approuvé » “approved hospital” means a hospital in a province approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister of Health of that province; “board” « conseil » “board” means the board of governors, management or directors, or the trustees, commission or other person or group of persons having the control and management of an accredited or approved hospital; “Minister of Health” « ministre de la Santé » “Minister of Health” means (a) in the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Newfoundland, the Minister of Health, ( in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, the Minister of Public Health, and © in the Province of British Columbia, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, (d) in the Province of Alberta, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, (e) in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the Minister of Health; “qualified medical practitioner” « médecin qualifié » “qualified medical practitioner” means a person entitled to engage in the practice of medicine under the laws of the province in which the hospital referred to in subsection (4) is situated; “therapeutic abortion committee” « comité de l’avortement thérapeutique » “therapeutic abortion committee” for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner, appointed by the board of that hospital for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital. Requirement of consent not affected (7) Nothing in subsection (4) shall be construed as making unnecessary the obtaining of any authorization or consent that is or may be required, otherwise than under this Act, before any means are used for the purpose of carrying out an intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 287; 1993, c. 28, s. 78; 1996, c. 8, s. 32; 2002, c. 7, s. 141. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonsa Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Interesting turn. the nature of evil equates to abortion in some peoples minds. The jews don't consider a fetus a person. The Catholics have never officially decreed when a fetus becomes a person. The protestants haven't either. The muslims have a couple of different variations on a theme but essentially abortion is tacitly allowed up to 120 days. I beleive that a woman has the right to determine what goes on with her body. OTOH I don't beleive that abortion should be a form of birth control. I beleive that a fetus does not become a person until it can be viable outside the womb with medical assistance. so lets call that third trimester. IMHO Abortion is not inherently evil. It is not murder. It is extinguishing the potential of human life, but that is philosophically and materially different than extinguishing a human life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) IMHO Abortion is not inherently evil. It is not murder. It is extinguishing the potential of human life, but that is philosophically and materially different than extinguishing a human life. A fetus is not potential human life....it is alive by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't need to kill it. Edited February 19, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) A fetus is not potential human life....it is alive by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't need to kill it. Then why are the so-called "pro-lifers" not as up in arms when it comes to having organs removed? By "definition" a kidney is "alive" and they kill it when they remove it. Where's the uproar over that? Edited February 19, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Interesting turn. the nature of evil equates to abortion in some peoples minds. The jews don't consider a fetus a person. The Catholics have never officially decreed when a fetus becomes a person. The protestants haven't either. The muslims have a couple of different variations on a theme but essentially abortion is tacitly allowed up to 120 days. I beleive that a woman has the right to determine what goes on with her body. OTOH I don't beleive that abortion should be a form of birth control. I beleive that a fetus does not become a person until it can be viable outside the womb with medical assistance. so lets call that third trimester. IMHO Abortion is not inherently evil. It is not murder. It is extinguishing the potential of human life, but that is philosophically and materially different than extinguishing a human life. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Betsy: You continue to make a fool yourself. I invite you to read the actual text of the Criminal Code of Canada. Read Section 233 and then 287. Once you have done that I will post those sections and we can proceed with the meaning of these two sections. Let me save you the trouble. When child becomes human being 223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not a. it has breathed; b. it has an independent circulation; or c. the navel string is severed. Infanticide 233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. R.S., c. C-34, s. 216. ________________________________________http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infanticide-Criminal_Code_Canada_Offence.aspx As early as 1869, Canada prohibited abortion - see image from the 1869 statute pictured. Section 287 of the Criminal Code became law in 1969. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms followed in 1982. The Code made it a criminal offence to "procure a miscarriage." Section 287 says that every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, uses drugs, instruments or manipulation of any kind, for the purpose of carrying out their intention, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. The Code exempted doctors from criminal liability if a hospital abortion committee was prepared to sign a statement to the effect that the "continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would likely to endanger (the pregnant woman's) life or health." Dr. Henry Mortgentaler, through his attempts at establishing abortion clinics in a variety of Canadian provinces, forced the issue of the lawfulness of section 287 of the Criminal Code. The issue came to a judicial head in 1988, when the Supreme Court ruled that section 287 of the Code offended section 7 of the Charter, and that the former was therefore of no force or effect (1 SCR 30). Wrote Chief Justice, Brian Dickson: "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person." There were to be other legal challenges. Joseph Borowski asked the high court to rule that abortions violated the foetus' right to life and equality under section 7 of the Charter. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that a foetus was not a person capable of claiming rights under the Charter. Borowski's case never made it to the Supreme Court as the decision in Mortgentaler made the issue in Borowski's appeal moot. The issue of the rights of the foetus reached the Supreme Court when, in 1989, a Quebec man succeeded in getting an injunction from a Quebec court to prevent his former partner from aborting her foetus (Tremblay v. Daigle, 2 SCR 530). The Court sidestepped the question of foetal rights under the Charter by deciding that the foetus was not a "person" under Quebec civil law: "A number of Anglo-Canadian courts have considered the status of a foetus in cases which are similar to the present appeal. These courts have consistently reached the conclusion that to enjoy rights, a foetus must be born alive.... In light of this treatment of foetal rights in civil law and, in addition, the consistency to be found in the common law jurisdictions, it would be wrong to interpret the vague provisions of the Quebec Charter as conferring legal personhood upon the foetus." http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/familylaw/lawarticle-27/abortion-law-in-canada.aspx And? Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Of course Bonam is a psychopath!!! Is'nt it obvious????? I would agree that Betsy's position is fairly extreme,however,I'm not necessarily in disagreement... I'm loathe to get invloved in these morality discussions and arguements because I think they are personal.As such,I don't think it would be fair to lord my morality on you,or vice versa.... However,your prhaseology of "pro-choice" I have always found problematic....Here's why... I think,on this particular issue,one is either for or against (I realize their might be a few qualifications).One really cannot be passive and use the "Pro-Choice" moniker.I find it almost like a soft pedal sales pitch.One is either okay with a woman being able to abort a fetus,or they are not. In other words,one is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion,and the rest is just cutesy wootsy semantics about something that's fairly ghastly... If no one used the term "pro-life," then I might agree. But maybe not. The key issue isn't usually some liking for abortion, but rather the notion of a woman's right to choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Betsy: Based upon what you have posted it appears you must understand that a woman's right to choose has been confirmed in law here in Canada. I live in Winnipeg and well remember Joe Borowski's crusade as well as that of Dr. Morgentaler and the clinic he established here in Winnipeg. It is unclear to me what you are wanting to accomplish in referring to Duhaime as that article clearly establishes abortion is not a crime in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) You're asking Bonam if he is a psychopath? Yes, I'm asking him - in the context that if we base it on psychoanalysis (which btw I pointed out to be questionable), it does seem there is a similarity. Let me ask you: is it a Christian "value" to attempt to drive people away from your message? To what end? For the life of me I don't know why atheists always have to invoke religion or God or divinity. Here I am a believer who can freely use and hide behind my faith as a tool for debate, and yet I choose to steer away from including it in this argument about baby-killings. Atheists, being non-believers to the existence of God, by logic, should never even use that for an argument in topics such as this, when it's clear that I am comparing the evil of Hitler/followers to that of this current day evil. Can atheists like Pinko and Shwa, as an example, not be able to explain their position without invoking divinity - specifically the Christian God? If I can do it, why can't they? Same with your "baby-killers" theme. PErhaps you enjoy the fight itself more than wish for a change; else you'd want to change people's minds about abortion. I don't fight. I say it like I see it is....no mincing about it. Imho, there is no pussy-footing around when babies are being killed everyday. Perhaps it is those who cannot bear to face the facts being presented before them in 3D that engage in these "fights" because they do not want to face it for what it truly is. In other words, they cannot defend their support for baby-killings. You didn't read the preceding posts by some atheists who threw insults when the argument was first presented? You didn't see the term "idiotic," "lunatic religious zealot," "pitiful, narrow-minded Catholic" come flying - predictably - across the board??? I was expecting that. I usually ignore those insults (unless when I have to give them as examples to prove my point). It's normal reaction, I guess....to react knee-jerk when someone steps on a nerve. Calling pro-choicers "baby-killers" is a guaranteed method for driving them away. So you don't wish to change their minds about abortion? I assume we are all adults in this forum. I assume we all have thinking minds. All I do is present my argument. If they don't like my style.....that's their problem, not mine. I cannot change your minds. I am hoping perhaps this argument will.....if you can unwrap yourselves from your obsession with religion. Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Betsy: Do you have any children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Betsy: Do you have any children? What's that got to do with the argument? You told me to read the Criminal Code. I posted those codes. Now I'm waiting for your point. What about it? Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Interesting turn. the nature of evil equates to abortion in some peoples minds. It is indeed interesting how it simply equates. I never thought about it along that line until I found that philosophy about evil: And even when there are evil movements in the world, they have been justified by their followers in the belief that they are good – like Hitler/Al Qaeda …No movement exists that says, “we are going to do something evil”, period. They say, “We are going to do something good”, even though it may be evil, as in those two cases for instance. Jonsa:The jews don't consider a fetus a person. The Catholics have never officially decreed when a fetus becomes a person. The protestants haven't either. The muslims have a couple of different variations on a theme but essentially abortion is tacitly allowed up to 120 days. But obviously our society saw differently, otherwise there wouldn't be any need for the declaration of the legal status of a foetus. JonsaThe jews don't consider a fetus a person. The Catholics have never officially decreed when a fetus becomes a person. The protestants haven't either. The muslims have a couple of different variations on a theme but essentially abortion is tacitly allowed up to 120 days. It is your own way of coping with it....to make it okay. There was a time when it was considered that 3 months and below was the gestational stage(?) when a fetus is not yet a human But over the years, even that became compromised....because of the Feminist Movement. The samples of late-term abortions done in the USA attest to that. Our own Criminal Code depicts that. I beleive that a woman has the right to determine what goes on with her body. This is the latest justification...or rather, "battlecry." When a woman says, "It's my body." That ought to make everybody shut up. That's the "good" that you see that makes baby-killing acceptable. Society probably suffers from guilt over how women were mistreated in the past....so everything to "empower" women is unquestionably championed. The fetus had to be deemed inhuman....so these women can freely pursue their aspirations without any 9-month interruptions. The woman must not be inconvenienced by an innocent baby. Even though society had given all possible support to prevent any pregnancies....the woman must never be made to take responsibility and must never be made to do the right thing for the baby. Even though it is her body....(boy, since no one believes in virgin births these days, it is a wonder how nobody questions how that baby got there in the first place)....still, the woman must have her life un-interrupted. 9 months is too much. Much more easier to kill the child. Life of a baby has no value at all. The aspirations of the woman will always come first. The baby has to be deemed inhuman so he can be stripped off his rights. That is the cause pro-choice advocates so stoutly champion. OTOH I don't beleive that abortion should be a form of birth control. C'mon Jonsa....believing that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Saying that doesn't make baby-killing less evil. Washing hands and looking the other way does not make it okay. IMHO Abortion is not inherently evil. It is not murder. It is extinguishing the potential of human life, but that is philosophically and materially different than extinguishing a human life. That's what slavers said about the blacks....that they were not really human. That's the justification....the "good" that slavers saw behind that atrocious trade. Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) So what's your problem, chump? Do you always slink away when confronted by information that exposes your position as false or unfounded? My reading skills are fine....thank you very much. However your comprehension skills are shakey at best. But now that I know you are a religious nut as well, it does explain the way you post. When your religion fails, you I (being a Canadian AND atheist) will be there to support you. Edited February 19, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 It is your own way of coping with it....to make it okay. There was a time when it was considered that 3 months and below was the gestational stage(?) when a fetus is not yet a human But over the years, even that became compromised....because of the Feminist Movement. The samples of late-term abortions done in the USA attest to that. Our own Criminal Code depicts that.[/quopte Late term abortions are illegal in Canada and the USA. I see no conflict here. This is the latest justification. That's the "good" that you see that makes baby-killing acceptable.Society probably suffers from guilt over how women were mistreated in the past....so everything to "empower" women is unquestionably championed. Feotesus are not babies. That seems pretty clear to me. 'We are going to have a baby!' or ' We are going to have a feotus!!'.... Even though it is her body....(boy, since no one believes in virgin births these days so it is a wonder how nobody questions how that baby got in there in the first place)....still, the woman must have her life un-interrupted. So god gets virgins pregnant? Damn, that sounds as bad as Allah having 72 virgins waiting for you when you die. 9 months is too much. Much more easier to kill the child. Life of a baby has no value at all. The aspirations of the woman will always come first. Life has value. This athiest values life. Today we are celebrating my little cousin's birthday who is now 2 years old. That is the cause pro-choice advocates so stoutly champion. Pro choice is the only logical stance. Live and let live. I thought the religious taught us that. I guess it ws all a lie. That's what slavers said about the blacks....that they were not really human. Those slavers followed a god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 And if people actually valued life on the whole, there would not be orphans without a roof over their head, or food in their bellies. Try saving the ones that are currently alive instead of bringing more problems into the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Although according to the 1892 Criminal Code of Canada abortion was illegal, not a single court had convicted anyone of abortion as of the late 60s when Trudeau brought the question before Parliament. That is not because abortions had not been taking place. Trudeau, a Catholic and personally opposed to abortion, as Minister of Justice in 67-68 drafted an amendment that would allow for abortion if certain conditions were met: A therapeutic abortion committee of not less than 3 doctors determined that the woman's life or health were in danger the abortion was to be performed by a fourth doctor in an accredited hospital The debates in parliament were heated, but John Turner, who was Minister of Justice when Trudeau became Prime Minister and also a devote Catholic, reminded the House that they were merely codifying what the courts had already determined: not a single doctor would be charged if a woman's life and health was in danger. Feminsts, though, were quick to point out the limitations of this new law. Not all hospitals were equipped with these "abortion committees". If you lived in downtown Toronto, the nearby hospital probably had one, but what if you live in a remote or rural area? Furthermore, committees were often inconsistent in their approach. Some would take a literal view of life or death and only allow abortions if a person was going to die, but require them to give birth even if it was known that the mother would suffer permanent damage to their health. Some committees also considered the mental health of the mother, while others did not. At stake here was access to safe and expedient abortions that fully consider the health of the mother. Going to committee was a long and drawn out process. Abortions become considerably more risky the longer one waits. Abortions can be performed in clinics by trained personnel, but the original amendment would require an OBGYN to perform the procedure. We all know how limited specialists are in Canada. The Vancouver Women's Caucus took their show on the road and marched to Ottawa to demand this level of care. Enter stage left Dr. Henry Morgentaler, U de M trained physician and survivor of Auschwitz and Dachau. His interests in family-planning medicine led him to begin performing abortions out of his office in the late 60s. In 1970 he claimed that he performed 5000 abortions out of his clinic in Montreal, contesting the government's amendment that requires an OBGYN in an accredited hosptial to perform the procedure. Morgantaler said of his reasons for performing these abortions that "every child should be loved and wanted." Morgantaler's boasts land him in court where he is acquitted by a jury. However, this was overturned by a court of appeals and he ends up serving 18 months in prison. During this time he's brought up on a second set of charges where a jury for the second time acquits him. As a result, the Crown brings a third set of charges against him because he is in clear violation of the criminal code and the legal amendments made by the Liberal government. The third jury is instructed by the court that the must find him guilty. They find him not guilty. All of these cases take place in Quebec, the epicenter of Canadian Catholicism, which by this time was fed up with the Church's involvement in their lives. The Quiet Revolution was solidified with these cases against Morgantaler. The PQ in '76 declares that no doctor performing abortions in their clinic will be brought upon charges because no jury in Quebec will ever convict them. Moreover, they state emphatically that hospitals cannot adequately meet the demand for services. Having won the fight in Quebec, Morgentaler opens up shop in Ontario and Manitoba, opening clinics in Toronto and Winnipeg. Round 2: The Crown in Ontario charges him and, unsurprisingly, he is acquitted for a fourth time by a jury (3 in Quebec and 1 in Ontario). It is, of course appealed, and the Court of Appeals orders a retrial. Morgentaler appeals this decision to the SCC, who refused to hear earlier attempts in the Quebec cases. The difference now was that Canada had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in place. Section 7 of the Charter, according to "pro-life" advocates, protects the life, liberty and security of the fetus. Trudeau, although under pressure from "pro-life" advocates in his camp, refused to explicity write the fetus into the Charter, stating that government should remain neutral on these matters. Trudeau believed the courts and people should decide. The 1984 SCC decision was 5-2 in favour of Morgantaler. Dixon and Lamar stated that government interference in the bodily integrity of the mother and state imposed psychological stress violate life, liberty and security. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term outside her own priorities and under threat of criminal sanction violates the Charter. Justice Wilson declared that the law was a violation of liberty. She says, "Section 251 [Trudeau/Turner's abortion amendment] takes a personal and private decision away from a woman and gives it to a committee and basis the decision on criteria completely unrelated to the woman's own priorities and aspirations." Justice Wilson continues, "s. 251 makes a woman subject to not her own control, but the control of the state. This is a direct interference to a woman's person." [my emphasis] It should be noted here that the courts absolutely refused to answer the question about when a fetus becomes human and when life begins. Justice Wilson imagined abortions would be less restrictive early in the term and more restrictive later, but does not get into sorting out this issue or taking a stance on when "life" begins. The dissenting Justices merely state that the court ought to remain silent on the situation and not read rights into the Charter where there are none. The SCC's decision, however, is not binding because it is a split court. The 5 justices that side with Morgentaler have differing opinions, so the government is not bound by their decision. Mulroney's government tries to take the opportunity to write a more restrictive abortion law, which fails at the Senate in a tie. No government since then has attempted to amend abortion laws in Canada. S. 251 of the Criminal Code had been overturned by the people numerous times. Finally, it was the supreme court that found S. 251 in violation of S. 7 of the Charter. As it stands today, every province in Canada allows and funds the operation of abortion clinics with the exception of New Brunswick. McKenna re-codified s. 251 at the provincial level, requiring the procedures to be performed by an OBGYN in an accredited hospital after the approval of a committee of not less than 2 doctors. The NB government continues to drag the problem out in court, while Dr. Henry Morgentaler will celebrate his 88th birthday on March 19 of this year. Edited February 19, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) The key issue isn't usually some liking for abortion, but rather the notion of a woman's right to choose. Baby-killing is a feminist issue. Is all. Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 What's that got to do with the argument? You told me to read the Criminal Code. I posted those codes. Now I'm waiting for your point. What about it? Just attempting another approach to you as you seem to have taken exception to the manner in which I present my position on these topics. I have already made my point and see no reason at this time to repeat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Betsy: Based upon what you have posted it appears you must understand that a woman's right to choose has been confirmed in law here in Canada. I live in Winnipeg and well remember Joe Borowski's crusade as well as that of Dr. Morgentaler and the clinic he established here in Winnipeg. It is unclear to me what you are wanting to accomplish in referring to Duhaime as that article clearly establishes abortion is not a crime in Canada. We're not on the same page. Sorry, you gotta go back and review the posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 We're not on the same page. Sorry, you gotta go back and review the posts. If you are suggesting we have not found common ground then I will agree with you. She seem unable or unwilling to get past the stereotypes you have developed. Are you married, Betsy? Do you have any children, Betsy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.