Abortion revisited

[Black Dog]

Shrieking "it's not human. It's a lump of tissue!" over and over isn't going to persuade a pro-lifer. You guys seem to have a hard time wrapping your heads around this issue: RE-OPENING THE ABORTION DEBATE

I do question if you understand the reason for re-opening the abortion debate.

You're all busy doing your collective knee-jerk cliches that you're all demonstrating you're missing the whole point!

So if you're that confident with the fetus' status....why are you so afraid to re-open the debate and get this over with once and for all. This time, with science involved!

Actually, you're right. I don't understand the point of re-opening a debate that's been settled in this country since 1988. There's nothing to add. Nothing has changed.

[Topaz]

Well, with the gun registry gone, the Tories have to have something to raise funds and so they are trying the "abortion" issue. I really think they should try something else.

[GostHacked]

Well, with the gun registry gone, the Tories have to have something to raise funds and so they are trying the "abortion" issue. I really think they should try something else.

Maybe there should be an abortion registry and not an aborted registry.

[Black Dog]

Maybe there should be an abortion registry and not an aborted registry.

And treat law-abiding uteruses like criminals? No way!

[betsy]

Actually, you're right. I don't understand the point of re-opening a debate that's been settled in this country since 1988. There's nothing to add. Nothing has changed.

1988 was ancient time! We've come a long way since then.

Some cases had now come to light - thanks to science and modern tech - there were men who were executed for crimes they didn't commit!

Anything settled in 1988 definitely has to be re-opened! Most especially so when it's a matter of life and death.

We can't uphold something that could very well be based on ignorance!

Edited May 29, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

1988 was ancient time! We've come a long way since then.

Some cases had now come to light - thanks to science and modern tech - there were men who were executed for crimes they didn't commit!

Anything settled in 1988 definitely has to be re-opened! We can't uphold something that could very well be based on ignorance!

Except the Supreme Court decision was silent on the issue of personhood for the fetus. It spoke only to the fact that laws prohibiting abortion violated a woman's right to security of person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There's no scientific end run around that.

[betsy]

What you guys are saying through all your lame attempts come out loud and clear. You just don't have the guts to say it plainly.

You don't care at all if the fetus is human.

[betsy]

Except the Supreme Court decision was silent on the issue of personhood for the fetus. It spoke only to the fact that laws prohibiting abortion violated a woman's right to security of person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There's no scientific end run around that.

Oh yes there is! If the fetus is established by science to be human, then obviously he got the same rights as that of his mother. Aborting him will violate his right to security of person.

[GostHacked]

What you guys are saying through all your lame attempts come out loud and clear. You just don't have the guts to say it plainly.

You don't care at all if the fetus is human.

There are lots of fetuses that are not human.

[Black Dog]

What you guys are saying through all your lame attempts come out loud and clear. You just don't have the guts to say it plainly.

You don't care at all if the fetus is human.

I think I've said it about four times in this thread.

But I'll say it one more time, just for you:

I don't care at all if the fetus is human.

Oh yes there is! If the fetus is established by science to be human, then obviously he got the same rights as that of his mother. Aborting him will violate his right to security of person.

Nope. A fetus can be human in a biological sense, but not be considered a "person" under the law.

[bush_cheney2004]

What you guys are saying through all your lame attempts come out loud and clear. You just don't have the guts to say it plainly.

You don't care at all if the fetus is human.

Pretty much...be brave enough to admit support for personal liberty over human life. This makes anything possible!

[Michael Hardner]

I don't care at all if the fetus is human.

I don't get it. You're ok with killing humans, I guess because someone else decides to kill them. Lots of people are, I'm sure, but few admit in on MLW.

[BubberMiley]

Uh...maybe he's just not okay with telling someone else how to govern their own bodies.

[Guest American Woman]

If the fetus is deemd human, then it has the same rights as everyone else.

Except everyone doesn't have the same rights; minors don't have the same rights as adults.

More so when he did not have any choice at all in being inside his mother's tummy, whereas his mother had already exercised her freedom of choice, and the fetus is the result of that choice.

The mother's freedom of choice cannot infringe on the baby's right to protection.

So just for starters, I can assume that you support abortion for a rape victim, right? If not, your argument doesn't stand.

But that's the whole point of the debate, isn't it? To determine with clarity and surety whether the fetus is human or not.

No, that's not the whole point of the debate. The whole point of the debate is whether or not a woman can be forced by law to carry an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy to term.

So again, why are you so afraid to open up the debate?

Once again, I already explained why. Fact is, there's nothing new to bring to the debate. It is what it is.

[Guest American Woman]

betsy, I demand you give me your kidney, so I can give it to someone that is dying. If you don't, you're a murderer.

Once again with the attempt to compare abortion to not donating an organ.

1) The person's need of a kidney has nothing to do with the person choosing not to donate; the person choosing not to donate played no part in it. Not so with a pregnancy, in most cases.

2) The person refusing to donate a kidney is not allowed to pull the plug on the person requiring a kidney because they don't want to donate. They simply refuse to donate. An abortion is effectively pulling the plug.

3) A person who donates a kidney is left 'not whole;' in other words, they are minus a kidney. A woman who has an abortion is left whole. Her body is left intact. This is an important distinction.

4) You keep claiming an embryo/fetus is not the same as an independent human being, having gone through the birth process - and that is correct; yet you keep trying to make this comparison, which involves two independent human beings, and the situations are not comparable. You can't have it both ways.

5) The purpose of an abortion is to end the life, such as it is; and it does. It's undergoing a medical procedure that without exception will end the life. That's not the purpose of refusing to donate a kidney, and it doesn't end the life - kidney failure ends the life.

Edited May 29, 2012 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

I don't get it. You're ok with killing humans, I guess because someone else decides to kill them. Lots of people are, I'm sure, but few admit in on MLW.

What's not to get? They're humans in a biological sense. But they aren't people in a legal or moral sense.

[Michael Hardner]

Uh...maybe he's just not okay with telling someone else how to govern their own bodies.

But he already acknowledged that it's another body. One person can't have two bodies.

[Michael Hardner]

What's not to get? They're humans in a biological sense. But they aren't people in a legal or moral sense.

I've never heard person divorce the term "human" and "person"... As for moral sense, morality can be personal or collective. I don't know what the collective morality is over a fetus that is about to be born, but I imagine that a lot of people consider it a human and a person.

[GostHacked]

I've never heard person divorce the term "human" and "person"... As for moral sense, morality can be personal or collective. I don't know what the collective morality is over a fetus that is about to be born, but I imagine that a lot of people consider it a human and a person.

If the fetus is about to be borne, then you will be hard pressed to find a reputable legit doctor to perform the abortion.

I'd agree to giving a fetus the 'person' moniker as soon as corporations lose their 'person' moniker.

[BubberMiley]

But he already acknowledged that it's another body. One person can't have two bodies.

But you can't force one person to keep another person in their person. Even if removing the person from the person results in the death of either person.

[Michael Hardner]

But you can't force one person to keep another person in their person. Even if removing the person from the person results in the death of either person.

You can take the person of out of the person, but you can't take the boy out of the man.

[Michael Hardner]

If the fetus is about to be borne, then you will be hard pressed to find a reputable legit doctor to perform the abortion.

What does that have to do with my post ? Nothing, it seems.

I'd agree to giving a fetus the 'person' moniker as soon as corporations lose their 'person' moniker.

Non-sequitur ?

[wyly]

If the fetus is about to be borne, then you will be hard pressed to find a reputable legit doctor to perform the abortion.

you'll be hard pressed to find a situation where a healthy near term fetus has actually been aborted...near term fetuses don't get aborted, C section maybe if the mother's life was in danger...or possibly if the fetus was already dead or non-viable

[Black Dog]

I've never heard person divorce the term "human" and "person"... As for moral sense, morality can be personal or collective. I don't know what the collective morality is over a fetus that is about to be born, but I imagine that a lot of people consider it a human and a person.

Since we're talking about an entity that cannot even exist outside the womb let alone exercise the same privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law as the mother, I don't see why they should be entitled to the same rights and protections.

[Michael Hardner]

Since we're talking about an entity that cannot even exist outside the womb

? A third trimester baby can exist outside the womnb.