Abortion revisited

[Black Dog]

? A third trimester baby can exist outside the wonb.

Third trimester abortions almost never happen except in cases of medical emergency, so I don't see how that's relevant.

[Michael Hardner]

Third trimester abortions almost never happen except in cases of medical emergency, so I don't see how that's relevant.

Let's recap:

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

Me: "I don't get it. You're ok with killing humans, I guess"

You: "What's not to get? They're humans in a biological sense."

Me: "I imagine that a lot of people consider it a human and a person. "

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

You: "A third trimester baby can exist outside the womb. "

Me: "Third trimester abortions almost never happen except in cases of medical emergency, so I don't see how that's relevant. "

Now - what are we talking about ? I thought you said you didn't care if a fetus was human ? What does the prevalence of 3rd trimester abortions have to do with you not caring about whether or not they're human ? Just the fact that you bring that point up makes me think that you DO care.

[Black Dog]

Let's recap:

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

Me: "I don't get it. You're ok with killing humans, I guess"

You: "What's not to get? They're humans in a biological sense."

Me: "I imagine that a lot of people consider it a human and a person. "

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

You: "A third trimester baby can exist outside the womb. "

Me: "Third trimester abortions almost never happen except in cases of medical emergency, so I don't see how that's relevant. "

Now - what are we talking about ? I thought you said you didn't care if a fetus was human ? What does the prevalence of 3rd trimester abortions have to do with you not caring about whether or not they're human ? Just the fact that you bring that point up makes me think that you DO care.

We are talking about the distinction between biological human and legal person. Well, at least I am.

I wasn't the one who brought third trimester babies into it.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

We are talking about the distinction between biological human and legal person. Well, at least I am.

I wasn't the one who brought third trimester babies into it.

I got mixed up with the you/me exchange there.

You said we were talking about an entity which can't exist outside of the womb, which is factually incorrect. Do you want to take back your statement ? Do you still not care if the fetus is human or not ?

[Black Dog]

You said we were talking about an entity which can't exist outside of the womb, which is factually incorrect. Do you want to take back your statement ? Do you still not care if the fetus is human or not ?

I don't see why that little factoid is relevant at all. Tell me why it is.

[Guest Manny]

There are other instances where we are legally obligated to care for the child, eg. once born, as it becomes a dependant. Otherwise it is child neglect, which is a crime under the child protection act.

Therefor it is necessary for a person to be legally obligated to provide care for another person in some circumstances. Or to ensure that those are provided for elsewhere, by someone else. It's not reasonable to say "I am a free person and not obligated to provide for someone else, under any circumstances".

So now we need only to determine whether or not the foetus is a person, or at what point they actually become a person, either while still in the womb or by passing through the "magic vagina".

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see why that little factoid is relevant at all. Tell me why it is.

Which factoid ? Your opinion or whether a fetus can exist outside the womb ?

[Michael Hardner]

So now we need only to determine whether or not the foetus is a person, or at what point they actually become a person, either while still in the womb or by passing through the "magic vagina".

That's not exactly true. What constitutes a living person in fact, and in law are two different things. In law, you have to draw a line, to set a parameter which is a human-invented abstraction that doesn't apply to a growing living thing. There are two points at which it's easy to draw that line: at conception, and at birth. And these are the two points at which the idealogues gather.

Picking either one creates problems with either group of idealogues' argument...

[Black Dog]

That's not exactly true. What constitutes a living person in fact, and in law are two different things. In law, you have to draw a line, to set a parameter which is a human-invented abstraction that doesn't apply to a growing living thing.

That's what I've been saying and yet...

I've never heard person divorce the term "human" and "person"...

[Michael Hardner]

That's what I've been saying and yet...

Well, I've never heard that... human and person mean pretty much the same thing don't they ?

The legal definitions may be something else, though, if that's what you're saying. But do you believe that someone has no right to life until the moment the umbilical chord is cut ?

[bush_cheney2004]

....So now we need only to determine whether or not the foetus is a person, or at what point they actually become a person, either while still in the womb or by passing through the "magic vagina".

Right...are there any federal or provincial statutes that make causing the death of a (non person) fetus unlawful in Canada? Are there any criminal (not civil liability) penalties for intentionally or unintentionally causing the death of a fetus without the mother's consent?

[Canuckistani]

Right...are there any federal or provincial statutes that make causing the death of a (non person) fetus unlawful in Canada? Are there any criminal (not civil liability) penalties for intentionally or unintentionally causing the death of a fetus without the mother's consent?

I can't quote them to you, but for the latter, yes for intentionally w/o mother's consent. (not murder tho). I'm not sure what the deal is with say a traffic accident where you are at fault and cause the foetus to die.

[Black Dog]

Well, I've never heard that... human and person mean pretty much the same thing don't they ?

The legal definitions may be something else, though, if that's what you're saying. But do you believe that someone has no right to life until the moment the umbilical chord is cut ?

I wouldn't say that necessarily.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can't quote them to you, but for the latter, yes for intentionally w/o mother's consent. (not murder tho). I'm not sure what the deal is with say a traffic accident where you are at fault and cause the foetus to die.

OK...thanks...much legal care has been taken not to define the fetus as a living person (i.e. subject to "homicide".

[Michael Hardner]

I wouldn't say that necessarily.

Congratulations. Although it's mushy, you have broken from orthodoxy.

[Black Dog]

Congratulations. Although it's mushy, you have broken from orthodoxy.

Well, I think defining when something becomes a person is really an impossibility. That's why I think Canada's status quo works well. It leaves it up to the individual woman, and as result there's a bit of a de facto consensus on the subject based on when they choose to abort their pregnancies.

[Canuckistani]

Well, I think defining when something becomes a person is really an impossibility. That's why I think Canada's status quo works well. It leaves it up to the individual woman, and as result there's a bit of a de facto consensus on the subject based on when they choose to abort their pregnancies.

The CMA has imposed its own limits. I don't think any doctor in Canada does partial birth abortions, or even very late term ones unless medically necessary. I would like to see those limits codified, so we're not the only country in the world w/o an abortion law.

[Black Dog]

The CMA has imposed its own limits. I don't think any doctor in Canada does partial birth abortions, or even very late term ones unless medically necessary. I would like to see those limits codified, so we're not the only country in the world w/o an abortion law.

Why bother with a law when the status quo is achieving the same thing?

p.s. there's no such thing as "partial birth abortions".

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I think defining when something becomes a person is really an impossibility. That's why I think Canada's status quo works well. It leaves it up to the individual woman, and as result there's a bit of a de facto consensus on the subject based on when they choose to abort their pregnancies.

Agreed... I'm not convinced that anything needs to change, but I do get pushed in that direction when I read opinions on here that say a fetus is a non-entity before the cord is cut. You didn't say that, others have.

[Canuckistani]

Why bother with a law when the status quo is achieving the same thing?

p.s. there's no such thing as "partial birth abortions".

Because I'm in favor of reasonable limits to abortion.

[Black Dog]

Because I'm in favor of reasonable limits to abortion.

But abortion is already limited in fact if not in law.

[Canuckistani]

But abortion is already limited in fact if not in law.

Much easier to change "in fact" What's wrong with codifying reasonable limits instead of letting the CMA dictate them?

[Black Dog]

Much easier to change "in fact" What's wrong with codifying reasonable limits instead of letting the CMA dictate them?

Because it's unnecessary, as I already stated.

[guyser]

Right...are there any federal or provincial statutes that make causing the death of a (non person) fetus unlawful in Canada?

IIRC, the govt of the day tried, but only got to a second reading where I think it died....or got aborted in the political process

Will probably be tabled again sometime in the future.

Edited May 30, 2012 by guyser

[dre]

That's not exactly true. What constitutes a living person in fact, and in law are two different things. In law, you have to draw a line, to set a parameter which is a human-invented abstraction that doesn't apply to a growing living thing. There are two points at which it's easy to draw that line: at conception, and at birth. And these are the two points at which the idealogues gather.

Picking either one creates problems with either group of idealogues' argument...

But thats not important at least to the legal aspect of abortion. Heres what our supreme court ruled...

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

The subjective argument about whether or not a fetus is human or not is besides the point. It might be fun to bat it around on an internet forum but it has no real relevance beyond that. The ruling basically skirts the abortion issue and simply rules that the state does not have the legal right to replace the judgement of the mother and her doctor with their own. It takes government out of the picture completely which is why we dont have a rediculous neverending political culture war over this issue.

Furthermore it prevents the government from going down the road to absurdity. IF the government DID extend to fetuses the same compliment of human rights it gives to children they would be taking on an impossible responsibility because the mother has defacto control. It would not only have to make sure the fetus was not aborted, but that it was being properly nurished, that the mother didnt smoke or drink, etc.

To enforce human rights prior to birth the government would need a large and expensive "womb policy" agency, and probably a "national womb registry".

So call it a human, or a duck, or a billy goat. It doesnt matter because the state has no such right under our constitution to force their judgement here on the mother. The government has no expertise in this area... nothing to offer, and no value to add.