Motion 312 vote coming soon!

[Mr.Canada]

Motion 312 is a vote to begin a study of when life actually begins. This is going to be a scientific study so we can once and for all end the debate of when human life begins. Instead of bickering forever, all parties should agree to do this. The left favors science over religion at every turn so this is an opportunity to side with science. Voting this down is siding with ignorance, voting against this is siding with superstition. Why not find out once and for all when human life begins?

After this there will be no more debate. Why is the left so afraid of science now? is the left only interested in science when it suits their needs?

[jacee]

Motion 312 is a vote to begin a study of when life actually begins. This is going to be a scientific study so we can once and for all end the debate of when human life begins. Instead of bickering forever, all parties should agree to do this. The left favors science over religion at every turn so this is an opportunity to side with science. Voting this down is siding with ignorance, voting against this is siding with superstition. Why not find out once and for all when human life begins?

After this there will be no more debate. Why is the left so afraid of science now? is the left only interested in science when it suits their needs?

Tell you what!

When you grow a uterus, I'll care about your opinion.

But one's opinion on this issue only matters to oneself.

Don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.

[Michael Hardner]

Motion 312 is a vote to begin a study of when life actually begins. This is going to be a scientific study so we can once and for all end the debate of when human life begins. Instead of bickering forever, all parties should agree to do this. The left favors science over religion at every turn so this is an opportunity to side with science. Voting this down is siding with ignorance, voting against this is siding with superstition. Why not find out once and for all when human life begins?

After this there will be no more debate. Why is the left so afraid of science now? is the left only interested in science when it suits their needs?

Um - Mr. Canada didn't the PM already say he would be voting this down ?

[Black Dog]

Motion 312 is a vote to begin a study of when life actually begins. This is going to be a scientific study so we can once and for all end the debate of when human life begins. Instead of bickering forever, all parties should agree to do this. The left favors science over religion at every turn so this is an opportunity to side with science. Voting this down is siding with ignorance, voting against this is siding with superstition. Why not find out once and for all when human life begins?

After this there will be no more debate. Why is the left so afraid of science now? is the left only interested in science when it suits their needs?

This isn't a scientific issue. It's a philosophical one.

[Peter F]

Motion 312 is a vote to begin a study of when life actually begins. This is going to be a scientific study so we can once and for all end the debate of when human life begins. Instead of bickering forever, all parties should agree to do this. The left favors science over religion at every turn so this is an opportunity to side with science. Voting this down is siding with ignorance, voting against this is siding with superstition. Why not find out once and for all when human life begins?

After this there will be no more debate. Why is the left so afraid of science now? is the left only interested in science when it suits their needs?

Deciept. Motion 312 is not proposing a to study when 'life actually begins' as you state, but is to study if the unborn should be considered legal human beings.

I quote the motion:

That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

followed by a section about the proposed structure of the parliamentary committee

then the motion continues with 'the questions hereinafter set forth'

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

Motion 312

So it is not about when life begins but about changing subsection 223(1) of the criminal code of Canada, which states:

Homicide

Marginal note:

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;

(bb) it has an independent circulation; or

(cc) the navel string is severed.

Marginal note:

Killing child

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

I have edited ( to read (bb) because of the damned smileys that creep in for "b" and the same for © to read (cc)

Criminal Code of Canada

That particular section is the block to those wishing to end abortion. Therefore that particular section in thier minds needs to be changed.

Nevertheless, Mr Canadas post is decietful - as is the motion itself - since when human life begins is neither here nor there according to the criminal code which clearly sets out that killing the child prior to birth is not murder.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Peter F

[Moonbox]

This isn't a scientific issue. It's a philosophical one.

bingo. Motion 312 will be summarily rejected and that's the way it should be.

[Mr.Canada]

I find it interesting that the same people who shout from the rafters that science is king aren't willing to support a scientific study into when human life begins. Seems counter intuitive to me. I would've thought that everyone would like to have a clear scientific answer to the age old question once and for all. Seems that some people only like science when it suits them dismissing it when it doesn't.

jacee no one is talking about abortion except for you. Please try to stay on topic.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[jacee]

I find it interesting that the same people who shout from the rafters that science is king aren't willing to support a scientific study into when human life begins. Seems counter intuitive to me. I would've thought that everyone would like to have a clear scientific answer to the age old question once and for all. Seems that some people only like science when it suits them dismissing it when it doesn't.

jacee no one is talking about abortion except for you. Please try to stay on topic.

[Mr.Canada]

Lol, well it's true.

[WWWTT]

Tell you what!

When you grow a uterus, I'll care about your opinion.

But one's opinion on this issue only matters to oneself.

Don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.

Are you saying that a woman can become pregnant without a man (sperm cells)?

WWWTT

[Topaz]

Another touchy subject, and I hope that same MP will bring up the right to die too. Let me say it this way, you plant a flower seed and water and watch it grow and until it become mature, it creates and bloom and pops open and now it really a flower. So, the same could be said for a fertilized egg. It's feeds through the mother's body and grows and when IT matures it pops and becomes a human baby. Scientifically explain, case closed.

[GostHacked]

I find it interesting that the same people who shout from the rafters that science is king aren't willing to support a scientific study into when human life begins. Seems counter intuitive to me. I would've thought that everyone would like to have a clear scientific answer to the age old question once and for all. Seems that some people only like science when it suits them dismissing it when it doesn't.

jacee no one is talking about abortion except for you. Please try to stay on topic.

If one must try to stay on topic, it would be good to at least know what the topic is.

[Wayward Son]

Motion 312 is a vote to begin a study of when life actually begins. This is going to be a scientific study

1) This is not going to be a scientific study.

2) Legal personhood is determined not by biology, but by law and policy.

[dre]

I find it interesting that the same people who shout from the rafters that science is king aren't willing to support a scientific study into when human life begins. Seems counter intuitive to me. I would've thought that everyone would like to have a clear scientific answer to the age old question once and for all. Seems that some people only like science when it suits them dismissing it when it doesn't.

jacee no one is talking about abortion except for you. Please try to stay on topic.

Because its patently obvious when human life begins from a scientific standpoint. Why on earth would you need to study that? Theres no real doubt in the scientific community that "life" beings either at fertilization or even earlier.

And the answer to that question makes no difference anyways, because the abortion debate isnt when life scientifically begins. Its about the time when a given society arbitrarily decides it should endow a fetus with its compliment of human rights or a portion of them. Its not a scientific question.

This is really just utterly besides the point.

[bleeding heart]

jacee no one is talking about abortion except for you. Please try to stay on topic.

Oh Ho!

So you believe everyone is a total idiot, and can't see what you're driving at.

What an unbelievably dishonest remark. Of course it's about abortion...that is precisely your interest in it, and why you started the thread.

[Shakeyhands]

Oh Ho!

So you believe everyone is a total idiot, and can't see what you're driving at.

What an unbelievably dishonest remark. Of course it's about abortion...that is precisely your interest in it, and why you started the thread.

I'd suggest that Mr Canada doesn't even have an interest in 312, he is simply trolling.

[Boges]

I'm not supporting the idea of banning first or even second term abortions, that should never happen. However, as I've said before, the lack of any abortion law is somewhat troubling.

If a fetus can live outside the mother on its own, having an abortion for, whatever reason, (except for life of the mother) is rather immoral.

Now you can say such late-term abortions would never happen but without any abortion law whatsoever, what's to stop it from happening?

Also the idea of men not being able to discuss this issue is so juvenile. So does that mean men that support abortion shouldn't have an opinion? and what about women who are pro-life is there opinion more valid than a male that is pro-choice?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Boges

[Black Dog]

I'm not supporting the idea of banning first or even second term abortions, that should never happen. However, as I've said before, the lack of any abortion law is somewhat troubling.

If a fetus can live outside the mother on its own, having an abortion for, whatever reason, (except for life of the mother) is rather immoral.

Now you can say such late-term abortions would never happen but without any abortion law whatsoever, what's to stop it from happening?

If someone is so inclined, what makes you think a law against it would deter them? The fact is late term abortions are exceedingly rare under the status quo. Banning late term abortions would be a lttle bit liek banning unicorns.

Also the idea of men not being able to discuss this issue is so juvenile. So does that mean men that support abortion shouldn't have an opinion? and what about women who are pro-life is there opinion more valid than a male that is pro-choice?

I agree with this, except on matters of public policy on abortion it is often men making these decisions. What was the gender of the person who put this motion forward anyway?

[Peter F]

If a fetus can live outside the mother on its own, having an abortion for, whatever reason, (except for life of the mother) is rather immoral.

Perhaps so but it isnt homicide and the point of 312 is to make it homicide.

[scribblet]

Late term abortions are rarely performed in Canada, but they are legal, and 60% believe there should be limits. I think this article speaks well to the issue, in particular the part about pro-lifers accepting some limits only. IMO it's the unwillingness of the pro-lifers to accept a compromise, or to give women any choice about their own healthcare that stops any debate or compromise. . Once they have a partial ban, they won't stop until they take away all choice. ( some nutjobs even want to ban some methods of birth control)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20/mike-schouten-why-canada-should-ban-late-term-abortions/

Currently abortion is legal in Canada through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason or no reason. This can be improved, but only when there is a willingness among pro-lifers to accept legislation that limits some (late-term), but not all (before 20 weeks), abortions. Doing so would not be a sacrificing of principles.

IMO the limit should be at the point the child can live outside the womb, which is about 24 weeks, and going down. At that point maybe it would be homicide to abort.

Edited September 26, 2012 by scribblet

[Black Dog]

Late term abortions are rarely performed in Canada, but they are legal, and 60% believe there should be limits. I think this article speaks well to the issue, in particular the part about pro-lifers accepting some limits only. IMO it's the unwillingness of the pro-lifers to accept a compromise, or to give women any choice about their own healthcare that stops any debate or compromise. . Once they have a partial ban, they won't stop until they take away all choice. ( some nutjobs even want to ban some methods of birth control)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20/mike-schouten-why-canada-should-ban-late-term-abortions/

IMO the limit should be at the point the child can live outside the womb, which is about 24 weeks, and going down. At that point maybe it would be homicide to abort.

Again: why legislate against something that basically never happens?

[Boges]

IMO the limit should be at the point the child can live outside the womb, which is about 24 weeks, and going down. At that point maybe it would be homicide to abort.

Well it would be homicide. You could force labour and have a child living outside the body. That would be far less invasive than a late-term abortion where they take the, otherwise viable, fetus out piece by piece.

If the mother naturally gave birth at 24-weeks and left the baby in a garbage bin, that'd be murder, wouldn't it?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with this, except on matters of public policy on abortion it is often men making these decisions. What was the gender of the person who put this motion forward anyway?

I never understood the conversation around gender and abortion decisions.

It's absolutely ridiculous that men decided this in the past, however I feel it to be equally ridiculous that men should have no say whatsoever. We don't advocate keeping gender out of any other political decisions as far as I know, so why this one ?

[Boges]

I never understood the conversation around gender and abortion decisions.

It's absolutely ridiculous that men decided this in the past, however I feel it to be equally ridiculous that men should have no say whatsoever. We don't advocate keeping gender out of any other political decisions as far as I know, so why this one ?

Ironically women are some of the loudest anti-infant circumcision advocates.

[Fletch 27]

I simply find this debate refreshing and quite diplomatic in how Steve Harper is letting his back-benchers and party debate this freely and openly. I was under the impression that he was a control freak and "whipped" his back-benchers in line with his position!?!?! Seems thats false.

I do hope that they open the "right to die" debate as well... Its about time some of these age-old heathan practices come up for debate and investigation.