Motion 312 vote coming soon!

[kraychik]

A singled celled bacteria is 'living'. Any definition of when 'human life' begins is a purely philosophical question because it stems from the unscientific presumption that human lives are somehow different from the lives of every other biological species.

Look, I'm not gonna go back and forth on this. I recognise the philosophical basis of the question, but an answer provided by anyone, whatever it is, will likely include scientifically measurable criteria.

Lastly, human lives are not only different from all other species philosophically, but also biologically. I would've assumed that to be obviously true. Not to you, apparently.

[kraychik]

Because this motion was clearly designed as a way to reopen the abortion debate. Otherwise, it has no real purpose. Now, I don't disagree that a viable fetus (one that can survive as a separate individual) should be born, rather than aborted, but, the abortion issue is more about a woman's rights over her body. This motion would seem to be in conflict with that.

"Women's rights" is a nonsensical leftist term in contemporary discourse. The entire "Status of Women" department should be scrapped. There should be no "group rights" in Canada which treat certain people differently than other based on things such as gender.

As for the abortion issue, it is broader than just protecting the right of a woman to privacy and security of her person. I understand that that those who support access to abortion on demand view the woman's right to privacy and security of her person as trumping the right to life of the unborn child (which they don't recognise), but at least recognise that reasonable people can disagree on this issue.

Edited September 28, 2012 by kraychik

[guyser]

Am I completely mistaken in believing a mother can, if she wants to, give her child over for adoption, as a Crown ward, for foster care, or into some other kind of organisation?

She can, but the father has the right to contest that and he gets the baby.

[Wild Bill]

A singled celled bacteria is 'living'. Any definition of when 'human life' begins is a purely philosophical question because it stems from the unscientific presumption that human lives are somehow different from the lives of every other biological species.

Ah, but are we talking about simply a mass of living cells or an actual personality?

A fertilized ovum is living only in the same sense as a geranium is living. When it is born it definitely has a personality, as every parent well knows, unless there has been serious damage in fetal growth.

At some point during gestation a personality begins to develop. I don't claim to know the exact point at which that occurs but by 6 months it seems certain, whereas at 6 weeks it would seem not. Simply being a living mass of cells is no more a human being than is a severed finger, IMHO.

Man is the animal that thinks. Sooner or later we will have to address the issue of other animals that think but this thread is only about the unborn.

However, we better get used to the idea of defining "human" in terms of being able to think or we will never be able to cope with a whole host of problems. It's not just when is a fetus a human being. It is also about whales and dolphins, elephants and perhaps many species of birds and of course, ET! Sooner or later we are going to meet him, after all.

Again, if we are all hung up on the primitive notion that a clump of cells is enough to define a sentient life we will never be competent to judge.

What about Artificial Intelligence? What sort of programs will we see in 40-50 years?

If abortion is wrong what about pulling the plug on an AI program?

Think I'm crazy? In the immortal words of Lord John Whorfin: "Laugh-a while you can, Monkey-boy!"

[guyser]

No. The father can only take full responsibility for the child if the mother gives it up. If she does so, she has no legal obligation to make child support payments.

No he can apply for joint or shared.

Shared or joint custody requires time and money from both sides.

She would be required to pay support if she give over rights of the child to the father.

Where the law is kinda screwy is that there is no legal compulsion for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his baby.

None, nada , zip!

(but some would like to be left in the dark)

[kraychik]

Ah, but are we talking about simply a mass of living cells or an actual personality?

A fertilized ovum is living only in the same sense as a geranium is living. When it is born it definitely has a personality, as every parent well knows, unless there has been serious damage in fetal growth.

At some point during gestation a personality begins to develop. I don't claim to know the exact point at which that occurs but by 6 months it seems certain, whereas at 6 weeks it would seem not. Simply being a living mass of cells is no more a human being than is a severed finger, IMHO.

Man is the animal that thinks. Sooner or later we will have to address the issue of other animals that think but this thread is only about the unborn.

However, we better get used to the idea of defining "human" in terms of being able to think or we will never be able to cope with a whole host of problems. It's not just when is a fetus a human being. It is also about whales and dolphins, elephants and perhaps many species of birds and of course, ET! Sooner or later we are going to meet him, after all.

Again, if we are all hung up on the primitive notion that a clump of cells is enough to define a sentient life we will never be competent to judge.

What about Artificial Intelligence? What sort of programs will we see in 40-50 years?

If abortion is wrong what about pulling the plug on an AI program?

Think I'm crazy? In the immortal words of Lord John Whorfin: "Laugh-a while you can, Monkey-boy!"

TimG's another one of those leftists that literally doesn't understand the difference between humanity and all other life on the planet.

Edited September 28, 2012 by kraychik

[g_bambino]

She would be required to pay support if she give over rights of the child to the father.

I'm not going to say that isn't true. But, I'd like to see some evidence.

Where the law is kinda screwy is that there is no legal compulsion for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his baby.

That is disrespcetful.

[g_bambino]

No, an abortion is a termination of an unborn child/fetus, viable or otherwise.

"Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability."

Abortion

The National Center for Health Statistics defines an "abortus" as "[a] fetus or embryo removed or expelled from the uterus during the first half of gestation — 20 weeks or less, or in the absence of accurate dating criteria, born weighing < 500 g."

Cunningham, FG; Leveno, KJ; Bloom, SL et al., eds. (2010). "1. Overview of Obstetrics". Williams Obstetrics (23 ed.). McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 978-0-07-149701-5.

"[T]he standard medical definition of abortion [is] termination of a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable".

Annas, George J.; Elias, Sherman (2007). "51. Legal and Ethical Issues in Obstetric Practice". In Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7.

"[Abortion is the] termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation calculated from date of onset of last menses. An alternative definition is delivery of a fetus with a weight of less than 500 g. If abortion occurs before 12 weeks' gestation, it is called early; from 12 to 20 weeks it is called late."

Katz, Vern L. (2007). "16. Spontaneous and Recurrent Abortion - Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment". In Katz, Vern L.; Lentz, Gretchen M.; Lobo, Rogerio A. et al.. Katz: Comprehensive Gynecology (5 ed.). Mosby. ISBN 9780323029513.

"Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability.

Schorge, John O.; Schaffer, Joseph I.; Halvorson, Lisa M. et al., eds. (2008). "6. First-Trimester Abortion". Williams Gynecology (1 ed.). McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 978-0-07-147257-9.

"[Abortion is] the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age."

"Taber's Medical Dictionary: abortion". Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. F.A. Davis. Archived from the original on 14 June 2011.

http://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/ub/view/Tabers/143003/37/abortion. Retrieved 14 June 2011.

"Expulsion from the uterus an embryo or fetus prior to the stage of viability (20 weeks' gestation or fetal weight <500g)..."

Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0683400088.

"[P]remature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception, either the embryo or a nonviable fetus."

Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (31 ed.). Saunders. 2007. ISBN 9781416023647.

There are more sources, but I'll leave it at that.

Not if the unborn child's been terminated.

If the baby is removed and killed then that's murder.

[guyser]

I'm not going to say that isn't true. But, I'd like to see some evidence.

Child Support

Child Support is money that one person pays to another person for the support of the child. It is meant to cover a portion of expenses for things such as food, shelter, clothing and other necessary items.

Every parent has a duty to support his or her child. If a non-custodial parent will not agree to pay child support, you can ask the court for help. The amount of child support will depend on the non-custodial parent’s income. The court can also order a father to pay some money to the mother for prenatal or postnatal care.

http://www.lethbridgelawyers.com/unmarried_parents.htm

The FRO website also has plenty to read.

Q - Do parents have a responsibility to support their children?

A - Yes, any person who has a child has a responsibility to support him or her. Parents who are separating or divorcing and have children must ensure that arrangements have been made for their support. The parent without custody will generally pay child support to the parent with custody. In Nova Scotia, children are eligible for support until they reach the age of 19.

http://www.legalinfo.org/family-law/child-support.html

[Smallc]

TimG's another one of those leftists

[cybercoma]

The father has rights to the baby and can exercise them if he feels she is thinking of adopting out the baby.

This.

[cybercoma]

Am I completely mistaken in believing a mother can, if she wants to, give her child over for adoption, as a Crown ward, for foster care, or into some other kind of organisation?

Yes. If the father does not want his child given up for adoption, then he has every right to stop it. He must agree to it.

[cybercoma]

No. The father can only take full responsibility for the child if the mother gives it up. If she does so, she has no legal obligation to make child support payments.

Yes she does. He would also receive the Universal Child Care Benefit.

[cybercoma]

She can, but the father has the right to contest that and he gets the baby.

And she would have to pay child support, depending on a number of things like financial situation. However, that's the same for mother or father. The father's financial situation is considered when rendering a judgement about support payments.

[cybercoma]

Ah, but are we talking about simply a mass of living cells or an actual personality?

Personality. That's interesting.

You should look into the origins of the word personality and how it has been used over the years. It's actually a relatively new concept.

[cybercoma]

Where the law is kinda screwy is that there is no legal compulsion for a woman to tell a man she is pregnant with his baby.

None, nada , zip!

(but some would like to be left in the dark)

I've actually been arguing about getting this changed.

[cybercoma]

I'm not going to say that isn't true. But, I'd like to see some evidence.

American statistics, but it happens in Canada just the same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-altshuler/for-this-mothers-day-more_b_1510361.html

The laws are not written such that it is one side or the other that's required to pay. I believe it's worded as "absent parent," but I could be wrong and I don't feel like searching for it at the moment.

[cybercoma]

Child Support

Child Support is money that one person pays to another person for the support of the child. It is meant to cover a portion of expenses for things such as food, shelter, clothing and other necessary items.

Every parent has a duty to support his or her child. If a non-custodial parent will not agree to pay child support, you can ask the court for help. The amount of child support will depend on the non-custodial parent’s income. The court can also order a father to pay some money to the mother for prenatal or postnatal care.

http://www.lethbridgelawyers.com/unmarried_parents.htm

The FRO website also has plenty to read.

Q - Do parents have a responsibility to support their children?

A - Yes, any person who has a child has a responsibility to support him or her. Parents who are separating or divorcing and have children must ensure that arrangements have been made for their support. The parent without custody will generally pay child support to the parent with custody. In Nova Scotia, children are eligible for support until they reach the age of 19.

http://www.legalinfo.org/family-law/child-support.html

Non-custodial! That's the word.

[cybercoma]

Another thing that needs to be mentioned here is that child support is supposed to be money spent on the child. If a father believes that the money he is giving to the mother is not being spent on the children, then he can raise the issue with the courts and they will often make arrangements to ensure that the mother fulfills her obligations or that other arrangements are made so the children receive the benefit of the money.

[kraychik]

I see the analogy and I've responded repeatedly as to what it does not fit. The only failed perception is yours, as you seem to think a financial obligation is the same thing as being obligated to grow something inside your body.

You're right, raising a child until the age of majority is much, much, much more difficult than simply carrying the child through pregnancy to term. You're correct in stating that they should not be compared.

[guyser]

I've actually been arguing about getting this changed.

I havent thought about it for any length, but maybe it cant be done effectively.

A woman only need to say I dont know who the dad is and what law or pretense could prove otherwise?

'Who have you slept with, names please lady?'

'I dont know some of the names'

[kraychik]

It's about as funny as your screen name, considering there isn't one iota of conservatism in you. But hey, this is the modern age, where Orwellian language is now common.

[cybercoma]

I havent thought about it for any length, but maybe it cant be done effectively.

A woman only need to say I dont know who the dad is and what law or pretense could prove otherwise?

'Who have you slept with, names please lady?'

'I dont know some of the names'

That is true, but the problem is when they do know the father. In any case, if a father wants to know if a child is his, he should have every right to be informed of the paternity.

[BC_chick]

Er... They don't.

Sure they do, it's not like all women make a uniform decision about unwanted pregnancies.

Besides, I was addressing your point about 'fairness'. My point being that women are the ones who have to carry the child to term, hence it's our decision whether or not we keep the baby.

When men can do the same, you can cry about 'fairness' all you want.

[kraychik]

Personality. That's interesting.

You should look into the origins of the word personality and how it has been used over the years. It's actually a relatively new concept.

So, assuming it's a new word and new concept, does that mean it's a new occurrence? Did gravity only come into existence once the term was coined and the theory established?