Value of a Fetus. Time to overturn Roe v. Wade?

[PocketRocket]

But what if they transplanted a man's brain into a woman. Would she become a lesbian?

There's a novel by Robert A Heinlein called "I Will Fear No Evil" which explores that very question.

It's a good read which I quite enjoyed.

It does, however, get a bit metaphysical towards the end.

[moderateamericain]

i generally stear clear if this argument for the simple fact that its one of morals and not necessarily fact or reason. i guess my personal opinion on the matter is "its a womens choice" only question i have is How does Roevs wade apply to canada?

[RB]

Roe v. Wade is one of defining decisions for women in history.

In Canada our laws are vague enough to be maneuvered. This means that we can look at U.S. jurisprudence, commonwealth jurisprudence, the judges latin dictionaries, Sharia

Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty The Queen, the SCC was asked to review Roe v. Wade in regards to the conviction of Morgentaler for performing illegal abortions in violation of the Abortion Act '67

By the way almost 70% of feminist appeals are favorable in court

[moderateamericain]

Roe v. Wade is one of defining decisions for women in history.

In Canada our laws are vague enough to be maneuvered. This means that we can look at U.S. jurisprudence, commonwealth jurisprudence, the judges latin dictionaries, Sharia

Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty The Queen, the SCC was asked to review Roe v. Wade in regards to the conviction of Morgentaler for performing illegal abortions in violation of the Abortion Act '67

By the way almost 70% of feminist appeals are favorable in court

wow im in shock.

canada uses US court rulings as a basis for its own rulings?

or did i read that wrong.

[RB]

wow im in shock

Well don't feel too shy to go around feeling more American than usual

But here is a bit of lame explanation

Canadians consider first its own proud constitution, then it turns to other prespectives in the international scene. The reason being we cannot work the Charter in isolation from international norms esp. for specific cases.

However other countries law does not become binding in Canada unless it is incorporate into domestic law.

But we wish to be informed by international law in looking for evidence of principles of fundamental justice and therefore helping to support interpretation of something specific perhaps not mentioned or covered by the charter.

here is an easy read on:

Canadian Jurisprudence on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Using Canadian Case Law to Advance Charter Litigation and Domestic Implementation of ESC Rights

Here is a case law -

Canadian Jurisprudence: Applying International Law Domestically

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 SCC 1, 18 Imm. L.R. (3d) 1, 208 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 281 N.R. 1, 90 C.R.R. (2d) 1, 2002 CarswellNat 8, [2002] S.C.J. No. 3, 37 Admin. L.R. (3d) 159, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3

[waynej625]

No, I don't think so. I think that in a free society the state cannot purport to force a woman to give birth, irrespective of any value you place on the fetus.

I agree with what you are saying about forcing a woman to give birth, but the biological father of that child should also have some say in whether she can terminate that pregnancy as well. After all she did not conceive all by herself.

The other side of this argument is the fact that our Medicare System is designed to pay for "Medically Necessary Procedures," and although there are rare occasions where it may become necessary to abort a pregnancy, the vast majority are simply done as a convenience, and in my opinion should not be paid for with our limited health care dollars. Continuing to pay for abortions at Henry Morgantiler's Clinics with Medicare dollars is like asking Medicare to fund breast augmentations and all other forms of elective surgeries. No wonder we have such a problem funding our Medicare System.

[RB]

the biological father of that child should also have some say in whether she can terminate that pregnancy as well. After all she did not conceive all by herself.

I agree the fathers should have a say, but fathers must show their committment, and also take responsibility in the eventual decision. So, in Canada we have actually advanced some ways to help the fathers become involved in their newborn life for example there is 37 weeks available as parental leave that fathers can claim.

So why don't I give you the statistics of how many fathers are having a say and participating in looking after their newborns. In Canada, 2001 only 3% of fathers claim parental benefits.

Man, it is better to move to Norway and make some kids with those folks 80% of the fathers take time off.

vast majority are simply done as a convenience

I differ in my opinion, women do not set off to become pregnant to access the health care dollars and Henry Morgantiler's Clinics.

I am sorry to let you know that if you do not continue allow freedom of choice, health clinics access, and have health care contingencies in place in this free society on whether to abort, women will find ways for abortion to their own death. You don't want to be lonely men now do you.

In other words, having a child or becoming a mother is NOT the only one choice of the many choices available to women. What I mean is being pregnant should not have mandated result.

It further demeans women as person, and as a thinking, rational being when you keep giving rights to a fetus - I mean you are giving indistinguishable characteristics and rights to something that is not equal to a person, not defined as a person, but also making it superior, well at least superior than women.

I mean why do we always seek to degrade and diminish women?

[jimrahn]

It  further demeans women as person, and as a thinking, rational being when you keep giving rights to a fetus - I mean you are giving indistinguishable characteristics and rights to something that is not equal to a person, not defined as a person, but also making it superior, well at least superior than women.

I mean why do we always seek to degrade and diminish women?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you don't think withholding human rights from the foetus diminishes it?

Who's definition of a person are you referring to? Politicians?

You swallow everything politicians tell you to swallow?

We don't want women dying in this country from backstreet abortions, but neither should a living breathing HUMAN foetus stop living and breathing for no reason other than convenience. I can sympathize with a women not wnating to bear an unwanted child. Many of the same politicians who claim to be pro-life are not very supportive of strengthening the social safety net to suppport a woman, and her unborn child I might add, who might be in a difficult situation financially.

The situation might be the fault of the mother 100%, but it certainly isn't the fault of the child.

You think the pro-life movement diminishes women?

Let me ask you this...

If a twenty-two year-old woman and a 3 month-old baby both fall into some deep water, who would you try to pull from the water first?

Does your choice diminish the value of women?

Cheers!

[The Terrible Sweal]

And you don't think withholding human rights from the foetus diminishes it?

... neither should a living breathing HUMAN foetus stop living and breathing for no reason other than convenience. 

First, fetuses don't breathe.

Second, you assert that it is human, but that's the issue in dispute, isn't it?

You think the pro-life movement diminishes women?

Let me ask you this...

If a twenty-two year-old woman and a 3 month-old baby both fall into some deep water, who would you try to pull from the water first?

That's a completely irrelevant example.

[mona]

To clarify the difference:

baby: born, outside the womb.

fetus; still living in mum's uterus.

why we all refer to a fetus baby: sounds cuter.

[jimrahn]

That's a completely irrelevant example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, yes, you are 100% correct. I am asserting that a fetus is human. If it isn't human, what species is it exactly?

Second, you are wrong about a fetus not breathing: they have their own circulatory systems delivering oxygen to their tissues and developing organs.

And besides, if someone accidentally electrocutes themselves, stops breathing and their heart stops beating, they may be classified as technically dead, but it doesn't mean they are no longer human. Speaking of irrelevant, I see no logic in that argument at all.

Third, how can the question be irrelevant?

Who would you save: the adult woman or the baby?

What it comes down to is a matter if significance: A full grown woman is more significant than a human fetus (and it is human, it can't be anything else), so abortion at any stage of pregnancy is okay?

Fine then.

But given my example, if you reach into the water to save the baby instead of the adult woman, by you r own logic you're saying a woman is less significant than a baby.

I can understand standing up for womens' rights, but your argument doesn't hold up because it's circumstantial and not based on a universal premise.

That's the real issue here. Human rights have to be universally held, or they don't amount to squat, not for an unborn fetus, and ultimately not for women or anyone else either.

To address Mona's comments: I'm not sure I understand your point: we give human rights to babies and not to fetuses because they it sounds cuter?

Human rights are granted on the basis of who gives us the warm fuzzies?

cheers

[I Miss Trudeau]

First, yes, you are 100% correct.  I am asserting that a fetus is human. If it isn't human, what species is it exactly?

Whether or not a fetus is "human" (ie. possesses human dna) is not in dispute. The issue is whether or not the fetus is a morally significant entity.

Second,  you are wrong about a fetus not breathing: they have their own circulatory systems delivering oxygen to their tissues and developing organs.

Whether or not something breathes (fetuses dont, by the way) is completely irrelevant.

And besides, if someone accidentally electrocutes themselves, stops breathing and their heart stops beating, they may be classified as technically dead, but it doesn't mean they are no longer human.  Speaking of irrelevant, I see no logic in that argument at all.

Again, being human or not is not the issue.

Third, how can the question be irrelevant?

Because the decision on which one to save is, again, completely irrelevant to the issue.

What it comes down to is a matter if significance:  A full grown woman is more significant than a human fetus (and it is human, it can't be anything else), so abortion at any stage of pregnancy is okay?

Fine then.

But given my example, if you reach into the water to save the baby instead of the adult woman, by you r own logic you're saying a woman is less significant than a baby.

I don't see anyone saying any such thing in this thread. Perhaps you could clarify.

That's the real issue here.  Human rights have to be universally held, or they don't amount to squat, not for an unborn fetus, and ultimately not for women or anyone else either.

Extending human rights to fetuses makes about as much sense as extending human rights to cancerous tumours.

[Melanie_]

[We don't want women dying in this country from backstreet abortions, but neither should a living breathing HUMAN foetus stop living and breathing for no reason other than convenience. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know any woman who had an abortion for "convenience". Or any who took it lightly. I think it is a myth that women use abortion as a method of birth control; for most it is a last resort. Every woman I know who has had an abortion can tell you when, what the circumstances were, and the emotional toll it took on her. Getting pregnant changes your life irreversibly, even if you choose to terminate the pregnancy; it is such a personal life event, I find it incredibly arrogant for anyone to try to dictate to a woman how she should proceed.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

I don't know any woman who had an abortion for "convenience". Or any who took it lightly. I think it is a myth that women use abortion as a method of birth control;

Evidently, Stevie Nicks (from the band Fleetwood Mac) had 5 abortions because of conflicts with her touring schedule. Mind you, she was a cocaine addict for many years, so perhaps it was for the best.

I believe it should always be the woman's choice, however. As an adopted child myself, I am a firm believer that there are always options to be explored, but none should be by force.

[mcqueen625]

No, I don't think so. I think that in a free society the state cannot purport to force a woman to give birth, irrespective of any value you place on the fetus.

While that may well be true, it is also a fact that the intent of Medicare is to provide "Medically Necessary Treatment" for Canadian's, and in most cases abortion is merely nothing but cosmetic surgery performed for the convenience of some women and their male partners who were too careless to use adequate protection, and I don't buy the argument that not every method of birth is foolproof. You play with the bull, you get the horn. You step out in front of moving traffic, you take a chance on getting hit. Don't want to chance the consequences the choice is simple, abstain!

Admittedly there are circumstances where abortion should be funded by Medicare, and that is when it becomes medically necessary, and abortion on demand is not a compelling reason for taxpayer's money to be used. This is simply murdering an unborn child when the pregnant mother's life in not at risk. The case can be made for women who have suffered rape or incest, because then the woman's mental health could be compromised, but to simply pay for abortion through Medicare dollars because this isn't a convenient time, or she just does not want to have a child is not what Medicare was intended for.

[mcqueen625]

Because there's a distinction between a fetus as a living thing and a real person. It's a necessary one for balancing individual rights

A fetus is a living human being. I think we have gone way too far with individual right's. What's next, terminating a baby's right to live simply because Mom or Dad does not want to bother feeding the child and since it can't look after itself it's OK to terminate it's life. The technology is there for fetus' to survive much earlier than ever before, so I cannot buy your argument which seems to be if we kill it before it comes out of the womb it's not a real person? Ask the preemie who has started out with absolutely no chance to live, and is today a healthy adult, I think they will disagree with your argument. I happy to believe that life starts at conception, and thank GOd the US Couts in the Peterson case felt the same way.

[I Miss Trudeau]

A fetus is a living human being.

Yes, but not a morally significant living human being, AKA a person.

What's next, terminating a baby's right to live simply because Mom or Dad does not want to bother feeding the child and since it can't look after itself it's OK to terminate it's life.

Apples and oranges.

The technology is there for fetus' to survive much earlier than ever before, so I cannot buy your argument which seems to be if we kill it before it comes out of the womb it's not a real person?

What do technological advances in medicine have to do with the moral worth of a fetus?

Ask the preemie who has started out with absolutely no chance to live, and is today a healthy adult, I think they will disagree with your argument.

Even "preemies" can be wrong, I guess.

I happy to believe that life starts at conception,

I don't know anyone who would suggest that life doesn't begin at conception. Thats completely irrelevant to the discussion, however.

[Renegade]

Continued from: Abortion, Choice, Responsibility

contraception,vasectomies and hysterectomies don't kill something they prevent it theres a difference. With contraception, vasectomies and hysterectomies it all happens BEFORE you get pregnant.

Yes all true. But your argument against abortion was that it prevented a baby from "having a chance to live". So if you destroy a fetus, and prevent it from becoming a baby, how is that conceputally different?

BTW, if you want to continue this discussion, I will happily do so in another thread. I am not willing to hijack Jerry's topic any further than has already been done.

centraception prevents a fetus from starting, so when you use contraception then you don't start creating a a fetus which then later turns into a baby

So if I understand your position correctly, you don't think its a crime to prevent life from occuring, however you do think it's a crime once life has occured to prevent it from developing.

Perhaps you can address the issues you avoided addressing in the previous thread:

1. Do you think that a woman has any rights of control of her own body? Does she have to submit her body and womb and risk her life unwillingly to host a life she doesn't want to bear?

2. Is a fetus a person and does it have the same rights? Is a zygote a person and does it have the same rights? If so, how do you define a person and what makes a fetus or zygote a person?

3. If your answer to 1 above was that a woman has rights to control her body, do you see that right to choose an abortion involves a conflict of rights?

4. Since you have stated that people should have to live with the consequences of their sex acts, does that also mean that you believe that if someone gets AIDS as a result of sex, they should not be treated and allowed to die as their "punishment"?

[margrace]

Would the man who demands the right to have a say in whether there is an abortion or not take the baby himself? I have never heard of that, does it happen, would you who are so against abortion be willing to take and raise these babies.

Maybe the law should be changed and people who refuse other's abortion be forced to raise the child themselves.

[Renegade]

Would the man who demands the right to have a say in whether there is an abortion or not take the baby himself? I have never heard of that, does it happen, would you who are so against abortion be willing to take and raise these babies.

Maybe the law should be changed and people who refuse other's abortion be forced to raise the child themselves.

It is an interesting point. There are many people who are passionately against giving the women the choice of what they will do with their body. Many of those focus their energy on condemming the women who make a choice for abortion, picketing clinics, lobbying for legislation, and attacking medical practioners.

Would it be delightlfully more constructive if they focused their energy and financial resources in making the choice for the woman to have the child easier? For instance shouldn't they do the following:

1. Offer to adopt the child.

2. Offer to pay for all the expenses related to giving birth and raising the child (eg maternity expenses, loss of income, child rearing costs)

3. Offer contraceptives and education to women so they are less likely to get pregnant and forced with the choice of an abortion.

Now I know that some in the pro-life movement DO this, but as far as I have seen it has been a rare occurance. The bulk of the focus has been confrontational.

[Black Dog]

While that may well be true, it is also a fact that the intent of Medicare is to provide "Medically Necessary Treatment" for Canadian's, and in most cases abortion is merely nothing but cosmetic surgery performed for the convenience of some women and their male partners who were too careless to use adequate protection, and I don't buy the argument that not every method of birth is foolproof. You play with the bull, you get the horn.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 54 per cent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Fact is, even with the high effectiveness of modern contraceptives, there's no bulet proof method of birth control.

You step out in front of moving traffic, you take a chance on getting hit. Don't want to chance the consequences the choice is simple, abstain!

Ah, so would you also deny medical treatment to someone who steps out into moving traffic? If not, why not: you play with the bull, you get the horn, right?

Admittedly there are circumstances where abortion should be funded by Medicare, and that is when it becomes medically necessary, and abortion on demand is not a compelling reason for taxpayer's money to be used. This is simply murdering an unborn child when the pregnant mother's life in not at risk. The case can be made for women who have suffered rape or incest, because then the woman's mental health could be compromised, but to simply pay for abortion through Medicare dollars because this isn't a convenient time, or she just does not want to have a child is not what Medicare was intended for.

On the balance, I'd wager the costs to Medicare are far smaller than the costs to society were abortions pay-as-you-go.

A fetus is a living human being. I think we have gone way too far with individual right's. What's next, terminating a baby's right to live simply because Mom or Dad does not want to bother feeding the child and since it can't look after itself it's OK to terminate it's life. The technology is there for fetus' to survive much earlier than ever before, so I cannot buy your argument which seems to be if we kill it before it comes out of the womb it's not a real person? Ask the preemie who has started out with absolutely no chance to live, and is today a healthy adult, I think they will disagree with your argument. I happy to believe that life starts at conception, and thank GOd the US Couts in the Peterson case felt the same way.

Somwhere around 90 per cent of abortions are conducted in the first trimester. I'd be interested to see what kind of miracle techniology exists that can keep a 3 month old fetus viable outside the womb. Also: statements like "we have gone way too far with individual right's" are scary.

It is an interesting point. There are many people who are passionately against giving the women the choice of what they will do with their body. Many of those focus their energy on condemming the women who make a choice for abortion, picketing clinics, lobbying for legislation, and attacking medical practioners.

You should also mention that people opposed to abortion are also more likely to oppose social assistance, comprehensive sex ed, easily available contraceptives etc etc. For them, life is only valued from the point of conception to the point of birth. After that, it's every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Which leads me to belive that for many so-called "pro-lifers" the issue is not life at all, but control.

[piercj2]

I don't understand, doesen't a woman know that when she has sex (protected or unprotected) there is a chance she will become pregnant? Just as a man knows if he has sex, and a women becomes pregnant he will have to pay child support. Isn't there any amount of fariness in this issue. Doesn't a woman realize, that in reality, by killing the baby (fetus, whatever), giving the baby up for adoption, or killing it herself, all she is really doing is doing away with responsibilities that she created. Unlike a man, who must face the responisbility of supporting a child if the women chooses to have it- being forced to owe up to responsibility. Why does a women get to just cop out of something that she did, while the man cannot. I think they should make abortion illegal, as they make a father pay child support. End result, more responsibility on the part of the mother, because she will be forced to take responsibility for her actions- end reslut- less premerital sex, less promisquiety before marriage, more committments, better families and more responsible behavior

[Black Dog]

I don't understand, doesen't a woman know that when she has sex (protected or unprotected) there is a chance she will become pregnant? Just as a man knows if he has sex, and a women becomes pregnant he will have to pay child support. Isn't there any amount of fariness in this issue.

As my dear old dad used to tell me when I was a kid: "Life isn't fair. Get used to it." At the end of the day men still get off easy regardless of the woman's choice.

Doesn't a woman realize, that in reality, by killing the baby (fetus, whatever), giving the baby up for adoption, or killing it herself, all she is really doing is doing away with responsibilities that she created. Unlike a man, who must face the responisbility of supporting a child if the women chooses to have it- being forced to owe up to responsibility. Why does a women get to just cop out of something that she did, while the man cannot. I think they should make abortion illegal, as they make a father pay child support. End result, more responsibility on the part of the mother, because she will be forced to take responsibility for her actions- end reslut- less premerital sex, less promisquiety before marriage, more committments, better families and more responsible behavior

*Slaps forhead* DAMN! Why didn't anyone think of that before? Oh wait: when abortion was illegal, it didn't prevent women from procuring them. So much for that plan.

[piercj2]

all of this talk in this forum, and other forums, especially alot of my posts have brought me to the conclusion that overall women are just irrational. Weather they are liking a man for money, clothing, being famous or just fitting the right image and then claiming they like a guy for who he is as a person, killing of thier offspring because they do not want to take the responsibility of caring for someone they brought into the world, raising hell against guys because thier lack of sympahty or responsibility regarding their careers and emotional support, just bitter because they cannot get married in a society where weman are oppurtunistic and battled for thier own freedom to be independent and support themselves, (they wanted it, dont blame the rest of the male population if you end up single and without children, in an independent society) going to college for years and never even whole heartedly pursuing a career, just acting like they are gods gift to the earth and need to be treated a certain waybecause of they way the look, or just talking behind eachother's backs about eachother and then trying to be a freind. Overall conclusion, women don't even have a firm grasp on thier own aspirations and will nag and argue about anything nomatter how good they have it. Thats why it says all this about them in the bible (I am a christian)

1 Timothy

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 timothy

11In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

1 Timothy

11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Ecclesiasties

26 I find more bitter than death

the woman who is a snare,

whose heart is a trap

and whose hands are chains.

The man who pleases God will escape her,

but the sinner she will ensnare.

Ecclesiasties

28 while I was still searching

but not finding—

I found one upright man among a thousand,

but not one upright woman among them all.

undefendable

[Black Dog]

all of this talk in this forum, and other forums, especially alot of my posts have brought me to the conclusion that overall women are just irrational.

Mmm...solipsism.

Weather they are liking a man for money, clothing, being famous or just fitting the right image and then claiming they like a guy for who he is as a person,

Yeah and men, being such rational creatures, never like women for superficial qualities, like perky tits.

killing of thier offspring because they do not want to take the responsibility of caring for someone they brought into the world, raising hell against guys because thier lack of sympahty or responsibility regarding their careers and emotional support, just bitter because they cannot get married in a society where weman are oppurtunistic and battled for thier own freedom to be independent and support themselves, (they wanted it, dont blame the rest of the male population if you end up single and without children, in an independent society) going to college for years and never even whole heartedly pursuing a career, just acting like they are gods gift to the earth and need to be treated a certain waybecause of they way the look, or just talking behind eachother's backs about eachother and then trying to be a freind.

Gee, pally, I can't imagine why you have a problem meeting nice girls. You seem like such a fucking prince. After all, what women wouldn't want to be with a guy who tells her what an ignorant, irrational creature she is.

Overall conclusion, women don't even have a firm grasp on thier own aspirations and will nag and argue about anything nomatter how good they have it

I've been thinking about your women problems and, buddy, I'm here to help. See, you don't have to put up with some clingy, emotional, nagging harpy who criticizes you incessantly over your shitty spelling and grammar. There's other options.

Thats why it says all this about them in the bible (I am a christian)

Izzat so? Huh: a good Christian boy who is "not really thinking about mating for life" and who boasts of how he "can and do get laid relatively often." I think baby Jesus is shedding a single tear right now at your totally awesome Christianosity.