Who has the right to life?

Wilber · February 15, 2007

All this talk of the Charter, what part of it deals with this anyhoo?

Riverwind · February 15, 2007

The Charter spells it out. And it saysd nothing about carrying on a plane or going into womans washrooms.

The charter represents nothing more than the opinion of the authors at the time it was written. Its meaning has been since expanded by the SCC, however, that does not change arbitrary nature of the document.

Perhaps the best example is of the arbitrary and ridiculous nature of constitutional 'rights' is the 'right to bear arms' as defined in the US constitution. That right has long since outlived whatever purpose it had yet many Americans seem to think that it is a fundamental right democratic equal to the right of freedom of speech.

At the end of the day rights are nothing more than what society accepts as rights. If there was some dramatic shift in social values and the overwhelming majority of people decided that killing animals for meat was wrong then we would likely see the 'right to life for animals' enshrined in the constitution. Carnivores living today would be considered barbarians by the more 'enlightened' people in the future.

That is why the debate about abortion cannot be resolved by a discussion of 'rights' that may or may not be spelled out in the constitution at this time. It is a moral question and we need a resolution that the overwhelming majority of people can accept - even if they are not happy with it. The current system with no legislation appears to be something that meets that requirement even though anti-abortion activists are quite upset about the situtation. If there was broad support for any a law then there would already be a law.

guyser · February 15, 2007

Perhaps the best example is of the arbitrary and ridiculous nature of constitutional 'rights' is the 'right to bear arms' as defined in the US constitution. That right has long since outlived whatever purpose it had yet many Americans seem to think that it is a fundamental right democratic equal to the right of freedom of speech.
At the end of the day rights are nothing more than what society accepts as rights.

We are getting a bit sidestepped here. But I digress...

The right to bear arms in enshrined in the constitution of the US. Same as free speech. If for no other reason the right to bear arms is there to ensure that the gov does not overstep its bounds , kind of likethey are doing now.

Riverwind · February 15, 2007

The right to bear arms in enshrined in the constitution of the US. Same as free speech. If for no other reason the right to bear arms is there to ensure that the gov does not overstep its bounds , kind of likethey are doing now.

There are always pseudo rational justifications for why some things are 'rights' and why some things are not. My point was you can't end an argument on abortion by simply claiming that it is a 'right' under the current constitution and no further discussion is required.

guyser · February 15, 2007

There are always pseudo rational justifications for why some things are 'rights' and why some things are not. My point was you can't end an argument on abortion by simply claiming that it is a 'right' under the current constitution and no further discussion is required.

Fair enough.I did not grasp that point from your post.

( Although , and not being picky here, one can do just that , end it due to rights.)

Wilber · February 15, 2007

Like what part of the Charter pertains to this?

geoffrey · February 15, 2007

Fair enough.I did not grasp that point from your post.
( Although , and not being picky here, one can do just that , end it due to rights.)

I think the point that I and Riverwind are trying to make is that saying something is a right is never a defense to an action. There has to be a moral justification.

And it's not moral relativism in any way, shape or form. It's having a society act within the confines of ethical decisions, if we find rights and laws to be unethical, we must then alter them.

Rights are not permenant, or anything like that. They are just the will of the moral majority at the time they were enshrined, and they can, and will, change again and again and again forever and ever and ever.

Riverwind's explainations here are spot on, so I won't waste bandwidth by repeating them.

Charles Anthony · February 15, 2007

Geo, I realize that this does not change the essence of the debate but you just defined moral relativism there.

the janitor · May 7, 2008

Rights in the United States have been fought for and died for by Americans. In Canada, our charter of rights is something people hide behind to justify inaction. The charter is worthless. The only people who are dying for charter rights are unborn children. The elthical issues around abortion will never be solved until it is agreed that life begins at conception.

On the other hand, women never used to enjoy the rights we now have in society. If our rights were taken away again, perhaps the whole abortion issue would dissolve. The attitude of some women I know is "everyone respect my rights, but to hell with yours." Sorry, but it will never work that way.

Edited May 7, 2008 by the janitor

Drea · May 7, 2008

Rights in the United States have been fought for and died for by Americans. In Canada, our charter of rights is something people hide behind to justify inaction. The charter is worthless. The only people who are dying for charter rights are unborn children. The elthical issues around abortion will never be solved until it is agreed that life begins at conception.

Life begins when the creature can live outside of it's host. That being said, I believe elective abortion (non life threatening) should be limited to the first trimester.

On the other hand, women never used to enjoy the rights we now have in society. If our rights were taken away again, perhaps the whole abortion issue would dissolve.

So you advocate that women's rights be rescinded? That we shouldn't have the same rights as other human beings? Because some women choose to abort their fetuses, you are willing to give up everything?

The attitude of some women I know is "everyone respect my rights, but to hell with yours." Sorry, but it will never work that way.

What rights do women want respected that dismiss the rights of others?

And it is working. If you do not believe in abortion don't have one. Simple.

the janitor · May 14, 2008

Life begins when the creature can live outside of it's host. That being said, I believe elective abortion (non life threatening) should be limited to the first trimester.

This is hardly true. Try looking up the word "life" in the dictionary. All abortions are life threating if not to the woman then to the baby. Having said that, I think legally the viability argument is a reasonable compromise. Just outright disallowing abortion will not stop it, just make it more dangerous.

What rights do women want respected that dismiss the rights of others?

Obviously the right to end a pregnancy at anytime with no medical justification. It dismisses the right of the baby to live.

If you do not believe in abortion don't have one. Simple.

I don't think Hitler was justified in killing six million Jews either. But if I had lived in Germany back then, just claiming that I didn't directly do any of the killing wouldn't absolve me of responsibility.

I respect your position, but sorry, it isn't that simple.

Edited May 14, 2008 by the janitor

guyser · May 14, 2008

. All abortions are life threating if not to the woman then to the baby.

Hmmm......

Oleg Bach · May 14, 2008

Hmmm......

Life is created and in existance and is the opposite to death. Either you are alive or you are not. There are different qualities of life..all vary in different degrees. There is no such thing as equality regarding living people..some are superiour in our perception and some are less so in varying degrees. No human being has the right to evaluate what and who is to live or who is to die. We are all perfect and at the same time imperfect. Whether it be an aging person of limited intelligence or a child yet to be born who is for the most part oblivious to it's existance. Once we decide to squeeze human beings out of life at the begining or at the end is a dangerous and fleeting endevour. Best to let all life exist or to let all life not exist. This is the real choice. It is not for us to pick and choose to kill what does not suit our purpose of taste...all life has the right to life..even a bug..BUT if that bug enters or intrudes on my realm - say my bed..then I either capture it and release it out side - if the bug is overly persistant then I kill it...Humans are not bugs - but I supose to some they are and those that disrespect and dis-empower humanity are the real bugs.

M.Dancer · May 14, 2008

Hmmm......

I double dog dare you to argue against that point...

Oleg Bach · May 14, 2008

I double dog dare you to argue against that point...

Hummm...I would say that your friend is poo pooing you or about to.

AngusThermopyle · May 14, 2008

Either you are alive or you are not.

So how long did it take you to figure out that one Oleg?

Drea · May 14, 2008

But if I had lived in Germany back then, just claiming that I didn't directly do any of the killing wouldn't absolve me of responsibility.
I respect your position, but sorry, it isn't that simple.

So if you were an American you would consider yourself personally responsible for all the civilian deaths in Iraq even though you've never stepped foot in Iraq nor killed anyone?

A fetus is not a human being. The human becomes viable once it can survive outside the womb. At about 20 weeks or so.

Oleg Bach · May 14, 2008

So how long did it take you to figure out that one Oleg?

As I get older the more black and white I think - sorry - one has to eventually get wise to that fact that certain things are bad and some are good..either human attitudes generate life and health or death..there is no in between...I hate to quote scripture but...there is a wise old saying..."Let the dead bury the dead" in other words there are people who are not really living...so why don't we do a pre-emptive abortive strike on the jerks who are a waste of space...and let the unborn - be born...who knows..of the millions aborted we may have stopped some brilliant human beings from being born that could have helped humanity....NOW getting back to you making fun of me my sweet - "so how long did it take you to figure that one Oleg?" - well...I have always known that - but it's distressing that some other have not figured out the difference...keep it simple stupid and - also..think in terms of right and wrong...it maybe helpful. ohh - so tedious...Angus..and to think Morgentaler was going to get the Order Of Canada - the dellusional paranoid old man actually stated that "unwanted children become concentration camp guards" - talk about misplace and crazed nip it in the bud genocide...what a fool he is....it's guys like him who don't know the difference between life and death..you would think the good doctor would have figured it out - you are either for life or against it!

guyser · May 14, 2008

I double dog dare you to argue against that point...

Ha....I am not that stupid , contrary to what some may believe.

Oleg Bach · May 14, 2008

Ha....I am not that stupid , contrary to what some may believe.

Oh go head and be stupid for a bit....you can do it!

AngusThermopyle · May 14, 2008

NOW getting back to you making fun of me my sweet

Oh no, no no no!

Thats just very very disturbing. I have an urge to run to the shower and scrub furiously after reading that.

(Credit to "The Crying Game" for the shower reference.)

Oleg Bach · May 14, 2008

Oh no, no no no!
Thats just very very disturbing. I have an urge to run to the shower and scrub furiously after reading that.

(Credit to "The Crying Game" for the shower reference.)

When you all start taking about having to have a shower - then I know there are some lonely people out their at Maple Beef ......shower? Don't tell me all this talke about right to life and making life has aroused you? I have to go now......Honey - where is the shampoo?

maldon_road · May 20, 2008

UK House of Commons

Attempts to cut the 24-week upper limit for abortions to within the first 20 or 22 weeks of a pregnancy have been rejected by MPs.
Tory MP Nadine Dorries, an ex-nurse, who proposed the 20-week limit, said she was not anti-abortion, but said the baby involved "had rights".

But her plan was defeated by 332 votes to 190. A move to bring in a 22 week limit was opposed by 304 votes to 233.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7409696.stm

WIP · May 23, 2008

UK House of Commons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7409696.stm

The article you linked points out that just like most late-term abortions performed in Canada and the U.S., they are a very small percentage of the number of abortions in total. Many campaigns to ban third trimester abortion allow for exceptions such as: danger to the mother's life or health or dangerous birth defects that couldn't be detected earlier in the pregnancy.

But improved technology can reveal greater detail about the new life that's forming. Should an abortion be allowed if the child is likely to be diabetic or have some other, less than life-threatening ailment? Or should abortion be allowed if the child is not going to be the desired sex? Societies like India and China, are experiencing a shortage of girl babies, that is going to lead to some sort of social upheaval down the road if the balance can't be restored.

And there is the matter of competing rights! The prolife/ prochoice dispute centers around the question of whether a developing fetus has a right to life and is there any stage where it will supercede the rights of the mother, who has to go through the trouble and possible health risk of bringing the child into this world. The problem is that "human life" gradually developes and there is no magic line to determine when it should be regarded as a person. The zygote that forms after the fertilization stage is complete, has no meaningful human attributes other than a brand new DNA blueprint. It slowly developes human features, a nervous system, brainstem and finally a cerebral cortex that will provide a unique consciousness.

One of the prolife supporters in the article, mentions the issue of fetal pain - which has to be taken seriously though medical researchers still aren't sure if a late term fetus has enough conscious awareness to experience pain in any manner that we can understand, even after the physical system has been established - - the nerve fibers of the developing central nervous system have to connect with the thalamus at the base of the brain, and those thalamacortical fibers then begin to penetrate the cortical plate of the cerebral cortex, which enables the information from the nervous system to be received and properly interpreted for the developing cerebral cortex. It's a process that slowly developes, and their is wide disagreement whether the fetus is consciously aware of pain signals even after the hardware is in place.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/795/a

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29652.php

Some researchers who testify on behalf of prolife groups, believe that some sort of discomfort is being experienced by the fetus as early as 18 weeks, since the thalamus is receiving information from the nervous system. They believe that discomforting signals being received in early brain development are being unconsciously processed and may be later internalized as feelings of anxiety later on in life. Who knows! But certainly if fetal pain is a serious issue, it's going to factor in to the debate, at least regarding third trimester abortion! That article mentions that many women ask for some assurance from their doctors that the fetus will not feel pain if they have to abort it at that late stage.

Even after birth, the baby is still not developed enough to be consciously aware in the sense that we are. We just have an understanding in the modern age that once the baby is born, it has a right to life that must be provided by the parents or other caregivers if they are not competent to do so. This wasn't always the case! And even today, infanticide is still common in some backward, marginal areas of the world.

Edited May 23, 2008 by WIP

Oleg Bach · May 24, 2008

The article you linked points out that just like most late-term abortions performed in Canada and the U.S., they are a very small percentage of the number of abortions in total. Many campaigns to ban third trimester abortion allow for exceptions such as: danger to the mother's life or health or dangerous birth defects that couldn't be detected earlier in the pregnancy.
But improved technology can reveal greater detail about the new life that's forming. Should an abortion be allowed if the child is likely to be diabetic or have some other, less than life-threatening ailment? Or should abortion be allowed if the child is not going to be the desired sex? Societies like India and China, are experiencing a shortage of girl babies, that is going to lead to some sort of social upheaval down the road if the balance can't be restored.

And there is the matter of competing rights! The prolife/ prochoice dispute centers around the question of whether a developing fetus has a right to life and is there any stage where it will supercede the rights of the mother, who has to go through the trouble and possible health risk of bringing the child into this world. The problem is that "human life" gradually developes and there is no magic line to determine when it should be regarded as a person. The zygote that forms after the fertilization stage is complete, has no meaningful human attributes other than a brand new DNA blueprint. It slowly developes human features, a nervous system, brainstem and finally a cerebral cortex that will provide a unique consciousness.

One of the prolife supporters in the article, mentions the issue of fetal pain - which has to be taken seriously though medical researchers still aren't sure if a late term fetus has enough conscious awareness to experience pain in any manner that we can understand, even after the physical system has been established - - the nerve fibers of the developing central nervous system have to connect with the thalamus at the base of the brain, and those thalamacortical fibers then begin to penetrate the cortical plate of the cerebral cortex, which enables the information from the nervous system to be received and properly interpreted for the developing cerebral cortex. It's a process that slowly developes, and their is wide disagreement whether the fetus is consciously aware of pain signals even after the hardware is in place.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/795/a

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29652.php

Some researchers who testify on behalf of prolife groups, believe that some sort of discomfort is being experienced by the fetus as early as 18 weeks, since the thalamus is receiving information from the nervous system. They believe that discomforting signals being received in early brain development are being unconsciously processed and may be later internalized as feelings of anxiety later on in life. Who knows! But certainly if fetal pain is a serious issue, it's going to factor in to the debate, at least regarding third trimester abortion! That article mentions that many women ask for some assurance from their doctors that the fetus will not feel pain if they have to abort it at that late stage.

Even after birth, the baby is still not developed enough to be consciously aware in the sense that we are. We just have an understanding in the modern age that once the baby is born, it has a right to life that must be provided by the parents or other caregivers if they are not competent to do so. This wasn't always the case! And even today, infanticide is still common in some backward, marginal areas of the world.

A fertus ia nor aware. A baby is not quiet fully aware..stupid people that are adults are not fully aware..people lied to by the medical and political professionals are not fully aware...acedemics so institutionalized in their thinking that they are not aware...OLD people get faded in the head and are not fully aware...so...I SAY LETS DO A PREMPTIVE ABORTIONAL STRIKE AND GET RID OF ALL OF THEM...

.what I also notice about abuse of the less aware is within the court system and social agencey system IF a person is of lower intelligence..then they are open season to abuse...Much like a dog that you can kick and you don't get in trouble because the dog can not talk and rat you out...so it seems that its NOT abuse if the abused can not articulate...it's a secret abuse...and if the person CAN articulate being abuse - well they are NOT abused.

Also if a womans womb was made out of glass..people would not consider abortion..abortion is animal husbandry and basically culling the herd..abortion providers are not your friend and are not out to make your life better or richer..abortion is not the answer..It is less than a primative approach to solving social and economic problems..Those that are sophisticated and AWARE...believe that abortion is for others but NOT for them - It is elitist in it's flavour...you don't want to breed then don't couple -PROBLEM SOLVED.