Who has the right to life?

[Catchme]

No wilbur, it is you conflating the 2, and it has nothing at all to do with me. You are putting up a strawman argument and kicking it down with your sun setting analogy.

The rendered Supreme Court Decisions, were based upon known facts and Laws pertaining to rights.

The Supreme Court could not make a law saying the sun rose in the west, unless of course it started to. The is no basis in fact or laws for it to do so.

It takes a real ego to say one knows more than; the SCC, science and the medical communities and Civil/Human Rights Lawyers.

[Wilber]

No wilbur, it is you conflating the 2, and it has nothing at all to do with me. You are putting up a strawman argument and kicking it down with your sun setting analogy.

The rendered Supreme Court Decisions, were based upon known facts and Laws pertaining to rights.

The Supreme Court could not make a law saying the sun rose in the west, unless of course it started to. The is no basis in fact or laws for it to do so.

It takes a real ego to say one knows more than; the SCC, science and the medical communities and Civil/Human Rights Lawyers.

Unlike you and all the sources you quote, I don't say I know more. That is why I am pro choice.

[Charles Anthony]

I don't think that social conservatives believe in freedom. They can't help but peek into the bedrooms of the nation.

Social conservatives? What is that?

Anyway, you are all to the wrong left on the freedom scale.

For this reason, this will never be settled. Ever. And no, we can't get along.

I can get along -- so long as you do not force me to pay for somebody else's abortion. Can socialists accept a deal where people are not forced to pay for things they do not want?

[Melanie_]

Can socialists accept a deal where people are not forced to pay for things they do not want?

See my last post...

It also means that a woman's "choice" to continue a pregnancy becomes a public statement, open to scrutiny and criticism from those who disagree with her choice. Many in our society, and some posting here on this board, would say that, by making that choice, she should accept full financial and social responsibility for that child. Would there be a move to deny coverage for medical costs? Social supports? Special education? I'm wondering how several people here might respond to these questions.

What do you think, CA?

[Canadian Blue]

No wilbur, it is you conflating the 2, and it has nothing at all to do with me. You are putting up a strawman argument and kicking it down with your sun setting analogy.

The rendered Supreme Court Decisions, were based upon known facts and Laws pertaining to rights.

The Supreme Court could not make a law saying the sun rose in the west, unless of course it started to. The is no basis in fact or laws for it to do so.

It takes a real ego to say one knows more than; the SCC, science and the medical communities and Civil/Human Rights Lawyers.

Yeah it's not a moral issue, seriously Catchme, you have to start looking at thing's outside of your narrow view of the world.

[geoffrey]

Would there be a move to deny coverage for medical costs? Social supports? Special education? I'm wondering how several people here might respond to these questions.

No, I'd assume that a child carried to term by a mother knowing it would have Down's syndrome would be afforded all possible medical and social support it is entitled to currently.

Why would it be different... it's a person after all? And if we are protecting a woman's right to choose here, then we certainly have to be as accomodating as possible towards the choice to bring the baby to term.

Anything short of full support compared to any other person, would be an implied directive for eugenics.

[Riverwind]

Anything short of full support compared to any other person, would be an implied directive for eugenics.

The 'eugenics' boogyman is getting quite tiresome. Do you honestly think that many parents would turn down an in utero 'cure' for down syndrome? Isn't curing down syndrome just another form of eugenics? Aren't we practicing eugenics by keeping kids alive with severe genetic abnormalities that normally would never live to reproduce?

There is nothing wrong with preventing children with severe disabilities from being born. Ideally, we would like to do that by curing the disability. However, if that is not possible then an abortion is an acceptable option provided the women is the one who makes the choice and that she is also the one that must assume the obligation for caring for the child if she allows it to be born. Using the power of the state to influence her decision one way or the other is wrong. Insisting that every child must come to term - no matter how miserable their existance might be - is a position of moral cowardice.

[geoffrey]

Aren't we practicing eugenics by keeping kids alive with severe genetic abnormalities that normally would never live to reproduce?

Aren't we keeping many adults alive with genetics cancer that would otherwise die? Should we just off them too before they produce more kids?

[August1991]

There is nothing wrong with preventing children with severe disabilities from being born.

Unless the parents of such a child create such mayhem that it's not worth preventing such births.

It seems to me that posters to this forum seek a simple black/white ethical criteria. Life is not like that. Life's criteria is what works best. There is still a line dividing right and wrong but it is drawn differently and it doesn't always divide good from bad.

[Riverwind]

Aren't we keeping many adults alive with genetics cancer that would otherwise die? Should we just off them too before they produce more kids?

Abortion is medical procedure equivalent to removing an appendix. Killing a person who has been born is murder. There is a huge difference.

[geoffrey]

Aren't we keeping many adults alive with genetics cancer that would otherwise die? Should we just off them too before they produce more kids?

Abortion is medical procedure equivalent to removing an appendix. Killing a person who has been born is murder. There is a huge difference.

So your position is that people should not be permitted to have Down's syndrome children, or are we still at least playing with choice?

[Riverwind]

So your position is that people should not be permitted to have Down's syndrome children, or are we still at least playing with choice?

I have always stated clearly that it should be the woman's choice. However, I also feel that the state must not create an environment where a woman makes a choice to have a down syndrome child because she believes the state will take care of the child for her. Just like the state should not encourage women to have children that the father does not want because she believes the state will force the father to pay for the child.

A woman should have the freedom to choose - but with freedom comes responsibility and we should not forget that.

We have a pathetic case in BC where a welfare mom with two kids chose to allow twins joined at the head to be born. Any responsible woman on welfare would have aborted any child because she is clearly not able to support he existing children - nevermind more. Stories like this are the unfortunate consequence of the social welfare system.

[geoffrey]

We have a pathetic case in BC where a welfare mom with two kids chose to allow twins joined at the head to be born. Any responsible woman on welfare would have aborted any child because she is clearly not able to support he existing children - nevermind more. Stories like this are the unfortunate consequence of the social welfare system.

It seems like your unwilling to come out and say the fundamental aspect of your position there.

You start with: "A woman should have the freedom to choose - but with freedom comes responsibility and we should not forget that."

Does this then go to say that a woman only should have the freedom to choose up until she can no longer support one choice? That is, if the woman is incapable of caring for the child through her own means, she should be prohibited from giving birth to the child?

The State can only essientially stop a woman's belief in limitless support by ending limitless support, that is, cutting off most child welfare programs. Even I wouldn't take things that far. I'd say that you'd have to enforce mandatory abortions if you did wish to enforce a parental responsibility post-birth ideal that you seem to.

Many welfare mothers have no chance at ever being productive members of society, just the nature of their being I suppose. So they should be banned from having further children? Or should their children suffer/die due to their lack of support after? Perhaps we sterilize those that are just going to reproduce at our expense?

You've really picked an interesting dilemma, I must say. It's an ethical problem that has absolutely no easy solution. But if I'm running with your logic for a second here, I'm going to say that forced abortions would have to be the cornerstone of your concept here.

[Catchme]

No wilbur, it is you conflating the 2, and it has nothing at all to do with me. You are putting up a strawman argument and kicking it down with your sun setting analogy.

The rendered Supreme Court Decisions, were based upon known facts and Laws pertaining to rights.

The Supreme Court could not make a law saying the sun rose in the west, unless of course it started to. The is no basis in fact or laws for it to do so.

It takes a real ego to say one knows more than; the SCC, science and the medical communities and Civil/Human Rights Lawyers.

Yeah it's not a moral issue, seriously Catchme, you have to start looking at thing's outside of your narrow view of the world.

It grows wearisome, having to read and deal with personal comments that have absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, and says much about the posters who do such things. It would seem they have NO knowledge or larger view to contribute.

Those who say they know more about Rights freedoms, and self determination, than the SCC, are deluding themselves. They are working from personal opinion and nothing more.

Morals have NO bearing upon this discussion or in fact upon the larger reality of the Right to self-determine, and Freedom of Conscience.

In the case that Melanie puts forward regarding Down Syndrome and the mother being advised of such to choose what it is she wants to do. It is not wrong, it only broadens the framework for the women when considering her choices. So, that she can make a more fully informed choice based upon her individual rights and conscience.

The fetus in any case, whether it has genetical problems or not, has NO rights until it is born. This is a fact and has nothing to do with any individuals opinions or beliefs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who argue for defunding, again are treading the slippery slope of having their self inflicted medical conditions defunded as well. Again our system is universal access to paid for health care. Moreover, as i pointed out in other thread, truthfully others are NOT paying for it. The paltry 500 dollars it costs are more than covered by individuals yearly tax payments and their subsidizing of health care insurance. People who try to use "payment" and not wanting to pay for it, are creating a red herring. Common sense denotes the fact they/others do not pay for it. They are just trying to create a talking point and nothing more.

[scribblet]

So your position is that people should not be permitted to have Down's syndrome children, or are we still at least playing with choice?

I have always stated clearly that it should be the woman's choice. However, I also feel that the state must not create an environment where a woman makes a choice to have a down syndrome child because she believes the state will take care of the child for her. Just like the state should not encourage women to have children that the father does not want because she believes the state will force the father to pay for the child.

A woman should have the freedom to choose - but with freedom comes responsibility and we should not forget that.

We have a pathetic case in BC where a welfare mom with two kids chose to allow twins joined at the head to be born. Any responsible woman on welfare would have aborted any child because she is clearly not able to support he existing children - nevermind more. Stories like this are the unfortunate consequence of the social welfare system.

I tend to agree, although again, it is another slippery slope. If we choose to keep a person alive on life support against doctor's wishes, should the State refuse to continue paying.

I don't personally believe that the gov't has unending mandate to pay for all choices, we do have to make financial decisions, but who draws the line. Wasn't it 1984 where all people over I think 65 where denied medication in order to help cull the population?

For those who find it wearisome, having to read and deal with personal comments they don't like - there is an option, scroll on by.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

Believe it or not, I’m going to return to my sperm argument. Life doesn’t begin, life continues. Both the sperm and egg, before conception, are living cells. When they combine, another form of living cell results – how is the fertilized egg any different, in terms of life, than the unfertilized egg? We don’t have a problem with discarding unfertilized eggs, or sperm that have not fulfilled their mission, and I don’t see any difference in discarding them after they have combined.

If sperm are to be considered equal to fertilized eggs, and to 'living beings', then I must step forward and admit to being the greatest mass-murderer who ever lived. I have killed millions, billions, with my bare (and sometimes lubricated) hands.

I always thought the boys from Monty Python were kidding in their song "Every sperm is sacred".

[sharkman]

If ever there was a time when too much information was presented, this would be it.

[Wilber]

Those who say they know more about Rights freedoms, and self determination, than the SCC, are deluding themselves. They are working from personal opinion and nothing more.

This is exactly what you are doing. Science presents opinions based on the knowledge they have at hand. The courts make decisions based on the evidence put in front of them. They are all just opinions. Informed opinions to be sure, but just opinions. After all, at one time according to science and the authorities, the world was flat and the sun orbited around it. All any of us are dealing with here are opinions. We just don't know enough to have answers.

Is a fetus a living thing? I think most would say it is. Is it capable of conscious thought and if so when, or is it on the same plane as a plant? We don't know although recent tests with twins in the womb indicate that it might be so, we are probably a long way from being sure, one way or the other.

I see many similarities between this and the debate over the causes and effects of global warming. There are a great many opinions, some well informed and many not, but no one really has the answers. The best we can do is proceed with the knowledge we have at hand and hope we are doing the right thing.

[White Doors]

So if you want to insist that a fetus is 'biologically alive' then make it clear that you are not inisting that the fetus is a 'human life' and that from a biological perspective there is little difference between a fetus and any other 'biological life'. Without that qualification your claim is nothing more than an opinion about when human life begins.

I DID make that clear. I don;t know how many times I had to say it in order for you to get it..

Anyways, there is still a difference between a fetus and mould. Mould cannot turn into a human, a fetus can.

When why and how?

Not sure and neither is anyone else.

[Melanie_]

If ever there was a time when too much information was presented, this would be it.

This thread is not for the squeamish.

[Charles Anthony]

See my last post...

It also means that a woman's "choice" to continue a pregnancy becomes a public statement, open to scrutiny and criticism from those who disagree with her choice. Many in our society, and some posting here on this board, would say that, by making that choice, she should accept full financial and social responsibility for that child. Would there be a move to deny coverage for medical costs? Social supports? Special education? I'm wondering how several people here might respond to these questions.

What do you think, CA?

My response is incredibly simple because I treat abortion in the same way as I treat ALL public services: they should all be privatized.

My thoughts on abortion are the same as my thoughts for our universal health waiting-in-line care and our education system and all of our public services: I do not think we should be forced to pay for them. We should each have the choice to opt out. So, in a discussion of abortion, you can only say it is the women's choice that matters if the women is the only one who pays for her abortion. As it is now, abortions are funded from taxes.

If your pregnant women had cancer and needed cancer treatment, I would say the same about the cancer treatment.

Morals have NO bearing upon this discussion or in fact upon the larger reality of the Right to self-determine, and Freedom of Conscience.

That is convenient.

Those who argue for defunding, again are treading the slippery slope of having their self inflicted medical conditions defunded as well.

Let me know when it is open because I can not wait for the ride!

Again our system is universal access to paid for health care.

I do not think we should have tax-payers pay for universal access to waiting lines.

Moreover, as i pointed out in other thread, truthfully others are NOT paying for it. The paltry 500 dollars it costs are more than covered by individuals yearly tax payments and their subsidizing of health care insurance. People who try to use "payment" and not wanting to pay for it, are creating a red herring.

What a joke. If that is the case, I suggest that all of the women who desire abortions pay for them out of their own pocket and then claim the deduction on their income taxes. If your joke of a statement was true, my proposal should be accepted.

[Catchme]

Why should anyone pay we have a right to access universal health?

And no, I do not have to accept your proposal, nor does anyone else.

Because you personally believe people should be able to access health based solely upon their money in the bank, or lack thereof, does not mean I have to, nor anyone else. In fact, not many Canadians would agree with said position of yours at all.

Having wait times is better than having NO access to medical treatment at all. Or mortaging your house so you can have cancer treatment or a heart by pass.

But then again Charles you stated you wanted the feudal lord system back in place so, there you go.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to right to life.

A fetus only has right to life when it is born and becomes an actual infant. All Canadians born alive have their rights until the day they die.

Life and death terms are clearly specified in Canadian Law. Canadian Rights and Freedoms are clearly specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and other Canadian Laws.

From that perspective, all that transpires between conception and delivery are solely the the concern and business of the woman facing this. Whether there is a genetical disorder of a fetus to consider, or not, nor anything else even, means it is still no one else's business but the woman's.

[Charles Anthony]

Because you personally believe people should be able to access health based solely upon their money in the bank, or lack thereof, does not mean I have to, nor anyone else.

You take other people's money to pay for what YOU want.

[geoffrey]

You take other people's money to pay for what YOU want.

Right. Not getting an abortion isn't going to kill you, just maybe make life a little trick for 18 years or so.

Universal health care doesn't apply to elective procedures. We don't pay for breast implants (most of the time, a Quebec teen argued it was a self-esteem/mental health issue and we paid for her 'enhancement'). We don't pay for many things that are optional. Abortion is at best, optional.

So I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Really, we shouldn't be paying for any of it, but that's a whole 'nother issue, for another thread.

[jdobbin]

You take other people's money to pay for what YOU want.

Canadians pool their money to support things we all want. There are only a very few who want complete divestiture in everything and all things without exception. There isn't a political party including the Libertarians who want to go where you want to go which is basically break up the government in the belief that we can all get along if left to our own ends.