Bill to make harming foetus illegal passes second reading

[Admiral Beez]

It is equally ridiculous to think that a collection of cells a few weeks after conception constitutes a person.

Agreed, but when should we consider the unborn a person? Is it only after it's drawn it's first breath? In China, for example, mandatory abortions (applied when the mother already has one child) can be conducted even as the baby is crowning (when the top of the head is coming through), through lethal injection of formaldehyde into a baby's soft spot as the child crowns during delivery, thus terminating the baby before it comes out. If, however, the baby draws its first breath, then it's considered a protected, legal person, under China's laws.

This is an extreme example, from an extreme country, but let's have a discussion on what constitutes a person? We already know the Canadian government's thinking on this, but what is yours? For myself, I considered my own babies as persons, when I could see their hearts beating, and their little bodies clearly outlined on the ultrasound. I don't remember how far along they were, but I recall the nurse at the time saying there were very, very tiny.

 

[Mackitty]

Amen!

Yeah

Agreed, but when should we consider the unborn a person? Is it only after it's drawn it's first breath? In China, for example, mandatory abortions (applied when the mother already has one child) can be conducted even as the baby is crowning (when the top of the head is coming through), through lethal injection of formaldehyde into a baby's soft spot as the child crowns during delivery, thus terminating the baby before it comes out. If, however, the baby draws its first breath, then it's considered a protected, legal person, under China's laws.

This is an extreme example, from an extreme country, but let's have a discussion on what constitutes a person? We already know the Canadian government's thinking on this, but what is yours? For myself, I considered my own babies as persons, when I could see their hearts beating, and their little bodies clearly outlined on the ultrasound. I don't remember how far along they were, but I recall the nurse at the time saying there were very, very tiny.

AB i think the definition in the medical community in Canada is 25 weeks? is that not the cut off for viability purposes? I think any fetus past this point is capable of life.. albeit medically sustained life outside the womb.

I think it is a slippery slope to be honest.

 

[unimaginative2]

What constitutes a person? A living, breathing baby completely free of its mother's body.

 

[Hydrogen]

Agreed, but when should we consider the unborn a person? Is it only after it's drawn it's first breath? In China, for example, mandatory abortions (applied when the mother already has one child) can be conducted even as the baby is crowning (when the top of the head is coming through), through lethal injection of formaldehyde into a baby's soft spot as the child crowns during delivery, thus terminating the baby before it comes out. If, however, the baby draws its first breath, then it's considered a protected, legal person, under China's laws.

This is an extreme example, from an extreme country, but let's have a discussion on what constitutes a person? We already know the Canadian government's thinking on this, but what is yours? For myself, I considered my own babies as persons, when I could see their hearts beating, and their little bodies clearly outlined on the ultrasound. I don't remember how far along they were, but I recall the nurse at the time saying there were very, very tiny.

We don't have mandatory abortions in Canada, nor are we ever likely to have them. Usually such examples are brought up to serve as hot button scenarios that are used to generate or maintain outrage towards the very idea of abortion.

Oddly enough, even when a child is born it does not have the same rights accorded as an adult person. Newborns tend to lack the capacities typical of an adult person. For that reason, parents make decisions for children who clearly can't understand or are incapable of making for themselves. It's not merely a case of a legal definition whether a child is capable or not, but a recognition that such a person is simply not competent to make decisions in so many important instances. Interestingly, this might raise the case as to whether an infant, toddler or pre-teen is actually a fully-developed person. We call them persons, but they are not deemed to be capable of maintaining or directing their own autonomy. So yes, the issue of what constitutes a person can get cloudy.

 

[ganjavih]

What constitutes a person? A living, breathing baby completely free of its mother's body.

Is that your definition or the definition?

 

[unimaginative2]

Oh just mine.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If a person is a person before they're born, would that mean all expectant mothers have, by definition, multiple personality disorder?

 

[Brandon716]

If a fetus outside of the mother's body cannot survive on its own involuntary needs like breathing, pumping its own blood, and etc. its certainly not a self sufficient human being. This isn't the ability to feed yourself or other things no baby is expected to have, but if a baby can't live on its own body functions and organs its not a full human being.

For all medical intents and purposes, the period that a baby can survive by itself outside the womb is well after the 12 week zygote/first trimester period. A matter of fact without modern medical technology most fetuses can't even survive outside of the womb at 6 months, but then again abortions don't occur at this late stage other than to save the mother's life.

Abortions that are performed in the first trimester, which is always somewhere between 95-99%, are never murder. There is no self sustaining life, but rather an egg-like pulsating group of cells that hardly represent human life.

Now we can debate these issues until the end of mankind, but the fact is I don't understand why logical adult human beings would consider it more important to defend a non-self sustaining group of cells when they aren't involved in the process.

What do I mean by "the process," I just mean how the pregnancy began, what circumstances the pregnancy began, how willing the parent(s) are or economically able the parent(s) are to take care of the child. Will the child be brought up in an unwanted environment? Will the child be brought up in an abusive environment? Abuse can come in many ways: physical abusive, sexually abusive, economically abusive (parents that refuse to feed their kids or give them proper care, starving them, leaving them in filth where they don't have clean clothes or have been given baths in weeks). These things happen. The world isn't perfect and you cannot force perfection in an unwanted child environment.

The anti-abortion crowd doesn't have the desire or the capability even if they had the desire to take over every abusive child environment and adopt every kid in peril. For crying out loud, we have enough of that today and not enough spots to fill for kids needing a loving home.

Who gives the right to force an unwanted pregnancy upon another person and child who may grow up in a very bad environment?

The question I always ask in this debate is how selfish can someone be? Are you more concerned for this other so-called "life" that you don't care what the baby and subsequent kid is subjected to in his/her life? There is a level of selfishness required to force your personal moral view on life on everyone else when you know you don't have the capacity to help the end result of your decision.

If you have no intention of raising the kid or adopting unwanted kids and providing everything they need, you have no right to dictate what other people do to a fertilized zygote.

 

[syn]

Bill C-484, tabled by Conservative MP Ken Epp, would amend the Criminal Code to allow separate charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when a pregnant woman is attacked. The bill has angered abortion-rights advocates, who say it will eventually put restrictions on abortions in Canada.

I think this is a good idea. I also don't see a slippery slope. An abortion is different from losing your baby/feotus in an attack.

Personally, for me life begins at conception.

 

[Brandon716]

I think this is a good idea. I also don't see a slippery slope. An abortion is different from losing your baby/feotus in an attack.

Personally, for me life begins at conception.

These kinds of laws have already been passed in the United States, and there have been many lawsuits filed in order to use this as the basis of making abortion illegal. Usually the lawsuits are found invalid and thrown out or not held up by any judge, but they are still filed.

It doesn't seem like a slippery slope, but the intent of the people making this law isn't to protect babies, its to erode personal rights. That's the problem.

The only thing this kind of law does is it allows a court of law to file double murder charges against someone who murders a female who is pregnant, regardless of intent or knowledge of pregnancy. I'm not sure what purpose the law will have when the murderer is already going to be found guilty for murdering the mother.

There are, however, circumstances in US law where we've found this kind of law is found to be greatly abused. Many times babies that are stillborn can have a claim that the baby was killed, and there are circumstances where the US law has been used for revenge purposes. Example: Male boyfriend is hated and disliked, and mother has a stillborn baby. She accuses the boyfriend she hates for abusing her and killing the child.

All said mother has to do is create a few bruise marks, take a few photos, and use it as evidence in a court of law. It becomes a he said, she said argument.

The father, who may not have even been living with the mother, could be found guilty of murder when he did nothing.

It makes murder more of a he said/she said argument and open up a whole can of worms.

The intent and purpose of these kinds of laws aren't very clear. The end result is many times worse than what happened before the law passed.

My rule of thumb is that in Canada there is not a huge nationwide problem of babies being murdered, therefore this law is totally unnecessary and the legal waste and new tangled rules it creates is totally unnecessary.

You are risking more lives in the legal system by creating a series of he said/she said domestic arguments for people who hate each other than you are actually attempting to save lives.

If you end up with more people in prison who are not criminal people, and you in the end save no babies, what is the purpose of this law?

The purpose might be to rouse support among right wing religious types and pro-lifers who are sensitive to this topic and might otherwise not support your political party, but feel obligated to due to this emotional law.

Its all political in the end.

 

[syn]

These kinds of laws have already been passed in the United States, and there have been many lawsuits filed in order to use this as the basis of making abortion illegal. Usually the lawsuits are found invalid and thrown out or not held up by any judge, but they are still filed.

It doesn't seem like a slippery slope, but the intent of the people making this law isn't to protect babies, its to erode personal rights. That's the problem.

Yes, but the law itself is a good one. It's up to the courts to ensure it doesn't lead to anything else.

If my baby was killed because someone attacked my partner I'd want the person held responsible for the loss.

 

[Brandon716]

Yes, but the law itself is a good one. It's up to the courts to ensure it doesn't lead to anything else.

If my baby was killed because someone attacked my partner I'd want the person held responsible for the loss.

Under current Canadian law you can persecute any guilty parties in a court of law as the law stands today. It doesn't need to be changed.

Isn't that a good enough argument to just leave it the way it is? There isn't a mass slaughter of Canadian babies by mass murderers going on in Canada today and this law solves nothing and saves no lives. This law isn't designed to save lives, its designed to scare people into the voting booth for a particular party. That party is using the same techniques that have been used south of the border for decades.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I think this is a good idea. I also don't see a slippery slope. An abortion is different from losing your baby/feotus in an attack.

Personally, for me life begins at conception.

life began about a billion years ago and still goes on.


it's hard to classify what constitutes a human. if you go by chromosomes, you exclude people with downs. if you go by "inability to take care of ones self" you exclude people on medical support. if you go by fertilized egg, well, probably millions of them flow out from the menstrual every year. wouldn't those statistics have to be tacked on to death records? if you go by the ability to recognize ones self "awareness" there are adults that can't do that so are they not persons?

abortion is a tough decision for someone to make.

 

[Hydrogen]

Someone should arrest miscarriage. It kills.

 

[Brandon716]

Someone should arrest miscarriage. It kills.

In many societies, masturbation is considered mortal sin and against the law. Same concept just taken to a higher level, and absurd level if you ask me.