Abortion Question

[Lauren]

I thought there weren't ANY laws on abortion in Canada.

 

That's what the Toronto Sun said, but I should know better than to listen what they say.

there were laws, but then they were decided to be discriminatory. so when kim campbell was in office, it was her who had to decide on something but they couldn't come up with anything. so there is nothing. there are laws regarding abortions, but they are in place only to protect the mother.

[matrix]

I don't know about Canada, but in California, there's a new law where mothers can take their unwanted baby or child to any hospital or police station and drop them off, no questions asked. It sounds kind of weird, but it creates a better option than abortion. If they decide they do not want the child, they can go to the hospital and then the hospital will find a home for the child.

[ToadMan]

By course you have found the exact nucleus of this issue. At what point does the fetus' rights override the rights of the mother.

 

The two sides:

1) The fetus' right to life is superseding to all other individuals rights. This would be the case for all currently born people, in that nobody has the right to take another's life.

One quirk of this is if the mother is in a car accident causing a miscarriage then the person who caused the accident would also be criminally responsible for the fetus' death.

 

2) The mother rights supersede the rights of the fetus. In this case the mother has total control of her body until the fetus is born, and thus relatively self supporting.

One quirk of this is that the mother would also have the right to drink, smoke, and wrestle tigers, if she so chose.

 

Peace

[matrix]

1) The fetus' right to life is superseding to all other individuals rights. This would be the case for all currently born people, in that nobody has the right to take another's life.

One quirk of this is if the mother is in a car accident causing a miscarriage then the person who caused the accident would also be criminally responsible for the fetus' death.

Well, in murder or homicide cases I've caught eye of or heard on the news, if both the mother and unborn child die, then the suspect/accused is charged with double murder. That is of couse in the States, where there are abortion laws.

[Bizud]

Which is wacky.

 

So, it's immoral to remove control over someone's own body, but not immoral for abortion? Generally, in about two weeks after conception, an eymbro will show the first signs of live, turning into a fetus. There's my point, the first signs of live. Therefore, by killing something that is alive, you are commiting murder. And could you please explain your defination of a person? Because you keep refering to a fetus and a person as two seperate things, when in fact they aren't. A fetus is a living, breating person. It eats, sleeps, grows. So, I don't see the differance. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

Just because something is alive doesn't mean killing it is murder. I swatted a mosquito the other day. "Ah, but this is a person." Well, not under Canadian law, and I think in this instance the law is correct. The fact is that any explanation that relies on the existence of a soul or a higher power cannot be a sound basis for abortion legislation, because those are not secular beliefs.

[Munk]

Many people believe that the soul is a defining characteristic of humanity, and that the soul is placed in the human at conception.

;)

 

4 5 6 7 8

[matrix]

I'm sorry, but I believe Canadian law has it wrong.

 

First:

 

Encarta dictonary definintion of fetus:

 

fe·tus [ ftəss ] (plural fe·tus·es) or foe·tus [ ftəss ] (plural foe·tus·es)

 

noun

 

unborn offspring: an unborn vertebrate at a stage when all the structural features of the adult are recognizable, especially an unborn human offspring after eight weeks of development

 

So, after eight weeks the fetus is considered human. That is, it has developed far enough along where that it has structural features such as bones, muscles, etc. Therefore, based on this definition, Canadian law is wrong whereas it states that an unborn child is not consider human/person until it is born, and therefore has no rights.

So, technically, an unborn child becomes a human/person eight weeks after conception.

[Munk]

I barely consider a born baby sentient.

[matrix]

Well, I'm speaking in technical terms. There are some people old enough to be my parents I don't consider human.

Edited May 16, 2005 by matrix

[Munk]

But they have an opinion either way about their life ending. A fetus, a dog, and with further testing, even a newborn child probably doesn't.

[matrix]

Ok, let's compare a fetus and someone in so much pain, who is already dying, but mental cannot make that decision. We've all seen the news, like that one lady a couple months ago. I can't remember her name. She could make an opinion on that, and even if she could, no one would know. Would killing her be considered murder? Or anyone in that situation? I would consider that murder, just as I do abortion.

[Munk]

Assuming she's a veggie, no, she's not sentient. That's exactly it. She's brain dead. Stop keeping her body alive with machines, please.

 

Assuming she is sentient, but in "so much pain" [why is she not kept sedated in this fantasy hospital?] she can't express her wish to live or die... It's a toss up. Really depends on the individual case's circumstances.

 

A fetus doesn't have an opinion, and just can't give it. It's null, and might as well be in a vegitative state.

[matrix]

How do you know a fetus doesn't have an opinion? Hell, a dog could have an opinion. We don't know, and there's no scientific proof that either don't have opinions.

 

As far as the 'veggie', just because a person is braindead, does not mean they're dead. You could argue for all intensive purposes that they are, but they're heart is still beating, which means they're still alive.

[Munk]

How do you know a fetus doesn't have an opinion?

What do you mean how do I know a fetus, who's brain is not yet developed, has had no exposure to any emotional stimuli, and has no ability to comphrehend or make critical judgements, has no opinion as to whether or not it's alive? I'd say it's a damn good guess.

 

Hell, a dog could have an opinion.

It's brain structure suggests otherwise.

 

As far as the 'veggie', just because a person is braindead, does not mean they're dead.

It does actually, yeah.

[matrix]

How do you know a fetus doesn't have an opinion?

What do you mean how do I know a fetus, who's brain is not yet developed, has had no exposure to any emotional stimuli, and has no ability to comphrehend or make critical judgements, has no opinion as to whether or not it's alive? I'd say it's a damn good guess.

 

Hell, a dog could have an opinion.

It's brain structure suggests otherwise.

 

As far as the 'veggie', just because a person is braindead, does not mean they're dead.

It does actually, yeah.

First:

You're guess is just a guess. To assume a fetus cannot form an opinion on whether or not it's alive or not is ridiculous. The brain starts to develop at eight weeks. I believe that at that instant the fetus would feel the sensation of life. Since there is no way of scientifically proving this, I cannot guarentee one way or the other. My point being, is that a living organism would rather be alive than dead. And by killing someone before they have the oppurtunity to give their opinion is considered murder. You're right, maybe the fetus doesn't have the ability to make that decision, but you're taking away the oppurtunity to give their opinion later on.

 

 

Second:

A dog bleeds and can get hurt. If you've ever had a dog, or any pet for that matter, you can tell when it gets hurt, they'll yelp or cry. Based on that, you know it can feel pain. I'll make a guess on this one. Would the animal rather feel pain or not. I'm guessing not. Would it rather be dead or alive. I'm guessing alive.

 

 

Third:

 

 

dead [ ded ]

 

 

adjective (comparative dead·er, superlative dead·est)

 

1. no longer alive: having passed from the living state to being no longer alive

EX. a dead bird

 

 

2. inanimate: never having been alive and having none of the characteristics of a living thing

 

 

Brain-dead

 

 

adjective

 

1. medicine with nonfunctioning brain: lacking functions of the brain and central nervous system as measured by brainwave activity on an electroencephalogram over a set period of time

 

 

Braindead doesn't state anywhere that the patient is dead (within the compounds of the definition stated above).

[Munk]

You're guess is just a guess.  To assume a fetus cannot form an opinion on whether or not it's alive or not is ridiculous.

It's an educated hypothesis based on brain and spinal development throughout the fetus' cycle. It's accepted within the medical world that something that only has a spiral cord and under-developed lower-brain material cannot perform upper-brain thoughts like comprehending one's mortality.

 

The brain starts to develop at eight weeks.  I believe that at that instant the fetus would feel the sensation of life.

Actually, the brain and spinal cord begin to develop as soon as 3 weeks. And I have no idea what "sensation of life" you're talking about.

 

My point being, is that a living organism would rather be alive than dead.

No, actually. The preservation of one's life isn't innate in creatures. The reflex to avoid pain is innate, but this is purely a lower-brain reflex meant to keep the creature from damaging itself. The comprehension of one's mortality and preservation of one's life is actually an upper-brain construct. Many animals do not even have upper-brains to speak of. Reptiles, fish, etc.

 

And by killing someone before they have the oppurtunity to give their opinion is considered murder.  You're right, maybe the fetus doesn't have the ability to make that decision, but you're taking away the oppurtunity to give their opinion later on.

You can't give what isn't alive the right to choose whether or not it wants to live. Opportunity has no role here. The only thing in this situation that has rights is the host of the fetus.

 

A dog bleeds and can get hurt.  If you've ever had a dog, or any pet for that matter, you can tell when it gets hurt, they'll yelp or cry.  Based on that, you know it can feel pain.  I'll make a guess on this one.  Would the animal rather feel pain or not.  I'm guessing not.  Would it rather be dead or alive.  I'm guessing alive.

I've had many pets. But you're associating pain with death, and you shouldn't. A dog's lower-brain is wired to reflexively avoid damage. But that doesn't mean the dog's upper-brain has pondered it's mortality [or even can], and decided it would like to continue to live.

 

 

And as far as the brain dead thing goes, you're just being a dumbass. The heart is a muscle. A simple pump. It has nothing to do with the animal's personality, thoughts, wishes, etc. Once the brain dies, the animal you know is dead.

[Bizud]

I'd also like to point out the difference between "human" and "person." Suppose we built a thinking robot. It's definitely not human, but it's self-aware. Is it a person? Does it have rights?

[ToadMan]

mmm mushroom.

 

 

That aside. You're now debating something entirely different. You're trying to define (based on no evidence, both of you) at what point a fetus becomes a living creature. That requires us to define what it means to be living.

 

Jelly fish are technically living. Although they posses little nervous system, and no ability to act on anything more that instinct reaction. There are plenty of creatures capable of doing this. A tapeworm is one such example. This is a rather nasty transition back to the topic, but, if you get a tapeworm, would you have it removed. By all definition it has the same mental capabilities an early developing fetus. In fact is survives in much the same way as a fetus, parasitic of it's host.

 

I think the real problem her is point of view. A human fetus is just that, human. The two argument sides result from the fact that some people differential it to be a collection of cells, and others see it as a potential human being. Both of which are incidentally true. An argument can be made a million ways for both sides.

 

Matrix (I'm not trying to pick on you, but you have to most vocal opinion): Do you stand outside the red cross and yell at everybody who does go in and donate blood. That blood has the potential to save a human being.

 

JM & others: Do you hunt neighborhood dogs on the basis that they do not have the upper brain functions to ponder their own mortality.

 

In both cases you probably don't. They are extremist examples. But the point can be made that if we're going to go to one extreme, we might as well go all the way to the absolute extreme.

 

Peace

[ecnarf]

Brain dead does, in fact, mean dead.

 

You see, when you are brain dead, your heart is kept pumping by a machine - you are not living under your own steam, despite the conventional medical definition of death.

 

Also remember that Terry Shiavo (who you're referring to) wasn't brain dead, just severely brain damaged and was being fed by a tube, although she was in a persistent vegitative state.

[saturnine]

Which is wacky.

 

So, it's immoral to remove control over someone's own body, but not immoral for abortion? Generally, in about two weeks after conception, an eymbro will show the first signs of live, turning into a fetus. There's my point, the first signs of live. Therefore, by killing something that is alive, you are commiting murder. And could you please explain your defination of a person? Because you keep refering to a fetus and a person as two seperate things, when in fact they aren't. A fetus is a living, breating person. It eats, sleeps, grows. So, I don't see the differance. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

Just because something is alive doesn't mean killing it is murder. I swatted a mosquito the other day. "Ah, but this is a person." Well, not under Canadian law, and I think in this instance the law is correct. The fact is that any explanation that relies on the existence of a soul or a higher power cannot be a sound basis for abortion legislation, because those are not secular beliefs.

i said the same thing, but you said it more eloquently

[Munk]

Too bad you're still both wing-bats, eh?

[mrs jesus]

why is it that guys are the ones having this abortion debate?

they can't even get pregnant.

Edited May 16, 2005 by mrs jesus

[Munk]

Because you women don't like to argue.

[mrs jesus]

Because you women don't like to argue.

haha

you don't know me at all

 

i'm afraid i can't argue with you this time, though.

i'm on your side on this one.

[Munk]

You and science, cutie. You and science.