+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Anti-Abortion Motion 312

  1. #11

    Default

    Foxglove and Nostradama, have you even read Motion 312?

    It does not say that women cannot have abortions.

    What it wants to determine is when human life begins. We currently have a 400 year old definition in place. Is it a fair definition?

    With current medical technology allowing preemies as young as 21 weeks to survive into a healthy childhood, operations being done while still in the womb, just even being able to see fetal development via ultrasound, is it fair to say these are not human beings until after they are born?

    Perhaps it is time to move the goalposts for the definition of life, while still allowing an ample window for abortions in the early stage of pregnancy. Our medical technology has changed drastically in 400 years. I am sure you would not be treated by the medical standards of the 1600s. If one mode of thought has changed in that time period, then maybe it's time other modes of thought change as well.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    175

    Default

    I would not want to be treated with medical standards of the 1970s yet alone 1600s.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo since April 14, 2010
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Yes I have read Motion 312, numerous times in fact. Sure the definition of life is 400 years old, but the Supreme Court of Canada has made its stance as early as 1999 in the case of Dobson v. Dobson. Stating that a woman and her fetus are considered "one being".

    And if you want to take the medical stand point okay fine. For arguments sake lets say this bill gets passed and declares that humans are considered human after 20 weeks in the womb. So a 20 week old baby has the same rights as you in me. Well, what happens 30 years from now when medical technology is more advanced than it is today. Let's say, medical technology allows for us to take out a 4 week old baby out of the womb and raise it to a fully functional child. Where does it stop? With the medical stance, one day science can grow complete human beings in a lab. So when we advance our technology that much, are we going to change the definition of the bill to embryos being complete humans with the same rights? So now, abortion would become criminalized because an embryo is now considered a human with full rights and abortion would be First degree murder.

    THAT is why having something like this pass is a dangerous slope. Because once you get one foot in the door, you will keep going until you have full control. And I for one, do not want the State in MY uterus thank you very much.
    Let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foxglove View Post
    For arguments sake lets say this bill gets passed and declares that humans are considered human after 20 weeks in the womb.
    It is not a bill. It is a committee to study the issue. This is a long way from being a bill.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Dobson vs Dobson only states that "Action cannot be brought against a mother by a child for fetal damages caused by the mother's negligence."

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo since April 14, 2010
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanaimo1 View Post
    It is not a bill. It is a committee to study the issue. This is a long way from being a bill.
    Sorry my error. I meant motion, not bill.

    And realistically, it would only take a matter of years for it to be a bill. That to me, is not a long ways away.
    Let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo since April 14, 2010
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanaimo1 View Post
    Dobson vs Dobson only states that "Action cannot be brought against a mother by a child for fetal damages caused by the mother's negligence."
    "Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson. 1999. 2 SCR 753. At: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr...9scr2-753.html. “Canadian courts have recognized the juridical personality of the foetus as a fiction which is utilized, at least in certain contexts, to protect future interests.” And: “A pregnant woman and her foetus are physically one, in the sense that she carries her foetus within herself. Virtually every aspect of her behaviour could foreseeably affect her foetus. … The physical unity of pregnant woman and foetus means that the imposition of a duty of care would amount to a profound compromise of her privacy and autonomy.” And: “The Court should not impose a duty of care upon a pregnant woman towards her foetus or subsequently born child. To do so would result in very extensive and unacceptable intrusions into the bodily integrity, privacy and autonomy rights of women.”
    Let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo since April 14, 2010
    Posts
    815

    Default

    To quote the Petition itself.

    "Motion M-312 will be considered by Parliament at the end of April 2012 and voted on in late spring or early fall. The motion poses a real danger to abortion rights, to the rights of all pregnant women, and to women’s equality rights in general. It is motivated solely by anti-abortion ideology. The intent is to bestow legal personhood on fetuses in order to re-criminalize abortion.

    However, personhood is a socially and legally constructed concept, and it is bestowed upon birth for very practical and obvious reasons. The courts have stated that the intimate connection between a woman and her fetus cannot be considered in isolation, and that giving rights to fetuses would impose a duty of care on a pregnant woman that would result in extensive and unacceptable intrusions into her bodily integrity, privacy, and autonomy. To grant personhood to the fetus is to necessarily remove personhood from the woman. Historical and medical evidence clearly shows the negative and often catastrophic results when the state interferes and imposes restrictions on the reproductive rights of women in the interests of “protecting” fetuses. In the U.S., hundreds of women have been prosecuted because of so-called “fetal homicide” laws and thousands more have been subjected to punitive and counterproductive child welfare interventions that treat what women do or experience during pregnancy as evidence of child neglect or abuse.

    In reality, the best way to protect fetuses is to ensure that pregnant women have full rights, and to provide them with the supports and resources they need for a good pregnancy outcome – which may sometimes include having an abortion."

    http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...otion-312.html
    Let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo since April 14, 2010
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out

  10. #20

    Default

    The fact is that laws and legislation change in response to advances in technology all the time. 400 years ago we didn't have laws against texting and driving because that technology didn't exist; but now we do. We no longer need laws that state that businesses must provide railings for customers to tie up their horses, because most people have cars instead of horses nowadays. As humanity becomes more technologically advanced, the way we govern ourselves must also change.

    I don't believe that Motion 312 intends for us to go backwards and strip away the hard-fought for rights that women have achieved. Rather it is trying to find a reasonable balance in a law that swung too far out of balance in the opposite direction.

    Honestly speaking, do you really need to have abortion rights for the full nine months of pregnancy? Just in case you change your mind at the last minute? "Oh, I was scheduled for a c-section at 2:30, but then I decided that having a baby would disrupt my vacation plans, so I opted for the abortion at 2:15."

    Most abortions happen in the first trimester of pregnancy, because waiting longer than that becomes risky for the mother. Motion 312 does not intend to put a stop to first trimester abortions.

    Ideally it would be wonderful for The State (in this case meaning the Canadian government) to have no place inside a woman's uterous. But that would be in a perfect world where pregnancies are wanted and planned, and women do everything possible to protect their unborn baby. We do not live in this world.

    We do live in a world where we have children being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) or are addicted to drugs like crack among other things. The State also has an obligation to protect the rest of society against the drains on our system for the eighty years or so they will live and be needing extensive medical, educational and legal care. It also has an obligation to protect the vulnerable in society whether they are young women facing and unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, or a child that is in danger because of the careless actions of the person who is supposed to be protecting it.

    Yes, it is a slippery slope - in both directions. But these are things our society needs to discuss and make decisions about. We can't afford to wait on those decisions. Just saying an outright no to Motion 312 is pretending that everything is all right the way it is. Using 400 year old laws to define life do not make sense. We need laws that reflect our world right now.

    You can't just say no - there should be no discussion. Discussion needs to happen so that women can address their fears of what changes will mean to them. We need to talk about the validity of the laws the way they are. And we need to talk about the ways our world is changing and will continue to change so that we are prepared to meet the future.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts