‘Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings’

In keeping with his campaign to start a national discussion, Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth has tabled a motion that would see a special committee of Parliament created to study Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code, which defines when a human being becomes a human being. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has already responded with a two-sentence statement.

“Private Members motions are considered in accordance with the rules of Parliament. The Prime Minister has been very clear, our Government will not reopen this debate.”

Below, the prepared text of Mr. Woodworth’s remarks this morning to reporters.

Good Morning. Thank you all for your attendance.

Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings! That’s my message to Parliament and to Canadians.

Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings! It does not matter what result you’re trying to achieve with such a misrepresentation or whose philosophy supports such a misrepresentation. History is littered with disastrous examples of laws which pretended some people were not human beings to achieve some desired result or suit someone’s philosophy.

Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings! It’s simple. It’s the finest principle of Canadian justice. I believe most Canadians agree with this principle.

Why do I think this principle is so important? Not just to me, but to each of you personally?

Before I answer that question, let’s read Section 223(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code:
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

Canada’s 400 year old definition of human being says children are not human beings until the moment of complete birth.

Now there might be some people who can convince themselves that a child magically transforms into a human being when their little toe pops out of the birth canal. However, I’ve concluded that modern medical science will inform us that children are in reality human beings at some point before the moment of complete birth. For me – and I think for most Canadians this law clearly misrepresents the facts. It’s based on limited seventeenth century medical knowledge.

Yet 79% of Canadians don’t even know there’s no recognition of a child’s humanity until the moment of complete birth. They think children are protected at least in the later stages of development. No wonder they don’t feel any need to talk about it. But what if they knew the truth?

Section 223 is, purely and simply, a law that says some human beings are not human beings. Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings. Nothing justifies it.

So why do I say this principle is important to each of you personally?

It’s not just because it’s controversial, and you’re here to get a nice controversial story!

It’s because each of you is a journalist! At some point in your life you made a personal commitment to the truth! At least that’s what we expect of you! Has anyone here abandoned their commitment to the truth?

Don’t you want truthful laws? Don’t you wish we could get rid of every misrepresentation in Canadian law? How can Section 223 or any law be based on a lie and be just?

Just laws must be based on accurate evidence, not arbitrary lines unrelated to reality. If there’s no objective criteria for who’s a human being, then personhood and the fundamental rights that go with it can be defined in any way any powerful person or group decides. Is that the Canada you want?

Don’t accept any law, including Section 223, that says some human beings are not human beings. It’s an important principle! No Member of Parliament should remain silent in the face of any law that says some human beings are not human beings. I wouldn’t deserve to be elected to Parliament if I remained silent in the face of such a law.

I’m merely proposing in my motion that Parliament inform itself from the relevant disciplines. I am not even suggesting what the outcome of that study should be.

If we care about the truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead. That’s what you do as journalists. Isn’t that what you would want of conscientious Members of Parliament?

So this story is about Section 223. This story has to do with one Parliamentarian’s belief that justice demands honest laws based on cogent evidence and principle.

Here are the facts on which I rely,

1. In 1642 Sir Edward Coke wrote that children before birth were not considered human beings until they were born alive. He didn’t know any better.

2. In 1879 when our Criminal Code was drafted, and in 1892 when it was adopted, this law was incorporated.

3. I am not aware of any cogent evidence which supports the idea that children are not human until the moment of complete birth, and I know of some that does not.

4. Parliament has a duty to update an important law like a definition of human being having informed itself from the relevant disciplines.

No one has proven me wrong on any of these points.

And it’s simply not legitimate, not even to achieve some desired result, for Parliament to accept a law that says some children are not human beings when they are. That misrepresentation prevents us from even having an honest conversation about it.

“Ah, but you’re just a man, so why should we pay attention to your concern for honest and just laws?” Believe it or not, I’ve had that response from some people! Or, “you’re pro-life, so why should we listen when you tell us not to accept any law that says some human beings are not human?”

Well, the proposal in my motion was actually suggested by a very famous woman. And that woman would not be considered a pro-life person.

Like her, you need not be a man to agree with the proposal in my motion. Like her, you need not be pro-life to agree with the proposal in my motion.

To what woman am I referring? I am referring to Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
When did she suggest this proposal? In her 1988 decision in R.v. Morgentaler.

Here’s what she said:

“The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes “compelling” I leave to the informed judgement of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.”

Justice Wilson was, of course, talking about another law, but her comments and her suggestion apply equally to Section 223’s definition of a human being. Now I don’t know whether or not she has since changed her mind. What I do know is that other courts have referred this to Parliament since Justice Wilson suggested it. And I do know that Justice Wilson’s advice for Parliament to inform itself from all the relevant disciplines was wise.

A respectful dialogue to update a 400 year old definition of human being, with the aid of twenty-first century information, will benefit everyone. Whatever view one has about other issues, does it make medical sense to say that a child is not a human being until the moment of complete birth?

Members of Parliament have a duty to not accept any law which says some human beings are not human, including our 400 year old definition of human being found in Section 223.

Thank you.




Browse

‘Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings’

  1. This man has no idea what a law must or mustn’t be. 

    • And he’s a lawyer.  What’s happened to our law schools that they’re turning out tools like this? 

      • No amount of fancy book learnin’ can get you into (or out of) that position. 

      • My favourite part was his four points “on which he relied”, and then the plaintive whining about how “No one has proven me wrong on any of these points.”  The first two are historical facts which neither prove or disprove anything.  Point three is his telling us what he considers himself to be aware of, in spite of providing us two points of “evidence” in the first two points.  They just go the wrong way.  And finally, Parliament has a duty to update an important law–I suspect everyone AGREES with this part.  It is when he goes on to the “relevant disciplines” that the sentence loses its clarity.

        Just sounding like a lawyer isn’t enough. 

      • Law schools teach, basically, the techniques of argument. If truth and actual fact was the issue, then innocent men wouldn’t go to jail, and the guilty would.

    • Then please enlighten he and us.

      • Read the part about arbitrary, good for a chuckle at least! 

        • Nope, not enlightened – still waiting to know “what a law must or mustn’t be”.

          • Not makin the alberta bar look all that good, kiddo.

          • Guess your bar must be different – ours requires us to have some bases for our assertions.

  2. Why do you encourage him, Wherry et al journalists?

    Until a human being was ejected from my body, it was a parasite.  I may have loved that parasite dearly, and in fact loved it a lot more in the instant before it tried to get ejected from my body than during the process of ejection, but that’s okay because once it was ejected it became the most perfect little boy (or, later, little girl) the world has ever known.

    A caterpiller is a caterpiller, even though it will become a butterfly if all goes well.  Or to put it another way, a butterfly isn’t a butterfly until it is, well, a butterfly!

    And if all didn’t go well for me and my parasites, I’m sure there could have been some medical intervention which could possibly have ejected them from my body earlier.  Doesn’t change a thing about when they became a human being.

    • When does your crusade to fight the deficit by de-funding pre-natal care commence?

      • What!!!????  THERE IS A PARASITE IN MY BODY!!!  And you want me to go without medical care?  Do you feel the same for people with brain tumours, by chance?

    • Calling human life in the womb  a parasite. And 15 likes. No wonder you people don’t want to debate this. My God, what an ugly and horrific agenda.

      • It is crass.  Freely admit to guilty on that count.  What it is not, though, is factually inaccurate.

        • I’m wondering what kind of a person would consider it “factually accurate” to call a created human life in the womb a “parasite.” A zealot? Ignoramus? Yahoo? I don’t know.

          •  Someone with a dictionary or a basic English vocabulary.

          • You’re more than welcome to cite one, genius. Man.

        • If you believe that your assertion is not factually inaccurate then what is the harm in this study where others steeped in scientific knowledge would presumably agree with you?

  3. Good luck, MP Woodworth. The right to murder your children is about sacrosanct as its possible to be in Canada. Canadian government is sociopathic – babies are biggest threat to society, apparently, and that’s why State murders babies but no one else. 

    • You bring up an interesting point, TonyAdams.  Why are Conservatives so anxious that we become human beings earlier, when many then have no problem with killing the human beings later in life.  Accepting that the start of human beingness is earlier with you guys–at what point does it end?

      • This should knock 9 months off the OAS new eligibility, shouldn’t it?

      • “Why are Conservatives so anxious that we become human beings earlier …. at what point does it end?”

        For those of us who don’t think of babies as caterpillars, you’re a human being from the start. I would like to see some causation/correlation between people who think it’s clever to abort their babies but are against death penalty and people who are against abortion but support death penalty. 

        Babies are caterpillars and you are not certain at what point death occurs? Life ends when you die – I have no idea what you asking.

        “A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum(female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell.”

        • Seriously? A fertilized ovum is a human being? By what measure? It’s potential development? Doesn’t that inherently tell you it ISN’T a human being? You know, because it hasn’t developed that far yet?

          Labels exist to delineate differences Tony. A zygote is not a human being, because it’s a zygote!

          I understand that you feel that procreation is a sacred thing, or some such belief. I get that, I really do, but that feeling is not an objective reason to deny women control over their bodies.

          It’s like this refusal of yours to admit the obvious metaphor concerning caterpillars and butterflies. You don’t honestly expect me to believe you’ve missed the point of developmental staging? It’s sad when a catepillar dies, but you don’t call it a dead butterfly do you?

        • But aren’t you a human being when you go into rigor mortis?  You’re not alive but you’re a human being and you’re dead in law in the eyes of the law.

        • Causation/correlation?  You think people who believe in the right to choose are somehow caused to be against a death penalty?  That its related somehow?  Or those wanting an end to abortions are more likely to want the death penalty?  Huh, I admit that doesn’t make any sense to me (whichever way) and I’m sure there are a lot of people who believe in the right to choose and the state’s right to a death penalty.  Or none of either of the above.

      • You, alternatively, raise a nonsensical point, to whit:  ”…(w)hy are Conservatives so anxious that we become human beings earlier, when many then have no problem with killing the human beings later in life”, except, of course, for the many who do.

    • Oh please, let’s cut the hyperbole shall we?

      Most do not agree with you that a 10 to 12 week fetus (when 90% of all abortions occur) is the same thing as a child. It has the potential to become so (66% of the time) certainly, but the very fact that we can make this distinction suggests there is in fact an important difference; One that anti-abortionists like to gloss over.
       
      Where does one draw the line precisely?

      Is masturbation murder?
       
      Or perhaps you draw the line at conception? Less than a dozen self replicating cells is a human now?
       
      Or perhaps you draw the line at the breathing reflex? Heart beat? Brain waves?
       
      Gee, this is starting to sound awfully subjective there Tony.
       
      Indeed, no babies have been killed by abortion. The potential for babies has though, I’ll give you that.
       
      But you know, when one is discussing forcing a woman to have a child, essentially overruling her right to control her own body, one should probably be able to demonstrate an extremely exceptional reason to justify it don’t you think?
       
      What you and yours have given repeatedly however is a weak argument to justify taking away someone’s right to self determination, the removal of which in this case results in a lifetime imposition of responsibility.
       
      One you can gleefully pass along without repercussion to yourself.
       
      Which is why it’s a private decision between a woman and her doctor.

      • I posted a reply to you but it has ended up further down thread for some reason.

      • “Most do not agree with you that a 10 to 12 week fetus (when 90% of all abortions occur) is the same thing as a child. ”

        Far more do not agree it is a parasite until fully emerged from the birth canal.
         ”Where does one draw the line precisely?”

        One can draw the line precisely wherever one’s convictions dictate.  This line will therefore range from conception to birth.  There will never be consensus.  The lack of consensus doesn’t prevent governments from enacting virtually, if not every law ever enacted.  Nor does disagreement over where to draw the line reason not to draw it anywhere, which is the current abortion status quo in Canada.  As an aside, given your fondness for poll statistics, what percentage of Canadians do you think draw it where 2Jenn apparently does?

        “What you and yours have given repeatedly however is a weak argument to justify taking away someone’s right to self determination, the removal of which in this case results in a lifetime imposition of responsibility. ”

        And what you and yours have never explained is why the above rationale should be limited to abortion and not extended to infanticide, which is separated from abortion in Canada by seconds.  As for taking away “someone’s” right to self-determination, I presume the irony of your statement is intended and motivated by malice.

        • One can draw the line precisely wherever one’s convictions dictate.

          Not according to the MP in question.  Furthermore, there is apparently a legal requirement that “science” dictate an answer! 

          I think you’ve (inadvertantly) stumbled upon an answer, btw, since people will have different convictions and lines (how unscientific!) we will let people as act as their conviction and their doctors dictate.

          • “I think you’ve (inadvertantly) stumbled upon an answer, btw, since people will have different convictions and lines (how unscientific!) we will let people as act as their conviction and their doctors dictate.”
            Ironically, I favour the same approach to “climate change”, although I suspect you don’t.

  4. Whether something is a human being or not, no organism has claim on my body and organs unless I will it so, and the government has no business forcing me to provide such.

    If Woodworth is willing to concede that, redefine it all you want.

  5. Translation:  Women are too stupid to make their own decisions, so we have to make the decisions for them.
     

    • Assuming he doesn’t frequent these comments threads, there’s no bases for attributing such a view to Woodworth.

      • It’s what he just said…in public.

        • Oh dear, I’ve been too obtuse, although I’m certain you’ll eventually get it.

          • Well, you likely didn’t hear it because of all those Con pamphlets stuck in your ears……but every woman in the country heard it loud and clear.

          • Not this woman. Don’t speak for me.

          • Prairie muffins like yourself are well-known, and discounted.

            Much like Saudi women who really believe they’re inferior, and can’t drive.

          • You’re comparing the killing of kids to not driving? And you have to insult opponents while you’re at it. Again, what an agenda.

          • Nothing to do with driving, doofus.

            Flick.

  6. What if we are not esssentially human until we have demonstrated our capacity for reason and empathy?  What if until we do we may share many human characteristics, in the manner a fetus or zygote may share human characteristics, but have not acheived the level where we have the quintessential element of being “human”.

    • If reason and empathy define humanity, we have several MPs who aren’t yet human.

      • HUMAN BEGINS AT BIRTH DOESN’T SOUND LIKE SUCH A BAD IDEA NOW, DOES IT CLEMENT?!

  7. His proposal for how his wee parliamentary committee should be constituted is quite amusing : 

    “That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth; 

    That the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party …”

    • Actually, I think that’s pretty normal and is based on the number of MPs each party elected.

      • How about having all women on his special committee?

        • He doesn’t ask for that though.  If he did, then that’d definitely be unusual.  
          Given the issue to be discussed, it might even be appropriate, but good luck waiting for that to happen.

        • Good idea, including of course the female physician-MPs (all I can think of is Bennett and Leitch, but maybe there are more). 

  8. “…Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings!…”
     
    How can one possibly answer such a subjective question? And what is it he’s driving at precisely? Frankly, anyone coming at the question of abortion from this perspective should be treated with skepticism concerning their motives. And let’s face it, abortion is what he’s talking about, no matter how he tries to rephrase the debate.

    I’m not necessarily against codifying a series of controls to better scrutinize late term abortions. In fact I’d think most people would be more than comfortable with that.
     
    The fact remains though that based on the current facts and statistics, it won’t effectively change anything, could be entirely redundant and may in fact become obstructionist beyond its original intent. A woman is already greatly scrutinized when seeking an abortion over 24 weeks, and in fact you can only get one in a hospital. Most doctors won’t even do them for anything other than medical necessity.
     
    Beyond that, when one is discussing forcing a woman to have a child, essentially overruling her right to control her own body, one should be able to demonstrate an extremely exceptional reason to justify it.
     
    The suggestion that the potential for life should be equated as an existing life gives me pause concerning the intent of such a statment, especially when they start trying to equate this awesome potential with existing human beings and conferring them equal rights.
     
    Taking away a woman’s right to self determination, the removal of which in this case results in a lifetime imposition of responsibility, should be based on something more than subjective opinion, and frankly that’s all anyone can offer in terms of extending the definition of human being to a point before birth.

  9. I have long been curious to know why left wing types take libertarian position when it comes to murdering babies but not at any other time. 

    1) “ Less than a dozen self replicating cells is a human now? ”

    Not just now, but always. Humans are either alive or dead, it doesn’t matter what we call them or what stage of development they are in.

    “A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum(female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell.”

    2) ” …. one should probably be able to demonstrate an extremely exceptional reason to justify it don’t you think?” 

    Is Canadian doctors murdering females reason enough? 

    CBC – Jan 2012:

    A fetus’s gender should not be revealed until after 30 weeks of pregnancy, says an editorial in the Canadian Medical Journal. This change in procedure for a fetal ultrasound, where the sex is usually disclosed to parents at 20 weeks, would help prevent female feticide, says Rajendra Kale, editor-in-chief of the CMAJ.”

    • To paraphrase 2Jenn above, “a caterpillar is not a butterfly”, no matter how many off topic quotes you offer along with it.

      In terms of the issue concerning gender, the solution was already offered and is sensible not to mention simple. It requires neither the limiting of a woman’s rights nor the ridiculous notion of equating a potential human being with an actual one.

      No matter how you try to make a subjective opinion appear objective, it isn’t. A round peg will never convincingly fit into a square hole without the edges showing.

      It is interesting to hear however that were you to sever your right foot, you would want it to be accorded all the same rights as an individual human being. You know, since it contains self replicating cells?

      Weird as hell, but you go girl! LOL

      • Don’t give them any ideas about creating more Harper devotees. 

        • Oh, no: I just had a “boys from brazil” shudder.

    • You should use our fascist Constitution to take away women’s reproductive rights and freedoms. It should be easy by your metrics.

  10. Is this guy a one-trick pony? How do these obsessively single-issue candidates win nominations, then elections? 

  11. “I’m not necessarily against codifying a series of controls to better scrutinize late term abortions. In fact I’d think most people would be more than comfortable with that. ”
    Careful, you’re at the top of a very slippery ideological slope there – for the true pro-choice zealot, there can be no comprising the absolute abortion license.

     ”A woman is already greatly scrutinized when seeking an abortion over 24 weeks, and in fact you can only get one in a hospital. Most doctors won’t even do them for anything other than medical necessity. ”

    Careful with the casual reference to “medical necessity” – EVERY abortion is a “medical necessity”, doncha know, including those ones done for no other reason than to get rid of the girls.

    • Please show evidence that sex-selection abortion occurs in Canada and is considered a medical necessity.

      Or stop dragging thte debate down with asinine comments.

      • You’re really on the verge of losing your pro-choice bona fides, there GMFD.  The proper pro-choice response to the whole “abort girls only” issue isn’t to demand evidence it exists, it’s to defend it, irrespective of whether it does.  After all, if the “lifetime of responsibility” (per another poster) that comes from carrying a child to term is only bearable if one has a Jack and not a Jill, surely preempting Jill is “medically necessary”, non?

        • Yeah, we’re past the point where you’re adding anything meaningful.

          • “Yeah, we’re past the point where you’re adding anything meaningful.”
            A point I presume you still aspire to, although regrettably doubts persist.

  12. Of course social liberals don’t want to have this debate. Who in the world would want to justify the wiping out of all this human life in open debate?

    • The prime minister is on record saying he doesn’t want to have this debate, for one. 

      • So he joins social liberals, right? Thanks.

      • You pointed me to the home page of the Catholic Register. Is this your example of avoiding the debate? lol

        • You don’t want to debate. Therefore, the comments section there are more likely to provide you with what you’re looking for.

          • Boy, you’re terrified of something. Is it trying to justify the killing of human life in the womb? What?

          • Case in point.

          • How? You’ve done nothing on here but agitate with one-line knee jerk answers. You have to be afraid of something, or else you wouldn’t have come on here in the first place, right?

    • An embryo or a fetus isn’t a person, no more than a pile of brick is a house. For some reason people like you have a really hard time understanding this very simple concept.

      But to get back to the “debate” question, go for it, there is no better way to show the world what kind of embarrassment religious nuts are to the human race than letting them talk in front of a camera.

      • “An embryo or a fetus isn’t a person, no more than a pile of brick is a house.

        This is your example of an intelligent argument, is it? lol

        I suggest you spend a lot less time being an ignorant hater and more time coming up with an intelligent reason for allowing the killing of human life in the womb. My God. lol

        • Just a guess, your application to the high school debate team was met with roaring laughter?

          A simple matter of fact is that an embryo or a fetus is less self aware than a goldfish, so they do not qualify as person, again no more than raw material is equivalent to the final product. Honestly, I don’t know how I can make it simpler for you to understand.

          • If a person is in a coma and unaware, as you put it, does that mean we have the right to kill him or her? Or if a newborn is unaware, can we kill it then, too?

            Your turn, genius. lol

          • Sheesh, you certainly won’t win the gold star for your reasoning abilities.Someone in a temporary coma has the physical ability to be self-aware. And just to be sure because I think you don’t really get it: my point doesn’t apply to someone sleeping, knocked-out or under sedation and it’s rather sad to see that I have to make that precision.

            Back to the point, someone in a irreversible coma can be “unplugged” because s/he has lost everything that make him/her a person (ex: Thierry Shiavo). So if just being alive doesn’t cut it, what if an animal could hold a discussion with humans? Well, in this hypothetical scenario and from a moral point of view, it would be wrong to use such creature as food. Again, this is what we call an example; it’s serve the purpose of explaining to people like you that it’s not DNA that make someone a person or even the state of being alive (ie. a headless corpse maintained alive through artificial means doesn’t make such thing a person). So it all goes back to the ability to be self-aware. Since “unborns” are physically unable to meet this requirement, they aren’t persons.

            So at this point you can either try to bring an argument against what is written above or bring arguments to support your view, although, it is probably much easier for you to simply be an idiot than do any of that.

          • You know, it’s so laughable to see someone who considers themselves to be so intellectually superior engage in these childish arguments. Have you even graduated past high school yet? What makes you like this? Hate? Ignorance? What?

            An unborn child WILL have the ability to be self aware, just like a newborn child WILL have the ability one day. Why do you allow the killing of the former and not the latter? Man. Do you get this? Or are you too brilliant? lol

            You’re the one who raised the issue of self-awareness. Now that I’ve rebutted it, you add on more senseless distinctions of what constitutes a human life.

            Regarding a person in a coma, they have rights. Terri Schiavo was killed because her husband convinced a judge that that’s what she wanted.

            Regarding your example of an animal that could talk, are you serious? You consider this high school debating material? lol. Sorry, I can’t help but laugh at this. lol

            The fact is that human life starts at some point, and it’s conception. It’s also common sense. A person doesn’t magically come alive at birth, an most people know this. So it really is quite a spectacle watching self-important windbags like you wind yourself up in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable; trying to justify the killing of human life all in the name of rights. Unbelievable. And funny, if it wasn’t so tragic.

          • Quote:”Have you even graduated past high school yet?
            What makes you like this? Hate? Ignorance? What?”

             

            Yes, I did, it was easy, but I feel you are still struggling
            in that regard. In other words, stop acting like an idiot and people will not
            consider you as one.

             

             

            Quote:”An unborn child WILL have the ability to be self
            aware, just like a newborn child WILL have the ability one day.”

             

            Good, then you just proven my point: an embryo and a fetus
            aren’t persons, they will, one day, become one, but at the moment the abortion
            is performed, they don’t meet this criteria. And we made a complete circle
            about why raw material isn’t a house and why both aren’t on equal ground when
            it’s time to consider how valuable they are. It’s funny that you have a hard time accepting this when it’s about fetuses
            but would never have this problem with any other aspects of your life: for example if someone
            would tear apart a piece of paper you probably wouldn’t think it’s the same as  destroying
            a completed piece of art.

             

            About a newborn child, you have to draw the line somewhere,
            and while this is entirely my opinion, being independent from the mother (i.e.
            a fetus in a womb is more being on extreme life-support compared to just stay warm and being fed once born) is enough to grant protection and rights.

            Quote:”Regarding a person in a coma, they have rights.
            Terri Schiavo was killed because her husband convinced a judge that that’s what
            she wanted.”

             

            Well, he was legally responsible for her and he (not the
            state, not you, not me) made that decision, and this is how it should be. The autopsy
            showed that the brain damage was extensive and irreversible, basically nothing
            of her was left, she was a shell. Now let’s leave that debate about the value of
            such being for another day.

             

             

            Quote:”Regarding your example of an animal that could
            talk, are you serious?”

             

            Oh my, com’on you’re trolling me, right? I spend several
            lines explaining to you what is an *hypothetical* example and you don’t get it.
            Seriously, I just can’t believe it: it’s an example to support my point that
            DNA is irrelevant to the concept of personhood. A talking animal that could
            debate with human would from a moral point of view be intelligent
            enough to deserve rights (the whole debate here is about Rights, unless you have
            forgotten; the Right to Life in this case). If you don’t like the “Island
            of Doctor Moreau” example, change “animal” to “genetic
            experiment”, “space alien” or whatever you feel like. If this is
            still too complicated for you to understand then just try to grasp this
            point:”a person isn’t defined by its specific DNA sequences”. As for
            why this is in the debate, well many centuries ago, many people didn’t consider
            women/slave/black people/etc to be persons (they were different, physical
            differences are due to genetics), I’m only highlighting the concept with a
            modern example (those people were finally considered equal to white guys because they were thinking self-aware sentient beings, it took a few thousands but humanity finally managed to get it). But like I said, forget it if you don’t grasp the concept, it’s
            not essential to understand my point.

             

             

            Quote:”The fact is that human life starts at some
            point, and it’s conception.”

             

            No, you see life doesn’t begin at conception; a spermatozoon
            and an ovum are both living cell (since they can be in a dead state). Trying to
            determine when human life begin is like trying to determine the beginning of a
            circle. Life gives birth to life and so on. At best conception could be called
            the creation of a new generic being but beginning of life, no not really.

             

             

            Quote”lso common sense. A person doesn’t magically come
            alive at birth, an most people know this.”

             

            Of course you are right, the mere fact that an embryo
            or a fetus can be in a “dead” state mean it must be alive. It’s so clear cut that it is an undeniable fact. But on the other hand, I give zero value to this criterion because in my book, I don’t
            consider life to be equal to personhood.

          • Seriously. How is a person who is so limited in their capacity to debate so quick to engage in these hilariously arrogant claims about themselves? You can’t even space your paragraphs properly, but act like you’re an educated person. I couldn’t make this kind of stuff up if I tried. Let me try to go a little bit slower for you, but I don’t think it will help. You have far too much hatred for people who expose your ignorance and limited abilities.

            Every time I rebut one of your silly points, you come up with another one. Why is that? You came up with the point about self-awareness. Then when I come up with the counterpoint of a newborn baby, you bring up the new requirement of being detached from the mother — and you did it in a very roundabout way, by the way. So why now the detachment from the mother? Why does a person only have rights the second they are detached? Just because you just made it up because your other points were so lazy and easily rebutted? lol

            You also didn’t address the point about a person in a coma having rights. They do, yes? Of course. Next
            .
            You’re the one making an argument about DNA, and considering yourself brilliant because you came up with the example of an animal talking. I didn’t make this up, you did. I didn’t make a fool of myself on this one, you did.

            And what kind of an “educated person” would confuse a conceived person with a seed or an egg? Who in the world argues that a sperm is a person? lol. This is too funny.

            You see, you’re the ignorant one who can’t defend the killing of human life, yet you have the gall to spread hatred about those who expose you. Instead of engaging in this nonsense, re-educate yourself and start seeking the truth. That way this nonsense wouldn’t keep coming out of you, and you wouldn’t be exposed for the fool that you are.

            I have answered every single inane point you have made, and you still  can’t tell  me why we can allow the killing of human life in the womb. Yes, you must have some kind of brilliance that just escapes me. lol. Next.

  13. Well, he’s been trying for years and years.  Even tried as a Liberal back in the day.  My only conclusion is that some voters got so damn tired of seeing his name on every ballot imaginable that they decided he should be given a perseverence award or something.

  14. Sadly, you’ve got me.  I’d have to say that the reason why an abortion is required is irrelevant to me, and that includes due to the sex of the eventual human being.  I often wonder what would have happened in those places where the culture demands only boys, if the west had not intervened in it.  Of course, that is also a moot point because many of those otherwise requiring an abortion couldn’t get one because they weren’t available–therefore they resorted to infanticide, and I would hope you would agree with me that that cannot be allowed to go unpunished.

    But really, if an entire society ended up being only male, particularly if it’s rules and roles are so gender dependent, what would happen?

  15. double post

  16. double post again (grrrr)

  17. Neither Wherry nor O’Mally touched on the fact that a Justice of the SCOC has said that parliamentarians should grapple with this problem, and comments on here are avoiding this fact as well.  This is what Mr. Woodworth said in his remarks after saying that a woman also had suggested this discussion.

    “I am referring to Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.When did she suggest this proposal? In her 1988 decision in R.v. Morgentaler.
    “I am referring to Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.When did she suggest this proposal? In her 1988 decision in R.v. Morgentaler.
    Here’s what she said:
    “The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes “compelling” I leave to the informed judgement of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.”

    • Sorry for repeat in the quote… don’t know how that happened.

  18. I think it’s important for everyone (on both sides of this issue) to take the time to educate themselves about fetal development.  This is a decent resource: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/fetal-develop.shtm

    We seem to know that babies are babies before they are born:  babies can survive outside the womb  after 25 weeks gestation, and at doctors perform in-utero surgery at 25 weeks gestation. Yet a baby of the same gestational age can be killed, perhaps even in the next room over in the same hospital.  Is it logical?

Sign in to comment.