tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post2693208944877850594..comments2023-10-19T06:24:41.808-04:00Comments on Joanne's Journey: Is there a way to protect the fetus without declaring it a 'person'?Joanne (True Blue)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-76668456270658673802007-11-20T09:32:00.000-05:002007-11-20T09:32:00.000-05:00Thanks, Thomas.If you're interested, I did a post ...Thanks, Thomas.<BR/><BR/>If you're interested, I did a post on the <A HREF="http://jojourn.blogspot.com/2007/11/smoking-with-kids-in-car-now-illegal-in.html" REL="nofollow">Wolfville</A> story here.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to chime in if you like.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-49709263051272111622007-11-20T09:29:00.000-05:002007-11-20T09:29:00.000-05:00to answer your questions: "So where are you going ...to answer your questions:<BR/><BR/><I> "So where are you going with that in terms of the unborn? Are you then arguing for a harsher punishment for fetal murder?" </I><BR/><BR/>As I already explained - the point is moot - our criminal is sentenced no differently with or withour any change to the law - so no change to the law is necessary.<BR/><BR/><I>"Are you also arguing for a restriction on abortion?"</I><BR/><BR/>again - the point is moot... Canada does not perform late term abortions unless the mother's life is immediately in peril (an occurance so rare it need no mention. So again - no change to the law is necessary!<BR/><BR/><I>"Who decides what those 'best interests' are, and how does that exactly apply to the issues of the unborn?"</I><BR/><BR/>I already answered that - when a woman's irresponsible behaviour generates costs to society in general and the taxpayer in particular - then the state can and should intervene! As I already said - our Social Services, when our Education System, our Medical System our Justice System etc have to pay the cost of a mother's irresponsible and reckless behavior (such as substance abuse during pregnancy)then the state can restrict her behaviour with the same logic we can require her to wear seat-belts!<BR/><BR/>Does this constitute the thin edge of the wedge in restricting individual liberty - such as rounding up drug adics for their own good? A very contentious issue!<BR/><BR/>I submit - that we are already doing that. When substance abusers are so incapacitated as to represent an immediate threat to themselves, they can and are incarcerated aganst their will for their own good. <BR/><BR/>Really - the Canadian clock don't need no fixin'<BR/><BR/>best regardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-41913837973485423202007-11-19T20:45:00.000-05:002007-11-19T20:45:00.000-05:00Thomas, you give the example of the no-smoking in ...Thomas, you give the example of the no-smoking in the car legislation as an example of "a legal precedent permitting the state to restrict the rights of the individual".<BR/><BR/>So where are you going with that in terms of the unborn? Are you then arguing for a harsher punishment for fetal murder? Are you also arguing for a restriction on abortion?<BR/><BR/>If so, how exactly do you apply your theory that the "State can and should intervene by legislating against behavior deemed contrary to society's best interests."<BR/><BR/>i.e. Who decides what those 'best interests' are, and how does that exactly apply to the issues of the unborn?<BR/><BR/>Not challenging you here; just trying to fully understand your position. Thanks.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-32760014154016826022007-11-19T16:13:00.000-05:002007-11-19T16:13:00.000-05:00My final post on the subject...I hope not. ;)Than...<I>My final post on the subject...</I><BR/><BR/>I hope not. ;)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your thought-provoking comments and tips. Yes, this is definitely separate-post worthy.<BR/><BR/>I just have my real-life interfering too much. lol!<BR/><BR/>Hopefully I can pick this up again soon. Thanks, Thomas.<BR/><BR/>BTW, you can also email me at the addy on my profile.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-46886222835873586752007-11-19T15:36:00.000-05:002007-11-19T15:36:00.000-05:00final comment regarding status of a fetus...Is a c...final comment regarding status of a fetus...<BR/><BR/>Is a conceptus "human"?<BR/><BR/>Yes - in the sense it does not belong to some other species.<BR/><BR/>Is a conceptus "alive"?<BR/><BR/>Again yes - in the sense it is not necrotic!<BR/><BR/>Conclusion: The fetus is a "human life"! Whoa Nelly! That's a stretch. There is more to being a human life than stimulus-response twitching to some external stimulus.<BR/><BR/>Define "fetal pain". If the central nervous system of a fetus is no more sophisticated than an annelid; the crime of inflicting fetal pain is no more serious than placing a wriggler on the end of a fishing hook!<BR/><BR/>I realize them are provocative fighting words for some participants...<BR/><BR/>By way of attonement may I also add that Morgenthaler's endorsement of third term abortion is clearly abominable. <BR/><BR/>I submit there is no clear line that defines "human" vs. "not yet human" in fetal developmnet.<BR/><BR/>I have no argument with the suggestion that third trimester abortions are "unborn baby killings".<BR/><BR/>I also have no argument with the the suggestion that first term abortions are <B> NOT </B> "unborn baby killings".<BR/><BR/>I submit - I am not waffling here; but rather following the tradition of the Catholic Church:<BR/><BR/>The three pillars of Church dogma are supposed to be scripture, tradition and ecclesiastical authority. A careful reading of Exodus 21:22-24 indicates abortion is not equivalent to murder. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, Catholic Theologians following in the tradition of Aquinas and Augustine maintained the spiritual soul did not exist at conception. Meanwhile, two popes; Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX ruled early abortion did not constitute murder. <BR/><BR/>The Church's current stand on abortion would appear to miss the prima facie requirements necessary of infallible dogma; even though Pope John Paul II declared in 1995 that the Church's teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable". This position is clearly untenable.<BR/><BR/>Participants in this debate must be open to the logical possibility that the church could repeat history by again modifying dogma regarding "early-" as opposed to "late-"term abortion.<BR/><BR/>My final post on the subject...<BR/><BR/>best regards,<BR/>tmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-35584910121703138392007-11-19T15:14:00.000-05:002007-11-19T15:14:00.000-05:00coincidental timing...I thought you would find thi...coincidental timing...<BR/><BR/>I thought you would find this interesting; a legal precedent permitting the state to restrict the rights of the individual:<BR/><BR/>http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1123676713Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-82518742732563620172007-11-19T10:22:00.000-05:002007-11-19T10:22:00.000-05:00Thomas, I think your idea makes great sense. I may...Thomas, I think your idea makes great sense. I may copy your comments here in a new post sometime soon.<BR/><BR/>I have a few 'irons in the fire' at the moment, but I'll keep this in mind.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-57299710501412852832007-11-19T09:55:00.000-05:002007-11-19T09:55:00.000-05:00joanne aka (true blue)to repeat myself...Having sa...joanne aka (true blue)<BR/><BR/>to repeat myself...<BR/><BR/>Having said all that; my detractors do have a point. The Supreme Court of Canada that a mother’s rights can not be infringed to protect a fetus. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the rest of us including our Social Services, our Education System, our Medical System our Justice System etc have to pay the cost of a mother's irresponsible and reckless behavior (such as substance abuse during pregnancy).<BR/><BR/>Yet the Law frequently infringes on individual rights to prevent Society from paying some bigger bill down the road. That is why we all are individually required to wear seat-belts.<BR/><BR/>Without begging the question of "fetal personhood" setting new legal precedents, it appears obvious that the State can and should intervene by legislating against behavior deemed contrary to society's best interests. <BR/><BR/>Problem solved ! ... without revisiting the abortion question and fetal personhood!<BR/><BR/>IMHO - this would be the best approach to a very difficult question.<BR/><BR/>n'est-ce pas?<BR/><BR/>best regards,<BR/>Thomas MuellerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-7139001414154268712007-11-19T08:02:00.000-05:002007-11-19T08:02:00.000-05:00Thanks for commenting here, Thomas! That was a gre...Thanks for commenting here, Thomas! That was a great letter.<BR/><BR/>I raise this topic from time to time, so I hope you'll continue to join in the discussion.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-29669089282177843172007-11-19T07:15:00.000-05:002007-11-19T07:15:00.000-05:00I am flattered to find my letter appear on your bl...I am flattered to find my letter appear on your blog...<BR/><BR/>Your argument "Could we please do something to protect the right of all women to choose, and not just those who choose abortion?" is very compelling!<BR/><BR/>With or without any change to the law - your criminal suffers no more nor no less punishment for any attack on a pregnant woman given the attack constitutes at the very least "attempted murder" of the pregnant woman with a judicial system that routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account.<BR/><BR/>During a trial by jury – any prosecutor could generate shock and horror among jurors no less than the National Post’s champions of the so-called un-born. <BR/><BR/>As wont to say in legal circles – the point is moot! Our criminal endures no greater or lesser sentence with or without any change to the law.<BR/><BR/>best regards,<BR/>thomas muellerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-65289151938539116062007-11-02T11:34:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:34:00.000-04:00Suzanne - Interesting ideas, and I agree with you ...Suzanne - Interesting ideas, and I agree with you on everything except mentioning Harper.<BR/><BR/>I really don't think he will go anywhere near this issue no matter how it's framed.<BR/><BR/>I truly believe we need a principled member from the opposition to bring forward a private member's bill on fetal homicide and possibly mandating resuscitation efforts regarding an unsuccessful abortion over a certain term (my head's still shaking on that one!)<BR/><BR/>The grass roots really needs to lobby their own opposition MP's, IMHO.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-48562396807626609782007-11-02T09:37:00.000-04:002007-11-02T09:37:00.000-04:00I think so, too. Harper could not lose on a fetal ...I think so, too. Harper could not lose on a fetal homicide law, especially if they phrased it in terms of women's rights: a woman has a right to her fetus, and if someone deprives her of her fetus, he should pay. <BR/><BR/>Another winner would be a ban on some of the abortion methods. I have a feeling that a PBA ban would not go far in Canada because it's not done that often, or at least I haven't seen any evidence of it. However, I think we could ban fetal heart injections for singleton (non-twin) babies past a certain age. What happens during a late-term prostaglandin abortion in Canada is that often the baby is injected with potassium chloride in his heart, causing a very painful heart attack (it takes about 2 minutes for the baby to die). Then, we can make it obligatory for all babies past 24 weeks to be resuscitated if they survive the abortion. This is the medical guideline for late-term abortion in Alberta: if the baby survives the abortion and is older than 24 weeks, he gets resuscitated regardless of the wishes of the mother. That could be the law of the land, as it's already a medical guideline in Alberta. We could also mandate palliative care, which is another trend I'm seeing: very sick preemies are given palliative care. In France, women can be convinced to bring the baby to term if they know that there is palliative care waiting for their baby (this is in a few centres-- but it seems to be catching).Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-82102344104956079292007-11-02T07:58:00.000-04:002007-11-02T07:58:00.000-04:00but it allowed for viable ones to be protected.So ...<I>but it allowed for viable ones to be protected.</I><BR/><BR/>So it's our cowardly legislators who are to blame. I think we could get somewhere if people didn't use the A-word.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-81956994229225635372007-11-02T07:54:00.000-04:002007-11-02T07:54:00.000-04:00That's right. But people have this idea that abort...That's right. But people have this idea that abortion is an absolute right. It's not. It's true that the court basically said early fetal human beings are worthless, but it allowed for viable ones to be protected.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-2749308925602880202007-11-02T07:34:00.000-04:002007-11-02T07:34:00.000-04:00Suzanne, thanks. So it appears that the courts are...Suzanne, thanks. So it appears that the courts are saying that it is up to Parliament to legislate any changes in law regarding viability vs. abortion? Is that right?Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-16897199657979018692007-11-02T07:17:00.000-04:002007-11-02T07:17:00.000-04:00This is from the R. V. Morgentaler:Once the fetus ...This is from the R. V. Morgentaler:<BR/><BR/>Once the fetus is viable, in the sense that it is capable of survival outside the uterus with artificial aid, the state interest in preserving the fetus becomes compelling, and the state may thus proscribe its premature removal (i.e., its abortion) except to preserve the mother's life or health.<BR/><BR/>http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii90/1988canlii90.html<BR/><BR/>Regarding an abortion law:<BR/><BR/>However, it is possible that a future enactment by Parliament that would require a higher degree of danger to health in the latter months of pregnancy, as opposed to the early months, for an abortion to be lawful, could achieve a proportionality which would be acceptable under s. 1 of the Charter.<BR/><BR/>Another quote:<BR/><BR/>The value to be placed on the foetus as potential life is directly related to the stage of its development during gestation. The undeveloped foetus starts out as a newly fertilized ovum; the fully developed foetus emerges ultimately as an infant. A developmental progression takes place between these two extremes and it has a direct bearing on the value of the foetus as potential life. Accordingly, the foetus should be viewed in differential and developmental terms. This view of the foetus supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages where the woman's autonomy would be absolute and a restrictive approach in the later stages where the states's interest in protecting the foetus would justify its prescribing conditions. The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes "compelling" should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive submissions on the subject from all the relevant disciplines.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-31024704713034545632007-11-02T06:10:00.000-04:002007-11-02T06:10:00.000-04:00I think the courts see the fetus as a separate ent...<I>I think the courts see the fetus as a separate entity. In fact, they allowed for the possibility of the state legislation for the protection of fetal life.</I><BR/><BR/>What do you mean, Suzanne? In Canada? Please explain. Thanks.Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-13056283638968473442007-11-01T22:44:00.000-04:002007-11-01T22:44:00.000-04:00The reason why we haven't gotten anywhere in the l...<I>The reason why we haven't gotten anywhere in the last 15 years is because the pro-life side is only interested in banning all abortions instead of approaching the issue in a piece-meal incrementalist way.</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely untrue. I know for a fact that the pro-life lobby is very supportive of an incrementalist approach. <BR/><BR/>Are you limiting your activism to save babies because others are wrong? There's a mass killing in our country that goes on a daily basis, we shouldn't complacent and inactive. Lives truly are at stake.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-88951637414662087122007-11-01T22:37:00.000-04:002007-11-01T22:37:00.000-04:00"Maybe we need a Society for the Prevention of Cru..."Maybe we need a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Fetuses (that are wanted)."<BR/><BR/>Exactly. I've been saying for a while that we need a new approach, a "third way" when it comes to the anti-abortion side of things.<BR/><BR/>The reason why we haven't gotten anywhere in the last 15 years is because the pro-life side is only interested in banning all abortions instead of approaching the issue in a piece-meal incrementalist way.<BR/><BR/>All or nothing just alienates those who agree with us 90% of the time and hurts the cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-16476524368417109132007-11-01T21:34:00.000-04:002007-11-01T21:34:00.000-04:00Bring back capitol punishment.In a case of murder ...Bring back capitol punishment.<BR/>In a case of murder of pregnant woman... one application serves both victims!OMMAGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05475151103850378778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-55908164336720080052007-11-01T20:17:00.000-04:002007-11-01T20:17:00.000-04:00Another option might be that since the courts have...<I>Another option might be that since the courts have already ruled that the unborn baby is just a mass of tissue that belongs to the mother's body, then theoretically the baby could be protected under existing laws. </I><BR/><BR/>I think the courts see the fetus as a separate entity. In fact, they allowed for the possibility of the state legislation for the protection of fetal life.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-4206362719937764072007-11-01T20:15:00.000-04:002007-11-01T20:15:00.000-04:00Do you have any idea what a person could be charge...<I>Do you have any idea what a person could be charged with if the unborn baby is deliberately murdered, but the mother somehow survives?</I><BR/><BR/>Right now they'd be charged with assault. We'd have to make up a charge because I don't know of any law that covers this. Maybe a "forced abortion" law.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-22059957924788074062007-11-01T17:40:00.000-04:002007-11-01T17:40:00.000-04:00under existing law an unborn baby could theoretica...<I>under existing law an unborn baby could theoretically be considered property,like animals, however it wouldn't be protected under the Criminal Code like animals would be.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe we need a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Fetuses (that are wanted).<BR/><BR/><I>The punishment must fit the crime and an assault charge or a court fine just doesn't cut it.</I><BR/><BR/>That's for sure.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>A woman has a right to her fetus, whatever the status. When you deprive that woman of her fetus, you should pay.</I><BR/><BR/>Suzanne, I agree. Do you have any idea what a person could be charged with if the unborn baby is deliberately murdered, but the mother somehow survives?Joanne (True Blue)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17445664997050698154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-32857760932468940972007-11-01T17:01:00.000-04:002007-11-01T17:01:00.000-04:00Liberal supporter is correct, under existing law a...Liberal supporter is correct, under existing law an unborn baby could theoretically be considered property,like animals, however it wouldn't be protected under the Criminal Code like animals would be. Because of this if somebody were to harm the unborn baby, you'd have to take them to civil court. Criminal charges couldn't be laid (except possibly vandalism?).<BR/><BR/>Another option might be that since the courts have already ruled that the unborn baby is just a mass of tissue that belongs to the mother's body, then theoretically the baby could be protected under existing laws. For example, an offender could be charged with assault and/or possibly practicing medicine without a license.<BR/><BR/>Any of these options aren't satisfactory though in terms of carrying out justice. The punishment must fit the crime and an assault charge or a court fine just doesn't cut it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20283843.post-19654596507872120882007-11-01T16:56:00.000-04:002007-11-01T16:56:00.000-04:00You can take a woman's rights perspective without ...You can take a woman's rights perspective without addressing the issue of the fetus. A woman has a right to her fetus, whatever the status. When you deprive that woman of her fetus, you should pay.<BR/><BR/>I know the argument: what about if the woman dies?<BR/><BR/>We know that people have a right to property. If a property owner dies during a crime, the perpetrator still pays for the crime of destroying property.<BR/><BR/>A fetal homicide law is definitively a woman's right.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.com