A recent poll disclosed that 80 per cent of Canadians believe that Canadian law protects the fundamental human rights of children before birth in the later stages of gestation.
In fact, the opposite is true. Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children before the moment of complete birth. This results from an unusual Canadian statute which defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother's body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.
This law was first formulated prior to the 17th century, when an early version of it was recorded in Coke's Institutes of Law, a series of short studies evaluating the United States legal system. In those times, medical science and principles of human rights were not sufficiently advanced to challenge such a law.
The important question is whether this 400-year-old Canadian law is supported by 21st-century medical science and principles of human rights. Perhaps Canadians should at least examine this question. I propose that Parliament has a responsibility to lead that examination.
Who conducted it?
With which kind of audience?
And why do you want to spend tax payer dollars on this law?
And, seriously, why do Conservatives spend so much time worrying about a fetus before it is even developed into human form and then once it's born, it's you're on your own kid!
"The important question is whether this 400-year-old Canadian law is supported by 21st-century medical science and principles of human rights."
There is no evidence mentioned in this article, no sample of the medical science involved. If there was any such science to suggest that there was a problem that requires "Parliament's investigation" (ie Conservatives sticking their noses into Doctor/Patient relationships) perhaps you could share it with us?
Is there any evidence that this anything other than right wing Conservatives trying to dredge up long settled social issues to use as wedge issues in their never-ending politicking?
At any point during the males life they just need to petition the government for authorization to open their valve at a time when they wish to have a child. The petition will require the signature of the recipient of the viable semen donation and a doctor. Once the male receives Governmental approval they will then be able to rent a device that will broadcast an open valve signal to their implant within a 20 foot radius. (This is just a brief outline of the proposed semen control valve programme)
At the very least this will significantly decrease the number of "accidental" or "unexpected" pregnancies. While it will do nothing to stem the tide of STD's it will seriously decrease the need for abortions and will render an abortion debate virtually unnecessary as the focus will be on preventing the pregnancy.
How did they do that?
Or did the Supreme Court have a hand in it?
In its decision (Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 37), the Court stated:
"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."
Do you have a hidden agenda?
Trying to distract the populace from the sneaky things Parliament is up to with omnibus crime bills and gerrymandering???
And miraclemaker2, if the world needs healthy, wanted and loved babies, perhaps the best method of going about it might NOT be ripping them limb from limb or chemically burning them?
Just a thought.
What do women think about it?
Are you sure all women are in favor of a law that allows a viable fetus to be killed?
Women think that men should ind their own business.
If you know of a Canadian doctor/hospital/clinic that will abort a viable foetus, please link us to proof.
I don't see a problem here, our country if FULL of sub-humans.
Humane,
1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion
2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns
I've met plenty of kids, teens, adults and seniors who seriously lacked all of the above that I've grown accustumed to living amongst many sub-human Canadians.