Let's play a game of logical consistency

[Grey]

Omg a Black Conservative given your nonsensical OP seems to be based on poorly documented blog/news stories I’m not about to speak to the judge’s sentencing statement beyond what I’ve done until I read it. You brought it up you go find it. I mean I gave you both the trial and appeal decisions, the sentencing statement is the least you could do.

[Bricker]

@Kobal2

Actually, most pro-choicers, even the most ardent ones, will still agree that there’s a point between conception and birth where the fetus really has become a proto-human, abortion really becomes icky and shouldn’t ever be performed except if the life of the mother hangs in the balance (a concept which is mostly supported by the law).
Where each person draws this particular line varies, but I don’t think **OMG **will be able to point to any pro-choicer (or any Doper) who said abortion at Birth-1 hour is just fine. Nevermind Birth+1.

Actually, I think Der Trihs, Bryan Ekers, and Diogenes the Cynic have all expressed essentially the Birth-1 Hour scenario as acceptable.

I could be mistaken. If you need a cite, I’ll hunt 'em down.

ETA: Plus there’s this factoid:

@Muffin

Point of law: in Canada there is nothing illegal about having an abortion at Birth-1 hour. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion law out of the Criminal Code because it was unconstitutional. That has left us with no abortion law, and more recent attempts to create an abortion law have failed.

Whether that is fine or not, is another question.

[Bryan_Ekers]

As an incidental note, I just skimmed Peter Singer’s wiki page (I was not previously familiar with him) and I agree that he’s right to point out the flaws in trying to define away the issue, i.e. abortion is okay because a fetus is not a child, or not a person, or not a human being, or any other arbitrary label. Rather, the issue is under what circumstances a human being can be killed (granting for the sake of argument that a fetus is indeed a human being), and it turns out there are several such circumstances, with unwanted pregnancy being (I maintain) one of them.

[Bricker]

@Mosier

I think this thread deserves to be hijacked, and hopefully you do not disagree.

First, some questions. If a person requires life support which involves them having no ability to make decisions for themselves, whoever holds their power of attorney may legally decide to “pull the plug,” right? If I am missing a nuance here, please point it out to me.

If my last assertion is more or less correct, do you agree that it is not morally wrong for this power to exist? If you agree, what justification do you have to morally distinguish that example from an unborn person who also can not make decisions for themselves, and is not viable? Using this logic, can we not at least set the bar for moral outrage at abortions at viability?

Sorry, but I do disagree. Hijacking this thread with that question will make it indistinguishable from a zillion of its thready predecessors.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

As an incidental note, I just skimmed Peter Singer’s wiki page (I was not previously familiar with him) and I agree that he’s right to point out the flaws in trying to define away the issue, i.e. abortion is okay because a fetus is not a child, or not a person, or not a human being, or any other arbitrary label. Rather, the issue is under what circumstances a human being can be killed (granting for the sake of argument that a fetus is indeed a human being), and it turns out there are several such circumstances, with unwanted pregnancy being (I maintain) one of them.

There you go. There’s nothing logically inconsistent about that proposition.

I can’t stand it when people (like the OP here) level charges without understanding what they mean. “Hypocrisy” gets tossed around a lot here, and this is its cousin “logical inconsistency.” There is nothing logically inconsistent about what Bryan (or Peter Singer) is saying.

You may not like the result, or the logical postulates upon which the results are based, but that’s a different matter entirely.

(And I especially grit my teeth when the offender in these matters is on “my side.” Thanks, and appreciate all your help. Stop helping now.)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

It would be hypocritical if you conflate the two pro-choice positions: (1) that abortion is okay before viability; or (2) that abortion is okay, as the OP did.

[Kobal2]

@Sage_Rat

Well then, one second ago I fertilized a chicken’s egg.

Dude. TMI.

(also, don’t ask me man, I’m pro-choice as they come)

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Actually, I think Der Trihs, Bryan Ekers, and Diogenes the Cynic have all expressed essentially the Birth-1 Hour scenario as acceptable.

I could be mistaken. If you need a cite, I’ll hunt 'em down.
[/QUOTE]

No need, I stand corrected. I’ll dial back from “any” to “many” then. You haven’t seen no goalposts being moved, I tell you. Who are you going to believe: me, or your lying eyes ?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Correct.

But note how important context is.

I absolutely reject the proposition that an unborn fetus is “amorphous pus and goo.”

You reject this based on nothing but religious belief. Or rather, it’s better to say that your attempt to assign “personhood” to insentient blobs of tissue is based on nothing but religious belief. You are entitled to believe that, just as you are entitled to believe that your hat is a banana, but it has no more basis in objective reality.

[Muffin]

OP, get your hands on Morgentaler v. Borowski: Abortion, the Charter, and the Courts by R.L. Morton, (McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto, Ontario, 1992), also published in the USA by the University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, under the title* Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life: Abortion and the Courts in Canada*. Then get back to us once you have read it.

You should also have a look at a few cases (you can find them in CANLII) that have taken place since the striking of our abortion law in which the pregnant woman trumps the fetus, including *Tremblay v. Daigle *(boyfriend could not stop girlfriend’s abortion); *Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson *(no duty of care imposed on a pregnant woman toward her fetus); and Winnipeg Child & Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G . (D.F.) (a solvent sniffer cannot be committed for treatment despite the probability of harm to her fetus). There have been moves by a Western MP to create legislation that would try to balance a woman’s self-determination against a fetus’ health, however nothing has come of it yet.

As far as your interpretation in your OP of* R. v. Effert goes, you should closely read Grey’s posts, for quite simply, your take on Effert *is so out of whack as to be nonsensical and totally devoid of logic.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Could a boyfriend have stopped a girlfriend’s abortion before the abortion law was struck?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Actually, I think Der Trihs, Bryan Ekers, and Diogenes the Cynic have all expressed essentially the Birth-1 Hour scenario as acceptable.

I could be mistaken. If you need a cite, I’ll hunt 'em down.

This is incorrect in my case. What I’ve said is that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, but not necessarily to kill the fetus. If the state is able to remove the fetus alive, I say it has the right. The woman’s right is simply to get it out of her body.

[Muffin]

Amorphous pus and goo one moment, and morphic pus and goo the next moment? In reality, no. The problem is that in law there neesd to be criteria to help decide what constitutes abortion, what constitutes infantacide, and what constitutes murder.

At this time in Canada, the pregnant woman trump the fetus, and the newborn trumps the mother, with both distinctions being a result of a need for clarity in the law that tries to balance different interests.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Could a boyfriend have stopped a girlfriend’s abortion before the abortion law was struck?

Probably not, in practical terms, but the Daigle decision put it in writing.

[Implicit]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Could a boyfriend have stopped a girlfriend’s abortion before the abortion law was struck?

You could get an injunction. Of course she could ignore the injunction, so no, you couldn’t really stop an abortion.

[Muffin]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Could a boyfriend have stopped a girlfriend’s abortion before the abortion law was struck?

No. In Canada, paternal rights concerning a child only come into existence once there is a child, not before when there is a fetus. From the SCC’s Daigle decision:

(3) “Father’s” Rights

The argument based upon “father’s rights” (more accurately referred to as “potential father’s rights”) is the third and final basis on which the substantive rights necessary to support the impugned injunction might be founded. This argument would appear to be based on the proposition that the potential father’s contribution to the act of conception gives him an equal say in what happens to the foetus. Little emphasis was put on this argument in the appeal. It was alluded to by several of the parties in an indirect fashion, although it does appear to have been accepted by both Viens J. in the Superior Court and LeBel J.A. in the Court of Appeal.

There does not appear to be any jurisprudential basis for this argument. No court in Quebec or elsewhere has ever accepted the argument that a father’s interest in a foetus which he helped create could support a right to veto a woman’s decisions in respect of the foetus she is carrying. A number of cases in various jurisdictions outside of Quebec have considered this argument and explicitly rejected it: Paton v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees, supra; Medhurst v. Medhurst, supra; Whalley v. Whalley 1981 CanLII 268 (BC SC), (1981), 122 D.L.R. (3d) 717 (B.C.S.C.); Mock v. Brandanburg reflex, (1988), 61 Alta. L.R. (2d) 235 (Q.B.); Doe v. Doe, 314 N.E.2d 128 (Mass. 1974); Jones v. Smith, 278 So.2d 339 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973). We have been unable to find a single decision in Quebec or elsewhere which would support the allegation of “father’s rights” necessary to support this injunction. There is nothing in the Civil Code or any legislation in Quebec which could be used to support the argument. This lack of a legal basis is fatal to the argument about “father’s rights”.

Although not of any legal relevance, it is interesting to note that the father ended up imprisoned as a dangerous offender for beating the shit out of numerous girlfriends, including the one who had the abortion. (In Canada, a dangerous offender is locked up until it is decided to let him or her loose again – a sentence reserved for only the most extreme of cases in which the sentencing range for a given crime is insufficient relative to the risk of re-offending).

[Muffin]

@Implicit

You could get an injunction. Of course she could ignore the injunction, so no, you couldn’t really stop an abortion.

No, there was no law on that issue vis a vis paternal rights (see my previous post). There is a difference between getting an injunction to try to prevent the breaking of a law (any legitimately interested party could get one on those grounds), and getting an injunction on the grounds of paternal rights. Even when abortion was illegal (or later was legal via an abortion committee of doctors), the father did not have any paternal rights vis a vis abortion.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Actually, I think Der Trihs, Bryan Ekers, and Diogenes the Cynic have all expressed essentially the Birth-1 Hour scenario as acceptable.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This is incorrect in my case. What I’ve said is that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, but not necessarily to kill the fetus. If the state is able to remove the fetus alive, I say it has the right. The woman’s right is simply to get it out of her body.

Sorry. I was basing that statement on the inference from these two posts:

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s very simple. A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but not to a child. Abortion does not involve a child or cause any harm, death or injury to a child.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Abortion does not harm a child. A zygote is not a child. There is no such thing as an “unborn child.”

If there is no such thing as an “unborn child,” and abortion does not involve a child or cause any harm, death or injury to a child, then what’s the problem with the Birth-1 Hour scenario?

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Sorry. I was basing that statement on the inference from these two posts:

If there is no such thing as an “unborn child,” and abortion does not involve a child or cause any harm, death or injury to a child, then what’s the problem with the Birth-1 Hour scenario?

Oops. Guess he won’t be answering this.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Ravenman

So what you’re saying is, that if go up to someone who is foolish or immature; or someone who is Jewish (a child of Abraham); or someone who is an offspring of a parent; or someone who is strongly effected by a social movement (a child of the '90s); and I hit that person, I am guilty of child abuse?

Because those people (the immature, the tribal member, etc.) are all children. If I hit them, it’s child abuse.

This debate is about logical consistency, right?

DTC was the one who started to play semantics with the whole “It’s not a child!” line. Talk to him before you try to jump on me

[qute=Grey]Omg a Black Conservative given your nonsensical OP seems to be based on poorly documented blog/news stories I’m not about to speak to the judge’s sentencing statement beyond what I’ve done until I read it. You brought it up you go find it. I mean I gave you both the trial and appeal decisions, the sentencing statement is the least you could do.
[/quote]

The OP isn’t nonsensical. It deals with a specific quote and poses a question based on that quote. I’m sorry (not really), but saying that you refuse to speak to the judge’s sentencing statement is a cop-out. Again I ask you, what does abortion have to do with infanticide and what is the point of mentions Canada’s (lack of) abortion laws have to do with sympathizing with someone who is guilty of infanticide. These are not trick questions.

@Bricker

There you go. There’s nothing logically inconsistent about that proposition.

I can’t stand it when people (like the OP here) level charges without understanding what they mean. “Hypocrisy” gets tossed around a lot here, and this is its cousin “logical inconsistency.” There is nothing logically inconsistent about what Bryan (or Peter Singer) is saying.

You may not like the result, or the logical postulates upon which the results are based, but that’s a different matter entirely.

(And I especially grit my teeth when the offender in these matters is on “my side.” Thanks, and appreciate all your help. Stop helping now.)

I’ve never once claimed that neither Bryan’s, nor Peter Singer’s, positions were logically contradictory. In fact, if you so choose, I can go find where I’ve said the exact opposite (in the case of Bryan, me pointing out that while I don’t agree with him, he’s at least consistent, whereas many others are not).

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, laid out like that, I see Dio making a hair-split that I can’t support (“If the state is able to remove the fetus alive, I say it has the right”), so I’m certainly not monolithically pro-choice with him.

Frankly, I find that claim to be kinda creepy, with the potential for the state to arrest women in their 22nd week and subject them to c-sections because it “has the right” to do so. I’d feel the same about state-ordered surgery against the individual’s will, in general.