Abortion Illegal With Conservative Bill C-484

[ROlshansky1]

Which scientist says embryos aren't alive?

[Mrdubomb]

10 years? thats nowhere near enough. SInce when should a woman have the right to murder her own child while still in the womb?

How about a mans right to choose wether or not the child lives and/or wether or not he has a say in paying support?

I can't believe God didn't judge Canada and the US a long time ago by wiping us off the earth like the inhabitants before the great flood, or allowing another nation to overtake us like the Cananites VS Israelites.

Justin

[tommy34543]

its funny how you said "most scientists" implying not all...how many scientists think a bunch of cells isnt a life i would like to know statistics...also if the bunch is cells isnt a life why then do we say the women is pregnant? and why do we say she is now a mother? is she a mother to a bunch of cells?

[AllenFTW]

this fag is such a moron. he should have been aborted

[dexterxyz]

It's alive at conception, sure. However, it's not a human person. It doesn't have things like consciousness, nor awareness of itself, nor pain perception, nor sentience; as scottyross was saying. You can't say because the potential exists to become a human person, that it in actual fact is a person. Why aren't women trying to pass laws to control when men ejaculate, spilling DNA to cheesy porn? How about the 2/3 of all conceptions spontaeously aborted? Involuntary manslaughter?

[JohananRaatz]

"You can't say because the potential exists to become a human person, that it in actual fact is a person."

No that's not what I'm saying. It has the active potential (ie this potential is a natural manifestation of the entity in question) to develop intelligence therefore it already IS a human person.There's isn't any talk of BECOMING a human person.

BTW the sperm cell DNA argument, isn't valid.The fetal child has the set of fully active DNA of an actual organism the sperm cell does not.

[dexterxyz]

No, you're wrong. It has potential, but is not actual. It devlops intelligence IF, and ONLY IF(by one potential), the thing/entity in question successfully goes through further, additional processes. An "IS" is not a potential, nor an "IF". I have a natural potential to die, to get cancor sores, it doesn't mean I'm in actual fact dead, or have sores.

[Dudeitskevin22]

I dont know how exactly I came across this video, but your totally right. This fetus has no consciousness 'YET' which is why its NOT murder so it should be OK to abort it. If what JohananRaatz is saying is true then what about all the wasted sperm and eggs when people do use protection? Wouldn't that also be murder because those have the potential to become people too.

[tommy34543]

there not "potential people" in less than 9 months though...

[JohananRaatz]

God you are an idiot. It can not be defended? What planet are you living on. It's a well known scientific fact when life begins. I will grant you that calling a blastocyst a person is a hard part of this definition, but I have yet to see another scientifically supported definition. Any one in a fetal stage of development including an embryo is a distinct organism. If not then why does it have it's own unique set of DNA?

[JohananRaatz]

I don't get it. What is all of this fuss over women being able to get abortions? I mean someone who does that is a complete scumbag anyway. Would you feel sorry for Andrea Yates going to jail for drowning her kids?

[JohananRaatz]

If you want to stop a murderer do you use truth or deception? Only a fool would tell a murderer how they plan to stop him or her.

And scientific consensus tells us that the life of an organism begins when that organism was conceived (this is simply the result of genetics). One would have to be fairly uninformed to not know that.

[njchap01]

Vote YES.

[jacobssandy]

This is rediculous,

[m2redshirt]

Your argument based on what is scientific or not is irrelevant. Criminal law deals with ethical issues that may have little to do with science. Can science determine that it would be a crime for me to feed you to a hungry lion? No. Science does not place more value on your life than on the life of an antelope. It is ethics agreed upon by the society, not science, that determines that your life is of more value than the life of an antelope. Bill C-484 may be bad. But your argument is irrelevant.

[scottyross00]

Criminal law does not deal with ethical issues. Law is law. Ethics is ethics. Law may represent ethics, but it is separate and operates separately from ethics.

My argument is that C-484 attempted to make abortion illegal through the back door. That was my argument considering C-484.

I presented another argument, using Scientific fact, to philosophically illustrate abortion should be legal.

[mad000001]

Still no response from scottyross... are you not responding because you are too busy propagating lies or because you have no adequate answer for my challenge? Just curious.

[JakQues1]

Hello ScottyRoss,

At first I was shocked to hear that there was a minimum 10-year sentence, however, I followed the link you provided. The proposed law has been amended and no longer carries a minimum sentence. This would be in line with what you propose about giving discretion to the judge about the circumstances and development of the unborn infant.

FYI, I have a friend whose Ex tried to murder her and her unborn with a knife - it was caught on video. He was set free.

[kimmm86]

also thank you for making this video!

[kimmm86]

abortion isn't legal in canada -- it's just not illegal either. there is a gap in the law surrounding it with no solid decision, which is where the real danger is even with their 'exceptions'.

[pasapprivoisee]

Read the bill. It does nothing in the case where a woman "provokes" the assault. Tell me one abuser who doesn't think she didn't provoke it.

This bill does SFA except open the door to fetal personhood and abolishing abortion.

[bebjakl]

What in the world do you mean by "becoming alive"?!? To the best of my knowledge, any being that I have ever encountered was either alive or not. Becoming alive is an instantaneous moment and not a drawn out process. This argument is really weak and logically unsound.

[scottyross00]

Then tell me at the precise moment we become alive

[chaircat]

It doesn't deceitfully attempt to make abortion illegal, the exact wording in the bill is about an offense committed against a 'wanted' unborn child. If a woman has an abortion she is choosing to not want the child and therefore bill c-484 has nothing to do with abortion...people just assume this because the official who proposed the bill is Pro-Life...lets get rid of the misinformation people!

[Carrascogirl]

If its not alive then it must be dead? sorry but a fetus is certainly not dead - I think you mean to talk about personhood but you keep saying alive - it makes no sense

[scottyross00]

It does actually. There are understandings of the term alive when used with people denotes personhood.

[BoredomCorner]

@Carrascogirl In its early stages, an embryo or zygote is biologically just a cluster of cells. That's all.

[seanseansean1]

Your mindless speculation benefits no one.

It's clear by the way you read the bill that your motives are less about the bill and the ones it will protect, and more about propagating lies and spreading fear.

Try reading Bill C-484 for what it is;

Increased protection for pregnant mothers and their children, through a much needed amendment to the criminal code fundamentally protecting human rights.

[jennfarrsuperstar]

Ken Epp is totally dishonest about his motives. He's a member of a VERY radical anti-abortion group. This bill is not about protecting women, it's about fetal rights.

[realvek]

This guy is just trying to protect his right to beat pregnant women, kill their unborn babies, and only face the consequence of beating one who isn't pregnant. What a wifebeater :@!

[mad000001]

Oh no... the big bad conservatives want to protect the woman's right to choose life... how criminal. How about you try logic rather than philosophy. God save your soul.

Rob

[mad000001]

Not only would it protect the child but would protect the mother as well. Considering that i)a pregnant woman is 6 times more likely to be abused than one who is not ii)the number one cause of death among pregnant women is homicide iii) approximately 1 in 5 women lose a pregnancy due to abuse... it is clear that we need to do more to protect the right of the woman to choose...

[mad000001]

Bill C-484 would remove that necessity to prove viability of  the wanted/expected child. Which would allow the courts to deal with the issue of protecting the wanted/expected child rather than wasting time and money trying to prove its viability.

[mad000001]

In regards to the definition of a human life... what else would be in the uterus of a female human being. There are no documented cases of humans giving birth to anything but other humans.

If you would but study the development process of the "fetus" you would realize that these simple cells possess more intellect than most of the protected human community. As it stands, the protection of the fetus is dependent upon the provability of it being a "viable" human life.

[mad000001]

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living.

see next

[mad000001]

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living.

see next

[mad000001]

In response to your narrow minded views of a self declared intellect... there is an obvious gap in protecting the womans ability to choose to keep her child because the government has been so worried about protecting her ability to end a life. Yes I used the word life as in the Webster's dictionary definition both philosophically and scientifically.

see nxt.

[zrdm3]

You do make some good points though

[zrdm3]

the bill does not make abortion illegal, it makes it when someone attacks a woman who wanted to keep their child and causes the child to die. I am sure people will try to use it to attack the right to get abortion, it in itself protects those who wants to keep their baby, I support legal abortions, I just support the right for someone who attacks a pregnant women, and causes the child to miscary, should be charged for what they did.

[VoiceOfModeration]

It's clear-cut. When you remove the potential for a human life, you have taken that life, period. This guy's a leftist piece of garbage.

[one199]

"not alive"?? "There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists" - wikipedia (if you don't trust wikipedia they cited a source for that quote. science has not defined life, only the law has as "naturalized persons" so you can stop screaming "science says"

[Poisinn]

Eh, I'm for abortion. Population control ftw.

[politicalmind]

There is no "scientific consensus on when a fetus becomes a person." That's not even a question science concerns itself with.

[scottyross00]

True science does not concern itself with when an unborn human is a person, it does concern itself with establishing the faculties that we could then determine if it is a person.

[politicalmind]

I'm glad that you so quickly admit that. I don't think it's so easy to even determine what "faculties" make a person. Sentience? Self-awareness? The implications of such judgements are also somewhat disturbing. If self-awareness gives us our worth, are the more self-aware more valuable than the less self-aware? If you want an idea where this sort of pure rationalism leads, look into Peter Singer. He thinks that it's OK to kill an infant, but not OK to kill an adult chimpanzee.

[ZapruderJr]

Regardless of how you FEEL about the issue, you have to look at the FACTS.

Look at the new 4D ultrasounds. Ask an excited mother close to her due date. Watch a doctor fight to save the life of a baby born at 22 weeks.

We instinctively know that it's a human inside there. *Nothing* anyone says changes that.

Answer the question "What does an abortion actually do?" and everything else answers itself.

[scottyross00]

Zap you do realize what you described were not facts.

I'm not suggesting getting an abortion at any time is fine. I know its fine in the first 3 months, and it's debatable if its fine in the next three months. I know its wrong in the last three months.

[ZapruderJr]

What is it at 2 months and 30.5 days? What about 2 months and 30 days then? 2 months 29 days? Popular opinion doesn't decide when a life begins, I do not care who debates it. Ending the life of an innocent living human being is WRONG. That is a fact.

[scottyross00]

Here let me restate something because you completely ignored it in responding to my comment: "Zap you do realize what you described were not facts."

Now unlike youself I'll actually respond to you. I never said public opinion decides when life begins. Through the first trimester the unborn Human being has no nervous system, no functioning organs, no developed brain, among many other things, it is no way alive. That is scientific opinion.

[scottyross00]

In the second tri it's a question of what development establishes human life, as the UHB develops organs, a nervous system, etc. However all are in their most elementary form. The third trimester the baby has is as developed as its going to get, thus abortions in this stage are wrong.

No one knows when life begins. But it sure doesn't begin in the first trimester and it sure exists sometime in the third trimester.

[scottyross00]

Bill C-484 is proposed law, and it's consequences will have impact. It is important to look at C-484 and the current law in the criminal code

[shooter137]

Nice theory Skipper, but I think your foil hat may need a tad of an adjustment check the polls Canada is not fooled by your mud slinging and fear mongering.

unlike liberals the rest of Canada does not see Harper as "scarey" but as a leader who leads by common sense and fairness.

[scottyross00]

I don't understand what do you mean by "foil hat" and I also don't know where you get that I slung mud or that I fear mongered. Could you point that out as well as actually addressing my argument instead of attacking me?

[shooter137]

Foil hat is a reference to conspiracy theorists who think goverment or aliens are reading their thoughts and wear foil hats to foil this.

when I read the bill I just saw an act to punish those who in attacking a pregnant woman causes the death of the baby,not a backdoor bill to end legal abortion.

But maybe thats just my common sense way of thinking

not trying to scare women into thinking it was anything else.

[scottyross00]

So the way you argue is to make fun of the other person?

Also i said one conservative MP proposed the bill, so in no way can it be a conspiracy.

I don't get what's scary about the facts, unless you're a Conservative.

But, and this is in all seriousness, don't feel bad, it was also common sense to think the earth was flat. That's why we look at things more closely and don't rely on common-sense to pass laws, perform open-heart surgery, or go to space. We rely on intelligence for those things

[shooter137]

Flat earth,open heart surgery,and space exploration all these things are because of science and facts.

but liberals never let facts stand in the way of their arguements.

they bend,twist and shift fractions of facts to support their wrong minded agenda.

[scottyross00]

If you have a problem with my argument why not address it instead of making fun of me and Liberals? If you say I'm twisting facts that why not show it. If you think I'm trying to scare people why not argue it? Why just accuse?

[spirituspersona]

FLAT EARTH!?  WHAT? The earth is round.

[HillaryJumpsTheShark]

This Ross makes a lot more sense; is much more pragmatic. A lot less vile and silly.

[FringeNorth]

wow didn't know that. So if the woman is pregnant with triplits is that a minimum of 30 years?

scary bill, hope it doesn't go through

[JakQues1]

I followed the link that ScottyRoss provided - the amended proposal no longer has a minimum sentence, therefore leaving broad discretionary power to the judge as ScottyRoss prefers - depending on the development of the unborn and circumstances of the attempted murder.