| | I know, abortion has been discussed and discussed ..but I have personally found most people invest too much of their own agenda into the discussion, so an honest and thoughtful debate is rarely to be found and usually disintegrates into name calling and finger pointing. In my last post, the "rights" of a fetus were briefly discussed between Lowkey and I. And I am posting it as a new topic, because I would dearly like to expand the discussion. And I do not want the discussion to be merely about entrenched religious viewpoints, or entrenched socially engineered quiplets about women's rights. What started this was a discussion about a Private Member's bill put forward to Parliament by Conservative MP Ken Epp before the Canadian election was called and one that was debated in the CP Policy Convention this past weekend.. It received much notoriety in the press, and by the opposing parties, as a "dangerous " bill that would threaten women's rights to abortion on demand, because it would invest "human rights" to an unborn fetus in the case where the woman wanted her baby, and her baby was harmed in a violent act toward herself. My question is this: Do we invest legal "rights" to a wanted unborn baby, introducing legislation that charges someone who kills a pregnant woman, with not one, but two homicides? While investing zero rights to a fetus that a woman does not want. This is the condundrum, amongst many others, that "progressive liberalism" has created. An existential question as it were: can a fetus be defined objectively and in reality as a human being, only by the opinion of the woman who carries it? |
| | Posted 11/17/2008 5:33 PM - 325 Views - 16 eProps - 19 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
