[wat0n]

Well, I can think of at least one country where the abortion debate was decided and the issue of whether or not the fetus was a baby was completely irrelevant.

So, one real world example contradicts you.

You are always "deciding" on a policy since abortion is either legal and somehow regulated, or not regulated, or it's just illegal.

That doesn't mean the debate has been decided, at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are always "deciding" on a policy since abortion is either legal and somehow regulated, or not regulated, or it's just illegal.

That doesn't mean the debate has been decided, at all.

Okay, if you say so.

But in the real world example that I am thinking of, there has been no serious debate about it since the ruling.

[wat0n]

Which country would that be? I'm guessing not the US, where the debate is still ongoing.

[Pants-of-dog]

Canada.

The SCC decided that the pregnant person has the right to determine who gets to be in their body. And this holds true even if we assume the fetus has the rights as any other citizen.

[late]

You didn't ask me what I thought "the law should be," though, did you?

I made it clear I believe the unborn baby is a person in their own right. I responded specifically to your post saying that "it's not a baby," so yes, I was very much "on point." I'm not interested in the thought experiment.

That is what abortion discussions are about...

Because this is a legal question, it is a question of when we confer legal rights. This isn't a thought experiment, it's current law. Implicitly, you are advocating change, but you didn't say what the change should be.

So... when does a fetus become a person? Are you one of those at conception types?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog

It would seem to me that there is still a debate on the merits among Canadians, regardless of the interpretation of the existing law by the SCC.

https://nationalpost.com/news/as-aborti ... omplicated
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chris- ... -1.5561456

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

It would seem to me that there is still a debate on the merits among Canadians, regardless of the interpretation of the existing law by the SCC.

https://nationalpost.com/news/as-aborti ... omplicated
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chris- ... -1.5561456

There is always some debate . None of this is serious.

That, if course, does not change the fact that Canada has a solution that has been working for almost forty years and completely sidesteps the issue of the fetus’s personhood.

[wat0n]

What characterizes the seriousness of a debate? And what reasoning did the SCC use to say it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person?

[Pants-of-dog]

What characterizes the seriousness of a debate? And what reasoning did the SCC use to say it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person?

How do these questions relate to your argument?

[wat0n]

How do these questions relate to your argument?

You are saying you don't need to decide on the personhood of a fetus to arrive to a conclusion on abortion. You also mentioned that's what the SCC did. If so, what were its arguments? Or it just saw it as compatible with the prevailing law at the time, and implicitly made its call?

The law could perfectly deny personhood to groups who are eventually regarded as being persons down the line. We have some painful historical examples of this.

[anna]

That is what abortion discussions are about...

Because this is a legal question, it is a question of when we confer legal rights. This isn't a thought experiment, it's current law. Implicitly, you are advocating change, but you didn't say what the change should be.

The OP is a thought experiment. The rest is discussion, and everyone doesn't have to follow your discussion parameters.

So... when does a fetus become a person? Are you one of those at conception types?

Like many people I've talked to who grapple with this, I'm neither pro-choice nor 'no exceptions.' The gray area is a difficult one for me. I think the morning after pill should be free and widely accessible. There should be the usual exceptions for health of the mother, unviability, etc. What complicates things (for me) is that the vast majority of abortions take place in the first three months. It helps me understand why this isn't a difficult decision for a lot of women, even though it's one I personally would never make if the baby was viable and I was capable of carrying to term.

I also know that if abortion was made illegal again, women would still obtain illegal abortions. Here's an interesting thing though, the U.S. abortion rate right now is as low as it was prior to Roe, I have a graph saved somewhere showing this. So even if abortion were outlawed tomorrow, the abortion rate would likely be relatively unchanged. If it did drop lower, you'd have to factor in the availability of contraception, and the drop in sexual activity among younger demographics.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are saying you don't need to decide on the personhood of a fetus to arrive to a conclusion on abortion. You also mentioned that's what the SCC did. If so, what were its arguments? Or it just saw it as compatible with the prevailing law at the time, and implicitly made its call?

The law could perfectly deny personhood to groups who are eventually regarded as being persons down the line. We have some painful historical examples of this.

If you have no argument and just want to know about the SCC ruling, you could probably Google it.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog normally, it's up to the person who makes a claim to back it up. I try to do so when you request it.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog normally, it's up to the person who makes a claim to back it up. I try to do so when you request it.

Yes, but I am not going to answer questions that are easily answered about tangents that only relate slightly to my argument.

The pertinent information for my argument has already been stated.

[wat0n]

I find it hard to make sense of your argument here, you can read the ruling and state how did the SCC circumvent the issue of personhood if you want.

If the fetus is indeed regarded as a person, that doesn't necessarily end the debate, but it does mean that all arguments will suddenly change and tend to become nuanced. If the fetus is not a person, you bet it does end the debate right away - there would be little reason to ban abortion at all in that event.

[Pants-of-dog]

You folks should read the violinist argument.

[wat0n]

That's exactly what I had in mind when saying that even if the fetus is a person, it doesn't necessarily end the debate - I recall you gave that same argument a few years ago. One could also make the case there is an ethical duty to stay connected to the violinist, although it's harder to claim the government should be enforcing it.

[Pants-of-dog]

i am not sure that you understand the point of the violinist argument.

[wat0n]

Oh I do. There are those who say the government should force you to stay connected to the violinist regardless, using utilitarian arguments.

[anna]

You folks should read the violinist argument.

"Leaving aside the contrived nature of the analogy,its key logical flaw lies in its failure to distinguish between killing and letting die. In the context at hand, this distinction corresponds closely to the difference between what might be called ordinary and extraordinary life-preserving measures, whether they take the form of healthcare or some other intervention.

Let me give a simple example to illustrate what I mean by ordinary vs. extraordinary life-preserving measures. If you have fainted on the train tracks, it would be admirable for me to dive in front of an on-coming train and sacrifice myself in order to knock you out of the way. But you are not entitled to have me perform this extraordinary act of heroism. If I do not dive in front of the train, no one would say that I was guilty of manslaughter. On the other hand, you probably would be entitled to my assistance if I am standing idly by and see you collapse hours before a train is in sight. Where exactly to draw the line between ordinary and extraordinary life-saving measures might be fuzzy, but the basic validity of the distinction should be readily apparent.

Having laid this groundwork, we can see that the “Right to Life” is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die. The reason that the woman in the story can sever the tubes without violating the violinist’s dignity is because he does not have a right not to die. The tubes are an extraordinary means of preserving his life, and he is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving measures. However, the woman may not stab the man in the heart and only then sever the tubes. In this case, she would be violating his dignity because he has a right not to be killed. This latter scenario most closely resembles an abortion, in which the fetus is ripped or burned to death while still in the womb and only then removed.

Now, why does the abortion procedure go to such great lengths to kill the fetus before removing him? In many early-term abortions, the procedure is simply easier, but not so in late-term abortions. The reason is instructive: leaving a prematurely born infant to die without providing basic care would be illegal, a violation of the infant’s right not to be killed."