Here
and
Now

opinions

When does the fetus acquire a moral status of a human being?

75 Comments
By Amanda Roth

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

75 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The short answer you are not a human until you are born.

-2 ( +12 / -14 )

If the fetus can be born alive, as in the third trimester, then it should not be aborted, usually.

Nobody likes abortions, but sometimes they are the best option.

One of our daughters had said that she never wanted a baby, but when she accidentally got pregnant she was thrilled. When she lost the fetus due to natural causes, she was devastated. Such is life.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

When does the fetus acquire a moral status of a human being?

Not exactly sure when; but definitely has acquired moral status of a human being if it can be aborted.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

The short answer you are not a human until you are born.

Still a life.

Not exactly sure when; but definitely has acquired moral status of a human being if it can be aborted.

I agree.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

"I've noticed that all the people who are for abortion have already been born".

-- Ronald Reagan

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Lord DartmouthToday  04:42 pm JST

"I've noticed that all the people who are for abortion have already been born".

-- Ronald Reagan

Beautiful!

Hope the US states get their acts together and ban this slaughter.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Seems most people are OK with some restrictions on abortion. Only a few want to either ban it completely, or to allow it until the day before birth. The dividing line seems to be around 12-15 weeks' of the pregnancy. This is reasonable as in many/most cases the abortion can be done with drugs, no surgical procedure required. But after that, barring the health of the mother or a tragic event for the fetus, I can't really see any reason to permit abortions to occur. It becomes contraception by that point.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Ronald Regan was a man, not a scientist, philosopher, or doctor. His opinion on abortion is sexist, and there is zero reason it should carry any weight.

In fact, men in general should just shut up about abortion because what women do with their bodies is their own business.

You can't get pregnant? Then you don't get an opinion.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

It's mostly male doctors performing abortions.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Girl In Tokyo- then, what (if any ) limits would YOU put on abortion? Simply on demand at any stage of the pregnancy, or do you have any thoughts on when it becomes unacceptable?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

In contrast to these bright lines, many philosophers look to cognitive capacities, such as consciousness, reasoning or self-awareness, which do not develop until the third trimester or even after birth. These views share in common the idea that before the bright line fetuses are of little to no moral concern.

Thing is, it's impossible to tell from one individual, to another, and in an individual, when these cognitive start to form. So from a moral point of view, it's best to take conception as the moment a baby acquires personhood so that all can be treated equally under the law. Isn't that what the "pro-choicers" want - equality under the law?

Notwithstanding, I do agree there are exceptions to the rule for cases such as rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ronald Regan was a man, not a scientist, philosopher, or doctor. His opinion on abortion is sexist, and there is zero reason it should carry any weight. 

Well, thankfully now that Wade was overturned, it all goes back to the states so they can vote on the issue.

In fact, men in general should just shut up about abortion because what women do with their bodies is their own business. 

If you feel like that then women shouldn’t sleep with men and or both need to be sexually responsible to avoid any unwanted pregnancy. Not that hard to do. There is no reason to use abortion as a pregnancy preventive measure.

You can't get pregnant? Then you don't get an opinion.

But you need a man’s help if you want to get pregnant.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Problem is @bass4funk, you and your very right wing rights who have so much power in certain States will never let the issue get on a ballot paper will you? If they did, they know they'd lose. Period. Even in the most conservative states, a 12 week limit would pass.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

When does the fetus acquire a moral status of a human being?

right from the start

bass4funk

you have my respect :)

im a girl by the way xD

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

girl_in_tokyoToday  05:47 pm JST

Ronald Regan was a man, not a scientist, philosopher, or doctor. His opinion on abortion is sexist, and there is zero reason it should carry any weight. 

In fact, men in general should just shut up about abortion because what women do with their bodies is their own business. 

You can't get pregnant? Then you don't get an opinion.

You're not on the Supreme Court? Then you don't get an opinion.

But some more moral status--Hey--how about using the 'ole noggin' and not getting pregnant in the first place? Before even putting yourself in the position of undergoing a medical procedure, make the easier decision to not engage in unprotected promiscuous sex.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Bright lines have no meaning. Once conception happened, only one individual human being can grow until it dies of old age. Terminating its life at ANY point ends that one of a kind life. Mrs. Mozart could have had 20 more kids, had she aborted Wolfgang, the world would never have heard the music only he could compose. You do not get a do over with the next kid. The one you aborted will never ever exist again. I do understand that women are in situations, where they cannot RAISE a child and I think that's where the state should step in big time, from helping financially, facilitating adoption, place it in an orphanage etc.. Killing it can never be morally justified.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Simple if it can life outside the woman's body it is human until then no!

Do we require funerals for a miscarriage? No so if the law does not require a funeral and burial/internment for a fetus it is not human!

My aunt had 7 miscarriages at different stages not one required a funeral, not one had to be registered are a birth or death, my wife had 3 miscarriages again no birth or death registration no funeral, etc...

We don't even know where the hospital disposed of the remains but my guess it with the rest of the biomatter.

So how can people say a fetus is a person but if you have a miscarriage you don't treat it like a person!

Simple logic.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

you're not on the supreme court? then you don't get an opinion.

The opinion of mostly old men mostly white and all Christian (mostly Catholic so no surprise how they voted).

But why do you assume they know what is right or followed the law/constitution?

If they used simple logic like is a funeral or death certificate required atter an abortion or miscarriage ( no state requires such a thing) then it is obvious the fetus isn't a human.

As for following the law/constitution previous Supreme courts said slavery was permitted under the constitution of the USA, so much for following the law and doing what is right.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

theResidentToday  09:11 pm JST

@painkiller: Is that a serious comment that you assume women who become pregnant not wishing for that are all promiscuous? What an outrageous, sick, selfish opinion. 

You have heard of rape, incest, drugs being popped in drinks in bars, broken condoms etc etc?

Oh, you misread my comment---or you just want to divert from my point and argue the issue you want to argue.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

AntiquesavingToday  09:26 pm JST

The opinion of mostly old men mostly white and all Christian (mostly Catholic so no surprise how they voted).

But why do you assume they know what is right or followed the law/constitution?

Because the Supreme Court was formed under the constitution, and because, well, they are in the Supreme Court. Who knows better than them about the law/constitution?

If they used simple logic like is a funeral or death certificate required atter an abortion or miscarriage ( no state requires such a thing) then it is obvious the fetus isn't a human.

Thankfully, they used complex logic. Besides, whether or not a fetus is a human was not the issue they were deciding.

As for following the law/constitution previous Supreme courts said slavery was permitted under the constitution of the USA, so much for following the law and doing what is right.

And slavery is outlawed now, in the present day, isn't it?

What, you want to bring it back?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Problem is @bass4funk, you and your very right wing rights who have so much power in certain States will never let the issue get on a ballot paper will you?

Who said that, the Dems will put it on the ballot for sure and this is why the ruling was so significant, now each state can vote on the issue as they should have all along. Why should the federal government make the decision and take the right away from the voters? That’s not how a true democracy works.

If they did, they know they'd lose. Period.

California, yes, Alabama, no. Just depends on the state.

Even in the most conservative states, a 12 week limit would pass.

depending on the state and in certain rare situations.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

It's mostly male doctors performing abortions

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

No fetus if viable outside the womb that is less than 21 weeks. Therefore it's not a human.

No one has the right to use someone's body without permission. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

No fetus if viable outside the womb that is less than 21 weeks. Therefore it's not a human. 

So it's an alien? Plant? Animal?

No one has the right to use someone's body without permission.

Of course not, that goes without saying.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Then be more responsible.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

If you consent to sex then you should know it implies the risk of pregnancy. Plus as was mentioned above in case sth goes wrong, drugs in drinks in pubs etc.

Therefore it's not a human.

Honestly, you are unbelievable:)))

even more unbelievable is that more people liked your comment than those who disliked. Honestly, so scary how decent moral opinions get minused here while some other opinions like this one get more approval. The world is very close to an end indeed.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@bass4funk: You're sidestepping. There's no way it would even make the ballot paper in states controlled by Republicans! You know that. So, how is it democratic?

And really? To both you and and @painkiller - plenty of unwanted pregnancies come from those who were being responsible. Contraception is not perfect. People have sex for enjoyment. Did you know that? I'm guessing not.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

AttilathehungryJuly 5 06:22 pm JST

Girl In Tokyo- then, what (if any ) limits would YOU put on abortion? Simply on demand at any stage of the pregnancy, or do you have any thoughts on when it becomes unacceptable?

This is between the woman and her doctor. You, me, anyone else not a doctor, do not get to have an opinion.

Would you have an opinion on whether someone with cancer has chemo or radiation?

Would you foist your opinion onto a man who is thinking of getting circumcised?

Do you think you should get to have a say when someone is deciding whether to get surgery?

It's none of your business. Doctors make medical diagnosis and give recommendations, and patients weigh the options and make the decision for themselves. No one else gets a say.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If you consent to sex then you should know it implies the risk of pregnancy.

Not buying it. Is it possible, yes, but I was very promiscuous and had more women then I could remember and no one got pregnant. The responsibility falls to both people.

Plus as was mentioned above in case sth goes wrong, drugs in drinks in pubs etc. 

Then that’s on you, so the child has to suffer for your irresponsibility??.

Honestly, you are unbelievable:))) 

Back at you.

even more unbelievable is that more people liked your comment than those who disliked.

Maybe they have deep emotional empathy towards the helpless.

Honestly, so scary how decent moral opinions get minused here while some other opinions like this one get more approval. The world is very close to an end indeed.

Well, that may be true, but the pro-choice people are the ones on a rampage and wanting to plan riots and insurrections if things don’t change or go their way, why? The right isn’t doing and hasn’t done it, at least not to the degree the left takes it. So you think that the right and pro-life people should shut up and allow the killings to continue? The left is a strange bunch, first they want you to remember your pronouns and that we have multiple sexes, but when it comes to abortion then we now have women and we need to respect women's rights, so which is it? Then they want to strip us or our 2nd amendment and guns, but they want to be able to kill a baby at any part of a pregnancy. This is what’s killing America, confused liberalism.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I do understand that women are in situations, where they cannot RAISE a child and I think that's where the state should step in big time, from helping financially, facilitating adoption, place it in an orphanage etc..

I don't think you do. I don't think you have really thought deeply about the matter. The state doesn't take care of unwanted children or families in poverty as it is - there are thousands of children living in poverty, thousands of children living in care homes, thousands of children being abused, thousands of unwanted children being moved from home to home in foster care, and the government does almost nothing. Cuts to welfare are the first thing done to balance the city or state or country's budget, There is never enough money for food, housing, clothing, heating bills, medical expenses, or schooling, but you think that is somehow going to change all of a sudden with a snap of the fingers and all of those unwanted pregnancies will turn out fine? You're not being reasonable or rational. That you would even suggest this makes it really clear you've never in your life needed to depend on welfare, or you'd KNOW that the government does not step in, ever.

Killing it can never be morally justified.

You said "it". And that's right - it is a clump of cells, without sentience. It's not a person. It's not even alive, in the philosophical sense, just as a tumor, which is also a clump of cells, is not alive, nor is any other random part of the body which is likewise made up of cells. The pregnant person, however, IS alive in that sense, because they are sentient - they have memories and feelings and wants and needs, and as such, has a human right to personal bodily autonomy - and therefore has every right to abort, just as they would have the right not to abort.

You. Don't. Get. To. Control. Other. Peoples'. Bodies.

Morality doesn't even come into it because it isn't alive in the sense that a clump of cells is not alive.

And do not play semantics here. There are two ways of understanding the word "alive". One is the scientific sense, in which case trees are alive, animals are alive, tumors are alive, and cells are alive. The other meaning is in the philosophical sense, which carries the added meaning of sentience - which is the reason that trees and tumors and cells don't have the right to bodily autonomy, but people do.

The same goes for the word "human". It can be an adjective, meaning something that comes from humans, like human tears, human feces, human cells, human sweat, human hair, human blood. Or it can be a noun, in which case it refers to a human being, aka, a person.

Yes, those cells are human cells, but they are not human in the sense of a human being, any more than a tumor is, or blood is, or feces is, or a zygote is. Not. A. Person.

And we also do not treat a zygote or fetus as a person. Men don't pay child support to a zygote. Zygotes aren't counted on the census. Zygotes don't need their own plant ticket. You can't put a zygotes down as a dependent on your taxes. Zygotes don't have a birth certificate, or any acknowledgement that they exist in any public record. And miscarriages don't get a funeral.

So the law should not suddenly treat a zygote as if it is a person and strip away the right to bodily autonomy of pregnant people just because some other people feel particularly emotional about this issue and suddenly declare that they should be able to dictate what pregnant women do with their own bodies.

People have the human right to bodily autonomy. Clumps of living cells do not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is between the woman and her doctor. You, me, anyone else not a doctor, do not get to have an opinion. 

Yes, but the states will vote on the issue as to whether and when a fetus should be terminated based on various issues and each state can determine what guidelines and how far in the pregnancy can or should be allowed depending on the variables of the pregnancy, and thanks to these justices, that power is given back to the states as it always should have been.

Would you have an opinion on whether someone with cancer has chemo or radiation?

Having parents that both passed away from cancer we had choices and if we didn’t like one hospitals way, we would go somewhere else. Abortion will never be outlawed, relax.

Would you foist your opinion onto a man who is thinking of getting circumcised?

Do you think you should get to have a say when someone is deciding whether to get surgery?

Depends, but yes, and like this overturned ruling, the people do get to have a say. That’s democracy in its purest form.

It's none of your business. Doctors make medical diagnosis and give recommendations, and patients weigh the options and make the decision for themselves. No one else gets a say.

But they do, all the time. Freedom doesn’t mean you can cry fire in a theater or choke someone to death because you just don’t like them. Everything in this world has a certain amount of limitations regardless of what it is. If my 15 year old daughter tried to have an abortion, you better believe it’s my business.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What a proper weirdos country.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A woman may have a fertlized egg but there is no guarantee it will implant into the wall of the uterus. Unless that fertilized egg implants into the uterus there is no pregnancy. Many such fertilized eggs never implant and are lost during her period. This is entirely natural. Are those fertilized eggs that never manage to implant "human"? What about fetuses that miscarry? Human too? Did "god" or whoever just "kill" a human when a woman miscarries? Some Latin American nations are actually convicting and imprisoning women for murder after a miscarriage. Is that what you want? Centuries old Jewish tradition says the fetus isn't a human until it is born and taken its first breath. Once out of the mother's womb and breathing you are unequivocally human. Before that it too vague to make cut and dried legal opinions.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Here is a list of the US states that allow ballot initiatives to create new laws or amend their state constitutions.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/chart-of-the-initiative-states.aspx

In time we will likely see initiatives used in many states that severely restrict or outright ban abortion designed to ease or remove those restrictions entirely. That is the only course left open for many states unless Congress finds the political will to legalized abortion nationwide.

However, an interesting point nobody has made is that the 28th Amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment, many argue has passed the threshold of 3/4 of the states ratifying it and all that is left is for it to be published. Some legal scholars argue the time limit on ratification imposed by Congress is not Constitutionally enforceable and in any event has already been extended once by Congress. Moreover some legal scholars assert the 28th Amendment would prohibit states from outlawing abortion and same sex marriage, among a host of other current forms of discrimination against women in the US today.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

bass4funkToday 08:32 am JST 

Yes, but the states will vote on the issue as to whether and when a fetus should be terminated based on various issues and each state can determine what guidelines and how far in the pregnancy can or should be allowed depending on the variables of the pregnancy, and thanks to these justices, that power is given back to the states as it always should have been.

No other medical issue is given over to the states to decide. None. Not one. The state should never be given the power over someone's bodily autonomy.

Did you know that Jehovah's Witnesses won't get blood transfusions, or allow them for their children? The state doesn't force them, even if it would save their life. By your logic, the court should be allowed to overrule the patient's autonomy and force the procedure onto them.

Or is it your stance that it's okay to take away bodily autonomy only in certain circumstances? And if that is the case, do you really think it is a good idea to take that power of decision-making away from the people involved and give it over to the state?

Having parents that both passed away from cancer we had choices and if we didn’t like one hospitals way, we would go somewhere else. Abortion will never be outlawed, relax.

It has already been outlawed.

There are only a few states where it will be protected. And there are already laws in Texas that stop anyone with residency in that state to go to another state for the procedure. More are on the way.

You also didn't answer the question I asked: should people outside of your family get a say in what medical procedures you can and can't get?

But they do, all the time. Freedom doesn’t mean you can cry fire in a theater or choke someone to death because you just don’t like them. Everything in this world has a certain amount of limitations regardless of what it is. If my 15 year old daughter tried to have an abortion, you better believe it’s my business.

Sorry, but you have a completely effed up idea of freedom if you think it means one section of the population gets to tell another what medical procedures they are allowed. That is not democracy.

And we are NOT talking about minors. We are talking about adults, so that red herring is completely irrelevant, as is your point about yelling fire. You can't compare those two things. We're talking about a medical procedure that previously was legal and now suddenly has been taken away because one political party managed to get their members a majority on the court. It's nothing to do with what the citizens want, because in polls a majority of Americans agree with the right to chose.

It's actually the exact opposite of democracy.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

bass4funk

:D

Hey! You got sth wrong!

i was arguing with

Logical_Fallacy_Killer

Replying to his post at July 5 11:13 pm

I thought I was in your team but okay xD

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

When does a fetus acquire "moral status" as a human being?

Well, according to our far-right friends, it is at the moment of conception - when it is termed a zygote and embryo....

Too bad they don't consider older children of school age as "moral human beings"....they just consider them casualties of their gun worship...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

lincolnmanToday  06:32 pm JST

Too bad they don't consider older children of school age as "moral human beings"....they just consider them casualties of their gun worship...

It is the right that pushes for stronger criminal laws; the left wants to let everyone out of prison.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Too bad they don't consider older children of school age as "moral human beings"....they just consider them casualties of their gun worship...

It is the right that pushes for stronger criminal laws; the left wants to let everyone out of prison.

And once the criminals are out the far-right want to give them all guns....

So they can shoot more kids....

Pro-life - what a joke...an unfunny one...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

But they do, all the time. Freedom doesn’t mean you can cry fire in a theater...

Indeed. The perfect metaphor for Trump crying "massive fraud" when there wasn't any. Just ask Rudy - when he's under oath..."This is not a fraud case".....

The only difference is Trump scammed his supporters out of $250 million to go along with the lie...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

lincolnmanToday  08:39 pm JST

Indeed. The perfect metaphor for Trump crying "massive fraud" when there wasn't any. Just ask Rudy - when he's under oath..."This is not a fraud case".....

Don't forget Russian collusion.

The only difference is Trump scammed his supporters out of $250 million to go along with the lie...

$250 million is nothing compared to the Right's collective joy seeing Roe v. Wade overturned.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Are those fertilized eggs that never manage to implant "human"?

Once they are attached to the womb and what will form ultimately will become human.

What about fetuses that miscarry? Human too?

Yes.

Did "god" or whoever just "kill" a human when a woman miscarries? Some Latin American nations are actually convicting and imprisoning women for murder after a miscarriage. Is that what you want?

That won't happen in the US, now we might arrest people for other light offenses like protesting, but for abortion, doubt it.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

*No other medical issue is given over to the states to decide. None. Not one. The state should never be given the power over someone's bodily autonomy. *

It has and it has given it back to the voters where it should have always remained, maybe you think the Federal government should overplay its hand in taking away voter and states rights, but the majority of Justices thought it was bad law which it was. They corrected a right that was so very wrong. Now the voters can decide what they want and which state will continue to uphold abortion and which state will limit or outlaw it.

Did you know that Jehovah's Witnesses won't get blood transfusions, or allow them for their children? The state doesn't force them, even if it would save their life. By your logic, the court should be allowed to overrule the patient's autonomy and force the procedure onto them. 

We are not talking about Jehovah's Witness.

Or is it your stance that it's okay to take away bodily autonomy only in certain circumstances? And if that is the case, do you really think it is a good idea to take that power of decision-making away from the people involved and give it over to the state?

No, I believe in empowering women and their rights upheld on this issue that is why I am elated by this decision.

It has already been outlawed. 

No, it has not. Not in California, Maine. Oregon, Washington State, and a lot more, what are you talking about. Most of Coastal areas you can have an abortion.

There are only a few states where it will be protected.

That is what I am talking about.

And there are already laws in Texas that stop anyone with residency in that state to go to another state for the procedure. More are on the way.

Don't panic, that won't happen, definitely not in that strict of a form, there might be some limitations to that, it is more a broadband exception and not the main rule.

should people outside of your family get a say in what medical procedures you can and can't get? 

Depends

Sorry, but you have a completely effed up idea of freedom

Not me, the left thinks if any ruling doesn't go their way like spoiled little whiny children they will go on a rampage and destroy things in the hopes that their temper tantrum will give them the ultimate outcome they want and it never does, grow up, there were many times when the Supreme Court ruled on issues that ticked me off, but I got over it and thought we need to get rid of these activist justices and replace them with constitutionalist justices and that happened and now it's the lefts turn to deal with this SC for the next 30-40 years minimum

if you think it means one section of the population gets to tell another what medical procedures they are allowed. That is not democracy. 

We are a constitutional republic.

And we are NOT talking about minors. We are talking about adults, so that red herring is completely irrelevant, as is your point about yelling fire. You can't compare those two things. We're talking about a medical procedure that previously was legal

That was ruled and pushed on the nation by the Federal government and should have never happened.

and now suddenly has been taken away because one political party managed to get their members a majority on the court. It's nothing to do with what the citizens want, because in polls a majority of Americans agree with the right to chose. 

And now they have that right, finally.

It's actually the exact opposite of democracy.

No, quite the opposite, but you will be ok.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So it's an alien? Plant? Animal?

Do this again, but with your sperm.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Do this again, but with your sperm.

Add the egg to it to fertilize it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@bass4funk: Why do assume its the 'left' that are pro-choice constantly. I am far from left politically minded. I don't even think it's the 'right' who are particularly against abortions. It's purely religious and about keeping the Bible Belt Red.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And, honestly, enough of the vote going to the people state by state. You know there is no chance that the Bible Belt Republican states will ever let Abortion anywhere near a ballot box. Utter tosh from you.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

theResidentToday  11:33 am JST

And, honestly, enough of the vote going to the people state by state. You know there is no chance that the Bible Belt Republican states will ever let Abortion anywhere near a ballot box. Utter tosh from you.

America is a democracy.

Other countries also have the abortion matter decided at other than the federal level, so this idea is not so novel.

Interesting thing, this whole article and the question posed is by a female.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Other countries also have the abortion matter decided at other than the federal level, so this idea is not so novel.

I've been looking into how Canada deals with abortion since America repealed Roe vs. Wade. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a "living document", which evolves based on court challenges. While abortion is not explicitly written into the Charter, it does not need to be in Canada to make it a fundamental right, as it has been determined to be a fundamental right for Canadians at the federal level.

Canada’s constitutional bill of rights – the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – took effect only in 1982, so it lacks the historical roots of the U.S. Constitution, which dates from the 1780s (the 14th Amendment, which contains the due-process clause, is from 1868). But Canada’s Supreme Court has established that Charter rights are a “living tree,” evolving with the times, and the intent of the Charter’s framers is just one interpretive tool; others include looking at how the rights are treated in international law and other countries’ top courts.

In the early years of the Charter, Canadian judges looked to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially to precedents set under the liberal leadership of chief justice Earl Warren, Mr. LeBel said. But that is not the case any more.

Constitutions, because they are written in broad language, leave wide scope for reversals of precedent, Mr. LeBel said.

“It’s always a possibility within a legal system resting in part on judge-made law,” he said.

The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned many precedents in recent years – on assisted dying, prostitution and a constitutional right to strike, and much more – but always in the direction of expanding rights.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-roe-v-wade-supreme-court-ruling/

Seems Canada has a proper constitution that will take them into the future, while America's anchors them to the past.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

America is indeed a democracy, that is not an argument. But is it truly democratic enough to allow state by state voting on abortion? You cab stare me in the face and say America is THAT democratic.

I doubt it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

StrangerlandToday  11:49 am JST

Other countries also have the abortion matter decided at other than the federal level, so this idea is not so novel.

I've been looking into how Canada deals with abortion since America repealed Roe vs. Wade. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a "living document", which evolves based on court challenges. While abortion is not explicitly written into the Charter, it does not need to be in Canada to make it a fundamental right, as it has been determined to be a fundamental right for Canadians at the federal level.

Seems Canada has a proper constitution that will take them into the future, while America's anchors them to the past.

Well, if you understood Roe v. Wade, and understood the US legal system, then you would know everything you say about Canada's constitution is true for the US's constitution; and the US' living document evolved based in the recent court challenge. Nothing new here.

theResidentToday  11:57 am JST

America is indeed a democracy, that is not an argument.

Ok, no argument.

But is it truly democratic enough to allow state by state voting on abortion? You cab stare me in the face and say America is THAT democratic.

Wait--now it is an argument!

To answer your question, that is the US government system--the states will vote in abortion. Nothing unusual here.

Can't stare you in the face unless you meet me in front of Men's Hankyu at 4pm today in Yurakucho, but yes, that is exactly what democracy is in America.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I wonder whether perjured testimony is grounds for impeachment. If so, three Justices may have created legal problems for themselves.

But then, all you have to do is to look at who nominated them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

agondoczToday  12:28 pm JST

I wonder whether perjured testimony is grounds for impeachment. If so, three Justices may have created legal problems for themselves. 

But then, all you have to do is to look at who nominated them.

No perjury was committed. All the justices voting against Roe admitted that they were antagonistic towards that decision during their questioning.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

if you understood Roe v. Wade, and understood the US legal system, then you would know everything you say about Canada's constitution is true for the US's constitution;

Except for the part about removing rights. Canada's constitution cannot do that.

Also consider that constitutional change is functionally impossible in the US, due to the fact that there is literally no issue the parties could agree on enough to get an amendment passed. Constitutional amendments in America are a think of a long gone past.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

StrangerlandToday  12:52 pm JST

Except for the part about removing rights. Canada's constitution cannot do that.

The US Constitution cannot remove rights either.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The US Constitution cannot remove rights either.

The constitution can't. But your government can, unlike in Canada. After all, American women last year had the legal right to have an abortion. Now they don't. What changed? A supreme court decision.

Oh dear...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

StrangerlandToday  01:08 pm JST

The constitution can't. But your government can, unlike in Canada.

Canada's government can so do; the government legalized abortion with:

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69

After all, American women last year had the legal right to have an abortion.

Sounds similar to events in Canada related to its constitution. As you noted about Canada's constitution:

It's a "living document", which evolves based on court challenges. 

> Now they don't. What changed? A supreme court decision.

This is not true. Women have the right to abortion in many states in the US.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So @Painkiller: You can guarantee that every American eligible to vote will get the right to cast a vote to allow abortion at sensible time limit? 100%? Bet you can't say when though. Could be years away! I reckon never.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

theResidentToday  01:50 pm JST

So @Painkiller: You can guarantee that every American eligible to vote will get the right to cast a vote to allow abortion at sensible time limit? 100%?

If the vote is put on the relevant state's ballot; and some people will be voting to not allow abortion. Regardless, 100% of eligible voters have 100% a right to vote.

Bet you can't say when though.

I can say that in at least 8 states abortion will be on the ballot this year.

Could be years away! I reckon never.

Maybe in some states, not in all.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

8 states? Thats it?

And maybe some never? Total

That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

theResidentToday  02:34 pm JST

8 states? Thats it?

100% of eligible voters will have the right to vote on that issue in those states.

And why "that's it"? That's alot. The Supreme Court decision was just announced a few weeks ago.

But back to your "that's it" comment---voters already have had the right to vote on the abortion issue in almost every state already.

And maybe some never?

Who knows. It is up to the states.

That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

What is a democracy to you?

In the US, it is giving the States the power to decide on certain issues; it is up to the voters.

That is democracy in simple terms.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Beautiful!

Hope the US states get their acts together and ban this slaughter.

But that's what YOU said above which would indicate to me that you don't think there should even be a vote? Or that state legislations should NOT put this to a vote?

Which is it?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why do assume its the 'left' that are pro-choice constantly.

Because and overwhelmingly the left are.

I am far from left politically minded. I don't even think it's the 'right' who are particularly against abortions. It's purely religious and about keeping the Bible Belt Red.

I kind of disagree with that. I would definitely be considered Center-Right, but I think abortion should be used only in the most severest situations, it doesn't mean it should be completely outlawed, it won't, never in the US. For me and most people I personally know, religion is not a factor in this.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is not true. Women have the right to abortion in many states in the US.

I believe they have the so-called "right" to an abortion in most states. But the states are currently removing that right for women.

Backwards society. Has any society not in the state of falling apart ever removed rights for half its citizens?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Backwards society. Has any society not in the state of falling apart ever removed rights for half its citizens?

They’re not. That’s exactly why Wade was overturned. The Supreme Court decided it wasn’t there right constitutionally two government over the states to dictate and tell them how to vote and legislate their own states, so they gave it back to the people and now the people can make that choice for themselves which way is going to go on the issue, that’s democracy in its purest form. If liberals or even foreigners don’t understand it, it’s OK, they don’t have to, this is about the United States and not about the rest of the world, they do what they want, and we do what we want, they have their rules and laws, and we have ours.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The responsibility falls to both people.

Mandatory vasectomies for all males at puberty, then. It's safe and effective, and easy to reverse when the male gets married. No more unplanned pregnancies, and people can be as promiscuous as they like. What do you think?

When does the fetus acquire a moral status of a human being?

Why don't you ask it?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Mandatory vasectomies for all males at puberty, then. It's safe and effective, and easy to reverse when the male gets married. No more unplanned pregnancies, and people can be as promiscuous as they like. What do you think?

I’m fine with it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I’m fine with it.

Awesome. Let's petition the court. You're the citizen, so you'll have to be the front person. Cool?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Jeans and T-shirtJuly 8  05:56 pm JST

Mandatory vasectomies for all males at puberty, then. It's safe and effective, and easy to reverse when the male gets married. No more unplanned pregnancies, and people can be as promiscuous as they like. What do you think?

Kind of doesn't make sense that people who are against an act such as abortion performed by a doctor would then suddenly support the type of medical procedure you are suggesting.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Othet people do have the same reasoning do. Just not very many. Mostly in the US of A in very old elitist, religious centric over complicated form of Government.

I truly believe a vote on abortion with sensible limits would pass in EVERY state. But as I said, and you will not argue with, that vote will never have the chance to take place.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

'Many' is not a Majority.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

theResidentJuly 9  11:23 pm JST

'Many' is not a Majority.

It is in the States that voted to make abortion illegal.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The morality of abortion depends in part on the moral status of a fetus. Full moral status – sometimes called “personhood” – refers to having the same rights and deserving the same moral consideration as any other human being.

Let's focus on the morality of terminating that which is not agreed to be having "personhood"---why take the risk?

So, let's push for morality and include not getting pregnant if you don't want the child.

theResidentJuly 7  01:50 pm JST

So @Painkiller: You can guarantee that every American eligible to vote will get the right to cast a vote to allow abortion at sensible time limit? 

This sensible time limit issue has been voted in in every state, so every American voter had their chance to vote on this matter.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This sensible time limit issue has been voted in in every state, so every American voter had their chance to vote on this matter.

When?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Express sisterToday  11:13 pm JST

When?

As you are not American, just a quick overview--there are 50 states, and different issues are voted on at different times.

So just a sample:

Colorado, in 2008, tried to amend the state's constitution and grant personhood to a fetus from the moment of inception, but 75% of voters said no, so abortion remains legal.

On the other end of the spectrum, Iowa passed a "fetal heartbeat" bill in 2018 that banned abortions once a heartbeat could be detected; this means basically after 6 weeks, so abortion is essentially illegal.

The laws are there, and have been there, and all eligible voters had their say.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Colorado, in 2008, tried to amend the state's constitution and grant personhood to a fetus from the moment of inception, but 75% of voters said no, so abortion remains legal.

On the other end of the spectrum, Iowa passed a "fetal heartbeat" bill in 2018 that banned abortions once a heartbeat could be detected; this means basically after 6 weeks, so abortion is essentially illegal.

The laws are there, and have been there, and all eligible voters had their say.

Do the voters of Colorado get a say in Iowa? What if you move from Colorado to Iowa? What if you’re one of the thousands of people who became eligible to vote today? What if the laws passed weren’t done through referendum, but through the machinations of the openly woman-hating, queer loathing, and anti-choice GOP?

This is nonsense. Sorry, but for people who spent years saying “we’re the party of law and order, that’s what makes the US a country”, to suddenly say “i’unno law is whatever you feel like dude lol” is just laughable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites