Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I just find it really bizarre that there are people who can't see the common sense in creating a line in the sand without thinking everything will turn into a slippery slope and suddenly abortion will be completely illegal again.
From a completely legal perspective I can make a strong argument that at SOME POINT the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human being. The exact date is always thrown around, but most people will agree that it is sometime before full term is reached. And if we agree on that, from a legal perspective can you not say that the baby will at some point before it is born have the rights that we grant all our humans to not be killed? Especially not be killed by a state sanctioned law?
|
There will always be a debate over when a clump of cells is considered a "human being," but there is no debate in Canada about what constitutes a legal person. So, no... You can't make a legal argument. You can make a moral one, an ethical one, a scientific one, or a specious one, but there is no legal argument. And that's the way it needs to be - it needs to be based on a bright, unambiguous line -- and live birth is the brightest of bright lines. When we start trying to base clear legal principles on debatable moral/religious principles, we can no longer count on the stability of our law.
And don't think that the scientific "viability" or "consciousness" arguments are any different. There's still a moral/ethical foundation... What's the appropriate threshold? 50% viability? With our without medical heroics? Is it viable if there's high risk of severe birth defects? Etc.