J.C.MacSwell

Trained engineers don't get to build bridges wherever they like, and medical associations can't grant themselves the right to allow abortions in any circumstances they choose. The rules should be left to lawmakers, scrutinized by the Judiciary, and the procedures executed by the medical or Engineering professionals based on their guidelines. They can't just do what they like, even as a professional group, just because they think they know best. Is this not obvious? If you can recognize this for restrictions on trade of organs, how can you not see that the same principle would apply for abortions? The federal lawmakers, with their all or none partisan positions, are the problem here, but just because they lack the competence to get the job done does not mean the medical associations get to determine the rules. That falls to the State lawmakers. Sucks that many of them will do no better, but that doesn't change the above.

LOL. Another legal opinion?

I think it was some paddling event: It's actually the topic

Right. Thus the requirement for restrictions on their options. Because being a medical professional does not automatically raise you above everyone else morally or ethically. Last I checked, they were human too. Should we leave it with Engineers what guns should be developed and made available? They are the ones required to put the limits in place, and outline the basis for what might be considered necessary and with that the procedures that may be allowed. (With them of course limited by any constitution and the Judiciary) Why would you suggest otherwise?

None of course. Health providers are all honest, have only the best of intentions, morals, and ethics beyond reproach, and need no laws in place to limit anything they deem correct.

Since you aren't discussing moral issues...of course it's not equivalent. The score was 5-4.

Without considering them, how are you able to favour one side over the other?

More possibilities for the most humane way to execute the infanticide as well.

At some point terrorist attacks might come to Russia itself. Hate begets hate.

"Sufficient cause to be outraged" seems to be in the eye of the beholder...with condoned violence not looking good for either side.

Yeah. I hate it when they do that. They make it seem like it wasn't an isolated incident. How's that working out?

Harry Potter just evolved from a long line of hairy potters.

Hadn't realized I was so unique in considering such an obvious question. Who's yelling slogans and breaking windows now? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-extremists-occur-weeks-wake-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85664462

Why? Will it help us determine if a premature baby is more or less alive than a full term fetus? More or less human? Do you have something in mind that would be helpful for the discussion? Certainly. Pro choice advocates can simply stop advocating for choice right up to birth for viable fetuses. Might take the wind out of the sails of those that feel compelled to protect them, and allow the focus to be on a women's choice where she is overwhelmingly the biggest shareholder in the pregnancy, before that shifts toward a viable fetus.

Is it unattended and in obvious distress? You can make human rights laws as different from fetal rights laws as you like, but it doesn't change the moral equation.

It effectively does, and is is what most people believe they are considering when discussing animal rights. I made no claim animals had a Bill of Rights. Humans had rights prior to any Bill of Rights.

I'm of the opinion that if a law prohibits certain cruelties to an animal, to the degree it is enforceable that law is extending a right to the animal to not have the described cruelties done to it. Generally this would be described as animal rights.

https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/60th_2nd/3rd_read/b186.htm

Your definition of rights is not the same as the one everyone else is working with.

How exactly does the aforesaid day old baby exercise it's rights? A dog has rights. You might own it, you might get to choose to put it down, but you are not allowed to torture it. Ownership has limits.

Because you seem to believe terminating a full term fetus isn't killing a viable human. Please correct me if that's not correct. If you can acknowledge that a full term fetus is human, and that a few duplicating cells after conception is not yet, then you're well on your way to joining the majority of North Americans...in a place where reasonable laws can be considered.

If it's alive. It's alive. Peterkin seemed to suggest fetuses were not. What makes a late term fetus less special than a premature child? You don't need to believe "every sperm is sacred" to acknowledge that a fully developed fetus is every bit as human as a child just out of the womb.

Not a proponent, so I'll take a pass on that. Did they not? Were they really that drowned out by the "ban all abortions/abortions anytime and any excuse" crowd?

I think pretty much everyone, here at least, would agree with that. If it's to be done I think a moral, logical and scientific argument can obviously be made to do it earlier than later. (I will admit a moral, logical and scientific argument can be made to delay it as well) Most objectors to abortion object more so to later ones than earlier ones.

WTF. Do you consider a fetus to be less than alive?