Friday, April 27, 2012

Joyce Arthur ReSurfaces

View the discussion here.

ByLine with Brian Lilley

Brian interviews Joyce Arthur on the opening of the abortion debate in Parliament.

Brian interrupts her immediately to correct the fact that she does not speak for all women. He asks several times if the pro-choice side is afraid of losing the debate if the science enters into the equation.

Arthur stresses that giving the fetus rights means taking rights away from women. But those rights are not equal. "If you give a fetus rights, you have to take away rights from the woman", Arthur states.

If she is going to discuss rights, then they should be equal rights. Taking away the right to life of the fetus is not equal to taking away a woman's right to end her pregnancy. A woman does not lose her life if she carries through a pregnancy; however the fetus dies in every single abortion.

20 comments:

Suzanne F. said...

The logical question is: does there exist the right to kill a human being?

Anonymous said...

No, the logical question(s) are: Are Women Persons, and do they have the right to take control over their own lives and bodies? Canada's "Famous 5" courageous women took this question to the highest Court of the land, which at this time in Canadian history was the British Privy Council. As a result,
this High Court determined that 'Yes', women are in fact 'Persons' legally referred to as The Persons Act (1929). Over 50 years later with the efforts and hard work of thousands of women, whose industrious travail ensured Women's Equal Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms under Section 15. (1) which states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that: "the existing laws were unconstitutional and struck down the 1969 law" under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms:"LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". This finally expunged Abortion from Canada's Criminal Code.
Due to the illustrious efforts of thousands of Women over the last two centuries, we owe our GRATITUDE and DUTY to uphold their efforts for the rights we have today. I, as a woman, and any other woman has the right of choice under all the above laws - because I am a living, breathing 'Person', with the same autonomy and rights as any other person has over their own life and body; as stated above in Canada's Charter of Rights & Freedoms. A 'fetus' is not a 'person', therefore, these rights do not extend as such. Hence, No-Man, No-Government, No-One can impose or transgress their personal and/or religious views over another individual's personal freedoms or rights. Kelsey A.

Julie Culshaw said...

Conferring rights on persons because of certain abilities they have, such as being able to "breathe" as you mention, leaves the right to life dependent upon arbitrary decisions of others. What is to prevent that right to life being denied to certain persons deemed to have less than the necessary qualifications decided by those in power?
As for the illustrious efforts of thousands of women to obtain access to abortion, the pro-choice side doesn't seem to recognize that just as many, if not more, women have fought to have the opposite result. For example, I personally feel that the pro-choice supporters have ripped away certain invaluable pillars of our society, beliefs that have been around a lot longer than the two centuries you refer to.

Anonymous said...

@Julie Regardless, you have a right to your own choice over YOUR body... I will not impose my beliefs on you. Show the same respect for me and MY body. It is not your place, or mine to pass judgment to determine what each and every individual woman needs to choose what is best for her life, not to mention her own body. Every man and woman is responsible for their own lives and autonomy over their own person. Neither you, or I have a right to infringe or invade these rights, and the decisions that life as free individuals brings, and hopefully that Canada will survive to be a free society. Kelsey A.

Julie Culshaw said...

The difficulty is that when one believes that the unborn child is a human being with the right to life, you can't subscribe to the idea that each person has autonomy over their body to the point of deciding what to do with that little body residing within another's.
It would be like saying, in the slavery issue, well it is okay for you to have a slave, but I won't have one because I believe it is wrong.
Some truths are absolute, and therefore there really is no common ground between pro-choicers and pro-lifers. You don't give value to that life in the womb, whereas we do.

Anonymous said...

@Julie, I keep going back to: that is your belief and it yours to cherish and practice freely because it is your fundamental Canadian Right. However, a 'fetus' is not yet a 'Person', as it cannot sustain itself outside a woman's womb, especially in early gestation.

Personally, I am glad I never had to make that choice, but I honestly can say 30 years ago had I been in a position that I needed to make that choice I would have, and I would have had to bore the consequences of it for the rest of my life either way. Choice is a fundamental freedom of personal autonomy over an individual's life, body and rights.

You say as a woman who believes in pro-choice I don't assign value to my womb - that is a very broad generalization, and quite honestly pejorative to any woman that believes in Pro-choice. I have my own children and I had them by my choice, and they are my heart and sole, but again I had them by choice.

Therefore, if it is your choice, belief, religion to be pro-life, I would not deny that to you, or any other person, because that is your right, and you are free to practice that choice. I respect your choice - even though I may not agree with you, but again it is not my place to impose my ideological beliefs upon you; please extend the same respect to those who have a differing opinion than you.
Kelsey A.

Anonymous said...

@Julie, also on your comment of 'slavery'. Again, I come back to the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, I have no right to own a slave, nor do you - there is no choice. Again, autonomy over your own person, not anyone else.
K.A.

Julie Culshaw said...

Kelsey, I understand the point that you are trying to make but I cannot agree with you, because the child in utero is its own person. The fact that it is dependent upon its mother while it is within her is the way nature works, and people mistakenly think that therefore the mother has the right to do with that new person what she wishes.
Newborns are dependent upon others for survival and, if not looked after, they will die too. The fact that one can breathe via its lungs while the other gets its oxygen through the blood supply is not a reason to deny the unseen one its right to life.
The fact that I believe the child in the womb to be a person already is exactly why I choose to do something about it. It is not a case of letting everyone have their own view on this. Not when I consider it to be murder.
I would not tolerate someone killing their newborn, and in the same way, I cannot sit by and just let women kill their babies before birth.
The fact that there is a law that says it is okay to do that, does not make the action right. There are bad laws, and the legalization of abortion is just such a bad law.

Julie Culshaw said...

You know there was a time (I don't have the date exactly) when blacks were not considered persons under the law, hence they could be owned as slaves because they were considered chattel, or objects to be owned. Jews were declared non-persons by Nazi Germany so that they could be rounded up and gassed. Women were not given the status of persons until early in the 20th century.
So now it is with the child in the womb, it is not considered a person, but that is simply law declaring something. The law can be wrong, as the examples above show. And it will be shown to be wrong with the baby in the womb as well. When people say the child in the womb is not a person, they are denying all the science about it.
I would recommend reading The Hand of God by Bernard Nathanson, an abortion doctor who came to realise the personhood of the unborn. He came to that knowledge precisely through his medical knowledge, his religious conversion came afterwards. It was the science that convinced him.

Anonymous said...

@Julie - You answered my question, you cannot accept other people’s views and individual choices. You brought Religion into a scientific and Human Rights dialogue by your own, and someone else’s ‘choice’ and religious beliefs. Once this enters the conversation, all rationality and science is dispersed, and communication cannot continue.

However, in order to address your points regarding the Holocaust and Blacks. There is again no comparison, because we know Jewish people and Black people are ‘Persons’. These are issues of racism and colonization. Even the US constitution stated all ‘Men’ were considered equal, yet slavery thrived well beyond this declaration in the US, as well as in Canada (to Canada’s shame). Women were also considered chattel at one time, which was an issue of ‘white male patriarchal superiority’, enshrined in colonization. Humankind must evolve, which is we all know living, breathing people are ‘Persons’ and are unequivocally entitled Human Rights. A fetus at 16 weeks is approximately 4” long, just over the length of my middle finger. That you can state that this 4” fetus holds the same rights as I do, is a lack of erudition.

You believe it is your right to impose your Religious beliefs, and those of others upon me. Therefore, there can be no further rational discourse between us due to the futility of someone’s religion and theocracy in the context of this discussion.

Nice chatting with you.

Julie Culshaw said...

Do I have to conclude then that you think all people who hold religious beliefs are irrational? Perhaps I should remind you of history. It was under the Catholic Church that much of modern science was advanced, as well as medical knowledge. The declaration that people of belief are irrational is a fashionable bias these days, but a bias nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

No, I believe that your religious beliefs are yours and you have the freedom and right to practice it as such, but you don't have the right to impose it on me, or anyone else. As for historical debate on Scientists, the Vatican banned, tortured and killed Scientists in the middle ages. But that is neither here nor there. Your religion doesn't give you the right to tell me what I can do with 'my person'. You feel that you and your religion gives you that right. Hence, futility of any dialogue. Regards

Julie Culshaw said...

But the pro-abortion side has imposed their beliefs on me, because in this country, I pay for their abortions.

Anonymous said...

@ Julie We all do, it is a medical procedure, we don't use coat-hangers anymore. Just as we pay for persons that have addictions; smokers, obesity, drug/alcohol addictions.

Julie Culshaw said...

So you equate abortion with the other things you mention, which indicates just where we cannot agree. No other medical procedure ends the life of a living human being. While I may not like someone's accessing the medical system for their obesity problem for instance, it does not offend my beliefs as abortion does.

Anonymous said...

@Julie, that is because your Religious views are superseding over the factum that Abortion is a safe medical procedure. You are right, we cannot agree, because for you it is your religious belief, for me it has nothing to do with religion.

Julie Culshaw said...

There are plenty of pro-life supporters who are not religious, for instance Jerry Agar.

http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/contributor-columns/column-agar-science-backs-up-the-pro-life-position/#more-47171

Anonymous said...

Obviously, you couldn't allow me to submit my last comment. Sad!

Julie Culshaw said...

What comment are you referring to? I haven't deleted any of your comments here.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. Well I did address your comment, posted and then it disappeared.