Abortion

[mindflayer]

...another Faith Vs. the law Question

Here in Canada it is required by law to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (and bicycles too)
Should Shiks (who are required to wear turbans) be charged
if they refuse to wear a helmet while riding?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
...another Faith Vs. the law Question

Here in Canada it is required by law to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (and bicycles too)
Should Shiks (who are required to wear turbans) be charged
if they refuse to wear a helmet while riding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. Consider the rational for helmet laws (and seatbelt laws) and you will see why their religious beliefs play no part.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if they uphold the lady's decision to reject a blood transfusion on religious grounds, at the risk of her baby, then they are forced to concede that religion can play a role in the law (the law that allows religious people to decide upon medical care based upon their religion)

[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue because it's not a question of religion. People should be allowed to refuse any treatment for any reason. Futhermore, this is the "default" state, so no law is even required. Only if someone decides that they want to force their views on this person does the law become involved, so it's becoming involved because of the force, not because of the belief.

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
...another Faith Vs. the law Question

Here in Canada it is required by law to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (and bicycles too)
Should Sikhs (who are required to wear turbans) be charged
if they refuse to wear a helmet while riding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, the benefits of a multicultural school. Not every Sikh is required to wear their turbans. But IIRC, this came up in B.C. courts, and they got an exemption, and upon doublechecking, yes, they are exempt in the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act.

Quoted from said act:

[ QUOTE ]
1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:

(a) a person who

(i) practices the Sikh religion, and

(ii) has unshorn hair and habitually wears a turban composed of 5 or more square meters of cloth.

[/ QUOTE ]

They assume the responsibilities for not wearing a helmet. If that's the irrationality their religion demands of them, hey, it's not that much riskier than handling poisonous snakes. (On probability.)

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's when brainwave activity starts.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's when brainwave activity starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooohhh....sorry, no. That's about week 6. But, still it's nice to see you at least had reason. So what about brainwave activity makes it (according to you) suddenly not OK to kill?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion?

A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one.

So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one?

I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's when brainwave activity starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooohhh....sorry, no. That's about week 6. But, still it's nice to see you at least had reason. So what about brainwave activity makes it (according to you) suddenly not OK to kill?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, perhaps I should go with 6 weeks then.

Anyway, brainwave activity makes the difference between a sentient being and a mass of flesh. Sure, that mass of flesh is "alive", but so is cancer. If simply being alive was enough reason to not kill something, everyone would be vegetarians. Sentience is the measure I use, and it seems to me to be the least arbitrary. It could be argued that a fetus still isn't sentient after brainwave activity, but before brainwave activity, it clearly isn't. Overall, I still think that our understanding of it all is poor enough that pushing things to the end of the first trimester is the safe way to go. Once a fetus is a sentient entity, its right to live outweighs the rights of the mother to have it removed, but trying to determine when that is is guesswork more than anything. Probably when I originally decided on first trimester, I was thinking that's the latest anyone could possibly argue for.

[revots33]

Related question for those who think life begins at conception...

You walk into a burning medical building, and you find one crying 5-week old infant, and a tray with 20 blastocysts in petri dishes. You can only remove one from the burning building. Which one?

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]


Anyway, brainwave activity makes the difference between a sentient being and a mass of flesh. Sure, that mass of flesh is "alive", but so is cancer. If simply being alive was enough reason to not kill something, everyone would be vegetarians. Sentience is the measure I use, and it seems to me to be the least arbitrary. It could be argued that a fetus still isn't sentient after brainwave activity, but before brainwave activity, it clearly isn't. Overall, I still think that our understanding of it all is poor enough that pushing things to the end of the first trimester is the safe way to go. Once a fetus is a sentient entity, its right to live outweighs the rights of the mother to have it removed, but trying to determine when that is is guesswork more than anything. Probably when I originally decided on first trimester, I was thinking that's the latest anyone could possibly argue for.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of sentient is that it indicates something that can "feel," for instance, something that is able to suffer. It could be argued that an embryo or fetus with brain activity might be able to do just that. So by your example, being alive and able to feel or suffer, should preclude us from killing without regard. You specifically mention that otherwise we would be vegetarians, but are you aware that cattle and pigs seem to suffer if they are not killed quickly? (Nobody can know for sure, but it's hard to argue when they squeal with abandon when you stick them with the big knife.) By your logic, we should all be vegetarian. Care to rethink your position?