Is the right to abortion by a woman based on the concept of equality and social justice?

Question

If it isnt then does it mean that the mans contribution in making a child is not recognized?

If we say that it is a womans body then how does the sperm's ownership get transferred to the woman because it is a foreign object in her body?

Answer 1

If men don't want children they need to protect themselves.  If they do then they need to find a woman who wants a child with them.  Simple as that.

You are free to CHOOSE to wear a condom or obtain a vasectomy.  You are free to have a child with a woman.

Abortions in Canada are performed before a fetus can survive outside the womb, so I'd say that is a woman's choice whether or not she wants to carry the fetus to term.

Answer 2

I believe and there are millions of sound minded people, that a man does have rights- when it comes to his unborn child.  There is a potential human being inside of a  woman when she is pregnant.  Yes, it is her body that will give birth to it this person, but without the man's contribution there would be no future potential human being. The women who say it is MY body do not think ahead that they could be destroying another woman.

Why is it that so many couples would give anything to have a child and we are destroying them.  If we respect the laws of nature then we must allow others achieve their full potential ((whether that be inside or outside the womb.)

As far as saying that up here in Canada we do not care about the rights of the unborn is totally incorrect.  There is an MP Jake EPP in Edmonton who is trying to get bill C-484 passed as a private members Bill - Why ? because one of his constituents a grandmother, whose daughter was attacked in an act of violence

resulting in the death of her yet unborn grandson.  The pain of losing all the hope and joy a new child brings to a family - that was also destroyed. So therefore why should  this violent guy get off scott-free when he destroyed so many lives by killing one foetus? therefore this BillC-484.   A violent act is a  destructive act - totally against nature.   Everyone  should have his/her rights defended in a free society.

Answer 3

No, it is based upon the fact that it is absolutely unacceptable for a government to have any say in its citizens reproductive decisions.

Answer 4

The Supreme Court ruled on abortion because of privacy. Equality and social justice had nothing to do with it. I'm against abortion but do not get think that the judges were so concerned about female equality.

Answer 5

It is based on a 1989 Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

Although the issue of abortion rights has popped up from time to time in Federal elections as a wedge issue, the issue is consistently rated as a low priority for most Canadians.  Its not a "biggie", LOL!

"Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Daigle left the province for the United States to terminate the pregnancy. Nevertheless, the issue was considered important enough that the Supreme Court declined to set aside the case for mootness. They went on to give a decision, which was unanimous and which vindicated Daigle.

Ruling

The Court ruled that it was not necessary to deal with the issues of Canadian federalism raised by the appeal; THE ISSUE OF FETAL RIGHTS WOULD SUFFICE TO SOLVE THIS PARTICULAR DISPUTE AND PREVENT SIMILAR LEGAL INCIDENTS IN THE FUTURE.  The fetal rights were said to be anchored in the rights to life in the Canadian Charter, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Civil Code of Quebec. Moreover, it was argued Tremblay had a right to protect his "potential progeny." The Supreme Court considered and rejected all these arguments.

***As the Court noted, its role was to consider the fetus's legal status; it would not rule on its biological status, nor would it enter "philosophical and theological debates."***

As far as the Court could tell, there was no legal precedent for fetal rights under the Quebec Charter, and this Charter is written in "very general terms" and does not specify whether the rights within it were available to fetuses. Although the Charter does say its rights belong to humans, whether the fetus is a human is a merely "linguistic" question that would not solve the issue of what the National Assembly of Quebec actually meant in the Charter. Moreover, if the National Assembly had meant for the Quebec Charter to apply to fetuses, it seemed questionable as to why they would not explicitly state this, rather than leave "the protection of this right in such an uncertain state."

Regarding the Civil Code, the Court considered the argument that since the Code deals with fetuses as "juridical" persons, fetuses must legally be human beings. Human beings, under the Code, have rights. Once again, the Court expressed skepticism as to the nature of the term "human being", noting the linguistic nature of the argument. While the Code does give fetuses some similar treatment to legal persons, the Court replied that this does not necessarily imply other fetal rights exist. In the places where fetuses are recognized as juridical persons, the Court claimed this is a "fiction of the civil law".

The case next turned to Canadian law and common law. With some historical review, it was noted that while fetuses have usually had some protection under the law, abortion has not usually been viewed as being comparable to murder. Thus, a fetus is not a person under common law. The Court also declined to address the question of fetal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, noting that the Charter applies to government; it has no force in legal disputes between private citizens, which was the case in Tremblay v. Daigle.

Finally, the Court ruled that there was no precedent for men's rights to protect their "potential progeny."

**************************************...

*Sorry Baremp, it will die on the House Floor, the Harper government doesn't need another white elephant these days:

"This bill would amend the Criminal Code to allow separate homicide charges to be laid in the death of a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked.

MacGill discusses the current state of abortion rights and access in Canada, and outlines how this bill opens the door to the re-criminalization of abortion, fails to address issues of abuse, and infringes women’s constitutional rights in Canada."

http://www.ncra.ca/exchange/dspProgramDe...

Its an infringement on our Constitutional Rights under the Canadian Charter and the Supreme Court has ruled on that one already in the case of Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530.  The Supreme Court will throw it out as being unconstitutional.  They wouldn't even bother to hear the case because its a re-run!

END OF STORY.