J.C.MacSwell

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?

Surely you don't condone infanticide with that argument?? I'll certainly say it for a well developed fetus. Do you doubt it? Would you also question it for the aforesaid day old baby?

Your subject and reference for that was your quoting Mistermack. You quoted him and that was your direct reply.

Serious question? Right to live. Right to avoid a painful death.

How exactly is supporting the rights of a Black fetus racist?

Interpret law (to my understanding) and ensure it holds with the Constitution. I'm pretty sure it's not to evaluate and affirm the will of the people. (though that could be the default in some cases? I'm not sure)

Clearly leaving it to a dysfunctional Congress may be a dumb move and ill timed...but it's not clear they are wrong with respect to their duties.

Barely more than the Dems and GOP combined... (I think I'm kidding...I don't really know) Was it ever there mandate to do that?

On the bright side (if there is any)...the name of this thread is now accurate...

Emotional arguments aside, minor sports are typically categorized by birth year in two year intervals (Peewee, Bantam etc), which can give a 2 year difference of age in each category (and effectively more than that including premature birth dates). So it is not uncommon to have Tanner Stage 1 individuals required to compete with some that are in or have even completed Tanner Stage 6. (and it is a significant safety issue in physical sports)

I used to. I'm sure there are some new Orwellian definitions that haven't made it up to Nova Scotia yet... Let's just call your link and claim "not very scientific" and move on.... More importantly it will be interesting to see how the FINA rules on transgenders affects the rules on fairness and inclusion in other sports and also at other levels of sport. It certainly disincentivizes athletes taking drugs (assuming they hadn't started any protocols before the age of 12) for the purposes of meeting arbitrary targets. OTOH it could lead to some unfortunate effects on inclusion at younger ages.

Are you sure you agree with the statement as written? (because you seem to be suggesting you do... and yet feel compelled to qualify it?) "If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all." Or do you just like to think you want to support the "scientists" that wrote it? ...and Jesus right back at ya if you think "body going through puberty" is somehow limited to not include skeletal growth. And what exactly does this mean? I suspect it means something different from what it seems to imply. (no possible harm and full completion of the process with no detrimental long term effects)

I provided evidence I believe you are capable of reading and understanding. The claim made in the link, which I clearly bolded for all to see is unscientific. You tell me why you feel compelled to support it. The link doesn't support it. No one else here agrees with it, even if they believe the idea behind it, (drugging children to delay the onset of puberty) is a justifiable risk. (I myself don't exclude that as a possibility in some cases) Am I being unkind calling the statement pseudoscience? Perhaps. But that's what it is as defined by the definition I put forward. "Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data. The term pseudoscience can refer to a single claim or statement that is purported to be backed by science or data but doesn't stand up under scientific scrutiny" Compare with the recent FINA rule changes. (and hopefully get back OT) https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/sport/swimming-transgender-ruling-explainer-spt-intl/index.html I think they effectively got it right for the elite swimming they are mandated to govern, though not without controversy. Those who campaigned for change argued that people who have gone through male puberty have physical advantages and therefore women's competition needed to be protected. Supporters of trans participation argue that not enough research has been done into the question of whether trans women have any advantage. Groups such as Athlete Ally have stated that FINA's new policy is "discriminatory, harmful, unscientific."

AGAIN, from your link Pseudoscientific statement (you can call it what you like...just don't claim it's scientific): "If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all." Closely followed by more honest scientific statement: "We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older." Now, you can debate whether an intervention is worth taking the risk and whether it's warranted, but you can't support the bolded as a scientific statement.

I did...or rather...your link did. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/pseudoscience "Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data. The term pseudoscience can refer to a single claim or statement that is purported to be backed by science or data but doesn't stand up under scientific scrutiny" How is the bolded a scientific statement?

Sorry. My mistake. I thought you meant the claim I referred to. Now, from your link: "If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all." Closely followed by contradictory statement: "We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older." Seems your link was put together by a team of pseudo scientists and scientists...Nice to see them work toward a common goal.

I beg to differ. Science was not that bad that that would be a reasonable argument. The argument was a political and emotional one.

Pseudo scientists