Quote:
|
Quote by: Technosoul For legal purposes you need a document, in this case a certificate of conception instead of a certificate of birth, as that is how you must prove citizenship. |
I ran a search on “certificate of conception” and could find no governament proposal or court case that establishes the legal requirement for a "certificate of conception".
I got hits from only two pro-choice sites (both of which both have the same article) and 4 blogs/usenets. The Pro-Choice Action Network site (
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...usperson.shtml) did provide references to three court cases:
Tremblay v. Daigle (1989);
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr2_0530.html
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1989.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...scr1_0342.html
Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997); [Could not find reference]
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1989 is a specific case deciding whether or not Borowski’s appeal can be heard by the court. The ruling was that the appeal was rendered moot by several factors. In this case the term “certificate of conception” never occurs in this presentation of the case. The term “conception” appears only once:
“In a legislative context any rights of the foetus could be considered or at least balanced against the rights of women guaranteed by s. 7. See R. v. Morgentaler (No. 2), supra, per Dickson C.J., at p. 75; per Beetz J. at pp. 122-23; per Wilson J. at pp. 181-82. A pronouncement in favour of the appellant's position that a foetus is protected by s. 7 from the date of
conception would decide the issue out of its proper context. Doctors and hospitals would be left to speculate as to how to apply such a ruling consistently with a woman's rights under s. 7. During argument the question was posed to counsel for R.E.A.L. Women as to what a hospital would do with a pregnant woman who required an abortion to save her life in the face of a ruling in favour of the appellant's position. The answer was that doctors and legislators would have to stay up at night to decide how to deal with the situation. This state of uncertainty would clearly not be in the public interest. Instead of rendering the law certain, a decision favourable to the appellant would have the opposite effect.” Pages 364-5
This case clearly does not establish the requirement of a “Certificate of Conception”.
Tremblay v. Daigle (1989) doesn’t have the term “certificate of conception” either and the term “conception” doesn’t even appear in the transcription of the case but only appears in the authors-cited section after the transcript.
This case clearly does not establish the requirement of a “Certificate of Conception”.
Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997). I did a search on this and found a dozen or so pro-choice sites but not the case transcript. Therefore I cannot determine if the terms are in the transcript.
That term comes from the Pro-Choice Action Network Web site (as far I can determine):
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-ca...usperson.shtml
“Declaring fetuses to be legal persons with rights would generate countless legal and social dilemmas. Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn't every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a
Certificate of Conception? The sheer absurdity of this
proposal reveals that society does not think of fetuses as persons in the normal sense at all, and would have great difficulty trying to treat them as such.”
I found no other references to this term on any of the search engines I used. Technosoul, could you provide a reference to the legal requirement for this certificate as you assert? Also, this pro-choice site talks about a proposal for a "certificate of conception". Could you provide a link to the proposal either in Canada (the source of the two court cases) or the US?
Or could you explain better what you meant in your assertion above?
Thanks