Friday, March 07, 2008

C-484 conservatives: The "duh" factor.

Howdy, kids. Meet blogger Paul over at the aptly-named "Sobering Thoughts":

A right to abortion, but not a right to have a child

Canadian Cynic [PSA, actually, but what's a bit of illiteracy between friends, eh, Paul?] criticizes Liberal leader Stephane Dion for being absent from the vote on C-484, a private member's bill that, if passed, would recognize the unborn child as a second victim of crime when he or she is harmed during the commission of a crime against the pregnant mother. This is common-sense legislation and it is long overdue. Nearly three-quarters of Canadians support such a law. Canadian Cynic says:

"This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians and a blatant attempt to undermine the ability of women to maintain the right to bodily self determination and personal autonomy ... Mr. Dion, while I sincerely hope this Bill is killed in committee, your inaction and abandonment of Canadian women's rights has defeated any faith I might have had for your growth as a leader."

What a strange attack on C-484. Despite the bill's explicit statement that criminal sanctions only apply when a crime is committed against the mother (and abortion is not a crime in Canada), critics continue to claim that it imperils a woman's right to choose.

Now let's all say hi to JJ, who takes Paul out to the parking lot and kicks his ass from one end to the other and back again.

Memo to Paul: If I were you, I'd let that "sobering" process go on a little longer.


Ti-Guy said...

Paul Tuns:

"I am editor-in-chief of The Interim, Canada's life and family newspaper..."

Right. The editor of that sickening, anti-rational, anti-intellectual, pseudo-science flogging Catholic hate rag my Church-going mother gives to me to burn after she's read it and retched.


Ti-Guy said...

By the way...Paul "Tons" Tuns (right).

Zorpheous said...

So how do you charge someone with murder of a non-legal entity? Seriously, the unborn are not legal entities in Canada. So if this law passes and the first time it is used, how many millions of dollars will be wasted as the lawyer argue it all the back to the SCoC where the SCoC already ruled that the unborn are not legal entities,...

Earth calling Ottawa, HELLO????

jj said...

Asskicking doesn't seem to be doing the trick anymore, I may have to start pistol-whipping these jerks.

Mike said...

I'd be down with a good pistol whipping JJ. The look on their faces when they discover some "lefties" own and use a pistol would be the perfect start to knocking some sense into them.

pretty shaved ape said...

Dear Paul,

You are both dishonest and stupid.

Don't touch anything on your way out.



ALW said...

Okay, the very raison d’etre of this blog is to point out how retarded and dimwitted the so-cons are on every issue, right?
So then why the hell is everyone so worried that the so-cons are excited? If the so-cons started warning that forty days of floods were coming, would you all be scrambling to buy boats? No? Why is that - because you realize they don’t know what the hell they are talking about?
Instead of using all the so-con glee at C-484 as “proof” that this is an abortion trojan horse, why not simply point out the obvious, which is: even if C-484 passes it does absolutely nothing to change the (non)law on abortion. Not only that, but it doesn’t even provide any further ammunition to the pro-life cause, legally or morally. None. Zero. Nada.

liberal supporter said...

even if C-484 passes it does absolutely nothing to change the (non)law on abortion.
True. So why pass it? It is unnecessary.

Not only that, but it doesn’t even provide any further ammunition to the pro-life cause, legally or morally. None. Zero. Nada.
Not true. It provides plenty of ammunition to the anti-choice cause.

It creates a new class of victim of crime, the unborn child.

The only possible victims of crime are what the law recognizes as "legal persons". If I smash your car, the car is not a victim of crime, you are. If I kill your cow, the cow is not a victim of crime, you are. If I butcher your cow with your permission, then neither you nor the cow are victims of crime, even though the cow ends up dead. If I cut your arm off, your arm is not a victim of crime, you are. If I amputate your arm because you want it gone, then you are not a victim of crime.

The anti-choicers like to sneer when I give any analogies like this, trying to pile on the emotional rhetoric about comparing an unborn child to anything else. But they have no problem comparing an unborn child to a born, separate baby even though they are simply not the same thing. A thing that breathes is the same as a thing that does not? Sure.

The fact is, an unborn child is essentially part of its mother, the property of the mother, and any harm that comes to the unborn child is a crime against the mother. Typically aggravated grievous assault.

You expect us to believe that climate change is a giant hoax, and that the Kyoto protocol does nothing and has ulterior motives. But you expect us to believe that C-484 will do somehow something for women and has no ulterior motive to criminalize abortion.

You're hoping to get this wedge into the law, then stack the Supreme Court to use it to create a new protected class of legal person.

Then comes the miscarriage investigations and forced gynecological exams in every workplace.

CC said...


Are you seriously suggesting that the driving force behind this proposed bill isn't an attack on abortion rights? Because as JJ has demonstrated, that's exactly the way its supporters see it.

ALW said...

1. JJ

CC: I have no doubt that most of the people supporting C-484 think it will assist their crusade to ban abortion. It’s just that there’s no basis for their optimist other than the fact C-484 mentions the word “fetus”. That’s it. So they can celebrate all they want. I really don’t care what anyone’s - especially people with zero legal acumen - emotional reaction to C-484 is. I support it on the rather uncontroversial grounds that I think a fetus deserves some protection, but not the status of a person (which would mean there would never be any risk of the rights of the former trumping the latter).

Lib supporter,

So why pass it? It is unnecessary.

Because it’s not supposed to affect abortion law. It’s supposed to attach additional sanction for someone who attacks a pregnant women for the purpose of killing or injuring her fetus against her will.

It creates a new class of victim of crime, the unborn child.

This is true, but it’s a class of victim that is explicitly enshrined as being subordinate to a person. So in a way, it actually wins the debate for pro-choicers because it codifies the status of a fetus as being dependant on a person (the mother) having an offence committed against them. We treat animals and even property as “victims” in criminal law but no one worries about those things trumping the rights of people. So why worry in the case of fetuses?

As I have said elsewhere, the only reason anyone worries about a fetus being given status is the risk that it would then create a conflict of rights between the mother and the fetus. So if this conflict is explicitly dealt with by creating a heirarchy of rights - as does C-484 - putting the fetus subordinate to the mother, what’s the problem?

Even if we take the position that an unborn child is the property of the mother, then bill C-484 is just strengthening the mother’s property rights. Just because the provision identifies the property that has to be damaged in order to attract additional sanctions doesn’t turn the property into a person.

..and I’m not a pro-lifers, by the way, so please don’t ascribe all this hidden agenda abortion nonsense to me.