Oh, dear. Apparently, the Blogging Tories' go-to dude on eugenics, Peter Csillag, is at it again, lowering the intellectual level of this part of the galactic quadrant. You remember, Peter, don't you? Yeah, that Peter.
Well, Peter's back, and just in time to hideously misrepresent the controversial Bill C-484. Here's Peter, fucking things up from the get-go:
Defending C-484: because it has nothing to do with abortion (sorry you leftist morons!)
Now, never let it be said that Blogging Tories co-founder Stephen Taylor can't find the absolute cream of the crop, the most intellectually engaging of Canada's right-wing punditry. But that's another story and would take away from dealing with drooling dimwit Peter Csillag so let's continue.
You are, of course, free to read the entirety of Peter's frothing imbecility, but I'm going to stop at the title since that's all I need to prove that Peter is a boneheaded hack because, despite Peter's ravings, Bill C-484 has everything to do with abortion, and the proof is, in fact, right there in the wording.
Let's start by actually reading the bill, shall we?
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)
Freeze. Right. There. And you can see the first problem, can't you? Why, yes ... it's that reference to "an unborn child." Because, as the non-retarded among you already understand, the Criminal Code of Canada most emphatically does not grant the status of "personhood" to a fetus. Yet by sneaking in the word "child" in that title line, it's clear where this bill is trying to go. There would have been absolutely nothing technically wrong with referring to a "fetus" in that passage, but the bill's author quite clearly had ulterior motives and is obviously determined to co-opt the language, as any good propagandist will. But it doesn't end there.
On the very next page, the bill's author (having set the stage) proceeds to push the envelope a bit further:
This enactment amends the Criminal Code by making it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother.
Note how we've progressed from an "unborn" child to simply a "child", albeit possibly one "before its birth". But what does it mean to refer to the as-yet unborn explicitly as a "child," other than to implicitly grant it personhood? What other rationale is there? Again, the word "fetus" would have had the same technical value, but it wouldn't have provided the propaganda value in terms of implicit personhood, would it?
And we're still not done, as you can see if you continue reading the bill and see references like "an unborn child" and "the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth." Oh, yes, the wording for this bill was chosen very carefully and precisely to maximize the implication that the unborn fetus is indeed a "child," despite what the Criminal Code of Canada might say. But what was the alternative? I'm glad you asked.
Idiots like Peter Csillag and pathological lunatics like Suzie All-Caps will insist that this is all about punishing the perpetrator of an offense against a woman if that offense also happens to cause harm or death to the fetus. This sounds reasonable -- surely you can't deny that there should be additional punishment for something like that. But it's the wording that's oh so critical.
A simple resolution to this would be just to tack on extra penitence because the pregnant mother suffered extra damage. Put another way, the sentence for the perp would be increased because the mother was more greviously injured or -- let me reword this just a bit -- because the mother was more of a victim. See how that works? And that proposal would work just fine. You injure or kill a fetus in the commission of an offense? Then your sentence goes up because the mother suffered extra harm; that is, harm to herself and her fetus. But that's not what the bill is proposing, is it? Note carefully the actual wording (emphasis added):
1. This Act may be cited as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
And right there is everything you need to know as to why this bill has nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with abortion. What the above phrase does is classify the unborn fetus as the "victim." Not the mother; the fetus. And the only way that makes any sense is if the fetus is to be considered a person.
In my first scenario, when the fetus was harmed or killed, it was the mother who was still considered to be the victim. Bill C-484 instead moves the mantle of victimhood from the mother to the fetus, and that's where the implicit personhood of the fetus comes in, and that's why this bill is such a dishonest piece of swill.
If Bill C-484's defenders were sincere about their concern for the women, they would happily reword that bill to refer simply to a "fetus" and to extra punishment for the offender. But that's not what this is all about, is it? It's about passing a bill that very carefully and very deliberately pushes the concept of personhood and victimhood from the mother to the fetus, and that's why this is all about abortion rights and nothing else.
And that's why people like Peter Csillag and SUZANNE are such lying douchebags. But it's not like you needed me to point that out, did you?