Ladies and gentlemen, our first contestant.

And in response to my recent CC "If someone died and left you in charge" abortion challenge, who steps up to the plate and proceeds to whiff mightily but Suzie All-Caps:

I would then pass a law criminal law criminalizing feticide, i.e. intracardiac injections of potassium chloride and any other poisonous agent, in singletons.

OK, then, "criminalizing" ... which means what in terms of prison sentences for women who have abortions, Suze? Ah, here we go:

The penalty for injecting a syringe full of potassium chloride in the heart of a singleton would be five years in prison. I believe provincial bodies should remove the licenses of professionals who perform this procedure, but that's in their jurisdiction

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Suzie ... let's go back and read my actual words in that challenge (emphasis added):

For instance, if you genuinely want to criminalize abortion, let's hear what you'd propose in terms of prison sentences, both for abortion providers and for women who circumvent the law to get what would then be an illegal abortion.

Note carefully, Suze, that I specifically asked for your proposed punishment for the women as well, something you conveniently glossed over. So how about you try that again, hmmmmmm? Are you also suggesting five years in the slam for the women as well? Come on now, let's not be coy -- if you think those women should also go to prison, then say so and stop being evasive.

Might as well let your misogyny loose there, Suzie. It always has such entertainment value.

SO MUCH INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY, SO LITTLE TIME TO WHACK IT ALL. Reading Suzie All-Caps' proposal for shiny new Canadian abortion laws, one gets the distinct impression of someone who really hasn't throught any of this through very well. Recall, if you will, one of my direct questions:

If someone unintentionally gets pregnant and is forced to carry to term but refuses to have anything to do with the child after it's born, how would you handle that?

In response, Suzie starts off unambiguously:

That child is the parent's responsibility.

All right, then, so that parent is stuck with that child, wanted or not. You gave birth to it, you deal with it. End of discussion, is that it, Suze? Well, no, not really, as Suzie continues in the very next sentence:

If the parent is not ready to take care of that child, there are thousands of couples across Canada who would eagerly adopt up that baby.

Whoa, hang on there, Suzie -- you just finished saying that that newborn was the parent's responsibility, now you're offering them the opportunity to dump that kid on the state? So which is it? As I said, methinks Suzie hasn't really thought this through. And it shows.

MORE, SO MUCH MORE. The more you read Suzie's proposal, the more you realize that it's just a morass of self-contradiction and sloppy thinking. There's this:

The person who bears that child has a moral responsibility towards him.

But we're not talking "morality" here, Suzie, we're talking legality; as in, what you would enshrine in the Criminal Code of Canada, and while I'm sure you'd love to codify the concept of personal guilt, you can't, so yammering on about morality here is absolutely a non-starter. Either a parent is legally responsible for that newborn, or he/she isn't. You can't have it both ways, so make up your mind.