Saturday, April 26, 2008

Why, yes, I WAS right again, why do you ask?

From just yesterday, we have your humble correspondent (emphasis added):

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.

Great minds think alike (emphasis again added):

By recognizing a developing fetus as a victim of a crime separate from a woman, this legislation could erode Canadian women's right to safe and legal abortion by treading closer to the line of bestowing legal rights on a fetus, a concept clearly at odds with existing Canadian law.

Excellent argument, Vicki. A day late but, what the heck, I'll give you credit for it.


KEvron said...

remarkable about all this this is not just how shamelessly the supporters of this bill obscure the true intent behind it's passage, but how piss-poor their efforts are at concealment. papd in "fool" bloom (apologies to snerd for lifting his act).


KEvron said...

mark my words: if this bill passes, the fuckers will immediately drop all the pretense and thumb their noses at the opposition.


mikmik said...

It is not constitutional and will fail in court.

"One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, "

(this is going to get interesting)

Under the Charter, persons physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person, (the Charter does not define the corporation as a "legal person"),[3] but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or (as in sections 3 and 6) only to citizens of Canada.

This funny: is PC for `female human.'

A human being, or corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a human being.

AFAIKT: No person has the right to encroach on, or otherwise
inhibit or prevent another persons choice and/or actions.

Let's see -
Enforcement of human rights law
By international law, the United Nations Security Council is the only group authorized to enforce human rights laws. Historically, it has often been the case that a government will make claims of human rights violations in another country as a reason to go to war against that country.

I rest my case - - - -
"Human rights refers to the supposed "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

The Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was one of England's first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights.“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. ”
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[2]


liberal supporter said...

It is not constitutional and will fail in court.

They want to stack the court. And they want to have a referendum.

They will use every IP number all the BT sites have harvested to track down and silence anyone who speaks out against them.