Every time I see another piece of brain-damaged legislation coming from the ranks of the Godly troglodytes, I always like to examine it for the inevitable, inherent absurdities. And, not surprisingly, Bill C-484 has at least one.
Let's refresh our memory:
SUMMARY
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.
OK, let's look at this a bit more closely, shall we? Clearly, if C-484 were passed, it would now be an "offense" to injure or kill, or attempt thereof, a fetus. So far, so good. But read more closely -- it would be an offense only if it occurred in the commission of an offense (or, again, an attempt) against the mother. That strikes me as a rather large loophole.
Imagine if I had a way (say, an ingestable drug) that was 100 per cent reliable in terminating a pregnancy, while inflicting no harm whatsoever on the mother. I slip that drug to the pregnant mom, which produces an almost immediate miscarriage and one very dead fetus.
Pop quiz: Did I just break the law?
From my reading of C-484, I would hazard that the answer would be "No." And why not? Because if my actions caused the death of the fetus and absolutely no other results, then what "offense" can I possibly have committed against the mother? As long as she's perfectly healthy in every other way, I'm guessing that, as far as C-484 is concerned, I'm in the clear.
But wait, you say. I just killed a fetus that that mother very much wanted to keep. Isn't that the offense against the mother? I don't see how, since Bill C-484 clearly explains that the injury or death of a fetus is a crime only in the context of the commission of another offense against the mother, so it would make no sense to allow that offense to be the injury or the death of the fetus. As you can see, that would be weirdly circular reasoning: "You're under arrest for committing A, which is technically only a crime in the context of another offense, which, for the sake of argument, we're going to allow to be, uh, A. In short, you're under arrest for committing A while you were simultaneously committing A."
I believe the undeniable absurdity of the above is self-evident. So what's left? Well, what's left is to ask whether, in my hypothetical scenario, I could be charged for any crime. And if I could, then it should be clear that Bill C-484 is entirely superfluous. If there's already a way to charge me for the deliberate injury or death of a fetus under the Criminal Code of Canada, then Bill C-484 has no value whatsoever. And, even better, if such a way exists, it might even allow me to be charged even if there's no injury to the mother at all, which is something Bill C-484 is utterly unable to do.
In a nutshell, Bill C-484 is worthless in terms of protecting either women or fetuses. What it is useful for, though, is propaganda. Which is, of course, exactly what it is.
But you knew that already, right?
17 comments:
If it's a child - like Bill C-484 states - take it out of the womb and see how long your "child" survives on it's own...
Fucking fetus freaks....
for full comedy points, given the above noted scenario, you could be charged with destruction of private property. though that would impede the true aim of reclassifying little johnny 'the fetus' doe as a future conservative m.p. or other collection of useless cells.
The only one that comes close is the administration of a noxious substance. But still, the same applies - currently, the miscarriage cause by such a drug would be considered harm to the mother and thus the noxious part of the charge. If the mother's well being is separated from that of the fetus (as C-484 clearly wants to do) then if the mother is not harmed (because she is now separate from the fetus) then under 484, a person could get away with that, since if the mother is not harmed, then no charges under 484 could be laid.
Yeah, it could actually reduce the chances of a perpetrator being brought to justice.
But then, that's not what the bill is about...its about a backdoor way to grant personhood to a fetus and start an attack on abortion. Just ask the fetus fetishists, they pretty much admit that openly.
Mike writes:
"... currently, the miscarriage cause by such a drug would be considered harm to the mother and thus the noxious part of the charge."
But that seems to make the issue even more confusing. Under the law as you describe above, the mother and fetus are clearly inseparable from a legal standpoint if harm to the fetus is considered harm to the mother. Under Bill C-484, however, those two harms are clearly distinguishable, going so far as to define one in terms of the other.
If it's going to be an offense to injure or kill a fetus when you're committing an offense against the mother, where's the crime if you're not committing an offense against the mother? And how on earth would it make sense to say that harm of the fetus constitutes the offense against the mother?
That's nothing more than bootstrapping a charge into existence.
Oh I agree CC, it is confusing wrt 484...another reason we don't need this nonsense law. I'm on your side of this arguement.
Its the catch 22 that makes the C484 gibberish when it comes to actually doing what it says is is supposed to be for - protecting mothers and fetuses.
Without C484 (ie right now) you hypothetical would be considered harm to the mother (since the fetus has no legal standing) and any charges laid would be for harming the mother. A person could be convicted of a crime.
With C484 enacted, the mother and fetus must be considered separate and, as you say, since no harm was caused to the mother (they are separate under 484 right) and thus no crime against the mother (since she was not harmed) then no charge could be laid under 484. Meaning the person could NOT be convicted of a crime under 484.
They sure couldn't consider a fetus both separate AND part of the mother at the same time for the sake of the same charge.
Of course, legal inconsistencies like this are irrelevant to the fetus fetishists. Guys like "SoCon or Bust" are freely admitting that the purpose of the law is to create a wedge with the idea of fetal personhood before the law, "big enough to drive a truck through". They don't care if the law as it is written is EVER applied as it is written to do. It never was intended do actually do that. Its all about fetal personhood via the back door.
And they all know it.
If the mother self administered the noxious substance for the sole purpose of disposing of the fetus, and suffered some harm to her own person as a result in addition to aborting the fetus, how would this law apply?
Same deal as before, Patsy. You're too stupid to hang out here anymore. Go play with your buddy, Werner.
Ah...there's yet another angle from which to attack this odious piece of legislation...
...What if the offense against the mother were being committed for the purpose of trying to save the fetus? And it all goes six ways sideways?
What if a bunch of anti-choice protesters got so damed excited that they actually physically intervened in a way that causes the woman to fall down and injure herself? That's called assault. What if she's injured badly enough that she miscarries (saving her from the ordeal of a formal abortion)?
Or some deranged dude restrains (kidnaps) the woman in an effort to stop her from aborting his fetus, and she miscarries?
What if someone just upsets the woman in a screaming match, her blood sugar and pressure go sideways, and she miscarries?
Sooooo much they didn't think about before they decided that trying to pass this law was a good idea.
What if a woman is an adict, and consumes drugs. If she overdoses, and the fetus dies, what then? Is she held responsible for Violence against the unborn? I've tried to read the act, but I'm not fluent in legalize. A women in the states was just handed a hefty prison sentence because of her addiction, so it's an interesting what if.
All they need is to appoint some judges fluent in BT speak to the Supreme Court.
Then you will see "attempting to commit an offence against the mother" is interpreted like this:
There is a law still on the books making it an offence to procure a miscarriage, i.e. abortion. Since no abortions are performed today in accordance with that law's requirements (committee's permission), all abortions would be proscribed by that law.
Since that law was struck down, but it was never repealed, any abortion today is an attempt to commit that offence. It is an attempt because you cannot be prosecuted for it. But it is still an attempt to commit the offence that is still on the books but inoperative because of the 1988 decision.
Therefore the law would allow prosecuting any doctor who performed an abortion for killing the fetus because said doctor was attempting to commit the procuring a miscarriage offence against the pregnant woman.
We now return you from BT space to normal space.
HT,
Well, that too is a gray area isn't it? As it stands, is not against the law to self-administer an illegal drug. But, does the "criminal offense" in the bill only refer to crimes against the person? It doesn't seem that specific to me. So indeed it is possible that the crime in question could be simply possession of a narcotic (a pretext to taking it) and once THAT crime is proved, the mother herself could be charged.
Oh yes, lots of slippery slopes in this.
Again, lots of slipper slopes is rather the point of the legislation.
Wrong. In the hypothetical you've proposed, you are correct that killing the fetus wouldn't attract any additional sanction. But you're basically making the less-than-perfect fallacy: just because it doesn't always protect a fetus doesn't mean C-484 wouldn't protect it sometimes. The only way to protect it all the time would be to define it as a person - something which C-484 doesn't do, for obvious reasons.
Let the rabid pro-lifers continue in the grossly misguided belief that C-484 somehow provides them with any solid legal grounding for an assault on abortion. They'll fall flat on their face. Meanwhile, the shrieking from the progressive corner is only encouraging.
Good grief, the folks around here spend so much time pointing out so stupid the wacko right is, why on earth would you believe their insights on C-484 are somehow accurate?
The only way to protect it all the time would be to define it as a person
Being a legal person does not protect you all the time. We don't have capital punishment, but if we did, you would not avoid execution by virtue of being a person.
We also allow death of persons by accidents, self defense, and war.
- something which C-484 doesn't do, for obvious reasons.
yes it does confer legal personhood. As it says:
cause the death of a child before or during its birth
A child is a legal person. A fetus is not. The anti-choicers have been trying to blur this for years by referring to "unborn children" etc.
A child breathes. A fetus does not.
A child eats. A fetus does not.
A fetus lives in water, its life supported through an umbilical cord. A child lives in air, its life supported by breathing and being fed through its mouth.
With all due respect, Aaron, are you sure you're a law student? Because you seem remarkably clueless about the actual practise of law.
It's precisely this kind of hair-splitting that keeps lawyers in business, and if you don't understand that, let me demonstrate.
You seem quite confident that the legal interpretation of C-484 is black and white, cut and dried. So what if someone came to you and wanted to hire you to argue C-484 before the Supreme Court of Canada, to convince them that it really did bestow personhood on a fetus.
Are you saying that you couldn't possibly imagine how you could argue such a case? For God's sake, I think C-484 is a steaming pile of crap and even I could come up with some arguments along those lines.
Apparently, Aaron, you still haven't figured out that a lawyer's job is to present a case for his client. If you're seriously proposing that you couldn't possibly argue that case before the SCoC, then you have no value as a lawyer.
CC, you misunderstand: I'm not saying someone can’t bring a case challenging the legal interpretation of C-484. I’m just saying they will lose.
And by the way, any of the social conservatives you fear might bring this sort of challenge? They can bring it right now. They could have brought it at any time. And their odds would still be the same.
The history of constitutional litigation in Canada is littered with absurd and far-fetched challenges, most of which are stopped cold by the courts well before they reach the Supreme Court.
alw - "...most of which are stopped cold"
The key word is "most"
Post a Comment