tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post1791437378394852517..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: I feel a retardedness in the force ... oh, hi, Peter.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-20053011133057959212008-11-07T23:09:00.000-05:002008-11-07T23:09:00.000-05:00you guys are the real lunatics here.you guys are the real lunatics here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-79746922164934366432008-04-25T18:02:00.000-04:002008-04-25T18:02:00.000-04:00Pretty funny! Csillag I mean. As one of the first ...Pretty funny! Csillag I mean. As one of the first to raise the alarm over C-484 and a leading activist against it, I'm quite shocked to learn for the first time about my true cynical motivations and behind-the-scene machinations. Who knew I was that cunning? LOL! <BR/><BR/>Of course it's the Cons opening up the aborton debate through this bill, us pro-choicers would rather the whole issue just go away, so we can concentrate on furthering other women's rights. If it ends up contributing to an election loss for the Tories, it won't be our fault, that's for sure! <BR/><BR/>He makes an interesting point though with Judith Jarvis Thompson's thought experiment. Any "rights" the fetus might have must necessarily be moot and meaningless, because the woman's right over her body is absolute. Indeed, our Supreme Court has stated a woman and her fetus are "physically one" (Dobson v. Dobson) and all rights must accrue to the woman. BUT...this means that C-484 is thumbing its nose at established law and precedent by giving fetuses the right not to be killed, which could compromise women's rights in various ways. Just because the bill is unconstitutional on its face and conflicts jarringly with the Criminal Code, doesn't mean it might not pass, and we don't want to have to launch a court challenge to get it finally thrown out.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the great rebuttal, Canadian Cynic.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38472977916863779692008-04-25T17:59:00.000-04:002008-04-25T17:59:00.000-04:00mentarch - "Here's my question: if this bill is "n...mentarch - <I>"Here's my question: if this bill is "not about abortion", then what is the need for such a bill to begin with?"</I><BR/><BR/>There is no need. It doesn't protect, it doesn't deter. All it does is recognize a fetus as "Baby Johnny" instead of "a fetus". <I>"Baby Johnny and his mother, Baby Johnny's Mommy, were viciously attacked",</I> etc. instead of <I>"a pregnant woman was viciously attacked".</I><BR/><BR/>Pregnant women would be more effectively protected by a bill that makes it a more heinous crime, with harsher punishment, to harm a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage. The fact that anti-choicers vehemently refuse to consider this option is telling.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09458917081261136618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-41580067750892448422008-04-25T17:02:00.000-04:002008-04-25T17:02:00.000-04:00"If it is not about abortion, and especially "not"...<I>"If it is not about abortion, and especially "not" about to criminalize it, then we do not need this bill - period."</I><BR/><BR/><I>"What freakin' purpose does this ludicrous bill serve?"</I><BR/><BR/>Yikes! Look, it patently <B>is</B> about re-opening the abortion debate - only this time it's been softened down and re-framed as mushy concern trolling instead of the previously more aggressive and straightforward religious argument that outright attacked a person's right to sovereignty over their own body.Alisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09811694143714068436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-41910219120915761052008-04-25T16:40:00.000-04:002008-04-25T16:40:00.000-04:00We probably do need to revisit what can be done wi...We probably do need to revisit what can be done with aggravated assault, although there are many more positive steps we could be taking to address violence against women -- and we know that those stats go up disproportionately for women who are pregnant or mothers of young children.<BR/><BR/>But pretty obviously, any intentional assault is an assault on the woman -- there is no other conceivable (you should excuse the expression) motive. Remove the woman, and the assault would not be happening.skdadlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10395908653129465704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-63377127889970516392008-04-25T16:16:00.000-04:002008-04-25T16:16:00.000-04:00Mentarch — Exactly. That's something I just can't ...Mentarch — Exactly. That's something I just can't seem to get my head around either. What freakin' purpose does this ludicrous bill serve? None at all that I can see.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-79340014177240670152008-04-25T16:14:00.000-04:002008-04-25T16:14:00.000-04:00Here's my question: if this bill is "not about abo...Here's my question: if this bill is "not about abortion", then what is the need for such a bill to begin with?<BR/><BR/>That's right: *no need*.<BR/><BR/>So, to recap: once again far-right wingnuts/republican franchisees/Harper and his Harpies attempted to criminalize abortion in an underhanded way, thinking themselves all clever and such. But oops - everyone caught the exercize for what it was and now we get sheer inanity in order to sell this bill as not being about abortion.<BR/><BR/>If it is not about abortion, and especially "not" about to criminalize it, then we do not need this bill - period.<BR/><BR/>And if it *is* about abortion - then we *still* do not need such a bill. Period.<BR/><BR/>What's next? A bill to ban flag burning?<BR/><BR/>;-)Real_PHV_Mentarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128624329790456529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38633754323956733562008-04-25T16:09:00.000-04:002008-04-25T16:09:00.000-04:00Whenever I read "unborn" I always get this zombie ...Whenever I read "unborn" I always get this zombie image of "undead" in my head.Sheenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11343974714241810943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-50596225761524811122008-04-25T14:32:00.000-04:002008-04-25T14:32:00.000-04:00Nicely constructed argument CC.Nicely constructed argument CC.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-47478602473575886242008-04-25T13:58:00.000-04:002008-04-25T13:58:00.000-04:00It's also disgusting that they want those who harm...It's also disgusting that they want those who harm pregnant women to receive lesser sentences, and allow spouses who beat their pregnant wives to walk. <BR/>900ft Jesus wrote a while back:<BR/><BR/><I>Reduced offence <BR/><BR/> (2) An offence that would otherwise be an offence under paragraph (1)(a) may be reduced to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation within the meaning of section 232. <BR/><BR/>So if a woman provokes the man and he beats her, causing a miscarriage, his sentenced could be reduced, because, you know, she provoked him. </I><BR/><BR/>Simply disgusting.Palehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06791499814706254231noreply@blogger.com