Bill C484 - Abortions

[sharkman]

Okay - so what's your answer to the question on the two bills?

These types tend to jab, then move on. Don't confuse them with the facts.

[maldon_road]

The Bill had its final hour of debate yesterday.

Bill C-484

It will now be voted on at second reading on Wednesday. About 1700 (5pm), EST

[maldon_road]

The Bill had its final hour of debate yesterday.

Bill C-484

It will now be voted on at second reading on Wednesday. About 1700 (5pm), EST

It passed at second reading, 147-133 and now goes to Committee for study. This might be due to the abortion exclusion, or maybe in spite of it.

The pro-life camp is muted; there are no petitions that I can find, and the usual petition-happy Campaign Life calls C-484's wording "unfortunate."

This bill doesn't cover what anti-abortionists are after. The Unborn Victims of Crime Act contains a "for greater certainty" clause explicitly excluding abortion, excluding any acts or omissions by the mother, and would criminalize attacks on a woman's preborn child by third parties only, and only "death or injury during the commission of a crime."

It protects a mother's right to give consent to pregnancy termination, and that's explicitly stated in the proposed bill, which would anathematize a pro-life campaigner. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada still wants the bill voted down because it feels it's an "unconstitutional infringement on women's rights" and is calling for petitions against it.

Unborn Victims of Crime

Edited March 6, 2008 by maldon_road

[Slim MacSquinty]

It protects a mother's right to give consent to pregnancy termination, and that's explicitly stated in the proposed bill, which would anathematize a pro-life campaigner. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada still wants the bill voted down because it feels it's an "unconstitutional infringement on women's rights" and is calling for petitions against it.

Isn't that a rather bazarre position? An infringment on a woman's right to be the victim of a crime?

[margrace]

This bill in reality is just a back door way to stop a woman's right to abortion. If anyone on here with any sense of what is going on really thought about how this government is governing why are they letting all this happen?

[Spicy.Pringles]

This bill in reality is just a back door way to stop a woman's right to abortion. If anyone on here with any sense of what is going on really thought about how this government is governing why are they letting all this happen?

Margrace, I fear that you may have been misinformed. This bill is to make it a crime to injure a baby while someone is assaulting a pregnant women. It hasn't to do with abortion and pro choice. I hope I was able to help you.

I found this at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...1&File=30#2

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

Edited May 3, 2008 by Spicy.Pringles

[gc1765]

As a firm pro-choice supporter, even I support this.

I am pro choice, so if a woman chooses to get an abortion I have no problem with that, but if she doesn't choose to end the pregnancy, that is a different story.

[margrace]

. In practice, Bill C-484 is a law that opens the door for future legal challenges against women's right to choose whether to have an abortion. In effect, this new bill could create legal rights for foetuses, marking them as human and thus as protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while still in the womb. Given the fact that the foetus and the woman share one body, offering human rights to the foetus intrinsically means we are encroaching upon the woman's rights.

We too often shy away from discussing abortion because it engenders debates relating to morality and religion. However, passing a new law that provides legal grounds on which to challenge the legality of abortion is not the way to re-enter the debate about this issue. On the contrary, this approach to challenging current abortion laws is backhanded and legally suspicious.

I did not write this someone else did but it gives on food for thought

Edited May 3, 2008 by margrace

[Wild Bill]

. In practice, Bill C-484 is a law that opens the door for future legal challenges against women's right to choose whether to have an abortion. In effect, this new bill could create legal rights for foetuses, marking them as human and thus as protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while still in the womb. Given the fact that the foetus and the woman share one body, offering human rights to the foetus intrinsically means we are encroaching upon the woman's rights.

We too often shy away from discussing abortion because it engenders debates relating to morality and religion. However, passing a new law that provides legal grounds on which to challenge the legality of abortion is not the way to re-enter the debate about this issue. On the contrary, this approach to challenging current abortion laws is backhanded and legally suspicious.

I did not write this someone else did but it gives on food for thought

Well, any bill could be interpreted as a "door opener" if you stretch it far enough. The problem is, should someone be able to cause the death of a fetus as a result of assault, attempted murder or whatever similar towards the pregnant mother with no consequences?

Apparently, that is the way the law works today. Assuming you don't agree that this is a GOOD thing, could you perhaps suggest some better wording that would accomplish the same end without compromising a woman's right to choose?

[Borg]

This bill in reality is just a back door way to stop a woman's right to abortion. If anyone on here with any sense of what is going on really thought about how this government is governing why are they letting all this happen?

Haven't we been round this merry-go-round before?

I even think it was you that started it.

If not, apologies - but after perusal, it is not what you would dramatically claim it to be.

Are you sure you and I are reading the same Bill?

Borg

Edited May 3, 2008 by Borg

[myata]

Yes it's been discussed and debated, and yes the idea is to pull through the notion that a fetus has some special independent status. A foot in the door. The laws to protect any individual against violent crime already exist, and making special allowance for pregnancy is nothing less than allowing that special status. Watch out for more, from CPC a la Harper.

Even as much complicit in this are Dion's Liberals. As a matter of fact, I'm growing increasingly dissatisfied with the bunch; not for all the gaffes they (he?) made, make and will make in the future; but for a consistent ongoing failure to define their principles, and stand up for them. No, I'm not voting for them in the next election, due to an earlier commitment. And, if this dithering on the brink continues, I'll have to consider realigning my allegiances on a more permanent basis.

[gc1765]

In effect, this new bill could create legal rights for foetuses, marking them as human and thus as protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while still in the womb.

Why is it wrong for the fetus to have rights so long as the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus?

As for the slippery slope argument, I've never understood that kind of argument. I never understood it when right-wingers thought that same-sex marriage would lead to beastiality, and I don't understand it now. If and when any legislation restricting abortions is introduced, I will strongly oppose it. However, I don't see how this particular piece of legislation will make it any more likely for that to happen, or for it to pass. I don't think Canadians would stand for it.

[margrace]

You trust a man whose party swore to block women's rights to abortion, now we have a loss of the access to information. This man gets more and more frightening and especially his party blocking any discussion of any of these bills. No one gave him a majority to do these things but hes doing it anyway.

[Argus]

This bill in reality is just a back door way to stop a woman's right to abortion. If anyone on here with any sense of what is going on really thought about how this government is governing why are they letting all this happen?

Well, because it's not, and because you don't know what you're talking about (as usual) and because most people don't get into a shrieking lather over nothing the way you tend to do.

[myata]

Why is it wrong for the fetus to have rights so long as the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus?

Because if a fetus is a living thing, a human, in the eventuality (of the social conservative thought) it'll be eligible for all rights and protections of such. When the rights of two "individuals" are in conflicts, to the extent of one's survival, whose right will trump whose? Correct, very slippery slope.

[gc1765]

Because if a fetus is a living thing, a human, in the eventuality (of the social conservative thought) it'll be eligible for all rights and protections of such. When the rights of two "individuals" are in conflicts, to the extent of one's survival, whose right will trump whose? Correct, very slippery slope.

My arm is not a living thing, but if someone came by and broke my arm, you can be damn sure that they deserve to be punished for it. Of course, if I choose to break my own arm that is my own business. I don't see why a fetus shouldn't be given the same "rights" as my right arm.

[myata]

My arm is not a living thing, but if someone came by and broke my arm, you can be damn sure that they deserve to be punished for it. Of course, if I choose to break my own arm that is my own business. I don't see why a fetus shouldn't be given the same "rights" as my right arm.

You mean, we need a special law, to make it a separate offence, and a sentence, for causing harm to an arm? Leg? Foot? Shoulder? Finger? In your logic?

Surely, there're already laws against causing any bodily harm? The only reason for making a special case for the fetus, is to give it, fetus, special status. And, if that is the reason, why do you think they'd stop here? Would it worth the trouble?

[gc1765]

You mean, we need a special law, to make it a separate offence, and a sentence, for causing harm to an arm? Leg? Foot? Shoulder? Finger? In your logic?

Surely, there're already laws against causing any bodily harm? The only reason for making a special case for the fetus, is to give it, fetus, special status. And, if that is the reason, why do you think they'd stop here? Would it worth the trouble?

My understanding of the law is that if you harm someone else's arm, that is illegal...but if you harm someone else's fetus, that is not illegal. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that is correct then it doesn't make much sense does it?

[margrace]

My understanding of the law is that if you harm someone else's arm, that is illegal...but if you harm someone else's fetus, that is not illegal. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that is correct then it doesn't make much sense does it?

Ah so you are agreeing, a doctor could be charged for participating in an abortion if this law goes through. The people who preach capital punishment would sure like that.

Edited May 4, 2008 by margrace

[bk59]

The proposed law applies to people who cause the death of a foetus while committing or attempting to commit an offense against the mother. So it would make sense to look at what offenses we currently have that would apply. How would the foetus likely be killed / terminated (depending on how you think of a foetus)?

The sentence for assault is up to five years. For assault causing bodily harm the sentence is up to ten years. One would think that causing the death of a foetus would constitute bodily harm to the mother. Aggravated assault is assault that endangers the life of the complainant, in this case the mother. Aggravated assault is punishable by a sentence of up to fourteen years.

I would think that these offenses would apply. I can't see how you would harm a foetus without committing at the very least assault against the mother (5 years). More likely it would be assault causing bodily harm (10 years), with the potential to be aggravated assault depending on the circumstances (14 years).

Perhaps a person's position will depend on whether or not they think these sentences are enough. But the Bill does seem to give the foetus independent rights in 238.1(6) and status as a human being in 238.1(5). I have heard it said that similar laws in the US have been used to attack abortion rights, but I am not sure that would happen here given the proposed 238.1(7).

[bk59]

Ah so you are agreeing, a doctor could be charged for participating in an abortion if this law goes through. The people who preach capital punishment would sure like that.

That is unlikely. See 238.1(7):

(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of

(a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;

[gc1765]

Ah so you are agreeing, a doctor could be charged for participating in an abortion if this law goes through.

Ah so you are agreeing that if I had gangrene and had to have my arm amputated that the doctor who performed the surgery could be charged with a crime???

[myata]

My understanding of the law is that if you harm someone else's arm, that is illegal...but if you harm someone else's fetus, that is not illegal. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that is correct then it doesn't make much sense does it?

Yes you're wrong. The law provides for special consideration when harm is inflicted on a pregnant woman; pregnant woman is a woman with a living fetus; therefore this law indeed provides for some special consideration of the case with fetus; this is just one of the lines of argument this "precedent" law can be attempted to be extended in the future.

[gc1765]

Yes you're wrong. The law provides for special consideration when harm is inflicted on a pregnant woman; pregnant woman is a woman with a living fetus; therefore this law indeed provides for some special consideration of the case with fetus; this is just one of the lines of argument this "precedent" law can be attempted to be extended in the future.

You're saying that we already have laws protecting from harm against a fetus? So how does this bill change anything?

[myata]

You're saying that we already have laws protecting from harm against a fetus? So how does this bill change anything?

Funny; you don't understand; OK, one more time:

Certainly, because there's already a law against any bodily harm, there'd be no need, no point, no reason, for special laws against harm to fingers, toes, arms, legs, and so on, fetuses included. Correct, so far? Or, maybe, it's a glaring missed opportunity, and such laws (heads and shoulders, knees and toes could become an appropriate legal term) should be made?? Sure, if you so think...Why start with fetuses though? Wouldn't some other organ merit higher priority? I wonder....

Now here, somebody is making a point that fetus does need special consideration; it isn't like any other "bodily part"; i.e, has a special status; still following me? Now we can start speculating... if a fetus has that special status, what kind of status it could be? Perhaps that of a human? a living human maybe? and what if life of that "human" is in danger? Still there?

That Liberals, unlike other opposition parties, voted for this bill (many of them) is a shame; coinsided with the fact that the party can't come up with a clear statement on the issue sucks big deal. Try to convince us now that they're oh so different from the Harperites. After Afghanistan, and this, I got my binoculars out and still struggling to spot it, maybe you could help me?