Bill C484 - Abortions

[gc1765]

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?

It's also illegal to damage someone else's property. Are you going to try to argue that property has the same status as a human being?

It is clear that this bill is NOT limiting consensual abortions, and specifically says so....so give me a call when someone proposes a bill that does.

[myata]

It's also illegal to damage someone else's property. Are you going to try to argue that property has the same status as a human being?

No I don't need to argue anything; that argument will be used by those seeking to sneak in restrictions on abortion, including those who voted for it in the Liberal caucus, in the next incarnation of this bill. Just watch them.

You're so adept at asking questions... Here's my question to you (and sorry to remind, its' already been asked a few times in case you didn't notice): if we all, men and women, are already protected by the existing law, against harm to our bodies, what is the point of this bill? I.e. (please answer this clearly, because the question is as clear as it gets), why does the fetus, unlike any other organ, need a special protection in a law specially designed for that?

Edited May 5, 2008 by myata

[sharkman]

What is the point of Canadian laws protecting people's rights based on religion or sexual preference if they are already protected as Canadian citizens? We should therefore strike down all laws that make it a hate crime to attack gays. Not.

[maldon_road]

It is clear that this bill is NOT limiting consensual abortions, and specifically says so....so give me a call when someone proposes a bill that does.

I heard Ken Epp interviewed on the bill. He made it clear that the bill only covers situations where the woman wants to keep the baby. In other words, the choice is up to the woman. Odd comment about a bill that is supposed to be anti-abortion in tone.

[myata]

And the next day - after it's passed (if it's passed - I still hope, not), let me guess - he (or somebody else around) will have a revelation?

It's fun to watch you skipping around an easy, clear question: why is it (the bill, special status) needed, in the first place? If their intentions are this innocent and clear, surely it shouldn't be such an impossible thing?

[Kitchener]

What is the point of Canadian laws protecting people's rights based on religion or sexual preference if they are already protected as Canadian citizens? We should therefore strike down all laws that make it a hate crime to attack gays. Not.

Hate crime legislation does not make it one crime to harm the gay person and an extra crime to harm their gayness. Such laws go to the intent, not the consequences, of crimes. Typically they justify greater punishments by appeal to the greater harm done by hate crimes, inasmuch as hate crimes can provoke both copycat and retaliatory crimes, among other things.

Hate crime laws are not very useful analogies for the proposed "fetus protection" law.

[sharkman]

And the next day - after it's passed (if it's passed - I still hope, not), let me guess - he (or somebody else around) will have a revelation?

It's fun to watch you skipping around an easy, clear question: why is it (the bill, special status) needed, in the first place? If their intentions are this innocent and clear, surely it shouldn't be such an impossible thing?

You are missing something in your knee jerk reaction. Politicians do not pass bills in a vacuum. The very pro-abortion justice system in Canada would strike down any law they interpret unfavorably towards abortion rights. Those who are panicked about this are quite wrong.

[sharkman]

Hate crime legislation does not make it one crime to harm the gay person and an extra crime to harm their gayness. Such laws go to the intent, not the consequences, of crimes. Typically they justify greater punishments by appeal to the greater harm done by hate crimes, inasmuch as hate crimes can provoke both copycat and retaliatory crimes, among other things.

Hate crime laws are not very useful analogies for the proposed "fetus protection" law.

Yes, I now know that in your opinion, Hate crime laws are not very useful analogies for the proposed "fetus protection" law, but you haven't provided any reasons or evidence to back up your opinion that you don't like the analogy.

In the same way that crimes against a person's religion or sexual preference are set apart as separate crimes even though they could be covered by assault and battery laws, so too crimes intended to hurt a fetus that a mother wants to keep should be set apart as individual crimes even though such an attack could be covered under current crime laws.

[Kitchener]

Yes, I now know that in your opinion, Hate crime laws are not very useful analogies for the proposed "fetus protection" law, but you haven't provided any reasons or evidence to back up your opinion that you don't like the analogy.

What are you talking about?

You just quoted me explaining three key disanalogies.

It's not enough to just make little words appear on the screen; they should have some connection to reality. When you quote someone doing X, and then say "You didn't do X!", it raises serious questions about you.

In the same way that crimes against a person's religion or sexual preference are set apart as separate crimes even though they could be covered by assault and battery laws, so too crimes intended to hurt a fetus that a mother wants to keep should be set apart as individual crimes even though such an attack could be covered under current crime laws.

Except for the key respects in which this comparison fails, you mean.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Kitchener

[sharkman]

Oh, so that must be your whole argument then? You may not be able to face the reality that your argument is only opinion. Whatever.

Edited May 6, 2008 by sharkman

[myata]

No - looks like the simple, clear question just can't be answered.... They did it, but just can't explain why. Must be, divine inspiration... Of course, fits quite naturally into Harpers one little step at a time strategy - you know, piece of death penalty here, bit of pro-life there. But Liberals? Is that the kind of reinvention we're going to see from them, now?

[margrace]

Harper would dearly love to take a page from Mike Harris's book in Ontario, remember the huge omnibus bill in Ontario, because he had a majority he got it passed easily and since it was so huge most opposition members had no idea what was in it.

But you know the Ontario Library Association was well up on these type of tactics, they had been and are continually on the watch for any government laws that limit acces of freedom to libraries for the common person. So they waged a campaign and the government had to back down on cutting support to libraries.

Canadians think that because this is a Democracy that all is well, they don't have to pay attention but the only way we can keep our Democratic country is to be continually on the alert. All these bills being slid through right now can hurt everyone of us and we need to pay attention. Stop sleeping wake up Canadians.

[Melanie_]

A pregnant woman was murdered here in Winnipeg 2 weeks ago, along with her husband, leaving behind a one year old daughter. The prime suspect is the husband's nephew, a Hell's Angels affiliate, who is also suspected in the murder of his parents and another uncle 2 years ago (1.3 million dollar inheritance at stake). This is the kind of case this bill is directed at, and I expect there will be support for it here as this case continues.

[Kitchener]

A pregnant woman was murdered here in Winnipeg 2 weeks ago, along with her husband, leaving behind a one year old daughter. The prime suspect is the husband's nephew, a Hell's Angels affiliate, who is also suspected in the murder of his parents and another uncle 2 years ago (1.3 million dollar inheritance at stake). This is the kind of case this bill is directed at, and I expect there will be support for it here as this case continues.

The bill is aimed at multiple-murdering biker-gang sociopathic killers for financial gain?

That's the first I've heard of it.

I hope you're wrong about support for the bill arising from this case. It's a truism that single, extreme, and largely irrelevant cases make for bad law; but they make for bad reasons to support a law, too.

[myata]

This is the kind of case this bill is directed at, and I expect there will be support for it here as this case continues.

If the aim was to prevent harm to pregnant, the way would have been to add it as a factor in sentencing, in the existing law (after a good discussion that is - how far we want to go defining special categories of citizens which are more "valuable" than everybody else?). This bill is specifically centered around harm to fetus. Nice try selling it as another goodie from Harper's "get tough on crime" basket. As it stands though, it's pure and simple about writing down something, anything, that would give it, fetus, some special unique status, or privilege. With the view, no doubt (otherwise why go through all the trouble?) to have it expanded should an opportunity (majority?) present itself.

[Melanie_]

If the aim was to prevent harm to pregnant, the way would have been to add it as a factor in sentencing, in the existing law (after a good discussion that is - how far we want to go defining special categories of citizens which are more "valuable" than everybody else?). This bill is specifically centered around harm to fetus. Nice try selling it as another goodie from Harper's "get tough on crime" basket. As it stands though, it's pure and simple about writing down something, anything, that would give it, fetus, some special unique status, or privilege. With the view, no doubt (otherwise why go through all the trouble?) to have it expanded should an opportunity (majority?) present itself.

I'm not trying to sell anything as a goodie from Harper - far from it. I'm no supporter of Harper or the Conservatives, and I'm very hesitant about this bill, as I've stated earlier in this thread. I just see the recent murder of the pregnant woman in Winnipeg as relevent to this bill, and likely to be used in an attempt to justify it. My concern continues to be around the wording of the bill, referring to the "baby" rather than the "fetus" and the "mother" rather than the "woman". This attaches warm and fuzzy emotions to laws, and once that language is used once it can be used again in other laws.

[myata]

Exactly; which makes the real intent behind the bill as clear as it gets: to have an unborn fetus legally branded as a living human being ("baby"). Just watch the next step.

And of course, using appalling cases to justify their questionable policies is a hallmark of Harper's conservatives. No surprise there.

What really concerns me though is the role of the Liberals in the successful (so far) sailing of this bill. That was (yet another) chance to affirm their progressive principles; and differentiate themselves from veiled social conservative ouvertures of Harpers. And what do we see? Nothing that would make me want to support them.. It stinks.

[White Doors]

Yes, I'm sure of they referred to the fetus as 'waste product' the 'pro-choice' movement would be elated...

[M.Dancer]

Yes, I'm sure of they referred to the fetus as 'waste product' the 'pro-choice' movement would be elated...

Don't be silly. The correct term is non viable parasitic organism.

[myata]

Good, at least now we all agree that was indeed the intent of this bill. I.e. Harper's conservatives are indeed taking a position (guess what) on this issue. Despite all the assurances that they won't. Remember? Another example of holding to promises? Or just sticking to their core principles?

BTW, is there anybody from the Liberals here, to comment on their stance? Or should we deduce it from another abstained vote?

[sharkman]

Can we all at least agree that this is an emotionally charged issue? I mentioned this earlier, but perhaps someone could tell me where I'm wrong. In Canada, the record is very clear, there are NO doubts. Our courts are very pro abortion. If this were an attempt at weakening abortion laws, our supreme court would simply not stand for it, calling it unconstitutional. They have done this before with other laws they didn't like.

On the other hand, let's say it's actually an attempt at protecting a wanted fetus from harm. I hope no one here would disagree that an enraged father, deciding that she's not going to have his baby and saddle him with child support payments, attacking the woman to end the fetus's life is sickening. Or that an attack on a pregnant woman by someone who wasn't intending to harm the fetus is still worse than attacking a woman who is not pregnant.

Shouldn't there be laws to address this? I know some don't like my analogy, but it still holds water. Hate crimes in Canada are similar. An attack on a black person is already covered by crime laws, did they really need to pass hate crime laws? Yes, because it goes to the motive of the attack. It seems the Liberal party feels the same.

[myata]

On the other hand, let's say it's actually an attempt at protecting a wanted fetus from harm.

Harm to any part of a pregnant woman's body is already a crime. You're only confirming that with this bill they wanted to make a statement that an unborn fetus merits some special status, and/or protection, in its own right. This is the first step in recognizing it as an independent human being that would make strong argument for restricting the right to abortion in the future.

An attack on a black person is already covered by crime laws, did they really need to pass hate crime laws?

The analogy is incorrect; the point of the hate law is not that the victim is of certain race, but that the crime was motivated by hate (racial, ethnical, etc).

Edited May 8, 2008 by myata

[White Doors]

Don't be silly. The correct term is non viable parasitic organism.

true!

[Bryan]

Harm to any part of a pregnant woman's body is already a crime. You're only confirming that with this bill they wanted to make a statement that an unborn fetus merits some special status, and/or protection, in its own right. This is the first step in recognizing it as an independent human being that would make strong argument for restricting the right to abortion in the future.

I certainly hope you are right, but I just can't see that happening. Not as long as there are so many left-wing judges out there.

[the janitor]

Abortion was more of an issue for me before I became a man.