Bill C484 - Abortions

[margrace]

It appears that this bill to come up for vote on March the 5th, 2008 will allow women who have had abortions to be charges with harming a fetus.

I knew Harper was pretty slippery but this takes the cake.

Edited February 17, 2008 by margrace

[Borg]

It appear that this bill to come up for vote on March the 5th, 2008 will allow women to have abortions to be charges with harming a fetus.

I knew Harper was pretty slippery but this takes the cake.

I think you better prove this - somehow I think you are twisting things to prove your dislike of the cons.

Pony up the proof or withdraw the accusation.

Tsk, tsk .......

Borg

Edited February 17, 2008 by Borg

[Melanie_]

From what I've read, women who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy can't be charged under this bill. It instead focuses on the choice of the woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and provides a way to charge someone for violating that choice. It seems to me that the focus is on the rights of the woman, which is why I am cautiously inclined to support it.

Ken Epp in the National Post

There are compelling reasons to support my private member's bill. The legislation is focused on protecting the choice of a woman to bring her pregnancy to term, and to give birth to her child. It gives support to grieving families and recognizes that if someone has taken away the life of an unborn child against the mother's will, that legal sanctions must be in place for that violation.

I know there will be opposition. Some activists will attempt to argue that the legal change I'm proposing will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion. But the bill is explicit on this point: The criminal is liable in regard to the unborn child only if he/she is already committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child. It is not an offence in Canadian law for a woman to obtain an abortion when that is her choice. This Bill makes it an offence to end the pregnancy when it is not her choice.

"For greater certainty," reads the proposed legislation, "this section does not apply in respect of conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented." It can't be clearer than that.

[Muddy]

It appears that this bill to come up for vote on March the 5th, 2008 will allow women who have had abortions to be charges with harming a fetus.

I knew Harper was pretty slippery but this takes the cake.

Do you people just make this stuff up as you go along? Harper and the CPC have no policy what so ever on the abortion issue. I wish there was. As of right now if a physician and a pregnant women wants to abort right up to the last moment before birth there is no law forbidding it. I am not a hard core anti abortionist but I personally feel there should be some restriction on timing. When does a fetus become a baby? Apparently in Canada it is only after actual birth. When my Mrs. was pregnant we always considered ourselves as with child. If a pregnant women is murdered ,the murder` is only charged with one murder. we need some kind of law determining whan a fetus becomes a child.

[maldon_road]

It appears that this bill to come up for vote on March the 5th, 2008 will allow women who have had abortions to be charges with harming a fetus.

I knew Harper was pretty slippery but this takes the cake.

(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;

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...1&File=24#1

Even though abortions are clearly excluded it is not expected to pass. Too touchy for many MPs this close to a possible election.

Two women are walking to an abortion clinic. One goes in and has an abortion. The other is hit by a cyclist in an intersection. She falls down and miscarries. The cyclist could be charged under this bill.

Edited February 17, 2008 by maldon_road

[Melanie_]

Do you people just make this stuff up as you go along? Harper and the CPC have no policy what so ever on the abortion issue. I wish there was. As of right now if a physician and a pregnant women wants to abort right up to the last moment before birth there is no law forbidding it. I am not a hard core anti abortionist but I personally feel there should be some restriction on timing. When does a fetus become a baby? Apparently in Canada it is only after actual birth. When my Mrs. was pregnant we always considered ourselves as with child. If a pregnant women is murdered ,the murder` is only charged with one murder. we need some kind of law determining whan a fetus becomes a child.

When your wife was pregnant, it sounds like you were happily anticipating becoming parents, and thought about the child that was to come. I remember that anticipation well, and the excitement of looking forward to a new baby through each of my pregnancies. But throughout the pregnancy, it was a fetus, and became a child once it was born.

I don't agree that there should be a legal restriction on timing - the choice can only be made by the woman herself. There can be counselling and discussion, she may talk to her partner, her doctor, her mother, her clergyman, but the final choice can only rest with her. Its not a decision that can be taken lightly, but I don't believe a woman should be coerced or forced into continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want.

[Melanie_]

Two women are walking to an abortion clinic. One goes in and has an abortion. The other is hit by a cyclist in an intersection. She falls down and miscarries. The cyclist could be charged under this bill.

I don't think the cyclist could be charged. From my quote above:

The criminal is liable in regard to the unborn child only if he/she is already committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child.

If the cyclist did not intentionally commit an offence against the woman, there is no crime here.

[Muddy]

When your wife was pregnant, it sounds like you were happily anticipating becoming parents, and thought about the child that was to come. I remember that anticipation well, and the excitement of looking forward to a new baby through each of my pregnancies. But throughout the pregnancy, it was a fetus, and became a child once it was born.

I don't agree that there should be a legal restriction on timing - the choice can only be made by the woman herself. There can be counselling and discussion, she may talk to her partner, her doctor, her mother, her clergyman, but the final choice can only rest with her. Its not a decision that can be taken lightly, but I don't believe a woman should be coerced or forced into continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want.

Are you saying you believe in late term abortions right up to the moment of birth?

[margrace]

Its really nice that it appears that some women on here trust Mr. Harper. Oh well when you find out different it will be too late. How can you trust someone who has always said he did not approve of abortion. He is a control freak

[Melanie_]

Its really nice that it appears that some women on here trust Mr. Harper. Oh well when you find out different it will be too late. How can you trust someone who has always said he did not approve of abortion. He is a control freak

Whoa, its stretching it to say I trust Harper! But I don't think this bill, as it is being presented, can be applied to women who choose to have an abortion, which is what the opening post claimed.

Are you saying you believe in late term abortions right up to the moment of birth?

I believe in a woman's right to choose. I wouldn't want to be in the position to have to make that choice, and I can't judge someone else who is in that position.

[Muddy]

Its really nice that it appears that some women on here trust Mr. Harper. Oh well when you find out different it will be too late. How can you trust someone who has always said he did not approve of abortion. He is a control freak

It was Harper`s people who manipulated the vote in the CPC convention in Montreal to not have any motion or policy on abortion. So don`t give us that crap. I am against late term abortions,but that does not mean I am against women `s rights. Thats just silly.

[maldon_road]

I don't think the cyclist could be charged. From my quote above:

If the cyclist did not intentionally commit an offence against the woman, there is no crime here.

What the bill says is that the fetus is not an independent life. If the woman wants to gets rid of it (which in Canada means at any time) she can. But if she wants to keep it it becomes a crime to harm it.

[Muddy]

What the bill says is that the fetus is not an independent life. If the woman wants to gets rid of it (which in Canada means at any time) she can. But if she wants to keep it it becomes a crime to harm it.

No it isn`t. If a pregnant women is deliberately murdered and the fetus dies ,the murder` is only charged with one murder.That of the women.

[Keepitsimple]

Picture an abusive husband or boyfriend - or even your everyday mugger: they assault a woman who is 7 months pregnant and kill the fetus/child. It appears that's what this bill targets. I agree with a previous poster that it won't pass - it's too sensitive to deal with and it's a tough one to put legal "parameters" around. Having said that, I would just as soon see our judges factor the "termination of a fetus" into the sentencing for these aggravated assaults....but that brings our "too soft on violent crime judges" into the argument. Seems like a bill with a noble intent but it's too difficult to manage.

[Melanie_]

What the bill says is that the fetus is not an independent life. If the woman wants to gets rid of it (which in Canada means at any time) she can. But if she wants to keep it it becomes a crime to harm it.

Only if there is a deliberate intention to harm the fetus or woman. From your link above:

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,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years if the person

(i) means to cause the child’s death, or

(ii) means to cause injury to the child or mother that the person knows is likely to cause the child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not;

[maldon_road]

Only if there is a deliberate intention to harm the fetus or woman. From your link above:

Correct.

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,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years if the person

(i) means to cause the child’s death, or

(ii) means to cause injury to the child or mother that the person knows is likely to cause the child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not;

[Alexandra]

It appears that this bill to come up for vote on March the 5th, 2008 will allow women who have had abortions to be charges with harming a fetus.

I knew Harper was pretty slippery but this takes the cake.

Would you please provide a link to the clause you are referring to?

Where within Bill C484 does it deal with what you are claiming Margrace? This Bill deals exclusively with charging a suspect with the death of the fetus as well as with the death of the mother, as in the "White" case in Alberta. This Bill has nothing to do with abortion.

It is inconceivable that this Bill-C484 could be misconstrued to such an extent as to state that women seeking/having abortions in Canada would be charged under the criminal code with murder. Except, of course, if a poster is so politically partisan and does not understand how such a blatant distortion of the truth damages the true intent of this Bill or any Bill dealing with the murder/death of a pregnant woman and her child.

FYI Margrace:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2...16/4727834.html

[Borg]

Would you please provide a link to the clause you are referring to?

Where within Bill C484 does it deal with what you are claiming Margrace? This Bill deals exclusively with charging a suspect with the death of the fetus as well as with the death of the mother, as in the "White" case in Alberta. This Bill has nothing to do with abortion.

It is inconceivable that this Bill-C484 could be misconstrued to such an extent as to state that women seeking/having abortions in Canada would be charged under the criminal code with murder. Except, of course, if a poster is so politically partisan and does not understand how such a blatant distortion of the truth damages the true intent of this Bill or any Bill dealing with the murder/death of a pregnant woman and her child.

FYI Margrace:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2...16/4727834.html

This is the second time margrace has been asked to prove her outlandish statement.

I suspect she not only will not - she cannot.

Simply attempting to stir the pot with no care about the truth.

Anyone but Harper is her creed.

Borg

[kengs333]

I don't agree that there should be a legal restriction on timing - the choice can only be made by the woman herself. There can be counselling and discussion, she may talk to her partner, her doctor, her mother, her clergyman, but the final choice can only rest with her. Its not a decision that can be taken lightly, but I don't believe a woman should be coerced or forced into continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want.

So your more concerned with a woman's abstract "right" to do what she wants rather than the unborn child's concrete "right" to exist?

As for a woman not being "coerced or forced into continuing a pregnancy she doesn't want"... in the vast majority of cases such situations could easily be avoided in the first place. But ultimately, if a woman felt that life was something sacred and to be valued, there would not be any need for coercion or forcing because the desire to carry out the pregnancy to full term would be the only logical choice.

[geoffrey]

Let me just be the rational asshole for a second here...

If the thing isn't alive, what does it matter? You shouldn't be able to harm a woman, but if the pro-choicers are right, then no one can be liable for killing a lifeless lump of flesh. Assault is really as bad as it could possibly be. It only harms the woman, the fetus is just worthless.

If anyone can murder an unborn child, than the mother can as well. There can't be two ways about it. It's human and has human rights or it doesn't. This half way stuff is nonsense feminism. What BS.

Edited February 18, 2008 by geoffrey

[myata]

Yes - in the best traditions of Harper's sneaky conservatism, they'll never say the whole thing clearly and at once. The point is to sneak in the notion that a fetus is a "human being". To set a foothold i.e.

You may ask, what's the point, from the "justice" perspective? A crime against a woman is already prosecuted under current criminal code? Such as quoted example of assault causing bodily harm, including termination of pregnancy. What is far less clear is all the creative interpretation that can be spun around this notion of "fetus" life. Such as charging doctors performing abortions maybe?

Yeah I know private member bill doesn't speak for a policy of a party. But we all know that Harpers knows very well how to control his crowd. So if something like this happen, I find it hard to believe it to be an innocent insignificant coincidence. Maybe, they are testing waters? And the absense of policy is there on purpose - for the Canadians to not know what that policy might be? It appears that everything that was said in other threads is indeed true. The bunch has their deep rooted views, and agendas, on every single social development in which a progress was made in the past years. Death penalty, gun control, abortions, gay marriage. They won't say it, but the truth is trickling out.

[maldon_road]

Yeah I know private member bill doesn't speak for a policy of a party. But we all know that Harpers knows very well how to control his crowd. So if something like this happen, I find it hard to believe it to be an innocent insignificant coincidence. Maybe, they are testing waters? And the absense of policy is there on purpose - for the Canadians to not know what that policy might be? It appears that everything that was said in other threads is indeed true. The bunch has their deep rooted views, and agendas, on every single social development in which a progress was made in the past years. Death penalty, gun control, abortions, gay marriage. They won't say it, but the truth is trickling out.

I don't see any testing of the waters. Harper stomped on the anti-abortion crowd in the policy convention of 2005 and had a farcical resolution that would have "reviewed" SSM. Stevie Wonder is not looking for socon votes. He wants to take them from Liberals.

[Melanie_]

This legislation could be interpreted to preserve a woman’s right to choose. If a woman has chosen to continue a pregnancy, and someone else causes that pregnancy to terminate, they have interfered with her right and thus could be charged. Roxanne Fernando here in Winnipeg was murdered by her former boyfriend because she refused to have an abortion. That murder in and of itself is reason enough to lock him up and throw away the key, but this legislation also recognizes that she had chosen to have a baby and he took that choice away from her.

I am uncomfortable with the wording of this bill, which is why I previously said “cautiously supportive”, and why I am now reconsidering that support completely. The bill consistently refers to the child, not the fetus, and it consistently refers to the mother, not the woman. Those are subtle, but important, semantics – during pregnancy there is no child or mother, yet. Those words only apply after birth. It also refers to the "death of the child", which opens up debate – something can only die if it is already alive – is Canadian law prepared to say a fetus is alive? When does life begin?

Also, this line from the bill gives me a shiver…..

It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being.

Once we have enshrined that concept in Canadian law, it does open up a slippery slope. The more I think about it, the more I think the general concept of the bill is good, but the details need a lot of work.

[Muddy]

I don't see any testing of the waters. Harper stomped on the anti-abortion crowd in the policy convention of 2005 and had a farcical resolution that would have "reviewed" SSM. Stevie Wonder is not looking for socon votes. He wants to take them from Liberals.

I know, I was there. There was a motion to outlaw partial birth abortions that Harper`s people manipulated so that it could not be debated or voted on.

Harper has no agenda to take away womens rights to choice. This is just nonsence.

[Regulus de Leo]

What a subversive bill! We can't go around letting people start to believe that an unborn child is human and worthy of protection.