Author
|
Topic: Bill C-484 - the continuing saga
|
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 11 March 2008 03:47 PM
Thanks to the timely and good info here about the yea saying Liberal MPs, our OWL women are organizing hard copy petitions, a letter writing campaign and phone campaign.We are targetting all of the yea and abscent Liberal MPs, we are setting up a media/parliament watch team to try to nip some of this anti woman nonsense in the bud. This has been a tipping point issue for Liberal women in our area---we clearly need to work harder and insure that women's issues get much higher profile both within the party and in ouir communities. We will try to coordinate this action with the other women's groups in our area. I still feel so hollowed out about this.
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 11 March 2008 04:24 PM
http://section15.ca/ private member’s bill passes second reading - so what’s next? This includes all the contact info for the members of the standing committee. And more! Info! Contacts! Background! Motivation! Positive vibes to crack the seemingly impenetrable democratic wall of procedural democracy thingy ma jig in action! It's all there. Now go tell the folks who will be submitting a report with recommendations and possible amendments to the bill for third reading in the Commons (if this government is still standing by that point) what you think. Whooo!
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 11 March 2008 04:29 PM
I would hate to dwell on the fact that there is one woman amongst the 12 MPs on that standing committee. I would really hate to make a big stink about that. Or to mention that all 12 seem to be very visibly minorities, in the global sense. Justice and human rights! Yeah! Outside the room, please. We'll call you when we are ready to hear from you. [ 11 March 2008: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668
|
posted 11 March 2008 11:19 PM
I have yet to hear any response to my letters to the JUST committee members. It is an outrage that this blatant anti-abortion bill actually got passed at a second reading with a vote that included Liberals voting yea and one (Peter Stoffer) NDP yea and lots of Liberals absent. It's ridiculous that Epp's private member bill got so far. But more importantly, it is dangerous. The political landscape is shifting beneath our feet and in a dangerous direction. [ 11 March 2008: Message edited by: laine lowe ]
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792
|
posted 12 March 2008 05:25 AM
Do people really think that this bill poses a threat to legalized abortion? The bill specifically metnions that this does not cover abortions.I DO think both sides on the issue are using it to help advance their own viewpoins on teh abortion issue. Pro-lifers are trying to at least influence Canadians to think of the fetus as having some value and pro-choicers are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to the fetus. Both are using this legislation to try to shape public opinion. But at the end of the day, that's not what the bill is about. And I really don't have too much of a problem with tougher criminal penalties for people who murder or assault pregnant women who choose to carry their pregnancy to term. Neither do 70% of Canadians, which is WAY higher than the percentage of Canadians who outrightly oppose abortion.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367
|
posted 12 March 2008 05:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by Indiana Jones: Do people really think that this bill poses a threat to legalized abortion? The bill specifically metnions that this does not cover abortions.
In spite of such explicit statements, can it not set a dangerous precedent that a fetus is not a potential life, but a life with rights separate from the woman who's carrying it? The anti-choicers are probably never going to recriminalize abortion in one shot. But if they chip away at it they can severely restrict a woman's rights over her own body. This is a backdoor attempt at changing a larger body of judicial thinking.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440
|
posted 12 March 2008 05:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by Indiana Jones: But at the end of the day, that's not what the bill is about.
It doesn't matter what people think this bill is about and that applies to its author, even if you take his statement of intention at face value. What matters is what legal precedents might be established by its passage and what any lawyer with an agenda might be able to do with those precedents down the road. You don't even have to look to the body of the bill to begin to see a problem. Look at its proper title: quote: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)
Giving legal recognition to "an unborn child" creates a separate legal entity whose rights may be in conflict with the mother's. That's where the concern starts. We're not talking about anyone's subjective intentions; we're talking about the law and the power of precedent. See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in the U.S. which, in 1886, established the precedent that corporations have the same rights as persons under American law. How much mischief has flowed from that little number?Edited for spelling. [ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792
|
posted 12 March 2008 05:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by Will S:
In spite of such explicit statements, can it not set a dangerous precedent that a fetus is not a potential life, but a life with rights separate from the woman who's carrying it? The anti-choicers are probably never going to recriminalize abortion in one shot. But if they chip away at it they can severely restrict a woman's rights over her own body. This is a backdoor attempt at changing a larger body of judicial thinking.
I think that IS a concern, Will S. But this bill explicitly does not do that. If anything, it upholds the legality of abortion by singling it out as not being affected by this law. I DO think it's an attempt to influence public opinion and maybe it will, maybe it won't. But I don't think that the fact that it has the potential to influence opinion on the abortion issue is a good enough reason to be so up in arms over what seems to be a pretty reasonable principle: tougher penalties for those who, in the commission of a murder or assault on a woman, cause her to miscarry.
My wife is pregnant right now. We have every intention of having a baby together and are looking forward to the birth (her especially!). If, G-d forbid, someone were to attack my wife and cause a miscarriage, you're damn right that I'd like to see the bastard punished far more harshly than if the assault only caused a bruise or something like that.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792
|
posted 12 March 2008 05:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by pogge: Look at its proper title: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence) [ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
I think the msot pertinent part of the title is the phrase "while committing an offence." The bill only applies in situations where a criminal offence is already occurring and where that offence has led to a miscarraige. So if someone beats their wife/girlfriend, for example, that is an offence and if in the course of that assault, they cause a miscarriage, THEN the bill applies. Performing an abortion is NOT a criminal offence so it would not, could not be applied here.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792
|
posted 12 March 2008 06:08 AM
quote: Originally posted by remind: How nice, to see a male voice stating all of us women are off base with this. Completely ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, [ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Well, according to a poll I saw (I believe it was Environics), 70% of the Canadian public supports the bill. I haven't seen the cross-tabs based on gender, but you'd ahve to assume that that number includes a whole bunch of women. So are you saying all of THOSE women are off base? As to 'evidence to the contrary', there has been no 'evidence'. There has been 'speculation to the contrary'. I'm not a lawyer, but if any lawyer on the board could explain in legal terms how this bill which is about violent crime and specifically upholds the legality of abortion will constitute the recriminalization of abortion, I'd be very interested to hear it. I jsut don't see the logical scenario of how that can happen.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792
|
posted 12 March 2008 06:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
As we have stated many times before, there are ways of carrying harsh penalties against people who force pregnant women to miscarry against their will without giving the fetus legal status and calling a fetus a "child" in the legislation.This is clearly anti-choice incrementalism. If you want to know why we think so, please do feel free to read the last three or four threads on the subject.
Thanks for that, Michelle. I will go back and read them. But, briefly as to your point about giving legal status to the fetus (if that's what it does)...it doesn't give it legal status as a "human being." It gives it the legal status that if it is harmed while committing a crime, that can be taken into consideration in criminal charges. If someone were to damage my house and be charged for it, that is not granting "legal status" to my house as anything other than property. And yes, I think the use of the term 'child' in teh bill's title is rather sneaky way to influence opinion, but that's standard operating procedure for politicians. The Patriot Act isn't really about patriotism, the Leave No CHild Hehind Act leaves plenty of children behind, the Clean Air Act actually makes our air dirtier, etc. etc. etc.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 12 March 2008 07:35 AM
I must say it was fascinating to have a pro-lifer who thinks he has a clever approach visit us, if ever so briefly.Besides the giveaway title of Bill C-484, consider this: A non-pregnant woman is assaulted, and the injuries are so grave she loses the ability to bear children. Which section of 484 covers that? Correct. None. Why not? Surely the protectors of womanhood would want to deter such crimes? Because the authors of this bill don't give a damn about women, or childbearing, or pregnancy, or assaults. Their sole and only aim is to focus on the foetus as a way of re-opening a back door to banning abortion. Let's never forget that the same governments which banned abortion in the past also had legislated forced sterilization in all kinds of instances. In Canada. It's the same people.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 12 March 2008 09:57 AM
Here are some of the really good bits from Mathyssen's remarks: quote: I believe it is essential to this debate to discuss an area of concern that the Conservative government has failed to address, and that is, of course, violence against women. Homicide is a leading killer of pregnant women and it is well known that violence against women increases during pregnancy.What the government needs to address is better measures to protect women in general and pregnant women in particular from domestic violence. A foetal homicide law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth.
And: quote: If the government is truly concerned about women and their children, it will abandon its recent budget and reverse its unacceptable policies, policies that have removed equality from the mandate of the women's program, canceled the court challenges program, closed 12 regional offices of Status of Women Canada, and ended research, lobbying and advocacy on behalf of women in a dismal budget document that failed to reintroduce a national housing strategy or affordable decent housing.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 12 March 2008 10:47 AM
Great statement. Why only on March 10? Because of the outcry by many supporters, petition signers, emails, phone calls, online posts in forums like these.So: 1. Better late than never. 2. Congratulations to the NDP for listening.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
montrealais
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9163
|
posted 12 March 2008 05:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Besides the giveaway title of Bill C-484, consider this:A non-pregnant woman is assaulted, and the injuries are so grave she loses the ability to bear children. Which section of 484 covers that? Correct. None. Why not? Surely the protectors of womanhood would want to deter such crimes?
Hell, have the Protectors of Womanhood done thing one about violence against women at any point in their tenure? Of course not. They closed three quarters of the Status of Women offices and cancelled Court Challenges. I agree with and I think we should widely use a line that Yvon Godin used at the Quebec breakthrough conference in Rimouski: the Conservatives don't deserve the vote of a single woman in Canada.
From: Montreal | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
montrealais
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9163
|
posted 12 March 2008 05:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: Apparently some press in Germany have picked this up and covered it. The following link was posted by Joyce over at BnR.http://diestandard.at/?url=/?id=1204643440723
Actually Austria, judging from the TLD abbreviation .at. It's fun seeing Jack in German: quote: "Der Vorschlag ist der Beginn der Rekriminalisierung von Abtreibung und deshalb spricht sich die NDP dagegen aus", erklärte Jack Layton, Chef der linksgerichteten Neuen Demokratischen Partei.
From: Montreal | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 March 2008 09:07 AM
quote: Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski: Pro-choicers are trying to influence Canadians to think that women have some value, while "pro-lifers" are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to women.
Going to reword that Scott, and thanks for pointing out that nonsensical post of Indiana Jones which I somehow missed. Pro-choicers are trying to influence Canadians to get them to understand that women have equal value, while "pro-lifers" are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to women -------------------------------------- Not directed at scott, just a segue to say: It makes me very chagrined that some people try to depict pro-choice peoples as hard unfeeling people and/or yammer on about a fetus having societal value, and what could that fetus have been, or not been. The bottom line is women, are equal, they are not just breeding vessels to churn out children "for society" anymore than men are just sperm to do the same thing. Outrageous over blown sentimentality ascribed to a fetuses value is not correct, or realistic, nor is it pertinent to anything in regards to being pro-choice. Nor is a person stating that they could have been aborted and so they are against it. In fact, I liken this juvenile sentimentality to those type of people who get puppies and kittens because they are cute and cuddly, or for some other equally nonsensical reason, then when the puppy becomes a dog, and the kitten becomes a cat, they can't deal with them, or lose interest, and send them off to the SPCA. It denotes a lack of maturity in both emotional and rational thought, directing perceptions and in turn actions. Women, who know the truth of pro-choice and equality, understand that a fetus could become a person, but so what if it could have, or would have? Someone else's potential life is not the issue/point, the issue/point is in fact what the woman needs/feels and/or believes and her unequivocal right to do so. Why does a woman have to be imposed with the mandatory default position, according to some, to give, what could be, their actual life into the service of a potential other person? As that is what "fetuses" are, potential other people, they are not babies/children, and they are not possessions. Some women want to bring a potential life/person to fruition, some women do not, some cannot. Value to society, and self, cannot be ascribed to women on this basis, just as it cannot, and is not, ascribed to men. Ascribing value to a women based solely upon her ability to have "potential" other people, or not, is wrong, and it is dismissive of women's worth in ALL other areas of society, and it is desregarding the reality of NOW. People talk about what the fetus could have been, such as they do in the link that Ghislaine put forth. They dismiss this notion in the blog piece, which correctly needed doing, but they do it for the incorrect reason. Those who say; "what if it would've been" fail to consider the "now" and see only some mythical, and perhaps unrealizable, potential value, at sometime in the equally mythological future. Moreover, there is pre-subscribing an added value that is only for the male gender. As again, by default, babies, who will become women, must keep on being breeders to have any value to society under anti-choice dictates and perhaps with some who think a fetus has value beyond/above the carrying woman and what she wants for HER life. The "now" potential is, in actual fact, residing in the woman, and that is what is being overlooked by anti-choicers of both genders, and by those who would ascribe to "only" women the position of breeder for future persons. A woman who decided not to give her life in service to another, by giving birth, could go on to find a cure for cancer or AIDS, or become the next Madame Curry, or Elizabeth I, or something other that may not have been found/done had she decided to only give her life into the service of a "potential" other person. That is a real measurable societal loss, not some sentimental mythical potential future loss, that CANNOT be known in the NOW. Beyond all of this is the absolute fact that equality means leaving the choice of what a woman wants to do with HER body, and HER life, up to her. And the NOW person's worth, outweighs any "potential" future person's mythical worth. [ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 13 March 2008 10:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by morningstar: I also rarely see reference to the facts that by chosing to have babies, women make very real, uncompensated sacrifices physically and emotionally. Pregnancy has a very real effect on the maternal immune system, the uterus and abdominal underpinnings pay a price for reproduction later in life(incontinence anyone?), not to mention saggy boobs and stetch marks. All of my childless friends in their 50's look fabulous and feel great, the rest of us have paid for our pregnancies in our bodies and hearts. Our childless friends also have more money and less worry. I never hear these real disadvantages given any airing---perhaps the "sacredness" of bringing yet more little consumers into the world makes these things seem somehow shallow. anyway---I'm so tired of the whole thing---I sometimes wonder if this contrivance to control women by attempting to force them to reproduce will ever stop.
I am pro-choice, but personally don't agree with abortion morally and would never have one. However, as remind points out each of us as women has a right to our own body and the choice must legally be up to each individual woman. The Supreme Court upheld this on the basis that no one can be forced to use their body in the service of anyone else. I am very uncomfortable with people who abort babies due to their sex, disability, etc. - but again it is their right, disgusting as I may find such things. Morningstar, I have to say that your points about stretchmarks etc. strike me as even more trivial than aborting due to not wanting a child with a disability. Childless women in their 50s may not have stretchmarks, but they also don't have grandchildren and don't have much hope of having many visitors the older they get. If there was noone but childless women in their 50s around who looked great, they would be desperately trying to find somewhere to retire to where there was a next generation.
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 March 2008 11:04 AM
quote: Originally posted by morningstar: ...I never hear these real disadvantages given any airing---perhaps the "sacredness" of bringing yet more little consumers into the world makes these things seem somehow shallow. anyway---I'm so tired of the whole thing---I sometimes wonder if this contrivance to control women by attempting to force them to reproduce will ever stop.
Very good points, that I alluded to, but choose not to detail as, IMV, they are differet issues than the fundamental right to have self determination of one's body and to have one's value as a whole person in the NOW be understood. Having said that, I was hoping someone, such as yourself, would extend the further and unspoken facets of how bearing a future person impacts a woman uniquely. And what are some other mythological, and/or sexist, beliefs that foster an anti-choice position. The notion, that wanting to have a non-worn body and a different life-style is shallow, is in itself shallow and immature, say nothing of how incorrect it is. Then when you bring the "sacredness" aspect into it, there is an even greater undeveloped thought process, and emotional immaturity.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 March 2008 11:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by Ghislaine: ...I am very uncomfortable with people who abort babies due to their sex, disability, etc. - but again it is their right, disgusting as I may find such things.
Really you are speaking of something completely different than basic equality pro-choice understanding and positioning.You are speaking of "selective breeding" which uses abortion as a tool. quote: Morningstar, I have to say that your points about stretchmarks etc. strike me as even more trivial than aborting due to not wanting a child with a disability.
She was not just depicting stretchmarks, as the only physical toll women suffer from in the after effects of pregnancy. Moreover, given society today's focus on body image, it plays a bigger part than it ever did before, in a woman's emotional and mental well being.
quote: Childless women in their 50s may not have stretchmarks, but they also don't have grandchildren and don't have much hope of having many visitors the older they get.
Did you not think about what you were saying here, or do you really not have a developed capacity to see what exactly it is you are saying?You have religated the having of children to be a selfish action based upon what your personal and future social needs may be. Or to having children as possessions/insurance, to combat any future care needs you may have. Or indeed a shallow action designed to further your gene pool into the future. None of these are good reasons to have children, they are selfish and self centered, and indeed harmful to the child who will become a person. If this sentiment exists out there, no wonder children, and adults, suffer esteem issues when they have been raised to see themselves as only being "something" that is beneficial in the future to the parents. quote: If there was noone but childless women in their 50s around who looked great, they would be desperately trying to find somewhere to retire to where there was a next generation.
This is a logical fallacy and nothing more.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 13 March 2008 11:28 AM
My letter to the Liberals who supported C-484, i.e. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] with cc. to [email protected] and [email protected]o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Sirs and Ms. Guarnieri, You voted on March 5 with most of the Conservative MPs to support a private bill that would give legal standing to fetuses in criminal proceedings. If you are opposed to women's right to choose in matters of pregnancy outcomes, read no further, this bill does exactly what its anti-choice sponsors intend for it. But if you think that a pregnancy's issue is something to be decided by each woman and her doctor, if you have any respect for the population's majority opinion in this regard and for the 1988 Supreme Court decision that ruled that fetuses had no such standing, PLEASE RECONSIDER the Liberal Party's Godawful division on this vote and your own misguided support for the notion of giving fetuses legal standing, an open door to recriminalizing abortion, as a number of anti-choice activists are already clamoring on their websites.*** If you don't and go on supporting Jake Epp's foot-in-the-door bill, you can be sure I will put all my energies into convincing everyone I know of the Liberal Party's utter irresponsibility in this matter and readiness to flush away women's entitlements. There are much better ways to protect pregnant women and head off their assaulters than to make them any wman the guardian of an "unborn victim", open to clear and present dangers of disentitlement by the tribunals or the State. PLEASE read up on the issue at www.arcc-cdac.ca. This already happening in the U.S. and the Liberal Party will have a shameful legacy to live down if it helps the Conservatives install such a dangerous precedent in Canadian legislation. Women and men such as I will make every effort across this land to make you understand how strongly we feel about this issue. Pink canapés and mini-burgers don't cut the mustard as expressions of LPC concern for women's rights! Awaiting your response and explanations for this travesty of the political process. Martin Dufresne ***URLs of anti-choice websites o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Another slightly different version went out to the Liberals and BQ members who were absent. Feel free to cut and paste away to let them hear your own indignation.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 March 2008 12:48 PM
I have not heard back from any Liberal MP's, who voted against or were missing, not even Dion's office, acknowledging a receipt of my letter taking them to task. Though, as I noted in another thread, I have heard back from 1 Liberal MP regarding the Afghanistan extension.Also, I never wrote to any Liberal MP's, nor any NDP MP actually, other than those who responded back to my initial post requesting a nay vote, thanking them for voting nay. The only reason I thanked some of those who voted nay, was because they responded to me in the first place, and I was thanking them for their response, as well as noting they have the clear sight to realize votes on human rights is automatically a "no" vote when it comes to anything trying to erode them.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595
|
posted 13 March 2008 01:17 PM
quote: I am pro-choice, but personally don't agree with abortion morally and would never have one.
Can’t say I’m surprised at your comment but I am confused by it a bit if you’re pro-choice but are morally opposed to abortion your pro-choice how? I don’t think not wanting an abortion personally is a moral position in anyway, is not wanting a tattoo a moral position? Also if you’re morally opposed to something it means you think its immoral which I think is just judgemental and I feel like I am dealing with Elizabeth may all of a sudden. Some people just don’t want children – what’s moral or immorally about it? And for the record never is a very long time. Then again if I never had to have morality stuffed done my throat again it would be too soon. quote: Morningstar, I have to say that your points about stretchmarks etc. strike me as even more trivial than aborting due to not wanting a child with a disability. Childless women in their 50s may not have stretchmarks, but they also don't have grandchildren and don't have much hope of having many visitors the older they get.
This is a very callous view of another’s choices, and more than a bit judgemental. You do realize you can walk into any Retirement Home and find people with children that have no visitors either? And is having grandchildren like the Gold medal of life or something? The only way you can have a fulfilling meaningful life with others if you have grandchildren? I work closely with several people who have children with disabilities, two of them had every test possible during the subsequent pregnancies. Having a child with a disability is rewarding, joyful, complicated, heartbreaking, financially challenging and can cause the non-disabled children in the family to feel alienated and these are people just dealing with disabilities that are primarily just mental delays with minor (currently) physical issues – but likely none of the children will ever live on their own and will never be able to care for their parents. So there is nothing trivial happening when people decide to have an abortion if faced with raising a child with a disability, how fucking cruel to suggests that it’s trivial. I am extremely angry over that comment. It’s an agony for people to be faced with that decision, even the possibility of making a decision either way. [ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440
|
posted 13 March 2008 01:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: If you don't and go on supporting Jake Epp's foot-in-the-door bill ...
Who's Jake Epp? Normally that would be a lame flame but in this case I think the details matter. If you're encouraging everyone to use your letter as a model, you should try and get this stuff right. This is the guy who's sponsoring the bill. [ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 March 2008 01:59 PM
An article in the Chronicle Herald about Stoffer. quote: Mr. Layton said last week he would have a talk with Mr. Stoffer about his vote, as the NDP is strongly pro-choice. He said Monday that Mr. Stoffer has explained to him that he voted for the bill only for it to be studied. But if he voted for it on third reading, which would send it to the Senate for approval, Mr. Layton might have a problem. "The NDP has been very, very clear as a pro-choice party, and there’s no question this law opens the door, despite the government’s rhetoric, to challenging a woman’s right to choose," Mr. Layton said Monday. "So that’s certainly an issue of fundamental principle to our party." Mr. Stoffer said Monday he wanted the bill to go to committee so that MPs could hear from experts about what its effect would actually be. Mr. Stoffer often seems to push at the limits of party discipline within the NDP. In 2005, when the same-sex marriage bill came to a vote, NDP MP Bev Desjarlais voted against it, in defiance of her party. Mr. Layton stripped her of her responsibility as a critic and she lost the nomination battle in her riding. Mr. Stoffer said at the time he thought she should have been free to vote her conscience on the bill.
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1042959.html Experts? Who in the hell are experts on this in the HoC committee? What a load of crap from Stoffer, the only experts there are in this regard is the SCC, so are we supposed to accept a yea vote from him too, so that it can be kicked over to the actual experts if it is passed and becomes law and goes to a SCC challenge? Voting conscience on human right actions that will deprive others of their human rights is actually stripping others of their freedom of conscience and action. h/t BnR [ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 March 2008 02:18 PM
Interesting twist to this, Art Hanger has disbanded the Justice and Human Rights committee so they are not going to be looking at anything for who knows how long, but for sure at least until after the Easter break. quote: Dear colleagues,You may have received the updated notice of meeting, cancelling today’s Justice committee meeting. As you know, until recently our committee has been successfully studying legislation and churning out public policy, despite partisan differences. That's what MPs are elected to do. I am disheartened by recent attempts to subvert these proceedings and turn our successful committee into a partisan inquisition, particularly on a motion that is clearly out of order under Standing Order 108(2). As chairman, it is my responsibility to do what is necessary to restore the committee’s integrity. This committee embarrassed itself yesterday in front of a witness we ourselves had invited by consensus. This cannot go on. I have presided over this committee in good faith, and have acted to uphold the rules and integrity of this parliamentary institution. I hope this temporary adjournment will allow all sides to calm down during the Easter break and reconsider the greater interest of having a parliament that functions and follows its own rules. I look forward to reconvening a restored and functional Justice Committee when the House comes back. Yours respectfully, Art Hanger, MP Chair, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Kady's blog
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 March 2008 06:59 PM
There is a call to action by the ARCC-CDAC occuring, as posted by Joyce at BnR, and shamelessly quoted in full here . quote: Hi everyone, There's been a steady stream of anti-choice op-eds and articles published in the media lately, regarding Bill C-484, which passed Second Reading in Parliament on March 5. This bill would create a separate offence for killing a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked. It endangers abortion rights by creating fetal personhood, and would also interfere with the autonomy of all pregnant woman.We'd like your help in countering the anti-choice misinformation around this bill. We'd also like to show support to the writers opposing the bill. Could you please take a moment to write a letter or letters to the editor? Below are links to recently published pieces as well as how to send your letters. If you need the full text of an article, let us know (some papers require that you purchase online articles.) Letters should be brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression - pithy. Providing your unique or provocative perspective will increase the chance of publication. The receipt and publication of many, many letters would certainly send a clear message of opposition to this bill to both the media and the public. Please also cc your letter to your MP. For further information on the bill, visit our website at http://www.arcc-cdac.ca From the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada [email protected]
grrrrrr, can't get the direct links to the articles to work, so please go to BnR or arcc-cdac to get them, if you are interested. http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22143&start=40 [ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Pro Choice
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15053
|
posted 16 March 2008 03:50 PM
Wow. You all seem to forget that you too were a fetus at one time in your mother's womb. Had you been an unborn victim of crime, the penalties to the person that caused your death would be less than theft or cruelty to animals. I don't know any of you but seems to me that your life is worth more justice than that.A mother that chooses her child, born or unborn should know that BOTH of them are protected by the laws of our country. Abortion is a separate issue and it is unfortunate that some people are so determined to protect that so-called "right" that they lose sight of protecting the RIGHTS of an unborn child. We all know that abortion is ending the life of an unborn child, whether it makes you feel better to call it a fetus or not. (If you truly think a fetus is not life then re-examine yourself.) Our laws permit abortion and that is not the spirit of bill C-484. Changing the abortion laws would be a separate bill...one in which your views & opinions on abortion would be more appropriately aired. [ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Pro Choice ]
From: Delete | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 16 March 2008 04:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Pro Choice: Wow. You all seem to forget that you too were a fetus at one time in your mother's womb.
No, I do not think we forgot fuck all, actually. quote: Had you been an unborn victim of crime,
There is no unborn victims of crime, the woman is the victim of the crime.
quote: the penalties to the person that caused your death would be less than theft or cruelty to animals.
My death could not have be caused, for I was not yet alive, I only had the potential to be, at some point, alive, or not. Moreover, as I was not alive, I could not have an opinion as to any causes for me not being born, and becoming a person, and even then if I was born, there was only the potential of my advancing to an age where I would even know what an opinion was, let alone consider anything about a mythical death that could've been, but wasn't.Having said that, we have alreeady covered in these threads how inadequate the bill is to do what it says it is trying to do. It is a back door wedge to try and criminalize abortion and nothing more. Immature emotional posturing about the poor fetus feelings and opinions that it needs to have porotection is BS. Please do feel free to read and to actually think about what is said in these threads, and considert who has the right to primary rights, it is the person who is actually alive. [ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pro Choice
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15053
|
posted 16 March 2008 04:29 PM
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Pro Choice ]
From: Delete | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pro Choice
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15053
|
posted 16 March 2008 04:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: [QB]I see by your profile that you are a snowboarding athlete.
Interesting you mention that aspect of my post as a basis of judgement...it happens to be a hobby, not a full-time profession. Whatever the case, I'll stop discussion here as we have a fundamental difference in understanding of the definition of "life" and who should be aloud to take it. This bill could lead to criminalizing smoking while pregnant!!!!! Could you imagine...jails full of pregnant women that are discharged after giving birth!?!?! THAT is in the mind of those that are led by fear. I feel sorry for those of you that choose death and fear. Remind...immaturity is also the blatant denial to face truth. [ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Pro Choice ]
From: Delete | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 16 March 2008 07:16 PM
Dear Prochoice:What exactly is the point of this law? What purpose is served to legally create an unborn entity when a pregnant woman is killed? If it's to punish the offender, then how is the purpose served when jail sentences are served concurrently? It simply means two trials, conducted at the same time, and two sentences, served at the same time. It does nothing to satisfy the craving for revenge by extending the time served. Therefore, I can only presume that the purpose is to create this legal entity for other reasons. I wonder what they would be? [ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Loretta ]
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 17 March 2008 06:09 AM
A letter to The Sudbury Star says much the same Loretta as you. quote: On the surface, this bill would seem to be OK. If someone kills a woman and at the same time her unborn child is killed they should be charged with two murders, right? I don't buy it for a minute. When I first started hearing about this bill, the alarm bells started going off. I had remembered reading about similar laws in the United States, where assurances were made to women that this was not a back door attempt to criminalize abortion. But the truth is many pregnant women are being arrested under the new laws and now some of the States are proposing punishing women who are in abusive relationships who are unable, for very valid reasons, to leave the abuser. I really talked to myself about even writing about Bill C-484. I asked myself if I had the energy to take on the rancour this issue always brings out in people, but I finally realized I couldn't call myself pro choice and not argue against this bill. This bill is a back door attempt to re-open the abortion debate. Even more abhorrent, I believe if it is passed it will be seen as a legal way to punish women for any choice they may make concerning the fetus.
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=946083 h/t BnR
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 18 March 2008 04:53 PM
There is a discussion going about this over at the UByssey, in response to an article about there.There was an interesting point made there regarding the Bill, that was overlooked by me, in several readings of it as a matter of fact. This point is: quote: This bill also includes offensive language about “provocation” of an assault by the victim, which it takes to be a mitigating circumstance
http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=2836 And I cannot believe I overlooked it as being; "I guess that means if the woman who is pregnant starts the fight". Of course it doesn't, it actually protects those who are the primary abusers of women who are pregnant, the sperm donar. Nothwithstanding of course, is that it is in fact stating that women deserve the beatings they get, because they have committed an act of "provocatoin". So we have a Bill that: 1. protects those who are the actual abusers of women while pregnant. Rendering it useless. 2. does nothing to extend the sentence of someone who has committed an act of violence against the woman. Illuminates that it is a null Bill in this regard 3. If a stranger does not know the woman is pregnant and committs an act of violence against the woman, and harms the fetus, the person cannot be charged with harming the fetus. Nor in the case of accidental harm to the woman and hence the fetus. So, just who is left standing that this Bill would address? The .00018%* of acts of violence against a pregnant women, that are conducted by a stranger? As for the guy over there who is telling feminists to shut up about it before quote: they draw even more attention to their depraved ideology and the real implications of arguing against C-484.
He would love to have feminist shut up about it, that is why they have tried to keep a lid on it, so WOMEN do not know about and stop it. Say nothing of him calling pro-choice a "depraved ideology", while his misogynist and truely depraved ideology would have women as nothing more than a vagina and a uterus. * Made up figure but is mostly likely close h/t skadl @ BnR
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 20 March 2008 07:00 AM
Here is some new articles and writings regarding the alleged 2 polls conducted showing Canadians support this Bill. quote: Angus Reid, apparently with no paying customer, decided to survey public opinion on the bill. There were 1,023 completed interviews with a margin of error of 3.1%. (There’s a downloadable pdf at the link.)...We at Birth Pangs humbly submit that most of those good 1,023 Canadians hadn’t heard of the bill before the pollster dialled their phone number. And we further submit that even those who had heard of it hadn’t heard much of substance.On the other hand, when people do hear the truth about this bill, they tend to react with stunned surprise. Then hie themselves to sign the online petition opposing it. As of this writing, 7,134 good Canadians — just about seven times the number of people polled by Angus Reid — have signed it. We at Birth Pangs devoutly hope that some great polling outfit will take it upon itself to re-canvass Canadians on this matter. After we’ve all learned a bit more about it and its proponents.
http://breadnroses.ca/birthpangs/?p=431 quote: According to the poll, just 24 percent of Canadians believe that the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act is actually an attempt to recriminalize abortion in Canada." B.C. was the region most skeptical of the bill, with 29 percent saying the bill is meant to recriminalize abortion. Alberta was least skeptical, at 18 percent. Angus Reid Strategies’ director of global studies, Mario Canseco, told the Straight that the poll was not financed by any outside party and undertaken "out of our own interest". Canseco called Arthur’s criticism of the way the poll was conducted "normal" and added, "this is one of the ways people react to surveys that show that not everyone agrees with them".
Georgia Straighth/t BnR
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 15 April 2008 09:22 PM
Quebec's Federation of MDs denounced Stephane Dion and the Liberals Tuesday for having supported C-484 in sufficient numbers for it to pass 2nd reading. President Gaétan Barrette specifically took on "Mr. Clarity" (his words) for not having whipped the Grits into opposition to Ken Epp's back-dooor attempt to recriminalize abortion in Canada. In flustered response, Dion claimed that the Liberals who voted for C-484 only did so to send it to a Parliamentary committee (I kid you not). He claimed personal opposition to the Bill, but asserted that it was against Parliamentary tradition to whip a vote on any private bill. quote: Bill is backdoor effort to stop abortion: Quebec MDs Unborn Victims of Crime Act seen as wedge to make termination of pregnancy a crime Aaron derfel The Gazette Tuesday, April 15, 2008Staking out a rare political position on federal matters, the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists today denounced Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," as a backdoor attempt to recriminalize abortion. Gaétan Barrette, president of the 8,000-member federation, criticized Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion for not having voted against the private member's bill at its second reading on March 5. "We were astounded to learn that the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada did not find it advisable to take an official stand on this matter and allowed party members a free vote," Barrette told reporters. "Some Liberal Party members therefore voted in favour of the bill, while others, including Mr. Dion, were absent." Barrette described Bill C-484, tabled by Alberta Conservative MP Ken Epp, as "clearly a manoeuvre to go in the direction of recriminalizing abortion." The bill, according to its wording, would make "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." The bill also proposes a minimum prison term of 10 years. Barrette expressed concern that were the bill to become law, anti-abortion groups would quickly take advantage of it to take a case to the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal again.(...)
[ 15 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 16 April 2008 05:44 AM
Please folks, don't settle for lack of confidence that the worst will happen. Write your MP, spread the info, challenge Grits wherever they raise their sniveling heads, join a protest such as this one in Ottawa in 2 weeks: quote: Oppose Bill C-484 Subject: Bill C-484 - Protest The Ottawa protest will now be held *at the Human Rights Monument on Elgin street on May 3rd, starting at noon.*We encourage all opponents of this Bill to come out and send a strong message that Bill C-484 is misguided and dangerous for womyn's reproductive rights.
[ 16 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 18 April 2008 05:29 AM
Proposed Bill C-484 - LEAF Backgrounder and Position StatementOverview On December 13th 2007, Conservative MP, Ken Epp tabled Bill C-484, "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offense)". The Bill is usually cited by its short title, The Unborn Victims of Crime Act. Bill C-484 would allow charges to be laid in the death of an "unborn child" if the mother is a victim of violent crime. It therefore grants de facto legal personhood to fetuses. Fetal personhood conflicts with the Canadian Criminal Code and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which have consistently refused to grant personhood status to unborn fetuses. Update On March 5, Bill C-484 passed Second Reading in the House of Commons. Four Conservative MPs voted against the Bill, while 27 Liberal MPs and one of the 19 elected New Democratic MPs voted for it. Ten Liberals, including Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, were absent from the vote. The Bill passed by a vote of 147-132. Bill C-484 now moves to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Given the voting record of that committee's members, there is a roughly even split of members who voted for and voted against the Bill in the House. LEAF's Position Statement LEAF opposes Bill C-484 because it is little more than an attempt to grant legal person status to unborn fetuses, while failing to provide any substantial measures to address violence against women, including pregnant women. The implications of this Bill are significant for women's equality and could affect women's access to abortion. LEAF is concerned about the pervasiveness of male violence against women and children in Canadian society. Pregnant women can be particularly vulnerable to acts of physical and emotional violence. Bill C-484 does not achieve the aim of taking seriously violence against women and does not add any meaningful legal remedies to those already present in the criminal law to address violence against pregnant women. When a pregnant woman is abused or killed, loss of the fetus is harm to the pregnant woman herself. This harm can be considered an aggravating feature in sentencing. Equality advocates have identified systemic causes of violence against women and proffered a wide range of meaningful solutions to those causes, such as adequate financial security for women and children trying to leave abusive situations, more stable funding and education opportunities for women with children, and better training for police, lawyers and judges and better funding for transition houses and women's groups serving the needs of abused women. If this or any other Canadian government was serious about addressing violence against women, including pregnant women, it would look to the wealth of recommendations made over the years by a range of community-based organizations with expertise in assisting women and children victims of violence. (LEAF) CBC story about Quebec Federation of Specialist Doctors' stand [ 18 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 18 April 2008 06:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: Somebody needs to brush up on their math.
What was wrong with that math???? By the way, thanks martin for that story. It's great to see the medical specialists taking this outspoken stand.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 18 April 2008 07:01 PM
Yes but I am told by people in the know that real heavyweights who should be getting involved, such as the CMA or the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, are sitting on their hands. Maybe Babblers can hone their writing skills and put pressure on them, with cc to a local editor?The current SOGC President is Guylaine Lefebvre, Chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto and an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto. The SOGC has taken an especially strong stand on intimate partner violence, so they might be commended for it and pressed to disallow the gross cooptation of this issue and threat against not only women but ob/gyn's rights through C-484. You can phone, FAX or write Lefebvre or Heather McMullen, Communication/Promotion & Special Projects Officer, at the SOGC address in Ottawa. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada 780 Echo Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5R7 Tel: 613-730-4192 or 1-800-561-2416 Fax: 613-730-4314 Email: [email protected]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
choice joyce
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11819
|
posted 20 April 2008 06:59 AM
Thanks Martin for your message about the SOGC. Our coalition of pro-choice groups is hoping the SOGC will come out with a statement opposing the bill very soon. Letters to them are welcome -- however, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been completely silent on Bill C-484, and also has been hostile to abortion rights (e.g., they have a policy allowing doctors to withhold referrals and information on abortion unless the patient voluntarily asks for it). To my knowledge, the CMA has not been approached on the issue of Bill C-484. It would be great if they were pressured to take a stand against it. Please contact:Dr. Brian Day, President Canadian Medical Association 1867 Alta Vista Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3Y6 Email (contact form): http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/150/la_id/1.htm Toll free: 1-888-855-2555 Also please contact your provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons to ask them to oppose Bill C-484: http://www.cpso.on.ca/Links/links.htm For background info on Bill C-484, see ARCC's dedicated "Oppose Bill C-484" page: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/c484.htm En Francais, "Rejeter le projet C-484" : http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/fr/c484.html On there is a sample letter for MPs you could adapt for sending to medical organizations. Thanks so much!
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 20 April 2008 10:10 PM
Maria Minna, Liberal M.P., writes her colleagues: quote: As an update on C-484, the unborn victims of crime act, I have sent a letter to my Liberal Caucus colleagues explaining my interpretation of the Bill and I am encouraging them to vote against the Bill when it comes back to the House of Commons for 3rd reading. As is customary with all Private Member's Bills, all parties allow a free vote on the measures, however I am encouraging all of my colleagues to vote against this dangerous piece of legislation. Please see a copy of my letter below.Thank you, Maria Minna, MP Beaches-East York Liberal Critic for the Status of Women April 11, 2008 Dear Colleague: As a woman, and the critic responsible for the Status of Women, I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding our Conservative colleague's Bill C-484, The Unborn Victims of Crime Act. It is my opinion that this Bill is a back door attempt to establish legal rights for foetuses and thereby begin to reverse the results of the long battle for a woman's right to choose. It is clear that the real intent of Bill C-484 is to give foetuses personhood and ultimately re-criminalize abortion. This is indicated by the narrowness of the Bill, which is not aimed at protecting women, but rather an attempt strictly to give legal rights to the unborn. Because this Bill does not deal with the crime of attacking pregnant women, but rather applies narrowly to the foetuses of pregnant women, it unnecessarily creates a contradiction in the law. By juxtaposing foetal rights with women's rights, the Bill creates a conflict with abortion rights. If a foetus is a legal entity with the right not to be killed, how then can abortion be exempt? Although I agree fully that violence against pregnant women is wholly reprehensible, there are better ways to address these crimes than to re-open the abortion debate. By far the best way to protect foetuses is to protect pregnant women, their sole caretakers. We need to give pregnant women the supports and resources they need for good pregnancy outcomes, including protection from violence. I encourage you to take careful consideration of the implications of this Bill before it is voted upon at third reading and support me in defeating this piece of legislation that is detrimental to the rights of women. Sincerely, Hon. Maria Minna, P.C., M.P. Official Opposition Critic for the Status of Women
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 21 April 2008 04:15 PM
Hey Dawn, I can understand why you feel that way, and I think a lot of women have, at least at first, thought that this Bill was about protecting women from violence. I have talked to quite a few pro-choice women who have said that (especially if they haven't heard much about it except for soundbites on the news).But I think if you read back on this thread (and other ones on babble) regarding this bill, you'll see where pro-choice feminists here have a problem with it. It's the fact that they call a fetus a "child" throughout the legislation, and an "unborn victim" - that's what pro-lifers (and they're who are sponsoring this Bill) call aborted fetuses - that gives away their real agenda. There are ways of protecting pregnant women from assault that harms their fetuses. For instance, a person who assaults a woman and causes her to miscarry could be charged not only with assault, but also with causing an abortion against her will. That way, the miscarriage "counts", but it is counted as an action that harms the pregnant woman, not as an action against a separate "person".
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357
|
posted 21 April 2008 08:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: Not at all. Michelle's suggestion focuses on the the harm to the only person being assaulted. It is her miscarriage that would add to a harm assessment, not any rights and legal status given to her child or fetus - using her assault as an excuse. Claiming not to see that distinction and calling it a matter of "terminology" seems rather disingenuous.[ 21 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
I think it is incredibly dangerous to attach any criminal penalties to anything called "abortion", period. The current bill makes the woman's "consent" the threshold for penalizing abortion providers. If I was one, I would be quite nervous about the idea that my patient's consent could be challenged at some future point - even by her - and render me potentially liable for a form of culpable homicide. Death or injury to a fetus that occurs in the course of an assault on its mother should be counted as as aggravating factor in sentencing, and nothing else.
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 21 April 2008 08:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by pookie:
I think it is incredibly dangerous to attach any criminal penalties to anything called "abortion", period. The current bill makes the woman's "consent" the threshold for penalizing abortion providers. If I was one, I would be quite nervous about the idea that my patient's consent could be challenged at some future point - even by her - and render me potentially liable for a form of culpable homicide. Death or injury to a fetus that occurs in the course of an assault on its mother should be counted as as aggravating factor in sentencing, and nothing else.
Are you a woman?
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357
|
posted 21 April 2008 08:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Are you a woman?
Yup. A pretty fucking pissed off woman, actually. [ 21 April 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 21 April 2008 08:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: Not at all. Michelle's suggestion focusses on the the harm to the only person being assaulted. It is her miscarriage that would add to a harm assessment, not any rights and legal status given to her child or fetus - using her assault as an excuse. Claiming not to see that distinction in her post and calling it a matter of "terminology" seems rather disingenuous.
Oh, here we go with the "disingenuous" horseshit again.Case 1. A woman is assaulted and loses a kidney as a result. Case 2. A woman is assaulted and loses an eye as a result. Case 3. A woman is assaulted and loses the ability to conceive a fetus as a result. Case 4. A woman is assaulted and miscarries a fetus as a result. Why is it OK to have a law that makes the perpetrator of the assault face a separate charge, with an extra prison term, only in Case 4, but not in the other three? And yet, that's what Michelle seems to think is OK, so long as you don't call the fetus a child or a separate person. quote: ...a person who assaults a woman and causes her to miscarry could be charged not only with assault, but also with causing an abortion against her will. That way, the miscarriage "counts", but it is counted as an action that harms the pregnant woman, not as an action against a separate "person".
It seems to me that calling it "her" miscarriage and not that of the fetus does not in any way justify treating Case 4 differently from the other three. Anybody who claims not to understand that is just being disingenuous.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 21 April 2008 08:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: It seems to me that calling it "her" miscarriage and not that of the fetus does not in any way justify treating Case 4 differently from the other three. Anybody who claims not to understand that is just being disingenuous.
In case 4, she has a bedroom for her fetus, thought of names and is emotionally attached to it. She can possibly feel it kicking. Not so much for a kidney. [ 21 April 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 21 April 2008 08:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: I imagine pregnant women are pretty fond of their kidneys as well, since they seem to use them a lot during pregnancy.
That is a ridiculous comparison. My cousin was hit by a drunk driver and the accident caused her to miscarry. She had been trying to get pregnant for a while and has not been able to since. You compare that loss to a kidney??
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|