quote:

---

originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
First, I would really ahve no objection if someone WERE sentenced more stiffly if the attack caused the loss of a kidney or an eye or any other sort of amjor physical harm. I think the harm done to the victim and the long-term impact on the victim's life ought to be taken into consideration at sentencing.

---

quote:

---

Whether we need strict laws as to how to apply this or how much we leave it to a judge's discretion is another debate.

---

The supporters of Bill C-484 are happy to leave it up to the judge's discretion to find an appropriate punishment - except when there is a dead fetus involved. Then it becomes a mandatory 10 years to life sentence, on top of whatever other sentence would normally apply. What do you suppose their motives are?

quote:

---

As for the kidney comparison, however, I think it is disingenuous. You may be correct on the technical aspects but we all know that issues surrounding pregnancy are very emotional. I have my kidneys and if I lsot one, I'd certainly feel bad about that but as of right now as I write this, I don't feel any sort of emotional attachment or bond to them. I can't say the same about my children, even when they were in the room. yes, we did talk about names and I did feel them kicking and all sorts of other experiences that would ahve made their loss devestating. Comparing that to a kidney is jsut crass.

---

Many losses may be emotionally devastating to a woman who has been assaulted; she may be crippled or disfigured, or be unable to bear children again, or have her life expectancy reduced by such an event. Bill C-484 does not concern itself with any of that. It makes no distinctions based on emotion; its provisions would apply regardless of whether the woman was secretly relieved at losing her fetus or emotionally devastated by it. The only important thing to the supporters of the Bill is that there is a dead fetus involved. The impact on the woman, to them, is irrelevant.

ETA: For convenience of reference, here is the Text of Bill C-484.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The supporters of Bill C-484 are happy to leave it up to the judge's discretion to find an appropriate punishment - except when there is a dead fetus involved. Then it becomes a mandatory 10 years to life sentence, on top of whatever other sentence would normally apply. What do you suppose their motives are?

---

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Furthermore, there are lots of mothers on babble (and I'm one of them) who have posted in this thread and many others a point of view that's quite different from yours on this topic, and you don't get a pass for posting regressive stuff in this forum because you're a mother while some pro-choice supporters on babble are not.

If you're going to post anti-choice stuff in the feminism forum on babble, you're going to be banned. Believe it. First and last warning.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Well it is just lovely to see so many men discounting women's thoughts and opinions as nothing more than "emotions" to be discounted and just "motherly feelings".

---

DR Hilarious, yes, mothers can feel an attachment to the fetus within, and yet other mothers feel no attachment whatsoever and wish it was not. Your emotional point does not apply to this Bill.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Ghislaine, if you think Bill 484 would have added further punishment to the drunk driver that hit your cousin, had this law been in place, you would be wrong.

---

ETA: Ah, I get it. Under Bill C-484 the offender has to know (or ought to know) that the victim is pregnant. The drunk driver would presumably not know that.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

When a woman WANTS to be pregnant and chooses to carry a pregnancy to term, she often DOES get attached to the fetus. Does that make the fetus a person? No. But it definitely makes the fetus a part of her body that is extremely important to her, and yes, possibly even more important than a kidney.

Does that mean that we say that the fetus is a person? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean we have to deny the importance a woman places on a WANTED fetus, and it doesn't mean that we can't think of a way to recognize the harm caused to a woman by being forced to terminate a pregnancy.

We recognize the aggravated harm of forcing a woman to have sex against her will - we don't just call that "assault causing bodily harm" even though that's what it is. Because we recognize that there is a unique dynamic to sexual assault, and egregious emotional harm done to the woman that goes beyond that of other types of assault.

The fact that so many people who have been polled on this issue recognize the particularly egregious nature of causing a woman to miscarry against her will through violence leads me to think that probably women ARE more attached to wanted fetuses than to, say, their kidney or whatever.

And I would submit that the reason for that, having experienced that emotional bond myself, is because those of us who are experiencing a WANTED pregnancy are making a huge choice and commitment, and generally we end up rearranging our lives and building up hopes and expectations around that pregnancy.

So, if someone beats the crap out of me, it's very traumatizing. If someone beats the crap out of me and causes me to miscarry while they're at it, to me that would not only feel like an assault, but it would also feel like a much deeper violation, because they've not only physically harmed me, but they've also robbed me of the reproductive choice I have made.

And as far as I'm concerned, right up until a woman is on the abortion table, she should be considered to, at that moment, be pregnant by choice. Unless she's specifically ASKED someone to throw her down the stairs or punch her in the stomach in order to help her miscarry, it doesn't MATTER how she feels about the pregnancy. What matters is whether SHE made the choice right at that moment, through a violent act, to end it. If someone else made that choice for her against her will, I think that's egregious enough to be a separate offence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
If someone else made that choice for her against her will, I think that's egregious enough to be a separate offence.

But I don't think you have to legally define the fetus as a "person" or a "child" in order to do that.

---

quote:

---

Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a fetus during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the woman carrying the fetus, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Ghislaine, you were coming quite close in the other thread to posting anti-choice crap, with your link to the stages of fetal development, and I'm not having it in the feminism forum. If you're going to post borderline anti-choice stuff here, you're going to be banned from this web site.

Furthermore, there are lots of mothers on babble (and I'm one of them) who have posted in this thread and many others a point of view that's quite different from yours on this topic, and you don't get a pass for posting regressive stuff in this forum because you're a mother while some pro-choice supporters on babble are not.

If you're going to post anti-choice stuff in the feminism forum on babble, you're going to be banned. Believe it. First and last warning.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

I am pro-choice. Meaning women can choose to abort or choose to carry to term. For women who choose to carry to term, I believe there should be legal penalties against anyone who would cause them to abort against their will or who causes them to miscarry through a violent act.

Your post further down in this thread was excellent I thought - something I agree with and you seem to be agreeing with me. I was taking issue with the notion that a kidney and a fetus are the same thing to a woman and that if she feels differently it is just womanly emotion that should be discounted. I have heard in too many places in too many ways this idea - that women's opinions and thoughts are just silly emotions.

How is posting real, scientific pictures anti-choice?? It is reality. It is from national geographic. I was posting them to illustrate how a fetus is not a kidney. One immediate indication is that it has legs that the pregnant woman can feel kicking. It also illustrates how the fetus is in the woman's body and is not viable on its own. While I would entertain discussions around whether fetuses that are viable (ie those rare abortions done on 5 mo. old fetuses) should be kept alive when removed from the mother. In that case however, the fetus would be kept alive and adopted. No one can force a woman to be a mother against her will. Other than that type of case, it is dependent on a woman's body and a woman must have control over her own body.
I believe in choice and there are two choices. I don't believe real images from national geographic hinder this choice, they only provide more information to women who may find the choice difficult.

Anyways, sorry. In general, I agree with you Michelle that the legislation needs altered wording to ensure it doesn't infringe on the right of a woman to control her own body. however it does seem that a lot of women support this type of action ( I support anything that lengthens sentences for those who commit violence against women if it will keep them off the streets).

The Conservatives however are obviously disengenuous. If they were serious about assisting survivors of violent men they would do more to fund women's shelters, improve maternity benefits, improve living standards for young mothers, etc, etc, etc.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm not sure. I might. I wouldn't have as big a problem with it as I do now, that's for sure. The big thing for me about this legislation is that it makes the fetus into a person by calling it a "child". This is the slippery slope to denying abortion rights to women.

---

I don't care how cunningly it's drafted to make it "clear" that a fetus is not a child, and that it's the woman, not the fetus, who is the real victim, etc.

To me, it's not a matter of terminology or hidden agendas; it's a matter of a very open and clear agenda of giving criminal protection to the life of a fetus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
I believe there should be legal penalties against anyone who would cause them to abort against their will or who causes them to miscarry through a violent act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Again, this Bill would NOT do that ghislaine, nor would any Bill do that Ghislaine.

---

Yes, I wasn't implying that that is what this particular bill would do - just outlining what I believe as I was accused of being anti-choice.

Why would no bill do that?

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Sorry, but I have a big problem with any legislation that singles out the killing of a fetus as a separate crime and deserving of separate punishment.

I don't care how cunningly it's drafted to make it "clear" that a fetus is not a child, and that it's the woman, not the fetus, who is the real victim, etc.

To me, it's not a matter of terminology or hidden agendas; it's a matter of a very open and clear agenda of giving criminal protection to the life of a fetus.

That is very dangerous, and that is why I oppose Bill C-484.

---

Fully agree.

I thought M. Spector's experiment (redrafting) was a bit crafty, but it shows how pernicious this legislation is.

Either a foetus is deemed to be a human being or it is not.

Either a foetus can be a victim of a crime or it cannot.

Either an assault on a woman is a single offence (which may attract very different penalties depending on severity etc.) or it is two offences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
This Bill would only cover those assaults against women, by strangers, that happen after a woman is observabley pregnant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
I believe there should be legal penalties against anyone who would cause them to abort against their will or who causes them to miscarry through a violent act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Again, this Bill would NOT do that ghislaine, nor would any Bill do that Ghislaine.

---

I see nothing in that Bill that restricts its application to "strangers", or requires that the woman victim be "observably" pregnant.

What I do see is a Bill that does in fact provide "legal penalties against anyone who would cause [women] to abort against their will or who causes them to miscarry through a violent act," to quote Ghislaine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Sorry, but I have a big problem with any legislation that singles out the killing of a fetus as a separate crime and deserving of separate punishment.

---

Do you have a big problem with singling out the assault of certain body parts (the vagina, breasts, etc.) as a crime separate from ordinary assault and deserving of separate punishment?

Because that's what sexual assault is. Why not just call it ALL assault and not differentiate between sexual assault and other kinds of assault?

P.S. I see your point about framing it as "killing" the fetus. I think using language like "causing a woman to miscarry" would focus exclusively on the woman and not on the fetus as a separate entity.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Fully agree.

I thought M. Spector's experiment (redrafting) was a bit crafty, but it shows how pernicious this legislation is.

Either a foetus is deemed to be a human being or it is not.

Either a foetus can be a victim of a crime or it cannot.

Either an assault on a woman is a single offence (which may attract very different penalties depending on severity etc.) or it is two offences.

Any "in-between" position opens the door to denying women the rights for which they have fought so long and won.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
What about making it a seperate offense to cause a woman to miscarry?

---

Once more with feeling.

quote:

---

Since criminal sentences in this country are served concurrently, not consecutively, what does the creation of a second offence that only comes in to play when there's an original offence accomplish except to increase the paperwork? It certainly doesn't have any real deterrent effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Do you have a big problem with singling out the assault of certain body parts (the vagina, breasts, etc.) as a crime separate from ordinary assault and deserving of separate punishment?

---

I maintain that it is inconsistent to hold the view that there should be special legal protection for the life of a fetus while at the same time supporting a woman's right to rid herself of a fetus without legal consequences.

quote:

---

P.S. I see your point about framing it as "killing" the fetus. I think using language like "causing a woman to miscarry" would focus exclusively on the woman and not on the fetus as a separate entity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
What about making it a seperate offense to cause a woman to miscarry? This refers to the woman's body, not to the fetus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
[QB][/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
1. Since criminal sentences in this country are served concurrently, not consecutively, what does the creation of a second offence that only comes in to play when there's an original offence accomplish except to increase the paperwork? It certainly doesn't have any real deterrent effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Assault causing bodily harm carries a maximum sentence of ten years. If it's a first offence, you will likely not get anywhere near that. Then you will get 2/3 off for good behaviour.

But if the assault resulted in a miscarriage and you knew or ought to have known the victim was pregnant, you will get 10 years to life under Bill C-484, and you will have to serve at least 5 years before being eligible for full parole.

---

And you are against this? So if I choose to carry a fetus to term, have an attachment to this fetus, feel it kicking me, etc. and someone assaults me causing a miscarriage they may get out in way less than 10 years under the current laws?? If a woman wanted more she would have to instigate a civil suit (if she can afford it) and sue for damages?

That is far from good enough. If you are against C-484, do you at least support lengthening minimum sentences for assault causing bodily harm?

ETA:

What about this scenario:
The assault causes a premature birth of the fetus, which is now a full-fledged human being. The assault on the woman caused long-term defects or brain damage to this human being. Is there anything in law that results in stiffer penalties for this type of assault?

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
But if the assault resulted in a miscarriage and you knew or ought to have known the victim was pregnant, you will get 10 years to life under Bill C-484, and you will have to serve at least 5 years before being eligible for full parole.

---

So under very specific circumstances it has a deterrent effect while in some circumstances it has none.

So why not just charge the suspect with aggravated assault -- which carries an increased penalty -- in the first place? And isn't that light sentence for a first offence a matter of discretion for the judge? In other words, does C-484 accomplish anything that can't be accomplished with existing legislation? Or minor tweaks to existing legislation and sentencing guidelines which would avoid opening this whole can of worms?

Under the present law, the most severe penalty a judge can hand out for aggravated assault is 10 years. She cannot stipulate as to "no parole". So if the convict behaves himself, he's back on the streets in 40 months at most.

Under Bill C-484 the offence would carry a minimum of 10 years, and you would have to serve at least half of it behind bars (ref. section 4 of the Bill).

So the first thing to note is that the Bill does have severe penalty consequences attached to it, regardless of the issue of "consecutive/concurrent".

There definitely needs to be longer sentences one way or another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
All of these leaves me unsupportive of C-484, but saddenned by how lightly people are sentenced for violently abusing women.

There definitely needs to be longer sentences one way or another.

---

Why? Does prison actually solve any of the deeper problems associated with violence against women? Available evidence re: efficacy of incarceration suggests the contrary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:

Why? Does prison actually solve any of the deeper problems associated with violence against women? Available evidence re: efficacy of incarceration suggests the contrary.

Note: I am not saying that people shouldn't face consequences - including custodial sentences - for VAW; I'm just skeptical that upping penalties will provide any benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Are we talking about the same Bill, here? I see nothing in that Bill that restricts its application to "strangers", or requires that the woman victim be "observably" pregnant.

---

Okay, let's follow the trail of logic resulting from the Bill's words. Though I do not see how you misssed it, as you got it for the drunk driver scenario.

This portion of the Bill says:

quote:

---

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,

---

The only way that someone who is a stranger ought to know is if the woman can be seen to be pregnant. So, if the woman is not obviously pregnat, a stranger has no way of knowing she was pregnant when they committ(ed) the assault against her, thus this law if inacted does not apply to them.

Now, that leaves non-strangers to whom the law would apply, and this is where the actual numbers lie of those committing violent offenses against women who are pregnant.

quote:

---

An offence that would otherwise be an offence under paragraph (1)(a) may be reduced to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation within the meaning of section 232.

---

Now, this is what Section 232 says:

quote:

---

232. What is provocation
(2) A wrongful act or an insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.

---

And that brings 1 c(ii) into play;

quote:

---

(c) is, in any other case,

(ii) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to impris- onment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

---

quote:

---

What I do see is a Bill that does in fact provide "legal penalties against anyone who would cause [women] to abort against their will or who causes them to miscarry through a violent act," to quote Ghislaine.

What am I missing here?

---

That it is only the case if "know" or "ought to know", so that excludes stangers who cannot see/determine whether a woman is pregnant.

And if it is known, which means, the person committing the act of violence is knowing the pregnant woman, and if it is deemed an act resulting from provocation in the heat of the moment, then it would be basically an additional 18 months max of concurrent time added to the assault of the woman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
So, the law is very specific, it means 10 years for those who premeditate harm to the fetus.

---

quote:

---

who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

---

Let us say that I "ought to know" someone is pregnant, but don't. So is harm to the mother "premeditated harm to the fetus"?

The only reason to include "ought to know" in the law is because they want to catch more people in its web than would be caught by "knows".

In a typical court proceeding, the mother-to-be will testify she told the guy she was pregnant, and he will say she didn't. Then the jury will be told that if they believe her, he's guilty.

Although I guess I see the point that for someone to be guilty of committing a crime, they have to have had intent to commit the crime, or to be able to reasonably predict that their action could cause that crime to be committed.

I do agree that the accused could not be convicted if (s)he did not have actual or imputed knowledge that the victim was pregnant.

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the Bill in this respect:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Where in the law did it state that the offender had to "premeditate harm to the fetus" in order to get 10 years?

---

If you didn't mean to cause injury or death to the fetus, then you drop out of subsection 1(a) into subsection 1(b), where there is no 10-year minimum sentence.

Thus the 10-year minimum applies only if the death of (or harm to) the fetus was intentional (not necessarily "premediated", which is a different concept).

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
It seems to me that if someone were to support this law, it shouldn't matter whether the offender knows she's pregnant or not. If he or she has caused a miscarriage through violence, that miscarriage happens whether he or she knows it or not.

---

quote:

---

(b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life if paragraph (a) does not apply but the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the child; or

(c) is, in any other case,

(i) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or

(ii) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to impris- onment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

---

If "paragraph (a) does not apply but the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the child" then paragraph (b) applies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The "or" is simply the connective between paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), just as the word "and" is in this sentence.

If "paragraph (a) does not apply but the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the child" then paragraph (b) applies.

Paragraph (c) only applies "in any other case".

---

M.Spector is correct. It's really a matter of common statutory intepretation. It also conforms to the degrees of criminal liability: causing harm intentionally; causing harm recklessly; causing harm negligently; and causing harm while committing another offence, what is known as predicate liability.

ETA: oops - you were so right I said it twice.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Okay, what would c (ii) be then "in any other case"? Just put there just cause?

---

In the event the Crown is unable to prove the particular levels of fault outlined in (a) or (b), but the fetus is killed as a result of an assault on the mother, the accused can still be found guilty of fetal homicide.

ETA, Sorry, I keep saying "an assault" on the mother, but the bill actually defines it more broadly as "an offence", not limited to assault.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]

I recall an anecdote that happened some years ago in Montreal. A pregnant woman died in a car accident, on Jacques-Carrtier Bridge I believe, but the paramedics who rushed to the scene managed to deliver her fetus alive; the media went ape over this and, for the next few weeks, whenever another woman was killed in a car crash, newsmen felt duty-bound to give it extra attention and attempt to inform the population whether or not the victim had been pregnant and, if so, had the baby been "saved"! Some of us had to protest this before these hacks slunk back into the woodwork and women stopped being treated as possible vessels of a newsworthy life.
I feel we are being maneuvered into the same situation, but with auto accidents replaced by intimate partner violence. Will we have courts asking for pregnancy tests for assault victims in order to assess their level of entitlement? Defense lawyers arguing on sentencing that "it's not as if the plaintiff had been pregnant"? Will we have sentencing of batterers delayed until Baby is born and fully examined for damage, as if women's own rights were beside the point?
The underlying assumption that women are worth less if they are not pregnant seems to me the essence of patriarchy and should not be tolerated, especially here. And I am afraid that this is what we are doing when we start discussing alternatives to C-484 that remain based on putting fetuses on a pedestal.
Please write your MP and the Liberals using Bread'nRoses kick-ass Activist Page, as part of their "One body. One person. One count" campaign.
Chantal Hébert TorStar article: Leaders should fear abortion debate

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
In the event the Crown is unable to prove the particular levels of fault outlined in (a) or (b), but the fetus is killed as a result of an assault on the mother, the accused can still be found guilty of fetal homicide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
The underlying assumption that women are worth less if they are not pregnant seems to me the essence of patriarchy and should not be tolerated, especially here. And I am afraid that this is what we are doing when we start discussing alternatives to C-484 that remain based on putting fetuses on a pedestal.

---

Thanks for the reminder martin, you are absolutely correct!

quote:

---

We must resist this attempt to play against each other women and a part of their bodies that patriarchy has such a visceral investment in (White fetuses to hold back the Brown tides!).

---

quote:

---

4. The Assembly takes the view that abortion should not be banned within reasonable gestational limits.

---

quote:

---

6. The Assembly affirms the right of all human beings, women included, to respect for their physical integrity and to freedom to control their own bodies. In this context, the ultimate decision on whether or not to have an abortion should be a matter for the woman concerned, and she should have the means of exercising this right in an effective way.

---

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
While it may not be directly related to the Bill C-484 question, the European Union now has a policy on abortion legislation that it expects all its members to follow. It's clearly pro-choice, at least for the most part, though some of it reads as though restrictions in the later periods of pregnacy would not violate EU policy.

EU ABORTION POLICY

---

The resolution is not an EU resolution, but rather a resolution of the Council of Europe, a distinct entity from the EU. The Council of Europe is not an EU body, and should not be confused either with the Council of the European Union or with the European Council: these two are both EU bodies. The parliamentary assembly that passed this resolution is not the EU's European Parliament, but rather the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

It may be pedantic, but the PACE (which is not directly elected) does not have the same powers as the European Parliament (which is directly elected): "Unlike the European Parliament (an institution of the European Union), which had been created after the model of the PACE and also meets in Strasbourg for its plenary sessions, its powers extend only to the ability to investigate, recommend and advise. Even so, its recommendations on issues such as human rights have significant weight in the European political context. The European Parliament and other European Union institutions often refer to the work of PACE, especially in the field of human rights, legal co-operation and cultural co-operation." (quoted from Wikipedia)

The resolution cited is merely a recommendation to its member states and is not legally binding. Note the language of clause 7: "The Assembly invites the member states of the Council of Europe to...". This resolution is not, at present, EU policy. Of course, the relevant EU bodies may decide to adopt similar policies in light of this resolution.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
The resolution is not an EU resolution, but rather a resolution of the Council of Europe, a distinct entity from the EU.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
(White fetuses to hold back the Brown tides!).

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
That point #6 would look good in the Canadian Charter, wouldn't it?

---

Well, a similar statement of self posession is contained within the criminal code of Canada. It states that; no person can be compelled to give their body into the service of another person, even if that other person's life is in danger

It was used in T VS D SCC decision. And is seen to be fundamental to the reason why there can be no abortion laws in Canada.

Now back to number 6 itself and the way that it is worded.

WTF????????

They have to make a statement that women shall be included as "human beings"??

The Assembly affirms the right of all human beings, women included,

That we women are noted separately is mind boggling, and suggests to me that we can be removed from the statement then, if we have to be added.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Now back to number 6 itself and the way that it is worded.

WTF????????

They have to make a statement that women shall be included as "human beings"??

The Assembly affirms the right of all human beings, women included,

That we women are noted separately is mind boggling, and suggests to me that we can be removed from the statement then, if we have to be added.

BS patriarchy statements, no thanks, NOT in my Charter.

---

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
There are a number of sensitive issues where there are or could be conflicts between such a "right to control one's body" and collective interests.

---

Ok, ok, fine, martin. I'm talking about:

1. The right to reproductive choice.
2. The right to end one's own life (with or without assistance).

There you go.

ETA: This reminds me of being in a bargaining committee...

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
But what do you think of a Charter right to control one's own body? That's what I was really suggesting. The Criminal Code isn't good enough, because that can be changed in a heartbeat.

---

quote:

---

There are a number of sensitive issues where there are or could be conflicts between such a "right to control one's body" and collective interests.

---

Collective interests must never impinge upon one's own body.

Consider a law that requires the chopping up of Martin's body into tiny fragments, with proven scientific ability to save the lives of 500 babies as a result.

While Martin would no doubt want to volunteer for this noble task, I think it would be deeply wrong, as well as illegal, for there to be a "collective interest" requiring Martin to submit to the collective interest.

quote:

---

Unionist: I'm talking about:
1. The right to reproductive choice.
2. The right to end one's own life (with or without assistance).

---

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

I think it would be deeply wrong, as well as illegal, for there to be a "collective interest" requiring Martin to submit to the collective interest.

---

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
May I remind our esteemed colleague that it wasn't that long ago that Canada decreed to compel draft-age males to enlist and be shipped overseas to be blown, indeed, into tiny fragments for the collective interest?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Well, even these could easily be abused. Men like Jean-Guy Tremblay have gone to courts demanding "reproductive choice".

---

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Ghislaine, if you or Jeff want to propose that a ban on any military conscription be added to the Canadian constitution, I will make space on my soapbox and support you wholeheartedly - even if Quebec has been locked out of this enviable document.
This however is not the issue. The issue is whether private freedoms involving "the body" always trump collective interests. Maybe they should - I have pointed out problems with that notion - but they don't, yet, contrary to Jeff's point.
Unfragmented Martin (e.g.- not the Tri-West Investment Club Girl Friday, not the Canada Steamship Lines off-shore investment mogul, not the witty comedian)

---

They should definitely always trump collective insterests. Can you give one good example of when this would not be a good idea? I think this type of law would protect citizens during possible future attempts at a draft.

(I think Jeff was speaking hypothetically, not implying that the law or Charter already states this).

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Here is one. Some cultures and people still believe that female genital mutilation (FGM) enhances a woman's chances of being happily married. The parent of a young girl can come forward and say: "It's her body. I am her guardian, representing her interests. I want the operation done." Collective interests argue against FGM, of course, but what do you tell this parent and his/her lawyer, especially knowing they can get the operation in much more unsafe conditions elsewhere?

---

I am not sure how "collective interests" argue against FGM for starters.

Secondly, banning this practice in Canada on children would not contravene the proposed additional of complete private control and ownership of one's body. Once the girl is 18, she could decide for herself to have the procedure.

I don't think this example really has anything to do with this proposal.

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I monitor men's rights rants and the notion that, since it's their "child," potential fathers ought to have "a say" when a women wants to abort or not to abort is quite widespread, and taken up by RW editorialists, preachers and politicians throughout the 'civilized' world.

---

Slow down, friend.

The issue with C-484 is that some people are trying to insert another legal person into the process, so the woman's body would find itself indentured to another entitled person and to anyone claiming to represent it - or his own interest in its futures. So it then wouldn't be just *her* body whose control would be at stake.

The justice is well-used to the notion of competing interests and I fear that, even when allowed control over *their* body, women would often lose out if the State or potential fathers were to be given the power to advocate for "fetal rights" against them - as if the fetus wasn't part of their body.

Another issue - that was the subject of lengthy debates in the women's health movement decades ago - is that reproductive services require not only entitlement but State support. Otherwise the governement can wash its hands of the issue, decreeing a "private" issue.
So Roman Catholic church-controlled hospitals have to be pressured, reactionary provincial gov'ts have to be held accountable to the Canadian Health Act, medical faculties have to be told what social needs are and this reflected in their curriculum so new abortion providers are trained, anti-choice harassers have to be kept away from clinics with "bubble zone" legislation - all stuff that isn't happening now because the issue remains treated as a private one.
It seems to me that this is a political issue that has to go on being resolved by political struggle, not entrusted to any liberal doxa, even if it seems like a solution to privatize the decisions involved.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I think I understood. I even gave a few examples of cases where this criterion failed to ensure justice (e.g. selective abortion of female fetuses, genital mutilation).

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

So are you saying that these are two cases where "collective interests" should over-ride the right to control one's own body?

quote:

---

So are you saying that these are two cases where "collective interests" should over-ride the right to control one's own body?

---

quote:

---

Should women not have the right to find out the sex of the baby and abort if they don't want a girl?

---

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
No, I don't think so: neither women, nor men. I don't think there is a compelling ethical interest in allowing the selective aborting of female fetuses to continue, just because males have traditionally been more valued in our patriarchal culture. It's certainly better than killing "superfluous" daughters at birth - as was done in many cultures -, but it is still sexist and encourages the social devaluation of women. Indeed, it is now against the law for doctors to give out the relevant information in many countries where this kind of triage is already creating a serious imbalance in live births.
Female feticide explains dearth of girls in India
I suspect that a lot more people would be up in arms if it were male fetuses that were systematically being selected out, don't you?

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

Okay, this is anti-choice bs. Women have the right to abort for whatever reason they want and they have the right to know if the fetus inside them is male or female or whatever.

The right to own and control one's own body should be an absolute right and your opinion only furthers my belief in this.

There are also more POC being aborted than white fetuses - should restrictions be placed on this?

As you can see, the reasons for sex-selective abortion or higher abortion rates for POC, etc. are due mainly to societal factors. Restricting abortion will not change these issues of poverty within certain communities or the devalueing of women.

Sex-selective abortion of males does occur as well. Women who already have 3 sons for example and want a daughter can abort until they get a daughter.

Personally I would never abort for any reason and would try and convince any one I know considering it not to. That, however in no way changes my position that legally a woman (and men - but their bodies by way of bioligical reality are much less vulnerable to infringements than women) should have the right to complete control and knowledge about her body.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
If by that you mean jack-booted, snickering feminist State troopers forcing themselves into homes and injecting female embryos in unwilling citizens, no... but I doubt we are anything close to the dystopia your rhetoric suggests.

---

Furthermore, women can make the decision to abort for any reason whatsoever, including sex selection. Any reason for abortion is good enough.

Women who chose not to carry female fetuses to term do so for a variety of reasons, all of them good reasons. If a woman just doesn't like girl babies, that's a good enough reason to abort a female fetus - do you really want someone raising a girl if she really doesn't want to? If a woman comes from a family that devalues women, that's a good enough reason for her to choose not to bring one into that family.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
If by that you mean jack-booted, snickering feminist State troopers forcing themselves into homes and injecting female embryos in unwilling citizens, no... but I doubt we are anything close to the dystopia your rhetoric suggests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
If you want it to make sense, do copy it as a response to your leading set-up...

---

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
That is your way of summarizing what I wrote. If you are ill at ease with a man posting on this issue, I fully respect that and am ready to demur.
But it's a fact that there is a difference of positions between liberals and radical feminists about what to do regarding female feticide.
[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
But it's a fact that there is a difference of positions between liberals and radical feminists about what to do regarding female feticide.

---

I can't help myself. Which are the "liberals" and which are the "radical feminists?" I've always figured that being pro-choice means I accept that each individual woman gets to make the choice even if it's a choice I don't like made for reasons I don't like (in much the same way that being pro-democracy means that I accept the fact that some voters will cast votes I disagree with). I'd like to find out if I've been a radical feminist all this time and didn't know it.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

The problem in India at least is sexism and patriarchy, which is represented by the dowry system in India. The feminist (is she radical or liberal?) is trying to change attitudes and the climate. There is nothing wrong with this. What I have a problem with is any attempts to remove women's right to control their own bodies or to see all medical testing relevant to their bodies.

Women have a right to do what they please with their bodies even if you or anyone else think it is unpleasant or whatever.

I was of the opinion that this bill could be ok if the wording was altered, as I support anything to assist in the fight against VAW. However, now I think it is too risky. I have read statements by many in the legal and medical profession who think this legislation will open a back door.

quote:

---

I was of the opinion that this bill could be ok if the wording was altered, as I support anything to assist in the fight against VAW. However, now I think it is too risky. I have read statements by many in the legal and medical profession who think this legislation will open a back door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I totally agree. Our disagreement lies, i think, on the rationale for taking women's choice to the level of social policy. I don't think it can be that individual choice about decisions involving one's body is always justified because such decisions are merely a private matter. As I wrote above, even making choice determining would involve taking it to the collective, public level, if only because of the public resources needed to actualize that entitlement.

---

quote:

---

"(...) Both physically and in terms of women's identity as mothers and epistemologically as female knowers, reproductive technologies are seen as a threat by radical feminists. And of course, this can be seen clearly with a specific use of prenatal screening technology - the literal erasure of females by the practice of female feticide.
In China, for example, it has become evident that the eradication of female foetuses is not uncommon (Waren, 1985). This is instigated by official limits on family size and the belief that female babies are less desirable than male babies, especially in rural areas. This sex preselection is having major repercussions on the sex ratio balance in both China and India.(...)" - in Feminism after Postmodernism Theorising, Marysia Zalewski, London: Routledge, 2000

---