Thursday, November 22, 2007

Protecting the right to choose - for ALL women

Let's hope Ken Epp has a bit more success than Leon Benoit getting some legislation through to protect Unborn Victims of Crime and their mothers who have chosen to follow through with the pregnancy.

I think there is a lot of grassroots support out there for this bill. Ironically, it was the Conservative government itself that squashed Benoit's efforts. Perhaps it was afraid of a pro-choice backlash, but I firmly believe this is not a mutually exclusive initiative. With the right wording, I think the law can protect a woman's right to choose whether she decides to abort her pregnancy or not. If she chooses to give birth to her baby and someone then commits an act of violence to destroy her unborn child, there should be a punishment for that.

Whatever your political stripes, please contact your MP and let him or her know that you support Bill C-484 (Unborn Victim of Crimes Act).

It's the least we can do for these grieving families.

They deserve closure.


* * * *
Background: Check out Suzanne's post - Margaret Somerville: Defending fetal homicide laws. There are great links to previous arguments both pro & con.

Update: Red Tory has a problem with the bill.

Why am I not surprised?

Upperdate: Red actually makes a good point. *Shudder*

* * * *
Unambig - In the case of fetal rights and interference.

Nexus - I just love it when he gets all dishonest like that...

* * * *
Lifesite: "...some of the families of women who were victims of deadly violent crime while pregnant are urging Canadians to immediately contact their Members of Parliament to urge them to support the Unborn Victims of Crime Act - Bill C-484."

Saturday Update: Rootleweb - Unborn Victims of Crime Act.

Stand your Ground - Unborn Victims of Crime Bill to be Reintroduced.


On the website is a pic of a fetus and a toddler, with the following motto:

"A future child? NO! It's a CHILD with a FUTURE!"





23 comments:

Raphael Alexander said...

I agree. Yet when I've presented this argument to feminists they call it a "slippery slope". What they are really doing is justifying the criminal act of being able to murder a pregnant woman and be charged with one crime.

Ryan R said...

So, Joanne, are you a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer? Now you even use the detestable, dehumanizing, and mischaracterizing, euphemisms of pro-choicers.

I guess in your view, being the mother of the victim gives the mother (or someone hired by her) a special unique privalege to legally kill that victim. In your view, it's not the killing act, but rather who holds the gun (is it the mother or the abortion doctor... or is it somebody else), that determines how legal or illegal the killing act is.

For crying out loud, have the intestinal fortitude to take a logically consistent stand. Be a pro-lifer - like I am - and say that it shouldn't be legal to kill one's unborn child, or stop arguing for this bizarre stand that, well, the unborn child magically becomes a human being deserving of basic legal protection the moment the identity of the killer changes (?!). What does the identity of the killer have to do with wether or not the unborn child is a human being deserving of basic legal protection or not?

The obvious answer is "it doesn't have anything to do with it".

You've been, in my view, bamboozled by flimsy pro-choice euphemisms and rationales.

If those related to an unborn child killed by someone attacking both mother and child wants to see that attacker pay a legal penalty for killing the child, then those relatives should take an overall pro-life stand.

Yes, I'm upset over this. And one reason I'm upset is that you're completely failing to take advantage of a great opportunity to make a broad-based pro-life argument that could start to turn things around in our country on this issue.

You could argue "The sentiments felt by these grieving relates of the unborn child tells us that the unborn child is more than merely an undifferentiated glob of human tissue, as some pro-abortion rights folks would have us believe. These sentiments get to the heart of the matter, and reflect the true nature of the unborn child. The unborn child is a human being, deserving of basic legal protection just as all other human beings are."

As is, you're actually taking the pro-choicers' disgusting euphemisms as your own, and as such adding legitimacy to their weak arguments.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow. I've never experienced such a scathing rebuke from a pro-lifer!

I would say I'm a realist.

This issue needs to be argued separately from the abortion one, or else we will never get anywhere on it.

You want all or nothing.

I want justice for the woman who wants her baby and is the victim of a violent rage because of it.

These women need protection. The baby needs protection. Just because society is snuffing out all those other lives through abortion, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for these ones whose Moms want them. Or even more so.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And as far as the 'euphemisms' go, you sometimes have to speak the language of those whom which you wish to communicate.

Raphael Alexander said...

Don't listen to Ryan. It is the realists and pragmatists who use moderate forms of compromise to achieve change in society. The radicals never change anything on either side.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Raphael. There needs to be some rational, non-partisan debate on this.

Not fear-mongering or hatred.

liberal supporter said...

Thanks ryan.

My views on abortion are very different than yours, but my disdain for this back door approach is the same as yours.

Roy Eappen said...

I loved my former professor's piece. Joanne I oppose abortion for many reasons, but I would not ban it out right. I guess that makes me a realist too.
I support educating people about abortion and of course restricting it to the very earliest stage of pregnancy. Our current abortion laws allow infanticide. That is evil.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red Tory has done a post on this and pointed out a flaw in the bill. I sure hope this is dealt with asap.

Patrick Ross said...

There's nothing slippery about this bill. I've spoken with Leon Benoit personally about this bill, and he assures me that it's specifically written to exclude abortion.

Which it is.

Those who are trying to portray it as a slippery slope argument are simply being either dishonest, or willfully blind, in the service of ideology.

Ryan R said...

Joanne wrote... Wow. I've never experienced such a scathing rebuke from a pro-lifer!

Because you are opposing the pro-life cause for the sake of a relatively fringe issue.

The number of unborn children who die each year through legal abortions massively dwarfs the number of unborn children who die each year from violent attacks by criminals on pregnant women.

What you are doing is akin to cutting off your left arm to heal a splinter on your right finger.

I would say I'm a realist.

I wonder if that's how Martin Luther King Jr. managed to make substantial gains for African-Americans during the civil rights movement. Did he only focus on one small issue alone (say... African-Americans being able to sit wherever they want on a bus), while completely abadoning all other fights for equal justice because they didn't constitute "realistic" goals?

A mere two decades ago, if you suggested that the government re-define marriage to include homosexual couples, you'd be laughed at by virtually every person you suggested the idea to. They'd say... it's not "realistic". It's a hopeless dream.

What is unrealistic one day can become realistic within a mere decade or two if you fight for what you believe in, and slowly work away in trying to persuade people to your position.



This issue needs to be argued separately from the abortion one, or else we will never get anywhere on it.


Then why are you bringing in the horrible euphemisms of pro-choicers into this discussion? You are inviting discussion on abortion with such tactics.



You want all or nothing.


I want logically consistent, sensible laws. How is it logical to assume that the unborn child magically goes from deserving of basic legal proections, to undeserving of them, back to deserving of them again, based purely on who the killer is?

It's a logically asinine stance.



I want justice for the woman who wants her baby and is the victim of a violent rage because of it.


And you appear to be willing to concede all moral ground to pro-choicers in order to achieve that. In doing so, you help to make it that much harder to ever change abortion law in Canada.

Will it be easy to change abortion law in Canada?

Of course not, but political changes that seem unrealistic today (such as achieving SSM back in 1987) can become quite realistic in even but a couple of decades (such as achieving SSM now) with hard work and determination.

It'll take time, and effort, and incremental change. The first step is to argue against dehumanizing and incorrect pro-choice euphemisms. With this latest blog post you are helping to make that first step impossible.

Do you agree that a woman should have a legal choice to kill her unborn child... in every trimester? Because that's what pro-choicers mean by "a woman's right to choose". They put no qualifications on that euphemism.

If you agree with them, then, well, you aren't a pro-lifer, obviously. If you disagree with them, then you do yourself a disservice by adopting their euphemisms for your own.

These women need protection. The baby needs protection. Just because society is snuffing out all those other lives through abortion, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for these ones whose Moms want them. Or even more so.

You can fight for them, and still fight against abortion. That is my stance.

Yes, it should be illegal to kill an unborn child (at least in the 2nd Trimester and beyond). That goes for whoever the killer is.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

There's nothing slippery about this bill. I've spoken with Leon Benoit personally about this bill, and he assures me that it's specifically written to exclude abortion.

Patrick, are you referring to the current bill, which was introduced by Ken Epp?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ryan, how about going over to Red Tory's and taking on the side of the argument that you need to really deal with? (Link at the end of this post)

Ryan R said...

There's no point in trying to persuade others to be pro-life while we're losing those who are already pro-life, Joanne.

You have to try to stop those losses before you can even think about persuading others.

Ryan R said...

I more or less agree with Roy Eappen's actual policy stand.

Liberal Supporter - You're welcome. I do tend to perfer honest, and up front, politics.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Liberal Supporter - You're welcome. I do tend to perfer honest, and up front, politics.

And how's that battle going, Ryan?

Swift said...

-5, -10, -15, -20...
Ring
"Police Department. How can I help you?"
"I would like to report a theft."
"Yes sir, and what was stolen?"
"Global warming."

liberal supporter said...

"Police Department. How can I help you?"
"I would like to report a theft."
"Yes sir, and what was stolen?"
"Global warming."

"Well sir, that's not a crime. We're all hoping it will turn out we were wrong. It's not looking good though. Local temperatures vary, but global averages? Seems we're not on a cooling trend, and it's heating faster than other planets are.

But we could be wrong.
Just like we don't execute murderers, in case we're wrong. In the meantime, we'll keep them locked up.
And in the meantime, we should reduce our emissions, in case we're not wrong.

Ryan R said...

Joanne - In all honesty, my personal impact on the issue has been very limited. However, I once debated a staunch pro-choicer on the issue who became neutral on the abortion issue in large part because of our debates. A second pro-choicer almost became a pro-lifer due to my debates with her, but unfortunetly I wasn't able to completely persuade her.

Still, that's one less pro-choicer as a political opponent, and one other pro-choicer who has become more open-minded on the issue at least.

I also debated abortion with an University Ethics Professor during an in-class discussion once. He himself admitted after the class that I had dominated the debate with my pro-life points. Perhaps that may have swayed one of the other students in my class at the time - I don't know.

It's not much, but if every pro-lifer was to have even the marginal degree of personal success on this issue that I had, it may change enough minds to start saving unborn children in a major way.

One thing I'm very confidant of after these three debates is that you simply can't concede to euphemisms like "a woman's right to choose". If I had conceded to that, I would have made no headway whatsoever in those three debates.

You have to insist on neutral terminology, and steadfastly reject euphemisms.

Just my opinion.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ryan, thanks. I appreciate your enthusiasm and conviction. You're preaching to the converted though.

I really do challenge you to practice your debating skills at Red Tory's though.

Ryan R said...

Well, I left a reply on his blog thread dealing with the issue, Joanne. I greatly respect how you, and some others, are really throwing yourself into the lion's den over there.

I had went to Red Tory's blog a few times in the past, but sheer numbers of opponents, and level of abrasiveness there, made it seem like an exercise in futility to me.

However, with you and a few others clearly taking a pro-life stand there, I felt that I should add my support. :)

Have a good day.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks for giving it a shot, Ryan. I agree with what you posted there.

Yeah, tough crowd. You have to wear body armor before venturing over.

Anonymous said...

Joyce Arthur’s latest claims in response to Margaret Somerville: “Defending fetal homicide laws” where Ms. Arthur claims that fetal homicide laws are used in US to criminalise behaviour of pregnant women due to conservative (Republican) bias and pro life agenda are totally bogus to say the least. Women of North America are suffering from epidemic of infertility that they brought on themselves by their own lifestyle choices; promiscuity - resulting in STD infections causing infertility, abortions - resulting in scaring of uterine walls and plugging of fallopian tubes also causing infertility, delaying procreation and pregnancy – resulting in diminished fertility due to age and increased risk of genetic defects of fetus. This acute infertility epidemic has resulted in deepening of birthrate crisis in Canada and spawned, over the years, creation of multimillion dollar adoption industry. This profit driven industry took control over child protection industry in Canada and US, turning child protectors into baby snatchers and suppliers of adoptable children. Now with supply of adoptable children drying up despite best efforts of baby snatchers, and abortions in Canada at all time high new alliances are being formed. Adoption industry traditionally aligned with pro-choice (in order to limiting supply and driving up prices of adoptable children), is abandoning feminists and their agenda, and is joining forces with pro-life movement (in order to increase supply of adoptable children) and is pushing for fetal homicide laws creating legal arguments for criminalising behaviour of pregnant women and additional reasons for abduction of adoptable children. New consensus is being formed; in order to balance demand and supply in adoption market and maximise profit there seems to be an urgent need to introduce legal restriction on access to abortions.

In this new environment of “socially advanced” division of labour where young often single and economically disadvantaged women are destined to serve as baby breeders for financially well off; middle age infertile couples, radical feminists, lesbians and homosexuals, past practices of selective access to therapeutic abortion committees and abortions that prompted Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in the Morgentaler’s case twenty years ago sounds extremely attractive today.