Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Feminists in denial

In her Post editorial (Today's bullies - yesterday's feminists), Barbara Kay has some great comebacks for Antonia Zerbisias' argument against C-484 that "the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered 'one person.' That means there are no 'unborn victims' of crime."

Kay counters:

...But wait: Women were not "legal persons" until 1929. That didn't mean that before 1929 their husbands had the right to kill them.

And as for the other predictable moral laundering gambit -- that mother and fetus are one person because their biological systems operate symbiotically -- well, the same is true of Siamese twins, indisputably two human beings. If one is murdered, and the other dies in consequence, should only one charge be laid?


- And if someone is going to try to argue that the Siamese twins are symbiotic while the maternal-fetal relationship is parasitic, I'm sure we can come up with some Siamese twin examples where one twin was much more dependent on the other for use of major organs and blood supply.

On the other hand, I don't believe we need to prove personhood in order to be able to support a woman's right to complete her pregnancy.

Barbara Kay also references Suzanne's excellent op-ed in Monday's Post.

Should be interesting to see how Zerbisias responds.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Feminists are getting dizzy with their own spin. They are afraid of this bill because it recognises a pre-born baby as a person. They know it and it is 'too close for comfort'.But they will spin their moral relativism instead of being honest about their fears.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the fetus genetically distinct from the mother? If so, how can the mother and fetus be considered "one person"?

johndoe124

Roy Eappen said...

Indeed anonymous. A baby has half their genetic material from their father.
One could also argue that a child is a parasite until about age 15, that doesn't mean we can kill a ten year old either!!!

bigcitylib said...

I thought Zerby's argument was that the first attempt to use this law will be shot down by the SC. Kay doesn't say that argument is wrong, so what is the point of the whole exercise of passing C-484?

SUZANNE said...

The Supreme Court has said that a law protecting the fetus is within the perview of Parliament.

The Bill will not grant rights to a fetus.

SUZANNE said...

The Supreme Court has said that a law protecting the fetus is within the perview of Parliament.

The Bill will not grant rights to a fetus.

Anonymous said...

Bigcitylib: So Zerby's a constitutional expert then? Kay too? I think the point of the exercise, regardless if it gets shot down or not, is to put the issue in front of the SC. I think feminists are running scared because they realize the implication of doing that - as much as they wring their hands they're realizing there's a good chance it'll stick.

Steph said...

One could also argue that a child is a parasite until about age 15

Roy that deserves a laugh! LOL!

This bill to me seems like a very moderate and logical bill. I truly can't believe that it isn't already a crime to kill an unborn baby. The times that this will become most useful are the cases where someone specifically targets the baby with no intention of killing the mother. As it stands right now they can kill the baby in such a way that it doesn't seriously injure the mother and it isn't murder. So having a law in place that makes it murder will certainly deter a high percentage of people considering such an act from doing that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I just added a link to "Zerby's" article.

Interesting that she admits this much:

"...That said, murder – mostly by intimate partners – is a leading cause of death for pregnant women..."

maryT said...

I wonder how many of those that favor abortion, and write about how it is a woman's right to choose, realize that the only reason they are here to do that is,
THEIR PARENTS ALLOWED THEM TO BE BORN, NOT KILLED.

Patrick Ross said...

What really amuses me are individuals who insist that all late-term abortions, in particular, are crisis abortions despite mounting evidence that this may not be the case.

Here's what I think is a fair offer to the pro-abortion lobby: legislate limits on late-term abortion that restrict them to crisis abortions.

After all, if they're all crisis abortions, what's the harm?

OMMAG said...

Delving into the workings of a mind like Zerb's looks to me like contemplating a walk through a septic field. It may look like just part of the backyard but that squishy liquid that oozes up under your feet ain't perfume baby!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

OMMAG - Pretty scary alright...

Anonymous said...

if all those who think killing an unborn child is a ok were suddenly confronted with the loss of their own life , well......

The Seer said...

So before 1929 women were"illegal persons?"

Mark said...

Great post, J. There's nothing more to add to what has been said already.