Many others have already shown that this bill has less to do with crime prevention than it has to do with creating criminals out of women who exercise their choice.
There are those who would like to see these kinds of stories become commonplace in Canada:
Mother-of-two Alicja Tysiac was refused an abortion in Poland’s public health system in 2000 despite three doctors’ opinions that she risked loss of her eyesight as a result of the pregnancy.
link
Bojorge was awaiting her second child when she and her 5-month-old fetus died this month in a public hospital in Managua. Bojorge’s family says they took her to a hospital when she complained of limb pains and weakness. When her condition worsened, doctors say they determined her fetus was dead, but Bojorge went into shock before they could save her.
and
Ana Isela Vega, who was three months pregnant when she suffered a miscarriage this month, was refused the necessary procedure to evacuate her uterus in a public hospital in the city of León, said Marta María Blandón, Central America director of Ipas. According to Blandón, the doctors worried they could not operate for legal reasons. Under pressure from women’s groups who explained that the law did not forbid removing an already-deceased fetus, the doctors finally operated.
There are few dystopias more frightening than one in which a woman is held captive to the product of her uterus. Women continue to die in countries where doctors are afraid to even provide life saving surgery for such things as ectopic pregnancy because of the threat of prison.
Don’t let this happen here. Phone, fax, write or email your MP and send this letter to Liberal leader Dion.
[email_link]
Poorly informed.
So… You don’t think unborn children should be protected under the criminal code from attackers? It in no way infringes on the rights of women to terminate pregnancies.
You had better read the bill.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3127600&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24#1
I have read it. Thanks.
That is why I know that it in fact does nothing but give person status to foetuses. It also makes provision for abusive partners to kill a foetus and claim crime of passion.
You lot would be considerably more believable if you supported funding for women’s shelters, and the many other programs that actually do something for women and any foetus that might be therein.
How can someone in the right mind oppose this Bill? Section 7(a) states that “For greater certainty, this section[bill] does not apply in respect of conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented.” THIS IS NOT A BILL THAT CREATES CRIMINALS OUT OF WOMEN WHO EXERCISE THEIR CHOICE! If this bill passes there will be a greater punishment for those who violently terminate a woman’s pregnancy. This Bill will bring more security to women, is that too bad? Are you in favor of those who abuse against pregnant woman?
I agree with you about better funding for women’s shelters and any other programs for pregnant women. However, that is NOTan excuse to oppose this bill. Perhaps, as an outcome if this bill is approved, MP’s will push the government to grant better funding for pregnant women!
Fran you are missing the point that this is based on American style “justice”
We already have laws that allow judges to punish those who hurt pregnant women and or kill/damage the fetus more harshly,
We do not have consecutive sentencing which is what this bill requires.
These same laws are being used to punish pregnant women in the states for behaviours ranging from drug abuse to choosing not to have a c-section. Is that protection for pregnant women?
Well I still think I am missing the point here…
I am not against any type of protection for pregnant or non-pregnant woman. More protection is needed as violence against women still is a sad reality today. Whether it be American, Chinese, or whatever style of justice you can think of, we need to realize that this bill will give a harsher sentence to those who abuse pregnant women forcing them to have a miscarriage.
I understand that Section 287.1of The Criminal Code of Canada punishes those who hurt pregnant women and or kill/damage the fetus. But, how often are we seen this laws enforced? This bill is promising a greater sanction and also highlighting the seriousness an attack against pregnant women is.
I think We should all leave behind our personal opinions in regards of the abortion issue and support this Bill.
For the sake of eliminating violence against women
How do you see it offering more protection? OR greater retribution?
We don’t have consecutive sentencing. We have concurrent sentencing.
Also pregnant women are at greatest risk from husbands and boyfriends, yet this bill has provisions for them to not be dealt with as harshly.
I think it needs careful study before believing it offers any reasonable protections.
“This Bill will bring more security to women, is that too bad?”
How, exactly? Does it create a protective force field around pregnant women? Magically remove violent impulses from domestic partners or random psycho/sociopaths? Create more funding for shelters and other resources for women who experience domestic violence? Um, the answers would be NO, NO, and NO.
The criminal code already has mechanisms to give longer sentences to those who assault or murder pregnant women and kill the fetus they are carrying. Therefore, this bill is completely unnecessary, unless you’re against abortion and want fetal personhood declared as a first step to recriminalizing abortion. That is why anyone “in their right mind” would oppose it – we can see the forest for the trees.
Time could be better spent reading this bill for what it is…
Protection of pregnant women and their babies.
Speculating as to the the future implications of Bill C-484
is about as productive as fortune telling.
The bill is clearly written stating it applies to a third party assailant.
We’re expecting our first child in about 5 weeks, I’m glad this bill
is filling a hole in our justice system. Once more it serves as
a deterrent to would be thieves and attackers, that if they are
to attack a pregnant woman, and that baby is harmed, they will
face harsher, appropriate penalties for their crime.
I support Bill C-484 for protecting Pregnant women and their
babies, I wish it was law now. For my wife, and child’s sake.
3rd party. And a doctor preforming an abortion would be…wait for it… a third party!
Sorry Sean I’m sure you a really great guy and will make a great father but statistically your wife and child are at greater risk from you than a third party.
Please don’t take that as a smear on your charcter just quoting stats
So why does this bill have such strong support from the anti choice crowd? Why had this type of legislation led to criminalizing pregnant women for refusing c-sections?
Your wife and child are already protected under the current laws. This bill will not form some sort of protective bubble around them.
I’m glad someone else can see this bill for what it is- the first step in the recriminalization of abortion in Canada. This bill won’t help or protect women, it just sets a dangerous precedent.
This is in no way recriminalization of abortion. This is simply the conservatives doing good on their promise of being tough on crime. Plus, to those saying there was already means to punish crimes against unborn children, please show me. There was no disposition at all on the subject, and article 238 of the criminal code (which is right before article 238.1 that would be created by bill C-484) only applied to crimes committed during birth. NOTHING on crimes done towards the child itself during pregnancy.
And for the question of the doctor being a third party, note that, as mentioned, there’s a paragraph explicitly excluding abortion from being forbidden as well as any act necessary to protect the mother. Thus, the doctor performing an abortion is protected, as he is doing an act that is allowed by said paragraph.
This bill, really, is being blasted because of the person who suggested it (because he’s pro-life and it touched the protection of the fetus, automatically people saw it as anti-abortion), If it said the foetus was a human being, it would be one thing. But it doesn’t; it only says that you can’t defend yourself in court by saying the fetus isn’t human, without making any judgment as to whether or not a fetus is, in fact, human. There is no modification to the article that states when a fetus becomes a human being (article 223(1) of the Criminal Code, to be specific), and another federal law explicitly states the fetus IS NOT a human being, but rather a human “organism” (the Assisted Human Reproduction Act). If there was an intent to give the fetus rights or a status as a human being, then either of those articles would likely be modified in some way, but this isn’t the case.
Thus, I don’t see the problem in supporting this law.
The the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists disagrees it isn’t about re-criminalizing abortion. The SOGC. Every woman who values her freedom and the freedoms of her children and grandchildren is against the bill.
In fact the only people making lauding and making excuses for and obfuscations about the bill are those who spend their time actively trying to stick their noses in others reproductive organs.
That was not an obfuscation, rather an extremely clear response that Laurier made. All this talk about fetal rights and noses in reproductive organs is just scaremongering and antagonism to try to threaten people away from making a good law that protects women.
As regards your allegation that the bill excuses crimes of passion, AR, what the bill actually does in the case of “in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation within the meaning of section 232” is to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years (10 years!) to *gasp* a life sentence with no mandatory minimum sentence. Maybe I misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying that the bill is not harsh enough. Should there be a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for crimes done under provocation as well as premeditated ones? Is that what you’re saying?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
One does wonder, however, why the only people supporting this motion are those who also wish to end women’s choice.
Your ad hominem argument against the people and not the facts shows that you have given up on rational argument.
I support bill C-484, and that bill states outright that it will keep the status quo regarding abortion.
But do you want to know my views on abortion?
I want women to have real choice but currently the system is stacked in favour of abortion. At any time during pregnancy. For free. The government is funding a situation of abortion free-for-all but is not giving financial support for women who want to keep their child, so in effect saying Canada is pro-choice is hypocritical. Canada is pro-abortion right now.
Canada has the most pro-abortion legal regime in the developed world. And the developing world is even more restrictive. But Canada since 88 has absolutely no law regulating abortion. The Court knocked down the old law as unconstitutional, and we replaced it with nothing. We have no law on it. Except we fund it at any stage of pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all. In Britain abortions are disallowed except for special circumstances after 24 weeks but in Canada we are busy aborting babies that are older than preemies that we save in a different ward of the same hospital.
If Canada was pro-choice then it would create government programs to support university students in unplanned pregnancy situations when they want to keep their baby. 60% of university students are female nowdays. If Canada had a sane policy on this it would create a choice for those who want to keep their child, but currently abortion is government funded and support of women in crisis pregnancy who want more options is left to private charity.
How long can the Canadian government afford to keep supporting this one-choice=abortion model when our national birth rate is below replacement level?
Those are my views on abortion.
But what I really wanted to talk about was Bill C-484.
Give us all a good argument as to why you’re against C-484.
Are you under the impression I’m here to entertain you?
Here’s a rational argument for you, your premise is not true. Increased punishment does not, in fact, lead to less crime. So increasing the punishment for hurting pregnant women does not actually make them safer.
Off the top of my head, I am guessing that the leading assaulters of pregnant women are their partners. So it would seem that to make them safer we should address domestic abuse. As much as we all like to fear the psycho/sociopath hiding in the bushes on every corner waiting to punch pregnant women, fearing them is as valid as your argument.
It is not true that Canada makes it “too easy” for women to obtain abortions. First of all, this argument assumes that women make decisions quickly, based on convenience and availability, and not after careful thought. This assumption is easily refuted, especially by anyone who trusts and respects women as intelligent human beings.
Secondly, it is very difficult to get abortions in many parts of Canada, and strict time limits are imposed. Think you can get an abortion at 7 months?: just try it. No abortions are performed in PEI. In New Brunswick only two hospitals do a handful of abortions every month, only if they are approved by two doctors and within the first 12 weeks of gestation. After that, women must drive to the Morgentaler clinic in Fredericton, and pay for their abortions, and then only up to 16 weeks. If they are beyond 16 weeks? They might drive to Montreal, where one clinic goes up to 20 weeks, but beyond 20 weeks women are SOL. Abortion is not part of the criminal code in Canada because it is considered a health procedure and not a criminal act. That does not mean, however, that there are no regulations. Abortion is heavily regulated by the health system, though these regulations differ by province. It is practically impossible to get an abortion after 20 or 22 weeks anywhere in Canada, expect for those few cases when there is a fatal fetal anomoly or the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. In those rare cases women are usually sent to the United States because most Canadian doctors do not even know how to perform late-term abortions.
AR, in response to your question, I am actually rather entertained by these postings, particularly your claiming to know exactly who is and who is not supportive of this bill:
“Every woman who values her freedom and the freedoms of her children and grandchildren is against the bill.
In fact the only people making lauding and making excuses for and obfuscations about the bill are those who spend their time actively trying to stick their noses in others reproductive organs.”
Perhaps the following might help to broaden your perspective a tad. I have actually had an abortion, at 15, and I support this bill. My grandmother had an abortion in the 1940s at age 17, before it was legal, and she almost died. However, she, too, supports this bill. As does my mother, my father, my girlfriends, my boyfriends and most of the sane, rational-minded people I know. So, obviously there are those of us out there who can both support the right of a woman to have an abortion while simultaneously recognizing the rights of pregnant women who choose to view their fetus as a child rather than, as you so eloquently put it, a “product of their uterus” that holds them captive. Women should be able to obtain abortions (and they can, maybe not in PEI, but PEI health insurance will fund an abortion obtained elsewhere), there should be reasonable limits on abortion (and there are. Sorry, it’s not like free speech and it shouldn’t be), but women who do choose to become mothers should have some guarantee in the charter that their rights and choices are respected to the same extent as those seeking termination. That’s what equality means. It’s okay, a lot of people don’t fully understand the concept. That said, I do admire passionate rhetoric, and you’ve made some other excellent postings on other topics that are less nuanced and more grounded in the facts. This one, however, seemed more centred around attacking the proponents of the bill rather than the bill itself. Good luck down the road.
Cheers!
EB, you clearly misunderstand the Bill. You want a guarantee in the Charter that the rights and choices of women, who choose to become mothers, are respected. The Bill doesn’t actually do this. In fact, mothers and non-mothers alike already have this protection (except for non-citizens, which is a different topic altogether). Also, as a point of fact, there are limits to free speech in Canada. You are confusing Canadian law with what you have seen on American television. You may have noticed that promoting hatred is illegal.
Sagan, you clearly misunderstand both my point and the bill. We have a society that is extremely tolerant of a woman’s right to see her fetus as nothing more than a jumble of cells, but very little support for people who choose to call it a human being, and that’s what the bill redresses. To your second point, it seems you need to read over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Start with section 2:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Freedom of speech is obviously not only an American concept since it is enshrined as one of our society’s most valued tenets. While promoting hatred may be illegal, how do you define “hate”? Greenpeace is certainly guilty of promoting hatred against the oil companies, or are they merely exercising freedom of expression to voice their strong disapproval? It’s difficult to discern where one ends and the other begins, and more difficult still to devise sanctions so precise as to prohibit genuine expressions of hate without imperilling A LOT of other speech. We would have a much easier time, and waste less time, money and energy, if we directed our efforts towards prosecuting discriminatory deeds and actions instead of criminalizing words and phrases. ‘Sticks and stones,’ after all. For the record, I am studying constitutional law, I love American television, and I HATE the CRTC. Go ahead and report me to the thought police.
That is just not true. A pregnant women can relate her news at the top of hers lungs in the middle of a busy mall and no one will say boo.
If a woman related news of her decision to abort in a similar fashion she would risk harm from extremists, lectures from do gooders, gasps of alarm from pearl clutchers.
Courts already take seriously harm to a pregnant woman, what they fail to take seriously is domestic abuse, which is where most harm to fetuses comes from.
EB: This is an argument that is clearly off topic, but I must respond. As much as I appreciate your appeal to authority, it does not win arguments (eg. I study Constitutional Law). Instead of starting with the second article of the Charter, let us start with the first,
“The CCRF guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
Freedom of speech is not limitless, as I would hope you would be aware, please refer to CCC Art. 318-320. Of course there is room for interpretation in the law, that is why there are lawyers and courts.
I never claimed that freedom of speech was an American tenet nor that the laws are perfect. I only said it isn’t limitless. But, of course, after your appeal to authority you built a straw man.
Onto the Bill. The law already supports women who choose to carry their pregnancies from blastocyst (literally a jumble of cells) to baby. These women are supported by the very same laws that support (almost) everyone else. There is not gap or loophole here. Therefore, one should question why a new law is necessary.
Also, big words don’t mean big ideas and I am not sure why I would report you to the “thought police”.
actually if anyone ahd any doubts. and im not sure if its mentioned. women can ahve abortions up until the birth, or even during (called assisted msicarriage) there is nto one alw regulating abortion whatsoever. i really hope some pro-choice women have get a pregnant and are all happy cause they love it, and then they get attacked and it dies. and the man only goes away for 10 months for assault. bet itd change your mind huh?? but if thats what we need so be it
Another example of thoughtful, loving anti choicer.
sheesh
Wow Kris, I wouldn’t want to meet you in a dark alley, or a spelling bee/grammar rodeo, for that matter ( I’m sorry, I know its low-brow, but I couldn’t resist).
I hate to keep flogging a dead horse but tougher laws don’t actually make us safer. Prevention, however, does make us safer, men, women, children, blastocysts, all of us. Why can nobody ever understand this?
April:
First, I don’t think anyone appreciates having opinions screamed at them from some crazy person in a busy shopping mall, whether that person is pro-life, pro-choice, liberal or conservative. Second, I think the opposite is actually true. These days, if you’re not pro-choice, then you’re deemed anti-feminist, politically incorrect and face possible discrimination and reproachment from the vast majority of people. Evidence: the ad hominem attacks made by you about posters to this forum who disagree with your ideological bent. They are certainly not helping you win your argument. The issue you and Sagan raise regarding domestic abuse and prevention, though valid, is fodder for another forum entirely.
Sagan, with regard to section one of the charter, the key words there are “free and democratic.” “Reasonable,” however, is another one of those vague, loosely defined notions that is utterly impossible for everyone to agree on and I won’t even go there. Second, I have yet to see concrete evidence that tougher punishments don’t deter crime. There are several competing studies out there, some say they do, some say it has no effect, and still others agree with you. So take your pick.
But despite the vocal and extremely well-publicized demonstrations against this bill (media attention is still further evidence of our society’s favourtism of pro-choicers), it passed second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 147 to 132, suggesting that since the majority of MP’s are in favour, then the majority of their constituents (i.e. Canadians) are likely in favour, as well. As this is a democracy, this decision should stand, regardless of what either of you, or I, have to say about it. Most certainly, knocking people for having poor grammar won’t change this either.
Oh come on, I even addressed the “poor grammar” comment, did you really have to?
I think it is very unfortunate that you don’t see alternatives to incarceration, such as prevention, as relevant to this discussion. As far as evidence for tougher punishments not deterring crime, there is plenty of if. If you really are a law student, it is a cause for concern about the future of our profession. It is well recognized that it is the certainty, not the severity of punishment that impacts crime. I think one of the most simple and straightforward examples of increased punishment not reducing crime is the death penalty in Canada. The homicide rate peaked while the death penalty was still on the books and since abolition, it has never been so high. If tougher punishments really reduced crime, one would expect the opposite result. I could go on, but I feel that you should know this.
Onto the Charter. Might I remind you that my only point was that free-speech is not limitless, to which I can only assume you are unable to respond. Though it has NOTHING to do with my argument, did it ever occur to you that the wording is purposely ambiguous? Loosely defined terms allow for interpretation in a particular social climate. This is how you avoid being locked into 300 year old values. I am surprised that this isn’t covered at your Law School, which one do you attend?
Thankfully, laws are not written in stone. This isn’t the first poorly thought out crime Bil that this government has introduced and it probably won’t be the last. Even if it does receive Royal Assent, it will hopefully be repealed soon enough.
im honestly not a skethcy or mean perosn. Im 18, and not the ‘tough” type. but the point is sometimes only certian things cna bring real realizations. But if you are pro choice, why should you care if you are soemhow hurt and lose the (what im going to call) “baby”. This thing now labeled a “fetus” ahs been so degraded,s cientifically, emotionally and culturally by our society that its a ‘thing”. a “parasite” as it has been refered to as by some feminists.
So how on one side can you be pro-choice, obviously justifying it by “oh its not a baby”. then when soemthing happens like the situation i explained say “oh no thats terrible”. By your logic its nothing! so therefore you lsot nothing.
the part I ahve probelm understanding is the fact that for awhiel now, babies have been born prematuraly as early as five months! five months!! so can anyone tell em what makes the difference (using this as a hypotherical situation) a women whos preganat six months wiht her baby and the baby (hypothetically) lying infront of her on the “fake uterus” or whatever you want to call it, because he was born 4 months early!!!!
Simply because a baby leaves a body means it ahs feeligns??? of course not. thats the probhelm with canada. We can’t even take a moderate, reasoned approach of making it a 3 month cap (because the brain ahsn’t developed yet) I’m not some religious nut trying to jsutify it because some god says so. im trying to use reason that so many peopel seem to dismiss. -3 months means no brain development/ no feelings. + 3 months means the brain begins to develop and can therefore begin to think, hear and even subconsiously understand
Sagan, If you’d honestly like to discuss prevention, how about preventing the supposed need for an abortion in the first place? Obviously it’s not true that more education on the subject of pregnancy and STD’s leads to lower occurrences. Otherwise, the STD rate would not be on the rise, and the abortion rate today would not be ten times what it was thirty years ago. Ignoring victims of sexual violence, there aren’t many cases in which one can justifiably argue they got pregnant by accident anymore, especially in a society where the Plan B emergency contraceptive pill is now available over the counter, without even requiring a prescription or medical consultation. If that’s not enough prevention, here’s another idea. How about parents helping to prevent teen pregnancies by teaching their children to be more accountable for their actions instead of relying on the easiest way to clean up their mess after they’ve already made it? Looking back over these posts, I don’t think I ever gave the impression that I don’t see alternatives and you are correct in that prevention is certainly one of them.
But there are more reasons for incarceration than prevention, like providing victims with a sense of security. And as far as tougher punishment acting as a deterrent, please forgive me but last I checked, there is still a great deal of debate on the issue, and a host of other factors that also must be weighed in. Sentencing, for example, is only one of three factors in crime prevention, the other two being detection and conviction. All three components need to be present for deterrence to work effectively. One could make the case that there are not enough police on the streets, or that judges have too much freedom to interpret precedent and argue in favour of mandatory minimums, at the very least for the sake of consistency.
The jury is still out on the death penalty as well, I’m afraid. As I already said, there are countless studies that conclude for, against, and uncertain of the death penalty’s effectiveness. As far as its effectiveness in reducing homicide and violent crime rates, perhaps if convicted criminals didn’t have the foreknowledge of long drawn-out appeal processes, and the knowledge that in the U.S., for example, death penalty inmates are more likely to die of old age than by execution, the death penalty might provide more of a deterrence.
Back to the Charter: I see I shall have to remind you that I never said free speech was unlimited, I merely pointed out the disparity between what the charter guarantees and the current restrictive social climate with regard to free expressions of opinion in Canada. I also argued in favour of fewer limitations on “free” speech by an appeal to the unintended negative consequences of such. I have to wonder, though, since the Charter is only 26-years-old, which 300-year old values are you referring to?
I should also add that yes, the homicide rate in Canada peaked in the mid-seventies (around the same year as capital punishment was abolished) at 3.0 homicides per 100,000 people. But although this rate experienced a net decrease since then (today, it hovers around 1.9-2.0), it peaked again in the early 1990s at around 2.9. Additionally, while the rates of total crime have also seen a net decrease (owing to numerous factors, as well), violent crime rates in Canada (attempted murder, assault, aggravated assault, abuse, robbery with a weapon, etc.) have risen overall. Gang murders, for example, have doubled every year since the mid-1990s (See StatsCanada). As such, it doesn’t seem likely that the overall decline in homicide rates has much to do with the abolishment of capital punishment.
It may also be worth taking note that in the U.S., between the mid-sixties and 1980, no executions were carried out, anywhere, period. Meanwhile, the homicide rate skyrocketed from about 56 per 66,000 people to a staggering 190 by 1980. Since then, the death penalty has been increasingly applied once more, while the homicide rate concurrently saw a steady decline (See the U.S. Bureau of Criminal Justice for a reference on these statistics).
You point out that no law is written in stone, therefore it is unreasonable to hold such strong opposition to a law based on what amounts to little more than your own, personal value judgements. No single law is perfect in all instances and for all people, nor can everyone agree on a single appropriate punishment to fit a particular offense. However, to paraphrase April in one of her comments on abortion (“If you don’t like abortion, don’t f***ing have one”), if you don’t like the punishment, don’t commit the crime.
whoever cant see a corelation between capital punishment and crimes an idiot. would you steal if the penalty was death?? of course not!! or at least think about it alot before hand. the same is with murder. and the whole comment about
”If you don’t like abortion, don’t f***ing have one”
is compeltely idiotic and yet again shows the ignorance of people who are for absolute unmonitored abortion. we dont just wanna stop it or at least monitor it because we think its better for those who are thinking about getting it. Its cause whether your believe is rleigiously based (spirit) or intelectually and scientifically based (brain begins to develop at 3 months) we believe a person is being murdered. And would you stand by while one of the worst cases of modern infantcide is happenign in our own cities?? of course not.
And to make it worse, you ahve people, wellw omen, claiming its their “right” to kill them. Thats this side of the argument anyways. Canada is the only developed country int he world who does not have a stance on abortion!! or no laws! isnt that crazy? when babies have been borna nd lived at 5 months!! and yet we have wmen getting abortions at 7, or 8 or even as late as 9 months. wahts the difference betweeen the five month old baby on life support in the hospital, and the 8 month old one in the women 30 feet away? ye for soem reason that 5 month is a baby just because its bron> give me a break. and idiot could figure that out.
anyways doesnt amtter anwyays. the bill ahs been passed. we won. its the first steps to reinstating soem alws and morals into this country.
its funny thoguh that its women here aruging for abortion, when like 80% of people who get abortion are teens, and often, excuse my language “floozy”. Your arguing the right for something teen girls need cause they cant control themselves.
Some people need to learn a little something about the law in Canada and about medical ethics. It is wrong to say that we have no legislation concerning abortion in Canada; we have medical standards, and I would venture to say that those are even higher than the standards lawyers operate by.
No doctor in Canada kills a viable baby, and the only so-called late-term abortions that occur (very very few) happen in emergencies, when a woman and her doctor have to choose between two dead bodies or one. That has always been true and always will be true.
Before writing anything else, I’d like to specify that I am neither a hard-line pro-lifer or pro-choicer (as opposite to what was implied by a reply to my previous post, which was just over a month ago). I am not involved in that debate, and only post because I believe blasting the current bill C-484 for being against abortion is just plain untrue.
However, I’d like to bring some precisions as to what people say about there being or not regulation on abortion.
In Canada, while there are indeed medical and ethical standards in hospitals, the same cannot be said outside of them. Plus, as mentioned before, since the Morgentaler ruling in 1988, we don’t have a valid disposition of the Criminal Code regulating abortion. Thus, I see kris’ point about there not being any laws.
Of course, people can say it’s theoretical concerns, that abortions outside of hospitals never happen, but it nevertheless does, and sometimes with reckless measures taken to ensure the foetus’ demise (as if the mother attempts to kill the foetus while it’s in the womb but it dies after going out of it, it’s basically considered murder). This is very dangerous for the mother (there was a case, though the name escapes me at the moment, where a woman shot her own foetus with a gun while it was in her womb). There is thus a gaping legal hole that needs to be filled.
Back onto bill C-484, however, without feeling the need to answer to every single point made since I first posted, I’ll mention to kris that nothing is “won” yet. There are still several procedures the bill must go through before becoming law. I’ll also precise, as this is something I said even when I first posted, that this bill is not about abortion or forbidding it, so I don’t see the point of saying this is a first step into bringing some “morals” back into the country, which I guess refers to fetal rights (though please correct me if I misunderstood you).
Both sides of the debate, it seems, are trying to illustrate the law as being anti-abortion, and the best arguments that I’ve seen on here against the bill are that more severe sentencing doesn’t equal less crime, which is debatable, as EB has pointed out, and most especially, completely off-topic of the question at hand, which I now ask: HOW does Bill C-484, in any way, shape or form, forbid abortion or bring about any such situation? Not arguments of who says what about the bill (i.e. he/she’s for/against the bill), but arguments of what the bill is about.
Note that this is not just a question for those that are pro-choice, but for those that are pro-life as well. Thank you for whoever takes the time to answer that question clearly.
Laurier,
In the USA, where these kinds of fetal rights bills first found favour, they have been used to persecute pregnant women. Women have been policed, harassed and jailed because they were pregnant and, according to law officials, not taking good enough care of the fetuses they carry. We don’t need that style of “caretaking” in Canada.
Furthermore, C-484 would create huge confusion in Canadian jurisprudence because it would change the already-accepted definition of human being. You can’t just go and change definitions at a whim; you have to consider the larger whole, and it’s pretty clear that Epp’s “legal team” are not experts at that. Either that, or they’re sneaky as can be.
Finally, though Epp states the contrary, this bill would do nothing to protect pregnant women. The judiciary in Canada already have the case law to back up any increased sentence for those who attack pregnant women.
So, if Canadian law is already capable of handling the issues Epp claims his bill will fix, why is there any need for C-484? Why, it’s to kick abortion’s ass, of course!
PS: Kris, who is apparent know-it-all 18 y.o.:
C-484 has not received Royal Assent. But nice try. Fetal fetishists often lie to try to make their points.
berlynn,
Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I must disagree with you on several points.
For starters, this is not a bill that recognizes fetal rights. Despite it allowing a recourse separately for the damage done to the unborn child, that offense is still dependant on the mother herself suffering a prejudice. If anything, article 238 of the criminal code would be more dangerous than the current bill, as it establishes a crime for killing an unborn child during birth and isn’t even dependant on the mother suffering a prejudice. I will mention, by the way, that said article 238 has been there before Morgentaler, Tremblay c. Daigle, etc. and has not had a consequence of recognizing a legal status of human being to the fetus.
Should the bill have actually caused a recognition of fetal rights, I would’ve agreed on the dangers of it, however.
As for the definition of human being, how does it modify the current definition, exactly? From what I can tell, the article that would be created (238.1) does not edit the currently recognized definition of the human being (article 223(1) of the criminal code).
As for the case law, two things bother me about that argument: For one thing, it leaves it at the discretion of the judge, so the moral point of view of the judge can create some rather awkward situations and can constitute motives of appeal if the judge tries to go a bit too far, so legislation is clearly preferable. Also, I’d like to point out that if it is only an aggravating circumstance, then it can only go as far as the crime that’s committed originally allows it. In the case of a murder, the impact might not be as critical, as murder can bring about jail for life. But what about assault, which has, in theory, a maximum jail time of 5 years? No matter what the case law says, the law has priority, and th law says (at article 266 of the criminal code) that you can’t be condemned at more than 5 years in jail. 5 years in jail for potentially breaking a woman’s dreams of a family. And that’s IF the judge decides to take it in consideration at all, which he is not forced to.
I’m sorry if that last argument sounds a bit emotional, but the thought of something like that happening just feels wrong to me.
Thus, I disagree that Canadian Law can handle the issues C-484 handles. There’s too much room for human error, and too many limitations.
berlynn, because I have an opinion I’m a know it all? is it that much of a dictatorship or so “politically incorrect” to oppose abortion that to say one thing makes me a “know it all”. my opinons are my own, but if my arguemnts ahppen to sway anyone, so be it. im not out here to “save souls’ or preach, im simply stating my own opion.
Please!! for your own safety peopel dont say your opinion!! your a “know it all” if you do!!!!
skdadl, I’m sorry but I’d agree wiht you if you were right. it is not wrong to say that “we have no legislation concerning abortion in Canada”. legislation are laws put in palce by the government. and ever since the laws concernign abortion were stuck down by the supreme court, we have had no laws. we have nothing monitoring the practice of abortion. it is up to the descretion of the doctor preforming it. Which has led to “assisted miscariage’. Which for thsoe who don’t know, it during birht the doctor cuts the spine of the baby before it is compeltely “born”. that happens in Canada.
Kris, how about this. If you get pregnant, don’t have an abortion. If I get pregnant, it’s certainly none of your g’damn business, so stay out of it.
By the way, your typing, grammar and spelling are so bad as to be insulting to the reader. If you want people to ever read your opinion, which seems to be that you know what’s best for each and every pregnancy that happens to each and every pregnant woman, SPELL CHECK IS YOUR FRIEND.
And also. Do you have any proof of this, other than what they brainwashed you with at church camp last summer?
Have you ever known a woman with a late stage pregnancy where the baby was sick, in terrible pain, and going to die? I have. I’m glad my friend is still alive, thanks to a doctor who knew that she was in mortal danger and performed a late-term abortion. Her other children and husband are mighty glad she’s still alive too. I’m sure you have no idea why a woman would need a late-term abortion, but I can assure you it’s not because she wakes up one day and decides that she’ll have one so she doesn’t miss a party later that summer. Your head has been filled full of half-truths and outright lies. I’ll guess that you think abortion causes breast cancer too. A lie.
I know you’re young. But I’m going to tell you where you and your anti-abortion leaders can cram your hyperbolic, misguided, untrue rhetoric – straight up your ass. My uterus is not public property, church property, or government property.
We have no laws in Canda concerning abortion because we don’t need them. If nothaving abortion laws is so horrible, then tell me how come the abortion rate is actually DOWN considering the absence of these laws you’d like to impose on us?
hhaha. its funny how people bring up the small small minority of cases. they bring up incest, rape, or the fact that there is a complication at birth. this makes up less than 1% of the 100 000 abortions a year.
i dont get why “pro-death” people bring this up everytime. And how about this one? you have a child and hes 4 years old and you kill him. is it not societies business to punish you? or prevent it in the first place? the point that none of you seem to understand is the position that we ahve that say a 3 month + baby is a persona nd should be protected, because it had brain activity. it is jsut as human as say a 4 year old as i gave in the example. but yet agian, I’m goign to ahve someone say “mind your own business, my body blah blah blah”. but the fact is its not jsut your body, its the babies now too.
Yet again you have all missed the point. I’m not coming at it from a religious perspective, I never even once mentioned “don’t harm its spirit!!!” So proles stereotypical “anti-church” attack is irrelevant. And is actually so simple and flawed. Thier logic goes like this .
The church is against abortion, kris is against abortion, therefore kris is in the church!!!!!
I’m allowed ot have my own opinion based on science or just what I think. i can tell when you have abunch of church hating people who see any intelligent attack on thier beliefs a threat.
And yes we do need abortion laws. IS it not wierd we are the only developed country without laws? Isn’t that wierd? doesn’t that say something? If there was no need for them other countries would do the same as us. but there isn’t one!!!
but prole, the thing you dont understand is once you get pregnant, your uterus becomes a home. And at 3 months, the brain begins to develop. And babies can hear, think (depending at what stage to what extent). And that, 9thinking) is what seperates us from other animals and truly decides if we are living (wihtout a brain we are obviously jsut a clump of skin and nothing). So all we are sayign, is that it is a person, and in Canada, your rights end where its begins.
OMFGS. are you that delusional? And like. stoopid?
Think thats the case.
haha. its funny how people bring up the small small minority of cases. they bring up incest, rape, or the fact that there is a complication at birth. this makes up less than 1% of the 100 000 abortions a year.
Um ya. The fetus fetishers, (that’s you) use a very small amount of medically NECESSARY terminations as some sort of PROOF that WIMMENS IS having “partial birth abortions!!!”
No such thing. Number one. No doctor will do a late term termination without a really good reason. Number two. Its actually a dangerous procedure for the woman.
Pro Death? That would be you. Pro Death for women. And pro death for all the unwanted and uncared for children already in this world.
The nervous system for a fetus doesn’t develop until after 21 weeks. Go read some REAL information. I think Im done here.
did I ever say that 3 months meant complete development? or did I say at 3 months the brain begins to develop? if you look up anything you’d know 3 months is kinda the standard for deleloped countries in Europe.
Are you joking? assisted miscarriages is a coined phrase. I’m not syaing it happens every second. i;m simply saying it is a fact and has happened before. And please don;t insult anyone;s intelligence by saying “No doctor will do a late termination”. Your just denying a fact we all know is true. There are no laws, therefore its up to the discretion of the doctor. A doctor could theoretically refuse to do the abortions at 1 month, 2 months or 3 months. the point is there are no laws, and you can’t deny that it has or will continue to happen (late term abortions) without good reasons. Its up to the doctors discretion about “what’s a good reason”
Seriously you just embarrass yourself and everyone around you by saying that and denying something that happens.
Same with you Prole. I’ve tried to lay off on the personal attacks, but you peopel are unbelievable. its uspposed to be an intelligent conversation, where we each give our argument and stuff. Instead this turned into a church-bashing, fact denying event. please dont be a fool. type in “late term abortion canada” in google and theres all the proof you need there. seriosuly its one thing arueing with people who actually ahve points,a nd another when its an 18 yr old who’s arguing with abunch of full grown, immature women.
For instance, when I said “whats the difference between a 5 month old premature baby lying in a hospital, and the 8 month old in his mothers womb 200 feet away?” Now here you coudl say “we the…” and so on and so forth. I talk about the legislation and such, and someone replies with “brainwashed you with at church camp last summer? “. Like are you people four years old??
Whether you agree with a “fetus” being a baby or not, you can’t deny its living. Now what happens when you kill it ? it is dead. and what are people who are for abortion advocating? The right to “terminate” a fetus. So no matter how you look at it, it is advocating for the death of something. Because even simple science can tell us it is alive. So yes, pro-death. because you are for (pro) the termination(death) of a fetus. its quite simple.
I never said a women couldn’t get an abortion if her life is in serious danger, or even if she was raped or what not, but yeah again it makes up less than 1% Something you managed to avoid answering too… And what about the unwanted childrneÉ I don`t understand..
I can’t speak for all pro-life people, but even my opinion is one that favours heavily the 3 month cut off. but ff course my “brainwashed church camp” told me that right? And people say its religious people who are the stupid ones. you wonder why no one here is backing you up prole and well pale? Cause your embarrasments. Even my poor gramar (cause I often dont have time to check twice and i write fast) is nothing campared ot some of the idiotic fact- denying comments you are making.
I respect peopel who make intelligent arguments like the pro-choice people before. but the recent people have been embarrasing and childish. Can other people pelase get back into this “ìntelligent“ conversation?
Anyways I have to go, my church camp just called they have some more propaganda films to show me. right Prole?????
Meh my house and I’ve given enough platform to the no life crew.
By Kris thanks for stopping by have fun at camp.
Kris, just in case you come back.
There is NO conversation, or debate to be had on this. It’s all been said a million times, over and over and over. Plus. NOBODY asked you to comment here, much less invited you to have an intelligent conversation. So you have no case to complain that we’re not engaging you and going point by point. We’ve been fighting this issue before you were even born, and I sure as fuck don’t owe you and explanation on anything.
As far as nobody here backing up pale and me on this? Here’s a news flash for you. This post is 3 months old. Probably not many people are checking back on it at this point for one. For two, do you have any fucking idea what blog you’re at? And do you think that because a chorus of voices haven’t joined in here to gang up on your zealous ass means that you’re like winning this argument? Do you know how blogs work? I mean, if you’d like me to call in the cavalry I can do that. But let me assure you. The regular readers and commenters on April Reign agree with me and pale 100%.
Get it through your head. Other women’s bodies, lives, problems, pregnancies are NONE. OF. YOUR. BUSINESS.
Oh and another thing. You didn’t answer any of my questions or points, so you might want to consider that next time you go trolling a grown-up blog making demands about intelligent debate. I guess we’ll never know, because Scary Evul Pro Death April Reign has shown you the door.
Having just spent two freaking hours updating the list of opponents, I’m promoting it all over the place.
Go to Birth Pangs Activist Page to see a list of all the deluded organizations who, in Ken Epp’s words, ‘would rather stand with the murderers than the pregnant women’. Like the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Like the Canadian Labour Congress. Like the YWCA for gordsake. And many more.
Embarrassing?
Bwhahahahhaa.
Yez, I can haz keybord.
Im not one to ever pick on spelling and grammar as long as the person is really trying so very hard to get a pertinent message across using facts.
For kris? nah.
An embarrassment to the School system.
Oh. and ya. the Calvary has you surrounded. LOL.. As Prole said, this post is ancient by blogging standards.
I’m strongly in favour of intelligent debate and I also found Kris’ spelling and grammar infuriating and difficult to understand. I am also in favour of highlighting the short-comings of people’s arguments, however, I think in needlessly insulting the opposition (and I’m not claiming to be innocent of this) we make our arguments appear weak. We will never convince anybody but the converted if we use this tactic. That’s the idea right?
It’s the “fence sitters” who we can sway. The converted are already swayed, the staunchly opposed will never be swayed and the “fence sitters” will never listen to use if we use childish arguments. However, the “fence sitters” may listen if we use well-thought-out and intelligent arguments.
Just a thought.
Thank you Sagan. I know we have difference of opinion obviously, but that “cavalry” you asked me to call in just came. Someone who is reasonable and moderate and at least smart enough to have an intelligent debate. I know me and Sagan may disagree obviously, but her idea, which is also my philosophy, is your going to convince more people if you use inteligent, logical debate and don’t insult people. i know it’s probably the last thing sagan wants to hear too, compliments from your “enemy”, but I’m probably the youngest person here, and I have used the least amount of childish attacks!
And yes, talking about my “camp brainwashing” was embarassing for you. you made a hasty judgment and generalized. And that’s that all people who are against abortion or at least partial are “church camp” goers. You obviously don’t know that some of the most prominent figures against abortion 9or controlled) are educated and not religious. You can be against abortion and not religious! that’s jsut the simplistic flawed one track mind logic your using. let’s look at say France… One of the most historically and currently secualr countries in the world. and yet even they have some sort of laws (3 month)
I’m not here to take away people’s ‘rights”, but one of the expiriences of being in highschool is tragically having to see uncontrollable teens. I understand that most of the people here are older, and the case of the “raped” or “incest” is often brought up. or even the mother who is danger, but i’m not arguing against them. I’m talking about what I see. And what I see is many young teens, guys and girls, having sex randomely. And I may not agree, but I can’t judge those people and stop them. but what I can judge is what I percieve as a violation of others rights. there have been tonnes of abortions at my school by girls aging 13-18! not one or two, but in the double digits. And this is a top school in Ontario!! the top in fact at a small school (around 700)
but thats irrelevant. the point if with all the education we have and resources at our graps (birth controle ect.). Why are people getting pregnant? i don’t know at what stage these people are having abortions (likely before 3 months) but still. It becomes my problem when we have teenagers killing what I percieve are babies.
THe problem that has mounted is not that married men and women or older are having abortions occasionally. the largest portion are actually teenage girls (and obviously with the help of boys) who can’t control themselves. One example is of a girl whos name i will say starts with S, and has had 2 abortion and slept with 3 guys in one night. This isn’t about responsible people maybe like you making a tough descision. These are.. promiscious…. women who are using abortion as almost a semi birth control!
I like to discuss this because I use my opinion to convince people just as I have been convinced. I used to be 100% against abortion, but then changed to the more moderate version.
i just have one question that I would just like to know your people stance. What about that scenerio with the women who is 8 months pregant standing beside the baby in the support machine who was born premature and is only 5 months, which is the baby? Since it was “born”, is the 5 month a baby and the more developed, more “human” fetus that is 8 months not a baby? please someone answer this, i just personally don’t understand how one can count one as a “baby” and the other not? I’m not beign sarcastic, I jsut want to know toher peoples opinions
Kris,
I’ll take compliments from anyone. Do you assume I am a woman because I am pro-choice? Men can also be pro-choice.
And that’s good then that you’ll take the comment. its just weird when theres one persona mature enough here to have a debate (whether this site is intended for that or not) without name calling or making hasty generalizations. its also kinda weird cause I’m singling you out for that compliment when I’m surrounded by a pack of people who hate me because I disagree and aren’t willing to give an inch. I think technically I’d be categorized under pro-choice, and yet I get furiously attacked for questioning someone’s belief.
I’m not trying to be a smart***, but I think it would be safe to say none of you have taken philosophy, or at least taken it seriously enough to apply it. most of you are just as bad as the stereotypical staunch ‘conservatives” you claim to be fighting against. You have one opinion. one mindset. And yours is right.
I’m open to everyone heres arguments as long as its supported by something. Except all I’ve received are childish and weak attacks such as “brainwashed bible camp” and “stay away from my body”, “fetus fetishers” and the denying of facts. No offense but I get more intelligent conversation in my class with the other gr. 12’s.
And I guess sit was an assumption to presume you were automatically a women, even though you are.
But can someone please answer my question? its a real chance to explain and redeem yourselves. its my belief that we all think deep down its a baby, its just we say it isn’t to make it easier.
Don’t take this personally, I’m not comparing you guys to the Nazi, i swear, but it is somethings the Nazi’s did. They dehumanized the jews because it made them easier to kill that way. To make the mental realization that the Jews were people and human would of been too hard. So they did that
Kris, your intellectual dishonesty is priceless!
And, how dare you tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. You are not god or goddess (or God or Goddess for that matter). You have absolutely no right — no right whatsoever — to tell me what I can and cannot do.
Please stop doing so now!
Kris – AGAIN.
Nobody invited you for a debate. You showed up here demanding one. There is nothing to debate. Abortion must remain legal and safe for all women, and when you start making laws then you put the decision in someone else’s hands.
Who gets to decide, the government? Someone’s church? A judge or court? What gives any of them the authority to tell me, or a highschool girl, or a married woman, or a prostitute, or a rape victim that the decision to end a pregnancy is theirs to make, instead of mine/ours? None. Nobody on the outside of a situation can possibly have the moral or legal authority to make that decision. Just because YOU personally “perceive” a zygote or fetus to be a baby and that ending it’s undeveloped life is murder, that doesn’t make it YOUR decision to make for someone else. Do you really trust the government to decide?
That girl you mention, the one who allegedly had sex with 3 guys in one night and has had abortions (or so you have heard, are you really sure about that?). Is it really up to you to decide whether or not she should have a baby? No. Is it your place to judge her sexual activity? No. It’s her body. You have NO IDEA what her situation or motivations are. It’s none of your business.
You keep decrying us for not answering the hypothetical situation about the premature 5 month old born fetus, and the 9 month one not born yet. That is a straw man, and I for one refuse to answer it. We may as well argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The insinuation that women are casually aborting late term babies is insulting and misinformed. You have never responded to my comment about my friend, who had a late term abortion to prevent her (much wanted) baby from experiencing tremendous pain, and to save her own life. Do you think there should be laws banning the procedure (late term abortion)? Because my friend might be dead, and her baby would be as well but only after much suffering. How is that “pro-life”? Would you make a law giving a judge the power to make that very private, agonizing decision? Because if the judge said no, again, my friend might be dead and her other children would grow up with no mother. Oh, and the baby would still be dead, again, after much suffering.
Do you really think that the mythical “woman who up and decides to have an abortion at 8.5 months” should be a mother? Do you think that girls at your school who have sex and get pregnant should be forced to be mothers, or forced to give birth and then give up their babies? How in the hell do you actually think any of it is your business, or your decision to make?
And regarding that 5 month gestation prematurely born baby. Can it survive on its own, without tubes, wires, ventilators, surgeries, and other assorted millions of dollars of medical intervention? Because following the line of reasoning that abortion is playing God or taking a life that should be, all of that medical intervention which is necessary to keep that baby alive is also playing God, artificially sustaining a life that clearly was not to have survived. What is the difference? You tell me. You’re the one who keeps touting your intelligence and maturity.
kris your account has been banned I’m not sure how you are still getting in.
I am not interested in listening to anymore of your nonsense take it elsewhere.
Yesterday I attended a meeting organized at the University of Ottawa of people who oppose Bill C484. I asked one of the leaders afterwards what — if not Bill C484 — can give justice if someone were to attack my wife, killing the child that is now in her womb? The woman could not admit — would not admit — that the child even existed. Our child, now only a month old, has a beating heart, and is safely within my wife’s womb. We love that child. It is alive. It is fully human like any of us. Anyone who is blind to that is not only pitiful, but dangerous.
@Cecil –
Congratulations!
Now can you tell me why you support a law that really changes nothing to make your wife safer but does take away another women’s right to make a different choice?
Another bill has been proposed that does offer protection without that underhanded making abortion a criminal act aspect. Do you support that bill?
And please don’t glurge me to death with itty bitty baby routines, I’ve had six kids I know all about it.
I would not find this bill a threat to a womans rights if it clearly stated that it would only be enforced in cases that the woman/victim was wanting to press charges.
Beating your wife is against the law but if she refuses to press charges then the man walks away unscathed. If they will ammend the bill to ensure that it really is the womans choice to prosecute not the states/fathers etc… then I have no problem with it.
Until then I will continue to see it as a potential threat to a womans right to choose.
Uh, Michele, I don’t know where you live, but where I live, it is not up to the woman to press charges. In cases of domestic, the police are obliged by law to proceed with charges.
But, hey, a nice try on your part. Too bad facts mean nothing to you.
@the regina mom –
And too bad I can’t type! That should read “In cases of domestic violence, the police are obliged…”