C-484 will protect woman who want to keep their babies
I couldn’t sign off for the night without mentioning this great letter in today’s Star - A woman’s right to have a baby. This was in response to Antonia Zerbisias’ rant from a few days ago.
Anyway, Sarah Sonne of Vanier, Ontario writes:
In defending "women’s rights," Antonia Zerbisias is actually limiting choices for women. To say that Bill C-484 is anti-woman and anti-choice, or that "women’s interests are not paramount," is illogical and unfounded. Bill C-484 was created specifically to support women’s interests in the protection of their unborn children. The act states, "This section 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."
The bill is not about abortion. It simply states that when a mother has chosen to carry her child to full term, the law supports that choice and will not allow someone to take that freedom away from her without consequences. We’re not talking about a return to "coat hangers and knitting needles" here; we’re talking about weapons being used to take a pregnancy away from a woman by force.
Bill C-484 does not change the definition of a human being, nor does it take any choice or rights away from women. It empowers a woman’s choice to reproduce and it sends a clear message that violence against pregnant women is wrong by addressing the very thing that defines a pregnancy – her fetus.
The bill attempts to empower a victim of violence by validating her choices and freedom, yet it appears that its critics are concerned with everyone whom it does not apply to.
Find a woman whose pregnancy has ended because of violence and ask her how she feels.
Really, there are only two ways a fetus might die other than via a miscarriage or a legal abortion. That would either by as a result of a violent act perpetrated upon the mother, or else in the case of a fetus being deliberately targeted and the mother survives but her baby does not.
The latter situation could be easily seen as a forced abortion. If a woman’s right to choose is paramount in this society, then Bill C-484 should be supported by all Pro-Choicers.
A woman’s right to choose cannot only be protected when she doesn’t want the pregnancy to continue. That would be discriminatory.
* * * *
Update: Dr. Roy has posted a YouTube video by Sarah. Well done!
Post - Don’t be frightened by fetus crime bill, Tory MP says.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Sarah is the won who did this video. Great letter Sarah!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am
It does seem to be an excellent video, but the “background” music is so loud and (becomes) annoying, I couldn’t fullly or clearly hear the narration so I shut it off.
Good to see some carrying the flag on this issue. I think this seperates those people who are really and truly ‘pro choice’ from those that just call themselves prochoice to hide that they are actually ‘pro abortion’.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
What a concept, the right to have a baby.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Dr. Roy - Thanks for that tip. I updated the post.
Annie, I agree that the music is a bit much and somewhat distracting. Otherwise, it is really well done.
Mary T. - What a concept, the right to have a baby.
Yeah, I don’t know if the idea will catch on though. Babies are the source of a lot of pollution.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
C-484 is good for civilization…
Canada: the demographic winter is coming.
Aging workforce.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash
P.S. Also new website prowomanprolife(dot)org
June 10th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I’m not sure who’s forcing women to “not” have babies, that they would like to have.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Well, Moebius. Here’s an example - Let’s say a guy stabs his pregnant fiancée 15 times in the stomach with a sword and the fetus dies. I would say he has pretty much forced her not to have the baby.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I am a pro-choice Tory and I strongly support this bill. I think it really is the best of both worlds; it protects the woman’s right to chose; but it also defines an unborn child as something that is worth protecting. Both sides should be happy.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Let’s say a guy stabs his pregnant fiancée 15 times in the stomach with a sword and the fetus dies. I would say he has pretty much forced her not to have the baby.
Lovely hypothetical, but I’m not sure it answers the original question.
If you give a fetus all of the rights of a “born” person, anti-abortionists would have a field day in court challenges to legal abortion. Tell me I’m wrong, and I’d be happy. You want to ban all elective abortions, not just those caused by psychos.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Lovely hypothetical
Hypothetical? That really happened.
I’m totally not following you on the rest of your comment. Sorry.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I’m aware it happened. Lots of mother/baby murders happen, just not as dramatically as with a sword attack.
My point is that giving fetuses rights leads to the slippery slope of denying abortion on demand.
If you believe abortion is murder, then you’ll eventually use this bill to attempt to deny abortions. I don’t think I can be clearer than that.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
My point is that giving fetuses rights leads to the slippery slope of denying abortion on demand.
The fetus isn’t going to have any rights. It can’t, because it isn’t a human being.
There would simply be a seperate penalty for causing the death of an unborn child. That would not be called murder, because only a human being can be muredered.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:43 am
[...] Zerbisias states that C-484 will blow away a "woman’s right to choose". Clearly, she only advocates for women who don’t want to be pregnant. [...]