Blue Like You

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.

If you have been following the progress of Bill C-484 (Unborn Victim of Crimes Bill ), you will likely be very interested in MP Ken Epp’s feature in today’s Ottawa Citizen - Pro-choice Fears .

Epp clarifies the Supreme Court rulings on the matter of protecting the fetus as follows:

…Misrepresentations of Supreme Court rulings have also been used to discredit Bill C-484. When the Supreme Court has said that the fetus is not a "person," it has simply been acknowledging the law as it stands today. The Supreme Court has never said that the fetus ought not to be given some protection in criminal law. In fact, it has said that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the protection of the unborn child and that it is not up to the courts to figure out how to do that, it is up to the legislators.

Bill C-484 is an attempt to provide such protection in one very narrow circumstance - when the unborn child is injured or killed when the mother is the victim of a crime…

So this bill is simply recognizing the wishes of the mother to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth to the child that she is so looking forward to holding in her arms. Bill C-484 protects the right of that woman, so that anyone trying to terminate her pregnancy against her wishes would be appropriately punished.

As it stands now, there is no special recognition of the woman’s right to have her baby. In the past, we have only safeguarded the rights of women who wish to terminate their pregnancies and that right would not be affected by this legislation.

So it is simply an effort to treat all women with the same concern and protection - not just those who have chosen to end their pregnancies.

If it’s true that you can’t pick and choose rights, then the progressives should have no trouble passing this bill.

…to carry her own baby to term.

Perhaps the Hippocratic Oath should be renamed the Hypocritical Oath.

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.

First it was Kathy, then Kate, and now we have a great opinion article in today’s National Post by Suzanne Fortin - Canadian Women Need a Fetal Homicide Law.

Suzanne argues in favour of Ken Epp’s Private Member’s Bill C-484 which would make it a “separate crime to kill a fetus while committing an offence against the mother”. Mary Talbot, whose daughter and grandson were murdered, has been a vocal supporter of this bill.

She dispels the slippery slope argument with the following:

…The most vocal opponent of Bill C-484, Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), has yet to acknowledge that losing a fetus is in itself an injustice. ARCC argues that Bill C-484 “does not protect women, only fetuses.” ARCC wrongly believes any protection given to a fetus in law is objectionable. It believes domestic violence, not losing an unborn child, should be the “real issue.”

ARCC’s main concern is that C-484 would confer a type of personhood on the fetus and that would threaten the legality of abortion. Yet the reality is that C-484 does not in any way confer personhood or rights upon the fetus. It merely acknowledges that legally the fetus exists, and if damaged or destroyed intentionally by anyone other than the mother in an act of violence that the courts will punish the crime more severely.

( . . .)

The legal definition of human being would remain. A child would not become a human being until birth. Bill C-484 does nothing to change that.

Suzanne then goes on explain how the militant abortion-protectionists are really in the extreme minority fringes of female Canadian opinion:

…In an essay entitled “Let no fetus defeat us” on her blog posted in April 2006, Ms. Arthur claims that “fetuses are not that important” and are “none of our business.” Yet a recent Environics survey found that 75% of Canadian women favour legislation such as C-484. Pro-abortion advocates would be more credible if they paid attention to women’s attitudes and experiences with regards to the fetus, but they stopped paying attention decades ago, in order to promote their abortion ideology…

Well done, Suzanne! And kudos to all three ladies for their excellent op-eds in the Post.

National Newswatch reports a rumour that Jack Layton is considering some sort of punishment for NDP MP Peter Stoffer because he voted in favour of C-484.

I thought this was a vote of conscience.

So much for the New ‘Democratic’ Party.

And so much for protecting a Woman’s right to choose if that choice involves continuing her pregnancy.

Bill C - 484 passed Second First Who Knows Which Reading yesterday - 147 to 133. (Big H/T to BCLSB)

As Raphael points out, many Feminists and abortion activists apparently feel betrayed by the fact that more than 20 Liberals supported Ken Epp’s bill, and that Stephane Dion abstained (surprise!). Red Tory calls the ones that didn’t vote “spineless weasels”. On that much, I suppose, we can agree.

I am deeply disappointed with the actions of the four Conservative MPs who voted against this bill, including cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon, Gordon O’Connor and Josée Verner. I can only ask why?

On the other hand, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all MPs who voted in favour. Does anyone have a list? I think we need to acknowledge their courage in doing the right thing, and putting partisan politics aside.

These folks have demonstrated great integrity, which has been sadly lacking in Canadian politics lately.

Some feminists argue that this bill won’t deter violence against pregnant women, but as Arthur Weinreb of CFP rightly points out in his article Crime and punishment: fetuses and the pig farmer,

…If the argument that it won’t stop violence against women is going to be used we might as well save the justice system some bucks and legalize wife beating…

Exactly.

There are two different scenarios that would apply to this bill. One is where the mother is attacked, for example with a sword plunged 15 times into her abdomen in a successful attempt to kill the fetus, but by some miracle she still survives.

In this case, a charge of murder of the unborn child could be laid, rather than simply the “attempted murder” of the mother. (And as Suzanne points out, the family needs to see justice.)

The second scenario would be if both are killed. (Please look at the photo of Olivia and Lane Talbot in that link and then tell me that the unborn child does not exist until the moment of birth.)

Weinreb refutes the argument that Feminists use when they say that “under the Criminal Code, any sentence imposed in addition to life must run concurrently and therefore imposing a sentence for injury or death to the fetus will not lengthen the sentence handed out to a killer.”

He points out the logical inconsistency of that argument with the case of the infamous Robert Pickton trial:

…When it came to the Pickton matter, these same feminists argued the opposite of what they argued in regards to Bill C-484. It is seriously doubtful that any penalty that Pickton receives will do anything to deter future serial killers of women from carrying out their destruction. But you never hear anyone argue that the Crown should not go ahead with the other 20 counts because that prosecution won’t “stop” violence against women.

Assuming that Pickton’s sentence of life with no chance of parole for 25 years is upheld, any further sentences that are imposed have to be concurrent so in the end, as far as Pickton’s punishment or liberty is concerned, there will be no difference. But this truth, seen as a major argument against Bill C-484, is deemed to be irrelevant when it comes to Pickton…

You can’t have it both ways, ladies.

This bill not only attempts to give the unborn child more protection, it also affirms the choice of a woman to carry her pregnancy to term.

To only protect women who choose to have an abortion is discriminatory.

Plain and simple.

More at Wudrick Blog - Bill C-484:Cue the insane hyperbole.

Climbing out of the Dark - Sister? You are not my sister!

And from the other side - Bill to protect the unborn is the wrong approach… according to Antonia.

He didn’t want to be a father:

…After the sentencing, Knapp said Bryan was scared of being a bad father.

“One day he just snapped,” she told the Chronicle Herald. “The only way he could get rid of the baby was to get rid of both of us.”

The child’s mother is completely disabled:

…I cannot work anymore, I can’t walk properly, I lost my son (who) was my future. My mother has had to give up her entire life so she could take care of me, because I can’t take care of myself anymore.”