Where do I begin with Joyce Arthur's lies...
First the title:
Parliament to Vote on Fetal Personhood Law
That is a lie. Section 223 of our Criminal Code would still apply: a child does not become a human being until he is born and breathes.
The fetal homicide bill does nothing to change that.
She writes:
Several recent murder cases in Canada have involved a pregnant woman being murdered by a male partner or boyfriend. The victims and families of these horrific tragedies deserve our deepest sympathy, and they deserve justice.
Family loses fetuses. But the culprit should not be accountable for depriving the woman, her family and her estate of that fetus?
That's justice?
However, passing a law to allow murder charges for the death of the fetus is not the way to go. Such a law would be an unconstitutional infringement on women’s rights.
Wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has INVITED Parliament to legislate on the issue of the status of the fetus. It is open to such changes.
It is a key step towards re-criminalizing abortion, but it could also criminalize pregnant women for behaviours perceived to harm their fetuses.
Wrong. The bill specifically excludes that. QUOTE:
(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of
(a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;
(b) an act or omission that a person acting in good faith considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child or the life of the child; or
(c) any act or omission by the mother of the child.
Pregnant women being assaulted or killed is largely a domestic violence issue, and the rights of fetuses should not take precedence over the rights of the woman.
But the right of the mother should be to have the culprit be accountable for depriving her of her fetus. That's not the rights of the fetus superceding the mother.
The fetus would continue to have no rights under Canadian law.
When media coverage focuses on the victim’s fetus, and whether it should have rights or not, the pregnant woman is overlooked, and so is the problem that killed her – domestic violence.
And then the feminists overlook whether the mother should have a right to her fetus. Interesting.
Besides, it's not always domestic violence that kills pregnant women. It should simply be a matter of principle that when a woman loses her fetus, the culprit should be rendered to account for that act.
But the bill does not make it a crime to attack pregnant women, and applies narrowly only to the fetuses of pregnant women.
It's already a crime to attack a woman. What the bill says is that if the culprit attacks the woman with the intention of killing the fetus, he is guilty of an offense.
And that's the way it should be.
However, women who have recently given birth, or have had abortions or are planning to have abortions, are also at increased risk of domestic violence. This bill completely fails them.
Because if a man attacks a woman and kills her born child, he is guilty of murder.
See, Joyce Arthur does not seem to want to address the idea that losing a fetus is an injustice.
However, women who have recently given birth, or have had abortions or are planning to have abortions, are also at increased risk of domestic violence. This bill completely fails them.
However, it recognizes that losing a fetus is an injustice.
, the best way by far to protect fetuses is to protect pregnant women,
And if the fetus is not protected...should the culprit be accountable for depriving a woman of her fetus?
Apparently not.
Persons do not gain legal status and rights in our society until they have completely exited from the birth canal, alive (as per the Criminal Code, Section 223[1]). This means that Epp's bill conflicts directly with the Criminal Code, because it assumes the legal personhood of non-persons under the law.
That's a lie. There is no assumption that the fetus is a person.
Persons do not gain legal status and rights in our society until they have completely exited from the birth canal, alive (as per the Criminal Code, Section 223[1]). This means that Epp's bill conflicts directly with the Criminal Code, because it assumes the legal personhood of non-persons under the law.
The offense is against the mother. Of course it's going to be under that section.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered "physically one” person under the law (Dobson vs. Dobson),
However, the Supreme Court has also said that it is Parliament's perogative to change that status. Our legal system allows for considering the fetus a separate entity in various circumstances, such as when a fetus inherits.
If we give any legal rights to a fetus, we must automatically remove some rights from women, because it’s impossible for two beings occupying the same body to enjoy full rights.
The fetus will have no rights under this law. It will simply be a crime to kill one, just like it's a crime to kill an animal. Animals have no rights, but we're still concerned about their welfare, under the law.
Legally speaking, it would be very difficult to justify compromising women’s established rights in favour of the theoretical rights of fetuses.
It doesn't do that. It says that killing a fetus is illegal. That is all. No rights are assumed.
Legally speaking, it would be very difficult to justify compromising women’s established rights in favour of the theoretical rights of fetuses.
If fetus and woman are "one", then how can they have a relationship? If they are not one, then the law is based on a lie, and it cannot be sustained. Laws must reflect realities.
In reality, the best way to protect fetuses is to protect pregnant women – by giving them the supports and resources they need for a good pregnancy outcome, and by protecting their safety during pregnancy by reducing domestic violence in general.
And what if a man decides to kill a woman's fetus anyway? Where is the justice?
She doesn't give a damn about the injustice of losing a fetus.
Some of the victims' families support Bill C-484. While we deeply sympathize with them and understand their wish, it must be recognized that victims of violence are not those who should be making decisions about justice in a democratic society.
Yeah, because their experiences conflict with feminist ideology, and only feminists are allowed to have any say.
Appropriate laws and penalties must be determined by impartial parties who do not allow emotion or personal bias to colour their decisions.
And pro-abortion feminists are NEVER emotional or personally biased. They NEVER shriek "my body my choice!" They never make emotional appeals about women killing themselves with coathanger abortions.
Other than the victims’ families, those promoting Bill C-484 are anti-abortion groups and anti-abortion MPs, and other anti-abortion individuals such as McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville.
Who supports first trimester abortions.
A recent poll in Canada, commissioned by anti-abortion group LifeCanada, found that 72% of respondents support legislation that would make it a separate crime to injure or kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. Although such a law sounds reasonable on the surface, most people don’t realize there’s a hidden agenda against abortion behind the promotion of these laws.
Or maybe they just don't like the idea of a culprit being accountable for depriving them of their own wanted fetuses.
In practice, these laws punish pregnant women, compromise women’s rights in general, and do nothing to address domestic violence. Not only do these laws imperil abortion rights by giving personhood and rights to fetuses, but they target all pregnant women, including those trying to have a baby.
Those are US laws. This is a Canadian law. Besides, no woman has been prosecuted through a fetal homicide law.
Epp’s bill specifically exempts pregnant women from prosecution, as well as abortion. However, these exemptions may not work. In the U.S., arrests of pregnant women have occurred even under state fetal protection laws that make exemptions for the pregnant woman herself.
And they were never prosecuted. Note how there was NEVER a prosecution.
In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges (such as first degree murder or aggravated assault), judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.
So you're deprived of a member of a family and your loss is only an "aggravating factor"?
That's not justice!
She doesn't get it.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca
