The gals at Birth Pangs are trying to goad me to name one "legitamite" (re:feminist) anti-violence group that supports C-484.
Because it can only be legitamite if feminists support it. If non-feminists support it, then it's no good. Because only feminists know what's good for you, even if 70% of women disagrees with it.
My stance with regards to the bill has been that I have a right to my fetus. My fetus and I are NOT one body. If I lose my fetus to violence, the culprit should be accountable.
That's common-sense.
They do not support that right. If I lose my fetus, the feminist answer is: tough luck! There's only one body! Your beloved unborn child did not exist! Too bad!
Sure, they may say they sympathize. But how much do they sympathize if they don't agree that it should be a crime?
The issue boils down to: should violently depriving a woman of her fetus be an aggravating factor or an actual crime?
Whether or not the bill is a deterrent or not to domestic violence, it should be against the law to kill or injure a fetus against the women's will. Laws, when strictly enforced with harsh penalties, tend to be deterrents to any kind of behaviour. To say that they aren't goes against common sense. You can cite studies for and against any side of an issue that you wish. But common sense prevails: if a guy tries to beat up his girlfriend in an effort to kill her fetus, and he knows he might risk life in prison, that is far stronger deterrent than if he knows that he might get a few years, if that.
If laws are no deterrent at all, why not just abolish laws altogether? Of course laws deter people, but not every law will deter every potential criminal.
That's why this law is needed: because if a criminal is not deterred from killing a woman's unborn child, he should be punished.
This "dare" by the feminists is ideologically motivated. They're trying to pretend that the feminists who are dominant in among those who combat women's violence are the arbiters of what is and is not in the best interests of women.
Here's a newsflash for the feminists: not everyone agrees with that.
The act of being deprived of a fetus is not a crime to them. Why? Because they have to maintain their abortion ideology. For them it's about abortion, abortion, abortion. It's not about real justice. Real justice is being rendered an account when you are deprived of something that is of value to you. But because the thing in question is a fetus, suddenly women are now denied justice, because it would put their precious ideological position at risk.
The feminists will say that the people who support the law are all pro-lifers. Is Mary Talbot a pro-lifer? Margaret Somerville is accused of being "anti-choice", when in fact she supports first-trimester abortions. Seventy percent of the Canadian public is in favour. They're not all opposed to legal abortion.
But the opponents of this bill are uniformly against of ANY abortion restrictions, ANY recognition of the fetus, even for the purposes of rendering justice to the woman.
For them it's about preserving the abortion free-for-all that exists in Canada today, which most Canadians oppose. For supporters of this bill, it's a matter of common-sense and justice to women.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca
