everyone oppose Bill C - 484!

[careyprice31]

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-bill-c-484.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=344572

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=15&Type=0&Scope=I&query=5336&List=ot

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=8b22b1d5-8f9c-42e5-9595-e0cb3df99e49

[Jazzratt]

Could you please expand so that people know why they are clicking those links and what Bill C - 484 is?

I, for example, am at work and feel reluctant to click on those links without knowing what they are and, of course, some kind of statement from you would facilitate debate.

[Marsella]

I oppose bills altogether.

I have enough expenses.

[pusher robot]

Could you please expand so that people know why they are clicking those links and what Bill C - 484 is?

I, for example, am at work and feel reluctant to click on those links without knowing what they are and, of course, some kind of statement from you would facilitate debate.



SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code by making it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother.

I really don't see what is so objectionable about this.

[Dean]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=344572
Those stories are sad.

But fuck it: there is no such thing as an unborn child. I was an unborn child in 1902. If you kill or attack a woman, it's assault. You don't need any more labels for that.

[Bud Struggle]

Those stories are sad.

But fuck it: there is no such thing as an unborn child. I was an unborn child in 1902. If you kill or attack a woman, it's assault. You don't need any more labels for that.

So then someone could take a baseall bat to the belly of a 9 month pregnant woman kill the fetus and not be punished for doing that? The only difference between this a murder is the location of the baby behind skin of the mother. Clearly it's not a rational to judge if something is human life by it's location.

This Bill shows that there are definite flaws in the abortion anytime up till birth theory.

BTW: I do oppose Bill W though. :D

[careyprice31]

this is what is wrong with this bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada.

btw the links are fine to click on, Jazzratt, they just tell you all about the bill and why its contraversial.



Fetal rights stir debate on abortion

Bill proposes separate offence for attack on unborn child
Charles Lewis, National Post; National Post Published: Saturday, March 01, 2008
The political debate on abortion, largely dormant in Canada, is being revived because of a bill that would make it a criminal offence for someone to attack a woman with the intent of killing her unborn child.

Bill C-484, which will receive second reading next week, is designed to cover what its proponents say is a gap in the Criminal Code: taking the life of a fetus against the will of the mother.
"My bill recognizes that the unborn child has value in law and recognizes that it is not acceptable in our society for someone to attack a pregnant woman with the intent of taking that child's life," said Ken Epp, a Conservative Member of Parliament from Edmonton, who describes himself as pro-life.
The bill -- called the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" -- specifically mentions that abortion is excluded, asexcluded, as well as "any act or omission by the mother of the child."
Thirty-seven U.S. states have similar laws. For example, Scott Peterson, who murdered his pregnant wife, Laci, was
convicted on two separate charges and was given a separate prison sentence for taking the life of their unborn baby.
But opponents of the bill insist it has no other purpose "than to create a wedge" to recriminalize or put restrictions on abortions in Canada, said Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, which has been running a campaign to stop Bill C-484. She said the bill would effectively give a legal status to the fetus and that could open the door to restricting access to abortions.
Under the Criminal Code, a fetus is not considered a person until it leaves the mother's womb. And because of that definition, someone who kills a fetus cannot be charged with manslaughter or murder because that only applies when the victim is legally human.
"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion," Ms. Arthur said.
Vicki Saporta, president of the Washington-based National Abortion Federation, which represents abortion providers in the United States and Canada, also wants the bill defeated, saying that it does nothing to stop violence against women, which is the main issue. She is also worried about any change in the legal status of a fetus. "It is impossible to separate this proposed legislation from its sponsor, a known opponent of legal abortion."
Critics of the bill point out that because sentences are almost always concurrent in Canada, and not consecutive, having an additional charge would add nothing to the court's punishment.
Mr. Epp argues that in situations in which the mother is not killed, and the unborn baby is, his bill would offer a harsher sentence. As an example, he points to a 2007 case in Nova Scotia in which a man repeatedly stabbed his pregnant girlfriend with a sword. He was sentenced to 15 years for attempted murder, but under Mr. Epp's bill he could have received a harsher sentence for the killing of the fetus.
Mr. Epp said the bill was written so as not to change the legal definition of a fetus and to ensure that abortion or any other act by the mother was not included in C-484

[pusher robot]

But opponents of the bill insist it has no other purpose "than to create a wedge" to recriminalize or put restrictions on abortions in Canada, said Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, which has been running a campaign to stop Bill C-484. She said the bill would effectively give a legal status to the fetus and that could open the door to restricting access to abortions.
So basically they're arguing that it's a slippery slope. But smiply postulating that something could be a slippery slope is not enough. There needs to be some reason given why slippage is plausible.
Let me ask you this Svetlana. Do you oppose laws that protect animals from abuse? Because, after all, that might be a slippery slope to granting animals human rights...


"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion," Ms. Arthur said.

Wow that's weak. You could make the exact same argument about literally every single law passed or not passed.


Mr. Epp said the bill was written so as not to change the legal definition of a fetus and to ensure that abortion or any other act by the mother was not included in C-484
Having read the bill, I can state that this is true. It requires that the act be done by someone else, someone who knows the mother is pregnant, and intentionally hurts the mother.

This bill really, honestly seems quite reasonable. It simply says that if you intentionally kill a mother's child, you have comitted a crime greater than mere battery. This does address a legitimate perverse incentive problem, wherein a potential father could willingly undergo a charge of battery (which, unless it severely injures or endangers the life of the mother might only be a misdemeanor!) to prevent a lifetime of parental responsibility.

[jake williams]

I was an unborn child in 1902.
This is an awesome quote.


About the thread question: in the technical sense, if you just read the law completely abstracted from the circumstances in which it was written, it's sort of in a grey area for a few reasons (which I could go into if you'd like), but it's hard to really disagree with. It's worth considering the reasons for this though, and they're not totally simple. The main thing is that assault against a person, particularly of the type violent enough to harm her fetus if this person happens to be a pregnant woman, is bad always. So the issue with the politics of criminal law quite generally is it's difficult to argue against laws which ostensibly come out in opposition to things all of us think are horrible. And of course, for some pretty tricky biological and social and historic reasons, we get particularly upset about attacks on pregnant women.

But the world just ain't quite that simple. It's not a simple discussion - at all - to talk about whether or not a bunch of cells happens to be a "person", and if they are, what treatment they should be given by society, or the justice system. And I do not personally think that the paranoia about this being extended is completely irrational. I'm sure there are plenty of sincere people who support the bill and also support full abortion rights, at least up to a certain period in the pregnancy - but it's not all of them, probably not even a majority. It's pretty clear given the political situation that this is probably coming from a background of people who tend to lean against abortion rights, some of whom may even be consciously using this as a tool to eat away at things (though that latter point is a very different debate).

[pusher robot]

It's pretty clear given the political situation that this is probably coming from a background of people who tend to lean against abortion rights, some of whom may even be consciously using this as a tool to eat away at things (though that latter point is a very different debate).Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, you should not fall into the trap of allowing your opponents to determine what you think is right or wrong.

I think the reason people get worked up over this law is because they think that it is redefining a "fetus" as a "person." But that's a misconception - it does no such thing. There's no rule that says that only acts against "persons" are criminally punishable. Hurting an animal can be a crime, as well as hurting certain vegetation. Even property damage can be a criminal act. So I think it's really a stretch to say that because hurting something is a crime, that makes it much more likely it will be recognized as an entity with rights. If anything, this law is formal legal recognition that a fetus is not a person - otherwise the law wouldn't even be necessary, because killing it would already be criminal!

[Dean]

So then someone could take a baseall bat to the belly of a 9 month pregnant woman kill the fetus and not be punished for doing that? The only difference between this a murder is the location of the baby behind skin of the mother. Clearly it's not a rational to judge if something is human life by it's location.
It's not just location. Fetuses change a great deal when they are birthed, enough to make a valid distinction. While I don't agree with some hard-liners that the Fetus is completely devoid of respect, I do support a woman's right to abortion over a fetus' right to some kind of life in all circumstances.



This Bill shows that there are definite flaws in the abortion anytime up till birth theory.
No, supporting abortion and supporting forced abortion is the difference between supporting liberalization and supporting Chinese population regulations. One gives the choice, one indicates that its acceptable to force it on others.


Having read the bill, I can state that this is true. It requires that the act be done by someone else, someone who knows the mother is pregnant, and intentionally hurts the mother.

This bill really, honestly seems quite reasonable. It simply says that if you intentionally kill a mother's child, you have comitted a crime greater than mere battery. This does address a legitimate perverse incentive problem, wherein a potential father could willingly undergo a charge of battery (which, unless it severely injures or endangers the life of the mother might only be a misdemeanor!) to prevent a lifetime of parental responsibility.
I disagree. Find me a judge who, under normal circumstances, wouldn't prosecute a violent offender of such caliber and I will agree that there is a problem. As for now, I highly dobt that there are many judges who wont prosecute some scumbag who attacks a woman to try to kill a fetus.

[Demogorgon]

So then someone could take a baseall bat to the belly of a 9 month pregnant woman kill the fetus and not be punished for doing that? The only difference between this a murder is the location of the baby behind skin of the mother. Clearly it's not a rational to judge if something is human life by it's location.

This Bill shows that there are definite flaws in the abortion anytime up till birth theory.

BTW: I do oppose Bill W though. :D
There are plenty of reasons to punish someone for doing something like that. Not least the fact that it is a violent assault against the mother that will cause long lasting emotional drama.

The fact is that notwithstanding the views of certain idiots here, leftist support for abortion rights is not about having a fetish for abortion or wanting more abortions to be carried out, but about supporting the free choice of any women who becomes pregnant as to whether she wishes to carry the fetus to term or not.

Deliberately forcing a woman to miscarry is one of the worst infringements of her bodily autonomy one can imagine. That being said there are certain fanatically "pro-choice" idiots here who don't seem to raise much in the way of objection when it comes to forced abortion so I certainly can't blame anyone for the confusion when it comes to the issue.

When it comes down to it however, the left's support is for freedom to choose what happens to ones own body.

[Joby]

Well it's about goddamn time.

Killing a pregnant woman is, and should legally be, double homicide.


Mr. Epp argues that in situations in which the mother is not killed, and the unborn baby is, his bill would offer a harsher sentence. As an example, he points to a 2007 case in Nova Scotia in which a man repeatedly stabbed his pregnant girlfriend with a sword. He was sentenced to 15 years for attempted murder, but under Mr. Epp's bill he could have received a harsher sentence for the killing of the fetus.


Good.



Mr. Epp said the bill was written so as not to change the legal definition of a fetus and to ensure that abortion or any other act by the mother was not included in C-484


And the issue is.....what?

[Xiao Banfa]

I was an unborn child in 1902.


That's the stupid shit. It's all about rhetoric isn't it? Thank Lenin nonya ****s ever get it together and get into power.

No one gives a shit about your micromanaging of stupid little extremist causes when the workers are more interested in bringing the economy under public control.

[RHIZOMES]

This is an awesome quote.

I agree.