Bark!
I've taken up the argument from a philosophical standpoint on my blog, but I don't think the Bill addresses the concerns of fetal rights as pointed out by the weak section 238.1. What is at stake here is the argument for the benefit of protecting a fetus based on strong potentiality to become a human.
Ya believe in choice or you don't. You say you are an unabashed pro-choicer? I think not.
thus, if a potential mom (ambulatory incubatrix) declares her intent to bring little bobby zygote to term, then proceeds to continue a dissipate lifestyle with the smoking and drinking and so forth, and the womb auto-ejects or miscarries, is she a murderizing killer or just stoopid?
when it comes to choice, 'just me', there's no question. do we scary leftwards types support the choice to have a child? yes. do we support a woman's right not to have a child? yes. do we further support a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy? yes. do we decry, condemn and disavow violence against women, pregnant and otherwise? yes, yes we do. do we see through the smarmy attempt to sneak a legal wedge through the commons in the form of this foetal rights bill? yup. 'Just me', you sum yourself up quite nicely when you declared, "I think not."
so here's the question, if a woman does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, if she has made an appointment to go and have a procedure to terminate the pregnancy, is a criminal still guilty of a crime against the unborn if there is a violent attack on that woman that causes a miscarriage? there can be no argument that the crime against the woman is discounted, the perpetrator is charged with that assault. what i want to know is, does this new law honour the woman's original intent and choice?
should make for some awkward moments in the police investigation, "so ms. justme, did you want the baby or was it cued up for deletion? we just gotta ask so we know what the charges are gonna be. hey, stop crying lady, we're just trying to do our job here. i said stop crying..." and that's when they had to tase her. when will people learn? do as you're damn well told, comply or fry.
boo-yah.
RA - Your post is well done, although I have some obvious disagreements. I'll "fisk" it in due time when I'm more coherent (it's only 5:30am here, I'm still half asleep)
(As an aside, I was amused to find your first commenter pretty much personifies all that's wrong with anti-choicers -- read first 2 paragraphs, shoot off mouth (or keyboard) with non-sensical metaphors. Duh!)
Just Me - Is that all ya got? Geez, slick. That's sad.
When a woman is assaulted and injured or murdered, surely the point is that the woman was assaulted and injured or murdered.
That is not already the most serious of crimes? Some people have a problem focusing on the central issue?
Bills like Epp's seem to me gross devaluations of the lives of other human beings who just happen to be, well, not him.
PSA - Hear hear! (Your comments are way better than my posts.)
This little law *supposedly* protects abortion rights by specifying that the pregnancy has to be one that the woman intends to carry to term, but it opens a huge legal can of worms.
Already anti-choicers talk about "coerced" abortions -- I can see them clogging up the courts for years with suits coming from that angle. "She thought she wanted an abortion but she really didn't, or she only did because she couldn't afford a child, etc! so that doctor should be charged with murder." Etc, etc, it would be endless.
In addition to being another stealth attack on choice, it's *yet another* goddamn law to protect us from ourselves. These socons are the biggest nanny statists I've ever seen.
skdadl - Well actually, that was going to be the topic of my next post on this: isn't a fetal protection law sort of missing the point? These attacks where a fetus dies are attacks on women -- rather than laws to protect a fetus, shouldn't we be trying to eliminate the conditions that create a climate of violence against women?
Also: the cons talk out of 2 sides of their mouths on this issue. How can they talk about protecting a woman's choice to be pregnant, while at the same time cutting programmes and agencies that were put in place to help eliminate the conditions that breed violence against women?
Man, the fetus fetishists just won't give up. As the most recent post at *ahem* Birth Pangs points out, support for protecting 'life' from the instant sperm meets ovum is actually falling. (Demonstrated in a poll the Kriminalizers paid for themselves. :D)
Waste of time and taxpayers' money indeed, jj.
Fern - I saw that (saw, voted, commented) -- they are down *substantially*. Teh fetus fetishists paid for that one??? Hahahahaha! I must google it... I'd love to see how they rationalized it: "Oh well, uh, duh, it looks like down but it's really up..."
I wonder if we need a law to protect our livers from alcohol? Our lungs from ciggies? Our arteries from fast food?
"I wonder if we need a law to protect our livers from alcohol? Our lungs from ciggies? Our arteries from fast food?"
Patience, JJ, we're workin' on 'em as fast as we can! Almost got the ciggies completely routed, in fact!
The OB/GYN and family practise physicians are not gonna be happy with the part of this bill that says: "...directly or indirectly...during birth..." Stillbirths are one of the reasons doctors in this field carry insurance. They might find themselves using it for bail money if the bill becomes law.
Chimera - This bill won't pass for many reasons, but probably the main one is that the wording is too absurd. Nobody apart from hard core FFs want a law that protects zygotes, and that's basically what it's dictating.
Hi JJ!! yeah you nailed it. This is all about the Harperites reaching out to their base and priming them for a possible election. This backdoor attempt to impose a ban on abortion will go nowhere. But it does remind us what could happen if Harper and his SoCon thugs ever get a majority. I hope that point gets made over and over again...
Hi Simon - Damn right! "Priming them" 
and that's about the only time they ever get primed, I bet. Harper obviously thinks they are just as stupid as we do. They remind me of Charlie Brown, forever kicking at that elusive football...
Commenting by HaloScan
