August 2008
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

The Shotgun Blog

« David Archuleta, Ayn Rand and Joey Buttafuoco | Main | Dion's Emision Omission »

Friday, March 07, 2008

Bill C-484: Cue The Insane Hyperbole

Bill C-484 passes the first reading in the House.

Hold on to your f’ing hats, people.

What’s the big deal, you ask? Isn’t this just a bill which expands the protection of women to include a fetus they are carrying?

Well, no, of course not. This is Canada, where the mere mention of the word “abortion” effectively guarantees the cessation of any reasonable dialogue. Much like discussion of private-sector participation in health care, the myths and goblins that surround the state of abortion in this country heavily outweigh any knowledge of the actual state of the law of the land, which is to say: there is no law. None. There may be a litany of regulations governing who can operate a backhoe or a restaurant in the various jurisdictions of our federation, but nary a byline addressing the provision of the termination of a human fetus.

The pro-choice lobby would have us believe that the landmark Morgentaler decision entrenched a woman’s ‘right to choose’, when all the Supreme Court in fact did was strike down the particular abortion law in existence at the time, and left the door wide open for some other, more equitable law to take its place. The Mulroney government’s bill, drafted in response, was defeated by the Liberal dominated Senate, and since that time no party, fearful of the political fallout, has dared to come near the issue with a ten foot pole. But whatever you may think of the legal vacuum surrounding abortion, good or bad, you can hardly call it a moderate position: rather, it’s the very epitome of extremeness. (Indeed, if we were talking about health care in general as opposed to abortion specifically, the progressive left would be going apoplectic with rage, cursing the anarchy and unfettered tyranny of totally laissez-faire forces running amok.)

But I digress; my point isn’t to relive this age-old debate (my own position, for the record, is marginally pro-choice). It’s to suggest that adamant pro-choicers need to come to terms with the fact that (1) an overwhelming majority of the public are not comfortable with, for example, partial birth abortions, and (2) that the recognition of a fetus as more than a legal non-entity does not create a slippery slope leading to the ultimate criminalization of abortion. Indeed, Bill C-484 actually avoids this specifically by including clear language to avoid it:

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child

So, there can be no crime unless an offence is being committed against the mother - and having an abortion is not an offence! Nor does it in any way change the likelihood that it will become one, any more than reducing or increasing the prescribed sentence attached to a crime affects whether that activity remains a crime.

So everyone can just take a breather. I would advise the pro-life lobby not to get too excited, since the number of individuals who are willing to go along with some protections for a fetus exceed considerably the number who are willing to allow those protections to trump the autonomy of a pregnant woman. And I would advise the pro-choice lobby to put away the horrifying spectre of coat hangers and stifling social conservatism that supposedly lie just around the corner.

No one seems particularly disturbed by the recognition, for example, of animals and even plants as worthy of protection in some instances (conservation and animal cruelty laws), since wherever the fundamental rights of a person and another legally-protected entity conflict, the rights of a person prevail. So why this insistence by some that either fetuses must be treated as persons, or as non-existent? Is it so outrageous to suggest that perhaps they deserve less rights than a person - but more than nothing at all?

(Cross posted to Wudrick Blog)

Posted by Aaron Wudrick on March 7, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26876682

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bill C-484: Cue The Insane Hyperbole :

Comments

With a little research about the actual names of great scientists of history my comments here might be more effective and persuasive.

Consider the brilliant exacting observations and recordings made over decades-centuries by those great scientists - astronomers who preceded Galileo.

Did you ever see one of the "star charts" or whatever they called depictions of the movement of the stars and planets in the sky, drawn prior to the discovery that the sun was the center of our solar system rather than the earth? They looked like a bowl of spaghetti instead of a simple set of eight/nine elliptical orbits around the sun. Those early scientists were diligently seeking to know what was correct and true, but they were merely wrong.

Similarly, when we now craft laws which contradict and conflict with actual natural facts, i.e. the humanity of the human person from the moment of conception until the moment of death, we create a similarly confusing bowl of spaghetti which we can look at from the perspective of Truth and easily see how wrong we were.

The similarity in confusion between our present law making and early astronomy is clear, but the difference is is striking as well. The astronomers sought the correct and true, where our new laws seek to hide that which is correct and true.

This isn't merely wrong, like the astronomers, it is purely evil like the murderers these new laws are supposed to punish.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 7-Mar-08 10:33:11 AM

Karol Karolak -

One of the missives you relayed to WS-blog for our edification refers to a "Roman @#&%** Catholic priest, Raymond Gravel..." as having voted WITH the Liberals (which of course means taking the PRO-Abortion side of any issue).

I found a short article from "Catholic World News." Their article (from 2006, shortly after this guy's election) introduced this priest as follows:

"Raymond Gravel spent the first decade of adult life working the gay bars as a prostitute. When an unhappy customer put him in the hospital in 1982, he quit the pro game and, with astonishingly little difficulty, became a priest for the Diocese of Joliette (Quebec). Did his enthusiasm for deviant sexuality undergo a change in the intervening years? There's precious little evidence of it. ..."

The article continues with description of this man's absolute opposition to major tenant's of the Catholic Faith, including abortion.

This is a huge part of the problem in our society today, that such a man (Raymond Gravel) could be ordained a Catholic priest, but far more serious is the fact that the Roman Catholic pope (Benedict XVI) does not DISMISS ALL homosexuals from the Roman Catholic clergy.

"The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops" (undoubtedly including Bishops of Rome).

When the ordained teachers of morality, from the institutional reserve of moral authority, are secretly ordained Homosexuals, absolutely contrary to every understanding and belief of the membership, the scandal attacks all of humanity.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 7-Mar-08 5:13:13 PM

Karol good. jj bad.

Posted by: dewp | 7-Mar-08 7:41:42 PM

Karol Karolak -

I tried to click on the "Unrepentant Old Hippie" blog and kept getting the Democrat Party.com

; - )

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 8-Mar-08 9:30:47 AM

The bashers of the "Religious Right" are silent on the statement made by RC Archbishop Prendergast. He has stated no communion for politicians who are pro choice. "Critics", the usual hypocrites, say "it's disappointing and inappropriate because church and state are separate".

Ken Epp's Bill is a no brainer and has nothing to do with abortion but it's another chance for the pro-choicers to push in their agenda, that's all it's about with them.

Posted by: Liz J | 9-Mar-08 12:32:36 PM

Ken Epp's Bill is a no brainer and has nothing to do with abortion but it's another chance for the pro-choicers to push in their agenda, that's all it's about with them.

Posted by: Liz J | 9-Mar-08 12:32:36 PM

I am just curious, what is their agenda exactly? Forceful aborations for everyone? The end of the human race?

It strikes me as odd for a magazine like this to be in favour of taking choices away from people.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 9-Mar-08 5:02:48 PM

The title of thread is

"...Cue The Insane Hyperbole "

and right on cue Snowy shows up to write:

"Forceful aborations for everyone? The end of the human race?"

Exaggerate much?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 9-Mar-08 5:40:16 PM

"Your" choice ends at the other person's nose. One does not get to exercise his choice when it intrudes upon the liberty of another person.

ALL of the "complication" arises from the obvious fraud of pretending that an unborn baby is not a real baby Human being, with rights just like everyone else.

We cannot hope to have a just society if we fail to treat the weakest among us as equal in dignity to all others.

ALL of the Feminist agenda (casual-uncommitted sexual relationships, artificial birth control, abortion, no-fault divorce, anti-family "social-science-experimentation" on children in government schools and medical-health matters, etc.), is exclusively designed to destroy western liberal civilization and install Totalitarianism.

The Communist "main stream media" works 24/7 to entice the immature and naive into believing these fatal lies represent popular culture instead of demeaning slavery and death.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 9-Mar-08 7:36:18 PM

Exaggerate much?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 9-Mar-08 5:40:16 PM

Why? Because I am asking what the Agenda of the "Pro-Choice" crowd is? Their "agenda" in my book seems to be to give women the choice to have a safe abortion for the woman if she so desires, but apparently LIz J seems to think something more sinister is afoot. So I am curoius what she thinks that may be.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 9-Mar-08 8:35:49 PM

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 9-Mar-08 7:36:18 PM

Conrad,

in my book human life starts when the fetus can survive (with technical help or by itself) outside of the womb. Until then it is a merely philosophical question, if you want to exted the "human being" argument beyond that then the question is where do you want to stop? Is jerking off mass killing because every sperm theoretically could yield a human being? What about the egg that flushes out of the woman every month? What about the fertilized eggs that never mature beyond a few days out of whatever reason.

I read the text of the bill and yes, they do make provisions, but I an see the other side of the argument too.

The reason for this change in the criminal code seems to be that some people seem to think that the penalties aren't harsh enough for the perpetrator and the idea to have this amendment would allow to charge them with a similar crime. But from my limited understanding the change wouldn't result in any longer jail sentences so why have it?

Less laws employed according to their intend is better than having a dozen laws trying to cover the same thing and not one of them really being used.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 9-Mar-08 8:42:07 PM

Snowrunner -

You undoubtedly support all people in making their individual choices, whatever they may be, right or wrong, etc. if based on their own best thinking.

Have you ever heard of a pregnant woman, married or not, going out and buying a dog house or an aquarium in anticipation of the day after the ninth month of her pregnancy? Or instead, don't they all go out and buy a baby carriage?

I guess you are the only one who doesn't know if it's a baby or not until after the birth, the other folks who pose arguments like that are mere liars.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 9-Mar-08 9:09:25 PM

Snowy

Hyperbole: obvious and intentional exaggeration.

"Forceful aborations for everyone? The end of the human race?"

I think this qualifies as exaggeration. I doubt Liz is expecting either of these to come true.

However, as you were attempting to frame her point of view as extreme with your hyperbole, that makes you appear as the more extreme.

And I reiterate, the name of the thread was

...Cue The Insane Hyperbole "

You were on cue. You were hyperbolic. Thus, making Aaron Wudrick, the author, perspicacious and making you...predicatably ideological.

A lit more reflection before you post and a little less projection will serve you well. Please!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 9-Mar-08 9:56:30 PM

I guess you are the only one who doesn't know if it's a baby or not until after the birth, the other folks who pose arguments like that are mere liars.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 9-Mar-08 9:09:25 PM

Well, if that's the case why wait 9 months? The moment the egg been fertilized let's commence the birthing, why wait that long?

When I start my work on something I also know what it is supposed to be, that doesn't mean it IS that until I am finished.

Doesn't make sense to you? Colour me surprised.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 9-Mar-08 10:34:11 PM

A lit more reflection before you post and a little less projection will serve you well. Please!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 9-Mar-08 9:56:30 PM

Ignoring for a moment that you are a case study for Pavlov's studies, it seems YOU have missed my point as well. Instead of answering what this supposed agenda is you take my extreme (and yeah, even YOU must have noticed that it was an extreme to make a point) and try to use it against me.

It's okay now H2, you had your reaction, time to take the pills again, calm down a little bit and maybe answer the question then: What's the AGENDA that the PRO-LIFERS are trying to hoist on society? Well, come on now, try a REAL argument for a change instead of trying to bite my leg.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 9-Mar-08 10:37:01 PM

Oh and Conrad, as a P.S.

I do support individual choices as long as they are within the rules of law and adhere to common sense, I do also support if people stand up against laws that are outright stupid and who serve no purpose for society as a whole.

So yeah, I am for the right that a woman can chose if or if not to have an abortion, who am I to tell her not to? If she wants one she will get one, be it a legal, medical procedure or somewhere in a back alley with a coat hanger.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 9-Mar-08 10:42:18 PM

Snowy,

"Instead of answering what this supposed agenda is you take my extreme (and yeah, even YOU must have noticed that it was an extreme to make a point) and try to use it against me. "

Of course, I noticed. That's why I responded and said

"However, as you were attempting to frame her point of view as extreme with your hyperbole, that makes you appear as the more extreme."

Your point was to paint your opponent as an extremist through exaggeration. Unfortunately, it has backfired because you are appearing as the extremist here.

And the irony is that the author expected that as soon as a discussion of abortion gets started, the extremists jump in. Here you are and under your own admission, you were extreme.

The second thing to notice is that I have been completely civil with you while you have immediately begun the attempted insults.

I am trying to point out to you that while I do think you often have something valuable to say, it is couched in ideological and bitter hyperbole making any attempts at common ground fruitless.

Many people here on both sides do this. I'm just trying to get you to see yourself in the mirror of what you denounce.

If I may remind you of a past example. Once during a discussion where no mention of nazis had occurred, you injected your thoughts about how posters to this blog always bring up nazis.

The irony was, you were the only one who brought up nazis.

And here you are assuming Liz thinks that her opponents agenda is on par with Nazi atrocities.

"Forceful aborations for everyone? The end of the human race?"

You seem obsessed with painting your opponents in the worst possible light rather than trying to understand and debate maturely.

I know you can do better. Good luck.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 10-Mar-08 6:59:35 AM

Of course, I noticed. That's why I responded and said

"However, as you were attempting to frame her point of view as extreme with your hyperbole, that makes you appear as the more extreme."