Martin Rayner apparently has a bone to pick with Joanne over at Joanne's Journey.
Quick! Someone alert the press!
This time, however, it has to do with a post wishing success to Ken Epp, who has reintroduced Leon Benoit's fetal homicide bill.
Of course, considering the fact that Bill C-484 is not only designed to not affect abortion laws, and explicitly excludes abortion from the act in question, it seems Marty can't even bring himself to quote the entire ammendment to the bill.
"Quick though… Just at first glance... even as a non-legal type, what’s quite immediately wrong with the proposed amendment to subsection 238.1(1) of The Criminal Code as conceived by the right honourable Ken Epp:Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth…"
Of course, quoting the entire passage could be a good deal more enlightening; like so:
"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, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant..."
Emphasis in boldface mine. It's comforting to know that some things, like Martin Rayner's compulsive intellectual dishonesty, never change.
Update - Looks like someone's mad that I caught him misrepresenting the bill in question.
Sigh.
For the record, Marty: no. I never get tired of picking your idiocy apart. I just wish you'd make it a little more of a challenge.
Folks, feel free to join me in directing a hearty "fuck off, Randy" in the "esteemed" Mr Rayner's general direction.
Update 2 - In the words of Mr Rayner, my "contention that I was being "intellectually dishonest" because I only excerpted the first few lines of the proposed legislation is absurd. Everyone knows what it relates to and what the gist and ostensible purpose of it is. I only did it that way to focus in on the particular wording that I took exception to — specifically, those five words ("at any stage of development")."
Of course we know what the real purpose of the bill is, Marty. It's right there in the section that you omitted from your quotation.
On that note, there's really only two explanations for your omission of the most important portion of the clause in question: you either didn't think people would open the link you provided and read it, or just expected all your readers to be slavish enough enough to stop reading right where you clearly wanted them to (hmmm...).
Martin Rayner just isn't all that hard to figure out. In the words of Donnie Shulzhoffer, this isn't exactly rocket surgery.
Our legal system acknowledges the existence of the unborn child. In fact, Section 223 of the Criminal calls the fetus an "unborn child".
ReplyDeleteIt just doesn't call the "unborn child" a person.
"Unborn child" is a widely used phrase in medicine and the law. "Child" then is no inappropriate.
Hoodwinked again.
ReplyDeleteI should have read your post before commenting at his.
What personally amuses me about people like Martin Rayner is this: they oppose anything that even resembles any sort of limitations on abortion, and they do so under the guise that that is "progressive".
ReplyDeleteA human life (no different even if one considers a potential human life) is at stake in the issue of abortion.
Thus, to have no limits whatsoever on abortion, even reasonable limits like bans on partial birth abortions, isn't progressive at all. It's actually regressive.
Not to mention that it doesn't mesh with their opposition to the death penalty any more than a pro-lifers opposition to abortion meshes with their support for the death penalty. But don't tell them that.
"Not to mention that it doesn't mesh with their opposition to the death penalty any more than a pro-lifers opposition to abortion meshes with their support for the death penalty. But don't tell them that."
ReplyDeleteExactly. In fact, judging from the ruckus in QP the Progressives value the lives of convicted murderers and terrorists more than innocent, unborn children.
Sad.
That's entirely a rhetorical statement, and I'm not prepared to agree with it.
ReplyDeleteI think what we need to realize is that people on both sides of the abortion issue have transformed it into a rhetorical issue, as opposed to a real issue.
Is the pro-choice side 100% right? I don't think so. Nor do I think the pro-life side is 100% right.
I would never argue that a woman shouldn't have the power to decide over her own body. That being said, we have to realize that abortion doesn't merely apply to one body; it applies to two.
While I agree that a woman should have the right to choose, I would personally remind any woman considering abortion that she isn't merely making that choice for herself, she's making it for her unborn child as well.
She may decide that having the abortion is the best choice for her and the child. I view that as respectable, even if it's not the choice I personally favour. But if she thinks only of herself when she makes that decision, I do view that as a little bit, well... inhuman. Irresponsible, at the very least.
they oppose anything that even resembles any sort of limitations on abortion, and they do so under the guise that that is "progressive".
ReplyDeleteA human life (no different even if one considers a potential human life) is at stake in the issue of abortion.
Not to mention that it doesn't mesh with their opposition to the death penalty any more than a pro-lifers opposition to abortion meshes with their support for the death penalty. But don't tell them that
The problem is that you propose that a fetus in a human life (potential is your word). I don't - it's just some cells.
Let's take your argument a little further - should you be jailed every time you jerk off because those are part of potential human beings? Would a menstruating woman be accuse of wasting a human life for not getting pregnant?
It's all relative, no? The only thing I can tell you is life by your code but don't start dictating and imposing your dogma - please....
Exactly. In fact, judging from the ruckus in QP the Progressives value the lives of convicted murderers and terrorists more than innocent, unborn children.
This is not what you have been arguing - and you said you had no hidden agenda...
So are you now saying that human life is not sacred if they are "bad guys"?
That being said, we have to realize that abortion doesn't merely apply to one body; it applies to two.
I don't buy into your framing of this argument - while it may give you comfort, you are basically setting up your own logical fallacies.
You're simply being intellectually dishonest (and lazy). Sperm does not represent a potential human life any more than a fetus is "merely some cells".
ReplyDeleteNeither sperm nor a woman's egg become a potential life until the sperm in question fertilize the egg. You'd know this if you'd paid attention in sex ed class.
Once fertilized, the cells in the egg start to multiply, eventually becoming... a human body! Wow!
As for what you said about "not imposing dogma", I've made it pretty clear that I don't support the dictation of what choices a woman may or may not make vis a vis abortion.
You, on the other hand, are in here trying to impose your regressive dogma on the rest of us.
Just pointing out -- once again -- that you're a hypocrite.
But thanks for dropping by.
As for what you said about "not imposing dogma", I've made it pretty clear that I don't support the dictation of what choices a woman may or may not make vis a vis abortion.
ReplyDelete-------------
Cute.
Then I'd say we agree.
If you think that abortion is a Sin (or whatever it goes by) then it's your personal choice.
I've consistently said that I view it as a woman's choice to decide and certainly not a sin.
I'm glad you understand biology, maybe you could take out the crayons and show your two cohorts (Suzanne and Joanne) that the materials to make babies are not "unborn children"...
My reasons for disfavouring abortion (I suppose I wouldn't necessarily say I oppose it, per se) are moral and ethical in nature. I wouldn't call them religious per se, but they do conveniently intersect with my religious beliefs.
ReplyDelete