Tuesday, March 04, 2008

The Orwellian Logic of the Pro-Abortion Lobby

"Please pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain"

As the rescheduled debate regarding Bill C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill) approaches, there seems to be a last-minute panic spreading through the pro-abortion lobby that are so determined to defeat the bill, as they seem to recognize that their talking points simply aren't up to snuff.

In the latest attempt to convince people to oppose the bill, the argument seems to be that the bill would somehow result in convicted offenders serving shorter sentences.

Unfortunately for the pro-abortion lobby, however, this particular assertion simply isn't true.

In the most bizarre example of the counter-factual nonsense being forwarded one particular blogger suggests that a recent suggestion by Conservative MP Tom Lukiwiski that consecutive sentencing be reinstituted alongside Bill C-484 as evidence that the bill isn't really about justice, and is merely an attempt to recriminalize abortion (despite the fact that the bill only applies to criminal offenses, and doesn't introduce any new crimes).

But do these people really understand the difference between consecutive sentencing and concurrent sentencing? Obviously not.

Even under concurrent sentencing, it turns out that this latest talking point from the pro-abortion lobby turns out to be flagrantly false. The Public Safety Canada website turns out to be very educational.

Under Bill C-484, the crown would retain the option of charging an offender separately for the crime committed against a pregnant woman and the harm done to her unborn child.

Under concurrent sentencing, convicted offenders serve both sentences at the same time. However, if sentenced for two offenses on which they were tried separately, the second sentence doesn't take effect until the date of the conviction.

The case study offers an example of an offender convicted for one offense, receiving a three-year sentence, then is convicted of another offense two years later, extending their sentence thusly:

As such in this particular case the offender would wind up serving a five-year sentence as opposed to merely a three-year sentence:

Note that this is a longer, not shorter, sentence.

In the case, specifically, of consecutive sentencing, the case turns out much differently:

The second sentence doesn't begin until after the first has expired, guaranteeing a much longer sentence regardless of how soon the offender was tried and convicted:

As such, not only is the most recent talking point from the pro-abortion lobby counter-factual, it's also a phantom of straw man arguments from days gone by, when it was suggested that instituting consecutive sentencing would increase support for capital punishment, when all the evidence suggests that consecutive sentencing decreases support for capital punishment.

But thus is the Orwellian logic of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby. Why would Bill C-484 result in shorter sentences for convicted offenders? Because the pro-abortion lobby says so, regardless of whether or not that's actually true.

Just as with the rather peculiar claim that the suggestion that Canada institute consecutive sentencing provisions in the criminal code is somehow proof that Bill C-484 is about abortion rather than justice, or with claims that pregnant women in the US have been charged under fetal homicide acts despite the fact that this has never happened. Why is it so? Because they say so.

It's rather characteristic of those who, in true Orwellian fashion, bank on the ignorance of the public.

Hopefully, the Canadian public will turn out to be a good deal less ignorant than the pro-abortion lobby is banking on.


  1. ummm well I appreciate your explination of consecutive and concurrent sentencing your facts are off on the point of prosecutions in the US.

    While this is a pro-choice piece I suggest you hold your nose and read it:


  2. and having dug a little deeper you may also be interested in


    This illustrates that in Canada sentences for multiple murders are concurrently served not consequtive.

    While this appears to be permissive (according to my reading of s.718.2(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada)it is the norm-which means that the point that this bill will not increase sentences in the cases of double homocide is valid.

  3. You're forgetting a number of things.

    First off, the argument that was made about using consecutive sentencing was that it would result in shorter prison sentences than concurrent sentencing.

    That -- as shown here -- is the kind of argument that preys on the ignorance of those who don't understand what the concept means.

    Beyond that, your argument regarding prosecutions in the US fails on two points:

    First off, the prosecutions in question are not being pursued under Fetal Homicide Laws -- they're being pursued under child abuse and delivering substances to a minor legislation.

    Quite frankly, of the cases you've cited here, I'm actually okay with all them.

    I think pregnant women who knowingly and willingly continue to use drugs or alcohol while pregnant should be prosecuted for the harm they do to their unborn children -- unless they intend to get an abortion (something they would prove by actually getting one).

    Frankly, a number of these cases defy credulity. For example, the woman who "shot herself in the uterus because she didn't know she was pregnant until after it was too late to get an abortion".

    Who the heck is this lady? The woman who doesn't know she's pregnant until she's sitting on the toilet and a baby comes out? You've got to be kidding me.

    Considering that she had previously had children, I sincerely doubt it. After all, a pregnancy comes with certain symptoms -- morning sickness, lack of a "monthly visitor", so to speak... I doubt I really need to go on here.

    Even beyond all of this -- which I view as perfectly acceptable -- there is still one other issue at play here, and that is the section of Bill C-484 that the pro-abortion lobby pretends doesn't exist. It reads as follows:

    "(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of

    (a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;

    (b) an act or omission that a person acting in good faith considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child or the life of the child; or

    (c) any act or omission by the mother of the child.

    (I wish there was some way I could make that stand out even more so that you can't ignore it.)

    Even in the case of the woman who shoots herself in the stomach to terminate a pregnancy that she claims she didn't know she had -- but let's face it: she knew full well -- she couldn't be charged under Bill C-484 -- although she should be, and at the very least her doctors should be submitting her case to the nearest psychiatric hospital for evaluation.


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.