Monday, May 19, 2008

Unrepentant Old Hippie: Reporting From the Land of Oz

Opponents to Bill C-484 continue to live in a fantasy world

One really has to hand it to Canada's pro-abortion lobby: they really are determined to live in a fantasy world, and nothing -- nothing -- can shake them out of it.

Readers of the Nexus may recall some recent flights of fantasy from Joyce Arthur, the coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, wherein Arthur promoted hysteria surrounding the Bill.

In a post today, JJ -- also known as the Unrepentant Old Hippie -- chooses to indulge herself in her own flight of pure fantasy, in which she suggests that, by golly, proponents of Bill C-484 just can't explain how Bill C-484 would protect pregnant women:

"Oh, I'm boiling over now. Yeoww! I just read an editorial that ran a few days ago in the Ottawa Citizen, written by MP Ken Epp, sponsor of the nefarious Bill C-484 (aka the Kicking Abortion's Ass bill). In the article, Epp wondered why pro-choicers would be so anxious about his harmless little Kicking Abortion's Ass bill. He huffed:

"There is something seriously wrong with our system when the so-called "right" to end a pregnancy takes away another pregnant woman's right to have her wanted baby protected in law."

Fetus fetishists foamed and frothed and cheered, and who could blame them -- that's one of the greatest PR slogans since "Coke Is It". Short, emotive and completely devoid of substance. That's why those who support this odious bill are never able to respond when asked to elaborate on just how Bill C-484 protects a woman and/or her fetus. No substance, no answer forthcoming."

Oh, no?

Perhaps it would shock JJ to find out that the -- extremely simple -- answer to that question has been provided. In fact, it's been provided right here:

"If individuals like [Gary] Bourgeois had to worry about facing charges related to crimes against two victims, the deterrent would be that much stronger.

What, after all, would make a stronger deterrent: a few extra years in jail for crimes against a single victim? Or (providing that consecutive sentencing is instituted) 26 years for crimes against two victims?

And here:

"to pretend that Bill C-484 will do nothing to reduce violence ignores the very principles upon which criminal law protects society: punishment, rehabilitation and deterrent.

Under current law, an individual who kills an unborn child without killing the mother will be charged with aggravated assault at worst. Under Bill C-484, that individual would be charged with murder, which covers a much higher penalty, and thus a greater deterrent. It certainly won't prevent all violence against pregnant women and their unborn children, but it will be a start.

This principle remains rather simple: in Canada, aggravated assault carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Murder, on the other hand, carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. First degree murder, in particular, carries a penalty of an automatic life sentence with no eligibility of parole for 25 years.

Under Bill C-484, an individual who attacks a pregnant woman and kills her child without killing her would be charged with at least a count of aggravated assault (against the mother) and murder (to whatever degree applicable) against her unborn child.

Thus, the deterrent is much stronger.

This particular point really uncovers the implicit irony in JJ's argument: she insists that no proponent of Bill C-484 has explained how the bill would help protect women -- a claim that is categorically false.

"Here's the substance, baby, the meat of the matter: Bill C-484 does nothing, diddly, squat, nada to protect a woman's wanted baby, and any rhetoric about the "protection" this bill provides is nothing but a steaming load of bullshit of the highest order. All C-484 does, and all it was ever meant to do, is give the fetus post-mortem recognition as a victim of a crime. From there it's a short hop to fetal personhood rights, and then the contentious issue of whose rights trump in the event of an unwanted pregnancy."

Yet, JJ and her ilk have yet to explain to anyone how the bill wouldn't protect women, and have yet to explain how some of their propositions -- in particular, universal child care -- would.

Furthermore, in the United States, 37 states have enacted Fetal Homicide Bills, and they have yet to lead to a wholesale outlawing of abortion as the pro-abortion movement insists that it would.

But that's the appeal of living in a fantasy world: one can pretend that such simple facts aren't so -- a luxury individuals like JJ wouldn't enjoy if they were to wake up to the real world.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.