ARCC defends infanticide law
For decades, it has been a staple argument of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby when resisting any idea that the unborn may have rights: the idea that unborn children are not legally considered "human beings" until they have emerged alive from the birth canal.
Now, in the horrific case of Katrina Effert, the pro-abortion lobby seems to have dispensed even with that argument.
In 2005, Effert, then aged 19, gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of her parents' home. She promptly strangled the child with her underwear and threw it over a fence into her neighbour's yard.
The boy never had a name.
In a truly disturbing ruling, Justice Joanne Veil referred to Canada's lack of abortion laws, and decided that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."
She issued a three-year suspended sentence for infanticide. Effert will not walk entirely free, but will not do any further jail time.
Many people are outraged at this decision, and justifiably so. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, however, have reacted to the increasing numbers of wary eyes being cast toward Canada's lack of abortion law by suggesting there are good reasons for infanticide to be considered a lesser crime than murder.
As is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, they're refusing to answer any questions about what those reasons might be.
In light of the ARCC's dedication to the law defining legal personhood in Canada -- they cite it in their talking points opposing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act -- one would suspect that the ARCC should admit that using Canada's abortion law status quo to justify this decision is deeply troubling.
Instead, they're pushing for more, and advancing an argument that recently-born children should be considered lesser persons, with lesser rights, than those not-so-recently born.
It isn't enough for them that the unborn have no rights. They now seem bound and determined to justify extending fewer rights to those who already meet the law's ill-conceived definition of legal human personhood.
The fact that the infanticide scenario only strengthens many of the arguments of the anti-abortion lobby seems entirely lost on the ARCC. Perhaps deliberately.
If the pro-abortion lobby refuses to accept adoption as an alternative to abortion, perhaps they would at least accept adoption as an alternative to murder? Frighteningly, apparently not.
There's little question that Katrina Effert was in a deeply disturbed state of mind following this childbirth, and that her actions clearly reflect that. In light of this, even if Effert doesn't belong in prison -- she likely doesn't -- she should have been remanded for the necessary psychiatric care, provided she hasn't received it already.
Using Canada's lack of an abortion law to justify treating her unnamed baby boy as less worthy of justice, however, is a decision that absolutely cannot be justified. That the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada would fail to recognize this simply reveals them for what they truly are: manical pro-abortion zealots.