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:
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?
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 childSo, 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?
2 Comments:
Great post.
And in fact this bill may not only protect the unborn, but also pregnant women who are often the target of violence.
You don't even have to acknowledge that a fetus has ANY rights to favour an unborn victims of crime bill.
When you're pregnant, whether you consider your fetus a blob, a parasite, a potential life or a family member that fetus is yours.
Period.
That fetus has value.
And if someone damages that fetus or deprives you of him, he should be accountable.
Pretty straightforward.
Post a Comment
<< Home