Monday, March 10, 2008

Pro-Aborts Just Don't Get It

For them it's nothing but so called "abortion rights". If they believe there might be a minuscule threat to their unholy sacrament, then they don't care about the women that may suffer the injustice of being denied their choice for motherhood.
If I were the subject of an attack in which my unborn child was hurt or killed, I would be devastated and would want the perpetrator to be brought to justice for both the injury to me and to my unborn child. When women grieve for a miscarried child, they are not grieving for a mere body part. Whether they treat the fetus as a potential life or as a full-fledged member of the family, they are not grieving the loss of themselves, but of something other than themselves. And when they are violently deprived of him, it can only be said to be a violation of their rights, separate from the actual injury that they incur.

But the abortion lobby doesn't see it that way. The most vocal opponent of Bill C-484, Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), has yet to acknowledge that losing a fetus is in itself an injustice.
ARCC's main concern is that C-484 would confer a type of personhood on the fetus and that would threaten the legality of abortion. Yet the reality is that C-484 does not in any way confer personhood or rights upon the fetus. It merely acknowledges that legally the fetus exists, and if damaged or destroyed intentionally by anyone other than the mother in an act of violence that the courts will punish the crime more severely.
Suzanne took some time off blogging, but she's got a great article published in the National Post. Great job, Suzanne!


Beja Was Here said...

That makes sense to me. My views may be different from many people, and I'm fine with that at the moment but this act makes logical sense.

Unless the act is to skew it to legally uphold doctors who perform abortion as murderers. In that case, I wouldn't accept that act because the details would have to be finely hashed over and there would need to be concise information as to what kind of injury/crime is comitted towards the fetus and what constitutes a crime.

If the mother is opting for an abortion, she can't perform it herself, as long as the doctor and the medical officials helping her aren't being cornered by this act then that act is good.

I'm guessing it's actually to stop I guess my point is mute. It shouldn't be passed if it's about stopping abortions.

Leonard said...

Just read the bill. Section 7 specifically states that:
<< 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.

Thus, abortion to which a woman has consented is excluded.

Sure it would be great if the bill, conferring personhood for the unborn, was introduced and voted on by the Parliament. But that's unlikely to happen unless we get at least 155 MPs and 52 Senators willing to put human life ahead of politics, personal convenience and other excuses people use to justify the wholesale slaughter of the babies.