Thursday, April 3, 2008

Dispelling Pro-Abort Lies

On April 1st the National Post published Joyce Arthur's op-ed in which she accused Suzanne Fortin of "distortion of facts" about bill C-484, also known as Olivia Law or the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Ms Arthur claims the bill is "all about abortion". Ken Epp, the MP who introduced the bill, dispels those lies.
Joyce Arthur says that referring to a human fetus as a "child" in my bill C-484 is "unprecedented" in the Criminal Code (CC). In fact the exact opposite is true. I used the term "child" precisely because that is the term currently used in the CC to refer to a woman's offspring before birth — not "fetus."
Furthermore, the very section of the CC which my bill amends, namely 238, also uses the term "child" to refer to the unborn child/fetus.

My bill extends criminal law protection to unborn children in a very narrow circumstance that is not currently covered by section 238, using existing CC terminology, and despite the fact they are not considered "human beings" in the code. As the Law Reform Commission of Canada pointed out in its 1989 report: "to decide whether to give the foetus criminal law protection we don't need to decide if it is a person — There is nothing which limits criminal law protection to persons."
Ralph and Rachel Mooney from Woodstock, Ont sent their own letter to the editor. They wonder how could anyone be against the bill that protects the unborn child, which the pregnant woman has "chosen" to keep and is looking forward to cradling, loving and enjoying... They are right. Except that Ms Arthur doesn't really care about women, let alone their babies. All she cares about is abortion.

She is against the bill, because if harming a "wanted" unborn baby is recognized as a separate crime, that would leave absolutely no place for those ridiculous claims (brought forward by pro-abortion fanatics from "bread and roses") that a mother and her unborn baby are "one body and one person".

She is against the bill because recognizing a "wanted" unborn baby as an object (not even as a person) worthy of protection will contribute to the attitude change towards abortion. That's what Ms. Arthur is afraid of. That's why she keeps distorting the facts about bill C-484, claiming the bill is against abortion, even though section 7 of the bill specifically excludes abortion as well as any act or omission by the baby's mother. Even a hypothetical threat to this secularist sacrament she cherishes so much is too much for her.

No comments: