Sure the assailant's lawyer would insist that the assailant merely broke the guy's arm, so he shouldn't be held responsible for destroying an expensive TV set. On the other hand - the guy would have never dropped the TV if it hadn't been for the assailant breaking his arm. Therefore - apart from being charged with causing bodily harm the assailant should also be held responsible for destruction of property. That's common sense, isn't it?
So is bill C-484, the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Same as breaking someone's arm and destroying someone's TV set are two separate crimes, assaulting a pregnant woman and harming her unborn baby should also be considered as two separate crimes - and criminal charges should be laid accordingly. Liberal MP Brent St. Denis has tabled Bill C-543, apparently to counter the bill C-484. Bill C-543 would add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing. But that would merely acknowledge that assaulting a pregnant woman is worse of a crime than assaulting any other woman. Bill C-543 won't make the criminal accountable for the lost motherhood.
So while the bill C-543 is worth supporting (just as any other legislative measure against violent crimes), it doesn't go far enough. The laws as they are make no distinction between the situation when a pregnant woman is assaulted yet no harm is done to her unborn baby and the situation when a pregnant woman is assaulted, when she suffers exactly the same physical injuries and when her unborn baby too gets killed or injured. Thus - the assailant will get similar sentence in both cases. Bill C-543 won't change that. The Unborn Victims Of Crime Act (bill C-484) will.
Bill C-484 can't be used to outlaw abortions. That has been confirmed by independent legal experts. Bill C-484 doesn't grant personhood to the unborn babies. Yet it defines wanted unborn babies as objects worthy of protection. To ensure that every woman has the right to give birth.
P.S. Here's a great video by Suzanne. It's a baby on the video, there's no denying that. And yet not only does the law refuse to recognize Suzanne's unborn daughter as a person - it won't even recognize her as an object worthy of protection. It's time to stop the injustice. Support the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act!
2 comments:
a big screen tv? is the tv inside the guy at wallmart(sic)? is the fetus private property? or have your wafer thin rationalizations finally caught up with you? this is the most ludicrous thing i've yet seen to try and justify a bad law. but thanks, you've provided your opponents a great deal of fodder for laughter and rebuttal.
Hmm... I wonder how would you answer your own questions? I wonder if there's any way you could deny that:
1) both items are vulnerable.
2) both can be destroyed if the person carrying them is assaulted.
3) both are valuable to the person who carries them.
Except that destroying one's TV is a crime, but destroying one's unborn baby - is not considered as such by the law.
P.S. Obviously, fetus is more than just a property. It's a human being. But here's the problem - the law as it is doesn't recognize the fetus even as a private property, let alone - as a person. So passing a bill that would make fetus an object worthy of protection (just as any other private property, including the above mentioned TV) - would be a step forward.
Post a Comment