Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Absotively ^NOT about abortion

Aaaaand. . . . we're off!

David Akin's got the goods.
MP Stephen Woodworth calls for another look at Canada’s 400 Year Old Law

A recent poll disclosed that 80% of Canadians believe that Canadian law protects the fundamental human rights of children before birth in the later stages of gestation.

In fact, the opposite is true. Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children before the moment of complete birth. This results from an unusual Canadian statute which defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.

This law was first formulated prior to the seventeenth century, when an early version of it was recorded in Coke’s Institutes of Law. In those times, medical science and principles of human rights were not sufficiently advanced to challenge such a law.

The important question is whether this 400 year old Canadian law is supported by 21st century medical science and principles of human rights. Perhaps Canadians should at least examine this question. MP Stephen Woodworth proposes that Parliament has a responsibility to lead that examination.

I checked him out with the Fetus Lobby.

Surprise! He's a fetus fetishist.
If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? Yes.

If elected, would you support all legislative or policy proposals that would result in a meaningful increase of respect and protection for unborn human life? Yes.

Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) No.

Rating: Pro-life, pro-family

He's a lawyer, former Catholic school trustee.

And gets two thumbs up on his pertinent voting record. Solidly anti-choice, including his vote for the Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill, aka Roxanne's Law.

Now, don't worry your purty little heads, ladies. This has noting, zip, zero, nada to do with abortion. Not atall atall.

ADDED: Globe story.

ADDED: The Fetus Lobby has begun to weigh in.

Mrozek and our pals at ARPA where I found the interesting information about Tim Hudak's intention to defund abortion in Ontario.

Yet to hear from: LifeShite and SUZY ALLCAPSLOCK.

ADDED: There's SUZY.


Anonymous said...

I'm worried that it's not the "Stringing the Fetus Fetishists Along Bill", but the "Actually We're Too Bloody Stupid and Lazy to Realize That This Won't Really Do Anything Bill"

Criminalizing something that's already a crime in the criminal code. What geniuses. And using a recent anecdote to prove your point, when the facts of the anecdote actually have nothing to do with your point at all.

Beijing York said...

Oh boy, here we go again.

Couple that with the proposed health accord renewal. The Harper Government™ want nothing to do with regulating standards, including equal access to same services across Canada, and is leaving it all up to provincial discretion.

Niles said...

Is anyone surprised? Anyone? Bueller?

My first thought on hearing about the decree about healthcare 'reform' was "and next, will be abortion, disguised as healthcare finance concerns under the 'why are my tax dollars paying for sluts having a good time without paying the punishment for it' angle".

There was the usual bloviating from the Conservatives saying that a fundraising letter to the Liberal faithful from Jean Chretien, which included warnings the Conservatives would be going after abortion soon, were just scaremongering.

I thought at the time, we'll see how much exaggerating or Conservative projection of preferred tactics is involved. The next four years, we are going to see quite a lot out of the unfettered Conthoriatarians. Most of it, I morosely suspect, will make our eyes bleed.

Dr.Dawg said...

OK: first, it was more like a Stringing the Rubes Along Bill, if by "stringing along" one means kidding folks into thinking you're onside with them. Most people are pro-choice, but too many could be fooled that such legislation has "nothing to do with abortion."

There was no kidding of right-to-lifers in this case. The bill was meant to chip away at abortion rights, and the zygote zealots, knowing full well what was intended, supported the initiative.

They'll support this new Woodworth initiative too, and it's far more dangerous. Why? Because Harper has his majority.

There's no such thing as an independent Con backbencher. As in the gun registry bill, supposedly a perky backbencher's brainchild, Woodworth is getting his marching orders straight from the PMO.

God, we're in trouble. Thanks to dBO and fern for shaking me out of my complacency.

Beijing York said...

We are in trouble for sure. Even if this trial balloon doesn't have total lift off, enough support will be grounds for the Harper Government™ to pursue.

Post a Comment