I went a couple of rounds with him tonight and you be the judge.
Round 1:
Stephen Woodworth @WoodworthMP
Bahais are persecuted in Iran simply because of their religious faith.Why does simple belief seem threatening to some?
Fern Hill @fernhilldammit
@WoodworthMP Because it's not simple belief if the holders of it want to impose their laws on others. Like the Vatican Taliban.
Stephen Woodworth @WoodworthMP
@fernhilldammit I don't think Bahais want to impose anything on anyone.
Fern Hill @fernhilldammit
@WoodworthMP Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Who *does* impose religious values, Mr. Knight of Columbus? #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything
I don't know if I knocked him out, but that was the end of that.
Round 2:
Stephen Woodworth @WoodworthMP
It is a simple truth that no law is legitimate that claims any human being is not human.Not for any ideology.Not for any policy.
This, by the way, is his only 'reason' for reopening the abortion debate.
Fern Hill @fernhilldammit
@WoodworthMP Hasn't that Tautology 101 course I ordered for you arrived yet?
And that was the end of that one.
You know, for all that we say Fuck the Debate, maybe we should welcome it. Be a lot like shooting fish in a barrel.
But we're not cruel that way, are we?
4 comments:
I love the logical fallacy that he is so guilty of here. He "Begs the Question" constantly. Nobody, no ideology, says a human being isn't one. In fact, that is the exact point of this debate and denying the reality that faces women were his wish to be granted is the height of misogynistic.
Let's also not forget that the main point of his argument is flawed. He argues that Section 223(1) of the criminal code is from 400 years ago by stating that Sir Edward Coke wrote in his The Third Part of the Institute of the Laws of England that “children before birth were not considered human beings until they were born alive.” What he fails to mention is that Coke's statement was part of commentary on the subject, not part of the law that was put in place.
Woodworth obviously has a very weak understanding of Canadian law. If he know the truth (which he quite possibly does) he would know that abortions was first severely restricted in 1869 and those laws were based on an 1803 statute. 223 was added in 1892 to make a clear definition between infanticide and abortion. The definition under the Criminal Code has served Canada well and lines up very well with modern human rights laws that that give women equality under the law.
Woodworth want's to obfuscate, using logical fallacies to confuse his meanings. I welcome this debate, however. It will allow us the clearest opportunity we've had yet to define the difference between the government and those of us who see a women's right to control their own bodies as a fundamental pillar of an equal and just society.
"But we're not cruel that way, are we? "
Learn to be that cruel. And crueller.
These fuckwads won't learn to stop trying to rule your uterus until they learn that every time they try they get hurt badly and don't heal well.
Be that cruel and even more cruel than that.
Or your daughters, granddaughters and great granddaughters will be fighting the assholes too.
Such a debate seems comical and stupid on the face of it. However, there are enough people out there to listen to pseudo-scientific garble about when a fetus can be kept viable or when a heartbeat can first be detected.
We only have to look south of the border to realize how effectively such discussions can be manipulated.
Post a Comment