To recap, I asked what witnesses he would propose if Motion 312, aka Woodworth's Wank, passes. I also asked what 'modern' science persuaded him that the motion was necessary.
As mentioned, it will be for the Committee to determine the witnesses. You are getting ahead of matters.
Let`s stay with first things first. As to important advances in the last 400 years, I will mention one for you, 21st century ultrasonagraphy [sic] permits imaging of the organs and limbs of a child before birth in a manner impossible 400 years ago.
Still weaselling on the experts and a misspelled example of an imaging technology. (His punctuation isn't too hot either.)
How unsurprising that he cites ultrasound as the convincer. We've done a fair bit of reporting here at DJ! on the fetus fetishists's fetish for ultrasound.
Here is my response (with link embedded).
You refuse to give examples of credible experts from your no-doubt extensive research. Fine. Canadians will draw their own conclusions on your silence.Beyond one robo response, there has been nothing from the two online backers of M312, whenamihuman and weneedalaw to my simple question. And I don't expect any from them.
But you cite (and unfortunately misspell) ultrasonography. Perhaps the committee will be treated to the circus presented to Ohio legislators when two fetuses 'testified' by means of ultrasound.
That, by the way, was in aid of passing an anti-abortion 'heartbeat' bill.
Well, why not? This government has already made Canada a laughing stock on the international scene for its treatment of real science. If M312 passes, we can add to that reputation by accepting only junk science.
Your strategy of deliberately conflating biology with law is well-known and -documented in the various 'personhood' initiatives in the US. Such initiatives consistently fail spectacularly even in the most conservative US states like Mississippi.
Canadians are at least as smart as Mississippians. You insult each one of us with this transparent ploy.
Thank you for replying. I'm done now.