Fetuses as human beings, the long gun registry, and Dear Leader

In April, MP Woodworth will ask  “Parliament to create a committee of politicians whose task it will be to review a law that stops short of defining unborn children as "human beings."  A committee of MPs has agreed to give Woodworth at least one hour of debate sometime in April. He will receive a second hour of debate sometime either in late spring or early fall.”

Why would harper allow this? A few reasons:

1.  Two of the biggest fund raisers for the CONs have been killing off the big, bad long gun registry and the equally vile and dangerous CBC.  With the registry gone and massive cuts in the works for CBC, the CON base has to be re-injected with CON-rabies or some virus that similarly keeps them mindlessly frothing at the mouth.  It also needs to make people want to donate money.  Promises of removing women’s right to control their own reproductive choices and their own bodies will do both.

 

2.  Stop the erosion of their base: Bill C-30 angered even some hard core CONs.  Many are very involved in social media and understand how that spy Bill would endanger their online freedom.  OAS reforms suggested by the CONs hits one of the right’s core group of supporters – older Canadians.  Show them another shiny object, the kind they easily get worked up over, and send signals that the CONs really do intend to regulate women’s wombs.

3.  Any big topic (and abortion debate always draws big crowds) is welcomed by harper right now because it takes away from discourse surrounding the very serious allegations of criminal activities committed by his party during the last (and possibly earlier) elections.

Before anyone thinks I’m being extreme in what I write below, I am not getting into the “what ifs” such as contraceptives except as they could be affected directly by such a re-definition of a human being.

If a fetus is defined as a human being, then it is entitled to the same rights.  That means if a fetus dies, there will have to be an investigation to determine cause of death.  

Let’s look at what defining a fetus as a human being means:

1.   Anyone deliberately causing the termination of the fetus would be guilty of murder including those who aided or enabled the termination.  Anyone trying to cover it up after the fact could also be charged.  

Many anti-choicers think this is a good idea, but read on – 

2.  Anyone causing the termination of a pregnancy could be charged with a range of crimes from neglect leading to death or manslaughter.  

Now listen up, you anti-choicers.  Even you men:

If a pregnant woman miscarries, the termination would have to be treated as the death of a human being and as such would have to be investigated.  A cause of death would have to be determined.  Many people are saying this will set women up for charges of manslaughter if they didn’t maintain perfect health and care throughout the pregnancy.  Yes, we already see that happening in the States.  Did the woman drink alcohol or take in any possibly harmful substances?  Did she eat a healthy diet, get enough rest, enough exercise? Did she take measures to reduce stress, to control her weight in a healthy way?  Did she do everything she possibly could to avoid harm to the fetus?  Ignorance is no excuse because it is her responsibility to protect the fetus just as it is her responsibility to protect a child.

But not every unintentional death is the result of the woman's behaviour.  Did hubby provide healthy food throughout the pregnancy?  Did he intercede if he suspected or knew the woman was doing something that could risk the pregnancy?  Did he do everything he could to reduce stress for her?  Did he make sure she got enough sleep?  Did he take on a significant amount of household chores to ease her physical burden?  Did he take over tasks that involved the use of chemical cleaners?  Did he babysit the other kids and teach them not to jump on mommy’s belly?  Was he extra careful during sex?

And you bosses – did you accommodate her properly during the pregnancy?  Did you make sure she wasn’t handling chemicals, changing toner on machines, exposed to machines or equipment that could harm the pregnancy?  Did you make sure not to let her give into typical job pressures of long hours?

And you doctors – better make sure your insurance covers the many, many things you could be sued for in wrongful death.

Now the really tricky stuff that still would absolutely have to be covered if a fetus is a human being:

1.  How can the legal system which must now protect all  fetuses know if a woman is pregnant?  Are we to trust women to report every pregnancy?  Not likely, since we already know that many believe abortion is not murder and history has shown us some get so desperate that they will obtain one illegally.  But the law has to protect all fetuses just as it has to protect all human beings, so the only sure answer is to have women go to registered clinics for a pregnancy test every month for as long as they have even one viable egg left in their government regulated ovaries.

If this isn’t done, a woman could sneak off and have an abortion.

Even REAL women, virtuous ones who would never ever deliberately end a pregnancy could accidentally kill a fetus if they don’t know they are pregnant and where’s the justice for Little Fetus?  What if the woman doesn’t know she is pregnant and decides to go on birth control, or ties one on, or goes bungie-jumping?  What if her hubby pours her an extra glass of champagne on their anniversary?

2.  Folks can’t use the argument that they didn’t know the woman was pregnant because if a fetus is a human being, it is entitled to the same rights as a human being, and people should know that it’s possible that there could be a little fetus growing away.  The only way to be sure there’s no little potential homicide victim hiding in a womb is when the woman starts her period and for a short time after that, so except for that week or so, every woman with even a single viable egg left would have to act – and be treated as – a pregnant woman just in case.  The only time she can be somewhat neglected and neglectful is when she’s on the rag – which is just fine because who wants anything to do with a menstruating  woman anyway?  But she can’t drop all of her responsibilities to the potential fetuses and their potential rights since drugs (and that includes the ones to curb the menstrual pains) stay in her system for some time, or can cause damage.  

Some people will say this is all ridiculous and that the first point – deliberately terminating a pregnancy is the only one that could come about (because it’s really the only one supporters of such a fetus rights  Bill really want), but that would not reflect what the Bill legally defines: Fetus= Human Being.  Everything a person can now be held responsible for a fetus when it comes to caring for, or harming (intentionally or otherwise), or killing, or neglecting just as they now are for a human being.  

3.  Look at all the points above and realize that this applies not only to the death of a fetus, but to its development as well.  If a child is born with a disability or illness, the mother and anyone who had any impact on the fetus would be legally responsible for any permanent or long term ill effects the fetus suffered.

Stephen Woodworth’s bull-shit argument:

The review, he argues, is needed because the law is based on a 400-year-old definition of human being.  "If a child five minutes before birth can be defined as not a human being, then the question is who's next?" he argued.

What a load of crap.  What a dishonest argument.  Four hundred years ago, some races weren’t considered human beings in some lands.  Neither were women.  Their rights were moved forward at great cost to many.  To imply that anyone now considered a human being could be reclassified as something less because in Canada, our government hasn’t declared a fetus as a human being is...insane.  But I do consider the source.  Especially since it comes from the same group of people who largely want to bring back the death penalty.  And who think it’s ok to fire warning shots over people’s heads.  And who believe everyone should have the right to carry concealed, unregistered firearms.

I don,t for a moment believe Woodworth’s Bill is mean in anyway to protect groups of people from being declared non-human.

Just a refresher because we always need to examine harper’s stance on anything that has to do with anything anywhere at all times:

Harper’s denials:

"A Conservative government will not be bringing forward, will not be supporting, and will not be debating the abortion laws in this country. I've been clear on that and, frankly, I think that's put the matter to rest." - Harper (January 11, 2006)

"Very clearly I am against reopening that debate," he said. "That is my position, now and in the past five years as well, and as long as I am prime minister, we will not reopen the debate on abortion. We will leave the law as it stands."  - Harper  (April 21, 2011)

 “The Prime Minister has been very clear, our government will not reopen this debate.” -  Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Feb. 28, 2012)

Harper runs the show.  We know that.  He thinks he can reassure the majority of Canadians – the more sane ones… 

h/t BCL

…while appealing to the rabid nut jobs.

He’s a liar who has no respect at all for Canadians.  We aren’t stupid enough to be swayed by semantics.   He can’t claim that a motion to discuss the fetus as a human being does not re-open abortion debate since abortion is termination of a fetus and legal because a fetus is not a human being under our laws.

I don’t think he intends to get into a full blown debate right now since he still hasn’t the extent of control over Parliament, the public service, communications, the legal system, and media as he wants, but he’ll let this one float near the top, run targeted fund raising campaigns on it, and let the discussion become more frequent and mainstream as time goes on.  Eventually, if he holds onto power long enough, he will have to introduce it or risk fragmenting his party as it not only moves further right, but forces Canada along with it.  The further right our laws go, the further right they will be pushed.  It is extremely naive and dangerous to believe harper will never re-open the abortion debate simply because most Canadians would rebel.  Long form census, Bill C-30, omnibus crime bill, government sanctioned torture, illegal election activities...

Stand on guard for Canada.

Isn't coercion already a crime?

Seriously, just crawl up inside your mother's vagina, Rod. Your obsession with women's wombs is disturbing. Sickening.

Glad this obscenity was voted down.

And if you insist on making coercing abortion a separate coercion law, then hell, how about laws against coercing women to bear children; coercing women to be stay-at-home moms; coercing women to put up with domestic violence because breaking up a family unit is baaaaad; coercing women to comply with their husband's sexual demands; coercing women to shut the fuck up; coercing women to place their own careers second to that of their spouses; coercing women to serve their spouse as though it's a natural law; coercing women to dress sexy; coercing women not to dress sexy...

Exaggerating, 900?       

Hardly (emphasis mine) -

Bill C-510, sponsored by anti-abortion Winnipeg Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, would have criminalized forcing a woman into an abortion through threats of violence, withdrawal of financial resources or a place to live.  The proposed law would have had no impact on abortion providers.

First off, that’s bull-shit.  The actual Bill says:  (inserted italics mine)

“coercion”, in respect of an abortion, means conduct that, directly or indirectly, causes a female person to consent to an abortion that she would otherwise have refused. A person coerces an abortion if he or she knows of or suspects the pregnancy of a female person and engages, or conspires with another to engage in, conduct that is intentionally and purposely aimed at directing the female person who has not chosen to have an abortion ( note it does not say who has chosen not to have one) to have an abortion, including but not limited to the following conduct:
1. (a) committing, attempting to commit, or threatening to commit physical harm to the female person, the child or another person;
(b) committing, attempting to commit or threatening to commit any act prohibited by any provincial or federal law;
(c) denying or removing, or making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct; and
(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity;

“threat”, for the purposes of paragraph © of the definition “coercion”, means one or more statements, or a course of conduct, by an individual that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the individual is likely to act in accordance with the statements or as implied by the course of conduct (Depository Services, Public Works and Government Services Canada)

Note the vague definitions as well as the huge fucking net created purposefully to snare as much by-catch as possible: including but not limited to

It would have no impact on abortion providers nor would it put legal limits on abortion.

Yeah right. Abortion providers would have to prove - every damn time - that they are not coercing a woman. You can just heard the womb-obssessed Rod: the center by its very nature is coercive; the staff encourage abortion and that is coercive especially because the poor, fragile female is even more fragile due to her hormones being all fucked up;...any damn lie the foetus fetishists can come up with along those lines will be held up by people like Rod as truth and proof.

And caring family would be targets as well: they were kind of upset at finding out their 14 year old was pregnant - maybe the result of rape, and negative reactions are interpreted as threats by poor, vulnerable, feeble-minded walking wombs...

And the big, big circus net, the catch-all: a pregnant woman considering an abortion is fragile, not right in the head, so anyone helping her obtain an abortion is exercising coercion, and now that we've established that coercion is baaaaad, let's charge the whole lot. And charge them with violence against pregnant women as well, because every woman who has ever had an abortion regretted it and suffered physically and/or psychologically, and if they didn't it's only because they are so traumatized by the abortion (which was coerced) that they don't know they are traumatized.

This pathological obsession with women's wombs has no place in Parliament. What a woman does with her womb - and that includes whatever may be in her womb while it's in her womb is her business as far as the law is concerned, so deal with it, all of you Tools Rods out there.

And if you fuckers are so damned concerned about poor, fragile, trod-upon women, try looking at all women, and woman as a whole being. How about protecting First Nations women who are still vanishing? How about making sure women who are beat on by violent spouses have a safe place to go until the bastards learns he can't keep beating on them? How about re-funding Sisters in Spirit? How about giving back Status of Women it's old mandate that included advocacy? How about promoting pay equity in the private sector instead of gutting it in the public service? How about promoting employment equity in the private sector? How about giving smart, capable women decent positions on politics instead of back-benching anyone with a brain?
How about you stay out of women's bodies and rights, you pompous, moronic, back-woodsy, atavistic, pasty, wimpy, soft-dick, mama's-boy, dart board model...eunuch?

Gotta wonder about men like that who are so, so fixated on dominating women through attempting to control their reproductive freedom. Sort of makes me wonder what the fuck is wrong with their plumbing that they obsess over the other gender's?

No justification

While it is proper that Ignatieff is accepting responsibility for the Liberal mess concerning the vote on Rae's motion to include a broader range of family planning programs, including contraception, in a maternal health initiative for developing countries, there is no excuse for the handful of Liberals who voted against it, or for those who abstained.

According to some of these Liberals, they did so because they are opposed to abortion.

First of all, Rae's motion does not promote abortion, and speeches made in the House explain that it would be supported, only as a health issue, and only in countries where it is legal:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy;


that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and


that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.

This line is key to what is so objectionable about the opposition to the motion:

the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths

By voting according to their own moral beliefs, likely based on religious views whether the members are currently believers in a god or not, those MPs are mixing church and state, something that must not be done. They know this, and failed to consider the science and facts above their own nebulous beliefs. In so doing, they are subjecting women and children to their personal narrow ideology.

It is insane (and fanatical) that anyone would not support family planning in a world where over-population has become a huge problem, one which is increasing exponentially. It is madness not to see that family planning is critical in a world where resources are becoming more scarce, where access to clean, safe water is an issue for many, where wars are being fought over arrable land, where sexually transmitted diseases ravage developing countries, where women are still suppressed through their inability to manage their reproductive rights due to lack of access to contraceptives.

By voting against Rae's motion, those Liberals have placed their own personal ideology before the rights and welfare of others while using their position to affect women and children globally. They have failed to separate church and state. They have also gone against their own party's stance on contraception.

While this motion wasn't binding, it was meant to send a strong message that Canada stands for women's reproductive rights and understands that those rights are essential to the health and welfare of women and children. Such a motion, had it passed, would have helped Canada at the G8 by showing that the country, while currently lead by a party of mysoginistic dinosaurs, is not made up of such.

As for the impact of the vote politically - the Liberals ended up looking weak (again), disorganized (again), with a leader who does not have the support of his party (again). Those few opposed could have made their personal views known, yet still have supported the motion for the positive aspects it offered. Hell, the Liberal party has compromised often enough over the past few years on Harper Bills because they didn't want to incur the wrath of voters by voting down Bills that contained some good despite crappy sections wedged in.

Passing this motion would also have shown how the opposition can work together, can agree on issues that stand to improve lives. It would have kept the focus on how dismally neanderthal the CONs are on women's and children's rights. Instead, the story is about what fuck-ups the Liberals are. Even among the left, focus is heavily on the Liberal failure and those few idiots who failed to see how beneficial passing this motion would have been.

To say, oh well, it wasn't binding anyway is no excuse. This was a chance to show some backbone, some solidarity, some strength of unity in the party, and to make a strong, public stand for women's and children's rights. It was also a good opportunity to call the CONs out on their atavistic policies in regards to women, children, and developing countries.

But the Liberals blew it.