NationStates Jolt Archive

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.

"(1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant..."

The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?




*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.



The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?




*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).

It is absolutely a back door. They're taking a leaf out of the US playbook.

If they follow that US pattern, there are two main legislations to get passed, the 'voluntary partial-birth abortion ban' and the 'unborn victim' bill. And if they can't use them to overturn the laws, they'll find ways to use them to make actually seeking an abortion into a minefield.

I hope to the gods Canuckland does not start emulating it's neighbor to the south. That would totally suck.:(

Erm... thats odd... I'm not sure what to say.

Women have been prosecuted for delivering stillbirths? That's like having your identity stolen and then being put in jail for the charges someone else racks up on your credit card. Only, you know, 15 times worse.

It's disgusting how obsessed some politicians are with the rights of the unborn compared to the rights of the living.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women.

What about this qualifier?

(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of


(a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;


(b) an act or omission that a person acting in good faith considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child or the life of the child; or


(c) any act or omission by the mother of the child.

Are you saying this qualifier wont stick?

It is absolutely a back door. They're taking a leaf out of the US playbook.

If they follow that US pattern, there are two main legislations to get passed, the 'voluntary partial-birth abortion ban' and the 'unborn victim' bill. And if they can't use them to overturn the laws, they'll find ways to use them to make actually seeking an abortion into a minefield.

I would hope that the SCC would find it to be unconstitutional amedment. Under s.7 the 'right to life, liberty and security' provision, restrictions on abortion have been struck down. In R. v. Morgentaler (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs1-30/1988rcs1-30.html), Dickson CJ said:

"Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."

Attempts to charge women for the death of their fetus, either in self-induced abortions or from damage sustained in accidents have failed. As have attempts to incarcerate women who were abusing drugs and or alcohol while pregnant.

However, constitutional analysis is greatly influenced by the makeup of the court, and general societal opinions...and someone is going to have to be charged under this amendment before the SCC will likely ever deal with it.

What about this qualifier?



Are you saying this qualifier wont stick?

Flavour text is nice, but it can be ignored if you're making the right sort of appeal. I'd imagine it's a lot easier to find/make precedence to knock over individual 'clauses', than to push an entire proposal through.

Oh, gods, I just read the link. As if anyone needed more reasons to stay away from South Carolina.

I would hope that the SCC would find it to be unconstitutional amedment. Under s.7 the 'right to life, liberty and security' provision, restrictions on abortion have been struck down. In R. v. Morgentaler (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs1-30/1988rcs1-30.html), Dickson CJ said:


Attempts to charge women for the death of their fetus, either in self-induced abortions or from damage sustained in accidents have failed. As have attempts to incarcerate women who were abusing drugs and or alcohol while pregnant.

However, constitutional analysis is greatly influenced by the makeup of the court, and general societal opinions...and someone is going to have to be charged under this amendment before the SCC will likely ever deal with it.

Well, I hope you're right. :)

Abortion Rights are an issue where some people (chiefly in the 'removing those rights' camp) seem happy to employ any means necessary. It doesn't surprise me when someone uses something like Laci Peterson's murder to push for anti-abortion law... but it does kind of sicken me.

What about this qualifier?


Are you saying this qualifier wont stick?

Until there are restrictions on legal abortions, it will stick. But narrowly.

Women who self-abort, however, will be open to prosecution. As well, women who themselves are the cause of harm to the fetus may be prosecuted. In Dobson v. Dobson (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs2-753/1999rcs2-753.html), a woman was charged (by her child) with criminal negligence after a motorvehicle accident caused permanent physical and mental prenatal damage to her fetus. The SCC found that mother and child are one until the child is born...and that the fetus cannot have rights separate from the mother. This bill has the potential to change that.

There are quite a few scenarios that would see a woman prosecuted under this amendment...but keep in mind, the amendment is SUPPOSED to be dealing with violence against pregnant women. In that regard, it fails miserably. There are already a number of things that can be done to make sentences harsher in cases where a pregnant woman is murdered. This bill shifts the focus from the extremely problematic issue of violence against women, in particular pregnant women, to the woman's fetus. It's a bullshit knee-jerk reaction.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?
This is fairly ridiculous. Recognizing unborn as equal to full members of society opens the door to all kinds of insanity.



As have attempts to incarcerate women who were abusing drugs and or alcohol while pregnant.
However, I'd fully support them facing penalties if an abortion wasn't conducted, and health damage to the child did occur due to these actions.

Well, I hope you're right. :)

Abortion Rights are an issue where some people (chiefly in the 'removing those rights' camp) seem happy to employ any means necessary. It doesn't surprise me when someone uses something like Laci Peterson's murder to push for anti-abortion law... but it does kind of sicken me.

That's exactly what bothers me about this. It's capitalising on the horror and grief of the victim's family, but it isn't actually doing anything to address the real problem which is NOT abortion, or women abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy...but rather (usually)boyfriends and spouses murdering their pregnant girlfriends/wives. Homicide is the second (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php) most common causes of death among pregnant women in the US and is a serious problem here in Canada as well.

What's so incredibly fucked up about this is that multiple homicides in Canada result in concurrent sentences anyway, meaning woohoo, charge the fucker with two counts of murder and he does the same amount of time as if he'd only been charged with one. This bill does NOTHING to actually punish perpetrators more.

Also, any other legislation could use this amendment as authority to give the fetus personhood, as has been done in the US (http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/10189.html), overriding the exemptions for pregnant women Hydesland pointed out.

If Peter Stoffer votes for thisbill again, that means that the NDP will have 1 vote for it and 36 against, assuming the new NDP MPs will also vote against it.

If the BQ follow the old pattern and vote against it unanimously, we should have 50 nays and 0 yeas.

So that's 1 to 86.

The Conservatives: If 4 vote nay like last time, we'll have 139 to 4.

That makes it 140 to 90.

So, the Liberals have to field at least 51 nays to kill it, assuming no one abstains or is absent. 2/3 of the Liberals voted nay last time. They have 76 now. 2/3 of 76 is 50.

So, it basically depends on how many people abstain or absent themselves. Or maybe the Liberals will grow a pair and actually fight the good fight for once. I highly doubt that will happen. They're too busy blaming Dion for all their problems.

Maybe the senate can stop it again. Unforunately Pat Carney (the Conservative BC Senator who cast the tiebreaking vote to defeat the last attempt) is now retired.

However, I'd fully support them facing penalties if an abortion wasn't conducted, and health damage to the child did occur due to these actions.

Which you cannot do if the fetus is not a person under the law. Also, consider that you CANNOT be prosecuted for being a drug addict, or an alcoholic. Targeting pregnant women violates s.15 of the Charter, the equality provision, criminalising conditions that are not criminal for any other people.

Even if you did nothing during the pregnancy, and just waited for the harm to be done to prosecute the mother, you'd be opening the door to something truly heinous. Sure, the case of a mother abusing solvents all during her pregnancy is a clear one. What about a mother who falls down and damages her fetus? Should she be charged for not being careful enough? How about a woman who damages her fetus in a car accident for which she was responsible? Perhaps pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drive. What about a woman who, knowing there is a high risk a genetic condition she carries could be passed on to her child, gets pregnant anyway?

-snip-

Doesn't the part while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child clarify that it's just in the event of, say a murder or bombing (loose examples) and not an abortion?

(Just thinking of the Omagh bombings in Northern Ireland where a mother of unborn twins was killed so the charges went from 27 killed to 29 killed.)

/didn't read the links

That's exactly what bothers me about this. It's capitalising on the horror and grief of the victim's family, but it isn't actually doing anything to address the real problem which is NOT abortion, or women abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy...but rather (usually)boyfriends and spouses murdering their pregnant girlfriends/wives. Homicide is the second (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php) most common causes of death among pregnant women in the US and is a serious problem here in Canada as well.

What's so incredibly fucked up about this is that multiple homicides in Canada result in concurrent sentences anyway, meaning woohoo, charge the fucker with two counts of murder and he does the same amount of time as if he'd only been charged with one. This bill does NOTHING to actually punish perpetrators more.

Also, any other legislation could use this amendment as authority to give the fetus personhood, as has been done in the US (http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/10189.html), overriding the exemptions for pregnant women Hydesland pointed out.

Yes - the whole thing bothers me. More than anything, what bothers me about it is the overarching theme of control. If you can 'contain' pregnant women - limit their rights - then you have control over a proportion of the population. If you look at the current medical buzzphrase "do not prescribe to women who are pregnant, or may BECOME pregnant", there's actually an agenda here that stretches much further than 'just' pregnant women. It's a gesture towards the ownership concepts that we've spent a hundred years tearing down... girls are owned because they can become pregnant, women are owned because hey can become, or are, or have been pregnant.

I don't mind collaring a submissive, because it's consensual - but I have no time for a patriarchal establishment which owns it's women.

Doesn't the part clarify that it's just in the event of, say a murder or bombing (loose examples) and not an abortion?

(Just thinking of the Omagh bombings in Northern Ireland where a mother of unborn twins was killed so the charges went from 27 killed to 29 killed.)

/didn't read the links

Again, you can't be charged with murder if the victim is not a person. What this bill does is grant personhood to the fetus, something that the Supreme Court has specifically said violates the rights of women.

What this means is that other laws can be passed, using the Criminal Code as an authority, to criminalise various acts committed against a fetus based on that personhood. As well, in many states in the US where similar legislation has been in place for a while, overwhelmingly it has been pregnant women who have been targeted for prosecution, not the perpetrators of crime against pregnant women.

Canada is not like the US in the sense that we are not legally insular. Cases from the US are not binding here, but they are persuasive, and especially in situations where we have not yet created much in the way of precedent, lawyers look to analogous situations in the US. What we see happening there is disturbing, and certainly not something I want imported into this country.

It is one of those horrific back-door bills that looks great on the surface but really opens up a horrific can of worms.

What is the status now in Canada (and indeed the US) for an assault on a women causing the death of her child? Is this considered by the courts and in what way? I could understand amendments that consider assaults with the specific purpose of causing the women to miscarry/loose the child may be considered more serious by the court, but only in the context of the assault on the women, not as a separate offence.

It is one of those horrific back-door bills that looks great on the surface but really opens up a horrific can of worms.

What is the status now in Canada (and indeed the US) for an assault on a women causing the death of her child? Is this considered by the courts and in what way? I could understand amendments that consider assaults with the specific purpose of causing the women to miscarry/loose the child may be considered more serious by the court, but only in the context of the assault on the women, not as a separate offence.

What can be done and indeed is done in these cases is that the Crown can recommend more serious charges, such as first degree murder, or aggravated assault. At the sentencing stage, judges can impose harsher penalties because of the circumstances of the attack. We also have hate crime legislation under the criminal code which could be used if the attack was motivated by the fact of pregnancy. Hell, we could even pass a law that mandates harsher penalties for attacks on pregnant women, which has actually been done in 13 US states*.

There are quite a few things we could do, including dealing with the problem at its source. This bill is nothing but feel good bullshit with a thinly veiled pro-life agenda.

*"In Maine and 12 other states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873), the laws apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime."

What this bill does is grant personhood to the fetus, something that the Supreme Court has specifically said violates the rights of women.
Then the judicial oversight will strike it down as unconstitutional..... right? Please tell me that's how the system works in Canada.

I get what your point is, and I saw that immediately, but my highlighting of those words (and they are key) restricts the courts from interpreting it in an abortion sense. As I'm typing this, I realise how actually stupid that legislation is. The courts should look at it and chuck it in the bin because there's nothing they can really do with it.

Damn I hate common law states....

Women who self-abort, however, will be open to prosecution.

Isn't that the situation already?


As well, women who themselves are the cause of harm to the fetus may be prosecuted. In Dobson v. Dobson (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs2-753/1999rcs2-753.html), a woman was charged (by her child) with criminal negligence after a motorvehicle accident caused permanent physical and mental prenatal damage to her fetus. The SCC found that mother and child are one until the child is born...and that the fetus cannot have rights separate from the mother. This bill has the potential to change that.


If then, the bill had an extra qualifier, stating that injury sustained to the foetus caused by an accident means the bill does not apply to it, would you be happy?

Dear god. I just read the South Carolina link, and I think I need to stab someone.

Regina McKnight suffered a stillbirth, was charged with homicide by child abuse and was tried and convicted. Although Ms. McKnight had no criminal record, she was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment with eight years suspended. On appeal, the South Carolina State Supreme Court held that viable fetuses are persons under the state's homicide statute, effectively transforming a stillbirth from personal and family tragedy to “depraved heart” homicide. The decision permits conviction on any evidence that a pregnant woman engaged in activity “public[ly] know[n]” to be “potentially fatal” to a fetus. No one in this case believed that Ms. McKnight had any intention of harming the fetus or losing the pregnancy. Had Ms. McKnight sought to end her pregnancy by having an illegal third trimester abortion, her sentence would have been two years in jail. Experts working on her appeals conclude that her stillbirth was caused by an infection wholly unrelated to drug use.

Isn't that the situation already?

No. In fact, I'm trying to find the case where a woman induced a miscarriage by the age-old coat hanger method. The court applied Dobson v. Dobson and acquitted her.


If then, the bill had an extra qualifier, stating that injury sustained to the foetus caused by an accident means the bill does not apply to it, would you be happy?
No. Define accident in a legal sense...can of worms that. Depending on the context, there are many ways it can be intepreted.

This bill should die on the floor again. I've pointed out in a previous post the sorts of ways I believe we should address the problem (harsher penalties etc).

Isn't that the situation already?



If then, the bill had an extra qualifier, stating that injury sustained to the foetus caused by an accident means the bill does not apply to it, would you be happy?

There are currently no laws in Canada on abortion. Women who self-abort are commiting no crime.

The issue here is that the ftus currently has no legal rights, and this bill would give a fetus rights, which will then be used to recriminalise abortion.

No. Define accident in a legal sense

Caused from an action occurring without any malicious intent, or even any deliberate intent.

Again, you can't be charged with murder if the victim is not a person. What this bill does is grant personhood to the fetus, something that the Supreme Court has specifically said violates the rights of women.

A bit of a circular argument though, is it not? The law means what the law says it means. It seems to me that this is less defining fetus and person so that the crime of murder (the slaying of a person with malice aforethought) fits, but rather redefining the definition of murder to include the slaying of a person or fetus with malice aforethought.

There are currently no laws in Canada on abortion. Women who self-abort are commiting no crime.

The issue here is that the ftus currently has no legal rights, and this bill would give a fetus rights, which will then be used to recriminalise abortion.

To be clear here: if I was to force a termination of pregnancy on a women, without actually harming the women herself, would I only be charged with manslaughter?

Caused from an action occurring without any malicious intent, or even any deliberate intent.

....which easily, easily opens the door to "She DELIBERATELY drove her car quickly on a rainy road at night! She DELIBERATELY consumed alcoholic beverages! She DELIBERATELY took a medication for herself which is known to carry the risk of birth defects!"

Which you cannot do if the fetus is not a person under the law.
The only difference between a fetus and a person is that a fetus can be canceled before gaining consciousness and becoming a person. Thus, the right to not give birth should be absolutely sacrosanct under the law, and eliminate any responsibility to the potential unborn person, as it never came to exist.

But if the need for an abortion is known, and a person still willfully gives birth, they should be held responsible for damages done to the newly born person, including those done before the birth.


Also, consider that you CANNOT be prosecuted for being a drug addict, or an alcoholic. Targeting pregnant women violates s.15 of the Charter, the equality provision, criminalising conditions that are not criminal for any other people.
Targeting drivers for being drunk then also violates equality provisions, criminalizing conditions that are not criminal for any other people

Pregnancy is a choice, not a birth condition like color. And it's also a responsibility, just like driving a passenger.


Sure, the case of a mother abusing solvents all during her pregnancy is a clear one. What about a mother who falls down and damages her fetus?
Malicious intent is an essential element of most crimes. In these, when intent is not present or is not proven, there's no crime.


How about a woman who damages her fetus in a car accident for which she was responsible?
How about a driver who damages his wife in a car accident for which he was responsible?
Answer that, and you'll know the answer to your question.


What about a woman who, knowing there is a high risk a genetic condition she carries could be passed on to her child, gets pregnant anyway?
A more difficult question, but I think it's largely obsolete, as today the genetic code can be corrected or replaced altogether.

You think that's bad? That seems downright reasonable compared to America. In Colorado this year we're voting on an amendment to the state constitution which would define a person as having personhood from the moment of conception. This would effectively criminalize the use of the Pill, all kinds of abortion, and any behaviors by a mother that could damage or kill her child. Smoking while pregnant? Child Abuse. Using the Pill? Homicide, first degree. Having an abortion? Conspiracy to commit homicide. How can this be where anyone wants to take us?

Women have been prosecuted under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

I live in the states and have NEVER heard of that before. Can you cite some sources?
I believe it is not a back door, but then again i believe the Pro abortion people would say it was even if the bill itself stated "this is NOT to be used to stop abortion"

The point is, life and where it starts aside, that there needs to be a law for this. Why should the only crime the person face be assult?? if they wound or kill a child, fetus, blob what ever you want to call it to make you happy, why should they go un punished? if left alone that blob, fetus or (insert your word here) would devlop into a human being.

A bit of a circular argument though, is it not? The law means what the law says it means. It seems to me that this is less defining fetus and person so that the crime of murder (the slaying of a person with malice aforethought) fits, but rather redefining the definition of murder to include the slaying of a person or fetus with malice aforethought.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

....which easily, easily opens the door to "She DELIBERATELY drove her car quickly on a rainy road at night! She DELIBERATELY consumed alcoholic beverages! She DELIBERATELY took a medication for herself which is known to carry the risk of birth defects!"

Hence me saying the action itself, she didn't deliberately crash the car. Although I see your point, I can see a danger of her being charged with criminal negligence, some extra qualifiers may be able to prevent that however. If this is the case though, that may render the law superfluous.

I live in the states and have NEVER heard of that before. Can you cite some sources? She did.
I believe it is not a back door, but then again i believe the Pro abortion people would say it was even if the bill itself stated "this is NOT to be used to stop abortion" Who?

Here is the case where a woman addicted to sniffing glue was placed into the custody of the Director of Child and Family Services...the SCC overturned the detention as unconstitutional.

Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997rcs3-925/1997rcs3-925.html)

What's important about this case is that the justices discuss how a fetus is not a person under the laws of Canada...but they do discuss the possibility that the legislature could change this. This bill does so, in a sneaky way, and unless the concept itself (fetus as person) were found to be unconstitutional, it is possible that the courts would be forced to abide.

Caused from an action occurring without any malicious intent, or even any deliberate intent.

If you know that in driving a vehicle, there is a probability that you could get into an accident that could harm your fetus...is that scenario even an 'accident' anymore? What if the pregnant mother is the cause of the accident? Sure, no malicious intent, or deliberate intent, but indeed fault. What if she drove tired? Accident?

I live in the states and have NEVER heard of that before. Can you cite some sources?

Just because it may not happen in your state (and it may, you just might not hear about it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other states. They've all got different laws, ya know.

Just because it may not happen in your state (and it may, you just might not hear about it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other states. They've all got different laws, ya know.Dude, the source was in the sentence he quoted. Either he's internet illiterate or trolling.

A bit of a circular argument though, is it not? The law means what the law says it means. It seems to me that this is less defining fetus and person so that the crime of murder (the slaying of a person with malice aforethought) fits, but rather redefining the definition of murder to include the slaying of a person or fetus with malice aforethought.

Which has the same result. The criminal code specifically says that a fetus is NOT a person. You're saying that this would only extend personhood to the fetus in cases of muder. I'm arguing that we could not possibly confine it that way. There is no need to introduce this ambiguity into the criminal code if the actual intention is to procure harsher sentences for violence done to pregnant women, resulting in the death of the fetus.

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.



The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?




*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).
God damn it, liberal Canuckistan, you're supposed to be better than us! :(

If you know that in driving a vehicle, there is a probability that you could get into an accident that could harm your fetus...is that scenario even an 'accident' anymore? What if the pregnant mother is the cause of the accident? Sure, no malicious intent, or deliberate intent, but indeed fault. What if she drove tired? Accident?

Better yet, what if she was in a car, the person who was driving was careful and the other driver and their car lost control in a bad storm, hitting the car with the two in it? What then? Was it deliberate?

There are too many ways that it could affect innocent people with no mens rea.

The problem with this law is it doesn't seem to account for mens rea, which is needed for conviction. If it's an accident and the mind is completely innocent; thus lacking mens rea, how is there a possibility for any conviction? What reasonable court or jury would convict?

I remember this topic appearing before on NSG and I also presented this then, and I'll do it again.

I had emailed the NDP through their website about the issue and here's part of the reply I received...

Speaking in opposition to Bill C-484 in the House of Commons, New Democrat Members of Parliament articulated that such a measure would open the door to restricting a women’s right to choose and therefore must not become law. A “fetal homicide” law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth. Foremost, the government has an obligation to make sure that women’s rights are protected by addressing the systemic problem of domestic violence.

You can see the whole letter at my blog, which is linked in my siggy.

If you know that in driving a vehicle, there is a probability that you could get into an accident that could harm your fetus...is that scenario even an 'accident' anymore? What if the pregnant mother is the cause of the accident? Sure, no malicious intent, or deliberate intent, but indeed fault. What if she drove tired? Accident?

Sure, as I was saying, I see a danger of her being prosecuted with criminal negligence. But then you could just extend the qualifier: injury sustained to the foetus caused by an accident, even through negligence, means the bill does not apply.

To be clear here: if I was to force a termination of pregnancy on a women, without actually harming the women herself, would I only be charged with manslaughter?

You would not be charged with manslaughter, because that would apply to the fetus, who is not a person. If you didn't harm the woman, you could still be charged with aggravated assault, because inducing a miscarriage against her will is still inherently a violation of the woman's physical integrity.

Dude, the source was in the sentence he quoted. Either he's internet illiterate or trolling.

Or perhaps just highly unobservant.

Or perhaps just highly unobservant.The link is underlined, for Pete's sake! How can you miss that if you take the time to highlight the sentence?

Doesn't the part clarify that it's just in the event of, say a murder or bombing (loose examples) and not an abortion?

(Just thinking of the Omagh bombings in Northern Ireland where a mother of unborn twins was killed so the charges went from 27 killed to 29 killed.)

/didn't read the links
No, because on a case-by-case basis, arguments can be made that a great many actions are "offenses" committed against the pregnant woman including abortion itself or a number of otherwise legal activities the woman might engage in herself, which would not raise questions if she was not pregnant. The language is vague and that is what makes it dangerous.



There are quite a few things we could do, including dealing with the problem at its source. This bill is nothing but feel good bullshit with a thinly veiled pro-life agenda.

^^ This. And it is particularly cynical and manipulative feel-good bullshit, too.

Dear god. I just read the South Carolina link, and I think I need to stab someone.
Save a stab for me. What the fuck? Did we even have a 20th century, or was it all a dream?

calm down sheesh, ignorance is never a quality of good character. I missed the links and have seen them now. Thank you poster for including them.

Its interesting to know that of all those listed on that page, all the moms were druggies.


So from your including those i failt to see why this might be seen as a back door, when the examples given were not abortion;s but the harm down to babies through an illegal substance. seems pretty fair to me. Have your abortions , which they are allowed to do in SC, not one on that list faced jail time or a court for abortions.

calm down sheesh, ignorance is never a quality of good character. I missed the links and have seen them now. Thank you poster for including them.

Its interesting to know that of all those listed on that page, all the moms were druggies.

So from your including those i failt to see why this might be seen as a back door, when the examples given were not abortion;s but the harm down to babies through an illegal substance. seems pretty fair to me. Have your abortions , which they are allowed to do in SC, not one on that list faced jail time or a court for abortions.
There we go.

But don't you mean druggie whores?

:rolleyes:

There we go.

But don't you mean druggie whores?

:rolleyes:

I think that's a bit redundant. If they weren't whores, they wouldn't have been pregnant.

no, i didnt call them whores and thats not for me to judge.
simple truth is, They can have abortions there, but that state also has laws to protect whats inside. And when you use drugs and it effects the baby its a crime there.

The only difference between a fetus and a person is that a fetus can be canceled before gaining consciousness and becoming a person. Thus, the right to not give birth should be absolutely sacrosanct under the law, and eliminate any responsibility to the potential unborn person, as it never came to exist.

But if the need for an abortion is known, and a person still willfully gives birth, they should be held responsible for damages done to the newly born person, including those done before the birth.So, if you fuck up your fetus, you should either abort it or face charges? Now THAT is bizarre.

Targeting drivers for being drunk then also violates equality provisions, criminalizing conditions that are not criminal for any other people False. Targeting alcholics would violate equality provisions. If they're actually drunk, and driving, they are committing a crime. Being an alcoholic is not a crime in and of itself. Right now, being a pregnant alcoholic is not a crime.

Pregnancy is a choice, not a birth condition like color. Pregnancy is not just a choice. Can Bill Clinton get pregnant?

Pregnancy is inherently linked to sex, and has been read in to all our human rights legislation, including the Charter, to be a gender issue.

And it's also a responsibility, just like driving a passenger. NOW you stray into the dangerous territory I spoke of. You have responsibilities to a passenger in your vehicle, because there is a duty of care and because that other passenger is legally a person. So far, the courts have determined that there can be no duty of care towards the fetus on the part of the mother because mother and fetus are one. Your analogy here would separate them which would open the door to criminalising a vast amount of behaviour on part of the mother if it resulted in harm to the fetus.


Malicious intent is an essential element of most crimes. In these, when intent is not present or is not proven, there's no crime.
Malicious intent is not an essential element in ALL crimes. As well if the essential element is 'causes death if the pregnancy is known'.... you can have a strict liability offence that, if it caused the death of a fetus (assuming knowledge of the pregnancy) that would suddenly become murder. Intent to kill the fetus would not matter....and as has been pointed out, the exemption for actions taken by pregnant women themselves has not stood in the US.



How about a driver who damages his wife in a car accident for which he was responsible?
Answer that, and you'll know the answer to your question. I can't, because the situations are simply not analogous, not when mother and fetus are one, and wife and husband obviously are not.

Also, thank you for confirming for me that this bill is not in fact about protecting pregnant women, but rather is about finding ways to hold them criminally liable for harm done to their fetus.

I think that's a bit redundant. If they weren't whores, they wouldn't have been pregnant.
Yeah, I guess it goes without saying.

no, i didnt call them whores and thats not for me to judge.
simple truth is, They can have abortions there, but that state also has laws to protect whats inside. And when you use drugs and it effects the baby its a crime there.
Yet you seem to be doing quite well at judging people.

no, i didnt call them whores and thats not for me to judge.
simple truth is, They can have abortions there, but that state also has laws to protect whats inside. And when you use drugs and it effects the baby its a crime there.

Thank you, Captain Obvious, for valiently explaining to us what Neesika already said three pages ago. Now, if you're not quite exhausted from this display of wonderous mental gymnastics, perhaps you could spread more of your wisdom (oh god, I hope it's wisdom) and join the rest of us lowly scum in what I am sure is a rather dull and pedantic discussion of whether or not there should be

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to regail us all with the tale of how rocks are hard, and cheese is made from milk.

Sure, as I was saying, I see a danger of her being prosecuted with criminal negligence. But then you could just extend the qualifier: injury sustained to the foetus caused by an accident, even through negligence, means the bill does not apply.

And now you're just getting hopelessly convoluted in order to save an amendment that I have already shown:

1) Does not have a practical affect in terms of sentencing (because of concurrent sentencing) and
2) does not actually deal with violence against pregnant women, but instead delves into ways women might be held liable for harm done to their fetuses.

Rather than make a mess of the Criminal Code, why do we not ditch this bill and do some of the other things I've suggested? To refresh your memory, those suggestions were:

1) Crown opting for more serious charges,
2) Harsher penalties at the sentencing stage,
3) Applying hate crime provisions,
4) Creating a law which mandates harsher penalties for murdering a woman and her fetus.

If you know that in driving a vehicle, there is a probability that you could get into an accident that could harm your fetus...is that scenario even an 'accident' anymore? What if the pregnant mother is the cause of the accident? Sure, no malicious intent, or deliberate intent, but indeed fault. What if she drove tired? Accident?
I've replied to all of this already in the previous post (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14119223&postcount=30).

Take the situation with getting into an accident while the child is in the car - it's pretty much the same.

calm down sheesh, ignorance is never a quality of good character. I missed the links and have seen them now. Thank you poster for including them.

Its interesting to know that of all those listed on that page, all the moms were druggies.


So from your including those i failt to see why this might be seen as a back door, when the examples given were not abortion;s but the harm down to babies through an illegal substance. seems pretty fair to me. Have your abortions , which they are allowed to do in SC, not one on that list faced jail time or a court for abortions.

Um.

The intent of these bills is obstensibly to punish people who attack pregnant women and kill their fetuses.

When instead it has been used to prosecute women for drug abuse during pregnancy...well my friend, that is pretty much the definition of 'back door'. If you go through the links you'll also find that women have been prosecuted for having stillbirths, refusing C-sections, and for procuring improper abortions.

In South Carolina only one man has been charged under their legislation for killing a pregnant woman. ALL the other prosecutions were against mothers themselves.

Say it with me. Back. Door.

And now you're just getting hopelessly convoluted in order to save an amendment that I have already shown:

1) Does not have a practical affect in terms of sentencing (because of concurrent sentencing) and
2) does not actually deal with violence against pregnant women, but instead delves into ways women might be held liable for harm done to their fetuses.


Well, I did actually admit, that the law would be superfluous if this was the case. The point is, although it may be impractical, I don't think you're in danger of getting to the stage that the US is at.


Rather than make a mess of the Criminal Code, why do we not ditch this bill and do some of the other things I've suggested? To refresh your memory, those suggestions were:

1) Crown opting for more serious charges,
2) Harsher penalties at the sentencing stage,


I'm confused here, harsher sentences for what? Harming the foetus? Personally I think the sentence applied in that bill (life sentence), is a little too harsh.


3) Applying hate crime provisions

Not sure what it has to do with hate crime.


4) Creating a law which mandates harsher penalties for murdering a woman and her fetus.

Harsher than what?

Well, I did actually admit, that the law would be superfluous if this was the case. The point is, although it may be impractical, I don't think you're in danger of getting to the stage that the US is at. On what are you basing this? Just cuz Canada is so much more awesome? While I'd like to just accept that and say yes yes the SCC will save us, I can't in all honestly do it. When it can be shown that in ALL cases where similar (and I mean honestly word for word the same in some cases) legislation like this has been passed in the US, pregnant women have been prosecuted, then I am not going to cover my ears and go lalalalala won't happen here.

That would be stupid.



I'm confused here, harsher sentences for what? Harming the foetus? Personally I think the sentence applied in that bill (life sentence), is a little too harsh. For first degree murder, it's a life sentence, with possibility of parole after 25 years. In many cases, men who kill their pregnant spouses are charged with second, not first degree murder which gets you a sentence of 10-25 years. So if the Crown goes with first degree murder (for example, if there was a provision making it constructive first degree murder to kill a pregnant woman, assuming knowledge of the pregnancy) then the harsher sentence would apply, doing what this bill claims to, yet does not. If second degree murder were applied, the judge could go for 25 years instead of 10. Capish?



Not sure what it has to do with hate crime.
Killing a woman for being pregnant would be a hate crime...just like killing a homosexual for being gay is.


Harsher than what?
Simply killing the woman herself. The whole point of this bill is to supposedly create harsher penalties than one would receive for simply murdering a woman. It wants to do this by making the fetus a person, which would result in multiple counts of murder. I'm saying that there is no need to open up the wormy can of 'personhood' when we can create harsher penalties anyway.

Dear god. I just read the South Carolina link, and I think I need to stab someone.

....

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUCCCK! :mad::mad:

WHAT THE HOLY FUCKING FUCK IS WRONG WITH THEM?! HOW CAN THEY DO THIS TO SOMEONE?!

FUCKING APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT! SUPREME COURT!

If we're lucky, by the time it gets there Obama's new liberal appointees'll be in.

More and more reasons to elect Obama...

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth).

How does that make sense? Unless the fetus's brain magically turns on the instant it leaves the birth canal, then it should have the same status immediately before as immediately after. This is not the same as saying "life begins at conception". I just think its foolish to take a possission that ignores biological fact because it happens to favor a pro-choice argument. As far as I'm concerned, if its mind and body are identical before birth to what they are after birth, then the fetus should have as much as possible the same status as a living creature. The tricky part then becomes defining when a fetus becomes a person, but surely we can do better than such an arbitrary and unscientific cutoff.

You think that's bad? That seems downright reasonable compared to America. In Colorado this year we're voting on an amendment to the state constitution which would define a person as having personhood from the moment of conception. This would effectively criminalize the use of the Pill, all kinds of abortion, and any behaviors by a mother that could damage or kill her child. Smoking while pregnant? Child Abuse. Using the Pill? Homicide, first degree. Having an abortion? Conspiracy to commit homicide. How can this be where anyone wants to take us?

I know. I voted that sucker down. Hopefully the rest of Colorado will come to their senses and do the same.

How does that make sense? Unless the fetus's brain magically turns on the instant it leaves the birth canal, then it should have the same status immediately before as immediately after. This is not the same as saying "life begins at conception". I just think its foolish to take a possission that ignores biological fact because it happens to favor a pro-choice argument. As far as I'm concerned, if its mind and body are identical before birth to what they are after birth, then the fetus should have as much as possible the same status as a living creature. The tricky part then becomes defining when a fetus becomes a person, but surely we can do better than such an arbitrary and unscientific cutoff.

Right before the birth, the fetus, or child if you prefer, is completely dependent on the mother for its life. Right after the birth it is not. That is a simple biological difference. Since it is still entirely dependent on the mother, the mother still gets the entire say. Her body, her choice.

I do not know if this is the position of the Canadian Supreme Court, but that's how I see it.

How does that make sense? Unless the fetus's brain magically turns on the instant it leaves the birth canal, then it should have the same status immediately before as immediately after. This is not the same as saying "life begins at conception". I just think its foolish to take a possission that ignores biological fact because it happens to favor a pro-choice argument. As far as I'm concerned, if its mind and body are identical before birth to what they are after birth, then the fetus should have as much as possible the same status as a living creature. The tricky part then becomes defining when a fetus becomes a person, but surely we can do better than such an arbitrary and unscientific cutoff.

It is the standing legal defintion we use in this country. If we really want to overturn it, then let there be an actual debate on the matter. Let it be discussed publicly, let all of Canada join in.

What pisses me off MOST about this bill is that if you don't look into it, it sounds like a great idea. Punish someone more for killing a pregnant woman and killing her fetus. Great! Who wouldn't support that?

It's not that any of us opposing this bill are saying killing a pregnant woman for being pregnant is not horriying and heinous. Instead, we are saying that this bill is not actually dealing with this issue...it is opening the door to prosecuting women themselves.

If more people understood the implications of this bill I think they would be outraged that such an important issue is being dealt with in such a sneaky and underhanded manner.

This Bill better die or be struck down.

It is the standing legal defintion we use in this country. If we really want to overturn it, then let there be an actual debate on the matter. Let it be discussed publicly, let all of Canada join in.

What pisses me off MOST about this bill is that if you don't look into it, it sounds like a great idea. Punish someone more for killing a pregnant woman and killing her fetus. Great! Who wouldn't support that?

It's not that any of us opposing this bill are saying killing a pregnant woman for being pregnant is not horriying and heinous. Instead, we are saying that this bill is not actually dealing with this issue...it is opening the door to prosecuting women themselves.

If more people understood the implications of this bill I think they would be outraged that such an important issue is being dealt with in such a sneaky and underhanded manner.
Exactly. That's why we can't have this bill.

Now, if they present us with a bill that doesn't open a backdoor, and that does punish people more for killing a pregnant woman and her fetus...wait, is that even possible?

If more people understood the implications of this bill I think they would be outraged that such an important issue is being dealt with in such a sneaky and underhanded manner.

Likely they're being sold on just half the bill, i.e. they're not told about how the law can be turned on women using contraception or trying to abort. Of course in a Red State the appeal will naturally climb even with full disclosure.

And a while back this thread was right next to "Why Canada is Inherently Better Than The USA." Maybe it's a coincidence, but I kind of saw it as a frightening social commentary.

Exactly. That's why we can't have this bill.

Now, if they present us with a bill that doesn't open a backdoor, and that does punish people more for killing a pregnant woman and her fetus...wait, is that even possible?

YES, it is possible. Mandatory sentences for an attack on a woman which causes her to miscarry, or that kills both her and the fetus...without recognising the personhood of the fetus itself.

How does that make sense? Unless the fetus's brain magically turns on the instant it leaves the birth canal, then it should have the same status immediately before as immediately after. This is not the same as saying "life begins at conception". I just think its foolish to take a possission that ignores biological fact because it happens to favor a pro-choice argument. As far as I'm concerned, if its mind and body are identical before birth to what they are after birth, then the fetus should have as much as possible the same status as a living creature. The tricky part then becomes defining when a fetus becomes a person, but surely we can do better than such an arbitrary and unscientific cutoff.

I dare say, that, if anything, newborn's brain isn't 'turned on' after birth, it's just the legal line. That being said, unborns are 'turned on' ether.

Likely they're being sold on just half the bill, i.e. they're not told about how the law can be turned on women using contraception or trying to abort. Of course in a Red State the appeal will naturally climb even with full disclosure.

And a while back this thread was right next to "Why Canada is Inherently Better Than The USA." Maybe it's a coincidence, but I kind of saw it as a frightening social commentary.

I tried to engage in a criticism of our Human Rights legislation in respect to restriction of civil liberties in that thread, but it didn't fly.

So, if you fuck up your fetus, you should either abort it or face charges? Now THAT is bizarre.
You have an alternative? Use post-birth euthanasia? Let the person suffer all their life because someone couldn't lay off the bottle?


False. Targeting alcholics would violate equality provisions. If they're actually drunk, and driving, they are committing a crime.
And if they're drunk and driving a baby from semen to life, they're, too, dealing delayed harm to a person. A fetus is not a person, but damage done to it transfers to the person.

Pregnancy is not just a choice. Can Bill Clinton get pregnant? Driving is not just a choice either. Can an armless, legless person drive a car?


NOW you stray into the dangerous territory I spoke of. You have responsibilities to a passenger in your vehicle, because there is a duty of care and because that other passenger is legally a person. So far, the courts have determined that there can be no duty of care towards the fetus on the part of the mother because mother and fetus are one.
Only until and unless the fetus is eventually born.


Your analogy here would separate them which would open the door to criminalising a vast amount of behaviour on part of the mother if it resulted in harm to the fetus.
Not much different from penalizing damage from recklessly driving a taxi. Again, not necessarily criminalizing - could work as civil damages as well.

Except this time you have a choice to escape the charges if accepting a medically recommended abortion.


Malicious intent is not an essential element in ALL crimes.
NOMB. We're talking about a specific crime, and a specific family of crimes which are not strict liability.


As well if the essential element is 'causes death if the pregnancy is known'.... you can have a strict liability offence that, if it caused the death of a fetus (assuming knowledge of the pregnancy) that would suddenly become murder.
As I've said, two things are essential in order for this to work: 1) Right to terminate the pregnancy being held sacrosanct; 2) Liability only for willful actions, known to be harmful. And, for most cases, also 3) Only if the damage has been diagnosed before the pregnancy termination deadline.

BTW, I'd even extend the right to abortion/euthanasia for medical reasons to a few days after birth.



I can't, because the situations are simply not analogous, not when mother and fetus are one, and wife and husband obviously are not.
Then the mother should have a duty to keep the damaged fetus from becoming a separate person - otherwise she has done harm to an actual person other than herself.

The fact that the person wasn't yet born when the harm was done doesn't matter - it's still harm, just delayed. It's no more of an excuse than poisoning a shipment of baby food and claiming you're not responsible because the persons harmed weren't yet born when you committed the act.

Probably gets slapped down by the Supreme Court unless McCain gets a couple of apointees in.

And here's another food for thought. If it comes to the point where terminating a nonsentient growing mass of organic tissue becomes a felony, theoretically cancer surgery and therapy could be considered the same as murder.

YES, it is possible. Mandatory sentences for an attack on a woman which causes her to miscarry, or that kills both her and the fetus...without recognising the personhood of the fetus itself.

Well, there you go. I'd be all for that, and happily so, and I expect many of us would as well.

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Good for him. I hope he wins out on his second try, every little bit helps.

I think making it a separate offence is fine.

Actually I just did respond to it. Its you who's ducking the question of weather the definition is a sufficient one by pointing out, quite correctly I'm sure, that it is the legal one. I know that. But when your arguing weather a law should be changed, pointing out what the law currently is is not, in itsself, an argument. I'd prefer it if you would stop the condesending posturing and personal attacks and try having a mature discussion on the issue. But if you'd rather flame, I'm game.
I am not the one arguing whether a law should be changed, I am arguing there is no point to changing it, that the stated purpose of changing it is a false one, and that if this fuckwad wants to open up a debate on whether a fetus is a human being or not, he should do so openly, not try to slip it in through an amendment to the criminal code.

The argument here is not 'to what point should we allow abortion'. Go have that discussion elsewhere.

Good for him. I hope he wins out on his second try, every little bit helps.Ah, so you support giving the fetus personhood even while the creator of the bill himself, Mr. Epp, who was just here for a panel discussion, claims it couldn't possibly do that? You support someone that absolutely stupid? Someone who completely ignores the way exactly worded amendments have been used in the US to prosecute women? How they have utterly failed to protect women, or in fact 'punish' attackers of pregnant women any worse than they would have otherwise been? You support idiocy?

Good to know.

I think making it a separate offence is fine.
Read the above.

If you look at the current medical buzzphrase "do not prescribe to women who are pregnant, or may BECOME pregnant", there's actually an agenda here that stretches much further than 'just' pregnant women.

I think you're reading a bit more into this particular tendency than what's really there. Birth defects, etc. are a major health concern and the truth of the matter is that a very large proportion of pregnancies which women carry to term are unplanned. A healthy and sexually active woman can become pregnant. There's nothing wrong with taking that possibility into account in her medical treatment.

I think you're reading a bit more into this particular tendency than what's really there. Birth defects, etc. are a major health concern and the truth of the matter is that a very large proportion of pregnancies which women carry to term are unplanned. A healthy and sexually active woman can become pregnant. There's nothing wrong with taking that possibility into account in her medical treatment.
Maybe it's just because of the overall social context, but that wording bothers me a bit, too.

It doesn't bother me at all if it gives the impression or comes right out says that it's talking about women who are pregnant or planning to or would like to become pregnant.

But, for instance, there was for a while a tv ad advising women to take folic acid, not because it's good for women but because it's good for pregnancy. That was the only reason touted for taking it, and the ad very strongly advised that all women of child bearing age should take folic acid because it's good for pregnancy. No mention of anything along the lines of "if you'd like to become pregnant someday..." Not even a hint of an idea that a woman might not want to get pregnant. Not even a mention of any other benefit to folic acid. No mention that a woman might take folic acid because she wants to -- nope it was all "do it for your baby's sake." That ad annoyed me.

I think you're reading a bit more into this particular tendency than what's really there. Birth defects, etc. are a major health concern and the truth of the matter is that a very large proportion of pregnancies which women carry to term are unplanned. A healthy and sexually active woman can become pregnant. There's nothing wrong with taking that possibility into account in her medical treatment.

I disagree. Even if the whole thing is really benevolent, and is trying to limit the possibility of harming to potential foetuseseses - I oppose it.

In creating a third state, the 'pre-pregnant' female, we have another of those precedents... and one that can be abused. I don't think we're going to see 18 year old girls getting jail sentences for smoking, because of their 'pre-pregnant' status, and I don't think we're going to see charges bought against girls who were anorexic in their teens, because of potential damage to their 'pre-pregnant' status... but I've seen some pretty stupid stuff (the SC stuff in this very thread), so I think even badly-worded-GOOD-ideas should be attacked with the nuclear option.

If you open a backdoor, someone will use it.

Ah, so you support giving the fetus personhood

Yes.

You support someone that absolutely stupid?

Maybe it's not stupid. Maybe you just think it's stupid. Ever consider that?

Someone who completely ignores the way exactly worded amendments have been used in the US to prosecute women?

That seems a bit hyperbolic and unnecessarily melodramatic. Careful there, you don't want to be 'going off the rails on a crazy train..'

How they have utterly failed to protect women, or in fact 'punish' attackers of pregnant women any worse than they would have otherwise been??

Where's the proof of that? It's like people who say the death penalty fails to deter. In the specific case, it's an extremely effective deterrent, as I've never seen anybody who was executed commit a single other crime, and in the general case, it's kind of hard to find evidence of crimes having not been committed.

You support idiocy?

Nah, I tend to shy away from Air America and Michael Moore movies.

Good to know.

You'll always know what I think. I'm not given to equivocation, girl.

Where's the proof of that?

You might want to look up 'concurrent sentencing'.

Seriously - at least try to make an argument.

Honestly, anyone who can look a woman straight in the face and say "A fetus is a person" should refuse treatment if they get cancer. Because they're both basically the same thing.

Maybe it's not stupid. Maybe you just think it's stupid. Ever consider that?

No, it's stupid. They cannot prove that the fetus actually has the full brain functions in order to be fully considered a person as of yet. The only time we can actually prove it is when they're already born, as many of the tests necessary would actually be harmful or outright deadly to a fetus.

That seems a bit hyperbolic and unnecessarily melodramatic. Careful there, you don't want to be 'going off the rails on a crazy train..'

There's a long series of historical precedents for what she's saying. Ever hear of "separate but equal?" And then there's the cases linked to within this thread that further prove what she says.

Where's the proof of that? It's like people who say the death penalty fails to deter. In the specific case, it's an extremely effective deterrent, as I've never seen anybody who was executed commit a single other crime, and in the general case, it's kind of hard to find evidence of crimes having not been committed.

Kinda hard to disprove a person's guilt when the authorities stop investigating.

Also, the part about punishing those attackers any more was already proven earlier. Read the thread.

Nah, I tend to shy away from Air America and Michael Moore movies.

A lot of intelligent people tend to shy away from Michael Moore movies. But what do they have to do with this discussion?

You'll always know what I think. I'm not given to equivocation, girl.

Given your attempt to equivocate her thinking that people have abused laws with being crazy, I'll have to say you already disproved the bolded item.

Also, stop calling him "girl." The way you use it is insulting.

Honestly, anyone who can look a woman straight in the face and say "A fetus is a person" should refuse treatment if they get cancer. Because they're both basically the same thing.

Not true. In fact, fetuses and cancer are not alike, when you stop and compare them.

If you want a more accurate comparison, try a tapeworm. Fetuses work under a similar principle, in that they take nutrients from the host after attaching inside their body. Note that this technically would put fetuses in the parasite category.

Not true. In fact, fetuses and cancer are not alike, when you stop and compare them.

If you want a more accurate comparison, try a tapeworm. Fetuses work under a similar principle, in that they take nutrients from the host after attaching inside their body. Note that this technically would put fetuses in the parasite category.

And how many pro-lifers are going to scream and wave signs that say "PROTECT THE TAPEWORM"?

And how many pro-lifers are going to scream and wave signs that say "PROTECT THE TAPEWORM"?

After today? It better be a lot.

Yes.
Then support a bill that transparently wishes to do this...not one, whose creator constantly and publicly denies this is the intention, even though it has this effect. In short, don't support deceptive douchebags.

Maybe it's not stupid. Maybe you just think it's stupid. Ever consider that? I said HE was stupid. Not it. He. As in Mr. Epp, who claims his bill couldn't POSSIBLY open the door to prosecuting pregnant women.



That seems a bit hyperbolic and unnecessarily melodramatic. Careful there, you don't want to be 'going off the rails on a crazy train..' Have you read this thread at all? Have you followed any of the links I've provided?

The exact same legislation enacted in 37 states in the US...with the exact same exemptions, has been used to prosecute women for all the things I mentioned. I provided links earlier to back this up. The only crazy train here is the one those of you living in denial are on. In another post, I explained how US law is not binding, but persuasive, especially in areas where we have not developed our own commonlaw on the subject. So no. I'm being far from hyperbolic. Read the fucking thread.



Where's the proof of that? Once again you show that you haven't read the thread. I've already pointed out how multiple murder convictions in Canada get you concurring sentences. You kill one person? First degree murder? Life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. You kill two people, first degree murder? Life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. You see how that works?



It's like people who say the death penalty fails to deter. In the specific case, it's an extremely effective deterrent, as I've never seen anybody who was executed commit a single other crime,
That is the single most idiotic thing I've heard today...and I've been talking to some really, really stupid people.

By the way, you know there's no death penalty in Canada right? So the deterrance of being dead won't really work here.


and in the general case, it's kind of hard to find evidence of crimes having not been committed. This doesn't even begin to make sense.



Nah, I tend to shy away from Air America and Michael Moore movies.

You'll always know what I think. I'm not given to equivocation, girl.
Too bad you're terrible at making your point.

Also, I have a penis.

I agree that debate should be held openly. And I'd be happy to have that debate. Unfortunately, you seem to feel that it is off-topic.

That's absolutely true. Because we have oodles of abortion threads, and frankly, I refuse to get sidetracked and have this become another boring thread on a subject that has been done to death here.

And since the creator of the bill claims it is absolutely not intended to abrogate the right of women to access abortion, the only relevance the abortion topic has is in the sense of showing how his assertions are bald faced lies. Delving into the topic itself is a mastubatory exercise that can be better done elsewhere. No one is depriving you of that discussion...there is an abortion thread on page one, and many others you can find.

Personally, I think this question has considerable relevancy to this topic, and I do think that this is in part a debate on when abortion should be allowed, That's nice.

Take it outside.

And no. I'm not going to involve myself in yet another ridiculous abortion thread. I'll save my efforts for applauding people like Morgentaler who fought to decriminalise abortions here in Canada, and for opposing idiots like Mr. Epp who, perhaps out of sheer ignorance is trying to avoid public debate and just slip in fetal personhood through the back door.

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.



The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?




*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).

I think this is proof of the similarities of the U.S. and Canada...
:p

I think this is proof of the similarities of the U.S. and Canada...
:p

Go ahead, stick your head in the lion's mouth.

Go ahead, stick your head in the lion's mouth.

Couldn't resist :D

Couldn't resist :D

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bcB8PBcXU7T7/340x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bcB8PBcXU7T7/340x.jpg

lol

And therein lies the problem.

You're complaining about how you are being unfairly treated in the responses to your hijack.

I think it's cuz I was mean. And didn't just you know, gush about how clever he is. Nothing is more annoying than an uppity penis-less person.

too complicated for me to answer at this time. I typed out some feelings, but after re reading them even I didn't agree lol. I contradict myself alot tho.

This is complicated .. or very simple. simple route being .. no matter who the fuck they kill 'hang em'. But my thought is always on self defence, Just cause it's a woman, or just cause that woman is pregnant, doesn't mean you don't have to defend yourself again her. I usually (not always) take the mentality of the accused, not perp, tho.

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.



The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?




*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).

Thats exactly what it is.

Look, Im all about hammering someone who beats a woman and kills her unborn baby that she was intending to keep. Problem is, any attempts to give a fetus "rights" are nothing but a backdoor abortion attempt.

"Penis" is the correct name for the male reproductive/urine disposal organ. If you have problems with the name, please take it up with scientists around the world and work to get it changed. Calling a penis by its correct name is not obscenity.

And, besides. We can fucking cuss all god-damned day as long as we're not using that shit to accuse others of things that are inflammatory, such as saying they're a pussy or accusing them of being a motherfucker. And at least this thread doesn't have people calling each other dicks or saying that something is like piss.

So, have a Satan-blessed day and try to avoid getting into a topic about giving blowjobs to walruses ^^
You've been spending too much time here. :D

Okay, back on topic:



You're right. This is a very complex topic. Which is part of the problem we have with this particular proposed law.
Complex, but not so much that the tactic cannot be recognized.

too complicated for me to answer at this time. I typed out some feelings, but after re reading them even I didn't agree lol. I contradict myself alot tho.

This is complicated .. or very simple. simple route being .. no matter who the fuck they kill 'hang em'. But my thought is always on self defence, Just cause it's a woman, or just cause that woman is pregnant, doesn't mean you don't have to defend yourself again her. I usually (not always) take the mentality of the accused, not perp, tho.
Interesting that...actually this is not even a situation I in my wildest dreams imagined...but let's explore that. Let's say you were attacked by a pregnant woman. Self defence is a positive defence, meaning if you can prove it, you'll be found not-guilty. Imagine that you had to use lethal force, or at least force sufficient to cause the death of her fetus. So. You would have the positive defence of self defence against the mother (assuming proportional force etc, assuming all the factors had been proven)...but how on earth could you possibly prove self-defence against the fetus?

Ah. But I've answered my own question. Because the bill (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3127600&file=4) specifically states that:

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant...

Since self-defence is a positive defence, you have not committed an offence against the mother, therefore, this section could not apply.

Thats exactly what it is.

Look, Im all about hammering someone who beats a woman and kills her unborn baby that she was intending to keep. Problem is, any attempts to give a fetus "rights" are nothing but a backdoor abortion attempt.

You know what was really interesting today? He was in for a panel discussion, defending his bill, and he kept going into lurid detail about pregnant women who had been horribly murdered by their spouses or ex boyfriends...typical politician fare...but in addition to this he kept stating that if you opposed his bill, you were actually anti-choice, because someone had taken away this woman's choice to have her child.

!???

He went on, and on and on about how these were 'wanted babies' and how someone had stolen the mother's choice away, and that therefore, this bill protects a woman's choice. I never got the opportunity to ask him if the woman intended to abort, and someone 'did it first' if this bill would no longer apply?

You know what was really interesting today? He was in for a panel discussion, defending his bill, and he kept going into lurid detail about pregnant women who had been horribly murdered by their spouses or ex boyfriends...typical politician fare...but in addition to this he kept stating that if you opposed his bill, you were actually anti-choice, because someone had taken away this woman's choice to have her child.

!???

He went on, and on and on about how these were 'wanted babies' and how someone had stolen the mother's choice away, and that therefore, this bill protects a woman's choice. I never got the opportunity to ask him if the woman intended to abort, and someone 'did it first' if this bill would no longer apply?


See, we already have laws that deal with his situation though. Its called murder laws.

Im assuming murder is illegal in Canada. I could be wrong though, you guys are crazy up there.

See, we already have laws that deal with his situation though. Its called murder laws.

Im assuming murder is illegal in Canada. I could be wrong though, you guys are crazy up there.

Murder's legal up there, as long as it's done with a hockey stick while both parties are on ice. They play hockey a little rougher than everyone else.

Complex, but not so much that the tactic cannot be recognized.

I did get a chance to challenge his assertion that the exemptions provided for in the legislation would make it impossible to do any of the things opponents of this bill were claiming (prosecute mothers for drug/alcohol abuse, criminalise self-induced abortions, criminalise the refusal of C-sections etc).

I said, "Excuse me Mr. Epps, but I have the South Carolina criminal code (http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t16c003.htm) in front of me, and pardon me if I note that the wording of the provision in question, as well as the exemptions are nearly word for word the same as your own bill...were we in a more academic setting I might even raise the issue of plagarism, but I digress...and I'd like to point out that these exemptions have failed on a truly staggering scale. In fact, in the case of Regina McKnight (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php), the granting of 'personhood' to the fetus resulted in a successful prosecution of a mother who suffered a stillbirth.

So, knowing that in many states where similar legislation has been enacted, women are being targeted for prosecution, how can you say this is not a danger in Canada?"

You know what his answer was?

"I'm not a lawyer, but I know that the law is the law, and you have to go by what it says, so that couldn't happen here."

...

This is a man who feels competant to WRITE LAWS.

Fucking disgusting.

"Masturbatory" is an obscenity? If you say so....

Not in itself no. But in that context, it was quite clearly intended as an insult.

As I said, I don't really care that much about a foul mouth. I care more about the apparent evasiveness of Neesika's debating tactics.

See, we already have laws that deal with his situation though. Its called murder laws.

Im assuming murder is illegal in Canada. I could be wrong though, you guys are crazy up there.

Hahahahaa...he was asked numerous times, flat out, why he would push so hard for this bill when there are ALREADY provisions in the criminal code allowing for harsher sentences, for pregnancy to be considered an aggravating factor etc. He would not give a straight answer. Simply wouldn't. From what I could understand, as he repeated himself ad nauseum, was that for him, it was all about recognising it as a separate crime, and that even if that had no actual practical effect, that alone justified introducing a bill laden with such controversy.

Now.

I understand what it is like for the families of victims when a charge is not pursued...for example in cases of multiple homicide. Sometimes, one family is left without that 'vindication' because of a lack of evidence, or whatever. That definitely has an impact, even if the sentence would be no worse for it. There is a sense that having the crime recognised allows the victim's family to have some closure, once again, even if it does not result in any harsher penalties for the perpetrator.

But what this man has done...is capitalised on the grief of victim's families. All his lurid tales cemented this in my mind. The families could still be given symbolic vindication (or hell, let's try REAL vindication with harsher sentences hmmm?) in ways that would NOT open up this can of worms, and frankly, I'm absolutely disgusted by this sort of tactic.

Hahahahaa...he was asked numerous times, flat out, why he would push so hard for this bill when there are ALREADY provisions in the criminal code allowing for harsher sentences, for pregnancy to be considered an aggravating factor etc. He would not give a straight answer. Simply wouldn't. From what I could understand, as he repeated himself ad nauseum, was that for him, it was all about recognising it as a separate crime, and that even if that had no actual practical effect, that alone justified introducing a bill laden with such controversy.

Now.

I understand what it is like for the families of victims when a charge is not pursued...for example in cases of multiple homicide. Sometimes, one family is left without that 'vindication' because of a lack of evidence, or whatever. That definitely has an impact, even if the sentence would be no worse for it. There is a sense that having the crime recognised allows the victim's family to have some closure, once again, even if it does not result in any harsher penalties for the perpetrator.

But what this man has done...is capitalised on the grief of victim's families. All his lurid tales cemented this in my mind. The families could still be given symbolic vindication (or hell, let's try REAL vindication with harsher sentences hmmm?) in ways that would NOT open up this can of worms, and frankly, I'm absolutely disgusted by this sort of tactic.


Your shocked that conservative (Im assuming he is) politicians are exploiting and playing upon emotions such as fear, grief, and anger?

Interesting that...actually this is not even a situation I in my wildest dreams imagined...but let's explore that. Let's say you were attacked by a pregnant woman. Self defence is a positive defence, meaning if you can prove it, you'll be found not-guilty. Imagine that you had to use lethal force, or at least force sufficient to cause the death of her fetus. So. You would have the positive defence of self defence against the mother (assuming proportional force etc, assuming all the factors had been proven)...but how on earth could you possibly prove self-defence against the fetus? - snip


My whole thing was them/me not knowing she was pregnant. So I/they didn't purposely kill anything but them (her).

The more complicated would come (which I didn't want to bring up, cause it's so complicated in itself) when some states .. well you are allowed to have abortions at this term .. why should so and so be charged with infantcide (or am i wrong here? double murder?) if what is in her tummy isn't considered life anyway?

Does it come down to what the mother wants or what the law or physicians say? Or rights of the unborn?

Your shocked that conservative (Im assuming he is) politicians are exploiting and playing upon emotions such as fear, grief, and anger?

Just because I expect a certain behaviour from someone doesn't mean it doesn't turn my stomach to see it up close and personal.

Oh! One interesting tidbit that came out of today's discussion was that Mr. Epps (as he is retired, and no longer MP for Edmonton/Strathcona) mentioned that the Harper government had stated its intention to introduce pregnancy (known) as an aggravating factor in sentencing, which is what I've been saying would actually do more to 'up the punishment' than his bill could. He thought this wasn't enough, because he is so all-fired up on the whole 'fetus as a human but don't worry women it won't affect your rights' thing.

Just because I expect a certain behaviour from someone doesn't mean it doesn't turn my stomach to see it up close and personal.

Fair enough.


After living in the US for so long though, Ive been desensitized to it.


Awwww, Neesika, so innocent. So uncorrupted. So bright eyed about the world.



Please dont kill me.

Not in itself no. But in that context, it was quite clearly intended as an insult.

As I said, I don't really care that much about a foul mouth. I care more about the apparent evasiveness of Neesika's debating tactics.

Just so everyone's clear, and so this tangent isn't followed...a ruling was given (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14120908&postcount=3).

My whole thing was them/me not knowing she was pregnant. So I/they didn't purposely kill anything but them (her).

The more complicated would come (which I didn't want to bring up, cause it's so complicated in itself) when some states .. well you are allowed to have abortions at this term .. why should so and so be charged with infantcide (or am i wrong here? double murder?) if what is in her tummy isn't considered life anyway?

Does it come down to what the mother wants or what the law or physicians say? Or rights of the unborn?

Meh, ask me a straight direct question. I'll answer.

I did get a chance to challenge his assertion that the exemptions provided for in the legislation would make it impossible to do any of the things opponents of this bill were claiming (prosecute mothers for drug/alcohol abuse, criminalise self-induced abortions, criminalise the refusal of C-sections etc).

I said, "Excuse me Mr. Epps, but I have the South Carolina criminal code (http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t16c003.htm) in front of me, and pardon me if I note that the wording of the provision in question, as well as the exemptions are nearly word for word the same as your own bill...were we in a more academic setting I might even raise the issue of plagarism, but I digress...and I'd like to point out that these exemptions have failed on a truly staggering scale. In fact, in the case of Regina McKnight (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php), the granting of 'personhood' to the fetus resulted in a successful prosecution of a mother who suffered a stillbirth.

So, knowing that in many states where similar legislation has been enacted, women are being targeted for prosecution, how can you say this is not a danger in Canada?"

You know what his answer was?

"I'm not a lawyer, but I know that the law is the law, and you have to go by what it says, so that couldn't happen here."

...

This is a man who feels competant to WRITE LAWS.

Fucking disgusting.
Holy shit! What an ass! Ye gods! No, seriously, that kind of crap, if said in a bar, should get him punched in the mouth just for being stupid.

My whole thing was them/me not knowing she was pregnant. So I/they didn't purposely kill anything but them (her).

The more complicated would come (which I didn't want to bring up, cause it's so complicated in itself) when some states .. well you are allowed to have abortions at this term .. why should so and so be charged with infantcide (or am i wrong here? double murder?) if what is in her tummy isn't considered life anyway?

Does it come down to what the mother wants or what the law or physicians say? Or rights of the unborn?

Frickity frick, make me pull up the legislation again...

Ok (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3127600&file=4).

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant...

So yes, you would have to know, or ought to know (huge distended belly? Big clue). If you didn't know, you wouldn't satisfy that element of the mens rea.

Okay to deal with your questions...infanticide is something only women can be charged with (in Canada, don't know about the US though I suspect it's similar), and only for a little while after birth (after which it's homicide). So it wouldn't be that anyway.

I know what you're getting at though. If abortion is okay and someone kills the fetus, how could it be a crime?

Well, right now, an attack on a woman is already a crime. Even if, as was brought up earlier in the thread, you could imagine a situation where the fetus could be aborted without any actual harm to the woman, you'd STILL have an aggravated assault, as you'd be interfering with the physical integrity of the woman against her will. No, it wouldn't be murder.

It really depends upon the laws in question though...at what point the fetus becomes a 'person' in law. Once a person, causing its death is a homicide by definition.

Meh, ask me a straight direct question. I'll answer.

Are you talking to yourself?

Or...wait? What have you done?

Fair enough.


After living in the US for so long though, Ive been desensitized to it.


Awwww, Neesika, so innocent. So uncorrupted. So bright eyed about the world.



Please dont kill me.

If one becomes too desensitised to the idiocy of this world, one loses the fire to fight it.

And I don't kill people. I just make them cry.

"I'm not a lawyer, but I know that the law is the law, and you have to go by what it says, so that couldn't happen here."

...

This is a man who feels competant to WRITE LAWS.

Fucking disgusting.

The stupidity, it burns. Gah.

Just want to say I haven't killed anyone.

My post was just looking at it, in that fashion.

If one becomes too desensitised to the idiocy of this world, one loses the fire to fight it.

And I don't kill people. I just make them cry.

Its true. I weeping as I read this. But anyway:

I did get a chance to challenge his assertion that the exemptions provided for in the legislation would make it impossible to do any of the things opponents of this bill were claiming (prosecute mothers for drug/alcohol abuse, criminalise self-induced abortions, criminalise the refusal of C-sections etc).

I said, "Excuse me Mr. Epps, but I have the South Carolina criminal code (http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t16c003.htm) in front of me, and pardon me if I note that the wording of the provision in question, as well as the exemptions are nearly word for word the same as your own bill...were we in a more academic setting I might even raise the issue of plagarism, but I digress...and I'd like to point out that these exemptions have failed on a truly staggering scale. In fact, in the case of Regina McKnight (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php), the granting of 'personhood' to the fetus resulted in a successful prosecution of a mother who suffered a stillbirth.

So, knowing that in many states where similar legislation has been enacted, women are being targeted for prosecution, how can you say this is not a danger in Canada?"

You know what his answer was?

"I'm not a lawyer, but I know that the law is the law, and you have to go by what it says, so that couldn't happen here."

...

This is a man who feels competant to WRITE LAWS.

Fucking disgusting.

This is terrifying. On one hand, it makes me happy that idiot leaders are not confined to the US, but on the other, wow. Just wow.

I cant decide if it was just a transperant, shameful dodge or just unesxcusable ignorance.

Are you talking to yourself?

Or...wait? What have you done?


No, I had went off and started talking about abortion, fetuses etc. I'm not keen on those. All I was saying was ask me a simple question, if you wanted to get my answer. I'm buzzed man.

no, i had went off and started talking about abortion, fetuses etc. I'm not keen on those. All i was saying was ask me a simple question, if you wanted to get my answer. I'm buzzed man.

rofl...you so silly :D

I made a statement I usually relate to the victim, rather than the accuser. I stand by that. I do. I should've left it at that.

I've taken a polygraph, and failed, I was not lying. I will never ever ever take another one. I was accused when I was like 15 of attacking some cheerleader at a school across my town. I was skipping school that day with my friend and two guys. I had never met her. Still haven't. But cause my b/f at the time was accused of raping her and went to jail they came after me. I can't explain. It's too much. School cops harrased me, they did not know my family. Thank god my dad wasn't there during the day... after the unth day of hearing I dated niggers. It's ther whole reason they were there.. I know. One was white, was a bitch ass filipino, both mean ass bitches. If I only knew then what I know now.

I made a statement I usually relate to the victim, rather than the accuser. I stand by that. I do. I should've left it at that.

I've taken a polygraph, and failed, I was not lying. I will never ever ever take another one. I was accused when I was like 15 of attacking some cheerleader at a school across my town. I was skipping school that day with my friend and two guys. I had never met her. Still haven't. But cause my b/f at the time was accused of raping her and went to jail they came after me. I can't explain. It's too much. School cops harrased me, they did not know my family. Thank god my dad wasn't there during the day... after the unth day of hearing I dated niggers.

I will have to read this again when I've less gin in me.

I will have to read this again when I've less gin in me.
Or Naturality needs to adjust his/her gin level. Up or down, I'm not sure.

I will have to read this again when I've less gin in me.

It's true. You have no idea. My mom shot one of her bo's (didnt kill), and cut my dad. My dad shot my mom (didnt kill) in the early 70's with a 38, missed my sister cause mom was in front of her. Also shot an Indian (didnt kill) outside a bar cause in his words the Indian was gonna gut his ass. Sometime after my mom getting shot I came along. My sister and 2 half brothers are all at least 15 years older than me. My parents were wild. Both born in the 30's. They literally lived the 50's.

I look back and it seems my mom was bent on putting me in bad graces (for a time- hell maybe my dad drove it) with my dad. She use to conjure up arguments. I was strong headed. I'd buck him. I went for years esp in middle school days arguing with him about Hitler. He literally use to say Hitler was the man, I didn't know shit, but I knew if he said that.. something was wrong.... so we argued. I look back now and I think the reason he did that was cause he knew I was dating black guys, and that was his ultimate defense. Now tho .. never hear nothing about Hitler.. he's pro Obama. /shrug We all contradictions.



Oh sooooo much more, need a blog.. well acutally i have a journal. so im ok.

Or Naturality needs to adjust his/her gin level. Up or down, I'm not sure.


haha, yeah i am drinking. =)

tho, i was putting some honesty out there. no way you all can find me. it true :uncertain:

Your shocked that conservative (Im assuming he is) politicians are exploiting and playing upon emotions such as fear, grief, and anger?

I wouldn't be shocked from any politician conservative or otherwise to exploit and play on emotions such as fear, grief and anger.

It is absolutely a back door. They're taking a leaf out of the US playbook.

If they follow that US pattern, there are two main legislations to get passed, the 'voluntary partial-birth abortion ban' and the 'unborn victim' bill. And if they can't use them to overturn the laws, they'll find ways to use them to make actually seeking an abortion into a minefield.

We have a bill in Colorado that wants to grant the zygote life at the moment of conception. It says nothing about abortion, but everyone knows that it's just another anti-abortion ruse.

We have a bill in Colorado that wants to grant the zygote life at the moment of conception. It says nothing about abortion, but everyone knows that it's just another anti-abortion ruse.

IF zygotes are recognized as people, why should tapeworms and other internal parasites be denied those same rights?

I have a penis.

I thought you were a chick, sorry, my mistake, dude. As for the rest, y'all take this and yourselves way too seriously. You're going to pop a blood vessel, you're not careful.

I thought you were a chick, sorry, my mistake, dude. As for the rest, y'all take this and yourselves way too seriously. You're going to pop a blood vessel, you're not careful.

Whoa...seriously?

Female, and I get a 'girl'...male, and I get a 'dude'?
One is outright condescending and paternalistic and the other is chummy?

Just for your info, my penis comes off when I step out of the harness. But I'm a fan of pegging 'dudes', dude, so if you want me to step back IN, I could.

Whoa...seriously?

Female, and I get a 'girl'...male, and I get a 'dude'?
One is outright condescending and paternalistic and the other is chummy?

You get a "chick" as well for being female.

And don't you just love it when they start telling us to calm down, just because they're failing to shut us up? As if we'd have to be hysterical to do something as easy as beat them down.

You get a "chick" as well for being female.

And don't you just love it when they start telling us to calm down, just because they're failing to shut us up? As if we'd have to be hysterical to do something as easy as beat them down.

Someone yesterday here at school said, "wow you really seem mad about this!" I laughed and laughed and laughed and said..."no, if I was mad, you'd know it." To which a friend, standing nearby nodded sagely and added, "No really, you would."

There are no entrails on the floor here folks. This is me, calm.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?
I don't have any problems with this kind of legislation. The qualifier found in (7) litra c seems to me to be sufficient to prevent any stupid acts of prosecution, like what you can see in the US.

So I don't see it as a "backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion" either.

I don't have any problems with this kind of legislation. The qualifier found in (7) litra c seems to me to be sufficient to prevent any stupid acts of prosecution, like what you can see in the US.

So I don't see it as a "backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion" either.

Let's compare. Here (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3127600&file=4) is the Canadian proposed amendment:

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant...


(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of

(a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;

(b) an act or omission that a person acting in good faith considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child or the life of the child; or

(c) any act or omission by the mother of the child.

Here (http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t16c003.htm) is the existing South Carolina section:

S.16-3-1083
(A)(1) A person who commits a violent crime, as defined in Section 16-1-60, that causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child who is in utero at the time that the violent crime was committed, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(B) Nothing in this section may be construed to permit the prosecution under this section:

(1) of a person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of a person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of a woman with respect to her unborn child.

In both, there is a CLEAR exemption for a women in regards to her own fetus.

Nonetheless, South Carolina and other states who also have these same exemptions, have managed to prosecute mothers anyway.

Once again. US law is persuasive...and there is a lot of case law out there now that groups could use here in Canada to argue around that exemption. The exemption is not iron clad BECAUSE this will be the first time any section of the criminal code recognises the fetus as a person. You cannot rely on these exemptions, sorry. The common law isn't a fan of bright line rules in these situations and it is very much a matter of interpretation.

Female, and I get a 'girl'...male, and I get a 'dude'?

What's wrong with that? If you're not a chick, you're a dude. I mean, there's not a whole lot of options beyond 'man' or 'woman.'

Just for your info, my penis comes off when I step out of the harness. But I'm a fan of pegging 'dudes', dude, so if you want me to step back IN, I could.

The first part of that sentence is kind of creepy, and I'm not entirely certain what the second part means, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be enjoyable.

What's wrong with that? If you're not a chick, you're a dude. I mean, there's not a whole lot of options beyond 'man' or 'woman.'



The first part of that sentence is kind of creepy, and I'm not entirely certain what the second part means, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be enjoyable.


Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. :D

The common law isn't a fan of bright line rules in these situations and it is very much a matter of interpretation.

As Joe the Plumber would say: "There's your problem, ma'm."

We've had that type of legislation since 1975 (1960 to be honest, but I'm counting since the update to get it in line with the abortion law), and we've yet to have (to my knowledge at least) any women even charged under that paragraph. The letter of the law is clear, and doesn't leave anything up for interpretation: Quickly translated it reads This paragraph does not apply to women who terminates their own pregnancy, or aids in the termination of their own pregnancy.

And, strangely enough, it works, and is no threat towards a woman's right to choose.

This is going to hurt. (but not me)

As Joe the Plumber would say: "There's your problem, ma'm."

We've had that type of legislation since 1975 (1960 to be honest, but I'm counting since the update to get it in line with the abortion law), and we've yet to have (to my knowledge at least) any women even charged under that paragraph. The letter of the law is clear, and doesn't leave anything up for interpretation: Quickly translated it reads This paragraph does not apply to women who terminates their own pregnancy, or aids in the termination of their own pregnancy.

And, strangely enough, it works, and is no threat towards a woman's right to choose.

Just like to point out to the viewers that you live in a civil law jurisdiction that relies much, much less on precedent.

I'm very familiar with the flaws of our system..which is why I don't believe for a second these exemptions will stand and protect us all from the big, bad, ugly pro-lifers.

Maybe it's just because of the overall social context, but that wording bothers me a bit, too.

It really doesn't bother me. Maybe it's because I'm pretty close to being a part of the medical community and I know people involved in research on these issues, but I really think people are reading too much into it.

I do think the social context is a big part of it. There is an underlying assumption in our society that women all want to eventually become pregnant and have children. And there are those to whom the assumption does not apply who (justifiably) resent the implications of it and thus are likely to be more sensitive to issues like this.

It doesn't bother me at all if it gives the impression or comes right out says that it's talking about women who are pregnant or planning to or would like to become pregnant.

Here's the thing though. The fact of the matter is that a very large fraction of pregnancies willingly carried to term are unplanned. IIRC, one of my coworkers who is researching fetal alcohol syndrome found a statistic that was something around 50%. If the medical community restricts such suggestions to women attempting to become pregnant, they miss that entire population. So, instead, they restrict it to women who may become pregnant.

Now, obviously, a woman who absolutely would not carry a pregnancy to term wouldn't need to worry about what birth defects a medication she is taking might cause. She doesn't need to worry about ensuring that her folic acid intake is at the suggested level for pregnancy. But a woman who would carry an unplanned pregnancy to term should be aware of these issues.

Take me, for instance. I'm not planning on having children until I finish my degree. However, were my birth control to fail, I would carry to term. Because of that, I do take 400 mg of folic acid every day. I am well aware that, by the time I would become aware of such a pregnancy, any damage from not having it would most likely already be done. And I'm glad that the medical community has made me aware of that issue.

But, for instance, there was for a while a tv ad advising women to take folic acid, not because it's good for women but because it's good for pregnancy. That was the only reason touted for taking it, and the ad very strongly advised that all women of child bearing age should take folic acid because it's good for pregnancy. No mention of anything along the lines of "if you'd like to become pregnant someday..." Not even a hint of an idea that a woman might not want to get pregnant. Not even a mention of any other benefit to folic acid. No mention that a woman might take folic acid because she wants to -- nope it was all "do it for your baby's sake." That ad annoyed me.

I think the bolded is probably the main thing that some people find annoying. The ad didn't specifically say, "If you would abort in the even that you became pregnant, don't worry about this ad." I really don't see the big deal, though. It's like expecting a commercial for a product like Rogaine to specifically say, "By the way, if you don't want to regrow your hair, don't worry about this medication." They don't have to. It's obvious that men who are perfectly happy being bald don't need the medication. Likewise, it is obvious that women who would not carry a pregnancy to term has no need to worry about how she could avoid birth defects in a future child.


I disagree. Even if the whole thing is really benevolent, and is trying to limit the possibility of harming to potential foetuseseses - I oppose it.

So the medical community should just ignore perfectly preventable birth defects?

In creating a third state, the 'pre-pregnant' female, we have another of those precedents... and one that can be abused.

There is no "third state". It's just recognition of the biological facts of being female. A healthy, sexually active woman of childbearing age can become pregnant.

If someone has risk factors for heart disease, his medical treatment and the recommendations his doctor makes for general health will take that into account. The doctor might, for instance, be less likely to prescribe a drug that has cardiovascular side effects if there is another possibility. But no one complains that he is being treated as being "pre-heart attack".

I think the problem here is that, because of the contentious nature of abortion, people become hyper-sensitive to the issue and start looking for bogeymen where they really don't exist. So a doctor taking a very real medical possibility into consideration suddenly becomes an oppressor trying to take away her abortion rights. Never mind that that same doctor would likely refer her to any number of clinics if she was pregnant and seeking an abortion.

In both, there is a CLEAR exemption for a women in regards to her own fetus.

Nonetheless, South Carolina and other states who also have these same exemptions, have managed to prosecute mothers anyway.

They don't seem to have been prosecuted under this law, though. The link listed them as having been prosecuted for things like child neglect.

I also think there's precedent (in US law, anyways, I don't know about Canadian) that allows someone to be prosecuted for something that occurs in the commission of another crime, even if they wouldn't normally be prosecuted for it. All of the incidents listed in SC seem to have been related to illegal drug use.

Incidentally, I would think that the type of law you seem to favor might actually be used in this way. You talk about higher sentencing in crimes where a fetus is harmed or killed (ie. attack a pregnant woman, cause a miscarriage, get a higher sentence). Could that not also be used as precedent for something like the usage in South Carolina? A woman who uses illegal drugs is already committing a crime - if that crime then leads to fetal death, could she also end up with an increased sentence?

Just like to point out to the viewers that you live in a civil law jurisdiction that relies much, much less on precedent.
Indeed. And much, much more on the intentions of the legislature (especially as it's written down in the propositions and reports presented before the passing of the law.)

*Waves to the viewers*
I'm very familiar with the flaws of our system..which is why I don't believe for a second these exemptions will stand and protect us all from the big, bad, ugly pro-lifers.
The evil corrupting influence of America may fuck up this piece of legislation, it's true.

They don't seem to have been prosecuted under this law, though. The link listed them as having been prosecuted for things like child neglect.
...



I'm sorry. I'm really bitchy today, and I know you and I know you aren't an idiot. So I'm not going to tear into you, because that would be stupid and I know you're not doing it deliberately. I'm just letting you know why my tone might be snarkier than usual, it's nothing personal.

You can't charge someone with child neglect if the 'thing' at issue is not a person. The only way you could possibly manage to charge a mother for harm done to a fetus in utero is if you granted that fetus personhood. Which is what these laws do.

Actually, you've basically stumbled upon how these laws get used by OTHER laws...something I've pointed out before, but perhaps I needed to give more concrete examples. The exemptions in this section don't apply to other sections of the criminal code, or to other criminal statutes. Obstensibly, neither should the definition of fetus as person, but definitions are slippier, and as a matter of interpretation, can be imported into the actus reus/mens rea of other criminal or quasi-criminal offenses.

So you can have legislation laying out what child abuse is...and if you say well look, here in the criminal code, child is defined as including the fetus in utero...that's the way we're going to interpret it too...and if the courts agree...you have the situation you do in SC.

I also think there's precedent (in US law, anyways, I don't know about Canadian) that allows someone to be prosecuted for something that occurs in the commission of another crime, even if they wouldn't normally be prosecuted for it. All of the incidents listed in SC seem to have been related to illegal drug use.
Yes. You can have one event, many crimes.

But you can't have a crime against a fetus unless that fetus is a person. You use of illegal drugs cannot be a criminal act against a fetus unless the fetus is a person.



Incidentally, I would think that the type of law you seem to favor might actually be used in this way. You talk about higher sentencing in crimes where a fetus is harmed or killed (ie. attack a pregnant woman, cause a miscarriage, get a higher sentence). Could that not also be used as precedent for something like the usage in South Carolina? A woman who uses illegal drugs is already committing a crime - if that crime then leads to fetal death, could she also end up with an increased sentence?

Sentencing guidelines are specific to specific crimes. This would be an aggravating factor, not a separate crime. Nor would it grant 'personhood' to the fetus. So no. It could not possibly be interpreted the way the SC supreme court has interpreted the personhood of a fetus.

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.



The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?




*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).
There's a difference between this and abortion. In this case, what is inflincted on the fetus BEFORE it is born will affect it AFTER it is born. So the idea that this is an attempt to criminalize abortion sounds absurd to me. If anything, it would encourage people who might otherwise drink while pregnant to have an abortion instead, before the fetus gains a consciousness.

And what's with the popularity of the politically-correct "women's rights" argument? Why would a "woman's right" to harm the fetus trump a child's right to be decently nurtured in the womb? I admit I don't know much about the process of pregnancy, but if we prosecute people for being negligent after the child is born, shouldn't we prosecute people for being negligent before the child is born if that negligence would affect them after they are born?

I never understand those abortion things. In most (is it?) western countries it's legal. When it's legal then it doesn't mean you are forced to have one, every time you're pregnant.

That means, that according your moral, ethic, religion or whatever code, you can choose not to have an abortion.

So, why are they bugging the people that belief different?

I never understand those abortion things. In most (is it?) western countries it's legal. When it's legal then it doesn't mean you are forced to have one, every time you're pregnant.

That means, that according your moral, ethic, religion or whatever code, you can choose not to have an abortion.

So, why are they bugging the people that belief different?
Perhaps because a fetus does not choose whether it gets aborted or not? Don't get me wrong, I'm for legal abortions (well, at least up until the point during the pregnancy at which the fetus has a consciousness) but this whole "pro choice vs. anti chose" thing just sounds like an attempt to dodge the issue, or in some cases, to dogmatically slap labels on one's opponents. We don't seem to hear the opponents of ESCR labelled "anti-cure" as much...

Hayteria, it'd be nice if you read the thread instead of coming in making absolutely no sense.

There's a difference between this and abortion. In this case, what is inflincted on the fetus BEFORE it is born will affect it AFTER it is born. So the idea that this is an attempt to criminalize abortion sounds absurd to me. If anything, it would encourage people who might otherwise drink while pregnant to have an abortion instead, before the fetus gains a consciousness.

And what's with the popularity of the politically-correct "women's rights" argument? Why would a "woman's right" to harm the fetus trump a child's right to be decently nurtured in the womb? I admit I don't know much about the process of pregnancy, but if we prosecute people for being negligent after the child is born, shouldn't we prosecute people for being negligent before the child is born if that negligence would affect them after they are born?

1. If you want to argue about abortion, join this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=569788) instead.

2. Buy a fucking clue.

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.



The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?




*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).

I think it makes sense. About abortion, more research is needed if the fetus/baby is "aware/conscious" and after when. The policy needs to be based on that, not feelings or religion or women's choice or whatever.

2. Buy a fucking clue.

Pfft! He can't buy that! It's not a vowel! :p

...I'm not entirely certain what the second part means, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be enjoyable.

Didn't you ever wonder what the phrase "take it like a man" actually means?

So the medical community should just ignore perfectly preventable birth defects?


Because the issue is really that black and white?

My honest answer would be - yes.


There is no "third state". It's just recognition of the biological facts of being female. A healthy, sexually active woman of childbearing age can become pregnant.


No, there absolutely IS a third state. You have your pregnant woman, and your non-pregnant woman... and now you have pre-pregnant woman. And that means, if you haven't had a hysterectomy, if you haven't passed your menopause, and if you aren't natively or effectively sterile - you now count as 'pre-pregnant'.

My 10 year old daughter is 'pre-pregnant'. My lesbian friend is pre-pregnant. My wife, who doesn't want to bear any more children, is 'pre-pregnant'.

And there's the problem.

Should there be an accepted status that limits options for a proportion of the female population, based on the fact that someone else says you might be putting a hypothetical future offspring in danger? Whether or not you want, or intended to carry to term, and potential offspring?


If someone has risk factors for heart disease, his medical treatment and the recommendations his doctor makes for general health will take that into account. The doctor might, for instance, be less likely to prescribe a drug that has cardiovascular side effects if there is another possibility. But no one complains that he is being treated as being "pre-heart attack".


But we're not talking about a heart disease... we're talking about changing YOUR status, because of the health of ANOTHER person. And one who doesn't even exist, and may NEVER exist.


I think the problem here is that, because of the contentious nature of abortion, people become hyper-sensitive to the issue and start looking for bogeymen where they really don't exist. So a doctor taking a very real medical possibility into consideration suddenly becomes an oppressor trying to take away her abortion rights. Never mind that that same doctor would likely refer her to any number of clinics if she was pregnant and seeking an abortion.


No, because I don't think this particular point is actually an abortion issue - I just think it comes under the same UMBRELLA as abortion issues - i.e. removing rights from women.

Why would a "woman's right" to harm the fetus trump a child's right to be decently nurtured in the womb?

Why does your desire to evacuate your bowel trump the fecal rights of your waste product to be decently nurtured in your ass?

Didn't you ever wonder what the phrase "take it like a man" actually means?

It means to deal with things yourself and/or endure adverse circumstances or events with fortitude instead of blaming everybody but yourself for your own bad decisions and/or whining and crying like a little girl with a skinned knee. I imagine that it has very little to do with whatever perverse sexual practices people come up with.

Why does your desire to evacuate your bowel trump the fecal rights of your waste product to be decently nurtured in your ass?

You....have to stop. I just can't sig so many awesome posts, I can't! It's just not allowed!

Except I must!

It means to deal with things yourself and/or endure adverse circumstances or events with fortitude instead of blaming everybody but yourself for your own bad decisions and/or whining and crying like a little girl with a skinned knee. I imagine that it has very little to do with whatever perverse sexual practices people come up with.

This says more about your imagination than anything else. "Take it like a man" means "aren't you going to want lube?". Whining or crying are left up to the discretion of the individual participants.

You....have to stop. I just can't sig so many awesome posts, I can't! It's just not allowed!

Except I must!

Sorry. I was actually hoping to gradually take up your entire quote box. :)

This is fairly ridiculous. Recognizing unborn as equal to full members of society opens the door to all kinds of insanity.

yeah, how barbaric. wanting to protect the most helpless.

This says more about your imagination than anything else. "Take it like a man" means "aren't you going to want lube?". Whining or crying are left up to the discretion of the individual participants.

Well as it's constantly pointed out to me, men have a lower pain threshold, and need a lot more lube than those of us tough women who can take it in the shower with pretty much no warning.


:D

Sorry. I was actually hoping to gradually take up your entire quote box. :)

It takes a lot to fill my box.

*nods*

I think it makes sense. About abortion, more research is needed if the fetus/baby is "aware/conscious" and after when. The policy needs to be based on that, not feelings or religion or women's choice or whatever.

yeah, how barbaric. wanting to protect the most helpless.

This is NOT a thread on abortion. Take it elswhere.

Why does your desire to evacuate your bowel trump the fecal rights of your waste product to be decently nurtured in your ass?
A weak analogy, at best. A piece of feces is never going to become a human being with a consciousness, so it makes no meaningful difference what I do to it. And come on, comparing a fetus to feces? Shouldn't that sound at least a bit over-the-top to you? I feel like I'm adopting the cliches of anti-abortionists in saying this, but it's important to remember that we used to be fetuses ourselves.

This says more about your imagination than anything else. "Take it like a man" means "aren't you going to want lube?". Whining or crying are left up to the discretion of the individual participants.

My imagination is just fine, there are just some things I prefer not to expend the effort on imagining...especially if they are things I'm never going to be involved in in even the most peripheral way.

A weak analogy, at best. A piece of feces is never going to become a human being with a consciousness, so it makes no meaningful difference what I do to it. And come on, comparing a fetus to feces? Shouldn't that sound at least a bit over-the-top to you? I feel like I'm adopting the cliches of anti-abortionists in saying this, but it's important to remember that we used to be fetuses ourselves.

You say a weak analogy.

I say that attributing rights to someone or something based on POTENTIAL is a fatally flawed concept. We don't bury people because, one day, they will be dead. We don't let infants drive cars because, one day, they might have a license.

If it makes you feel any better, don't think of it as an analogy. Think of it as me being poetic about telling you your argument is shit.

My imagination is just fine, there are just some things I prefer not to expend the effort on imagining...especially if they are things I'm never going to be involved in in even the most peripheral way.

You say 'to-may-to', I say 'now let's you just drop them pants'.

Anyway. You can't be sure you'll never try. You might end up in jail, and everyone's pretty to someone.

A weak analogy, at best. A piece of feces is never going to become a human being with a consciousness,
Oh, I don't know about that. *thinking about some of the people I've met in life, especially one ex-boyfriend, two ex-bosses, and one current vice-president*

so it makes no meaningful difference what I do to it. And come on, comparing a fetus to feces? Shouldn't that sound at least a bit over-the-top to you? I feel like I'm adopting the cliches of anti-abortionists in saying this, but it's important to remember that we used to be fetuses ourselves.
I do not claim for myself rights or privileges I would not extend to others. It is my view that fetuses are not legal persons. The fact that I was a fetus once makes no difference to that.

It takes a lot to fill my box.

*nods*

I actually carefully reworded that like three times to try to avoid too much in the way of overt connotation. I should have known you'd take it there anyway. Errr... so to speak.

Well as it's constantly pointed out to me, men have a lower pain threshold, and need a lot more lube than those of us tough women who can take it in the shower with pretty much no warning.


:D

I think this is probably now my favourite thread on the forum...

I'm sorry. I'm really bitchy today, and I know you and I know you aren't an idiot. So I'm not going to tear into you, because that would be stupid and I know you're not doing it deliberately. I'm just letting you know why my tone might be snarkier than usual, it's nothing personal.

<3 I have days like that.

You can't charge someone with child neglect if the 'thing' at issue is not a person. The only way you could possibly manage to charge a mother for harm done to a fetus in utero is if you granted that fetus personhood. Which is what these laws do.

Actually, you've basically stumbled upon how these laws get used by OTHER laws...something I've pointed out before, but perhaps I needed to give more concrete examples. The exemptions in this section don't apply to other sections of the criminal code, or to other criminal statutes. Obstensibly, neither should the definition of fetus as person, but definitions are slippier, and as a matter of interpretation, can be imported into the actus reus/mens rea of other criminal or quasi-criminal offenses.

So, basically, what you're saying is that it is inherently dangerous to legally define a fetus at any stage as a human person, because that opens up other problems.

I thought at first that was what you were going for, but then some later comments had me thinking you were referring to this law specifically. Gotcha. =)

Yes. You can have one event, many crimes.

But you can't have a crime against a fetus unless that fetus is a person. You use of illegal drugs cannot be a criminal act against a fetus unless the fetus is a person.

What if they went about it another way? Intentionally harming an animal is generally illegal, even though they are not human persons. Only the owner can choose to have the animal euthanized. The animals are considered to be "property", but get special consideration that inanimate possessions do not. While I'm sure it would get those in favor of banning abortion all up in arms (ZOMG! comparing babies to dogs!!!), would it be legally possible to do the same for fetuses?

Sentencing guidelines are specific to specific crimes. This would be an aggravating factor, not a separate crime. Nor would it grant 'personhood' to the fetus. So no. It could not possibly be interpreted the way the SC supreme court has interpreted the personhood of a fetus.

But if fetal harm is used as an aggravating factor in one crime (ie. assault/murder), could that not provide support for it being seen as an aggravating factor in other crimes as well (ie. illegal drug use)?


Because the issue is really that black and white?

My honest answer would be - yes.

The issue really is pretty black and white. Many birth defects are caused before a woman is aware she is pregnant. If we want to prevent such defects, we have to take those factors into account ahead of time.

No, there absolutely IS a third state. You have your pregnant woman, and your non-pregnant woman... and now you have pre-pregnant woman.

No, you have a pregnant woman and a woman who could become pregnant. In the case of a woman of childbearing age who is still fertile, the latter is equivalent to non-pregnant.

The closest thing we might have to a "third state" is the woman who is, for whatever reason (post-hysterectomy, infertility, etc.), unable to become pregnant.

You would apparently have doctors ignore the fact that a healthy, fertile woman can become pregnant.

But we're not talking about a heart disease... we're talking about changing YOUR status, because of the health of ANOTHER person. And one who doesn't even exist, and may NEVER exist.

There's no change of status. The woman can become pregnant and, should she choose to carry to term, her medical care can affect the health of her future child.

Like it or not, whether they're currently trying or not, a healthy woman who is post-puberty and pre-menopause (or sterilization) can get pregnant. Her medical care can also affect any offspring she might have. The idea that these facts should simply be ignored by the medical community is silly.

No, because I don't think this particular point is actually an abortion issue - I just think it comes under the same UMBRELLA as abortion issues - i.e. removing rights from women.

What rights are being removed?

If my doctor suggests that I take 400 mg of folic acid a day to help prevent neural tube defects in my offspring if I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

If my doctor has a choice between two medications, and chooses the one least likely to cause birth defects just in case I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

Or, suppose he wants to perform a pregnancy test before putting me on a medication, does that remove my rights?

Does any consideration whatsoever of the health of an embryo/fetus remove rights from women?

1. If you want to argue about abortion, join this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=569788) instead.

2. Buy a fucking clue.
1. Abortion was mentioned in the post I was responding to, and as such, I responded with my own mention of abortion so as to distinguish it from harm to the fetus that will have effects after the baby is born. And come on, it's not like I algorithmically search each and every page of threads; I happened to see one thread and not another. I don't have to bend over backwards for people who jump to conclusions.

2. I guess you'd have to resort to cheap insults if you can't refute the argument. That says more about you than it does about me.

You say a weak analogy.

I say that attributing rights to someone or something based on POTENTIAL is a fatally flawed concept. We don't bury people because, one day, they will be dead. We don't let infants drive cars because, one day, they might have a license.

If it makes you feel any better, don't think of it as an analogy. Think of it as me being poetic about telling you your argument is shit.
I think YOUR argument is the shitty one here. If harm is done to fetuses, that harm is going to have consequences after the baby is born. The harm being done might not be immediate, but it is still being done. Are you suggesting your mother would've had the "right" to drink while she was pregnant with you, even if you'd have ended up with fetal alcohol syndrome as a result?

I think YOUR argument is the shitty one here. If harm is done to fetuses, that harm is going to have consequences after the baby is born. The harm being done might not be immediate, but it is still being done. Are you suggesting your mother would've had the "right" to drink while she was pregnant with you, even if you'd have ended up with fetal alcohol syndrome as a result?

You're saying she shouldn't have 'that right'?

Because if you are, you're suggesting that there should actually be a legal status of 'pregnancy' that removes rights from women... so I kind of want to know if I'm just misreading you?

The issue really is pretty black and white. Many birth defects are caused before a woman is aware she is pregnant. If we want to prevent such defects, we have to take those factors into account ahead of time.


While I don't disagree with the science of what you say - birth defects can be caused not only before a woman is aware she's pregnant... but before she IS pregnant.

The girl who had rubella when she was ten, the girl who had amalgam fillings twenty years ago... a girl who has eaten a lot of tuna, a girl who was vaccinated for 'flu... a girl who suffered an eating disorder... ALL of those (off the top of my head) have the potential to adversely affect a pregnancy considerably 'after the fact'.

That makes 'pre-pregnant' more than just a descriptor of fertility.


No, you have a pregnant woman and a woman who could become pregnant. In the case of a woman of childbearing age who is still fertile, the latter is equivalent to non-pregnant.

The closest thing we might have to a "third state" is the woman who is, for whatever reason (post-hysterectomy, infertility, etc.), unable to become pregnant.


So - you see three states, too - you just quibble about the order?


You would apparently have doctors ignore the fact that a healthy, fertile woman can become pregnant.


Not at all. But just because you CAN get pregnant, doesn't mean you will, or want to.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that 'may become pregnant' doesn't require you to be sexually active. Hell, it doesn't even require you to be old enough to walk. ANY girl born, that doesn't have an explicit condition that's going to prevent it... 'may' become pregnant.


What rights are being removed?

If my doctor suggests that I take 400 mg of folic acid a day to help prevent neural tube defects in my offspring if I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

If my doctor has a choice between two medications, and chooses the one least likely to cause birth defects just in case I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

Or, suppose he wants to perform a pregnancy test before putting me on a medication, does that remove my rights?

Does any consideration whatsoever of the health of an embryo/fetus remove rights from women?

In response, one only has to look on the page you posted this, where someone seems to be suggesting that the 'right' to consume alcohol should be abridged.

While I don't disagree with the science of what you say - birth defects can be caused not only before a woman is aware she's pregnant... but before she IS pregnant.

The girl who had rubella when she was ten, the girl who had amalgam fillings twenty years ago... a girl who has eaten a lot of tuna, a girl who was vaccinated for 'flu... a girl who suffered an eating disorder... ALL of those (off the top of my head) have the potential to adversely affect a pregnancy considerably 'after the fact'.

That makes 'pre-pregnant' more than just a descriptor of fertility.

"Pre-pregnant" is really whatever you say it is. It isn't as if it's an established medical term.

So - you see three states, too - you just quibble about the order?

I object to this idea that there is some sort of "pre-pregnant" state that is any different from "healthy, fertile woman."

Not at all. But just because you CAN get pregnant, doesn't mean you will, or want to.

The fact that you could have any type of medical conditions doesn't mean that you will or that you want to.

Doctors still take those things into account, however.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that 'may become pregnant' doesn't require you to be sexually active. Hell, it doesn't even require you to be old enough to walk. ANY girl born, that doesn't have an explicit condition that's going to prevent it... 'may' become pregnant.

You started this discussion by referring to medications that are not indicated for women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant. When used in that sense, it is in reference to sexually active women of childbearing age.

In response, one only has to look on the page you posted this, where someone seems to be suggesting that the 'right' to consume alcohol should be abridged.

That doesn't answer my questions at all.

Here they are again:

If my doctor suggests that I take 400 mg of folic acid a day to help prevent neural tube defects in my offspring if I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

If my doctor has a choice between two medications, and chooses the one least likely to cause birth defects just in case I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

Or, suppose he wants to perform a pregnancy test before putting me on a medication, does that remove my rights?

Does any consideration whatsoever of the health of an embryo/fetus remove rights from women?

Strangely enough, there's nothing about alcohol use in there. If you wanted to add it, you might have something like:

How are my rights removed by labels on alcohol that tell me it may cause FAS?

If my doctor tells me that consumption of alcohol may affect my offspring even before I know I'm pregnant, how are my rights removed?

You're saying she shouldn't have 'that right'?

Because if you are, you're suggesting that there should actually be a legal status of 'pregnancy' that removes rights from women... so I kind of want to know if I'm just misreading you?
Not in this case, though I do think you were slighly misreading me earlier on... anyway, no. Parents have a legal responsibility to take care of their children when they're out of the womb, so they should have a responsibility to take care of them while they're in the womb, and giving one's own child a disability should at the very least be considered negligence if not child abuse. If it were the status quo that women had the right to throw their children onto a pile of sharp rocks, would it be "removing rights from women" to say they no longer had that right? It's only because it's women are the only sex biologically capable of carrying a pregnancy that people are able to latch on to political correctness on this issue...

Not in this case, though I do think you were slighly misreading me earlier on... anyway, no. Parents have a legal responsibility to take care of their children when they're out of the womb, so they should have a responsibility to take care of them while they're in the womb, and giving one's own child a disability should at the very least be considered negligence if not child abuse. If it were the status quo that women had the right to throw their children onto a pile of sharp rocks, would it be "removing rights from women" to say they no longer had that right? It's only because it's women are the only sex biologically capable of carrying a pregnancy that people are able to latch on to political correctness on this issue...

Political correctness isn't the problem. The problem is changing the law for only one gender, and doing so based on the condition of pregnancy, or (even worse?) pre-pregnancy.

Should a woman drink alcohol?

Should she drink alcohol while pregnant?

Should one of those situations be a crime JUST because she's pregnant?

Why is the man allowed to drink alcohol while the woman is pregnant?

Alcohol is established as a big factor in things like automobile accidents and violence - the two biggest causes of loss of life to pregnant women, and yet the husband/boyfriend is allowed to continue acting as he wishes with no possibility of repurcussion. Hell - under US law, he might even be able to claim 'being drunk' as a mitigating circumstance if he accidentally kills his wife in an auto accident, or loses his temper and causes her to miscarry.

The law is unequal, and that is wrong.

Even more than that, it establishes the rights of the foetus as ABOVE the rights of the woman... and THAT is even more wrong.

"Pre-pregnant" is really whatever you say it is. It isn't as if it's an established medical term.


Which is half the problem. If we could agree on when a human life started, there wouldn't still be debates about whether abortion is 'killing a person' or not. Gray areas are often even more useful than precise definitions... to the right people.


I object to this idea that there is some sort of "pre-pregnant" state that is any different from "healthy, fertile woman."


I do too. But, apparently, for different reasons.


The fact that you could have any type of medical conditions doesn't mean that you will or that you want to.

Doctors still take those things into account, however.


So, pregnancy (or even 'risk of pregnancy') is 'a medical condition'?


You started this discussion by referring to medications that are not indicated for women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant. When used in that sense, it is in reference to sexually active women of childbearing age.


No - I think Muravyets was talking about specific meds. I referenced the phrasing, and used 'do not prescribe' to give it context. There's no explicit reference to medicines at all.


That doesn't answer my questions at all.

Here they are again:

If my doctor suggests that I take 400 mg of folic acid a day to help prevent neural tube defects in my offspring if I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

If my doctor has a choice between two medications, and chooses the one least likely to cause birth defects just in case I get pregnant, how does that remove my rights?

Or, suppose he wants to perform a pregnancy test before putting me on a medication, does that remove my rights?

Does any consideration whatsoever of the health of an embryo/fetus remove rights from women?

Strangely enough, there's nothing about alcohol use in there. If you wanted to add it, you might have something like:

How are my rights removed by labels on alcohol that tell me it may cause FAS?

If my doctor tells me that consumption of alcohol may affect my offspring even before I know I'm pregnant, how are my rights removed?

It all comes down to what is done with that information.

If your doctor tells you that, and you ARE pregnant but didn't know it, this 'pre-pregnant' catchment makes you culpable.

Is the label going to be used to enforce law. It doesn't matetr if it's a legal term or intended to be a legal term - it is a dangerous concept because it establishes a set to which a (majority) proportion of females suddenly find themselves belonging. And it could end up being used against them.

This is a difficult one. I'm all for legalized abortion, but at the same time, killing someone who i OBVIOUSLY pregnant, you know (as a killer) that you are killing more than one person. Maybe there should be a point in time? (As with actual abortions?)

Are you suggesting your mother would've had the "right" to drink while she was pregnant with you, even if you'd have ended up with fetal alcohol syndrome as a result?

I can't speak for what GNI is suggesting, but I would think she absolutely has that right. It doesn't make it a good decision, but she absolutely has the right to make shitty decisions. After all, most of us may agree that getting drunk every night while pregnant is a bad plan, but what will the consensus be on having the occasional glass of wine? On going skydiving? On driving a car? On taking her prescription medications? On not taking her prescription medications? On being romantically involved with a man who does any of the above? On not being able to afford comprehensive prenatal care? All of those things also present risks to an embryo; shall we hold the mother criminally liable for them, too? Are you really comfortable with the idea of stripping away the rights of a whole class of people because otherwise a few of them might make crappy choices?

Well as it's constantly pointed out to me, men have a lower pain threshold, and need a lot more lube than those of us tough women who can take it in the shower with pretty much no warning.

You(not you specifically, but 'you' in general) shouldn't just plow some chick all of a sudden, that's no way to behave. You gotta at least broach the subject first, chances are, if she's the shower with you, she'll be agreeable.

Anyway. You can't be sure you'll never try. You might end up in jail, and everyone's pretty to someone.

I'm pretty damn sure. I've ended up in jail before, and I've managed to retain both my pants and my dignity.

I'm pretty damn sure. I've ended up in jail before, and I've managed to retain both my pants and my dignity.

What's that Shakespearean quote? "...the Lady doth protest too much"?

What's that Shakespearean quote? "...the Lady doth protest too much"?

Now, see I've never understood the logic behind the position of 'if he says it's a bad thing and he'll never do it that automatically means he secretly wants it.' If I said, 'poking people eyes out with sticks is a bad thing and I'll never do it', people wouldn't automatically assume I secretly wanted my eyes poked out with sticks would they?

<3 I have days like that.


So, basically, what you're saying is that it is inherently dangerous to legally define a fetus at any stage as a human person, because that opens up other problems.

I thought at first that was what you were going for, but then some later comments had me thinking you were referring to this law specifically. Gotcha. =) Yay! We iz communicatin'! :p

What if they went about it another way? Intentionally harming an animal is generally illegal, even though they are not human persons. Only the owner can choose to have the animal euthanized. The animals are considered to be "property", but get special consideration that inanimate possessions do not. While I'm sure it would get those in favor of banning abortion all up in arms (ZOMG! comparing babies to dogs!!!), would it be legally possible to do the same for fetuses? You are the...third person lately to bring up animals, and property rights in the context of this debate (in RL, not here). So you're asking if one could characterise a fetus as property, more akin to a living animal than an inanimate object. *strokes GoG's soul patch thoughtfully*

First of all...I don't see why you'd want to do that in the first place. Secondly...since the fetus is literally part of the mother's body, any harm done to the fetus is harm done to the mother's body. You're going to have stricter penalties for harm against a person (the mother) than against a non-person (the fetus).

Sooooooo, I'm thinking you want to come at this in a way that would allow us to prosecute women for harming their fetuses, since that is currently not possible...the mother is the ONLY person who is exempt...and existing laws already deal with harm done to the mother by a third person. Again, I have to wonder why you'd want this, but okay.

So, the fetus is the property of the mother, she can kill it or not, but she can't abuse it. She has the ultimate right to abortion, but abuse of the fetus would be a crime.

Right now, no, there is no way you could possibly look at it that way, because the fetus (in Canada) is literally considered one with the mother, and while you have limited property rights to your own body (think organs etc), you couldn't really create a separate class of 'property' rights beyond that for the fetus.

Could a law be enacted that criminalised 'abuse of the fetus' in the manner you've suggested, stopping short of granting it personhood, but making it more important than a chair? Possibly...................................but oh what a constitutional mess.

But if fetal harm is used as an aggravating factor in one crime (ie. assault/murder), could that not provide support for it being seen as an aggravating factor in other crimes as well (ie. illegal drug use)?
Drug use is not a crime. Possession of drugs is a crime. And I'm trying to think of another example that would possibly work with this scenario (making it an aggravating factor in sentencing for anything other than murder/attempted murder/sexual assault) etc...like...I can't think of anything illegal the woman might be doing that would also have the potential to harm her fetus. If you can think of anything I might be able to work through it.

Now, see I've never understood the logic behind the position of 'if he says it's a bad thing and he'll never do it that automatically means he secretly wants it.' If I said, 'poking people eyes out with sticks is a bad thing and I'll never do it', people wouldn't automatically assume I secretly wanted my eyes poked out with sticks would they?

*waits for answer with baited breath and pointy stick*

Political correctness isn't the problem. The problem is changing the law for only one gender, and doing so based on the condition of pregnancy, or (even worse?) pre-pregnancy.
Of course the law is only going to be changed for one gender if what the law is for only applies to one gender; that's like saying that if men used to be allowed to "take their penises out in public" making that illegal would be "changing the law for only one gender" since they're not barring women from "taking their penises out in public"

Should a woman drink alcohol?

Should she drink alcohol while pregnant?

Should one of those situations be a crime JUST because she's pregnant?
When she's pregnant, what she does to herself hurts affect the child, who does not choose to be affected, so it's a different situation. I think there's a saying that goes like "one's right to swing one's hand ends where another's face begins"

Why is the man allowed to drink alcohol while the woman is pregnant?
Maybe he shouldn't be, but it's not quite the same; a man drinking alcohol doesn't as directly cause damage to the fetus as a pregnant woman drinking alcohol would. Ideally the standards on how much a father drinks when raising a child should be based on what scientists in the field of psychology have to say about it.

Alcohol is established as a big factor in things like automobile accidents and violence - the two biggest causes of loss of life to pregnant women, and yet the husband/boyfriend is allowed to continue acting as he wishes with no possibility of repurcussion. Hell - under US law, he might even be able to claim 'being drunk' as a mitigating circumstance if he accidentally kills his wife in an auto accident, or loses his temper and causes her to miscarry.
You know what's an even bigger factor in automobile accidents? Automobiles. And yet, people insist on blaming alcohol for drunk driving accidents, when there are so many things that are considered to "cause" car accidents (going too fast, turning wrong or from the wrong lane, driving while tired, talking on a cell phone while driving, and never mind how much more dangerous driving is in a city than in a small town) that perhaps our society's automobile addiction has more to do with it.

In any case, being drunk isn't any more of a legitimate excuse when it's given by men, either; one chooses to be drunk, so it's one's own fault that the alcohol "makes" them drive drunk.

Even more than that, it establishes the rights of the foetus as ABOVE the rights of the woman... and THAT is even more wrong.
Above the rights of the woman? So you're suggesting that the right to live a lifestyle while pregnant that would damage a fetus is more important than the right not to have been given a preventable disability that cripples you for life because the mother wanted to live a lifestyle damaging to a fetus?

Don't get me wrong, I can see where you're coming from to some extent, (and I appreciate that you're not being as condescending as you were earlier) but I still think that so long as we have standards in place to protect children after they're born, we should have standards in place to protect children before they're born from problems that would have consequences after they're born. It may seem controlling, but we have to draw the line somewhere. (Though granted, I don't claim to have the answer to WHERE it should be drawn.) And if a pregnant woman wants to drink heavily, it's up to her to get an abortion.

I can't speak for what GNI is suggesting, but I would think she absolutely has that right. It doesn't make it a good decision, but she absolutely has the right to make shitty decisions. After all, most of us may agree that getting drunk every night while pregnant is a bad plan, but what will the consensus be on having the occasional glass of wine? On going skydiving? On driving a car? On taking her prescription medications? On not taking her prescription medications? On being romantically involved with a man who does any of the above? On not being able to afford comprehensive prenatal care? All of those things also present risks to an embryo; shall we hold the mother criminally liable for them, too? Are you really comfortable with the idea of stripping away the rights of a whole class of people because otherwise a few of them might make crappy choices?
More like stripping away their right to make crappy choices that would hurt someone else, such as the child. For some of the things you mentioned, as far as I know they don't damage a fetus as much (or at least as directly) as things like drinking while pregnant would, so it's not an equal comparison. As I said to someone else just then, it might seem controlling but a line really should be drawn somewhere, and when a line is drawn some things will be just barely acceptable while some just barely wouldn't be, and I think where the line is drawn should be based on what doctors and scientists have to say about it.

Now, see I've never understood the logic behind the position of 'if he says it's a bad thing and he'll never do it that automatically means he secretly wants it.' If I said, 'poking people eyes out with sticks is a bad thing and I'll never do it', people wouldn't automatically assume I secretly wanted my eyes poked out with sticks would they?

Have you seen Grosse Pointe Blank?

There's a scene where the killer is talking to his therapist...


"Martin Q. Blank: Don't you think that maybe you're just upset because I told you what I do for a living, and you got upset and *you're* letting it interfere with *our* dynamic?
Dr. Oatman: Whoa. Martin. You didn't tell me what you did for a living...
Martin Q. Blank: Yes, I did!
Dr. Oatman: You didn't tell me what you did for a living for *four* sessions. *Then* you told me. And I said, "I don't want to work with you any more." And yet, you come back each week at the same time. That's a difficulty for me. On top of that, if you've committed a crime or you're thinking about committing a crime, I have to tell the authorities.
Martin Q. Blank: I know the law, okay? But I don't want to be withholding; I'm very serious about this process.
[pause]
Martin Q. Blank: And I know where you live.
Dr. Oatman: Oh, now see? That wasn't a nice thing to say; that wasn't designed to make me feel good. That's a... kind of a... not too subtle intimidation, and I, uh, get filled with anxiety when you talk about something like that.
Martin Q. Blank: Come on, come on. I was just kidding, all right? The thought never crossed my mind.
Dr. Oatman: You did think of it, Martin! You thought it, and then you said it. And now, I'm left with the aftermath of that, thinking I gotta be creative in a really interesting way or Martin's gonna blow my brains out! You're holding me hostage. That's not right."


You did think it, Heinleinites! You thought it, and then you said it.

And now we all have an insight into your eyeball goring subconscious.

Of course the law is only going to be changed for one gender if what the law is for only applies to one gender; that's like saying that if men used to be allowed to "take their penises out in public" making that illegal would be "changing the law for only one gender" since they're not barring women from "taking their penises out in public"


But that WOULD be just as discriminatory since - apparently - it allows women to slap their tackle out if they so please, right?

If the law says 'no whipping out your nuts OR noodles', so it covers both genders... all well and good. But if it discriminates against one gender only, it IS discriminatory.


When she's pregnant, what she does to herself hurts affect the child, who does not choose to be affected, so it's a different situation. I think there's a saying that goes like "one's right to swing one's hand ends where another's face begins"

Well, of course, that falls down when someone runs into your fist...

But anyway, that's actually a bigger point. You're saying that she's accountable because - for example - she's drinking while pregnant... but there are hundreds of ways a woman can 'harm' the foetus... and many of them can be decades in advance.

Just what is the measure of accountability here? If she drinks and it harms the foetus, is she culpable? What if she drinks only moderately... still culpable?


Maybe he shouldn't be, but it's not quite the same; a man drinking alcohol doesn't as directly cause damage to the fetus as a pregnant woman drinking alcohol would. Ideally the standards on how much a father drinks when raising a child should be based on what scientists in the field of psychology have to say about it.

I'm not talking about RAISING the child, just what happens during the gestation.

Perfect example - daddy is drunk when mommy goes into labour. Daddy smashes the car, and the mommy, and the baby. Daddy shouldn't have been driving drunk... where is the difference between the 'harm' he did, and the 'harm' mommy did with her one glass of wine?


You know what's an even bigger factor in automobile accidents? Automobiles. And yet, people insist on blaming alcohol for drunk driving accidents, when there are so many things that are considered to "cause" car accidents (going too fast, turning wrong or from the wrong lane, driving while tired, talking on a cell phone while driving, and never mind how much more dangerous driving is in a city than in a small town) that perhaps our society's automobile addiction has more to do with it.

People blame automobiles less for automobile accidents because the basic design of the automobile is to minimise automobile accident damage. The basic design of alcohol in THAT process is to reduce ability to avoid accidents.


In any case, being drunk isn't any more of a legitimate excuse when it's given by men, either; one chooses to be drunk, so it's one's own fault that the alcohol "makes" them drive drunk.


Again, let's just look for a second at my 'water-breaks' scenario. Driving drunk in this issue is a bad choice, but it might be the only choice... right?


Above the rights of the woman? So you're suggesting that the right to live a lifestyle while pregnant that would damage a fetus is more important than the right not to have been given a preventable disability that cripples you for life because the mother wanted to live a lifestyle damaging to a fetus?


That's what I'm saying.

I would HOPE that parents would show restraint, and be careful, and all the usual stuff... but what's the position of the LAW, that's what concerns me.


Don't get me wrong, I can see where you're coming from to some extent, (and I appreciate that you're not being as condescending as you were earlier) but I still think that so long as we have standards in place to protect children after they're born, we should have standards in place to protect children before they're born from problems that would have consequences after they're born. It may seem controlling, but we have to draw the line somewhere. (Though granted, I don't claim to have the answer to WHERE it should be drawn.) And if a pregnant woman wants to drink heavily, it's up to her to get an abortion.

Some places don't allow the abortion option, either.

Now, see I've never understood the logic behind the position of 'if he says it's a bad thing and he'll never do it that automatically means he secretly wants it.' If I said, 'poking people eyes out with sticks is a bad thing and I'll never do it', people wouldn't automatically assume I secretly wanted my eyes poked out with sticks would they?

But repeatedly saying, outloud, and avidly, that you would never stab someone's eyes out with a stick makes u look obsessed.

Bill C-484 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-484_1&File=30) was tabled by Kevin Epp of Edmonton-Strathcona, and seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to make it separate offense if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.

The bill died on the floor because of the election, after passing second reading*. Epp plans to reintroduce the bill.

Many opponents of the bill (myself included) worry that this is a backdoor attempt to criminalise abortion, and abrogate the rights of women. In Canada, the fetus does not have personhood status until it 'emerges live from the birth canal' (which has of course been read to include all forms of live birth). Similar legislation has been enacted in 37 states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) in the US. Women have been prosecuted (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women/south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php) under these laws for experiencing stillbirths, refusing C-sections, or for abusing drugs/alcohol during pregnancy.

So what are your thoughts on this kind of legislation?

*The break down of votes on the second reading can be found here (http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=536).

OK, I'm still working my way through this thread and these comments are undoubtedly duplicative, but I want to make them before I get even further behind:

I fully agree that this law is unnecessary, is wrongly motivated, and could have its alleged objectives better met by other means. So I agree with much of the criticism of the law.

Nonetheless, I think some of the concerns expressed about this law are overstated:


The law doesn't outlaw abortion, but rather expressly exempts abortion.


The law doesn't criminalize any act or omission by the mother, but rather expressly exempts such act or omissions from its reach.


Unlike some of the U.S. laws it has been compared to, the law does NOT seem to expressly say an unborn child is a person.


The law only expressly criminalizes activity that is already criminal -- there must be an offense or attempted offense against the mother for this law to apply.


Also, it is not clear to me how the prosecutions in the U.S. that have been cited relate to this law. Most (if not all) of them appear to have been brought under existening child abuse or neglect statutes.

Although it is outrageous that any woman is arrested -- let alone prosecuted or incarcerated -- for giving birth to a stillborn child, the celebrated case of Regina McKnight has actually resulted in the recent overturning of her conviction by a unanimous South Carolina Supreme Court decision. Also, I note that McKnight was NOT prosecuted under any of these fetal homicide laws, but rather under a child abuse statute.

You may now return to your regular debate, which I'll try to catch up on. :wink:

EDIT: OK, I've read the whole thread and stand by my comments. I don't see any evidence directly linking laws like this to the horrible prosecutions of women. I agree that South Carolina has a similar statute, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been used against a mother. I do think the intent of this law is really to undermine abortion laws by making people think of fetus as separate beings and providing for the Reagan "why is it a crime, if?" argument, but I don't see the law itself actually changing the law regarding abortion (if that makes sense).

*snip*
Ugh Cat...now you're going to make me actually do some work here. FRICKITY FRACK.

As I am entirely too sober at this moment to do so, you may have to wait a bit...but I will come up with a more thorough and detailed legal analysis. Damnit.

But that WOULD be just as discriminatory since - apparently - it allows women to slap their tackle out if they so please, right?

If the law says 'no whipping out your nuts OR noodles', so it covers both genders... all well and good. But if it discriminates against one gender only, it IS discriminatory.
I'm not sure quite what your slangs mean, but I'm guessing you're saying that it's discriminating to treat women's privates differently than men's. Well, I doubt they're necessarily EQUIVALENT; males are generally wired differently than females are in terms of sexual desires, so it does make sense that we culturally think differently of one gender's privates than another's. But the point I was making is that the reason it affects only women is because only women can become pregnant, and our standards shouldn't revolve around "gender equality" in issues for which it would be arguably unfair either way.

But anyway, that's actually a bigger point. You're saying that she's accountable because - for example - she's drinking while pregnant... but there are hundreds of ways a woman can 'harm' the foetus... and many of them can be decades in advance.
The line should be drawn based on how severe the damage would be.

Just what is the measure of accountability here? If she drinks and it harms the foetus, is she culpable? What if she drinks only moderately... still culpable?
That's for doctors and scientists to determine.

Perfect example - daddy is drunk when mommy goes into labour. Daddy smashes the car, and the mommy, and the baby. Daddy shouldn't have been driving drunk... where is the difference between the 'harm' he did, and the 'harm' mommy did with her one glass of wine?
Not necessarily from one glass of wine... again, the line should be drawn based on how severe the damage would be. As for the father, the point I was making was about having high standards on the mother, not about having low standards on the father. To be honest I'm not sure how high the expectations are, but the point I came in here to make was primarily about challenging what seemed to be a politically-correct approach. In any case, of course he shouldn't have been drunk that late in the pregnancy, and of course he should've called a taxi instead, but just because the daddy should've known better doesn't mean the mommy shouldn't have.

People blame automobiles less for automobile accidents because the basic design of the automobile is to minimise automobile accident damage.
I'm not talking about automobile design. I'm talking about the fact that people drive automobiles to begin with. Even if we were to remove safety from the picture, there are so many other reasons such as environmental ones that the fact that so many people in the city drive cars instead of taking public transit (or taking into account climate change, even when people in small towns drive cars instead of using bicycles) is already a problem whether alcohol is involved or not.

Driving drunk in this issue is a bad choice, but it might be the only choice... right?
I doubt it. Again, he could call a cab... also, I'm not sure about this, but is calling an ambulance for it an option?

I would HOPE that parents would show restraint, and be careful, and all the usual stuff... but what's the position of the LAW, that's what concerns me.
Trouble is, sometimes the law has to step in and protect individual rights when people aren't voluntarily willing to do so. Are you a libertarian?

Some places don't allow the abortion option, either.
And I think they should. I don't believe in Ron Paul's approach to abortion. I think rights should revolve around individuals, not around the "rights" of different regions to have different standards of individual rights.

More like stripping away their right to make crappy choices that would hurt someone else, such as the child. For some of the things you mentioned, as far as I know they don't damage a fetus as much (or at least as directly) as things like drinking while pregnant would, so it's not an equal comparison. As I said to someone else just then, it might seem controlling but a line really should be drawn somewhere, and when a line is drawn some things will be just barely acceptable while some just barely wouldn't be, and I think where the line is drawn should be based on what doctors and scientists have to say about it.

Thalidomide was a prescription drug. Do you REALLY want to argue that prescription drugs cannot possibly be as bad for an unborn child as consuming alcohol?

Hell, how about some other things that are direct risk factors for unborn children? Maybe the pregnant woman works at a job which involves a lot of intensive physical labor, which is often a very bad idea late in a pregnancy. Should we hold her criminally liable if she doesn't quit her job? Certain antidepressants and antipsychotics are not at all recommended for pregnant women - should we hold women criminally liable if they opt to keep from having a nervous breakdown rather than going off their meds? How about having an abusive boyfriend/spouse who's been known to punch the woman in the stomach - is she criminally liable if she doesn't break up with him upon becoming pregnant and he decides to hit her some more? Or, hey, maybe one of her sexual partners at some point in her life had AIDS. Let's charge her with criminal negligence in not making everyone she ever slept with get tested for STDs. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that congenitally-contracted AIDS is less nasty than fetal alcohol syndrome, after all.

(And, ye gods, imagine what a nightmare these laws would be to enforce. Perhaps women who look pre-menopausal be required to take pregnancy tests before they can buy alcohol! Perhaps any woman brought in on drug-related charges could undergo a mandatory pelvic exam to make sure her womb is uninhabited...)

Thalidomide was a prescription drug. Do you REALLY want to argue that prescription drugs cannot possibly be as bad for an unborn child as consuming alcohol?

Don't forget Vioxx was an approved prescription drug as well. Just because it's been deemed legal doesn't mean it's safer than the rest.

Thalidomide was a prescription drug. Do you REALLY want to argue that prescription drugs cannot possibly be as bad for an unborn child as consuming alcohol?

Hell, how about some other things that are direct risk factors for unborn children? Maybe the pregnant woman works at a job which involves a lot of intensive physical labor, which is often a very bad idea late in a pregnancy. Should we hold her criminally liable if she doesn't quit her job? Certain antidepressants and antipsychotics are not at all recommended for pregnant women - should we hold women criminally liable if they opt to keep from having a nervous breakdown rather than going off their meds? How about having an abusive boyfriend/spouse who's been known to punch the woman in the stomach - is she criminally liable if she doesn't break up with him upon becoming pregnant and he decides to hit her some more? Or, hey, maybe one of her sexual partners at some point in her life had AIDS. Let's charge her with criminal negligence in not making everyone she ever slept with get tested for STDs. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that congenitally-contracted AIDS is less nasty than fetal alcohol syndrome, after all.

(And, ye gods, imagine what a nightmare these laws would be to enforce. Perhaps women who look pre-menopausal be required to take pregnancy tests before they can buy alcohol! Perhaps any woman brought in on drug-related charges could undergo a mandatory pelvic exam to make sure her womb is uninhabited...)
Any time you start talking about establishing legal personhood for fetuses and granting them legal rights separate from the woman's, you end up entangled in such nightmare scenarios as soon as you start thinking about actual application of such an idea.

This is what makes me think the whole fetal personhood concept is bunk -- a boondoggle that has never been thought out thoroughly by its proponents.

August 2005, Anderson: Iona Michelle Goss was arrested when she experienced a stillbirth at the entrance to AnMed Women’s and Children’s Hospital. According to press reports, prosecutors are searching for evidence to link the stillbirth to drug use.


Excuse me? They were still searching for evidence after a year? So, what now? They're just going to start hanging around maternity wards and OB/GYN offices looking for women who've had miscarriages? WTF is wrong with SC? Is everyone in that state retarded or something?

Well as it's constantly pointed out to me, men have a lower pain threshold, and need a lot more lube than those of us tough women who can take it in the shower with pretty much no warning.


:D

You love it.

Ugh Cat...now you're going to make me actually do some work here. FRICKITY FRACK.

As I am entirely too sober at this moment to do so, you may have to wait a bit...but I will come up with a more thorough and detailed legal analysis. Damnit.

You love it.

You love it.




Yes. And I love you as well:fluffle:

You did think it, Heinleinites! You thought it, and then you said it. And now we all have an insight into your eyeball goring subconscious.

I did see Grosse Point Blank. That's a good movie. That, and High Fidelity, are really the only ones that John Cusack has ever done that I've liked. Speaking of psycho-analysis, here's a quote for you from it's father: 'Sometimes, a cigar is...just a cigar.'

I did see Grosse Point Blank. That's a good movie. That, and High Fidelity, are really the only ones that John Cusack has ever done that I've liked. Speaking of psycho-analysis, here's a quote for you from it's father: 'Sometimes, a cigar is...just a cigar.'

Bill Clinton is the father of psychoanalysis?

And remember, kids, you can't say 'analysis' without saying 'anal'!

Bill Clinton is the father of psychoanalysis?

And remember, kids, you can't say 'analysis' without saying 'anal'!

The quote's by Freud... who, incidentally, was a sex-fiend that also enjoyed drugs. So, the two have a lot in common.

The quote's by Freud... who, incidentally, was a sex-fiend that also enjoyed drugs. So, the two have a lot in common.

Well, 1) It's attributed to Freud... not necessarily the same thing; 2) I know, and 3) that'll learn me to be too witty.

Which is half the problem.

Half of the problem is that your made-up term is not medically defined?

I do too. But, apparently, for different reasons.

Yes. Apparently, you want the medical community to ignore the fact that healthy, fertile women may get pregnant.

So, pregnancy (or even 'risk of pregnancy') is 'a medical condition'?

Pregnancy certainly is. It isn't a disease, but it is a physical state for which medical care is sought.

And "risk of pregnancy" is a factor in medical treatment.

No - I think Muravyets was talking about specific meds. I referenced the phrasing, and used 'do not prescribe' to give it context. There's no explicit reference to medicines at all.

No, you brought it up pretty much out of the blue -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14119172&postcount=17

In response to a post that didn't mention it at all, you listed the medical community daring to take the possibility of pregnancy into account when prescribing medications as part of the overarching "ownership" of women.

And it was that characterization that I objected to.

It all comes down to what is done with that information.

If your doctor tells you that, and you ARE pregnant but didn't know it, this 'pre-pregnant' catchment makes you culpable.

In what way?

How does my doctor *gasp* making me aware of health risks - including possible health risks for future offspring - change my legal status in any way?

In fact, wouldn't it be the doctor who was culpable if he didn't make me aware of these risks? Isn't that......his job? If a doctor put me on a medication that could cause birth defects in any offspring I might have without telling me or exploring other options, wouldn't that make him culpable? Wouldn't that be a malpractice lawsuit in the making?

Would it be better for him not to share that knowledge? Or perhaps all research into such problems should be halted and we should burn the articles already out there?

Is the label going to be used to enforce law. It doesn't matetr if it's a legal term or intended to be a legal term - it is a dangerous concept because it establishes a set to which a (majority) proportion of females suddenly find themselves belonging. And it could end up being used against them.

Again, you're acting as if your label is an official medical term. It isn't.

The concept is yours. You are the one acting as if acknowledging the possibility that a woman can get pregnant and that her actions can affect her future offspring is somehow creating a "new state."

I don't call that acknowledgment a "dangerous concept." I call it the state of female human beings. In fact, it has been the state of female human beings for as long as we have existed. There is nothing at all new in taking a woman's reproductive health and the health of her future offspring into account in medical practice. The "dangerous concept" would be to pretend that the possibility doesn't exist and not to take it into account in medical care.

A majority of females don't suddenly find themselves part of a proportion of the population which can get pregnant. That's a set to which the majority of females have always belonged. And including that consideration in their medical care is not "using it against them."


You are the...third person lately to bring up animals, and property rights in the context of this debate (in RL, not here). So you're asking if one could characterise a fetus as property, more akin to a living animal than an inanimate object. *strokes GoG's soul patch thoughtfully*

First of all...I don't see why you'd want to do that in the first place.

For much the same reason that we do it for animals. Pets may be property, but we attribute more value to them than their simple monetary worth, for a number of reasons. For the most part, people do the same for developing embryos/fetuses.

Society, for the most part, wants to see very harsh penalties for undue harm caused to a wanted fetus. This just seemed like one possible way to do it.

Sooooooo, I'm thinking you want to come at this in a way that would allow us to prosecute women for harming their fetuses, since that is currently not possible...the mother is the ONLY person who is exempt...and existing laws already deal with harm done to the mother by a third person. Again, I have to wonder why you'd want this, but okay.

Existing laws may deal with harm done to the mother, but they don't deal explicitly with harm done to the fetus, which is seen as being much worse than any other harm to the woman that would cause equivalent long-term effects and such.

I'm not trying to come at it in a way that would allow prosecution of the mother - far from it. I was trying to find a legal equivalent that would exclude her.

So, the fetus is the property of the mother, she can kill it or not, but she can't abuse it. She has the ultimate right to abortion, but abuse of the fetus would be a crime.

Meh. I was thinking something similar to animals, not exactly the same. What would "abuse of the fetus" be, anyways?

Right now, no, there is no way you could possibly look at it that way, because the fetus (in Canada) is literally considered one with the mother, and while you have limited property rights to your own body (think organs etc), you couldn't really create a separate class of 'property' rights beyond that for the fetus.

Could a law be enacted that criminalised 'abuse of the fetus' in the manner you've suggested, stopping short of granting it personhood, but making it more important than a chair? Possibly...................................but oh what a constitutional mess.

*shrug* I didn't think it would be an easy fix. Just one possible way to go about it.

So far, sentencing guidelines really seem like the way to go.


Drug use is not a crime. Possession of drugs is a crime.

Does having them in your body count as possession? If not, that answers that question.

.
Of course the law is only going to be changed for one gender if what the law is for only applies to one gender; that's like saying that if men used to be allowed to "take their penises out in public" making that illegal would be "changing the law for only one gender" since they're not barring women from "taking their penises out in public"

Such a law would violate the 14th amendment by targetting men.

A law permissible under equal protection would be "One may not expose their genitals in public." That would cover both men and women.

More like stripping away their right to make crappy choices that would hurt someone else, such as the child. For some of the things you mentioned, as far as I know they don't damage a fetus as much (or at least as directly) as things like drinking while pregnant would, so it's not an equal comparison. As I said to someone else just then, it might seem controlling but a line really should be drawn somewhere, and when a line is drawn some things will be just barely acceptable while some just barely wouldn't be, and I think where the line is drawn should be based on what doctors and scientists have to say about it.

Any line needs to be drawn in such a way as to protect the rights of women. FAS can likely be caused long before a woman is aware she is pregnant. Does this mean we should stop all women from drinking heavily, just in case they might be pregnant?

The line should be drawn based on how severe the damage would be.

You do realize, I suppose, that no one knows how much alcohol is necessary to cause FAS? And that, in fact, no one knows at what stage the danger is greatest?

And remember, kids, you can't say 'analysis' without saying 'anal'!

Reminds me of those SNL skits with Darryl Hammond as Sean Connery, mis-reading 'An Album Cover' as 'Anal Bum Cover', 'Therapists' as 'The Rapists', and 'Horsemen' as 'Whore Semen.'

I do think the intent of this law is really to undermine abortion laws by making people think of fetus as separate beings and providing for the Reagan "why is it a crime, if?" argument, but...
Why is that, exactly?

Reminds me of those SNL skits with Darryl Hammond as Sean Connery, mis-reading 'An Album Cover' as 'Anal Bum Cover', 'Therapists' as 'The Rapists', and 'Horsemen' as 'Whore Semen.'

Ooh, I've never seen that. To the Youtube-mobile, away!

Ooh, I've never seen that. To the Youtube-mobile, away!

Google for Celebrity Jeopardy.

Half of the problem is that your made-up term is not medically defined?


Which term? The 'may become pregnant' or the slightly-shorthand 'pre-pregnant'?


Yes. Apparently, you want the medical community to ignore the fact that healthy, fertile women may get pregnant.


Because I said that, didn't I?


Pregnancy certainly is. It isn't a disease, but it is a physical state for which medical care is sought.

And "risk of pregnancy" is a factor in medical treatment.


It shouldn't be. It might be a factor in YOU deciding if YOU want medical treatment, maybe.


No, you brought it up pretty much out of the blue -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14119172&postcount=17


Yeah. No - I don't think that says what you think it says. And the folic acid connection? Still not me.


In response to a post that didn't mention it at all, you listed the medical community daring to take the possibility of pregnancy into account when prescribing medications


You know what they say about 'assume', right?

I didn't mention medications.


...as part of the overarching "ownership" of women.

And it was that characterization that I objected to.


Object away. I've seen women object to 'right to abort'. Just because women sometimes do things detrimental to the cause of their own rights, doesn't mean they should be stopped from doing those things.


How does my doctor *gasp* making me aware of health risks - including possible health risks for future offspring - change my legal status in any way?

In fact, wouldn't it be the doctor who was culpable if he didn't make me aware of these risks?


Wow. You don't see that? Read that again.


Isn't that......his job? If a doctor put me on a medication that could cause birth defects in any offspring I might have without telling me or exploring other options, wouldn't that make him culpable? Wouldn't that be a malpractice lawsuit in the making?


Still not seeing it?


Again, you're acting as if your label is an official medical term. It isn't.

The concept is yours.


The concept is that you can be described as a person 'that may become pregnant'. Hardly my concept.

When did we stop referring to women as women, and start referring to them as people that 'may become pregnant'?

You don't see it? You think 'pro-life' refers to people who embrace the concept of life more positively than those described by 'pro-choice'?


You are the one acting as if acknowledging the possibility that a woman can get pregnant and that her actions can affect her future offspring is somehow creating a "new state."


It is.


I don't call that acknowledgment a "dangerous concept." I call it the state of female human beings. In fact, it has been the state of female human beings for as long as we have existed.


The same logic that justified slavery...


There is nothing at all new in taking a woman's reproductive health and the health of her future offspring into account in medical practice. The "dangerous concept" would be to pretend that the possibility doesn't exist and not to take it into account in medical care.


And that would be dangerous how, exactly?


A majority of females...


Why do you call them 'females'?

...don't suddenly find themselves part of a proportion of the population which can get pregnant. That's a set to which the majority of females have always belonged. And including that consideration in their medical care is not "using it against them."


Rather depends on what 'including' it means.

Which term? The 'may become pregnant' or the slightly-shorthand 'pre-pregnant'?

Which term have you been using?

Because I said that, didn't I?

Essentially. In fact, you repeat it again in this very post by objecting to the acknowledgment that women can get pregnant.

It shouldn't be. It might be a factor in YOU deciding if YOU want medical treatment, maybe.

....which it can't be if my doctor doesn't take the possibility into account unless I just happen to be an expert in the field.

Yeah. No - I don't think that says what you think it says. And the folic acid connection? Still not me.

So you didn't say:

If you look at the current medical buzzphrase "do not prescribe to women who are pregnant, or may BECOME pregnant", there's actually an agenda here that stretches much further than 'just' pregnant women. It's a gesture towards the ownership concepts that we've spent a hundred years tearing down... girls are owned because they can become pregnant, women are owned because hey can become, or are, or have been pregnant.

?

And no, you didn't bring up the folic acid thing. But it was brought up in the context of the post I linked to.

You know what they say about 'assume', right?

I didn't mention medications.

Ah. I'm sorry. You're right. Prescriptions don't have anything at all to do with medications. :rolleyes:

Object away. I've seen women object to 'right to abort'. Just because women sometimes do things detrimental to the cause of their own rights, doesn't mean they should be stopped from doing those things.

You still have yet to show how the medical community taking the fact that I can possibly become pregnant into account is at all detrimental to my rights.

Wow. You don't see that? Read that again.

Still not seeing it?

I don't see what? The fact that the DOCTOR has certain legal obligations doesn't change my legal status. Doctors always have legal obligations.

The concept is that you can be described as a person 'that may become pregnant'. Hardly my concept.

Of course not. It's basic biology. I am a menstruating woman of childbearing age who is sexually active. This means that I can become pregnant. Hell, I could be pregnant right now and unaware of it.

Whether you like it or not, I am a woman that may become pregnant.

When did we stop referring to women as women, and start referring to them as people that 'may become pregnant'?

We didn't. But, if we are trying specifically to talk about the subset of women who could become pregnant, we can certainly describe them that way.

It is.

So it is your contention that we've generally ignored that fact? That doctors taking that fact into account is something new?

The same logic that justified slavery...

Really? A basic biological fact was the logic that justified slavery?

And that would be dangerous how, exactly?

An even larger proportion of easily preventable birth defects, for one.

Women being less likely to seek medical treatment or even take OTC meds, for another.

Why do you call them 'females'?

I was using the same terminology used in the post to which I was responding. So, why did you call them "females"?

Rather depends on what 'including' it means.

It means exactly what it says. It becomes one consideration among all of the health issues a doctor must take into account when discussing options with patients and making recommendations.

Which term have you been using?


Wait, what? You're objecting to a term - but you don't know which one?


Essentially. In fact, you repeat it again in this very post by objecting to the acknowledgment that women can get pregnant.


Not at all, you're attacking a position ascribed to me that I didn't claim for myself. That's probably some kind of logical fallacy.


....which it can't be if my doctor doesn't take the possibility into account unless I just happen to be an expert in the field.


There's some kind of law in your state that stops doctors discussing the medications they want to give you, with you?


So you didn't say:

If you look at the current medical buzzphrase "do not prescribe to women who are pregnant, or may BECOME pregnant", there's actually an agenda here that stretches much further than 'just' pregnant women. It's a gesture towards the ownership concepts that we've spent a hundred years tearing down... girls are owned because they can become pregnant, women are owned because hey can become, or are, or have been pregnant.

?


No, I rather think I did say that... it certainly looks like something I'd have said.


And no, you didn't bring up the folic acid thing. But it was brought up in the context of the post I linked to.


Yes, you wanted me to discuss my stance... based on something someone else said...


Ah. I'm sorry. You're right. Prescriptions don't have anything at all to do with medications. :rolleyes:


You're right. I am right.


You still have yet to show how the medical community taking the fact that I can possibly become pregnant into account is at all detrimental to my rights.


If you were sexually active before you were pregnant, would you object to the medical profession referring to you by the demographic notation "whore"?


I don't see what? The fact that the DOCTOR has certain legal obligations doesn't change my legal status. Doctors always have legal obligations.


Did you read it again? You don't see the logic bridge you constructed there?

How can you be legally culpable in case A, if in case Anti-A, someone else is culpable? You really don't see that?


Of course not. It's basic biology. I am a menstruating woman of childbearing age who is sexually active. This means that I can become pregnant. Hell, I could be pregnant right now and unaware of it.


Pick a word or phrase out of that paragraph that you want to describe you.

I'd bet you'd make a slight excision and pick the phrase "I am a... woman".


Whether you like it or not, I am a woman that may become pregnant.


Whether I like it or not? I'm fiercely indifferent. It's not a matter of 'like', much less of my liking.


We didn't. But, if we are trying specifically to talk about the subset of women who could become pregnant, we can certainly describe them that way.


So, we need a new, special and separate phrase.... to describe what you were claiming was the majority, bar a few special exceptions?


So it is your contention that we've generally ignored that fact? That doctors taking that fact into account is something new?


Historically, yes.

More specifically - making the distinction you were making, yes.


Really? A basic biological fact was the logic that justified slavery?


No, the 'it was always like that' excuse is the 'logic' that justified slavery. Although basic biological facts have, too.


I was using the same terminology used in the post to which I was responding. So, why did you call them "females"?


Because I think it's a better description than 'person who may become pregnant'. But - if you look at a bigger picture, why did YOU call them females, and THEN refer to their ability to get pregnant?


It means exactly what it says. It becomes one consideration among all of the health issues a doctor must take into account when discussing options with patients and making recommendations.

I've never considered you to be naive, so I assume you are aware that that is not the ONLY way 'including' the status could be considered.

Why is that, exactly?

For several reasons:

1. The public statements of some supporters of this type of bill such as this from the OP link:

"In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection -- even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy," Samuel B. Casey, Executive Director of the Christian Legal Society was quoted saying in a 2003 Los Angeles Times article.

Also, from this source (http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fetalhomicide_ctv.html):

Opponents push for the statutes as a way to establish within the law that fetuses are living beings with rights. Although the statutes make clear exclusions for legal abortions, anti-abortion activists believe the laws, in addition to punishing outrageous acts of violence, affect the public's perception of abortion.

"It's a tool to educate the public as to the value of a human life," said Denise Burke, staff counsel for the anti-abortion organization Americans United for Life.



2. The fact that the argument has been made in the past that such laws are logically irreconcilable with abortion. This was the Reagan argument I referred to (also from the OP link):

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law – passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: “Isn’t it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that’s murder?”

3. The fact established ad naseum in this thread by Neesika that the law in question accomplishes little. For example, it would only add a concurrent sentence to an exsiting conviction.

4. The fact that essentially the same result can be better achieved by a sentence enhancement law.

5. The fact that protection for pregnant women would be better achieved through other means such as enhanced prevention and punishment of domestic violence.

6. The fact that is primarily (if not exclusively) anti-abortion groups that are promoting this bill:

Other than the victims’ families, those promoting Bill C-484 are anti-abortion groups and anti-abortion MPs, and other anti-abortion individuals such as McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville. This shows that the bill has little to do with protecting pregnant women. Instead, some intend to use the law as a route to criminalizing abortion. Recognizing the personhood of fetuses opens the door to abortion bans because abortion could be deemed as murder. In the United States, anti-abortion groups and legislators have actually stated they want to use these laws to restrict abortion. Also, when the federal law Unborn Victims of Violence Act passed in 2004 in the U.S., its anti-abortion sponsors rejected proposals to protect the woman herself under the law. (source (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/fetal_homicide_law.html))

How's that for starters?

Some interesting documents:

Defending C-484:
Claims that US "Fetal homicide / "unborn victims of violence" laws target pregnant women: A Smoke-screen to attempt to discredit Bill C-484 (http://www.kenepp.com/admin/assets/USCASESE1.pdf) (pdf)

Anti C-484:
Talking Points Against the “Unborn Victims of Crime Act” (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/unborn-victims-act.htm)
The Case Against a "Fetal Homicide" Law (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/57-Fetal-Homicide-Law.pdf) (pdf)
LESSONS FROM THE U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE LAWS (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/LessonsfromUS.pdf) (pdf)
Joyce Arthur's Rebuttal to Ken Epp: Bill C-484 Endangers Abortion Rights and Women’s Rights by Establishing Fetal Personhood. (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/rebuttal-to-ken-epp.pdf) (pdf)

Note: the last link is a specfic rebuttal of the pro-C-484 link.

I'm reading through these documents myself, and may post some comments, but thought some of you might be interested in the meantime.

My apologies if this is deemed spamming but I posted this in the Colorado thread a little while ago and it's apposite. It's so good I think it is worth reading.

**************
Victoria, here in Oz, recently passed legislation decriminalising abortion. It means that the woman decides up until the 24th week of pregnancy and two doctors must approve the abortion thereafter.

In The Age today one columnist quoted a memorable speech from one of the upper house members:

Upper house Labor MP Evan Thornley homed in on this point in his contribution to the parliamentary debate. "It is as simple as it is obvious: if men took as much responsibility for contraception as women did, the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop like a stone," the straight-talking ministerial aspirant told MPs. Yet, he said, male responsibility for contraception was the subject that dared not speak its name during the nearly 60 hours of parliamentary debate.

Thornley, who spoke for only about 10 minutes and voted for decriminalisation, took aim at two of the most prominent "no" voters, Liberal Bernie Finn (who spoke for nearly six hours) and the DLP's Peter Kavanagh (a little over three hours). He compared their "courage" with the courage shown by a woman having to decide what to do with an unwanted pregnancy — whether to keep and care for her baby or have an abortion. "How much courage or responsibility does it take for a bloke to walk into this place and pronounce moral judgement on women in a situation that he will never find himself in?" Thornley asked. "Mr Finn, Mr Kavanagh and others have asked, 'Where are the men in this picture?' I ask the same thing."

Then he issued this challenge: "If you walk into this chamber wanting to take some responsibility and wanting to show even the tiniest amount of courage compared to that which women must face when they have an unwanted pregnancy, then when you walk out of here you should take the lead in convincing men to take their share of responsibility for contraception. If you are serious about the unborn and if you are serious about reducing the numbers of abortions, then get out there with your videos and your horror stories, get out there with your moral righteousness and self-importance, and walk into the pubs and clubs, the footy clubs and the construction sites, the high school halls and the army barracks, and tell the blokes to take responsibility for contraception.

"If you do that, you will save thousands of unborn children from abortion. If you do not do that, you are not serious. If you do not do that, all you can do is parade around here in cowards' castle excoriating women for making a decision — that you will never, ever have to make — for whatever you perceive to be their moral shortcomings. If that is all you do, that is basically gutless and it risks being nothing more than political grandstanding and campaigning for votes.

"I am up for it — and I hope you are too, boys! It is time for men to show some leadership, to show just a tiny fraction of the courage that women have to have every day when they contemplate how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. It is time for men to take responsibility for contraception and contribute to a massive reduction in the number of abortions and the suffering involved to the unborn, their mothers and their families."

(The emphasis is mine.)

The full newspaper article can be read here (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/its-over-to-you-men-20081022-56bh.html?page=-1).

The cartoon is making parallels with recent bad behaviour by students from a prestigious Catholic school here in Melbourne.

The full Hansard can be read here (http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=VicHansard.dumpall&db=daily&dodraft=1&house=COUNCIL&speech=12564&activity=Second+Reading&title=ABORTION+LAW+REFORM+BILL&date1=9&date2=October&date3=2008&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'abortion'+%29%0a%09and+%28+members+contains+'THORNLEY'+%29%0a #match1).

Some political explanations:

Evan Thornley is an Australian Labor Party member. The ALP is the party of Government in Victoria.

Liberal = classical liberal, ie supports the free-market, promotes the individual over the group; equivalent to the British Conservative Party or the US Republican Party. The Liberal Party is the main opposition party in Victoria.

DLP = Democratic Labor Party, a right-wing Catholic group that split from the Australian Labor Party in the 1950s. They have one member in the Victorian Parliament.

Wait, what? You're objecting to a term - but you don't know which one?

Right now, I'm objecting to you being intentionally obtuse.

There's some kind of law in your state that stops doctors discussing the medications they want to give you, with you?

Of course not. But, according to you, bringing up the fact that I may become pregnant and using that as a consideration in such discussions somehow removes my rights.

In fact, that possibility was one I specifically asked you about. I asked how it removed my rights. Your answer? Something about somebody else in the thread talking about alcohol use being legally restricted.

No, I rather think I did say that... it certainly looks like something I'd have said.

Well, there you go, then.

You're right. I am right.

So prescriptions don't have anything to do with medications?

Specifically, the use of the phrase "not for women who are or may be pregnant" has nothing to do with medications?

If you were sexually active before you were pregnant, would you object to the medical profession referring to you by the demographic notation "whore"?

Of course. I've never been paid for sex.

I don't, however, have a problem with them referencing biological facts - like the fact that I am able to become pregnant.

Did you read it again? You don't see the logic bridge you constructed there?

How can you be legally culpable in case A, if in case Anti-A, someone else is culpable? You really don't see that?

Well, you see, there's this thing called the law. The law requires doctors to actually do their job, or face malpractice lawsuits. That job includes things like informing the patient of risks. It includes taking the possible health ramifications of a particular treatment or bit of advice into account.

On the other hand, the law does not require me to follow my doctor's advice or follow through on any treatment she prescribes. As such, there is nothing for me to be "culpable" for.

Pick a word or phrase out of that paragraph that you want to describe you.

I'd bet you'd make a slight excision and pick the phrase "I am a... woman".

Depends on the context. If it were just a general description - absolutely.

If it had to do with medical options, I'd want all the information on the table.

Whether I like it or not? I'm fiercely indifferent. It's not a matter of 'like', much less of my liking.

You certainly seem to have a problem with the medical community acknowledging it.

So, we need a new, special and separate phrase.... to describe what you were claiming was the majority, bar a few special exceptions?

We need to be clear in who we're talking about.

And lets be clear that those "special exceptions" you refer to actually make up a large proportion of women. Plenty of women are post-menopausal or otherwise sterile. Plenty of young girls are pre-puberty.

Depending on the exact risk, even women on oral contraceptives may be removed from the group. I've had doctors ask if I might be pregnant and the response that I'm on the pill was enough to say no.

Historically, yes.

More specifically - making the distinction you were making, yes.

Then you're flat-out wrong. There is nothing new about the medical community taking the possibility of pregnancy into account.

No, the 'it was always like that' excuse is the 'logic' that justified slavery.

The difference, of course, being that human women always have been and always will be able to get pregnant. It has always been that way - as long as there have been human beings. Why? Because it is a basic biological fact - it is a part of being human.

Because I think it's a better description than 'person who may become pregnant'.

Not all females can get pregnant. If you specifically need to refer to those who can, simply saying "female" won't cover it.

But - if you look at a bigger picture, why did YOU call them females, and THEN refer to their ability to get pregnant?

What part of "I was using the same terminology used in the post to which I was responding" was confusing? I was referencing your wording.

You said:
it is a dangerous concept because it establishes a set to which a (majority) proportion of females suddenly find themselves belonging. And it could end up being used against them.

So, I responded:

A majority of females don't suddenly find themselves part of a proportion of the population which can get pregnant. That's a set to which the majority of females have always belonged. And including that consideration in their medical care is not "using it against them."

Notice the strange correlation in word use. I color-coded it to help you out. =)

If you noticed, I also used the term "dangerous concept" in that same response.

How's that for starters?

That's good. For starters :wink:


I was really just curious as to what you would say. ;)

Thalidomide was a prescription drug.
Guilt by association much? IIRC the problem with that was that it wasn't tested enough. Granted, I guess you couldn't be COMPLETELY sure of its effects no matter how much you tested it, but just because we can't step in to stop unpredictable harm doesn't mean we shouldn't step in to stop predictable harm. I feel kinda reminded of the Simpsons scene where Dr. Hibbert can't reattach homer's thumb but could sever the other for symettry.

Do you REALLY want to argue that prescription drugs cannot possibly be as bad for an unborn child as consuming alcohol?
Where and when did I say that?

Maybe the pregnant woman works at a job which involves a lot of intensive physical labor, which is often a very bad idea late in a pregnancy.
Don't we already have maternity leave for that?

And you go on to list other analogies, comparing "what about this" to alcohol; how about you apply my earlier "a woman doesn't have the right to throw her child onto a pile of sharp rocks" analogy to them instead? As I've said before, we should try to determine which things are worse than others and draw the line somewhere. Granted, I don't know where it should be drawn. I don't claim to have all the answers. And indeed, the idea of people having to act a certain way once one happens to be pregnant doesn't sound quite right, but what I'm saying is that the notion that we ought to accept whatever mothers do to their children while they're inside the womb, regardless of what the effects will be outside the womb, sounds even worse to me. For what it's worth, I do think standards on who gets to be pregnant would be better than standards on what one can do while pregnant, but I don't know enough about either to compare the two. Again, when I originally entered this topic it was more so about a comment whose premise sounded contradictory, that regulating behaviour while pregnant was a "backdoor attempt to criminalize abortion" when I thought that it would if anything encourage people to get abortions instead of causing damage that will affect the baby once it's born...

How about having an abusive boyfriend/spouse who's been known to punch the woman in the stomach - is she criminally liable if she doesn't break up with him upon becoming pregnant and he decides to hit her some more?
I don't know about that, that's different, the woman might not have expected him to hit her while pregnant, he might have said he could change and she believed him... and even if not, leaving him would be easier said than done. [EDIT since people seem to think that mentioning ONE reason to the contrary no matter why means that my position is to the contrary of what I already gave 3 reasons for, so I'll have to choose my wording carefully] That said, I think something to at least take into account is that when deadbeat dads think their girlfriend would've gotten an abortion, their "not knowing" doesn't cut it for removing them from criminal liability. No, I'm not saying that's to blame for abuse, and I have no idea where people are getting that from, but I'm just suggesting that perhaps deadbeat dads could ALSO be another comparison to mothers who drink while pregnant. Perhaps it fits better than my "pile of sharp rocks" analogy.

And, ye gods, imagine what a nightmare these laws would be to enforce.
No doubt.

The only real way to enforce this would be mandatory abortion for people who want to do these things, and that would seem incredibly unpermissive, especially in a society where many don't want abortion to even be legal. I think we could agree on the point that this is probably a good thing to mention to anti-abortionists; even if you could stop women from getting abortions you couldn't stop them from otherwise harming their children in ways that would have effects after they're born. Unfortunately, given the nature of the abortion debate, I wouldn't be surprised if too many of the mainstream proponents of either side were unwilling to listen to what people from the other side had to say. It's like when people claim that anyone who isn't unambiguously pro-choice is a "woman-hating neanderthal"; I don't exactly feel all that good about being on the same "side" as these people, but then again there's probably obnoxious people on both sides of almost any debate...

I don't know about that, the woman might not have expected him to hit her while pregnant, he might have said he could change and she believed him... and even if not, leaving him would be easier said than done. That said, a deadbeat dad who thought his girlfriend would have gotten an abortion if she got pregnant isn't off the hook either, but something about this dilemma seems different...


It's entirely different. So, why did you even bring it up?

Are you trying to argue that child support somehow mitigates domestic violence?

It's entirely different. So, why did you even bring it up?

Are you trying to argue that child support somehow mitigates domestic violence?
Don't put words in my mouth, (or more technically, on my fingertips, in this case) I wasn't trying to tie child support to domestic violence. I was discussing the notion of holding women responsible for not breaking up with the guy who was abusing her; I was giving reasons for each side of that dilemma (EDIT: Note that the dilemma I'm referring to is solely the one of holding abuse victims responsible for not avoiding the abuse, and I figured my position was very clear) so as to show why I wasn't so sure what I thought of that one. The only comparison I was making was about how "didn't know" doesn't cut it in and of itself since "I thought she would get an abortion" doesn't exempt deadbeat dads from criminal liability.

Don't put words in my mouth, (or more technically, on my fingertips, in this case) I wasn't trying to tie child support to domestic violence. I was discussing the notion of holding women "criminally liable" for not breaking up with the guy who was abusing her; I was giving reasons for each side of that dilemma so as to show why I wasn't so sure what I thought of that one. The only comparison I was making was about how "didn't know" doesn't cut it in and of itself since "I thought she would get an abortion" doesn't exempt deadbeat dads from criminal liability.
So you just advocate punishing victims of crimes for being victimized?

Don't put words in my mouth, (or more technically, on my fingertips, in this case) I wasn't trying to tie child support to domestic violence. I was discussing the notion of holding women "criminally liable" for not breaking up with the guy who was abusing her; I was giving reasons for each side of that dilemma so as to show why I wasn't so sure what I thought of that one. The only comparison I was making was about how "didn't know" doesn't cut it in and of itself since "I thought she would get an abortion" doesn't exempt deadbeat dads from criminal liability.

Reasons for each side?

So - the reason men abuse, is because women hold them accountable for their children?

So you just advocate punishing victims of crimes for being victimized?
No, I repeatedly stated my distinction between drinking mothers and abuse victims. I just pointed out ONE argument to the contrary, just for the sake of showing that I was trying to take it into account. As I said earlier, I don't have to bend over backwards for people who jump to conclusions.

Reasons for each side?

So - the reason men abuse, is because women hold them accountable for their children?
What are you talking about? I already told you how that wasn't what I was saying. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you begin to grasp what I am saying?

On the one hand, yes, it's undeniable that certain groups see laws protecting fetuses as part of a strategy toward limiting abortion rights, but on the other hand, perpetrators who offend against pregnant women probably *do* deserve the additional penalty, especially if they know the victim is pregnant. Murder is the #1 cause of death among pregnant women, after all, at least according to the network news - laws protecting unborn children and the surrounding publicity can't hurt the effort to improve those disturbing statistics. Abortion rights aren't going anywhere in any case.

What are you talking about? I already told you how that wasn't what I was saying. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you begin to grasp what I am saying?

It's your wording.

You say "I gave reasons for each side of that dilemma".

If your words aren't meaning what you think they should... that's hardly my fault.

No, I repeatedly stated my distinction between drinking mothers and abuse victims. I just pointed out ONE argument to the contrary, just for the sake of showing that I was trying to take it into account. As I said earlier, I don't have to bend over backwards for people who jump to conclusions.
Uh-huh. Then why did you say that women could be held criminally liable for harm to their fetus if they fail to break up with an abusive boyfriend?

You say you don't have to bend over backwards for people who jump to conclusion, but why do we have to bend over backwards to try to sort out your actual argument from all the shit you say that you don't mean? Don't say it, if you don't want to answer for it.

It's your wording.

You say "I gave reasons for each side of that dilemma".

If your words aren't meaning what you think they should... that's hardly my fault.
Uh, yeah, if you weren't sure what I was saying, you should've asked rather than jumping to conclusions. Maybe it could've been worded better, but I figured it was clear enough that the dilemma I was referring to was the one about holding her liable for not leaving if she knows he's going to punch her in the stomach, and that 'both sides' was referring to taking the other side into consideration.

Oh, right, radical politically-correct 'pro-choicers' don't like it when the other side is taken into consideration...

Uh-huh. Then why did you say that women could be held criminally liable for harm to their fetus if they fail to break up with an abusive boyfriend?

You say you don't have to bend over backwards for people who jump to conclusion, but why do we have to bend over backwards to try to sort out your actual argument from all the shit you say that you don't mean? Don't say it, if you don't want to answer for it.
Yes, god forbid I mention a reason that shows that I'm taking reasons that would contradict my main point into account. Never mind that I already mentioned 3 towards my main reasons, and stated my position again since. If I dare suggest a deadbeat dad analogy, no matter what I'm suggesting it might be comparable to or why, it MUST mean I'm blaming abuse victims for being abused. [/sarcasm]

Yes, god forbid I mention a reason that shows that I'm taking reasons that would contradict my main point into account. Never mind that I already mentioned 3 towards my main reasons, and stated my position again since. If I dare suggest a deadbeat dad analogy, no matter what I'm suggesting it might be comparable to or why, it MUST mean I'm blaming abuse victims for being abused. [/sarcasm]
Fine. So the one statement that I wish to challenge is not the entirety of your position.

So what?

I found a flaw in that one statement. The flaw is that, if such an approach were applied in the law, it would have the effect of punishing victims of crime for being victimized. I attacked that flaw in the style of flipping it back at you, to show the faulty reasoning within it.

But rather than look at your statement and my challenge to see if the flaw is real, or if you can defend the statement, or whatever, you instead start acting all huffy, claiming you are being blamed unfairly for holding a generalized position you really don't, as if an attack on any part of your argument is a personal attack against you.

No, sir/madam, that is not what is happening. What is happening is that you are being challenged on that particular statement on the grounds that it is dependent on the mindset you say is not yours.

So...do you have a defense for that one statement, or do you wish to amend it at this time to fit in better with your real position on the issue?

Fine. So the one statement that I wish to challenge is not the entirety of your position.

So what?

I found a flaw in that one statement. The flaw is that, if such an approach were applied in the law, it would have the effect of punishing victims of crime for being victimized. I attacked that flaw in the style of flipping it back at you, to show the faulty reasoning within it.

But rather than look at your statement and my challenge to see if the flaw is real, or if you can defend the statement, or whatever, you instead start acting all huffy, claiming you are being blamed unfairly for holding a generalized position you really don't, as if an attack on any part of your argument is a personal attack against you.

No, sir/madam, that is not what is happening. What is happening is that you are being challenged on that particular statement on the grounds that it is dependent on the mindset you say is not yours.

So...do you have a defense for that one statement, or do you wish to amend it at this time to fit in better with your real position on the issue?
I've already edited my posts. o.o The only reason I was hesitant to was that I perceived the people suggesting I should as being "insulting" and so I insulted you and someone else back... come to think of it, maybe I jumped to conclusions myself, but that might have something to do with how I'm so used to seeing most of the people on my side (especially on this site) act almost dogmatically politically correct when it comes to the "pro-choice" label that I'm almost expecting them to over-react to a side comment, but come to think of it I did something rather similar myself. I'm willing to apologize if Grave n Idle is.

EDIT: One more thing; my problem wasn't with you as much as it was with Grave n Idle; your initial statement was a bit more accurate, I was just a bit frustrated with Grave n Idle claiming that I said something that I was not suggesting at all, and thought of "the other side of this argument" a bit too categorically.

I've already edited my posts. o.o The only reason I was hesitant to was that I perceived the people suggesting I should as being "insulting" and so I insulted you and someone else back... come to think of it, maybe I jumped to conclusions myself, but that might have something to do with how I'm so used to seeing most of the people on my side (especially on this site) act almost dogmatically politically correct when it comes to the "pro-choice" label that I'm almost expecting them to over-react to a side comment, but come to think of it I did something rather similar myself. I'm willing to apologize if Grave n Idle is.

EDIT: One more thing; my problem wasn't with you as much as it was with Grave n Idle; your initial statement was a bit more accurate, I was just a bit frustrated with Grave n Idle claiming that I said something that I was not suggesting at all, and thought of "the other side of this argument" a bit too categorically.
Fair enough, and thank you for saying this. I understand that, in the midst of you having an active argument with another poster, my challenge to that statement may have come off as a dog-piling attack in support of him. In fact, I had not been keeping track of the exchange between you and GnI, as I felt it was more of a wrangling over something that was not relevant to what interests me about the thread topic. If I had been up to speed on your argument, I probably would have written my comment a little differently. So I apologize for that.

Uh, yeah, if you weren't sure what I was saying, you should've asked rather than jumping to conclusions. Maybe it could've been worded better, but I figured it was clear enough that the dilemma I was referring to was the one about holding her liable for not leaving if she knows he's going to punch her in the stomach, and that 'both sides' was referring to taking the other side into consideration.

Oh, right, radical politically-correct 'pro-choicers' don't like it when the other side is taken into consideration...

The dilemma is about holding a woman liable for not leaving despite abuse... no?

The 'other side' that we're supposed to take into consideration is... what?

As far as I can tell - as you stated once, and have reiterated once... the 'other side' is that men are accountable for child support on kids they didn't want.

I'm not the one creating a link between abusing women and holding men accountzable for their offspring. It's right there.

If you don't mean what you are saying, rather than whining about 'radically politically correct pro-choicers who 'don't like it when the 'other side' (Again - what IS this 'other side'?) is taken into consideration'... why don't you actually make the points clearer?

I'm willing to apologize if Grave n Idle is.


What would I be apologising for? Your argument hasn't been clear, and each time I've tried to explore what you mean, you blame me for not getting it.


EDIT: One more thing; my problem wasn't with you as much as it was with Grave n Idle; your initial statement was a bit more accurate, I was just a bit frustrated with Grave n Idle claiming that I said something that I was not suggesting at all, and thought of "the other side of this argument" a bit too categorically.

Heaven forbid that people should actually consider your own words to represent your argument?

Fair enough, and thank you for saying this. I understand that, in the midst of you having an active argument with another poster, my challenge to that statement may have come off as a dog-piling attack in support of him. In fact, I had not been keeping track of the exchange between you and GnI, as I felt it was more of a wrangling over something that was not relevant to what interests me about the thread topic. If I had been up to speed on your argument, I probably would have written my comment a little differently. So I apologize for that.
Apology accepted completely. Come to think of it, I apologize for telling others off for jumping to conclusions while I was doing the same...

The 'other side' that we're supposed to take into consideration is... what?
Trying to note that, my position already stated, there are reasons I want to put out there as to why my distinction might not work to some.

As far as I can tell - as you stated once, and have reiterated once... the 'other side' is that men are accountable for child support on kids they didn't want.
No, the "other side" is that perhaps since whether one knew or didn't know what they were getting themselves into is irrelevant to the responsibilities of parents, I wasn't quite sure how solid my reasoning is for distinguishing between drinking moms and abused moms, which distinction was in turn made for the purpose of rebutalling Poliwanacraca's analogy.

I'm not the one creating a link between abusing women and holding men accountzable for their offspring. It's right there.
Bullshit. I was drawing a comparison, not a connection, and for that matter the comparison wasn't between the things you said the connection were.

If you don't mean what you are saying, rather than whining about 'radically politically correct pro-choicers who 'don't like it when the 'other side' (Again - what IS this 'other side'?)
A DIFFERENT "other side" than in the comparison you were responding to. What I'm referring to when I talk about the "other side" in the ABORTION debate, is the anti-abortionists; I was pointing out that both sides of THAT debate seem to be rather dogmatic. Take a look at this page, which I think I found through clicking various links from some site about Elizabeth May: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006190

When you twist my "granted maybe doesn't know doesn't cut it in and of itself" side-comment to be blaming child support for domestic violence, you begin to remind me of people like "Kevin_Laddle" and "Scout" from that page...

why don't you actually make the points clearer?
Maybe I should. But at the same time, why don't you actually make whether or not you're simply looking for clarification clearer, such as to perhaps ask "I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, could you clarify?" instead of guessing my position with a guess that doesn't even seem logical to me, and then repeating that guess AFTER I tried to explain it.

What would I be apologising for? Your argument hasn't been clear, and each time I've tried to explore what you mean, you blame me for not getting it.
See above.

Heaven forbid that people should actually consider your own words to represent your argument?
There's a phrase I use own some forums (not sure if it includes this one) that goes "it was not my own opinion, I thought it was yours"; I say this when I bring up an point that isn't my own but something I expected the other person to think, so as to point to what I think is a double standard in the other person's opinions. Now bringing up a point that might go against my own just for the sake of bringing it out there isn't the same thing as that, but the reason I bring this up is just to say don't assume that every point I bring up comes directly from my own perspective on everything.