Cons want RCMP to investigate abortions


mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#1
MPs’ request to have RCMP investigate abortions is way off base

A letter from three Conservative MPs who are opposed to abortion asking the RCMP to investigate what they call “the killing of Canadian children” is an unwelcome move. The abortion debate is not something Canadians have shown an interest in reopening. And the letter itself is troubling because it betrays a misunderstanding of the law, and of the dangers of politicians turning to the Mounties to investigate cases based on a personal political agenda.

The three backbench MPs, led by Maurice Vellacott of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, want the RCMP to open homicide investigations into cases of mid- and late-term abortions that they say may have resulted in live births. They claim that Statistics Canada listed 491 such births between 2000 and 2009. They say in their letter that, under the Criminal Code, “a child is considered a human being and a person after proceeding fully from the mother’s womb.” They state categorically that anyone involved in the extremely rare case of an abortion that involves a live fetus “is guilty of homicide,” and they “formally request” RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson to pursue investigations into the 491 cases.

Mr. Vellacott and his two allies have failed to take into account that, in Canada, abortion is not covered by the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that using the threat of criminal sanction to force a woman to carry a child to term is a violation of her constitutional right to security of the person. Parliament has never brought in legislation to fill the gap created by that ruling. If that ever changes, it will be up to Parliament to do it, not to the police. The Mounties don’t exist to do what the government has been unable, or afraid, to do legislatively

Finally, backbench MPs should not be using their position to formally request RCMP investigations into the lives of Canadians whose actions they are on the record as being morally opposed to. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has distanced himself from his three MPs and their letter. One hopes Commissioner Paulson will be as wise.

MPs
Last edited by mentalfloss; Feb 1st, 2013 at 12:23 PM..
 
petros
+4
#2
Vellacott is nuts.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
+3
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Vellacott is nuts.

So are the people who voted him in.
 
petros
+2
#4
Temperance delusionals founded Toontown. That city lacks more than just feng shui.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#5
Has no one told these people the world has moved on? The problem with so many
social conservatives is they want to rehash the past and bring back the archaic times
past. If its in the Bible it must be true and if I believe it everyone is going to believe it
come hell or high water.
Therefore the RCMP should look into peoples lives and determine whether or not they
are living according to Gods laws is what it amounts to. Were we not in Afghanistan
fighting crazy fundamentalists called the Taliban attempting to force that kind of lifestyle
on the citizens there?
Well maybe these guys are quite as crazy but they have to be nuts, and that is where
this crap starts. Look at Uganda, they elected an form of evangelical nuts to power and
that place has plunged itself into a new living hell based on religion as well.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Has no one told these people the world has moved on? The problem with so many
social conservatives is they want to rehash the past and bring back the archaic times
past. If its in the Bible it must be true and if I believe it everyone is going to believe it
come hell or high water.
Therefore the RCMP should look into peoples lives and determine whether or not they
are living according to Gods laws is what it amounts to. Were we not in Afghanistan
fighting crazy fundamentalists called the Taliban attempting to force that kind of lifestyle
on the citizens there?
Well maybe these guys are quite as crazy but they have to be nuts, and that is where
this crap starts. Look at Uganda, they elected an form of evangelical nuts to power and
that place has plunged itself into a new living hell based on religion as well.

These people are no different than the Taliban. Just a different religion.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#7
Taxslave I was trying to be nice today the sun is shining here and I am too lazy to
go prune fruit trees. They would take us back the jolly times of the Spanish Inquisition
if they could I am sure. When you allow religion to be part of a political system where
the legislators equate sins with crimes we have a problem. I am not saying abortions
are sins either. These kinds of people equate it as a sin, therefore sins against God
or there vision of God are also crimes.
I actually wonder if Heaven would be any fun if it was full of these kinds of people.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+2
#8
Before you jump all over them for 'opening the abortion debate', might I point out that what they're asking is if something other than abortion is happening.

It's really poorly worded, but from what I've read (the article's link to their letter to police is not working), they're asking the RCMP to look into whether fetuses are being delivered and THEN killed.


Now explain how it's just religious nonsense to be against that.

From the Huffington Post's article on the issue....

Benoit clarified that he is not taking issue specifically with the 19-week mark.
"This has got to do with law enforcement — a live baby, viable, born and then killed,' He said. "That breaks Canadian law, so that's what it is all about.
"We are talking about live babies who are killed."
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Taxslave I was trying to be nice today the sun is shining here and I am too lazy to
go prune fruit trees. They would take us back the jolly times of the Spanish Inquisition
if they could I am sure. When you allow religion to be part of a political system where
the legislators equate sins with crimes we have a problem. I am not saying abortions
are sins either. These kinds of people equate it as a sin, therefore sins against God
or there vision of God are also crimes.
I actually wonder if Heaven would be any fun if it was full of these kinds of people.

I'm not prepared to take the chance. I'll laugh with the sinners.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Before you jump all over them for 'opening the abortion debate', might I point out that what they're asking is if something other than abortion is happening.

It's really poorly worded, but from what I've read (the article's link to their letter to police is not working), they're asking the RCMP to look into whether fetuses are being delivered and THEN killed.


Now explain how it's just religious nonsense to be against that.

From the Huffington Post's article on the issue....

Benoit clarified that he is not taking issue specifically with the 19-week mark.
"This has got to do with law enforcement — a live baby, viable, born and then killed,' He said. "That breaks Canadian law, so that's what it is all about.
"We are talking about live babies who are killed."

in that case we would have to define viable birth. Is it being able to breath independently or being kept alive with all the technology modern medicine has to offer?
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

in that case we would have to define viable birth. Is it being able to breath independently or being kept alive with all the technology modern medicine has to offer?


They're asking that the RCMP look into physical harm or neglect, done to end a baby's life once it's born, so I fail to see why you'd need a definition of viability. If it's 'not viable', you shouldn't have to kill it, or neglect it and let it die. A non-viable birth equals a dead baby, without a doc having to do anything to it.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

They're asking that the RCMP look into physical harm or neglect, done to end a baby's life once it's born, so I fail to see why you'd need a definition of viability. If it's 'not viable', you shouldn't have to kill it, or neglect it and let it die. A non-viable birth equals a dead baby, without a doc having to do anything to it.

We are dealing with twisted religious fanatics here so it is important that everyone is agreeing on the terms of reference.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

We are dealing with twisted religious fanatics here so it is important that everyone is agreeing on the terms of reference.

I'm sorry, I don't know their religious history, so I'm just going by what they've asked of the RCMP.
 
gerryh
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

We are dealing with twisted religious fanatics here so it is important that everyone is agreeing on the terms of reference.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....


IMO the twisted fanatics would be those that would want a cover up done rather than an investigation to ensure that baby's have not been purposely killed.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....


IMO the twisted fanatics would be those that would want a cover up done rather than an investigation to ensure that baby's have not been purposely killed.

Coming from a twisted religious fanatic.
 
gerryh
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Coming from a twisted religious fanatic.


The idiot has spoken.
 
petros
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Before you jump all over them for 'opening the abortion debate', might I point out that what they're asking is if something other than abortion is happening.

Quote:

The three backbench MPs, led by Maurice Vellacott of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, want the RCMP to open homicide investigations into cases of mid- and late-term abortions that they say may have resulted in live births.

A legal grey area of human/natural person/legal person transtitional proceess which is always trumped by intent.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

They're asking that the RCMP look into physical harm or neglect, done to end a baby's life once it's born, so I fail to see why you'd need a definition of viability. If it's 'not viable', you shouldn't have to kill it, or neglect it and let it die. A non-viable birth equals a dead baby, without a doc having to do anything to it.

You would need a definition of viability (and what intervention is required) due to what they are requesting be investigated: They state categorically that anyone involved in the extremely rare case of an abortion that involves a live fetus “is guilty of homicide,” and they “formally request” RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson to pursue investigations into the 491 cases.
 
gerryh
+1
#18
The Canadian Medical Association has placed viability at 20 weeks.
 
CDNBear
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Before you jump all over them for 'opening the abortion debate', might I point out that what they're asking is if something other than abortion is happening.

It's really poorly worded, but from what I've read (the article's link to their letter to police is not working), they're asking the RCMP to look into whether fetuses are being delivered and THEN killed.


Now explain how it's just religious nonsense to be against that.

From the Huffington Post's article on the issue....

Benoit clarified that he is not taking issue specifically with the 19-week mark.
"This has got to do with law enforcement — a live baby, viable, born and then killed,' He said. "That breaks Canadian law, so that's what it is all about.
"We are talking about live babies who are killed."

That's irrelevant Karrie.

You know why?

It makes great political hay for party hacks and morons that can't read. Or feel compelled to spin things into partisan attacks.

Funny some of those same people are also crying about personal attacks, mis-characterizations, and so on in the House.

Oh the hypocrisy.
 
petros
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

You would need a definition of viability (and what intervention is required) due to what they are requesting be investigated: They state categorically that anyone involved in the extremely rare case of an abortion that involves a live fetus “is guilty of homicide,” and they “formally request” RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson to pursue investigations into the 491 cases.

Law is mostly based on intent. Abortion was the intent of the procedure being done by medical types.

It's like charging a locksmith with B&E for opening your house when you lose your keys.
 
CDNBear
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Law is mostly based on intent.

Mostly.

Quote:

Abortion was the intent of the procedure being done by medical types.

Mothers that off their newborns have the same intent.

They're still charged with homicide.

Quote:

It's like charging a locksmith with B&E for opening your house when you lose your keys.

No it isn't.

Stop being so silly.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Law is mostly based on intent. Abortion was the intent of the procedure being done by medical types.

It's like charging a locksmith with B&E for opening your house when you lose your keys.

An analogy more to the point would be the locksmith opening your house and leaving with your T V......
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Law is mostly based on intent. Abortion was the intent of the procedure being done by medical types.


In this case, the law also dictates how far along a pregnancy can be before it no longer is suitable for abortion
 
petros
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Mothers that off their newborns have the same intent. They're still charged with homicide.

CC 223. Infanticide
 
CDNBear
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

CC 223. Infanticide

Cool, I always love it when you admit your errors.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Cool, I always love it when you admit your errors.

Are they investigation infanticide?

Do physicans do this type of ****?

Quote:

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents' home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour's yard.

Far different intent.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+3
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Law is mostly based on intent. Abortion was the intent of the procedure being done by medical types.

It's like charging a locksmith with B&E for opening your house when you lose your keys.

I'm sorry but no, it's not all about intent.

If a baby is born despite an attempt to abort it, you can't simply kill it once it's been born. Upon birth, upon drawing in air free of its mother, that baby has rights under our law. you can't snuff it out and pretend it never happened.
 
CDNBear
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Are they investigation infanticide?

They should be.

Quote:

Do physicans do this type of ****?

Is crushing the skull and dumping it in a biohazard receptacle any different?

Quote:

Far different intent.

It is? Her intent was to abort the baby and get rid of it.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+3
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Are they investigation infanticide?

Do physicans do this type of ****?

I've never been in a clinic to see abortions performed, but I have heard accusations in the past of doctors taking fetuses that survived the process, and killing them. Or, wrapping them up, sticking them in a room without milk, care, etc., and letting nature take its slow course.


Now, let me be clear that's rumours. But I for one wouldn't jump on the notion that it's religious zealotry that drives someone to want stuff like this investigated to get to the root of it.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Law is mostly based on intent. Abortion was the intent of the procedure being done by medical types.

It's like charging a locksmith with B&E for opening your house when you lose your keys.

Not according to those who want the investigation. They want murder charges placed. The article does not state who is going to be charged; would it be the woman, or the doctor or the hospital, would it be all three?

Note that Karrie called the results of the abortion a 'baby'. Immediately that would imply...murder IF no intervention were given to maintain life.

Not quite as simple as a lock.
 
no new posts