Quebec doctors' federation joins fight against bill for 'unborn victims of crime'

[Praxius]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/16/bill-abortion.html

One of Quebec's powerful doctors' federations is joining the opposition to a federal bill that would make it a crime to kill a fetus, fearing the law will be the first step to criminalizing abortion.

"The back-door objective of this bill is to set in motion a long legal saga that would in the end give rights to the fetus," said Gaétan Barrette, head of Quebec's Federation of Specialist Doctors.

Bill C-484, the proposed unborn victims of crime act, which would make it a separate crime to kill a fetus during a criminal act against its mother, has passed second reading in the House of Commons.

"That will allow someone to go to the Supreme Court and say 'Look, you've passed Bill 484. And because of that, you implicitly gave rights to this fetus. And if the fetus has rights, then abortion should be illegal because it is a murder,' " Barrette said.

Barrette said there is no need for a new law and that judges can use their discretion to impose harsher sentences for brutal crimes.

But Edmonton Conservative MP Ken Epp, who brought forward the private member's bill, said critics are missing the point of his proposed legislation.

He said it's about protecting women who have chosen to have their children.

"She wants to give birth to that child, she wants to give it life, and love, and look after it, and it just isn't right [for] some third person to come in there, and by criminal assault, to take that choice and that baby away from her."

Epp points out there is a special provision in his bill that would protect women who have chosen to have a legal abortion.

The proposed act came after the 2005 murder of 19-year-old Edmonton woman Olivia Talbot, who was six months pregnant when she was shot three times in her stomach and twice in the head.

"It's two people who died that day," said her mother Mary Talbot, who supports the proposed bill. "I certainly put two people in a coffin."

I agree with protection of an unborn child if planned and wanted by the parents to give birth to, but I also see the slope being talked about.

 

[karrie]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/16/bill-abortion.html



I agree with protection of an unborn child if planned and wanted by the parents to give birth to, but I also see the slope being talked about.

I still don't see the slope.

Abortion is legal in Canada only because it has been deemed that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want is a threat to her security of person. Thus the only time a baby's rights should be negated is when they conflict directly with those of the mother carrying it. If a mother is secure in her person, that baby should have the same right. Period.

 

[Praxius]

I still don't see the slope.

Abortion is legal in Canada only because it has been deemed that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want is a threat to her security of person. Thus the only time a baby's rights should be negated is when they conflict directly with those of the mother carrying it.

True, and I agree on that as well, but then....

If a mother is secure in her person, that baby should have the same right. Period.

Also agreed, but the slope is where and how do you determine the mother's wishes if she is dead? What if the murder occured prior to her getting an abortion? What happens if she didn't write down her final wishes in relation to a situation like this? Who has the final say?

One could say the husband/boyfriend or the mother's parents, but then you're going on hearsay. Technically with the marriage laws, and the law seeing both partners as one, the husband would have the final say.

But then what happens if the mother dies, so does the baby, the husband/boyfriend says they didn't want the baby, but then a few friends who are pro-choice nuts say otherwise and claim they have witnessed her claiming she wanted it? What if both future parents were in dispute on whether or not they want to keep the child?

Obviously for women in these situation who are a good few months into their pregnancies the answers would be obvious, as abortion options are out the window, but don't forget that one of the main things Pro-Choicers are using for their side is whether or not a fetus is alive and should have the same rights as a living, breathing human, post-birth.

The laws now state what you claimed about the safety of the mother, but if this law allows protection rights for the fetus in this manner where it can be labeled a murder of a life, then that's the slope that gives anti-abortionists fuel to claim a fetus is a life, and those laws you spoke of, might change.

 

[karrie]

True, and I agree on that as well, but then....



Also agreed, but the slope is where and how do you determine the mother's wishes if she is dead? What if the murder occured prior to her getting an abortion? What happens if she didn't write down her final wishes in relation to a situation like this? Who has the final say?

One could say the husband/boyfriend or the mother's parents, but then you're going on hearsay. Technically with the marriage laws, and the law seeing both partners as one, the husband would have the final say.

But then what happens if the mother dies, so does the baby, the husband/boyfriend says they didn't want the baby, but then a few friends who are pro-choice nuts say otherwise and claim they have witnessed her claiming she wanted it? What if both future parents were in dispute on whether or not they want to keep the child?

Obviously for women in these situation who are a good few months into their pregnancies the answers would be obvious, as abortion options are out the window, but don't forget that one of the main things Pro-Choicers are using for their side is whether or not a fetus is alive and should have the same rights as a living, breathing human, post-birth.

The laws now state what you claimed about the safety of the mother, but if this law allows protection rights for the fetus in this manner where it can be labeled a murder of a life, then that's the slope that gives anti-abortionists fuel to claim a fetus is a life, and those laws you spoke of, might change.

it doesn't matter Prax... only a woman should have the right to abort a baby. If that baby is murdered in any other way, or against her will, it should be just that, murder.

As for anti-abortionists, they'll ALWAYS claim the fetus has the ultimate right to life. I tend to agree, but know that life is not as black and white as being able to always make me feel comfortable.

 

[Praxius]

Well I only hope that they do continue to make the woman's/mother's interests the first priority.

 

[tracy]

Maybe I'm simple, but I don't see how you can murder someone that isn't alive yet. I see no real practical value in this legislation. It will only muddy the waters.

If you don't see the slippery slope argument, I think you're being naive. Anyone who has had any dealing with pro-life groups has to know that this will be a great argument for them. If an unborn baby can be murdered, you are saying it's alive. That has nothing to do with the mother's wishes. If it was the crime against the mother you're worried about, call it theft.

 

[karrie]

Maybe I'm simple, but I don't see how you can murder someone that isn't alive yet. I see no real practical value in this legislation. It will only muddy the waters. If you don't see the slippery slope argument, I think you're being naive. Anyone who has had any dealing with pro-life groups has to know that this will be a great argument for them.

While they can add it to their list of arguments, does it change the reasons society ignores them? That's where I don't see the slippery slope. I really can't see it changing the mind of society in general. And I can't see pro-lifers getting any noisier than they already are.

 

[tracy]

While they can add it to their list of arguments, does it change the reasons society ignores them? .

Yes, I think it does. Society allows abortion because it says embryos/fetuses aren't people. This legislation says they are. If the crime is against the mother, then why not just create a new crime for that like theft or destruction of property or something? Why does it have to be murder?

 

[karrie]

Yes, I think it does. Society allows abortion because it says embryos/fetuses aren't people. This legislation says they are. If the crime is against the mother, then why not just create a new crime for that like theft or destruction of property or something? Why does it have to be murder?

in my opinion, it has to do with the mother's right to decide what that baby is and means to her. I really can't see myself changing that view, even if it flies in the face of legal logic. A mom who wants that child, will mourn that 'fetus' as if she carried it to term. Especially if its killed at a viable age, where it could have lived outside her womb.

 

[tracy]

I agree she'll mourn and I do think her feelings about the pregnancy matter. I don't mean to belittle that emotion. I just don't see why those feelings matter in a legal sense. Murdering an adult who was loved carries the same punishment as mudering an adult who wasn't loved. If being loved plays no legal role for people who were already born why should it for those who haven't been born yet?

 

[karrie]

If being loved plays no legal role for people who were already born why should it for those who haven't been born yet?

Because it's part of what makes them babies, makes them people, makes them real, makes them more than just a collection of cells that don't matter. You won't catch many expectant moms, short of those trying to be really technical, discussing their 'fetus', they discuss their 'baby'. They have names picked and furniture ready. There's a place, a newly decorated room, a million and one hopes and dreams, and it's just not a 'fetus' to them.

A person who's been born can speak for themselves. They have guaranteed rights. A baby in its mother is given only the rights that the mother chooses to give it. She can end nourishment to that collection of cells whenever she wants, or she can choose to call it baby and bring it forth into the world. I think if we want to truly respect women, that choice should be made as valid and protected as strongly by the law, as their decision to end it.

 

[tracy]

On a philisophical level I agree with you about the emotional value an unborn baby has to a mother to be. The sticking point for me is that criminal law isn't based on emotional arguments. It's supposed to be dispassionate and rational. Wanting something doesn't make it different than the same thing inside another woman who doesn't want it. A fetus is a fetus no matter what you call it or how much you value it. I also don't think that a pregnant woman is necessarily consciously giving a fetus rights by carrying it. I deal with a lot of moms who chose not to abort, but abused the baby with meth, crack, heroin, etc. while it was in the womb. If not aborting gives a fetus rights, then shouldn't those women be charged with abuse or something?

Civil courts dole out punishment for emotional pain. Criminal courts don't. Personally, I think that's a reasonable set up.

 

[Praxius]

you got a point there