Bill to make harming foetus illegal passes second reading

[unimaginative2]

I don't know where these people who wrote this article come from, but it passed second reading, not first. There isn't even a vote at first reading. That's just the introduction of the bill.

Unborn-victims bill passes first reading in Commons

Staff

March 6, 2008

Ottawa -- A private member's bill that would amend the Criminal Code to make harming a fetus a crime passed first reading yesterday.

The free vote in the Commons passed 147 to 133. Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted in favour and left after the bill passed, deciding not to take part in the votes that followed.

Bill C-484, tabled by Conservative MP Ken Epp, would amend the Criminal Code to allow separate charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when a pregnant woman is attacked. The bill has angered abortion-rights advocates, who say it will eventually put restrictions on abortions in Canada.

Four Conservatives including cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon, Gordon O'Connor and Josée Verner voted against the bill, and more than 20 Liberals voted for it.

 

[Hydrogen]

If this passes, it will be the wedge to outlaw abortion.


And everything is so quiet.


Thanks for posting.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Before we know it they'll be tapping our phones without warrants. Things are starting to sound very familiar here....

 

[afransen]

I still think this is substantively different from outlawing abortion. Ie, I don't see it being a slippery slope.

 

[unimaginative2]

But it is a slippery slope. Abortion is legal because the foetus is recognized as being part of the mother. If it is not simply a part of the mother, and instead has independent legal rights, that's a basis for restricting abortion.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

So is fetus frightening still allowed?

 

[Brandon716]

Wake up Canada. Stephen Harper is beginning to use every technique the far right of America has been using for years. He doesn't deserve to represent Canada.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I still think this is substantively different from outlawing abortion. Ie, I don't see it being a slippery slope.

If someone had hurt my wife and unborn children, I'd want all three to be legally protected. It really is a ridiculous idea that once that baby draws its first breath it's a person, and before that, even seconds before birth, it's just a collection of cells to be disposed of if warranted. As a father of girls, I support a woman's right to choose, but if the woman decides to choose life, and then someone takes that unborn life, well, that's got to have consequences.

 

[Brandon716]

If someone had hurt my wife and unborn children, I'd want all three to be legally protected. It really is a ridiculous idea that once that baby draws its first breath it's a person, and before that, even seconds before birth, it's just a collection of cells to be disposed of if warranted. As a father of girls, I support a woman's right to choose, but if the woman decides to choose life, and then someone takes that unborn life, well, that's got to have consequences.

Harper's intent isn't to stop at a legitimate purpose, its to move Canada to the right on this and other issues and create a cultural backlash against the left.

Its a technique the right has used for decades in the United States; however, I don't see it being as effective in Canada.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Harper's intent isn't to stop at a legitimate purpose, its to move Canada to the right on this and other issues and create a cultural backlash against the left.

Its a technique the right has used for decades in the United States; however, I don't see it being as effective in Canada.

The pendulum has already swung back to the left in Australia, and will do so soon in the USA. I just hope that when the pendulum in Canada swings from right to left, we don't end up with a Federal version of a tax and spend Bob Rae in command.

There wouldn't be a viable right wing party in Canada if the left wasn't so out of touch and lost. The left's champion Trudeau would eat Harper for lunch on the debate floor, heck even Creitien (sp?) could wipe Harper. It's only when Martin and then Dion took over that Harper had his chance to shine.

 

[Hydrogen]

If someone had hurt my wife and unborn children, I'd want all three to be legally protected. It really is a ridiculous idea that once that baby draws its first breath it's a person, and before that, even seconds before birth, it's just a collection of cells to be disposed of if warranted. As a father of girls, I support a woman's right to choose, but if the woman decides to choose life, and then someone takes that unborn life, well, that's got to have consequences.

At some point someone will use this law (should it pass) to argue that the fetus is a person right from conception, and that any effort for a woman to have an abortion will constitute an attack on that "person." A doctor could easily be made a target for such charges.

You may not think this is logical or reasonable, but remember that a considerable portion of the debate surrounding abortion and the desire to ban it is quite unreasonable.

It is equally ridiculous to think that a collection of cells a few weeks after conception constitutes a person.

 

[billonlogan]

A doctor could easily be made a target for such charges.

Amen!

 

[ganjavih]

I still think this is substantively different from outlawing abortion. Ie, I don't see it being a slippery slope.

There is the potential for a slippery slope depending on what the definition of foetus is. Commonly, the term foetus is used to describe the product of conception after week 8. Abortions are commonly carried out around this time. So what's going to happen?

 

[adma]

http://www.foetus.org/

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_xPkYFH4imw