"Never is a long time. What I'm saying is I have no desire to see that issue debated in the near future."
-Stephen Harper, on Abortion
The future is now: In less than a week, Parliament will vote on Bill C-484, 'The Unborn Victims of Crime Act'. Pay attention, because this page is only going to see this once: Bill C-484 is nothing more than a pathetic, underhanded, manipulative, vicious, disgusting attempt by the right wing Christofacists of the Conservative Party of Canada to rob Canadian Women of their reproductive rights and usher in a new dark age of misogyny.
The mainstream media, particulary the Stephen Harper syncophants at CanWest Global, are playing right along with this atrocity with their uniform silence about Bill C-484 and its chilling ramifications. This outright rape of women's freedom is only being discussed within the flimsy pretext of recent violent crimes committed against pregnant women and Trojan Horse push polls. If Stephane Dion and the Liberals have any brain cells left to rub together after toeing the Conservative line for the past year, they will realize that this is the wedge issue to simultaneously uproot, bludgeon and bury the evil right wing weeds of reactionary fundamentalism which have been poisoning this country since the emergence of the Reform Party.
Here's a petition link. This page usually refrains from gratutitous self-promotion, but I strongly encourage anyone reading to share this post with as many people as possible, particularly female people who after next will hopefully still be living in Canada instead of the Republic of Gilead.
2 comments:
I had so much hope for a rational point on this... But I guess it would have required a reading of the bill as tabled.
QUOTE
Termination of pregnancy and acts in good faith excluded
(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.
END QUOTE
I do not see any attempt to take away choice (which I am a strong supporter of), instead, I see choice entrenched. This is not a bill directed at mothers who wish to terminate their pregnancy, but instead directed at thugs who kill a wanted child. IMO this strengthens rights, not takes away.
Trust me, Reason, I am in fact, functioanlly literate, so I know that Section 5 of the legislation says:
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being.
Which brings me to these questions:
1. Since when is a fetus a 'child'?
2. Doesn't Section 5 contradict anything put in 'for greater clarity' in section 7?
3. Because of that contradiction, which section do you think a Supreme Court stacked with Christofacist Harper appointees will favour?
4. If this legislation has nothing to do with abortion, why is Right to Life Abbotsford holding an 'information' session about (with CPC MP Ken Epp) tonight?
Post a Comment