Canadian Politics - Bill C-484

[InverseHellion]

Heyla folks, I see a lot of US politics on here so I thought I'd see what people thought of some good ol' maple syrup politics. Recently Bill C-484 went through for second reading. If the Bill is ratified by the Governor General (Her Majesty's Representative within Canada) it would amend the criminal code as follows.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by making it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother.

Many are viewing this bill as a first step towards the re-criminalization of abortion, while others are heralding it as a way to further punish the criminals and abusers who harm Pregnant Women.

So... opinions, comments?

[Greenday]

I can see both sides. Most obviously, it punishes those who harm pregnant mothers. But in the same sense, it has that sneaky way of making abortions illegal. It really could go either way.

[Rapscallion]

The exact wording is that only while commiting an offence against the mother, so it wouldn't be used in an abortion case unless that act was outlawed. However, I can see people with ideals in that direction examining this and going for every ounce of advantage that they could get.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Why do we need laws to protect unborn children? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are unborn children not usually located inside living breathing women? Why are the laws that protect these women from violence not sufficient?

I'm uncomfortable with this bill not because of a slippery-slope issue, but because of the implication it gives. Which is that a pregnant woman's life is more valuable than that of an unpregnant one, or that of a man.

At best, it's pointless political grand-standing, typical of the Conservative party. I hate the pricks.

[the_std]

I really hope this doesn't go through, but that's just because I feel it will lead somewhere that is reminiscent of American church-in-the-state laws, which is something I think Canada is well known for not having. It scares me too, for reasons that Boozy said, putting the unborn child above its mother, in a weird way.

[Rapscallion]

Why do we need laws to protect unborn children? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are unborn children not usually located inside living breathing women? Why are the laws that protect these women from violence not sufficient?

I would imagine that it's intended as making it a worse punishment for someone attacking a pregnant woman than one not pregnant. Either way is bad enough, but I have to admit that I find a greater sense of revulsion when I hear of a pregnant woman being mugged than a non-pregnant woman in a similar situation.

What bothers me is how it's used. If it is solely used to get the real sociopaths off the streets for longer, then fine. If it ends up being an anti-abortion measure, that's blatantly wrong.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

I don't see a major problem with the wording of it as it stands. It is acknowledging that there is another life going on inside the woman and that harming that child, through the mother, is a bad thing. If you punch the mother and the child dies, that's going to be a massive emotional lot of hurt on mum... so why not acknowledge that it's not just a simple case of assault? It just might stop a few attempts by arsehole boyfriends to attempt a violent abortion...

As for it turning into an anti-abortion law, not the way it's currently phrased, although I can see that the pro-life will jump for joy if it gets in...until the first attempt to get someone for it falls through - or gets thrown out of court (if it ever reached there).

[Boozy]

It is acknowledging that there is another life going on inside the woman and that harming that child, through the mother, is a bad thing.

Enter the slippery slope argument. Once the courts have acknowledged that a fetus is a "life", anti-abortion laws can not be far behind.

I have hope that our Supreme Court will overturn any law with wording that goes too far. They did not disappoint me with the gay marriage issue.

[Slytovhand]

Damn... knew there was something else I was going to mention, Boozy... yes, definitely right on that score....

(and what's this about 'slippery slopes' all of a sudden?? )

What happened with gay marriage?

[BlaqueKatt]

Enter the slippery slope argument. Once the courts have acknowledged that a fetus is a "life", anti-abortion laws can not be far behind.

not at all-Wisconsin has a law stating that causing any woman that is 21 weeks** pregnant to miscarry via assault, will be charged with attempted murder. This law was passed after a woman in labor on her way to the hospital was hit by a drunk driver, the baby* was killed when the placenta ruptured, since the mother was fine, the driver got a DUI. I haven't seen Abortionists in WI being tried for murder, as abortion is NOT ASSAULT, nor is it a crime.

read the wording-"it will make it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother.

Is Abortion an "offense against the mother?" or is it something the mother chose to do-are there roves of rampaging abortionists running around accosting women and aborting fetus' from unwilling women on street corners?



*it was a baby at that point(on the way to the hospital in labor) she delivered 30 minutes later-it had bled to death, she almost did. my opinion-It's a baby at the point where it can survive outside the mother without medical intervention(unless there is some medical condition discovered at birth).

**the youngest micro-preemie survived at 21 weeks 6 days gestation-Amillia Taylor

funny how adding new laws to add penalties is OMG horrible-unless those laws are against guns.

EXAMPLE-
gun ban-criminal robs unarmed civilian at gunpoint-extra weapons charge to "keep them way longer"-as he chose someone who is more vulnerable.

Bill C-484-criminal mugs pregnant woman and kicks her in the stomach-extra charge "to keep him away longer"-as he chose someone who is more vulnerable.
(or if ou prefer-husband beats pregnant wife-it's merely spousal abuse-he'll be out in a week or so-second charge under this bill-mabye she'll have time get the help she needs)

[Boozy]

What happened with gay marriage?

I'll give it to you in a nutshell:

The Supreme Court of Canada heard a case from a gay couple trying to get married in Canada. They looked at the law and determined that there was no reason why they should be denied a marriage license.

The Conservative government then started yapping about passing a law that would make gay marriage once again illegal, but the Supreme Court announced that they would almost certainly have to overturn any such law as being unconstitutional. The Conservatives gave up and slunk off.

[anriana]

*it was a baby at that point(on the way to the hospital in labor) she delivered 30 minutes later-it had bled to death, she almost did. my opinion-It's a baby at the point where it can survive outside the mother without medical intervention(unless there is some medical condition discovered at birth).

**the youngest micro-preemie survived at 21 weeks 6 days gestation-Amillia Taylor

That preemie was on an incubator for two months and racked up $40k in hospital costs. That's quite a bit of medical intervention.



We have a lot of these laws stateside, and I haven't seen them used to push anything anti-abortion. The only case I remember is one where the perps were given more time for the assault on the fetus than the assault on the mother.

[Boozy]

The only case I remember is one where the perps were given more time for the assault on the fetus than the assault on the mother.

I think I posted about that one here a while ago. It made me sick that the courts would be so brazen in declaring a living breathing woman as being worth less than the fetus she carried.

That mother, I believe, was still in her first trimester.

[BlaqueKatt]

That preemie was on an incubator for two months and racked up $40k in hospital costs. That's quite a bit of medical intervention.

yes and those are two separate statements-the first being how the WI law came into effect(woman on route to hospital IN LABOR-baby killed in car accident , the law still considered it a fetus and not a baby as it was still inside the mother) and the reason for the age of the fetus being important in the law(shortest surviving gestated fetus)


hence the space between the two and the asterik

I think I posted about that one here a while ago. It made me sick that the courts would be so brazen in declaring a living breathing woman as being worth less than the fetus she carried.

then be upset at the fact that child abusers generally get more time that people convicted of assault or rape due to plea bargining--the court was NOT saying the baby was "more valuable" it's that assault on an adult can usually be plea bargined down to almost zero jail time(I could find many cases of this with a quick search), while child abuse usually has manidtory sentancing laws.

[Slytovhand]

then be upset at the fact that child abusers generally get more time that people convicted of assault or rape due to plea bargining--the court was NOT saying the baby was "more valuable" it's that assault on an adult can usually be plea bargined down to almost zero jail time(I could find many cases of this with a quick search), while child abuse usually has manidtory sentancing laws.

That's a different argument, and well worth a new thread... want to start it?

The only thing I was thinking with any 'slippery slope' argument (which, as you may have noticed, is not one of my friends ) is that in the C-Bill, it doesn't specify any times for the foetus... 1 day, 30 days, etc etc.... (unless it's written somewhere else in Canadian Law...).


Glad those conservatives took a back down, Boozy

Slyt