Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Pro-Choice
Related: About this forumFrom Canada: Anti-choice failures are no reason to give them an inch
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/09/anti-choice-failures-are-no-reason-give-them-inchThis month, Canada's Parliament will vote on whether to re-open the thorny issue that has bedeviled philosophers and theologians for over two millennia: Are women human beings? OK, the actual question up for debate in Motion 312 is whether "a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth" -- but you can't have it both ways, or even halfway. Any legal rights given to a fetus must be taken away from the pregnant woman, period. Even under a majority Conservative government that is gradually snuffing out women's ability to exercise their human rights, the supporters of Motion 312 have a huge hole to dig before they can hope to bury those rights forever.
The many fatal flaws of Motion 312 have been pointed out repeatedly by myself and others, but allow me to emphasize two key points:
1) The motion has no other purpose except as a vehicle to re-criminalize abortion. But access to safe and legal abortion is a fundamental right for women, protected under constitutional guarantees to bodily security, life, liberty, and conscience. It is impossible for women to achieve equality without control over their fertility.
2) The motion's sponsor (Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth) has exploited a linguistic confusion in the Criminal Code, which states that "A child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state from the body of its mother." But the clause defines when a fetus becomes a legal person, not a human being in the biological sense. One has nothing to do with the other, yet the motion wrongly conflates the two. The science of fetal development does not dictate whether a fetus should have constitutional rights.
The many fatal flaws of Motion 312 have been pointed out repeatedly by myself and others, but allow me to emphasize two key points:
1) The motion has no other purpose except as a vehicle to re-criminalize abortion. But access to safe and legal abortion is a fundamental right for women, protected under constitutional guarantees to bodily security, life, liberty, and conscience. It is impossible for women to achieve equality without control over their fertility.
2) The motion's sponsor (Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth) has exploited a linguistic confusion in the Criminal Code, which states that "A child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state from the body of its mother." But the clause defines when a fetus becomes a legal person, not a human being in the biological sense. One has nothing to do with the other, yet the motion wrongly conflates the two. The science of fetal development does not dictate whether a fetus should have constitutional rights.
This is one of those ways in which Canada is really quite different from the US - a Conservative MP proposed, essentially, a 'personhood' law, and he was smacked down publicly by members of his own party. Still, as the author here points out, Canadian women shouldn't let their collective guard down.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 2235 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
From Canada: Anti-choice failures are no reason to give them an inch (Original Post)
Lucy Goosey
Sep 2012
OP
riverbendviewgal
(4,320 posts)1. we are watching
No way in hell do I want this forced on us..... PM Harper knows this too.
TrogL
(32,825 posts)2. The Conservatives cannot afford controversy right now
They've got a majority government but are trailing behind the NDP - yes, you read that right, the NDP in the polls.
Hell has frozen over and Jack Layton is smiling in his grave.
lovimay
(16 posts)3. Spam deleted by Behind the Aegis (MIR Team)