Bad company ruins good morals.
–1 Corinthians 15:33
We at Birth Pangs believe that all one needs to know about private member’s bill C-484 is the company it keeps.
Canada’s Numero Uno Blogging Fetus Fetishist said recently:
The opponents of unborn victims of crime like to point out that many people who support Bill C-484 are fetal rights supporters.
This is true.
From wiki’s entry on fetal rights:
Legislative measures sometimes seek to establish the right to life of the fetus from the moment of fertilization. Such laws regard the fetus as a person whose legal status is on par with that of any other member of the species homo sapiens. . . Much opposition to legal abortion in the West is based on a concern for fetal rights. Similarly many pro-choice groups oppose fetal rights, even when they do not impinge directly on the abortion issue, because they perceive this as a slippery slope strategy to restricting abortions.
LifeNews sets out the talking points here and
We won’t bother to list all the flying monkey bloggers who patter along behind these giant organs of zygote zealotry.
But we did find this bit of gloating from LifeShite last November illuminating:
Last year the Harper Conservative Government opposed a bill to recognize the life of a child in the womb when a violent act is committed against a pregnant mother. However a new version of the bill proposed this year by another MP has at least tacit approval from the Conservative leadership, as evidenced by an internal memo sent to Conservative Members of Parliament. . . .The memo advises MPs: “It is up to each member of parliament to decide whether they will vote in support or opposition to this private members bill.”
But this bill has NOTHING to do with abortion, they say.
Listen to Ken Epp himself, the sponsor of the bill, plead for ‘compassion’ in the comment section at thought interrupted:
Ken Epp said,
on February 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I appreciate the comments people are making on my Bill. However, I plead with them for compassion. My bill specifically and explicitly excludes consensual abortion. It applies to the case where the woman has DECIDED NOT to have an abortion. She has CHOSEN to bring her pre3gnancy to term, and to give her child birth, care and love. Do you really believe that your case for consensual abortion is so weak that you have to sacrifice the right of a woman to choose to maintain it? Surely the ultimate denial of a woman’s right to choose is to have her pay with her life for CHOOSING to have a baby!
Please read the Bill. See that it is totally focussed on the victims. See that it cannot possibly be used to charge a woman for anything that SHE chooses to do in this regard. See that the charges only apply when the mother-to-be is the victim of a criminal act. Please think. Here is a woman who has no support in our criminal code for HER CHOICE at the present. This is for her, her family, and the unborn child that was taken away from them by a criminal act, against her will, without her consent, and with violence which she most obviously has not chosen.
Ken Epp, MP
Edmonton — Sherwood Park
Got that? NOTHING to do with abortion rights.
But everything to do with establishing FETAL RIGHTS. Else why would the fetus fetishists be so keen on it?
Having opened with wise words from the Bible, we’ll leave you with some chilling words from Conservative Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, threatening the Wheat Board yet again:
‘When we come back with a majority, then all bets are off.’
We must stop this sneak attack on women’s rights now.
h/t for the Ritz quote to Buckdog