It should not be lost on anybody that the party with the fewest number of women MPs in the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-484 on Wednesday.
Yeah, because men are inherently morally inferior to women and have a vested interest in the patriarchy.
Reverse sexism anyone?
It passed 147-133, with one lone woman Opposition MP – Liberal member Albina Guarnieri – voting yea. Even the Bloc Québécois' Raymond Gravel, a Roman Catholic priest, rejected it.
We know why he rejected it: he's Catholic in name only. It's not like he's a beacon of Catholic orthodoxy.
But since the bishops never discipline these priests, it's only natural that Antonia be mistaken about that.
Yes, well, he has indeed been standing against women's reproductive rights for a long time.
He's been standing for the equality of ALL human beings, including the unborn.
Epp's Bill C-484 is properly called "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)" but is usually cited by its short title, "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act."
Sneaky? "Unborn child" is a legal term. In Canada, a child can exist without being a human being. That's not the so-cons who made that up.
For one thing, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered "one person." That means there are no "unborn victims'' of crime.
Only because there was an absence of legislation defining the unborn's legal status. The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occassion that it's within Parliament's prerogatives to legislate on the fetus.
They never get that, do they? Sneaky, that.
For another thing, amending the Criminal Code, which states that personhood begins at birth, to recognize a "human being" in utero is about a whole lot more than what the bill's supporters claim it is.
But it doesn't recognize a human being in utero. It simply says the fetus exists.
Again, misinformation about a hardcore abortion zealot.
"This is all about protecting the choice of a woman to give birth to her child," said Epp last fall. "It is about condemning the actions of those who would take it upon themselves to criminally assault a pregnant woman and the child she wants and loves."
So how about a bill protecting all women from abusive partners, with the money and the muscle to back it up, instead? Or is that too much for a government that shut down mechanisms through which women can sue for equality?
Evading the issue. Does a woman have a right to her fetus or not? If yes, that right should be protected. The law should punish those who deprive the woman of her fetus. It does not matter what the moral status of the fetus is-- simply that she has a right to protect him.
But similar laws in the U.S. have not reduced the numbers of attacks on pregnant women. In some instances, they have even been punished for using drugs, including prescription medications.
False. The women were charged and NEVER prosecuted on child endangerment charges, NEVER through an unborn victims of crime charge.
Epp and his supporters claim no such thing would happen if Bill C-484 is passed. That this is not aimed at eliminating women's right to control their own bodies. They say that the bill, as currently worded, protects abortion rights.
But, experts say, those protections can easily be struck down by the courts.
But I thought the Supreme Court protected "a woman's right". Now is abortion a woman's right (and therefore protected) or not?
You can't have it both ways.
Another feminist who doesn't get it-- who treats losing a fetus like it were some trivial issue, that it did not involve losing something of value to the woman, and for which the culprit should be punished.
They evade the issue, because they have no answer. All they have is fearmongering and their obsession abortion.
A fetus is a nothing to them. But that's not the case for most women.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca