Friday, April 25, 2008

Canadian Cynic: Thinks "unborn child" means person

That's his big objection? to C-484.

Canadian Cynic, in his usual blowhard manner, maintains that the term "unborn child" is a prelude to conferring rights to a fetus.

Freeze. Right. There. And you can see the first problem, can't you? Why, yes ... it's that reference to "an unborn child." Because, as the non-retarded among you already understand, the Criminal Code of Canada most emphatically does not grant the status of "personhood" to a fetus. Yet by sneaking in the word "child" in that title line, it's clear where this bill is trying to go. There would have been absolutely nothing technically wrong with referring to a "fetus" in that passage, but the bill's author quite clearly had ulterior motives and is obviously determined to co-opt the language, as any good propagandist will.

Canadian Cynic should learn a little more about the jurisprudence surrounding "the unborn child" before shooting off his mouth.

"Unborn child" is a term that is repeatedly used in Canadian Law. It is equivalent to fetus.

If Canadian Cynic thinks "unborn child" is equal to "person" then I got news for him.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled:

The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights. This is a general proposition applicable to all aspects of the law. Once a child is born, alive and viable, the law may recognize that its existence began before birth for certain limited purposes. But the only right recognized is that of the born person. Any right or interest the fetus may have remains inchoate and incomplete until the child’s birth.

See there: child and fetus are the same thing. Before birth: the unborn child is not a person; after birth the child is a person.

The Supreme Court of Canada doesn't have a problem with the wording.

Note how we've progressed from an "unborn" child to simply a "child", albeit possibly one "before its birth". But what does it mean to refer to the as-yet unborn explicitly as a "child," other than to implicitly grant it personhood?

The Supreme Court has done it on several occasions. But I guess Canadian Cynic didn't do his research.

What other rationale is there?

Using legally correct language, maybe?

Again, the word "fetus" would have had the same technical value, but it wouldn't have provided the propaganda value in terms of implicit personhood, would it?

"Fetus" is exclusive. It does not refer to embryos. It might also be interpreted exclusively, as in some cases, after a certain gestational period, the fetus is referred to as a "baby", albeit an unborn baby.In Canada, the deaths of fetuses past 20 weeks are considered "stillbirths", regardless of the reason of death (even procurred death). Past 20 weeks, fetuses are considered on another plane in the medical world, especially after 28 weeks, when it's considered the "perinatal period".

"Unborn child" is inclusive. It includes all the unborn.

And we're still not done, as you can see if you continue reading the bill and see references like "an unborn child" and "the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth." Oh, yes, the wording for this bill was chosen very carefully and precisely to maximize the implication that the unborn fetus is indeed a "child,"

But the Canadian legal system, as well as the medical system calls the unborn a "child" all the time.

A simple resolution to this would be just to tack on extra penitence because the pregnant mother suffered extra damage.

Canadian Cynic doesn't get it. The damage suffered by the mother is not to her body. It is the loss of an unborn child. If your tree is felled without your consent, someone is prosecuted. If your cat is killed without your consent, that's indictable.

Kill your fetus? Tough luck for you! It's not a crime in an of itself.

See, they don't want it to be a crime in and of itself. They must maintain the fiction, against all empirical evidence, that the woman and fetus are one.

another way, the sentence for the perp would be increased because the mother was more greviously injured

Doesn't get it again. Losing a fetus is not an injury to the mother. That is what this bill is about. It's about losing an unborn child. That should be a crime. When you lose an unborn child, it's not like losing an arm. It's not more harm done to the body, it's something else completely.

You injure or kill a fetus in the commission of an offense? Then your sentence goes up because the mother suffered extra harm;

And if you're a property owner who loses his property during the commission of an offense, the perp's sentence can go up too. See a property owner is a more valuable victim.

As if.

A mother who loses a fetus loses more than a woman who is not pregnant and does not lose her fetus. I think that's pretty obvious.

And right there is everything you need to know as to why this bill has nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with abortion.

Even if it excludes the prosecution of abortion explicitly.

What the above phrase does is classify the unborn fetus as the "victim." Not the mother; the fetus. And the only way that makes any sense is if the fetus is to be considered a person.

Like animals aren't victims of crime.

If Bill C-484's defenders were sincere about their concern for the women, they would happily reword that bill to refer simply to a "fetus" and to extra punishment for the offender.

Speaking strictly for myself, if that's all it took to get pro-abortion support, I would gladly refer to "fetus" or "unborn homo sapiens" if that'd make them happy.

But that's not what this is all about, is it? It's about passing a bill that very carefully and very deliberately pushes the concept of personhood and victimhood from the mother to the fetus, and that's why this is all about abortion rights and nothing else.

Can't push the concept of personhood. Our legal system has defined who is a person and who is not. The victimhood of the fetus? Fetuses are killed. That's a fact. A being doesn't need rights in order for its killing to be a crime. Our legal system criminalizes killing unborn deer. Are they people?

For more social conservative news check out