Some feminists are all up in arms against Maurice Vellacott's Bill C-537, which would preserve health workers' conscience rights.
JJ, is upset that the bill would define human life as beginning at fertilization.
The issue is not whether or not the unborn child is a person. Our legal system has addressed that issue. The unborn child becomes a person at birth.
However, that is not very scientific, is it? Would anyone genuinely say that in the last week of gestation, the fetus is not a human being?
This reminds me of the protest against Bill C-484. Feminists maintain that the fetus and the woman are one and the same. We know that's not true. And we know that human life does not begin at birth.
But it seems that feminists need these fictions to maintain ideological consistency.
This strikes me as Orwellian.
A legal system should be based on facts, not fictions. A woman and her fetus are distinct. Life does not begin at birth. That should be obvious.
And if human life does not begin at fertilization, when does it begin, scientifically speaking? We know the answer is not "birth".
These are questions that seem to be evaded. It seems that their opinions cannot hold up in the face of scientific scrutiny.
Of course, the next argument will be that I'm pushing a "religious viewpoint". As if the issue of the when a homo sapiens begins to exist is something that science cannot answer.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca