Thursday, July 23, 2009

Why Canada needs an unborn victims of crime bill

Many opponents of of the notion of an unborn victims of crime believe that the victim's pregnancy should be an aggravating factor in sentencing.

But I don't think they get it.

In this story, the victim was shot in the face, and her unborn child suffered no adverse effects.

But what if the unborn had been harmed in the commission of this crime?

Even if pregnancy were an aggravating factor in Canada, whether the woman is shot in the face or shot in the abdomen (and loses her fetus) it makes no difference to sentencing. The sentence would be the same.

The unborn child is of no account. The loss of that baby would have no influence on sentencing.

That's how feminists think.

That's not how most people think.

Consider two pregnant women who get shot in the same incident. The first preserves her pregnancy. The other loses her unborn child.

Who do you think suffers the greater loss?

Clearly, it is the mother who loses her child. But feminists do not want that forced miscarriage to count in and of itself. Only the pregnancy, that is the condition the state of the woman, not the fetus, even if the woman suffers the greater loss because of the harm to the fetus.

They cannot see past their abortion ideology to value the unborn child in and of himself. How could they? It would contradict their vision feminist supremacy.

Only women matter. Fetuses do not.