You know, I don't have crazy-strong views on abortion, and I'm not usually one to get all riled up about the issue. But I totally and completely object to a pro-abortion activist writing an op-ed piece in my city's newspaper, that flat out mocks my intelligence. I was
so so so so angry after reading this article that I didn't even know where to begin in tearing it apart. That's the beauty of blogging - I get to sit and plan out my attack, then edit it, and finally post something semi-coherent for all the world to read.
Here it goes.
First off, let me state my views on abortion. I don't like the idea. It makes me uncomfortable. In an ideal world, it wouldn't exist...and we wouldn't ever need it. That's the beauty of an ideal world...we don't have to have awful things like abortion, because people never make mistakes that make them reach for abortions as a solution to their problems.
So, why can't I come out entirely against abortion? Because, if I'm intellectually honest with myself and others, I have to admit that, had I fallen pregnant when I first began having sex (which, admittedly was before I was in a completely committed relationship or married), I probably would've had an abortion. In fact, during the couple of times when I actually had pregnancy scares in my late teens, early twenties, I was almost positive that I'd have an abortion if I was pregnant.
So, that's that. I don't like abortion. It's messy ethically and it kills a baby. It does. But, I considered it as a solution to my pregnancy scares, so it would be hypocritical of me to oppose it completely. I do not, however, buy into the whole "a woman's right to choose" argument, when it's used to completely ignore and discredit the rights of the living child inside of her. I think that we have to acknowledge both the mother's and the child's rights and strike a balance.
Now, let's turn to the op-ed piece that angered me so:
Vicki Saporta, who is President and CEO of the National Abortion Foundation, wrote this op-ed against Bill C-484, which seeks to give an unborn child the status of 'victim', when that child is injured or killed as a result of an attack on a pregnant woman. So, if a pregnant woman is murdered, her killer can be charged with the murder of two people.
Below is the article, with my thoughts/rants sprinkled throughout:
The loss of a wanted pregnancy is a tragic event. Whether it comes at the hand of a partner in an act of rage, or at the hand of a stranger in the perpetration of a crime, we can all agree that the woman who has had her pregnancy taken away from her has suffered a tremendous loss. Her life will never be the same.
It starts off nicely, although I'm suspicious of her introduction because I think she's using these platitudes as a means of gaining credibility when, in fact, her subsequent arguments have absolutely nothing to do with these obvious 'niceties'.
When a pregnant woman is killed, her family understandably feels the impact of the tragedy in complex ways.We can all agree that whoever has committed this crime and has caused this pain deserves to be punished.
Where we differ is how we define the crime that will be punished, and what is the best way to deter and prevent this type of criminal activity.
Do we do so in a way that potentially erodes Supreme Court precedent and Canadian women's right to safe and legal abortion? Or can we find another approach that respects Canadian law, acknowledges the harm that has occurred, and prevents this from happening to other women?
GASP!!! Oh no! A new law that could "potentially erode Supreme Court precedent" ?!?!
How many of you wanna bet that Vicki Saporta wouldn't give a rat's ass about Supreme Court precedent if said court had previously ruled against allowing abortions in Canada?
Besides, what the hell kind of argument against Bill C-484 is this anyway? She's claiming that one of the bad things about the Bill is that it challenges a previous court ruling. Umm...hello?? Why is that a bad thing? What is this, a dictatorship? Where are we, China? "Ohhh nooo....we can't consider your arguments because they oppose the Government's position".
Bottom line, she is arguing that her pro-abortion stance is favorable because it doesn't challenge any pre-existing legislation. That's crap. There's nothing wrong with challenging pre-existing legislation, especially if that legislation is wrong.
Creating a new crime of "causing injury to or the death of a fetus" is an idea being advanced by staunch opponents of abortion in Parliament.
Ahhh, the famous guilt-by-association argument. Here, Vicki is telling readers who they will be siding with if they dare support Bill C-484. It's fear mongering. She assumes that readers will shutter, as she does, at the mere suggestion that they might fall in the same ideological camp as "abortion opponents".
While this approach strikes a chord with those who oppose abortion, the fact remains that it will have negligible deterrent effect and could drastically change Canadian law. Lynn Paltrow, a well-known U.S. advocate for pregnant women, has argued that Unborn Victims of Violence laws in the U.S. have not resulted in a reduction of violence against women.
a) Exactly how does Saporta know that it is a "fact" that the legislation will have "negligible deterrent effect"?
b) Again, why is she trying to scare us by claiming the Bill could "drastically change Canadian law"? Why is this a bad thing? Why is this supposed to scare us? Laws change all the time. BFD.
c) Saporta is arguing against this Bill by saying that a similar law in the U.S. has not resulted in a reduction of violence against women. This is the argument that angered me most.
Let's be very clear on something. The purpose of the law is not, repeat IS NOT to reduce violence against pregnant women. That is where Saporta is 100% wrong. The purpose of the law is to fairly and properly punish people who injure or kill a pregnant woman (which means the woman and her unborn child). The reason the law is being proposed is because a great number of Canadians believe that charging a person with one count of murder after they murder a pregnant woman, is insufficient because that person actually killed two people - the woman and her child.
Let me show you how stupid Saporta's argument is:
Saying that we should not support Bill C-484 because it "will not result in a reduction of violence against women", is the same as saying that there's no point in making it illegal to drive drunk, because drunk driving charges do not bring back the victims killed in crashes by drunk drivers.
How stupid is that? While we're at it, why don't we just get rid of child abuse laws. After all, charging parents who sexually, physically, verbally and emotionally abuse their children, doesn't erase the "hurt" their children have experienced, so the laws must be useless, right?
In fact to the contrary, she argues that a law which merely implies rights for the fetus as separate from those of the pregnant woman, no matter how carefully written, can become the basis for policing and arresting women. This is based on a significant amount of legal research.
Another case of fear mongering. This is the classic "slippery slope" argument. Saporta is saying that we shouldn't even consider this legislation because someday in the future, someone might twist, abuse and change the law in such a way that would disadvantage women.
Of course, Saporta doesn't back up any of her claims with examples because she's afraid readers might agree with the new laws that could become the basis for "policing and arresting women". She doesn't tell you that Bill C-484 might, at some point in the future, open the door to legislation that would make it a crime for a pregnant woman to snort crack and smash her womb with a crowbar when she knows she's pregnant.
Now, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with legislation that would make it a crime for a woman to lead an unhealthy life while she is pregnant, but I am saying that Saporta is intellectually dishonest for trying to hide this type of example from readers. She knows that many readers would agree with such legislation, so better for her not to write about it.
Oh, and don't you just love how she throws in that last line: "This is based on a significant amount of legal research."
WTF? What is based on "a significant amount of legal research"? Her assumption that Bill C-484 will lead to abuse of women's rights? What is she, psychic? How the hell can she, or any legal researcher for that matter, know that? She is full of shit.
Such a law may punish women rather than protect them. By recognizing a developing fetus as a victim of a crime separate from a woman, this legislation could erode Canadian women's right to safe and legal abortion by treading closer to the line of bestowing legal rights on a fetus, a concept clearly at odds with existing Canadian law.
Ahh. Finally, Saporta is being honest. The real reason she opposes Bill C-484 is because she's afraid it could curb women's rights to have an abortion.
Y'know what really pisses me off? Pro-abortionists refuse to admit that a fetus should have rights, because all they want to talk about are a woman's rights to an abortion. Saporta says it flat out right there. I'm paraphrasing here, but only so that it's crystal clear to my readers.
She's saying "We can't recognize a developing fetus as a victim of a crime, because giving a fetus the right to life, we might have to consider opposing abortions". See what she does there?
If Saporta argued that a fetus shouldn't have the right to life because it's part of the mother's body until the umbilical cord is cut, or if she argued that she just didn't believe a fetus should have the right to life until it emerged from its mother's body, then I might be able to respect her argument (even if I disagreed with it). But what angers me so much, is that Saporta is saying that she's not willing to even consider the rights of the fetus because all she can care about is the right of a woman to have an abortion.
Such a law could create tension with Supreme Court rulings finding that a person must be born to have legal status in Canada, a major goal of anti-abortion advocates. It is disingenuous to ignore the fact that this approach attacks another belief that a majority of Canadians adhere to -- the right of a woman to decide whether and when to have a child.
Well, I happen to think that it's disingenuous for Sarpota to try and convince people to side with her by claiming that "a majority of Canadians" already agree with her. So what? So if a majority of Canadians believe one thing, then it must be correct? And, what's more, is that she's suggesting that it's not right to oppose something that the majority of Canadians support.
And by the way, who the hell says that the majority of Canadians agree with Saporta?
The sponsor of this legislation, MP Ken Epp, claims that this bill is not about abortion because it exempts legal abortions, some medical treatment, and the conduct of women. But it is impossible to separate this proposed legislation from its sponsor, a well-known opponent of legal abortion. Nowhere in the bill is the harm to the woman resulting from an attack terminating her pregnancy mentioned.
Violence against women continues to be a significant problem in Canada, and violence often increases when a woman is pregnant.
Instead of focusing on real solutions to violence against women, the bill deliberately shifts the focus away from the women, who are truly the victims of these heinous crimes.
Ummm, no, that's the point. This Bill isn't "shifting the focus away from women", it's finally placing the focus on fetuses, who are equal victims in the murders of pregnant women.
Existing legislation, which does not give fetuses equal status under the law, only focuses on the rights of women. This Bill doesn't shift the focus away from women, it shines a new light on the victims who, until now, have been entirely ignored. Thinking people can consider both the women and the fetuses as victims. It's ideologues like Saporta who are only able to focus on one victim.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF), the professional association of abortion providers in Canada and the U.S., fully supports a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term.
Well, fan-f**king-tastic. Thank you for telling me that. I'm so glad you cleared that up. But really, is there even a question about that? Hello?? Is there ANYONE in the world that doesn't support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term?
This is a non-point. This is the stupidest thing she says.
Before I go on, I just want to state, with complete clarity, that I fully support Saporta's right to have two arms and two legs. Look how wonderful and liberal I am.
Because this bill does nothing to protect women from violence and indeed does not even acknowledge their loss, and because its possible consequences include casting doubt over well-established Canadian law, NAF opposes C-484.
And y'know what? Because this bill does nothing to reduce Canada's greenhouse gases, and because it means that the criminal code of Canada might end up having one additional page of laws, I oppose C-484.
Is she serious? That's the only way Saporta will support new legislation? It has to clearly lead to a reduction in violence toward women, or else it doesn't win her support? Is she retarded?
The Canadian government should instead offer concrete solutions to the problem of violence against women.
Why must this be the only goal of the Government? Here, the Government is going to discuss the rights of fetuses. Why is this bad? Why isn't this worthwhile? Why can't we discuss both the rights of the fetus and innovative ways of reducing violence against all people?
It should increase funding to programs for the prevention of violence against women and ease funding restrictions for research and advocacy groups.
Blah blah blah. Yeah, let's just throw money at these existing programs that aren't working. That oughta solve the problem.
Finally, we hope that supporters of this legislation rethink their divisive approach, and instead focus their efforts on finding a solution to violence against women that all Canadians can agree upon.
Vicki Saporta is president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation.
She is also a complete f**king idiot.
