Yesterday, I put up a short (for me!) — this will be even shorter – post about fundamentalist Tory MPs who are continuing their insidious campaign to get abortion back on the Commons docket. But it was far worse than I thought. According to a National Post article this morning, it seems that the abortions in question are abortions that take place after only 20 weeks gestation. In other words, these idiots are suggesting that every abortion that takes place after that time should be investigated as a homicide! This is more than just the few “life birth abortions” that seemed to me to be in question yesterday. These MPs, three of them, as it turns out, are under the strange impression (i) that as MPs, they should have some say in the scope of police work, and can even make requests for the police to act, and (ii) that the abortion law struck down in 1988 did not include abortions after 20 weeks gestation, and, accordingly, that
Section 223a of the Criminal Code, which says a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being,
applies to these cases. Nothing of course, could be further from the truth.
You’ve got to hand it to these guys for chutzpah, and arcane legal interpretation, but it is quite clear that the Supreme Court decision which struck down Criminal Code prohibition of abortion, did not think that this section should apply to abortion. The inaccessibility of abortion was struck down on human rights grounds, as depriving the woman of security of the person. These Christian clowns want to turn the hands of the clock back so far that they would apparently imprison women (and their physicians) who seek to have abortions after an arbitrary cut-off point that their Christian imaginations have delimited as the point at which the foetus becomes a child for the purpose of the Criminal Code, without any regard for the security of women whatsoever. Humiliate the stupid bastards.
Here are three stooges:
The are, left to right, Wladyslaw Lizon of Mississauga East-Cooksville; Maurice Vellacott of of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin; and Leon Benoit of Vegreville-Wainwright. All of them are under the very strange impression that their secret Christian handshake makes them eligible to police the lives of Canadian women. Hopefully, the people of their constituencies will recognise that they elected turkeys to parliament, and will not return them at the next election. What on earth would convince women to support men of this sort?
The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has already put distance between himself and these men, saying that, whether these guys know it or not, abortion is legal in Canada. The NDP leader suggests that Harper is being two-faced about this issue, at once distancing himself from these Christian “pro-life” activists, and yet secretly using them to continue the campaign so that eventually the question will be reopened in the House. The leader of the NDP has already suggested that this is the plan. If so, he is more devious and cynical than Machiavelli, using the lives of women as counters in a underhanded campaign to reopen the issue of the legality of abortion. That said, it should not be thought that these people are above using this sort of skullduggery in order to impose their Christian values on women. It is significant, and notable, that all the MPs who have been involved in these backdoor schemes to reintroduce abortion into the Criminal Code are all men. Christian men, Muslim men, Hindu men — and this applies to other religions as well — are uncomfortable giving women freedom to control their own reproductivity, because that makes women as free as men, and, since women seem, in general, to be more intelligent, that puts the money trough in Ottawa that the men are always greedy to swill at within reach of those who could take away their privileges.
We should not see this campaign as separate from the growing campaign in the US to make fetal heartbeat the criterion for turning a foetus into a person. New laws are being proposed in a number of states, and there is a petition to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Christian hunger for power never sleeps, and abortion and assisted dying are the battle grounds over which Christians have decided to fight their war for the hearts and minds of Americans and Canadians, using every expedient within their reach, and imagining them to be within reach when they are not.
For example, Arkansas has just approved a ‘fetal heartbeat’ law which will forbid most abortions. The Governor of the state is concerned that it would violate federal laws and court rulings — which it undoubtedly will. However, it seems that the point of these laws is not actually to establish viable laws, but to keep the pot boiling. It is significant that, once again, the law would require a vaginal probe to detect the fetal heartbeat. These laws are not so much “pro-life” as they are anti-woman, designed to keep women in their place as child breeders and homemakers, decades after the feminist revolution in which women at last were considered equal to men, even if they never did achieve parity with men in practically any area of life, including public life. Obama’s appointments this time round seem to keep to the pattern of men only, which is a sad commentary on the position of women in the United States today. It seems that a new, more energetic feminist movement is necessary in order to hang onto the gains women have made, and achieve new ones. As we keep being reminded by the way women are being treated in the atheist/humanist community, women are still expected to recognise their subordination to men, and when they refuse, as they do and should, no insult or rude epithet is too strong to enforce the lines of separation between men and women. Men as apparently committed to the humanist cause as Michael Shermer use language that trivialises women’s contribution to the free thought movement. This casual belief in men’s superiority is something that needs to be defeated. It is untrue, and I daresay Shermer could not cite a single piece of evidence that women are less able intellectually than men, even though this is what he suggested in a famous instance, responding to an op-ed by Ophelia Benson. (I have steered clear of this, since some women do not appreciate men’s involvement in the fight, but this is more than just a fight for women’s rights. It is a struggle against the forces of darkness which are in the resurgence practically everywhere.)
So these backdoor legislative and other harrying measures that seek to hedge women about with restrictions and the threat of more substantial limitations on their freedom should not be taken lightly. They go right to the heart of the old male-female dichotomy and the tradition of women’s subordination in practically every society known to us, and they need to be opposed with every fibre of our being. In Canada, where criminal law is a federal responsibility, the kinds of spoiling state’s laws that can be passed in the United States are not a possibility. It must be done in the House of Commons or not at all. But in both cases it is a matter of keeping the issue in the public mind, reminding people at every turn that there are “real” issues here, that need to be decided, even though, in Canada, everyone thought the decision had already been made decades ago. It is the old drip, drip, drip of legislation by repetition of the same mantra that is in play, and we need to be aware that this is the plan. Continue to express these concerns, no matter how, and it will begin to enter the public mind as a real issue, even when it is not. The only way to oppose these turkeys is to continue to push back hard. Christians don’t listen. They know, and they are not going to stop this harassing behaviour. They are committed to a strict male-female dichotomy, and to women’s subordination. That is why they want laws governing abortion, contraception, and same sex relationships. Homosexuality is opposed for the simple reason that it does not reflect the male-female separation and relationship of super-sub-ordination. It is opposed in the Bible for very much the same reasons – superior male, female subordinate, just as God intended!
Those 491 born-alive babies in 2000-2009, plus 119 in 2010-2011 according to Statistics Canada, warrant legal protection. It seems that if their mothers and doctors want these babies dead, then all pro-choice enthusiasts want them dead, even if for some reason they were in fact born-alive.
When these born-alive babies end up dead, this may well warrant investigation for homicide according to the present Criminal Code of Canada. These MPs are merely asking that our present Criminal Code of Canada be respected.
What’s so radical about that?
About 20 minutes of searching found these bits below about the three MPs.
In summary:
1. someone who thinks that a former dead Catholic pope should be recognized by a “day” by the Canadian government;
2. someone who among other involvements supports “Focus on the Family” – look that one up to really feel the hate and crazy; and
3. someone who appears to contradict his own boss by stating on his own website that Stephen Harper supports an earlier bill of this sneaky wedge type; and uses the wedge of twenty weeks when on his own website says or at least implies its “conception” not twenty weeks after all.
Wladyslaw Lizon:
“In September 2011, Lizon introduced bill C-266 called the Pope John Paul II Day Act.[2] The bill was first introduced in October 2010 by Liberal MP Andrew Kania.[3] The bill would have recognized April 2 as a day to honour the memory of Pope John Paul II. Neither bill made it past first reading.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Władysław_Lizoń
Maurice Vellacott:
“Bachelor’s degree at Briercrest College, a master’s degree at Canadian Theological Seminary (University of Regina affiliated) and an earned doctoral degree from Trinity International University in Chicago”. Some of his Membership and Involvement: Pro-Life, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, supporter of Focus on the Family, founding Board Member of Real Choices Crisis Pregnancy Centre in Saskatoon.
http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/about.html
Leon Benoit:
says this about an earlier abortion related bill C-291:
“I should inform you that the Prime Minister was also supportive of this piece of legislation. However, he was somewhat concerned with possible media distortion of the intent of the bill.” (where the entire sentence is bolded)
He also says:
“As you may know, as a long-time member of the all-party Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus – and as a father of five and now grandfather of five – I work with others to try to increase respect for life from conception to natural death”. (where he bolds the last part: “from conception to natural death”)
http://www.leonbenoit.ca/media_/news/letter-to-constituents-ref-m-312
Members of the Canadian Parliament?
Do people in general know this and vote for it?
Apparently.
Al H. You are making assumptions here that are unwarranted. The Statscan figures do not speak about killing babies. They are talking about mortality following abortion. In other words, the abortions (many of them, for all we know, necessary in order to save the woman’s life, and some the abortion of a dead foetus) led to the death of the foetus. There is no suggestion in the Statscan report of deliberate killing of children born alive. Besides, as you will see in my next post, this was not the primary concern of the three stooges. They wanted all abortions after 20 weeks to be investigated as murders. This is bizarre behaviour on the part of MPs. They have no role to play in what the RCMP does or does not investigate. It is a deliberate attempt to keep chipping away, chip by chip, at the status quo, where women have complete freedom over their own bodies. What you suggest is nonsense.
Steve, thanks for doing that bit of research. Of course, it goes without saying, I think, that if you look into the background of these people you will find, as you did, that their lives are steeped in religion, and their motivation is almost entirely religious. This kind of religious interference in the lives of Canadians is to be deplored, and these kinds of things should be widely known, so people know that they are voting for religious nut cases.
Eric, maybe I missed it but I have not yet seen you address the root cause of religion’s opposition to abortion with what has been so far for me an unassailable argument taken from religious premises. Namely that because religions claim 1) that God is all knowing and all powerful and all good etc., and 2) that God inserts a soul into a cell creating a “human” at the moment of conception; then 3) why does God spontaneously abort through various methods just under 30% of all of His “human” conceptions, not even counting His stillbirths and crib deaths?
Given God’s worldwide killing field, questions can be asked: Is God harvesting souls because He knows the potential population that will choose to follow Him declines with every waking moment that each human has on earth? If man is made in the image of God, then aren’t the many who perform abortions only following the lead of the world’s Chief Abortionist, and by doing so are they not perhaps helping Him in his soul collecting efforts? (OK, these follow-on “questions” may be too cynical for your tastes but they are kind of fun to put before the faithful if you feel like observing a little wriggling. My believing audience is probably not so sophisticated as yours but nevertheless no one has ever provided even an attempt at an intelligible response, so I would love to read any responses to the primary question by your erudite believing commenters.)
I guess the truth of the matter is, David, that I do not find the premises in the least compelling. The idea that there is a being who is all powerful and all good is, on any reasonable telling, in contradiction with the way things are. I see no reason to believe it. Lucretius was of the same opinion. In my view, he was right. That being the case, there is no reasonable theistic argument against abortion, for the idea that human beings are the creations of such a being is simply in conflict with reality. I don’t think the cynical “arguments” carry much weight, since the perfectly straightforward arguments against the goodness of a purported god are so crushing. In this I side with the sceptical tradition, and am happy to count myself with forbears like Darwin, Hume and Lucretius.
Of course not. Neither do I find Christian premises, arguments and conclusions anything more than silly. However, since there are those who do find these premises to be the lifeblood of their existence and use them to force their unhealthy and unwanted conclusions based on these premises upon the rest of us, it may be worthwhile for those who stand against their efforts to eliminate the strong connection they make from their premises to their arguments’ conclusions rather than simply fighting the conclusions. When one simply fights their conclusions with rational thought they simply dismiss or ignore everything said no matter how rational or just, as rational thought has nothing to do with how they form their arguments and conclusions. So since what we might say using reason does not originate from their premises and stands against their conclusions, they, from their point of view, have every right to dismiss every word. That is their reasoning. And so we who argue against their conclusions having failed WITH THEM using even unarguable reason to make any inroads, we can and should on occasion argue from THEIR PREMISES and defeat their arguments based on THEIR PREMISES. Now if you go back and reread my statement from that point of view you may find it to have some value.
It is an atheist’s point of view arguing with a religious person: “if YOU believe this, then this”… nothing more. I am not suggesting that you return to religious belief! After following you for about six months, thanks to Jerry Coyne referencing you, you would have to think me a total fool to suggest that and so no wonder you were so insultingly dismissive. I am a former pastor who is an atheist and an aggressive, proselytizing atheist at that. I enjoy dissecting Christian arguments and restating them in ways that make them absurd even to believers. I have given you one of my favorites on the topic of abortion. I hope you will change your mind on its value as I am of the opinion that your initial reading has missed the point.