Oh, I'm boiling over now. Yeoww! I just read an editorial that ran a few days ago in the Ottawa Citizen, written by MP Ken Epp, sponsor of the nefarious Bill C-484 (aka the Kicking Abortion's Ass bill). In the article, Epp wondered why pro-choicers would be so anxious about his harmless little Kicking Abortion's Ass bill. He huffed:"There is something seriously wrong with our system when the so-called "right" to end a pregnancy takes away another pregnant woman's right to have her wanted baby protected in law."Fetus fetishists foamed and frothed and cheered, and who could blame them -- that's one of the greatest PR slogans since "Coke Is It". Short, emotive and completely devoid of substance. That's why those who support this odious bill are never able to respond when asked to elaborate on just how Bill C-484 protects a woman and/or her fetus. No substance, no answer forthcoming.
Here's the substance, baby, the meat of the matter: Bill C-484 does nothing, diddly, squat, nada to protect a woman's wanted baby, and any rhetoric about the "protection" this bill provides is nothing but a steaming load of bullshit of the highest order. All C-484 does, and all it was ever meant to do, is give the fetus post-mortem recognition as a victim of a crime. From there it's a short hop to fetal personhood rights, and then the contentious issue of whose rights trump in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.
But we know all that. We're onto these people and what the bill is really about. It was something that at first anti-choicers made little effort to hide... until they figured out it wasn't politically expedient. After a lot of backpeddling, unringing of bells, and insisting that C-484 wasn't reeeeally about kicking abortion's ass, no, not at all... and get a load of Epp in the Citizen article:
Busted!, Mr. Epp. Take your execrable Bill C-484, along with your sanctimonious horseshit about "protecting wanted babies in law", and stuff it. Oh and by the way? Reproductive choice isn't a "so-called" right -- it's every bit as much my right as the right to self-ownership and self-determination. Take your "so-called" and stick it, too, up your so-called ass."So they are opposing this bill because it recognizes some value in the unborn child (in that it can be the victim of a crime) which might lead to some Canadians changing their minds about abortion (which also deals with the unborn child).
But how is that a justifiable reason to oppose this bill? Is it right in a free and democratic society to try to control how and what people think? If people of their own free will decide to rethink their position on an important issue, why should we try to suppress that..." (emphasis outragedly mine)
|