I felt a little like I was playing that game this morning as I read this article.
If Mr. Epp was well known for his defense of women's rights, we could believe that he is truly concerned about violence against women.
Error #1) Just because someone holds a particular view on what women's rights actually entail, it does not mean he is not concerned about violence against women.
His bill is supported by anti-choice groups across the country…For all these reasons, we must denounce Bill C-484.
Error #2) If by anti-choice, she is referring to pro-life, it only makes sense that a bill which is meant to protect life would be supported by these groups. This is not an actual reason to oppose any bill.
Bill C-484… opens the door to the possibility of recriminalization of abortion in Canada, and this, only 20 years after its decriminalization.
Error #3) Abortion has been legal in Canada for almost 40 years now.
In attempting to more severely punish attackers of pregnant women, he is giving the status of personhood to the fetus.
Error #4) The bill would recognize the fetus as something, but it's far from calling the fetus a person with Charter rights. Considering the pregnant woman would still be entitled to do whatever she likes to it (drink, smoke, do drugs, have an abortion), that's hardly what anyone could call personhood.
The murder of pregnant women does not constitute an epidemic in Canada; over the last 3 years, 5 pregnant women have been assassinated. Though these deaths are regrettable, we can not consider it a trend. The reality is that conjugal violence is a much greater problem.
Error #5) The number one cause of death among pregnant women is homicide. Pregnant women experience abuse at a rate 6 times higher than women who are not pregnant. Approximately one in five women lose a pregnancy because of abuse. Pregnant women experiencing spousal abuse are struck in the abdomen in 70% of cases. It's a bit of a problem, I'd say.
Misinformation is the greatest enemy of this bill's passing. What gets me most is not the risk of this bill not being approved. It's the why. It is that a segment of women are so petrified of having access to abortion even vaguely questioned that they are willing to prevent a sensible law like this one from being enacted.
When it comes to pro-abortion arguments, a recently published opinion piece in the Medical Post — "INSIDERS: Is the end of abortion near?" (a restricted access piece) — has got it all. There's the well-funded religious groups, fear mongering of Bill C-484 backdoorism and a return to coat-hanger abortions, abortion as standard of care for unplanned pregnancy, abortion as human right, abortion as incontestable under law, the obligation to refer, the obligation to facilitate access, and finally, freedom of conscience, sure, but my conscience, not yours.
Huh? So it's no longer about having reproductive rights but about being able to choose our reproductive rights? This is moral relativism at its best – or at its worst–depending on how you look at it.
Allow me to think about it in the big scheme of things, that is, a scheme bigger than justifying individual wants and desires. Why women? Why the "right to choose"? Why "reproductive rights"? Why do women have a right to choose their rights? Men can reproduce too.
Pro-choice advocates please stop waving the flag of "reproductive rights." Please stop making a case for the special status of your eggs. Or at least make a coherent argument. I'm still waiting for that.