VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:
FETAL RIGHTS STIR DEBATE ON ABORTION
by Chris Wright
The National Post, March 5 2008
It is sadly hypocritical to discredit another's motives while defending a position based solely on your agenda. This was seen recently in the attempt by Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada to label the efforts of a grieving mother as seeking “vengeance,” when speaking of Mary Talbot, a supporter of proposed Bill C484.
Many Canadians know the ugly story of the killing of 19-year-old Olivia Talbot and her unborn child. As Mary Talbot (Olivia's mother) pointed out in response to Ms. Arthur, the killer of her daughter and her unborn child will not be affected by the passing of this legislation. His sentence -for one count of murder, not two, even though his own confession was that his intent was to murder the child - has already been determined. Seeking vengeance is no longer an option for Mary Talbot, even if she did desire it.
Bill C484 would allow charges to be laid in the death of an unborn child if the mother is a victim of violent crime. That is its sole application. That said, as Dr. Margaret Somerville noted in the article, this bill forces the Canadian people to confront the truth that there is life in the womb of a mother. In her words, “Unavoidably, this bill tells us that a fetus is not a nonexistent entity. Which is really what the pro-choice people have struggled to get Canadians to believe: that until it's born it doesn't exist, so you don't have to worry about abortion.”
Not surprisingly, therefore, the most prevalent voice of opposition to this bill is the voice of the pro-abortionist lobbyists. They seek to discredit Mary Talbot's position as being biased, and yet their own position is completely politically motivated. This is essentially why Ms. Arthur and others are criticizing this proposed bill - because they perceive it as challenging their vested interest, namely the pro-abortion movement.
Copyright 2008
Many Canadians know the ugly story of the killing of 19-year-old Olivia Talbot and her unborn child. As Mary Talbot (Olivia's mother) pointed out in response to Ms. Arthur, the killer of her daughter and her unborn child will not be affected by the passing of this legislation. His sentence -for one count of murder, not two, even though his own confession was that his intent was to murder the child - has already been determined. Seeking vengeance is no longer an option for Mary Talbot, even if she did desire it.
Bill C484 would allow charges to be laid in the death of an unborn child if the mother is a victim of violent crime. That is its sole application. That said, as Dr. Margaret Somerville noted in the article, this bill forces the Canadian people to confront the truth that there is life in the womb of a mother. In her words, “Unavoidably, this bill tells us that a fetus is not a nonexistent entity. Which is really what the pro-choice people have struggled to get Canadians to believe: that until it's born it doesn't exist, so you don't have to worry about abortion.”
Not surprisingly, therefore, the most prevalent voice of opposition to this bill is the voice of the pro-abortionist lobbyists. They seek to discredit Mary Talbot's position as being biased, and yet their own position is completely politically motivated. This is essentially why Ms. Arthur and others are criticizing this proposed bill - because they perceive it as challenging their vested interest, namely the pro-abortion movement.
Copyright 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment