Trying to grant fetuses rights isn’t “supporting pregnancies”, the line to restricting what pregnant people can do, including abortions, is direct and obvious. The fact that the sponsors of the bills have previously passed bills attempting to restrict abortion is a fact.
Supporting pregnancies would be doing things like passing more healthcare funding, better parental leave, literally just giving money to people with kids. That’s not what this bill was about.
this is just a virtue signal to begin with. And the argument against it is just a signal too.
It’s almost like the politicians are playing politics.
I feel like sentencing should be based on forseeable harms, not victim characteristics.
Parliament shouldn’t put pregnant people above people with other vulnerabilities.
if abortion becomes illegal they could use this bill to say doctors willfully causes harm to a pregnant woman.
I think the concern is more along the lines of, if there is a court case seeking to recognize the personhood of a fetus, then anti choice folks will point to this law and say “see there is precedent, the criminal code considers pregnant women to have more rights” and a biased Supreme Court can use this as a fig leaf to overturn abortion rights.
I remember all the people in the USA saying “the republicans dont want to ban abortion, they are just pro-pregnancy, and pro-children”. A couple years later, Roe V Wade has been overturned, and a bunch of states ban abortion.
I’d agree with you, but having watched what the US backslide, this is necessary. It’s important for centrists and leftists to make sure that it’s very clear what conservatives are and what they stand for. If they’d just voted yes and moved on–since this is a symbolic vote–this would be a non-issue. But they didn’t; they virtue-signalled to their base.
It’s also why Steven Harper, of all people, would nuke from orbit any CPC MP that would raise the spectre of abortion (and why, when he let anti-Muslim bigotry run rampant it cost him) and it’s why Poillievre is playing a very dangerous game courting that same vote.
This seems like a pretty reasonable take.This article does seem intentionally devisive. From the very beginning, its premise was that anyone supporting this bill is automatically pro-life, and uses that as justification to dismiss all conservative MPs. It jumps to huge conclusions based on very little.
I don’t understand those disagreeing with you. If you heard a story about a woman who was assaulted, any reasonable person would be angry about that. Would you not be even more angry if you heard that she was pregnant with full intent to have the baby?
We all treat pregnant women as special. Because a wanted pregnancy is very special. Anyone assaulting someone who is pregnant should get the maximum punishment the law allows.
I wouldn’t be particuallly more angry if someone who was pregnant was assaulted than a random woman, or a man for that matter, as long as they were assaulted the same way. Assault is assault.
deleted by creator
Trying to grant fetuses rights isn’t “supporting pregnancies”, the line to restricting what pregnant people can do, including abortions, is direct and obvious. The fact that the sponsors of the bills have previously passed bills attempting to restrict abortion is a fact.
Supporting pregnancies would be doing things like passing more healthcare funding, better parental leave, literally just giving money to people with kids. That’s not what this bill was about.
It’s almost like the politicians are playing politics.
I feel like sentencing should be based on forseeable harms, not victim characteristics.
Parliament shouldn’t put pregnant people above people with other vulnerabilities.
I think the concern is more along the lines of, if there is a court case seeking to recognize the personhood of a fetus, then anti choice folks will point to this law and say “see there is precedent, the criminal code considers pregnant women to have more rights” and a biased Supreme Court can use this as a fig leaf to overturn abortion rights.
I remember all the people in the USA saying “the republicans dont want to ban abortion, they are just pro-pregnancy, and pro-children”. A couple years later, Roe V Wade has been overturned, and a bunch of states ban abortion.
I’d agree with you, but having watched what the US backslide, this is necessary. It’s important for centrists and leftists to make sure that it’s very clear what conservatives are and what they stand for. If they’d just voted yes and moved on–since this is a symbolic vote–this would be a non-issue. But they didn’t; they virtue-signalled to their base.
It’s also why Steven Harper, of all people, would nuke from orbit any CPC MP that would raise the spectre of abortion (and why, when he let anti-Muslim bigotry run rampant it cost him) and it’s why Poillievre is playing a very dangerous game courting that same vote.
Sir, you’re not allowed to have centrist or non left views on Lemmy.
This seems like a pretty reasonable take.This article does seem intentionally devisive. From the very beginning, its premise was that anyone supporting this bill is automatically pro-life, and uses that as justification to dismiss all conservative MPs. It jumps to huge conclusions based on very little.
I don’t understand those disagreeing with you. If you heard a story about a woman who was assaulted, any reasonable person would be angry about that. Would you not be even more angry if you heard that she was pregnant with full intent to have the baby?
We all treat pregnant women as special. Because a wanted pregnancy is very special. Anyone assaulting someone who is pregnant should get the maximum punishment the law allows.
I wouldn’t be particuallly more angry if someone who was pregnant was assaulted than a random woman, or a man for that matter, as long as they were assaulted the same way. Assault is assault.