2024 Canadian Political Thread

[appleomac]

Avoiding the point, yet again. Dance little dancer. You cant even answer a question on why this bill is bad , and seemingly every post you make is the same accusations over and over ad- nasuem. Repeated refrains of ' i know, you dont know, idiot' is maybe a winning strategy among your ilk, but you havent really demonstated anything but the ability to do internet searches. No critical thought going on in there is there?

LOL! Wait what??? Mate, YOU are the one opining about this proposed Bill being bad. So why would I have to answer the question why this Bill is bad - I don't have to affirm your opinion of the Bill being bad, you know, because that is YOUR opinion. What are you even talking about??? Now it's my job to affirm your own opinion, is that what you're saying? LOL

Again...
- You claimed the CPC is going to ban abortion
- I challenged you to provide evidence for this claim
- You presented Bill C-225
- I stated, this is NOT a bill that bans or limits abortion
- You shifted the goal post to say the Bill gives rights to fetus (THIS IS YOUR OPINION AS TO WHY THE BILL IS BAD)
- I stated you are shifting the goal posts
- And now, you are challenging me to answer why this Bill is bad???

LOL! I have to affirm your opinion that this Bill is bad. Mate, you must be off your medication or something. You've contrived in your infantile mind that your opinion (i.e. this is a bad Bill) is something I have to explain and answer. No, I don't have to explain/answer/justify YOUR OPINION! LOL

Mate, only an idiot would take a position (i.e. you) and then state their opponent (i.e. me) has to affirm/answer/justify YOUR position/opinion. LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

LOL! Wait what??? Mate, YOU are the one opining about this proposed Bill being bad. So why would I have to answer the question why this Bill is bad - I don't have to affirm your opinion of the Bill being bad, you know, because that is YOUR opinion. What are you even talking about??? Now it's my job to affirm your own opinion, is that what you're saying? LOL

Again...
- You claimed the CPC is going to ban abortion
- I challenged you to provide evidence for this claim
- You presented Bill C-225
- I stated, this is NOT a bill that bans or limits abortion
- You shifted the goal post to say the Bill gives rights to fetus (THIS IS YOUR OPINION AS TO WHY THE BILL IS BAD)
- I stated you are shifting the goal posts
- And now, you are challenging me to answer why this Bill is bad???

LOL! I have to affirm your opinion that this Bill is bad. Mate, you must be off your medication or something. You've contrived in your infantile mind that your opinion (i.e. this is a bad Bill) is something I have to explain and answer. No, I don't have to explain/answer/justify YOUR OPINION! LOL

Mate, only an idiot would take a position (i.e. you) and then state their opponent (i.e. me) has to affirm/answer/justify YOUR position/opinion. LOL

By your logic or requirements of what you call 'proof' , you would unable to prove Conservatives wont ban abortion. So your aguments are disengenous from the get go, holding others to a different standard than yourself. You mean to sway opinions as I do.

You were presented with the fallacy of asking for a bill to codify penalties so they aren't subject to interpretation by judges that would need to:
1) legally apply a definition of pregnancy aka moment of conception -or-
2) *it would have to be intrepeted by a judge *

#2 is against the stated goal of the law. A defence layer will bring up the lack of definition of pregnancy if it is applied, forcing #1. This isn't 4d chess, its one move removed.

Clarifying the definition of pregnancy in the aplication of criminal penalties would exactly create a system of defining the value of a womans life based on her pregancy status/choices. It would also open the door the anti-choice legal eagles are looking for in order to define abortion as murder if past the definition of pregnacy. This is a long game from the conservative side with lots of foreign influence. It may not be concretely done in one bill, but im sure the follow up ones are already written.

You're unable to admit this because it would knock one of the legs of your assertions out, which would then knock out several others you've built upon them. Fiscal conservatism is all fine and dandy in the abstract and I even agree with some the points, but i have a great deal of disdain for those willing to move anti-choice zealotry along in order to get their tax breaks. And we need stiffer penalties for white collar and corporate crimes they're driving up the crime rate statistics.

 

[appleomac]

By your logic or requirements of what you call 'proof' , you would unable to prove Conservatives wont ban abortion. So your aguments are disengenous from the get go, holding others to a different standard than yourself. You mean to sway opinions as I do.

- You made a claim, "CPC will ban abortion"
- I challenged you to provide evidence for that claim.
- You presented Bill C-225 (THAT WOULD BE YOUR EVIDENCE)
- Your evidence is not compelling to support your claim, for various reasons.

On the other hand, I presented my evidence to counter your claim that "CPC will ban abortion." That evidence included:
- CPC policy not to legislate on abortion
- CPC actually adhering to that policy (i.e. 9 years of Harper and ZERO abortion ban)

You presented your arguments/evidence and I presented mine. I don't find your arguments/evidence compelling at all. Your evidence requires you to make all sorts of erroneous claims about pregnancy and the like. You attempt to connect dots that do NOT exist. You "read" things in Bill C-225 that are NOT there. You evidence, is a Bill that has ZERO to do with abortions. It does not ban abortions. It does NOT restrict abortions. And therefore, it fails to be compelling evidence to your original claim that "CPC will ban abortions.

And then, you move the goal posts to "it gives rights to a fetus". That it does wrt to sentencing in a criminal proceeding has NOTHING to do with abortion.

You have this notion that I have to accept your evidence. I do not. Your reasoning/evidence is NOT at all compelling to demonstrate that the "CPC will ban abortion." Moreover, you make no sense at all to your modified claim that C-225 is some backdoor abortion ban. Your reasoning for such claim is nonsensical, requires connecting dots that aren't there, are based on a complete lack of understanding of many things (such as how laws work, etc.) and the most damning thing - you "read" things in the bill that ARE NOT THERE. Your delusions are NOT credible evidence of anything, other than that you appear to be delusional.

You were presented with the fallacy of asking for a bill to codify penalties so they aren't subject to interpretation by judges that would need to:
1) legally apply a definition of pregnancy aka moment of conception -or-
2) *it would have to be intrepeted by a judge *

#2 is against the stated goal of the law. A defence layer will bring up the lack of definition of pregnancy if it is applied, forcing #1. This isn't 4d chess, its one move removed.

Case in point, with respect to your delusional mind, the above is completely incoherent.

You need to give it rest mate. You lost any semblance of coherent thought when you previously claimed that I have to justify/answer/affirm your opinion. And now you cannot even compose a coherent sentence/thought.

Clarifying the definition of pregnancy in the aplication of criminal penalties would exactly create a system of defining the value of a womans life based on her pregancy status/choices. It would also open the door the anti-choice legal eagles are looking for in order to define abortion as murder if past the definition of pregnacy. This is a long game from the conservative side with lots of foreign influence. It may not be concretely done in one bill, but im sure the follow up ones are already written.

The above also demonstrates your delusional thinking. You've created, in your own mind, this notion that there is some "secret 20 point plan to ban abortion". Mate, it takes but one step to ban abortion. A piece of legislation to make it an offence to have an abortion. That is literally all that is required to ban abortion. There is no need for a "round about" way - a Parliament can do it very directly. They haven't since Morgentaler (that would be both Libs and Conservatives that haven't). You live in the world of conspiracy if you believe that some "backdoor secret plan" is what is required to ban or otherwise regulate abortion. No other laws are needed for Parliament to legislate a bill that bans and/or regulates on abortion. That Canada hasn't, since 1968 (when the law that Morgentaler overturned was originally enacted) demonstrates that both Libs and Conservatives don't actually want to go there. But of course, you have convinced yourself that is what the CPC will do, even if past history (and even recent past history) demonstrates that is NOT the case.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

- You made a claim, "CPC will ban abortion"
- I challenged you to provide evidence for that claim.
- You presented Bill C-225 (THAT WOULD BE YOUR EVIDENCE)
- Your evidence is not compelling to support your claim, for various reasons.

On the other hand, I presented my evidence to counter your claim that "CPC will ban abortion." That evidence included:
- CPC policy not to legislate on abortion
- CPC actually adhering to that policy (i.e. 9 years of Harper and ZERO abortion ban)

You presented your arguments/evidence and I presented mine. I don't find your arguments/evidence compelling at all. Your evidence requires you to make all sorts of erroneous claims about pregnancy and the like. You attempt to connect dots that do NOT exist. You "read" things in Bill C-225 that are NOT there. You evidence, is a Bill that has ZERO to do with abortions. It does not ban abortions. It does NOT restrict abortions. And therefore, it fails to be compelling evidence to your original claim that "CPC will ban abortions.

And then, you move the goal posts to "it gives rights to a fetus". That it does wrt to sentencing in a criminal proceeding has NOTHING to do with abortion.

You have this notion that I have to accept your evidence. I do not. Your reasoning/evidence is NOT at all compelling to demonstrate that the "CPC will ban abortion." Moreover, you make no sense at all to your modified claim that C-225 is some backdoor abortion ban. Your reasoning for such claim is nonsensical, requires connecting dots that aren't there, are based on a complete lack of understanding of many things (such as how laws work, etc.) and the most damning thing - you "read" things in the bill that ARE NOT THERE. Your delusions are NOT credible evidence of anything, other than that you appear to be delusional.



Case in point, with respect to your delusional mind, the above is completely incoherent.

You need to give it rest mate. You lost any semblance of coherent thought when you previously claimed that I have to justify/answer/affirm your opinion. And now you cannot even compose a coherent sentence/thought.



The above also demonstrates your delusional thinking. You've created, in your own mind, this notion that there is some "secret 20 point plan to ban abortion". Mate, it takes but one step to ban abortion. A piece of legislation to make it an offence to have an abortion. That is literally all that is required to ban abortion. There is no need for a "round about" way - a Parliament can do it very directly. They haven't since Morgentaler (that would be both Libs and Conservatives that haven't). You live in the world of conspiracy if you believe that some "backdoor secret plan" is what is required to ban or otherwise regulate abortion. No other laws are needed for Parliament to legislate a bill that bans and/or regulates on abortion. That Canada hasn't, since 1968 (when the law that Morgentaler overturned was originally enacted) demonstrates that both Libs and Conservatives don't actually want to go there. But of course, you have convinced yourself that is what the CPC will do, even if past history (and even recent past history) demonstrates that is NOT the case.

I guess im alone with the other two thirds of parliament who voted to defeat c225 and its re-introduction as c311 citing the dots i connected above. But you said its different so i must be mistaken.

Or you're wrong, again, and just providing cover.If you search you can find the author of the bill Cathy Wagantall at the March For Life Rallies this year addressing the crowds about the 'moment of conception' so I'd say the adgenda isnt really that secret.

Or maybe you're actually gullible enough to believe what they're selling you and take it at face value? That its all on the up and up and you're just that naive?

 

[appleomac]

I guess im alone with the other two thirds of parliament who voted to defeat c225 and its re-introduction as c311 citing the dots i connected above. But you said its different so i must be mistaken.

Or you're wrong, again, and just providing cover.If you search you can find the author of the bill Cathy Wagantall at the March For Life Rallies this year addressing the crowds about the 'moment of conception' so I'd say the adgenda isnt really that secret.

Or maybe you're actually gullible enough to believe what they're selling you and take it at face value? That its all on the up and up and you're just that naive?

You connected no dots. I'm sure an intelligent/articulate person could provide more coherent reasoning. But, that is not you. LOL

Moreover, you are the one trying to sell something. You are the one parroting off the normal Lib/ABC wedge talking points. They say it's an abortion bill, you repeat and you can't articulate in a coherent manner why it is an abortion ban/bill. Which kind of demonstrates a previous point I made. You've never actually contemplated your own beliefs. You only have one belief, "cons bad" because that is what you were indoctrinated to parrot off. Again, you're a trained lap dog, is all.

I really couldn't care less about who sponsored the Bill. If this lady sponsored a private member's Bill to change the Tax Act, I'm sure you'd oppose it on some erroneous claim that it has something to do with abortion. Because all you see is some lady that attends a pro life rally. And somehow that signals to you the Bill need not be read, but rather "interpreted" with your "secret agenda" mindset. Heaven forbid you saw this lady buy a double double at Timmies, I'm sure you'd accuse Timmies of being pro life as well simply for having the nerve to sell a coffee to someone that attended a pro life march! LOL

 

[madjay]

This is a bunch of nonsense that people like you spew off on, I'm guessing because you don't understand the law. There are ZERO laws on abortion in Canada. There is NO abortion law to challenge in this country. Any federal government, if they wanted, can simply draft legislation to ban or limit abortion. And none have attempted to since Morgentaler. So no, you are spewing off something that is incorrect. C225 does NOT "challenge abortion laws" - there is NO abortion laws in Canada to challenge. Saying nothing for the fact that one challenges a law in COURT. A piece of legislation does NOT challenge a law, it either creates or change laws NOT challenges them. And a proposed piece of legislation certainly CANNOT challenge a law that does NOT exist. What are you even blabbering on about? Do you even understand the state of abortion rights in this country? How can you no so little about things you have so many opinions on? LOL

I know I'm a few days late stepping in here, but this is just flat out incorrect. You are conflating legislation and regulations with laws. Case law is law. In fact, the majority of law in Canada is case law. So your assertion that there are zero laws on abortion in Canada is proven wrong by the existence of a law you have yourself acknowledged — the Morgentaler decision.

Now C225 does not directly challenge existing abortion law as it does not undermine the Morgentaler decision, since it is intended to better protect pregnant women and their unborn children. However, it is concerning given the use of loaded terminology, namely the word "preborn". This defies legislative convention, establishing an inconsistency with existing terminology in the legislation being amended.

This is where the problem with C225 arises. By including and defining the term "preborn" within the Criminal Code, this sets the stage for future legislation building on that. It would be far more appropriate to strike subsection 218.1(1), which defines the term, from the Bill and replace all instances of the term with "unborn" per the existing convention within the Criminal Code. This would make the Bill far less problematic without undermining the Bill's stated intent to protect pregnant women and their unborn children.

In other words, while C225 does not directly challenge existing abortion law in Canada, namely Morgentaler, it shows clear intent to indirectly challenge the existing law by attempting to build a foundation for future legislation.

 

[madjay]

I guess im alone with the other two thirds of parliament who voted to defeat c225 and its re-introduction as c311 citing the dots i connected above. But you said its different so i must be mistaken.

C311 is not exactly a reintroduction of C225. It doesn't touch on the problem of introducing loaded terminology into legislation, nor does it impact the same section of the Criminal Code, though it does have the same stated intent — to protect pregnant women and their unborn children — and it does seem to do this without any risk of building a foundation for future anti-abortion legislation the way C225 did.

 

[appleomac]

I know I'm a few days late stepping in here, but this is just flat out incorrect. You are conflating legislation and regulations with laws. Case law is law. In fact, the majority of law in Canada is case law. So your assertion that there are zero laws on abortion in Canada is proven wrong by the existence of a law you have yourself acknowledged — the Morgentaler decision.

Now C225 does not directly challenge existing abortion law as it does not undermine the Morgentaler decision, since it is intended to better protect pregnant women and their unborn children. However, it is concerning given the use of loaded terminology, namely the word "preborn". This defies legislative convention, establishing an inconsistency with existing terminology in the legislation being amended.

Perhaps I should've been more clear, there are no laws in Canada that ban abortion.

I don't see how the term "preborn" is "loaded terminology". It does not cause an inconsistency with existing terminology. In fact, it specifically refers to sec 223 as a means to qualify that "preborn child" is NOT a human being as sec 223 establishes that as it relates to the criminal code of Canada that "A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother..." "preborn child" is defined within C-225 to be consistent with sec 223's existing terminology. In lay terms, C-225 does not establish a "preborn child" as being a human being. That seems very consistent with what already exists in the CCC.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Perhaps I should've been more clear, there are no laws in Canada that ban abortion.

I don't see how the term "preborn" is "loaded terminology". It does not cause an inconsistency with existing terminology. In fact, it specifically refers to sec 223 as a means to qualify that "preborn child" is NOT a human being as sec 223 establishes that as it relates to the criminal code of Canada that "A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother..." "preborn child" is defined within C-225 to be consistent with sec 223's existing terminology. In lay terms, C-225 does not establish a "preborn child" as being a human being. That seems very consistent with what already exists in the CCC.

Wrong again. 223 states post birth -or- lactation.

 

[appleomac]

Wrong again. 223 states post birth -or- lactation.

Sec 223 states when a child becomes a human being. Bill C-225 qualifies that pre-born is consistent with this notion. Therefore, as I stated (and clearly you couldn't comprehend) as quoted below...

In fact, it specifically refers to sec 223 as a means to qualify that "preborn child" is NOT a human being

My gawd, your inability to comprehend what you read is astonishingly bad. I'll put it into lay terms, "preborn child" as per C-225 is basically a fetus. C-225 does NOT recognize fetus as a human being. Because C-225 referenced sec 223 of the CCC as to specifically qualify that fetus (i.e. preborn child) is NOT a human being. You are amazing at demonstrating your complete lack of any ability to comprehend what is written. It would be humorous, if it weren't so sad.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

C311 is not exactly a reintroduction of C225. It doesn't touch on the problem of introducing loaded terminology into legislation, nor does it impact the same section of the Criminal Code, though it does have the same stated intent — to protect pregnant women and their unborn children — and it does seem to do this without any risk of building a foundation for future anti-abortion legislation the way C225 did.

It was defeated on the basis of being another introduction of an interpretive law claiming to to codify penalties again if im not mistaken. The argument being that if a judge is allready allowed to take pregnancy into consideration, why is the ammendment required to allow judges to use pregnacy as a consideration.

From a law perspective it seems a do nothing law. From a social perspective, an attempt to get a foothold on defining a womans status as special based on her pregnancy status. And I do believe if a defense raised the issue of 'how pregnant was she' it would force consideration and be used as an attempt to set precedent.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Sec 223 states when a child becomes a human being. Bill C-225 qualifies that pre-born is consistent with this notion. Therefore, as I stated (and clearly you couldn't comprehend) as quoted below...



My gawd, your inability to comprehend what you read is astonishingly bad. I'll put it into lay terms, "preborn child" as per C-225 is basically a fetus. C-225 does NOT recognize fetus as a human being. Because C-225 referenced sec 223 of the CCC as to specifically qualify that fetus (i.e. preborn child) is NOT a hum
an being. You are amazing at demonstrating your complete lack of any ability to comprehend what is written. It would be humorous, if it weren't so sad.

No, you're the poopiehead! AND you spelled God wrong.

The implication of your first paragraph is that the bill seeks to grant special status to the fetus. Hence, an anti abortion bill, as i argued in the begining.

 

[appleomac]

You spelled God wrong.

LOL! Wow. Mate, I use that terminology because I am not a religious person. However, I respect those that do believe in God or a god. But of course, that type of nuance would be beyond your scope of understanding. Because, you only claim to have/understand nuance. And further, you're simply demonstrating your infantile mindset with your response to being called out on completely misinterpreting something that was rather simple to comprehend. LOL

 

[appleomac]

The implication of your first paragraph is that the bill seeks to grant special status to the fetus. Hence, an anti abortion bill, as i argued in the begining.

It recognizes a fetus (or preborn child, as per C-225) in the instance where a crime is committed against the pregnant mother. That said, your notion that somehow this makes a fetus "special" is an erroneous claim. And a very vague claim. Things can be given recognition in the CCC, that recognition does NOT state that those things are "special" - just that they are recognized, in certain circumstances. As an example, Sec 445 of the CCC deals with, basically, animal cruelty. That gives recognition to animals. That does NOT necessarily mean animals are "special", per se. Nor is Sec. 445 an attempt to create an equivalency that animals are humans. Which, let's face it, your use of the word "special" is a vague/round about way to say that you believe C-225 tried to make a fetus a "human being" in the eyes of the law. That is patently false. C-225 makes a fetus a human being in the same way Sec 445 makes an animal a human being - that is to say, IT DOES NO SUCH THING.

 

[madjay]

I don't see how the term "preborn" is "loaded terminology".

It is loaded terminology in the sense that it is a politically charged term used exclusively by anti-abortion advocates. Law should be politically neutral.

It does not cause an inconsistency with existing terminology. In fact, it specifically refers to sec 223 as a means to qualify that "preborn child" is NOT a human being as sec 223 establishes that as it relates to the criminal code of Canada that "A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother..." "preborn child" is defined within C-225 to be consistent with sec 223's existing terminology. In lay terms, C-225 does not establish a "preborn child" as being a human being. That seems very consistent with what already exists in the CCC.

There is nothing within the scope of the Bill that can be said through the use of the term "preborn" that can't be said with the use of the term "unborn", the use of which is already established within the CCC. This is why the introduction of the term introduces an inconsistency with the established convention of the CCC. The inclusion of the term serves no purpose but to lend legislative legitimacy to the term.

 

[appleomac]

It is loaded terminology in the sense that it is a politically charged term used exclusively by anti-abortion advocates. Law should be politically neutral.

I suspect any term as it relates to C-225, whether it be "unborn or preborn" would be conflated by the most fervent pro-choice advocates as being "loaded". The most fervent of pro-choice advocates believe anything that humanizes a fetus is some encroachment of a woman's right to choice. Therefore, there is no word choice, wrt to C-225 that wouldn't be seen/viewed as "loaded". The most fervent of pro-choice advocates would NOT bother with any argument about a word choice. They simply oppose the Bill, regardless of word choice, based on their fear (for lack of a better term) that the public might humanize a fetus.

There is nothing within the scope of the Bill that can be said through the use of the term "preborn" that can't be said with the use of the term "unborn", the use of which is already established within the CCC. This is why the introduction of the term introduces an inconsistency with the established convention of the CCC. The inclusion of the term serves no purpose but to lend legislative legitimacy to the term.

Difference without distinction. If you prefer "uborn" to "preborn", so be it. To claim that such creates "inconsistency" is false. Replace "unborn" with "preborn" in the proposed Bill, and nothing changes. Because it basically refers to a fetus. Moreover, reference to sec 223 would still qualify that (like "preborn"), the "unborn" is NOT a human being. You are attempting to make a semantic arguement that there is actually a distinction between "unborn" and "preborn" and thus, that is an "inconsistency". Again, both terms mean the same thing. Both terms, with the qualifcation of sec 223 makes no difference, with respect to a fetus already (according to the CCC) being NOT a human. Calling a fetus "preborn" vs "uborn" is only an inconsistency because of (apparently your desire to argue) semantics.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Sec 223 states when a child becomes a human being. Bill C-225 qualifies that pre-born is consistent with this notion. Therefore, as I stated (and clearly you couldn't comprehend) as quoted below...



My gawd, your inability to comprehend what you read is astonishingly bad. I'll put it into lay terms, "preborn child" as per C-225 is basically a fetus. C-225 does NOT recognize fetus as a human being. Because C-225 referenced sec 223 of the CCC as to specifically qualify that fetus (i.e. preborn child) is NOT a human being. You are amazing at demonstrating your complete lack of any ability to comprehend what is written. It would be humorous, if it weren't so sad.

The implication of your second

It recognizes a fetus (or preborn child, as per C-225) in the instance where a crime is committed against the pregnant mother. That said, your notion that somehow this makes a fetus "special" is an erroneous claim. And a very vague claim. Things can be given recognition in the CCC, that recognition does NOT state that those things are "special" - just that they are recognized, in certain circumstances. As an example, Sec 445 of the CCC deals with, basically, animal cruelty. That gives recognition to animals. That does NOT necessarily mean animals are "special", per se. Nor is Sec. 445 an attempt to create an equivalency that animals are humans. Which, let's face it, your use of the word "special" is a vague/round about way to say that you believe C-225 tried to make a fetus a "human being" in the eyes of the law. That is patently false. C-225 makes a fetus a human being in the same way Sec 445 makes an animal a human being - that is to say, IT DOES NO SUCH THING.

But the animal is unequivocally recognizable as seperate from the mother. The fetus is not, without legal definition.

 

[appleomac]

The implication of your second

Incoherent/incomplete thought sentence.

But the animal is unequivocally recognizable as seperate from the mother. The fetus is not, without legal definition.

As previously stated, physical separation is NOT being questioned. Moreover it is irrelevant wrt to C225.

I agree, a "fetus" wrt to C225 is defined. They call it a "preborn child" as per the proposed Bill AND is defined in the proposed bill. As per the Bill...

"For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223."

 

[madjay]

Difference without distinction. If you prefer "uborn" to "preborn", so be it. To claim that such creates "inconsistency" is false.

First off, the phrase is "distinction without a difference."

Second, you clearly have little to no legal background yourself, despite having used that claim of lack of legal background as an argument against LLLurkJ2. Every single word matters in law. I have no personal preference of terminology in this instance, the simple fact is that the CCC already uses the term "unborn", so to use another term for the same purpose creates an inconsistency, as you are now using 2 words to say the same thing. Legal convention is to always use the same word to convey the same meaning — use of synonyms is inappropriate, because in law different words mean different things. It is therefore inappropriate to introduce the term "preborn" unless the intent is to establish it as a legal term in its own right, and the only reason one would do that is to build a foundation for future anti-abortion legislation. It is better form to stick to what is already in use.

You are attempting to make a semantic arguement that there is actually a distinction between "unborn" and "preborn" and thus, that is an "inconsistency". Again, both terms mean the same thing. Both terms, with the qualifcation of sec 223 makes no difference, with respect to a fetus already (according to the CCC) being NOT a human. Calling a fetus "preborn" vs "uborn" is only an inconsistency because of (apparently your desire to argue) semantics.

I reiterate, legal convention is to always use the same word to convey the same meaning because different words mean different things. To use multiple words to mean the same thing is therefore, by legal convention, an inconsistency. Your writing it off as semantic is nonsensical because in legal writing precision is of paramount importance. It is entirely fine to use essentially synonymous language interchangeably in other contexts, but not in law.

 

[appleomac]

It is therefore inappropriate to introduce the term "preborn" unless the intent is to establish it as a legal term in its own right, and the only reason one would do that is to build a foundation for future anti-abortion legislation. It is better form to stick to what is already in use.

Using "unborn" in place of "preborn" is one issue. That you connected that issue with (your argument) that (paraphrasing) "therefore it is a foundation for future anti-abortion legislation" is false. I can say that with a fair degree of certainty because, I suspect that those opposed to C225 would still be opposed to it (on erroneous grounds of "abortion rights") if the Bill actually used the term "unborn" instead of "preborn". I would wager (if I were a bettting man) that you would also agree that such would be the case (i.e. those opposed to C225 would oppose it regardless of word choice). So, with respect, your argument is one of pure semantics for the sake of saying "you are wrong" while making a false assertion that word choice (i.e. "preborn" instead of "unborn") would assuage those that opposed the Bill.