Search results

Then why is it, that if such Bill (like a private member's bill) is drafted by the Justice Department, that said department has not provided input on the soundness of the Bill's language? Saying nothing for the fact that, albeit C225 didn't make it there, the standard process for a Bill is to...

That would be speculation and assumption. I don't know the particular specifics about the MP that drafted C225. But to assume, they have the resources, staff and/or experience with respect to "legal writing" is again, speculation. I would assume (or at least hope) that Parliament has...

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...

Incoherent/incomplete thought sentence. 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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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"...

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...

- 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...

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...

No. You constantly asking questions is your feeble attempt to get me to do you work. If you don't know what "unborn" or "fertilized egg" means, go figure it out Einstein. LOL Those who make laws are generally not the ones that interpret/adjudicate the law. You see, we have separation of...

LOL! My goodness, for someone that claims to have nuance on all sorts of matter you demonstrate time and time again that you have NONE at all. You cannot understand various concepts, and because of that lack of understanding you interpret that as "side stepping" and contradiction. Here's a...

LOL! You think it's "word garbage" because the Bill is NOT saying what you claim it is saying. LOL When a judge looks to a law and said law doesn't precisely define a term - a judge uses common parlance to determine terms that are not precisely defined by the law. Ergo, why we have things...

No. Punishment for whatever crime is committed against the woman is whatever the punishment is for murder, assault, whatever the crime happens to be. C225 contemplated, (quote taken from the text of the bill)... "This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or...

No. The Bill isn't treating the victim differently, it's treating the criminal differently. Another false equivalency on your part. No. Ejaculate/sperm/semen doesn't constitute a fetus. Wow, you are really trying hard to make some nonsensical useless points. LOL

The fact that physical separation is not easily accomplished wrt mother and fetus, that doesn't mean legal separation when considering sentencing of a crime is not possible. Again, a false equivalency. Conjoined twins cannot, sometimes, be physically separated - that doesn't mean they are not...

Legal standing is NOT the same as laws, Einstein. A fetus having legal rights in a sentencing provision DOES NOT invalidate a woman's right to choose - you are making a false equivalency. My dog has some legal rights, that doesn't change my rights one bit. Rights are not a zero-sum game -...

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...