[dino_bobba_renno]

Brenda Brenda:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

And how would you proof that? Just by saying: hey, I was abused and lost my baby because of that? That is NOT a good one for men in general. (any idea how many women would abuse that???)

You can NEVER proof a miscarriage has happened due to assault.

Yes you can.

Show me that you can prove a 12 week old fetus is killed due to bodily harm to the mother, and not because of "nature taking its course"?

Just becaue I can't think of a recent case I'll use this: The Tate murders. pregnant woman was stabbed over 50 times in the stomach before the fetus was cut out of her.

And that was murder of the woman, or of the fetus?

Did the man (I assume...) go to trial for murder of the woman or the fetus? You can't have it both...

Why can't you have it both ways?

If a guy who doesn't want his significant other to be pregnant and he beats this 8 month pregnant woman in the stomach until the fetus dies why should he simply walk away with an assault charge which most of time only carries a fine?

Believe it or not this does happen.

[Dayseed]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

The aggravated assault charges would only apply to the crimes committed against the woman, no weight would be given towards the death of the child.

Immaterial bullshit. A separate CHARGE doesn't necessarily mean that there will be any additional punitive sentence given to the offender. Do you understand what it means that there are no consecutive sentences in Canada? Piling on charges doesn't equal somebody being in jail longer. 400 counts of public nudity still only maxes out at 6 months in jail; just the same as 1 count. If you max out the sentence for aggravated assault, that is, make it punishable by life in jail, then at trial, the maximum sentence can be longer. Under this bill, the additional charge doesn't confer any greater punishment, it just muddies the waters for granting rights to fetuses.

$1:

Trust me, if you were pregnant and you were attacked and your baby died as a result of the attack you'd be singing a different tune particularly after the judge give joe bad guy a slap on the wrist because the perpetrator isn't legal responsible for the death of the unborn child.

Newsflash; a judge can hand out any sentence he deems appropriate. An additional charge doesn't mean the offender will serve any longer in prison than he would with a life-punitive aggravated assault charge.

$1:

He would walk away with nothing more than the charges related to physically attacking you which in Canada amount to diddly sqwat.

If you think that sentences in Canada aren't harsh enough, additional charges don't remedy that. Consistently longer sentences will lead to sentencing case-law and guidelines which will strengthen laws already on the books.

$1:

This bill only serves to protect pregnant women and their unborn children.

Horseshit. This bill does not ONLY serve to protect pregnant women and unborn children. It provides a legal precedent for condemning abortion.

$1:

This is a good bill that that helps further women’s rights and will serve only to better protect pregnant women against a wide variety of offences.

No it doesn't. Women are protected, pregnant or otherwise, against a variety of offences. It's called the Criminal Code. Heard of it?

$1:

How about battered woman? How much time do you think a guy would serve for pushing his wife down the stairs (keep in mind in Canada the sentencing for such a case is very light)? Now do you think someone should serve more time if that woman was pregnant at the time and the baby died as a result? I think he should. Are you saying that both cases deserve an equal amount of punishment?

You don't get it. Pushing a woman down the stairs would qualify as aggravated assault; somebody can very easily die from being pushed down the stairs. But heaping on an additional charge of hurting or killing a fetus wouldn't increase the time served by the offender because Canada doesn't use consecutive sentences. Say the guy gets 10 years for the assault and 10 years for killing the fetus. He doesn't serve 20 years, he serves 10. The sentences are concurrent. The addtional charge means nothing in terms of time served. BUT harming a fetus is certainly a factor at sentencing. Somebody who shoves a pregnant woman down the stairs should get 14 years upon conviction versus say 10 for the non-pregant woman because the circumstances of the former assault are that much more sickening to the general public.

So you've accomplished nothing other than trying to force the thin edge of the wedge on anti-abortion.

Get a clue.

[Dayseed]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

If a guy who doesn't want his significant other to be pregnant and he beats this 8 month pregnant woman in the stomach until the fetus dies why should he simply walk away with an assault charge which most of times only carries a fine?

Believe it or not this does happen.

TOTAL BULLSHIT. You find me one instance of somebody being convicted of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT who got a fine with no jail time. Or are you confusing aggravated assault with assault?

[Brenda]

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

And how would you proof that? Just by saying: hey, I was abused and lost my baby because of that? That is NOT a good one for men in general. (any idea how many women would abuse that???)

You can NEVER proof a miscarriage has happened due to assault.

Yes you can.

Show me that you can prove a 12 week old fetus is killed due to bodily harm to the mother, and not because of "nature taking its course"?

Why limit to 12 weeks, Brenda?

Ok, 8 weeks, fine with me. Prove it.

8 months is easier to proof.

How is it easier to prove something that can NEVER be proved?

Because I was talking about miscarriages, remember? A stillborn at 8 months is not a miscarriage anymore.

What about 16 weeks? 20?

Would the fetus be able to survive outside the mothers womb then?

[Mommababycakes]

Regardless of opinions the Canadian justice system is in need of an overhaul. With the changing times and the esclation of violence its a good thing to see this bill pass the second reading. Change is coming and this is a good thing.

[Dayseed]

Mommababycakes Mommababycakes:

Regardless of opinions the Canadian justice system is in need of an overhaul. With the changing times and the esclation of violence its a good thing to see this bill pass the second reading. Change is coming and this is a good thing.

Sorry, this bill isn't the overhaul Canada's justice system needs. Canada needs to hand down longer sentences, pare down trial matters to the essentials meaning that the trial focuses on the crime rather than tallying errors in the Crown's case or police investigation including a crapload more Crown attorneys, courthouses and judges to bring cases to trial sooner rather than letting them drag on to the point they're either dismissed or plead out.

The overhaul won't be cheap either, God knows how much it would cost, but if the federal government proposed the new Justice Tax specifically to pay for it, I think Canadian's current distaste in the justice system would more than sufficiently overcome any resistance to a new tax.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Dayseed Dayseed:

You don't get it. Pushing a woman down the stairs would qualify as aggravated assault; somebody can very easily die from being pushed down the stairs. But heaping on an additional charge of hurting or killing a fetus wouldn't increase the time served by the offender because Canada doesn't use consecutive sentences. Say the guy gets 10 years for the assault and 10 years for killing the fetus. He doesn't serve 20 years, he serves 10. The sentences are concurrent. The addtional charge means nothing in terms of time served.

$1:

- Offenders convicted of multiple charges received more severe sanctions. The incarceration rate for multiple charge cases was 53% compared to 26% for single charge cases.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Being able to lay multiple charges does bring stiffer penalties regardless of the fact that we do not have consecutive sentencing. If additional charges can be laid against a perp for harming a 8 month old fetus there is a better chance he will go away for a longer period of time.

Dayseed Dayseed:

BUT harming a fetus is certainly a factor at sentencing. Somebody who shoves a pregnant woman down the stairs should get 14 years upon conviction versus say 10 for the non-pregant woman because the circumstances of the former assault are that much more sickening to the general public.

No it isn’t. Take for example the truck driver here in Calgary that wiped out a family of 4, one of which was a pregnant mother. No additional charges were laid against him for the “fetus” and it has all ready been ruled that the fact that she was pregnant will not play a factor in his sentencing. (No I don’t have a link for that at the moment but I’ll try to find it)

Dayseed Dayseed:

Get a clue.

Do you always act like a sanctimonious arse when you're debating a topic?

[Dayseed]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

$1:

- Offenders convicted of multiple charges received more severe sanctions. The incarceration rate for multiple charge cases was 53% compared to 26% for single charge cases.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Then stiffen up the incarceration rate. That's a flaw with judges; not the justice system.

$1:

Being able to lay multiple charges does bring stiffer penalties regardless of the fact that we do not have consecutive sentencing. If additional charges can be laid against a perp for harming a 8 month old fetus there is a better chance he will go away for a longer period of time.

Once again, your argument falls on deaf ears. Killing a fetus is a factor that should be applied at sentencing. If a judge is turning a blind eye to the fetus at sentencing, then some belief that an additional charge would mitigate that blind eye is a fantasy. The Crown needs to fight tooth and nail to get harsher sentences. A separate charge won't answer that fight.

$1:

No it isn’t. Take for example the truck driver here in Calgary that wiped out a family of 4, one of which was a pregnant mother. No additional charges were laid against him for the “fetus” and it has all ready been ruled that the fact that she was pregnant will not play a factor in his sentencing. (No I don’t have a link for that at the moment but I’ll try to find it)

You'll need a link. If it's the story that I'm thinking of, then what good would your charge be in that case? There wasn't any foreknowledge of the woman being pregnant; it would be like charging for assault police officer when the accused had no idea it was a cop. Any sentence that driver receives for the 4 deaths he caused aren't going to be strengthened at all by any harmed fetus charge.

$1:

Do you always act like a sanctimonious arse when you're debating a topic?

It depends. If the person with whom I'm debating selectively doesn't answer all of the points addressed to him without even at the least acknowledging those points to which he had no answer, then yes.

For instance, you originally claimed that this bill would somehow confer additional protection against women, but upon challenge, not only do you fail to refute said challenge, you don't even acknowledge its existence. Am I to assume that you've abandoned your silly premise? If you have, acknowledge that you have; that's being civil instead of a disingenuous "arse". If not, acknowledge your intent to get back to it.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Dayseed Dayseed:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

$1:

- Offenders convicted of multiple charges received more severe sanctions. The incarceration rate for multiple charge cases was 53% compared to 26% for single charge cases.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

Then stiffen up the incarceration rate. That's a flaw with judges; not the justice system.

You can stiffin up the laws pertaining to the assault on woman all you want but there is still no law to address deliberately harming the fetus. How do you stiffin up a law a that doesn’t exist?

Dayseed Dayseed:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Being able to lay multiple charges does bring stiffer penalties regardless of the fact that we do not have consecutive sentencing. If additional charges can be laid against a perp for harming a 8 month old fetus there is a better chance he will go away for a longer period of time.

Once again, your argument falls on deaf ears. Killing a fetus is a factor that should be applied at sentencing. If a judge is turning a blind eye to the fetus at sentencing, then some belief that an additional charge would mitigate that blind eye is a fantasy. The Crown needs to fight tooth and nail to get harsher sentences. A separate charge won't answer that fight..

Actually if I’m not mistaken judges can not hand down a stronger penalty simply due to the fact that a woman is pregnant. As it stands a judge has to turn a blind eye to the fact that she was pregnant because there are no laws pertaining to the fetus which is the entire point of this bill.

Dayseed Dayseed:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

No it isn’t. Take for example the truck driver here in Calgary that wiped out a family of 4, one of which was a pregnant mother. No additional charges were laid against him for the “fetus” and it has all ready been ruled that the fact that she was pregnant will not play a factor in his sentencing. (No I don’t have a link for that at the moment but I’ll try to find it)

You'll need a link. If it's the story that I'm thinking of, then what good would your charge be in that case? There wasn't any foreknowledge of the woman being pregnant; it would be like charging for assault police officer when the accused had no idea it was a cop. Any sentence that driver receives for the 4 deaths he caused aren't going to be strengthened at all by any harmed fetus charge.

Yes I do need a link, I’m looking.

Dayseed Dayseed:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Do you always act like a sanctimonious arse when you're debating a topic?

It depends. If the person with whom I'm debating selectively doesn't answer all of the points addressed to him without even at the least acknowledging those points to which he had no answer, then yes.

For instance, you originally claimed that this bill would somehow confer additional protection against women, but upon challenge, not only do you fail to refute said challenge, you don't even acknowledge its existence. Am I to assume that you've abandoned your silly premise? If you have, acknowledge that you have; that's being civil instead of a disingenuous "arse". If not, acknowledge your intent to get back to it.

No I haven’t changed my mind on this. While this bill may not does not directly address the assault on the woman it does address her fetus which the last time I checked was part of a woman up until the time of birth. Is a fetus not part of a woman? If so it indirectly correlates into furthering the protection of pregnant women does it not?

[Brenda]

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

And how would you proof that? Just by saying: hey, I was abused and lost my baby because of that? That is NOT a good one for men in general. (any idea how many women would abuse that???)

You can NEVER proof a miscarriage has happened due to assault.

Yes you can.

Show me that you can prove a 12 week old fetus is killed due to bodily harm to the mother, and not because of "nature taking its course"?

Why limit to 12 weeks, Brenda?

Ok, 8 weeks, fine with me. Prove it.

8 months is easier to proof.

How is it easier to prove something that can NEVER be proved?

Because I was talking about miscarriages, remember? A stillborn at 8 months is not a miscarriage anymore.

What about 16 weeks? 20?

Would the fetus be able to survive outside the mothers womb then?

What difference?

You claimed a miscarriage can NEVER be proven to be the result of an assault. I'm saying it's possible.

What difference? I dunno, you tell me?

[Brenda]

lily lily:

I'm saying it makes no difference to your argument, Brenda. If you believe it does, perhaps you could explain.

$1:

Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, generally defined in humans at a gestation of prior to 20 weeks.

definition of miscarriage

[paisley_cross]

westmanguy westmanguy:

This bill is Pro-Choice, in its purest form. It recognizes that a woman who chooses to carry her unborn child to term, deserves to have that fetus receive protection under the law.

That's right - it is. Classic pro-choice. The bill recognizes a woman's right to an abortion. But if she chooses to take the fetus to term it's covered by this legislation - if it passes Committee and third reading and then moves through the Senate

[dino_bobba_renno]

Dayseed Dayseed:

So you've accomplished nothing other than trying to force the thin edge of the wedge on anti-abortion.

One thing I will say Dayseed is that I agree with 100% that this will muddy the waters on the anti-abortion issue and I don't welcome that lightly but I do feel this piece of legislation is needed.

I see nothing wrong with saying that consideration should be given to a woman’s unborn child when sentencing someone with an assault that results in her losing that child. You can say that judges can use their discretion during sentencing but why should they have to. Not to mention I think you're wrong on that. I don't think judges are allowed to take into consideration if a woman is pregnant or not because if they were able to why would this piece of legislation even have come forward?

[dino_bobba_renno]

westmanguy westmanguy:

This bill is Pro-Choice, in its purest form. It recognizes that a woman who chooses to carry her unborn child to term, deserves to have that fetus receive protection under the law.

Very well said.

[Brenda]

lily lily:

Brenda Brenda:

lily lily:

I'm saying it makes no difference to your argument, Brenda. If you believe it does, perhaps you could explain.

$1:

Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, generally defined in humans at a gestation of prior to 20 weeks.

definition of miscarriage

And that has to do with the topic.... how?

Nice dodge.