[Brenda]

That doesn't prove anything.

$1:

When she later realized what she had eaten, she decided to have an abortion, fearing that the fetus had been damaged by the pills.

He gave her pills, which was the aggravated assault.

You are claiming you can prove things. I think there is a HUGE difference between a miscarriage and a stillbirth. I also think fetusses should not have rights. The moment they get rights is when they proved to be able to exist outside the womb, which is around 24, 25 weeks.

[Dayseed]

Dino,

Now we seem to be getting closer to something we can agree on. Section 718.2 doesn't specifically allow for "pregnancy" as an aggravating factor, but if this bill specifically redresses that, then I have no problem with the bill.

This is why I would rather see any assault charge which would kill a fetus have the max sentence increased such that the penal length would be longer. (Sorry folks, I can't resist a dirty joke.) That way, the disgust of the crime could be addressed within the sentence rather than relying on 718.2.

Heaping on charge after charge isn't going to increase the jail sentence. And I should clarify something too that somebody emailed me; consecutive sentences DO exist in Canada, but they wouldn't be USED in a situation like this since the killing of the fetus and the assault on the mother would be considered together. If the guy broke out of jail to do it, or was on parole, then the new sentence could be tacked on consecutively to whatever sentence had been imposed for the previous crime. Sorry to confuse people there.

That said, judges need to impose the harsher sentences from the public outcry. To give a fetus post-mortal redress in the courts is too slippery a slope; especially when there are other ways to accomplish the same goal of punishing the fuck out of somebody sick enough to beat a pregnant woman.

[westmanguy]

How would it not register as a second charge?

I know we have Habeous Corpus, that says after a particular murder charge has been dealt with in the courts, it can't be reopened, even if new evidence comes up.

But If I steal a car, then assault someone, would I receive two different charges, and 2 different time punishments?

Even if you are right, regardless of concurrent/consecutive sentencing, a women who CHOOSES to carry her child to term, and has it harmed/killed by a somebody, deserves to have the law and justice, that her unborn child was RECOGNIZED and that murder was RECOGNIZED on that criminal's record.

This is not about abortion, and the bill is very clear that it doesn't apply to elective abortions.

[Brenda]

lily lily:

$1:

You are claiming you can prove things. I think there is a HUGE difference between a miscarriage and a stillbirth. I also think fetusses should not have rights.

There IS a difference between a stillbirth and a miscarriage... right now it's 20 weeks, in a few years it might be 19 or maybe 18. You might call that huge... to me it's still just a random number.

The proposed bill just says "fetuses", Brenda. It doesn't provide any dates.

And that is exactly why it is so dangerous.

[Dayseed]

westmanguy westmanguy:

How would it not register as a second charge?

I know we have Habeous Corpus, that says after a particular murder charge has been dealt with in the courts, it can't be reopened, even if new evidence comes up.

Except you're mixing up double jeopardy with habeus corpus. Habeus corpus means "bring the body forth", such that somebody who is arrested must be brought to court. Double jeopardy only applies if the Crown loses its case. New exculpatory evidence can always be brought forward and the case rexamined. That's the unfortunate problem with murderers like Steven Truscott.

$1:

But If I steal a car, then assault someone, would I receive two different charges, and 2 different time punishments?

Yes, stealing a car is Theft Over $5000 and assault is Assault. If you steal a car and then, for a completely unrelated reason, you go punch somebody, you would be tried in two separate trials. Once one conviction is registered, there's nothing to prevent the second judge from making the other sentence consecutive. If you punch somebody WHILE stealing a car then no, you'd receive concurrent sentences.

$1:

Even if you are right, regardless of concurrent/consecutive sentencing, a women who CHOOSES to carry her child to term, and has it harmed/killed by a somebody, deserves to have the law and justice, that her unborn child was RECOGNIZED and that murder was RECOGNIZED on that criminal's record.

But you're giving de facto rights to a fetus. Once a fetus has "rights", it's a slippery slope to a fetus being given the same status as a living person. Killing the fetus wouldn't be a secret at trial you know. The family is free to express their anger and hatred any way they may, they don't need the courts to do that for them.

$1:

This is not about abortion, and the bill is very clear that it doesn't apply to elective abortions.

Harming a fetus has many different meanings to many different people. Let's put a stop to ANY meaning right here and now.

[Durandal]

sandorski sandorski:

The Code of Hammurabi

That Mesopotamian thesis again.

My gosh, civilised peoples were Atheists 4 000 years ago before the birth of Monotheism !! Halt this Judeo-Christian millenium imposture !!

[Durandal]

westmanguy westmanguy:

Anyways this isn't about abortion.

The Political Left is just trying to paint this as the "Slippery Slope"

Don't worry, abortion will be outlawed again in the West. Step by step. Where Christians won't make it, Muslims will.

[westmanguy]

How is this a slippery slope Dayseed? The bill clearly omits elective abortions, and would never stand as a challenge to the state of abortion in Canada.

[Dayseed]

westmanguy westmanguy:

How is this a slippery slope Dayseed? The bill clearly omits elective abortions, and would never stand as a challenge to the state of abortion in Canada.

Step 1. Give fetuses protection separate from the mother.

Step 2. Find some crack-whore who's poisoning her fetus with crack. Prosecute her for harming the fetus.

Step 3. Use above ruling as springboard to expanding scope of law to encompass many different aspects of "fetus-harming".

Step 4. Roll the dice on trying to overturn R v. Morgentaler by applying S. 7 Charter rights to fetus now that it has de facto legal standing thanks to this bill.

Any other questions?

[Bodah]

kenmore kenmore:

face it .. tories are tight assed rednecked bible thumping right wingers who feel because they get elected they can force their crap on the rest of us...
this law.. while it sounds fair on the outset is just a precursor for reversing the abortion law... lets face it.. like I say if these nuts get a majority they will set the country back 50 yrs... I am a Catholic but I believe in the right to choose...

According to your Bloc & Liberal icons in your profile your delusional psychotic episode has yet to subside. So I'll fill you in on this white Anglo Tory.

My brother in-law who is an awesome guy who treats my sister like gold, is Arabic.

One of my best friends is a male homosexual.

I'm an atheist.

Until then have a cup of STFU and stay from your pc until the delusions wear off.