ProWomanProLife

And he’ll probably be out in no time:

OTTAWA — A 21-year-old man who beat his pregnant girlfriend to make her unattractive to other men was sentenced to a year in jail Wednesday.

Marcel Mario Vien struck his pregnant girlfriend three times in the stomach and scratched her chest five or six times, causing bruising over a two-month period in August and September 2008, according to an agreed statement of facts.

Vien also grabbed the neck area and strangled the woman, dug his fingers into her mouth and inflicted bloody scratches that were so deep they left permanent scars on her back and side.

The story doesn’t say what, if anything, happened to the baby she was carrying. Maybe they forgot that detail?

Did we ever dodge a bullet there. I’m so grateful to all those who fought to keep that amendment to the criminal code outta the books. Just look what could have happened in Canada:

Charges against Frederick Beach, accused of beating his pregnant girlfriend to death, include one under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act… He is accused of beating to death Verlinda Kinsel, 29, in September and killing the fetus she had said was his. Authorities say the victim’s 9-year-old son witnessed the assault.

If convicted, Beach faces life in prison.

If you ask me, the crying shame in this story is not the fact that the guy’s gonna get charged under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

I don’t specifically know what’s going on in Winnipeg actually, however, Maclean’s reports that at the Conservative Party convention, delegates vote to bring back something like Bill C-484, the unborn victims of violence bill.

A more contentious proposal would add charges to anyone who kills or injures a fetus during the commission of a crime against a pregnant mother.

Be it resolved that this is neither contentious, nor particularly Conservative with a Cap C. (Bill C-484 had wide Canadian support.)

I did not want to comment on this Camille Paglia piece until I read it in full. I’m glad I did. On top of being splendid prose, this piece is a boon to the pro-life movement. 

Let’s get straight to the part that has raised the ire of pro-lifers. Paglia says abortion is murder and then adds she fully accepts abortion. Is this shocking? Perhaps. But every woman who has had an abortion is grappling with that very sentiment. This is the essence of the debate and why pro-lifers care at all in the first place. Never to curtail anyone’s choices–but rather to identify that a person is a person, even in the womb (was tempted to say no matter how small, with apologies to Dr. Seuss) and therefore elimination is not a choice. Paglia has put on the page what every strident pro-abortion activist accepts and knows. They simply don’t say it.

Paglia speaks of “the uneasy conscience of feminism…” and I know that well. It’s that silence that descends most every time the “A word” comes up. I like to think it’s the sound of people’s conscience contorting, writhing around what they know to be true and what they’ve been told they must say. Most women will never accept that murder is their special privilege.

Abortion is “the extermination of the powerless by the powerful,” again, Paglia’s words, which I will be sure to repeat. (If you don’t think abortion is the extermination of the powerless by the powerful, you’ve not watched one in progress, and you should.) Pro-abortion types fare better in the public square if they conceal, conceal, conceal. This is why Bill C-484 had to go. Because it would have started women and men thinking, thinking, slowing realizing–what are we doing? And that is the frightening consistency of pro-abortion types: keep abortion out of the public mind, because free thought is out of bounds.

I’ll take Paglia’s words one step further: the extermination of the powerless by the powerful begins with conniving and devious so-called supporters of women’s rights–those who lie about what abortion is and then convince everyone that access to abortion is a right–hey! this isn’t evil! It’s empowering! They know what Paglia knows–and cloak the act in comfy euphemisms. They meet women in their personal deserts and offer a refreshing drink of cyanide. Only they call it Sprite and add ice and one of those fun paper umbrellas.

Though Paglia’s conclusion is repugnant to me, she is not coercing anyone to her view. She hardly could–it’s not a very good slogan–”Murdering millions–in particular those who have done absolutely nothing wrong and can’t defend themselves! Join today!”  

She says:

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism — one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

Bottom line: this kind of disquieting article does the pro-life movement a great service. 

_______________________

Véronique adds: I doubt that Camille Paglia is a closet pro-lifer. Or that she would be delighted by our endorsement. That being said, I want to say how much I liked reading her article. She takes a strong position and she defends it to its logical end without rhetoric or slogans. This is someone I feel like I could have an intelligent conversation with. On the pro-choice side. That in itself gives me hope. Not so much that I could convince her because I don’t think I could. But it gives me hope that we can engage in these issues instead of avoiding them.

Ken Epp designs and proposes Bill C-484. It’s uncontroversial among Canadians, who overwhelmingly approve of it in public opinion polls, until it passes second reading. At this point, pro-abortion extremists get worried. They begin a (at least somewhat successful) public campaign to discredit the bill and to create fears that really Bill C-484 intends to change our abortions laws, and give unborn people personhood status. In order to overturn Bill C-484, they put forward their own legislation, through Liberal MP Brent St. Denis.

The government’s proposed solution is actually already before the House of Commons. It was put forward last May by Liberal MP Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing) in a private member’s bill that adds the targeting of a pregnant woman to a list of sentencing factors.

 Joyce Arthur supports that legislation, publicly: 

Now, Joyce Arthur, the head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and one of the top pro-abortion activists attacking the bill to protect pregnant women, is urging support for an alternative. In an editorial released on Monday, she said she prefers the new bill C-543 by Liberal MP Brent St Denis.

Rob Nicholson copies that legislation, much to the chagrin of many supporters of Bill C-484.

And then Joyce Arthur says this:

Joyce Arthur, of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, believed that C484 would have led to making abortion illegal. However, she said that she too could see no reason for what Mr. Nicholson is proposing.

Keeping up with the inconsistencies is totally exhausting.

From the Calgary Herald:

The question then, is not why Tories are wimps. It is why a small faction has managed to so own the issue that even a discussion about having an abortion law — never mind what that law should say — is effectively excluded from the marketplace of ideas.

The Tories, the Liberals, whatever party will indeed discuss abortion when we, the voters, manage to overturn that small collection of very loud, strident pro-abortion voices. Of course, there could also be a partnership between reasonable voters, ie. that majority who supported Bill C-484 and solid leadership. Certainly defending Bill C-484 did not involve, gasp, being pro-life.

I can see things both ways but am more inclined to this Calgary Herald viewpoint than those Conservative pro-lifers who say they are dumping the Conservatives or not going to vote in the upcoming election.

Apparently, there’s nothing like the government pulling the rug out from under you for getting good press.

Another article that favours Bill C-484. Here’s a good quote where about how doctors tried to save the “aggravating factor,” known in popular parlance as a baby.

They spent four hours at the hospital trying to save the baby,” said Aydin Cocelli, Ms. Sesen’s brother-in-law. “If it wasn’t a baby, then why were they trying to save her?”

Naomi Lakritz of the Calgary Herald has written an excellent piece about clarity, abortion and Bill C-484.

My favourite line:

It is obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp of English that this bill is not about abortion. Notice the key words “criminally assault,” “wants and loves,” and “against her will.” That does not describe the pregnant woman rifling through the phone book in search of an address for the nearest abortion provider.

And my second-favourite line:

Next, politicians and abortion rights groups have to stop pretending that a fetus is not fully human because it can’t survive on its own. If it weren’t fully human, there wouldn’t be all this debate. We do not hold debates about the degree of guppiness of unborn guppies, do we? And if a fetus cannot survive on its own, neither can an infant or a toddler. Are they any less human?

Reading this also caused me to stop and realize that I am way too cautious on the topic of abortion. Yes, you heard me, too cautious. Because I’ve never seen any Canadian political leader do or say anything reasonable on abortion or defending unborn babies, I stopped thinking they ever could. Thanks to columns like this, I am reminded to demand nothing less. (But hey, a girl has to keep her sanity. Low expectations means that even politicians, from time to time, exceed ‘em.)

If their ideology can’t withstand people thinking about what that ideology actually involves, how secure are they in their position?

Ken Epp, writing about Bill C-484 here. The ideologically strident are aware that the current pro-choice status quo rests on not thinking about “the abortion situation” too much (and constantly putting things like “unborn victims” in quotation marks, as if it were a laughable possibility rather than reality.) 

This is why all the screaming begins for bills that don’t even pertain directly to abortion. How secure is their position? Not very.

Bill C-484 was never my favourite piece of legislation. It wasn’t pro-life, and man oh man, judging by the outcry on the pro-abortion side, it certainly wasn’t their cup of tea either. I suppose I enjoyed the fact that even in wanted pregnancies, the pro-abortion side was guarding against what they perceived to be a slippery slope–that somehow, if in wanted pregnancies killing a baby could amount to a crime, that might spill over into people’s subconscious for the abortion debate. In any event, Bill C-484 is no more. I think Harper did the right thing, telling Minister Nicholson to have that press conference, especially given that Dion was asking for his position on abortion. It’s off the table now–a good tactical move for any politician going into an election. Which I now, thanks to this move, fully believe we are.

Now how he did it, that irks me. Ken Epp’s office was not informed. I understand Epp is not running for office again. I understand therefore, that Harper thinks he doesn’t need to care. Here’s why he should have. Irrespective of how I felt about Bill C-484, there were those who supported Epp passionately, and saw it as a pro-life bill, or at least a small statement that social conservatives could support. Not telling Epp now means at best begrudging support from that crowd. What Harper did was fine. How he did it wasn’t. A tactical shift doesn’t have to be dirty. 

That’s where Harper should be more careful. There are many people out there who couldn’t give a hoot for “politics,” but do look to substance and conduct. And why shouldn’t they? They don’t live in this special silo called Ottawa. Don’t they count for something?

_________________________

Brigitte adds: Ken Epp says he won’t withdraw his bill. Good for him. I have zero doubt it will die on its own some day soon, but hey. There’s only so much any individual MP can do, and Mr. Epp is doing all he can.