Abortion activists rallying to kill new Fetal Homicide Bill

The macabre fanatics at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada – one of the “Pro Choice” advocacy group furious it can no longer receive government funding through the Status of Women Canada office – are trying to rally the nation against the proposed “Unborn Victims of Crime Act” (private member’s bill C-484 introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp, up for a vote in March should this Parliament last that long). The ARCC believes in unlimited, free abortions for all women at any stage of pregnancy throughout Canada.

Epp’s bill – a response to recent murders of pregnant women in Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Toronto, in which the alleged murderer was the father of the unborn child – would allow prosecutors to add a second murder charge in such cases for the death of the unborn child.

Satisfied with the fact that there is not a single restriction on abortion on the books in Canadian law, and that the Supreme Court has ruled that an unborn child is not considered a human being until it has been completely separated from its mother’s body, the ARCC is furious at this modest attack on the status quo. The ARCC is encouraging its constituency of pro-abortion absolutists to work to kill this bill. Not interested in subtlety, the ARCC has even composed a heartfelt protest letter for its supporters to submit to Canadian MPs due to vote on the bill.

Sample Letter Opposing the
“Unborn Victims of Violence Act”

December 12, 2007Below is a sample letter you can email to your MP opposing Conservative MP Ken Epp’s private member’s bill “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.”  Debate on the bill begins on December 13th, and a vote may occur in the New Year. You can just copy and paste the sample letter into an email or your word processing program. Feel free to edit the letter or write your own. 

Please look up your MP here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC Also, please visit your MP to register your opposition to the bill. They are home in their constituency offices between Dec 17 and Jan 25. (Although most offices may be closed from Dec 21 to Jan 3). You can give them a copy of our Talking Points against the bill. Also use these Talking Points to help write your own letter or email to them.

Dear [insert MP’s name]
I’m writing to register my opposition to Conservative MP Ken Epp’s private member bill C-484, the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” I urge you to please vote against this bill in Parliament. 
I fear that this bill is a backdoor attempt to re-criminalize abortion by giving fetuses a form of legal personhood. Mr. Epp is anti-abortion himself, and his bill is being promoted largely by anti-abortion groups and individuals. Although Mr. Epp’s bill exempts both abortion and pregnant women from prosecution, similar laws in some U.S. states have been used to target pregnant women anyway, for actions perceived to harm their fetuses (See the website of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, at: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/unborn_victims_of_violence_act/)
In practice, these “feticide” laws create a dangerous slippery slope towards the criminalizing of pregnant women for behaviours that are not criminalized for anyone else. Mr. Epp’s bill flies in the face of Canadian legal precedent supporting the equality rights of women, including pregnant women’s sovereignty over their fetuses (Supreme Court’s Dobson vs. Dobson, 1999). Further, his bill conflicts directly with the Criminal Code, which says “A child becomes a human being … when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.” It would degrade the rule of law in this country to enact a contradictory law that throws women’s rights into confusion. 
I’m greatly saddened by the horrific tragedies of pregnant women being murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. But the real issue here is domestic violence against women. Homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women. Instead of supporting Mr. Epp’s bill, could you please advocate instead for more resources to reduce violence against pregnant women? Also, I would support a law that mandates more serious penalties for third parties who attack pregnant women. This would avoid any controversy over abortion, and ensure that the rights of pregnant women are respected. 
Thank you very much,

For those who would prefer that these loons be intellectually honest and say what they truly feel, I would like to suggest the following rewrite:

Dear [insert fascist woman-hater’s, or NDP MP’s, name here

I’m writing to register my opposition to Conservative MP Ken Epp’s private member bill C-484, the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” I urge you to please vote against this bill in Parliament.

If you allow the law to acknowledge that murdering a fetus along with its mother is a crime, then you acknowlege that a fetus is more than just a clump of cells. AND YOU KNOW IT’S JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS DAMMIT YOU DO IT’S TRUE!!!! What are you, some kind of Bushhitler evengelacal?

A fetus is not a person, and should not be granted any recognition of personhood. Those medical textbooks that tell you the heart beats at 21 days after conception, that the fetus has arms and legs at 5 weeks, a developing brain at 7 weeks, and that a fetus can be viable outside of the womb in as little as 22 weeks of gestation, are wrong. None of that matters, because it’s just A PARASITE OF THE MOTHER’S BODY, don’t you know that by now? Sheesh.

This “feticide” law is just a slippery slope towards making people realize that we don’t have any sort of restrictions on abortion in Canada; and a knowledgeable public may be inclined to believe that carving the skull out of a fully-formed child in utero, then vacuum-sucking out the remaining tissue through the birth canal on even the day of labour, is somehow not completely cool!

I’m greatly saddened by the horrific tragedies of pregnant women being murdered by their husband or boyfriends. But not so sad as to sacrifice even one inch in my lifelong quest to allow the carnage of innocent future lives to continue in perpetuity because I think I learned at college that it’s part of feminism or something like that; and to continue being a useful idiot to the abortion industry that makes millions of dollars every year for doctors willing to discard the Hippocratic oath and disregard the time-tested teachings of every major world religion that prohibits the taking of innocent human life.

I will continue to glom onto every wrong-headed far-left activist judicial decision of the past 30 years to prove that you can’t touch the unlimited vaginal vacuum extraction of those pesky little parasites that consume resources and create carbon emissions for up to 100 years. The 100,000+ abortions performed each year in Canada must continue; we’re so much better off with more childless young women able to party hard and reach higher in middle management at the CIBC for a few more years until they are ready for their one designer baby at age 38 that will have to support half a dozen entitlement-spoiled retirees on his or her single salary. And those poor desperate infertile couples who wait years on waiting lists to adopt newborns? Send them to China.

Thank you very much,

a concerned Canadian.



Filed under Abortion Unlimited

14 responses to “Abortion activists rallying to kill new Fetal Homicide Bill

  1. TnT

    the one difference between you loons, and us loons, is that you loons are willing to pick up a gun and shoot people to enforce your beliefs.

    That speaks for itself.

    Hopefully, this bill is handily defeated, and we can move towards sanity and look at whether there should be limits on when in the term an abortion is allowed. Although, I was aware one could abort at 8 months.

  2. Ahh, the old “shooting abortion doctors” gambit. Let me ask you: when was the last time an abortion doctor was shot, and how often has it happened? And where are these people who advocate violence against abortion doctors?

    The sad last-resort of the amoral, confused liberal.

  3. TnT

    It has happened, one too many times, and was justified by many.

    The most recent I know of was a suicide bomb attempt in Iowa in 2001.

    Why do you resort to name calling? “sad last-resort of the amoral, confused liberal”? Come on, grow up.

    You still don’t get it, that you are trying to enforce your beliefs on others.

    Almost 80% of Canadians, reject your beliefs. You’re free to have them, but don’t enforce it others. Period.

    Why is that so difficult to understand???

  4. Krig

    The only question of any importance in the abortion debate is this: is the fetus a human being, or not? If not, then aborting it is simply a medical procedure. If it is, however, then abortion is murder.

    What people like you, TnT, seem to fail to understand, is how utterly depraved and monstrous your arguments sound to those of us who believe that the unborn fetus is as human as a two-year-old. For example:

    “Hopefully, this bill is handily defeated, and we can move towards sanity and look at whether there should be limits on when in the term a child-killing is allowed. Although, I was aware one could kill a child at 2 years old.”

    If you want to argue that the fetus is not human and abortion is not murder, then by all means, present your case. But don’t insult your opponents’ intelligence by saying that murder is a matter of personal opinion, not to be enforced on others.

  5. TnT

    “But don’t insult your opponents’ intelligence by saying that murder is a matter of personal opinion, not to be enforced on others.”

    What? Murder is personal preference? Are you out of your mind? Who would suggest such a ridiculous notion?

    It is NOT murder that is personal preference. Don’t even try to suggest that that is what I am saying. Such tactics are nonsense.

    And then…


    I thought the question whether I thought it was ok for my mommy to abort me was incredible. Boy was I was wrong.

    You twist my words in such a way, as to suggest that I would be ok with killing a 2 year old child? ARE YOU SICK?

    I’m very offended that you would actually stoop so low as to accuse anyone of such a dastardly belief to prove your point. I’m sorry but I cannot take you seriously with such a ridiculous notion, and unbelievably stupid tactics.

    I am so thankful that such sick logic doesn’t prevail upon our country, and the majority of Canadians would reject such a sick notion.

    You need serious help if you’re going to accuse others of that sort of thing if they don’t agree with you.

  6. MA


    Um, I think you’re missing the point Krig is trying to make, or simply ignoring it.

    Let me use another example to try to get the same point across: suppose you’ve got your back to your 5-year-old kid, who’s asking you, “Daddy/Mommy, can I kill this?”.

    How are you going to answer that question?

    You CANNOT properly answer the question without FIRST asking the question, “What is it?”

    If it’s the kid’s 3-month-old sibling, the answer would be very different than if it were a spider, or a shoe. Wouldn’t it?

    You may say, well, there’s a difference between a 3-month-old baby and the unborn…but THAT is the crux of the matter.

    The LAW (not theory, the LAW) of biogenesis is that living things ONLY reproduce after themselves. So, cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, spiders beget spiders, and….humans beget…oh, wait, are you stumped? Are you kidding? If you are stumped, I’m embarassed for you.

    All of the scientific evidence points towards humanity, not away from it.

    Also, if you want to claim that the unborn is only potentially human, you MUST say what it ACTUALLY is before claiming a right to destroy it. After all, we don’t live in a vacuum: a potential X is an actual Y. So what is the unborn ACTUALLY, if not a human being? The burden is yours to prove that it is not human if you want to claim a right to destroy/remove/vacuum out.

    If the unborn are human, then you have no more right to harm them than you do any toddler. Period.

  7. MA


    Also, re: shooting abortionists — no one here is saying that that is right. At all. But tell us how the reprehensible acts of one person against another disproves the humanity of the unborn? How does it disprove the unique DNA? How does it disprove the human parentage and break the LAW of biogenesis?

    It doesn’t.

  8. MA

    It’s really the worst kind of mysoginist that could fathom opposing a bill like this.

  9. TnT

    unfortunately, there is no medical evidence to support your theory the developing fetus is a human being, that would warrant a charge of murder if it were aborted.

    All you have, is your religious belief. You hold it as if it were some kind of fact to be recognized by all living things, but it just isn’t so. Again, you are free to have your religious belief. No one, is forcing you to abort your children.

    But, for the tenth time, do not enforce your religious beliefs on the majority. We’re not interested. And don’t pass your religious beliefs off as fact.

    And please look up the definition of misogyny before making that statement. Because, the last time I checked, it’s still considered murder to kill a woman.

  10. CPS

    I feel I should point out that since, by law, a fetus is just another part of the woman’s body, the proposed law would come into conflict with current legislation, the very legislation that we depend on to allow women to have abortions. The proposed law would have someone charged for comitting an act against the fetus which in effect gives the fetus rights that are separate from that of the mother, hence the conflict. According to our current laws, this would be like someone getting charged with the murder of my kidney. It just does not make sense. It doesn’t matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is a troubling state of affairs since, in a consistent system, one of the laws will have to go. Thus, even for the pro-choice folks who would love to see woman-murdering assholes get some years added to their sentences, the most honest thing to do is to oppose this legislation as it conflicts with laws that they believe are just. Likewise, the most honest thing for the pro-life folks to do would be to directly confront the legislation that protects those they are trying to save rather than introducing legislation that will have a hard time standing in light of current legislation and public sensibilities. If you think abortion is wrong, attack the law that allows it rather trying to pass bad legislation under false pretenses. If you want to protect women you have to address the issues that are leading to the harm done against them rather than pushing for legislation that conflicts with laws that many of them see as protecting their fundamental human rights.

  11. CPS

    Also, to aid the debate I see here, keep in mind that ‘Human’ and a ‘Human Being’ or ‘Person’ are two different sorts of things. A fetus is, without a doubt, ‘human’ but this does not make it a ‘human being’. Cancerous tumours are ‘human’ (they are alive, come from humans, have human DNA ect) but they are certainly not persons. What makes something a ‘person’ then? I actually don’t know and I have yet to hear any clearcut definition of personhood that can withstand any amount of scruitiny so I am curious to see what folks here think.

  12. Oh, CPS, you’ve revealed yourself. Your first comment was more or less reasonable; pro-lifers should, indeed, make a concerted effort to take on the lack of abortion law in Canada head-on. However, you couldn’t help yourself, and showed your true face. No one owes you an explanation as to whether a fetus is a person – the argument is self-evident – but you certainly owe an explanation to every decent person here why you would compare a fetus to a cancerous tumour. Truly despicable.

    Try telling my wife, due with our second child in just two weeks, that she’s carrying around the equivalent of a tumour. She’s sitting right next to me. Let’s go, big shot.

  13. TnT

    down boy. I love how you pro lifers just use this sweeping commandment of “the argument is self evident”. To whom? You? Certainly not to me, nor a significant number of people! There you go again expecting people to accept your beliefs as fact. Yes, an explanation absolutely required if you think someone should be charged with murder for harming a fetus! How can any rational individual expect anyone to accept such a law without explanation, based on a minority’s religious belief?

    You have the gall to attack someone with their analogy, but will accept another’s putting words in my mouth that I would accept killing a 2 year old child as acceptable?

    What a world of hypocrisy!

    No wonder, and thank god the majority see pro choice as the more rational view.

  14. As the author and moderator of this blog, it is my prerogative to end this thread with the last word: if you abandon your heart in the pursuit of reason, and in the process you can’t even find reason, then the truth becomes clear: reason requires heart.

    Reclaim your hearts, people.