Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Stupid People

On Bill C-484, in response to an op-ed written by Vicki Saporta, this blogger (The impatient patient) writes a very interesting, insightful and sometimes outright hilarious article, I dislike Stupid People:

a) Exactly how does Saporta know that it is a "fact" that the legislation will have "negligible deterrent effect"?
b) Again, why is she trying to scare us by claiming the Bill could "drastically change Canadian law"? Why is this a bad thing? Why is this supposed to scare us? Laws change all the time. BFD.
c) Saporta is arguing against this Bill by saying that a similar law in the U.S. has not resulted in a reduction of violence against women. This is the argument that angered me most. Let's be very clear on something. The purpose of the law is not, repeat IS NOT to reduce violence against pregnant women. That is where Saporta is 100% wrong. The purpose of the law is to fairly and properly punish people who injure or kill a pregnant woman (which means the woman and her unborn child). The reason the law is being proposed is because a great number of Canadians believe that charging a person with one count of murder after they murder a pregnant woman, is insufficient because that person actually killed two people - the woman and her child.

Let me show you how stupid Saporta's argument is: Saying that we should not support Bill C-484 because it "will not result in a reduction of violence against women", is the same as saying that there's no point in making it illegal to drive drunk, because drunk driving charges do not bring back the victims killed in crashes by drunk drivers. How stupid is that? While we're at it, why don't we just get rid of child abuse laws. After all, charging parents who sexually, physically, verbally and emotionally abuse their children, doesn't erase the "hurt" their children have experienced, so the laws must be useless, right?

She makes a really good point here:
If Saporta argued that a fetus shouldn't have the right to life because it's part of the mother's body until the umbilical cord is cut, or if she argued that she just didn't believe a fetus should have the right to life until it emerged from its mother's body, then I might be able to respect her argument (even if I disagreed with it). But what angers me so much, is that Saporta is saying that she's not willing to even consider the rights of the fetus because all she can care about is the right of a woman to have an abortion.

I especially appreciated this particular comment (quote from Saporta included in bold). In fact, I laughed out loud like crazy until my two-year-old came running and wanted to know what was so funny. Try explaining this to a two-year-old:

The National Abortion Federation (NAF), the professional association of abortion providers in Canada and the U.S., fully supports a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term.

Well, fan-f**king-tastic. Thank you for telling me that. I'm so glad you cleared that up. But really, is there even a question about that? Hello?? Is there ANYONE in the world that doesn't support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term?

This is a non-point. This is the stupidest thing she says.

Before I go on, I just want to state, with complete clarity, that I fully support Saporta's right to have two arms and two legs. Look how wonderful and liberal I am.

Read more