(Response to her comment posted on “Run With Life” blog – for link click here)
I am telling you as Molly’s father – you have NOT suggested a reasonable solution.
What about the action of depriving one pregnant woman of her physical liberty? How can you say that it should not be acknowledged any more than before SHE CHOSE to become a mother? How can you claim to stand for the choice of women but exclude her?
I am not arguing on behalf of what you refer to as an “anti-choice movement,” or any other movement that you have labeled to mislead and perpetuate your own bias with.
I am arguing that women deserve and need to be protected from acts of violence – and deserve to have their choice – THEIR BABIES – protected too.
If somehow it is the case that the “pro-life” groups that intend on using my plight to suit their own goals, I have no control over that, nor do I have control over the fear propaganda that you spread when you say that to acknowledge reality in this regard would somehow subtract a woman’s rights.
You say that legal abortions are the sign of a civilized society. Do you also think is it civilized if we let anyone kill a baby that the mother so obviously chose to keep? You realize that there is not one single law that says this is wrong? Is that civilized?
Is it civilized to treat the entire 37-42 weeks of gestation as the lawless Wild West for anyone to choose what happens to a baby? Is it civilized to PRETEND unborn babies don’t exist for the sake of your perceived legal convenience?
You once wrote, “Only the pregnant woman has the right to decide the moral value and status of her fetus, because it’s no-one else’s business. The fetus becomes a person when the woman carrying it decides it does.”
Then why do you condemn a law that would make it true? Do you not believe in your own message?
Also, the statistics you continue to quote are skewed. First of all, you are referring to a country with a population of over 300 million. Canada’s population is just over 30 million. Second, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, a law like Bill C-484 is NOT the law responsible for violations of civil liberties in any of these cases, nor could it be considering its very specific and narrow wording. You are very obviously perpetuating fear of ANY LAW. Why is that?
You have said yourself, “If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”
Do you realize how utterly dismissive such sentiment is to families in situations like mine? Do you realize in saying this how utterly indifferent it is of A WOMAN’S CHOICE TO BECOME A MOTHER?
I hope what bleeds into the peoples consciousness is your fanatical hypocrisies and extremist contradictions.
On a personal note, your condolences are paper thin. I don’t fault you for it; I understand that for some, it takes the experience of parenthood to have true empathy for such things. What I find strange though is that you offer no acknowledgement in the limitation of your own personal human experience. You are not a mother – yet you presume to speak for them? How, in good conscious, can you do this even for the women who choose to nurture and love the life – the family – that thrives inside of them?
I am sorry if that crosses the line of what is personal, but I feel you already took that liberty by implying that it is wrong for me as a father to seek justice for my daughter Molly’s life/Cassie’s choice. Not to mention YOUR choice to not stand up for what was Cassie’s CHOICE as a woman.
How can you be against laws that would protect women from violence exactly when they need it most? You say a woman’s choice should be, “no-one else’s business.” Why do you continuously stand in the way of a laws that would make it so? And don’t tell me it’s because their rights will be taken away. We both know that isn’t true.
I would have liked to see you tell Cassie that it wasn’t a human being that brought the joy to her face when Molly kicked or squirmed. She would have told you that you were insane. I would have agreed with her.
From what I have read you are an advocate for woman’s rights, but where are you for Cassie’s or women like her? What kind woman’s rights advocate barters the choice of some woman for the hypothetical betterment of all women? Where is the integrity in that? There isn’t any.
This is an opportunity to strengthen woman’s rights by also protecting the life that you yourself said, “becomes a person when the woman carrying it decides it does.”
You are right though about one thing – I am not a lawyer either. But it doesn’t take a law degree to see you insist on leaving an imperative piece of information out:
What about Cassie’s choice Joyce?
