If a fetus is a person, then a woman isn't.
Or, if you prefer, any separate legal rights granted to a fetus as a person with the right not to be killed or injured must necessarily come at the expense of the person carrying that fetus.
In Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the word "child" appears 14 times and the phrase "unborn child" five times. Clause 5 states : "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being." (h/t Joyce Arthur)
Read that again : "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."
In Bill C-484 Endangers Abortion Rights and Women's Rights by Establishing Fetal Personhood, an excellent rebuttal to the supposed innocuousnous of the bill, Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada writes :
"Regardless of Ken Epp’s stated intent for the bill – to protect pregnant women and wanted fetuses from violence – he should realize that once enacted, his bill can be used in ways he did not intend .... By recognizing the "rights of the unborn," it creates the risk that pregnant women’s behaviour could be regulated or punished, and abortion rights restricted."
Plus, although Epp cannot be held directly responsible for the, uh, enthusiasm of his followers, their references to C-484 as a Kicking Abortion's Ass bill aren't really helping his case any.
Tuesday Update : PSA at Canadian Cynic massacres C-484 :