Barbara Kay turns the pro-choice legal personhood argument on its head in the National Post when she discusses Bill C-225 Molly's law:
"— aims, in the words of abortion-law activist Mike Schouten, to “provide justice for women and families who have chosen to carry their babies to term...”
"...Pro-choice argumentation was weak in 2008 and remains weak today. One fallacious gambit is that mother and fetus, even though each has her own unique DNA, should continue to be considered one person because their biological systems operate symbiotically. This implies that conjoined twins, whose systems also operate symbiotically, are one person, when they manifestly are not. However, the mainstay of the opposition is the “legal personhood” canard. That the unborn are not “legal persons” in law is true, but morally and historically irrelevant: women, after all, weren’t “legal persons” until 1929, but were always considered murder victims in their own right before that date.
Hardline ideological feminists, who have a huge influence on politicians and the judiciary (which is why this bill is probably another exercise in political futility), regard the law as their ideology’s handmaiden..."Ms. Kay has that right. Our hard line feminists scare our politicians to death when it comes to abortion. Joyce Arthur and anonymous blogger "Fern Hill" have of course already spoken out against Bill C-225. No surprise there.
But we know why the pro-abortions are really against Bill C-225. Joyce Arthur said it herself about Bill C-484:
"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion,"For the pro-abortions, it is very very important that this never be allowed to happen. The legal killing of preborn children must be preserved at all costs.
Even when a woman is attacked and the child she chooses to carry to term is brutally killed.