MPs To Consider Debate On When Human Life Begins

CBC  |  Posted: 04/25/2012 3:54 pm Updated: 04/27/2012 6:25 am

Abortion Canada Woodworth
Abortion rights are at the centre of a debate MPs are set to discuss Thursday as they consider whether to hold a special committee to look at when human life begins. Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative MP from Kitchener, Ont., introduced a private members motion calling for the committee. (CP)


Abortion rights are at the centre of a debate set for this afternoon as MPs consider whether to hold a special committee to look at when human life begins.


Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative MP from Kitchener, Ont., introduced a private member's motion calling for the committee. Woodworth says current Canadian law says human life begins when a child has fully emerged from the mother's birth canal, which is based on a 400-year-old definition imported from Britain.


The motion isn't binding, but allows MPs to spend two hours discussing the need — or lack thereof — for a committee to examine the question of when life begins.


When he announced the motion, Woodworth had argued he was simply interested in updating the law to agree with 21st-century medicine. But speaking to Radio-Canada on Monday, he admitted his motion is linked to abortion.


"It certainly allows us to have an honest discussion about the abortion question. How can we honestly discuss all of the complicated issues around abortion if we cannot decide whether or not a child is a human being before the moment of the complete birth?" Woodworth said.


Speaking to reporters Wednesday, he cast the debate as one about human rights.


"If in Canada we cannot agree that a law which decrees that some human beings are not human is wrong, then we need to definitely have some discussion about that. That really is the starting point for any just system of laws," Woodworth said.


"It’s a serious debate. It should be addressed."


The motion will get one hour of debate at about 5:30 p.m. ET. Then it drops to the bottom on the order of precedence, and gets another hour of debate when it returns to the top of the list. The House will vote on the motion the following Wednesday, which Woodworth expects will be in June or September, after the summer recess.


No New Democratic MP support


NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said no one in his caucus supports the motion but he plans to whip the vote, or force his MPs to vote along party lines.


"We're resolutely in favour of women's right to choose, so it's very clear for us, and we are absolutely opposed to this motion of Mr. Woodworth," he said.


Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said he's going to allow Liberal MPs to vote however they want, known as "voting their conscience."


In question period, New Democrat MP Niki Ashton said the Conservatives are rolling back Canadian women’s rights.


"A woman’s right to choose, in Canada, in 2012, is not up to negotiation," she said.


But some of Woodworth's colleagues disagreed.


Conservative Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost, who has previously talked about wanting to limit abortion, said he plans to support the motion.


Trost said MPs keep bringing up the issue — despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying repeatedly that his government will not reopen the debate on abortion — "because Members of Parliament are duty-bound by both their constituents and their conscience to argue for things that they feel [are] important."


"Mr. Woodworth feels this is important. He feels this is a thoughtful, proper thing for Canada. And I, like a lot of members, think it’s time that we looked at this in a way that brings compassion to everyone involved."


Question of conscience


While Harper has pledged not to raise the abortion issue, it's not clear whether the Conservatives will whip the vote for cabinet ministers or for the caucus as a whole.


Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who is a practising Catholic, says party tradition is to allow free votes on issues of conscience.


"I'm going to consult my constituents and consider the implications before taking a decision," Kenney said.


"My position is that we must have free votes on questions of conscience."


A spokesman for Harper says the government doesn't usually "communicate its parliamentary strategy" before a vote.


"The [prime minister] has been clear — he will not reopen this issue," Andrew MacDougall told CBC News.


Related on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Which Cabinet Ministers Oppose Abortion?

    The <a href="http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Find_Your_MP" target="_hplink">Campaign Life Coalition provides a listing of MPs who support and oppose abortion rights</a>. The list is based on voting records, previous comments and questionnaire responses. Here is a list of Conservative cabinet ministers who, according to the Coalition, oppose abortion. (CP)

  • Rob Nicholson

    Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. (CP)

  • Vic Toews

    Minister of Public Safety. (CP)

  • Peter Van Loan

    Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. (CP)

  • Jason Kenney

    Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. (CP)

  • Gerry Ritz

    Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. (Handout)

  • Ed Fast

    Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway. (CP)

  • Lynne Yelich

    Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. (Handout)

  • Gary Goodyear

    Minister of State for Science and Technology and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. (Handout)


Loading Slideshow...
  • Where The Parties Stand On Abortion

    Here's a look at the official position of Canada's federal parties, and how the controversial debate has reared its head in recent years. <em>With files from CBC</em>

  • Conservative Party

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly said that he has no interest in addressing the issue head-on.<br><br>"As long as I am prime minister we are not opening the abortion debate," Mr. Harper said in April 2011. "The government will not bring forward any such legislation, and any such legislation that is brought forward will be defeated as long as I am prime minister." (CP)

  • NDP

    NDP leader Tom Mulcair has stated that his caucus is unanimous in its opposition to the private member's motion calling on Parliament to look at whether a fetus is a human being, but he plans to force his MPs to vote along party lines.<br><br>"We're resolutely in favour of women's right to choose," Mulcair declared. (CP)

  • Liberal Party

    Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae has stressed that the abortion issue is matter of individual conscience. Rae expressed his personal opposition to reopening the debate, but said Liberal MPs will be allowed to vote "their conscience" rather than force them to toe the party line.<br><br>"Our position on reproductive choice, my position on reproductive choice is very, very clear. It has been for decades. The position is it's a person's right to choose." (CP)

  • Planned Parenthood Funding Controversy

    Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Brad Trost tells Saskatchewan's ProLife Association in April 2011 that the federal government has decided to cut funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, a decision he says was influenced by anti-abortion supporters.<br><br>"I cannot tell you specifically how we used it, but those petitions were very, very useful and they were part of what we used to defund Planned Parenthood because it has been an absolute disgrace that that organization and several others like it have been receiving one penny of Canadian taxpayers' dollars," Trost said.<br><br>Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative MP from Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, also calls for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.<br><br>Vellacott says the controversy over the funding "exposed the lies and destructiveness of IPPF's agenda."<br><br>"It exposes what this abortion giant is surreptitiously trying to achieve worldwide."<br><br>International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda approves funding. (CP)

  • 'Coerced' Abortion Law

    Conservative Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge proposes "Roxanne's Law" in 2010, a bill that would penalize anyone who "coerced" a woman into ending her pregnancy against her will.<br><br>"It's not just as simple as feeling pressured to get an abortion; there is a lot of discussion of sex-selection abortion these days, as well," Bruinooge told the Winnipeg Free Press. "It's part of the overall topic of intimidation that goes towards a pregnant woman."<br><br>Bruinooge insisted the bill wasn't meant to force Parliament to wade into the debate banned by Harper, stating that nothing in his bill made it illegal to abort a fetus.<br><br>But the Liberals and New Democrats saw it as a backdoor entry into the touchy topic.<br><br>"How is an abortion bill not an abortion bill?" said then-Liberal MP Anita Neville. "This certainly introduces discussion into the House of Commons and it is a rather sneaky way of doing it."<br><br>Then-NDP leader Jack Layton echoed her concerns. "You have got to wonder what is really going on here."<br><br>The bill was defeated in December of 2010, with 178 votes for and 97 against it. Harper and many Conservatives voted against it and 10 Liberals supported it. The NDP was unanimously against it. (Handout)

  • Maternal Health

    International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda discloses for the first time in April 2011 that Canada will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries.<br><br>Keith Martin, then-Liberal MP who had defected from the Tories years earlier, expressed outrage. "People here are perplexed and wondering why Canada is rolling back the clock and depriving women in developing countries from having the same rights to basic health care and access to abortion as women in Canada," he said.<br><br>Then-NDP leader Jack Layton accused the Tories of putting Canada on side with former U.S. president George Bush, who reduced support for abortion-related aid.<br><br>"It's picking up the banner that George Bush used to carry, and I think that that's not something that would be supported by the majority of Canadians, that's for sure," Layton said.<br><br>On June 25, Canada pledged $1.1 billion to a global initiative on maternal and child health for developing countries - a disproportionately high amount compared to other G8 countries. Canada did not allow for its share to be used in the funding of abortions. (CP)

FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS

Abortion rights are at the centre of a debate set for this afternoon as MPs consider whether to hold a special committee to look at when human life begins. Stephen Woodworth, ...
Abortion rights are at the centre of a debate set for this afternoon as MPs consider whether to hold a special committee to look at when human life begins. Stephen Woodworth, ...
Filed by Michael Bolen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 372
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:21 PM on 04/27/2012
The decision of whether or not to have an abortion is a personal moral decision. The legality of abortion is not. The legality of abortion is an issue of women's rights. This issue is settled.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Maria Korovessis Sewell
To decimate is to reduce by one tenth.
06:13 PM on 04/26/2012
Total politics. Harper gets the benefit of a compelling, emotional distraction from F-35s, election fraud, etc., while avoiding the political fallout by personally voting against the motion.

That the motion was even introduced makes Harper a liar, tho. Again.
06:50 PM on 04/26/2012
Well I think people will still remember the F-35s, and as for the election fraud, I don't think Elections Canada decided to hault the investigation. The fact that he doesn't want to get involved with this is smart, thats a lot of controversy. I'm pretty sure any party member can bring up a private member's bill, so I'm not really sure Harper is a liar.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Maria Korovessis Sewell
To decimate is to reduce by one tenth.
12:07 AM on 04/27/2012
He runs a very tight ship - everyone in lockstep. He exerts freakish control over his MPs. He has repeatedly assured Canadians that this matter would not be debated, and yet here we are. So I'm pretty sure Harper is a liar.
08:21 PM on 04/27/2012
it doesn't really matter what anyone remembers...bottom line is, that unless there is a unified centre/left vote, there will always be a Harper.
04:34 PM on 04/26/2012
If this is really worth a debate, and it's not, the issue should be put to the Canadian Public as a referendum. I don't want my MP voting their conscience or along party lines. At no point during the last election did any sane Canadian think they needed to learn their MP's personal views on Abortion, or the Party's stance on the issue. That's how outdated this concept is to most Canadians. The "debate" was settled in the 70's. Women control their own bodies, simple as that.
06:44 PM on 04/26/2012
They should have a right to kill their children? I don't think the debate is over, its just so controversial, politicians are afraid to bring it up. I'm happy someone finally did, the current law is outdated and needs to be at least looked at.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:04 AM on 04/29/2012
No one is killing children. Children are living beings, SEPARATE from their mother's body.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
03:00 PM on 04/26/2012
The fact is that no Canadian MAN is forced to use his body to save the life of another human being, or give so much as a drop of blood to save his own child. Even policemen and soldiers are not required to maim or disfigure themselves to save lives. Any MAN can dictate what happens to his corpse, and deny use of it to save another life. Even if one accepts that an embryo is a legal person, why should a woman be required to risk her health, permanently 'disfigure' her body, and perhaps face surgery, to 'save' another human, when no MAN in society is required to do as much?

A society ready to enact laws forcing unwilling WOMEN to use their bodies to 'save' human lives, should, in fairness and equality, force every MAN who has a biological child at risk to donate blood, or a kidney, or bone marrow or a piece of his liver to save that child. That the donor might end up disfigured or injured in the process is exactly what would be required for WOMEN in any regime that required forced pregnancies, so why not require it for MEN? If the boundary between the born and the unborn can be pushed back, why can't it be pushed forward? If the WOMAN can be made to use her body to 'save' the unborn, then surely the MAN can be made to use his body to 'save' the already born?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:06 AM on 04/29/2012
Very well said.
F & F
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Muller
01:50 PM on 04/26/2012
Another Christian fundamentalist male Reformer pushing his "morals" on women's basic rights.
How do these hillbillies get elected? Doesn't say much for Kitchener, Ont.
01:12 PM on 04/26/2012
It's like the wingers are taking their cues from the lunatic fringe south of us. And always marred in ideology. I do find it funny when a man decides that it's okay for him to contest abortion. Dude. Not your right to do so. Ever.
Since they insist on copying the bipolar, ideological arguments in the US, we can expect:
1. Motions put forth that ensure foetuses will not be permitted in our food (though I'm betting it would be healthier than pink slime)
2. Doctors will be given the right to lie to pregnant women if they feel it will prevent a womans right to choose.
3. Motions that states that life begins for a woman the first day of their cycle.
Ladies and gents, I give you the right wing.
01:44 PM on 04/26/2012
Point 3 should read:
3. Motions that states that life begins the first day of a womans cycle.
01:55 PM on 04/26/2012
Are you saying no one who has anything less than an immediate relationship to an issue has "a right" to an opinion or objection? Sadly, that is not how democracy works. So a father, say, has no right to interfere in any way with his wife's decision to have an abortion? If not, when exactly do his parental rights and responsibilities begin? The fact is, if a man has no rights in this issue he can't have any responsibilities either. The one entails the other.
And what about other issues? In most countries of the world acts like suicide and/or assisted suicide are illegal or restricted. But by your logic no one has a right to in any way, shape, or form prevent a suicide? If autonomous and absolute personal sovereignty over one's own person is all that matters no one could stop anyone else from doing much of anything.
03:10 PM on 04/26/2012
Q: So a father, say, has no right to interfere in any way with his wife's decision to have an abortion?
A: Though this assumes marriage is in play, the answer is no. Her body, her choice.

Q: If not, when exactly do his parental rights and responsibilities begin?
A: When the choice is to have the child.

Q: The fact is, if a man has no rights in this issue he can't have any responsibilities either.
A: Completely agree.

Q: No one has a right to in any way, shape, or form prevent a suicide?
A: The debate is about pro-choice. But since you raise the point, suicide can be (and is) legislated differently. But I do believe in the right to euthanasia.

And lastly, in reference to "no one could stop anyone else from doing much of anything," seems to indicate I'm promoting some form of anarchy. I'm not. The goal for an individual should be to achieve the first part of your statement: "autonomous and absolute personal sovereignty over one's own person." However I would extend it to include both personal responsibility and personal accountability.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:10 AM on 04/29/2012
Well, the man can make a choice beforehand. If he doesn't want kids, get a vasectomy and use a condom.
If he does, make sure his wife/girlfriend is in agreement first.
Accidents happen...if they are in a relationship, they should discuss it together, but the final choice rests with the woman as it is her life and health on the line. He has no right to interfere in her choice...though if she is choosing to carry a fatal pregnancy to term, I would hope that he makes her see a psychiatrist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martha12
12:51 PM on 04/26/2012
This is the cancer that is spread from American conservatives to Canadians.

The Harper government is FAR too cozy with the right-wing lunatics across the border.

What next..."personhood" amendments that consider a fertilized egg a person?...these laws are being put forth in all Conservative states across the US.

Personhood goes so far as to ban birth-control pills and IUD's because you would in effect "kill a person"......any pregnant woman just becomes a legal host of another "person" and everything you do that might harm this "person" you will be legally liable for.

In Arizona they have just passed a law that restricts the number of weeks pregnant you can be to qualify for abortion...AND ....you must count those weeks back to the~~ beginning of your last menses!!~~it IS law now in Arizona!!

This ALL sounds crazy even surreal...but it is NOT.

Canadians need to pay attention if we do not what the American far right lunacy to implant itself in Canada.

I see the Tories are even replicating the redistricting tactics of their southern lunatic cousins, to slant the election...they have already used the American robo call tactics...for the first time in Canadian history!

YES they ARE a ..mirror image of their southern counterparts from dirty election practises to extreme social issues based on religion...not science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:11 AM on 04/29/2012
...and sleazy attack ads. This should NOT be a part of Canadian politics.
Elmwoodmac
No matter where you go, there you are!
12:40 PM on 04/26/2012
Nope, nothing else to work on or debate at this time. Everyone is working, the economy is booming, government have cut costs and are spending every single tax dollar wisely and carefully.
photo
Voltage
You can't spell Canada without "eh."
12:30 PM on 04/26/2012
If we're having a grownup discussion about abortion can we also have a grownup discussion about pot?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Capital Ottawa
12:26 PM on 04/26/2012
“As long as I am prime minister we are not opening the abortion debate,” Mr. Harper declared. “The government will not bring forward any such legislation and any such legislation that is brought forward will be defeated as long as I am prime minister.”

Yet here we are entering into an abortion debate... man of his word.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/any-and-all-anti-abortion-legislation-will-be-defeated-harper-declares/article1994462/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 04/26/2012
I think we need to re-open the debate about a minimum I.Q needed to be a public official willing to waste my tax dollars in tough financial times..
12:16 PM on 04/26/2012
Harper and co. used the separatist/coalition boogaboo to get elected in 2011and English Canada bought it.... Now live with it... And I bet ya that in 4 years he will use the same old trick and get elected again.. You will have only yourselves to blame.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:12 AM on 04/29/2012
In fairness, less than 40% voted for these twits.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
typeterson
12:05 PM on 04/26/2012
mr. woodworth needs to stop dragging up decades-old issues and DO HIS JOB.

what, today's issues are to difficult for him to tackle? so he needs to revert to this?? pure and utter laziness.

we are not in the US mr. woodworth, your pandering to a group much smaller here in canada than the one they have south of the border who actually buy into this BS.
12:02 PM on 04/26/2012
If life begins at conception. Does that mean I get my Old Age Security nine months earlier?
12:08 PM on 04/26/2012
HHHMMMMM you have a point here!