Many believe Canada has no abortion law. On the other hand, a recent poll disclosed that 79 per cent of Canadians believe that Canadian law protects the fundamental human rights of children before birth in the later stages of gestation.
In fact, the opposite is true on both counts. You'll be surprised when you see what Canada's abortion law actually says. You'll be even more surprised when you hear the century in which Canada's abortion law originated.
What do people really want when it comes to abortion? Most Canadians want a just law. Most Canadians want the facts. What obstacles stand in the way of justice? Of facts?
The biggest obstacle is an unhealthy reluctance by many Canadians to even talk about abortion. Past discussions have been characterized by confrontation, insensitivity, and rhetorical heat. We need to change that and to show Canadians can have a dialogue about abortion with truth, justice, and compassion. In short, we need wise speech.
While it is true that Canada has no law that limits abortion, Canada does have a law that permits abortion by denying any human rights whatsoever to a child before the moment of complete birth. It is Section 223 of our Criminal Code: "A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has breathed, etc."
Many will find it odd to read a definition of human being in black-and-white print on a page.
It is even odder to realize that this law bears no relationship to the medical evidence about when a child actually does become a human being. Instead our law proposes a "magical" moment of transformation when the child's last toe pops out of the birth canal.
Even more amazing is the fact that this "born alive" definition of human being was formulated at least as early as Coke's Institutes of Law in the 17th century. Indeed, there are hints it was part of the Laws of Henry I as early as 1115 -- the 12th century. Even in the 17th century, medical science was very primitive compared to what is now known about the development of a child before birth.
At that time this definition was one part of a two-part law dealing with abortion. Along with that part -- namely, that a child was not a human being until birth -- the second part of the law went on to say that it was still a serious offence to take a child's life before birth.
Unfortunately, in 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada deleted that second part, but left the other about our law on abortion. Standing alone it denies the protection of fundamental human rights to children before birth (since they are arbitrarily defined as sub-human by our 400-year-old law).
Is this a just law? Is it informed by accurate modern medical evidence? Does it reflect compassion?
There can be no doubt that the rights of mothers are totally engaged when it comes to pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion. But can any one person's rights be validly secured by totally denying the rights of another person? In fact, rights sometimes do conflict, and modern legal principles have evolved to mediate justly between conflicting human rights. Canadians are quite capable of engaging in a national dialogue about the 21st-century medical evidence and modern legal principles which should be used to review our existing 17th century (or earlier) law on abortion.
It should be everybody's priority to ensure that a law which involves fundamental human rights is based on modern medically accurate evidence rather than a 400-year-old arbitrary legal definition.
Parliament has a responsibility and duty to ensure that laws with important human rights implications, such as our definition of who is a human being, are informed by modern, medically-accurate evidence, not out-dated 17th century medical and legal principles.
I'm simply asking the question "Does it make medical sense in the 21st century to say that a child is not a human being until the moment of complete birth?" Let's at least examine the evidence. If you agree that respectful dialogue about this is a good thing, please add your voice to mine.
I have my own moral views on abortion, and should abortion become something that my family has to decide on, that's OUR decision. And while that decision may be the best thing for our family, I would never have the gaul to assume that it's the best for everyone else dealing with abortion. This is the very definition of "one size does NOT fit all".
Christ, between Canadian politicians wanting to re-open the abortion debate, and American politicians wanting to deny women contraception, we're headed for one hell of a population explosion in North America!
It is Section 223 of our Criminal Code: "A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has breathed, etc."
and this one:
""Does it make medical sense in the 21st century to say that a child is not a human being until the moment of complete birth?" "
do not mean the same thing.
The definition is limited to the scope of the Act. It isn't a global or scientific definition of a human-being. Until it fully emerges from the womb the fetus is confined within the body of a woman. From a *legal* perspective the woman (and everything within her) constitutes a single legal "person". A live birth signifies the existence of a separate legal entity. Doctors do not terminate pregnancies past 20 weeks unless there is a severe medical problem. Babies are not getting aborted within days of birth unless it's health (or the mother's) is severely compromised. For example, if it is discovered that the fetus has insufficient brain matter and will die within hours of birth an abortion may be performed to spare it (and the mother) from pain. Doctors are not killing perfectly healthy viable fetuses capable of living outside the womb.
I'm not saying that every ones situation is the same. But it does not matter the situation or circumstances its the right to know that your life is in your own hands. 3rd trimester abortation is just as big of a deal as first trimester abortion. One way or another it is a scarring horrifying decision that takes every ounce of a womans being to come to. The topic is not Pro-Death, it is not Pro-Murder and it isnt "what is or is not a worthy life". The topic is pro choice. Its understanding that a woman needs to take care of her own body and mind above all others because being a woman dosnt automatically make you a mother. being a woman gives you the "choice" to be a mother.
With the latest technology a "baby" can be taken from the mother at about seven months and survive in an incubator. So let us all put behind us the notion that there is a "child" inside there. It is a collection of growing cells with the potential to become a human being. Nothing else.
Furthermore, all human beings are a collection of growing cells, just some have more cells than others. Nor is a collection of cells needed to constitute a human organism. A single-celled human organism is just as viable as a multi-celled human organism. With respect to the ability to live independently, single-celled human organisms are perhaps more viable than multi-celled human organisms. The technology needed to maintain a single-celled human embryo in the laboratory is very minimal. Scientific realities of human embryology may be inconvenient to those who would wish to deny personhood to an unborn child but that is no reason to invent a new science that is not based on empirical evidence. A biological definition of a human organism is not defined as independence. The biological definition of a human organism is one that bears a human genetic code.
I wish people would spend more time doing what they preach and less time telling others what to do.
Do what you want as long as it doesnt affect me or invade my personal space if I object.
You are absolutely right - this slogan should be worn by every unborn child so that NO ONE has the right to vacuum it are slice and dice it too pieces. In other words, do what you want as long as it doesn't invade a person (you, me, person across the street, unborn child) or invade said personal space.
If you're going to defend abortion, I suggest you take a closer look at your horribly flawed logic, and try to put together something a little more sensible...
The old slogans won't work anymore.
Does that include rape? incest? where the woman's life is endanger? Or are you just in favour of forcing women to give birth against their will if they DARED to have consensual sex?
Which women do you think should be forced to give birth against their will?
Just curious.
Some people like you would want to keep condoms because it holds half a child.
"On June 21st, 2006, Parliament saw first reading of a private member’s bill by Liberal MP Paul Steckle to re-criminalize abortion. Bill C-338, 'An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation), would restrict later abortions performed after twenty weeks."
Don't forget about Liberals like Tom Wappel, Jim Karygiannis, and John McKay - all VERY prolife.
You don't need a Tory to introduce a private member's bill...
I guess life is easier when you can compartmentalize and label ain't it yukoner1 (Tory=bad, Everyone else=good).
Try a different objection next time.
That said, what do you make of the liberal fixation on woman/fetus/birth...it clearly exists:
"On June 21st, 2006, Parliament saw first reading of a private member’s bill by Liberal MP Paul Steckle to re-criminaÂlize abortion. Bill C-338, 'An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriagÂe after 20 weeks of gestation)Â, would restrict later abortions performed after twenty weeks."
So tired of the fetishization of eight-celled organisms. Want to care about children? Care about the BORN ones. Those are the ONLY ones that matter.