This is yet another piece on the subject of the rights of the unborn child. I wasn't planning on writing this today, but came across a great article that was published in the National Post. It's about Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative backbench MP from Kitchener, who somehow won approval for an hour of debate before a committee of MP's. It's the subject of the debate that is sure to raise eyebrows and create a firestorm of opposition.The subject is Canada’s 400-year-old law defining human beings. Woodworth's premise is very simple: science and technology have advanced greatly since the 1600's and our laws ought to do the same. It's the implications of this process that will attract all of the attention.
Currently, in Canadian law, a fetus is not considered a "human being" until "the moment of complete birth." That fact is lost on most Canadians, who aren't even aware that there is virtually no protection for the unborn child.
If you read the comments already piling up at the bottom of this article you can get a taste of what lies ahead. One pro-abortion advocate called unborn babies "parasites." Another suggested that, of course, unborn babies are "human," but that does not mean that they should have legal protection under the law because they are not "persons."
Semantics. This will become a war about words, when what it's really about is innocent life. The writer of the article made a great point when he said, "It’s diabolical. An arrow straight at the deliberate self-deceptions used to justify abortion." Self-deception is a great term for it. A great number of people are willfully ignorant of this entire subject matter. They don't want to think about it and they certainly don't want to talk about it. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is deathly afraid of this issue and I would be shocked if he allows this debate to move forward. I hope he proves me wrong.
For the record, here are the four questions Woodworth would like a special committee to examine:
(i) What medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,
(ii) Is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,
(iii) What are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,
(iv) What are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?
It sounds reasonable to me. What reasonable person could object to these questions? The problem is, some are unwilling to follow where the truth leads; they'd rather continue to deny the obvious truth that abortion stops a beating heart. Let's put our hands over our ears and yell really loudly so we can't hear.
It reminds me of a story I heard about a church in Germany during World War II. Here's one man's true story:
"I lived in Germany during the Nazi holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. I attended church since I was a small boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews, but like most people today in this country, we tried to distance ourselves from the reality of what was really taking place. What could anyone do to stop it?
"A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we noticed cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews. They were like cattle in those cars!
"Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor miserable people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns.
"By the time that train came rumbling past the church yard, we were singing at the top of our voices. If some of the screams reached our ears, we'd just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more. Years have passed and no one talks about it much anymore, but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying out for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing to intervene.
"Their screams tormented us . . . If some of their screams reached our ears we'd just sing a little louder."
We have to decide to listen, and to act. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." The word coming out of the Justice Department is as expected. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson provided the following statement: “We have always been clear, our Government has no intention to reopen this debate.” Come on Mr. Harper, who knows, maybe this could be your defining moment.
Related Articles:
What is a "wrongful birth?"
When is Killing Your Baby Okay?
Canada’s Feds Paying Full Maternity Benefits After Abortion
An Open Letter To Stephen Harper
Canada's Shame
Posts
2 comments:
Media Release
For Immediate Publication
December 16, 2011
MP Stephen Woodworth calls for another look at
Canada’s 400 Year Old Law
OTTAWA, Ontario ― Stephen Woodworth, Member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre
A recent poll disclosed that 80% 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. Canadian law provides no human rights protection whatsoever for children before the moment of complete birth. This results from an unusual Canadian statute which defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.
This law was first formulated prior to the seventeenth century, when an early version of it was recorded in Coke’s Institutes of Law. In those times, medical science and principles of human rights were not sufficiently advanced to challenge such a law.
The important question is whether this 400 year old Canadian law is supported by 21st century medical science and principles of human rights. Perhaps Canadians should at least examine this question. MP Stephen Woodworth proposes that Parliament has a responsibility to lead that examination.
-30-
For further information contact: Office of Stephen Woodworth, MP (613) 995-8913
I received this response from Stephen Woodworth:
There is no question that our seventeenth Century law declaring that a child is not a human being until complete birth is related to the issue of abortion. However, whatever view one might take of abortion laws, isn’t it important and helpful to know whether the child is a human being? Shouldn’t a law with fundamental human rights implications be informed by truthful science and just principles? If a child is actually a human being before complete birth, should any Canadian law be so arbitrary as to designate anyone who is human as less than human? This has far wider implications than merely for the abortion issue. Parliament should not accept any law that says some human beings are not human.
I appreciate your kind comments, and I ask that you promote the views we share with the utmost sensitivity and consideration toward those who disagree. I believe that only a positive emphasis on human rights based on calm principles of justice and medical evidence will encourage Canadians to enter into this dialogue.
Post a Comment