--> Getting It Right: The Slippery Slope to Protecting Life

Thursday, August 10, 2006

The Slippery Slope to Protecting Life

In Canada, you cannot be charged for the murder of a baby still in his or her mother’s womb.

In other words, you could stab a pregnant woman in the abdomen, killing the child and if the mother didn’t die, the worse you could be charged with would be assault.

In the last year, at least two Canadian women have been murdered, along with their unborn children.

But in the deaths of Liana White and Olivia Talbot, their killers were not held to account for the deaths of their babies.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that babies, unborn, are not persons.

I appreciate that there are some in our nation who fear if we convict murderers for killing unborn babies, abortions are next on the chopping block.

Their argument goes like this: if it is murder to kill an unborn child, then are doctors who perform abortions murderers? Are mothers who seek abortions open to charges of murder – like those who set up a contract killing?

Our understanding of the growth and development of unborn children has changed radically over time.

Given that babies are surviving premature births as early as 23 weeks (approximately six months), it is ridiculous to assert that a “fetus” is not a person one day and the next day her or she is.

Of course, in Canada, there are no restrictions on abortions at any time during pregnancy. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada maintains that only 0.5% of abortions occur after 20 weeks gestation. 105,154 abortions were performed in Canada in 2002, according to Statistics Canada. This means over 500 babies were aborted very close to viability. (Please note there was a typo in this section in the published version.)

Given these numbers, you can understand the hesitation in passing legislation that would begin to draw lines in the sand – something the pro-choice movement has fought against for years.

The issue came to a head this week because more information was released about a Private Members Bill brought forward in May by Leon Benoit, a Conservative MP. The Justice Minister, Vic Toews, was told at that time by his department advisors that allowing Benoit’s legislation to move forward “could have the effect of criminalizing abortion.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made it very clear that changes to abortion access are not on the table for his government – and so Bill C-291 died a quick and quiet death.

The Conservatives have bowed to public sentiment on abortion, something that the rabid pro-choice crowd said they would never do. Voters who want status quo in Canada obviously have nothing to fear.

But it leaves many of us sad that, in this round of the battle for “women’s right to choose”, killers of wanted and beloved unborn children are let off the hook for their crimes.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)


At 9:17 a.m., Anonymous E J Hosdil said...

Well said.

At 9:20 a.m., Blogger Bernie said...

"Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.

The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them."

At 10:47 a.m., Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's crazy as you say, that for example a man can kill his unborn child, by shooting or stabbing or whatever, and is not charged with murder as long as the mother lives.

Now if that woman had wanted the baby, but the father had wanted it aborted, she has no recourse if he decides to attempt to kill it himself. What if we at least consider an extra charge of damaged property or something, beyond the charge of assault or attempted murder? The woman should be somehow compensated for losing her baby, even if we have to just regard the child as chattel.

At 1:23 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haven't seen your blog before, Welcome to the blogroll!

At 1:47 p.m., Blogger Erin Airton said...

Bernie - let's try two comments per posting, unless you are involved in a debate :)


At 2:02 p.m., Blogger Bernie said...

OK Erin,

Sounds fair to me.
( this does not count as a post )

At 3:15 p.m., Blogger Bernie said...

How to End Abortion Without Government Coercion, by Kevin Craig

Many who consider themselves pro-life are actually pro-State: they want more power for the government to prosecute those who seek or provide abortions.
Family Research Council President Ken Connor compared the daily destruction of human life in abortion clinics to the loss of life that occurred in the Sept. 11 attack:

"On September 11th, we were horrified as we watched the destruction of more than 3,000 innocent human lives. In an instant, our government responded to protect the country from further loss," Connor said, in a news release. "But the sad reality of American life is that more than 4,000 children die every day in this country at the hands of abortionists and the government does nothing to intervene."

Andrea Lafferty, of Traditional Values Coalition, meantime, issued a challenge to the Church.

"While many people say they oppose abortion, a lot of people are looking the other way, and the Church is looking the other way," Lafferty said. "The Church needs to be talking about this issue with its young people, with singles' groups, with parents' groups, urging parents to talk to their children about life."

Harry Browne writes:

Every day you spend trying to get government to do something about abortion is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective – such as working for less-restrictive adoption laws, encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, repealing the income tax so that parents will have the time to teach their children values that will minimize teen-age pregnancies, and repealing laws that shield people from the consequences of their acts.
Every day you spend trying to get government to do something about abortion is a day playing at fighting abortion – showing off for the anti-abortion fans, but achieving nothing. Government will never change people's hearts and minds, but you can change people's minds if you're willing to work at it.

Because I am a libertarian and oppose laws against abortion I have been called an "anarchist." Actually I believe in MORE government than those who support "the government." I believe in self-government.

The vast majority of Americans oppose the vast majority of abortions performed in America, according to all polls. This should be the source of social power needed to effectively end abortion without fines or prisons.

Here's how self-government works to protect the life of the unborn better than the federal government:

Rather than being met at the door by jack-booted gun-wielding federal anti-abortion authorities, mothers contemplating an abortion should be met at the door by voluntary associations of friendly parents who will offer to pay expenses, shelter mothers from abusive "boyfriends," provide caring hospitality, parenting classes, values education and other works of mercy which will help the mothers carry their baby to term and avoid killing a human being.

But even before this need arises, self-government operates to prevent unwanted pregnancies and cultivate a positive value for human life.

Families: Parents who are not victims of government schooling and who have been trained to appreciate America's pro-life values can pass these values on to their children. Constant reminders from the earliest ages that human beings are created by God with unalienable rights is the soil in which homicidal weeds are less likely to grow. Children steeped in pro-life views will inevitably pass these views onto their playmates, and should be encouraged to do so. American parents have always been careful to know who their children play with, and always make an effort to meet the parents of their children's playmates and invite them to learn more about our God-given rights.

Employers should not hesitate to hire single mothers who struggle to make ends meet, and substitute generous pay for government welfare. Lunchtime Bible studies and employee training sessions can pass on America's pro-life values. Personal encouragement increases job performance better than an impersonal workplace, and may result in opportunities for preserving the life of the unborn.

Landlords should use their relationship with tenants to cultivate respect for life through respect for property; the two are not unrelated. Weekend classes in property management, concern for the environment, and household budgeting can be required of tenants in rental agreements. These sessions provide opportunities to stress the importance of human beings created in the Image of God, and their role as stewards of the creation.

Teachers should pass on pro-life values to their students, even in classes that do not directly teach social and cultural subjects. Like the Apostles (Acts 5:29), teachers should defy court orders prohibiting a discussion of American values before and after school, and at lunch.

Media sources which propagate pro-death values should be boycotted. Americans should patronize movies, television, plays, concerts, and other events which transmit American values. Americans should invite neighbors to neighborhood reading circles in which great pro-life books are read and discussed.

Merchants and business owners can join all of the above in a more negative but essential social function: ostracization. Parents can disinherit, landlords can refuse to rent, teachers can expel, media sources can give unfavorable publicity, and merchants can refuse to sell to those who kill children. All of these groups can boycott doctors who kill children.

Professional organizations such as the AMA and the ABA should penalize members who kill human beings.

If 90% of all abortions are opposed by 90% of Americans, then the lives of these 90% are being controlled by pro-abortion forces who wield the power of "the sword": the 90% have been coerced into silence and inaction. Cultural transformation begins with Liberty and self-government, not the iron fist of the federal government.

At 10:12 a.m., Blogger SUZANNE said...

Canadian sentiment is not "the status". Only about 1/3 of Canadians support the status quo. According to a Life Canada poll conducted by Environics, six in ten Canadians would like to see more restrictions on abortion.

And the fight for abortion is not about stopping an opertion: we're not talking about stopping something "immoral"-- it's a matter of fetal rights that is of recognizing the unborn child as a person.

You can give some women all the charity you can muster, they will still abort. That's the problem.

At 4:23 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Sceince knows a life begins when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg. Of course this is the start of a human life. Seems much of abortions in Canada is a money making industry unfortunately by the people doing the abortions. Be thankful folks our moms did not get a abortion. Is a gutsy column. Over one hundren thousand abortions in 2002 in Canada alone-thats too many!.

At 12:53 p.m., Blogger SUZANNE said...

Hello Erin.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I need to email you. Could you please contact me at sfortin@ca.inter.net? I'd appreciate it a lot.

At 1:52 a.m., Blogger YVRpilot said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 1:59 a.m., Blogger YVRpilot said...

Bottom line. Abortions are wrong.

I think that over time some have become quite de-sensitized to this issue, and a woman's choice to abort her fetus has become 'ok'.

I was brought up Catholic, and always knew that terminating any life that God had created was simply wrong. But as I grew up I realized that sometimes people chose to abort for convenience or to avoid inconveniences. Eventually I began to accept it. And yes, you can say I am now 'pro-choice'.

The Supreme Court of Canada should give their heads a shake. Blanket laws such as 'unborn babies are not persons' leaves far too many loose ends.

Canadian laws appear to have been tailored to suit criminals and not to benefit those who are benevolent.

PS: Bernie, you kill me! :)


Post a Comment

<< Home