Canadian MP: If we declared fetuses “human beings,” abortion would be homicide
If the legal definition of when one becomes a human being were to be adjusted so that a fetus is declared to be a legal person at some earlier stage of gestation, then the homicide laws would apply.
As a necessary consequence, aborting fetal development anywhere in the potentially new adjusted period would be considered homicide. Thus the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions in Canada at some fetal development stage.
… I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion.
No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one.
~ Canadian Government Whip Gordon O’Connor, arguing against M-312, “a motion that calls for the formation of a special committee of Parliament to review whether the definition of a ‘human being’ as described in the Canadian criminal code can be extended to unborn fetuses,” as quoted by Daily Kos, May 9
[Photo of 18 week fetus via biotechnology-genetic-humancells.blogspot.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Puh-leeze. That’s what a Criminal Code is for. To impose the belief that a certain act is a crime. And how does it follow that since there isn’t a law that forces one to commit a crime, there can’t be a law against that crime?
This shows just how far secular thinking has departed from any sound moral basis. However, it has to be said that, when some doctors in U.S. admitted that the fetus is human (was it Fr. John Powell who forced this on them?) they then started arguing for the right to kill (sorry cannot remember the reference). We still have a long hill to climb.
“I cannot understand…”
A confession that makes even more sense as a generalization than in context.
“And how does it follow that since there isn’t a law that forces one to commit a crime, there can’t be a law against that crime?”
Exactly Hans. In the mental health world, its called “splitting”, a symptom of cluster B (borderline, narcissistic, histrionic) personality disorders — something has to be 100% one way or 100% the opposite. Most abortion advocates I’ve met are textbook cluster Bs.
Jill, how far along in the pregnancy is the pictured fetus?
Hans is correct. The imposition of our beliefs – that’s what laws ARE. We believe that stealing is wrong, so we have outlawed it. Is it possible that a society would believe that stealing is NOT wrong, and so not outlaw it? Of course. As a society we are obligated to make judgements about what is right and wrong, and what should be illegal. It has nothing to do with theocracy, unless you believe that Massachusetts used to be a theocracy since they had laws related to morality:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272
Ooh. Loving the social tension over abortion in Canada!!
Praying for our prolife friends up north!!
To piggyback on what John and Hans are saying, this kind of “skepticism” about a law can really be done with ANYTHING that we deem should be illegal. For example, consider the following thought experiment. Suppose cars have just been invented, everyone has easy access to them, and people are debating whether or not their should be laws which restrict, say, the speed limit to 25 mph in a residential area. Would the following list of questions really be a compelling argument to say that there should be no speed limit: “How do you plan to enforce this? Will you have cops sitting on every single street corner? What if the speed gun is malfunctioning? How do you know teh cop isn’t lying to you? What if someone has an emergency and needs to get to the hospital? Will a cop pull them over for not obeying the speed limit? Who will pay for all these policemen to sit around and enforce this law? What will the penalty be? Will I be considered a criminal just like a rapist for driving 26 mph? If I”m driving in the car with someone and they see my speedometer reach 26, can they make a citizen’s arrest? Should they report me to the police? Will they be arrested if they fail to do so?” etc etc etc. The point is that the speed limit law is there for our safety and the safety of those in a neighborhood and yes, people can break the law and get away with it if they want sometimes, but the law should reflect the fact that this is a dangerous action to drive faster than whatever speed is deemed acceptable. How much more so should abortion be illegal if it is indeed the direct killing of an innocent human being?
Or let’s take another example. Take the question of whether or not one can bring weapons on an airplane. Enter the brilliant skeptic: “Who will enforce this? Will I have to be searched before I enter a plane? How do you define weapon? Can a book be used as a weapon? What if the passage is a boxer? Will he have to ride teh plane handcuffed? Will a karate black belt have to ride the plane in a straight-jacket? Or maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to ride the plane at all because their bodies are weapons and you can’t take weapons on planes? Can a police officer bring a gun on a plane?” Again, none of these questions at all undermine the fact that we need to set a certain level of safety when dealing with riding on airplanes. The particulars will be dealt with, but the overarching principle that safety on a plane is a very important priority is simply NOT undermined at all by a barrage of questions that will be addressed prudently.
We conclude that 20 questions and the fact that declaring personhood of teh unborn would change a lot of laws and make a lot of work for people does not at all undermine the fact that if abortion is the unborn is a human person just like you or me, then he needs to be protected under the law.
Denise, according to “A Child is Born” (where the photo is from) the baby pictured is 5 months.
And talking about forcing your beliefs on someone. Why is it that I have read of many cases where a pregnant woman is murdered yet the murdered woman’s family is told that they didn’t lose 2 family members. That the killer will only be brought to justice for the woman’s murder and the baby that they were longing to meet is nothing and no justice will be enacted? That right there is pro-aborts forcing their beliefs on those families. Just because you don’t care about your unborn family members doesn’t mean other families feel the same way and they ought to get justice.
No law says i must rape either, guess he doesn’t think that should be a crime.
Bobby, if Gordon O’Connor had been around during the Civil War, he would probably have said:
If we declare slaves to be human beings, then killing a slave would be homicide. I cannot understand why those who oppose slavery want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. No law says that anyone must have a slave. No law forces anyone to own slaves. I do not want slave owners to go back to the previous era where some were forced to obtain slaves through war, conquest and illegal actions. In a civilized society slaves should be available for sale on the street corner. Slavery has been legal for over 100 years! Society has moved on! I can’t believe I still have to protest this!
Denise, if you look just below the quote in the photo credit brackets, it says the fetus is 18 weeks.
If the legal definition of when one becomes a human being were to be adjusted so that a fetus is declared to be a legal person at some earlier stage of gestation, then the homicide laws would apply.
You don’t say…
:) I was thinking the same thing, Xalisae, et al…
“Goodness! If the definition of human were to include math teachers, then my practise of flinging math teachers from the tops of tall buildings would be prohibited by current homicide/assault laws!” (To say nothing of laws against littering…)
I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion.
Gordon, think about it for a couple minutes. I know you and the prime minister aren’t exactly fans of that or the whole democracy thing, but you seem interested. Try replacing a few words:
I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to infanticide want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says that a woman must kill her toddler.
Absurd. Clearly, his objection makes sense if and only if a fetus is not a human being. And this is precisely what must be debated.
The tone of the Daily Kos/RH Reality Check article was full of doublespeak. Right after invoking Danth’s law (as O’Connor himself did by stating that “Society has moved on”), the article states the following:
As one protester against the motion wrote on her placard outside the Government building, “I can’t believe it but I still have to protest this.” Unfortunately, she does. We do.
Like it or not, the debate is far from over. This is good news for Canada.
Sometimes, I find myself ashamed of my country.
this is exactly right…
from Bobby Bambino:
“… the fact that declaring personhood of the unborn would change a lot of laws and make a lot of work for people does not at all undermine the fact that if the unborn is a human person just like you or me, then he needs to be protected under the law.”
Simplicity at it’s best. Do unto others as they would do unto you. treat humans with kindness…
you Rock Bobby!
Canada’s current abortion laws are much more sensible than our own, though, aren’t they? If you believe that the only qualification needed for personhood is being biologically alive, then drawing some arbitrary cut-off date based on fetal development is inconsistent and stupid. It really must be everything or nothing.
There was no law that said anyone had to own a slave either.
No one was forcing those who oppose slavery to own one.
So slavery should still be legal, too, right?
“If you believe that the only qualification needed for personhood is being biologically alive, then drawing some arbitrary cut-off date based on fetal development is inconsistent and stupid. It really must be everything or nothing.”
Gotta agree with you there, Joan…
Canada’s current abortion laws are much more sensible than our own, though, aren’t they? If you believe that the only qualification needed for personhood is being biologically alive, then drawing some arbitrary cut-off date based on fetal development is inconsistent and stupid. It really must be everything or nothing.
In Canada, the arbitrary cut-off date is birth (that is, when the baby is completely removed from the mother’s body). That’s still inconsistent and stupid. I would say that it’s less sensible, though, because fewer babies have legal protection.
<i>”If we declared fetuses “human beings”, abortion would be homicide.”</i>
Also, a terrible burden for the porn industry, prostitution and child-trafficking rings, as well as the recreation needs of politicians. What a terrible cross for citizens of Canada (or the U.S.) to bear.
(sarcasm alert)
I don’t know if anybody saw this yet, but I found this entire article sad; wasn’t sure where to post it but in the QotD discussion. feministing.com/2012/05/10/ceremony-a-personal-narrative-on-my-abortion-experience/#more-48078
Though there are lots of parts that were kind of stunning, I thought this part, describing the period immediately after the writer learned she was pregnant, was worth quoting:
After the initial shock and added layer of heartbreak, I began to sit in witness with what was happening to me. Along with the swelling of my breasts, the pain lodged beneath my ribcage, the acute change in my appetite, and the taut plumping one hand beneath my belly button, I began to feel whole again. My heart began to mend, and in its ache, I found a sense of courage and ferocity that I can only describe as a maternal instinct. I felt highly protective over and connected to what I understood to be happening in my body—a growing, pulsing ball of light. We communicated daily. Each day, my two palms would rest below my belly as I would drop both my mind and my heart into my womb. Each day, I sent more and more light and love, all that I had in my being, into my growing ball of light. It was my responsibility as a mother for our short time together to shower them with all the light I had to give, making them that much stronger, fiercer, more loved for their next journey. Being pregnant reminded me the power and magic of my own body.
“In Canada, the arbitrary cut-off date is birth (that is, when the baby is completely removed from the mother’s body). That’s still inconsistent and stupid. I would say that it’s less sensible, though, because fewer babies have legal protection.”
It’s not at all inconsistent or arbitrary if physical autonomy is a fundamental aspect of a society’s definition of personhood. Canada’s laws in this regard are extremely consistent. There are no fetal homicide laws at all (an attempt at passing one was made several years ago but went nowhere) and no restrictions on abortion.
Must sound like UTOPIA to you, joan.
“It’s not at all inconsistent or arbitrary if physical autonomy is a fundamental aspect of a society’s definition of personhood.”
Newborns are physically autonomous? Most newborns I’ve met do not take care of their own physical needs such as food and shelter.
What exactly is physical autonomy? Isn’t the baby physically dependent on others after birth as well? Newborns can’t feed themselves.
It’s arbitrary in the sense that a minor location change determines whether or not one has rights. It’s inconsistent in that some humans have rights and others don’t.
You’re also moving the goalposts here. You said this in your last post:
If you believe that the only qualification needed for personhood is being biologically alive, then drawing some arbitrary cut-off date based on fetal development is inconsistent and stupid. It really must be everything or nothing.
If the premise is true and the argument is valid (both of which I would accept), then drawing the cut-off date at 20 weeks is no more arbitrary than drawing the cut-off date at birth. Biologically, a fetus and a newborn are just as alive.
Navi, my 8 week old son is totally dependent. In fact he screams if I put him down. He is only happy when in someone’s arms. If ever this burden gets too heavy I should be allowed to exercise my reproductive freedom and kill him. Right? Oh, I can’t? Why? I should still have bodily autonomy. I shouldn’t have to use my body to take care of this baby if I don’t want to.
Bravo Canada. LOVE that women are respected up north!!!
if all this has to do with is “women” being “respected up north”, Jake, then whose homicide would be in question that Government Whip Gordon O’Connor was mentioning in the first place? Huh?
You do realize it sounds as though you’ve not given this subject a lick of critical thought and are just pandering to pro-abortion women for…god-knows what reason…right?
I resisted ending my lead-off comment with “eh?” out of dererence and respect for our Canadian brothers and sisters.
Jake, eh???
Ummmmm, the post underlines “impose beliefs on others.”. Let me help you here, the “other” is women, I’m applauding the statement that gives women autonomy and doesn’t, instead, impose their misguided, judgmental, religious bull?&@$ on their right to choose. What don’t you get eh?
Hoo - ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo… (A little shout out to SCTV fans. :)
Then you completely missed the friggin’ point, Jake. HOW RELIGIOUS AM I? PLEASE TELL ME HOW RELIGIOUS I AM. You know what “imposes beliefs on others”? Aborting a child because YOU think they’re not actually people. So let ME help YOU. Women-I am one-have plenty of autonomy without killing their children in utero. This has NOTHING to do with religion.
Jake,
Here’s what I don’t get– that somebody can be as intellectually deficient as you appear to be.
Abortion has nothing to do with women’s autonomy– it’s the killing of an innocent human being.
It is NOT misguided to oppose the killing of innocent children. It is misguided to support legalized child killing.
As for religion, are you aware that there are pro-lifers who are not religious at all, and pro-aborts who claim to be religious?
As for “The right to choose” —- it is merely a euphemism for the “right” to kill an unborn human being.
My my X, a little worked up aren’t we?? Fine, you are just misguided and judgemental, but not religious. Feel better now???
Feeding trolls tonight, are we? Have fun.
Gendercide, which studies suggest is practiced here in the Dominion and is likely condoned by the biggest abortion chain down south as well, hardly epitomizes respect for women.
Don’t feed the troll (Jake), y’all…
Jake, is there some sense in which you’re NOT being “judgmental?”
Better put, you seem to be implicitly engaging in special pleading for your own moral judgments, while impugning others for little more than denying the judgments you affirm, or affirming the judgments you deny.
It’s as if you were on a teeter-totter with someone, and scorned them for going up when you went down, or down when you went up.
You have to be the most irrational troll this site has known.
I just love our Kraken.
:)
Troll logic: You’re judgmental if you want babies to live.
Troll logic: You respect women if you only want to kill the unborn ones.
Jake, keep it coming. You’re making my day! Consider yourself fed.
:) Courtney and Rasqual: all right, but could you at least put Jake (and any other trolls you choose to feed) on a leash, or something? They make rather a mess, when allowed to run about, unrestrained…
Mr. O’Connor was correct in saying that if the legal definition changes so that a fetus is recognizesd as a human being AT AN EARLIER STAGE IN GESTATION then the homocide laws would apply. The motion only considers whether the legal definition of a human being as contained in the Criminal Code is appropriate. This motion does not consider whether the preborn should be granted constitutional rights. From a legal perspective I believe the preborn need to be recognized as legal person for Constitutional purposes before changing the definition of a “human being” in the Criminal Code. I am not sure if a change to the legal definition of who is human being in the Criminal Code will stand a constitutional challenge, unless the Canadian Parliament is prepared to question the Canadian Constituion’s definition the word “everyone” in Section 7 and 15 of the Charter. Parliament needs to ensure that the word ”everyone” in the Charter includes the preborn, otherwise the pro-choice crowd is going to argue that the Constitutional rights of women supercede the change in definition of “human being” contained in the Criminal Code. The preborn must be proven to have the Charter right to life because they are included in the definition of “everyone.”
The “impose their beliefs on others” phrase was just said to rile the Christians. It was pure distraction and not a worthy comment from a Canadian politician.
With no preamble another Canadian MPs should stand-up ask the following:
MP O’Connor can you please tell the Canadian people what you think is gestating in a woman’s womb if it is not a human being?
Then sit down. If it is not answered – ask again – then sit down. Repeat until the question is answered.
Well as a Canadian, I can tell you that it was a very corrupt Trudeau government that allowed the abortion law to be struck down in the first place and nothing to replace it. We tried to stop Morgentaler in the 1970’s to no avail. We delivered a million plus petition to the Trudeau government which was duly ignored. We protested outside the Morgentaler clinic in the 1980’s – also to no avail.
What we didn’t know at the time and what is now claimed is that Trudeau’s brother was a doctor who referred many women (some of whom were mistresses to Trudeau cabinet ministers in the 1970’s) to Henry Morgentaler for abortions. You can imagine then why Morgentaler was left alone after a while.
In the 1980’s David Peterson, Premier of the province of Ontario refused to prosecute Morgentaler, although he was breaking the law. Who knows why that was also done, but likely Morgentaler had some kind of grip on his government too. Abortion is a seedy business.
We need to try to restart the debate in our society if we have any hope of changing things. It is very difficult to have sessions or clubs in Canadian universities because such abortion talks have been labelled as hate speech. Most young people enter university prolife but end up becoming vociferous pro-abortion rights by the time they leave school. Most do not know that there is no law in Canada, unique among nations in the world and that it is permissible to abort up to birth. Most are shocked by this information. Sadly we a very vocal minority of rabid feminists such as Joyce Arthur who lead the pack of proaborts. So as not to offend the feminists, Canada no longer keeps stats on abortions.
With typical Canadian apathy we do nothing. We aren’t a politically active people like the Americans. We have more of the laissez-faire approach to life, politics and so forth.
Many Canadians believe it is a religious issue – mainly coming from the Catholic church. We need to frame the question as a human rights issue. When you can define one group of human beings as nonpersons, you can decide any one might also be that.
Please pray for us. We need your prayers and your example. I truly love and admire you prolife Americans. I know you will be victorious in the end! <3