Priests for Life Canada support incremental legislation

Priests for Life Canada supports incremental legislation. They also support the weneedaLAW.ca campaign.



As far as I know Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Canada still do not support incremental legislation. It's too bad they don't.

It would be nice if we could all work together to obtain some legal limits for the pre-born children of this country. I would love to see a ban on late-term-abortions in Canada. Or on sex-selection abortions. Of course we will continue to work for accomplishing this. With CLC and AFLO, or without them.

Gestational abortion laws are moral and logical

Alliance for Life Ontario has responded to the gestational legislation approach to abortion.

I am concerned with this statement. Many pro-life people do support a gestational approach, an approach that is clearly not intrinsically immoral, as Archbishop Miller has already stated, and confirmed by Cardinal Collins, and Priests for Life Canada. Yet AFLO continues to say there is something morally wrong with this approach.

 Archbishop Miller said:

"Under the conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73, it is morally licit to work for and to vote for legislation, including gestational legislation, which limits the harmful effects of an unjust legal regime that permits abortion. 

At the same time, it is also morally licit to withhold support for gestational legislation — and other incrementalist legislative strategies intended to limit access to abortion — if, after prudent reflection, one is convinced that it is an unwise legislative strategy. 

The conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73 can be applied to the situation in Canada today with regard to gestational legislation. The Catholic faithful are free to support such legislation in good conscience. This does not mean, however, that Catholics are compelled to support gestational legislation. 

We pray that the prolife movement may not be divided in spirit by disagreements regarding the practical wisdom of gestational legislation. We implore all within the movement to refrain from questioning the good will or motives of those who have taken a different stand from their own on this issue."

Respected spiritual leaders have told us that a gestational approach is not an inherently immoral strategy, but a matter of prudential judgement. AFLO/CLC continues to contradict this. Saying that a gestational approach is immoral and intrinsically evil, judges these spiritual leaders as acting immorally. It also judges my actions as being immoral. That is what it means to support an immoral act: one is acting immorally. This is troubling.

In this latest statement, AFLO brings up a drowning baby analogy and says:

"Some supporters of gestational legislation have compared the present abortion situation in Canada with the scenario of two drowning children. “Aren’t you going to save one?” they ask. This is so misleading."

I don't know what is misleading about this at all. I actually think the analogy doesn't go far enough. Let me expand upon it.

I am standing by a river with a friend. We see two babies drowning.

I know that I will probably only have time to save one baby so I want to jump in and save her. I do this knowing that the other baby will probably drown. At least I know I can probably save one of them.

But my friend believes it would be immoral to save only one of those babies because both babies equally deserve to live. So when I attempt to save one baby, my friend pulls me back because she knows there is only time to save one baby and she believes it’s wrong to save only one baby.

Not only does my friend not help me to save the one baby, but she also actively intervenes to prevent me from saving the one baby. As a result, both babies drown. I could  probably have saved one of them if my friend did not believe that it was intrinsically immoral to save only one baby.

My friend has actively thwarted my efforts to save a drowning baby’s life. I am devastated.

This is exactly how I feel when anti-gestational pro-lifers try to persuade other pro-lifers that gestational limits are intrinsically immoral; I feel like they are thwarting our efforts to save lives.

I urge those who believe setting a gestational limit on abortion is intrinsically evil and immoral, to re-read Archbishop Miller's entire statement and discern for themselves how they regard gestational legislation.

Bishops said we must protect the unborn child to the maximum degree possible

I have just read the Bishop's statement that CLC refers to in this entry.

CLC states in their statement that the Bishops said this:

“We are particularly relieved that the gestational approach has been rejected. The concept is offensive and unprincipled because it presumes that human life is more worthy of protection at one stage than at another".

What CLC doesn't say, is the other pertinent statements about the Bishops' thoughts on gestational legislation. All emphasis are mine.

"While Catholics may not favor abortion or any proposal which seeks to weaken existing legal protection of the unborn child. Nor may they advocate that there be no legal protection. However, when it is the only available or feasible political option, support may be given to legislation which attempts, if only imperfectly, to restore protection or strengthen existing protection. In this case, they must continue to work for complete protection and to express publicly their opposition to abortion.

As we already know with our current 9 month abortion law, a gestational law of any length, although "imperfect" would be "feasible".

The Bishops continue:

Questions as to the feasibility and whether the legislation improves or worsens the legal position of the unborn child, are always matters of prudential judgment where certitude is not possible.

In a country as diversified as ours, in matters of religion and ideology, Catholic politicians must assess the legal and political realities they face and work for the law which will provide the maximum possible protection for unborn children."

This is exactly what a gestational law would accomplish: the "maximum possible protection for unborn children" given that a total ban on abortion would not be accepted by the country.

And this:

"We urge your Committee to draft a law which will protect the unborn child to the maximum degree possible. It is understood, however, that as bishops, it is not our role to suggest in detail the best possible legislative solution..."

Now this is interesting. At the end of the Bishop's statement, CLC/AFLO makes its own comments on Bill C-43, saying this:

"Finally, Bill C-43 sets no time restrictions on “terminating pregnancies” and is, therefore, worse than a Bill which would have restricted abortions to 12 or 16 or 20 weeks of gestation. In fact, Bill C-43 is the worst gestational law possible.

CLC is saying they would prefer (at that time in 1991) a limit at 12 or 16 or 20 weeks gestation over no limit. Yet we have no limit today. Therefore CLC should (by their own words) accept a 12 or 16 or 20 week limit. In fact, the reality is that today, we already have a gestational law. And that gestational limit is the point in gestation when the baby is born, i.e. at the end of gestation, and so a 12 or 16 or 20 week gestational limit is far preferable than our current gestational limit of 40 weeks.

Then CLC ends with this self fulfilling prophesy:

"In view of these facts, the pro-life groups said, it is better to continue without a law while working for a pro-life one, with government help, or otherwise by means of private member bills, or through elections. In the meanwhile pro-lifers can maintain a conscience untarnished by surrender or submission to evil. And from the point of view of political tactics, supporting this bill is equivalent to ending pro-life legislation for the next 10-20 years or more, because every politician in the country will claim that it was the best attainable and refuse to do anything more."

Well we've surpassed the 10-20 years, in fact it will be about 24 years and counting...

Right now abortion is already legal for all nine months. Gestational legislation is a lot better than what we have now. According to CLC's philosophy, we are guaranteed to wait forever for something to change.

On the whole of it, I believe that CLC has taken the Bishop's statements on gestational legislation out of context.

CLC says that spiritual leaders not well formed on life issues

CLC issued this official statement today: Campaign Life Coalition and Gestation Legislation

Notice this statement, which I don't agree with:

"The Canadian pro-life movement must continue focusing on prayer as the essential core of the work, and educating spiritual leaders. Sadly, the majority of the latter are neither as knowledgeable nor as well formed as one would expect on the issues affecting life and family.

I believe many of our spiritual leaders are very well formed, like Cardinal Ouellet, Cardinal Collins Archbishop Miller, and the Priests at Priest For Life Canada, to name but a few.

And this statement which I also don't agree with:

"Regular church goers tell us that they never hear a talk, a sermon or a homily educating the faithful on crucial life and family issues."

Our priests at our Parish do speak out on Life issues regularly. And this year our Pastor went to the abortion defund rally, attended Life Chain and 40 days for life. He also spoke about these events, and arranged car pooling for parishioners.

(Update: My last entry on the CLC/AFLO position here)

Gestational abortion laws are not immoral

This week I came across a joint statement by Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Ontario. It was titled "WHY THE CASE FOR GESTATIONAL ABORTION LAWS IS MORALLY AND LOGICALLY INCOHERENT".

The title of the document sent off warning bells for me. I--along with many other pro-life people and pro-life organizations--am in favour of gestational, or incremental abortion laws.

The statement says that a gestational law is "intrinsically evil", and that a "gestational law is immoral". If this is true, then I would be a supporter of something both intrinsically evil and immoral. This is not the case.

As I continued to read the joint statement, I became more and more disturbed. The document itself isn't on line, but I'd like to quote a few paragraphs from it.

"we will never propose or support a gestational abortion law for Canada. We will never conclude that we must accept what is intrinsically evil so that some good may be achieved. Specifically, we reject the argument made to us by some pro-lifers that the faint and unrealistic prospect of the right to life of some unborn children being recognized in the Criminal Code of Canada at the current time justifies setting aside our longstanding opposition to affirming, in the same law, that some other unborn children may be lawfully killed." 

"A deliberate decision to propose, support, or vote for a gestational abortion law is a behaviour that is in itself immoral. Even if such a law might have some good effects, we can always refrain from engaging in such conduct altogether when to do so would itself not be immoral. If serious harm results from our refusal to participate in such conduct, we are not morally responsible for such consequences because no one can be morally required to sin. Our goal of establishing in civil law the right to life of all unborn children does not justify our use of evil means to accomplish that goal." 

"To counsel another person to choose an action as the lesser of two evils is immoral if both are moral evils, especially if the alleged “lesser evil” is an intrinsic evil." 

"We simply observe that a gestational abortion law would still affirm that a sub-class of unborn children may be lawfully killed, regardless of the motives of any particular legislator who may have voted for it, or of any pro-life activist who supported its enactment."

I respect a point of view different from my own. I believe that two people fighting for the same cause--the legal protection of pre-born children--can adhere to different strategies and ways of achieving the same end. For me to respect your viewpoint doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and vice versa. Both strategies are valid, and neither is morally or intrinsically evil.

I don't believe it is at all helpful though, for a pro-life organization to come out and attack another pro-life world view.

What is also troubling, is that this is an organizational statement, and not simply the view of a single person. It demeans and marginalizes pro-lifers who do not subscribe to CLC/AFLO's position.

This statement implicitly judges me as being immoral and supporting intrinsic evil. I am not and I do not. I am confident that my views are perfectly in line with Cardinal Collins, Archbishop Miller, Priests for Life Canada, and my own spiritual director who is a Jesuit Priest and Canon Lawyer.

The other concern is that the statement can lead people--who might otherwise support gestational legislation--away from supporting a gestational approach, because they wrongly assume that if two large pro-life groups believe it to be wrong, then it must be wrong. This is very troubling indeed.

I believe in gestational legislation. Others do not. My conscience and my respected religious leaders agree with me. If others do not believe in gestational legislation as a valid strategy, that is fine. But making up reasons that are untrue to argue one's case, is not the way to persuade others to your viewpoint.

Abortion-rights advocates ran away from Gosnell

Saw this in today's National Post. Here it is from the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer.

Krauthammer is talking about a strategy for Republicans. Now if we had a political party in Canada who had any backbone, we could easily do this in Canada.

Since we don't have a political party with backbone on life issues, this strategy can be used by pro-lifers themselves. That's us, people.

"...Yet there is a very simple, straightforward strategy for seizing the high ground on abortion in a way that transcends the normal divisions and commands wide popular support: Focus on the horror of late-term abortion — and get it banned. 

Last year’s Kermit Gosnell trial was a seminal moment. The country was shown a baby butcher at work and national sentiment was nearly unanimous. Abortion-rights advocates ran away from Gosnell. But they can’t hide from the issue. 

And the issue, as most succinctly defined by the late liberal Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is infanticide. Describing one form of late-term abortion known as partial-birth, Moynihan said: “I had once remarked that the procedure was too close to infanticide. And now we have testimony that it is not just too close to infanticide, it is infanticide.” How else to describe crushing the infant’s skull in mid-delivery before the head leaves the birth canal?"

Calling late-term abortion what it is: a living, viable, pain-feeling human being being killed. Infanticide.

"Stay away from the minefield of gender politics. Challenge the other side on substance. And watch them lose."

Blessed John Paul II allowed 'restrictive measure'

More common sense on gestational legislation from Blessed Pope John-Paul II and Sean Murphy.

Gestational Legislation: a morally sound strategy

In the most recent issue of the Guelph and Area Right to Life newsletter, there is an (unsigned) front page article on gestational legislation titled: Gestational Legislation - Giving Henry Morgentaler more than he asked for?

We are all aware that there are some in the pro-life community who agree with the gestational approach, and there are some who do not agree with it. This is fair, and it is okay that we do not all agree on the same approach to abortion.

They stated (rightly) that the debate on the gestational strategy has:

"sometimes [been] heated and hurtful".

I have grave concerns however, by the tone of this article whose sole purpose seems to be to demean the gestational approach, which the author does not themselves believe in.

Archbishop Miller of Vancouver and Cardinal Collins both published statements that a gestational approach to abortion is a moral and valid belief.

Archbishop Miller said:

"This teaching [in Evangelium Vitae n. 73] makes clear that legislation which intends to limit the harm done by a pro-abortion law is not itself cooperation with an unjust law but rather "a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." A law aimed at limiting the number of legally authorized abortions does not entail the approval of those abortions that it fails to criminalize.

In the absence of a "pro-abortion" law within the Criminal Code of Canada, that is, of a law that explicitly permits abortion, some think that gestational legislation — or any incrementalist legislation — might create a new law that implicitly authorizes abortion. However, in Canada, a series of court rulings, a failure on the part of the federal Parliament to pass criminal legislation, and a variety of provincial laws, regulations and funding formulas intended to provide access to abortion, have the effect of a defacto legal regime that permits abortion with almost no restrictions. Legislation intended to restrict access to abortion would not create a new legal situation in Canada which would authorize abortions, but instead would intend to limit the number of abortions already authorized under the law. Moreover, such legislation intends to limit the harm done to public morality by the injustice already present in the defacto legal situation."

Many of us welcomed this statement by Archbishop Miller. However the writer of the newsletter apparently did not. They stated that the:

"church hierarchy entered into the fray, sadly raising more tension."

I disagree. It is always healthy and proper for the church to state their position on issues of morality. This is what our church leaders are supposed to do: guide the flock on moral issues. With something as important as abortion, their statements provided us with this necessary guidance. Those of us who believe gestational legislation is a valid philosophy, were encouraged that our actions were in line with Catholic Church teaching. As to raising more tension, this is only true for those who do not accept a gestational strategy. For the rest of us, there is no tension, only joy that we may continue doing what we are already doing.

The newsletter then stated that:

"[regarding a gestational approach] it is argued that we wish only the good, to protect the children after twenty weeks, but implicit in this approach is the fact that those we do not include we abandon."

It is not implicit at all that we are abandoning any babies. Here is what Archbishop Miller said regarding this:

"A law aimed at limiting the number of legally authorized abortions does not entail the approval of those abortions that it fails to criminalize."

I was also very troubled by the long quote the writer provided from abortion doctor Morgentaler from 1967 that appeared to be used to make a not so veiled comparison of Morgentaler, to people who believe in a gestational approach.

(Note: In 1967 the existing abortion law prohibited all abortions, so the quote is not pertinent to the current situation where there is no legal restrictions on abortion.)

The writer then quotes Dr. Morgentaler who said that the end does not justify the means. The writer says of this comment, that:

"Strange he did not see the plank in his own eye. Let us not be the same."

The implication is that those of us who believe in a gestational approach to get rid of abortion, are wrong. We are not wrong, as Archbishop Miller also stated,:

"The teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter is clear. Under the conditions articulated in Evangelium Vitae, n. 73, it is morally licit to work for and to vote for legislation, including gestational legislation, which limits the harmful effect of an unjust legal regime that permits abortion."

For those people who cannot support gestational legislation, like the writer of the article, this is a fair belief to hold, and is not against the Church. We respect that viewpoint and we welcome any sound evidence that shows the gestational approach does not work.

However, what is "hurtful" and harmful to the movement, is articles such as this, which provides no evidence, but rather, simply criticizes our morally justified beliefs of the gestational approach.

Archbishop Miller closes with these wise words:

"We pray that the prolife movement may not be divided in spirit by disagreements regarding the practical wisdom of gestational legislation. We implore all within the movement to refrain from questioning the good will or motives of those who have taken a different stand from their own on this issue."

Cardinal Collins affirms statement on gestational legislation

Cardinal Collins Affirms Statement from Archbishop of Vancouver re: Gestational Legislation

"Cardinal Thomas Collins has asked that the communication below be reproduced in this space, to help educate our Catholic community and to affirm the statement made by Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, Archbishop of Vancouver. It is reproduced with the permission of the Archdiocese of Vancouver. Please see the note below regarding its origin and background.

(from the Archdiocese of Vancouver)

The statement by Vancouver Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, regarding the morality of support for“gestational” legislation, was issued to guide the consciences of Catholics within the pro-life movement in the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The statement was issued in response to a number of requests for guidance from Catholics active in the pro-life movement. It was distributed to pro-life organizations that are active within or headquartered within the Archdiocese of Vancouver for the guidance of their Catholic members. If you have reactions or questions, please contact the Archbishop of Vancouver’s office or Pavel Reid at the Archdiocese of Vancouver Respect Life Office at 604-443-3220 or preid@rcav.org."

Archbishop Miller's statement on gestational abortion legislation

Official statement by Archbishop of Vancouver, regarding the morality of support for 'gestational' legislation.

Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, Archbishop of Vancouver, has issued a statement on the morality of support for ‘gestational’ legislation. This statement has been issued to guide the consciences of Catholics within the prolife movement within the Archdiocese of Vancouver.

Archbishop Miller says in part:
"This teaching [in Evangelium Vitae n. 73] makes clear that legislation which intends to limit the harm done by a pro-abortion law is not itself cooperation with an unjust law but rather "a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." A law aimed at limiting the number of legally authorized abortions does not entail the approval of those abortions that it fails to criminalize.

In order that the attempt to pass a "more restrictive law" is not misunderstood, even implicitly, to "authorize" any act of abortion, the "absolute personal opposition to procured abortion" of the legislator making that attempt, and by extension of the prolife activist or organization, must be "well known."

In the absence of a "pro-abortion" law within the Criminal Code of Canada, that is, of a law that explicitly permits abortion, some think that gestational legislation — or any incrementalist legislation — might create a new law that implicitly authorizes abortion. However, in Canada, a series of court rulings, a failure on the part of the federal Parliament to pass criminal legislation, and a variety of provincial laws, regulations and funding formulas intended to provide access to abortion, have the effect of a defacto legal regime that permits abortion with almost no restrictions. Legislation intended to restrict access to abortion would not create a new legal situation in Canada which would authorize abortions, but instead would intend to limit the number of abortions already authorized under the law. Moreover, such legislation intends to limit the harm done to public morality by the injustice already present in the defacto legal situation."

Everything you wanted to know about Canada's abortion law but were afraid to ask

There's a really good debate going on over at LifeSiteNews on abortion incrementalism. It is in response to two articles posted there:

Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable

To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey

Now it is interesting to note that both these articles criticize a gestational approach to limiting abortion in Canada, and to date I have never read an article at LifeSiteNews in favour of the gestational approach. That being said, the debate is going on is spite of this, through readers who are commenting for, and against, this approach.

What struck me about the comments, is that many people think that Canada has no abortion law, because we have no statute law, per se, that restricts abortion.

But as one commenter, "Jeaneanne1306" points out, in 10 different ways, Canada does have an abortion law.

Here are excerpts from "Jeaneanne1306" comments for you to peruse and come to your own conclusions.

You can read the full discussion at the links provided.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey

"1) Jeananne1306

Some commenters have been saying that Canada has no abortion law. Actually Canada DOES have an abortion law...and it is a completely PERMISSIVE one. The law is the sum total of our statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code which excludes preborn children from the law's protection via section 223) and the Supreme Court rulings (most notably the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code.) There are also provincial laws: the Access to Abortion Services Act in BC; abortion is mentioned in the NB Medical Services Act regarding funding; abortion also made it's way into an Ontario statute earlier this year (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act), where abortion was given a special status over and above any other 'medical service' in the province; there may be other provincial laws as well.

2) Jeananne1306

In the Canadian context, a law that would simply restrict abortion (what some people call "incremental" laws or "imperfect" laws, whether a gestational limit or some other type of restriction) is not a "compromise." A compromise can only happen if each side gives up something to the other side. A bill that simply restricted abortion in some way, and didn't make Canada's existing situation any more pro-abortion than it already is, would not be a compromise. As I understand, Priests for Life Canada's statement was about "incremental" legislation and gestational limits rather than about compromise legislation.

3) Jeananne1306

Mr. Smeaton is quoted as saying that Pope John Paul II's teaching in EV 73.3 "does not apply to bills which explicitly allow abortion in certain circumstances, which gestational bills do, since the pope had already condemned such legislation." Pope John Paul II did not actually condemn gestational legislation. What the Pope was condemning in the previous paragraph of EV 73 was a law that PERMITS abortion. A law that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada where abortion is already legally permitted right up until birth would actually PROHIBIT abortions beyond that gestational limit, thus "limiting the harm" of abortion. Thus EV 73.3 applies in the case of a bill that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada and thus can be licitly supported.

4) Jeananne1306

Today's Criminal Code permits abortion for the full 9 months of pregnancy. It makes "unjust and discriminatory distinctions of children" based on whether they live inside or outside their mothers' bodies. Some would say that is unethical. If a 20-week limit bill were being voted on in Canada's Parliament, a vote in favour of such a bill is a vote against the status quo of legal abortion for the full 9 months and a vote in favour of prohibiting abortions past 20 weeks (the legal status of abortion before 20 weeks remains the same in either case.) Some people might feel they cannot in good conscience continue to allow the status quo of legal abortion right up until birth to go unchallenged."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable

"5) Jeananne1306

Hopefroeurope, I don't see how saving babies past a certain gestational age is similar to negotiating with terrorists. When you negotiate with terrorists, you are giving in to their demands in exchange for something you want. However,setting a gestational limit (e.g. 20 weeks) on abortion in Canada saves the lives of babies after that age limit (something we want) without giving anything away (the babies before 20 weeks are being killed either way, with or without the gestational age limit). I'd really like to understand how you can equate this with negotiating with terrorists. Can you please explain?

6) Jeananne1306

Not necessarily, Fred. If you already had a law that said "abortion shall be permitted up to the 24th week" and you changed it to "abortion shall be permitted up to the 20th week" (thus making the law more RESTRICTIVE), then that change is a good thing. Alternatively, if you already had a law that said "Abortion shall be illegal after 16 weeks" and you changed it to say "Abortion shall be illegal after 20 weeks" (thus making the law more PERMISSIVE), then that change is a bad thing. Whether a change in the law is good or bad depends on whether the change makes the law more restrictive or more permissive than the previous law.

7) Jeananne1306

I agree with Professor Masson that it is wrong to kill some babies in order to save others. However, setting a gestational limit on abortion in Canada does NOT mean some babies will be killed in order to save others. There is no tradeoff going on, because the existing abortion law in Canada already allows ALL babies regardless of gestational age to be killed by abortion. A gestational limit will SAVE the babies that are past the gestational limit. The babies before the gestational limit are already legally being killed today, and a gestational limit does not change that.

8) Jeananne1306

I completely agree with you, hopefroeurope, we should NOT accept unethical laws. And that is precisely why some Canadians want to change Canada’s existing unethical law, the Criminal Code, which (as I have previously mentioned in comments posted earlier) permits the killing of children right up until the point of birth. And one way to improve this unethical situation is to amend the law so that it protects children at some point prior to birth by setting a gestational limit on abortion that the public would support and which could actually pass into law. If there is not the democratic support for something, it won’t pass into law. The end result would still be an unethical law because some babies would still not be protected, but the CHANGE to the law to grant protection to more children IS ethical, because it limits the harm of abortion.

9) Jeananne1306

Actually, prolifeJ, we do have an abortion law. As I have already noted in response to Jeff, all of Canada's case law and statute law constitute Canada's abortion law. A notable example of case law is the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children. Section 223 of the Criminal Code excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the protection afforded by the homicide offences and other offences against "persons." So except for one narrow protection that still exists in the Criminal Code (section 238 which makes it an offence to kill a child "in the act of birth"), there is no protection for children before they are born. So our Criminal Code already codifies in law the permission to kill preborn children, i.e. abortion.

And speaking of defunding abortion, prolifeJ, would you support a law in Ontario (where almost all, if not all, abortions are currently fully funded) that would defund all abortions except in the case of rape?

10) Jeananne1306

Jeff, firstly, a law that permits abortion does exist in the Criminal Code: section 223 excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the law's protection. So in fact we already have a law that, as you say, separates those who can be killed from those who can't--and that line is drawn when the child has completely proceeded from the mother's body (i.e. the 'born alive' rule). In addition, we have case law (most notably the1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children). Canada's "abortion law" is the sum total of the statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code) and the case law. (There are also some provincial laws dealing with abortion.) What we don't have today in the Criminal Code is a RESTRICTIVE abortion law--it is a completely PERMISSIVE abortion law."

If that doesn't make it clear, nothing will.