Giuseppe Gori, of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario puts forth a very convincing argument in his recent newsletter, "Straight Thoughts 144". I had it forwarded to me and am currently trying to get a link for you. If I receive the author's permission, I will reproduce it in its entirety.
According to Gori, he has proven that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin supports this notion. The argument something like this:
On December 1st, 2005 Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin delivered a now infamous speech in Wellington, New Zealand. She quoted Professor Benjamin Berger and agreed with his statement:
"...justice is not a matter of majoritarian or popular debate, but an expression of a reasoned commitment to the dignity of all human beings.”
She continued:
“Similarly, if one agrees that the raison d’être of the modern state is to promote the interests of its citizens, it follows that the states should not be allowed to exterminate entire sectors of the society..."
So she is saying that respecting human life is not a matter of popular opinion, and that the state cannot allow genocide.
Gori then argues that a fetus is a being, since it exists.
It is also human, since its DNA can be recognized as such from the moment of existence.
Therefore the state should not have legislation allowing abortion since the unborn child is a "human being", and therefore falls within the boundaries of her declaration of protection.
Ergo, the Supreme Court of Canada's Chief Justice does not believe in abortion.
Another argument used by abortion rights' activists is that a fetus isn't a person until it is born. However, we have now proven that an unborn child is a human being, and that a human being is a person. Therefore, an unborn child is a person.
Case closed. Somebody should tell Jack Layton.
* * * * * * *
On that optimistic note, I would like to wish all mothers a Happy Mothers' Day. That includes ALL moms - especially those carrying our tiny unborn Canadian "persons". May God bless you and your baby and give you strength and wisdom to do all you can to protect his precious gift.
33 comments:
Thanks Vicki, Happy Mothers’s day to you too! Have a wonderful day!
As to this posting:
We all have to ponder what this all means to us as a country.
If I’m not mistaken that if you destroy some rare bird’s eggs you can be subject to fines, or some such restraint. Am I right?
Interesting point. Does anyone have information on this?
I think that comes from the states where (I believe), it is illegal to kill eagle eggs. I'll have to see if I can find that.
I found this on the web site www.eagle.org and have quoted from the site:
"The Bald Eagle Protection Act prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit. Take includes: pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb. A $5,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment is imposed for failure to obey this law."
So, in the United States, you can have an abortion and kill your child, but if you wound, capture of kill an eagle's egg you will be fined Five Grand and sent to jail for one year. Should human beings be afforded the same kind of protection as eagle's eggs?
Wow. Kinda shows you where the priorities are. Thanks Kelly.
Eagle eggs are pretty tasty though...what am I going to do now?
eagle apples and human oranges.
gotta love that conservative fruit salad....
KEvron
Ouch, I noticed that my eagle joke didn't get through...
Aussie Yam, thanks for dropping by. How did you happen to arrive at this site, BTW? Just curious.
What is the current situation in Australia right now regarding abortion?
Your philosophy sounds like moral relativism. If you don't want to impose your moral values on others, then how do we arrive at the decision that murder in general should be discouraged?
"those who are pro-choice, are NOT pro-abortion"
Well said aussie yam....
This is what I've been saying. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-having legal protection for those who choose abortion as an option and I'm anti-coat hanger, back alley style.
Well, thanks Aussie and Zac. Very interesting comments. Maybe this will never be settled. Is there any law at all in Australia regarding abortion? Is it illegal at a certain point of gestation? Can you legally perform an abortion as a child is being born?
You can do that in Canada.
"Abortion to this day, remains a contentious issue, because no one can agree (nor the scientists), when (independent) life does indeed begin."
I have to disagree with you on this point.
I believe that the scientific argument on when "life" begins fell over to the pro-life side due to the fact that by actual scientific measurements of the definition of "life", it is in fact indisputable that a fetus from its inception is in fact an autonomous piece of living human matter. It is not an organ of the mother because it contains unique DNA sequences and has/will develop its own bodily organs. Thus, scientifically, it is "alive".
I believe this was the inspiration for the pro-choice side to stop arguing about whether a fetus was a human being and start to argue whether it was a "person". I can't remember if it was one of the former President of the National Organization of Women or Planned Parenthood or some other organization linked to the pro-choice movement, but a few years ago during a major convention, she admitted that the pro-choice community could never win a scientific argument on whether a fetus was a human being and that the argument should be redirected to whether a fetus is a "person". I believe this is what actually shifted much of the public debate in that argument's direction.
In the end, the present state of affairs is fairly well known. The non-political or legal debators on this issue will often argue whether a fetus is alive, while those who have to appear before courts and legislators will argue whether a fetus is a "person".
Thank you, Surecure, for that excellent clarification.
Aussie Yam,you said "I am not aware of Canadian law on aborting foetus at full-term. But I can't see it being a real problem because a child that can survive on its own, after birth, can be adopted out."
I'm having trouble imagining a baby surviving after having had his skull deliberately crushed, or a pair of scissors stuck into the back of her neck.
Comparing abortion to genocide is not a good way to go down this debate.
Genocide: Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
When it is not deliberate, systemic, targeted, and when it is not of a racial, political, or cultural group, how can it ever be genocide.
Your arguments rest on the crux that:
Blastocysts, zygots, embryos, and fetus are human beings
Before I move on to more developed arguments about the comparison to genocide, I will examine the fuzzy line you attempt to draw about the creation of unique genetic beings.
Your argument follows that blastocysts, zygots, embryos, and fetus are human beings:
"It is also human, since its DNA can be recognized as such from the moment of existence."
Many blastocysts do not implant in the uterine wall. These blastocysts fit all of your arguments for a unique, living human being deserving protection. After failing to implant, blastocysts are then reabsorbed and or expelled during a woman's period.
The distinction between blastocyst and embryo is very important. The question I will ask to end this section is, do you believe that the morning after pill which is known to prevent ovulation, and assumed to prevent fertilization and implantation, and is a form of abortion?
Or, to be put more directly, is the use of artificial means to prevent implantation of blastocysts abortion?
(Just so no one gets distracted, the morning after pill is not RU-486 which can be used for up to 48 days in pregnancy)
Now back to the genocide analogy. I will for the purposes of argument accept your position that all beings which have a uniquely human genetic character are in fact humans.
The first argument against the characterization of genocide is that many beings which have a uniquely human genetic character are randomly and without intent left to die in the first hours of their existence. Non - implanted blastocysts are killed randomly, and without malice. Under your broad definitions, this would be contributing to the genocide. This same argument can be extended for miscarriages.
The second argument to be used is that abortion is neither deliberate nor systematic. It is not deliberate, as it does not target particular racial, political, or cultural groups. It is also voluntary, on the part of the mother. Abortion is not systematic either. It is not required or forced. With the acceptance of your argument two paragraphs above for the purpose of refuting another of your arguments, I will acknowledge that for the sack of argument large amounts of humans are being killed. However, this killing is random, not systemic, and not deliberate in its targeting. Killing many randomly is not genocide, it is just senseless killing.
Now I am exiting the realm where I accept your position that all beings which have a uniquely human genetic character are in fact humans.
I will simply paste here arguments from the ADF and CJC against using genocide, and most usually, the holocaust in anti abortion arguments.
"Whatever one’s position on this heartrending issue, analogizing abortion to the Nazi government’s campaign to murder every Jew in the world diminishes the truth of the Holocaust and implies that ordinary women engaging in a lawful act are Nazis."
Abortion and the Holocaust
Many groups and activists within the anti-abortion movement draw analogies between abortion and the Holocaust. This practice ranges from invoking a comparison to reproducing photographs of Jewish corpses alongside those of aborted fetuses to naming an anti-abortion web site "The American Holocaust Memorial." Examples include:
*"The American Holocaust Memorial" web site is dedicated to "uncovering" the "frightening correlation between the American holocaust of abortion and the NAZI holocaust of World War II." Gruesome photographs of slaughtered Jews and dismembered fetuses are compared in order to demonstrate that "the ‘Pro-Choice’ campaign [is] a thinly veiled ‘Final Solution’ for the unwanted unborn child."
*"The Nuremberg Files," also a web site, calls itself "a coalition of concerned citizens throughout the USA…cooperating in collecting dossiers on abortionists in anticipation that one day we may be able to hold them on trial for crimes against humanity." It states that many Nazi war criminals avoided punishment for their crimes due to lack of evidence, and "we do not want the same thing to happen when the day comes to charge abortionists with their crimes."
The site provides a mailing address and asks viewers to collect and submit "evidence" – including any personal information, videotapes or photos, criminal records, and affidavits by former employees or spouses – about doctors who perform abortions and others involved in safeguarding abortion for women who choose it.
Stating that its goal is "to record the name of every person working in the baby slaughter business across the United States of America," the site includes a list, under a graphic of dripping blood, of the names of abortion doctors, clinic owners and workers, allegedly sympathetic judges, politicians, and law enforcement authorities, and "miscellaneous spouses & other blood flunkies." A line is drawn through the names of the doctors and other personnel who have been murdered.
Kelly - What happens if the mother eagle doesn't want the baby? Will she get fined if she kicks the egg out of the nest?
Aussie Yam, you have a very good perspective on this - try to get to the root cause.
However, don't you think of us as barbarians in Canada, since we have absolutely no law at all regarding abortion, so that abortion at any stage for any reason is not a criminal act? We even allow partial birth abortion, where the baby is born feet first, and as long as the head is still inside, the baby can be killed, and it is not considered murder. Also, if there is a botched abortion, there are cases of the baby being allowed to die on the table without assistance.
You have no idea what a cruel, barbaric country Canada is.
Ko - Interesting arguments, but I can pick them apart one by one. But later; 24 is coming on soon.
"You have no idea what a cruel, barbaric country Canada is."
Hmmmm....I can see our new tourism slogan now.
Zsc - I think Sir Paul already started that campaign.
especially those carrying our tiny unborn Canadian "persons".
I thought it said Canadian "prisons" boy I research too much lol
Ha! Sara. Too funny. That would be quite a load.
Aussie Yam - Thanks for your well thought out comments, and your reflective research.
You said - "Actually, for a country with one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world" - Actually, we have no laws regarding abortion, as I understand it.
But hey, live and let live right? What isn't right for me may be right for you, so who am I to say what you should be doing right? We'll all just live out our own little lives, and not worry about what other people are doing and who they may be hurting, as long as it doesn't bother me, right?
I believe that is called moral relativism.
Great chatting with you though. You still didn't say how you happened upon this blog.
KO - "It is also voluntary, on the part of the mother." What about the baby?
"Non - implanted blastocysts are killed randomly, and without malice. Under your broad definitions, this would be contributing to the genocide. This same argument can be extended for miscarriages." How?
A genocide is the large, deliberate extermination of unwanted human life. It targets a particular group of people - unwanted preborn human babies.
Aussie Yam, you are very wise. Thanks for your contributions. Just one last question - How has Australia been able to allow each State to have its own law regarding this issue? Does each State have a different idea about what a "person" is?
This is the thrust of my frustration. If Canada is almost the only country in the Western world or anywhere else for that matter without any abortion laws at all, how is it that other countries have been able to resolve the issue about what a "person" is? Thanks.
I'm really glad you stumbled across my blog, BTW!
A.Y. - One more last question - Do you have public health care in Australia, and does it cover all abortions; on demand? Thanks.
"So, I still suggest that the energy be spent on educating people about contraception etc."
Good luck Aussie Yam, I've been barking up that tree for a week now. It ain't gettin' through.
Zac, to a certain degree I see your point (and Aussie Yam's). I'm just not going to give up. But I won't make it a one-topic blog. I promise.
Aussie Yam - Thank you for that very valuable lesson from Down Under. I need to think about this for a while.
Your input is extremely appreciated. I may be repeating myself here, but yours is the most non-partisan view I have ever heard on this issue.
Joanne, can I ask what ultimately your end goal would be for a 'abortion law' in Canada?
Would the morning after pill and/or the 'pill' be outlawed?
A.Y. - Yes, sometimes we all need to just take a breath and calm down.
On the other hand, I still haven't found any argument from the "Right to Choose" side that even comes close to making me change my mind on the issue. However, I respect the fact that they are entitled to their viewpoint.
A.Y. - There have been some people on this blog that have tried to get me to change my thinking. That is not going to happen. I do agree though that respectful debate is very important.
You are the voice of tranquility in all of this. Do Australians get as passionate about politics as we Canadians?
Aussie - Maybe we can learn something from your country. Emotions do tend to cloud rational thought.
BTW, I had some lovely Australian wine at a restaurant last night. "Little Penguin" or something. I hope we can find more. They served it with a cute squishy little toy penguin (on the side). ;)
Thanks, Aussie Yam for the wine tips. I'll have to pass them onto my INWE (In-House Wine Expert). ;)
Funny about France. We rarely bother with French wines now - too expensive, and frankly the quality just isn't what it used to be. Our locally produced Niagara wines are just as good if not better. Ever heard of ice wine?
A teetotal vegetarian! Wow, you ARE virtueous! If you ever come to Canada, I would recommend B.C. They are very into that stuff there.
Actually, I like veggie burgers once in a while.
Post a Comment