[En français]
![[pregnant woman] What is this woman carrying?](http://notyetborn.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/pregnant_what-is-this-woman-carrying.png "Pregnant_What-is-this-woman-carrying")
YOU MAY BE SURPRISED AT HOW
CANADA REGARDS THIS BABY.
- Did you know Canadian law says a child is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?
- A child has no human rights until its entire body has emerged from its mother’s body.
- This law was developed by judges over 400 years ago when medical science knew nothing about the development of children in the womb.
- Does this make sense in the 21st century, when doctors can see a child’s heart beat—and even operate on a child—long before birth?
- Will Parliament refuse to accept this or any law that says some human beings are not human? That’s up to you! Read on to find out how you can make your voice heard.
Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth has filed a motion asking Parliament to examine Canada’s 400-year-old law in light of modern medical knowledge. Motion 312 will be voted on in the House of Commons June 13, 2012.
Tell your MP you want Parliament to support a fact-based and respectful dialogue. You can find your MP’s name and contact information by entering your postal code at www.elections.ca
[Click here for some guidance on writing letters
to Members of Parliament.]
Circulate a petition. Give your petition containing 25 or more valid signatures to your MP and request that it be read in Parliament. One can be downloaded here along with other resources to help raise awareness in your community.
“But what about the woman’s rights?”
It’s an important question.
Let us first consider that no person’s rights have ever been made more secure by denying fundamental human rights to another.
Compassion for the woman.
Compassion for her child.
Why can’t we have both?
[Download printable resources here.]
Please note: The purpose of this site is to encourage fact-based, respectful debate regarding Canada’s current definition of “human being”. The moderator is a concerned citizen who, while she supports MP Woodworth’s initiative, does not work for his office nor have ties to any political party.
Both agreeing and dissenting voices are invited to enter into debate on this site, but comments will be published only if they meet the following criteria:
- Whether you agree or disagree with M-312, please write respectfully and sensitively.
- Please try to keep to the subject at hand. If you do not understand what is being proposed in M-312, don’t assume. Please ask.
- Please be inclusive. This is not a religious issue. People of all belief systems can agree or disagree with Canada’s law—based on observable data. Writing about your personal religious beliefs only detracts from the salient points you may have to make.
If your comment has not been published within five days, please be encouraged to edit what you wrote and re-submit. Thank you!
Thanks for all the work that has gone into this site.
I can’t think of any significant issues throughout the history of mankind where there was a truly healthy outcome that resulted from a “don’t bring it up and don’t talk about it” policy.
This “let’s talk about it” movement is gathering momentum. Most importantly, people on all sides of the issue will grow in understanding and compassion as the dialogue spreads throughout our nation.
I agree Jeff, we must BE A VOICE! That’s how I’ve been feeling as well so I created a website called http://www.beavoice.ca where you can sign a digital petition. All data from this petition will be forwarded to Stephen Woodworth in support of Motion 312. Please sign and ask other Canadians to do the same! Thank you.
Thank you for making these materials very user friendly. Would someone be able to tell me if there is a deadline or a desirable date to have these petitions mailed in by?
Thank you.
Thank you, Jessica. Currently Parliament’s first debate on Woodworth’s motion (M-312) is set for April 26, 2012. I’m guessing it would be most effective to send petitions to your MP’s office as soon as possible.
If you are so moved, you can also write a personal letter or e-mail to your MP and to the Prime Minister respectfully expressing your views on the issue and urging them to support M-312.
A reminder to everyone: Despite what you may be hearing, M-312 is NOT an attempt to criminalize abortion. Rather, it seeks to get Canada on the road to acknowledging and safeguarding the fundamental rights of every human being. M-312 asks for a special House committee to answer four basic questions regarding: the humanity or non-humanity of the not yet born; the justness or unjustness of Canadian law’s current definition; and what can be done to ensure that all human beings in our society are afforded fundamental human rights.
What is the point to this? What issues have arisen from this law?
Hi Jason,
Thank you for asking that question. I’ll do my best to answer it.
[Note: I do not represent Mr. Woodworth; nor do I have ties to any political party. I’m merely the moderator of this site. As an ordinary Canadian citizen, I gladly join in the discussion here and invite others to do the same.]
The main purpose of the resources available on this site is to raise public awareness. The most recent polls reveal that the majority of Canadians are unaware of the existence of this law.
When told that Canada’s law does not consider a child a human being until his or her entire body has emerged from the birth canal, around 72% of Canadians say they want some legal protection for children before birth (Environics, Oct 2011).
In my opinion, those statistics justify the debate that’s happening this afternoon in the House of Commons.
The debate is on Motion 312, which asks for a special House committee to answer four basic questions regarding: the humanity or non-humanity of children in the womb; the justness or unjustness of Canadian law’s current definition; and what can be done to ensure that all human beings in our society are afforded their inalienable human rights.
M-312 is not an attempt to criminalize abortion or control women’s bodies. Many who advocate for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to give birth are leaping to that conclusion.
Aversion to this discussion is understandable. The issue of abortion hits so close to home for so many. But as a young woman myself, I do not feel threatened by Woodworth’s initiative. As a nation, let’s examine the facts squarely. Only then can we work together on better serving all members of our society—including the women and men who find themselves in seemingly impossible situations.
If a child that’s developing inside a woman’s body is a human being, then surely our country’s legal definition should reflect that fact. Anything else is an embarrassment to our nation, and opens the door to all sorts of injustice.
And if it’s not a human being, then what is it? Terms like “pregnancy tissue” are comfortable, but are they accurate? Are we burying our collective head in the sand?
What are some implications of having no legal protection for the unborn? Sex-selective abortion has been making headlines recently. Regardless of one’s views on abortion in general, almost all Canadians see the practice of selectively aborting female babies as utterly unacceptable. But the law allows it. Who’s next?
In discussing these issues, compassion and respect are of the utmost importance. I do hope the resources on this site haven’t fallen short in that regard. No good can come of vilifying those who think differently than us—and there are many on all sides of these issues who are guilty of doing that. Respectful, fact-based speech and honest listening are vital in any debate.
Thanks again for your question.
Sarah
Hello Sarah,
What exactly do you mean by “including the women and men who find themselves in seemingly impossible situations. “?
Why is a definition an “embarrassment to our nation”?
What definition do you want to give to a human being? Does it need to viable? A fetus is not viable until 25 weeks or later. Before that, no intervention will keep it alive except being in the Mother. No one is burying their head in the sand calling it a fetus. That is medically accurate.
When you ask “who is next”? What do you mean? You think because abortion is legal, something else may be aborted? In order to have a clear conversation, please explain. Or maybe you want to bring capital punishment into the conversation? Or is that okay?
Thanks,
Ritana.
Hello Ritana,
You’ve asked some excellent questions. Thank you very much for your thoughtful reading and respectful response. I’ll try to work through your questions one by one.
Impossible Situations
Pregnancy can turn life upside-down, even under the best of circumstances. When there are factors such as poverty, or when the child was conceived through rape (to name two immense challenges among many), carrying the fetus to term and parenting the child can seem utterly impossible to the woman—and perhaps also to the child’s father.
As a society I believe we need to offer tangible support to those affected by unplanned pregnancy. No one is “pro-abortion”. Often the decision to end the life of the child in utero is made because it appears to be the only solution. Often that decision is heart-rending and has severe psychological repercussions for the woman and others affected. I believe Canada (and each of us as individuals) can and should do better in offering real support, real compassion, and real options to women and men facing the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy.
Embarrassment of holding onto a dishonest definition
Canada’s current definition of “human being” is embarrassing, in my opinion, because it is dishonest. Asserting that a child is somehow transformed into a human being only after every last bit of it has exited the mother’s body is an insult to Canadians’ intelligence. How many Canadians actually believe that? One look at modern in utero imaging tells us that the child 5 minutes before birth is no different from the child 5 minutes after birth. Rational-thinking people like you and I don’t subscribe to some fanciful definition originating in an era when medical science didn’t know much of anything about what goes on during pregnancy.
What makes a human being a human being?
That’s the million-dollar question. M-312 doesn’t attempt to answer it. M-312 doesn’t even ask the committee to answer it—but merely to hear from the relevant disciplines, study the question in light of the data, and give a report to Parliament. It’s not an easy question. But I do hope that Parliament will take the opportunity to chew around on it. Indeed it is Parliament’s duty to ensure that each one of Canada’s laws is both honest and just.
Is viability the criterion for being reckoned a human being?
You are correct in pointing out that, before a certain gestational age, the fetus is 100% dependent on its mother’s body for sustaining its life. But here’s a question to consider: What level of independence must an entity have in order to be defined as a human being? If we say that a fetus is not a human being because it is totally dependent, then we need to conclude that neither is a newborn a human being. (Leave a newborn alone in its crib for a week and you’ll have a dead baby.) We’d also be forced to conclude that a severely disabled person, who cannot perform basic self-care, is not a human being and therefore perhaps not worthy of being sustained and cared for by other human beings.
Terminology—the power of words
I don’t object to the term fetus, and I use it sometimes myself. It is indeed the accurate medical term for a child in utero after eight weeks’ gestation.
It’s terms like “pregnancy tissue” and “uterine contents” that I believe are unwise. If we bat these terms around and never consider that the entity growing inside a pregnant woman’s body may actually be a distinct human being, then we simply avoid dealing with uncomfortable questions. But are we okay with the possibility that we might be lying to ourselves?
Implications of how we define “human being”
I often roll my eyes when I hear the question, “Who’s next??” because it sounds alarmist. When it comes to our country’s definition of “human being”, though, I don’t hesitate to ask it in all seriousness. To put it a different way: “What criteria do we use for determining who is reckoned a human being? Who, therefore, given that criteria, is not to be reckoned a human being?” I’ve already outlined (above) two logical yet horrifying implications of the viability/independence criterion. We don’t need to look too far to find real examples—not just philosophical musings—of what can happen when our definition of human being is flawed.
You asked about capital punishment
Honestly I don’t see how the topic of capital punishment has any bearing on a conversation about the humanness (or non-humanness) of a fetus. I’ve heard this question before, and would be grateful if you might shed some light on it for me.
Here’s why I think it’s not relevant to the topic at hand: The death penalty (in countries where it’s employed) is carried out on people who have been found guilty of crimes. People are being put to death not because their country has deemed them “not human beings” but because their country has been given the authority to execute those found guilty of certain crimes. Whatever one’s opinions on capital punishment, what does this have to do with the questions we’re examining about the definition of human being: “Is it right to end the life of a fetus? If it is, then at what point and why? What is the fetus? Is it a human being? If so, what makes it so? Even if it is a human being, is it justifiable in some circumstances to terminate its life?” Certainly it would be ludicrous to answer these questions by saying that the fetus is guilty of some crime deserving death.
Seriously, help me out here! I don’t get what one subject has to do with the other.
Thanks again, Ritana, for entering into respectful dialogue here. How did I do with my response? I realize I probably haven’t covered all the bases. Very happy to continue the conversation, if you wish.
Sarah
I am continuously looking online for posts that can help me. Thanks!
As a mother of two, I am very supportive of this new Let’s Talk About It approach. I have not yet come to know my own specific timeline beliefs of when a fetus becomes a baby, but I know that I believe it is at a point during pregnancy, and well before the last little toe exits the birth canal.
If anyone wants to know what Canadians think about this issue, listen to pregnant women talk about the baby inside them – how many refer to it as their “baby” and not as a “fetus”? Most, if not all, pregnant women would refer to it as their “baby”. Also, people talking with a pregnant woman will talk about the “baby”, asking when the baby is due, or if there are any baby names picked out yet – nobody ever asks if there are any “fetus names” picked out!
Whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, I think everyone would be able to agree that a baby is a human being at some point before they are born. Talking about it is the only way to establish an appropriate legal definition of when that is. Whether everyone agrees on the exact timing or not, using modern medical/scientific evidence we must be able to find a definition that appropriately recognizes the stages of pregnancy and the abilities of an unborn baby.
Also, I want to emphasize that I say “legal” definition, as everyone’s moral/ethical/personal definitions will vary from others. The legal system will never be able to satisfy everyone, but hopefully it will be able to acknowledge the concerns on all sides of this debate, and find a reasonable outcome that we can all accept as our law.
I was in my mid teens when I first heard the word ‘abortion’ — I’m guessing that Roe vs. Wade was in the news at the time.
I became very disturbed at the time. I was perplexed that people don’t realize that the law cannot determine whether or not someone is a person. The law is merely an arbitrary definition. We could pass a law stating that anyone under the age of, say, 21 is not a person. That wouldn’t change the FACT that everyone under 21 are persons. The law would simply disagree with reality.
In criminal cases people have to be found guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” before being found guilty of a crime. The same logic is not followed when it comes to abortion.
During our lives we go through only two actual changes. First we are conceived and secondly we die. Everything else in between consists of development and decay.
Even if you do not agree with the above statement, can you be 100% sure that it is wrong? With any abortion, or even the use of an abortionific birth control pill, something, or someone, dies.
We think of ourselves as being civilized and yet we still proceed to kill something that just may be an actual innocent human being. What ever became of “erring on the side of caution”?
- Reg.
Hi Reg,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Could you elaborate on your second paragraph, please? I don’t understand what you mean by, “That same logic is not followed when it comes to abortion.”
I see a big problem with any law that disagrees (or possibly disagrees) with reality. The state declaring that someone is not a human being does not render that person “not a human being” in reality. It does, however, guarantee that his or her inalienable human rights will not be upheld. (For more on that please see my response to Ritana, above.)
Sarah
Sorry Sarah, I should have elaborated more.
In criminal court, the guilt of the accused must be “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” for a conviction. But when it comes to abortion we condemn the innocent fetus to death even though it is impossible to be sure that said ‘fetus’ is not a human person. If we cannot PROVE that the fetus/baby is not human how in the world can we kill him/her???
Did I manage to muddify my point?
Goodnight,
Reg.
I think I understand now. The two things being compared in your analogy are The Guilt of a Person Accused of a Crime and The Non-Humanness of a Fetus.
Your assertion (if I’m hearing you right) is that we must have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that those statements are accurate before taking any action that would impinge upon another human being’s life or liberty.
In the former case, The Guilt of the Person Accused of a Crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before:
(1) declaring him/her guilty of the crime in question, and
(2) punishing him/her under the applicable laws of the land (since he/she truly is guilty of a particular crime).
In the latter case, The Non-Humanness of a Fetus must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before:
(1) declaring the fetus to be not a human being, and
(2) allowing the fetus’ life to be terminated by the will of its protectors (since the fetus truly is not a human being and therefore not worthy of being protected).
Interesting thought. I see the connection to what you said earlier about declarations/definitions which may disagree with reality.
Perhaps others would like to weigh in on this?
I really appreciate your responses to the questions and comments posed on this site Sarah. My personal view on the matter is for Parliament to address the issue of 17th century law concerning ‘what is a human being’ as we have done over the decades with numerous other laws concerning human rights. Why should human rights laws be updated for only part of the human race?
Thank you,
Erin
Hi Sarah,
I just want to say that I am very appreciative of this site! It seems that any site, pro-choice or pro-life, is riddled with comments that are extremely biased one way or the other, and don’t deal with straight facts. The truth is, most people will become angry, defensive, or downright rude when they see comments that contradict their own personal beliefs.
I’ve always thought that leaving religion out of the abortion debate would be wise. Deal with facts from an objective standpoint, and we can continue to have respectful dialogue. Throw religion into the mix, and you automatically raise people’s defences. This particular issue, M-312, is not about religion, personal conviction, or anything other than a scientific definition that is embarassingly out-of-date. Having said that, I hope that it helps to re-open the abortion debate. I think that human rights should be extended to babies well before they fully emerge from their mother’s bodies.
Thanks again for your dedication to this subject.
i think we should bring our laws into the 21 century and some our other outdated laws that hurt the safety of our children even in womb