One Child Nation is a documentary narrated by Nanfu Wang, a filmmaker from China seeking to understand the infamous one-child policy she grew up with. It is a personal issue for Nanfu. Her name means “man pillar” as her parents wanted a son, but when they had a girl still hoped that she would grow up strong like a man. Her parents later had the desired son – something Nanfu grew up ashamed of. None of her friends had siblings. She felt like her family had done something wrong.

The documentary reveals the world Nanfu grew up in – a world immersed in propaganda praising the one-child policy. This propaganda included the promise that fewer children would lead to prosperity, the fear of overpopulation, and even the horrifying vision of China descending into cannibalism. This propaganda was internalized by the culture. Some disliked the harsh enforcement it allowed – which included forced abortions or sterilization, high fines, and destruction of homes if they failed to pay – but many people Nanfu interviewed still argue in favor of the policy.

The blind belief in dramatic horror stories used to justify human rights violations will sound familiar to those active in the pro-life movement. “If you have more than one child, we will all become cannibals” is not that dissimilar of an argument from, “If we don’t allow abortions, we will have too many poor people.” Both premises are questionable, and the cure seems just as, if not more, atrocious than the problem.

One of the most powerful elements of this documentary is that Nanfu shows the devastation of the one-child policy. She shows the victims – the young children who lost their lives, either abandoned or killed. The victims are not hypothetical ideas, or abstract statistics. Everyone from parents who abandoned their child to avoid being stuck with a girl, to family planning officers who carried out the policy all shrugged and said they had to go along with the policy. The documentary shows the real cost of indifference toward human life.

There is a line near the end of the documentary that will comes across as jarring, as it goes from critiquing China’s propaganda to supporting our culture’s pro-abortion propaganda. But I hope that the reality shown in the rest of the documentary will be the lasting impact. My hope is that viewers will take pause at the cost of turning a blind eye to human rights violations, will question what propaganda is being propagated in our own culture, and will consider the cost of indifference in being complicit in the atrocities of our time.

Canada’s early laws used “persons” when referring to more than one person and “he” when referring to one person. It was treated as though these statutes were referring only to men, even when they used the term “persons”. This included the statute requiring senators to be “qualified persons”, which prevented women from being appointed to the Senate.

In 1927, five women launched a legal challenge that the Supreme Court rejected, deciding that women were not included as “persons” under that law. The women did not give up. They took their case to what was then Canada’s highest court of appeal, in Great Britain. The appeal was accepted and resulted in women being officially eligible for Senate appointments in 1929. This was a significant shift in the involvement of women in public and political life in Canada.

It resulted in the famous headline “Women are persons”:

Throughout history, the idea of a human being not being counted as person under the law has been used to deny basic human rights to groups such as slaves, Jews, and other minority groups. Today this argument is used to justify abortion and deny pre-born children the right to life.

Person’s Day is worth noting and celebrating for the gain it made for women. It is also proof that a country can recognize and right an injustice, and gives us hope for a future Person’s Day when pre-born children will be recognized as persons deserving of legal rights.

The young woman in question reportedly has the mental capacity of an elementary-school child, but her mother had promised to take full responsibility for raising the child. The mother and a social worker involved both spoke adamantly against the abortion, which the National Health Service doctors responsible for the pregnant woman’s care were recommending.

In an expedited hearing a few days later, a higher court thankfully overturned the ruling.

The fact that the initial ruling was made at all is troubling – here is a judge who believes it could be justified that the state would have so much control over a woman as to go into her body and kill her child without her consent. It also shows how little value is placed on a pre-born child. It seems in this case the state did have some capacity as a medical decision maker for this woman. But abortion is not healthcare. It would not improve this woman’s health, and definitely not do anything for the health of her pre-born child.  This is a misuse of the government’s responsibility to care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Add to this that it is also against the woman’s expressed wishes. Both pro-life as well as pro-choice advocates who staunchly defend the “my body, my choice” rhetoric must oppose this completely. It reeks of China’s one-child policy, or horror stories from North Korea, where forced abortions and sterilizations are a known occurrence. This is not the type of state power we expect or can allow to go unnoticed.

Further information and context will hopefully be forthcoming when the reasons for overturning the decision are released in the near future.

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa doesn’t see it that way. Leader of New Wave Feminists, a pro-life feminist group, she became both pregnant and pro-life at age 16. She stars in a new documentary, Pro-Life Feminist, along with two other feminist women active in the pro-life movement. Pro-life feminists, says Hernon-De La Rosa, don’t see only the woman or only the child: “We want to support and protect two people.”

“When they [women in crisis pregnancy situations] look for help they see Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life community. …Our whole society, including the pro-life movement, needs to do much, more more to support pregnancy women in distress.”

For a longer discussion and the negative role men display in advocating for abortion rights, you can read the full article here.

Destiny Herndon De La Rosa standing up for life: photo via New Wave Feminists website.

Of course, it is also true that many elected lawmakers view pre-born children as a political liability and this has most certainly contributed to a thirty-year void when it comes to regulating abortion in Canada. But we do need to acknowledge that the pro-life movement carries some of the responsibility for the political failures in the past three decades. Yet, in the six years our organization has been active, we see plenty of reason for hope!

Breakenridge asserts that

“[t]he pro-life movement seems to be holding out for an unattainable goal of classifying abortion as murder and ending it altogether, rather than focusing on a much more reasonable and attainable goal of reducing the number of abortions.

While polls show that most Canadians support a woman’s right to choose, it doesn’t mean that Canadians are enthusiastically pro-abortion. A goal of a lower abortion rate would have a fairly broad appeal and support. And it’s one the pro-life movement will never embrace.”

With these two short paragraphs Breakenridge shows he is dead wrong.

A growing part of the pro-life movement recognizes that the all-or-nothing approach has resulted in exactly that – nothing. New, young, politically-motivated pro-lifers are embracing opportunities to reduce the abortion rate. Our organization, We Need a Law, advocates for incremental laws that focus on the common ground the majority of Canadians stand on in this debate. We understand that it’s better to save some than none.

By working on bills that, at the very least, would bring Canada into line with nearly every other democracy in the world when it comes to regulating abortion, we are focusing on prudence, wisdom, and a heartfelt desire to protect as many pre-born children as we can. Even if these bills do not pass the first time around polls indicate that there is a broad base of support for some abortion regulations. For example, banning sex-selective abortion, which typically targets girls, would have support from more than 90% of Canadians. We also believe, with the majority of Canadians, that pre-born children who are killed in an act of violent crime, such as murder or assault of the mother, should be viewed as victims. Another area we focus is the gestational age at which abortion can no longer occur. Approximately 80% of Canadians mistakenly believe we have law that prohibits late-term abortion, and are shocked to discover abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

We have studied abortion laws in other countries and are inspired by democratic nations similar to ours such as Germany, France and Spain. These, and many others, limit abortion to the first trimester, and offer counseling and time for a woman to make the challenging decision about abortion.

We hear over and over again how many women felt like abortion was their “only choice” – that’s not a choice at all, and something the pro-abortion movement should be equally concerned about. We all care about women. The difference is that pro-lifers also care about children.

The comment section was full of weeping emojis, angry red faces, and hate for poachers. Words like “heartbreaking”, “unbelievable”, and “disturbing” are repeated over and over. And it’s true: this little rhino was a victim of poaching no less than her mother. But why should it bother us so much when we allow the same thing to happen to human fetuses killed when their mother is victimized?

We observed something similar just a few short years ago right here in Canada. As the result of a selfish act, Cassie Kaake was murdered, along with her 7-month old pre-born child. There was national outrage that someone could commit such a heinous crime, and genuine shock that our laws did not recognize Cassie’s child (who she had already named Molly) as a victim alongside her mother. When MP Cathay Wagantall had an opportunity, she put forward legislation that addressed this void in Canadian law. Her bill recognized Cassie’s choice, and honoured it by recognizing Molly as a victim too. Ms. Wagantall, and the family of Cassie Kaake, worked hard to ensure that the outrage manifested was translated into meaningful action.

Unfortunately, many lawmakers are only about words, not meaningful action to effect change. Cassie and Molly’s law, as Ms. Wagantall’s private member’s bill was called, was voted down in Parliament.

Just as this baby rhino does not count in poaching statistics, so Molly did not count in the murder charges laid against the perpetrator in her mother’s death.

When we see this rhino, perfectly formed, no one hesitates for a moment to call it a rhino, a baby, and a victim. Where is the disconnect of political correctness that makes this ok for a rhino, but not for one of our own kind? Why can we not recognize the humanity of the pre-born child, and value it accordingly?

I was not the only one to feel the painful irony here. Commenter @rhettmoffett stated, “Imagine how sad it would be if it was a human baby rather than a wild animal.” Another, @bmoneyjo16, said, “Interesting because you’ll say a baby rhino was lost but won’t consider a baby in the womb to be human. Double standard.”

Commenter @whycantibejohnyoung gets more direct: “Maybe if half of you people actually saw a human fetus in a jar after an abortion you might think twice about shedding your fake emoji tears on this post. There are no words that can describe the magnitude of the moral hypocrisy I’m seeing here. I challenge Nat Geo to put equal spotlight on human fetuses, and I challenge each one of you to observe.”

Among multiple pleas to be kind to animals and the planet, one commenter added, “We are their only voice.”

We are called to be a voice for the voiceless, defenders of those weaker than ourselves. One commenter writes, “I think this is the saddest photo I’ve ever seen. Maybe spread this across the world.” As @lishlange states, “It’s all wrong – human babies & animals being poached.”

Every day, babies’ lives are terminated in the wombs of their mothers, often for the same reason as this rhino: simple human self-interest. National Geographic knows the power of pictures, and they do an incredible job advocating for so many of the earth’s voiceless inhabitants. It is our job to continue to do the same for our pre-born neighbours. When people think of abortion, may their first responses also be weeping, anger, and a righteous demand for change.

On the official website, it says, “International Women’s Day is not country, group or organisation specific. The day belongs to all groups collectively everywhere. So together, let’s all be tenacious in accelerating gender parity. Collectively, let’s all Press for Progress.”

As an organization committed to advancing pre-born human rights, we don’t just advocate for gender parity, but for human parity. As abortion continues without regulation in Canada, we will continue to press for progress: progress that brings Canada in line with every other democratic nation in the world.

What does this progress look like? It looks like legislation prohibiting abortion when you would just prefer the other sex. It looks like legislation recognizing the violence women may face while pregnant and honoring her choice to carry her child by punishing more severely any crime that harms that child. It looks like an International Standards Law protecting pre-born children after 13 weeks as so many of our European counterparts do without question.

As so many areas show progress, from ultrasound technology to prenatal surgery and treatment options, our legislation needs to keep up. There is no denying the humanity of the pre-born child, and progress means allowing that reality to dictate legal protections. Emotion and a desire for autonomy should not drive public policy.

Gender parity is a noble goal, but human parity is its foundation. On International Women’s Day, do not believe the claim that gender parity must include unrestricted access to abortion. Without human parity, we will never achieve true gender parity.

Background on the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment

It is the Human Rights Committee’s job to interpret a document called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (or the “Covenant”). The Covenant is a list of human rights that 169 countries have agreed to honour. The Human Rights Committee was created to interpret the Covenant in two main ways. First, individuals can bring their country to the Committee to determine whether a right was breached. Secondly, the Human Rights Committee will issue documents called “General Comments” which elaborate on a right and explain how governments must act to protect the right.

The General Comment in question includes an explanation of the right to life in the context of abortion. The Committee starts from the position that governments cannot legislate abortion in a way that violates the right to life of a pregnant woman. In their opinion, this means governments “must provide safe access to abortion” where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or in cases where the pre-born child suffers from a fatal illness.  They go on to compel governments to ensure that women will not “have to undertake unsafe abortions,” and conclude by stating that governments must provide prenatal and post-abortive health care, with no mention of postnatal care.

Commenting on the General Comment

Before finalizing the General Comment, the Human Rights Committee welcomes comments from a variety of sources. As such, we submitted comments on October 5 arguing three main points.

First, we argued that the Human Rights Committee needs to acknowledge the right to life for pre-born children in this General Comment. Arguing that life begins at conception and that human rights are inherent in all human beings regardless of age or size, we pointed out that this is already recognized in the Covenant. This right to life of vulnerable persons needs legal protection.

Secondly, we argued that a correct legal interpretation of the Covenant is consistent with a recognition of the right to life for the pre-born and is inconsistent with a right to abortion. The Human Rights Committee uses vague language creating a broad requirement for governments to provide access to abortion. This interpretation is not grounded in the Covenant nor in international law generally.

Thirdly, we argued the Human Rights Committee was not honouring governments’ ability to regulate abortion independently. There are countries that restrict access to abortion because they respect the right to life of the pre-born. The inviolable nature of the right to life is a foundational moral question – one that has been and continues to be foundational for the UN itself. The Human Rights Committee does not have the authority to compel governments to ignore the right to life of the pre-born.

Many others also wrote to the Human Rights Committee in defense of the right to life of the pre-born. It is our hope that the Committee will read these submissions and be persuaded to edit the proposed General Comment in such a way that maintains the recognition of the right to life of the pre-born.

Thank you to Tabitha Ewert, articling student with ARPA Canada, for this guest post.