The United Kingdom has an abortion law based on gestational age which protects children from the twenty-fourth week of development. This is not set in stone and with the medical advances in recent years enabling babies to survive as young as twenty-three weeks there are once again calls to lower the limit as to when abortions remain legal.
There is something refreshing about the latest abortion debate in the UK. Especially when we observe it from this side of the water where we have no restrictions. In Canada the only time abortion seems to be debated at a political level is when our lawmakers are demanding greater access (think Justin Trudeau and New Brunswick Liberal leader Brian Gallant), and this in spite of our Supreme Court instructing government to find a balance between the rights of the woman and those of her child.
Canada’s passion to maintain, even expand, unrestricted access to abortion is rivaled only by North Korea and China. While it is encouraging to see other developed nations debate various protections for children before birth, at the same time it’s a serious indictment on our country where the rights of pre-born children are completely ignored and trampled on.
It’s time we learn something from other advanced civilizations. A civil and informed dialogue would be a good beginning.
]]>From Run With Life,
“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”.
We have yet to see such a statement, but according to Run With Life it includes statements like,
“We will never propose or support a gestational abortion law for Canada.”
And a little further on,
“A deliberate decision to propose, support, or vote for a gestational abortion law is a behaviour that is in itself immoral.”
These two organizations fail to understand what political prudence is.
To quote Clarke Forsythe Senior Legal Counsel of Americans United for Life, “It is not immoral to be limited by obstacles beyond your control. You are not responsible for what you cannot achieve. You are responsible for what you can achieve.”
A statement such as this from Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life Ontario requires further response. For now we leave you with these words from Pat Maloney, “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.”
]]>
“We have to go back to the cardinal virtue of prudence. It is the premiere political virtue, we have to be anchored by it and taught by it. Prudence is not pragmatism it is …always oriented towards moral purposes and good goals.”
Van Maren asked Forsythe specifically about the promotion of gestational laws in the Canadian political system. Mr. Forsythe was emphatic in his support for making progress by taking steps. He spoke about the opportunities and obstacles and the reality they present to pro-lifers saying,
“It is not immoral to be limited by obstacles beyond your control. You are not responsible for what you cannot achieve. You are responsible for what you can achieve.”
Listen the the interview here.
]]>The continuum of human life begins at fertilization and ends at natural death. Currently under Canadian law only ‘born’ humans have protection, so our law today already divides humans into “protected” and “unprotected” classes. If the law was changed to reflect increased protection by extending it to ‘pre-born’ humans from, say 14 weeks to birth, then fewer babies would fall under the unprotected class, thus limiting the injustice of abortion.
A gestational law is one step to saving some as we work towards saving all.
]]>