Debate in Canada\u2019s Parliament \u201chuge step forward in the ongoing debate regarding the status of children in the womb\u201d<\/h2>\n

By Mike Schouten
Campaign Director, WeNeedaLaw.ca<\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s note. As Margaret Somerville explained in a piece we ran earlier this week, Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth\u2019 s \u201cMotion 312\u201d would have \u201cset up a parliamentary committee to examine the definition of when a child becomes a \u2018human being\u2019 within the homicide provisions of Canada\u2019s Criminal Code.\u201d Unbelievably, currently it is at the moment of complete birth! Although the motion failed yesterday, as anticipated, Mr. Schouten believes that this did not signal \u201cthe end of a conversation. Rather, it should be seen as a huge step forward in the ongoing debate regarding the status of children in the womb.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Canadians can be thankful to Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Stephen Woodworth for courageously putting Motion 312 on the table. It was Mr. Woodworth\u2019s goal with his motion that a Parliamentary committee would be formed to study the Criminal Code definition of \u2018human being\u2019 as found in Section 223 (1). That portion of the Criminal Code states that a child becomes a \u2018human being\u2019 only at the moment of complete birth. As a result of this law, preborn children receive no legal protection under the homicide offences, or any other offences against \u2018persons.\u2019<\/p>\n

The MP from Kitchener Center in southern Ontario is to be applauded for his work over the past nine months. He singlehandedly brought the issue of pre-born human rights into the spot light in a Canadian culture that has been so incredibly resistant to discuss anything that could even remotely be associated with abortion.<\/p>\n

Canada has been void of any legal protections for children in the womb since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Criminal Code\u2019s abortion provisions in the 1988 R. V. Morgentaler decision.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The SCC found that those provisions violated a woman\u2019s Charter right to \u2018security of the person\u2019 on procedural grounds only\u2014the SCC did not recognize a constitutional \u2018right to abortion.\u2019 Rather the Court stated that it was Parliament\u2019s responsibility to create a new abortion law that would balance the interests of preborn children and women.<\/p>\n

The defeat of Motion 312 in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon is not the end of a conversation. Rather, it should be seen as a huge step forward in the ongoing debate regarding the status of children in the womb. Canadian pro-lifers do well to remember the words of Sir Winston Churchhill: \u201cThis is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s common knowledge that discussion concerning the rights of pre-born children has been going on for decades, and we can be greatly encouraged that Motion 312 has taken the debate into the House of Commons, where it needs to be in order to change the status quo.<\/p>\n

Many pundits have said Motion 312 has been a \u201cdebate about having a debate.\u201d The past nine months have shown it is possible to have a country wide dialogue, even if the subject matter is sensitive. Human rights issues are never easy to discuss. As society becomes further educated, we\u2019re not always comfortable with what needs to be done with the new-found knowledge. Due to advances in science, the humanity of the pre-born child has never been clearer and pro-lifers need to continue to push for the recognition of pre-born human rights.<\/p>\n

Some pro-choice MP\u2019s are convinced that Canadians have moved on from this issue. The New Democratic Party of Canada MP\u2019s all voted against the motion. In the preceding weeks to yesterday\u2019s historic vote, Niki Ashton, the New Democrat Party\u2019s critic on women\u2019s issues and her colleague, Irene Mathyssen,  had been most vocal in their belief that human rights should be denied for children in the womb. I\u2019m not sure that these women realize they are among a few extreme members of the \u2018pro-choice movement\u2019 who continue to demand abortion for any or no reason through the entire gestational period.<\/p>\n

In reality a majority of Canadians don\u2019t support the status quo and want restrictions in place. Most people are uncomfortable being in the same league as North Korea and China when it comes to pre-born human rights.<\/p>\n

Every Western nation has laws that restrict abortion in some way. There is no doubt that the issue is controversial in those nations too, yet they have the political maturity to openly discuss it. Canada is the odd one out in its zealous refusal to even consider a discussion about legal protection for preborn children.<\/p>\n

Thankfully, we now know that the discussion can be held and the \u201cWe Need a Law\u201d campaign will continue to advocate for those who can\u2019t speak for themselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pro-life Americans are watching Canada closely. When National Right to Life News asked for a perspective on the Motion 312 vote, our campaign director, Mike Schouten submitted an opinion column. We thank them for publishing! September 27, 2012   Unborn Children Debate in Canada\u2019s Parliament \u201chuge step forward in the ongoing debate regarding the status […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3014,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[61],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3014"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1012"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5437,"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012\/revisions\/5437"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.weneedalaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}