When is a human being a human being, and who exactly is progressive?
These are two questions being raised in the wake of Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's motion to have Canada's parliament establish a committee to study the question of when a human being is actually a human being.
As things currently stand, in terms of legal status, that point is after a child is no longer in the womb. With that legal definition our current lack of any laws with respect to abortion is perfectly justified and acceptable. Because the fetus/child has no rights, at any point prior to birth, a woman's right to security of the person is paramount at any stage of pregnancy, because the fetus isn't legally a person.
You can watch the MP being interviewed in a media scrum here:
In the interview he brings up some points which some might rather not discuss. Two of them are African slaves and women prior to being granted the vote. In the case of slavery, Africans had no legal rights in the U.S. prior to the 1860s because legally they weren't persons, they were property. Women until the middle part of the twentieth century were not allowed any say in the electing of government members in this country.
Fortunately society 'progressed'...although slave owners and some men probably didn't think so at the time. In the case of slave owners, they lost rights over those that were once considered their property, and men saw the weight of their vote diluted. I would argue that society overall progressed but the rights of certain groups did actually regress, and justifiably so.
The MP is questioned about the evidence this committee would hear. That evidence he says would be of the medical/scientific variety and would include such things as determining at what point brain waves are present or at which point a fetus develops an independent blood type.
Does this really matter? Of course it does.
If parliament were to reach a determination that a fetus is a human being at any point prior to birth, then the rights of the fetus or pre-born child could be seen as in conflict with the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy at any point. In other words women would have less choice.
This will come as news to the majority of Canadians who aren't aware that Canada has no laws concerning abortion whatsoever. Angus Reid conducted a poll back in 2009 which found 92% of Canadians were not aware that abortion in Canada is legal during all nine months of pregnancy. Another poll (this one on-line) also by Angus pegged the number of Canadians aware of the status-quo at just 21%. That would make it 79% who don't know the current legal situation. But whether the percentage is 92 or 79 or somewhere in between, that's still an overwhelming majority who are ignorant of the facts.
Just my personal opinion here, but I think democracy works best when citizens are informed and not ignorant. Which brings me to the progressive pissing contest going on.
This blog belongs to a web site called Progressive Bloggers, and some members are furious at Canadian Soapbox's inclusion because of my willingness to debate and publish content on this subject. Worse still is my willingness to consider that perhaps a late term fetus should maybe have some legal standing.
They want no discussion on this issue because discussion has the very real possibility of bringing limitations on a woman's right to choose, and it seems their expressed opinion is that any extension of human rights to a pre-born is regressive not progressive.
My view is ultimately rooted in public discussion and reasonable debate. I don't have any issue with a proposal for elected officials to hear evidence about when human life starts. That's democracy, and it will allow for informed opinion. Please take note of the word opinion.
If it then leads to an attempt to re-criminalize abortion I will inform myself and reach an opinion based on the facts presented. If Canada were to adopt laws similar to that of say Sweden, I wouldn't be averse.
Here are links to the polling data I cited:
Posts
Seed Newsvine
No comments:
Post a Comment