|
OTTAWA
– Maurice Vellacott’s call for legal protection
for unborn children who are wanted by their mothers has
sparked criticism by the vice-president of the National
Action Committee on the Status of Women, Kripa Sekhar.
Vellacott’s proposal came in the wake of the brutal
slaying of the pregnant Edmonton woman, Liana White, whose
unborn child also died in the attack, but Liana’s
husband is being charged with only one murder because
Canadian law does not protect children until they are
born.
Ms.
Sekhar told Sun Media that such a proposal is “a
very deceptive means to push the values they have always
held, which is the right to life as opposed to right to
choice.”
“This
is not a case of either/or, but rather both/and,”
said Vellacott. “It is a case of both ‘right
to life’ AND ‘right to choice.’ Such a
law would protect the choice of the woman who wants to
carry the baby to term AND at the same time the life of
that child.”
Ms.
Sekhar was reported as saying that Vellacott’s proposal
was an attempt to “deceptively re-open the debate
on abortion rights through the back door.”
“Let
me assure Ms. Sekhar that such a proposed law is about
compassion and justice and protecting the choice of a
woman who wants to carry her baby to term,” Vellacott
said.
“Generally,
society sees a notable difference between killing a woman’s
unborn child without her consent and elective abortion,
and it is surprising that Ms. Sekhar does not,” continued
Vellacott. “The difference, of course, is choice,
which is what NAC professes to support. Because society
sees a relevant difference between killing a woman’s
unborn child without her consent and elective abortion,
then criminalizing the former cannot set a precedent for
criminalizing the latter. To claim otherwise is to commit
an error in logic known as the slippery precedent fallacy.”
Vellacott
went on to describe this fallacious argument as follows,
“A case which is considered good (e.g. legal protection
for the child a woman wants) doesn’t logically set
a precedent for a case that is not considered good (e.g.
restrictions on abortion, according to abortion advocates).
There is a relevant difference between the two, and the
fallacy occurs when that difference is ignored.”
Vellacott used the example of rape to illustrate his point.
“Criminalizing rape,” he said, “does not
set a precedent for criminalizing all sexual activity
between consenting adults. Although the act is the same,
there is a notable difference—consent.”
“Most
people would comprehend the role that choice/consent plays
in making the distinction, but apparently NAC does not,”
Vellacott said. “In discounting the relevance of
choice in this context, it would appear that NAC does
not support a woman’s ‘right to choose’
life for her baby.”
-30-
For
additional comment from PPLC co-chair Maurice Vellacott
call 613-992-1966 or 613-297-2249 or 306-975-4725
|
