|
In the past three years, at least five pregnant women,
along with their babies, have been killed in Canada in
violent attacks. The most recent occurred last month in
Toronto. Pregnant women are at increased risk of domestic
violence. The sense of abhorrence this elicits, especially
when the violence is lethal, is magnified because of the
loss of the fetus. Yet, at present, it is not a separate
crime when a fetus is killed or injured. This should change.
A just-released Environics poll asking if killing or injuring
a fetus should be a crime found that 75% of Canadian women
and 68% of men would support a fetal protection law (the
level of support amongst all Canadians was 72%). The same
poll found that, overall, 62% of Canadians support legal
protection of the unborn child at some point before viability.
(The Canadian Medical Association guidelines define fetal
viability -- the possibility that the fetus can survive
outside its mother's womb -- to be 20 weeks gestation
and/or 500g in weight.)
In
short, many Canadians' moral intuition is that "there
ought to be a law" -- or laws -- protecting fetuses
from some harms, although we don't all agree on what
those laws should be, especially in the context of abortion.
Presently in Canada, there is no express abortion law.
The
Supreme Court of Canada has consistently ruled that
under our current law the fetus does not exist as a
protectable human being, and the Criminal Code holds
that a child becomes a human being for the purposes
of a homicide offence only after it is born alive. This
means that criminal liability specifically for the wrong
of killing a fetus in the course of a criminal act cannot
at present be imposed. Only the wrong to the mother
is legally cognizable.
Proposals
for an Unborn Victims of Crime Act are adamantly opposed
by pro-choice abortion advocates, for fear that any
legal recognition of the fetus will lead to the re-criminalization
of abortion. They accuse pro-life supporters of promoting
such legislation as a back-door means to prohibit abortion.
It's true that such a law could cause us to view the
fetus and, therefore, abortion differently. But willful
blindness is not an ethical approach to dealing with
abortion.
Seeing
the fetus as an unborn victim of crime strips away the
medical cloak that abortion places on the taking of
its life, a cloak that dulls our moral intuition as
to what is involved. It causes us to see the fetus as
what it is, an early human life. Those who support abortion
must be able to square that fact with their belief that
abortion is ethical in certain circumstances.
Abortion
is always a moral and ethical issue. That does not mean,
however, that it should always be a legal issue. But
neither should it never be a legal issue as is presently
the case.
As
the legal void highlighted by the tragic murders of
pregnant women show, we need to re-think our overall
approach to the law relating to prebirth human life,
including in relation to abortion. And we should do
this within a context that promotes informed consent
for women and the recognition of fetal pain.
Informed-consent
law requires that a woman be given certain information
if her consent to abortion is to be legally valid. In
particular, the woman must be given information about
the mental and physical health risks abortion poses.
A
"Fetal Pain Awareness Act," similar to those
some American states have enacted, could require a physician
to inform the woman, before performing an abortion,
that scientific evidence suggests that after 20 weeks
gestation the fetus can feel pain. Furthermore, she
would have to be offered anaesthesia for the fetus,
which it would be her choice to take or decline. This
type of law would not prohibit abortion; rather, its
goal is to try to prevent the fetus from dying in excruciating
pain. After all, even jurisdictions that allow capital
punishment prohibit certain forms of it on the grounds
that they are cruel. Likewise, we have criminal laws
that protect animals from brutal treatment.
The
fetus is a new human life. That matters ethically, and
should matter legally. An Unborn Victims of Crime law
would recognize that in one particular situation. What
law should govern abortion is a separate issue that
raises some different considerations, but having no
law is not a neutral stance. It contravenes values that
form part of the bedrock of Canadian society.
- Margaret
Somerville is an ethicist at McGill University and
author of The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the
Human Spirit.
|
|
CALGARY - Canada Family
Action Coalition (CFAC) expressed disgust and dismay
that "pro- abortion" people are turning a
double murder into an abortion debate. One representative
apparently said she did not think it would make much
difference to the case (the Toronto murder) if the man
was charged with the unborn child's murder as well.
So life doesn't matter - is that what the message is
here.
Executive Director of CFAC, Brian Rushfeldt,
said “This case is not about abortion; it is about
murder. It is about whether our nation is civilized
enough to protect the life of another human being or
not. Our Charter states that ‘everyone has the
right to life’. Just because some judge 35 years
ago in an erred decision said that the unborn do not
have to be recognized as living beings does not have
to keep us in an uncivilized state where murder goes
unpunished.”
Several cases in Canada now have allowed
a murderer to escape charges. That is not law and order;
and it certainly is not justice. Section 15 of the Charter
also states that "everyone is equal and has the
right to protection..... " What part of “everyone”
do certain ideologues not understand?
Terminating someone's life seems to
be part of a culture of a few people. Carolyn Egan,
representing the Ontario Coalition of Abortion Clinics,
even went so far as to boldly say "We do not feel
this (the case of murder) should necessitate a change
in Canadian law and give the fetus the status of a person
in this country, which would be much more detrimental"
(National Post). That is an offensive and very ignorant
statement. I have to assume as long as her life is protected
her attitude is to hell with those others who have NO
protection. Murdering them is not detrimental!
CFAC is calling upon the government
of Canada, ALL Members of Parliament to do what government
is mandated to do - protect the citizens - in this case
the citizens who have no voice and cannot contribute
to debate.
Every MP, as a responsible adult, should
act to protect children, women, "fetuses"
and the life of EVERYONE as stated in the Charter.
-30-
For more information,
contact Brian Rushfeldt: (403) 295-2159
|
