Many of you who might read this post are probably not aware that today marks 23 years since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our abortion law.
You may also not know that our laws had already been liberalised in 1969 making induced abortion legal if the mother ‘s health or life were considered to be threatened by her continued pregnancy.
Even in 1969, any medical professional worth his or her salt knew that the direct killing of the child in the womb was not necessary to save the mother’s life. The definition of health although recommended to be defined as “the absence of illness or disease” very quickly included, mental, emotional, social, financial health, literally providing choice abortion on demand throughout all nine months.
The politicians tried to draw a curtain of respectability around this barbaric practice by only allowing induced abortion in hospitals after an abortion committee had sanctioned the referral from a doctor. Very quickly the annual abortion statistics reached tens of thousands. Doesn’t say much for the state of pregnancy care in Canada if 1,000,000 mothers had to have their child killed to save their health or life between 1969 and 1988!
In reality Canada has had choice or elective abortion throughout all nine months for any or no reason for 43 years and during that time 3,300,000 children growing in the womb have been slaughtered. May 14th 1969, when our parliament made it open season on the most vulnerable member of our family, marks a tragedy for this young country.
In January 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law marking another sad day in our history. This stripped every last vestige of Criminal Code protection from children in the womb and provided the abortion industry with the greatest gift it could have wanted – the chance to make billions of dollars on the backs of scared and abandoned women.
You know, I have always been intrigued that those who demand choice abortion and speak of so called “women’s rights to abortion” have been led for years in Canada by a male abortionist. Seems like a conflict of interest to me regarding the profit to be made out of women’s misery. I would also question why a self appointed group representing a few women need a man at the helm.
Before you all think I am some manhating female please be assured I love men!!!! My dad was one and so is my son and my many uncles, nephews and colleagues. However, I am a woman that believes we are all equal, men, women and children born or not. I will let my voice speak for me, knowing that I am loved and supported by the wonderful men in my life.
I know however, that all men are not wonderful. I have sat beside many a woman, young or older, facing an unexpected pregnancy who have been abandoned by the fathers of their children. I have listened to verbal abuse from men who have not appreciated some of our pro-life commercials on television – especially the one that called men heroes for staying to help the woman carrying their un-anticipated child.
Over the years I have seen the good, bad and ugly of humanity and yet the barbarity of induced abortion is the worst of horrors. What makes this so awful is that we as Canadians have devalued one whole class of human beings – those growing in the womb. In reality we are a country that agrees with slavery having denied personhood under the law to our youngest members and defining them as not human.
“The law of Canada does not recognise the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights” (Supreme Court of Canada 1997)
Is this any different to;
“ In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person..” (Virginia Supreme Court 1858)
“An Indian is not a person withing the meaning of the Constitution“(George Canfield US 1881)
“The Reichsgerict itself refused to recognize Jews as “persons” in the legal sense” (German Supreme Court 1936)
“The statutory word “persons” did not in these circumstances include women” British voting rights 1909
In 1929 at the culmination of the Canadian “Person’s Case”, Lord Sankey reversing the Supreme Court decision that women were not included in the legal definition of “qualified persons” stated the following;
“[t}he exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours," and that "to those who ask why the word[person"]should include females, the obvious answer is why should it not?”
Yet, here in Canada and many countries across the world those barbarous days continue regarding the enslavement of children in the womb. The obvious answer, to those who ask the question why should the word “person” not include the child in the womb, is why should it not?
We have here in Canada the legal doctrine of “the Living Tree” which means that our Constitution must be broad in interpretation and easily adapt to modern times. There is no doubt that we are human before birth at every stage. There is no doubt that we are alive, growing and self directed. Only the worst possible discrimination would deny the existance of the child before birth.
Why is the child before birth not a person? Why is the child before birth not included in the term “everyone” in our Charter? Why do we continue this slavery? Why do we abandon women to the vultures in the abortion industry?