If the unborn are people…

27 09 2012

On Wednesday Motion 312, put forward by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth, was defeated 203-91 in the House of Commons. Woodworth’s proposed twelve-man committee, dedicated to the study of when human life begins, won’t have a chance to commence the research and we may never know what they would have discovered.

We know who, what, where, when…but why?

Claiming the motion was purely scientific, Woodworth insisted the bill was not about criminalizing abortion.

But that’s how everyone saw it.

Stephen Harper votes against Motion 312
Photo credit: Vancouver Sun http://bit.ly/STxVmY


Prime Minister Stephen Harper, hands tied due to his promises during the election, voted against the motion but allowed his caucus to vote freely. But no one expected the bill to pass, in fact its very presence in the house enraged a large majority of the public due to its supposed connections to the abortion debate.

If the motion was so doomed to failure, why the uproar?

Why the almost 20, 000 signatures on a petition against the bill?

Why the immediate reaction of fear from the Pro Choice supporters of Canada and the anger of women’s rights groups?


People had a legitimate fear of what the study would have discovered.

As reported by the Vancouver Sun “if the legal definition of when one becomes a human being were to be adjusted so that a fetus is declared to be a legal person at some earlier state of gestation, then the homicide laws would apply [to abortion]” (Conservative whip Gordon O’Connor)

This is true. If the study changed the definition of when human life begins, everything would change. It would have to. So pro-abortionists do have a reason to hate this bill.

But what if our criminal code is wrong? What if the study did find that a baby, at every stage of its growth, is human, a legal person (a view defended by Christian apologetics organization Answers in Genesis) ? Does the enourmous backlash generated by this bill reveal our true colours? Deep down do we question our current policy of abortion?

And if the unborn are people…

This raises an even more important question: if we do surmise that a fetus is in fact human…how can we allow our country go on killing unborn children?

I am not attacking women and their rights, but I am standing firm on every human’s right to life. Yes there are many unfortunate instances that could be seemingly solved by destroying the problem or getting rid of the evidence, but challenges are part of our world. Overcoming these challenges rather than avoiding them, helps us to grow and learn.

Who gives you the right to choose life or death for another, even if he or she is not yet walking the street beside you?




7 responses

28 09 2012
Stan Peters

The first problem was “Woodworth’s proposed twelve-man committee” maybe he should of went with twelve-women committee.

28 09 2012

I found myself thinking the same thing. Masses of people had their pitchforks up in a march against Woodworth’s m312 campaign. Was it fear of what the study could reveal? Or were people just extremely offended that a question like this could be raised, therefore being dismissive of the issue? How would this study even be carried out, I ask myself. How can you decide when a fetus becomes a human being? When he/she starts breathing? When the mind, body and soul connect? How can we even pinpoint that. It’s a complex issue.

28 09 2012

I agree! I have read some scientific articles on the topic and the conclusions are…inconclusive. Leaves us with just a lot more questions.

28 09 2012

Good post by the way, I used this story as well, for my storify assignment 🙂

28 09 2012

First, let me thank you for covering this important topic.

I agree that people were worried, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

Stan Peters raises a good point regarding the twelve-man committee. I think women’s issues are the real ones at stake here, and why people became so defensive.

I’m not saying that I have fully exhausted my views on the issue. I don’t like the idea of ending a human life, but somehow I also don’t like the idea of telling anyone what they may or may not do to their own bodies.

I don’t have the right to kill someone, even as you say, “they aren’t walking on the street,” beside me; however, I don’t have control over anyone’s body, either. When do we really define personhood? It’s a tough question.

In the end, I think people were right to be defensive. Questions like rape come into play, and a myriad of other issues. I don’t like the idea of twelve angry men deciding what I can do with my body–that’s for sure.

Great job, though. I really enjoyed your take on this 🙂

29 09 2012

Thanks for your comments Elana!

I don’t think by “twelve-man” committee that the group was going to be all male. I would assume not as the government knows how important the issue is to the public.

I agree that everyone got very defensive because they saw it as a women’s rights issue, I wonder if it will ever be possible to just address this as an issue of human life without the women’s rights movement cutting it off at the knees.

29 09 2012

“I am not attacking women and their rights, but I am standing firm on every human’s right to life.”

Well put. Good post, Analea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: