Gender Perspectives and Nomenclature

"This attempt to modify the definition of a human being could legally recognize the fetus, which would give the fetus rights.  This constitutes a recriminalization, not only of abortion, but any form of contraception.

"This could prevent a pregnant woman from travelling or taking certain drugs to protect the child she's carrying.  We must ensure that women seeking to terminate pregnancy and the doctors who support them and want to help them are not criminalized."  Montreal physician Dr. Genevieve Desbiens

Dr. Desbiens makes a convincing argument to counter the motion tabled by Conservative Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth seeking the creation of a House of Commons committee to review the Criminal Code section declaring a child becomes a human being "when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother."

On the other hand, both of the above two preceding paragraphs quoted refer to the foetus as a 'child'; in effect semantically arguing for recognition of the foetus as a child.  There is a vast difference in speaking of a foetus as a potential child, and a child as being present and preparing for presentation. An unfortunate choice of language given the circumstances. 

"I'm not asking you whether you are for or against abortion.  I'm asking for you to recognize that women must retain their full and complete rights", urged Dr. Desbien, addressing 250 delegates attending the annual general council meeting of the Canadian Medical Association.  And those 250 delegates were in full support of maintaining that section of the Criminal Code declaring a child becomes human at the moment of birth.

It is well enough known that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has reiterated on a number of occasions that his government has no intention of re-visiting abortion legislation.  Some of his cabinet ministers have stated their intention to vote against MP Woodworth's motion.  Scheduled for resumed debate in the fall.  So perhaps there is no need for the CMA to lobby government "so that this motion has no chance of being passed and the debate is not re-opened."

The general consensus at the CMA annual general council meeting on this topic was not without its dissenters from the majority opinion.  Ontario doctor, John Ludwig had his say as well: "I think we need a new policy that somewhat more balances the rights for women to have a therapeutic abortion when they wish, up to 20 weeks, and then protects the life of that child from 20 weeks on, once it's able to live on its own upon delivery from the womb."

The clarity of the declaration that the 'child' becomes a human being upon emergence from its mother's womb is a rational one.  But the knowledge that the foetus nearing the completion of pregnancy is fully prepared to live outside the womb given the opportunity to do so, is a highly emotional one, a moral one of great urgency that puts a completely different spin on the matter.

Dr. Ludwig's assertion sounds fully reasonable, and there's little doubt that the majority of the public would agree with that position. There could be some quibbling about gestation time, but the general thesis is sound enough.  There should be limits placed upon the right of a woman to seek an abortion, and that limit should be tied in to potential viability of the foetus. 

But then, there is nothing simple in life, and on this particular topic there are any number of complex nuances that may follow from what appears a logical stance.

"It's inappropriate to have government intervention into control of ourselves, our bodies and our children", contended Dr. Carole Williams of Victoria.  The divide among doctors appears fairly obvious; female physicians are feminist by inheritance and design, and male physicians adhere to a code of ethics that preclude a woman taking full control of her future and that of a prospective child's.