Fetal Rights Motion

Motion M-312, the private member's bill that came up for a vote in the House of Commons last night did not succeed in its mission to see parliamentarians selected to sit on a committee whose purpose would be to study whether a fetus has the status of a human being before birth.  It might be said with some logic that this could be an issue that might be placed before a scientific-medical committee whose professional background places them as representing an appropriate group for such a study.

That kind of study with its deep scientific biological connotations, its social psychology and philosophy and ability to elicit strong emotional reactions from two polarized camps is not one that should be undertaken by parliamentarians, those elected from among Canadian communities to represent the needs, legal and social, of the voters who brought them to office.

The neutral mindsets that pure science can bring to the issue is not to be compared to the entrenched social and religious positions that elected officials consider when they appropriate scientific biological theories and established realities to support their personal opinions.  Bioscientific findings resulting from replicatable and proven experiments should be the only criteria for consideration.

Women must not be held to rigid interpretations that would once again imperil their health and that of their offspring.  Motherhood should be a choice, not a legislated obligation.  For the sake of the child as much as for the mother.  It is, in any event, an academic exercise for most abortions that take place anywhere are those confined to the first trimester of pregnancy.

Any that are undertaken in the late stages of pregnancy are rare.  That there may be a minuscule number of late-abortion pregnancies does present a moral conundrum, when a fetus has approached the stage where it is viable outside the womb.  The trouble with opening the thin edge of the wedge to legislation about when human life begins is that it is viewed, with good reason, as the first of many assaults on the status quo.

It represents an interesting exercise that a vote of 203 to 91 defeated Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's bill.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper was, as always, good to his word that he has no interest in opening that file.  That eight ministers and two ministers of state in the Conservative government felt obliged to follow their personal conscience by voting for the bill is indicative of their leader's sense of fairness.

That Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose was among those who voted for the bill is indicative that she may be in the wrong portfolio.  The chief government whip, Gordon O'Connor, who voted against the bill was perfectly correct in arguing that opening up the abortion debate "will lead to increased conflict as an attempt is made to turn back the clock."

"The concept is the government will not initiate legislation relating to abortion, will not support legislation relating to abortion.  This is a private member's motion."