In Respect of Women's Rights

"I have said I will vote in favour of the motion and I respect all the point of views of all the ministers and all the MPs.
"I think we can have a respectful debate on this question and, like I said, the big tradition of all parties in government is to allow a free vote on questions of conscience."
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney

So much then for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's inflexible stance on Conservative MPs' following the party line at the direction of the prime minister.  On the other hand, letting it all hang out, permitting each elected lawmaker to express his convictions moral, religious, ethical or in reflection of what they perceive their community wishes, does let us see with clarity how the wind blows.

Jason Kenney is a good man, has built an enviable reputation for himself as an avowedly devoted supporter of human rights and dignity.  He is also a Catholic, devoted to his religion and as such is expressing what the Catholic Church believes about the sanctity of human life.  He cannot be faulted for any of that.

And he is correct that we should be able to have a respectful debate on the issue.  Bearing in mind that doctors and scientists do not completely agree, much less ordinary men and women, on when human life begins.  The practical minded would likely all agree that human life 'begins' when a foetus is for all practical purposes viable outside the womb.

Without heroic medical interventions that might result in a human being with multiple serious health problems, that viability might be seen to be present at any time at or past seven months' gestation.  Abortions should not be considered unless there are truly exceptional circumstances to demand one, after that date.  And any intelligent individual might believe that such abortions would be extraordinarily rare in occurrence.

The private member's bill that backbench Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth is preparing to introduce into the House on Thursday would create a twelve-member all-party Commons committee whose purpose would be to review a Criminal Code homicide provision that declares a human being comes into existence at the moment of birth.
Conservative Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth debates his private member's bill in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa April 26, 2012.

Credits: REUTERS/Chris Wattie 

Clearly, there is additional discussion required because a child in uterus has the potential to live on its own, thus being a fully functioning human being albeit pre-term, at seven months' gestation and more.  The concern that many have with re-visiting the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to this issue is that hard-won rights of women to seek legal abortions may become imperilled.

The majority of Canadians believe implicitly that it is a woman's right to determine for herself whether she wishes to carry a pregnancy to term.  To bring a child into the world, to become a mother, to dedicate herself to the well-being and support of that child.  It should be every woman's right.  For men to decide whether or not that right will continue to be recognized is repugnant.

It may indeed be time to revisit the issue, given modern medical interventions and greater medical knowledge.  In the interests of discussing and deliberating on upgraded parameters with respect to abortion it may make sense, but it is a delicate matter, to tread on the rights and obligations of others.  No one can legally mandate motherhood.

If any kind of amendment to the criminal code results in an incrementalism of change that would return women to the state they left behind when therapeutic abortions were illegal except for special circumstances, this would represent a failure of communication, of understanding human rights, of parliamentary privilege.