- Charles C. Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars (see too my review of Camosy's book)
- Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life
- Hendrik van der Breggen, past Apologia columns on abortion
October 12, 2016
We need an abortion law
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, October 13, 2016
We need an abortion law
Two Saturdays ago in Steinbach there were 100,000 tiny flags covering the hill at A.D. Penner Park. Why? To symbolize the 100,000 pre-natal children destroyed by abortion every year in Canada.
Presently, abortion in Canada is legal right up to birth. Most abortions occur much earlier, and most doctors don't do late-term abortions. Nevertheless, a law would be appropriate to protect children in their, say, fifth or sixth month and later.
Also, a law would be appropriate to protect children from sex-selective abortion, the killing of children merely because they are girls. (Gendercide is popular among immigrants who value boys more than girls.)
Moreover, a law would be appropriate to protect children who risk being killed merely because they have Down syndrome. (Of U.S. pre-natal children diagnosed with Down syndrome, 90% are aborted).
In Canada such a law could save hundreds of lives, if not thousands, yearly.
Of course, objections should be considered.
Some object that abortion legislation is misguided: we should instead deal with the underlying causes that drive women to abortion. For example, a pregnant woman may be facing psychological problems, so that should be our focus.
In reply, we should keep in mind that abortion kills an unborn child—a human being. That's hugely significant.
Also, we should consider Scott Klusendorf's critique of the focus-on-the-underlying-causes argument:
"[T]his is like saying that the 'underlying cause' of spousal abuse is psychological; so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide counseling for men."
Klusendorf adds: "There are 'underlying causes' for rape, murder, theft, and so on, but that in no way makes it 'misguided' to have laws banning such actions."
One might object that Canada's Criminal Code tells us the unborn are human beings only after they are born.
Reply: Yes, but our law is mistaken.
Contemporary science—embryology, fetology, and biology—tells us that the human fetus is in fact a human being. It's a genetically distinct, self-governing dynamic entity which belongs to the human species. It's not feline or canine; it's human. It's not a cat or a dog; it's a human being. It's not a kitten or a puppy; it's a child.
At this juncture, one might object that the unborn child isn't a "person." That is, the unborn human being lacks specific developmental features which confer the right to life.
Reply: This approach to personhood is problematic. The allegedly decisive features fail because they weaken the personhood of many human beings who have the right to life.
For example, if self-awareness and rationality are the crucial criteria of personhood, then the right to life of newborn infants as well as sleeping, stunned, or mentally disabled persons is jeopardized. The equality in equal rights gets ungrounded.
Or one might object that difficulty in policing and enforcing abortion law would render it useless.
Reply: We should note that it is difficult to police and enforce laws against, say, texting and driving, but the law works to discourage texting and driving. The point: if an action kills or threatens to injure innocent others, a law against the action is not unreasonable, even if not 100% effective.
Folks, we have room to be creative here. Perhaps a law against abortion should (a) criminalize late-term/ gendercide/ disability abortionists only, not women pressured into abortion, plus (b) help women so pressured (just as our anti-prostitution law criminalizes pimps and johns, not the women pressured into prostitution, plus helps the women get out of prostitution).
Most abortions are due to social problems, whereas abortions for the horrific circumstances of rape, incest, or when a mother's life is threatened account for a small percentage only.
Surely, social problems require social solutions—not the killing of children.
For the sake of children, we need a law. See WeNeedaLaw.ca.
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College.)
For help with crisis pregnancy: