About my abortion columns

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, October 26, 2017

About my abortion columns

Readers might be wondering: What's with Hendrik and his many columns about abortion? Well, it's a long story.

When I first became a serious follower of Jesus (in the early 1980s), God placed a burden on my heart for the least of “the least of these”: unborn children. I had a sense I was to speak up for them (Proverbs 31.8a). I did.

I wrote lots of letters to the editor of our local newspaper (I lived in Medicine Hat, Alberta, at the time). I spoke for the unborn at our local college, radio stations, churches. These letters and various speaking engagements turned into a book: An Enquiry Concerning Human Abortion (1988).

My wife Carla and I gave the proceeds from that book to the Calgary Crisis Pregnancy Centre. We also sent a copy of the book to each Member of Parliament. In Calgary we walked in protests at a hospital and at a court house. We provided more financial support to CPCs as we were able.

We also sensed God's direction for me to go to university to study philosophy (with considerable emphasis on logic) with the aim of serving Christ's Kingdom via Christian apologetics, which includes the study of ethics. I ended up becoming a professor of philosophy, which includes teaching courses in ethics.

Now, every year at this time, in my annual ethics course, I teach a section on abortion. Now, every year at this time I freshly realize that in Canada, since last year, there have been another 100,000 children destroyed.

It depresses me. Maybe it should depress you, too.

Consider this: Canadian law does not recognize the unborn as human beings until after they’re born.

But contemporary science—biology, fetology, and embryology—tells us that the human fetus is in fact a human being. It's a genetically distinct, self-governing dynamic entity that 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.

Our law is here simply out of touch with reality. And our government(s) haven’t helped a whole lot in setting the record straight.

Also, in view of recent concerns about gun control, consider this. (Note: Gun control is important and the recent mass murder in Las Vegas is horrific.)

As I mentioned, every year in Canada about 100,000 unborn children are killed by abortion. The significance of this number may be difficult to grasp, so some perspective is helpful.

Compare the abortion number to the number of homicides that occur yearly in Canada.

Here are the most recent numbers from Statistics Canada for homicides (where “homicide” includes murder, manslaughter, and infanticide, whether a gun is used or not): 

        Year 2011: homicides 605

        Year 2012: homicides 548

        Year 2013: homicides 509

        Year 2014: homicides 521

        Year 2015: homicides 604

That’s about 550 homicides per year versus about 100,000 unborn children destroyed per year. In other words, approximately half a percent of killings in Canada are due to homicide, and approximately 99.5 percent are due to abortion.

Yes, there are tough cases that might justify abortion. For examples, rape, incest, threats to the life or health of the mother.

But these tough cases account for a very small percentage of the total abortions. Fordham University ethicist Charles Camosy, in his book Beyond the Abortion Wars (2015, see my review here), says the tough cases amount to 2 percent of the total cases. I’ve heard others report that it might be 5 percent. Whether 2 or 5 percent, it’s a small percentage. That means an awful lot of cases are due to social problems.

But, surely, social problems require social solutions—not the killing of children.

I think Canada should have a law that protects unborn children and addresses the social problems that pressure women to abort.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.

Past APOLOGIA columns concerning abortion, for further reading: 

• Resisting the Culture of Death, October 11, 2017
• Ideological investigative journalism, February 16, 2017
• Abortion, February 2, 2017
• About outlawing abortions, November 24, 2016
• Untangling abortion arguments, November 9, 2016
• We need an abortion law, October 12, 2016
• Beyond the abortion wars, August 8, 2016
• We need an abortion law, September 3, 2015
• We need an abortion law, May 29, 2014
• Aborting the least of these, May 15, 2014
• Euphemisms: The good, the bad, and the ugly, March 28, 2013
• Reflections on Motions 312 and 408, October 4, 2012
• Is the fetus a human being? May 10, 2012
• Abortion in the news (part 2), November 9, 2011
• Abortion in the news (part 1), October 20, 2011
• On abortion, again, October 16, 2008
• Acorns and oak trees…and abortion, October 2, 2008
• Aborting an abortion argument, September 18, 2008
• Morgentaler's abortion of logic, September 4, 2008

 For support for crisis pregnancy: 

• Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Winnipeg

We need an abortion law

APOLOGIA

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.)

Further reading:

• 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

For help with crisis pregnancy:

• Crisis Pregnancy Centre (Winnipeg)

We need an abortion law

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, September 3, 2015

We need an abortion law

With the recently publicized horrors of human fetuses/babies being torn apart and their body parts sold by Planned Parenthood (a major abortion provider in the U.S.), it's reasonable to think that Canada should introduce law to protect unborn children.

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 at least those children in their, say, twentieth week who risk an unjust death by abortion because their body parts may be in demand.

Also, a law would be appropriate to protect children from sex-selective abortion, i.e., 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 because they have Down syndrome (90% of U.S. pre-natal children diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted).

In Canada such a law could save hundreds of lives, probably thousands, yearly.

Still, some say abortion legislation is misguided: we should instead deal with the underlying causes that drive women to abortion. 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 insightful 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."

But doesn't Canada's Criminal Code tell us the unborn are human beings only after they are born? 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 grant that the unborn child is in fact a human being, yet object that it isn't a "person." That is, the unborn human being lacks some specific developmental feature which confers the right to life.

However, this approach to personhood is problematic. The allegedly decisive features fail because they weaken the personhood of many human beings who clearly already 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. As a result, the equality in equal rights gets ungrounded.

At this juncture, one might object that difficulty in policing and enforcing abortion law would render it useless. In 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.

Notice that there's room to be creative here. Perhaps a law against abortion should (a) criminalize the abortionists, not the women pressured into abortion, plus (b) help the women who are 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).

Folks, most abortions are due to social problems (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.

We need an abortion law.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Further reading: 

• 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

We need an abortion law

LIFE Magazine, April 30, 1965

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 29, 2014

We need an abortion law

Abortion in Canada is legal right up to birth. Yes, most abortions occur much earlier, and most doctors don't do late-term abortions. But wouldn't a law be appropriate to protect, say, those few children in their last trimester who risk an unjust death by abortion?

Also, wouldn't a law be appropriate to protect children from increasingly popular sex-selective abortion (gendercide), the killing of children merely because they are girls? And wouldn't a law be appropriate to protect the many children who risk being killed merely because they have Down syndrome?

Such a law could save hundreds of lives, probably thousands, yearly. Such a law could be supported by all Canadians, surely.

Still, some object to any legislation that restricts abortion. No law is needed, we are told. We should all be "pro-choice," we are told.

We are even told that abortion legislation is misguided: we should instead deal with the underlying causes that drive women to abortion. A pregnant woman may be facing, say, psychological problems, so we only need to deal with that.

But this objection is weak.

First, keep in mind that abortion kills an unborn child—a human being.

Second, consider what Scott Klusendorf, a pro-life activist, writes about the deal-only-with-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."

Think about it: psychological problems require psychological solutions, not the killing innocent children. So, to protect the children, we need a law.

Or, if the underlying causes that drive women to abortion are social or economic, then we require social or economic solutions, not the killing of innocent children. So, again, to protect the children, we need a law.

At this juncture, someone might object that Canada's criminal code presently tells us that the unborn child becomes a human being only after he/she is born. Yes, this is what our law says.

But Canada's criminal code is mistaken.

Enter 21st-century science. Contemporary science—embryology, fetology, and biology—tells us that the human fetus is in fact a human being, i.e., 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 being or a dog being; it's a human being. It's not a kitten or a puppy; it's a human child.

At this juncture, one might grant that the unborn child is in fact a human being, but object that it isn't a "person." That is, the unborn human being lacks that specific developmental feature which confers "personhood." When it has that feature, only then does it have the right to life.

This is known as a "decisive moments" approach to personhood, which is deeply problematic. The allegedly decisive features fail because they rule out various persons who clearly already have the right to life. As a result, the equality of equal rights gets ungrounded.

For example, if complex personal consciousness is the criterion of personhood, then sleeping or stunned persons lose their right to life. If viability is the criterion, then personhood measures not actual humanity but instead hospital technology, the sophistication of which varies from place to place, rendering same-aged children persons in some hospitals and non-persons in other hospitals.

What about the unborn child's lack of brain activity (in its early stages), which in adults indicates death? Nope. This personhood criterion confuses death and development: end-of-life permanent cessation doesn't equal pre-natal temporary absence with capacity to bloom.

For the sake of children, we need a law. See WeNeedaLAW.ca.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

More APOLOGIA columns on abortion:

• Aborting the least of these (May 15, 2014)
• Euphemisms: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (March 28, 2013)
• Reflections on Motions 312 and 408 (October 4, 2012)
• Is the fetus a human being? (May 10, 2012)
• Abortion in the news (part 2) (November 9, 2011
• Abortion in the news (part 1) (October 20, 2011)
• On abortion again (another faulty argument from Morgentaler) (October 16, 2008)
• Acorns and oak trees ... and abortion (October 2, 2008)
• Aborting an abortion argument (September 18, 2008)
• Morgentaler's abortion of logic (September 4, 2008)

Further reading:

• Francis Beckwith, Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life
• Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice
• Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture
• Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics 

Aborting the least of these

Warning: graphic photo below (at end of column)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 15, 2014

Aborting the least of these

Recent news about abortion—the deliberate destruction of unborn children—breaks my heart.

Of course, we should help pregnant women whose problems push them to contemplate abortion. Happily, over past decades pregnancy crisis centers and churches have been providing much practical hands-on help. This effort should definitely continue.

Nevertheless, my heart breaks at the growing indifference towards the deliberate deaths of unborn children. Consider these examples from the news.

News agencies recently revealed that two hospitals were supplying aborted fetuses as fuel for incinerators that provide electricity. One hospital is located in England. The other is located in British Columbia. The latter shipped its fetal parts, along with the regular biomedical trash, to a power plant in Oregon.

The killing of children is itself a horror, but an additional horror is the calm, systematic, efficient, environmentally-friendly, and impersonal handling of the incineration of the children's bodies. Internet commenters have suggested that this practice constitutes a responsible and steward-like use of energy. This strikes me in some sense eerily analogous to the mindset of those who incinerated Jews.

On my Facebook page someone even wrote: "Reduce, reuse, recycle."

More news: Emily Letts, an American 25-year-old actress and abortion clinic counselor made a YouTube video of her own abortion. Why? To portray "a positive abortion story."

During the video Miss Letts hums happily. She describes the abortion experience as "birth-like." She adds: “I don't feel like a bad person. I don't feel sad. I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby, I can make a life.” She expresses no moral qualm about taking her child's life.

Miss Letts' film even won a video contest with Abortion Care Network, and Cosmopolitan published Letts' story.

Reality check: many abortion stories are in fact not positive, as many post-abortive women testify. Also, abortion kills a human being.

Yes, it should be acknowledged that not all "pro-choice" advocates approve of Letts' video, and many express dismay at her callous and cavalier attitude.

But we ought to maintain perspective. Letts is not an anomaly in the "pro-choice" camp, as, say, a killer of abortion doctors is an anomaly in the pro-life camp. Whereas the killing of abortionists is roundly (and rightly) rejected by the mainstream pro-life movement, the fact is that apparently quite a few "pro-choice" advocates do promote a callous, cavalier attitude similar to that of Letts. (For substantiation, see the latter portion of "Abortion counselor videotapes her own abortion, posts to YouTube," LifeSiteNews, May 6, 2014.)

More news: Canada's federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says people with pro-life views on abortion are not welcome in the Liberal party. Liberal MPs may not speak in defence of innocent pre-natal children.

Ongoing news: The leader of Canada's federal Conservatives, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, continues his refusal to countenance discussion in parliament on the abortion issue, and Conservative MPs are pressured not to disagree with the PM. (For the record: there are more pro-life MPs in the Conservative party than in other parties.)

What is going on?

Human beings are aborted at such a rate that their corpses can be incinerated to provide energy and many people are okay with this? A human being is aborted not for the mother's health's sake but to win a video contest? People who think human life before birth is worthy of protection are not welcome to speak out in (at least two of) Canada's major political parties?

Surely, this is outrageous!

I call on fellow citizens to resist this growing darkness, this culture of death, this moral rot.

Think about it: Social, psychological, and economic problems require social, psychological, and economic solutions—not the killing of innocent children.

Surely, we must rouse ourselves from our moral stupor. Surely, we must be silent no more. Surely, we must speak out in defence of the "least of these"—i.e., those human beings who cannot speak for themselves.

For Christ's sake, folks, wake up.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Canadian abortion statistics: Abortion & Canada (National Post graphic) 

Euphemisms: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, March 28, 2013

Euphemisms: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The use of language is an art—and so is its abuse. Today I will look at the use and abuse of euphemisms.

When certain words are considered too blunt, harsh, painful, or offensive, people sometimes substitute a euphemism, that is, a more acceptable term, a term with fewer negative connotations or with more positive connotations, than the blunt, harsh, painful, or offensive term.

In her book The Practical Study of Argument, philosopher Trudy Govier explains: “There is a sense in which euphemism is the opposite of emotionally charged language. With emotionally charged language, terms are more emotional than appropriate. Euphemism, on the other hand, involves a kind of whitewashing effect in which descriptions are less emotional than appropriate."

Govier adds, "Bland, abstract, polite language is used to refer to things that would be found embarrassing, demeaning, appalling, or horrible.”

Govier warns, “Euphemistic language [can] function to desensitize us, to dull our awareness of such things.”

I would emphasize that not only can euphemisms desensitize us emotionally, but also they can hide reality—including moral reality.

Interestingly, the dangers inherent in euphemism were almost prophetically envisioned by George Orwell in his famous novel 1984 and in his lesser known essay “Politics and the English Language.” Orwell put forward the idea that an effective mechanism of political control is the manipulation of euphemisms employed in public discussion. (A deeper look at Orwell's work may be a topic for another time.)

Here are some examples of useful but harmless euphemisms.

“I’m sorry that Sam passed away.” These words allow us to be sensitive to Sam’s grieving wife and are infinitely kinder than saying, “I’m sorry about Sam’s getting slowly crushed to death by the gravel truck.”

“May I use the washroom?” Yes, as any parent knows, these words allow children to be sensitive to those around the dinner table. Respect and politeness are good, to be sure.

Or consider these fun euphemisms (from Govier): “I’m vertically challenged,” said jokingly by a short person; “I’m gravitationally challenged,” said jokingly by someone who is overweight; “I’m follically challenged,” said jokingly by someone (such as myself) who is balding.

But some euphemisms are not fun, can be dangerous, and are bad.

Consider the following: “Gather intelligence,” versus spy activity; “pacification centre,” versus concentration camp; “incontinent ordnance,” versus off-target bombs; “friendly fire,” versus shelling friendly villages or one's own troops by mistake; “terminate,” versus kill; “terminate with extreme prejudice,” versus assassinate.

The phrase “terminate a pregnancy” is sometimes used to talk about abortion, which is the destruction of a pre-natal child/fetus. But, of course, birth terminates a pregnancy too.

The phrase "products of conception" is sometimes used to describe the union of the sperm and the egg, which is (or so some allege) no big deal to destroy. But human being with potential is a more informative description of what is destroyed. Destroying a human being is a big deal.

Sadly, in the abortion debate the use of euphemism moves from the merely bad to the downright ugly.

Consider this euphemism: “partial birth abortion.” Dare to think about it. Such an "abortion" involves (a) delivering a late-term prenatal baby until only its head remains in the birth canal, (b) then vacuuming the baby’s brains out through the back of the baby’s skull, and (c) then crushing the baby’s skull to facilitate complete birth.

Consider this euphemism, too: “After-birth abortion.” This phrase has been used recently by some philosophers to describe—and justify—the killing of live born babies. Seriously.

Alarmingly, the above abortion euphemisms have thwarted careful moral thinking about abortion generally, late-term abortion in particular, and infanticide—all of which many if not most people would find morally problematic if they knew the reality hidden behind the words.

Are there any other euphemisms that should concern us presently? What about "sex-selective pregnancy termination"?

I submit that the phrase “sex-selective pregnancy termination” is a euphemism for the premeditated, deliberate killing of innocent preborn children merely because they are female. In other words, I think that the phrase is a euphemism for murder. And I think the act of deliberately killing a pre-natal baby girl, because she is a girl, remains a species of murder whether defended by cultural misogyny or an ideology of unconstrained abortion rights.

Sadly, sex-selective abortion occurs in Canada. Happily, MP Mark Warawa’s motion 408 seeks to stop it. (Sadly, motion 408 was deemed non-votable last week by a Parliamentary sub-committee. Happily, Mr. Warawa is making an appeal.)

To be sure, euphemisms can be useful, even good. Sometimes, however, euphemisms can distort our understanding of what is real and thereby mask—and encourage us to accept—horrendous evil. Such euphemisms are bad, even ugly.

Let’s be careful with our use of language—someone’s life may depend on it!

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Reflections on Motions 312 and 408

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, October 4, 2012

               

Reflections on Motions 312 and 408

MP Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 was defeated in the House of Commons last week by a vote of 203 to 91.  I admit: I was disheartened—but not for long.

Subsection 223.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada presently states that an unborn child isn’t a human being until after it’s completely born. Large numbers of Canadians, however, think that a child is a human being before it's born.

In the spirit of democratic political process, MP Stephen Woodworth set forth M-312 to request that the Canadian government appoint a special committee to investigate (using current medical science) whether it’s true that the pre-born child isn’t a human being. The committee would also study the legal implications for the rights of the child based on the findings of this investigation and then report its findings to Parliament

Mr. Woodworth’s motion was eminently reasonable for all concerned. But, as I mentioned, M-312 was defeated. And I was saddened at democracy’s apparent failure

Happily, some reflections on M-312 restored my hope in the democratic process.

I reflected on the fact that almost one third of the House of Commons—including MP Rona Ambrose, Minister for the Status of Women—favoured M-312. This is significant.

Also, I reflected on Mr. Woodworth’s remarks to reporters after the defeat of Motion 312:

"Science and advances in modern understanding are going to drag parliament into the twenty-first century despite the vote on Motion 312. Twenty-first century medical realities are going to prevent Parliament from shielding subsection 223-1 forever. The sweep of history is on the side of justice and human rights.... I'm a believer in democracy. The great thing about democracy is that the House of Commons ultimately will respond to the will of the people. And it sometimes takes a little work. I was thinking on the way over here, and I probably am getting the statistics wrong, but I heard something along the line that Abraham Lincoln ran 19 times before he finally got elected.... I'm very confident that ultimately we will see a change in the House of Commons that will reflect the desire to enshrine the dignity and worth of every human being in Canadian law." (This is a small portion of Stephen Woodworth's 34-minute video interview with reporters on CBC News.)

Mr. Woodworth’s comments inspired many, myself included.

But there is more. Shortly after the defeat of Woodworth's M-312, MP Mark Warawa introduced Motion 408. M-408 seeks to outlaw sex-selective abortion of baby girls. To which I say (shouted, actually): Yes!

And there is more. Shortly after the introduction of M-408, McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville shared the following insights in The Globe and Mail, insights that Canadians—especially “pro-choice” Canadians—simply cannot ignore:

"That unfettered access to abortion should be the litmus test of whether a society respects women and their rights is a long-standing claim of pro-choice advocates and at the heart of their rationale for supporting unrestricted access to abortion. They focus on women’s rights to autonomy and self-determination and argue that such access is required to protect these rights and women’s dignity. But sex-selection abortion promotes the exact opposite values—it expresses a lack of respect for women in cultures in which sons are highly valued over daughters. It also differs from other abortions in that the woman wants a baby—just not a girl. In one study reported from India in which 8,000 consecutive abortions were followed, three were of unborn boys and 7,997 of unborn girls."

Should Canada's multicultural mosaic include sex-selective abortion? Surely not.

Speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves—especially children, whether born or unborn, female or male—is important. I encourage readers to voice their support for Motion 408.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Is the fetus a human being?

Carla's and my son Brahm shortly after his birth. According to Canadian law, our son wasn't a human being before his birth.
APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, May 10, 2012)

Is the fetus a human being?

Tory MP (Kitchener Centre) Stephen Woodworth has filed motion M-312 requesting that our government form a special committee to study Canada’s Criminal Code definition of the term "human being." From the point of view of informed critical thinking, I believe that Mr. Woodworth's request is most appropriate.

Presently, section 223 (1) of Canada’s Criminal Code states the following: “A child becomes a human being…when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed.”

I submit that the Code's understanding of human being runs contrary to fact as well as contrary to reason.

Consider the following facts and reasoning:

1. At conception the human sperm unites with the human egg, thereby generating the existence of an embryo, which is a new life form.

2. This new life form is no longer a sperm life form nor is it an egg life form: it is something substantively different, i.e., a different substance/being, a different living entity—it's a new, genetically distinct, self-governing dynamic organism.

3. The new life form is, biologically speaking, a human life form—it’s not canine, feline, reptilian, or floral.

4. The new life form contains all the essential biological material (outside of nourishment needs) and all the genetic information required for complete tissue and organ development as well as maturation.

5. With nourishment, time, and protection, the new life form at conception grows into the fetus. (“Fetus” is Latin for unborn offspring or young one.) The fetus is but a chronological-developmental extension of the embryo.

6. At about 22 days after conception, a heart begins to beat.

7. Within about 6-8 weeks, brain waves are detectable.

8. Changes after the 10th week are primarily changes in size.

9. With continued nourishment and protection, at about 9 months the fetus, or unborn infant, becomes the born infant.

10. The fetus, the infant, the toddler, the adolescent, and the adult are, biologically, essentially whatever their previous developmental stages are and are simply chronological-developmental extensions of these stages. The biological essence, that is, the fundamental/essential biological nature of being human—of human being—is present throughout the chronological-developmental span of the human life form, from conception to old age.

(Note: Careful language use is important here. The embryo, i.e., the union of the sperm and egg at conception, the fetus/unborn infant, the born infant, the toddler, the adolescent, and the adult are each a human being with potential, not a potential human being. The sperm and egg prior to conception are best described as a potential human being, because together they have the capacity to become a human being. However, and significantly, at conception we have a human being with potential, i.e., a human being with the capacity to become the subsequent developmental stages of the being that it is.)

Therefore, contrary to what section 223 (1) of Canada's Criminal Code says, when a child proceeds from the body of its mother, it does not become a human being. Why not? Because it already is a human being!

Surely, in the name of truth and reason—and in the name of humanity’s most vulnerable—we should support MP Stephen Woodworth’s request that our government form a special committee to study Canada’s Criminal Code definition of human being.

Surely, too, Canada’s law should include all human beings in its definition of human being.

P.S. In future columns I will address the problematic objection that the unborn human being isn't a "person." For now, please keep in mind that a law which purports to describe human beings should describe human beings accurately, which section 223 (1) of Canada's Criminal Code fails to do.

Note: For my additional columns on abortion, please check the archives.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)