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.)

Thinking People Who Support Democracy Should Support Motion M-312

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, September 12, 2012

Thinking People Who Support Democracy Should Support Motion M-312

The Criminal Code of Canada presently states that a child isn’t a human being until after it’s completely born. But large numbers of Canadians think a child is a human being before it's born.

In the spirit of democratic political process, MP Stephen Woodworth has set forth Motion M-312 which requests that the Canadian government appoint a special committee that will investigate (using current medical science) whether it’s true that the pre-born child isn’t a human being. The committee will 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.

I fully support motion M-312. Why? At the very least because there is a desperate need for good, careful thinking on whether or not the unborn child is a human being.

But don’t take my word for it. Here are a couple of arguments I read earlier this summer in a CBC News comment section. These arguments are popular and show the sad state of thinking about the unborn child. My critical assessment follows.

Argument 1. A fetus does not become a human being until live birth just as a caterpillar does not become a butterfly until it emerges live from the cocoon, therefore the fetus isn’t a human being.

Argument 2. From the same CBC commenter: "A tadpole ain't a frog. A fetus ain't a human. It's a 'maybe can become' but until it does become, it ain't." Therefore (again), the fetus isn’t a human being.

My verdict: These arguments both commit the fallacy of faulty analogy (i.e., the mistake of making faulty comparisons). Please bear with me as I present my reasons.

According to the first argument, a fetus does not become a human being until live birth just as a caterpillar does not become a butterfly until it emerges live from the cocoon. This comparison, however, confuses the categories of developmental stage (a step in growth or maturation of an organism) and ontology (what the organism is in its essential nature or being).

The argument asserts that an early developmental stage (fetus) doesn't become an instance of a type of being (human being) until birth, and then, in defence of this assertion, the argument uses the analogue that an early developmental stage (caterpillar) doesn't become a later developmental stage (butterfly) until emergence from the cocoon; and so a fetus isn't a human being.

However, a better—i.e., more accurate—analogy would be this: An early developmental stage (fetus) doesn't become a later developmental stage (e.g., post-birth infant) until birth, just as an early developmental stage (caterpillar) doesn't become a later developmental stage (butterfly) until emergence from the cocoon. But, and significantly, when we remove the conceptual conflation between developmental stage and ontology or type of being, the original argument doesn't support the conclusion that the fetus isn't a human being!

The second argument—that because the tadpole isn't a frog therefore the fetus isn't a human being—continues with the same faulty analogy.

Yes, a tadpole (early developmental stage) isn't a mature frog (later developmental stage), but from this it doesn't follow that the tadpole isn't a frog being per se (i.e., an instance of the ontological category or type of being that a frog is). Nor does it follow that a fetus (early developmental stage) isn't a human being (i.e., an instance of the ontological category or type of being).

My point: Particular developmental stages and instances of ontological kinds are wholly different categories, but the categories get blurred in the above arguments from analogy. Thus, the arguments commit the fallacy of faulty analogy and their conclusion—that the fetus isn’t a human being—does not follow logically.

(Don't they teach logic at school anymore these days?)

Back to M-312: I think Stephen Woodworth's motion M-312 is truly important. It asks that we investigate a law which says a child isn't a human being until after it's born when contemporary science and good reasoning seem very much to tell us that a child is a human being before it's born.

Significantly, as Don Hutchinson (a lawyer for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada) observes, the question M-312 addresses is “bigger than abortion” (which is a big issue, to be sure, because Canadian law at present allows abortion during the full nine months of pregnancy). Mr. Hutchinson explains: “As a matter of simple bioethics, the status of the child in the womb is important to medical considerations and scientific experimentation (including eugenics, sex selection, assisted reproduction and legal debates over stored genetic materials).”

Surely, the investigation for which Motion M-312 calls is a reasonable thing to do in a democracy that seeks to recognize as human beings all those human beings who are in fact human beings.

Thinking people who favour democracy should support motion M-312.

P.S. The caterpillar-isn't-a-butterfly argument and the tadpole-isn't-a-frog argument are new versions of the old acorn-isn't-an-oak-tree-so-the-fetus-isn't-a-human-being fallacy, which was debunked in this column four years ago. See Apologia, October 2, 2008.

P.P.S. On the question—Is the fetus a human being?—see Apologia, May 10, 2012.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., teaches 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.)