Philip Anisimov won second place in the Fr. Ted Colleton Essay contest sponsored by Niagara Right to Life and presented by The Interim. His is a home schooled student from Oshawa, Ont.

Philip Anisimov won second place in the Fr. Ted Colleton Essay contest sponsored by Niagara Right to Life and presented by The Interim. His is a home schooled student from Oshawa, Ont.

Times change and so do people, culture, and laws. Today we enjoy the benefits of music, language, and technology that have evolved drastically over time. Innovation is natural and vital to the survival of mankind. Is there a boundary past which innovation is harmful? It is important to understand that naturally occurring advances in technology or social order are often by-products of another, more consequential, revolution of the population’s core worldview beliefs. Change in ideology has far deeper consequences.

A great example of a side effect of a worldview change was Martin Luther King Jr’s struggle for racial equality. An example of a repercussion of a worldview change that brought about barbarity and war was Adolph Hitler’s genocide. Since some changes are positive and others are obviously negative, there must be a limit after which alteration in worldview is destructive.

Modern times are no exception; worldviews are constantly changing. Unfortunately, the common tendency is a change for the worse. Today, more than ever before, killing of the faceless and the nameless is becoming socially acceptable, and abortion stand as evidence to this uncomfortable fact. Abortion may be further traced back to promiscuous behavior and sexual violence that have become common. Just as with any other changes in social norms, there is a deep underling worldview alteration that gave birth to these visible side effects. Is the acceptance of unrestricted abortion a positive change or is it outside the boundary?

To answer the question above one has to answer another question. Who defines the boundary discussed above: God or man? If God exists and is the Creator of the physical world including people, then He defined right and wrong. However, if people are the highest form of life, then they define what is moral and what is not.

If a group of people believes that Ernest Haeckel’s embryo drawings (which were proven to be a fraud, but are still present in many biology textbooks) prove that an embryo is not a human but a fish-like or chicken-like biological mass that may be killed without remorse, nobody has the right to object. On the other hand, Christians have a Moral Authority greater than themselves who, in His Word, speaks of the unborn as a person for whom He has a plan (“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jer 1:5). God also gives a clear command (Exodus 20:13) “Thou shalt not kill.” The logical conclusion is that the embryos are people and killing them is wrong. Since the unborn are people, they should be protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where it states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Our current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, expressed his firm belief that humans set moral standards when he defended the Liberal pro-abortion stance by announcing “I am perfectly comfortable with Canadians knowing that the Liberal Party is unequivocal in its defence of women’s rights. We are the party of the Charter. We are the party that stands up for people’s rights. We will continue to do so.” Canada has been a leader in the protection of human rights and international peace for over a century. However, our country is among the few that doesn’t have any restrictions on abortions. Why is there such an inconsistency? Our men and women lay down their lives and health for the safety and well-being of people in other countries, yet today thousands of our own people are being murdered with the approval of the majority of Canadians in government-funded facilities.

Looking back to the time of the confederacy, paints a completely contrary picture. The first prime minister of Canada, John A. Macdonald, expressed the general Christian attitude of Canadians at the time when he declared that abortions “sap the very life blood of the nation.” Though the land we now call Canada was originally a French colony, it copied its government system and many laws from England. Among those, was the law concerning abortion that, in 1869, proclaimed them illegal and made them punishable by life imprisonment. In 1892 Canadian Parliament enacted the first Criminal Code, which made abortion and possession of any means of birth control a criminal offence. Despite the risk, many women sought to perform dangerous amateur abortions. Usually abortionists who were caught were convicted and served long sentences in jail. However, in 1897, the Emily Stowe trial and, in 1952 the Azoulay vs. Queen Trial changed the pattern, and with these first compromises the first visible cracks in the Canadian moral foundation were formed. Since then, Canada slid down the slippery path of compromise into the pit of unrestricted abortions, in which we find ourselves today.

In the mid-20th century, the pro-abortion movement began to grow, calling for an amendment to the Criminal Code in regards to abortion. In 1969, Canada made abortion legal, though ostensibly only to save the life or health of the pregnant woman. In 1988, Canada’s abortion law was declared unconstitutional, and abortions were allowed without restriction. Since then pro-lifers have desperately struggled to pass laws to restrict and prohibit abortion, but Canada remains to this day a nation that smiles upon the murder of the smallest Canadians. Each year about 100,000 unborn babies are killed. How did Canada change so radically for the worse in a matter of a hundred years? How can we stop the killing of unborn people and the rapid moral decay of our country, Canada? What if we do nothing?

The slide into the ditch of abortions began long before the first abortion rights group were formed, long before the first legal compromises in 1897 and 1952, even long before Confederation. In fact, it began at the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve took a bite out of the forbidden fruit, and sin entered into the world. Ever since, people were prone to sin and rebellion against God and His law. Unfortunately, much too often people reject God’s precious gift of mercy and instead continue blindly on the road of sin, pain, suffering, and abortion. Abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. Underneath lays man’s cold, godless, and rebellious worldview which cannot be melted by anyone but Jesus Christ.

It would be interesting to extrapolate on the events of the recent past. First, abortions were made legal and then unrestricted. Second, assisted suicide was made legal. What comes next? Will assisted suicide become unrestricted? Possibly killing recently born infants will be legalized. If Canadians don’t speak-up, Canada will continue on a path to certain doom. As Irish statesman Edmund Burke reportedly warned, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Therefore, arise all those who crave justice and love Canada. Now is the time to act.

Philip Anisimov won second place in the Fr. Ted Colleton Essay contest sponsored by Niagara Right to Life and presented by The Interim. He is a homeschooled student from Oshawa, Ont.