Third of a series

The abortion debate touches on theological, ethical, medical, legal, social and personal issues.

At one point in time, abortion was considered an offence under the Criminal Code. The Law Reform Commission once referred to that code as our “moral code.” However, in January 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the relevant section with the Morgentaler decision. The basis for the decision was largely administrative. Following the Supreme Court decision, court challenges and different provincial policies created a patchwork of abortion rulings across the country.

Lost in Senate

In 1989, the Progressive Conservative party of Canada tried to fill the void left by the Supreme court decision with an amendment to put abortion back in the Criminal Code. The bill passed a free vote at third reading in the House of Commons, but was later defeated in the Senate of Canada.

Canadians will be facing a decision in the near future as to who should represent them in the House of Commons. This is not a decision to be taken likely. I am proud of the quality of the Progressive Conservative candidates and I firmly believe those who support a pro-family, pro-life position can find a home within our party.

The defenders of life and defenders of choice start from two vastly different positions.

  • The first emphasizes the right of the unborn and his or her right to live. The second emphasizes the rights of the mother and her right to choose.
  • The first sees abortion as pro-natal infanticide. The second, as a form of contraception after the fact.
  • The first defends the u born child who cannot defend him or herself. The second lists intolerable situations into which an unwanted child would be born.

In my opinion, the first universal principle accepted around the world is the preservation of life.

If this society is going to continue to reflect the values upon which it was built, we have to understand and accept the fact that exercising rights is accompanied by the necessary exercising of responsibility.

I would argue the failure of the pro-choice movement is its implication people should have the freedom to choose without any reference to what I consider to be right and wrong. Their failure also stems from their unwillingness to recognize abortion is the murder of a child.

An embryo, although carried in a woman’s body, is not part of her body. The fetus has its own genotype, distinct from the woman’s. The early functioning of the fetus’ brain occurs often before a woman knows she is pregnant. I believe gestation is the time during which the fetus, already genetically fully human is working towards independence.

Enhancing life

My personal belief is that life is sacred from the moment of conception right through until through death. We do not have the right to take a life. We do not want to take upon ourselves the right to take life from the elderly, the infirm or the mentally disabled. Rather, we seek to enhance the quality of their lives.

As a Member of Parliament, I have, and will continue to defend these beliefs. This means supporting life and the rights of the unborn child in the House of Commons, in committee and in the media.

My actions are guided by the values that have sustained me throughout my life. Those values stem from my acceptance of the supremacy of God and the sanctity of human life.

My belief in the sanctity of life means supporting groups that offer care, counseling, help and advice. It means helping mothers before and after the birth. It means supporting measures to ensure families, pregnant women and girls have the moral, psychological and financial support they need. It means being prepared to stand up for what is right.

(This is the third in a series of election-related articles on what political parties offer pro-life, pro-family voters. Next month’s article will feature the Christian Heritage Party.)