There have been many questions regarding the Mulroney Government’s proposed bill C-43. I am answering them without reference to all the questioners.
The first question is:
Isn’t this bill better than a gestational one?
No. The proposed law would allow abortions in any stage of the pre-born child’s development, right up to delivery. All that is needed is a compliant doctor. The baby has no safeguard. In other words, this bill is far worse even than a so-called gestational law which would allow abortions during the first and second semester of the baby’s gestation in the mother’s womb.
Doesn’t the bill forbid abortions for socio-economic reasons?
Again, the answer is “no”. The Government’s explanatory notes on the Bill clearly show that socio-economic reasons, a slightly handicapped child, or too many children in the family, etc., can all be used as grounds for abortion, under the pretext that the child’s birth would be psychologically damaging to the health of the mother. It is sad but true that there will always be physicians willing to bend the rules. Surely the proposed law is better than no law at all? Once again the answer is “no”. The new law will not stop any abortions; it allows for abortion on demand in exactly the same way as when there is no law. The loopholes in the Bill which permit abortion are so big that you could drive a bus through them. As the previous answer shows, the “health” is merely camouflage, and any excuse – however flimsy – will de deemed sufficient to justify abortion.
There are other reasons just as compelling. The law is a great teacher, and for most people what is legal becomes moral.
“What can be wrong with abortion when the government passes a law to allow it?”
A famous U.S. judge once wrote: “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.” The proposed law, as written, is a lesson in evil, and it replaces God by the Government as the source of the right to live. Life comes from God, not from the Supreme Court or Parliament in Ottawa; life is subject to God’s laws; not to those of Mulroney.
A third reason is that a bad law, once in place, is a road block in the way of getting a good law. A bad law is likely to remain for 15 to 20 years, and Canadian babies will be killed in increasing numbers. If there is no law, there is a good chance that one of the Private Members’ Bills which are truly pro-life will pass.
A fourth reason is that in the moral order, abortion is total evil. Professor Charles E. Rice (Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame) wrote: “In fact, we cannot sanction the deliberate killing of the unborn for any reason without yielding our whole position. Compromise would render the lives of all unsafe through the acceptance of the idea that innocent life is negotiable.”
In discussing the new law, Canadian pro-life leaders reject the argument of the “lesser evil.” Why? It is accepted, e.g. in Britain.
First, the new law is just as evil as no law. However, apart from that, the legal positions in Britain and Canada are quite different. Britain has a law in place, and there is little likelihood of a new law in the foreseeable future. The pro-lifers there can only try to save more babies by, for example, lowering the cut-off point for abortions from 28 weeks to may be 18 or 20 weeks. This action is morally acceptable. Canadians are in a different position. We have no law; and our choice is between a good law, or accepting the principle that the state has the right to legalize the killing of innocent pre-born babies. There can only be one choice: to stop all the killing.
