Yesterday, Stephen Woodworth’s motion (M-312) had it’s first hour of debate in the House of Commons. (Coverage from LifeSiteNews, the National Post, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail, Maclean’s, and CTV, which does a decent enough job providing the main points of view on each side). The pro-abortion side is not making very good arguments, just the same-old, same-old, so dignifying the first hour of “debate” as such is a little much. We’ve highlighted some of the comments from all the speakers yesterday so you can see for yourself  how terrible the Liberal and NDP talking points are and the stridently pro-abortion comments from the government whip, Gordon O’Connor.

Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) presented his motion and said:

Why is any law defining a human being so important? (…)The reason it is so important is that powerful people can strip vulnerable people of all rights by decreeing that they are not human beings. The only way to protect the inalienable rights of all is to protect the inalienable rights of each…

How many Canadians believe that birth is a moment of magical transformation that changes a child from a non-human to a human being?

Woodworth also said: 

If we accept a law that decrees some human beings are not human, the question that must be asked is: Who is next? This question was recently answered for us. Professors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva told us who they think should be next in an article published in the respected Journal of Medical Ethics online (…) They point out there is no difference between a child before birth and a newborn. Since we have already decreed that a child before birth is not a human person and a newborn is no different, then, they say, we can and should decree that a newborn infant is also not a person…

If the evidence tells us that a child is a human being before the moment of complete birth, will we close our eyes to the truth simply to justify abortion?

Four MPs spoke against he motion. NDP MP Françoise Boivin from Gatineau contributed to the dumbing down of Canada’s public square:

What the member is trying to do is involve us in what he calls a “conversation on the fetus”. Wow. When I was elected in 2011, if someone had told me that I would be here on April 26, 2012, having a “conversation on the fetus”, I would have asked what planet this was…

This is the first time that the Conservatives have shown an interest in anything scientific. It had to be something to do with the fetus and abortion or something that goes against women. Congratulations…

I use the word “men” because that is who I see in front of me. I do not mean it in a pejorative or sexist way. They can object as much as they want, but that is what I see before me. Ah, excuse me, I do see one woman, no, two women. That is excellent, lovely…

Imagine the pregnant woman for a moment. For a government that claims that the state must be as small as possible, in its simplest form, in all senses of the term, imagine the government now taking an interest in the way in which a pregnant woman experiences motherhood and pregnancy.

First, it isn’t a government bill. Second, it is funny that an NDP MP is criticizing the Conservatives for some supposed hypocrisy for wanting smaller government yet interfering with how a “pregnant woman experiences motherhood and pregnancy” but it isn’t hypocritical for the party of big government to want the state out of these issues. Of course, Boivin doesn’t want the state out of how a “pregnant woman experiences motherhood and pregnancy” or she’d call for an end to state-provided health care.

And then we have Liberal MP Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): 

In fact, medical evidence speaks to the viability of the fetus and how long the fetus can exist outside the maternal environment. That is defined very clearly. We do not need a committee to see what the viability of the fetus is—how long it can live outside the fetal environmental, the times, the ages, et cetera…

Are we going to lock women up and force them to carry a child to term?

Hedy Fry is a medical doctor and this is how she contributed to the “debate”.

Gordon O’Connor, the chief government whip, gave all the standard pro-abortion lines:

The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount and take precedence over that of the state…

No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition…

I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one.

And finally former NDP leadership candidate Niki Ashton (Churchill) played the anti-woman and hidden agenda cards:

Every step along the way, Conservative governments have sought to silence women’s voices and every step along the way, they have sought to destroy the foundations of our work to achieve gender equality…

If the Prime Minister did not want a woman’s right to choose to be debated, we would not be here tonight. What is interesting is the Conservatives felt the need to tell Canadians something else so those same Canadians would vote for them. They waited until they won a majority to then uncover their hidden agenda.

 You can read the whole debate at Hansard.