Motion 312 and the Right To Chose

MP Stephen Woodworth has introduced an motion 312 that a committee be established to review the Criminal code section 223 dealing with when the status of human being is conferred. At present the the Law does not confer the status of human being on a baby it is born. It is not nearly as menacing as it sounds. It is a legal definition, albeit an important one, but the anti choice groups, do hope it sends chills up and down your spine.

Woodworth declares a need to update a 400 year old definition of what and when a human becomes a being.What has until now been the province of philosophy, Woodworth is attempting to inject scientific method. The meat of the motion seeks to employ the science of medicine to establish person hood the parameters. It may seem odd that the a religious position, and make no mistake anti-choice is a religious pursuit, would make use of science to support its position. I would remind the reader of Intelligent Design, which attempted to re brand Creationism as a science. 

The committee would be charged with answering 4 questions:

(i)            what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

   (ii)            is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

 (iii)            what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

 (iv)            what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

The first two questions are try to establish a physical definition Human being, where before there was only a philosophical one. To wit, the fetus a moment before birth is no different than the baby a moment after. If you determine that there is no discernible physical difference then rationally, section 223(1) would have to be altered to fit the facts, isn't science wonderful. I would suggest the attempt here is to push back as far as possible the point at which medical science might declare that a fetus meets a physical definition of human. 

Question three asks of the impact on a child rights as a result of section 223(1). This is a leading question because it infers that the child, before it's born has rights, that are being denied. The question can't be asked unless you already think that a fetus is in fact a legally recognized human being before it is born. Or that the first two questions will establish that fact.

The last question deals with how, after having found that fetuses are in fact human beings before being born, how can we make laws taking away reproductive choice from women but not call it that exactly.

Let's not mistake motion 312 for anything other than an opening move in the fight againsts a woman's right to choose, by establishing person hood before birth. The law would confer upon the fetus a full slate of rights, one such I imagine being the right to live. Anti- abortion legislation concerning person hood springing up all over the United states.  

I feel that it is not debate that Woodworth  desires but exposure, and the legitimacy offered, by way of parliamentary committee. The anti-choice movement is at its core religious, I do not accept that a secular state should be forced to adopt laws that are wholly religious in nature. A person must be secure in their body and be secure from unreasonable intrusions by the state.