Trying to untangle the social upheaval created by over 30 years of abortion in Canada, a country unique in having no law whatsoever regulating the procedure, is an almost impossible challenge. Succeeding governments have shunned away from any attempt to even restore a semblance of sanity in our ever increasing level of child destruction. We can rightfully say that, where moral issues like abortion and protection of families are concerned, Parliament has abdicated its legislative role and handed it over entirely to nine appointed judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, who have proceeded to tear apart our social and moral fabric. The House of Commons, supposedly a show piece of democracy, is now neither truly representative nor powerful. Moral issues are considered out-of-bounds for politicians and any who might want to debate them are quickly dismissed as "divisives" or "moral conservatives." Thus, parliamentary debate is mostly devoid of any moral dimension in its treatment of social problems.

It is now in fact becoming somewhat trite to describe some of the current events in Parliament in the context of a "day of infamy." But there is still a dire need to do so, and none more pressing than in the renewed attempt to dehumanization still more the little babies in the womb - as was expressed by the Liberal, New Democratic Party and Bloc Québecois members of the House of Commons, on May 23. Dictated to do so by their party leaders, they refused consent to accept a motion from MP Garry Breitkreuz, urging the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights to pick up the question of when to recognize the humanity of a child. and study the issue of modifying the definition of "human being" in the Criminal Code - a definition he charitably denounced as "scientifically incorrect."

A similar effort last year to modify the definition proved equally futile. For many of you unaware of that definition, the present Code has the absurd provision in section 206 which effectively states that a child doesn’t become a human being until it has emerged completely from its mother’s body and the umbilical cord has been severed. That law in fact allows the actual killing of babies in the very process of delivery by the barbaric partial-birth abortion procedure, which some members of Prime Minister Chrétien`s Cabinet have admitted are performed in Canada. And by the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on partial-birth abortion, share by Canada`s own activist Supreme Court, there is no way to now distinguish legally between partial-birth abortion and actual infanticide

The prize for the most inane argument used to defeat MP Breitkreuz`s motion has to go to Paul Harold Macklin, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon`s Parliamentary Secretary, who explained his government`s reason for opposing changes in the laws surrounding human life and personhood. In a display of indignant circular logic seldom seen in Parliament, he said: "Any change to the definition of human being in the Criminal Code could have the effect of criminalizing abortion." Duh!

The May 23, 2002, issue of the daily parliamentary report Hansard shows how many of our 298 parliamentarians even bothered to intervene in the discussion on this motion on behalf of the vulnerable unborn. Precious few as it turns out - three! This utter disregard for life is not without consequence. Life unprotected in any of its stages leads inexorably to life unprotected in all its stages. Presently, the Canadian legal system is showing itself almost indifferent to baby-killing. Just think of teen moms disposing of their newborn babies like so many plastic wrapper. Canadian Senator Anne Cools, with evidence at hand, claims that a mother can kill her infant up to one year old and, if she claims emotional disturbance, can be discharged without penalty. At least six Canadian moms kill their babies without penalty in a typical year.

Homicide statistics released October 7/99 by Statistics Canada indicate that the past 30 years, the murder of infants under age one (not including abortion) almost doubled from the average of 12 to 23. This dramatic rise in infants being killed by parents is a testimony to the devaluation of life caused by abortion. If we don`t teach parents to respect the life of their children for the nine months in the womb how can we expect them to respect that same life a few hours, days, or weeks following birth?

Until the legal slaughter of unborn children has run its course, there will be more and more children beaten to death, more and more newborns dropped in garbage disposals. There are fundamental bonds that hold a culture together. When they are debased, plundered and ultimately destroyed, as they are in abortion, it is naive - make that criminally stupid - to expect the cruelty to be confined to unborn babies. Take for instance this report in the Dec. 1, 1997, edition of the New York Times. In it, Professor Steven Pinker of MIT called on the US to repeal laws against infanticide. Pinker proposed what he called "neo-naticide", saying that mothers ought to to have the right to kill their newborn children up to a couple of weeks after birth. Pinker's proposal, although horrifying, proves what pro-lifers have said for years: once you arbitrarily draw lines at which human life has value no one is really safe; and after accepting abortion it remains only a matter of time before society accepts infanticide and euthanasia. Now, people would not normally think of Professor Pinker as some raving nut somewhere; no, folks, we`re supposed to be dealing here with one of our children`s respected dispenser of so-called higher learning!

How can we explain a country where most everyone thinks that abortion kills children, yet will do nothing to change the section of the Criminal Code authorizing this? How can we explain a country where it is known abortion kills children, yet it remains the #1 cause of death and hardly anyone publicly recognizes it! As the priest and the Levite in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, so many people pass by to the other side, as if they do not even see their neighbour in distress. The judgment future generations will pass on Parliament`s inaction in protecting humans in their most vulnerable state will indeed be crushing.


There is no other way of looking at it: either we end abortion in this country, or it will end us.

Thaddée Renault

New Brunswick, Canada

May 27, 2002

Return to the Unborn Children's Website