Human From The Moment Of...: March 2017

Thursday, March 16, 2017

The repeal of the abortion law MUST compel (force or oblige)Parliament to abide by the Supreme Court 1988 ruling ie.to put a law in place

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. It also repeals section 159 of that Act and provides that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid. It also makes consequential amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Clause 16: Existing text of section 287:

287 (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

(2) Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(3) In this section, means includes

(a) the administration of a drug or other noxious thing;

(b) the use of an instrument; and

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to

(a) a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person, or

(b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage,

if, before the use of those means, the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited or approved hospital, by a majority of the members of the committee and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of the female person has been reviewed,

(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and

(d) has caused a copy of that certificate to be given to the qualified medical practitioner.

(5) The Minister of Health of a province may by order

(a) require a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital in that province, or any member thereof, to furnish him with a copy of any certificate described in paragraph (4)‍(c) issued by that committee, together with such other information relating to the circumstances surrounding the issue of that certificate as he may require; or

(b) require a medical practitioner who, in that province, has procured the miscarriage of any female person named in a certificate described in paragraph (4)‍(c), to furnish him with a copy of that certificate, together with such other information relating to the procuring of the miscarriage as he may require.

(6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) and this subsection,

accredited hospital means a hospital accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation in which diagnostic services and medical, surgical and obstetrical treatment are provided; (hôpital accrédité)

approved hospital means a hospital in a province approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister of Health of that province; (hôpital approuvé)

board means the board of governors, management or directors, or the trustees, commission or other person or group of persons having the control and management of an accredited or approved hospital; (conseil)

Minister of Health means

(a) in the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Health,

(b) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, the Minister of Public Health, and

(d) in the Province of Alberta, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care,

(e) in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the Minister of Health; (ministre de la Santé)

qualified medical practitioner means a person entitled to engage in the practice of medicine under the laws of the province in which the hospital referred to in subsection (4) is situated; (médecin qualifié)

therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner, appointed by the board of that hospital for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.‍ (comité de l’avortement thérapeutique)

(7) Nothing in subsection (4) shall be construed as making unnecessary the obtaining of any authorization or consent that is or may be required, otherwise than under this Act, before any means are used for the purpose of carrying out an intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person.

Monday, March 6, 2017

Baby Survives Being Born Twice: Once For Life-Saving Surgery and Then Fo...

Born again....
really Born Again.....
so Mr Lawyers tell me ..is this child protected in law?? ...since the child was not a human being then became a human being and is now (according the the video) awaiting to re become a human being... ((according to the Canadian criminal Code ))

When child becomes human being
223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.
Marginal note:Killing child
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 206.
Marginal note:Death that might have been prevented
224 Where a person, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 207.

Baby Survives Being Born Twice: Once For Life-Saving Surgery and Then Fo...

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Is Justin Trudeau right to expel anti-abortion candidates?

Is Justin Trudeau right to expel anti-abortion candidates?
http://www.lactualite.com/politique/avortement-vote-de-conscience-et-equilibrisme/ google translated

Public opinion is not monolithic. Despite the marches and blows of absolutists on both sides, it seems that many people are uncomfortable with the extreme positions in this debate.

27 May. 2014 - by Jérôme Lussier

Over the past 20 days, the debate on abortion has been half revived in Canada, against all odds.

The starting point is Justin Trudeau's statement on May 7 that the future candidates of the Liberal Party of Canada must be in favor of the right to abortion - a position that on the surface at least broke with the Liberal tradition of a free vote on so-called "conscience issues".
I am not a partisan of the party line in general, let alone questions that come out of the usual political trenches. The news was, moreover, all the more surprising since it came from a party leader who wants to rejuvenate politics (and his party) and, officially, to interfere as little as possible with the process of nominating his candidates.

Was Mr. Trudeau's maneuver politically and strategically wise?

As Lise Ravary pointed out last week, abortion exists in a legal vacuum in Canada. Since the invalidation of the provisions of the Criminal Code that were referred to it by the Supreme Court in Morgentaler in 1988, there is nothing to frame it.

In theory, it is therefore possible in Canada to perform an abortion, for whatever reason, until the very end of a pregnancy. This legal vacuum contrasts with the regimes found in France, Great Britain and Sweden, for example.

* * *
Fifteen years before Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of the United States set out the terms of the debate in its famous Roe v. Wade. While acknowledging a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, the Court had identified divergent interests in confronting each other, thus delineating the contours of a nuanced position.

On the one hand, women have a fundamental right to dispose of their bodies and to make intimate decisions in relation to it - including the decision to have an abortion. On the other hand, the state has a legitimate and opposite interest in protecting "prenatal life".

The Supreme Court of the United States had resolved this dilemma by deciding that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy prevailed in the first few months, but gradually gave way as the " Viability "of the fetus increases. These notions and tension are at the root of the laws that are found all over the world.
* * *

Public opinion is not monolithic either. Despite the marches and blows of absolutists on both sides, it seems that many people are uncomfortable with the extreme positions in this debate.

For example, in a survey in July 2012, there was very little support (only 6%) for a complete abortion ban. Many more Canadians (49% overall) supported the status quo of unrestricted abortion.

The most popular option - with 60% support, of which 62% for women - was legal abortion, but it was framed, particularly to limit abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Is this position now incompatible with the political agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Are the laws found in several European countries fundamentally foreign to our manners?

Has the PLC decided to make the unlimited right to abortion a principled position, as well as its opposition to the death penalty - supported by 65% of Canadians and apparently 69% of Quebeckers?

Is the absolute and unconditional opposition to the death penalty comparable to the absolute and unconditional defense of the right to abortion? Is there any way to reconcile this rigid posture with the wish for an open policy and the idea of a centrist party that, in principle, defends liberalism and diversity of opinion?

* * *
Here, as elsewhere, the debate about abortion is sometimes kidnapped by a Manichaeism stemming from a rigid conception of human life: the arguments are often summarized as to whether or not the fetus should be considered a human being with The resulting consequences.

If so, he would have all the rights of a normal person, including the right not to be killed. If not, it would be comparable to the body of the woman who wears it, and would not enjoy any right to life or security.
This binary classification leads to known polarized positions. Pro-life - mostly driven by religious beliefs - considers abortion to be prohibited, at conception, and in virtually all circumstances. Pro-choice believes that abortion should be allowed for whatever reason, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.
On both sides, this absolute coherence has the merit of a certain logic. But it may be contrary to the nuances of common sense.
Would it be appropriate in Canada to consider "prenatal life"

As enjoying certain rights, but not those of a human being in its own right? Is there a possible compromise in the Canadian political and constitutional context between women's essential freedom to dispose of their bodies and the protection of a child on the eve of birth? I do not pretend to have the answers.

And I am far from certain that Canadian politics would benefit from a reopening of the abortion file, which would risk arousing the irrational rifts in the United States. Could not simply launch ad hominem attacks or invoke the slippery slope to end the debate.

It would have been relatively simple for Mr. Trudeau to announce that no member of his party could oppose Abortion absolutely and unconditionally. The pro-life position is generally of religious inspiration, and hardly defensible for a party that firmly believes in the separation of church and state, Opinion, and individual rights and freedoms.

Respecting the right to abortion, in whole or in part, is certainly part of the DNA of the Liberal Party of Canada. Ultimately, PLC candidates and MPs could be privately pro-life, while committing not to vote to eliminate the right to abortion. Moreover, given the low popular support for a radically anti-abortion position , There were not many political gains to be made from this side for the PLC.

The pro-life vote is largely vested in the Conservative Party.That said, it is more difficult to understand why Mr. Trudeau chose to impose on his party the opposite line - that of an "absolute right to abortion"

As headline Le Devoir.First, because even for a party very attached to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the recognition of the right to abortion does not imply that it is unlimited.

The liberalism advocated by the PLC does not necessarily lead to a compromise position - such as that found in France or Sweden, for example - but it should not exclude it either. Secondly, and more strategically, because That the Liberal Party of Canada should embody a certain political center, capable of nuances and refractory to the absolutes.

The Conservatives and the NDP each drag their dogmatic bases; The Liberal Party should ideally have the advantage of flexibility. * * *

In Quebec, Mr. Trudeau is right to see the NDP as his main adversary, and to try to seduce his constituents by contrasting strongly with the Conservatives. Many Quebec neo-democrats are ready to vote for Justin Trudeau if it is the only way to overthrow the Harper government. In the rest of Canada, however, Mr. Trudeau's main opponent is Stephen Harper.

But if the disappointed Conservatives could be tempted by an honest, centrist and pragmatic Liberal Party, they do not want to know anything about the NDP, widely perceived as ideological, defensive, and in the pay of trade unions.

Of equilibrism, an exercise that usually requires extremes to be avoided. And, perhaps, one avoids losing one's soul, or one's conscience.

* * * About Jérôme LussierJérôme Lussier is a jurist and journalist. In the past few years, he has worked at the CBC and held a blog in the Voir journal, as well as being a political advisor to the Coalition Avenir Québec. He blogs on contemporary social and political issues at L'actualité since 2013. You can follow him on Twitter: @jeromelussier.