Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Unborn Child stabbed 8 times, die after Being Born, Man Charged with Murder Montreal Quebec Canada



Canadian Law Says a Baby Doesn’t Become a Human Being Until She is Outside Her Mother’s Body

Extract from article:
The legal situation really comes down to abortion activists’ agenda; they readily admit that they do not want any rights to be given to babies before birth, no matter how far along in the womb they are and no matter whether their mother has them killed in an abortion or someone else commits violence against them and their mother.


 A recent assault of a pregnant women and her unborn baby in Montreal is drawing attention to the poor legal protections in the country. Fortunately, in the most recent case, the baby will be protected under the law because he or she was born alive after the attack. Reports do not indicate the baby’s sex.

CBC reports the baby’s mother, Raja Ghazi, was between seven and eight months pregnant on Monday when she was stabbed – allegedly by her husband, Sofiane Ghazi, 37 – in the neighborhood of Montreal North. According to police, she was taken to the hospital where her baby was delivered by C-section. A few hours later, the baby died, the report states.

Because the baby was born alive, Sofiane Ghazi has been charged with first-degree murder of the child, as well as attempted murder of his wife and other charges, according to the report.
Here’s more from the report:

Under Canada’s Criminal Code, “a child becomes a human being … 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.”


“So, if the child was alive, even for a moment, outside the child’s mother’s body, it would be considered a legal person such that you could be charged with murdering that child if the child didn’t survive,” said Toronto-based lawyer Daniel Brown, a specialist in criminal law.

The legal situation really comes down to abortion activists’ agenda; they readily admit that they do not want any rights to be given to babies before birth, no matter how far along in the womb they are and no matter whether their mother has them killed in an abortion or someone else commits violence against them and their mother.

Abortion is legal for any reason up until birth in Canada, and a fetal homicide law, like the ones most states have in America, could cause more Canadians to question these laws. Abortion activists do not want that.

According to the report:

Joyce Arthur, president of the organization, said she has no problem with how the Criminal Code is applied to those who are charged in the killing of a baby if an attack on a pregnant woman leads to the baby’s death after it has emerged from the womb.


“I think the law is fair in that sense,” she said.
But Arthur said her group opposes any kind of “fetal homicide law” that would ascribe rights to the fetus. She said if something happens to a fetus while it is inside a woman, it should be considered an attack against “her and her alone” because the fetus is not a human being under the law.


“As soon as you ascribe rights to a fetus, it compromises women’s rights, so that’s what we don’t want.”

Last year, private citizens in Canada urged lawmakers to pass a bill protecting pregnant women and their unborn babies from acts of violence outside the womb – such as what occurred in Montreal this past week. However, abortion activists lobbied heavily against the bill.

Arthur and her pro-abortion group were among the leading advocates against the bill.

“It is shocking that Ms. Arthur is opposed to a bill that is designed to protect choice,” said Mike Schouten of WeNeedaLAW.ca, last year when the bill was proposed. “Cassie, who the bill is named for, chose life for her daughter Molly, but Cassie was murdered before her baby could be born. Under our laws their killer will not be brought to justice for taking the life of her daughter without her consent.

“If they truly believed that a woman’s choice is paramount, then they would have no problem justifying a woman’s choice to have a legal abortion while also supporting a law against the violent crime of killing a fetus when the pregnant woman has not chosen abortion. If they cannot do this, the only option they support is abortion, which is really no longer a choice at all,” he continued.


 


Monday, March 12, 2018

Abortion access A BRIDGE TO FAR Supreme Court decision did not hold that there is a constitutional right to abortion


A bridge too far

Supreme Court decision did not hold that there is a constitutional right to abortion

BY GERARD MITCHELL
GUEST OPINION
https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/opinion/opinion-a-bridge-too-far-188081/
I am writing in response to a guest opinion piece by the executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada published in The Guardian on Feb. 13 under the headline “Abortion a Charter right.” Specifically, I disagree with the author’s assertion that the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the 1988 Morgentaler case “means you cannot restrict abortion without violating Charter rights.”

I also disagree with her assertion that “the evolution of Charter and
abortion- rights jurisprudence have now established a secure Charter right to abortion.”

These two assertions are not true. It is true that a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada who sat on the Morgentaler case struck down the then-existing abortion law in the Criminal Code because it was

so restrictive it violated the s. 7 Charter rights of women.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision did not hold that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Such a reading of the case is a bridge too far. The decision did not say or imply that Parliament cannot restrict abortion without violating Charter rights.

The court did say that balancing the protection of the unborn with the health of women is a valid governmental objective. The Court therefore left the door open for Parliament to enact an abortion law that comports with Charter standards. In fact, the Mulroney government unsuccessfully tried to do so twice. It remains open for Parliament to try again.

Meanwhile the country has no law protecting the unborn. None of the seven judges who sat on the Morgentaler case held there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. The one judge who held there was any constitutional right to abortion limited its application to the relatively early stages of pregnancy. All of the judges recognized

that protection of the unborn is a valid objective of Parliament. Even Madam Justice Wilson, who found a limited Charter right to abortion, left it to legislators to decide the point in time when the state interest in the fetus would become so compelling as to justify restrictions.

The Supreme Court has not reversed or altered its 1988 decision.
Despite the failure of Parliament to pass a new law these past 30 years, the Morgentaler decision has not somehow morphed into a ruling that abortion is a Charter guaranteed right. Parliament retains the power,

even if presently not the will, to enact a law that balances the rights of women with the state’s legitimate interest in the protection of its unborn. Doing so would take Canada off the very short list of nations that provides no legal protection what-so-ever for the unborn.

- Gerard Mitchell, Charlottetown, is a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island

CBC News-Mar.10/'18- Tanya Granic Allen's role in a Ford cabinet




 CBC's Rosemary Barton in discussion with panel on Tanya Granic Allen's possible role in a Ford cabinet, the issue of abortion and social conservatism being a question in the upcoming June provincial election


Perspective needed on abortion

  Perspective needed on abortion  
   winnipegsun.com/opinion/columnists/perspective-needed-on-abortion

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been criticized rightly about his “pro-choice” values test concerning the Canada Summer Jobs program in his crusade to defend “reproductive freedom.” This values test is unfair to Canadians, for sure.

But more needs to be said. Consider the following.

1. Reason and contemporary science tell us that the human embryo/fetus is in fact a human being: i.e., it’s a genetically distinct, self-governing dynamic entity that belongs to the human species.

It’s not feline or canine; it’s human. It’s not a cat being or a dog being; it’s a human being. It’s not a kitten or a puppy; it’s a human child.

2. Canada’s 1988 Supreme Court ruling did not give women the right to abortion. It merely struck down law that required therapeutic abortion committees.

Why? Because the committees were not equally accessible across Canada and thus unfair to women. The Supreme Court ruling tasked Parliament with making an abortion law to remedy this unfairness and protect unborn children.

3. Reproduction, i.e., the creation of a child conceived via sex, occurs BEFORE abortion takes place.

Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology & Culture at Hillsdale College, observes: “When pro-choicers have unforced sex, they are choosing. That is freedom of choice. 

When they decide to kill the child conceived during that sexual encounter, that is freedom from choice. They chose; now they want to be free from the consequences of that choice, even if someone has to die.”
In other words, justifying abortion via “reproductive freedom” is a ruse.

4. Also, let’s put abortion into perspective.

Every year in Canada about 100,000 unborn children are killed by abortion. The significance of this number may be difficult to grasp, so think about the gun control discussion.

Compare the abortion number to the number of homicides that occur yearly in Canada.

Here are the most recent numbers from Statistics Canada for homicides, where “homicide” includes murder, manslaughter, and infanticide, whether a gun is used or not:
Year 2012: homicides 548
Year 2013: homicides 509
Year 2014: homicides 522
Year 2015: homicides 609
Year 2016: homicides 611


That’s about 560 homicides per year versus about 100,000 unborn children destroyed per year. In other words, approximately half a percent of killings in Canada are due to homicide, and approximately 99.5% are due to abortion.

Yes, there are tough cases that might justify abortion. For examples, rape, incest, threats to the life or health of the mother.
But these tough cases account for a very small percentage of the total abortions.

Fordham University ethicist Charles Camosy, in his book Beyond the Abortion Wars (2015), says the tough cases amount to 2% of the total cases. I’ve heard others report that it might be 5%. Whether 2 or 5%, it’s a small percentage. That means an awful lot of cases are due to social problems.

But, surely, social problems require social solutions—not the killing of children.

Conclusion: Trudeau should dump the “values test” and also make a law that protects unborn children AND addresses the social problems that pressure women to abort.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Providence University College, Otterburne, Man.