Necessity Is the Mother of More than Invention.

In my last posting I wrote “The Supreme Court has decided [the unborn child] is not a human someone.”, and it was pointed out to me that this is not the case. (see comment July 11) The Supreme Court actually declared the existing law unconstitutional because the process it defined for obtaining a legal abortion was not accessible to all. This decision, as was also pointed out, left Parliament free to design a new law that would meet the requirements of the constitution. Parliament, for whatever reason, has failed to do so.

This is an important correction for two reasons. First, it clarifies the reason for the court’s decision, and we need to strive to be fair and accurate. Second, it places responsibility on Parliament, where it rightly belongs. And, since Parliament is elected by, and accountable to the people, it reminds us that we are all in some measure responsible for the lack of legal protection for the unborn in Canada.

All this being said, however, I do believe the fundamental issue touches profoundly upon the constitutional status of the unborn as human beings. If they are not human beings the situation as it stands may be acceptable. But if they are it seems intolerable that their lives can be terminated at the whim of two individuals (a mother and a doctor) with no form of legal due process whatsoever, particularly when we consider the constitutional guarantees of “security of the person”, and the requirements of fundamental justice. But the problem goes even deeper than the humanity of the unborn.

It’s hard to imagine, in this day and age, with all of the information we have about fetal development, supported by amazing pictures and ultrasound images, that anyone can persist in the notion that these vulnerable little beings are less than human. Yet, even so, most societies have been willing to sacrifice children, and other classes of human being, on the altar of necessity. Our own ancestors chased them up chimneys and down mineshafts, tethered them to work benches, treadmills and even worse. All because they thought it was necessary.

Abortion is defended in our generation for the same reason slavery was defended in a previous one, not because people think it is good, right, fair or just, but because they believe it is necessary. And those of us who oppose abortion will probably achieve more, at least in the short run, by working to make it demonstrably unnecessary than by working to make it illegal.

What parliament can be successful passing laws against things the people “need” to do? Yet there is something dreadfully wrong with a society that “needs” to allow the killing of it’s most vulnerable members. No society can be truly successful when it “needs” that much.