Thursday, March 06, 2008

The objection to the phrase "unborn child"

Galloping Beaver thinks that behind the long title of Bill C-484, there's some kind of underhanded conspiracy to define the unborn child and establish rights for him.

Our legal and medical system already recognizes a definition of "unborn child".

Section 223 says:

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.

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.

In our legal system, we have children who are not considered human beings.

SoCons didn't make up this definition.

"Unborn Child" is commonly used on medical and government websites.

Take this website from Health Canada on keepsake ultrasounds:

Health Canada is recommending parents not expose their unborn babies to fetal ultrasound for the purpose of making "keepsake" videos.

Section 238 would not in any way change the legal status of the unborn child. If anything, Section 238 recognizes that the unborn child is not a human being.

As per Section 223.

And as an unborn child is not a human being, he cannot have rights.

Opponents of justice for pregnant women have a bad way of reading things into the law that are simply not there.

For more social conservative news check out