Although I live in the United States, I am Canadian and look towards finding myself again north of the 45th Parallel. One feature of Canada about which I am not so proud ? and I understand this is a sensitive topic ? is that in Canada no legal restrictions on abortion exist. Abortion was decriminalized in 1969 and criterion was established to guide the act. The criterion was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1988, and when the governing party introduced abortion-related legislation, it failed to pass. The result was a country with no laws governing the subject. While no legal restrictions on abortion exist, I think poverty or geography, for example, do presently act as practical restrictions in certain circumstances.
In recent years, various parliamentarians have made proposals interpreted by opponents of legal abortion as attempts to diminish the freedom of women. For example, in 2010, ?Roxanne?s Law? sought to legally ensure pregnant women the right to continue pregnancy free of coercion. Critics of the proposed legislation ? hardly enthusiasts for coercion ?? rather saw an attempt being made to introduce fetal rights indirectly. Roxanne?s Law was soundly defeated (178 parliamentarians voted against it and 97 in favour). More recently, under Motion-312, one parliamentarian sought the creation of a special committee to review a part of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes human at the moment of complete birth. That motion also was soundly defeated (by 112 votes).
I offer no opinion on the worth of these proposals as stated in their rejected wording, nor do I think there is one Catholic response to either the proposed legislation or motion. As easily as one could vote in favour of, for example, Roxanne?s Law (on account of his or her identified opposition to coercion), another, I think, could have voted against such legislation (on account of his or her view that coercion is already covered under the Criminal Code, and thus renders the proposed redundant).
My issue, I suppose, lies elsewhere. I think of one particular parliamentarian who, at present, is the Official Opposition?s critic to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. This is a parliamentarian whose passion for (and dedication towards) her constituents has my admiration. However, this parliamentarian, who comes from the northern part of my own province, adopts a language I find foreign when it comes to the subject of abortion. In Parliament, on 13 December 2010, she prefaced her opposition to Roxanne?s Law with her surprise that opposition could still exist on the matter of a woman?s right to choose, and recently, in reference to M-312, she posted on Facebook her opposition to this ?back-door attempt to roll back women?s rights.?
If I were able to hold this parliamentarian in conversation, I would ask her why there is room for public debate on whether legal abortion should experience any restriction? I would ask in all honesty, curious to know how an advocate for the permissibility of legal abortion would answer.
Before I was doing what I am doing now, I worked with students who had special needs. Part of the reason someone like myself feels discomfort at seeing a pregnant woman smoking or drinking heavily is because I know there are students whose disabilities, in some cases, result from the choices made by parents. I have never felt ? nor has anyone suggested ? that this discomfort, even if manifested in my discouraging of those pregnant from drinking heavily or smoking,?is belittling. I share the confusion of Archbishop Rowan Williams when he observes that ?the pregnant woman who smokes or drinks heavily is widely regarded as guilty of infringing the rights of her unborn child; yet at the same time, with no apparent sense of incongruity, there is discussion of the possibility of the liberty of the pregnant woman herself to perform the actions that will terminate a pregnancy.?
When the Vice President of the United States describes Roe v. Wade as discriminating between, for example, the first three months (wherein the fate of the fetus is best left to she who is pregnant) and the time between the sixth to ninth month (wherein ?the weight of the government?s input is on the fetus being carried?), does his reading of Roe v. Wade warrant the charge that Roe v. Wade represents a less than ideal expression of freedom for women?
I am genuinely curious. Choice, I would think, is not absolute. Right?
K.
From the Canadian province of Manitoba, I also write at my blog?Musings. I welcome your interaction with this particular post and offer ?How to Get My Comment Approved? for your consideration.
Source: http://vox-nova.com/2012/10/05/the-non-absolute-nature-of-choice/
chanukah chanukah david archuleta david archuleta hobbit trailer greenhill nj plane crash
No comments:
Post a Comment