Time for a new abortion law.

Toronto -- On March 27, 2006, a welcome column by Jonathan Kay appeared in the National Post. Headed "Canada needs an abortion law," it joined the chorus of those pointing out that Canada is not behaving as an enlightened middle-of-the-road country when it comes to abortion. Our position is unique and extreme; since 1988, Canada has had no abortion law--"a shameful status that distinguishes us from every other nation in the free world."

Prime Minister Jean Chretien, in his last election campaign, prided himself on the fact that abortion was no longer an issue in Canada, as it was in the United States. By the lights of Canadian federal law it is perfectly legal to kill an unborn child at 10, 27, or 37 weeks. Yet few Canadians believe that a woman should have a right to abort her preborn baby for any reason whatsoever at any point during gestation. A radical minority has not only imposed its agenda on our federal government, but has also convinced each of our four main political parties that any attempts to modify the status quo will be a marker of "religious fundamentalism."

We may yet feel the influence of American developments. On March 6, Kay points out, Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota signed into law a blanket abortion prohibition--the first such ban to be legislated since the American Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973. This law will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional, but at the same time the anti-Roe forces on the Supreme Court are only one vote shy of a majority and this curious law--for which no one has ever provided a rational justification--may itself disappear.

We do not need to meekly follow the American example; there are other countries. In Britain, abortion on demand is available only until the twenty-fourh week. In ultra-liberal Sweden, women must seek permission to have an abortion after the eighteenth week. In Germany, it is available only in the first 12 weeks, and even then the mother is required to undergo counselling. In all civilized countries except ours, the question of the limits to abortion is a live issue.

Voters recognize that some restrictions are a moral necessity. Liberated from the taboos imposed on us by pro-choice activists and timid politicians, Canada could create a law which would accord with the nation's collective moral sense.

"Where would a real debate on abortion lead us?" Mr. Kay asks. At the very least, he replies, to the recognition that abortion is an evil to be avoided, not something on a par with a root canal or a cataract removal. It would also lead us to recognize that the state has an interest in maintaining viable human life.

Some Britons would dispute this. Department of Health data released on July 27 show that 185,400 abortions were performed in England and Wales in 2004, an increase of 2.1% from a year earlier. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service claims that the report indicates that British women increasingly see abortion as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. When contraception fails, they want to use abortion to get back in control of their lives. "We should stop seeing abortion as a problem and start seeing it as a legitimate and sensible solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy," said Ann Furedi, the service's chief executive.

On the other hand, Dr. Paul Ranalli of Toronto had a letter in the Post on March 28 referring to Mr. Kay's proposal, and saying that it was long overdue. "While abortion advocates often cry that any such proposal will 'turn back the clock' on abortion rights, a law that addresses the competing rights of the fetus would, in fact, turn the scientific clock forward. The complete absence of legal protection of the fetus derives from the English common-law recognition of personhood as requiring one to be 'born alive.' The English leader at the time of this law's inception was Henry IV."

Comment

Mr. Kay makes two mistakes relating to rights. First, he claims that "the practice of aborting a non-sentient fetus in the early months of gestation is now tolerated, if not condoned, by a vast majority of Canadians. No government, Conservative or Liberal, will ever take that right away." But the right does not exist.

When the Morgentaler ruling was handed down in January 1988, the decision was not based on a woman's rights, but on a procedural matter: it was contended that the system of Therapeutic Abortion Committees caused undue delay to pregnant women, and might even put them at risk of death. This was only an inference, since no statement by a woman or a physician was introduced. But whereas the Supreme Court's ruling said nothing about a woman's rights, it declared that the protection of the fetus was a legitimate legislative option. So a law to protect the fetus could be passed by Parliament.

The second suggestion by Mr. Kay, that abortions in the early stages of pregnancy, "perhaps until the fifth month," should be permitted ignores what Dr. Ranalli implies--that we now know a great deal more about the life of the unborn child than was known in the fifteenth century. At no stage of its existence is it something less than human.

Over against Ms. Fureda's contention that British women take abortion for granted as an answer to contraceptive failure, LifeSiteNews.com reported February 1 that many women in the U.K. want to see legal protection for unborn children. Almost 60% of women in a poll conducted by Ipsos M0ORI want to see greater restrictions on access to abortion. 47 percent want to see the current limit of 24 weeks reduced, while ten percent want to see abortion banned "under any circumstances."

Advances in ultrasound technology have had an impact; they allow a clear view of the child in the womb, and show images of unborn children smiling and frowning at 24 weeks.