Abortion !

Not in my Criminal Code

Abortion should be kept out of the Criminal Code
Abortion, termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of indepe
ndent life.
When the expulsion from the womb occurs after the fetus becomes viable (capable
of
independent life), usually at the end of six months of pregnancy, it is technica
lly a
premature birth.
The practice of abortion was widespread in ancient times as a method of birth co
ntrol.
Later it was restricted or forbidden by most world religions, but it was not con
sidered an
offense in secular law until the 19th century. During that century, first the En
glish
Parliament and then American state legislatures prohibited induced abortion to p
rotect
women from surgical procedures that were at the time unsafe, commonly stipulatin
g a
threat to the woman's life as the sole ("therapeutic") exception to the prohibit
ion.
Occasionally the exception was enlarged to include danger to the mother's health
as well.
Legislative action in the 20th century has been aimed at permitting the
termination
of unwanted pregnancies for medical, social, or private reasons. Abortions at th
e woman's
request were first allowed by the Soviet Union in 1920, followed by Japan and se
veral
East European nations after World War II. In the late 1960s liberalized abortion
regulations became widespread. The impetus for the change was threefold: (1) inf
anticide
and the high maternal death rate associated with illegal abortions, (2) a rapidl
y expanding
world population, (3) the growing feminist movement. By 1980, countries where
abortions were permitted only to save a woman's life contained about 20 percent
of the
world's population. Countries with moderately restrictive laws-abortions permitt
ed to
protect a woman's health, to end pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, to a
void
genetic or congenital defects, or in response to social problems such as unmarri
ed status
or inadequate income-contained some 40 percent of the world's population. Aborti
ons at
the woman's request, usually with limits based on physical conditions such as du
ration of
pregnancy, were allowed in countries with nearly 40 percent of the world's popul
ation.1
Under the Criminal Code. R.S.C. !970, c.C-34, abortion constitutes a cr
iminal
offense. Section 159(2)(c) makes it an offense to offer or have for sale or dis
posal, to

publish or advertise means, instructions or medicine intended or represented to

cause
abortion or miscarriage. Section 221(1) makes the act of causing death to a chi
ld who has
not become a human being, in the act of birth, equivalent to murder. Abortion c
onstitutes
an indictable offense under s. 251 of the Code whenever a person uses any means
to carry
out the intent to procure a miscarriage of female person, whether she is pregnan
t or not.
Section 251(2) makes any female attempting to procure a miscarriage by any means
guilty
of an indictable offense. Section 251(4) allows permission for a therapeutic ab
ortion to be
obtained from a competent committee, fulfilling strict regulations, with the ope
ration
performed by a qualified physician. However, the common-law defense of necessit
y is
theoretically available for a surgical operation performed for the patient's ben
efit. 2
Until 1988, under the Canadian Criminal Code, an attempt to induce an a
bortion
by any means was a crime. The maximum penalty was life imprisonment , or two ye
ars if
the woman herself was convicted. The law was liberalized in 1969 with an amendm
ent to
the Criminal Code allowing that abortions are legal if performed by a doctor i
n an
accredited hospital after a committee certified that the continuation of the pre
gnancy
would likely endanger the mother's life or heath. In 1989, 70 779 abortions wer
e reported
in Canada, or 18.0 abortions per 100 live births. 3
Henry Morgentaler is a major abortion supporter. Dr. Morgentaler was on
e of the
first Canadian doctors to perform vasectomies, insert IUDs and provide contracep
tive pills
to the unmarried. As president of the Montreal Humanist Fellowship he urged the
Commons Health and Welfare Committee in 1967 to repeal the law against abortion.
To
draw attention to the safety and efficacy of clinical abortions, Morgentaler in
1973
publicized the fact that he had successfully carried out over 5000 abortions. Wh
en a Jury
found him not guilty of violating article 251 of the Criminal Code the Quebec Co
urt of
Appeal (in Feb 1974), in an unprecedented action, Quashed the jury finding and o
rdered
Morgentaler imprisoned. Though this ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court a se
cond
jury acquittal led Ron Basford, minister of justice, to have a Criminal Code ame
ndment
passed, taking away the power of appellate judges to strike down acquittals and
order
imprisonment's. After a third jury trial led to yet another acquittal all furth
er charges were
dropped. In Nov 1984 Morgentaler and 2 associates were acquitted of conspiring

to
procure a miscarriage at their Toronto clinic. The Ontario government appealed
the
acquittal; the accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which struck dow
n the
law in early 1988 on the basis that it conflicted with rights guaranteed in the
Charter. 4
The Charter guaranteed a woman's right to the security of her person.
The Court
also found that this right was breached by the delays resulting from the therape
utic
abortion committee procedures. In May 1990 the House of Commons approved (140131) a new law that would put abortion back into the Criminal Code, allowing abo
rtions
only if a doctor determined that a woman's health was threatened by her pregnanc
y. The
bill died in the Senate in Jan 1991. 5
In the case of Campbell v. Attorney-General of Ontario (1987) the allega
tions in
the statement of claim that the effect of the stay was to deny s.7 and s,15 righ
ts to unborn
children aborted or about to be aborted support a reasonable cause of action. T
he law
does not regard unborn children as independent legal entities prior to birth, so
that it is
only at birth that independent legal rights attach. Unborn children therefore d
o not enjoy
any Charter rights. 6
The problem with s.251 is that it takes the decision away from the woman
at all
stages of her pregnancy. Balancing the state's interest in a protection of the
fetus as
potential life under s.1 against the rights of the pregnant woman under this sec
tion
requires that greater weight be given to the state's interest only in the later
stages of
pregnancy. 7
Abortion is a divisive social issue, condemned by some groups and suppo
rted by
others as a moral issue to be decided by individuals, not the state. 8 It is co
mplicated for
the government to balance both sides of the issue. Not everyone can be uncondit
ionally
content. The government has to decide on what is fair and what is morally right
. The
Charter guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the
right not to
be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental just
ice. A
woman, pregnant or not, has the right to control her own life and destiny. She
also has
the right to make her own choices about what affects her. A woman has the right
to feel
secure in having an abortion, and feel secure about her own health. A woman's b
ody is
her own. What she does with it is her own business. An unborn child does not h

ave the
ability to think for itself, so the mother must think for it. It may show life
signs but it is
not conscious and has no reasoning. It is not up to someone else to decide what
is right
and what is wrong for another individual. Who are we to tell someone else what
to do or
think.
For an example, if a teenage girl is pregnant, what kind of a life could
she offer the
child? Teenagers can barely take care of themselves, not to mention a baby. It
would
benefit everyone involved if the abortion option is openly present. It is hard
enough to be
a teenager without others judging your opinions and choices.
It is understandable that people do not agree that abortion should be a
choice for a
woman. They may not understand what the woman may be struggling with mentally a
nd
or physically. The government should have little control over this issue. They
should
monitor people to make certain that abortion is not used as a contraception, for
this may
be endangering the health of a woman. With world overpopulation, keeping the ab
ortion
law out of the Criminal Code may benefit the entire planet. It's a sad way of l
ooking at it
but people have to face reality.
PERSONAL THOUGHT
People who protest against abortion have nothing better to do. They pro
test only
when their favorite talk show is not on the mind controller they call television
. If this
statement is going to cost me any marks, please disregard. THANK YOU!