Discussing social issues can be an emotional minefield, but that doesn’t mean debate on these issues shouldn’t take place.
Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth took heat in some quarters for bringing forth a private member’s bill that would see a 12-person committee struck to examine the legal definition for when life begins, a bill that he did not deny goes hand-in-hand with the question of abortion. The motion was defeated last Wednesday, but the questions raised by this bill do not simply disappear with that vote.
The current Criminal Code definition defines life as beginning only when the infant is born. Ninety-one MPs, who voted for the motion, seem to believe this is a definition that needs to be revisited.
Cabinet minister Rona Ambrose, in particular, took a public beating for her ‘yes’ vote for this motion. Some of those defining themselves as pro-choice castigated Ambrose, with a petition circulated at www.change.org and a Facebook group spawned as a result, both calling for her resignation as minister for the Status of Women. The petition states, in part, “Canadian women deserve a representative who knows women are more than their biological abilities; that those abilities should never be regulated by the government; and the only person capable of defining a woman's future is that woman. You are not that representative.”
Ambrose, for her part, has said that she has long been worried about discrimination against females through “sex selection abortion”, which perhaps partly explains why she voted as she did. Either way, it is ironic that women who would define themselves as pro-choice would tear down a fellow female for making what they see as the wrong choice.
Reopening the debate on when life begins is not inherently sexist nor should it necessarily open the door to criminalizing abortion, full-stop. Canada is a rare case amongst progressive or developed countries, in that it allows abortions but places no legal restrictions on the practice.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s direction on allowing MPs a free vote on matters of conscience is absolutely fair, right and proper – it allows members to voice their personal opinions and represent their constituents, which is their job. Differences in opinion or voting amid the Conservative caucus were painted in some reports as evidence of a rift or division in the ranks, but really, dissent and debate are integral to the democratic process.
For now, that debate may be closed, but Woodworth’s bill has at least breathed ‘new life’ into a vitally important question that deserves some clarification. Canadians, in general, may not be in favour of reopening the abortion debate but should consider what it means that there are no legal restrictions on the practice and if such murky waters makes sense.
