The Burning Question
Just thought you might be interested in the following exerpts from the Criminal Code of Canada. If you haven’t read this before, it’ll blow your mind. To consider while reading: How does the medical establishment get away with it? Under “Killing a 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.
The explanation of how a foetus can be a child without being a human being is a paragraph before, under, fittingly enough, “When child becomes human being”:
(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.
Here’s the next one. I thought I must have been reading a much earlier version of the Code, but this one was current on February 15th. Do read the whole thing. The punchline’s at the end.
Procuring miscarriage
287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Woman procuring her own miscarriage(2) Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.Definition of “means”(3) In this section, “means” includes(a) the administration of a drug or other noxious thing;
(b) the use of an instrument; and
(c) manipulation of any kind.
Exceptions(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to(a) a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person, or
(b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage,
if, before the use of those means, the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited or approved hospital, by a majority of the members of the committee and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of the female person has been reviewed,
(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and
(d) has caused a copy of that certificate to be given to the qualified medical practitioner.
If anyone can give me a legal explanation of how the Canadian medical establishment gets by in a state of complete disregard for the Criminal Code, I’d love to hear it.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:52 am
i think the key part is that the pregnancy is for some reason endangering the life of the mother. which is sort of a personal question: would you die for your unborn child (who might not have a quality of life of its own either due to deformity or the fact that its mother died during childbirth) or wouldn’t you?
it would tear me apart but i don’t think i would.
also, what’s great difference between what animals and humans in the fashion that everyone when it comes down to it requires some notion of self-preservation?
and another thing about the criminal code (legal) and medical practice (health): human health supercedes legalities, if you ask me. i’d give a junkie health care because they’re a person, not withhold it because they’re breaking the law.
hi ben, by the way, it’s been a while, no? i’m still arguing my point as a friend. i found the letter you wrote me a bit ago, and it brought back memories and a few gushy tears to mine eyes.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hi Tina,
Sorry, didn’t notice your comment until I’d written the next two posts. One thing I must point out is the difference between the junkie and the mother: the junkie’s present lack of health can be dealt with in complete abstraction from how he got there. He broke the law before entering the hospital. In the case above though, we’re talking about mothers asking doctors to help them in the very act of breaking the law. This is of course a moot point, as the law has been struck down, but the distinction comes up over and over again in a lot of other contexts, so I think it’s worth clarifying. Anyway, talk to you soon, and thanks for writing. Has been a while, hasn’t it?