Ditch Doc

I’ve never understood why the heroes of sexual licence are so blind to its essential tendency to suicide. Ideas are passed on in the home. Contraception, abortion and homosexual acts drastically limit the number of children raised in homes where these things are accepted. Stable, sexually continent couples have more children every year, and then their children have more children. Arithmetic has no moral concerns, and condemns the hedonistic view without pausing to consider its truth or falsehood. Its champions should not abandon it for this reason, but they should stop writing paeans to the new world order and study the age-old art of the lament for a doomed glory. They sing like Romans marching through the gates of Carthage, the defenders either in hiding or already atop the pyre. But were they only to look up, they would recognize those walls for the cliffs of Thermopylae, and the men before them for the band of Leonidas. In a thousand years, they will be remembered not as the conquering army of Scipio, but the routed horde of Xerxes, who dared to flog the Hellespont.

This letter of mine to the National Post will make sense chiefly to those who have been following the recent dust-up over the dealings of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Those who haven’t may find it an interesting topic to dip into.

Well, not really. But at least I’ve been published in a real live magazine. See what you think.

I was taking the bus downtown today when we came up on a funeral procession going the other way. No one else on the road seemed to notice, but our driver pulled over and waited until the last car had passed. Requiescat in Pace.

“And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.” Luke 16:8

Because the war against the culture of death must not resort to violence, we sometimes forget this basic fact of conflict: if we want to be good soldiers, we have to be willing to be casualties. If all the Christian doctors enter radiology and pathology, we might not get fired for defending the dignity of human life, but we won’t save many children either. If Henry Morgentaler was man enough to go to prison to make abortion available, and we’re too soft to put ourselves in harm’s way to end it, where does that put us in the eyes of God?

Today we learned that pregnancy is a great treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, but that children are a nasty negative side effect. (Oh, yes: and a parasitic growth, too.)

So there’s this idea that if you admit to being religious, you won’t get into med school. I don’t think I’m the only one who’s ever had this idea, but I have recently had the pleasure of having it entirely disproven. God not only came up, but was a major discussion point in my interviews with two of the three schools that offered me spots. One board even got me going for several minutes on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Tell you what to avoid though: there was only one interview that covered abortion. And there was only one school that turned me down outright after the interview.

So what definition was used? None at all. I haven’t read the whole 185 page decision, but it seems that of five judges ruling to grant the appeal, four decided not to consider the child’s humanity or lack thereof, and one didn’t even mention the question. I must admit that I’m new at reading these things, but it seems that each judge’s opinion is listed under his name. Here goes:

Per Wilson J.:

…The question whether a foetus is covered by the word “everyone” in s. 7 so as to have an independent right to life under that section was not dealt with.

Per Beetz and Estey JJ.:

… Given the conclusion that s. 251 contains rules unnecessary to the protection of the foetus, the question as to whether a foetus is included in the word “everyone” in s. 7, so as to have a right to “life, liberty and security of the person” under the Charter, need not be decided. …

The judgment of Dickson C.J. and Lamer J. was delivered by

R. v. MORGENTALER The Chief Justice

THE CHIEF JUSTICE –

… In my view, it is unnecessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal to evaluate or assess “foetal rights” as an independent constitutional value…

…State protection of foetal interests may well be deserving of constitutional recognition under s. 1. Still, there can be no escape from the fact that Parliament has failed to establish either a standard or a procedure whereby any such interests might prevail over those of the woman in a fair and non-arbitrary fashion…

Come up with your own snappy conclusion, if you can.

OK, answered my own question. Apparently, it was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30. The Court ruled 5 to 2 that section 251 of the Criminal Code was an infringement of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states:

7. Everyone has 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 justice.

I am an infant in such matters. I don’t know if any of the justices relied on the Criminal Code’s definition of human beings in order to exempt certain children (the Code’s word, not mine) from section 7 of the Charter.

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.