Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canadian Medical Association: babies not human until after birth
Life Site News ^ | August 16, 2012 | PETER BAKLINSKI

Posted on 08/16/2012 1:46:29 PM PDT by NYer

OTTAWA, 16 August, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The largest association of doctors in Canada, in an attempt to stonewall a looming abortion debate from being unleashed, voted yesterday to support the wording of the country’s Criminal Code which states that a baby becomes a “human being” only after being born.

Pro-life doctors and leaders have condemned the move as ‘shameful’, ‘unethical’, and ‘defying parody’.

Delegates to the Canadian Medical Association’s annual general council voted on the motion so as to prevent what they called a “backdoor” attempt to reopen the abortion debate. They voted to pass, says a CMA report on the meeting, “a resolution supporting the current wording of the Criminal Code which states that 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…’”

Canadian Physicians for Life condemned the CMA’s move, saying that “every Canadian doctor knows that the unborn child is a live human being.”

Dr. Will Johnston, president of Canadian Physicians for Life in a statement emailed to LifeSiteNews pointed out the hypocrisy of the Canadian Medical Association which has a long-established policy of supporting the killing of human life through abortion.

“CMA delegates worry about children not exercizing enough or not wearing bicycle helmets, while over one hundred thousand children go missing from our playgrounds every year because they were killed by abortion.”

“The mismatch between this problem and yesterday’s conversation from the CMA annual general meeting defies parody,” he said.

Dr. John Shea, MD FRCP(C), told LifeSiteNews from his home in Toronto that the delegates to the CMA meeting should be “ashamed of themselves for failing to recognize when human life begins”.

“The biological fact is what counts here, which is when the ovum and the sperm unite, a single-celled human organism is formed. Period. This organism is a human being, a person at the single-cell stage. From that point in time he or she has rights. Anybody who denies that fact is denying biological reality; they are lying.”

Conservative Member of Parliament Steve Woodworth filed a motion in the House of Commons last February to establish a special committee to consider when human life begins. He called for Parliament to re-examine section 223 of the Code, a 400-year-old provision inherited from British common law, that stipulates a child only becomes a “human being” “when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother”.

“Section 223 is, purely and simply, a law that says some human beings are not human beings,” said Woodworth at that time.

Dr. Johnston called Section 223 of the code “our profession’s biggest shame and biggest headache. It is a disastrous public policy which does far more harm than good.”

Pro-life groups across the country rejoiced in Woodworth’s motion, hoping that it might provide a foundation to offer protection to unborn children in the womb.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to vote against the motion when it comes up, calling it “unfortunate” that the motion was deemed votable by an all-party committee of the House. Woodworth’s motion has been postponed till the fall.

Jim Hughes, president of Campaign Life Coalition, told LifeSiteNews that CMA’s motion “just shows the sorry state of the leaders of the CMA who have drifted so far from the oath of Hippocrates.”

The Hippocratic Oath, originating in 5th century BC, was until recently sworn by those who practiced the healing arts so that they would do so ethically and honestly. At one point in the oath, doctors swear that they will not give a woman medicaments to “cause an abortion.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; babykillers; bloodontheirhands; bloodontheirheads; canada; life; murderers

1 posted on 08/16/2012 1:46:37 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah

Ping!


2 posted on 08/16/2012 1:47:30 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Let me guess. These are teh same type of criminals who will be on the panels rationing healthcare to seniors, right?


3 posted on 08/16/2012 1:49:59 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The left has real problems with reality!


4 posted on 08/16/2012 1:50:34 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz

So... what are they, if not human?

Yes, you’re right, the left has problems with reality because they reject the Source of Truth. They even reject the idea that there IS a Source of Truth.


5 posted on 08/16/2012 1:52:18 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

say what?????

Then explain to me why my new granddaughter-to-be kicks her feet and sucks her thumb and gets hiccups about 10 minutes after my daughter in law eats? Our sweet treasure will greet the world in early October, and we ALL consider her “human” and know she is a gift from Go & we haven’t even held her yet!

I think the intense cold winter and too many beer and/or smacks from hockey sticks/pucks has damaged these scientists’ brains...eh?


6 posted on 08/16/2012 1:52:39 PM PDT by sassy steel magnolia (USAF life and Navy wife...God Bless the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Liberals love them some dead babies.


7 posted on 08/16/2012 1:55:04 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So... if a toe of the “fetus” is still in the birth canal, can it be killed without moral implication?

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/notansweringboxersantorum.html


8 posted on 08/16/2012 1:55:18 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

Liberals love them some “others paying for the consequences of my choices”.


9 posted on 08/16/2012 1:57:41 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Sweet, I’m gonna go out and smash some eagle and tortoise eggs


10 posted on 08/16/2012 2:01:44 PM PDT by dsrtsage (One half of all people have below average IQ. In the US the number is 54%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They are lying and they know they are lying.

Since it is such an important and humane issue, they are about as sorry as it is possible to get.


11 posted on 08/16/2012 2:03:05 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’ll bet that a bunch, if not all of these scum would accept scientific evidence that finding a single living cell on another planet was proof of “life” on that planet.

But they won’t consider a fetus in the womb life.

These people are beyond sick in the head.


12 posted on 08/16/2012 2:03:44 PM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Interesting historical note. I had not previously realized Nazism was over 400 years old and invented in Parliament in London.

Simply amazing.

13 posted on 08/16/2012 2:07:17 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So I wonder, what is the difference between killing a pre-born baby and killing a premature baby? Supposedly one is human and the other one is not? Are these people even from the same planet as the rest of us?


14 posted on 08/16/2012 2:08:02 PM PDT by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sassy steel magnolia

Maybe not quite enough smacks ~ but certainly that could be arranged that being Canada and all.


15 posted on 08/16/2012 2:09:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So, if they didn’t go through with the abortion, they think the mother might give birth to a camel or a goat? Not very scientific, those Canadian doctors.


16 posted on 08/16/2012 2:12:36 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They will never understand that a human is created at the very moment of conception and any termination of that life prior to birth is murder.


17 posted on 08/16/2012 2:12:53 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB; maryz
They even reject the idea that there IS a Source of Truth.

Of course, the liberals believe there is a Source of Truth.

The Truth is whatever they happen to believe.

At the moment.

18 posted on 08/16/2012 2:15:25 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
In the US we know they are human before birth but Constitutional rights are conferred at birth. A damn shame. Speaking as a former fetus of course.
19 posted on 08/16/2012 2:15:46 PM PDT by Mikey_1962 (Obama: The Affirmative Action President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

I love that argument out of them as well -
so, you’re just bits of specially arranged stardust telling me, another set of bits of specially arranged stardust,

that you’re “right” and I’m “wrong”...

Is that correct?

It’s kinda fun, until they hit you... :)


20 posted on 08/16/2012 2:24:38 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer
babies not human until after birth

And for a few years between 13 and 17 or so.

21 posted on 08/16/2012 2:25:39 PM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtg
So I wonder, what is the difference between killing a pre-born baby and killing a premature baby?

Was immediately my thought, too. My youngest was born at 28 weeks and less than two pounds. He was completely dependent upon his incubator to keep him alive. What is the difference between the artificial and natural incubators?

22 posted on 08/16/2012 2:27:10 PM PDT by tnlibertarian (Government's solution to everything: Less freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dsrtsage
Sweet, I’m gonna go out and smash some eagle and tortoise eggs

I like your out-of-the-box thinking. This argument might resonate with some people that don't even value the blood of their own kind.

23 posted on 08/16/2012 2:30:05 PM PDT by Rinnwald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Clingon.


24 posted on 08/16/2012 2:32:13 PM PDT by shankbear (If this mandate can stand, what will be next? Forced to buy certain cars, clothes, food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sassy steel magnolia

“... we haven’t even held her yet”.

You held her in your heart... congratulations!


25 posted on 08/16/2012 2:32:58 PM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

As a former Canukistani, this is what they taught us in school..

Americans are idiots, we are different than Americans, and abortion is acceptable.


26 posted on 08/16/2012 2:36:40 PM PDT by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
So... what are they, if not human?

Left alone, there's a 50/50 chance it'll come out a fruit bat.
27 posted on 08/16/2012 2:42:31 PM PDT by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Hmmm.... Are Canadians actually human ?


28 posted on 08/16/2012 2:45:40 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Does anybody really know what time it is ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If babies are not human until after birth, then liberals are not human either, even after birth.


29 posted on 08/16/2012 2:47:50 PM PDT by OB1kNOb (Vote for Paul Ryan 2012...... oh, and that other guy running on his ticket that's not Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“The biological fact is what counts here, which is when the ovum and the sperm unite, a single-celled human organism is formed. Period. This organism is a human being, a person at the single-cell stage. From that point in time he or she has rights. Anybody who denies that fact is denying biological reality; they are lying.”

This is scientifically the only possible, logical and consistent description possible. The debate needs to focus on the value of human life. If we can terminate a fetus for being “inconvenient”, why not a troublesome child or unproductive elder? That said, the uniquely close relationship between mother and child must consider the ethics of a situation where the mother will die if she continues her pregnancy or where the child will not survive regardless of treatment. Personally, I would allow the mother her decision but would permit an abortion. Such situations are quite rare.


30 posted on 08/16/2012 2:51:00 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

When do we cease being human?

Don’t worry about it. We’ll let you know.
The Canuck Medical Ass’n


31 posted on 08/16/2012 2:57:23 PM PDT by tumblindice (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

No one who was ever pregnant would think this. When I was with child, (oh, here goes Sportutegirl on one of her tangents again) I would bawl my eyes out at Savage Garden on the radio, “I knew I loved you before I met you”. I would sing it nonstop to my baby. She probably learned the words in utero.


32 posted on 08/16/2012 3:01:00 PM PDT by sportutegrl (Of course, when I was pregnant, I would cry if the toast got burnt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz

The “Western” left is a product of prosperity, freedom and security.

They take it all for granted and have a twisted world view.


33 posted on 08/16/2012 3:09:43 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

God Almighty : Canadian Medical Association condemned to hell.


34 posted on 08/16/2012 3:47:37 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
It’s kinda fun, until they hit you... :)

I usually have these arguments with my sis, the social worker.

She wouldn't dare hit me.

At least, she hasn't yet...

35 posted on 08/16/2012 4:02:32 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OB1kNOb

We may not be human in your world but at least we did not elect an asshat like Obama to run our country like you geniuses did. By the way who is really responsible for Roe vs Wade...some dumb Canuck I suppose.


36 posted on 08/16/2012 4:02:51 PM PDT by albertabound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
When do we cease being human?

You have begun to look into the future. Here we have human life proclaimed by committee...not science...not theological,....not philosophical. If they had to arrive at this decision by science they would fail. Likewise if they tried to arive at dehumanization by theology, or philosophy they would fail. But they define the parameters and they are guided by physicalism and metaphysical naturalism. It is a very tiny step for that same committtee to remove the status of human life from teenagers, 20 year olds, 30 year olds, etc. Your worthiness will be determined by a self affirming committee who find the voiceless of no more worth than a dog. In fact those same committeemen would kill a human before killing a dog. The next thing they will proclaim is a more specific list of critera of 'values' which configure to define hamanness. This is eugenics-in-evolution. We have seen it before. People need to learn a little about how to argue for their very lives. Hell awaits their decisions.

37 posted on 08/16/2012 4:27:53 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mtg

If it’s not human, then we should not charge people for two homicides for killing a pregnant woman either. There is no way to reconcile a pro-abortion position with reality and any form of morality without throwing logical consistency out the window. It is always an emotional choice to make that decision, and then they try to reverse engineer a justification for their position through rationalizations instead of reason.


38 posted on 08/16/2012 4:59:31 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rastus

That’s a great example of an argument through ridicule.

“So, since you deny that the ‘fetus’ is a human, are you trying to tell me that, if left alone, you believe it just MIGHT become something else, say, a fruit bat?”


39 posted on 08/17/2012 5:16:53 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Canadian Medical Association: babies not human until after birth

Blatantly political and having nothing to do with biology. From the moment of conception, there is a genetically unique individual that will, unless otherwise interfered with by disease, trauma, or design, proceed through a series of definable stages that end in senescence and death. Regardless of whatever happens to it along the way (even becoming liberal), that being is continuously of a single nature. The CMA is trying to treat fundamental being as a stage of development or circumstance of being. This is simply insane and is designed for the purpose of allowing people a justification for killing their unborn without feeling guilty. That is, they have to find ways of making the act seem other than it actually is.

The various ways of making it seem other than or not as bad as it is are to redefine, reinterpret, redirect, and refuse.

Redefine. Call it something else. Use other words that are foreign or neutral or technical. Let’s not refer to it as an unborn baby, let’s refer to it as a “fetus” (meaning ‘baby’ in Latin) or a “product of conception” or a “mass of tissue” like a tumor or just ignore it completely and just focus on the process, the “pregnancy.” So you’re not “killing your unborn baby,” but removing “the products of conception” or “terminating the pregnancy” or just doing some body sculpting.

Reinterpret. And since some people who believe killing a newborn is murder could be persuaded that a matter of weeks on the other side of the birth canal doesn’t make much difference, it’s helpful to reinterpret things so that the “murder” label doesn’t even make sense any more. If a being isn’t a person, killing it isn’t murder. The object, then, is to think of all the ways it could be considered something other than human. Some of the following appear more lame than others. But that depends on the degree to which they seem to fail to overcome your objection to calling it other than human:
But they forget that for many people in society, “meat is murder.” And the unborn child is at least meat, so isn’t that murder? Well, no, they would argue, because we don’t eat the products of human conception and, besides, it wasn’t born yet. But don’t animal rights people claim that killing the unborn calf for food (the true veal) is tantamount to murder and animal rights activists call it murder even though they don’t want to eat it? So if it’s a moral outrage to kill an unborn calf as a food choice it’s not a moral outrage to kill an unborn human as a “reproductive choice”? This interface between “reproductive rights” and “food rights” is something that is not extensively discussed, probably because doing so would result in the exact opposite of what is desired: a way of redefining and reinterpreting the problem into something tolerable.

Redirect. Another way to soften the image of abortion is to refer to it as a “medical procedure” and a “right of privacy” and “reproductive freedom.” And they can go farther, not even referring to the pregnancy at all, but to their “body” as in “our bodies, our selves” and claim that no one has a right to tell them what they can do with their own bodies. This redirects attention from the one getting aborted right past the specifics of the particular abortion and onto external and generally revered societal themes such as science and medical technology, rights, and personal autonomy. Given the long-standing emphasis on the wonders of medical science in Western society, this practice can, at least, appropriate to itself a little of the mojo of medical science. Hey, it’s just a medical procedure that is done by doctors and doctors are like gods, so it can’t really be that bad, right? Sure, just as long as you don’t think of other doctors like Mengele in Nazi Germany carrying out all sorts of medical experiments they claimed necessary for the advancement of the master race on the bodies of those who were termed useless mouths, the dead weight of human debris. At least they were benefiting society, right, even though they don’t deserve to live in it, being by their very nature dangerous to society’s welfare and justly targeted for elimination. And given the emphasis in our society of rights and liberty and personal autonomy, the appeal to “right of privacy” and “reproductive freedom” helps to blunt others’ criticism of the act and redirects the attention away from the abortion and onto them, making them appear to be intrusive into something that is just “the decision between a woman and her doctor” or wanting her to be enslaved by her pregnancy by those who themselves are too selfish to step up to the plate to offer her any help. Never mind that a decision between a woman and her doctor to knock off an abusive husband wouldn’t be called “privacy” but “premeditated murder.”

Refuse. Refuse to acknowledge that your chosen course of action could have any possible consequence other than the one you imagine for it. Since you are in complete control, because it is your choice alone, there is no one more able to determine what is better for you than you. You are the captain of your ship. You are the master of your fate. This, of course, has long been the method of the so-called eugenicists (another euphemism) who try to retrofit society into their idea of paradise by getting rid of what they term undesirable elements, dead human waste, useless mouths, mental, physical, psychological, and even political defectives. To do this they have proposed voluntary and involuntary sterilization, mechanical or chemical birth control, elective and forced abortion, infanticide, or when other methods are too slow or when the need is too urgent, even genocide. Keeping this in mind, you’ve got to wonder what’s going on when the majority of abortions in the United States come from the two largest minority groups, black and Hispanic, and the majority of abortions are carried out by Planned Parenthood, founded by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger to help rid the country of “undesirable races.” To ensure the desired future, the ones in control, the ones who know better, have to make the hard choices for rest. It’s a noble and lonely destiny and there are always those who will criticize them for making the tough choices that in the end will benefit everyone.

So when people try to sell you something that isn’t to your benefit, they always try to describe it in terms that make it seem more desirable than it is. And when people try to do something they sense is wrong but still desire to do, they always try to describe it in terms that make it seem less morally repugnant than it is. Whether a mastermind trying to wholesale reinvent or fundamentally transform society or a woman trying to get out of what appears at the moment to be the threat of a fundamentally transformed life, the approach is the same: redefine, reinterpret, redirect, and finally refuse to accept any criticism. Why? Because the one who is in total control doesn’t have to.
40 posted on 08/17/2012 5:49:30 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Canadian Medical Association: babies not human until after birth

When asked for further clarification about what they meant "after birth", the CMA said, "Well, we could be prepared to say that since life doesn't begin until after forty, parents could knock off their pre-human kids at any point up until then."
41 posted on 08/17/2012 6:25:10 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

thank you!!! We are all SO excited about her arrival in October. Such a blessing! :)


42 posted on 08/17/2012 1:25:02 PM PDT by sassy steel magnolia (USAF life and Navy wife...God Bless the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson