- 223. (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
To which those who supported this motion exclaimed that one could potentially abort their unborn child while in labour, even with one little toe left in the birth canal. To which I must wonder, do you know anything about child birth? No really, do you?
Ask any women who has vaginally delivered a child to contemplate for a moment if it is even remotely possible to completely birth a child with the exception of one little toe. Now, you - even with just prime time television knowledge of birth - seriously, stop & ponder this.
Is it possible for a woman to completely, vaginally birth a child with the exception of one toe? I am sure it is hypothetically possible and the only likely scenario that I (and I'm obviously not a medical professional - so take my opinion for what it's worth... a grain of salt) see this as an even remote possibility would be a Frank breech birth - where the bum and torso were delivered but the head and toes still remained in the birth canal.
|Illustration to show how the difference between an occiput anterior position ("normal" position) versus a Frank breech.|
Now consider for a moment - a woman goes through 40 weeks of pregnancy (and all the aches, pain & discomfort that can come with it... but also the joys: that first moment where you hear the heartbeat, where you see your baby on the ultrasound screen, where you feel that first movement... so on & so forth). This woman goes into active labour... she goes to the hospital and spends hours working through her contractions. Walking, swaying, and rocking through each contraction. Holding on to the nurse, the bed... the wall. Finally, she feels the urge to push and bears down... it could be minutes or hours later, but she births the head. With the next push, babe is out... all but for a toe.
Now, please, seriously contemplate this - what woman in.her.right.mind would put her mind, body and soul through this - to at this point decide to abort her unborn child?
It seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? This whole premise that a woman would wait until, literally, the last possible second to abort an unborn child? What does that say about societies views on women? Really, what does it say?
Now, the absurdity of that scenario aside - Could someone please explain to me how two beings sharing the same body (one the host and one, for all intents and purposes, the guest) have the same rights?
This honestly baffles me - women had to fight to be legally considered a person. We had to fight to have all of our rights. How on earth can we share our rights?
I, for one, am very happy that this motion was denied (I am incredibly disappointed that my MP voted for the motion... and trust me, he's heard about it).
Edited to add... my point:
This motion was put forth under the guise of altruistically redefining human life, so that a fetus/unborn child would have rights & freedoms too. It was worded as such, to tug at our heartstrings and so that we wouldn't pause, much, and think about the ramifications & potential fall-out that would result from this new definition.
To give a fetus/unborn child equal rights to born children, means taking rights away from mother's. Two being cannot share the same body and have 100% equal rights... this is mathematically & physically impossible.
I cannot support a motion that denies women their rights