Is an unborn baby’s life a “Provincial Health Issue”?

One good thing that might flow from Quebec’s attempt to re-open the euthanasia debate by claiming it is a “provincial” health issue, beyond the reach of the federal parliament constitutionally, is that another province could attempt to do the same with abortion.

Perhaps there are enough politicians in Prince Edward Island, let’s say, who would be concerned enough to push for provincial legislation to protect life in the womb.  Especially, let’s say, after the 2nd trimester, when the baby, if born by cesarean or even premature, stands a pretty good chance of living a long and healthy life.

I gather that the Supreme Court would likely rule that such an issue is beyond the province’s pervue, because, of course any criminal proceeding is a matter for the Criminal Code, which is federal legislation.  However, provinces do have the authority to levy fines and other restrictions.  For example, a doctor performing an abortion in the 3rd trimester where the mother’s health is not at risk,  might, according to provincial legislation be practicing bad medicine and therefor might have her/his license suspended.  There’s all sorts of things that might be done to get around activist jurists.

 

 

Re-opening the Euthanasia Debate

It’s charming how Canada’s leftist elite see no contradiction with their insistance that the debate on abortion has been “settled” while demanding a re-opening of the debate on euthanasia.

Abortion Issue NOT resolved.

When the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion laws twenty years ago, it clearly did so with the  understanding that new laws would be introduced by Parliament.  The issue was NOT resolved. The debate was NOT settled.  As a result, children in the womb have no protection in Canada. Not until they actually exit the birth canal and begin breathing, do they become “human”.  How rediculous is that?

Euthanasia issue IS resolved.

In the case of Sue Rodrigues, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that euthanasia was NOT a human right and that “assisted suicide” was, in fact, murder.  The case was resolved.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, Bill C-384, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code ( right to die with dignity) was voted on by the Canadian Parliament on April 21, 2010 and was resoundingly defeated. A large majority of parliamentarians (75%) defeated the Bill which was tabled by Francine Lelond of the Bloc Party. She had been campaigning on the issue since 2005. The matter was settled. Once and for all.  Canadians really have decided the issue (an issue which is almost as divisive and emotional as the abortion debate).

 

If CBC and the left insist on re-opening the debate on the end of life, then lets have another look at the laws surrounding the beginning of life. Let’s have a full and open debate on the matter of when life begins and whether, in fact, the issue of protecting a life in the womb is a matter for society as a whole to be involved in. Canada may be the only country in the civilized world that does not have any protection…any protection whatsoever…for unborn babies.  It’s time.

Quebecois Values’ Origins

I’m quite amused at the current flap over Quebec’s new Charter of Values, which would, among other things, banish overtly religious symbols from schools.  Do the towering intellects of Quebec not remember just where they first became ‘enlightened, progressive’ individuals?  Why is it that of all the provinces, Quebec happens to be the most “progressive” and secular? Could it be that the current crop of Quebec politicians or certainly their parents, actually went to Catholic schools and were taught by nuns in full habit? It seems Quebec actually benefitted from the tender tutillage of these ardent religious zealots. So why would the little French munchkins suffer at the hands of teachers in turbans or burkas?

It’s the kids who don’t have ANY religous upbringing…the ones who have no opportunity to gently and progressively explore religious and philosophical thought who are at most risk of becoming jihadists or cultists during their teenage years.  They are the ones who hate themselves, the world and everything in it….who end up bringing a gun to school. Have you noticed that almost all of the terrorists profiled in the news these days, converted to Islam as teens or adults? And almost all the losers who commit mass murder, seem to have had no early religious intervention? Their minds are like a blank slate.  (There seems to be one exception to this rule, and that concerns the radical versions of Islam taught at Saudi sponsored Wahhabist schools around the globe.)

Many years ago, I lived in a wonderfully close-knit little community in Toronto. It just so happened that two of the neighbours were child psychologists and had kids of their own.  Although not particularly religious (they were Jewish) they firmly believed in providing a religious education for their kids.  Why?  Well, it turns out that a primary reason was their belief that kids NEED religious instruction at an early age. Their theory was that children become more discerning, more capable of  reaching mature, rational, reasoned philosophical positions as they enter adulthood if they have a strong foundation of religious thought.

I believe religion, particularly religion based on a loving God of reason as opposed to a strict, unforgiving, vengeful God (Muslim Wahhabists take note) is good for humans.  So lets invite even more religiosity into our classrooms. It’ll probably lead to gentler, kinder, respectful kids who will shun radical cultism.

 

Oh Canada Lyrics Should Change

I’m all in favour of changing the words “in all thy son’s command” to something more inclusive of females.  I don’t think (as is the case with some biblical references to gender) that the original intent of the passage risks being lost.  We are told that the original words in the original anthem had no reference to gender. I actually prefer “in all thou dost command”. Sounds more reverent and compelling.

BUT…..lets just make sure that while we are at it….that is…while we are re-opening the issue of the Canadian anthem’s lyrics…that we forever CLOSE the possibility of removing the reference to God.  I can just see the atheists jumping on the bandwagon to remove all references to God under the pretext  “Well, we’ve already set the precedent….yada yada”.  No, lets make the anthem bulletproof (something that can’t be overturned by the whim of a politically active, left-leaning Supreme Court).  In other words, let’s put the words of the new, gender inclusive, Oh Canada, in the body of the Constitution, as an amendment, which cannot be overturned by the whim of the Supreme Court.

Speaking of the highest court, I saw our beloved Supreme Leader of the Court, Beverley McLachlin, on CBC last night decrying the lack of more females on the court.  While we’re at it, maybe we should follow the suggestions of the Huffington Post and appoint a few Muslims and Sikhs, possibly a gay or two or even a transgendered person.  What a farce that would be.  One can only imagine what a zoo would result from the PM having to consider all the various machinations associated with “inclusiveness” and “diversity” along with actual legal reasoning and intellect.

Beverly should shut up and stay out of politics. It’s bad enough that her and her ilk are doing their best to turn Canada into a nanny state. Do we have to put up with her misandry as well?