By Faye Sonier
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada regularly issues press releases. Depending on the topic, the timing and what is currently capturing the attention of Canadians, it may or may not get picked up by media outlets or blogs.
This week, echoing Members of Parliament Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener –Centre, CPC) and Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC), we issued a press release urging Parliamentarians to examine section 223 of the Criminal Code, which essentially defines what Canadians consider human. In the words of Mr. Woodworth, the existing language “defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.” We stated our agreement that the legal definition of “human being” is an important issue, and in a matter of hours, our press release had been widely circulated. It was republished on numerous blogs and we received a number of requests for interviews with major media outlets.
Of course, the media discussion is not limited to the comments in our press release. Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Watson are sharing their perspectives in print and television interviews. A number of Canadian bloggers quickly took to their keyboards and weighed in on the debate.
Some outlets are framing this call for an examination of the Criminal Code definition of ‘human being’ as a covert attempt to re-open the abortion debate. To be frank, engaging a national discussion on what is human and carefully parsing through the relevant sections and subsections of the Criminal Code will be all-consuming in and of itself. If you’ve spent any time sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons, or have witnessed a parliamentary committee hearing, you know very well that the debate around a word or phrase can take hours or days. Imagine the time necessary to consider these very complex sections of the Code. Further, and as Mr. Woodworth suggested last night on CBC, listening to the testimony of various medical experts, ethicists and scientists on what is human will take time and reflection as well.
And so it should. As a nation that prides itself on being a global human rights leader, we should really determine what we consider to be “human”, rather than relying on legislation inspired by 400 year old concepts.
That said, given the media attention and the voices calling out from the blogosphere, I’d say a national discussion on what is human has been engaged. Wouldn’t you?
Watch this CBC clip where the EFC’s Don Hutchinson debates Joyce Arthur on whether the child in the womb is human.
For more information on this motion, visit www.theEFC.ca/human.