Letters

Abortion, a sign of evolution. Really ?

Nowadays, and for many years, abortion has been presented as a sign of an evolved society. But behind the word, there is a gesture. It is important to take an objective look at this gesture. My wife is pregnant. Twenty-four weeks have passed since conception. In the documentation available on the subject, we can read that a little heart beats from the fifth week of conception. A heart that beats is a new life, no doubt. We also learn that from conception, develops what will become the fetus.

Abortion is the act of putting an end to this new life. To voluntarily put an end to a human life, is it really the sign of a changing society? It seems to me that this is the sign of a society that cares a lot about the present, but that makes little room for the future. In my opinion, this is not a sign of evolution.

At the moment, several journalists are questioning politicians about abortion. Not to assess its relevance or to question it, but rather to denounce those who would be against or who would question it. For them, it is something acquired and hated who dares to question its legitimacy.

Remember that in Canada, nothing currently prevents anyone from taking action to terminate a pregnancy at any stage. And this has been going on for over twenty years.

In my opinion, it is time in Canada for politicians to take up or defend the unborn. To my knowledge, only one Canadian political party does it. It is Christian Heritage Canada, but that party is not represented in Quebec except for one or a few constituencies.

I believe that the right of unborn children should be recognized by law. I see it as a sign of a changing society, that it takes into account the advancements of science on the subject rather than ignoring them. Moreover, a society that defends its unborn children is one that cares for those who have no protection other than that of their parents, and in some cases their mother when the father is unknown. In Quebec, experience has taught us more recently that the only protection for parents is not enough. And I am referring to the child of Granby recently deceased.

Of course, there will probably be exceptions, but at least the principle of protecting the unborn child should be established or restored. One may argue that the Daigle decision in the Supreme Court established that a fetus was not a human person. A Court, no matter how high, only judges according to existing laws. If there is no law that protects the life of the unborn child, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court had to make such a judgment.

For all these reasons, I say: Let's go ahead. Dare to recognize the progress of science. Protect the unborn child and ask that our candidates decide on this subject. Their response will help electors who want to protect unborn children.

LOUIS SAVOIE DRUMMONDVILLE