Ignoring the data is making a choice

Bill C-312, which attempted to define when a human should be granted legal status as a human, reveals the divide in the present culture on willingness to view scientific evidence.

The private member’s bill by MP Steven Woodworth, sought a definition based upon scientific evidence, such as: cell division, sustainable heart rate, brainwave activity, presence and development of body organs etc., in an attempt to grant some status to the unborn.

Canada is one of only three nations worldwide that grants no rights or status to the unborn (Republic of China, Republic of North Korea are the others). There are those among us who “choose” to ignore the empirical data in favour of political expediency, bias and declaring ownership over others.

The pro- life versus prochoice debate is not unlike that of pro-abolition versus pro-slavery debate. One argues that human life, because of it’s colour, size, stature, intelligence or difference(s) has no status and no legal right(s) and is, by all accounts, inferior.

The other argues that no matter what form, status, or state, a human should have the right to self-determination, liberty and life. In other words, no one should have a right to own, decide or “choose” for the other, especially in matters determining life.

Canada does not have the death penalty for heinous and murderous crimes. Yet, Canada grants a “no holds barred” approach to the unborn.

It seems absurd that human ignorance still abounds with regard to the continuance of such barbaric practices, at all stages of pregnancy, and what I consider infanticide. Now, if you were an unborn baby, what would your thoughts be on this issue?

And, if you are reading this, maybe you would “choose” to re-evaluate your opinions on those who are truly innocent, who have no voice, who have no status and no rights.