http://www.grantmcnally.com/house/speeches/mar22-2001.html
March 22, 2001
Definition of a Human Being
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I too commend my colleague from Yorkton—Melville for
bringing this motion forward.
It has of course been a topic where there are deep feelings on both
sides of the abortion issue. The motion specifically talks about the
government bringing in legislation defining a human being as a human
fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of
the mother or not, and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and
making any and all consequential amendments required.
I want to state my unequivocal and unqualified support for the motion
and be very clear about that.
I want to take a minute or two to rebut the comments made by my
colleague from the Bloc. The member for Scarborough Southwest spent
some time on that as well so I will not go into great detail, but he
made a good point when he said that her argument was logically
inconsistent in regard to the separation issue being dealt with and
that we should just leave it alone. She claimed that because the
abortion issue, in her mind, has been settled and closed, we should
not go there. That is logically inconsistent.
She also claimed that the opposition to this particular idea of
redefining what is a human, or the definition of a person, is, in and
of itself, one that is religious in its nature. I would disagree with
that. I would say that it is a moral issue and one where individuals,
who are both religious and non-religious but who are, what we might
say, absolutists who believe in right and wrong, would find broad
agreement. Those who would say that abortion is wrong would be
absolutists, and I would include myself as an absolutist. I therefore
reject the premise of her argument that it is simply a religious
argument for those who speak against abortion.
A very big dilemma in this whole issue of abortion has to do with the
definition of a human being. My colleagues have talked about the legal
definition. It is in statute right now that a human is a human when
the person leaves the birth canal. That creates a dilemma for many of
us specifically because of the technology and advancement within our
world in terms of medical sciences.
We know that in one room we may have a doctor performing microsurgery
with the latest technology to save the life of what some may call a
fetus, an unborn child who might be six months in its development,
while in the very next room we might have somebody else in a very
similar situation having the termination of a pregnancy or an
abortion. That is a big dilemma. How do we explain that? How do we
deal with that?
On the one hand, we are seeing medical dollars allocated to saving the
life of an unborn child through microsurgery and, on the other hand,
in the next room a child is being aborted. That has been a great
dilemma for people who are both pro-choice and pro-life.
We could have agreement from many pro-choice individuals and pro-life
people, people who would identify themselves as such, that in terms of
partial birth abortions, or late term abortions, that we should look
at redefining the definition of a human. We must scale it back, or as
my colleague says, scale it forward.
The debate is, when does life begin. I believe life begins at
conception. Many members in this place believe that. That is the
fundamental question, the philosophical debate that we have around the
issue. It does get very emotional.
We would do well to try and strip away as best we can those emotional
catch phrases, in many ways similar to the kinds of partisan debates
that can take place in the House on many different issues. We must
remove that aspect in the debate and have reasoned debate taking into
account the technologies that are available and that our understanding
has changed from when this practice of abortion became commonplace in
the sixties and throughout the seventies. We must re-examine the
question and it is only fair that we re-examine it.
Yes, it has been dealt with previously, but does that mean that
because we have made a decision on something, we cannot go back and
open it up?
My Bloc colleague also said she was speaking for her party. I think
that was a mistake because I know she has colleagues that would
identify themselves as pro-life. This being private members' business,
it is good for members to state their positions. We have individuals
in our caucus that are both pro-life and pro-choice, and I think that
would be the case for all parties. We should talk about the issue and
open up the debate.
As a man, individuals have asked me why I feel I have the right to
even speak on this particular issue. As a man, I am also the husband
of a wife. There are a lot of women in my life but just one wife whom
I love dearly. I am the father of three beautiful daughters, the uncle
of eight beautiful nieces and the son to a mother. I have many other
close friends who are women.
I have two very close friends who had abortions earlier on in their
lives. They have reflected many years later on that experience. One
was put in the position of being with an abusive husband who forced
her to go through with this particular act, and she did. The second
time she became pregnant, she was being forced to do again. However,
she left her husband and gave birth to a son. There are countless
stories of individuals who have been put in that situation.
Another friend had an abortion at a very young age. She told me she
wished she had received counsel on this particular issue before
embarking on this choice.
There are other solutions and other things that we can look at. Some
say it is wrong to force a woman to remain pregnant. There is another
possible solution for those women who find themselves in an
unfortunate circumstance, and that is adoption. Abortion is one
possible solution but so is adoption. I have many friends who are
adopted.
We are losing generations of children every year. There are 100,000
children a year who will not walk with us in this world, who will not
be able to contribute to our society and who will not be the doctors,
the lawyers, the scholars, the workers and the people across the
strata of our society. That is an issue we need to examine.
When we make a decision to end a child's life, are we making a
decision to end the life of someone who might have a great and
profound impact on our society? Each and every life is important. Each
and every life will have a profound impact the child's family of
course but also within a greater sphere as well in their lives.
I wrap up my comments by saying that I support the motion. We need to
approach this topic in a reasoned and rational way. We need to bring
forward the knowledge that we received from the great science and
technology advancements in our society. We need to work together, even
individuals who disagree on this particular topic. We should look for
some common ground. We can start by redefining life at an earlier
stage. I think pro-life and pro-choice people would have a broad
consensus on the issue of partial birth abortion.
It is a worthwhile motion. It is one that is emotional but it is
worthwhile because it is the definition of life, which is the most
important question in all of our entire lives.
.
|
