D EAR reader: Motion 312 has

come and gone. Defeated 203

nays to 91 yeas on the 27th of this month.

Time at last to unwind and relax. - Ha! That

was proved false before the sun rose the next

day. This Motion is by no means dead; there is

life in it yet, for now we are seeing it used as

a litmus test of a person 's commitment

to women 's r ights . For a brief moment it

seemed time to move on - but, no: now the

witch hunt.

Yes, this motion was so black that those who

stood up for it are marked. It is not enough

to have defeated the Motion. Not enough that

the Motion was successfully painted black

(as a repudiation of progress, as an “abortion

Motion" eager to take us back to the past), and

then sunk on that basis. No, now we must

soul search; now we must face that there are

MPs among us who are - how shall we put

this - against progress. (In Canada we do

not employ the label ‘unCanadian': that's the

American play-book. In Canada we imply.)

That the Motion was not one that “sought

to bestow legal personhood on fetuses in order to

recriminalize abortion," this paper has ably

shown, I believe, in a most unbiased way.

[ but don't listen to me, judge for yourself:

those w ho are w illing, sEE IssueS 9 & 10]. It was not , but people believed it was . And

now we must realize that a horrible Motion

has horrible supporters. Take the “shocking"

behaviour of the Honourable Ms. R oNA

AMbRose , Minister for status of Women.

“A slAp in the fAce t o t h e w o m e n o f C a na d a"

O n the very night of the vote the

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada

(ARCC) issued a press release titled “Rona

Ambrose Must Resign" - subtitle, “Minister for Status

of Women Voted for Motion 312, and Against Women’s

Rights." What J oYCe ARTHUR , executive

Director of the ARCC , there called a show

of “profound disresepct for women" was that Ms.

AMbRo se voted for Motion 312 while

occupying the post of the Minister entrusted

with protecting women's rights. The very

rights she is obviously against, we are told!

Wrote Ms. ARTHUR ,

“Her job is to advance the rights and interests of women,

so her Yes vote on the motion was a shocking failure

and a slap in the face to the women of Canada. She’s

proven herself to be unfit for the job and must resign

immediately."

Instantly, at lightning speed, the Minister was

made the object of a campaign calling for her

resignation. so let us ask the question of the

hour: is support for motIoN 312 A votE AgAINSt

womEN 'S RIghtS & a betrayal of women É?

“unfit for the job" because...? Here are ‘4' answers.

1 a v o t e f o r t h e m o t i o n

w a s a v o t e a g a i n s t Abortion rights

m otion 312 was not about

abortion - did not contain the

word ‘abortion'. Abortion rights could be lost,

by passing the Motion, only if passing the

Motion would lead to the criminalization

of abortion or some other such restriction.

so a vote for the motion was a vote against

abortion rights only if ...

2 t h e m o t i o n s o u g h t t o criminAlize Abortion

“l et's be clear," said Ms. ARTHUR ,

“the anti-choice movement hoped this

motion would be their ticket to recriminalizing abortion."

(Many of the MPs who opposed the Motion

paid good money and bought that claim, and

then proudly unveiled their purchase as a

reason for voting No.) but, if passing this

Motion (and, as a result, hearing evidence as

to whether and how we have human beings

in the womb) could lead to another outcome

than criminalization, then wouldn't it seem

that they bought junk and they are wrong .

If passing this Motion could lead to another

outcome than criminalization then this claim

is false and its charge hollow.

It could lead to another outcome.

It could lead to no outcome, other than to learn

that science has no answer to the question

“what is a fetus?" (As we were told, repeatedly,

by people such as Ms. ARTHUR , “There will

never be a consensus on what the fetus is, because this

question is inherently subjective and unscientific.") That

is not “recriminalizing abortion."

It could lead to the outcome that at all points

during gestation we have nothing more than

human matter, like skin (“a blob of cells that

is part of a woman," as was argued repeatedly

throughout the debate on M-312). We agree, I

think, that tissue would not be granted legal

personhood and human rights. That is not

“recriminalizing abortion."

It could lead to the outcome that at a certain

point during gestation (but not before)

we truly do have, we agree, an individual

human being no different from a baby but

for its presence in the womb. At that point,

we would now be in agreement that we have

two human beings. but that could not spell

a ban on abortion for the reason that (as we

were reminded repeatedly by Ms. ARTHUR

herself), “women’s rights cannot be arbitrarily removed

or even ‘balanced' with fetal rights. It is impossible for

two beings in the same body to exercise competing rights in

any meaningful or just way.") or (I quote the Hon.

HeDY FRY ), “We have seen over and over [how] the Supreme Court" has ruled on this very competition

of rights, by affirming that to compel “a woman,

by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term ...

is a breach of the woman's rights to security of the person."

That outcome is not “recriminalizing abortion."

And it could lead to the outcome that we

would change our tune. I say, ‘Here's what you

would have to show me, to get me to think

that that unborn creature is an individual

human being like a born baby' - and then you

show it : you show me by the very standards

of evidence I acknowledge - and then I (man

of my word) now agree: ‘That unborn creature

is as human as I was when I was born: it's an

unborn child.' That's some kind of progress,

because I never talked that way before.

should I cry foul?É Have I been hoodwinked,

bamboozled, lured back to the bad old days?

No. If we got to that point, in this country, it

would simply “honour our commitment to honest laws

to recognize a child's worth and dignity as a human being

before the moment of complete birth if" - please note

the word ‘if ' - “the evidence established that as fact,"

just as Mr. WooDWoRTH said this past

week. That too is not “recriminalizing abortion."

Yes, I suppose there is no doubt that some

people in the “the anti-choice movement hoped this

motion would be their ticket to recriminalizing abortion,"

but capable thinkers like Mr. WooDWoRTH

and Ms. AMbRo se are not likely to be

among them.

The Motion did not seek to criminalize

abortion, and neither did Ms. AMbRo se

vote for a motion that threatened this.

one does get the impression, however, that there

are people in the pro-choice movement who

cannot believe that this charge (no. 2,

above) could ever and for any reason be

shown false - the evidence of its falseness

cannot penetrate them; they have a kind of

force-field against it. - one hopes that we

do not have such minds in government; the

rebuttal above seems fairly easy to understand.

3 t h e m i n i s t e r ' s p o s i t i o n i s

cou n ter to t h a t o f cAnAdiAn women

t he ARCC press release notes that

“the Canadian people overwhelmingly support

women’s rights and don’t want to ban abortion." Having

equated voting for m-312 with opposing

women ’s r ights (i.e., the opposite of “support-

No.

11 30 sep

2012}}

the Dissen ting Fu tilitAriAn {{

L ET T E R S TO c a n a d i a n s F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E c a n c e l l E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y

S o m e t a l k t h r o u g h a c a n , s o t h a t y o u c a n h e a r ! S o m e t a l k t h r o u g h t h e i r ’ a t a n d ’ o o p i n y o u r e a r !

B

Zor

Z

t h e shocking story O F HOW CA NA DA ' S minister for Status of women

G AV E “A slAp in the fAce to the women of cAnAdA,"

SHOW ED “profound disrespect for women , "

& “threw women under the bus"

D I D N O S U C H T H I N G W H AT E V E R ! ( I T ' S SHOCK I N G E I T H ER WAY )

[ing] women’s rights" along with “the Canadian people"),

it makes good sense to go there. (I would

certainly run with this if I believed it. The

status of Women Minister against women's

rights? I can't breathe! - but I, who am not

very smart, am too smart to believe that a

vote for m-312 is an attack on women ’s

r ights via an abortion ban . so, actually, I

can breathe.)

but the abortion-ban line is really the whole

cavalry. Take it away and how does the Minis-

ter's position look, relative to women of Canada?

Are Canadian women against placing any

restrictions on abortion? No. Most are not in

favour of late-term abortions done for less-

than-emergency reasons. over ninety percent

of Canadians are strongly against sex-selection

abortion (2011 environics poll). Ms. AMbRo se

voted to see if these abortions kill human beings.

Are Canadian women in favour of discussing

the issue of whether (and in what sense),

before birth, we have actual human beings?

We have no reason to think that the answer

is No. organizations like the ARCC like to

suppose that their view is the common view,

so that anyone who departs from their view

is betraying the whole country, but where's

the evidence for that? As ANDReW CoYNe

noted, Ms. AMbRose is “the Minister for Status

of Women, not the Minister for Enforcing Feminist

Orthodoxy." It seems quite reasonable to think

that the majority of Canadians are at neither

end of the spectrum: they are not abortion-

rights activists and they are not abortion-ban

activists. In which case Ms. AMbRo se 's

vote - which was, recall, a vote for looking

into what is factual (which is, by definition of

the word ‘fact ', what the average intelligent

person will have good reason to support) -

... her vote very well serves the interests of

most Canadian women. - And finally, ...

4 t h e m i n i s t e r v o t e d to roll bAck

progres s

“A s [the minister for] the Status of Women,

she clearly betrayed the women of this

country by not standing up and ensuring that we don’t let the

clock be turned backwards," said NDP Deputy Leader

the Hon. L I bbY DAv Ie s . We have heard

again and again that “we should not be turning back

the clock on women's rights; Instead, we should be making

progress together for women" (the Hon. MAs s IMo

pACeTT I ). Whereas this horrid Motion was

against progress. The job of this Minister is

to secure the gains of women against erosion,

and voting as she did she showed contempt

for progress. - or so we are told.

Again, by what means could Motion 312 undo

progress and imperil women's rights? Not

by answering the question that it asked but

by criminalizing abortion - but, as we have

said, an abortion ban is not at all a likely

consequence of answering the Motion's ques-

tion. (As Mr. WooDWoRTH often reminded

people, “one thing that I have insisted that the committee

not do is ... propose any options which are inconsistent with

our Constitution or Supreme Court rulings. So, whatever

the Supreme Court has ruled about women’s rights ... is

untouchable under the terms of my motion.") This Motion

was a threat to established progress only in the

minds of people who equated it w ith a ban

on abortion . How does answering a question

about the beginnings of life take away rights?

Consider also this question: How was the

Minister's vote for the Motion a “refusal to

vote in the best interest of Canadian women" (beTH

RYAN , organizer of the current petition

against the Minister)? If the Minister has

balked at women's interests, that indeed

sounds bad - but that is just another way

of putting the argument we have already

picked over (women need abortions, banning

abortions is not in their interest, the Motion

would ban abortions). Let's just repeat this

again and again, say the Minister's opponents,

and waste no time wondering whether

recognizing unborn females as human beings

(as the Motion was indeed equipped to do)

might be in the interest of women.

D D D

speaking of the “retrogressive policies" that the

Motion was said to advance (Mr. pACeTT I ),

might I ask a question on the issue of progress?

a R e Y o U modern?

I think you are. The 60s happened and you know it. The whole Modern Age

happened! We have made great strides! Good

riddance to ... etc. Yes, good riddance to what,

exactly? Ask people glad to be here in the

Modern World what they are glad to be rid

of and they will often say: irrationality ,

commitments not based on facts ,

believing what you want , “magical thinking."

“Science is factual, Religion is beliefs. Educate yourself!"

“Why don't you grow some Q Q Q and just admit that your

beliefs are just your beliefs ... not based on fact, but faith?"

If you are Modern you want to say, Down

with all of that - ESPECIALLY in the political

sphere! If everybody is going to be bound by

some decision of law, it had better be based

on something more than personal commitment,

likes and dislikes, private logic, because if it

isn't - if it has no basis in reasons or facts

that citizens can be expected to see, because

these facts are facts - then we have just

gone back to the will of the powerful. And

that ain't democracy .

So it is quite ironic indeed , isn 't it? I mean,

there you are, one day, Mr . or Ms . Modern

just minding your own business, when along

comes some doodlehead to ask, What is a

human beingÉÉ? - And what do you do?

(Now, there are a lot of you who want right

away to know what this doodlebug is up to.

but that's a separate question. one we could

well pursue, it is true, but when we get back

here won't that first question still be waiting

for us?) When we get back to talking about

belief s , about what you believ e about

things, which would include things like

human being s (as in, What do you believ e

a human being is?), then to take care of this,

you've got the Modern way and that other way.

but get this. Thinker, legal scholar, and

general smart guy s TANLeY F I sH says:

“Nowadays, it is pro-lifers who make the scientific

question of when the beginning of life occurs the key one

in the abortion controversy, while pro-choicers want to

transform the question into a ‘metaphysical’ or ‘religious’

one by distinguishing between mere biological life and

‘moral life’.”

Ironic , isn 't it? In other words, what Modern

pro-choicers are saying is: beliefs about when a

human being begins - plus beliefs about

what a human being is (how do you know

when an opera begins if you don't know what

an opera is?) - are not based on observable facts

or features of these things. They are in the case

of fish (‘All fish have gills,' etc.) but not, for

Modern pro-choicers, in the case of humans.

No, the beliefs you hold about when a human

being begins and what a human being is

are based on philosophical commitments. And

so people say things like,

“How does a medical school teach what is and isn't ‘a

human life'? It's a medical school - essentially a glorified

plumber-mechanic school - not a philosophy department."

sure, there is a point to be made in that

medicine is applied science - but why would

you turn to philosophers for an answer?

Why not scientists, embryologists, the people

who actually study this natural life form?

Why exclude these people?

It would be good to ask, when did the

question What is a human beingÉÉ? cease to

be one that you could answer by pointing

to scientifically detectable facts? because not

very long ago, in the Modern Age, this was a

question that scientists answered. [ FoR moRE

oN thAt SEE Issue 2](for those interested) a Brief aside to

answ er: when did w e start giv ing a modern

response to the question w hen does a human

being begin? In 1800 the answer to this question

was still coming from the philosophers - that

is, ancient philosophers like Aristotle and

Thomas Aquinas . They believed (and what

was their evidence?) that a human soul appeared

at around 40 days, turning primitive life into

human life. Then in 1827 Karl Ernst von

Baer , the “father of modern embryology,” discovered

that mammals produced eggs, changing the

picture dramatically. It soon dawned on folks

that a human being was created not by “ensoulment"

but by the fusion of egg and sperm. In short order

the law and the Church both began to follow the science (great strides and all that). Laws were

passed against abortion and in 1869 Pope Pius

IX issued a decree rejecting the Aristotelianism

of Aquinas , who had said that for the first eight

weeks abortion was not the killing of a human

being - but science had now showed that it was.

scientists gave us the scientific story

(a human being is created by the fusion of

egg and sperm, which, as the 20th century

made clear, involved genes), which became

the standard story that people on the left

and on the right are still ready to tell, in

the Modern period, about every other form of

life,É and even human life when the stakes are

different. When does Fluffy begin to exist,

ready to unfold as the adorable fuzzball she

is? The standard story is: w hen the genes

assemble . When that happens, the individual

is made.

We say pretty much the same thing when

sporting the Darwinian hat we so often wear

these days: it ’s all about the genes . How

do we know that that tissue came from a

human being? It has the human genome. How

do we know that that being is an individual?

You’ve watched CSI : by all the standard

signifiers of individuality in our culture:

unique fingerprints (at 11 weeks), genetic

particularity (acquired at fertilization). It's

all science .

so Fish is quite right:

“pro-life arguments are now based on scientific evidence,

and the pro-choice arguments are not. That is a cultural,

historical fact.”

And it doesn't look like Fish is ready to drop

science and go back to philosophy , so that

he can uphold some previously arrived at view

of rights. The rights of human beings attach

to human being s : they don't dictate what

human being s are . “I am in favour,” he says, “of

affirmative action and gay and lesbian rights, but I do not

support abortion rights.”

D D D

people are saying, “we do not want to go back; we want

to move forward." oK, do it. because it looks a

little like we did go back . It looks a little like

we quit science for philosophy . I didn't get

this memo. Are people having second thoughts

about Modern progress? sounds to me like

other MPs - not Ms. AMbRo se and Mr.

WooDWoRTH - are saying, ‘Here's a place

where it doesn't matter what the facts say.'

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't we say,

“that ain 't democracy"? I think a lot of

people are wrong about just who is returning

us to the dark ages.

I am, etc.

1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca