Giuseppe Gori
Special to The Interim

Since the speech delivered Dec. 1, 2005 by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in Wellington, New Zealand, several pro-life leaders have zeroed in on her remarks about judicial activism and how, in her opinion, judges should identify unwritten constitutional principles for a “new natural law.”

When I read the speech, however, I understand that she would also positively support a law criminalizing abortion.

In her speech, she quoted professor Benjamin Berger and agreed with his statement: “By contrast, our modern faith in human rights (of which the Charter is our national manifestation) suggests that justice is not a matter of majoritarian or popular debate, but an expression of a reasoned commitment to the dignity of all human beings.”

Thus, she agrees that respecting the dignity of every human being is not a matter of popular opinion.

In the same speech, she also affirmed: “Similarly, if one agrees that the raison d’être of the modern state is to promote the interests of its citizens, it follows that the states should not be allowed to exterminate entire sectors of the society. And if we accept equality based in the fundamental dignity of every human being, then it follows that states should not be able to single out innocent groups or individuals for torture or death.”

The above statement recognizes the fact that human beings have a fundamental dignity and affirms that states cannot exterminate the innocent.

She continued: “If a state were to pass a genocidal law, for example, I think it would clearly be the duty of the judges to deny the law’s validity on the ground that it offended the basic norm that states must not exterminate their people.”
If abortion on demand in Canada, which has resulted in the extermination of over two million human beings, does not fall into the category of genocide, what does? If a child in the womb (technically a “fetus”) is a “human being,” then her speech unequivocally supports a law criminalizing abortion.

Is a fetus a being? The Webster unabridged dictionary of the English language has, as its first meaning for the word “being”: “The fact of existing; existence, as opposed to nonexistence.” Since the fetus exists, it is a “being.” Since the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human (and not another animal form). Its DNA can be recognized as human without any possibility of doubt, from the moment of conception.

Thus, since in the chief justice’s opinion, “If we accept equality based in the fundamental dignity of every human being, then … states should not be able to single out innocent …individuals for … death,” then states should not be allowed to have legislation allowing abortion, which, from the moment of conception, is the killing of an innocent human being.

Incidentally, we can also add that since the fetus is growing on its own, has a nervous system, a circulation system, a respiratory system, a digestion system  and all the other elements that are required for maintaining life, it is also “living.” This is a condition for the words “kill” or “exterminate” to be used.

Our Supreme Court chief justice would support a law criminalizing abortion.

Who is going to tell the nation?