Steven Woodward, at the June AGM of Alliance for Life Ontario, rhetorically asked, “Can inhumanity and perjury legitimately coexist with truth and justice?” As a lawyer, and former MP in Kitchener, he answered with a resounding, “No!”. This blog is based on the points he made in his presentation.
Human reason elevates the importance of truth and justice and allows us to answer all the “moral” questions. It tells us that individual flourishing rests on collective human flourishing which requires peace, and peace depends on justice and the reconciliation of competing demands or giving each person their due.
Justice considers:
How individual people are treated (Autonomy);
The claims that can rightfully be made against someone (Human Rights);
Universally consistent principles (Non-arbitrariness); and,
An agent who alters the situation (Impartiality).
Power and domination are the antithesis of justice. Instead, they create situations of suppression, denial of human rights, partiality, and arbitrariness. The suppression or the elimination of opposition is not true peace, despite giving some appearance of peace.
Human rights are claims that rights exist independently of the state. They are unilateral, so are not limited to certain persons or groups. The equality of worth of each individual is a recognition of their humanity, in language, action or law.
The statement that everything is arbitrary is false. Non-arbitrariness must be evidenced-based or based on truth. It can be informed by advancing knowledge (e.g. the undeniable humanity of the unborn child) or by changes in perception. Section 223 of Canada’s Criminal Code is an example of “perjury” because it says that the “child becomes human” and refers to the child as “it”. Because it is not evidenced-based, the law includes a false definition.
Canadian law kept the second section of the 1644 English law (“it is accounted a reasonable creature, in rerum natura, when it is born alive”), which suggested there is no “evidence” that a child is a human being until fully born. The Nazi’s declared that a child was human when determined to be mentally fit. In Canada, women were not considered persons until a declaration of the Privy Council, although that appeared to having nothing to do with truthfulness, but was intended to maintain civil and social order. At this time, we have new, evidenced information on which to base law, yet the government refuses to do so, preferring to ignore the indisputable humanity of the child in favour of wants of certain segments of society and business. This situation makes it possible to be “ethically acceptable” to kill a baby because of the arbitrariness of the “fully proceeded” part of the law.
People know in their hearts that inhumanity and perjury are wrong. They want to make decisions based on truthful evidence. Once evidence is provided, people become very uncomfortable with, for example, later term abortions. Additionally, heart-beat laws are passing in some American States.
Basing the definition of humanity on arbitrary ideas removes all restraint over other issues as well, such as suspending civil liberties arbitrarily, providing inducements to commit suicide to save tax dollars, and officially sanctioning racism.
When life seems to ask more than we can give, hope seems to reside at a distant horizon. Mr. Woodward suggested that we must hope in Divine Providence and remember that “where there is life, there is hope.” We must recognize that life itself is beautiful, sacred and trustworthy. We, as human, are suited to the tragedies of the world. “Just to be is a gift; just to live is holy” (Abraham Herschel). Creating perspective, planting next year’s crop, viewing a sunrise are helps to discouragement. The goal we should have is the flourishing of humanity, not just stopping abortion. A love for others is a deep, abiding, motivating force. Knowing the outcome, let alone a happy ending, are not required.