On September 26, 2012, an important vote will take place in the House of Commons on a Private Members Motion that, if passed, would require Parliament to form a committee to study the point at which a baby becomes a human being.

Authored by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth, Motion 312 would require a special committee of twelve MPs from both sides of the House to examine Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, a 400-year-old law that says a baby is not a human being before the moment of complete birth.

“Until a child’s little toe pops out of the birth canal, that child is not recognized as a human being in Canada,” said Mr. Woodworth. “This law dehumanizes and excludes an entire class of people we know to be human beings, namely children, before the moment of complete birth.”

Borrowed from British common law, where it was expressed as early as 1642, the definition was developed at a time when medical science knew nothing about the development of babies in the womb.

In today’s world, where we can now see a baby’s heart beat and can even operate on a baby in utero, Motion 312 seeks to review the definition in light of 21st Century medical knowledge.

Apart from a diminishing number of U.S. States, there are only three other countries in the world that now share Canada’s refusal to recognize or protect the interest of babies as human beings until the moment of complete birth: The Peoples Republic of China, Vietnam and North Korea.

But there’s hope. An Angus Reid poll conducted in August 2010 discovered that 79% of Canadians are NOT aware that Canadian law does not recognize or protect the interests of babies until the moment of complete birth. Moreover, a 2011 Environics poll determined that when provided with information about the development of children before birth, 72% of Canadians agree that this law needs to be reformed.

While critics of the motion have called it an attempt to criminalize abortion, Mr. Woodworth insists that it would not change abortion laws because he does not propose any legislation – merely the study of Subsection 223(1).

The courts have consistently stated that it is Parliament’s responsibility to determine the protection to be given to the interests of babies before birth. Isn’t it time that Parliament – and indeed Canadians – have this discussion?

-30-

The audio version of Garry's Sept. 24, 2012 op-ed column can be heard by clicking here