Subsequent to that post I've been doing some reading concerning Canada's abortion laws, which I have found out are among the most liberal in the world.
Abortion is legal for any reason at any time, without a restriction or regulation, and is covered by the universal government health insurance plan. The partial-birth abortions banned by the U.S. Congress (but protected by President Clinton's veto) are readily available in Canada, with taxpayers picking up the bill.
So what does this have to do with the objective nature of truth?
In my previous post I pointed out that objective truth is rooted in the object rather than in the subject (person) viewing that object. In case after case, the Supreme Court of Canada and numerous provincial courts have stated that human beings are not legally human beings until they have been born.
So the object, the baby is a person but 8 inches earlier it is not. Location does not change the nature of the object, and as such does not change the objective truth of that object, or in this case the objective truth that a baby is a human being both outside the mother's womb and inside the mother's womb.
The absurdity that the courts in Canada will argue against this objective truth is seen in a case in British Columbia:
And perhaps the most bizarre decision of all was handed down by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, when they held that a physician performing an abortion has a duty of care to the fetus—not to leave it injured if the abortion is unsuccessful and the child lives.So if you try to kill the baby its all okay just so long as you kill it while its inside the mother, but once its out, you have to work to make sure that the baby lives because it has magically become a human being deserving of legal protections.
This twisted logic is based on the very unscientific notion that a baby inside the mother's womb is the same as the mother and so ending the child's life in the womb is no different than a woman cutting her finger nails.
The Supreme Court decision was emphatic. “The only law recognized is that of the born person,” said the court in a 7-2 decision. “Any right or interest the fetus may have remains inchoate and incomplete until the birth of the child.”
An unborn child is a legal non-entity, and so therefore cannot be the object of a court's protection.
“A pregnant woman and her unborn child are one,” wrote Justice Beverly McLachlin for the majority. Her choice of words was illuminating. Her own sentence has two subjects—the woman and the child—so to say that they are one is a logical non sequitur, unless one of the two subjects is simply declared not to exist for the purposes at hand.
However, if you were to take a DNA test of the baby in the womb and compare it to the DNA of the mother, it would show, that while related, the two are distinct beings.
The Government of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, along with provincial courts are denying objective truth in order to justify the murder of children in Canada.
