In Case One Had Forgotten ...

Today is the March for Life in Ottawa, an event so big that the CBC has to ignore it.

Before embarrassing himself in Japan, Justin - the one who molested a female reporter, fired his justice minister, screamed at a female MP, elbowed a female MP in the chest, painted himself with shoe polish on several occasions, insulted the Japanese, denied he was being bribed by the Chinese, allowed the Chinese to harass Canadians on Canadian soil and is expunging Canadian custom and history as we speak - promised abortion funding he can't deliver.

One suspects that he is hiding under his bed today.

He doesn't do well with confrontation, or talking to people, or public speaking, or having women stand up to him, or actual governance, or ...

Also:

The central claim of the pro-life movement is that either all life bears inherent dignity, and therefore is worthy of protection in law, or it doesn’t. And if there is no inherent dignity then some other criteria must be applied, determined by those powerful enough to do so. Regarding the abortion, the powerful have determined that life in utero does not bear inherent dignity. Therefore, the protection of law does not apply.

Hence it is legal in Canada to abort an unborn child because she is a girl — or a boy, for that matter, though that is not usually the case. It is legal to abort an unborn child because of a disability — and that is very much the case, as most Down syndrome diagnoses end in death for the child.

Article content

That lethal logic — that only those who qualify are worthy of life — is now being extended.

The Quebec College of Physicians is in favour of what might be considered extending the abortion license past birth. Last year it raised the possibility of euthanizing disabled infants, and the previous year it laid out the case of euthanizing minors. Given that children are not qualified to give proper consent, this means that others — doctors? parents? bureaucrats? — will decide that some child should receive a lethal injection.

Our authorities speak of expanding the criteria for the deadly and deceitful “medical assistance in dying.” It’s more accurate to say that they are contracting the circle of those who are protected in law and supported in public policy.

Article content

When such contractions are first proposed, leaving out the mentally ill, the disabled newborn, the homeless man — there is shock, even disgust. But Canada got accustomed to having the most extreme abortion regime in the world, where the radius of the law contracted so that no one was left in the circle of protection. A similar regime could prevail on assisted suicide.

The U of T paper used the language of “harm reduction” to speak of euthanizing those in “unjust social circumstances,” which means the poor. That should set off alarm bells, for “harm reduction” is the fashionable approach to our opioid and fentanyl epidemic. Adam Zivo this week extensively reported on why “safer supply” is not so safe after all. That’s an unintended consequence. What happens when “harm reduction” for addicts means providing them with one last, lethal hit?

Remember that it was the medical establishment — over-prescribing physicians, corrupt pharmaceutical companies — that was in part responsible for the opioid epidemic. Is it difficult to imagine that its more unsavoury elements will eagerly step in to offer “medical assistance” to the homeless, the desperate, the depressed and the addicted?

The lethal logic of lesser lives left out of the circle of legal protection does not advance at a uniform pace. But it advances — unless and until some legislators, some doctors, some ethicists, some citizens are willing to stop it.