Le foetus n'est pas une personne ! Comme jadis les femmes, les Noirs etc

Le foetus n'est pas une personne !
Date de diffusion : 21 mars 1991  http://archives.radio-canada.ca/politique/droits_libertes/clips/6740/À l'unanimité, les juges de la Cour suprême ont refusé d'accorder la qualité de personne au fœtus. Aucune disposition constitutionnelle ou législative ne lui garantit de droit et donc de protection, normalement assurés aux personnes par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Mais s'il n'est pas une personne, quel est-il?

Nicole Duple, professeure de droit à l'Université Laval éclaircit la portée de cette décision.
Cet arrêt de la Cour suprême intervient six ans après l'incident qui est à l'origine de l'affaire Sullivan-Lemay.

En 1985, à la suite d'un accouchement qui a mal tourné, deux sages-femmes de Colombie-Britannique, Mary Sullivan et Gloria Lemay, sont condamnées pour négligence criminelle ayant entraîné la mort du fœtus. Afin de statuer sur la culpabilité ou non des deux femmes, il s'agissait de définir le statut juridique du fœtus.

Selon l'article 223.1 du Code criminel du Canada, « un enfant devient un être humain lorsqu'il est complètement sorti, vivant, du sein de sa mère : a) qu'il ait respiré ou non; b) qu'il ait ou non une circulation indépendante; c) que le cordon ombilical soit coupé ou non ».

L'article interprétatif du Code criminel affirme que le fœtus n'est pas un « être humain » au sens de la Charte des droits et libertés. Autrement dit, tant qu'il n'est pas né, l'enfant n'a aucun droit à la vie et à la sécurité, qui sont reconnus aux personnes par la Charte.

Si les foetus ne sont pas des personnes que sont ceux sortit de force  par césariennes et césariennes programmées ?

Ajout :
Un député conservateur de Kitchener Ontario tente de relancer le débat sur la nature du foetus malgré l'opposition  d'Harper. Harper a peur de perdre des votes, rien qu'à wouère on woé ben.
Ce que dit le député Woodworth :

Before I answer that question, let’s read Section 223(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code:
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

Canada’s 400 year old definition of human being says children are not human beings until the moment of complete birth.

Now there might be some people who can convince themselves that a child magically transforms into a human being when their little toe pops out of the birth canal. However, I’ve concluded that modern medical science will inform us that children are in reality human beings at some point before the moment of complete birth. For me – and I think for most Canadians this law clearly misrepresents the facts. It’s based on limited seventeenth century medical knowledge.

Yet 79% of Canadians don’t even know there’s no recognition of a child’s humanity until the moment of complete birth. They think children are protected at least in the later stages of development. No wonder they don’t feel any need to talk about it. But what if they knew the truth?

Section 223 is, purely and simply, a law that says some human beings are not human beings. Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings. Nothing justifies it.

So why do I say this principle is important to each of you personally?

It’s not just because it’s controversial, and you’re here to get a nice controversial story!

It’s because each of you is a journalist! At some point in your life you made a personal commitment to the truth! At least that’s what we expect of you! Has anyone here abandoned their commitment to the truth?

Don’t you want truthful laws? Don’t you wish we could get rid of every misrepresentation in Canadian law? How can Section 223 or any law be based on a lie and be just?

Just laws must be based on accurate evidence, not arbitrary lines unrelated to reality. If there’s no objective criteria for who’s a human being, then personhood and the fundamental rights that go with it can be defined in any way any powerful person or group decides. Is that the Canada you want?

Don’t accept any law, including Section 223, that says some human beings are not human beings. It’s an important principle! No Member of Parliament should remain silent in the face of any law that says some human beings are not human beings. I wouldn’t deserve to be elected to Parliament if I remained silent in the face of such a law.

I’m merely proposing in my motion that Parliament inform itself from the relevant disciplines. I am not even suggesting what the outcome of that study should be.

If we care about the truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead. That’s what you do as journalists. Isn’t that what you would want of conscientious Members of Parliament?

So this story is about Section 223. This story has to do with one Parliamentarian’s belief that justice demands honest laws based on cogent evidence and principle.

Here are the facts on which I rely,

1. In 1642 Sir Edward Coke wrote that children before birth were not considered human beings until they were born alive. He didn’t know any better.

2. In 1879 when our Criminal Code was drafted, and in 1892 when it was adopted, this law was incorporated.

3. I am not aware of any cogent evidence which supports the idea that children are not human until the moment of complete birth, and I know of some that does not.

4. Parliament has a duty to update an important law like a definition of human being having informed itself from the relevant disciplines.
Source http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/06/dont-accept-any-law-that-says-some-human-beings-are-not-human-beings/

****
Jadis les canadiennes n'étaient pas des personnes
Jadis, les Noirs étaient considérés comme des primates