D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS.

I struggled on, putting one

thing in place only to have other things I

had already put in place fall on my head. A

foul issue indeed! And yet, that I still had

much - very much - to learn, dear Members,

you have no doubt whatever.

Amazingly, what I had to learn was

to go back to the start and begin

again. Begin again how? By throwing out

everything I had learned? Well, no: why

should I have to eject everything? (If I had

thus far learned something from you, would

you wish me to eject it?) No, I realized not

that everything I had thought was wrong

but that the puzzle I was working on was

much larger and of a different shape

ENTIRELY than I had suspected!

One day, having mixed myself a nice screech

and orange juice and settled down to read the

paper, I came upon a story on Mr. VALEUR-

DE-BOIS’s Motion 312 - perfect! - but what

I read caused me to flinch. A member of the

‘Radical Hand-

maids ’ (a group

formed to oppose

this very Motion)

said it was their

aim to drive the

Motion all the

way “back to the

hell hole it came

from.” Eughh! The

thrust of that

remark found my

solar plexus, and

I spewed a little cocktail. I liked the Motion;

did I, because I liked it, also crawl from a

‘Hell hole’? I was puzzled: how could any

trace of ‘Hell’ be wrung from this Motion?

Its plan seemed so reserved and reasonable:

A to hear from those who know most about

the nature of the physical being residing in

the womb, b to hear what they understand

that creature to be, and c to allow MPs

to reach whatever conclusion that hearing

should warrant.

I had something to learn indeed. In fact,

today I fume when I hear words about this

Motion like, “It’s pretty anodyne, as far as it goes.

It’s not a motion about a law, but only a study.” Not

about a lawÉÉ? Anodyne is it, as far as it goes?

Well, perhaps we should ask not how far

it has gone but about how far it might go

yet? I learned this - unforgettably - from

my friend Prema .

Because I wished (immediately) to know

what prompted such fierce condemnation

of the Motion I asked myself, who do I

know who could enlighten me? I have a

great advantage in that I have friends of

every political stance, every religion, every

philosophy. I live, in a sense, in the very

heart of our country itself - I do not mean

in the Capital, but, amidst the people. And

because it is my desire to learn about these

oddballs and travel with them where they

are going - to the Truth that they can see

rather than to some Truth before me that is

so far invisible to them - because of this I

never have any trouble becoming informed.

The name that came to me was prema da

GAMA , feminist, lawyer, and friend. I was

certain she knew about Motion 312 and, to

be sure, when I raised it on the phone she

said, “You better just come over.”

When the tea was poured I

began. “Why do people speak

of Motion 312 as ‘this absurd wingnut pantomime’?”

Prema waved her notes. “You don’t know

why, when this Motion was proposed, it

was ‘immediately smacked down from every direction’?”

My silence was eloquent. “OK, let me open

your eyes. Three questions. O n e : is there any

practical point to asking for this report

from the scientists?”

“To correct a law,” I replied, “that, because

it is based on archaic science, defines some

human beings as not yet human.É”

“OK, why do you care?”

I could see this was going to be another ride,

braced myself, and answered as honestly as

I could. “Because of injustice : laws protect

human beings but under archaic laws some

human beings (not yet born) will not have

the law’s protection.”

“OK, so you care because they should be

protected. q u e st i o n t WO : protected against

what? We have laws because of real needs,

right? Real things that actually happen?

Should businesses provide rails for tying up

horses? Why? Nobody rides horses anymore:

dump that law! Somebody on the internet was

listing absurd laws: ‘It is forbidden to push

a moose out of a plane which is in motion’ -

and some guy wrote back, ‘Well I’m going

to jail!’ What’s the joke there, why’s that

funny? Who the heck is ever going to push

a moose out of an airplane?! You don’t need

laws against what’s not going to happen.”

“So,” she went on, “second question again:

what’s going to happen that you need this ‘cor-

rected law’ to prevent? What’s the injustice?”

“Well, anything that could happen that we

don’t think is right (and so set up laws to

prevent, as a deterrent). Anything.”

“Come on: sure, fine - but I’m asking, such

as what? Real things that actually happen:

what’s this going to help us with? Name one.

You’re too smart to dodge this question.”

Dodge a question - goodness no! That is the

road to ruin in my books, so I thought a

moment. “Well,” I said, “say your baby is

about to be born but someone shoots it or

injures it and it dies in utero (sadly, such

things happen). Isn’t that wrong, unjust? But

the present law doesn’t say so.”

“OK, now we are getting somewhere. What

else?” We stared at each other. Seconds

ticked past. I knew what she was asking

but, for some reason, I simply did not begin

to say it. Odd. Why did I not speak? But

then we spoke at the same time.

Prema: “If some doctor sticks a tube in the

uterus and breaks up the baby and vacuums

it out in bits, is that an injury to the baby?”

Me (simultaneously): “Abortions!”

“Good, great, now we’re talking,” Prema said.

“Sure, I get it when you say, ‘Why do we

need to spell out all the possible injustices?’

Yes, we want laws against everything that

might happen that we don’t think is right.

But here’s one of those things: right? If that

is a human being in there (just about to be

born, say), then cutting it up is cutting up

a human being . And cutting up a human

being is unjust. Right?”

“Well, I think so,” I replied. “Do you?”

We stared at each other, again. Tick, tick,

tick, tick. And then we spoke all at once.

Me: “If you cut up a living human being, like

me, who is just minding his own business,

so it dies, that is unjust , right?”

Prema (simultaneously): “It depends!”

We sat there in silence for a moment, a

silence for which I was very grateful. We

were making progress together. Hand in

hand we were walking toward the Truth. We

were vulnerable together, dancing together

at Truth’s ball, to her music not to our own.

Together, in harmony, not shouting.

Then I asked, “It depends on ... ?”

She replied, “It depends on other

considerations of justice - which

brings me to my LAST q u e st i o n : can

you honestly say that this is just a

matter of science , of bringing facts

up to date? I mean, look: here’s a

person who says that your Mr. VALEUR-

DE-BOIS ‘is not proposing a scientific question, not by

a long shot. He’s proposing an ethical, legal, and at best,

philosophical question.’ Don’t you agree?”

“Philosophical , why? What is philosophical

about it? But ethical and legal , yes,”

I said. “It is a question of justice in the

law, I agree, but from the start VALEUR-

DE-BOIS has said so: the issue is j u st i c e .

He asked, how can ‘any law be based on a lie and be

j u st ?’ A law that says some human beings

are not human ‘is not a j u st law’.”

“Well then,” said Prema, “we are agreed on

that! And now, practically speaking, what

just result will this hearing bring about?”

“I have no idea. First we would have to know

what conclusion, about the nature of the

fetus, this hearing will generate. Do you know?”

No.

3 1 JUNE

2012}}

The DISSEN TING FU TILITARIAN {{

L ET T E R S TO M EMB E R S O F PA R L I A M E N T F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y

W h a t c a n w e k n o w ? W h a t b r a i n s h a v e w e g o t ? W h a t c a n w e s k i p ? W h a t m u s t w e n o t ? !

B

The Honourable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , M.P.House of CommonsOttawa

say they want things left as they are.)

There is no threat when we are in disagreement.

A threat arises only if we reach agreement .

Amazing! What finally became clear to me

was that those who say ‘n o d i s c u s s i o n ’

must fear that the investigation will

end in agreement!

And the question that then began to haunt

me was, Why do they think it will end in

agreement? Why do they believe that if

Members of Parliament - yourselves, good

Ladies and Gentlemen - hear this evidence,

there is a considerable chance that it will

lead you to the conclusion that the Resident

of the Womb is human?

Do they think you will agree because the

evidence will compel you to see a fetus

as human?! Do they believe the ev i d e n c e

s h ow s that the fetus is human? Goodness

- then we could admit that at least. That

would be progress in knowledge, would it not?!

O r - do they believe that the ev i d e n c e

d o e s n ot s h ow that the fetus is human

but you people will choose to ignore this,

and change the laws anyway, because you

cannot evaluate evidence? You will fake

agreement because your beliefs are not

based on reality; instead you merely bang

the gong of some prior commitment and shut

your eyes to evidence! Is that what they

think of you? Is that why they are afraid?

But if you don’t think that, if you are a

person who trusts our MPs to judge evidence

fairly, one thing seemed very clear: the more

you wished not to have the discussion, the

more you believed the ev i d e n c e w o u l d

s h ow that the fetus is a human being. (Do

you recall our ‘lack of consensus ’ about

the nature of the unborn? I was beginning

to think that it was a n i l l u s i o n .)

Something came back to me as I walked,

thinking these thoughts: a video clip

I had downloaded, in which Mr. VALEUR-

DE-BOIS responded to the question, “If the

fetus were deemed human,” would that not mean

that “abortion would have to be criminalized?” I fished

out my player and sat on the curb.

“No,” he answered. “It doesn’t resolve the abortion

issue, because the interests of the child and the interests

of the mother are still both engaged and it might be - it

might well be - that we would end up at a position where

the interests of the mother are deemed to be superior to

the interests of the child.” (The justice issue that

Prema had explained!)

Interviewer: “It’s not a black-and-white issue, ever....”

Mr. V-D-B: “Not at all. What is black and white is, If

there is a conflict of interest between people, you don’t

resolve it by saying one person is a human being and one

person is not. You recognize they’re both human beings and

then you weigh those interests appropriately.”

I sat under the clouds of the night sky, amazed.

(Is this the end of my tale? Have I exhausted

you? Forgive me; that is not my intent.

Those of us who are burdened with the

task of pursuing the truth must go on, must

we not? Yes, there are those who hear one

good argument and take up a protest sign.

Do they have the patience to hear my tale?

No! But you, dear readers, whom else but

you - charged with the truth, trusted by the

people to lead - to whom else but you can I

speak of these things?! - UNTIL SO ON !)

I am, etc.

1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca

“Well, if the plan of the committee is to see

what science says, then the committee just needs to

read a few pages from an embryology textbook and we’ll be

done with this exercise, because what science says

is already clear. And if that is the process,

then practically speaking the outcome is

going to be the classification of abortion

as harm to a human being, just as we said.

Which is why people are saying that this

Motion is (quote), ‘a blatant attempt to criminalize

abortion.’ If this conclusion is reached (quote),

‘there will be no stopping these fetus fetishists in...’.”

“Gad, why do they have to talk like that?”

Prema continued, “‘no stopping these fetus fetishists

in government from passing all kinds of hideous laws to

recriminalize abortion.’ Science, sure, but where

this is g oing seems to me to be restrictions

on abortion. And if you criminalize abortion

without looking at those other considerations

of justice then you are pulling a fast one!”

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“Well, in your heart I bet you are saying -

tell me if I’m wrong - All we need to set

a just law here is to see if abortions kill

a human being, period. But say that and

you are deceiving people, because you are

slipping in a take on justice that Canadians

have not had since poodle skirts.”

“What are they?”

“Exactly! But I’ll show you. You are going

to be very surprised in about one minute.”

I gulped some tea and prepared for the blow

which - oh yes - I knew was coming.

“So what’s the Motion’s planÉ?”

Prema asked. “Say it is to change

the laws, to make them more just for the unborn.

OK, fast forward to the new law, which

is now in place - say we even bring back

the law we had in the past, which made

performing an abortion an indictable offence.

You have heard of Dr. MORNING-DOLLAR?”

(I nodded.) “He was charged under that very

law for performing abortions - and what

happened? Do you know? The law was on

the books. We had a law. But time after

time juries refused to enforce that law

and he was acquitted!”

“But ... how,” I spluttered.

“How? People did not find the Doctor’s

actions unjust . Why, you ask? Because to

those juries (people like you and me) the

issue in every case had to do with more than

the fetus. You didn’t like the expression

‘fetus fetishist’ but do you get, now, why people

use it? You’ve got a fetus, yes; but you’ve

also got other people in the same situation

(a woman, her family) and you have to look

at their interests too.”

I clenched my teeth but - yes - swallowed

the expression ‘fetus-fetishist’.

“So, back to my last question,” said Prema.

“Don’t you agree that the issue here is not

just science, but justice in the law? And now

ask yourself this: is it true ‘that the current

law exists because, at the time of its creation, we did not

understand that an unborn child was human’? This law

was set in place a hundred years ago, when

modern science was clear: the law doesn’t

reflect bad science; it reflects modern law,

which counts the fetus a non-person, not

protected like others, because of issues of

justice, not science. The ‘biological aspects of What

is a human being and the legal aspects of personhood’ are

two different discussions.”

“If you are not sure,” she added, “listen to

this: the Supreme Court of Canada in the

case of Tremblay v. Daigle: ‘The task of properly

classifying a foetus in law and in science are different

pursuits.’ Why? Because P e r s o n h o o d is the

legal category that weighs justice. It might

well be that there are certain human beings

who ... like I said ... get vacuumed out to

serve a greater justice.”

“What do you mean, a greater justice?” I

asked rather weakly.

“I mean that more justice is done if the

abortion is allowed: more harm results if it

is forbidden.”

I told Prema that I would be going now

and thanked her for what she had done

to my eyes, because frankly I didn’t think

they could take any more help. They must,

I thought, be thoroughly bloodshot. On the

way to the door she asked, “Are you OK?”

“I am in excellent shape,” I answered, “thank

you. This is just what I was made for!”

And indeed it seemed as if I was gradually

getting used to this.

I chose the long way home. How good

that I was on foot (the way I like

to travel) and could pay attention to my

thoughts. As I walked, something surprising

- something very peculiar and unexpected

even - emerged from all I had just learned.

Prema had fully explained the anger at the

Member’s “unwanted” and “nasty little motion”: if

it would do nothing but pave the way for

laws against abortion, they said, then we

should have n o d i s c u s s i o n , n ot i n q u i r e

into the nature of the Resident of the Womb.

But do you see that? To inquire into the

nature of the fetus, they are saying, is to risk

general agreement that it is a human being.

Think it through, as I did, and imagine

now a totally different scenario. Imagine,

instead, that holding this inquiry were more

likely to result in disagreement (with

some participants calling an embryo ‘human’,

others calling it a ‘gestational sac’, etc.).

Now ask yourself: What ‘conclusion’ would

a study like that deliver that could affect

the law?

None.

In this scenario without agreement about

the nature of the fetus our only ‘conclusion’

would be that we had reached no conclusion.

What risk would such disagreement pose

to Reproductive Rights? None at all. (You

would have no change from the way things are

today. Today, prior to the hated discussion,

we seem not to agree about the nature of

the fetus: ‘Leave things as they are today,’

we are told, ‘Have no discussion,’ ‘Send this

discussion back to the hell-hole that spawned

it.’ There is no threat to those rights in the

way things are today, which is why people