![]() ![]() Adam Zivo this week extensively reported on why “safer supply” is not so safe after all. That should set off alarm bells, for “harm reduction” is the fashionable approach to our opioid and fentanyl epidemic. The U of T paper used the language of “harm reduction” to speak of euthanizing those in “unjust social circumstances,” which means the poor. A similar regime could prevail on assisted suicide. 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. When such contractions are first proposed, leaving out the mentally ill, the disabled newborn, the homeless man - there is shock, even disgust. 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. 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. Therefore, the protection of law does not apply. Regarding the abortion, the powerful have determined that life in utero does not bear inherent dignity. ![]() And if there is no inherent dignity then some other criteria must be applied, determined by those powerful enough to do so. 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. It’s that kind of thinking that led The Spectator last year to ask why Canada is “euthanizing the poor?” The same Post story included polling data reporting that already more than 25 per cent of Canadians would support legalizing assisted suicide for homelessness or poverty. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |