More on the Inalienable Right to a Prompt and Free Abortion on Demand

I think a general problem reflected in the current Manitoba ruling (see “Canada Death Watch,” below), is that people misunderstand the original doctrine of human rights. We are “endowed by the Creator” with such rights; they are inherent in being human and inalienable. They are therefore necessarily not things given by governments, things that could not exist without government, but rather things that governments may not take away.

So, for example, for “security of the person,” the human right at issue in the present case. This means properly that government must not itself violate our security of the person; it does not mean that government must protect us from all harm. In the present case, not only harm from others, but from acts of God and even—in the case of abortion-- from our own actions.

Had we the latter right, to have government protect our security of person from all possible harm, for example, any government would be in a Catch-22. They would have to provide an infallible police force and armed forces for the majority of citizens, but also somehow guarantee that no actual member of such forces were harmed themselves in the line of duty.

This seems unlikely. More unlikely still, the government would apparently be liable should any citizen ever sicken or die.

This seems untenable on a purely actuarial basis, particularly over several centuries.


Note too how minor a supposed risk to health triggers this constitutional right. In the Manitoba case, there was no question of not being able to get the abortion, and no question even of not being able to get it free.

“At the time of their procedures, both Janes would have had to have waited between four and six weeks for an appointment.” “Believing that waiting would pose medical and psychological risks, both women opted to have the procedure done at a private clinic.”

A matter of three to five weeks; the private clinic did it in one week. It was not a matter of abortion being de facto unavailable at the public clinics due to the delay.

Imagine if the right to such prompt service were extended to other procedures. Anything from a hip replacement to a heart transplant within a week.

Unless the courts really intend to set free abortion on demand apart as a right above all other rights, this could be devastating to our medical health system. Already obviously straining under its obligations.