Canada’s Criminal Code, Section 223 reads:
- 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.
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
_______________________
Andrea adds: No, I don’t, for one. And I don’t know many expectant mothers who would agree with this, either.
by 
Aside from the fact that part 1 is bizarrely particular about how “born” a person is before they’re recognized as a human being, part 2 really spells out the absurdity of the unborn not being considered people.
“(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”
So, it’s homicide when… you injure a child before it is born, but once the child is born they die as a result of that injury. If they die before they are born as a result of the injury, no “crime” has been committed.
And this makes sense because?
Makes perfect sense to me. Acknowledging that a foetus is a living thing is not the same as defining it as an independent human being, separate from it host (mother). Same as the sperm that helps create it. Sperm either dies or bonds with an egg to slowly create a foetus. Sperm is alive, but it is not a human being. Neither is a tadpole a frog. There is no doubt that, if all goes well, the sperm will bond with an egg and create a foetus, which will grow and form until it is born as a human being, separate from his/her mother. So, yes, I do agree with section 223, because it is simply the most logical way to define a human being. I can’t see how that is debatable.