About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitor essays
Our forum
New essays
Other site features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
Who is a Christian?
Shared beliefs
Handle change
Bible topics
Bible inerrancy
Bible harmony
Interpret Bible
Beliefs, creeds
Da Vinci code
Revelation, 666
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions


About all religions
Important topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handle change
Confusing terms
World's end
One true religion?
Seasonal topics
Science v. Religion
More info.

Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten commandm'ts
Assisted suicide
Death penalty
Equal rights - gays & bi's
Gay marriage
Origins of the species
Sex & gender
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news


Religious Tolerance logo


horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

Most discussions of fetal rights relate to whether a woman should be able to request an abortion, and thus terminate the life of her fetus. But there are other situations where this balance of rights is important. Consider a woman who has decided to take her pregnancy to term, and yet is abusive to the fetus. Does the state have the right to forcibly take the woman into custody in order to prevent her damaging the fetus?

A situation like this arose in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1996-AUG. A 21 year old woman, D.G., was 5 months pregnant and hopelessly addicted to glue & solvent sniffing. She had previously given birth to three children; at least two of them were permanently harmed in the womb as a result of her addiction. They became wards of the state immediately after they were born. Social workers from Winnipeg Child and Family Services (CFS) had tried repeatedly to obtain help for the woman, but she had refused treatment. Once, she was willing to accept help, but there was none available at the time.

Family Services applied for a court order to force her to spend the rest of her pregnancy in a medical facility. Their lawyer, Heather Leonoff, argued that a mother exposing her fetus to poison breached the standard of care that Canadian law requires of mothers-to-be. Mr. Phillips represented Ms. G. He argued that since a fetus is legally a non-entity under Canadian law, then there was no person being harmed by the poison, other than his client. In a controversial decision, Judge Schulman rejected both arguments. He ordered the woman to undergo a psychiatric examination. He reasoned that if she suffered from a psychiatric disorder than he could commit her to custody to be treated for addiction. He later rejected the psychiatric assessment and ordered that she be taken into the custody of social-welfare authorities.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the Judge's order. Part of their argument was that any damage to the fetus would have been done in the first trimester, and she already was 5 months pregnant, near the end of her second trimester. They were also worried about the civil rights of Ms. G. She remained in the hospital voluntarily until she overcame her addiction. Both she and the fetus suffered a difficult withdrawal; both experienced seizures.

CFS appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1996-OCT. 12 interest groups, representing religious denominations, women's rights groups, civil liberties organizations and native groups addressed the court. On 1997-OCT-31, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled by a 7 to 2 majority that nobody has the right to interfere with a woman's pregnancy against her will, even if her behavior threatens her fetus. It is perhaps ironic that the decision was handed down on Halloween.

Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote the decision for the majority. She stated: "The only law recognized is that of the born person. Any right or interest the fetus may have remains inchoate and incomplete until the birth of the child." She concluded that any attempt to forcibly treat a pregnant woman would violate "the most sacred sphere of personal liberty - the right of every person to live and move in freedom...A pregnant woman and her unborn child are one...To make orders protecting fetuses would radically impinge on the fundamental liberties of the mother - both as to lifestyle choices and as to where she chooses to live..." She expressed concern that if the state were found to have a right to interfere with a pregnancy then women who smoke cigarettes or who exercise strenuously might be the next to be taken into custody. This could cause the problem to be driven underground: pregnant women might refuse counseling and medical help out of fear of being confined; some might even resort to having an abortion in order to continue their addiction. "In the end, orders made to protect a fetus's health could ultimately result in its destruction."

Judge McLachlin wrote that if "the unborn child is [considered] a legal person with legal rights" then all types of ramifications would result. For example:

bulletA woman seeking an abortion might be countered by an injunction obtained on behalf of the fetus.
bulletA drunk driver who causes an accident which kills a pregnant woman might be sued by her family for the death of the fetus.

Carissima Mathen, a lawyer with the Women's Legal and Education and Addiction Fund agreed with the decision. She said: "It was a very serious case, a very grave case. I was surprised at how completely they appeared to agree with us. They grasped that this is an issue of fundamental rights for women."

Mr. Justice John Sopinka and John Major issued a dissenting judgment, stating that intervention against the wishes of a pregnant woman should be possible if there is a reasonable probability that her behavior would cause "serious irreparable harm to the unborn child...In any event, this interference is always subject to the mother's right to end it by deciding to have an abortion...When a woman chooses to carry a fetus to term, she must accept some responsibility for its well-being and the state has an interest in trying to ensure the child's health."

Jim Hughes, president of Campaign Life Canada, (a "pro-life group) called "on Parliament to immediately enact legislation to protect the most defenseless member of our human family - the pre-born child. It is a matter of scientific truth and fundamental justice."

Ms. G has overcome her addiction, became pregnant again, and was married in 1997-NOV. She has become a born-again Evangelical Christian. Her child appears to not have been damage by his mother's addiction. He is thriving. The couple has withdrawn from the spotlight.

horizontal rule

Site navigation:

 Home page > "Hot" topics > Abortion > Religious aspects > here

horizontal rule

Copyright © 1997 to 2004 incl., by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 1997-NOV-14

Latest update: 2004-MAR-7
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or return to the "Religious aspects of abortion menu, or choose:

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.