Youth Blog

In a country with no abortion law, some argue that introducing gestational limits is a step in the right direction, but as pro-lifers committed to protecting all human life from fertilization to natural death, we must ask: at what cost?

Some in the pro-life movement contend that, since abortion is already decriminalized in Canada, any law that restricts it, even partially, is better than none. On the surface, this may seem like a practical strategy. But when we dig deeper, both ideologically and theologically, it becomes clear that this approach undermines the very foundation of our belief that all human life is valuable from the moment of fertilization.

1. Life begins at fertilization and Scripture affirms this.

Scripture is clear that human life is sacred from its very beginning. Psalm 139:13–16 describes how God knits each person together in the womb. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us even before we are formed. The evil of abortion does not hinge on how many weeks old the child is, it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, made in the image of God.

To accept gestational limits is to imply that some children are less human or less worthy of protection simply because they are smaller or younger. That kind of discrimination, based on age or development, contradicts both Biblical teaching and biological fact. God does not discriminate by gestational age, and neither should we.

2. Codifying a gestational limit risks creating a legal right to abortion.

Canada currently has no legal protection for children before birth. In 1988, the Supreme Court in R. v. Morgentaler struck down the Criminal Code’s abortion provisions from 1969 that required approval by hospital Therapeutic Abortion Committees, and Parliament never replaced them. That means abortion is neither criminalized nor explicitly legalized in statute. Enacting a gestational limit now would reinsert abortion into federal law for the first time since 1988, defining when it is acceptable to kill a child in the womb and, by implication, affirming access before that cutoff.

That’s not regulating evil. That’s legalizing it. And once a so-called “compromise” is codified in law, it becomes much harder to undo. Instead of abolishing abortion altogether, we will have set the terms under which it’s allowed.

3. We can’t divide humans into protected and unprotected classes.

Would we ever support a law that only protects some victims of murder? Of course not. Human rights are not based on convenience, popularity, or feasibility. The idea that we can protect some preborn children now while allowing the rest to be killed later is not a morally neutral stance, it’s unjust.

Some pro-life advocates have even compared the idea of gestational limits to heroic efforts during the Holocaust, where families saved Jewish children, they had the capacity to hide, suggesting that saving some is better than saving none. But this analogy misses the point. In that historical context, people were resisting unjust laws to save as many lives as possible. In contrast, supporting gestational legislation means actively crafting and endorsing laws that determine who may be killed. We are not talking about individual acts of rescue, we are talking about formal legal frameworks that draw lines between which children deserve protection, and which do not. That is a fundamentally different moral act.

4. Gestational limits shift abortion earlier, not reduce it.

Countries with gestational bans have seen a dramatic rise in early, chemical abortions. These abortions often happen quietly, at home, without medical supervision, and are harder to track and intervene in.

In Canada, over 90% of abortions already happen in the first trimester. A 10-week or 12-week limit would only reinforce the status quo and likely increase chemical abortions through pills like Mifegymiso. This makes it harder for pro-life advocates to intervene with support, sidewalk counseling, or visual tools like abortion victim photography. It would further dehumanize the youngest victims of abortion, those still small enough to be hidden.

5. Not all incremental strategies are gestational.

Rejecting gestational limits does not mean rejecting all incremental laws. We can advance life without denying anyone’s humanity.

• Parental notification for minors respects families and protects vulnerable teens.
• Required ultrasounds and informed consent ensure that mothers see and understand the child and the procedure before any decision.
• Banning sex-selective abortion confronts a real injustice against girls and affirms the equal dignity of daughters and sons.
• Protecting conscience rights defends physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and institutions from coercion to commit abortion.
• Ending taxpayer funding of abortion at home and abroad stops public endorsement of abortion and redirects resources to life-affirming care for mothers and babies.

These steps move culture and policy in a life-affirming direction without drawing arbitrary age lines.

6. Justice must be impartial, especially for the most vulnerable.

Proverbs 24:11–12 commands us to “rescue those being led away to death.” It doesn’t say to rescue only the ones who are politically convenient to save. Our responsibility is to stand for all preborn children, without compromise or exception.

Gestational limits give the illusion of progress while codifying injustice. We cannot build a culture of life on the backs of those we agree to leave behind.

If we want to end abortion in Canada, we must stay rooted in truth. Life begins at fertilization, and any law that says otherwise, even if it seems like a partial win, is a moral misstep. We can and must pursue real, principled strategies that affirm the dignity and value of every preborn child, without exception.