Pro-life, but voting against Motion 312


Liberal MP Sean Casey says he’ll be voting no on Motion 312.

As a public figure, I naturally struggle when divisive issues are placed before Parliament. In this case, it is an issue that is deeply personal on both sides.

I am pro-life.

However, I have decided that my personal views will not come first. I listened to my constituents and will oppose Motion 312. This has not been an easy decision.

Since this motion was presented, several months ago, I have had countless discussions and correspondence with constituents. It is clear that the majority of residents in Charlottetown are opposed to this Motion and against reopening the debate on abortion.

I want to thank those who contacted me on both sides of the debate. I value debate in Canada and am grateful that the people of Charlottetown are engaged in public policy and political life.

I will vote against knowing some might view this as a compromise of my personal beliefs, but any judgements in that regard will be between me and my faith.

The CBC counts Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro, Leon Benoit and Maurice Vellacott as supporting the motion.


Pro-life, but voting against Motion 312

  1. Thank you Sean Casey.

  2. Very respectful MP Casey, shows that Faith is truly a private thing and logic can prevail.

  3. Thank you Sean! Faith is powerful and motivating, but public policy needs to be founded on common good.

    • Fighting abortion is for the common good. It is important for the equality of women, it is important for the security of the person, and it is important for the recognition of universal human rights.

  4. Being ‘pro-life’ means that you believe that each human being has an inherent dignity that deserves both respect and the protection of the law. Science
    teaches us that from the moment of conception, a unique and distinctly
    human being exists. Motion 312 merely proposes that there be a dialogue
    on the issue of whether or not this scientific fact should be
    acknowledged within the laws of Canada.

    If this were a
    vote about a 2 year old child–a unique and distinctly human
    being–would Mr. Casey still vote with his consituents should they assert
    that such a child is not a person and not deserving of recognition in
    Canadian legislation? Since when does ‘democracy’ trump human rights?

    What if his constituents are wrong? What if–as the
    facts tell us–there are over one hundred thousand unique and distinctly
    human beings destroyed every year in Canada, and he is one of the
    many who refuses to even discuss it?

    9 and 10 weeks gestation, an unborn human person’s vocal cords are
    already beginning to develop. But they still have no voice. Our legislators have a responsibility to vote not just on behalf of those with a
    voice, but also for those (both now and in the future) who do not.

    I earnestly appeal to Mr. Casey and to all MPs to support Motion 312.

    • Jeebus….talk about faulty logic!

    • Because twins don’t exist?

      Perhaps you need to learn more about science before you start declaring when science says things are unique and distinct.

      • Really? You are going to argue that twins aren’t unique or distinct? Are you too old to understand that epigenetics is an actual scientific discipline?

        • Are you too dumb to understand the definition of “unique”?

          • Yes. Just because twins are clones, doesn’t mean they don’t have unique characteristics. Genes are not fixed blueprints, but rather instructions for their propagation and replication that can express themselves differently when they respond to external stimuli. Brush up on epigenetics, because you are making as big of an ass of yourself as Rep. Akin did.

    • No two human beings can exist within the same entity without infringing on the human and Charter rights of the other. The Charter guarantees “security of the person” which means women, and men, have sovereignty over their own bodies. None of us, currently, are in the “slave” class. I’d like to keep it that way.

      • Being a mother doesn’t mean you are a slave. Being forced by society to abort your children because being a mother is incompatible with business and political ambitions makes you a slave.

        Everyone who supports abortion is just supporting the status quo that makes women unequal.

        • Having to go to court to get “permission” to do something that is legal in Canada, like, say for example go rafting, or more likely, face charges for NOT getting permission to do the something, makes one a slave to the fetus (more accurately, the “protectors” of the fetus, meaning those who don’t mind in the least removing women’s rights). Free will is gone.

          • Free will is usually constrained when you are going to harm or murder someone else. It is the fundamental basis of a free, equal and liberal society.

    • Questions: How many single mothers do you support? How many foster children have you adopted? Do you believe that birth control should be made more easily available to low-income women? What penalty should there be for a man who causes an unplanned pregnancy? Do you think women should face jail time for smoking or eating junk food while pregnant? What steps should be taken to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening? Are you aware there are 75 thousand Canadian children in foster care?

      Please do answer, because I haven’t heard a single answer from so-called “pro-lifers” on these questions.

      Sean Casey did exactly what he is supposed to do as an MP – listen to his constituents.

      • Oh, you want answers to that. Okay.

        1) Who do you think supports and fosters the majority of foster kids? The religious pro-lifers that’s who. On another note, who do you think provides emotional and psychological support for those who regret their abortions and need a way to grieve and take responsibility for their dead child? Your side just abandons them after the abortion is over because you think the problem is “solved”.

        2) Birth control can be better than abortions, but birth control can often be

        an abortifacient so that often isn’t a meaningful distinction. It is morally superior though to not have sex if you can’t handle the natural consequences of sex.

        3) He should be forced to take responsibility for his child in a very real and financial way, whatever the circumstances of the conception. Even if he is a sperm donor.

        4) No, but again there should be social pressure to curb these actions during pregnancy. It should not be morally neutral action to do neglect your child during pregnancy.

        5) Well, people can admit that the sexual revolution has caused far more problems than it solved. The sheer amount of harm that infidelity, increased abortions, and the spread of STD’s have caused our society have more than overwhelmed any positive contributions it might have made.

        6) Yes.

        • “My side”? Oh please. I WAS a young teenage mother, and there were no churches, religious pro-lifers or anyone else who helped me out.
          And regarding the moral superiority of religious folks, many treat women as subservient beings anyways, so I don’t agree with that at all.

          “It is morally superior…not to have sex if you can’t handle the natural consequences…” Are you aware that most women who have abortions are already parents and often are married?
          “Forced to take responsibility…” Where are all the bills calling for that, then? I have never seen a pro-lifer in Canada that calls out men for being deadbeats…no posters, no harassment, no consequences at all.
          “morally neutral action to neglect your child during pregnancy…”Again, my experience while pregnant at 18 was working 4 jobs, being exhausted and never being able to afford fruit or vegetables…was I neglectful or just poor?
          “sheer amount of harm that infidelity, increased abortions, and the spread of STD’s have caused our society…”You ARE aware that many more men than women commit infidelity and spread STDs in Canada?
          You never answered my FIRST question, which was how many single mothers do you support?

      • There are thousands of couples waiting to adopt. They are mostly seeking newborn infants of which very few are available. Adoption is the third choice after parenting and abortion. In fact, less than 2% of single women facing an unplanned pregnancy will place their babies for adoption in Canada. To say that abortion or single parenting are the only solutions belies the facts.

        • “Mostly seeking newborn babies…”
          All of these morally superior types don’t want to adopt older children or children of other races…so I guess all these young single mothers should serve as brood mares for those who cannot conceive naturally?

          Why don’t they pray to God to fix that?

    • The main problem with your argument is that you’re confusing ‘genetically unique’ with ‘separate’. A fetus may be genetically unique but it is not separate from its mother until the moment of birth, when it becomes a wholly separate, individual human being, and because of this it is only then that it can be accorded its own separate rights. That’s why a two-year old has rights and protections that a fetus does not, because it is a separate human being. “Uniqueness” has nothing to do with it, ‘personhood’ is not a tangible concept nor one that can be empirically defined, and therefore has no place in legal terminology.

      However you may feel about abortion, it is logically impossible to grant equal rights to two parties in such a relationship such as pregnancy, as their rights will always be in conflict – a fetus resides within a woman’s body, is physically attached to her, and is solely reliant upon her for its very life. It is not fully developed, is not sentient or capable of feeling anything until fairly late in the pregnancy, so why should its life be given precedence over that of a woman?
      This whole ‘debate’ about when life begins is nonsense, and to grant ‘equal’ rights to a fetus will only ever result in rights being taken away from women. What happens to a pregnant woman who needs medical treatment that may conflict with her pregnancy? She’s left to suffer and die: “CNN: Preganant teen dies after abortion ban delays chemo treatment for leukemia”

  5. Well done Mr. Casey. Anywyas, i don’t see why a motion is necessary in the first place. This can easily be studied in the realm of universities without needing a motion to study it. Get a few doc students to write their papers on this subject

  6. Thank you Sean Casey for making a sound, democratic and secular decision and behalf of your constituents. It feels great to be well represented!

  7. We need to learn to be held accountable to God and only God. And not let our beliefs be pushed aside by other people because in the end it is God we will have to answer to and these other people.

    • Personally, I’d rather we were held accountable to law.
      It’s a little more immediate.

      That’s what makes it important that we have the right laws.

      • Hey, we can agree on something.

        Unfortunately, when it comes to abortions we have the wrong laws, because it means a certain class of people is allowed to be murdered at will with no legal protection.

        • No, it means no class of people is allowed to force another to suppor their life.

          • That is lie, are we have several fiduciary laws. Those fiduciary laws are just. If I have a child, whether I am a man or a woman I have to contribute to the well-being of that child if one parent maintains custody. That takes resources, time, health and sacrifices.

            If you were consistent, you would remove obligations to seniors and children.

          • Okay, usually I have to tell you to actually read the articles you cite, but this is the first time I’m going to have to tell you to read the very words you write.

            In this case, your second sentence. Read it. Carefully. Consider the word “if” and what that might mean and imply.

    • No, actually. If you were in a car accident, would you trust to God to heal you, or a physician? If you are being attacked by a group of muggers, would you ask God to help, or yell to the police across the street?

      These “other people” you refer to are Canadians with brains that are assuredly God-given as well.

    • Do you understand that every Canadian does not believe in your god, or even any god? And please advise us of what god said about abortion. I did quote from the bible here the other day but christians were angered by it: “tis better to sow your seed into the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground.” Should male masturbation, the spilling of spern with no chance of procreation, be illegal too?

      • of course, that is a typo on sperm.

  8. Thank-you Sean Casey for being a two-faced Liberal who when faced with a difficult choice, he will always choose neither—he will leave principles aside and try to suck up any stray votes foolish enough to believe him.

    • So you’re saying that Liberals will discard their principles to pick up a few stray votes.

      I’m not going to disagree with you, but have you been asleep for 6 years?

    • Sean Casey listened to his constituents – that is the job of an MP. Personal principles do not apply when one is representing Canadian voters.

  9. Mr. Casey, you cannot have it both ways. To say you are pro-life and vote against this motion is like saying “I’m a vegetarian” while eating a steak. Give us a break. This shows you to be so anti-life that you will not even discuss the issue. What were your children the day before they were born, if not human?????

    • Anti-life?! This is absurdity. Is anyone actually advocating for choice after being pregnant for 8 1/2 months? If you have an argument, make it, but this is just inane.

      BTW: when do YOU celebrate your birthday? When you were conceived, or when you were actually born?

      • FYI, in Canada, unborn babies have absolutely no protection until they are completely born, so yes, at 8 1/2 months you could legally have an abortion in this country (the only other country where the unborn are so ‘at risk’ is North Korea!).
        Now, can you understand why this motion is so very important?? We need to have the discussion so we can change the law to protect these most vulnerable human beings. The present law is 400 years old! Is it not time to review it, considering all the scientific and technological advances in the last 4 centuries?
        But for some reason, many, like Mr. Casey, will not even agree to discuss the issue…(but yet he claims to be pro-life….??)

        • No. Mr Casey is elected to public service to represent his constituents. Pray tell: where in Canada would you go to legally procure this late-term abortion you are so concerned about. And is that really your concern (hard to believe since it just doesn’t happen), or is it just a side entrance you are taking to deny women the right to make decisions about their own body? You are a dangerous person to Canadian society, spewing so-con, anti-woman CPC talking points. Despite your moniker, I doubt very much you are a woman, and certainly not an educated one.

          • And his constituents want to retain a 400 year old law that states that babies are not human until they have completely cleared the birth canal, and therefore have no human rights or protection?
            I believe the majority of Mr. Casey’s constituents are more caring and progressive than that.
            However, I am not sure that many of them actually understand what is at stake here and that is really sad.

          • How old is the law you would like to see upheld? How arrogant of you to assume you know more than either Mr Casey or his constituents. You just believe something else.

          • Yes, I do believe something else. I believe that unborn babies are human and that they should be given human rights and protection.

          • You cannot tell if someone has Down’s Syndrome until late into the pregnancy. 90% of people that have Down’s Syndrome are aborted. So yes you can receive a late term abortion fairly easily.

          • That is simply not true, Yanni:

            “Late-term Abortion in Canada

            Many anti-choice and
            misinformed individuals would have Canadians believe that a woman in Canada can
            access abortion services at any point during the nine months of pregnancy. This
            belief is hugely inaccurate and serves only to appeal to the emotional response
            of people in trying to prevent the acceptance of abortion as a critical
            reproductive health service. In Canada, a woman cannot have an elective abortion
            past 24 weeks gestation. There are simply no doctors and no facilities that will
            allow for an elective termination at that point. In fact, there are only a few
            doctors in the entire country who are willing to perform abortions past 20
            weeks. As there are different methods of abortion, each woman’s pregnancy is
            individually assessed by a doctor to help decide which method is safest and best
            for her. However, since abortion services after 20 weeks are not easily
            available in Canada, many women who seek an abortion at this point must either
            travel to another province or to the United States, or must continue to carry
            the pregnancy to term.

            Despite what some may
            believe about the availability of late-term abortion services in Canada,
            Statistics Canada has reported that less than 1% of abortions take place past 20
            weeks gestation.[1] The fact remains
            that nearly 90% of abortions in Canada take place before 13 weeks gestation.
            The belief that a woman makes the choice to have an
            abortion easily and without giving it much thought is especially inaccurate in
            instances of late-term abortion. Many women who have an abortion after 20
            weeks originally wanted to have a child, but chose to have an abortion after
            discovering that her foetus was severely or fatally impaired, or upon the
            discovery that her own health or life is endangered. Other women need
            to access abortion services past 20 weeks because of extremely long wait-times
            or, especially in the case of young teenagers, because they were either not
            aware that they were pregnant or were in denial about being pregnant until the
            symptoms were no longer unavoidable. Whatever the reason a woman seeks to have
            an abortion past 20 weeks gestation, Canadians must know: abortion services in
            Canada are not uniformly accessible and late-term abortions are much more rare
            and difficult to access than abortions that take place within the first
            trimester of pregnancy.”

      • you celebrate your birthday on the day you were born,hence the name birth.

  10. It is wonderful to read of an MP that takes his responsibility to his constituents seriously.
    Thank you to Sean Casey, and also his constituents that took the time to talk to their MP!

  11. I’m confused – you value debate in Canada and you are yourself pro-life. But you are voting against both? If you are pro-life, then logically abortion can be murder, something you are not willing to vote for valuable public debate/discussion on. Please reconsider your position!

  12. Faith has nothing to do with the abortion issue. LOGIC and SCIENCE are at the core of this motion. Voting ‘yes’ to this motion will simply lead to a concrete explanation of when human life begins based on LOGIC and SCIENCE, NOT on RELIGION. Clearly those who oppose this motion are afraid because they already know that the unborn are human beings and they do not wish the criminal code to reflect this, since it will inevitably lead to the criminalization of abortion.

    Regardless of what happens tonight, we ALL know the truth. The unborn are scientifically and indisputably HUMAN BEINGS.

  13. his election as a prolife candidate was successful,why be scared now? maybe you did not listen to your constituents who obviously were pro death voters very seldom vote for a prolife candidate.