A Dangerous Reflection on the Feast of the Holy Innocents

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents, all those young boys in and around Bethlehem, two and under, whom Herod had massacred in order to kill Jesus Christ. We do not know their number or their names, but the Church lists them as among her martyrs. Some have disputed that they should be called martyrs since they did not submit freely for the sake of Christ but were “merely victims” of Herod. Nevertheless, the Church has long numbered them in her ranks of martyrs. St. Augustine says of them:

And while [Herod] thus persecutes Christ, he furnished an army (or martyrs) clothed in white robes of the same age as the Lord…. O blessed infants! He only will doubt of your crown in this your passion for Christ, who doubts that the baptism of Christ has a benefit for infants. He who at His birth had Angels to proclaim Him, the heavens to testify, and Magi to worship Him, could surely have prevented that these should not have died for Him, had He not known that they died not in that death, but rather lived in higher bliss. Far be the thought, that Christ who came to set men free, did nothing to reward those who died in His behalf, when hanging on the cross He prayed for those who put Him to death. (Serm. 373, 3, quoted in the Catena Aurea).

Today we honor their sacrifice. And through our honoring of them, and worship of God, we seek to atone for the many sins against human life, beginning with abortion, and including other forms of murder, and euthanasia, disregard for the safety and dignity of others, mistreatment and indifference to the plight of others, and all other sins against life.

Where does human cruelty come from? Surely it grows in us by stages, for most of us are not born with murderous fear of others. It is “bequeathed” to us by others, and we grow it in our heart. Hatred, rooted in fear, is handed on down through the generations, and the murderous inherit a thinking that there are some who are not worthy of their respect and love. Perhaps they are a threat, perhaps their relatives did something in the past. Perhaps they may do something in the future. Herod was clearly a fearful man, so fearful that he was unmoved by the cries of wailing parents, or of suffering infants. His heart had grow cruel through repeated insensitivity inflicted on others, due to raging and irrational fear.

An Old Latin Hymn says, Crudelis Herodes, Deum Regem venire quid times? Non eripit mortalia, Qui regna dat caelestia (Cruel Herod what do you fear in the King and God to come? He seizes not earthly things who gives heavenly kingdoms). But in the end it IS his fear that drives him.

We know well that Holy Innocents continue to be killed in our world through abortion. And here too, it is most often fear that drives the killing. How will the baby be afforded?! What changes will this baby bring that I cannot take? Perhaps the prenatal tests show a possible defect. I cannot deal with this! What if my parents know that I am pregnant? How will this pregnancy affect my career?! What if my father finds out I got my girl-friend pregnant!? And society says, What of poverty? What of overpopulation? What of deformity? How can we collectively handle all this?

And thus fear drives the current bloodshed. Fear makes us focus on our self, such that we think too little of what we do to others. Abortion thus becomes an “abstraction,” an “issue” that is debated, a “choice.” Abortion, to many, is anything but real. The reality of fetal pain is out of sight and thus less real than the fear. What abortion is doing to our world, that too is less real than the fear. It is the fear that is real, and the fear eclipses everything else. And fear desensitizes, and thus the killing of the innocent becomes plausible, a woman’s “choice,” reproductive “freedom.”

The only solution to fear is trust, faith in God. God alone can set us free from the awful fears that currently drive abortion. We in the Church must be realistic about the fears that many face before the mystery of new life and we must provide reasons for hope and trust. Fear is a cruel task-master and it drives us to do some pretty awful things.

One of the most common lines in the New Testament is “Do not be afraid.” Hope, trust and Faith are important to us on this feast of the Holy Innocents.

There is also this dangerous thought on this Holy Feast.

I’ll explain what I mean by “dangerous” in a moment. But for now consider some biblical facts with me.

  1. When God was drawing close to liberating his chosen people from slavery in Egypt there occurred the order to murder of the all the baby boys among the Hebrews. It is almost as though Satan sensed that God was up to something good, and Satan raged, through Pharaoh, in murderous anger driven by fear. Thankfully the actual numbers were reduced since the Egyptian midwives engaged in civil disobedience, refusing to allow the practice to continue.
  2. At the time of Jesus, when God was preparing to liberate his people from sin, there also occurred the murder of innocent baby boys. Here too, it is almost as though the Devil sensed that God was up to something good and, he once again raged, this time through Herod, in murderous anger driven by fear. Thankfully too this infanticide also ended at some point.
  3. Notice the pattern. When God prepared a great liberation, the Devil, raging in fear, went after the babies. In our time, on a scale as never before, the Devil is going after our babies in murderous anger driven by fear. What is he afraid of? Is God planning something big in the near future? Is there a great liberation at hand? Is there a great advancement of evangelization and conversion in the offing? We can only speculate. But patterns are patterns and Scripture has a way of repeating its patterns and echoing down through the centuries.

Why is this a dangerous reflection? Because I want to make it clear that abortion, the killing of the innocents in our age, is NOT, and never can be, considered something good, or a “positive sign.” Such a speculation might cause some to wrongly conclude that abortion is part of God’s plan or something we should see “positively.” We should not. It must be fought. It is of Satan, it is rooted in fear.

End the Massacre And the Glory follows – I want to conclude by reminding you that the great liberation that followed the past infanticides did not occur until AFTER those murderous rages were stopped. Hence, to follow the pattern established in Scripture, and to see a potentially great and liberating act of God, we must first see an end to the slaughter. Work and pray to end abortion. May the Holy Innocents pray for us!

I put the following video together to honor these young martyrs. The musical setting is by Michael Haydn of the hymn for the Feast of the Holy Innocents: Salvete Flores Martyrum – It is from his Vesperae In F for Equal Voices, Soli and Orchestra.The singers are the Collegium Instrumentale Brugense. This music is available at iTunes. The Latin text of this ancient hymn is quite beautiful. I produce here the Latin text followed by a fairly literal translation.

I would like to call your attention to the second verse and a very charming detail. That verse described these young, two year old martyrs as holding palm branches (the symbol of martyrdom) but as they hold them they play with them, in the way a young child will often fiddle with palm branches in Church. Beautiful and so very human!

Salvete flores martyrum, – Hail Martyr Flowers
quos lucis ipso in limine – On the very threshold of the dawn (of life)
Christi insecutor sustulit – Christ’s persecutor destroyed (you)
ceu turbo nascentes rosas. – like the whirlwind does the budding roses.

Vos prima Christi victima, – You Christ’s first fruits
grex immolatorum tener, – A flock of tender sacrificial victims
aram sub ipsam simplices – right up by the very altar
palma et coronis luditis. – now play with your palms and crowns

Iesu, tibi sit gloria, – Jesus to you be glory
qui natus es de Virgine, – who were born of the Virgin
cum Patre et almo Spiritu, – with the Father and loving Spirit
in sempiterna saecula. Amen. – unto to eternal ages. Amen.

37 Replies to “A Dangerous Reflection on the Feast of the Holy Innocents”

  1. Wonderful reflection, thanks. Msgr. Pope do you think the victims of abortion share in the crown of the Holy Innocents in some way? Also we can add another multitude to this army of aborted innocents. There are vast numbers of very young human beings who as embryos are flushed away and destroyed. This happens in IVF clinics when ‘excess embryos’ are ‘produced’ and also in untold numbers when the contraceptive pill acts on its secondary mechanism of preventing a newly concieved embryo from implantating in the uterus. Again fear is the motivator. Fear of not being able to concieve thus harvesting human life on a mass scale in the cause of fertility. And fear of conception itself where vast multitudes of couples, sadly including those within the Church, will poisen the womans body to try and prevent her body either releasing an egg or as a failsafe preventing her body from accepting the fruit of love, a newly concieved life. Lord have mercy on us all.

    1. Yes, indeed, Lord have mercy. Of the exact place of aborted babies in the Kingdom of God, we cannot say with certitude. However, pastorally, Pope John Paul taught that, confident of God’s justice and mercy we have sure foundation for confidence that they are with God.

    2. And those who are not destroyed (killed) really are kept in “limbo,” literally frozen and kept in storage.

  2. Monsignor, you wrote, “The great liberation that followed the past infanticides did not occur until AFTER those murderous rages were stopped. Hence, to follow the pattern established in Scripture, and to see a potentially great and liberating act of God, we must first see an end to the slaughter. Work and pray to end abortion.” But, tragically, infanticide has been happening CONSTANTLY since antiquity in cultures worldwide. Non-stop infanticide from B.C. to this very moment. The “pattern” you claim to see does not exist in the data. In fact, Herod’s killing of babies only ended with the death of the last baby in his realm that qualified the child for elimination – there was no miraculous intervention that caused Herod to cease his murderous program. Your idea that at a divine “great liberation” comparable to Jesus’ saving actions or the Exodus would occur consequentially as a result of the end of abortion in America is, to my mind, without genuine logical foundation (I am sorry to say). But the insubstantiality of your idea cannot in any way lessen the zeal with which you, I, and all other justice-loving people are compelled to oppose – everywhere, including in the USA – the wanton, unjust killing of unborn human beings by abortion, infanticide, and euthenasia.

    1. I remain amazed at how pedantic and picky some people can be. I do not care how the infanticide ended, but that it ended is key, and hence we must work. In the end, God will end this infanticide too. As for you Jon, try to be more a poet at times, and less pedantic and bookish. The poet in you knows what I am talking about. To my mind it is your world that is less substantial (I am sorry to say).

  3. Limbo is a theory, not a doctrine. I would be more of the mind of Pope John Paul who, confident in God’s mercy pastorally spoke of them as being with God. Limbo, while a respected tradition among theologians, to my mind, strives to solve a theological difficulty rather than hold it in tension with various balancing truths and allow the mystery to remain as to what God ultimately does. I think there is strong reason to hold that they are with God but we cannot know with certitude how God handles such things. I, like you, would have a hard time reconciling murdered infants going to limbo with God’s justice.

    As for your comment on Mary, I would not say Mary is “able to obtain their salvation” since only the Lord Jesus Christ can do that. I have little doubt that her intercessory prayer is powerful on our behalf and for the children, but salvation is created and is from God.

    I would not say we are being “too hopeful” when we cling to this hope for the aborted children that God grants them heaven. But we are in the realm of hope because we confidently expect what we do not yet see or know by experience.

      1. Re: Mary: I wasn’t clear that the prayer indicates that her ability would be through the power of her intercessory prayer. It doesn’t make her out to be the Redeemer. Don’t think suspiciously of Msgr Reilly; I gave you the wrong idea in my haste, mea culpa.

        Re: justice of God: I do struggle with understanding how God’s justice can consign murdered infants to limbo [hell] if they are unbaptized. On the other hand, it is also difficult to understand how God could justly bring them into heavenly glory without the merits of Christ being applied to them through baptism. I.e. there appears to be a justice issue running both ways. Difficult question! But until the magesterium says I’m wrong, or I think I have figured it out [ha!], I will continue to pray for them. In any event it seems the least one can do in reparation for being part of a society that tolerates and in many ways promotes their willful destruction.

        Re: Fr. Ryan: I also erroneously attributed to him the view that God consigns unbaptized infants to limbo of necessity. He actually wrote that he favors that opinion but that he is not saying that opinion must necessarily be correct. As with the prayer above my point was to clarify some of the theological options so that the ultimate choices might be easier to discern. But in doing so I did not represent the opinions of the propounders with exactitude.

        One last thing on the fairness issue: it seems to me that if God were not to save those innocents which had not yet attained to the age of reason, that He would be discriminating against them. I don’t know why it would be right for HIm to do that.

        Why would He be discriminating against them? Because He gives sufficient grace for all men to be saved in the sense that He gives actual grace to all men at all times sufficient for them to will and to choose to do what is right. But if that grace cannot be availed of due to the weakness of nature [as in the case of the innocents, not having yet attained the use of the reason] then they are at an unfair disadvantage, it seems to me, in being able to be saved. What do you think? Are there reasons, in justice, why God might allow the damnation of the unbaptized infants [in limbo of course, which as Fr. Ryan explained, is not really a bad place]?


        1. it is also difficult to understand how God could justly bring them into heavenly glory without the merits of Christ being applied to them through baptism

          God is not dependent upon men pouring water on a babies head to confer the merits of Christ upon them. None of the righteous people of the Old Testament were the recipients of sacramental baptism, and Mary was not, and even John the Baptist was not sacramentally baptized. And yet each received the benefits, i.e. graces, pertaining to baptism, that is, each received the grace of the removal of Original Sin even though not baptized.

          We might be bound by the sacraments, but God is not. God is God. He can do whatever He wants, so long as it is consistent with Himself.

          If God wants unbaptized babies who were killed in the womb, or who otherwise died after birth, to be with Him in heaven, who are we to say that He cannot do that? God will find a way to do it. He’s God.

          1. Right, I never said He couldn’t do it. However, He would only be able to do it if it is just to do so in His [not simply mine or yours] understanding of justice. In the case of the Old Testament saints, as in the case of those that receive baptism by desire or baptism by blood, the cause of justice is evident and furthermore it has been recognized by the Church as being a just cause that God saves such as they without sacramental baptism. These lived righteous lives and desired to live righteous lives. Thus God’s justice in granting them a part of His eternal glory makes sense.

            The motives of these righteous people does not seem to be evident in the innocents, since they have not attained to the age of reason. This is why many saints and theologians in the Church have often said that they go to limbo [hell], not heaven. I am not saying they are right or wrong, as I surely do not know. Nor has the Church required us to believe one way or another.

            I don’t know if God takes the innocents to heaven or not. I truly hope He does, but that doesn’t mean I am right to hope that. [But it is good to know Msgr thinks it is ok to hope that!] As with all things pertaining to the Faith I want to believe, hope and love the things God wants me to believe, hope, and love, and not simply to believe, hope and love because I have a certain sentiment that leads me to do those things.

            My saying that it is difficult to understand how God could do it is not a personal difficulty on my part, but a difficulty which Catholic theology gives us.

            We certainly do not believe [do we?] that God simply does whatever He wants in an arbitrary manner. God only does what is just and right. So if it is just and right for God to save the murdered unbaptized infants, then no doubt He does so. But if it is not just and right, then He certainly doesn’t.

            To argue that He does save them would then entail showing reasons in justice why it is He must save them. And that is what I was trying to examine.

          2. This is why many saints and theologians in the Church have often said that they go to limbo [hell], not heaven. I am not saying they are right or wrong, as I surely do not know. Nor has the Church required us to believe one way or another.

            Those that say that “they go to limbo [hell], not heaven” are wrong. They are wrong because they have made a definitive statement about something that the Church, as you say, has said is an open question.

            But the motives of pre-reason persons is not relevant since we do not attain salvation by our efforts or merits, but entirely by the freely given grace from God. The only thing that we need do is accept it, and if God wants to give the soul of an unborn child or infant sufficient capacity of will and intellect to accept or reject Him, He can do that too.

            Ultimately, it is up to God. And that is where the Church leaves it, commending the souls of the innocents to the infinite mercy of God. But then again, except for canonized saints, that is where the Church leaves the state of every departed person — to the mercy of God.

          3. Bender if I were you I would not be so bold as to flatly assert that the greatest theologian the Catholic church has ever produced was wrong. I refer to St Thomas Aquinas. Again he might be wrong as the Church hasn’t definitively decided the matter, but I really think you ought to have some hesitation before contradicting so great an authority. Nor was St Thomas alone in his assertion. And St. Thomas was not merely attempting to profess his personal opinion, but was attempting to put forward the Catholic opinion–that is, the opinion of the universal Church.

            Infants by definition have not attained the use of reason sufficient to accept [nor to reject] the grace of God. Thus by default, they are in original sin, if they have not been baptized, and are therefore separated from God. Thus if God were to save them, it would seem that He must do so in some other extraordinary way than the way you suggest [otherwise they are no longer infants]. Certainly that is a logical possibility [and one I would like to believe.] But I think that what I wrote earlier is still true: God would have to have a reason in His justice to do this. And perhaps He does. According to Msgr it is ok to hope that he does and I am ok with that for now at least.

            If you can think of reasons why God must save them I would be interested to know. I wrote earlier that it certainly doesn’t seem fair to me for God to permit murdered infants to go to hell because it seems to me that they ought to somehow be compensated in justice for the life that was unjustly taken away from them, but that is all I could come up with. Perhaps my reasoning is being swayed by my emotions in this case. What do you think?

          4. I think I should also add that the Church has never said that the fate of unbaptized infants is simply ‘an open question’. It just hasn’t required us to believe one thing or another–at least, I don’t think it has. In any event that is not the same thing as saying it is an open question, meaning by that statement that you could believe anything you want about it. By analogy for instance, the Assumption of Mary is now defined and we are required to believe it, but prior to that time it would be false to assert that Mary’s Assumption was simply an open question. It was piously believed by most of the universal church from the beginning, feasts were celebrated in that regard, and so on. Unfortunately, the opinion as to the fate of the infants is in a similar position in relation to its theological certainty as was the Assumption of Mary previously: i.e., the majority opinion is for limbo, not heaven. Nevertheless, I personally strongly hope that they will be saved. As I wrote earlier, it seems infants would be at a disadvantage in respect to being saved compared to those that have attained the use of reason, and that doesn’t seem fair to me. Basically, if one has no ability, through no fault of his own, but through the design of nature which is created by God, to accept grace which would enable one to obtain the beatific vision, why should one be denied that vision?

            Hopefully this analogy isn’t crass, but the situation reminds me of our country’s attitude towards illegal immigrants. By our offering jobs, we say to illegal immigrants that we want them to come over here. But we won’t admit that they have a right to be here, nor give them the opportunity to obtain that right.

            So with the idea that unbaptized infants cannot obtain heavenly grace: we say that God has created us for eternal beatitude, yet God has denied unbaptized infants the means to receive grace, since they have not attained the age of reason. In what sense then were they created for eternal beatitude if that is the case?

            On the other hand, limbo is not a bad place. We could say that the life that was wrongly taken from the infants is restored to them forever in limbo, but it is a natural life and not a supernatural one, and that this is just, since their natural lives were unjustly taken from them. Moreover we could add that salvation is for those that follow Christ, and it is impossible that the unbaptized infants could have followed Christ. [However I still don’t see a response to the ‘created for eternal beatitude’ problem.]

            In response to that, one could argue that the baptized infants hadn’t obtained the use of reason nor had they followed Christ.

            On the other hand, maybe they do follow Christ in some way difficult to discern. Of course I could be imagining this, but it seemed to me that my son was a different person in some way after his baptism, even though he had not yet attained the age of reason [being only months old at the time.]

          5. And while we are at it, not to bash the Angelic Doctor or anything, but coming back to the ultimate point of this post, which is abortion, the confused musings of St. Thomas on the question of “ensoulment” were used by Harry Blackmun to justify abortion on demand in Roe v. Wade.

            As great as Aquinas is in the Summa and other writings, he simply cannot be and must not be taken as infallible on all things when, in fact, he was in quite grievous error on some pretty crucial things.

          6. Please remember the origin of thread of the commentary begin with a friendly debate about Limbo. But honestly limbo is not an official teaching of the Church, it is the opinion of certain theologians. My point it that limbo is just not a hill worth fighting and dying on. In the end the most honest answer is that we don’t know the answer to the question of what happens to unbaptized babies. We can just entrust them to God who is just and merciful. It just seems to me that things are getting a little over heated

  4. There is a compelling consistent life undertone here which I think deserves to be explicated further. As you rightly point out, Msgr Pope, the violence of abortion is rooted in fear, as are all other “sins against life” that you allude to at the beginning of this reflection. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the same is true of anything that can be named as sin. It’s all part of the vicious cycle of violence that always lashes out at any threat to its power. It is that very power that the incarnate Word came to defeat, through radical self-emptying humility. Living this incredible Good News means reflecting the same humility in respect for the human dignity of all, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized: children born and unborn (especially those called “unwanted”), prisoners (especially those called “condemned”), immigrants (especially those called “illegal”), etc. In the whole life and teachings of Christ and his church, we have perhaps no better reason to see our Lord in every unexpected pregnancy, every alien and refugee, every perceived threat to the state and its hegemony, every convict sentenced to death, than the shocking truth that he literally WAS every one of these things.

  5. When you point out the danger in this reflection where one (or more) may see it as a good sign I am reminded of the time when you mentioned how readily God walks straight on crooked paths but, shouldn’t have to. His willingness to do so much for us, for the sake of His infinite love, could well be acknowledged by our efforts to end the slaughter of the innocent.

  6. Blessed martyrs, be our saving grace this feast day. His mother promised in the end her immaculate heart would triumph.

    These times today are very much like what led up to the Exodus. God seems to have inflicted a very terrible punishment on the Egyptians– death of every firstborn child! How could he! But look what led up to it: The oppressive slavery, the belief there were “too many Jews” and that they would revolt. And in the end, the imposition of forced abortion/infanticide as population control. Our world is so much a mirror of Pharoah’s.

    The Exodus is a foretype of the pascal mystery (Christ’s cross and resurrection). The exodus and the cross and resurrection, these both set free the captives, Israel slaves to Egypt, the world slave to sin. What will the new passover be, the new exodus, the new freedom, when it comes?

    I have wondered what would draw out the conversion of so stubborn a people as we have today in such a corrupt world. Perhaps only what converted Pharoah- death of the firstborn? Perhaps a plague that affects only children? Would that bring a change of heart? Even Pahroah after he repented still changed his mind and hardened his heart again, after so sever a punishment. And what would the fruit of any change of heart bring? Perhaps a new era of peace, of conversion, of freedom from this abomination plaguing our world. Or perhaps the second and final coming: freedom from all sin and lies, from this mortal coil, from sickness and death. Freedom, but with judgement also. We can both hope and tremble.

    1. The plagues of the Book of Revelation mirror several of the plagues against Egypt. This is only my opinion, but it would seem that as it was in Egypt in the weeks leading up to the first Passover, so shall it be throughout the world in the days and weeks leading up to the Second Coming.

  7. There is an important difference between the two Biblical examples and modern day abortion. The historical examples involved outsiders taking the lives of the innocent. Today, parents are killing their own children.

    1. Oh, there are multiple passages in the Old Testament about parents killing their own children (and, yes, eating them).

        1. Actually, Nate, it WAS the women of Israel who killed and ate their own children. As for being glorified? Of course not. You don’t glorify an abomination. But you can justify it. As did they. One justification was self-interest — they did not seek to feed a lust for power, but some believed that they might otherwise go hungry and they believed that they had no other “choice.”

          It is not only the moral monsters of the world who are capable of great evil, like Pharaoh or Herod. Even “good” people are capable of it, even God’s “chosen people” are capable of killing innocents for our own personal benefit.

          1. Yes, the women of Israel killed and ate their own children when their city was under seige, and the Donner party ate people when they had nothing else to eat too. People in extreme conditions sometimes do terrible things and commit terrible sins. But saying that what the women of Israel did at one time under extreme conditions is basically the same as our legalized reign of terror over the unborn in times of peace and prosperity is, I think, to miss an important point having to do with proportionality and with our society’s loss of moral vision. The main difference between what the ancients did and our laws today is the level of duress which supposedly justifies the killing. In those days at least they could claim they were starving to death. [I suspect they also thought that what they were doing was wrong, but I don’t have proof of that.] Our level of required duress before a mother is permitted to terminate the life within her is that the mother’s psychological health could be affected by the birth. Certainly both instances are wrong, but just as the law recognizes that there is a difference in moral culpability between a homicide that occurs in the heat of a fight [depending on circumstances, you might be in prison only a few years] and a cold-blooded premeditated murder [life imprisonment or death penalty], so is there a difference in the attitude and circumstances surrounding the biblical example adduced above in comparison to our celebration of what some have called the abortion sacrament.

  8. Once again Nate, I have to marvel at how some, such as your response indicates, have no ability to understand or appreciate analogy. Analogy mens “like” not “is” here as in another repsonse by some one else above, I find your response to be very pedantic and you seem only to appreciate denotative meaning and wholly miss connoative meaning of my post. In the end your “important” difference is, to my mind, more a picky and argumentive difference. The fact is there are too many people whio see children as expendable and able to be killed with impugnity. At the cultural level your fine distinction does not make these children any less dead a nd Herod, Pharaoh and Satan are no less present.

    1. Msgr with all due respect I think it is you that are missing Nate’s point, which is that things are in some palpable sense worse today in our society even than in the time of Christ, because at least Jews [in contrast to the Roman practice] had sense to know that one does not murder one’s own offspring, whereas today in contrast many people hold forth the idea that abortion is not only ok [Romans would think it to be merely regrettable], but that it is a positive good. Nate is not disagreeing with you; he is emphasizing the rightness of your point and the importance of fighting for the recognition by all of society of what is right and wrong.

  9. Re: ?The Supreme Court sutcrk down the abortion laws through an imposition of their power.? of the Canadian Criminal Code refers to ?a child before or during its birth?. The author of Section 223 admits that a ?child? in the body of its mother is in ?a living state?. of the Canadian Criminal Code states:?Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured,(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.?.It is unlawful in Canada to abandon or expose a child so that its life is endangered.Aborting a child involves abandoning or exposing a child so that its life is endangered.Aborting a child is unlawful in Canada.What is needed is for people to exercise their ?right to choose? to enforce Section 218 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

Comments are closed.