The bizarre and twisted outcome of the Carleton Stevens trial in Vancouver suggests there’s much wrong with the Canadian legal system, and little interest in doing anything about it.

The Surrey man was acquitted of attempted murder in the shooting of his ex-girlfriend, whose 6 1/2-month baby was killed in the attack. What led to the dreadful outcome? Maybe it was the judge’s decision. Maybe it was the charges that were laid. And maybe it stems from the fact Canadian law treats unborn babies as less valuable than a piece of property.

But it is obvious the underlying issue that clearly needs addressing is the lack of respect for the unborn in this country.

The case was percolating below radar for a few weeks, with media giving it the barest of coverage despite it being a sensational story – in every sense of the word. Now, in the appalling aftermath of the decision, no one is asking how such a thing could happen.

The facts are not in dispute. The Surrey man threatened to kill his pregnant ex-girlfriend, who was hiding out from him. He tracked her down, broke into her home, and fired a gun. She was struck in the stomach and her unborn baby was killed. The bullet remains lodged in the woman’s spine.

The B.C. Supreme Court judge hearing the case found Stevens not guilty of attempted murder. The judge concluded that because the bullet passed through the arm of someone else before hitting the girlfriend, there was reasonable doubt as to whether she was the intended target, or as to whether Stevens was even trying to kill her.

There were no other charges against him. He was set free, although he’ll face a firearms possession charge later.

There are so many questions, such as why only the single charge was laid, and the media covering the trial are not asking them.

One sad fact, as women’s advocates point out, is that violence against women is not given the attention it deserves in society. It is outrageous that a woman being threatened had to go into hiding for her own safety, and that after the shooting and losing her baby, she receives nothing resembling justice.

Tragically, her unborn child gets even less, not even an attempt to bring about justice, only a death sentence while the legal system doesn’t even bat an eye.

That’s because in Canadian law an unborn baby counts for less than a TV set or an automobile. If you steal or destroy property, you can be charged with a property offence. Kill a 6 ½-month baby … and nothing.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen the consequences of Canadian law refusing to recognize the existence of the unborn in the commission of a crime. It’s not even rare.

Just Google the names Arianna Goberdhan or Cassandra Kaake. Or Aysun Sesen or Crystal McFadyen. Each woman was killed and their unborn babies – as old as full-term – died in the attack. But because Canadian law says an unborn child is not “a human being” until it is born, no charges were laid in their deaths.

Several private members’ bills have tried to address the legal gap over the years, as recently as last spring.

Abortion proponents passionately oppose such legislation, afraid it’s a foot in the door toward protecting the unborn. Even though the legislation is written to apply only when a violent act is committed against a pregnant woman, one well-known activist called it “a backdoor attempt to smuggle in fetal personhood and make it a building block towards recriminalization of abortion.”

So politicians back away, more afraid of touching the third rail of abortion than of bringing about justice for women.

Even political pundits simply wring their hands at the dilemma. CBC columnist Robyn Urback expressed concern that protecting the unborn baby would create a new class of personhood. “But there is simply no way to do that without fundamentally changing the nature of abortion laws in Canada. Where fetal rights are recognized, a woman’s rights are unavoidably affected.”

In short, killing a woman’s baby in the commission of a crime is unfortunate, but what are you going to do?

She then drives the point home. “There just might not be a fair way to see justice in such cases. That's the price for the freedoms that Canadian women enjoy,” she said, acknowledging that it’s “cold comfort” to the survivors.

Understand that, Canadian women? It’s just the price you pay for the freedoms you enjoy.