Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Law and Abortion: The Legal Basis


Alan McDougall

Recommended Posts

Law and Abortion: The Legal Basis for a Profile Position


Pro-abortion groups recognise that it is legal to convict a person for the murder of a foetus if the foetus is removed from the womb of its mother by force and against her will. This indicates to me that the Law is ambiguous and vaguer of this issue, if the mother decides she does not want the foetus or child in her womb, she can legally have it removed by some doctor, and decide that her foetus was not a person, but simply a piece of flesh to cut out of her body. 

To me an anti-abortionist this is murder just like the previous case. To reiterate why is it then legal in many countries to abort or murder a foetus, which is a living human, but allows the exact same act on the request of the mother, a case of double standards not so?

By aborting a foetus, we might be killing a potential Albert Einstein or a Mahatma Gandhi, or some great person, who might have changed the lives of all humanity for the better.

So how can these laws apply selectively to the unwanted killing of a foetus, while the complicity of the mother in the same killing is completely legal?

What I find really bizarre about the law are the exceptions to it. If someone were to kill or have their own child murdered, complicity on the part of the mother or father would not make it legal, it would be. Premeditated and calculated murder, which carries the death sentence in some countries

But the premeditated murder of a foetus, but is allowed by law the exact in many countries, including South Africa, where I reside? Why can a mother decide to murder her unborn child legally Why can a mother have the right of life and death over her unborn child simply because she does not want it only? Does this unborn human not also have value as human life? If someone kills a foetus that the mother wants to keep, it suddenly becomes a living human being who has been murdered.

If a human is only human on the basis of whether or not he is wanted, then this leaves open the option of killing "street people" and handicapped individuals simply because they are "unwanted."

There are horrific stories about almost fully formed babies, being ripped apart in its mother's womb, into sizable peace and their little heads crushed by these criminal doctors so they can pull our the still bleeding parts of the dead, murdered baby.

In contrast t to the Bible says that all people have equal worth since all are created in the image of God.

Although liberalism teaches that certain "unwanted" humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God's eyes.

Article source / derived from:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/lawabortion.html

Edited by Saru
Added source link - please always provide appropriate credit when using someone else's work
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan McDougall said:

Although liberalism teaches that certain "unwanted" humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God's eyes.

Old Testament:

Isaiah 40:17

Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing.

New Testament:

Daniel 4:35

All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Old Testament:

Isaiah 40:17

Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing.

New Testament:

Daniel 4:35

All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"

Meaningless without context

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mangoze said:

Meaningless without context

He is just expressing his opinion that god sees all humans as worthless, rather than  all as having worth.  He doesn't need context to do this, given the quotes he provides,  but of course  the quotes themselves might require contextual explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO abortion should be legal and state funded, but only within certain strong and clear legal guidelines.

It is not enough for a woman simply to WANT an abortion for ANY reason  or to argue that t is her body and thus only she can make the decision to abort.

While an adult woman has more rights than an unborn, even the unborn has some rights and these temper or qualify the right of a woman over her own body while she is carrying another human being within it.  In many ways an unborn human is NOT just a part of a woman's body. It is already a new and unique human being. So it is not ONLY her body to be considered. 

 The law should be able to work out fairly clear guidelines as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for an abortion .  In the early days of IVF in Australia,  a parent could request a certain gender and be given it. That is now illegal, but may be  reintroduced. There are many good reasons why a woman might need an abortion where her physical or psychological health is involved, or the child has a serious disability, but, for example, if she is just worried about losing her figure, is that reason enough to end a child's life before it begins? I don't think so.  Nor is the fact that child is of the "wrong" gender, an ethical reason to abort it.  

While society demands that a woman be responsible in every way, including economically, for her child AFTER birth, we have to be more liberal with abortion. Ideally society should take care of all children rather than make them the responsibility only of parents. Then, given that the society/state cares for the child, IT should have more say in abortion ie economic hardship would no longer be an excuse for an abortion,  and nor would inability or unwillingness to care for a child, because the children, once born, would be loved and well cared for by others. 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

He is just expressing his opinion that god sees all humans as worthless, rather than  all as having worth. ...

He is co-opting prose that isn't his.

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 ... He doesn't need context to do this, given the quotes he provides, ...

Actually you do, if you want it to support an opinion.

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 ... but of course  the quotes themselves might require contextual explanation.

And there better explanations than than his source.  To be simplistically concise, Daniel 4 is about hubris.  The Skeptics' Annotated Bible, as usual, gets it wrong.  In fact that site is misusing "Skeptic".  It should be renamed to the Malcontents' Annotated Bible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

IMO abortion should be legal and state funded, but only within certain strong and clear legal guidelines.

It is not enough for a woman simply to WANT an abortion for ANY reason  or to argue that t is her body and thus only she can make the decision to abort.

While an adult woman has more rights than an unborn, even the unborn has some rights and these temper or qualify the right of a woman over her own body while she is carrying another human being within it.  In many ways an unborn human is NOT just a part of a woman's body. It is already a new and unique human being. So it is not ONLY her body to be considered. 

 The law should be able to work out fairly clear guidelines as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for an abortion .  In the early days of IVF in Australia,  a parent could request a certain gender and be given it. That is now illegal, but may be  reintroduced. There are many good reasons why a woman might need an abortion where her physical or psychological health is involved, or the child has a serious disability, but, for example, if she is just worried about losing her figure, is that reason enough to end a child's life before it begins? I don't think so.  Nor is the fact that child is of the "wrong" gender, an ethical reason to abort it.  

While society demands that a woman be responsible in every way, including economically, for her child AFTER birth, we have to be more liberal with abortion. Ideally society should take care of all children rather than make them the responsibility only of parents. Then, given that the society/state cares for the child, IT should have more say in abortion ie economic hardship would no longer be an excuse for an abortion,  and nor would inability or unwillingness to care for a child, because the children, once born, would be loved and well cared for by others. 

You've forgotten society, and the governments, offer the mother the choice of adoption.  The demands you speak of don't exist.

You're also ignoring the risk associated with not being able to correct a decision you may come to regret.

The younger a mother is, the quicker society is to judge them.  What part does fear of society play.

We've all seen that babies bring their own love.

Being pro-choice doesn't make you enlightened.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in essence, if one comes into the thread, the OP is about the legality of profiling those who are pro-choice, or another point of view, pro-abortionists. It doesn't say that in the title, before you come into the thread, so I think this changes what one expects when starting to read the OP. 

So, is this about judging pro-abortionists, or about judging the law for abortion? 

We will always have the controversial aspects of this topic, because I don't think one can really say or find evidence of they're being actual life or 'sentience' within the fetus. If there is, I"m open to links and such. I just haven't see it yet. Abortion and it's supporters and foes will never come to a finite conclusion, because of this, I feel strongly. 

Here's the thing, and it's more than likely going to go back into seeing how one has the one to view those on the side of abortion. It seems to be some form of stereo typing going on, or the most, coming very quick to conclusion about the mindset of those who are pro-choice and those who need and or get abortions. I really don't think it's all of the 'I don't care' of the fetus, or feel non-chalant outlook of life. I do feel, and understood in various situations of those I know, that it's not a cut and dried decision. And it's usually in the early states in pregnancy, when I feel you cannot know for sure if your pregnancy has a sentient life there. I don't think anyone has really put a thumb to that. Even feel to bring the point, there are laws against late term abortions and partial birth abortions, and I would understand that. When it's earlier, I have found only a rare few use it as 'birth control' and most of them are in situations that has left them raw and helpless. And frankly, placing all of the blame on women, is wrong in my book, if some men have decided not to be there, then they don't have a say. If they have been there, then they do have a say. This is not black and white, it's involves many parties, that seem, that some of them do not do their part of owing up to responsibility. When one judges, it's seems black and white in doing that, and I think they're way off base. 

I would argue about saying it's black and white that religion and God or gods have a one side of loving all people, when I have seen the judgmental and distasteful behavior of feeling justified in making some people feel less then they are. I don't believe that the mothers are considered always important, when certain religions thinks the mother should die, if the baby should live. 

Shall we talk about the subject and pregnancy and rape? Yes, still the fetus is the victim here, but since the law and such hasn't done a bang up job of protecting women from such crimes, one can't say what should be done for outcome. 

Boiling down again, to it's more of a heart wrenching situation where thought has gone into it, and it's those who have to make very hard decisions. 

If one is going to talk about life from conception, using the defense of another good person from that, I'm sure there will be those who will think that it could also be a bad person too. In the end, who is to judge what kind a person and how their usefulness is going to be in society in the future? 

If one wants the mother to consider what to the point of conception, I have found those who consider how one's physical state is before conception and how that can be a factor to a future baby's health. Is there going to be laws forcing all women to go on a particular diet and what they should or should not do in their lives from the point they can be able to conceive? Might as well, do the same for men, because I have heard that a father's physical well being seems to also play a part in what a fetus inherits. 

Does this sound a bit too ridiculous? To me, it's beginning to sound like it might be heading that way, doesn't it? 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alan McDougall said:

By aborting a foetus, we might be killing a potential Albert Einstein or a Mahatma Gandhi, or some great person, who might have changed the lives of all humanity for the better.

If you follow this logic, you have to outlaw all m********ion too, and birth control in all forms, since they stop sex acts from resulting in children. Do you want to ban all birth control? If not, at least admit that your logic doesn't make any sense. Every sperm is a potential [insert thing here]. But in the same vein, every aborted foetus is a potential Hitler, or Charles Manson, or Stalin, or Mao, etc. You can't have it one way and not the other. Maybe that aborted foetus is better off not being born. 

When you play with odds in a vaccuum like you are trying to do, there is no way to make a cohesive point.

All of it is moot though, since the law is on the side of a woman's ability to control what happens to her own body, which is good. Rage against the machine all you want, but anti-abortion laws are relics of less enlightened times.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got a woman, who is fully formed, thinking and feeling. You have a fetus, which is not, and might not ever be. The fetus is inside the woman and dependent on her. So you have one life and one potential life. The question is which one's rights take precedence. At some point, the fetus becomes viable. Certainly, it deserves consideration. Does it deserve more consideration than the woman? Should her life...her survival, become secondary to it? I would say no. Should her health become secondary to it? I would again say no. 

I think what we have now is a fairly reasonable compromise, although I would add an exception for later term abortions for the health of the woman, as well as for her life. If her health would be endangered by the continuation of a pregnancy, then I think it should be her choice whether to take the risk or to terminate the pregnancy. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what also gets ignored is the fact that although rare, later-term abortions are often the result of abnormalities being found that cannot be diagnosed earlier on in a pregnancy. Women in these situations didn't intend on aborting, but when faced with the reality that the fetus may not even survive, or may have horrid outcomes, they make that choice. Other people would like to make that choice for them, and force them to either just continue on with the pregnancy and hope something can be done later to improve outcomes...or have procedures done in utero that are intrusive and dangerous to the woman (if that's even an option). 

These are very difficult decisions to make, and they involve the woman and her body. There's nothing more private than that. No one else should be deciding for her that she needs to carry a pregnancy to term...even though the fetus is unlikely to survive or may have horrid outcomes...if she may become infertile...or if her life or health are threatened. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Podo said:

If you follow this logic, you have to outlaw all m********ion too

a635ecd9f0a34dfe_46.gif

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Podo said:

If you follow this logic, you have to outlaw all m********ion too, and birth control in all forms, since they stop sex acts from resulting in children. Do you want to ban all birth control? If not, at least admit that your logic doesn't make any sense. Every sperm is a potential [insert thing here]. But in the same vein, every aborted foetus is a potential Hitler, or Charles Manson, or Stalin, or Mao, etc. You can't have it one way and not the other. Maybe that aborted foetus is better off not being born. 

When you play with odds in a vaccuum like you are trying to do, there is no way to make a cohesive point.

All of it is moot though, since the law is on the side of a woman's ability to control what happens to her own body, which is good. Rage against the machine all you want, but anti-abortion laws are relics of less enlightened times.

And depending on who gets to decide the next Supreme Court justices, the laws could favor the other side. It doesn't matter that not every Republican is a social conservative. That very vocal minority still manages to affect laws, and they have rather an ally in that potential VP. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the predominantly white and straight Bernie or Bust people tend to be very young, and not having lived through pre-Roe v. Wade times (or other issues involving civil rights)...they're not getting the possible danger here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

And depending on who gets to decide the next Supreme Court justices, the laws could favor the other side. It doesn't matter that not every Republican is a social conservative. That very vocal minority still manages to affect laws, and they have rather an ally in that potential VP. 

Wellll that's an American problem. Even my country's Conservative party supports reproductive rights. Even if individual Conservaties don't, they know that they'd never be able to repeal that particular law in Canada.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Podo said:

Wellll that's an American problem. Even my country's Conservative party supports reproductive rights. Even if individual Conservaties don't, they know that they'd never be able to repeal that particular law in Canada.

Lucky you. Don't go putting up any walls, ok? 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Lucky you. Don't go putting up any walls, ok? 

We're prepared for American refugees if Fuhrer Trump gets elected. But only 25k of you, after several years of investigation first. You might be terrorists, after all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the rights of the unborn infant if they could they somehow knew they were going to be aborted to them it would be murder and the murder of a human being.

in some countries, you can get the death penalty for murder, especially premeditated murder, which is exactly what aborting the unborn child would believe, because just like murder you are depriving them of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Podo said:

If you follow this logic, you have to outlaw all m********ion too, and birth control in all forms, since they stop sex acts from resulting in children. Do you want to ban all birth control? If not, at least admit that your logic doesn't make any sense. Every sperm is a potential [insert thing here]. But in the same vein, every aborted foetus is a potential Hitler, or Charles Manson, or Stalin, or Mao, etc. You can't have it one way and not the other. Maybe that aborted foetus is better off not being born. 

When you play with odds in a vaccuum like you are trying to do, there is no way to make a cohesive point.

All of it is moot though, since the law is on the side of a woman's ability to control what happens to her own body, which is good. Rage against the machine all you want, but anti-abortion laws are relics of less enlightened times.

 

Thre is a huge difference between a nearly fully formed baby and a two cell zygote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan McDougall said:

Thre is a huge difference between a nearly fully formed baby and a two cell zygote.

There's a huge difference between a zygote in the first trimester than a late-term abortion, too, but you choose to ignore the difference in your OP. Changing your tune now, aren't you? A foetus is not a "nearly fully-formed baby," it is a blob of cells that can't survive on its own. It's part of the mother, who has full control over what happens to it. Nobody, nobody, has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do to their body. Anything less is draconian and barbaric. If a woman wants a foetus out of her, her opinion is the only one that matters, full-stop. Your opinion means nothing, mine means nothing, her best friend's means nothing. She has sovereignty over her own body, end of story. A foetus is not a human yet and therefore does not deserve the same rights as a human.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Alan McDougall said:

What about the rights of the unborn infant if they could they somehow knew they were going to be aborted to them it would be murder and the murder of a human being.

in some countries, you can get the death penalty for murder, especially premeditated murder, which is exactly what aborting the unborn child would believe, because just like murder you are depriving them of life. 

But they can't, and it's not. If something is conscious and intelligent, that's an entirely different situation. A foetus is NOT conscious, they don't "know" anything, and aborting one is not the same as murder, for the same reason removing a tumour isn't murder. To murder something, you have to be taking the life of a human. Foetuses are not humans, they're proto-humans at best and blobs of cells at worst. As I've said, birth control also deprives potential children of life; is that murder to you? Because a foetus is only slightly closer to a human than semen from m********ion is.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Podo said:

We're prepared for American refugees if Fuhrer Trump gets elected. But only 25k of you, after several years of investigation first. You might be terrorists, after all.

I'd better put my application in early, just in case. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a government can dictate to a woman whether or not has the right to control what happens to her body, they can by legal precedent force women to have abortion.   It could happen in a situation of national emergency. Women are not broodmares or property they have rights to sovereignty of their bodies. 

I really think, McDougall, you should give credit to the writer of your article. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many kids McDougal adopted?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.