Legal problems that may arise if abortion is considered murder?

[Uriah_Betrayed]

Not only that you are going to have to make room in already overcrowded prisons for not only the woman, but the doctor, then Anesthesiologist, the surgical technicians, the nurses, the desk worker, the cops who protected abortion clinics, the vigilante who killed the illegal abortionist, the confused teenager, the priest who gave confession to the woman who had the abortion and then was forced by a material witness order to testify against the woman who had the abortion only he refused and then ended up in prison, the pro-choice protestor since they have to be involved somehow, we might as well throw in the janitor of the abortion doctor because they are guilty as an accomplice. See where I am heading with this?

Hyperbole much?

Also to the question

Are you willing to fund a national network of pregnancy crisis centers to prevent black market abortions? Are you willing to build and expand prisons to accommodate all these criminals.

Yes a million times yes, the enthusiasm mostly toward nationally funded pregnancy crisis centers. I would love the billions to poor into actually preserving life rather than giving money Planned Parenthood who one way or another use the government money to continue being an abortion mill with a near monopoly.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Interesting speculation, but not reflecting how it ever was in the past and not reflecting those vestiges of “rights of the unborn” still in existence.

Back before Roe, women were not prosecuted for having abortions. Abortionists were.

Right now, if a third party deliberately or wantonly causes fetal death, he/she can, indeed be charged with murder or manslaughter of the child, at least in some jurisdictions. And some have been.

A woman can, in some jurisdictions, be prosecuted for harming her unborn child by using illegal drugs.

Oh I know it’s not reflecting the past, but as so many in the pro-life movement now are campaigning by saying that abortion is “murder” it got me thinking.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh I know it’s not reflecting the past, but as so many in the pro-life movement now are campaigning by saying that abortion is “murder” it got me thinking.

It’s always good to think. But one ought to think realistically when it comes to what the consequences actually would be if abortion on demand was curtailed in whole or in part. In doing so, one’s best clues are historical and the ways in which killing the unborn is treated in other contexts.

 

[Corki]

Interesting speculation, but not reflecting how it ever was in the past and not reflecting those vestiges of “rights of the unborn” still in existence.

Back before Roe, women were not prosecuted for having abortions. Abortionists were.

Right now, if a third party deliberately or wantonly causes fetal death, he/she can, indeed be charged with murder or manslaughter of the child, at least in some jurisdictions. And some have been.

A woman can, in some jurisdictions, be prosecuted for harming her unborn child by using illegal drugs.

It makes no sense to legally treat abortion as murder on the part of the mother. It’s an illlicit medical procedure and the criminal is the doctor and/or medical facility.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It makes no sense to legally treat abortion as murder on the part of the mother. It’s an illicit medical procedure and the criminal is the doctor and/or medical facility.

How is that situation different from hiring a hit man to kill someone for me? Currently the one doing the hiring is also criminally liable. Isn’t the mother hiring the doctor as a hit man too?

 

[LemonAndLime]

It’s always good to think. But one ought to think realistically when it comes to what the consequences actually would be if abortion on demand was curtailed in whole or in part. In doing so, one’s best clues are historical and the ways in which killing the unborn is treated in other contexts.

Again, this thread was a response to many pro-lifers saying that abortion should be murder.

 

[Corki]

How is that situation different from hiring a hit man to kill someone for me? Currently the one doing the hiring is also criminally liable. Isn’t the mother hiring the doctor as a hit man too?

Possibly. However, up to a third of all abortions in the US are forced or cooerced. At the very least, these big abortion companies, such as planned parenthood, market abortions agressively to women - especially the poor and young - brainwashing women to believe all kinds of false things about abortion, pregnancy and medicine. These women are victims too. Doctors are always held to a higher standard than their patients when it comes to anything medical, even if the patient asks for it.

 

[kama3]

1. If abortion is murder, then miscarriage is a manslaughter. Impact: every miscarriage warrants a criminal investigation to make sure that it was not artificially induced. If miscarriage is found to be artificially induced, it warrants a murder charge.
2. A pregnant woman reports to hospital with an unrelated condition. She is denied treatment, because the treatment could potentially harm a fetus, which would result in a criminal investigation of the doctor and possibly a criminal charge for him. The patient dies as a result. (Actually happened in Poland. Patient’s family sued before European Court of Human Rights. Case is still pending. )

 

[manualman]

You forget to read my post? I mentioned that in my OP.

A lot of pro-life people not only want abortion to be illegal, but to be classed as murder. Hence why I started this thread.

But what about proving that bungee jumping etc DID cause a miscarriage?

The law should treat a pregnant woman who knows she is pregnant the same way it would if she sent her 3 week old infant bungee jumping.

Why wouldn’t it? You wouldn’t automatically charge such a person with murder, but it would be at least reckless endangerment.

 

[manualman]

1. If abortion is murder, then miscarriage is a manslaughter. Impact: every miscarriage warrants a criminal investigation to make sure that it was not artificially induced. If miscarriage is found to be artificially induced, it warrants a murder charge.
2. A pregnant woman reports to hospital with an unrelated condition. She is denied treatment, because the treatment could potentially harm a fetus, which would result in a criminal investigation of the doctor and possibly a criminal charge for him. The patient dies as a result. (Actually happened in Poland. Patient’s family sued before European Court of Human Rights. Case is still pending. )

1. Nonsense. When an infant dies, say of SIDS, it isn’t manslaughter. The doctor or ME issues a cause of death. If it really is SIDS, the police won’t ever be involved. Miscarriage would be the same way. Only if the doctor determined something was suspicious might an ME call for an investigation.
2. Depends. Principle of double effect would apply. If medical condition will likely be fatal to both mother and child, treatment to save the mother that would ahve the foreseeable, but unintended side effect of harming the child is not an abortion. If the treatment consists of deliberately killing the child as a means (partial or full) of achieving some other health end, that IS a murder.

But I’m not aware of any mothers that, given the choice, would ask the terrorist to kill her 1 year old instead of the mother herself. Are you?

 

[Corki]

1. Nonsense. When an infant dies, say of SIDS, it isn’t manslaughter. The doctor or ME issues a cause of death. If it really is SIDS, the police won’t ever be involved. Miscarriage would be the same way. Only if the doctor determined something was suspicious might an ME call for an investigation.

This is the way the law works in other areas. For example, when a kid is brought into the ER with a broken arm, there might be an investigation for child abuse. But ONLY if there are other indicators such as a history of injuries or a particular type of bone break that cause the ER staff to suspect that the parent’s story of how the child was injured is not true.

 

[kama3]

1. Nonsense. When an infant dies, say of SIDS, it isn’t manslaughter. The doctor or ME issues a cause of death. If it really is SIDS, the police won’t ever be involved. Miscarriage would be the same way. Only if the doctor determined something was suspicious might an ME call for an investigation.

Sounds great. What you are missing is that: (1) an infant usually has some medical history; (2) an infant’s body can be autopsied to determine the cause of death. Neither will really work with miscarriage.

What is the acceptable percentage of innocent miscarrying women behind bars?

1. Depends. Principle of double effect would apply.

Principle of double effect does not exist in criminal law, so your point is moot.

Z. vs. Poland. Read the suit. reproductiverights.org/en/case/z-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

Here is another problem, exactly what should be done in the case of Ectopic Pregnancies?

Let’s be honest here, in a secular hospital they won’t go out of the way and remove a woman’s entire uterus because of an embryo attaching in the wrong place. In fact I would bet they see Catholic hospitals as breaking of the Hippocratic oath because of the fact that they do such harm when technology has other options and do so solely because religious reason.

But back to the point, secular hospitals are not going to go out of the way and remove a woman’s uterus because of an ectopic pregnancy. They will use some abortive chemical to force an abortion of the embryo.

So should doctors be charged for performing abortions on ectopic pregnancies? No? Then why not, if all life is precious then what makes it suddenly justified to perform abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies?

Really the Principle of Double Effect doesn’t sit well with me either, it feels like a cop out by the Catholic Church who draws the line at telling pregnant women that they have to let themselves die for the sake of a fetus that cannot possibly develop properly in the uterine wall. Not to mention I really disdain the unborn for being so prone to death that the Catholic Church has too look hypocritical by saying its ok to kill a fetus on certain situations.

And no I don’t find stating my opinion contempt for Catholicism to anyone who feels the need to silence me!

 

[vera_dicere]

People overreact to this issue.

If abortion became illegal it would only be a crime to kill the foetus via abortion. With a solid maternal health system in place women with pregnancies, whether planned or not, could get adequate care and education so they wouldn’t harm the foetus.

The other issue is intention, when a pregnant woman has a glass of wine at dinner or goes on a bender, is her intention to get totally plastered or to kill the foetus. If aboriton were classed as murder, the woman could only be charged if it was proven that the drinking/drug use was intended to kill.

As for miscarriage, that’s just fear mongering - it can be really obvious when a woman has interferred with her pregnancy.

Women who miscarry should go see a doctor anyway, to ensure they are not at risk from blood lost or infection. If she had done something dodgey it’d be obvious very quickly.

IF abortion became illegal, I think the best method would be one that is not invasive in daily life, the only difference would be you wouldn’t have a planned parenthood clinic or abortion clinics in hospitals.

There would still be abortions, some where people would get away with it, but there are murders that some people get away with. But at least there wouldn’t be 1.2 million a year.

 

[kama3]

People overreact to this issue.

The events concerning Z. vs. Poland actually happened. That woman died.

If abortion became illegal it would only be a crime to kill the foetus via abortion.

This is not the topic of the thread. Legally speaking, a ban on abortion procedures is relatively straighforward.

The topic of the thread is analyzing legal implications of outlawing abortion indirectly by recognizing the personhood of the fetus. This is a legal minefield.

With a solid maternal health system in place women with pregnancies, whether planned or not, could get adequate care and education so they wouldn’t harm the foetus.

Wishful thinking.

Poland’s 1993 anti-abortion law has some very good clauses regarding education and protection of pregnant women. 20 years later some of these clauses are still not implemented, because the so-called pro-lifers have been fighting tooth and nail to: keep education on reproductive issues out of schools, limit access to contraceptives and limit access to prenatal diagnostics.

In fact, an amendment to the law was proposed last year by the pro-life groups that would eliminate the narrow exception still allowing legal abortions. The same amendment would also remove all the clauses giving special legal protections to pregnant women.

IF abortion became illegal, I think the best method would be one that is not invasive in daily life, the only difference would be you wouldn’t have a planned parenthood clinic or abortion clinics in hospitals.

And that would make a difference because…?

 

[kama3]

Here is another problem, exactly what should be done in the case of Ectopic Pregnancies?

That’s easy. Cite a conscience exception and refuse treatment. The patient will die of course, but nobody will get charged.

 

[LemonAndLime]

That’s easy. Cite a conscience exception and refuse treatment. The patient will die of course, but nobody will get charged.

I hope you’re joking.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

I hope you’re joking.

Not joking, just showing the consequence of people actually listening to the Pro-life movement.

It would be more helpful if you or someone who cares about being pro-lfie actually defended against this claim. I already made my claim a few posts down. If conception determined personhood then why is it suddenly ok to use abortive drugs to remove human life in the form of an embryo?

Here is my post in case anyone who is actually pro-life happened to just ignore it…

Here is another problem, exactly what should be done in the case of Ectopic Pregnancies?

Let’s be honest here, in a secular hospital they won’t go out of the way and remove a woman’s entire uterus because of an embryo attaching in the wrong place. In fact I would bet they see Catholic hospitals as breaking of the Hippocratic oath because of the fact that they do such harm when technology has other options and do so solely because religious reason.

But back to the point, secular hospitals are not going to go out of the way and remove a woman’s uterus because of an ectopic pregnancy. They will use some abortive chemical to force an abortion of the embryo.

So should doctors be charged for performing abortions on ectopic pregnancies? No? Then why not, if all life is precious then what makes it suddenly justified to perform abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies?

Really the Principle of Double Effect doesn’t sit well with me either, it feels like a cop out by the Catholic Church who draws the line at telling pregnant women that they have to let themselves die for the sake of a fetus that cannot possibly develop properly in the uterine wall. Not to mention I really disdain the unborn for being so prone to death that the Catholic Church has too look hypocritical by saying its ok to kill a fetus on certain situations.

 

[jmcrae]

Not joking, just showing the consequence of people actually listening to the Pro-life movement.

It would be more helpful if you or someone who cares about being pro-lfie actually defended against this claim. I already made my claim a few posts down. If conception determined personhood then why is it suddenly ok to use abortive drugs to remove human life in the form of an embryo?

Here is my post in case anyone who is actually pro-life happened to just ignore it…

1. Ectopic pregnancies are extremely rare, and it’s a really bad idea to create law based on things that almost never happen.
2. What the Church teaches is that in the case of an illness where the removal of the baby is required for the survival of the mother, or where treating the mother will likely kill the baby, the Church allows the mother to make her choice. A Catholic doctor cannot actually kill the baby directly - but if he cannot save both the mother and the child, then he must focus on saving the mother. (If it is possible to save both, then he must not neglect to save the child.)

 

[kama3]

I hope you’re joking.

I’m not. Z vs. Poland. Link upthread.