Legal problems that may arise if abortion is considered murder?

[wynnejj]

It is that Enlightenment idea that is the root of our rugged individualism here in America – we’ve carried it to an extreme.

Not to the extreme of considering the baby in womb as an individual with human rights.

Not to the extreme of considering a mother with baby in the womb as “individual” that cannot be divided. Near as I can tell, the baby in the womb has the rights of an appendage.

The premise that America is based on too much “rugged individualism” as a generalization has many problems. Even confining the scope of the analysis to the abortion issue, what do we call tax funding of Planned Parenthood? HHS Mandate? These are based on misguided duty-based societal values.

It is an interesting thesis, though.

 

[mark_a]

Let’s say that abortion becomes not only illegal but defined as murder, be that in any country. I also want to clarify as by experience on CAF I have to - I am pro-life. I can ask questions and still be pro-life. Anyway…

It’s been mentioned before (I have mentioned it before too) but does the pro-life campaign have any answers to what would happen to pregnant women if it becomes illegal?

So let’s say you’re pregnant and an unborn baby has been defined by law to have the same rights as a born person (so that abortion is legally defined as murder). Does that mean that a pregnant mother can be fined and prosecuted for doing something which could harm the baby? Would the state end up policing her pregnancy? This maybe sounds a bit crazy, but think about the following things which are could harm a baby in the womb -

• Smoking
• Alcohol
• Drugs
• Obesity
• Reckless behaviour - e.g. going bungee-jumping or weight-lifting while pregnant.
• Eating certain foods/taking certain medication

So let’s say a woman had a miscarriage. Would that have to be investigated by the state to make sure it wasn’t an abortion? Could she be charged if she was found to have a history of alcoholism and had high levels of alcohol in her blood, for example?

Just wondering what people’s thoughts are regarding this, and whether there has been a lot of discussion about it on the pro-life scene.

Note: This is specifically asking about the effects of making abortion murder, assuming that this means an unborn baby has the same right to life all people have in that country. Abortion can be illegal without this happening, but a lot of pro-life people are campaigning for abortion to be classed as murder too.

Priestsforlife.org has a great booklet that answers these questions and just about any other one might have:

Priests for Life PO Box 141172 • Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-735-3448, (718) 980-4400 • Fax 718-980-6515 Email: mail@priestsforlife.org

Best wishes!!

 

[lynnvinc]

Not to the extreme of considering the baby in womb as an individual with human rights.

Not to the extreme of considering a mother with baby in the womb as “individual” that cannot be divided. Near as I can tell, the baby in the womb has the rights of an appendage.

The premise that America is based on too much “rugged individualism” as a generalization has many problems. Even confining the scope of the analysis to the abortion issue, what do we call tax funding of Planned Parenthood? HHS Mandate? These are based on misguided duty-based societal values.

It is an interesting thesis, though.

That’s what I was saying. Since we are so imbued in Enlightenment thinking of rights (without any duties or responsibilities, without interconnections to others in society), we might as well go the route of pushing for the rights of the unborn, than the route of our duties and responsibilities toward the unborn. That would be more effective in our culture today, even though I’m more a duties than a rights person (old fashion).

Think of it this way, if the 10 Commandments were to be rewritten in our times, it would be a list of rights, not duties. “I have the right to life” would replace “Thou shalt not kill.” Bec there is no “thou,” no “I and thou” (no relationship, connection, society), only “I.”

Which brings us back to what should we do about the woman (mother) who aborts, or uses hormone disrupting cosmetics that cause birth defects and miscarriages (see ewg.org/skindeep to check out if any of you are using such), and thereby causes a miscarriage. Or pesticides, which also cause birth defects and miscarriages. Or just living in auto-fume areas, which also causes such.

Do we slap them on the wrist or imprison them for causing their baby’s harm or death? Think of all the taxes needed to maintain such a large number of women in prison.

I seriously don’t think we are going to go down that road, and it would even be very difficult to even get some law passed that would imprison people involved in regular medical abortions. They would be pressing their “rights” – and feel incensed that a woman’s body is no longer considered her “castle” to rule over it as queen, “choosing” her own laws re whether abortion is legal or illegal within her body-castle. I’d be for going back to the pre-1973 era – they had panels then to decide whether or not a woman could get a legal abortion (health, rape, incest, etc).

I’d sincerely like to see a more duty/responsibility/love culture emerge (I remember reading about a nun who was raped, but went on to have the child, even tho she qualified for an abortion…that is the real duty/responsibility/love-based ethic). Such an ethic would be focused on the totality of the society (both mother and child) and help them both to survive and thrive.

Except for some really sincerely religious Catholics and other people so inclined working with that duty/responsibility/love-based ethical code, that mode doesn’t look very hopeful in today’s world. However, this is inspirational: franciscansoflife.org

 

[wynnejj]

Think of it this way, if the 10 Commandments were to be rewritten in our times, it would be a list of rights, not duties. “I have the right to life” would replace “Thou shalt not kill.” Bec there is no “thou,” no “I and thou” (no relationship, connection, society), only “I.”

There’s a big difference between a declarative sentence and an imperative sentence.

A declarative sentence does not imply an “or else” but an imperative sentence does.

Commandments and laws are imperative sentences that always have an “or else”.

You seem to have a “change hearts & minds” approach to this problem.

We are over 50 million “individual, yet to be born” (I object to the phrase “yet-to-be-born-individual”), reasons beyond the “unapproved behavior” approach.

You may be right that we may not be able to sway society to enact tough law enforcement that refuses to cater to the free sex without consequences ideology, especially when that consequence is the murder of an innocent individual who have an inalienable right to life.

If the Church can’t protect the sacraments from desecration through canon law enforcement, how can we expect the Church to influence the State to protect the unborn from desecration?

Nevertheless, if the Christian society got serious on the abortion issue, then the State laws would be enacted and women faced with an “or else” would not elect abortions. Our prisons swell more due to improper raising of children, so this notion of prison populations swelling seems to be exaggeration.