Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Originally Posted by JMS

I have always found the notion of charging someone for the murder of an unborn child as we do in the states, at least some of the states.rather hypocritical considering that abortion is legal!

One idea I have is this:

Could a legal opposition to Roe v Wade be made by the father of an unborn child that the mother has aborted?

Could the father charge the mother with the murder of his offspring? DNA testing could clearly confirm (at any gestational age) that the child was indeed as much his as it was hers.

Could he sue to prevent an abortion from being performed?

Conversely:Legally the courts hold fathers responsible in paternity cases for support of the child. So, could not the father of an unborn child say that he does not want that, and order that an abortion be performed, even if the mother did not want it? Would that be legally justifiable? As stated, according to DNA evidence the "clump of cells" is just as much "his" as it is "hers", so why doesn't he get a say in the matter?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

One idea I have is this:

Could a legal opposition to Roe v Wade be made by the father of an unborn child that the mother has aborted?

Could the father charge the mother with the murder of his offspring? DNA testing could clearly confirm (at any gestational age) that the child was indeed as much his as it was hers.

Could he sue to prevent an abortion from being performed?

Conversely:Legally the courts hold fathers responsible in paternity cases for support of the child. So, could not the father of an unborn child say that he does not want that, and order that an abortion be performed, even if the mother did not want it? Would that be legally justifiable? As stated, according to DNA evidence the "clump of cells" is just as much "his" as it is "hers", so why doesn't he get a say in the matter?

I see you're using your vorpal blade again!

"Oh frabjious day! Calooh! Calay!"

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I qould guess that as you see abortion is murder...

Well, what's murder? And what degree of it would be appropriate to charge the aborter with? What's manslaughter? Can you prove in a court of law the woman knew the unborn child had individual human rights and plotted to murder him or her? What about other parties involved? Could you convict every one who counseled her to have one as an accomplice to the hit?

And what of the victim's family? Should the mother be forced to make restitution to them? Or what if the mother was simply ruled to be negligent and the unborn died early as a result of her not taking the government-recommended dose of prenatal vitamins. Or she missed taking them for a few days and the unborn (which is later aborted anyway) suffers so she is jailed for child abuse. Should the unborn have any rights afforded by US law if he or she is not a citizen of any nation? Or should the unborn be granted theoretical citizenship based upon where conception was believed to take place

What a hassle. It sure would be a lot easier to just say they aren't really people yet, wouldn't it

If one believes that a fetus is a "potential human", not a human, I think it is entirely coherent to say that is one thing for the mother to decide to terminate that potential if she doesn't want a family, and an entirely different kind of act if a thrid party forces a woman who does want the family to terminate. Ie potential plus intention to take to term = human. potential plus intention to terminate = nothing.

If one believes (as I do) that a fetus is a human, it's absolutely murder to intentionally cause physical trauma to a mother that is pregnant. I think it's murder for the mother to do it, but then at least you are weighing her right to [insert your own philosophy] against the right to life of the baby. There is no balancing to done in the case of the mugger.

There is some hypocrisy if someone is screaming murderer at the mugger that causes abortion turns around and says "you go girl, it's your choice" to abortionist.........because if you believe pasionately it's a life in one context it's a life in another context, but per above you can at least consistently distinguish betwen not having the intent to bring a potential life to fruition and interfering with someone's intent to take it to fruition.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

One idea I have is this:

Could a legal opposition to Roe v Wade be made by the father of an unborn child that the mother has aborted?

Post abortion? How would this challange RvW? How do his personal rights impact whether the goevernment may or may not criminalize or restrict abortion?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Could the father charge the mother with the murder of his offspring? DNA testing could clearly confirm (at any gestational age) that the child was indeed as much his as it was hers.

That's an interesting question. Considering the laws that do charge the loss of a fetus as murder...where do fathers' rights come into play in this aspect of the scenario? I'd love to hear a real legal expert on the topic. Father's rights has been an area of interest of mine for some time.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Could he sue to prevent an abortion from being performed?

I doubt it, but that is intriguing, considering the thought below. Why should it be ONLY the mother's choice? Namely: When it comes down to it, the birth is uniquely her issue. the carrying is uniquely her issue. They were BOTH involved in the making of the fetus, true, but why should his interest outweigh hers? (Assuming, for the time being, that the fetus has no say in the matter, nor any rights).
Are we arguing morally or legally here? The two are, quite celarly, not synonomous.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Conversely:Legally the courts hold fathers responsible in paternity cases for support of the child. So, could not the father of an unborn child say that he does not want that, and order that an abortion be performed, even if the mother did not want it? Would that be legally justifiable? As stated, according to DNA evidence the "clump of cells" is just as much "his" as it is "hers", so why doesn't he get a say in the matter?

He can say whatever he wants. This is a matter of an individual/private actor, not the government (just like arguments about free speech...your boss can fire you for saying something, the government can't stop you from saying it, though).
Again, moral argument or legal one?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

One idea I have is this:

Could a legal opposition to Roe v Wade be made by the father of an unborn child that the mother has aborted?

Could the father charge the mother with the murder of his offspring? DNA testing could clearly confirm (at any gestational age) that the child was indeed as much his as it was hers.

Could he sue to prevent an abortion from being performed?

Conversely:Legally the courts hold fathers responsible in paternity cases for support of the child. So, could not the father of an unborn child say that he does not want that, and order that an abortion be performed, even if the mother did not want it? Would that be legally justifiable? As stated, according to DNA evidence the "clump of cells" is just as much "his" as it is "hers", so why doesn't he get a say in the matter?

Roe v. Wade is political policy. It's legal drivel, so you can twist any way you want or not be able to twist it all depending on whether you think it came from God on High or from an activist court that doesn't understand checks and balances.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

or from an activist court that doesn't understand checks and balances.

Or from a court that truly, from the depths of its well meaning legal minds and souls, believed that the constitution contains within it certain language that create a "Right to privacy" that is a "sphere" of rights into which the government ought not tread lightly (if at all!).

SOme pretty bright people have disagreed with both sides!

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Or from a court that truly, from the depths of its well meaning legal minds and souls, believed that the constitution contains within it certain language that create a "Right to privacy" that is a "sphere" of rights into which the government ought not tread lightly (if at all!).

SOme pretty bright people have disagreed with both sides!

Nope. On this one you are wrong, and I am right.

That was an whacked out activist court. In the latter half of the twentieth century we needed a whakced out activist court for all the civil rights stuff, so I'm not bitter, but constiutional right to privacy.....please.

Seeing as the fetus is still part of the women, negligence or gross negligence causing bodily harm. This would cover the fact even if the women wasn't visibly pregnant. They could also be charge with infringing ones rights, that of the mother's.

What would your charge a person with that, drugged you and stole a kidney?

Originally Posted by Hutch

Seeing as the fetus is still part of the women, negligence or gross negligence causing bodily harm. This would cover the fact even if the women wasn't visibly pregnant. They could also be charge with infringing ones rights, that of the mother's.

What would your charge a person with that, drugged you and stole a kidney?

Part of the woman? earlier you said it was a parasite...