The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why is protecting life a crime? > Comments

Why is protecting life a crime? : Comments

By Graham Preston, published 2/12/2004

Graham Preston argues that when it comes to unborn children we are hypocritical

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
This argument is patently absurd. The logical extension of the first scenario, as Mr Preston would have it, is that, since we're all gonna die eventually anyway, anything goes. That is a nonsensical position and does not apply in our legal system.

The point of the criminal charge is that the offender committed an act in violation of the wishes of the victim(s), regardless of what the victim's wishes might have been. That's been an underlying principal of our justice system for time immemorial. Had a husband consented to the rape of a woman he'd be (arguably) an accomplice to the crime, not a defence.

The second point that this article glosses over is the assumption that children should be treated the same as adults. Ignoring the considerable debate about the point at which a zygote becomes human, this is a "double standard" that we have long observed on a range of issues: drinking, voting, driving, consenting to sex, and so on. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have double standards at that point. The devil is in the detail.

There are plenty of good reasons to try to to lower the rate of abortions and plenty of ways to do so. This tripe is none of them.
Posted by Hughie, Thursday, 2 December 2004 12:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because the woman's life and the baby's are irrevocably connected and the woman should decide, nobody else.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 2 December 2004 2:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if Hughie could explain in clearer language why he thinks Mr. Preston's argument is absurd. It seems to me to be totally irrefutable. You could in fact go further and argue that if the mother approached her next door neighbour and asked to be punched in the stomach in order to kill her unborn child could both the neighbour and the mother be charged under section 313(2) of the Criminal Code?

If yes, then only the commission of the act by a Doctor decides whether or not the unborn child is a person or not. This situation is patently absurd!

A fundamental principal of our justice system is that no one can give consent to the killing of another, or order another to kill. Hughie is quite right when he says that had a husband consented to the rape of his wife he perhaps would be guilty of rape as well. Why should not this also apply to the case of a mother consenting to the death of her unborn child?

In relation to Hughie's point about "double standards", surely he's not likening the right to voting, drinking or having sex to the right to be born and live! Now that is tripe!

The lives of a woman and her unborn baby are only irrevocably entwined up to a certain point. There have been many cases of healthy babies being born to mothers killed in accidents etc. If you accept that an unborn baby is a human being with a right to live, then the mother has no more right to kill this life than anyone else.

I am not against abortion up to a point. But surely we have to acknowledge that at some stage this bunch of cells does become life and is able to survive outside the womb. At this stage it should be protected, if not by the mother, then by society.
Posted by bozzie, Thursday, 2 December 2004 4:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, if you ask an embryologist, the zygote is a human being. At the point of conception, immediately after the ovum is fertilized by the sperm cell, the result is a human being, simply because it has the same number of chromosomes as you and me (46). Prior to that, both the ovum and the sperm cell had half the number each (23).

Reference (which cites more medical references):
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Next, the basis for criminal culpability for the fictional attacker in the article was not the fact that the mother had no choice, but that a human person was destroyed. That is why it is a homicide, and note that the text refers to the victim as a *child*:

"and destroys the life of, or does grievous bodily harm to, or transmits a serious disease to, the child before its birth, commits a crime."

The double standards mentioned by Hughie is correct. We have always had different standards for children as for adults. Children have been the most protected in modern western laws since they are recognized as the most vulnerable of all human beings and the ill-effects on them are the most far-reaching because they are the next generation.

Mr. Preston's point was valid. His arguments were about the life of the child in the womb, and there are no complex standards here. Either it is alive or it is not. Particularly in the case of the presented scenarios, it isn't even a question of what sort of life, e.g., incapacitated, results from the attack or the abortion. It was simply a matter of life or death.
Posted by Jeff, Friday, 3 December 2004 9:20:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This kind of argument is currently being used in the US, and it not only shows a complete disregard for women's rights, it also shows a complete disregard for logical argument.

The argument is simple:
The mother is human and has a right to life, right to make decisions concerning her body, right to self-defence...
The foetus is human, and has the same rights as the mother, but cannot sustain its life independant of its mother.

We do not make laws that force people to donate blood or organs, or make any such sacrifice to save another life. Likewise, we cannot make laws that force women to carry pregnancies through to full term, and anyone who thinks this is less of a burden than giving blood is showing his true opinion.

The man on the street who attacks the mother, and kills or harms the foetus, can invoke no such right to self-defence or self-determination, hence he should be thrown in gaol.

This article is a not very clever attempt to blur the issue, and confuse people into doubting the right to have an abortion, and I have not once heard it argued by a woman. Some women are anti-choice for other reasons, but not one of them would ever so underestimate the huge responsibilty of pregnancy in this way.

I am pro-choice because pregnancy and motherhood is far too great a thing to force on a woman. It is the greatest gift a mother can give, and it is the pro-choicers who recognise this fact. Not the anti-choicers from whom there would be an outcry if we made blood donation compulsory, yet think it's OK to make abortion illegal.
Posted by Amanda, Friday, 3 December 2004 1:23:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A life sentence to a person whose assault causes a woman's unborn child to die is clearly excessive. It's all of us who'll have to pay for the incarceration of the accused offender. This doesn't mean that such an offender should get away with it, but simply that such an offence should be treated for what it is....assault occasioning bodily harm.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Monday, 6 December 2004 3:43:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To me if you want abortion to be illegal then the following criteria would have to be met first:
- reversible contraception that is 100% effective rather than 99% (applied to both women and men at puberty and only reversed after they made the decision to become parents)
- the ability to transfer the foetus out of the woman to mature elsewhere (in cases where the woman's life is at risk)

I believe it is a woman's right to decide whether she brings a child into this world or not from her body, and the community as a whole is better off leaving that decision up to the individual whose life it effects the most.

After these conditions are met one could then argue that the mother has no right to reverse her decision to become a parent after she has already made it and created life, but I don't believe that in the current cirumstances such a decision has been made. Sexual activity and intimacy are part of a normal & healthy life, not a decision to become a parent.

In the end it is a woman's right to choose the course of her life, so I would suggest to those who don't approve of abortions that their efforts would be better directed towards making them unnecessary.
Posted by ailix, Tuesday, 7 December 2004 3:32:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I heartily agree with everything Graham Preston wrote. It is time that we acknowledged and protected our smallest citizens. The argument that women have a right to their own bodies does not apply, when they are pregnant, to the baby because they are carrying a separate entity. I feel sincerely for those women who have becaome pregnant and feel alone but there are good organisations who will help if they ask for it. It is absurd that we, through our taxes, pay for thousands of abortions every year while our population is plummeting. In the meantime we rightly spend enormous money on keeping babies alive born prematurely who are kept alive because their parents "wanted" them! It is time we reconsidered our attitude to abortion in this country and welcomed our future generations instead of annhihilating them just because they are not "wanted" at that particular time.
Posted by Nola, Wednesday, 8 December 2004 9:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women should not be treated by the community as breeders where their ability to raise population levels takes precedence over their right to control what goes on in their own bodies. It is not a separate entity until it is born.
Posted by ailix, Wednesday, 8 December 2004 2:54:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question that needs to be answered is this: When does a foetus become a 'person'?

To kill a person is murder. Some argue a foetus only becomes a person when they can breathe on their own outside the womb. Others say once the foetus enters the third trimester, some say at 22 weeks - there are many differing opinions.

But this just raises a more fundamental question: What criteria shall we choose to determine whether a foetus is a person or not?

It can't be whether they can breathe on their own or not since someone on a respirator is still regarded as a person and killing them would be murder. It can't be any other physical or intellectual capability because the handicapped are regarded as persons.

Therefore, the only logical criteria is if the foetus is a human foetus then it should be given the status of 'person'. This would be from the time when the ovum is fertilised and contains the complete blueprint for a fully functional human being.

Any other choice is arbitrary and will always invite the question 'What significant change occurs to the foetus at this age that warrants its status to change to become a person?'. For example, if we choose 35 weeks, what corresponding developmental change occurs during the period between 34 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 minutes and a full 35 weeks? Another example: Why shouldn't it be just as much a crime to kill a child seconds before its birth in comparison to seconds after its birth?

Therefore, abortion can only be justified in order to save the life of another - the mother.
Posted by peterg, Thursday, 9 December 2004 10:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We need to look beyond the situation at present. Currently it is legal to abort a child in the womb, if the mother's 'health' is 'at risk'. Also, it is illegal to murder someone, be they a judge or a retarded child. This is how the law stands at present. But the push now is to allow euthanasia for those who choose. Next it will be to euthanase a deformed child after it's born, should the mother choose, then it will be encouraged to be euthanased, perhaps by a Govt grant to the family (i.e., it would be cheaper to give the family $10,000 now to euthanase the child, than to spend $100,000 in carer benefits over the ensueing years). Follow on with the idea, and we may as well euthanase severely handicaped people, then those who are no longer any 'use' to society. Next thing is we have a regime not far from Nazi Germany in 1930's-45!!. Who decides what is right, and where to draw the line?. We need to get back to Biblical standards, for the Lord is the Creator, surely He has the right ideas for living. Yes,in some severe instances an abortion is needed, but they are v. rare. Could not the child be adopted out if the mother does not want it?. There are many couples wanting children who ca'nt have their own, and to adopt out is much easier than all the IVF etc programmes.

It does seem so upside down that a peaceful father should be seperated from his family over Christmas, for wanting to save a babies life, (& perhaps that of the mother, as some do die due to complications after the abortion, and some are known to suicide, due to depression after losing a child through abortion)
Posted by haymaker, Friday, 10 December 2004 4:26:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Mr. Preston, Jeff, Nola and Haymaker. Those who argue that a woman has control of her body conveniently ignore the fact that there is another body involved i.e. the fetus, child [call it what you will] The recent pictures of a child in the womb at various stages should blow the "bunch of cells" argument out of the water. Anyone who says it's not a human life, a child, fetus or whatever is kidding themselves. Self delusion. This tiny helpless human life has rights. If his/her mother won't uphold these rights, then the Law must.

And where do Doctors and Nurses stand in relation to this killing of a helpless human. The Hippocratic Oath [no not the original one - the Modern Version 1964] says: "Above all I must not play at God". Yet isn't that exactly what abortionists and their assistants and consenting mothers are doing, by deciding that a human life must end?
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 10 December 2004 9:56:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I heartily agree with Graham Preston's arguments - they are logical and sound. A fundamental tenant of all human rights is that every human being is of equal dignity. From the moment of conception, when life is most vulnerable, every life must be protected. There can be no arbitrary distinctions. No one can take their own life. No one can take the life of another - except in the case of self defense by an unjust agressor. An unborn child is not an unjust aggressor. Laws for abortion which do not offer this protection fundamentally go against human rights. Laws protecting the unborn protect human rights. Thankyou Graham and those who support you for you clear mind and courage.
Posted by Sophia, Saturday, 18 December 2004 12:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is control over your body more important than control over aspects of your life?

Carrying a child to birth is just one aspect of parental responsibility. A significant one no doubt but is the impact more significant than say the financial responsibility of being a parent and can we as a society reasonably quantify that?

Going back to the hypothetical (I hope) situation envisaged in the article one could ask if the father of the child was the one doing the attack are they assaulting the mother or killing the child? Neither is acceptable but could it not be argued that the father should have some control over his future life and income in the same way that the mother has control over her body (18 years vis less than 9 months). Is not the fruits of your labours for a significant proportion of your working life of some significance?

Yes there are unfortunate circumstances where unplanned and unwanted pregnancies happen. People also have accidents which leave them with a liability to another (careless driving etc). Should they be allowed to kill the victim (or have them killed) to relive the themselves of the liability?

As a society we accept that bad things happen, we try and put in place laws which reduce the unreasonable impacts but accept that people will be impacted often significantly because that is life.

Pregnancy happens, it never lasts much more that nine months and there are waiting lists of people wanting to adopt children. Put the "control over your bodies" thing in perspective.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 January 2005 1:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am absolutely for women's right to choose in regards to their bodies and their involvement in reproduction.

Women will put the "control over your bodies" thing in perspective when the male population develops a uterus and can bear children alongside us. Biologically, historically and socially, women are the child-bearers, and the child-carers.

If, as R0bert says, "the father should have some control over his future life and income in the same way that the mother has control over her body (18 years vis less than 9 months)," should it not also be mandatory that the father shouldn't be able to abandon the mother and child until the child has reached 18? Can a woman hand the child over to the father and simply contribute financially throughout its life from afar?

No - the child is, however harsh this may sound, the woman's burden. Without the woman's care, the child cannot survive. Without the woman's body, the child cannot survive. Women should not be treated like reproductive machines - they should have the right to say 'no' to the possibility of motherhood. Society cannot simply give women full responsibility when it comes to caring, and making choices for children outside the womb, and then tell them they have no right to choose whether they wish to bring such children into this world.

Women are humans too. They have lives, they have dreams, they have goals. Do they not have the right to lead their lives as they see fit? Women deserve the freedom to choose when their bodies give life, and when they don't. However terrible the death of an unborn person may be, it may be necessary in order to sustain the chosen life of another.

K8ly
Posted by K8lyn, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 5:05:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For God Sake.
Who is stirring this along.
Family first No Doubt.
Well look at the Good Godly Peoples attitude toward animal Welfare.
They dont Have A Policy
Can anybody beleive that.
After the huge public interest in the cruelty of live exports they are so uncaring and arrogant they say they are not going to have a Animal Welfare policy.[ May God! forgive them]
As for terminations its nobodys business but the womens or perhaps her partners if hes still around.
Even if the Male is against abortion its still none of his business to dicate to HER what she will or wont do with her body or her life.
Childbirth stuffs your teeth hair figure looks most times caree not to mention your bank account and thats just for starters.

Anybody who thinks they have the right to force women to give birth are without any respect for human rights for women
I would love to see the men give birth and carry a pregancy for nine months.

ladies dont even bother to respond to these pro life before your born nuts.
They are not worth your energy .
Just vote with your feet at the right time.
Nobody is alive until they are born.
birth Dates are--- from time of birth.

Leave the poor women alone and mind your own bloody business.
Get The Picture.
Butt out
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Saturday, 15 July 2006 7:57:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is idiotic, as is Preston's self serving logic.

Choice is a key part of many laws. Each of the following instances are an identical action. One is legal, due to the choice of individuals, one is not.

1) Taking a car.
a) Keys handed over by choice.
b) Keys taken as theft.

2) Sex.
a) Consenting adults.
b) Rape.

3) Fighting
a) A karate match.
b) assault.

Self serving logic designed to twist perceptions of the argument. The only argument here is at what stage a foetus is recognised as a child.
At present, that is at birth. I happen to agree with that and have my reasons.
This is the debate, unclouded by dodgy arguments such as this.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 1 February 2007 2:40:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy