In the US a man is being held in custody, charged with first degree murder for allegedly interfering with his girlfriend's medication causing the abortion of their foetus. The girlfriend was six weeks and five days pregnant.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-man-tricked-girlfriend-into-abortion-20130517-2jq0i.html

It is the charge of murder that is proposed for discussion in this thread.

When is the foetus a 'child', or does that rely solely on the woman's judgement notwithstanding any law based on such definitions as viability outside the womb?

Highly educated feminist 'ethicists' in Australia have long held that fertility is solely the decision of the woman concerned and a foetus is merely a parasitic lump to be aborted legally with government assistance on the decision of the woman (can't use 'mother' in this case I suppose) up until the very moment of birth.

Peter Singer, utilitarian philosopher and darling of the Greens goes further, ruling that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth: "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons", and, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

What was the offence and why?

>>What was the offence and why?<<

Hope this clears things up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

That is the Act that Mr. Welden is being charged under.

Cheers,

Tony

People who support killing babies want to justify their own godless behaviour. Singer also approves of bestiality. Moral relativism which is totally irrational is blinded from looking into a microscope to see little hands, hearts and feet. Just like Nazis saw the Jews as less than human so abortionist use the dishonest tactic of using different terms for unborn babies. One only has to look at the total dishonesty of the arguements for abortion back in the 60's and 70's to where it is now. It is those who speak the truth that become demonised instead of the butchers and their supporters.

Dear onthebeach,

At the root of the controversy is a basic value judgement
about the human status of the fetus. If the fetus is
considered a baby, then abortion is a form of killing.
If it is considered a mere collection of cells and tissue,
then abortion is a morally neutral surgical procedure.

The status of the fetus is inherently ambiguous.

On the one hand, the fetus is not a human being in the
usual sense, for it is generally not viable. Indeed, no
society treats the fetus as human; for example, if the
mother accidentally miscarries, the fetus is not given
a funeral, but is simply disposed of like any other tissue.

On the other hand, the fetus is not like just any other
tissue, such as discarded nail or hair clippings. The
fetus is potentially a human being, one that might become
alive and unique as we are. The conflicting value judgements
about abortion stem from this fundamental ambiguity in the
status of the fetus.

The question is compounded by a related issue, the right of a
woman to control her own body. Many women feel that a decision
about abortion should be a strictly personal one, and they deeply
resent other people insisting that they should bear a child
they do not want to have.

But here too there are ambiguities. Half the genes in the fetus
were contributed by the father, and although the woman must
bear the child, society may make the father responsible for the
child's support for nearly two decades thereafter. If the
father waives his responsibilities - for example, by deserting
the mother - then of course he has no further rights in the
matter. But if he accepts his responsibilities and wants the
child born, what are his rights in relation to the mother's
right to control her body?

The issue is a very complex one. However, in the case of the
man who tricked his girlfriend into losing her baby.
He did this without her consent or knowledge.
Whether it was murder is something the courts will have to
decide.

I don't see a problem with the decision to charge the father with the murder of his unborn foetus.

A woman should have the right to decide what does and doesn't happen with her body.
If her partner 'interfered' with her medication then that is a crime against her well-being in itself.

The fact that this interference caused the miscarriage of her baby is murder, because she obviously had wanted that baby.

As for Runner's predictable comment about 'Godless' women who have abortions, I can only remind him of the many so-called natural miscarriages (abortions) his God apparently causes to millions of women around the world every year.

How do you justify that Runner?

Obviously the law is on the side of a woman's right to decide, because legal abortion is allowed in Australia, but causing the miscarriage of a woman against her will is murder.
This fact will never change...

What's the big deal about the 'human status'?

Murder is immoral and should be condemned, regardless whether the murdered is a human or otherwise.

The state, however, especially the secular state that we have, is in no position to be a guardian of our morality.

Yes, the state has a justified mandate to protect those of its citizens (and others who hold a valid visa) who desire its protection.

Currently, a foetus is not a citizen, hence the state is not obliged to protect it. Currently also, a baby once out of the womb is a citizen.

However, I suggest that the current definition of citizenship is arbitrary and flawed: it should have nothing to do with whether a baby is still within the womb or out in the air.

Instead, a baby, regardless whether still in the womb or outside, should become a citizen (thus protected by the state) at the point in time when either one of its parents (themselves citizens or valid-visa-holders) or the child him/herself (once grown sufficiently to be able to express such a wish) registers him/her with the state, implicitly or explicitly requesting the state to place the child under its protection.

If this system was in place and the mother had already registered her 6-weeks+5-days old foetus with the state, then indeed that boyfriend needs to answer murder charges (otherwise, he would still need to answer lesser crimes against the mother). Indeed, those who wish should be able to deposit in advance a legally-binding form stating that any foetus conceived by them is to be automatically a citizen protected by the state, either on conception or xx weeks after.

On the other hand, Peter Singer also has a point: should none of the parents choose to register a baby with the state, then killing that baby, while highly immoral, should not be subject to criminal prosecution.

Suz, while I agree that a woman should have the right to decide what happens.....

It could also be said that the partner, if he is the paternal father of the unborn, should also have equal rights.

You see, as it stands, if a father does not want a child, yet the mother decides to habe the child, what right dies she have to finacial assistance from the father, who didnt want the commitment.

As for this abortion being murder, I can't see how anyone can murder something that has not yet been born.

Shaw, this may be a crime, but not murder, in the form of the word.

Rehctub I see where you are coming from, but while that foetus is part of a woman's body, joined with it by the placenta, then the father has less 'rights' over his child.

I'm sorry, but that is just a fact of nature.

If the father, or anyone else, causes the death of that foetus against the mothers will, then it should be murder.

I simply do not understand the need for abortions in this day and age of good, reliable contraception and the 'morning after' pill.

The state provides education and sex education so there is no need for unwanted conception to take place. Indeed what right does a woman have to obtain an abortion if she has failed to prevent a pregnancy. What right does a person have for state financed medical treatment for HIV/AIDS if one fails to have safe sex. If a DUI driver has an accident his insurance is void, because he knows he should not drive under the influence.

All young people now know that having sex is likely to result in pregnancy and Girls from 14yo can get the pill without parental knowledge.

It is even more bewildering for the need for late abortions, without medical reason. How can a woman be pregnant for months and then suddenly decide she does not want the baby. The pill, when introduced, was supposed to stop all unwanted pregnancies.

Banjo, you must have forgotten about the excitement and stupidity of young love?
Certainly it is mainly young people who have to deal with unwanted pregnancies.

Accidents happen, and ignorance about contraception happens, despite there being a variety of methods of contraception available.

The churches are responsible for some of the 'guilt' involved with using contraception, and then people risk pregnancy by having unprotected sex.

Men who don't want a baby should always ensure they correctly wear a condom with a spermicide gel, EVERY time they have sex. This will help greatly to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies due to misuse, or refusal to use ,of female contraception

There would surely then be much less need for abortions?
What do you think Banjo?

Dear Banjo,

It is surprising that you so oppose drugs in drivers but have no problem giving them to girls of 14.

Also, have you considered the case when the girl lies to the boy about using contraceptives, yet the young father has to pay for believing her for the rest of his life?

I do not support drugs, even if they happen to be made legal by the medical guild (which is no different than any other drug-pushing gang). My preferred methods are celibacy, non-penetration or castration, with condoms as a last resort: we already have way too many people on this planet.

Yuyutsu,
I do not think I ever said I oppose drugs and I never said I agree with girls of 14 being able to get the 'pill' without the parents being made aware. Libido is very powerfull in both males and females so I understand the young wanting sex, but I have trouble with the parents not being informed. They are responsible untill the child is 18, so they should have a say in it. But the law is 14.

In most cases the young father does not take responsibility, it is the taxpayer that bears the cost of raising the child.

Susie,
No I certainly do not forget the excitement of young love, the warmth and softness of a girl. NO ONE could forget that! If anything I may be a little envious of the young today. But they have other problems we never had, like drugs.

But they have the knowledge about sex and pregnancy and if they do get carried away by their emotions there is the morning after pill.

I am not against people of any age having sex but I do not see the need for all the abortions. It is not as though contraception is difficult. Take the pill when she brushes her teeth each morning, habit forming. Condoms are readily available.

I know we are a nanny state but surely people should be responsible for their action, blokes included, there would be a lot less abortions needed if all took their responsibilities seriously.

I suppose one can excuse the very young to some extent, but older people have sex and abortions as well.

I have a friend in Western Sydney who works in the funeral services and after loosing three foetus herself has decided that mothers need time to grieve and the feotus is given a funeral service. She conducts the service and gives comfort counselling. My pastor of 20 years past received a deralect couple she had aborted and came to him with the infant in a shoe box for a burial service. These mothers considered their foetus human and worth grieving the loss.

The thing that really gets me about this is the utilitarian attitude -a wanted child - and there is a crime if the unborn child is killed in utero,
but - incovenient(and that is a small word to cover all the reasons that the child is a problem for already born people) - and abortion is fine.
That is why Peter Singer's argument - although repugnant - is very logical.

Bring on the male pill. All of the methods that Suze mentioned have problems. Women have the pill, so should men.

Men should also have a right to a legal abortion. We should have the right to sign a document, recinding our rights and responsibilities over any unborn baby.

The man in the story did the wrong thing, but I can empathise with someone who is about to have his life turned upside down and who is powerless to change what is happening.

just people dreaming up reasons for their vulgar actions.

Benk, the man could have kept it in his pants or used a condom if he definitely didn't want to make a baby?

If any person wants to have unprotected sex with another unprotected person, then they BOTH need to suffer the consequences.

In these days of sexual enlightenment, simply saying that the girl should have taken care of the contraception is not enough.

I wouldn't trust that men would take the contraceptive pill properly , and it is the women who would have the most to lose if there was an unwanted pregnancy.

Men can't be trusted to use condoms properly as it is.
Hence, the reason why we have no male contraception pill...

Suzie you are letting the misandry show again. Yeah I know you like them men in your life but your statements convey a strong sense of sexism.

As to the points being discussed.
If its murder when the woman wants it to be murder then its never a lump of fetal tissue, if its fetal tissue then its not murder. The idea that it's human if the woman wants to carry it to birth and not human otherwise does not make any sense.

If its good enough for men to carry long term responsibility as a result of a consentual sexual act then it's good enough for women as well.
If we accept that both genders are capable of making a poor choice (and don't believe conception equals a new human life) then as far as possible both genders should have choice about the long term consequences to themselves. The idea that women should have ongoing choice but that the males choice stops at the sex act is sexist junk.

Misandrist attitudes such as yours undermine the whole argument for reproductive choice becuase you so readily dismiss the concept of choice when it comes to men.

R0bert

RObert, I rarely have a problem with your comments re abortion or women's rights, but Benk has always managed to bring me out fighting with his anti-female comments.

However, equal rights are never going to be achieved in the case of pregnancy are they, because men will never share the physical aspect of carrying a pregnancy?

That is not to say women are superior to men , or anything like that. It just says we are different in that way, and thus have to stand up for ourselves.

As far as the subject of murder goes, a woman's decision to have an abortion is legal.
Someone else forcefully and deliberately causing a miscarriage in a woman by causing them bodily harm is not. That's not rocket science I would have thought.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all though, given that the fight to 'allow' choice for women as far as abortion goes, is already won in Australia. However, we need to be constantly vigilant that this 'right' is not taken away from us...

"Men can't be trusted to use condoms properly as it is.
Hence, the reason why we have no male contraception pill..."

Suzie have a think about what you`ve written.

I don`t see how abortion can be supported on one hand and then treat the instance that this thread is about as murder. A serious assault on the woman but not murder. Those sort of double standards do present a threat to choice.

Likewise I don`t see how one the one hand a womans right to choice following consentual sex can be legitately supported whilst at the same time suggesting thats the mans rights to choice stop at the sex act.

If you think that men get off lightly you should perhaps listen a little more closely to concerns from men re the gendered nature of the way family law and child support plays out. An absolutely brutal system that quite happily ignores in practical application any concept of fair treatment or shared responsibility.

R0bert

Susie,
How about we invent a male contaceptive pill that incorporates some Viagra?

If it is reasonably priced and freely available males would use that.

Males have always been jealous of females ability to have prolonged sexual activity. According to some mag articles, women are not happy about their partner just rolling off and snoring either.

We could be on a winner!

Woman aborts fetus; exercising her human rights.
Man aborts fetus; murderer.

I think we need equality in 'reproductive rights' for men.

Solution 1: Women must abort their fetus on the request of the biological father.
Solution 2: Women may not abort their fetus unless given permission by the biological father.

Or we could compromise and the man must be able to 'financially' abort their child, and have no further responsibility financial or otherwise to match the lack of rights they hold.

Feminism is all about equality after all, so most feminists would naturally agree

Not surprisingly, opinion polls show public confusion on
the issue of abortion. The great majority of the
population supports abortion in cases of rape, incest,
or a threat to the mother's health, and support for
a mother's right to abortion on demand fluctuates between
just over and just under half of the population.

I'm sure that many of us at times wonder whether our position on
abortion is right - regardless of whether we oppose or
approve of it. In any event, abortion must be seen in the
context of social changes, in our society's premarital, marital,
and family life - particularly the climate of sexual
permissiveness and the sense of individualism that leads people
to make decisions primarily in terms of their personal desires
rather than of traditional norms.

As far as the case under discussion here - I guess it depends
on the laws of that state and how a fetus is viewed. If the
law allows - that the fetus is human, then I guess that explains
the court's decision of murder - in which the partner took
somebody else's potential body and life - one that might have
become as alive and unique as we are.

I conflicting value judgements about abortion stem from this
fundamental ambiguity in the status of the fetus. In the US
the laws vary from state to state.

What if the number of deaths from firearms ever approached the number of full term babies left in trays to die through exposure and dehydration? That is without considering the number of viable foetuses despatched after 26 weeks.

Political censorship is strong in Australia where political correctness is concerned. The lack of political will to collect and analyse abortion statistics is in stark contrast to the obsessive gathering and reporting of numbers for other health indicators and possible drivers of cost in the health systems at State and federal level. Inconvenient numbers do not exist because they are considered 'problematic' and are simply not collected in the first place.

What is known though from the few States that collect some numbers, is that it isn't the young and presumed silly who seek abortions. The incidence of young unplanned pregnancies plummeted with the ready availability of contraception and has stayed at that low. The elephant in the room is that it is women mid-twenties to mid-thirties who account for the lion's share of abortions. Why that is so can only be speculated on so long as statistics are not gathered and analysed.

Problems with the foetus, rape and psychiatric problems of the mother - usual arguments to support abortion - are responsible for very few abortions, with the lion's share, said to be over 96%, attributed to the vague 'mental health of the mother'. If the pregnancies were inconvenient, why record them as such? Why the politically correct fudging?

I am not arguing against abortion, but I cannot agree with political censorship that prevents the public from making informed judgements about health and social policy.

On the other hand, if it is OK for the woman to decide against carrying the lump of cells because of convenience, lifestyle, or 'just don't feel like it' (valid reasons enough from the stats) why shouldn't the male be able to advise the same considerations? Then if the woman wishes to continue it is hers and hers alone, which should suit many women too from all accounts

'Not surprisingly, opinion polls show public confusion on
the issue of abortion '

be far less confusion Lexi if photos were produced and shown to people before making a choice. The confusion is caused largely by the deceit and lack of reason which is exactly what the pro choice (murder) lobby have wanted.

Dear runner,

A man must be both stupid amd uncharitable who
believes there is no virture or truth but on
his own side. Ask God to make you more snesitive to
you own sins then you shall be less inclined to
judge others so harshly

' Ask God to make you more snesitive to
you own sins then you shall be less inclined to
judge others so harshly'

wow Lexi are you finally acknowledging killing the unborn a sin? There are probably worse sins but I know of few.

btw you certainly are very judgemental. You neither know how sensitive to my own sin is or how harshly I judge others. Maybe a little self seraching might be in order.

runner,

Your OLO catalogue consists almost entirely of judgements you've passed on your fellow posters and/or their preferences.

Quite impressive for a Christian.

Dear runner,

I can only be responsible for my own actions.
We are all thrown curve balls in the form
of people and situations we are tempted to judge.
How otherwise would we grow but by growing through
such challenges to our capacity to love?

You as a Christian must pluck from your mind
every nonloving, critical, judgmental thought.
Have a go. Be a force for good. I shall try to
do the same.

There's no point acknowledging Runner when he gets up on his pulpit...I don't !

RObert, if you don't understand the difference between a consensual legal abortion, and the act of a violent person causing the miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy, then I can't help you.

This thread isn't about how the men feel, but how the pregnant women feel.
No matter how far we go with the equality thing, men will never be carrying their baby in their own uterus, in our lifetime anyway.

Lexi you may do better on the research than I have but from what I can see abortion is quite legal in Florida although state funding restrictions apply. The issue seems to come from a Federal Law, The Unborn Victims Of Violence Act.

One summary of Florida Law I found was at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/florida.html

An article on this case at
http://www.policymic.com/articles/43265/florida-abortion-trick-how-should-laws-treat-people-who-trick-others-into-getting-abortions

And a Right to Life summary of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act at http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/keypointsuvva.html (referenced in the previous article).

From the NRLC Summary
'The law covers the "child in utero," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment.'

It is a tricky issue, my overall view is that a law which says it's murder unless the woman does not want it to be so is not a good step overall for women's reproductive choice.

There should be penalties for the assault but if the woman was free to abort the child then the law is sexist nonsense.

R0bert

Expecting men to accept a worse deal, as Suse does, is sexism. Women who want to have sex without becoming pregnant have a range of contraception to choose from, plus abortions. Suze expects men who have no wish to become fathers to abstain from sex. There is nothing wrong with wanting men to have a similar range of options as women.

Where did I say I expect men to abstain from sex Benk.?

I just expect them to take at least some of the contraceptive load off the women, by the use of condoms.
The male contraceptive pill production was abandoned for exactly the reasons I gave...

The act of forcefully causing a woman to lose a pregnancy against her wishes will always be a crime, whether you like it or not RObert.

Suzie, I' trying to work out if your misrepresentation is deliberte, poor comprehension or misandry.

I already made it clear that I consider what appears to have been done as a serious assault against the women. That should be a crime and nothing I've posted should suggest otherwise.

Simple enough.

What I don't accept is the idea that it's murder if someone else does it without the womans consent but not if it's something she wants. That piece of legislation may well be a not so thin edge of a wedge attacking reproductive choice.

It answers some emotive needs but undermines the basis that abortion whilst not often liked is generally accepted as a womans choice because another human life is not involved. If it's deemed to be another human life in the mix then there is a massive case for far more restrictive laws on abortion.

A don't much like abortion but accept that there are good reasons for not considering an early term fetus to be a human being and therefore consider that the womans choice overrides other concerns about early term abortion. Convince me that the fetus is legitimately andmeaningfully human and my view on abortion changes.

R0bert

'There's no point acknowledging Runner when he gets up on his pulpit...I don't ! '

Oh dear Susie of all people to speak of pulpits. At least I am consistent with my views not just backing the sisterhood no matter how abhorrent.

onthebeach,
I found your comments about litle stats being available interesting. I take it you have tried to get the stats and found they are not collected.

For some time now I have been lobbying against FGM and have tried to get stats of its occurance in Aus and similar to you the stats are not collected. This enables the polys to claim the incidence is not high and therefore not upset any group with the truth.

Like you I think this is political censorship as many stats are collected about other issues. Obviously they do not want sound facts to be used by those argueing either for or against the issues.

Interesting to know I am not the only one to encounter 'stats not available'.

RObert, it's my view that abortion is legal because it is a woman's own (pregnant) body, and is her choice whether or not she wants to carry on with a pregnancy.

I never thought that the pregnant human female had anything else growing inside her other than a human baby, so I guess you should be in the anti-choice camp?

To my mind, forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted (early) pregnancy would also be assault .

I have the law on my side in that abortion is legal, and assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to lose her baby is a crime. I'm obviously not alone in my views, and it isn't just women who believe this either.

Late term abortions are very rare and should be performed only if there is a non-viable fetus, or for the mothers health.

No one else knows the reasons for an abortion unless the parents choose to tell, and it is no one else's business...

While I myself would be unlikely to have an abortion, I doubt any sane Government would ever take away a woman's right to choose in this country.

Banjo, I've not tried recently but some years ago there was a push to ty and get stats on some CSA/family law related figures. Typically those stats were not available.

In particular there was a push to try and get stats that might give some indication of suicide rates amongst people dealing with the family law system.

It should not have been too hard to determine the number of CSA cases which terminated early because if the death of a parent (and the gender and age of those parents). Not a clear correlation to suicide but mapped against community death rates for gender/age brackets it should have provided some info on the impact of our disfunctional family law system.

I'd also like to see some analysis of the amounts paid/received via CSA with some demographic breakdown and that kind of data does not seem to be readily available (although the underlying data is clearly collected). Very hard to prove systematic and structural bias without the number to back it up.

In my case I was required to pay so called child support when my son was with his mum at more than 20 times the rate my ex is now required to pay regardless of the actual financial situation of the two homes. Some of the relevant figures are not collected, net family income and wealth are numbers CSA would not have but which would be important to a meaningful discussion on the CSA formula and how it works in practice.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

The murder charge applies in Florida because it falls
under a rarely used Federal Statute known as the
"Protection of Unborn Children Act." And in Florida
this law still applies. Also the rights of the mother
outweigh those of the father. You may think this is
nonsense but that's the way it is in that state.
We can argue backwards and forwards about "rights."
However, the law remains in place. And change can only
be brought about by changing the laws.

Abortion will continue to remain a controversial issue.

RObert,
Yes it is hard to understand why some stats are not available when all it would take is a click as the info is already collected and stored electronicly.

In the case of abortion info, it is all on record and in the case of FGM the birthplace of patients about to give birth is on record so is the fact that she has had FGM. There is anedotal evidence that those women that had FGM here years ago are now having their own daughters 'done'.

I think it is simply the 'mushroom treatment' and only continued presure will incover the stats to be made known.

My group is considering FOI applications to see if we can get what we want.

Lexi its clear that the law is in place otherwise there would not be charges. Not much point to any of our discussions involving the law if the fact that the law is there is taken as an end point. We routinely argue the merits of laws existing and proposed.

Not a local law in this instance but I wonder how such a case would be handled here.

The nonsence is about the idea that it is on the one hand considered a human being and on the other hand is allowed to be killed if the mother wants it to be killed.

If it's credibly human early term then abortion should have very serious restrictions around it - genuine life threatening situations that can't be handled any other way.

If it is a fetus not yet human and just part of the mothers body at that stage (which is routinely argued by the pro-choice lobby) then what's alleged to have occurred is an assault, not murder regardless of what a dodgy law says.

The law looks like a tactic by the anti choice lobby to get a fetus recognised in law as human, supported by those opposed to abortion and those who've not considered the implications.There are plenty of ways of dealing with assault without doing whats been done there.

R0bert

Suz, sorry fir late reply, but how can one be murdered, when they have not yet been born?

They are born at age zero, not nine months.

Dear RObert,

The law in America varies according to each state. I'm not sure
what the father's rights are in this country. I do know that
there are firm personal opinions about abortion, and as time goes
on, the legal, ethical, and medical complexities have not
abated.

New medical technology is making it possible to
keep fetuses alive even earlier in the course of pregnancy, while
at the same time making it even safer for a woman to have an
abortion ever later in pregnancy - raising such difficult
questions, for example, as what to do with an aborted fetus that
turns out to be viable but probably defective.

In a study of people who actively campaign for or against the
right of abortion, studies have found sharp differences between
the social characteristics of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" people.
The pro-life activists generally had less education and income
than the pro-choice activists, but were more likely to be
married and to have more children.

Pro-life people believed that traditional gender roles reflect
deep natural differences between men and women and that
parenthood is a natural function rather than a social choice.

The pro-choice group believed that gender roles are more
flexible, were more permissive in their attitudes toward
sexuality, and felt that choice over abortion was a basic
freedom that was important for the quality of their lives.

Not surprisingly, opinion polls show public confusion
on the issue of abortion.

The greater majority of the population supports abortion in
cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's health. But
support for a mother's right to abortion on demand fluctuates
between just over and just under half of the population.

In any case abortion must be viewed in the context of
social changes in our society's pre-marital, marital, and
family life - particularly the climate of sexual permissiveness
and the sense of individualism that leads people to make decisions
primarily in terms of their personal desires rather than
traditional norms.

This issue will continue to perplex us for some time to come.
I certainly don't have the answers.

This is the nub of the ethical problem, from a site linked to be RObert,

<An article on Ethics Alarms brings up thought-provoking points:“A seven-week fetus is not treated as a human life if a mother chooses to have an abortion, and a doctor performs it. This must mean, in any sane, fair and ethical system, that it is not a human life. If it is not a life if a doctor aborts it, it isn’t a life if a boyfriend tricks the mother into aborting it. How can it be? The fetus hasn’t changed, and the conduct hasn’t changed.”

Welden has obviously committed a crime and it cannot be justified. However, the question is, why are we addressing this abortion with different definitions of fetus status and personhood than the ones we use normally?

Ethics Alarms draws an interesting comparison of this case to slavery: “An owner could kill a slave, and it wasn’t murder, just as a potential mother can abort the future baby she is carrying, for it is her body, just as it is his plantation — and she’s not committing murder either. If someone else killed the slave, well, that was a crime, but a property crime—after all, black slaves then, like the unborn now, just weren’t considered human beings.”>

onthebeach

abortion is not about ethics for the feminist. They know only of demanding rights with no responsibilites. Any ethics worth their salt tells you that you don't butcher a child for convenience sake even if its in the feminist mantra that a woman can do what they like with their body.

So Runner, the alternative to what you call, butchering a child, is to insist that another UNWANTED, UNLOVED, UNCARED FOR child is born, totally against the will of the parent/s.

Dont you think we already have enough of these?

Besides, this thread is not about abortion, it's about whether or not abortion can be classed as murder, something I for one think is not.

rehctub, from what I see the really odd bit is that abortion isn't classified as murder but the same action done without the woman's consent can be classified as murder. I accept the argument that an early stage fetus is not viable a human being. Potential to become one but not there yet.

On that basis I think a woman's control over her own body is the issue as there is no other life involved. If there is a credible case for thinking that an early stage fetus is a human being in a meaningful sense then it's not just an issue of the womans body but another life and the case for supporting abortion in all but the most extreme cases collapses.

The USA has capital punishment for some crimes but generally only the most extreme pre-mediated acts. As far as I know they don't knowingly execute innocents for potential hardship they may cause to someone else in the future. They don't execute people for being emotionally related to some crime. They don't execute someone because someone else may commit a crime if they don't.

R0bert

@Suze
You said that men who don't want to become fathers should abstain from sex at 9:28 on Thursday.

Secondly, I don't expect women to blindly trust men to take the pill. Men shouldn't be expected to have complete faith in women either.

Suse, what you said was this:

>>Benk, the man could have kept it in his pants or used a condom if he definitely didn't want to make a baby?<<

But then you go on to imply that men (in general, not specific men) are too stupid to figure out the intricacies of wearing a condom. I dunno about the rest of you fellas, but it doesn't seem like quantum electrodynamics to me. It doesn't even seem like rocket science.

The correct application of condom is an elementary matter, and your generalisation suggesting that it is something that most men struggle with is actually quite offensive. Regardless of the esteem in which you might hold the majority of men, we are (mostly) not retards. I for one would appreciate it if you didn't imply that we are.

Given that we are all too stupid to figure out which end of the condom goes where, your quote implies that the only option is for us poor incompetent males is to remain celibate.

Curiously little mention is made of those females too stupid figure out the intricacies of swallowing a pill. Nor do you ever suggest that such dumb broads keep it in their pants. This, I suspect, is from whence the charge of 'sexism' arises. From where I'm sitting it would not seem entirely without merit.

Cheers,

Tony

A male contraceptive pill is a great idea. If I was a sexually active man I would take it, feeling secure in the knowledge my sexual activities weren't responsbile for fathering any unwanted children not to mention reducing the risk of financial obligations.

A male contraceptive pill would reduces the dependency on women taking full responsibility, or male insecurity at having to put full trust in the woman who claims she is taking contraception.

If I was a woman (hang on...I am a woman) I would still take the contraceptive pill to ensure I did not end up with an unwanted baby irrespective of my male partner's claims he was on the pill. Trust or lack of trust works both ways. Hopefully none of these imaginary people will end up married given the amount of distrust inherent in some relationships.

Some of you making this complex, it's easy peasy. Bring on the male pill and we can get rid of this dilemma once and for all.