Thursday, June 02, 2011

Beak: "Unborn children do not have a right to life" - upheld [updated]

Murderous bastards.


Of course, one could rule that foetal rights only start at some other point in time, but this would be arbitrary and very difficult to measure. There is a reason why the legal fraternity measure human rights from birth – being born is very easy to measure and establish. Conception, implantation, the first foetal heartbeat and even the 20th week of pregnancy are all far more difficult to pin down and prove.

MacDoctor says at birth a baby acquires human rights, a foetus cannot enjoy such rights because it is difficult to determine the exact start point.

Then says it is illegal to perform abortions post second trimester. So the foetus must have some legal rights.

Wonder how that works then? How does one legally define when that second trimester ends?

Regardless of whether a foetus can be considered human at any particular point, it is indisputable that it will be counted a human being if it survives. For this reason, I will not refer a woman for a termination of pregnancy for anything less than strict life-threatening medical reasons.

At least MacDoctor favours the pro-life stance. [bold mine]


Anonymous said...

Double standards !! there was a case of a pregnant woman who was murdered and the sentence was passed for multiple murder - including the unborn. can some legal mind please look this up and resort to proper action as required.

Murray said...

And the same people are against the death penalty for murderers.

Liberal double think anyone?

Anonymous said...

Blood chilling. This is cold blooded murerder, legalised. Can the world get any more evil than this? Animals have better ethics. (not that all of us agree, but that matters little to those with the power).