[Webcrawler overview: Why the bulk of the present pro-life movement's political activity is self-abortive. What to do about it. How the pro-abortion argument is facially flawed. Improved understanding of the law improves the stewardship (economic) perspective on all sides of this matter.]
This site exists to provide information intended to reach both (all) sides active in the legal and political activities focusing on the abortion issue, including not only the "right to life," "pro life," and "anti-abortion" (the pro-life) communities, but also the "right to abortion," "pro abortion," and "pro choice" (the pro-abortion) communities.
Those active in the maintenance of this site are pro-life. And yet, as may seem counter-intuitive at first, our primary audience are the pro-life communities. The focus of the discussion intended for these communities is motivated greatly by stewardship. Why are we still wasting our time, money, and energy pursuing political goals not only that aren't going to be realized but also that defy the pro-life perspective?
Also geared toward the pro-life communities is the question of how much longer we intend to promote what amounts to slavery. It's a temporary condition, to be sure, but it's of the worst possible sort: ownership by the STATE of the womb(-man).
To have this discussion in the presence of the pro-abortion community is fine, in that there are some equally probative questions on which they will benefit by engaging in informed reflection.
To the pro-abortion communities, the question is along the same general lines of stewardship. Why does the pro-abortion community insist on the existence of a right that's never existed?
There's a very material difference between a "right to privacy" and a "right to an abortion." The former has always existed; the latter has never existed.
The fact that there's a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy being "invested" pointlessly by all major sides active in this discussion is a fact that is of interest to some, perhaps many, but not all. For those for whom the information found at When Pregnancy Is Theft leads to a more prudent investment of time, money, and energy, we at When Pregnancy Is Theft are more than glad to continue this (international) educational effort.
Challenge to the pro-life community.
Learn the law well enough to understand which goals are at least humanly possible, regardless of probability.
Learn the law well enough to take the message to the right audience instead of to the wrong audience.
We're talking not only the "law of man" but also the Law of God. As well-meaning as (christian) lawyers and non-lawyers alike are, there's a tremendous gap between where the present level of understanding of the law is and where it needs to be in order to make more informed stewardship decisions. To understand the legal policies in direct competition here is to understand why the priorities in the law exist as they do; hence, why certain political / legislative pro-life goals are humanly impossible.
It'll be much more cost effective, however intangible the results may be, to focus on those goals that are at least humanly possible to achieve.
Hand in glove with the realization of what is at least humanly possible to accomplish in this legal environment is the realization of the proper audience for the message.
In sum, to understand the whole of the legal principles in tension in this area of the law is to make much more informed decisions regarding one's investment of time, money, and energy in the pro-life activities, which marshaling of resources renders the delivery of that message all the more self-consistent and effective.
Challenge to the pro-abortion community.
Learn the law well enough to know that you are being manipulated into decisions that have far more impact down the road than is popularly discussed.
Just as with the challenge to the pro-life community, the law at issue is not only the "law of man" but also the Law of God. Since some in the pro-abortion camp refute even the existence of God [YAHUWAH], and, by so doing, refute the brilliance in the design of society based on His moral code, greater familiarity with Scripture may be a very valuable place to start.
Overview of the Message to the Pro-Life communities.
It's not about the message. It's about the audience.
The "life begins at conception" message is not a message for the legislators, whether STATE or national.
It's not a message for the candidates for legislative office, either.
It's also not a (proper) topic for appointed judicial candidates or for elected judicial candidates, save, perhaps, those seeking an office with a STATE's high court.
Two very difficult realities to keep in mind are these: (1) children have always been viewed in/by the law as (a very special type of) property and (2) to attach the "right to life" at the moment of conception is to promote what amounts to both theft and slavery.
Regarding the property law aspect of children.
The pro-life community has basically gone into orbit regarding the Roe v. Wade ruling. Since that's a pro-life decision, it's an intense blindness of the most ironic sort that motivates the pro-life community to try to get that ruling set aside.
The most fundamental reason that Roe v. Wade will never be overruled is the simple and ancient law that children are property.
Saying this another way, by using language from the Uniform Commercial Code, thus for purposes of "this state," a pregnant woman is a "special manufacturer" of "goods."
Recognizing the legal policy that children have always been treated as property, we come to terms with the fact that non-consensual pregnancy is literally an act of theft.
It's quite an advanced moral position to say that it's a child not a choice, but that's not a moral perspective that will ever override a woman's right to self-defense.
Because all victims of criminal conduct who are thereby also rendered pregnant have the right of self-defense, it follows that the "right to life" has never attached to those fetuses at the moment of conception (contrary to the view of some in other nations which nations also were originally formed under Scriptural law). For it to be otherwise, the incestuous males and the rapists would have the police power on their side to be able, allowed, even encouraged, to procreate at will. That morally reprehensible result, coupled with the absolute, ancient right of self-defense, which includes the right to defend against theft, produces the legal result that the "right to life" does not attach at the moment of conception.
To address the pro-abortion side in this same context, it matters that this policy applies to non-consensual sexual activity. Consensual sexual conduct (between adults) does not give rise to the notion of theft. Thus, there is no remote application of the concept of self-defense where the sexual conduct is consensual.
It's because the risk of non-consensual pregnancy exists that we get into the concept of theft, and no STATE may condone theft. Thus, in this context, namely that children are, in fact, property, the fundamental reason that the "right to life" does not and will not attach to any fetus at the time of conception is that there are still incest and rape victims getting pregnant.
Addressing still another aspect of this, namely the fetus's, the question of what caused the pregnancy, i.e., whether consensual or non-consensual conduct, is irrelevant. For this one, it may help to get a little bit away from the totally abstract and into a little bit of a practical, albeit hypothetical, scenario. Picture the appointment of an attorney ad litem to speak on behalf of the fetus. What is the fetus's argument? All fetuses are to be treated the same under whatever the law is. If we don't start out with that firmly in mind, then we instantly get into "classes of fetuses," staring with the "expendable" class and the "non-expendable" class. Where legal treatment varies depending on "class," such "class" distinctions will then expand to those born and alive, and since that is not even going to be allowed to start, what we have is a "one rule fits all" policy regarding fetuses in the very same way that we have a "one rule fits all" policy regarding adults.
By its more formal labeling, that "one rule fits all" policy is called Equal Protection.
Since all fetuses will be treated equally in the eyes of the law, the downside, in the perspective of the pro-life community, is that for so long as a woman may become pregnant via non-consensual sexual conduct, the "right to life" will not attach to the fetus at the moment of conception.
For it to be otherwise is for the STATE to condone theft of the reproductive systems of those women who are victims of non-consensual sexual conduct, by which non-consensual pregnancy "property" is being made for the benefit of the incestuous males and rapists. Thus, in those nations that have not only outlawed theft, rape, and incest but also have promoted individual liberty, including the right of self-defense, nothing is going to change in the eyes of the law regarding the nature or status of the fetus at the time of conception.
Children will always be property. A very special form of property, to be sure, but property, nonetheless. Thus, for so long as rape and incest are crimes, it'll always be the case that pregnancy as a result of such crimes will be an act of theft. Since no STATE may condone theft, no fetus will have the "right to life" at the moment of conception.
In short, where theft, incest, and rape are crimes, and where there's a right of self-defense, there cannot also be a policy that attaches the "right to life" at the moment of conception. Per Roe v. Wade, the "right to life" attaches at "quickening."
That's the property angle from the "right to life" side. From the "right to an abortion" side, the Supreme Court, via Roe v. Wade, proved to all with working minds that the "right to an abortion" absolutely does not exist.
How did the Court prove that? By attaching the "right to life" to an unborn child.
If a "right to an abortion" existed, there'd be no possible way under the heavens to attach the "right to life" at any time for any reason to any unborn fetus. What exists, and has always existed, is a "right to privacy," which includes the concept of respect for private property, which necessarily includes, then, the right of self-defense, which right protects not only life and liberty but also (private) property.
In the pro-life Roe v. Wade case, the Supreme Court set "quickening" as the time period to be allowed to single women, thus, by logical extension, also the "marriage licensed" woman as well as the victims of rape and incest, to exercise their "privacy" rights, their rights of (private) property, or their right of self-defense, whichever may be at issue, i.e., the time period in which to decide whether to produce that "specially manufactured" product or not.
Some say that since the result is the same, namely that abortion is still "legal" during that first six months of the pregnancy, this analytical distinction of which "right" we're talking about amounts to splitting hairs. Should the distinctions addressed here get beyond the emotional response and into the mind for purposes of legal analysis, those very same minds will understand all the better why the problem isn't with the message but rather with the audience to whom the message is delivered. In other words, to have in mind all of the applicable legal policies in tension here is to see why the priorities among them produce the legal results active in "this state."
So, it's not that there's anything wrong with the advanced moral position that "life begins at conception." In an ideal world, there'd never be a reason ever to question this fundamental truth. However, in today's still-broken world, difficult decisions have to be made as to how competing policies interact. Since a STATE is a creation of man, and since no man may steal, it follows that the collective of man's authority may no more tolerate or condone theft than any individual in that collective has the authority to steal. Therefore, no STATE may steal or condone theft, which means that no STATE may compel any woman to continue, from the moment of conception, with any "special manufacturing" process, not a single woman, thus, by logical extension, not those "licensed" to be married, either, and most certainly not those who are victims of incest or rape. The time after which they may be compelled to continue with the development of and birth of that child is that time after which it stops being possible to consider the fetus solely as a "special manufacturing work in progress" and it starts being a human being, which time is "quickening." The "right to life" attaches no later than "quickening."
Since it's Roe v. Wade that attaches the "right to life" to the unborn fetus at the time of "quickening," it's genuinely beyond the comprehension of those of us at When Pregnancy Is Theft as to what on earth motivates anyone claiming to be pro-life (by any label) to want to get that truly revolutionary, pro-life ruling, which forever establishes the "right to life" in the ("quickened") unborn, overruled.
If it were ever overruled, this nation would revert to the "abortion at will" mindset, which wouldn't even protect the "quickened" fetus.
Regarding the de facto slavery aspect of "life begins at conception."
Where Roe v. Wade allows a single woman basically six months to decide not to take the pregnancy to term, then, by logical extension, victims of incest and rape also have that same six months to assert their rights of self defense. Looking still further, so as to include women "licensed" to be married, i.e., the "commercial family" woman who "makes babies for STATE OF ________," the legislative policy that declines to attach the "right to life" at the moment of conception protects all pregnant women from theft by the collective, i.e., theft by the STATE, which form of theft goes by the more popular label of slavery.
On the one hand, it's a fantastic advancement in moral perspective that people all over the globe recognize that "life begins at conception."
On the other, that's a message not only for married couples but also, and in particular, for women whose sexual activity renders pregnancy a possibility.
Why is that? Because in America (a Law of the Land jurisdiction, evidenced by the general circulation of honest weights and measures), and even in "this state" (a Law of the Sea jurisdiction, evidenced by the general circulation of debt instruments that pretend to be currency), the instant the law attaches the "right to life" to the conceived fetus, the STATE owns that womb; hence also that woman.
The STATE owns that womb.
The STATE owns that womb.
The STATE owns that womb.
Where it's the police power, not the moral discretion of the pregnant woman, but the collective, via the police power, that "protects" that fetus, what's happening there is literally slavery, literally an ownership of a human being, which, on top of that, is the worst possible sorts of such human ownership: ownership by the STATE.
In China, for example, a pregnant woman may be compelled to have an abortion. That's the epitome of STATE ownership of the womb(-man).
The point is that once we cross over into STATE ownership of the womb(-man), once we get back into slavery in that form, the STATE, not the woman, but the STATE, then decides both sides of that question: delivery and abortion.
Since slavery, outside the concept of punishment for criminal conduct, has been abolished in America, and since "this state" can't function unless all adults are recognized as having a "right (not) to contract," which right no slave has, it follows that the "right to life" will never be attached to a fetus at the moment of conception.
If it were ever to be otherwise, then all pregnant woman would be "owned" by the STATE for the duration of that pregnancy. All woman could be compelled to "make babies," whether pregnant consensually or non-consensually, which, at least for all women "licensed" to be married, is commercial activity that no STATE may compel. Going the other way, if STATE owns the womb(-man), then STATE could also compel women to get abortions.
So, it's not that there's anything wrong with the advanced moral position that "life begins at conception." It's that no STATE may steal or condone theft, and what would be stolen by a "life begins at conception" policy is the woman's reproductive system; hence, the woman, herself. That literal "ownership" of the woman's body is slavery, and slavery in that setting, i.e., a setting that doesn't involve punishment for criminal conduct, is facially illegal.
Overview of the Message to the Pro-Abortion communities.
As far as legal policy is concerned, given that Scripture, itself, is the basis for the Common Law, and given that this nation was originally founded under the Common Law, it necessarily follows that the standard on which this nation was founded defines a possible victim of homicide as someone (1) born and (2) alive. Thus, those from the pro-life camps who want to convince you that their "life begins at conception" position comes from Scripture are mistaken.
Thus, all this talk about abortion's being "murder" is a grotesque, highly irresponsible, and even intellectually dishonest characterization of the matter (of what is, to their defense, an act that fits that same description). There simply cannot be a homicide, of any level or class, until there is first a "right to life." There is no "right to life" that attaches at the moment of conception, not from Scripture and not from the "law of man," either. And, there won't be such attachment in the "law of man" in America.
The development of moral perspective that "life begins at conception" is exactly that: a development.
In a similar way, we've experienced other such developments in moral perspective. There was a time when drawing and quartering was a suitable punishment for some types of crimes. It isn't any more, and the reason is that the moral perspective changed. There was a time when horse thieves were hanged. It isn't that way any more, and key to that difference is the relevant change in moral perspective.
Down very similar paths, it happens that in the Common Law, there isn't a concept of "extortion" defined. "Theft" was defined as an intentional taking of someone else's property (with the intent to deprive the owner permanently). So, the Common Law came up short in addressing the fact pattern where the bank depositor voluntarily handed over the amount of the deposit to the teller, but the deposit did not end up in the depositor's account. That's not "theft," as so defined, because there was no involuntary transfer of property. But, there's no question that it's theft. The gap has been filled by legislative activity on the point.
Thus, here's a direct analogy to the concept marketed to this nation (and to the world) as the "right to an abortion." Because the Common Law was "silent" regarding extortion, a woman has a "right" to commit extortion. That position follows from the libertarian notion that if it's not defined as prohibited, it's allowed.
There's a tremendous difference between the law's being silent on a matter and there being a "right" to do something. No one has ever had a "right" to commit extortion. It's just that extortion wasn't defined as a crime until the statutes did so.
If there were a "right" to commit extortion, then it'd be beyond the authority of any legislative body to define, much less punish, as a crime. Going the other way, since extortion is a crime, it follows that there was never a "right" to engage in that line of conduct. The fact it wasn't punished, yet, didn't give rise to the existence of a "right." It just wasn't defined as criminal, yet.
The Common Law is "silent" regarding "abortion." It's not totally silent, in that we find in Scripture the discussion of the penalty for striking a pregnant woman who tries to break up a fight and who loses the child. There is a property settlement (not a death penalty) that is to take place, the amount of which is to be determined by the judge(s). So, there's not a total silence on the point, but there is nothing overtly defining or punishing that we'd today call an "abortion."
However, in exactly the same way that "silence" regarding extortion in no way means that anyone had a "right" to commit extortion, the (relative) "silence" regarding "abortion" in no way means that anyone has a "right" to commit an "abortion."
In other words, the fact that it hadn't yet been defined and punished as a criminal act for purposes of the Common Law in no way prevents such definition and punishment via legislation.
Further, as stated above in the Message to the Pro-Life communities, if there were any such thing as a "right" to an abortion, then it'd have been legally impossible for the Supreme Court to attach the "right to life" to any unborn child at any stage of its development.
The point is that there is no such thing as a "right to an abortion." There has never been any such thing as a "right to an abortion."
As proof of that, ever since Roe v. Wade it's been a crime to terminate a "quickened" fetus. Of course, the would-be mother always has had and will always have the right of self-defense, which is what's in mind on the issue of "health of the mother." Where there is no "health of the mother" at issue, the "quickened" fetus has the "right to life," and a termination of a "quickened" fetus is a homicidal act.
What there is in the way of a "right" is the "right to privacy," which, in this context, is a reference to "rights" in "private property."
It's the woman's property (and, in community property STATEs, perhaps also in joint tenancy property STATEs, where there's a marriage, arguably also the man's property, and, perhaps also the man's property regardless of marriage, given that he's necessarily made a property "investment" in that "property," presuming that the sexual conduct at issue was consensual). Thus, where the law will always treat the unquickened fetus as "specially manufactured property in process," the development of that "child in the making" up to that point is within the discretion of the property owner(s) to decide.
(Some will feel the need to scoff.) People around the globe you've never met and may never meet are praying for you. Some among your number are sexually profligate, and for them the concept is that while they have control over their bodies, beyond their control is the content of our prayers. Some among your number have some very heart-wrenching situations. May you and your child be healthy, and may each of you live long, healthy lives.
When Pregnancy Is Theft.When Pregnancy Is Theft presents aspects of the law that have yet to make the popular discussion forums. The reason for doing so is to encourage making much more cost-effective use of our limited resources of time, money, and energy regarding these various aspects of the abortion issue. For most, it's a shock and a bitter pill to swallow to realize that children are, in the eyes of the law, property. Once one works through that aspect of things, the rest of the legal analysis is pretty self-explanatory and rather self-evident.
It's not complicated. It's challenging emotionally, at first, but it's not complicated.
Key, no STATE that renders theft, incest, and rape illegal, and that promotes the right of self-defense, is ever going to make "life begins at conception" part of its "constitution" or part of its homicide code, or probate or trust codes, either, for that matter. Not that there's no value in some aspects of protecting the unborn via legislative activity, but "life begins at conception" will never become legal policy anywhere in America, or even in "this state." (If it ever does, it'll be because the entire nation has basically "gone communist.")
Also key is that Roe v. Wade will never be overruled. There are several reasons for that, and high on that list is that by that ruling, the "quickened" fetus received the "right to life." For so long as there's any semblance of respect for individual liberty, the "right to life" will attach to the "quickened" fetus. That is a one-way turnstile.
What follows are links to discussions found at this site that address in some more detail the concepts that compel this site into existence. While the email connection is open to all, should it happen that this information has benefited your understanding in these matters, on either (any) side of it, such that you're reevaluating where and how you contribute to "the cause," whichever side of that you support, we'd appreciate, in particular, hearing from you.
"Life begins at conception" -- Morally advanced, but, as law, it's slavery [A work still in process.]