Scientific Abortion Laws

Scientific Abortion Laws

The natural abortion laws site

About the “Scientific Abortion Laws”

 

R.C. Crawford

November 24, 2011


 

There are several scientific laws that impact how society should view legal abortion. Those laws are:

The Law of New Life

The Law of Life

The Law of Conception

The Law of Charity

The Law of Preclusion

The Law of Consent

 
1) The Law of New Life: All new life begins with old DNA.
2) The Law of Life: It is impossible at conception to tell if a human life will survive through birth.

3) The Law of Conception: Most conceptions end in abortion.

 

4) The Law of Charity: There are more people dying than can be saved.

 

5) The Law of Preclusion: In the first nine months of a pregnancy a forced pregnancy precludes an intentional pregnancy.

 

6) The Law of Consent: Any consent to a sexual act by a woman that could lead to pregnancy is implied consent to abortion.

 


*** End of laws and beginning of theory ***

 

 

The scientific laws I list above, that impact abortion, also support theories that may control the morality of abortion. There is a difference in a theory and a law. Please see the definitions of what comprises a law that follow these theories.

 

Laws simply state the facts; theories are based on the facts. I will give a brief explanation of a few theories that are supported by the laws outlined above:

 

The Law of New Life: All new life starts with old DNA.

Old DNA and new DNA can be altered by natural processes and outside forces. All new DNA is created by old DNA. The Theory of New Life states: The process of conception is controlled by the old DNA that creates the new DNA. The new life is mitigated by the old DNA. The information needed to build new DNA is contained in the old DNA. The new Life can only contain the possibilities that are provided with the old DNA’s data as modified by natural processes and outside forces.

 

The Law of Life: It is impossible at conception to tell if a human life will survive through birth.

The Theory of Life states: It is impossible to know if a fetus will live until the DNA of life has run its entire code. For example if a programmer writes a code and runs the code, he cannot know if there is an error in the code until it has run in its entirety. Therefore one cannot know if a zygote will in fact be a baby until it is born. If one treats a zygote as a baby and gives it the rights of a human, the best they can possibly hope for is that they will be right somewhere between 30 percent and 99.5 percent of the time that it will be born.

 

The Law of Conception: Most conceptions end in abortion.

The Theory of Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex. It therefore cannot be true that there is “life at conception”. In fact it is usually death at conception. Any attempt to enforce “life at conception” will therefore waste resources that could be used to save life.

 

The Law of Charity: There are more people dying than can be saved.

Simply put there are as many as 57 million people that die each year. The Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or a born person. Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die. Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die. There is no “net” gain in life saved due to the fact that these laws limit when life can actually be saved. The greatest error of pro lifers is that by attempting to save a fetus, they are causing the death of more people than one would expect. For example if a person uses their charity to save a born child then the odds are, the child will live. But if they attempt to save a fetus the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent. Most of the time, pro lifers waste resources that could be used to save life.

 

The Law of Preclusion: In the first nine months of a pregnancy a forced pregnancy precludes another pregnancy.

The Theory of Preclusion states: If a woman is forced to give birth to one child then for a period of nine months she cannot intentionally become pregnant with another child. As a single example, if a woman is raped a few days before her wedding and becomes pregnant, then for nine months she cannot become pregnant with her husband’s child. If her intent was to have her husband’s child after marriage then that becomes impossible. If she aborts the child of the rapist and immediately becomes pregnant by her husband, then there is no loss of life. If she keeps the rapist’s fetus there is no gain in life because she is denying life to her husband’s child. Now if the woman and husband can only afford one child, then they are stuck their entire life with the child of the rapist and denied the child of the husband. No life is saved by saving the rapist’s fetus and in fact the life of the wanted child is lost.

 

The Law of Consent: Any consent to a sexual act by a woman that could lead to pregnancy is implied consent to abortion.

It is generally accepted that as many as 50 to 75 percent of conceptions end in natural abortion. The Theory of Consent states: If a person intentionally has sex they are intentionally consenting to abort as many as 75 percent of their conceptions. A person can’t have sex without actual implied consent to abortion.

 


 

*** Definitions***

 

From Biology Online

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law

 

Law

Definition

noun, plural: laws

(general) A set of norms, which can be observed in both sociological and philosophical or semantic sense.

(science)

(1) An established principle thought to be universal and invariable.

(2) A scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.

 

***Discussions about what is and is not a law***

 

 

“The rules of biology and science cannot be broken.

They are not artificial human-made laws. They are

natural laws that govern all life while living organisms

are evolving on our planet.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/58215425r2646t89/fulltext.pdf

 

 

===========

Finding fundamental organizing principles is the current intellectual front end of systems biology.

From a hydrogen atom to the whole cell level, organisms manage massively parallel and massively

interactive processes over several orders of magnitude of size. To manage this scale of informational

complexity it is natural to expect organizing principles that determine higher order behavior.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816229/

 

 

The first misconception about laws is that they must

be exception less. But this is far too strong; if we require

laws to be exception less, there are no, or very few, laws

– even in physics. Galileo’s law that all massive bodies

fall with constant acceleration irrespective of their mass

has many exceptions: snowflakes fall quite differently

from hailstones and with radically different accelerations.

 

http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/papers/laws.pdf

 

8 Responses to About the “Scientific Abortion Laws”

  1. On June 6, 2014 at 2:21 pm StudentHealer said:

    I came across the link to your site in a comment on a ThinkProgress(.org) piece and I wanted to thank you for it. I’ve just begun to read through your posts here and I am heartened to see even more well-constructed, positive pro-choice arguments.

    In my frustration with anti-choicers with whom I interact more than I care to, I am often brought to a visceral urge to holler, “Look! Your right to swing your spiritual ideologies around like you’re writing your name in the snow ends *precisely* where my bodily autonomy begins!” So you, Mr. Crawford, have my gratitude for providing even more solid debating points on being pro-choice.

    Permalink
  2. On March 2, 2014 at 6:05 am Russell Crawford said:

    Thanks again for your comments.

    “It would appear that your formulation of the theory of of conception is illogical and not in keeping with the data provided below. In the studies provided below it was determined that there was in fact a very high rate of miscarriage among the sample populace, which seems to be subject to a sampling bias,”

    Can you give an example of the sampling bias? A claim of bias must be supported to show that the claim of bias itself is not biased.
    ” but that still leaves the important logical point that these miscarriages always happened after miscarriages always happened after conception, or else they would not be called abortions but rather failure to conceive.”
    That is a semantics argument and has no effect on the law or theory.
    ” Further something which has not lived cannot die.”
    Actually, if two living cells join together and combine then die because of any reason, then living cells died and did not produce a living fertilized oocyte. So something died without ever having lived.

    Permalink
  3. On March 1, 2014 at 6:22 am Russell Crawford said:

    “I think that upon perusing these sources and those above that there seems to have been, for someone as aware as yourself, what must be a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue by including together unintentional miscarriages, which are called abortions, together with pregnancies which have been knowingly and unnecessarily terminated at the mother’s behest.”
    I am using the correct terms.
    But more importantly, every abortion occurs with the implied consent of the hosts. For example an anti abortion married man and woman know that the odds of early abortion are 70/75% and total abortion 84+/- % of all conceptions. So if they have sex they are consenting to abortion of most of their “babies.”
    “I particularly see as egregious the formulation of the law of consent. The formulation of this law implies that a woman’s knowledge or even intent that she not conceive during sex is the same as her willingness to have a child who has been conceive dismembered and torn from her womb.”
    Most conceptions end horribly. Some are destroyed and dissolved. Some are so late term the die in the birth canal. Some cause the death of the fetus and the woman. And women choose to have sex anyway, even knowing the outcome. Is having the arms and legs torn off in induced abortion worse than having the legs and arms torn off in a natural abortion where there is no medical assistance to save the woman?
    The most enlightening point is that natural abortion happens to 84 percent of conceptions and induced abortion occurs with only 25% of 26 percent of conceptions. So the intentional natural abortions are far more deadly, late term and harmful to the woman than the 6.5 percent of induced abortions.

    Permalink
  4. On March 1, 2014 at 6:10 am Russell Crawford said:

    Thanks again for participating in this vital discussion.
    {In your statements above you stated “A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or a born
    person. Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die.” You also state “The greatest error of pro lifers is that by attempting to save a fetus, they are causing the death of more people than one would expect.”
    logically you could replace statement “by attempting to save a fetus” with eating a big mac while there african children who go hungry, wasting drinking water by showering, or the purchase of any sort of luxury item while there are impoverished and starving people in the world, and the rest of the statement would be logically consistent with the principles laid out.}
    The error in your logic is that you fail to recognize two of many important points. First all of the things you mention are signs of a person saving themselves and building wealth that can be used to save others. The second point is that there is no duty for anyone to go without wealth, or basic needs.
    { Particularly since those choices do not even purport to save any life but the individual. I say this not a reductio ad absurdam, but rather to illustrate that these principles of blame that you have laid out would seem to dictate that any non optimally effective attempts to improve or preserve the lives of humans would seem to be murder under your understanding.}
    No, there is no duty to save life unless one claims to save life, is legally obligated to save life or shares a moral religious or other obligation to save life. By giving their own assets to others, people are risking their own lives. The pro life movement is an example of a group that has a duty to save life. Why, because they claim to save life. In actuality they do not save life, they let one life die to “attempt” to save a zygote/embryo/fetus that may not be alive or human. In fact the zef is usually dead within the first month.
    ” THis is why I said that teh effort to save an individual born person would be the murder of the 2 or 20 people that you might have saved through other actions. Also I think it worth pointing out that due to the fact that your definition of save as “acts that would result in the extension or betterment of the condition of their life” and your presentation that the failure to do so is murder, that would mean that any action which does not directly do either of these could be considered murder including meditation.”
    The only people that can be murderers are those that claim to save life while actually letting life die. The legal concept of “murder by omission” would then apply. A person that walks past a homeless person on the way to buy a Lexus has no duty to save the homeless person.

    Permalink
  5. On February 28, 2014 at 7:04 pm Lex virtutis said:

    I think that your thory of choice is flawed. It seems that in the line of inquiry and argument that you are pursuing it would be necesary to define what you mean by “save” with respect to life. It seems that there are a number of human actions that while they may not contribute directly to the ending of a life do contribute to the saving of one, at least in the popular imagination. Further wouldn’t it be true to say that any effort spent help people on the individual level is wasted since you are negligently alloting energy that needs to be spent all over the world?

    Permalink
    • On February 28, 2014 at 8:15 pm Russell Crawford said:

      The definition of “save” varies depending on whether you are addressing the Law or the Theory.
      In the Theory of Choice the word save means to extend life or improve life for a period of time. For example life can be saved by furnishing the necessities of life, saving a person from harm in an accident, testing a person for an illness or one of thousands of other acts that would result in the extension or betterment of the condition of their life.
      In the Law of Charity, it means to save life eternally. On cannot save human life for eternity. ——- Everyone dies.

      ——–

      ” It seems that there are a number of human actions that while they may not contribute directly to the ending of a life do contribute to the saving of one, at least in the popular imagination.”

      Actions that contribute to saving life would be considered to be in support of the Theory of Choice.

      ” Further wouldn’t it be true to say that any effort spent help people on the individual level is wasted since you are negligently alloting energy that needs to be spent all over the world?”

      Please clarify what you are saying.

      Permalink
  6. On February 28, 2014 at 6:58 pm Lex virtutis said:

    May I ask what sources you have for the formulations of these laws, studies, etc. ? I am intrigued about some of the claims here particularly that most conceptions end in abortion.

    Permalink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>