Do "pro-lifers" believe in the "just war" idea?

Most leftists say the mother has a right to kill because of the expense and opportunity cost of having a child. Such arguments are tantamount to a right to kill to protect property.

 

So why do rightwingers believe they need guns?

 

Then you are at odds with your own self-defence laws, the imminent threat to life is not the only justification for the use of deadly force.

Currently states recognize three contexts of when deadly force in self defence is justified;

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnapping, rape, or slavery

Pregnancy meets numbers 2 & 3 on the above list for justification of the use of deadly force.

 

No it doesn't. What loss of the use of an organ? Did she plan to abort this baby and have another? Lol... Slavery? C'mon man. Do you know what slavery is or are you one of those on the left that thinks anytime you have to take responsibility for yourself you are a slave? Kidnapping obviously doesn't apply if anything the baby is the captive. Rape is a deadly felony and applies and I do agree with the use of deadly force in that case.

- - - Updated - - -

Protection from others using deadly force. Why do Lefters always like to kill the unarmed?

 

Urm yes it does.

I notice that you ignore the "damage" item in number 2 .. so yet again cherry picking.

The womb is an organ, the woman loses the use of that organ while the fetus is there.
The uterine wall is damaged by the implanting embryo
Her immune system is suppressed ..

do you want more?

Who is the slave and who is the master in pregnancy, A pregnant woman is forced to be with the fetus at all times and be responsible for it, yet she cannot control its actions on her body.

I'm still waiting for a reason why a pregnancy from rape is different to one not from rape . .explain the differences please.

 

All your injuries are not serious enough to warrant deadly force. Not under American standards.

Neither fetus not mother is slave or master but since the mother can choose to make that baby a cm crack addict I guess if one were a slave to others decisions the fetus is slave to the mother. The fetus pays for the decisions of the mother more then the other way around.

 

Well according to your own courts they are.

I asked you a question earlier which you have dodged, if the things that happen to a woman during pregnancy were to happen to you would you seek out any and all medical help to rectify the situation?

Again the question is asked what is the difference in pregnancy caused by rape and one not caused by rape.

 

You are wrong. Zimmerman didn't argue "I think there was an .008% chance of death or grave bodily injury.
I am familiar with the law here, are you? You seem to think it is a national standard. Besides - assumption of the risk.

If I got pregnant? Yes, I would seek a psychologist.

One is consensual and the result is one of the natural consequences of the behavior. Rape is a heinous crime that is continued by the pregnancy. It is a part of the rapist still violating her.

Sex is the act of reproducing consensually.
Rape is the act of reproducing violently and through coercion.

See the difference? One is voluntary an the other involuntary?

 

I suggest you take it up with your courts then, as they don't agree with you.

So you are making pregnancy something other than it would be to another person.

now prove that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and please do show how consensual sex and pregnancy is a "natural consequence" given that it is actually a relatively low risk venture.

So the fetus in a rape case is actually part of the aggression against the woman, how does that work given that you guys keep saying that the fetus is innocent .. what different injuries does a rape conceived fetus cause that are not caused by an unintended or unwanted one .. please do list them.

 

Dear foreigner, I went to an American law school in my state and that is what they taught us here. It hasn't changed and the Zimmerman verdict was considered a close call and never before have I seen a baby in a healthy pregnancy smash a persons head into the concrete. What do you base your beliefs on? Besides when the activity is a result of mutual consent it is assumption of the risk. That is why boxers don't get to sue each other when one gets a broken jaw.

Meaningless sentence.

assumption of the risk of pregnancy.

How else are babies made? Other the. Rape and test tubing?

Low risk isn't no risk, and it isn't low risk. 1 million aborted babies isn't a very low risk. Even yourself you said earlier that 40% of women will get pregnant by consensual sex before age 20. 40% is a fairly high number.

It is a continuation of the rape. Rape is an attack of the body, a theft of the choice to consent to sex, and a psychological attack.

The rapist is the attacker and has left something in the woman which she has a right to eject. Go back to the boxer example I had before. The boxer assumes the risk of injury. So when/if they are "injured" they have no cause for complaint. Compare that to the victim of a mugger who was robbed, beaten and didn't consent to the act.

See the difference? I get you want to live in a world where the only consequences people have to pay for are the ones they subjectively intended, but that only works when you are going around getting your way and no one who can fight back is being killed. The day someone accidentally sets your house on fire with your family in it you will want them to pay even though an open fire pit has a very small risk of causing a neighbors house to burn down and they didn't mean it, they just took a chance and left it unattended.

 

Dear conservative right-winger, you seem to be under the impression that laws cannot change which is quite strange considering pro-lifers are in the process of trying to do just that.

Should never have been a close call, Zimmerman was/is guilty of murder, but that is for another debate.
So you think that self defence requires someone to "smash a persons head into the concrete", if I was you I'd ask for my money back from that law school you went to

Numerous court decisions, how about you, got any court decisions that state pregnancy is not an injury?

Prove that it is "a result of mutual consent" and so an "assumption of the risk"
Boxers are only allowed to combat each within the confines of the match, should one of them break the others jaw outside of the match are they liable for prosecution?
If a boxer has his jaw broken within the match do we with hold medical treatment based on the "mutual consent" being an "assumption of risk"

The question is-is sexual intercourse the same event as pregnancy, from your boxer analogy it obviously isn't. The sexual intercourse is the "combat" within the confines of the "match", the pregnancy is akin to one of them breaking the jaw of the other outside of the "match", otherwise how do you explain that a pregnancy from rape is deemed a separate injury from the rape itself.

Probably is to you, most others will understand it.

and that equates to being unable to rectify the injuries how exactly?
Are all people who assume a risk stopped from receiving medical help for injuries incurred by taking that risk?

You answered your own question, though it doesn't equate .. how is pregnancy a natural consequence of sex when (unprotected) sex only leads to pregnancy around 15% of the time. What you have alluded to is a fallacy of presumption.

Calculate the percentage of abortion against the number of women of child bearing age (typically 15-44) and then say it isn't a low risk .. in the year 2000 there were approx 51,748,111 women of child bearing age (15-44) and there were 857,475 abortions recorded that year, that equates to 1.65% of women having an abortion and this figure declined in 2010 to 1.32%.

It still doesn't alter the fact that the risk of a woman becoming pregnant from unprotected sex falls between 15-20% for each cycle - http://www.babymed.com/getting-pregnant/what-are-the-odds-conceiving-conception

A statement like that requires proof, got any?

Whether they have cause to complain isn't really relevant we do not refuse medical treatment for any injure incurred even if the boxer assumes the risk of injury . .your right a boxer cannot claim damages if injured in a match, just as a woman cannot claim damages from the man if she becomes pregnant, and just as the injured boxer can get medical help for his injuries so should a pregnant woman be able to get medical treatment for hers.

Individual consent in most societies and most legal system is of primary importance. Bearing that in mind, if a woman does not agree to the ways a fetus affects her body and liberty, then, by definition, the fetus is legally harming her. To say that a medically normal pregnancy is a serious bodily injury is already established in the law in contexts other than abortion. It is termed "wrongful pregnancy." When a fetus affects a woman's body and liberty in pregnancy without consent, the changes are so massive, they meet the standards currently set in law for the use of deadly force in selfdefense. - http://works.bepress.com/khiara_bridges/1/

You are wrong, I want to live in a world where a minority don't dictate to others what they should and should not do .. when the time comes that your autonomy rights are being removed, I hope you think back to the time you were trying to do the same to women.

 

They have not in the time I passed the bar.

so bahing a head in the ground is not sufficient but pregnancy is. You think pregnancy is more violent then getting skull slammed?

No time for the rest at the moment but why don't you give me an answer to that first question. That is some crazy stuff you posted.

 

Am I "anti-woman" for saying that a woman who got pregnant from rape has no right to abort a third trimester fetus?

 

There is really no progression in posting a past quote even if it does hold relevance, it only shows your lack of originality and independence. I could easily listen to a Lil Wayne album (1.5/10 rapper) and extract a quote which holds relevance it still doesn't answer the question. The point everyone needs to take from duplicating quotes is that they didn't care what they said as long as they knew what they were saying was right.

This brings to "Do pro-lifers believe in the just war idea?" and the honest answer is that it clearly depends on the individual. It takes a truly special person to kill someone on the demand of their country but in the same breathe these people are same people which have kept our independence and protected our country for the right or wrong reasons. As an Englishman (although we'd probably be performing as an economy under German supervision #0.8%GDPgrowth) it is impossible to quantify what those Men and Women sacrificed. Therefore in their mindset I'd have to say their sacrifice is completely worth it, if there is something to fight for fight for it.

#hustlersambition-50centWhilstPosting... Hit me up psingleton77643 - open to heated debate and i'll beat you down son.

 

So just because it hadn't changed in your time means it can't change, tell me how long did it take to change the law concerning slavery.

Be interested to see the comment where I say that, care to quote it, or is this, yet again, a pro-lifer trying to place words into my mouth, and I wonder what the verdict would have been had their colours been the other way around.

See above.

Crazy because it doesn't agree with your opinion .. that's not crazy that's called debating.

 

If one of Ariel Castro's victims had been in the third trimester of a pregnancy, would you have opposed an abortion?

 

Evidence please that this happens

 

According to Fugazi, women who get pregnant from rape don't have third trimester abortions.

So why are you even bringing up Ariel Castro's victims?

- - - Updated - - -

Cady implied that it happens.

 

Just answer the question, please.

I think you are aware that was me.

No, I did not. Provide the evidence, please.

 

Yes. A FULLY GROWN VIABLE FETUS BEING ABORTED IS HORRIBLE!

 

Third trimester is not fully grown, nor necessarily viable.

 

Prove it!

 

A fetus does a lot of growing and developing in the third trimester, or did you think they stop growing after two trimesters?

 

To answer your question, Ariel Castro's victims should not have been allowed to abort in the third trimester.

 

I think if the victim were your daughter, or someone close to you, you might feel differently.