"Abortion is murder!"...how to destroy it in 3-4 quick questions

Oh, so you aren't Pro-Life, just Pro life for who you approve of....saves you from having to explain how you support war....

 

nope, because abortion is not murder, it is self-defence.

 

Great job at destroying your "plan" to imprison women and force them to "give birth" to unwanted babies because who is going to want to adopt an infant knowing that it went through a sub-optimal gestation with high stress, low nutrition and bare-bones medical treatment.

 

So the state executing one million women per year, many of them already mothers with small dependent children, is going to be acceptable to We the People in your theist utopia?

How will that impact the demographics in this nation when you kill off millions upon millions of women of child bearing age?

Stupidity has unintended consequences.

 

If someone attacked you trying to kill you and the only way to stop him was to kill him would you rather have me just walk by because I'm pro all life or would you rather have me intervine and kill the attacker?

- - - Updated - - -

How is it self defense?

- - - Updated - - -

It would be a ex post facto thing.

 

Interesting comment ...as I said , you only approve of taking a life when you approve.

Speaking of self defense, if somone is harming you do you believe you have a right to defend yourself?

I think from your comment you do.

Why do you want to take away that right from pregnant women?

No matter what YOU believe, pregnancy does harm women, they have a right to end it just like you have a right to end harm to you.

 

That response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Are you sure you even know what the term "ex post facto" means?

 

firstly what do you define as self-defence and under what circumstances is it justified?

Do you adhere to the legal definition of "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another." with the appendment when the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction or great bodily harm or death.

 

Then your mother can prosecute you for assault and battery.

- - - Updated - - -

If you REALLY abide by that notion then mothers have the right to prosecute.

 

If you REALLY abide by "abortion is murder"...and support capital punishment for those convicted of murder....

then if abortion were illegal, you'd want women who self-induce an abortion...EXECUTED.


Do you? Yes or No? And if "no"...why not?

 

Yes. You can't punish someone who done a crime before the law was passed. If abortions was made illegal and punishable by execution then those who committed abortions before the law would be grandfathered in. BTW if this is really about choice then why not we have a looters every time a woman wants a abortion. We would have one marble for the baby, one for the mother, one for the doctor, one for the nurse, and one for the guys advocating for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Now answer my question.

 

Nope, if women give CONSENT to the harm , which they did, they can't prosecute.

 

I was referring to you executing a million women each and every year after your odious theist law was passed.

Explain how that would impact the demographics of this nation?

What on earth do "looters" and "marbles" have to do with abortions?

 

You: ""BTW if this is really about choice then why not we have a looters every time a woman wants a abortion. We would have one marble for the baby, one for the mother, one for the doctor, one for the nurse, and one for the guys advocating for it."""


What in GAWD'S name does that mean???

 

Nope, because if they continue pregnancy to birth they have given implied consent to the pregnancy ergo there is nothing to prosecute. Women who assume the risk of pregnancy are seen as acting in their own interest, in this case the woman is not being harmed by the fetus imposing pregnancy on to her against her will, she may be harmed by the pregnancy, but she does not endure harm by virtue of imposition of pregnancy upon her against her will. This is like a boxer who enters the ring, knowing full well that his opponent will make no effort to protect them from harm, this relationship gives consent to be harmed, however implicitly or tacitly it may be given .. however, that consent can be revoked at any point thus breaking the consensual relationship to be harmed, should the opponent continue to inflict harm after the relationship is broken, the victim would be entitled at that point to state assistance to stop the attack.

In short an injury that is consented to is not a prosecutable issue.

 

I just did. No one before the law would be punished.

Lottery*

- - - Updated - - -

Basically. We chose who dies that day. Don't the fetus get a choice?

- - - Updated - - -

So if a mother consent to being raped she can't prosecute?

 

Rape by definition is “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”, so rape cannot be consented to, it is not rape if there is consent.

 

Do you have any concept of what it means to execute one million women each and every year after your despicable theist law is passed?

Obviously you don't!

FTR no one but the woman gets to decide so there is no "lottery".

 

then it would not be murder would it it would be attempted murder or ABH (actual bodily harm)

BTW, consenting to being killed is legally known as assisted suicide, not murder and the reason it is illegal is that there is no true way to ascertain whether consent was given willingly or coerced as the person who could give testimony to the fact is dead, not even a written statement signed by the victim is enough proof to the consent.

The onus, in your example would still be on the person who attempted to kill the other person to prove the consent was willingly given and not coerced. The legal assumption, rightly or wrongly, would be that a person "of sound body and mind" would not consent to their own death.

 

She is the one being injured without consent.

 

There are no official figures on abortions prior to the early 70's as it was illegal .. however figures extracted from hospital records place the number of illegal abortions at around 800,000 per year - http://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2060019

 

Isn't the fetus being injured without consent?

 

Where do you get the 800,000 from that link?