"Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion

Can I pursue a lawsuit if a doctor / hospital told me that I wasn't pregnant due to lab results but the fact of the matter is I am?

The responses are very related to this subject.

 

Oh please do go and do some research before you make such stupid comments.

She is defending herself against the damage being done by the continuation of the pregnancy and that is a right she has regardless of the intent of the fetus.

A doctor cannot perform a life saving operation on you without you consent, to do so would be actual bodily harm
pregnancies in the case of rape or incest are termed wrongful pregnancies and are already legally recognized
without consent the fetus (whether intently or not) is damaging the woman's body, and that is also recognized legally outside of abortion.

The changes being made to a woman's body are massive and without her consent they already meet the standards currently used in justifying deadly force.

By definition if a choice is removed then the act imposed is done so by force, by making abortion illegal you are removing the woman's right to defend herself.

 

Are you aware of the fact that it is illegal for a woman to kill her newborn child, even if that child was conceived from rape or incest?

 

Are you aware that this has (*)(*)(*)(*) all to do with the OP

- - - Updated - - -

and I shall give you the same response you give me, it is something that has yet to be tested in a court .. just as you keep telling me that you are building towards a challenge to Roe, I am saying that this could be used as a means to keep abortion legal.

now would you like to dispute the actual OP or not.

 

The fact that you are afraid to address my argument shows me that you don't have any good arguments to defend your own opinions, which proves to me that you know that my opinions are correct.

 

The gist of the op is "Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion"

The link and quotes that I have provided refutes that claim.

"In this context, where a state recognizes the fundamental rights of the unborn, the United States Supreme Court can and should permit the state to find that the unborn child's right to life outweighs the Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights of the mother." ~ Washington and Lee Law School

 

Sorrry that first bit is just so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing funny.

when your arguments have any relevance to the OP I'll address them, as I have done with everything you have asked on topic in this thread.

Your comment - "Are you aware of the fact that it is illegal for a woman to kill her newborn child, even if that child was conceived from rape or incest?" has exactly what to do with the use of deadly force in self defence to end a pregnancy .. you do know the difference between being born and unborn don't you?

 

For the sake of this discussion, you are arguing under the premise that the fetus is a person.

 

and this in no way over rides the use of deadly force in self defence, in the same way it does not over ride your right to use deadly force in self defence if another "person" is damaging your body without your consent.

If you want "personhood" for the unborn then you have to accept ALL the implications of that.

 

No you say it's an inconvenience because you think pregnancy and childbirth must be a walk in the park and that women should be forced to remain pregnant against their wills because it's just so easy, right?

Well it's certainly easy when you're never going to be faced with potential pregnancy or childbirth EVER in your lifetime and it's easy to tell others to do something that you will never do nor experience.

 

Is a newborn causing damage to the female once born .. no
the very fact that the "child" has been born shows that the woman consented to the damage being done to her during the pregnancy .. Tell me what further damage can the "child" do once born?

 

Babies shouldn't be forced to die just because the woman wants things to be convenient for her. Ohh cry me a river, it's horrible not being able to hang out with friends as much, and having to spend time taking care of a baby.

 

And this (self defense tactic) will also have to be tested in the courts.

We are way ahead of you on that,

Self defense laws require that you not use excessive force.
Self defense laws require that you afford your (perceived) attacker a chance to retreat if that is possible
Self defense laws do not afford anyone the right to entice (entrap) another into a stance against themselves and then kill them in a claimed act of self defense.

Etc.

Something to consider: " Abortion in self-defence "

 

Both newborns and unborn babies can be inconvenient to the woman. I honestly don't see the difference.

 

Oh cry me a river abortion is legal and it's not going away, ever.

 

You did not address my argument, which is the fact that babies die just because the woman wants things to be convenient for herself.

 

Actually I have addressed it repeatedly. I told you pregnancy is not a mere convenience and I have already told you that saying it is is an insult to mothers everywhere. Just because it wasn't addressed the way you wanted it to be doesn't mean I didn't address it.

Basically your argument is built on the false premise that pregnancy is easy and convenient for any woman to go through.

 

Most women don't have abortions because of the health consequences of a pregnancy, most women do have abortions for mere convenience reasons.

 

Doesn't matter. Pregnancy and childbirth always have risks attached. If a woman does not wish to face those risks she may end the unwanted biological processes occurring within her own uterus, something that belongs to HER btw, through the use of medication or surgery.

Not to mention no human being, born or not, may use another person's body or parts of their body for their own survival without the ongoing consent of that other person.

 

UK law is not the same as US law.

Legal justification of deadly force in self defence

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 kidnaping, rape, or slavery

The law already recognizes some pregnancies as "wrongful", the damage done to a woman more than meets the standards for legal use of deadly force.

In order to stop the damage being done there is no other alternative to deadly force in this case

and as retreat is not possible the only way to stop the damage is by use of deadly force

The fetus is there without consent, there is no entrapment, the woman did not invite the fetus to take up residence in her womb.

 

yet again I have to point out to you that inconvenience is not the issue here, the issue is under the deadly force in self defence laws does the damage the fetus cause justify the use of that force in law, my opinion, based on the evidence provided is that it does.

 

I have always wanted to visit the UK. That's it Fugazi, I am taking a boat to visit and I'm sleeping on your couch. lol

 

If a woman kills her infant child because it's an inconvenience to her, how is that any different from a woman that has an abortion because it's an inconvenience to her?

 

Your welcome, we don't have half the problems with the rabid pro-lifers over here.

 

The courts will be asked to consider why a child in the womb - who is only where it is as a direct result of the choices and the actions the mother (and the father) took to put it there - would not be considered by the court - to be there (in the womb) with the mother's (implied) consent.