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

Sam, you are being obtuse ,, inconvenience has no relevance on the topic, so either get on topic or be ignored because I am sick and tired of your inane attempts to derail things.

 

I'll just re-post this

The usual pro-life response is something along the lines of "consent to sex, is implied consent to pregnancy, based on assumption of risk" but even in legal terms this is not correct, sex is not the same condition as pregnancy, it only creates the risk that pregnancy will occur. The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk

 

Same response as last time.

As the lawyers in the link I posted earlier said.

"Pregnancy is not an injury."

 

hmm .. so an increase of base hormones by up to 400 times .. is not an injury
So changes in respiratory system .. is not an injury
So a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume .. is not an injury
so a 15 percent increase in blood pressure .. is not an injury
so a new organ grown in a woman's body, the placenta .. is not an injury
so her entire circulatory system being rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus .. is not an injury
so the fetus releasing molecules to suppress her immune system .. is not an injury
So the fetus releasing chemicals to affect her emotional state .. is not an injury
So the stretching of her abdominal region .. is not an injury

I suspect if any of the above were happening to you then you would consider yourself under threat and take all available action to rectify the situation, or is that ok because you are a man and can't get pregnant.

All of the above more than meet the standard for justifiable use of deadly force.

 

All of that would have to be weighed against the Constitutional rights of the child she (and her partner) created.

Also, You say that as though no women share my views.

Please don't be sexist.

Half the children whose rights I am fighting for are female too.

 

You say that as though a fetus has Constitutional rights.

Most ironic post EVER.

So they can grow up and be subordinate to their fetuses...

 

1-The vast majority of women don't have abortions for those reasons.

2-Even some women are pro-life.

 

Only the human ones do.

Avoiding pregnancy is always an option.

But a child once created - has a right to the protections of our laws.

 

you really are a moron aren't you, those listed things happen REGARDLESS of whether the woman has an abortion or not .. JHC, do you know anything about biology.

and where have I said anything different?

 

Is that what happens on every other justified use of deadly force?

Projection on your part, please show me where I say anything like that at all.

Po .. kettle .. black

That is until they are born and old enough to become pregnant and then it is the opposite.

- - - Updated - - -

Just as the woman has the right to use deadly force to stop the damage being done to her body without consent.

 

So, a woman has the "right' to use deadly force just so she can have more time to do what she wants to do, because she doesn't feel like taking care of a child. that's what i call irresponsibility.

 

there is only one thing that can be said to your comment ...

 

I'm feeling charitable today Sam, so I'll let you explain how your above comment has anything to do with the debate .. I know it was a few posts ago so I'll remind you of what it is.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with convenience, NOTHING to do with "having more time to do what she wants" .. now look carefully, and read carefully, because here comes the crunch -

The damage caused by pregnancy happens regardless of the choices made by the woman, even a pregnancy that is wanted causes the same damage to an unwanted one, here is a list of some of the damages caused;

An increase of base hormones by up to 400 times
Changes in respiratory system
A 40 percent increase in cardiac volume
A 15 percent increase in blood pressure
A new organ grown in a woman's body, the placenta
Her entire circulatory system being rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus
The fetus releasing molecules to suppress her immune system
The fetus releasing chemicals to affect her emotional state
The stretching of her abdominal region

Now these things happen in ALL pregnancies, every single one of them .. do you follow so far?

Under current deadly force laws, there are three situations where deadly force is justified, they are -

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

Now I am assuming you would not stop a woman having an abortion if her life were in danger, however there are still two other situations where the use of deadly force is justified.

All of the above listed damages to the woman meet the criteria for situation number 2, and in fact are already recognized in law.
A woman basically becomes a slave to the fetus, a pregnant woman, after all, is forced to be with the fetus at all times and be responsible for it, yet she cannot control its actions on her body and this meets the criteria for situation 3.

Now I know (as has been seen already) that you and other pro-lifers will say something along the lines of "consent to sex etc etc", but even in legal terms this is not correct, sex is not the same condition as pregnancy, it only creates the risk that pregnancy will occur. The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk

Now do you understand why your comments on convenience etc are irrelevant .. if not then I can't help you anymore as this OP is way to far above your intellect.

 

Yes.

Though sometimes it happens after the act (as in the Zimmerman case)

When you attack me for my views - by using language like "you wouldn't know because you are a man" - you are ignoring the fact that there are many women who share the same views as myself. I don't have to project that image. that's what you are doing.

I completely agree that women have a right to self defense.

I even agree that women have a right to abortions (when deemed necessary by a doctor) in cases where they can be justified as an act of self defense.

We simply disagree that a typical / manageable pregnancy which results from a consensual act would qualify.

 

and we all know how wonderful the justice system was in Zimmerman's case.

Firstly I didn't say "you wouldn't know because you are a man", so that is a misquote, my statement was a question, so again it is not an "attack" on your views, and I know perfectly well that their are some misguided (in my view) women who share your misguided (in my view) views.

It would seem that you are holding onto the idea of self defence being used only in life threatening situations, which as shown is not the case and a pregnancy, regardless of the reasons it occurs, certainly more than meets the current legal requirements

 

Consent to sex is a consent to pregnancy, in the same way that speeding makes somebody responsible for the car accident that may happen afterwards.

 

not according to the current law it isn't - The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk, now can you show me anywhere in law that states consent to sex is consent to pregnancy?

Even if you are speeding and cause an accident are you refused medical care for any injuries, because that is what you are implying, taking a risk does not exclude you from receiving medical aid in the result of any injury and as already shown pregnancy more than meets the criteria for injury.

I would like you to answer the following question if you would.

1. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found that your base levels of hormones had increased by 400 times?
2. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found you had a new organ growing in your body?
3. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found that your immune system was being suppressed?
4. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found that a chemical was being released into your body that effected your psychological reasoning?
5. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found that your entire circulatory system was being re-routed?
6. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found that your respiratory system had drastically changed?
7. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found that your cardiac volume had increased by 40%?
8. Would you seek medical assistance to remedy the problem if it was found your blood pressure had increased by 15%?

 

Giving medical care to somebody who got into a car crash as a result of speeding or drunk driving, that doesn't kill an innocent human being. Nobody would force somebody to get an organ transplant and give their life away just to save somebody who got into a car accident as a result of speeding or driving drunk.

 

and yet again this is irrelevant to the laws governing the use of deadly force for self defence, self defence laws are based on the actual or perceived damage being done to the individual, it is irrelevant how those damages occurred.

If the person speeding were to crash into a bus load of school children (innocent human beings) and kill some of them is that person denied medical attention for their own injuries?

Now this OP is based on the hypothetical situation where a zef is considered a person by law, if the zef is a person by law then it must fall under other laws as well. The use of deadly force in self defence says that any person can defend themselves against another person causing injury to them without consent .. should the woman become pregnant and she does not consent to the changes (injuries) caused by the pregnancy under deadly force laws she can protect herself from those injuries.

Would you care to answer the questions from my previous response?

 

Self defense laws do not include the right to bring another person into a situation against yourself (through no knowledge of their own) and then recognize your right to kill THEM and claim it was an act of self defense.

You don't have the right to create a child (person) and then arbitrarily decide to kill them because they are affecting changes to your body.

 

However by bringing another person in a situation you are consenting to that person being there and as already shown the law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk and sex only creates a risk of pregnancy .. if every sexual intercourse resulted in pregnancy then there would be reason to say that the woman (& man) by consenting to sex did bring another person into the situation, that is not the case when there is only a 20-30% chance of a woman becoming pregnant during her cycle.

If the woman had no intent to create a "child" then that "child" is there without consent and every person has the right to protect their body from un-consented injury. The sexual intercourse only creates a risk of pregnancy and although I have repeated it many times it is worth repeating again, the law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk.

 

Anyone out there .. or is this debate now won?

 

Still here.... just not interested in debating in here that which will be easy enough to settle in the courts - post Roe.

 

Somebody who speeds is responsible for the car accident that they get into. A woman who gets pregnant is responsible for the pregnancy that happens as a result. If somebody gets severely injured from speeding, you wouldn't force somebody to give them an organ transplant (at the cost of their own life). By that same logic, a woman who gets pregnant shouldn't "defend herself" at the cost of an innocent fetus's life.

 

Not in every case they are not, if that person is speeding to avoid something and is involved in a crash they are not held responsible for the car crash, and your analogy doesn't work, regardless of the outside responsibility of the person speeding medical assistance is not withheld from them because they risked speeding.

Yet again the law is very clear on this - The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk and sex only creates the risk of pregnancy, it is not a forgone conclusion that sex will result in a pregnancy, and how exactly does a fetus give an organ to the female in order to sustain her life.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the following as well;