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

Pretty much the same as your (as in the group) theory that laws such as the UVVA will overturn Roe .. pointless to debate until it actually comes before SCOTUS.

I do find it strange though that when placed in a corner you back away .. but I suppose that is what choice is all about.

 

1-That doesn't justify harming an innocent child. Hormones being increased by 400 levels just results in mood swings, not fatal health conditions.
2-How does that harm the woman?
3-Very few pregnant women die from weak immune systems.
4-Emotional problems doesn't justify killing an innocent child.
5-the same answer as 6.
6-That usually isn't a fatal health problem. a woman can still function and live a normal live with a changed respiratory system for 9 months.
7 and 8-Most pregnant women don't die from health problems caused by those two things.

 

The questions were asked of you not of a pregnant woman, so again would YOU seek out medical assistance to rectify these injuries to your body?

BTW: The use of deadly force does not have to just be if your life is in danger, you seem to have forgotten these -

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

 

1-Yes, but not at the cost of somebody else's life.

2-I know this has nothing to do with abortions, but even in those situations, lethal force is only justified as a last resort. I don't mean to get into a religious debate over this conversation, but it's wrong for somebody to use lethal force, in my opinion. It's not always necessary, and even if somebody is invading somebody else's liberty, the victim should not take their attacker's life. Everybody, even violent attackers invading other's liberties, deserve a chance at salvation. If somebody dies in self defense, they have no chance to accept Christ and go to heaven, anymore.

 

However in order to rectify those injuries for a pregnant woman it would cost a life and as the law stands she is more than justified in doing so.

You are right it doesn't have anything to do with abortion, and to be honest I could not see you (or anybody) not protecting themselves, if they could, should any of the injuries a pregnant woman sustains be forced upon them, and even if you did do nothing that is a choice you made, the same choice a woman makes if she decides to continue the pregnancy to birth, how would you feel if the law stated you could not use self defense in these circumstances, if your choice to defend yourself or not were removed.

 

that's a circular argument.

 

Nope it is not .. the current law only puts into words something that we, as humans, have done since we came into existence, killing in self defence has ALWAYS been something humans do, just as killing to further our own ideology above others has always been done.

 

so youre trying to use the current laws, to justify how the laws should be?

 

not in the slightest .. or did you not read the whole of my comment .. even if self defense laws did not exist we (as in humans) would still kill to protect ourselves, that is our nature, it is part of who we are.

 

But if a fetus is protected as a person under the Constitution, then it has the same legal right to defend itself from bodily harm as the woman does. When the woman caused the pregnancy, she dragged it inside her body against its will. So this is akin to kidnapping - making her the aggressor. At that point, the fetus has the right to do whatever it needs to in order to ensure its own survival and eventual escape. If she kills it, she has now essentially killed the hostage. Once again making her the villain.

I'll give you this; you people sure are relentless about doing the wrong thing. The hoops you jump through here are quite impressive. You just refuse to have a conscience about anything.

 

Unless organs have been removed, every consent to sex (by both parties) is a consent to the risks for pregnancy.

True or false?

Children have a right to the equal protections of our laws and if you think that you can "accidentally" create a child and then kill them in an act of 'self defense?' I think you're wrong.

But, we will have to wait and see what the judges say about that after Roe is actually overturned.

Until then, all we can do is speculate.

A consensual pregnancy is not an injury.

 

Nope, the fetus is the aggressor not the woman, the woman is protecting herself from the injuries being caused by the fetus, just as you would be protecting yourself from an aggressor should they be causing or attempting to cause injury to you.

Exactly how does a woman "cause" a pregnancy, is this the implied consent thing again;

Explain exactly how sex is the same as pregnancy, it is not .. sex only creates the risk of pregnancy and the law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk.

In your scenario the fetus is the hostage, however how does that work in reality .. 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 .. so which is really the hostage.

what you consider wrong doesn't apply to all other people, why should you be allowed to force your moral interpretations onto others, and what hoops, everything posted is fact and even legally recognised in cases of rape and incest .. it is the pro-lifers who jump through hoops in order maintain their moralistic campaign.

 

True - but the law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk .. True or False?

Never said anything about accidentally did I, I said intent, they are different .. and don't all people have a right to the equal protections of our laws, including those killed in self defence, they had that right-right up to the point they started to cause injury to another, just as a fetus does in a post-Roe world.

I'm sure you mean IF Roe is actually overturned, until then everything involved in that goal is speculation.

even if this were correct, which in my opinion it is not, the pregnancy, while (possibly) not being an injury causes injuries to happen .. we already accept that deadly force can be used if the womans life is in danger during a pregnancy, and as already shown deadly force does not have to be a life or death situation in order to be used.

 

By this argument, your reasoning could also be applied to a mother of a child outside the womb, other than the bodily changes of milk glands, added placenta, hormonal changes, etc. The woman's stress level can still be affected by a difficult child in his or her "terrible twos." The woman's liberty is infringed on with the added parental responsibilities interfering with her life, thus making her a slave. She also is enslaved by having to financially provide for the child, care for the child, feed the child, do laundry, etc. Thus, by your reasoning, a woman stressed out, or merely fed up with parenting a two year old, for that matter, is justified within self defense of killing the two year old child.

 

Also, by your reasoning, you have already acknowledged personhood for the unborn as the unborn would be presenting a threat to the woman, thus, in your opinion justifying deadly force. If the unborn is a person, they would also have rights and they would be faced with a threat on their life. The difference is, they are defenseless and are not able to use deadly force to defend themselves.

 

There also is the matter of intent or what the person threatened reasonably believes is intent. For example, if someone comes at you with a weapon, to include a broken bottle or something like this, and you perceive their actions to be threatening, to include closing space between the two of you, threatening statements, and bodily actions such as swinging the weapon or a stabbing motion, you believe they intend to do harm to you. Say you are driving with a relative who is allergic to bees, and they get stung, and you are right by a hospital and feel it is more feasible to drive to the emergency room than call an ambulance. Say another driver cuts in front of you and drives slowly and does not get out of the way, even though you have your four way blinkers on and you are honking the horn. They probably do not intend to cause harm to your relative, but they are inadvertently presenting a threat to the safety of your relative. Are you authorized to use deadly force? Say someone has been drinking and driving and is driving erratically and enters your lane of travel. Are you authorized to use deadly force? Say you are going up the stairs to your apartment and you are a diabetic. You are in desperate need of insulin which is in your refrigerator. A neighbor is in front of you and despite your pleading for him to hurry or get out of your way, he continues to walk slowly. Are you authorized to use deadly force?

 

Already answered in the other thread, as follows

"I haven't recognized the personhood of the fetus, I said that is not as important as pro-lifers try to make it, and offered a scenario where even if the law were to recognize the personhood of a fetus it would not necessarily mean abortion being made illegal.

In the scenario of my thread the fetus is the aggressor, the woman the victim .. by your thinking a rapist could use deadly force in order to protect themselves from their victims deadly force

The fetus is the one instigating the injury and even though there is no intent to do so, self defense laws do not always require intent. "

- - - Updated - - -

already answered in the other thread -

"As already stated and shown the law already recognizes "wrongful pregnancy" as an injury to a woman regardless of intent, and all of your above scenarios offer the alternative of allowing the aggressor to withdraw or stopping the (intent) of injury by non deadly means, a unconsented pregnancy does not allow the woman to take either of those actions. "

 

Consent.

A woman who was unprotected sex consented to pregnancy. Maybe if the woman used birth control, then you could argue that she didn't consent to pregnancy, but if she had unprotected sex, then she's definitley responsible.

Just like some idiot who doesn't use a seat-belt and drives 100 miles an hour. It's their fault that they got into a car accident.

 

So they should be denied medical aid, correct?

 

Fugazi said that for the sake of this discussion, a fetus is a person.

And to answer your question, they should not be denied medical care, but if giving them medical care causes a child to die, then it should not be allowed.

 

Even if the 'unborn child' is causing them physical harm/injuries?

 

Why should the unborn child die? That woman was being reckless by not using birth control. Just like somebody who speeds while driving (in comparison to a responsible person who drives the legal speed limit, but is still unlucky enough to get into a car accident.)

 

Why shouldn't a person be free to use force to defend themselves when they are being injured by someone else?

 

Read the rest of my comment. You only quoted a part of it.

 

You only respond to parts of my comments so I am only going to respond to a single part of YOUR comment. Usually you highlight one part of my comments and only respond to that bit. Sorry you're not getting your way because I didn't respond to the part you wanted me to.

Now again, Why shouldn't a person be free to use force to defend themselves when they are being injured by someone else?