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

Because the fetus is innocent. It didn't chose to attack the woman. And most women survive pregnancies. In modern times, pregnancy is usually not fatal.

 

and again we go around the circle.

Are sex and pregnancy the same thing .. no .. consenting to one thing does not mean consenting to another. If a woman consents to heavy foreplay with a man that does not mean she consents to full sexual intercourse, should the man not cease in having sexual intercourse with her then he is causing injury and she has every right to use deadly force in order to protect herself from further injury.

Now, if a woman consents to sex (one action) it does not mean she consents to pregnancy (another separate action), all she is consenting to is the RISK of pregnancy, that risk equates to 20-30% per cycle, so not even a really high risk, in fact it is less than the risk of being involved in a car accident (35%) - Should a woman become unintentionally pregnant then she may choose to accept the injuries incurred during the pregnancy, or she may not, so even IF a fetus were to be granted personhood, it can be argued that during the pregnancy the fetus is causing unconsented injury to the woman. The women can not reason with the fetus to withdraw and cease injuring her, she cannot use non-deadly force in order to stop the injuries occurring . .her only recourse is deadly force .. that is the ONLY way she can protect herself from the ongoing injuries being done against her without her consent.

Just how many times does the actual law need to be quoted before pro-lifers accept that a woman could use deadly force in self defence in order to get get an abortion, that law states unequivocally "The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk.", add to this that legal precedence already exists where pregnancy IS classed as a injury to the woman.

 

So does a person have a right to use force to defend their bodies from ongoing physical/psychological harm/injuries? Should I take it that's a big no based on your above statement?

 

Being "innocent" what ever that means is not a protection against deadly force being used against you .. point of fact, a police officer was released without charge after fatally shooting a mentally ill man who was waving a knife around, doctors reported that the man would have had NO intent to hurt anyone . .however the officer still felt his life was under threat.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/officer-who-shot-mentally-ill-man-wont-be-charged-20120829-250t7.html

and again (just how many times do I need to point this out), deadly force can be used in situation that are not life threatening.

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 kidnaping, rape, or slavery

 

*sigh*

Are you aware of the fact that over 90% of women have abortions for convenience reasons? Most of them don't even care about protecting their bodies from injuries.

 

Are you aware that the above is irrelevant to this topic.

 

No, it isn't. Most women don't even have abortions to protect their bodies from harm. It refutes your claim that a woman having an abortion is just "self defense". How is your claim even relevant, if most women don't even have abortions for those reasons?

 

FFS ... read the bloody OP will you, the scenario offered is in the event that a fetus is deemed a person, therefore abortion would NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR "CONVENIENCE", the self-defence argument could be a way for abortion to remain legal for a woman ergo your comment is irrelevant in this topic.

Here let me help

Seen it banded about that if a fetus were to be declared a "person" under the constitution that it would mean the end to abortions except in certain circumstances, while it would be a major blow to the pro-choice campaign I personally do not feel it would be the deciding factor.

 

Even if the woman got pregnant from rape, it's still a person, and therefore, abortion can't even be justified then. I can understand why pro-choicers would support a raped woman's "right" to an abortion. However, we both agree with each other that pro-lifers who support "abortion in certain circumstances" are very hypocritical and morally inconsistent.

I have more respect for a pro-choice person, than for some hypocrite pro-lifer who says that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances.

 

Nothing to do with the topic . .stick to the topic Sam .. which is basically -

Even if a fetus were deemed a person, can a woman under the current deadly force in self defence laws still avail herself of the unconsented pregnancy based on self defence due to on going injuries to her body .. I say she could.

 

Do most women get abortions to prevent their bodies from being injured by pregnancy?

Yes, or no?

 

When now or in the hypothetical scenario outlined in this topic, because to be honest I really don't think you have grasped the idea behind the OP at all.

If you want me to answer the question as it is now, then it is irrelevant to the topic.

If you want me to answer the question in the event of the hypothetical scenario (ie Roe overturned) then the answer would be no, as in the Roe overturned scenario elective abortion would be illegal.

What I am saying and you seem to be failing to understand is in the furture IF Roe were overturned, the self defence model outlined here COULD be used in court to justify abortion remaining legal .. do you understand now why your comment on the reasons for an abortion as it stands now are irrelevant to the OP?

 

Nope, your arguement that abortion=self defense is totally irrelevant; since most women don't even have abortions for those reasons.

 

I give up Sam, I really do, you simply don't understand the OP.

 

Is it legal to lure or to bring someone into a relationship against yourself only to kill them under the claim that it was in self defense?

If you can't do it to a stray cat.... how can it be argued that you can do that to a child?

Pennsylvania cat killer appears in court, claims self defense

You gotta love the irony in this last line:

"People are out of control and up in arms over a stray cat, who seemingly has more rights than a human."

 

prove that an unintended / uncontested pregnancy is "to lure or to bring someone into a relationship against yourself only to kill them under the claim that it was in self defense?"

Please link to the exact law(s) that you are paraphrasing, I would really like to read the actual text of those laws.

BTW, I thought you said you weren't interested in this thread?

 

That's not necessary.

You see, the child has a right to the equal protections of our laws.

That puts the onus on the person who wants to kill the child - to prove the killing is either necessary or justified.

Not all legal arguments are based upon laws.

This case against the kid who lured the cat as an example. (no laws were cited)

He has to justify the killing of the cat. he acknowledged that he killed it and he 'claimed' it was in self defense.

If he is going to claim it was in self defense... the onus is then on HIM to prove that it was.

Do a search on self defense laws then.

I don't recall saying that. (what post?)

Also, that would not have prevented me from becoming more interested later. Would it?

 

In your opinion.

already done, or did you miss the OP, now it is up to you to provide evidence to support your reasons to dispute ie "to lure or to bring someone into a relationship against yourself only to kill them under the claim that it was in self defense?"

and if his self defence is not accepted will he be charged under an existing law .. say cruelty?

Already proven in the case of the OP.

Already have and they say nothing that disputes the OP.

Post #73

Not at all, didn't say it wouldn't did I

 

You can't even address my arguments. This really shows that you know that im right (and that you are wrong.)

 

It's what the Constitution says.

Self defense laws do not support your argument.

Primarily because you continue to reject the fact that you can't (legally) bring a person into a situation against yourself and then kill them in a so called act of self defense.

The Use of Deadly force in Self defense laws is for last resort - not for a first line of defense.

I'm sorry (again) but it's not.

If you are going to argue for the right to kill another human being... the onus is on you.

He's already been charged with that.

 

When it refers to born people and never about fetuses.

 

Prove that the Constitution says that fetuses aren't persons.

 

Haven't you learned anything yet? It is not very intelligent to ask for proof of a negative. Can you prove the positive? Of course not, then again you have never proven or supported any of your assertions.

 

no it shows you haven't got the slightest clue to the premise of the OP, but feel free to wallow in the false security of your victory.

 

If you say so

Already addressed. I know it doesn't agree with your preconception and denial .. but never mind.

Again already provided .. but I do understand that you can't actually support your assertion.

didn't you say "This case against the kid who lured the cat as an example. (no laws were cited)", but now you say he has already been charged .. which is it?