Women have a responsibility to more than themselves

I do not believe that to be the case, in fact I believe it makes the argument in favour of abortion must simpler . .not only that but it means no restrictions what so ever and the state having to pay for it.

My arguments do not have a basis in choice.

Consenting to a possibility or risk does not imply consenting to any injuries that occur due to that risk. The assumption of risk can, and is, often tied into contributory negligence where the actions of a person can bring harm to themselves but even so those people who consent to risk do not lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others, which is what the unborn would be ie an other.
In general even if a woman can be said to have assumed the risk that a fertilized ovum will harm her, since people are not bound to continue their assumption of risk, neither would she be bound ergo even if we were to apply an assumption of risk analysis to pregnancy it would not entitle a fertilized ovum to harm a woman unless she has consented to that harm.

Even if it is freezing cold outside the renter has the right to evict them from a building if they are being injured by the tenant, the right to life does not allow one person to injure another.

And I 100% disagree with Feinberg, the assumption Feinberg has made (strangely the same assumption made by many pro-lifers) is that deadly force in self-defence is only applicable when life is threatened it isn't, deadly force in self-defence is also justified for serious injury and loss of liberty. What the unborn cause to happen within the female more than meets the legal criteria for serious injury. How the unborn came to be in the situation isn't relevant to the right of a person to defend themselves, nor is the "innocence" of the unborn . .the law requires that the mens rea of a person be evaluated before then can face a court, as a fetus is a person, it also would have to be "assigned" a level of mens rea for legal purposes - this would be as a mentally incompetent person ie the fetus cannot legally be held responsible for it's actions, be they voluntary or involuntary actions. Even though a person who is mentally incompetent cannot be legally charged for any voluntary or involuntary action it does not mean that they are free to impose on another person, nor does it mean that a person being imposed upon by a mentally incompetent person cannot defend themselves up to an including deadly force and that the state has a legal duty to help protect all people from such imposition.

 

No problem, looking forward to debating those points with you

 

Again that weird thing you do where you post things having nothing to do with what I posted because you can't address what I posted...

.....you seem to prefer going around in circles

 

We are not really on different pages here. I do not disagree that there are not good arguments in relation to self defense. The problem as I see it is that the principle of proportionality is subjective. One Judges "proportional" is another Judges "out of proportion".

I agree that your argument has merit but I am not the one who matters. If there is significant subjectivity involved a pro life Judge is going to vote one way and a pro choice Judge is going to vote the other.

This is why, IMO, the best strategy is to avoid this subjective morass altogether and not cede personhood. If the zygote is not a person the rights of the woman overwhelmingly over-ride the rights of the zygote. Subjectivity is realistically reduced almost to zero and the Judge has little choice - even if they are Pro Life.

If the anti-aborts are somehow able to win the personhood argument, then of course we have to default to Self Defense or other arguments but, this should be a default position.

The Obama Admin should have gone back and revisited the UVVA - asked the SC to strike the bill down. This is bad law and bad for choice.

 

I addressed what you posted. What did you need addressed that I haven't. You are the one going around in circles ... not I.

 

Again I disagree, the primary role of the Supreme Court Judges is to interpret and follow the Constitution as it applies to the people, regardless of the personal feelings of any particular judge they cannot be seen to be violating the constitution ... any judge that did vote along a pro-life stance where abortion was being proposed as a self-defence measure against non-consented injuries from a third party person would be violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and self-defence found under the 2nd Amendment ... unless the supreme court made the unborn some sort of "special" person not held to the equal protection clause or to self-defence laws .. but then of course they would violate pretty much the foundation of the constitution by having to remove that right upon the advent of birth, which pro-lifers insist is nothing more than an arbitrary point.

Absolutely .. though as long as abortion remains exempt then it really doesn't have the 'teeth' pro-lifers think it does.

 

No women do not have a responsibility for more than themselves and they sure aren't YOUR responsibility nor anyone else's so maybe those who want to ""ensure women's responsibility" by taking away their rights should just mind their own business...

 

I agree that the primary role of the SC is to interpret and follow the constitution as it applies to people. Unfortunately ... this is not what they do (follow constitution) in many cases.

Further - these folks often disagree. We have certainly seen such disagreement is in relation to abortion.

If the fetus is a person - as per the "Equal Protection Clause" this entity should have equal protection under the law.

As stated earlier "Self Defense" ( as interpreted by the SC) has an element of proportionality. One is not allowed to kill someone for minor injury (slapping you or spilling a drink on you).

In this case (assuming the fetus is a person as you seem so eager to do) we are talking about killing a person. You are claiming that the womans risk of injurity/harm is so great that this justifies homicide.

Standing on a stump and crying (2cnd ammendment - Self Defense) in of itself, does not constitute such justification. The courts do not accept this. If the fetus is a person then you have to show how "self defense" applies in this case; why the threat of harm is so serious that it justifies homicide as a defense.


If you do not start from the "assumed premise" that the entity in the womb is a person, then it puts the onus on the SC to prove that this entity is a person such that the Constitution can even be applied to it.

 

correct, but it also has restrictions under the law as all persons do.

Correct, but as pregnancy is already deemed legally a serious literal injury in some cases, the courts would need to explain how and why it differs between cases.
Another thing that is considered during a self-defence defence is whether the person had any other means to remove the threat of injury without using deadly force, in the case of a pregnant female there is no other means available to her . .she cannot retreat, she cannot request the fetus stop injuring her and she cannot use non-deadly force (except in the later trimesters).
When all the injuries, and the extended time frame, are taking into consideration the cumulative number of injuries more than meets the legal requirement for the use of deadly force in self-defence.

In conclusion if the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus, on what grounds can it allow the fetus, as an incompetent actor, to intrude on the body integrity and liberty of another private party, the woman, as a means for attaining its objective?.
The courts have not yet addressed the constitutionality of the states response to the intrusion, including the use of that intrusion as a means for accomplishing the state's goal : The protection of the fetus .
The value of potential life as represented by the fetus, is similar to, if not the same as, the value placed on all born human life. The issue in abortion rights is, therefore, not the state's interest in protecting potential life, but rather the state's justification for offering greater protection of potential life than born life. In other words, the issue is not the legitimacy of the state's interest in potential life but rather the state's justification for granting to pre-born potential life a greater right of access to another person's body than it grants born life.

Correct, not just claiming BTW but showing that it is.

I have not done this, I have on many occasions detailed the justification for the right of self-defence for a pregnant woman who does not consent to the injuries inflicted upon her by a third party.

Deadly-force in self-defence is not just justifiable in life or death situations, deadly-force is also justified in serious injuries and loss of liberty situations, and as already stated pregnancy is already legally deemed as a serious injury in some cases.

The question that requires an answer is if I were to raise your hormone levels by approx 400%, increase your blood pressure by 15%, suppress your immune system in a specific area, re-route your circulatory system and grow a new organ in your body all to sustain my own life without your consent would you have the justification in removing me even if it meant my death, if so why would the fetus be granted the right to do all of those things when no other person can?

What would be the courts justification in violating the females right to equal protection under the law by allowing a third party the right to use her body without consent to achieve it's own goal, after all pregnancy is maintained by the fetus purely to meet it's requirements.

I have never assumed that the unborn are persons .. I have consistently stated that it doesn't matter either way, my arguments use the pro-life ideology of personhood at conception to show that it is not the magic bullet to end elective abortion (at least) that they seem to think it is.

 

I know that you do not assume this. We both been at this a long time. I meant in the hypothetical sense. Much better to force the anti aborts to prove to the court the claim (Fetus is a Person) or at least not cede this point. Then the self defense issue does not even come up.

OK for "some" cases but what about for others. Also, can you imagine having to go to court to prove "self defense" prior to having an abortion. The baby would be born prior to court being finished. The courts would have to make some kind of measurement scale.

The SC has a huge amount of explaining to do. This would just add to the list.

I understand these arguments and agree with them personally. I am not the one that needs to be convinced though.

I also maintain that there is a significant amount of subjectivity to the "Self Defense" argument - meaning there are reasonable counter arguments. A Pro-Life Judge will seize on anything to push their religious beliefs through. We have seen this numerous times. Until Scalia died 4 of 9 were of this ilk.

All it would take is for Red to win in November and the tide on the SC could easily be turned. Have you looked in the the record of Mike Pence ? The " Mandatory Trans Vaginal ultrasound Candidate". This dude is as messed up as they come. A true control freak who wants desperately to force his religious beliefs on others through any means.

 

There is no doubt that they would have to prove personhood to the court .. my argument is based on the hypothetical that they do prove it.

Exactly what I mean, the court needs to explain how pregnancy can be injury in some cases and not in others, and no self-defence is a defence used after the fact not before.

Even if the Supreme Court did decide in favour of pro-lifers then it would still have to explain how it came to that decision and how it justifies violating the equal protection clause in order to allow the unborn a greater right than it allows all other persons.

I don't believe there is a significant amount of subjectivity to the legal application of self-defence. At the Federal level the law regarding self-defence is quite plain and even though at state level there are variations the basic principle is the same, neither do I believe that there are reasonable counter arguments, in fact after numerous years I have never seen a reasonable counter argument at all.

 

I think we are mostly on the same page here. I agree that it is really important to have a defense (in the case the SC does give the zygote personhood)

I also agree that there are not great counter arguments (from my perspective). However, one mans "reasonable" is another mans ridiculous. I have seen some very unreasonable, illogical, irrational (and even sometimes fallacious) arguments from courts and the trend is getting worse. I think this is our main area of disagreement.