Abortion is equal to Stand Your Ground[344]

[Summerwind]

"I am reasonably afraid that I might maybe develop a complication from pregnancy, so I need to kill my kid because I might maybe eventually have hurt myself indirectly after me and my partner created him."

You know what the problem with this "logic" is, Summerwind?

The word "reasonable."

IT AIN'T. Nothing about this premise is reasonable.

So if my adult child appears to be a reasonable fear of harm to me, I don't have the right to shoot him just because he's my child? I don't think so.

 

[JayDubya]

So if my adult child appears to be a reasonable fear of harm to me, I don't have the right to shoot him just because he's my child? I don't think so.

Your "adult child" is an adult, right there, exactly what it says on the tin.

An adult is responsible for his or her own actions.

A minor is not. You don't even consider this kid to be a minor yet - or even a member of our species at all! - but you want to consider him the equivalent of a criminal thug attacking you? :lamo

This kid is sitting there, passively, doing nothing wrong. The kid is objectively innocent. Doing nothing threatening. Causing no harm.

 

[Summerwind]

Your "adult child" is an adult, right there, exactly what it says on the tin.

An adult is responsible for his or her own actions.

A minor is not. You don't even consider this kid to be a minor yet, but you want to consider him the equivalent of a criminal thug attacking you? :lamo

This kid is sitting there, passively, doing nothing wrong. The kid is objectively innocent. Doing nothing threatening. Causing no harm.

You think a fetus is passive? It isn't intentionally aggressive, but it is not a passive entity in the womb of the mother. You fail to grasp that. It causes physical, hormonal, and psychological changes in the mother that are often harmful, and sometimes fatal.

 

[JayDubya]

You think a fetus is passive?

Absolutely passive. How can you fail to grasp that.

It isn't intentionally aggressive

Aggression is the initiation of force. The kid isn't aggressive at all, intentionally or otherwise.

It causes physical, hormonal, and psychological changes in the mother that are often harmful, and sometimes fatal.

Wrong - the kid doesn't do any of that.

The parents might have, if any of those complications come to pass and some actual harm is caused.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Let's for just one moment agree that a fetus is a human being, which it isn't, but in order to make my point I will accede that point to anyone who wants to claim it. That being said, isn't abortion simply "stand your ground" for women. I've noticed that the most vocal anti-choicers seem to also be pro-stand-your-ground. And correct me if I'm wrong, but stand your ground laws say that you don't even have to have proof that your fear is justified, you just have to have a believable fear of harm. Since every pregnancy has a real potential for injury and/or death of the mother, why shouldn't she be allowed to stand her ground?

It takes a liberal to equate an innocent and defenseless child to a dangerous and violent criminal.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The maternal mortality rate in the US is 18.5 per 100,000 pregnancies. I would hardly consider that a reasonable threat.

And yet 9 out of 10 pregnancies present complications. But even if that weren't the case, all pregnancies do tangible damage to the body, without exception. And said damage is far, far beyond what would justify taking self-defensive measures in any other circumstance.

If we're going to keep with the lingo of the OP, there is "reasonable fear" in every single pregnancy. In fact, to not expect harm would be outrightly delusional. Even the average pregnancy has unpredictable complications beyond what would be "textbook." Textbook pregnancy is actually very rare, and harmful nonetheless.

We don't even have to assess if the fear of harm is reasonable. It's a fact of pregnancy, point blank. It is always reasonable inherently, because it always happens.

As to your argument that the pro-choice don't believe a ZEF is "a life," well, two things.

Many don't, but they can still have reasonable fear of the condition itself, so doesn't this just make it even simpler to view it in the way we view every other self-preserving medical procedure?

Secondly, you're wrong about that. There are some who do believe a ZEF is a life. They just don't think that one person's integrity is worth less than anyone else's. Thus, a woman can act against something that is harming her, regardless of whether it's a person.

 

[Summerwind]

It takes a liberal to equate an innocent and defenseless child to a dangerous and violent criminal.

Trayvon Martin was not dangerous or violent or a criminal, and he was a child.

 

[Henrin]

This thread isn't serious right?

 

[X Factor]

Let's for just one moment agree that a fetus is a human being, which it isn't, but in order to make my point I will accede that point to anyone who wants to claim it. That being said, isn't abortion simply "stand your ground" for women. I've noticed that the most vocal anti-choicers seem to also be pro-stand-your-ground. And correct me if I'm wrong, but stand your ground laws say that you don't even have to have proof that your fear is justified, you just have to have a believable fear of harm. Since every pregnancy has a real potential for injury and/or death of the mother, why shouldn't she be allowed to stand her ground?

Because she's also an accomplice. The awful, dangerous, hateful fetus wouldn't even potentially be in that position without her actions. Can't be a victim of a crime you're an accomplice to.

 

[X Factor]

A fetus isn't threatening the mother.

The fetus wouldn't be there at all without the actions of the mother.

 

[Summerwind]

Because she's also an accomplice. The awful, dangerous, hateful fetus wouldn't even potentially be in that position without her actions. Can't be a victim of a crime you're an accomplice to.

Not true, I'd imagine that if a robbery partnership went bad and bad guy number one was in fear that bad guy number two was going to harm him or someone else, he'd be allowed to stand his ground and/or use self-defense as a plea.

 

[Summerwind]

The fetus wouldn't be there at all without the actions of the mother.

So what? Zimmerman wouldn't have even been there if he'd not acted as he did, ignoring 911 operators instructions, et al.

 

[X Factor]

So we need abortion because without it, monster babies will kill their mothers, ending all life on earth. It's them, or us....

Nothing creepy about that theory.

You must be new. The fetus as rapist/kidnapper/tick/tree/leech/parasite/tumor is a staple of the abortion rights extremists. When you see it, it's like wildlife that's been tagged for research. It's a weird pathology.

 

[Summerwind]

You must be new. The fetus as rapist/kidnapper/tick/tree/leech/parasite/tumor is a staple of the abortion rights extremists. When you see it, it's like wildlife that's been tagged for research. It's a weird pathology.

Y'all want a fetus to be treated as a human being, so that's what I've presented. Even if it is a human being, abortion is simple a woman's right to stand her ground.

 

[X Factor]

Y'all want a fetus to be treated as a human being, so that's what I've presented. Even if it is a human being, abortion is simple a woman's right to stand her ground.

I know. Any justification to destroy it. Good luck in your campaign.

 

[Summerwind]

I know. Any justification to destroy it. Good luck in your campaign.

You're the one who can't seem to find a way to dispute this. And yes, any justification to keep a woman's reproductive choices between her and her doctor and family (if she chooses to include them) is exactly the point. That doesn't in anyway diminish the catch-22 of supporting stand-your-ground and not abortion.

 

[Paschendale]

I don't think so. Seems during the Trayvon Martin stuff it was quoted over and over as being a "reasonable fear of harm." Bringing a pregnancy to term offers a reasonable fear of harm at some point during pregnancy, as well as during the birthing process.

In this case, I'm not necessarily using "harm" to mean just physical danger. As with a battery tort, for example, it is merely an offensive unwanted touching that is prohibited. Likewise, one needn't be literally locked in a room to be falsely imprisoned. I would say that the non-lethal health complications, reduction of liberty, and economic hardships as harm. Each of those are not reasonably feared harm, they are certain. Meanwhile, one can certainly use significant and sometimes lethal force to protect themselves from an unwanted touching, kidnapping, or theft. The Castle Doctrine allows the use of lethal force to protect one's home, and what is more home than inside a person's body?

I think a closer analogy would be less the fear of violence from a boy in a hoodie, and more the fear of violence from someone brandishing an axe at you. Or even better, to take out the elements of intent or fault, the fear of violence from a building that has caught fire. If someone is blocking your way as you try to escape from a burning building, you are certainly justified in using violence to get free.

 

[JayDubya]

Trayvon Martin was not dangerous or violent or a criminal, and he was a child.

Uh.

No. He aggressively attacked another guy. That establishes "dangerous" and "violent."

As for his criminality, that too is suspect. I don't care about the marijuana, but the graffiti and this "friend" that "gave him" all the women's jewelry in his backpack curiously full of tools? Yeesh.

It's a ****ty situation what happened, and it would be better if it never happened, but you're trying to make this comparison through the prism of some huge falsehoods.



So some guy punched another guy and shoved his head into concrete for following him and asking him questions...

... and you think this is somehow relevant to a kid just passively sitting in his mom's tummy, exactly where she put him?


Does not compute.

 

[Summerwind]

Uh.

No. He aggressively attacked another guy. That establishes dangerous and violent.

As for his criminality, that too is suspect. I don't give a **** about marijuana but graffiti should be taken seriously and this "friend" that "gave him" all the women's jewelry in his backpack full of tools? Yeesh.

If Zimmerman hadn't been chasing the guy down against the direction of the 911 dispatchers, he'd have never been in a position for someone to feel the need to stand his ground. But he did, so he put himself in that position. Since self-defense isn't considered criminal violence, and no other charges of criminality were ever raised against him, the rest is just your personal rationalization to attempt to squeeze away from the reality of the similarities.

 

[Henrin]

If Zimmerman hadn't been chasing the guy down against the direction of the 911 dispatchers, he'd have never been in a position for someone to feel the need to stand his ground.

He was not chasing him down. Did you even pay attention to the case?

 

[JayDubya]

If Zimmerman hadn't been chasing the guy down

My, but that's a liberal use of "chasing."

against the direction of the 911 dispatchers

Against the direction? 911 Dispatchers are not authority figures. In case you were wondering, you have the right to walk on sidewalks and talk to people. You don't have the right to start punching other people who haven't attacked you.

Since self-defense isn't considered criminal violence

Self-defense should never be considered criminal violence. It's not aggressive.

Abortion is an aggressive homicide. The kid never initiates force; the kid is incapable of initiating force.

 

[Summerwind]

He was not chasing him down. Did you even pay attention to the case?

He was told to stay in his vehicle, instead he followed/chased Trayvon Martin. Which in this analogy is akin to a woman having sex, since some want to say a woman is responsible for participating in actions that lead to the fear of harm from the fetus. Zimmerman actively involved himself in actions that lead to his being in fear, had he stayed in the truck as directed, no one would've died and he'd have had no fear to concern himself about. Particularly since the police were already on the way.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

This thread isn't serious right?

I really don't agree with it as there are better arguments for the pro choice position.

 

[Summerwind]

I really don't agree with it as there are better arguments for the pro choice position.

Please show me one that works if one accepts that a fetus is a human being, which I don't, but "they" do. So, if it's a human being, a woman should have a right to stand her ground for her own health and safety.

 

[Thrilla]

Let's for just one moment agree that a fetus is a human being, which it isn't, but in order to make my point I will accede that point to anyone who wants to claim it. That being said, isn't abortion simply "stand your ground" for women. I've noticed that the most vocal anti-choicers seem to also be pro-stand-your-ground. And correct me if I'm wrong, but stand your ground laws say that you don't even have to have proof that your fear is justified, you just have to have a believable fear of harm. Since every pregnancy has a real potential for injury and/or death of the mother, why shouldn't she be allowed to stand her ground?

interesting spin.

factually incorrect, but interesting nonetheless.

it may become factually correct IF you can show what UNLAWFULact the fetus is doing to the mother which a reasonable person would conclude is calculated to cause bodily harm or death.