Abortion is equal to Stand Your Ground[344]

[Summerwind]

When her life is in danger, yes.

Otherwise, no.

All pregnancies have a risk of causing the death of the mother, and unequivocally cause physical harm. So that's a yes, with no otherwise.

 

[Summerwind]

No, it's not. Babies don't just appear in your body on their own. They are put there by you.

Here's an analogy that actually fits:

You invite someone to live in your house. After a few weeks, you grow tired of having here there, so you shoot her in the face.

Well let's make your analogy more accurate.

A stranger is in your house for 2-10 days without your knowledge, then you find out it's in your house and though not intentionally, it's going to spend 9 months slowly racking your body, at the very least like an old stretch-torture device, after which it will consume at least 1/3 of your property and future income, and that's if it doesn't kill or seriously harm you while it's living in your house/body.

Sorry but your analogy is shallow and not really an analogy at all.

 

[Jerry]

All pregnancies have a risk of causing the death of the mother, and unequivocally cause physical harm.

So does driving.

Stand Your Ground is not about risk. Stand Your Ground is about it's actualy going to happen to you right now.

 

[Maximatic]

Well let's make your analogy more accurate.

A stranger is in your house for 2-10 days without your knowledge, then you find out it's in your house and though not intentionally, it's going to spend 9 months slowly racking your body, at the very least like an old stretch-torture device, after which it will consume at least 1/3 of your property and future income, and that's if it doesn't kill or seriously harm you while it's living in your house/body.

Sorry but your analogy is shallow and not really an analogy at all.

It is a perfectly fitting analogy. Your OP suggests that the baby is trespassing on your space, but that is never the case.

Is the baby responsible for her own existence and location? No, you are. Whatever the consequences, they are the responsibility of those who actively caused the baby to exist in her respective location.

The consequences of your own actions cannot give you the right to kill someone.

 

[Summerwind]

It is a perfectly fitting analogy. Your OP suggests that the baby is trespassing on your space, but that is never the case.

Is the baby responsible for her own existence and location? No, you are. Whatever the consequences, they are the responsibility of those who actively caused the baby to exist in her respective location.

The consequences of your own actions cannot give you the right to kill someone.

I disagree, but whatever. I think that if someone is in my house, that I didn't invite (to "invite" would mean to have been planned, clearly an unwanted pregnancy was not planned), but certainly I left the door open, is potentially a harm to me, I have the right to remove him from my house by force if necessary. My having left the door unlocked or even ajar, does not give anyone the right to be in my house.

 

[Bicycle]

I disagree, but whatever. I think that if someone is in my house, that I didn't invite (to "invite" would mean to have been planned, clearly an unwanted pregnancy was not planned), but certainly I left the door open, is potentially a harm to me, I have the right to remove him from my house by force if necessary. My having left the door unlocked or even ajar, does not give anyone the right to be in my house.

So if the neighbor's 3 year old child wanders into your yard, you think you have the right to kill him?

It sounds like you're abjectly terrified of children.

 

[Jerry]

It is a perfectly fitting analogy. Your OP suggests that the baby is trespassing on your space, but that is never the case.

Is the baby responsible for her own existence and location? No, you are. Whatever the consequences, they are the responsibility of those who actively caused the baby to exist in her respective location.

The consequences of your own actions cannot give you the right to kill someone.

You can't use Stand Your Ground law if you caused the situation.

 

[Summerwind]

So if the neighbor's 3 year old child wanders into your yard, you think you have the right to kill him?

It sounds like you're abjectly terrified of children.

Grasping at straws are you? Keep grasping.

 

[Summerwind]

You can't use Stand Your Ground law if you caused the situation.

Zimmerman did. He knowingly followed/chased someone who 911 told him to leave alone and stay in his truck. So yes, you can cause the situation and still use SYG.

 

[Bicycle]

So...you maintain that Zimmerman had the right to follow and kill someone (that is how you have portrayed it) and that women have the right to kill their children.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[RAMOSS]

A fetus isn't threatening the mother.

I don't know if that is true. My foster daughters aunt was killed by her fetus.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, rarely there are complications in a pregnancy. Any harm from those complications is NOT caused by the kid. It couldn't be. The kid is innocent and only there because his or her parents put him there. All the kid does is passively rest.

Is that the case?? Please support your claim with evidence from a source that isn't 'pro-life' , or 'pro-choice' but merely a medical journal.

 

[Summerwind]

So...you maintain that Zimmerman had the right to follow and kill someone (that is how you have portrayed it) and that women have the right to kill their children.

Makes perfect sense.

No, I don't think Zimmerman had that right and was disappointed he got off. As mentioned in the OP, I am asking those that are anti-choice but pro-SYG (and were vocal in how right Zimmerman was to have shot Trayvon and gotten off scott free), how is abortion any different than SYG for women. If there is something about that you don't understand, please ask a detailed question.

As for my being against SYG/Zimmerman trial outcome, and yet am pro-choice, is because biology says that a ZEF is not a human being... yet, and should only have the opportunity to become a human being if the mother chooses that option.

 

[Excon]

Zimmerman did. He knowingly followed/chased someone who 911 told him to leave alone and stay in his truck. So yes, you can cause the situation and still use SYG.

And still you haven't got the information correct.
Figures.

There was no chase.
So stop with the false narrative.
He followed to keep eyes on a suspicious person, so as to point them out to the police (which he called) when they arrived.

And he wasn't told to do anything. So you can stop with that false narrative also.
He was given a suggestion that he didn't have to follow, but did. Do you not understand the "but did" part?
Nor was he ever told to stay in his truck. That is nothing but a lie. But here you are spouting that nonsense when you already know it is false.

And no, Zimmerman didn't create the situation. Trayvon did by laying in wait, or returning to confront.

 

[Excon]

No, I don't think Zimmerman had that right and was disappointed he got off.

Well he did have that right to follow to keep eyes on the suspicious person.
And you can not hold someone criminally liable for doing what they are allowed to do.
So all you are saying is that you wouldn't follow the law.

 

[Summerwind]

Well he did have that right to follow to keep eyes on the suspicious person.
And you can not hold someone criminally liable for doing what they are allowed to do.
So all you are saying is that you wouldn't follow the law.

Just as a woman has a right to have sex without pregnancy.
So you can't hold a woman responsible for doing what they are legally allowed to do.
So what you saying is that the law is different for a pregnant woman, than anyone else.

 

[Summerwind]

And still you haven't got the information correct.
Figures.

There was no chase.
So stop with the false narrative.
He followed to keep eyes on a suspicious person, so as to point them out to the police (which he called) when they arrived.

And he wasn't told to do anything. So you can stop with that false narrative also.
He was given a suggestion that he didn't have to follow, but did. Do you not understand the "but did" part?
Nor was he ever told to stay in his truck. That is nothing but a lie. But here you are spouting that nonsense when you already know it is false.

And no, Zimmerman didn't create the situation. Trayvon did by laying in wait, or returning to confront.

From listening to the tape, he sure sounds breath-y at times which would indicate running which is a chase, however I did also indicate the word follow for those that choose to play semantics.

He was clearly told to not follow. "We do not need you to do that." Pretty clear, and since he indicated he was in his truck, the implication to stay in the truck is there.

He did not intend to create the situation, however had he not done any of a number of things, no one would be dead, exactly the same thing could be said of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.

NEXT.....

 

[Bicycle]

Why are we discussing the Trayvon Martin case in an abortion thread?

Maybe this should be moved?

 

[Summerwind]

Why are we discussing the Trayvon Martin case in an abortion thread?

Maybe this should be moved?

Did you not read the title, are you not familiar with the Zimmerman/Martin case? This is a comparison of the right of a woman to remove a potentially harmful threat to herself vs. Zimmerman's (or any other SYG case, but that being the one that everyone knows) right to do so via SYG defense.

 

[Bicycle]

The title is about abortion, and the OP is about how abortion should be allowed as an extension of "stand your ground".

And then the thread devolved into a ridiculous conversation about the particulars of the Trayvon Martin case. It's not a discussion about abortion. It's a discussion about that particular case, and perhaps a pseudo-discussion about Stand Your Ground law..neither of which has anything to do with abortion.

It's made even more confusing by the fact that the author of the thread seems to think that Martin's death was NOT justified, which is odd since she claims that abortion should be allowed as "stand your ground"....

In other words...arguing against herself.

 

[Summerwind]

The title is about abortion, and the OP is about how abortion should be allowed as an extension of "stand your ground".

And then the thread devolved into a ridiculous conversation about the particulars of the Trayvon Martin case. It's not a discussion about abortion. It's a discussion about that particular case, and perhaps a pseudo-discussion about Stand Your Ground law..neither of which has anything to do with abortion.

It's made even more confusing by the fact that the author of the thread seems to think that Martin's death was NOT justified, which is odd since she claims that abortion should be allowed as "stand your ground"....

In other words...arguing against herself.

It's called finding the holes in the perspectives of others. I don't have to believe what others believe in order to discuss what they believe.

As for particulars, those that support SYG but not a woman's right to choose, are trying find a detail that makes Zimmerman's SYG defense different than a woman's right to abort.

Make sense? If not, then it must be above your paygrade or something.

 

[Bicycle]

No, it doesn't make sense at all. Which is my point.

 

[Summerwind]

No, it doesn't make sense at all. Which is my point.

Everyone else who's posted gets it, so I guess you're odd man out. It happens.

 

[Jerry]

Zimmerman did.

No he didn't.

 

[Jerry]

Did you not read the title, are you not familiar with the Zimmerman/Martin case? This is a comparison of the right of a woman to remove a potentially harmful threat to herself vs. Zimmerman's (or any other SYG case, but that being the one that everyone knows) right to do so via SYG defense.

SYG can be discussed without bringing up the Zimmerman case.