• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

abortion is self-defense

None of that says that "Self-defense may only be invoked when it involves a deliberate attacker", which you claimed in post #22.
 

"Self-defense" is a defense which you may raise when you are charged with criminal homicide of another person.

One need not raise such a defense when one has not committed criminal homicide.
 
Omniscient said:
no because they would still make people pay child support

which is harmful.
Click to expand...

EDIT: How exactly is providing material support for the children you have helped to create "harmful"?

Are you in favor of infanticide? Or just allowing children to languish without support of one of the parents?
 

Not given you put the anyone inside you in the first place.

Absolutely ignorant thread
 
Omniscient said:
woman didnt decide to create baby, it was forced on her

this is forced harm of her person and property

therefore self defense is justified
Click to expand...
It was forced on her only if she was raped. If she opened her legs, knowing that there would be sperm, and the function of sperm is to create life with the assistance of her eggs, then she invited the sperm into her body (again, knowing its sole function). I really hate to break it to people who do not seem to realise, that the real function of sex is to reproduce. Yes, people have sex for pleasure and not to reproduce, but, come on people, think! The function of sex is biologically to produce life. Stop making damned excuses. You have choices: (1) don't have sex (2) use contraception (knowing that if it fails, there will be a predictable result). That's one of the problems with people..."I will do what I want, when I want, having sex is my right, and bugger the consequences." Then, when the inevitable consequences do happen, it's "Oh dear, how did that happen, what will I do now?" Then, right back to square one "I will do what I want, when I want, having sex is my right and bugger the consequences."
 
soylentgreen said:
Care to point out where it is written that you have a right to kill?
Click to expand...
I think he just did. It is written basically everywhere that one has a right to kill in self-defense and in defense of one's property.
Your body is your property. Anything causing you pain or attempting to manipulate your body in any way would therefore be considered an attack.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
It was forced on her only if she was raped. If she opened her legs, knowing that there would be sperm, and the function of sperm is to create life with the assistance of her eggs, then she invited the sperm into her body
Click to expand...
That's like saying that if you go outdoors you consent to be bitten by a mosquito. Just because it's a potential consequence doesn't mean its what you want, and you are still well within your right to swat any bug that tries to bite you regardless of whether or not it is a life trying to feed off of your body.
 
weaver2 said:
This is doesn't make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

To you, it doesn't. Of course.

That's expected.

..............after all, you stand behind a senseless argument being presented by these moronic women!
You couldn't even see it for what it is.
 
Atreus21 said:


If it were possible, at the same stage as an early abortion and for the same cost, to remove the child from your body without killing it, would that be a satisfactory alternative to killing it?
Click to expand...

Omniscient said:
no because they would still make people pay child support

which is harmful.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha

Unbelievable........hahahahaha



THERE! For most men - like Omniscient - who support pro-choice , there's their REAL reason for it! Hahahaha
GETTING SNAGGED FOR .....................................CHILD SUPPORT!




Moron woman thinks he cares for her so-called "right?" hahahahaha


Moron women not only get talked into spreading their legs without any protection.....hahahaha...

..............they can even be made to believe this is about their "rights" where men are concerned.

They're easily conned! Because........ they're morons!
 
Last edited:
There is also a 3rd option - abort if I get pregnant. The fact that you don't like it is your problem to deal with, not mine.
 
Contraception is 100% effective?

Also, do you believe the government should be able to force people to give up blood to others against their will?
 
soylentgreen said:
Care to point out where it is written that you have a right to kill?
Click to expand...
There is tons of case law that illustrates when a person has a right to kill... try looking some shit up.
 
tosca1 said:
It's not self-defense.
Self-defense is................................................. USING CONTRACEPTION!
Click to expand...
That is as stupid as saying to a person that tried to fend off a murderer with a feather duster but could not fend the murderer off and so decided to use the shotgun a person that, when using the feather duster, was not employing self-defense because the first method, contraception/feather duster, did not work.
 
Atreus21 said:
If it were possible, at the same stage as an early abortion and for the same cost, to remove the child from your body without killing it, would that be a satisfactory alternative to killing it?
Click to expand...
If it is as easy as, or easier than, an abortion and neither the mother or the father had to pay child support and the state completely took over ownership of the child?
weaver2 said:
This is doesn't make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
Have you seen many posts where he does?
 
Women should be allowed to have an abortion prior to viability for any reason at all... even just to have a cool story to tell and laugh about it.

Everybody else can just **** off.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If it is as easy as, or easier than, an abortion and neither the mother or the father had to pay child support and the state completely took over ownership of the child?
Click to expand...

Yes, suppose all those conditions were true.
 
I can't tell you how many pro-gun facebook groups have banned me for also supporting abortion
 
Atreus21 said:
Self-defense may only be invoked when it involves a deliberate attacker. The unborn child is not that. Moreover, you can't claim self-defense when killing someone for slander and libel.
Click to expand...
This isn't true. If someone pushes someone else into you, and you put your hands out to push away that person coming towards you, who may cause you harm, that is self defense, even if that person who was pushed didn't do it and ends up ultimately hurt from you pushing them off you. This is a mild example, but it even applies to others as well. Can you shoot someone, force them to stay away from you if they have a bomb strapped to them by someone else?
 
Yes, the risk of death from pregnancy is pretty high. But the fetus also does not have the same rights as a born person when it comes to use of force claims.

A soaring maternal mortality rate: What does it mean for you? - Harvard Health

Since 1990, the maternal mortality rate in the United States, while still relatively low, has risen by 50%. Meanwhile, many other women experience pregnancy-related conditions that cause serious in...
www.health.harvard.edu
 
Bodhisattva said:
If it is as easy as, or easier than, an abortion and neither the mother or the father had to pay child support and the state completely took over ownership of the child?

Have you seen many posts where he does?
Click to expand...
That wouldn't really be possible though. To remove a fetus from the mother's body, you would have to invade her body. While there are some abortions that require that, not all do, especially those that occur early in the pregnancy.

However, it is not good for the state to take "ownership" of a child that is not born yet simply to appease some sort of "we don't want to kill fetuses" belief. In the long run, that is not likely to be good overall policy, nor good for that child. Quality of life is generally better than quantity of life.
 
Questerr said:
Contraception is 100% effective?
Click to expand...

ABSTINENCE is.

Lol. Anyway. Where does it says that you can only simultaneously use one means of precaution? DOH?

We have to use COMMON SENSE!

If you're on the pill, or on other types of contraception - and you add condoms to that (to protect yourself from STD) - what are the chances you'd still get pregnant?



If you're not prepared - then, don't have sex!
Wait until you are prepared for it!

How difficult is that to rattle around in one's brain?






Questerr said:
Also, do you believe the government should be able to force people to give up blood to others against their will?
Click to expand...


IRRELEVANT!

F O C U S.
 

EH?

What moron uses a.....................FEATHER DUSTER to fend off a murderer?

Can you please get your convoluted thoughts straight.
 
Or have an abortion because that is your choice to make. If you don't like that others are having abortions, that is on you.
 
After reading so many posts from pro-choice in forums - it's become apparent that
they all have one thing in common.

I don't have to spell it out..........sensible people can see it for themselves.


Just review the posts history of every pro-choice here, and you'll see what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…