abortion is self-defense

[roguenuke]

After reading so many posts from pro-choice in forums - it's becoming apparent that
they all have one thing in common.

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

That we believe in freedom of choice because life is not black or white.

 

[Scrabaholic]

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?









IRRELEVANT!

F O C U S.

It's been known to happen.

I am prepared for what may happen. If I get preggers, I'll abort. It is not my problem if some people don't like that.

 

[soylentgreen]

There is tons of case law that illustrates when a person has a right to kill... try looking some shit up.

There are also a ton of cases where the courts have found guilty of murder those who thought they had a right to kill. You could try looking that up.

As well you are taking my comment out of context as it was referring to someone who is making a claim to a right to kill not on the basis of self defense which is the basis where case law has given a right to kill. Try to keep focused on the fact that this is an abortion issue, not a plea for self defense issue.

 

[Atreus21]

She can still have an abortion if she wants to...

Right. So all concerns about self-defense or bodily integrity are pretended. Even when you address them, if the woman wants a dead fetus she's still entitled to one.

The goal is to make that child disappear.

 

[Atreus21]

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?

True, but you can't use deadly force to repel a non-deadly threat. In your example, putting out your hands is intended to protect yourself from harm. If instead you pulled a gun and shot the guy, or pulled a knife and stabbed him, that wouldn't be justified by claiming self-defense.

Self-defense requires a reasonable expectation of harm. Using lethal force in self-defense requires an expectation of lethal harm. No reasonable person would claim that a fetus represents anything like that to a mother, and if in the rare case it does, no one says the mother must die to sustain it.

 

[roguenuke]

True, but you can't use deadly force to repel a non-deadly threat. In your example, putting out your hands is intended to protect yourself from harm. If instead you pulled a gun and shot the guy, or pulled a knife and stabbed him, that wouldn't be justified by claiming self-defense.

Self-defense requires a reasonable expectation of harm. Using lethal force in self-defense requires an expectation of lethal harm. No reasonable person would claim that a fetus represents anything like that to a mother, and if in the rare case it does, no one says the mother must die to sustain it.

You could if say the person was seriously putting your life at risk, as any pregnancy does because mothers can die from both pregnancy and childbirth. There is no way to predict who absolutely will die from either pregnancy or childbirth, every pregnant woman is taking on a risk from being pregnant that does not exist when not pregnant.

 

[Questerr]

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?









IRRELEVANT!

F O C U S.

It’s perfectly relevant. Abortion is all about body autonomy. It’s interesting you want you women to have less body autonomy than corpses have.

 

[weaver2]

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?

I believe Canadian health insurance covers all the highly effective, but expensive, women's contraceptives such as hormonal injections and implants, and the IUD implantation. These all have a failure rate lower than 3%, most have a failure rate of .1%. Health insurance for low income workers if they have it, does not cover any of those and may not even cover the pill.

75% or the women that end up with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are the working poor and those living at or below the poverty line. The tragedy of abortion is that these women were using protection, but the protection had a very high risk of failure. In the US the problem is created by conservatives who refuse to support health insurance programs that provide coverage for effective women's contraceptives.

 

[weaver2]

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.

I agree, pro-choice posts have one thing in common: they base their answers on actual facts.

 

[Scrabaholic]

True, but you can't use deadly force to repel a non-deadly threat. In your example, putting out your hands is intended to protect yourself from harm. If instead you pulled a gun and shot the guy, or pulled a knife and stabbed him, that wouldn't be justified by claiming self-defense.

Self-defense requires a reasonable expectation of harm. Using lethal force in self-defense requires an expectation of lethal harm. No reasonable person would claim that a fetus represents anything like that to a mother, and if in the rare case it does, no one says the mother must die to sustain it.

A woman can kill someone who is attempting to rape her. Most rapists do not kill their victims.

Given the effects pregnancy/childbirth can have on a woman's body, abortion most certainly could be considered self defence.

 

[Atreus21]

You could if say the person was seriously putting your life at risk, as any pregnancy does because mothers can die from both pregnancy and childbirth. There is no way to predict who absolutely will die from either pregnancy or childbirth, every pregnant woman is taking on a risk from being pregnant that does not exist when not pregnant.

Take two cases. In the first, a doctor testifies that a pregnant woman's life would be gravely endangered by proceeding with childbirth. In the second, a doctor testifies that all indications are perfectly healthy - that there is every indication of a safe and healthy delivery for mother and child.

A valid self-defense claim hinges on what is reasonable. Do you really think the case for reasonable self-defense is the same for both women?

 

[roguenuke]

Take two cases. In the first, a doctor testifies that a pregnant woman's life would be gravely endangered by proceeding with childbirth. In the second, a doctor testifies that all indications are perfectly healthy - that there is every reason for a safe and healthy delivery for mother and child.

Do you really think the case for self-defense is the same for both women?

Every person should be able to determine the amount of risk they take on for medical conditions related to their bodies. It shouldn't matter that a doctor thinks one is more likely to risk death than the other because it is based off of their best guess for the info they have. They don't test for everything during pregnancy that could cause issues, such as blood clots or bleeding.

The blood factor deficiency I have only affects me with pregnancy, putting me at high risk. The only reason I know I have it, so that doctors know I have it and to put me on high risk when pregnant is because my brother had abnormal blood tests when he went to have a surgery and they put him through a barrage of testing to find out why and found this factor deficiency. It is normally passed though from mother to daughter. So then my brother's doctor told my mother to get her daughters tested. I only was able to get tested because I was in the Navy (I have two other sisters who have not been tested because it is expensive). It is not something tested for in the normal testing done for any woman who is pregnant but can have an increased risk of miscarriages as well as blood clots, which can be fatal to a pregnant woman, placing them on high risk pregnancy. So if they don't test for this, that means most women who do have it don't know they have this particular risk. And this isn't even close to the only risk that is like this, obscure and not tested for.

 

[Atreus21]

A woman can kill someone who is attempting to rape her. Most rapists do not kill their victims.

Given the effects pregnancy/childbirth can have on a woman's body, abortion most certainly could be considered self defence.

Yes, because it's reasonable to be in fear for you life in that scenario - that's a deliberate violent attacker.

CNN reports about 700 American women a year die from pregnancy complications. Meanwhile, there are about 4.5 to 6 million pregnancies in the US each year. That's about a 0.016% risk of death from any random pregnancy, quite a bit lower than the risk of death from a COVID-19 infection, or certainly any one of a number of other infections. Could you claim self-defense if you shot and killed someone nearby who is COVID positive to prevent their infecting you?

 

[Atreus21]

Every person should be able to determine the amount of risk they take on for medical conditions related to their bodies. It shouldn't matter that a doctor thinks one is more likely to risk death than the other because it is based off of their best guess for the info they have. They don't test for everything during pregnancy that could cause issues, such as blood clots or bleeding.

The blood factor deficiency I have only affects me with pregnancy, putting me at high risk. The only reason I know I have it, so that doctors know I have it and to put me on high risk when pregnant is because my brother had abnormal blood tests when he went to have a surgery and they put him through a barrage of testing to find out why and found this factor deficiency. It is normally passed though from mother to daughter. So then my brother's doctor told my mother to get her daughters tested. I only was able to get tested because I was in the Navy (I have two other sisters who have not been tested because it is expensive). It is not something tested for in the normal testing done for any woman who is pregnant but can have an increased risk of miscarriages as well as blood clots, which can be fatal to a pregnant woman, placing them on high risk pregnancy. So if they don't test for this, that means most women who do have it don't know they have this particular risk. And this isn't even close to the only risk that is like this, obscure and not tested for.

My mother is immuno-compromised. It is by God's grace she hasn't contracted COVID19 because if she did, it'd almost certainly kill her.

Do you think she has reasonable self-defense grounds to kill someone who is COVID positive to prevent them from infecting her?

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, because it's reasonable to be in fear for you life in that scenario - that's a deliberate violent attacker.

CNN reports about 700 American women a year die from pregnancy complications. Meanwhile, there are about 4.5 to 6 million pregnancies in the US each year. That's about a 0.016% risk of death from any random pregnancy, quite a bit lower than the risk of death from a COVID-19 infection, or certainly any one of a number of other infections. Could you claim self-defense if you shot and killed someone nearby who is COVID positive to prevent their infecting you?

One third or more of pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth, which means that we have no idea how many of those would have died too. And that doesn't count the abortions either.

 

[roguenuke]

My mother is immuno-compromised. It is by God's grace she hasn't contracted COVID19 because if she did, it'd almost certainly kill her.

Do you think she has reasonable self-defense grounds to kill someone who is COVID positive to prevent them from infecting her?

No, because there are other precautions she can reasonably take to prevent them from getting near her, from infecting her. That is not the case for that woman who is pregnant once she is pregnant. Plus, whether you agree or not, the person who may infect her is unknown to her and an actual person, not a fetus or other lifeform trying to live off of her body. She does have a right to try to kill the coronavirus though.

 

[weaver2]

My mother is immuno-compromised. It is by God's grace she hasn't contracted COVID19 because if she did, it'd almost certainly kill her.

Do you think she has reasonable self-defense grounds to kill someone who is COVID positive to prevent them from infecting her?

Any one who thinks a comparison between an immune-compromised woman and an insensate 1st trimester fetus is a valid comparison probably shouldn't be posting morality lessons at those that do understand the difference.

 

[Bodi]

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.

I know. I am asking a stupid question to see how he responds... because logically, his idea is a stupid one.

 

[Bodi]

EH?

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

Can you please get your convoluted thoughts straight.

Logic continues to allude you...

 

[Bodi]

My mother is immuno-compromised. It is by God's grace she hasn't contracted COVID19 because if she did, it'd almost certainly kill her.

Do you think she has reasonable self-defense grounds to kill someone who is COVID positive to prevent them from infecting her?

What in the Holy Heck? LOL

 

[Bodi]

Care to point out where it is written that you have a right to kill?

There is tons of case law that illustrates when a person has a right to kill... try looking some shit up.

There are also a ton of cases where the courts have found guilty of murder those who thought they had a right to kill. You could try looking that up.

You asked.

I answered.

 

[Bodi]

Right. So all concerns about self-defense or bodily integrity are pretended. Even when you address them, if the woman wants a dead fetus she's still entitled to one.

The goal is to make that child disappear.

No. The goal is to not be pregnant.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Yes, because it's reasonable to be in fear for you life in that scenario - that's a deliberate violent attacker.

CNN reports about 700 American women a year die from pregnancy complications. Meanwhile, there are about 4.5 to 6 million pregnancies in the US each year. That's about a 0.016% risk of death from any random pregnancy, quite a bit lower than the risk of death from a COVID-19 infection, or certainly any one of a number of other infections. Could you claim self-defense if you shot and killed someone nearby who is COVID positive to prevent their infecting you?

Invalid analogy. You can lessen the risk of transmission of COVIDA by wearing a mask. And you are comparing a human being to a zef.

Any pregnancy can turn on a dime. No matter how "low risk".

 

[aociswundumho]

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.

Viability depends on the level of technology available in country the woman lives in, so how is that relevant in a moral argument about abortion?

 

[Bodi]

Viability depends on the level of technology available in country the woman lives in, so how is that relevant in a moral argument about abortion?

I don't care about anybody's moral argument when it comes to a woman controlling her own body. Not at all.