Abortion is self-defence under person at conception ideology.

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by Fugazi, Feb 15, 2015.

  1. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is a challenge to Whaler17 to debate the legal position of abortion under the hypothetical person at conception ideology being made law and rendering Roe revoked.

    If Whaler17 accepts this challenge then I am open to any of the judging pool being judges of the debate.

    If Whaler 17 accepts the challenge, rules to the debate to be decided by both.
     
  2. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whaler17 has dis-respectfully declined to take part in this debate and from the method of his refusal one can only assume it is due to not being sure in his opinions.
     
  3. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody blames Whaler for not accepting a debate on a ridiculous subject, the answer is obvious. The baby did not put itself in the mother, the mother did, the mother created the situation of her own volition, the baby had no input into its creation and location.

    There is no debate, any rational person sees your claim is absurd.
     
  4. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So are you taking the position that Whaler has run away from, if so please state what rules you would like to have on this debate.

    If as you assert the debate is ridiculous then you should have no problem with proving that .. i'll wait for your list of rules and then we can begin.
     
  5. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already gave my answer. Nothing further is required. Debate over. You lost.
     
  6. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A position that is wrong and has had no evidence posted to support it .. hmm seems you have a very low requirement to "win" a debate, basically you win because you say you do :roflol:
     
  7. saspatz

    saspatz Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I do hope that somebody takes up the other side of this debate as there are a number of thorny legal issues involved. I seek only to be educated.
     
  8. JayDubya

    JayDubya New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I concur.

    There is nothing to even debate here. Self-defense is when someone attacks you. Your own kid, inside your womb, exactly where you put him or her, exactly where you brought him or her into existence, resting and growing as we humans do at that stage of life, is not capable of initiating force against anyone.

    There is nothing rational in claiming self-defense against a helpless and innocent human being who you created. Any harm of pregnancy is plainly caused by the parents, not the kid.

    The abortion debate hinges on abortion proponents determining a way to justify aggressive violence against a helpless and innocent human being. Nonsensical lies like claiming you can kill someone who is helplessly resting in "self-defense" is just avoidance.
     
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    53,107
    Likes Received:
    19,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is the debate forum , not the agree forum. Can't you address the OP?
     
  10. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The short answer is that killing someone else out of self-interest is not always ethically or legally acceptable.
    A mother killing the fetus within her is very different from a security guard shooting a robber who refuses to drop their gun.
     
  11. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    33,843
    Likes Received:
    12,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How? A robber and the mother are both feeling their lives to be threatened and they are right. What justifies you in limiting someone's right to self defense, if they reasonably feel their life to be threatened. And the condition of pregnancy is constantly life threatening, from beginning to end and even beyond it can easily cause the mother's sudden or slow but inevitable death from a great variety of causes
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    53,107
    Likes Received:
    19,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why didn't you address the OP?
     
  13. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no doubt you do.

    There is plenty to debate here, just because you do not understand how your own laws work does not mean that the legal process does not exist for abortion to be seen as self-defence against non-consented injury and that the state has duty of care under the equal protection clause to help the woman defend herself, just as it helps you defend yourself.

    Whether the actor is your own flesh and blood is irrelevant to the debate, not even your own child has the right to injure you without consent.

    Nobody puts a "kid" inside the womb, nobody brings them into existence.

    Under a person at conception ideology the fertilized ovum becomes an incompetent actor as far as the law is concerned, in all cases of non-consented injury the courts must assign a mens rea capability to the accused . the fertilized ovum in this case would be deemed as mentally incompetent with no intent in its actions, and while this renders it free from the possibility of being tried in a court, it does not give it free reign to impose upon another person. The law recognizes that both involuntary and voluntary acts can cause harm and injury to other people and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. As the Model Penal Code notes, "People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." - Source : Model Penal Code - Page 197

    When actions are involuntary, regardless of how seriously they might harm others, people are not held legally responsible for what they do, in this sense, the fetus is innocent. Its innocence does not mean that the fetus is a passive, inert mass of material that does nothing to a woman, to the contrary, it is vital, living, active entity with tremendous power. It alone has the power to transform a woman's body from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one. The very fact that the fetus is portrayed as innocent underscores its status as human life, even though it is incompetent human life. fires that destroy vast areas are not called innocent, rather fires are seen as possessing no human attributes at all. When people describe the fetus as innocent, therefore, they are recognizing that it is in a category with other human beings, who though they seriously effect the well-being of others, remain innocent of the criminality. The law views such people as the objective cause of their actions, even though they cannot be held legally responsible for them eg. If one person shoots another, that person is the objective cause of the others death and, according to law, has committed homicide. Whether the person is is held criminally responsible for the homicide, however, depends on the "absence or presence of legal justification or excuse for the shooting." To decide that question, the legal system, asks three logical ordered questions : Did the defendant cause the death of the deceased? If yes, is the defendant criminally responsible for the homicide? If yes, what is the grade or degree of guilt of his guilt? The defendant must be acquitted if the answer to questions one or two are no - Source : Rollin. M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law, 3rd Edition

    Under the person at conception ideology the unborn at any stage 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.

    Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman.
    While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus.
    So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy.

    How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
    A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
    Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

    This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
    In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
    While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

    Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

    A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause
    A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause.
    The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause.

    Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
    Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/
     
  14. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no legal difference between the woman who chooses abortion and the guard, under the person at conception ideology both are exercising their right to use self-defence against non-consented injury ... while you may think there are moral differences, that has no relevance in law.
     
  15. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Am I to understand that you have now accepted the challenge of debating this issue with me one on one, if so please do state what rules you would like to include - as will I - and then we can put a call out for some judges.
     
  16. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is this thread the place where pro-abortion zealots hang out?
     
  17. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    53,107
    Likes Received:
    19,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there a reason you couldn't quote and address the OP?
     
  18. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no this is the place where educated people can debate issues without appeals to emotion . .you don't qualify.
     
  19. Cautiously Conservative

    Cautiously Conservative New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to butt in - but it's not the "moral" differences that create the inherent problem with this position - it's the legal issues. I remember a topic about this months ago, and, in my opinion, this is one of the worst proposals I've heard to date. If the pro-choice lobby could pass a "self defense" provision - it would play right into the pro-life lobby's hands.
     
  20. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no inherent problem with the position, the consent and self-defence argument in favour of abortion under the scenario of the person at conception ideology becoming reality is fully supported by law and the constitution.

    I fully respect your opinion on the matter . .however the evidence more than justifies elective abortion at any time for any reason and the state paying for it using consent and self-defence laws.
     
  21. Cautiously Conservative

    Cautiously Conservative New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it's not supported by law. The "consent" issue, sure, that's supported by law. The "self-defense" idea, as you've applied it to a woman and her fetus is off-the-wall.

    In my opinion, this is the problem you're facing. In order for a woman to claim self-defense against her fetus, we have to assume, under the law, that, as in any self-defense situation, the woman is being intentionally threatened. Now, in order for a fetus to threaten a woman - that fetus must be established as a separate entity. That's the first mistake, because abortion advocates have long claimed that until the fetus is born, it is a part of a woman's body. By pushing the fetus as something that has the ability to threaten - it's a small step from there to granting it personhood.

    You're actually granting the fetus a lot of power. Our self defense laws allow us to terminate the life of another who threatens us only in certain situations. Once you legally acknowledge that a fetus can "threaten," you have to comply with the laws on what is a valid response to that threat? You'll be cutting your own throat there. You don't want to go there. If the woman has a justifiable reason for thinking the fetus will kill or seriously harm her - she can defend herself from that. But - that's already allowed under "health" provisions. But what about a lesser harm? Our State laws do not allow us to terminate a life if there is no threat. You would be tying a woman's hands.

    So, then you can go back and claim that you didn't really mean the fetus was a "life," but that ship sailed as soon as you tried to establish that it could "attack" the woman.

    You'd be playing right into the prolifers' hands. That's what they want. They want to be able to distinguish the fetus as an entity in its own right - they want to grant it "personhood." When you try to set up a self-defense clause, you, too, are granting the fetus a lot of power.

    If a fetus is part of a woman's body however - she can't defend against it - but, she can still decide to do what she chooses with her body.
     
  22. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the event of personhood at conception both consent and self-defence are fully supported by the law.

    I fully understand the implications of what I am saying, the whole premises is based on the unborn at sometime getting full personhood status, and no it is not a requirement for intentional threat .. consent & self-defence applies in situations where there is no intent ie when the person inflicting the injuries is mentally incompetent - which is what a fetus would be legally deemed as - the mental incompetency of a person does not give them free reign to impose and/or injure on another person without consent, all it does is stop them from being held legally responsible. The law recognizes that both involuntary and voluntary acts can cause harm and injury to other people and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. As the Model Penal Code notes, "People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." - Source : Model Penal Code - Page 197

    Correct, and non-consented pregnancy more than meets the requirements for the use of deadly force in self-defence.

    And I 100% disagree with you, the personhood of the unborn actually frees the woman from the constraints already imposed on abortion. The number of things the fertilized ovum instigates more than meet the definition of serious harm, in fact pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injury in law in some cases and is defined as such in at least two states.

    Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Nebraska’s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury.

    Michigan’s statute does the same work, defining “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Case law establishing that pregnancy could be considered a “substantial bodily injury” that aggravates the sexual assault and increases the sentence imposed performs the same work as statutes that explicitly define pregnancy as a substantial bodily injury.


    I have and would not go back on what I have said, the evidence, case law and biological reality are all there for those who wish to find it.

    And again I disagree, while personhood for the unborn certainly does give it protections it also enforces restrictions, and it is those restrictions that strengthen the legality of abortion.

    The fetus is not a part of the woman's body, that is a fact, and she can still decide to defend her body against a third party just as you can defend your body against a third party.

    If you are interested in the full range of the argument complete with relevant evidence and source links you can find it here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html and here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html those two threads are the result of extensive research and a great deal of help from Eileen McDonagh Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University.
     
  23. Cautiously Conservative

    Cautiously Conservative New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can't say "in the event of," and then follow it with "fully supported by the law," because the first event is still hypothetical.



    What a nightmare for women you would create. What if the woman is at first happy about the pregnancy, but when her boyfriend walks, starts feeling differently?

    Your scenario exists outside reality. It will never happen - and let's hope not because it would be the worst thing for women imaginable.


    That's "forced" pregnancy resulting from rape.
    No, there IS NO case law supporting your theory. None. You're imagining that laws pertaining to legally acceptable forms of violence will transfer to pregnancy that results from consensual sex. You just jumped the shark on that one.

    Oh my goodness. That is lame. Truly lame. And, thankfully, pro-choice lobbies will not accept it nor try to legislate it.

    It's a pipe dream that it would do anything other than shackle women. It might actually be the worst idea I've ever heard of from a so-called pro-choice person.
     
  24. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Utter rubbish, unless along with any change to the personhood status of the unborn there are going to be wholesale changes to consent and self-defence laws then enacting personhood for the unborn would open the door for legal arguments for abortion based on consent and self-defence, and those are fully supported by the law.

    BTW. the personhood of the fetus is not purely a hypothetical, Roe already enforces a certain level of "rights" to the unborn by allowing restrictions on elective abortion after viability ergo the state can protect the unborn, this is a clear violation of the equal protection clause . .the state are giving protection to a specific group and not giving the same protection to another set. The state can, in effect, force a woman to allow injuries to continue to her but it does not allow any other person to do the same.

    What if a woman is perfectly happy to start having sexual intercourse and then changes her mind, by your logic she has no right to stop the continuation of the intercourse and if necessary use force, up to and including deadly force.

    you are trying to cement implied consent as something that cannot be withdrawn and that is 100% incorrect. As long as the woman makes no act, by word or action, explicitly saying "no" to the pregnancy then she is implying consent to the injuries she is sustaining, the second she does say no, for what ever reason, that implied consent is moot. Please inform yourself of consent and self-defence laws.

    Your question is irrelevant and a red herring.

    Try telling that to the numerous pro-life Republicans who have continuously entered bills proclaiming the personhood at conception ideology, or the ones who try to claim that the already existing unborn victims of violence act gives the unborn personhood.

    So please do explain the difference between a pregnancy due to rape against a pregnancy not due to rape, is the rapists sperm somehow different, is the sequence of events leading to fertilization different, does the fertilized ovum, somehow, not follow the same path.

    There is plenty of case law supporting it. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, please read up on what legal cause means.

    Easy to say, though I note you have given nothing to support your opinion.

    Your opinion, one as yet you have given nothing in support of, so while you are entitled to your opinion I prefer to stick to the actuality backed by evidence.
     
  25. Cautiously Conservative

    Cautiously Conservative New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
     

Share This Page