Abortion is self-defence under person at conception ideology.

Lol, so by your logic then a born child is not a legal person

Then you should have no problem showing and proving these false parallels, please do so.

Please do provide proof that I am making false assertions of the law, so far all I have seen is your ill informed opinions with not a shred of anything to substantiate them.

If you are not even going to read what is proposed then your opinion is one born from ignorance.

Everything I have said is fully viable .. you just saying it isn't means nothing, and again you are wrong it would, in fact, give women far more freedom concerning pregnancy than current legislation does now.

That is your prerogative.

 

Why would you even say that? That has nothing to do with our discussion? We're talking about rights and legal personhood for fetuses.

I already pointed out to you that using cases and state laws that deal with violence against individuals has NEVER been used against a fetus. Attempting to draw parallels between the two is completely false.

See above...

I read it and it is so fraught with mistakes that it's incomprehensible for the reasons I just cited.

This is the problem - and I don't want to come across as insulting to you - but it's simply not going to happen. Right now, it's just your opinion against my opinion, but just because some professor got a cockamamie idea and others latched onto it - doesn't make it feasible. I've already pointed out the fatal flaws to you and you just continue to draw false parallels.

You may not believe me - but you're barking up the wrong tree with this one.

 

so you are suggesting that the rights and personhood of a fetus are completely separate from any other born person, separate to such an extent that nothing can be used between the two?

Then you are missing the point. IF the unborn are ever legally declared persons then you certainly CAN use cases and state laws that deal with violence against individuals, the fetus would be an individual that is causing injure to another individual, which it could not do without consent. No where have I said anything about this being used NOW, as it stands it is not a required defence of abortion, the whole premise is based on the hypothetical event of the personhood of the unborn being established as a legal fact.

I am not sure you really know what you are talking about as it seems to me you are suggesting that cases and laws cannot be used cross-cases when they have relevance to the case in question. If I am wrong in that estimation then please explain what you mean.

See above ...

and IMO you are 100% wrong

You are making claims ie "it's simply not going to happen." that you cannot support.

right now it is my opinion backed up with a whole lot of evidence against your opinion backed up with nothing and considering that professor has been researching these types of issues for many years and her premises have been reviewed by both legal people and other professors, all of who have found no "false" or "fatal flaws" in the reasoning, I respectfully suggest her "opinion" ranks a lot higher than yours.

I'm sorry, but no I don't believe you, after a very long time being involved in the abortion debate and having spent numerous hours researching both sides of that debate, I find her arguments very compelling and fully backed up by current laws and previous cases.

I will further add I have yet to see a logically rebuttal to it. I have seen many emotional attempts to dispute it, such as stating that the public will never accept the portrayal of the fetus as an "aggressor", these emotional arguments have no credence or relevance in a court of law which is where any attempts at abortion restriction will be made.

 

You've got two questions there. Yep, to the first part. Not necessarily to the second.

Finally, you admit it's hypothetical, which renders your cases moot, because the fetus does not - to date - have legal personhood.

Correction - it is your opinion, based on the opinion of a woman who came up with a cockamamie idea that is untested in law.It's extremely short-shighted because it could be used against the mother as easily, or perhaps more so than the fetus. Even if you give the fetus personhood and you create a maternal self defense law, legal precedent only allows the killing of another person when your life is in danger. The law would not allow killing the fetus if the mother was simply inconvenienced. Now, if you have case law that shows its legal to kill another if they slap your - or twist your arm - please present it. Most states require a clear indication that your own life is in danger before you can take the life of another. Legally, you will have tied a woman's hands if her pregnancy does not rise to the harm level of threatening her life. Where is the clear and present danger?

Even if you could twist that convoluted mess to your advantage - what about the doctor? Are you going to make the woman perform her own abortion? The doctor will have no legal jurisdiction to perform an abortion unless the fetus is attacking him. Legally, you're giving the fetus as much right to live as the mother. You have created a scenario whereby the fetus is attacking the mother - and the mother is attacking the fetus. Since you're considering both entities to have the same rights - can you see how easy it will be to go from there - to legally prohibiting the mother's right?

None of our self defenese laws on the books allow taking a life unless that life is putting you at risk of death.

Yours is not a logical hypothetical so how can you expect a rebuttal that assumes it is? The emotional angle isn't so much emotional as it is just logical. You have to remember our laws, our entire form of governing, is based on democratic representation. What you're doing - everyone else has the right to do. You're putting forth a theory that you feel is valid. The general public will put forth another - one that has actual legal and traditional backing. You won't beat that. Because we are a representative democracy - their opinions will be just as valid as yours and they are not part of a small fringe theory - as you are. Their emotionalism will trump your emotionalism. Because that's all you've really got - you're trying to validate your emotions and you're using someone else's flawed hypothetical to do it.

You have yet to present even one legal case whereby a woman used self defense against an aggressing fetus, as a legal reason to abort. The only cases or laws you've presented deal with individuals that have autonomous personhood rights. You fail to recognize that a fetus cannot have autonomous personhood rights, and that - if by a large stretch of imagination it ever did - you'd be hindering - not helping the female who needs to abort.

The law as it now stands offers much more protection of a woman's right to choose. Your hypothetical is nonsensical.

 

Every single thing you have presented has been answered here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html and here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html

Ig you are not prepared to read through it then I am more than happy to refute your every claim here .. however it will have to be later as I am working at the moment.

 

Actually Jewish tradition has taught that if a woman's life is in danger from carrying the pregnancy the pregnancy MUST be terminated. The developing child is considered a pursuer, a rodef. The woman doesn't have a choice. So............

 

Wrong topic. This was not about the situation in which an abnormal pregnancy threatens the mothers life, the person that started this thread claims that all abortion is self-defense, that the baby is "attacking" the mother and the mother has the right to kill the baby simply because she is pregnant. That's an absurd claim.

 

How well educated are you? Why don't you think I'm qualified?

- - - Updated - - -

Rhetorical question?

 

Is it possible for someone who is well intentioned to nevertheless be a racist?

 

My education is none of your business and your answers show you are not qualified.

 

In your opinion, an opinion for which you have not provided a single piece of evidence to back up.. if you have something relevant to support your opinion then please do provide it, continuously saying it's "absurd" is not a rational or logical response.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it is

 

Please don't be mean. Focus on my question.

How was Margaret Sanger able to rise above the racism of the era in which she lived?

- - - Updated - - -

Was Margaret Sanger a well intentioned racist?

 

I am not being mean.

Look, I suggest you read her works because nothing I can say will convince you one way or another .. and by reading her works I don't mean the cherry picked, misrepresented, out of context sound bites from various biased sources .. Her public papers are all there, read them and then see if you still consider her to be a racist.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=the+public+papers+of+margaret+sanger

From everything I have read and researched I would have to say no, I can find nothing in her works that points to discrimination based of race.

 

We know that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who lived in an era in which eugenics was not discredited in the popular mind. We also know that eugenicists believed in improving humanity by promoting the reproduction of what were believed to be superior types of human beings and restricting the reproduction of what were believed to be degenerate types of human beings.

Eugenics was in part a vehicle for the expression of racism. In the era in which Margaret Sanger lived African Americans were commonly believed by white people to be degenerate and inferior to white Americans.

"Some African Americans believed that Sanger's motive was not to aid black women but to eliminate future black generations. In promoting the development of the birth control pill in the 1950s, Sanger had heralded it as the panacea to world overpopulation, starvation and hunger. Sanger wrote: 'I consider that the world, and almost our civilization for the next 25 years, is going to depend on a simple, cheap, safe, contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles and among the most ignorant people.' Although African American women appreciated the effectiveness and reliability of oral contraceptives, and used the method in large numbers, they resented the way white-dominated organizations seemed to push the Pill in black communities."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_eugenics.html

 

Agreed

That is assumption without fact. Sanger displayed no overt racial discrimination towards black people, she advocated restricting the breeding of any race that were believed to be degenerate types of human beings and yes this did include black people as well as white people, what you are doing is cherry picking to suit. There is nothing to suggest that Sanger specifically targeted a distinct group of people based on race, she certainly targeted people people based on "feeble mindedness".

There is nothing in that statement above that shows any form of racial discrimination, which is what you are trying to claim.

 

Margaret Sanger believed that eugenics could be used to reduce poverty by restricting reproduction among the poor. The overwhelming majority of blacks in her era lived in poverty. Did Margaret Sanger seek to restrain reproduction among blacks living in poverty by initiating the Negro Project?

Isn't it true that most white Americans of Margaret Sanger's era believed black people were feeble minded, and thus inferior to white people? How was Margaret Sanger any different than most whites of her era?

 

Oh, lordie. Lawyers. You've got to hand it to them. Under their argument, a piece of wood flying through the window is a "non-conscious" incompetent actor. It never ceases to amaze me how they can mix words up, give them new definitions and have them accepted as "law". But we know how logically fallacious this is.

These arguments of course, have only been made for abortion's proponents, for abortion's sake. Not an argument on fact or merit.

First of all, how is it not "sufficient"? It's the ONLY means by which she can be impregnated.(Note, we're not talking about artificial births here. A woman can only be impregnated through intercourse. The other alternative is to have live semen injected into her body. But this isn't practical, sperm don't have long lives

But for all practical purposes, most if not all pregnancies occur through intercourse. Without intercourse, there is no insertion. If there's no insertion, there's no child. PERIOD.

We also know through the various chronosomes, etc that only fellow receptors react to once another. So only intercourse with a human male can cause pregnancy with a woman. Their argument is not only not factual, but scientifically absurd. There's only two factors, males and females and the sexual organs governing their bodies. To insulate their organs are separate from their bodies, or separate from their consensual action is absurd.

My main argument with regards to the ovum being a "non-conscious actor", is that it's not possible to be a "non-conscious" actor.

Essentially, an actor is someone who is willfully taking action.

Let's use a stupidly simple example: Sleeping. When you're snoring, you are not acting not even "non-consciously". Your body is acting on its own accord. When your twisting and turning, that's also not a conscious action(mostly, you may be partially conscious as you do this in the early stages for comfort ). An action can occur without conscious will. After all, what is rape but the violation of a woman's conscious?(or a man's?)

In the case of the ovum, specifically it is a Sex cell which means it's genetic, which means it's programmed. The ovum can only act in certain ways, so therefore not only is it not conscious of it, it's not even "willfully" acting. Will doesn't even exist in this concept of the human stage yet.

That doesn't necessarily mean we can deny the relative human properties of a fetus, because it doesn't exhibit will. After all, we can argue that a child doesn't exhibit conscious awareness until the age of 7(and by awareness, I mean recognition of the world around him/her and that this is my mother, and this is my father.) The waling around, "goo goo gaa gaa" doesn't count.

Abortion isn't self-defense to an injury, because an ovum is not a person, nor does it exhibit free will. Since it lacks free will, it cannot even be remotely considered to be conscious, or even an actor. A drone programmed to fire, will do just that: Fire. The sperm egg is programmed to find the ovum, and the ovum is programmed to accept the sperm egg. This is biological fact.

The concept of consent, can only be given(or taken away) by conscious living beings. The concept of aggression, does not and cannot exist for a non-living being that's only operating in accordance to its genetic programming. The zygote is not a parasite, because it does not exist outside of its relationship between human beings, nor does it actively seek out a female for implantation(IE: Outside of intercourse). Sperm doesn't fly out of a man's testicles on its own.

All of these concepts, are inherently falsehoods on the assumption that you can put responsibility on a non-conscious creature. Will only exists consciously, if there is no conscious, there is no will. Abortion isn't self-defense. Abortion is a woman's choice not to get pregnant by forcibly removing the zygote/fetus, etc from the womb. That's all abortion is and can be defnied as.

 

Where do you think the final outcome of abortion is going to be decided, on the streets or in the courtroom?

and no a piece of wood would not be a "non-conscious" actor.

Rubbish.

Artificial insemination is a pretty standard procedure and by freezing sperm it can be kept for years, so no sexual intercourse is not the 'ONLY' means that a woman can be impregnated, and it is not sufficient as it is only one act in a sequence of acts that leads to pregnancy .. I suggest you look up "but for" test.

The very fact that pregnancies do occur without intercourse renders your assertion moot.

not something I have argued, so really don't see the point.

Again you need to re-read about voluntary and involuntary acts, both a recognised as capable of causing injuries to others, and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. "People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." - Source : Model Penal Code - Page 197

and as already shown conscious will is not a requirement, involuntary actions can and do cause harm to others, and you are contradicting yourself, how can you say that snoring is not acting even non-consciously and then immediately after say "Your body is acting on its own accord.", snoring is a non-conscious act, just as twisting and turning are.

and again the requirement for wilful action or consciousness is not required.

That is exactly what you are doing, denying the relative human properties of a fetus, you are basically saying that the fetus etc is nothing more than a biological process ergo there should be no issue with the woman stopping that biological process.

Abortion isn't self-defence to an injury as the law stands now, it has no need to be .. however, should, for what ever reason, the courts decide that the unborn ARE persons then abortion as self-defence becomes a valid and compelling defence for elective abortion .. IF or when, the unborn are deemed persons it changes their status in society, they become equal to all born people .. but .. are also held to the restrictions of that status, anything else is not equality.

correct, the woman is a conscious living being and as such she can give or refuse consent to the fetus to use her body.

I can assure you that the fertilized ovum, fetus etc is very much alive and as such it's involuntary actions fall under the same remit as anyone else's.

There are same species parasites .. however I have never said that the unborn are parasites, I have said that the unborn display parasitic-like tendencies, very different.

The rest of your comment has no relevance.

unfortunately for you nothing you have posted negates a single thing I have stated .. you have the false estimation that only people who have will and consciousness can injure others, and as already shown those factors are not relevant when dealing with persons, and should the unborn ever be deemed as person they would not be relevant to them either.

If ever the person at conception ideology became reality abortion as self-defence is a valid and compelling argument for which you have offered no rebuttal.

 

Project much?

 

No.......

 

Does a bystander have the right to step in and act in self defense on behalf of a defenseless vulnerable victim?
In other words, does the victim's right to self defense extend to outsiders who may wish to help when the victim is unable to defend themselves?

 

Yes that is established law

Yes, though I know where you are attempting to go with this, you are attempting to portray the unborn as the victim, when they are not, in exactly the same way a person injuring another person who then uses self-defence against them is not a victim.

The question that needs to be answered is, who is the 'person' instigating the first injuries, the unborn who increases hormone levels by up to 400%, increases blood pressure by up to 15%, suppresses the local immune system, re-routes the circulatory system and grows a new organ or the woman who has an abortion?
The logical answer is the fetus .. if one was to take your logic as fact then the person who injuries you and who you then defend against is the victim