It's obvious Abortion is wrong

When you say "an innocent life" you leave yourself open by overstating your position. The Constitution allows for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so it allows hunters to go out and kill innocent animals (life) just for the fun of it. The Constitution does not allow one person to kill another person without justification, so you need to prove that the unborn are persons inside the womb, and that evicting an unwanted trespasser is not enough justification.

If you think your life is in danger, you are justified in shooting the intruder (even if you later discover it was a mentally impaired individual who broke in with a bag of toys to hide under your tree because he was under the delusion that he was Santa Claus).

What if the intruder makes it clear he is not going to kill you? What if he explains he is only going to cut off a couple of your toes? Are you justified in shooting him then (or is he safe because he was only going to injure you instead of killing you)?

I would say nobody else should have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do to defend yourself. That is what you and the pro-lifers want to do to a pregnant woman... especially when our self-defense scenarios are dealing with an actual person and pregnancy is dealing with a potential person as the intruder.

 

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, they don't need self defense N O W because the fetus is NOT NOW considered a person....Good GAWD!


IF the fetus is ever deemed a person the woman could use self defense because no person can harm another without their consent.

 

Good post but I bet the poster connects it to gun control and treating Mexicans badly......

 

Correct, and the cumulative injuries more than justify the use of force .. you seem to not know that pregnancy is already legally deemed as a serious injury in some cases.

Recognition of the fertilized ovum as an incompetent actor who makes a woman pregnant opens the door to what the fetus does when it imposes even a medically normal pregnancy on a woman, to the degree that the fetus shares the attributes of a person, its imposition of normal pregnancy against a woman's will is an invasion of her right to be let alone from other private entities. The fetus acquires no entitlement to intrude on a woman simply because it lacks the mens rea to make it criminally responsible for what it does. While born people may wish to exercise the option to continue their presence in the form of offspring genetically and socially connected to them, the very fact they are born signifies that their own immediate lives do not require the condition of pregnancy to sustain them. By contrast, the fetus does not merely intrude upon a woman's body as an incompetent actor but as one who directly and specifically benefits from taking her body.

Consent means legally to "express consent," or that which is "directly given, either viva voce or in writing" - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - such consent "is positive, direct, unequivocal ... requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - Consent is an "act of reason," which must be a "voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - More simply consent is the willingness that "an act or invasion of interest shall take place" based on "a choice between resistance and assent." - Source : Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed Page 305 - In the context of pregnancy, consent means a woman's explicit willingness, based on her choice between resistance and assent, for the fertilized ovum to implant itself and cause her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition.

Since consent legally is an agreement for a person's interests to be invaded by another, a person must have the choice of whether to consent or not. If people do not have a choice, the invasion of their interests is coercive, which is the antithesis of consent. Although there can be a choice without consent, as when people make decisions that refer only to themselves, there can be no consent without choice because consent refers to a relationship between two people one of whom invades the interest of the other. Without choice, that invasion is necessarily coercive, not consensual.

The abortion debate needs to take into account the fact that a woman's submission is not necessarily a sign of consent, when submission is the very opposite of what is meant by consent.

From you comment I see you are one of the many who are under the illusion that in order for a person to use deadly force their life must be in imminent danger, that is not the case .. deadly force in self-defence can also be used in the case of serious injury and/or loss of liberty and as already mentioned pregnancy is already legally deemed a serious injury in some cases. ie it is seen as the same as a broken limb and/or a gun shot wound.

The current Federal law regarding self-defence is as follows - When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction or great bodily harm or death. The pregnant female has no other recourse to stop the injuries occurring to her, she cannot retreat, she cannot use non-deadly force, and she cannot request the fetus to stop injuring her ergo her only course of action to stop the non-consented injuries occurring is to remove the actor causing those injuries. BTW under the equal protection clause the state has a duty of care to help her stop the non-consented injuries from occurring.

Only in your imagination.

You seem a little confused, can you explain how abortion can be "pro-forced pregnancy and birth."
The sole objective of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy ie to end a pregnancy.

 

It is not murder if you are defending yourself against non-consented injuries. Pregnancy is a very valid 'excuse' when that pregnancy has not been consented to .. it is the pro-lifers own insistence that the unborn are persons from conception that allows self-defence laws to be used .. a person MUST abide by the restrictions of that status, you as a person cannot impose yourself onto another person without consent, yet you want to evade that fact and allow the unborn a right no other person has.

You haven't displayed a single thing that shows you have even a rudimentary understanding of your own laws and constitution, you didn't even know that deadly force in self-defence does not require an imminent life threat. Nor do you even know what the restrictions there are on being a legally recognised person, nor do you understand how the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment relates to the abortion debate .. so sad to see.

Which is irrelevant, please do yourself a favour and look up mens rea and how it applies in legal terms, also while you are at it look up 'objective fault' .. you never know you might actually learn something.

 

No they don't at the moment because there is no need to use self-defence as a justification for abortion .. however, if you and your ilk get the law changed so that the unborn are considered persons from conception then self-defence becomes a very real and present justification for abortion .. on top of that, pro-lifers "golden arrow" of personhood for the unborn actually makes abortion available at anytime (right up to birth), for any reason or no reason at all AND the state having to pay for it

Be careful what you wish for, it might just bite you on the arse.

 

They have tried to tie guns and abortion
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/472760-civil-world-3.html

 

Stand your ground has been upheld by the Law of the Land therefore it is Constitutional.

Looks like you really need to work on that amendment of yours because now you are going to have to go up against both the NRA and women and get them to accept your theist beliefs.

 

Yet again you show your ignorance of law and the Constitution, whether a person is innocent or not is a legal matter, it is based on a number of considerations, one of those is mens rea (As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.) this determines whether the person is mentally able to understand and comprehend their result of their actions, and for the unborn they would be deemed as mentally incompetent, a person deemed as mentally incompetent cannot be convicted of a crime ie they are innocent .. however, the fact that they cannot be convicted in no way means they are free to injure others, nor does it mean that a person cannot defend themselves, up to and including deadly force, against non-consented injuries from a mentally incompetent person, furthermore the state has a duty of care under the equal protection clause to protect ALL people from such imposition ie. the state has a duty to aid a pregnant woman in stopping the non-consented injuries occurring.

Another aspect of what the law uses to determine guilt or innocence is intent, the unborn cannot be said to have intent to injure .. however, 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. The law views such people as the objective cause of their actions, even though they cannot be held legally responsible for them. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behavior is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 - In the same way the fetus's behavior is objectively at fault for causing pregnancy, even though it has no knowledge, consciousness, or intention of doing so.

What the courts would have to address in the (unlikely) event that the unborn are deemed as persons from conception is not the legitimacy of the state's interest in potential life but rather the state's justification for granting to pre-born potential life a greater right of access to another person's body than it grants born life.

 

I suppose if a living human existed through every stage of pregnancy, your argument might not be fallacy.

There is no consensus among subject matter experts - Scientists, Philosophers, Bioethisists - that the single cell at conception is a human/Homo sapiens. The reality is that the majority do not defacto claim that the zygote is a human because it simply can not be shown that this is the case.

When you start with fallacious premise (as you have not shown that the zygote is indeed a human) anything that follows is also bunk.

You can have what ever personal belief you wish. Forcing that belief on others (by making a law) is a whole different kettle of fish.

The best place pro life can get to is "experts disagree" (even when in fact most of them don't)... but let's give you the benefit of the doubt.

Experts disagree = "we don't know".

What we have then is a case of conflicting rights. On the one side of the scales of Justice we have the rights of the woman. In this society the rights of a woman to her own body have a high value - a heavy weight on the one side.

On the other side we have the value of the entity at conception. The single human cell known as the zygote.

How do we put a value on this entity. How do we put a value on "we don't know" never mind claim that this value outweighs the rights of the woman ?

Further .. do you think it is valid to make a law which forces a woman against her will to pass a large object through a relatively small orifice on the basis of "we don't know" ?

 

Post limit thread closure

Shangrila
Moderator