Well yes there are similar situations, I've already given you some ie. can you defend yourself against another person who is mentally incompetent and injuring you .. the simple answer is yes you can, including the use of deadly force if required. I think you are still missing the point, a female has no need to kill a newborn or baby for any of the above reasons as she has other things she can do that do not include the use of deadly force .. tell me what other recourse does a pregnant woman have in order to stop the injuries occurring to her?
It was over 20 weeks. Was that not what we were discussing? Doctors WILL provide that service, because just like other people in society, doctors are greedy and selfish, and sometimes mentally unstable. Unfettered abortion gives rights to women that no other person has. And an all out ban on abortion gives rights to a fetus that no other person has. What does this tell us? Unequal beings can never be equal, and all human rights are subjective. Yes if society continues to function the way it is (people shaming young single pregnant women, people seeing firm, tight unmarred bodies as the most desirable, and restricting a parents access to education and employment) then people will continue to risk their lives in illegal abortions. I would much rather focus on changing the attitudes of society to permitting the mass killing of non life threatening, non malicious beings.
Maybe in the US. But in Australia and other nations you can not use deadly force with intent to kill unless you had good reason to believe your life was in danger. And a mentally incompetent adult does not equate to a being you created who has no ability of intent or malice and is passively causing "injury". What do you mean she has no reason to kill it? She doesnt want to use her body to care for it and giving the baby to someone else will only cause her further injury and inconvenience. I thought that was the reason women wanted abortion?
Yes, it is. You cannot know that, again Canada is an example, there are no doctors that will provide a late-term elective abortion (late-term being after 20 weeks) in Canada. Not true, all US people have the right to defend themselves against non-consented injuries, this is a right that is covered by the 2nd Amendment. What no person has the right to do is to use another persons body to sustain their own life without consent. This is the right pro-lifers want to give to the unborn and to make matter worse they then want to remove that right upon the advent of their birth. Creating abortion restrictions will not achieve what you desire.
As this is a primarily US based forum it is US law etc we are debating, and as far as US law is concerned a mentally incompetent adult or child does equate, under US law a mentally incompetent person also has no intent or malice, and there is no way a fetus is passive. Passive means "accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance.", if anything the female who consents to remain pregnant is the passive one. If as you assert the fetus were passive the pregnancy would not last very long, the females immune system would treat the developing fetus as a foreign body and actively destroy it, the fetus must cause the local immune system of the female to be suppressed in order to remain alive. That is not passive, and while its actions may be involuntary US law already recognises that involuntary actions can and do cause 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 I did not say no reason, I said no need.
You dont know that it won't happen or that it doesn't. The point is if some dr (maybe one from China) went around giving women late term elective abortions, the law could do absolutely nothing to stop them. If a woman decided to use one of the old fashioned methods to abort her own late term fetus, once again there would be nothing we could do to stop her. And whats ok in the USA is not ok everywhere else. I mean you guys are allowed to keep high powered weapons for "protection". How's that working out for you over there? Plus if you look at the stats, only a very small portion of abortions are performed because a woman doesn't want to sustain the "injuries" of pregnancy. The vast majority ate because a woman doesn't want to be responsible for a baby. And allowing unfettered access to abortion won't achieve this either. In fact it means people are more likely not to aim for this level of equality and equity, because abortion will be available and is a cheaper, easier option.
No, we can not use deadly force with intent to kill unless we have good reason to believe our lives are in danger. During an aggressive rape attempt it is perfectly logical for someone to feel their life is in danger. During a normal healthy pregnancy there is less than 1:10,000 chance of dying, so noone would consider that a high enough risk to their lives to warrant deadly force with intent to kill.
Ok so going off US self defence law we have two main problems. 1. The majority of terminations ARE NOT performed for self defence reasons. The majority are performed because someone (most often the woman but sometimes the man and sometimes the parents) does not want the responsibiliy of a BABY. 2. This will open a legal defence for those who choose to injure you (punch you, stab you etc) in order to save you from much greater and more sustained injuries. If they have reason to believe you were sustsining such serious injuries (all they need to do is look at that long list of pregnancy related injuries the pro choicers love providing), with a good defence team they could legally save you from your fetus, without needing to ask you first. For example when someone pulls a man through a broken window, causing lacerations and fractures, but saving them from being burnt alive. The self defence claim would not benefit the pro choice movement unless they make an acception for abortion, and this is what they are constantly doing; changing regular laws to excuse abortion. If thr isolated woman has no need then a pregnant woman has no need.
In case you didn't know laws are not made on maybes. The point is you would have to show that this actually happens in places where there are no abortion restrictions what so ever. Can you do that, or are you just advocating a slippery slope fallacy ie assuming the worst possible outcome. Just because something may happen does not mean it will happen. There is nothing to stop her now. Check my country, I am not American and neither do I live in America. That is how it stands under current legislation give the unborn the same protections as a born person and I can assure you abortion as self-defence WILL be used in court cases. You above comment assumes that all women would rather get an abortion than face financial problems .. that is simply not the case .. what will go some way to achieving a reduction in abortions is mandatory age appropriate comprehensive sex education and free at source contraception, you know the things that the majority of pro-lifers are against (especially in the USA). Tell me what country allows a born person to use another born persons body in order to sustain their life without their consent, and please cite the country and laws that allow it.
sense there is only one living person, the choice is easy.... - - - Updated - - - so if only 1 in 10,000 rapes end in death, the same would apply, wonder what that % is anyways
Correct simply because as the law stands there is no reason to use a self-defence argument, the unborn are not persons under current legislation, change that and you change the way in which elective abortion can be argued in law .. and make no mistake it is in the court rooms that the abortion debate will be rectified REGARDLESS of the majority opinion. No it would not as self-defence laws ALREADY apply to all born people, and the situations you have described above already have numerous case law precedences in place.
Does anyone know what UN-aggressive rape is....seems poster thinks there's passive rape ...(good GAWD!)
