-->
@Snoopy
If a fetus is subhuman then why worry if they are killed.
So the Gov. of Alabama, want to force rape victims to give birth.
Posts
Total:
263
-->
@Snoopy
Do you mean this statement?Who saysThat conversation stems from the comment secularmerlin considered "well stated"
The only correlation between guns and abortion is the right of the citizen. No one can be forced to buy guns or have an abortion. Just like on one should be forced to not own guns or have an abortion. Other than that this is a stupid friggin argument. If you are ok killing people with a gun for any reason don't blame a women who wants to terminate a pregnancy before the thing is even a person.
If so please give credit to poly the original author.
-->
@Snoopy
Also the comment in question has nothing to do with infants only fetuses so your comment does not stem from it so much as it is an attempt by you to confirm the consequence
-->
@secularmerlin
Poly never said that was "well stated". You did.
-->
@Snoopy
Yes I said poly's comment was well stated. I still think it was well stated. If you are ok with beings that can communicate their personhood being killed, for any reason, it seems odd to quibble over a being whose personhood is under contention.
-->
@secularmerlin
Poly did not act as if it were well stated either.
If you are ok with beings that can communicate their personhood being killed, for any reason, it seems odd to quibble over a being whose personhood is under contention
Is this a sick joke?
-->
@Snoopy
It is no kind of joke at all. It is in fact a call for logical consistency on your part. Either it is permissible to kill people or it us not. Please explain the difference, in your opinion, between an abortion and a fatal gun shot wound other than the cause of death.
-->
@secularmerlin
Honestly, how many people do you know that think we have a right to kill people for any reason?
-->
@secularmerlin
We have a right to self defense. This was all explained on page 2. Be sure to read the Dred Pirate Roberts comment as well.
-->
@Snoopy
Not for any reason at all. For any reason whatever. If it helps slow me to rephrase
Yes I said poly's comment was well stated. I still think it was well stated. If you are ok with beings that can communicate their personhood being killed, for whatever reason, it seems odd to quibble over a being whose personhood is under contention.
Is my meaning more understandable to you now?
Please explain why the right to self defense trumps the rights of your assailant and also why it is (apparently) more important than the right to bodily autonomy.
We can then examine the issue further.
-->
@secularmerlin
"the assailant" has the same rights we do.
-->
@secularmerlin
"the assailant" has the same rights we do.
-->
@Snoopy
But if they are killed as a result of self defense nothing immoral has happened?"the assailant" has the same rights we do.
if that is the case please explain why.
-->
@secularmerlin
Not necessarily, for example if someone were robbing a bank and someone died, that would be upon them even if they were sincerely defending their life. If someone had intent to kill, that would probably not be right. If someone unreasonably escalated the situation, that could be morally problematic. If someone takes a stand on something which is morally obtuse. In certain situations there may be a duty to retreat, and there is question of proportionality.
So women need to declare their bodies their castle and termination of the pregnancy would fall under Castle Law.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That is the sentiment expressed by the person who wrote the OP it appears, "aborting an intruder".
-->
@secularmerlin
Please explain why the right to self defense trumps the rights of your assailant and also why it is (apparently) more important than the right to bodily autonomy.We can then examine the issue further.
self defense does not equal the right to kill, death can be a result from defending one's self, you have the right to protect yourself from harm that is all, the consequences and results from that action is when the law comes into place and determines if you were justified or not.
abortion always ends in death, the debate is what is being killed and if it should be protected or not.
medical abortion because of the mother's physical risk is basically self defense.
you can't use potentially deadly force just because someone shoves you so there are limits to self defense as to the level of force you can use.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So women need to declare their bodies their castle and termination of the pregnancy would fall under Castle Law.
I can see how that could apply if the mother's life was at risk.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Does it have to be at risk or just invaded.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
States place limitations on where, when, and who can use deadly force, and the extent of force allowed. As with any self-defense theory, the burden of proof for a Castle Doctrine defense is on the defendant.
The second component is that the victim must be attempting to commit or have committed an unlawful entry into the defendant’s home.
(that could potentially apply to rape, but nothing else)
The third component of the Castle Doctrine is proving that the use of deadly force was reasonable.
(so I guess if a reasonable case can be made that the woman is/was in fear of her life that possibly it could work, however with medicine being what it is I don't see how that could be even possible)
(interesting theory though)
This is such a silly issue. If women want abortions, they can take a busride to California. Vacation in the sun while surgically removing a fetus. How is that not empowering to women?
Many travel agencies offer discounts for expecting mothers, so you can rip them off that way too.
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
If you can shoot [or deport] an intruder, I can abort one.
Well stated.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The second component is that the victim must be attempting to commit or have committed an unlawful entry into the defendant’s home.(that could potentially apply to rape, but nothing else)
An agreement to engage in intercourse is not an invitation to host an embryo.
-->
@3RU7AL
An agreement to engage in intercourse is not an invitation to host an embryo.
you know and accept the risk, so yes it is an agreement, just because you regret your choice doesn't mean you didn't enter into it knowingly and willfully.
-->
@Greyparrot
Empowering? Isn't it about starting out of our business?
It's going to be ruled unconstitutional
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
An agreement to engage in intercourse is not an invitation to host an embryo.you know and accept the risk, so yes it is an agreement, just because you regret your choice doesn't mean you didn't enter into it knowingly and willfully.
An invitation to dinner is not an invitation to live at someone else's house for nine months.
-->
@3RU7AL
actions have consequences, you don't get claim ignorance and there are prices to pay, ask someone who drinks, drives and kills someone.
both people can use and have access to birth control, sex is not necessary or compulsory, you can just say no, there's alternatives to intercourse that can not lead to pregnancy.
There is no reasonable excuse to shirk your responsibilities of your actions.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah I bet all kinds of women I Alabama can afford to do that.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So if my door is unlocked you can just walk in my house? Nah.