My point is that this isn't inconsistent with how legal/criminal liability is currently levied.
So really almost never since it is hard to imagine being in a situation where shooting someone is the only effective means of defense against an unarmed pregnant woman slapping you.shooting her is the only effective means to end her assault,
Just so that there are no misconceptions about my argument, here it is:Should one argue that an abortion is an extension of a woman's right to her privacy and person, then by that same reasoning, a parent's obligation to the sustenance of his or her children should be argued capable of being [ABANDONED AT A MEDICAL FACILITY] as well regardless of the children's age.
What moral theory do you subscribe to?
This is legally incoherent.If I'm at a party, and I see some twerp that I don't like, and then I pummel them into the dance floor in order to increase my social standing, and in the scuffle, the twerp shoots me dead...AM I GUILTY OF SUICIDE??
So really almost never since it is hard to imagine being in a situation where shooting someone is the only effective means of defense against an unarmed pregnant woman slapping you.
...then they can make the case that the circumstances which concluded in her being shot is primarily her fault.
That makes every victim responsible for crimes against them (they should have taken precautions).
If I'm at a party, and I see some twerp that I don't like, and then I pummel them into the dance floor in order to increase my social standing, and in the scuffle, the twerp shoots me dead...AM I GUILTY OF SUICIDE??
Right there you declared the intent: to increase social standing. If you saw they had a gun and you wanted to die, then assaulted them, it would be.
Well it is your fault for getting killed. The only question is the intention. Either you were incredibly reckless or you did commit suicide.Are you talking about the Alabama case? If so, a more accurate example would be this: you attack someone, and while they defend themselves, the gun discharges. The bullet hits a completely innocent bystander.
Submit your reasoning.The person firing the gun is 100% guilty of manslaughter.
Did you shoot yourself dead? No.
Are you morally and criminally liable for the circumstances that concluded in your death? Yes.
Now answer me this:If I were the father of a 3 year-old child and my child got into my unlocked drawer which contains my firearm where he'd pick it up, unwittingly discharge it, fatally wounding himself, and upon the advent of this tragedy, the State charges me with negligent homicide, would the charge be alleging that I shot my son?
The person firing the gun is 100% guilty of manslaughter.Submit your reasoning.
But you're claiming that the aggressor is somehow more-responsible than the trigger-man
By that logic, I am guilty of suicide.
So we should let all those kids out of prison who shot people after being bullied. Ammiright?
You're moving the goalposts. A 3-year-old-trigger-man is not LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
If a 20 year-old got into their father's unlocked drawer which contains their firearm and then fatally wounded themself, would that still be considered negligent homicide?
If you kill someone by running them over with your car INTENTIONALLY it's called MURDER.If you kill someone by running them over with your car UNINTENTIONALLY it's called MANSLAUGHTER.If you shoot someone to death with a gun INTENTIONALLY it's called MURDER.If you shoot someone to death with a gun UNINTENTIONALLY it's called MANSLAUGHTER.
As you are denying a child its birth through abortion
So we should let all those kids out of prison who shot people after being bullied. Ammiright?If they were defending themselves against aggression, then sure, why not?
So we should now fault people for attempting to defend themselves? They didn't ask to get attacked. Had the aggressor not been so foolish, nothing bad would have happened in the first place. They caused a chain of events that led to a death because they wished to assault another. Maybe both are responsible. Maybe just the attacker, but certainly not just the victim of the assault.
Generally speaking, lethal force is permissible when you or other innocent life face an imminent, credible risk of death or grievous bodily harm. [LINK]Credible risk of death.
Why does that matter?Those "Stand Your Ground" laws are brand new.
And I presume you'd argue that its mother bears the obligation to ensure a live birth or at least carry it to term? What would you argue informs this obligation?A live birth certainly.
