Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Crockerland]

OK, I'll have to split this up:



Even if I were to actually argue that the fetus actively harms its creator, it hardly users dealy force, so a lethal response seems disproportionate.

'Disproportionate' does not come into play at all in self defense. One stops the harm being done. If that results in the death of the harmful entity, oh well.

You are incorrect, especially since the fetus is not intentionally attacking it's mother. If someone trips in the street and falls into you, and you shoot them to death, it's obvious that you are the aggressor.

[Vorond]

You don't get to judge the woman's reasons. The only one that really matters in any event is 'I don't want to be pregnant'.

Cool story, bro. Say, what precisely qualifies the reason as unquestionable?

Just because it is 'natural' does not make it acceptable if the woman does not consent to it. Sex is natural too, but if THAT happens without the woman's consent damn near everybody agrees it is a terrible thing.

My point exactly: she consented to the risk of pregnancy by having unprotected sex.

Pregnancy as punishment. AGAIN.

No, pregnancy as a consequence of choice.

Stop. That. Stupid. Shit.

Wow, what an argument. Urm...nope.

[Vorond]

'Disproportionate' does not come into play at all in self defense. One stops the harm being done. If that results in the death of the harmful entity, oh well.

You are incorrect, especially since the fetus is not intentionally attacking it's mother. If someone trips in the street and falls into you, and you shoot them to death, it's obvious that you are the aggressor.

Thanks for getting my point.

[Crockerland]

You don't get to judge the woman's reasons. The only one that really matters in any event is 'I don't want to be pregnant'.

"I don't want to have a child" is not a valid excuse to commit infanticide. Similarly, "I don't want to be pregnant" is not an excuse to have an abortion.

You are incorrect, especially since the fetus is not intentionally attacking it's mother. If someone trips in the street and falls into you, and you shoot them to death, it's obvious that you are the aggressor.

Thanks for getting my point.

It's common sense. Comparing unnecessary Abortion to self-defense is a clear false equivalence.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

'Disproportionate' does not come into play at all in self defense. One stops the harm being done. If that results in the death of the harmful entity, oh well.

You are incorrect, especially since the fetus is not intentionally attacking it's mother. If someone trips in the street and falls into you, and you shoot them to death, it's obvious that you are the aggressor.

Self defense is proportionate to the amount of force necessary to make the assault/attack on your body cease. Tripping someone is an instantaneous action, ie once its done its done. Self defense can only be utilized in cases where the offense is absolutely incoming or is ongoing.

For example, if someone grabs my arm, and i can simply shake them off, thats self defense.
If someone grabs my neck and i have to push them off, or kick or hit them, that is allowable self defense.
If someone is attacking me in some way that cannot be stopped by pushing, hitting, or kicking, OR if i feel that my life may be endangered if i do not make them stop immediately, lethal force is a protected self defense tactic.

If a woman finds herself unwillingly pregnant, the ONLY method of self defense is lethal force. That literally makes it acceptable self defense.

[Razgriskm]

The difference between bodily liberty in form of say, purging your stomach because it is plagued with food poisoning or whatever the case, and abortion is that one case is entirely medical and only endangers the patient. The other is directly poisoning the natural response to having drunk sex with your Ex a month ago without protection. Next time, just wear something over it instead of killing your kids. It's a lot easier, trust me.

[Godular]

You don't get to judge the woman's reasons. The only one that really matters in any event is 'I don't want to be pregnant'.

Cool story, bro. Say, what precisely qualifies the reason as unquestionable?

The right to privacy. Big thing, you should read about it sometime.

Just because it is 'natural' does not make it acceptable if the woman does not consent to it. Sex is natural too, but if THAT happens without the woman's consent damn near everybody agrees it is a terrible thing.

My point exactly: she consented to the risk of pregnancy by having unprotected sex.

You ------------------------------------- the point

And she can deal with it by getting an abortion. Not a difficult concept. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent can be revoked.

Pregnancy as punishment. AGAIN.

No, pregnancy as a consequence of choice.

Which means you are punishing a woman by wanting to force her to remain pregnant because of her actions. Thus, pregnancy as punishment, which has already been completely destroyed as an argument.

Stop. That. Stupid. Shit.

Wow, what an argument. Urm...nope.

Aw, lookit you. You think that your argument holds water and hasn't already been obliterated in the OP. How adorable.

Wrong, but adorable.

[Vorond]

Aw, lookit you. You think that your argument holds water and hasn't already been obliterated in the OP. How adorable.

Wrong, but adorable.

Where the fuck does it even mention my argument in OP?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The difference between bodily liberty in form of say, purging your stomach because it is plagued with food poisoning or whatever the case, and abortion is that one case is entirely medical and only endangers the patient. The other is directly poisoning the natural response to having drunk sex with your Ex a month ago without protection. Next time, just wear something over it instead of killing your kids. It's a lot easier, trust me.

Contraceptives fail, rape happens, some wanted pregnancies have to be aborted for medical reasons.

In general though, why a woman It's getting an abortion or whether or not she used contraception isnt any of your business.

[Godular]

You don't get to judge the woman's reasons. The only one that really matters in any event is 'I don't want to be pregnant'.

"I don't want to have a child" is not a valid excuse to commit infanticide. Similarly, "I don't want to be pregnant" is not an excuse to have an abortion.

Yes it is. You see, abortion involves the woman controlling her own body. Infanticide most assuredly does not.

You are incorrect, especially since the fetus is not intentionally attacking it's mother. If someone trips in the street and falls into you, and you shoot them to death, it's obvious that you are the aggressor.

Thanks for getting my point.

It's common sense. Comparing unnecessary Abortion to self-defense is a clear false equivalence.[/quote]

Incorrect. The instant the woman does not desire the pregnancy, the fetus is doing harm to her. Intent is irrelevant. Thus self-defense rules apply.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If I sign up for combat duty I accept getting shot at, ikf I have unprotected sex I accept getting shot at.

That's not how it works, btw. Infantry are crazy, women are not.

Don't correct me, SAT.

I wouldn't dream of it lmao

Also, infantry.

Infant.

The enemy/government is killing our babies!

TBH though, mothers would probably cry that if their sons were KIA.

My point exactly: she consented to the risk of pregnancy by having unprotected sex.

She consented to the risk, not to pregnancy.

If a soldier gets shot, he's not going to say,"Oh deary me. Oh well, I'll let this enemy continue shooting me because he will potentially become a world leader or leading scientist." He's either going to go down in pain and shoot back, ignore the pain and shoot back, lie incapacitated, or die.

[Godular]

Aw, lookit you. You think that your argument holds water and hasn't already been obliterated in the OP. How adorable.

Wrong, but adorable.

Where the fuck does it even mention my argument in OP?

Read the entire op and you might find out. But then your reading comprehension demonstrated thus far has been pretty terrible. That just means you should read it a few times so you don't miss anything.

[Crockerland]

You are incorrect, especially since the fetus is not intentionally attacking it's mother. If someone trips in the street and falls into you, and you shoot them to death, it's obvious that you are the aggressor.

Self defense is proportionate to the amount of force necessary to make the assault/attack on your body cease. Tripping someone is an instantaneous action, ie once its done its done. Self defense can only be utilized in cases where the offense is absolutely incoming or is ongoing.

For example, if someone grabs my arm, and i can simply shake them off, thats self defense.
If someone grabs my neck and i have to push them off, or kick or hit them, that is allowable self defense.
If someone is attacking me in some way that cannot be stopped by pushing, hitting, or kicking, OR if i feel that my life may be endangered if i do not make them stop immediately, lethal force is a protected self defense tactic.

If a woman finds herself unwillingly pregnant, the ONLY method of self defense is lethal force. That literally makes it acceptable self defense.

Right, except for the fact that infants, fetuses, and children, are not the same as grown adults. If a grown man grabs your neck, you're free to push him off or punch him, or even shoot him. If a toddler grabbed your neck and you fucking punched it in the face like a maniac, you'd go to prison for child abuse.
Self-defense is relative to the age and physical ability of a person. Defending yourself from a bodybuilder ≠ defending yourself from a newborn ≠ defending yourself from a quadriplegic.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Self defense is proportionate to the amount of force necessary to make the assault/attack on your body cease. Tripping someone is an instantaneous action, ie once its done its done. Self defense can only be utilized in cases where the offense is absolutely incoming or is ongoing.

For example, if someone grabs my arm, and i can simply shake them off, thats self defense.
If someone grabs my neck and i have to push them off, or kick or hit them, that is allowable self defense.
If someone is attacking me in some way that cannot be stopped by pushing, hitting, or kicking, OR if i feel that my life may be endangered if i do not make them stop immediately, lethal force is a protected self defense tactic.

If a woman finds herself unwillingly pregnant, the ONLY method of self defense is lethal force. That literally makes it acceptable self defense.

Right, except for the fact that infants, fetuses, and children,

Only one of these is relevant.

are not the same as grown adults. If a grown man grabs your neck, you're free to push him off or punch him, or even shoot him. If a toddler grabbed your neck and you fucking punched it in the face like a maniac, you'd go to prison for child abuse.

What if i latched itself to you like an angler fish and sucked out your blood?

Self-defense is relative to the age and physical ability of a person. Defending yourself from a bodybuilder ≠ defending yourself from a newborn ≠ defending yourself from a quadriplegic.

None of these are fetuses.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Self defense is proportionate to the amount of force necessary to make the assault/attack on your body cease. Tripping someone is an instantaneous action, ie once its done its done. Self defense can only be utilized in cases where the offense is absolutely incoming or is ongoing.

For example, if someone grabs my arm, and i can simply shake them off, thats self defense.
If someone grabs my neck and i have to push them off, or kick or hit them, that is allowable self defense.
If someone is attacking me in some way that cannot be stopped by pushing, hitting, or kicking, OR if i feel that my life may be endangered if i do not make them stop immediately, lethal force is a protected self defense tactic.

If a woman finds herself unwillingly pregnant, the ONLY method of self defense is lethal force. That literally makes it acceptable self defense.

Right, except for the fact that infants, fetuses, and children, are not the same as grown adults. If a grown man grabs your neck, you're free to push him off or punch him, or even shoot him. If a toddler grabbed your neck and you fucking punched it in the face like a maniac, you'd go to prison for child abuse.
Self-defense is relative to the age and physical ability of a person. Defending yourself from a bodybuilder ≠ defending yourself from a newborn ≠ defending yourself from a quadriplegic.

If a toddler grabbed my neck I can pluck them off with ease. self defense is proportionate to the specific assault. The only way to defend her body in case of an accidental pregnancy is lethal force. That makes it a moral, justifiable, defensible choice. Just because it's a fetus doesn't give it special rights to literally strip a woman of her right to her own body.

[Godular]

Self defense is proportionate to the amount of force necessary to make the assault/attack on your body cease. Tripping someone is an instantaneous action, ie once its done its done. Self defense can only be utilized in cases where the offense is absolutely incoming or is ongoing.

For example, if someone grabs my arm, and i can simply shake them off, thats self defense.
If someone grabs my neck and i have to push them off, or kick or hit them, that is allowable self defense.
If someone is attacking me in some way that cannot be stopped by pushing, hitting, or kicking, OR if i feel that my life may be endangered if i do not make them stop immediately, lethal force is a protected self defense tactic.

If a woman finds herself unwillingly pregnant, the ONLY method of self defense is lethal force. That literally makes it acceptable self defense.

Right, except for the fact that infants, fetuses, and children, are not the same as grown adults. If a grown man grabs your neck, you're free to push him off or punch him, or even shoot him. If a toddler grabbed your neck and you fucking punched it in the face like a maniac, you'd go to prison for child abuse.
Self-defense is relative to the age and physical ability of a person. Defending yourself from a bodybuilder ≠ defending yourself from a newborn ≠ defending yourself from a quadriplegic.

Incorrect. A person has the right to defend themselves from any attacker with force necessary to stop the attack. If the source of the attack dies, oh well.

An abortion stops the attack. That it invariably kills the fetus is unfortunate but unavoidable.

[Godular]

The difference between bodily liberty in form of say, purging your stomach because it is plagued with food poisoning or whatever the case, and abortion is that one case is entirely medical and only endangers the patient. The other is directly poisoning the natural response to having drunk sex with your Ex a month ago without protection. Next time, just wear something over it instead of killing your kids. It's a lot easier, trust me.

Or get an abortion. There are any number of reasons a woman might not use contraception, none of which are your business.

[Ifreann]

You don't get to judge the woman's reasons. The only one that really matters in any event is 'I don't want to be pregnant'.

"I don't want to have a child" is not a valid excuse to commit infanticide. Similarly, "I don't want to be pregnant" is not an excuse to have an abortion.

Have you ever asked a woman why she was staying pregnant?

[Crockerland]

Right, except for the fact that infants, fetuses, and children, are not the same as grown adults. If a grown man grabs your neck, you're free to push him off or punch him, or even shoot him. If a toddler grabbed your neck and you fucking punched it in the face like a maniac, you'd go to prison for child abuse.
Self-defense is relative to the age and physical ability of a person. Defending yourself from a bodybuilder ≠ defending yourself from a newborn ≠ defending yourself from a quadriplegic.

Incorrect. A person has the right to defend themselves from any attacker with force necessary to stop the attack. If the source of the attack dies, oh well.

No, that's not incorrect, if you try to pull a Markeese Cummings because a baby grabbed your neck, you'll go to jail for child abuse, that's just a fact.

An abortion stops the attack.

An abortion, an unnecessary one at least, does not stop an attack. An abortion ends a normal part of the human life cycle.

[Godular]

Incorrect. A person has the right to defend themselves from any attacker with force necessary to stop the attack. If the source of the attack dies, oh well.

No, that's not incorrect, if you try to pull a Markeese Cummings because a baby grabbed your neck, you'll go to jail for child abuse, that's just a fact.

The force necessary to stop that kind of attack is not lethal. The only limit to the force is that which is sufficient to stop the attack.

In the case of a toddler, you can pick them up and put them elsewhere. Attack over.

For a fetus, sever the connection. Oh, the fetus is dead now, that's unfortunate.

An abortion stops the attack.

An abortion, an unnecessary one at least, does not stop an attack.

The only necessary abortions are those that women choose because they do not wish to be pregnant. If she does not wish to be pregnant, she is being harmed, whether there is intent involved or not.

An abortion ends a normal part of the human life cycle.

Cool story. Also irrelevant.

[Alvecia]

'Disproportionate' does not come into play at all in self defense. One stops the harm being done. If that results in the death of the harmful entity, oh well.

You are incorrect, especially since the fetus is not intentionally attacking it's mother. If someone trips in the street and falls into you, and you shoot them to death, it's obvious that you are the aggressor.

It's the only proportion of response really.
Anything done to the foetus to prevent it from causing harm to the mother has the unfortunate side effect of removing the foetus.

[Vorond]

Where the fuck does it even mention my argument in OP?

Read the entire op and you might find out. But then your reading comprehension demonstrated thus far has been pretty terrible. That just means you should read it a few times so you don't miss anything.

I did, doesn't say shit about punishment.

[Vorond]

Incorrect. The instant the woman does not desire the pregnancy, the fetus is doing harm to her. Intent is irrelevant. Thus self-defense rules apply.

So... effects of own actions one does not desire instantly do harm. So the only difference between harm and no harm is changing ones mind?

[Ifreann]

Incorrect. The instant the woman does not desire the pregnancy, the fetus is doing harm to her. Intent is irrelevant. Thus self-defense rules apply.

So... effects of own actions one does not desire instantly do harm. So the only difference between harm and no harm is changing ones mind?

Suppose I pierced your ear without you asking me to. Does that constitute harm?
Suppose I pierced your ear after you asked me to. Does that constitute harm?

[Vorond]

So... effects of own actions one does not desire instantly do harm. So the only difference between harm and no harm is changing ones mind?

Suppose I pierced your ear without you asking me to. Does that constitute harm?
Suppose I pierced your ear after you asked me to. Does that constitute harm?

Suppose I asked you to and you did, but I regret it later, can I kill you?