CDZ Any Government, no matter how large or small. . .

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz Life is never going to be able to argue that a fetus has priority or parity with the mother.

Jake Starkey will never be able to argue why one gender has the right to kill!

That makes no sense.

What gender has the legal right to decide?

The decision is in according to law. You know that.

 

[MPS777]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Are you counting zygotes and embryos as "persons"?

 

[Chuz Life]

This kind of blows your argument that a person voluntary assumes the risk for pregnancies doesn't it? After all the use of birth control implies clearly that she didn't want to become pregnant. So the only thing a person who wants to get an abortion has to say, is the condom ripped and viola. Hence my feasibility question.

A person who has a swimming pool in their back yard might responsibly remove the ladders, put up a fence and turn the pool heater off to discourage any kids from playing in it. They clearly don't want any children in the pool - uninvited.

Then, one day, despite all their barriers and other efforts, they look out and see a child in the water, fighting to survive. . .

Are you seeing the point yet?

I also want to point out that as I said, if you force a person to carry a baby to term against her will. You are de facto asking her to risk her life against her will.

1. Do baby's have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?
2. Asking someone to live with a risk they have already assumed is not tantamount to asking them to assume the risk in the first place.

Personally I don't like abortions because I, like you feel it's running away from responsibility in most cases.

While I agree with that comment in general, that's not the reason for my opposition to abortion. My basis is that children are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Period.

On the other hand I have a problem with assuming that my viewpoint should be more important then the people who, I have to assume take that difficult decision. Therefore I find it important to leave people the freedom too make that decision.

I think your views might change when (if) you start with the premise that a child's right to the equal protections of our laws from the moment their life begins and not just when we as a society can't stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore.

Are you seeing the point yet?

-Not really. Cause in your analogy the person who owns the swimming pool would be responsible for the drowning kid. If you take every reasonable precaution so the kid can't drown, and an accident does occur, very doubtful you will be held responsible.
-As to the equal protection under the law, I already addressed that. Unless you can convince me that somebody who becomes pregnant VOLUNTARILY assumed responsibility in ALL cases that aren't rape, it still boils down to asking on person to risk her life for another, something you conceded you shouldn't be allowed to do.

Wow. You completely missed the point of the allegory.

If you look out the window and an un-invited child is in your pool and fighting to survive.... do you have a duty to respect their other basic human rights or should you have the right to just chuck the toaster oven in their and kill em off?

The question would be, do you have to jump after the kid to save it's life?

Good Samaritan Laws say you do.... but you are again dodging MY point of the allegory. We don't have the right to kill a child that somehow slips through barriers despite our attempts to keep them out.

That's the point I've been making. In how you use the allegory their is no risk to the person who owns the pool. In the case of pregnancy you have conceded that isn't the case.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

The Supreme Court said during Roe, that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortions becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Do you think the SCOTUS was completely unaware of the risks of pregnancy, when they said that?

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Are you counting zygotes and embryos as "persons"?

The question in the OP was posed to YOU, not me.

So, my views on whether a person in the zygote or embryo stage of their life is a person or not should have no bearing on your answer to the question at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Are you counting zygotes and embryos as "persons"?

You betcha he is, bigly.

 

[forkup]

This kind of blows your argument that a person voluntary assumes the risk for pregnancies doesn't it? After all the use of birth control implies clearly that she didn't want to become pregnant. So the only thing a person who wants to get an abortion has to say, is the condom ripped and viola. Hence my feasibility question.

A person who has a swimming pool in their back yard might responsibly remove the ladders, put up a fence and turn the pool heater off to discourage any kids from playing in it. They clearly don't want any children in the pool - uninvited.

Then, one day, despite all their barriers and other efforts, they look out and see a child in the water, fighting to survive. . .

Are you seeing the point yet?

I also want to point out that as I said, if you force a person to carry a baby to term against her will. You are de facto asking her to risk her life against her will.

1. Do baby's have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?
2. Asking someone to live with a risk they have already assumed is not tantamount to asking them to assume the risk in the first place.

Personally I don't like abortions because I, like you feel it's running away from responsibility in most cases.

While I agree with that comment in general, that's not the reason for my opposition to abortion. My basis is that children are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Period.

On the other hand I have a problem with assuming that my viewpoint should be more important then the people who, I have to assume take that difficult decision. Therefore I find it important to leave people the freedom too make that decision.

I think your views might change when (if) you start with the premise that a child's right to the equal protections of our laws from the moment their life begins and not just when we as a society can't stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore.

Are you seeing the point yet?

-Not really. Cause in your analogy the person who owns the swimming pool would be responsible for the drowning kid. If you take every reasonable precaution so the kid can't drown, and an accident does occur, very doubtful you will be held responsible.
-As to the equal protection under the law, I already addressed that. Unless you can convince me that somebody who becomes pregnant VOLUNTARILY assumed responsibility in ALL cases that aren't rape, it still boils down to asking on person to risk her life for another, something you conceded you shouldn't be allowed to do.

Wow. You completely missed the point of the allegory.

If you look out the window and an un-invited child is in your pool and fighting to survive.... do you have a duty to respect their other basic human rights or should you have the right to just chuck the toaster oven in their and kill em off?

The question would be, do you have to jump after the kid to save it's life?

Good Samaritan Laws say you do.... but you are again dodging MY point of the allegory. We don't have the right to kill a child that somehow slips through barriers despite our attempts to keep them out.

That's the point I've been making. In how you use the allegory their is no risk to the person who owns the pool. In the case of pregnancy you have conceded that isn't the case.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

The Supreme Court said during Roe, that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortions becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Do you think the SCOTUS was completely unaware of the risks of pregnancy, when they said that?

-Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance.
In other words they don't protect the drowning kid but rather the person saving him.
-I'm not dodging anything, as you say yourself the analogy is flawed because it doesn't account for the risk a pregnancy entails. Something that is instrumental to my argument and something you haven't been able to address.
- I seem to do a pretty good job in arguing for abortion although I don't dispute personhood in the womb lol. I probably could since I'm not convinced that a cell can reasonably be considered a person, but for the sake of my argumentation here I'm perfectly willing to give you that start point.

 

[Chuz Life]

A person who has a swimming pool in their back yard might responsibly remove the ladders, put up a fence and turn the pool heater off to discourage any kids from playing in it. They clearly don't want any children in the pool - uninvited.

Then, one day, despite all their barriers and other efforts, they look out and see a child in the water, fighting to survive. . .

Are you seeing the point yet?

1. Do baby's have rights to the equal protections of our laws, or not?
2. Asking someone to live with a risk they have already assumed is not tantamount to asking them to assume the risk in the first place.

While I agree with that comment in general, that's not the reason for my opposition to abortion. My basis is that children are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws. Period.

I think your views might change when (if) you start with the premise that a child's right to the equal protections of our laws from the moment their life begins and not just when we as a society can't stomach or justify the denial of their rights anymore.

Are you seeing the point yet?

-Not really. Cause in your analogy the person who owns the swimming pool would be responsible for the drowning kid. If you take every reasonable precaution so the kid can't drown, and an accident does occur, very doubtful you will be held responsible.
-As to the equal protection under the law, I already addressed that. Unless you can convince me that somebody who becomes pregnant VOLUNTARILY assumed responsibility in ALL cases that aren't rape, it still boils down to asking on person to risk her life for another, something you conceded you shouldn't be allowed to do.

Wow. You completely missed the point of the allegory.

If you look out the window and an un-invited child is in your pool and fighting to survive.... do you have a duty to respect their other basic human rights or should you have the right to just chuck the toaster oven in their and kill em off?

The question would be, do you have to jump after the kid to save it's life?

Good Samaritan Laws say you do.... but you are again dodging MY point of the allegory. We don't have the right to kill a child that somehow slips through barriers despite our attempts to keep them out.

That's the point I've been making. In how you use the allegory their is no risk to the person who owns the pool. In the case of pregnancy you have conceded that isn't the case.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

The Supreme Court said during Roe, that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortions becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Do you think the SCOTUS was completely unaware of the risks of pregnancy, when they said that?

-Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance.
In other words they don't protect the drowning kid but rather the person saving him.
-I'm not dodging anything, as you say yourself the analogy is flawed because it doesn't account for the risk a pregnancy entails. Something that is instrumental to my argument and something you haven't been able to address.
- I seem to do a pretty good job in arguing for abortion although I don't dispute personhood in the womb lol. I probably could since I'm not convinced that a cell can reasonably be considered a person, but for the sake of my argumentation here I'm perfectly willing to give you that start point.

If you were to biologically connect your body to the body of another (lets say a child) - while they were completely unaware, and they will die if you cut that connection before nine months or so.... AND there is a slight but manageable risk to your life as well... would you or would no not have an obligation to maintain that connection and endure the risks?

 

[MPS777]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Are you counting zygotes and embryos as "persons"?

The question in the OP was posed to YOU, not me.

So, my views on whether a person in the zygote or embryo stage of their life is a person or not should have no bearing on your answer to the question at all.

Your statement, “a person in the zygote or embryo stage" I think answers my question. I don’t think that a “person” exists until they have developed to the point where they are capable of feeling pain. Therefore I don’t think zygotes and embryos have constitutional due process rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Are you counting zygotes and embryos as "persons"?

The question in the OP was posed to YOU, not me.

So, my views on whether a person in the zygote or embryo stage of their life is a person or not should have no bearing on your answer to the question at all.

Your statement, “a person in the zygote or embryo stage" I think answers my question. I don’t think that a “person” exists until they have developed to the point where they are capable of feeling pain. Therefore I don’t think zygotes and embryos have constitutional due process rights.

This thread is not about that.

 

[forkup]

-Not really. Cause in your analogy the person who owns the swimming pool would be responsible for the drowning kid. If you take every reasonable precaution so the kid can't drown, and an accident does occur, very doubtful you will be held responsible.
-As to the equal protection under the law, I already addressed that. Unless you can convince me that somebody who becomes pregnant VOLUNTARILY assumed responsibility in ALL cases that aren't rape, it still boils down to asking on person to risk her life for another, something you conceded you shouldn't be allowed to do.

Wow. You completely missed the point of the allegory.

If you look out the window and an un-invited child is in your pool and fighting to survive.... do you have a duty to respect their other basic human rights or should you have the right to just chuck the toaster oven in their and kill em off?

The question would be, do you have to jump after the kid to save it's life?

Good Samaritan Laws say you do.... but you are again dodging MY point of the allegory. We don't have the right to kill a child that somehow slips through barriers despite our attempts to keep them out.

That's the point I've been making. In how you use the allegory their is no risk to the person who owns the pool. In the case of pregnancy you have conceded that isn't the case.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

The Supreme Court said during Roe, that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortions becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Do you think the SCOTUS was completely unaware of the risks of pregnancy, when they said that?

-Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance.
In other words they don't protect the drowning kid but rather the person saving him.
-I'm not dodging anything, as you say yourself the analogy is flawed because it doesn't account for the risk a pregnancy entails. Something that is instrumental to my argument and something you haven't been able to address.
- I seem to do a pretty good job in arguing for abortion although I don't dispute personhood in the womb lol. I probably could since I'm not convinced that a cell can reasonably be considered a person, but for the sake of my argumentation here I'm perfectly willing to give you that start point.

If you were to biologically connect your body to the body of another (lets say a child) - while they were completely unaware, and they will die if you cut that connection before nine months or so.... AND there is a slight but manageable risk to your life as well... would you or would no not have an obligation to maintain that connection and endure the risks?

Nope since I have the right to decide what risks to my life I find acceptable. Some people are heroes, some are cowards and the government doesn't have the right to force a coward to be a hero.

 

[Chuz Life]

Wow. You completely missed the point of the allegory.

If you look out the window and an un-invited child is in your pool and fighting to survive.... do you have a duty to respect their other basic human rights or should you have the right to just chuck the toaster oven in their and kill em off?

The question would be, do you have to jump after the kid to save it's life?

Good Samaritan Laws say you do.... but you are again dodging MY point of the allegory. We don't have the right to kill a child that somehow slips through barriers despite our attempts to keep them out.

That's the point I've been making. In how you use the allegory their is no risk to the person who owns the pool. In the case of pregnancy you have conceded that isn't the case.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

The Supreme Court said during Roe, that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortions becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Do you think the SCOTUS was completely unaware of the risks of pregnancy, when they said that?

-Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance.
In other words they don't protect the drowning kid but rather the person saving him.
-I'm not dodging anything, as you say yourself the analogy is flawed because it doesn't account for the risk a pregnancy entails. Something that is instrumental to my argument and something you haven't been able to address.
- I seem to do a pretty good job in arguing for abortion although I don't dispute personhood in the womb lol. I probably could since I'm not convinced that a cell can reasonably be considered a person, but for the sake of my argumentation here I'm perfectly willing to give you that start point.

If you were to biologically connect your body to the body of another (lets say a child) - while they were completely unaware, and they will die if you cut that connection before nine months or so.... AND there is a slight but manageable risk to your life as well... would you or would no not have an obligation to maintain that connection and endure the risks?

Nope since I have the right to decide what risks to my life I find acceptable.

If I biologically connected your body to mine in such a way that you would die if I cut the connection before nine months... and then I decided that your presence was a risk to my health and so I cut the connection anyway and YOU died.... what do you think I would be (should be) charged with?

 

[forkup]

The question would be, do you have to jump after the kid to save it's life?

Good Samaritan Laws say you do.... but you are again dodging MY point of the allegory. We don't have the right to kill a child that somehow slips through barriers despite our attempts to keep them out.

That's the point I've been making. In how you use the allegory their is no risk to the person who owns the pool. In the case of pregnancy you have conceded that isn't the case.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

The Supreme Court said during Roe, that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortions becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Do you think the SCOTUS was completely unaware of the risks of pregnancy, when they said that?

-Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance.
In other words they don't protect the drowning kid but rather the person saving him.
-I'm not dodging anything, as you say yourself the analogy is flawed because it doesn't account for the risk a pregnancy entails. Something that is instrumental to my argument and something you haven't been able to address.
- I seem to do a pretty good job in arguing for abortion although I don't dispute personhood in the womb lol. I probably could since I'm not convinced that a cell can reasonably be considered a person, but for the sake of my argumentation here I'm perfectly willing to give you that start point.

If you were to biologically connect your body to the body of another (lets say a child) - while they were completely unaware, and they will die if you cut that connection before nine months or so.... AND there is a slight but manageable risk to your life as well... would you or would no not have an obligation to maintain that connection and endure the risks?

Nope since I have the right to decide what risks to my life I find acceptable.

If I biologically connected your body to mine in such a way that you would die if I cut the connection before nine months... and then I decided that your presence was a risk to my health and so I cut the connection anyway and YOU died.... what do you think I would be (should be) charged with?

Here your analogy fails because it presumes intent for the biological connection. Something that is false because the fact that the person wants an abortion strongly implies the person didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. If in the Saw movies a person chooses to save himself at the expense of others is that person guilty of murder?

 

[Chuz Life]

Good Samaritan Laws say you do.... but you are again dodging MY point of the allegory. We don't have the right to kill a child that somehow slips through barriers despite our attempts to keep them out.


There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.

The Supreme Court said during Roe, that once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case FOR abortions becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make.

Do you think the SCOTUS was completely unaware of the risks of pregnancy, when they said that?

-Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance.
In other words they don't protect the drowning kid but rather the person saving him.
-I'm not dodging anything, as you say yourself the analogy is flawed because it doesn't account for the risk a pregnancy entails. Something that is instrumental to my argument and something you haven't been able to address.
- I seem to do a pretty good job in arguing for abortion although I don't dispute personhood in the womb lol. I probably could since I'm not convinced that a cell can reasonably be considered a person, but for the sake of my argumentation here I'm perfectly willing to give you that start point.

If you were to biologically connect your body to the body of another (lets say a child) - while they were completely unaware, and they will die if you cut that connection before nine months or so.... AND there is a slight but manageable risk to your life as well... would you or would no not have an obligation to maintain that connection and endure the risks?

Nope since I have the right to decide what risks to my life I find acceptable.

If I biologically connected your body to mine in such a way that you would die if I cut the connection before nine months... and then I decided that your presence was a risk to my health and so I cut the connection anyway and YOU died.... what do you think I would be (should be) charged with?

Here your analogy fails because it presumes intent for the biological connection. Something that is false because the fact that the person wants an abortion strongly implies the person didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. If in the Saw movies a person chooses to save himself at the expense of others is that person guilty of murder?

Did the person in "Saw" willfully and knowingly assume risks that put them self in that situation?

You just don't want to acknowledge the point, do you?

 

[forkup]

-Good Samaritan laws generally provide basic legal protection for those who assist a person who is injured or in danger. In essence, these laws protect the “Good Samaritan” from liability if unintended consequences result from their assistance.
In other words they don't protect the drowning kid but rather the person saving him.
-I'm not dodging anything, as you say yourself the analogy is flawed because it doesn't account for the risk a pregnancy entails. Something that is instrumental to my argument and something you haven't been able to address.
- I seem to do a pretty good job in arguing for abortion although I don't dispute personhood in the womb lol. I probably could since I'm not convinced that a cell can reasonably be considered a person, but for the sake of my argumentation here I'm perfectly willing to give you that start point.

If you were to biologically connect your body to the body of another (lets say a child) - while they were completely unaware, and they will die if you cut that connection before nine months or so.... AND there is a slight but manageable risk to your life as well... would you or would no not have an obligation to maintain that connection and endure the risks?

Nope since I have the right to decide what risks to my life I find acceptable.

If I biologically connected your body to mine in such a way that you would die if I cut the connection before nine months... and then I decided that your presence was a risk to my health and so I cut the connection anyway and YOU died.... what do you think I would be (should be) charged with?

Here your analogy fails because it presumes intent for the biological connection. Something that is false because the fact that the person wants an abortion strongly implies the person didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. If in the Saw movies a person chooses to save himself at the expense of others is that person guilty of murder?

Did the person in "Saw" willfully and knowingly assume risks that put them self in that situation?

You just don't want to acknowledge the point, do you?

-I've acknowledged and rebuked your point a few times already. If you want to make a point that a person who gets pregnant when it isn't rape is voluntarily taking responsibility, you have to establish that getting pregnant is a choice they make EVERY time. You can't do that because most people take active steps to prevent pregnancies when they don't want too become pregnant. You can't volunteer for something you want to prevent, it's contradictory. That's why your analogy failed.
-To answer your question,( I note that you answered my question to you, with another question) even if they're own actions caused them to be put in that situation a person saving himself at the expense of someone else is acting out of self defense and not committing murder.

 

[Chuz Life]

If you were to biologically connect your body to the body of another (lets say a child) - while they were completely unaware, and they will die if you cut that connection before nine months or so.... AND there is a slight but manageable risk to your life as well... would you or would no not have an obligation to maintain that connection and endure the risks?

Nope since I have the right to decide what risks to my life I find acceptable.

If I biologically connected your body to mine in such a way that you would die if I cut the connection before nine months... and then I decided that your presence was a risk to my health and so I cut the connection anyway and YOU died.... what do you think I would be (should be) charged with?

Here your analogy fails because it presumes intent for the biological connection. Something that is false because the fact that the person wants an abortion strongly implies the person didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. If in the Saw movies a person chooses to save himself at the expense of others is that person guilty of murder?

Did the person in "Saw" willfully and knowingly assume risks that put them self in that situation?

You just don't want to acknowledge the point, do you?

-I've acknowledged and rebuked your point a few times already. If you want to make a point that a person who gets pregnant when it isn't rape is voluntarily taking responsibility, you have to establish that getting pregnant is a choice they make EVERY time. You can't do that because most people take active steps to prevent pregnancies when they don't want too become pregnant. You can't volunteer for something you want to prevent, it's contradictory. That's why your analogy failed.
-To answer your question,( I note that you answered my question to you, with another question) even if they're own actions caused them to be put in that situation a person saving himself at the expense of someone else is acting out of self defense and not committing murder.

No-one has the right to trap or to lure another person into a situation against them self and then kill that other person and then claim it was in "self defense."

 

[Darkwind]

Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.

Agree or disagree?

Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?

When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.

A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.

An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.

I would say that is especially so, once personhood is further established for children in the womb.

 

[forkup]

Nope since I have the right to decide what risks to my life I find acceptable.

If I biologically connected your body to mine in such a way that you would die if I cut the connection before nine months... and then I decided that your presence was a risk to my health and so I cut the connection anyway and YOU died.... what do you think I would be (should be) charged with?

Here your analogy fails because it presumes intent for the biological connection. Something that is false because the fact that the person wants an abortion strongly implies the person didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. If in the Saw movies a person chooses to save himself at the expense of others is that person guilty of murder?

Did the person in "Saw" willfully and knowingly assume risks that put them self in that situation?

You just don't want to acknowledge the point, do you?

-I've acknowledged and rebuked your point a few times already. If you want to make a point that a person who gets pregnant when it isn't rape is voluntarily taking responsibility, you have to establish that getting pregnant is a choice they make EVERY time. You can't do that because most people take active steps to prevent pregnancies when they don't want too become pregnant. You can't volunteer for something you want to prevent, it's contradictory. That's why your analogy failed.
-To answer your question,( I note that you answered my question to you, with another question) even if they're own actions caused them to be put in that situation a person saving himself at the expense of someone else is acting out of self defense and not committing murder.

No-one has the right to trap or to lure another person into a situation against them self and then kill that other person and then claim it was in "self defense."

-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?

 

[Darkwind]

Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.

I would say that is especially so, once personhood is further established for children in the womb.

Well, clearly, that is where the real debate should occur. The rest of it is nothing but pure emotive blackmail.

Anyway, I'm doing God Emperor of Dune on Audiobook tonight, so I'm out.

 

[Chuz Life]

If I biologically connected your body to mine in such a way that you would die if I cut the connection before nine months... and then I decided that your presence was a risk to my health and so I cut the connection anyway and YOU died.... what do you think I would be (should be) charged with?

Here your analogy fails because it presumes intent for the biological connection. Something that is false because the fact that the person wants an abortion strongly implies the person didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. If in the Saw movies a person chooses to save himself at the expense of others is that person guilty of murder?

Did the person in "Saw" willfully and knowingly assume risks that put them self in that situation?

You just don't want to acknowledge the point, do you?

-I've acknowledged and rebuked your point a few times already. If you want to make a point that a person who gets pregnant when it isn't rape is voluntarily taking responsibility, you have to establish that getting pregnant is a choice they make EVERY time. You can't do that because most people take active steps to prevent pregnancies when they don't want too become pregnant. You can't volunteer for something you want to prevent, it's contradictory. That's why your analogy failed.
-To answer your question,( I note that you answered my question to you, with another question) even if they're own actions caused them to be put in that situation a person saving himself at the expense of someone else is acting out of self defense and not committing murder.

No-one has the right to trap or to lure another person into a situation against them self and then kill that other person and then claim it was in "self defense."

-Lol now you are missing my point. Probably my fault since a movie reference isn't universal. The Saw analogy I put out because the premise of those movies is that someone kidnaps people the killer deems immoral in some way and then gives them moral dilemmas they have to work trough by blood and pain. Sometimes it involves several people of who only one survives, usually by condemning the other ones. It's pretty sadistic and I only watched I believe parts of the second one but it is apt to this conversation. Anyways in the movies the people saving themselves are the victims, not the ones doing the kidnapping.
- I'm also noticing that again you are not trying to address the clear challenge I gave.
Please establish that someone who gets pregnant voluntarily takes responsibility for the risks that pregnancy entails?

It's called an "assumption of risks" and it is precisely what the Supreme Courts justices have been mindful of, when they commented that "once personhood is established for children in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make."

Those are THEIR words, not mine.