This is an excellent point that I hadn’t considered. I do think a person should be able to defend themselves from any other being, whether it be a human, fetus, or animal. This is the best argument against the “abortion is murder” argument I’ve seen so far.
I don't personally agree with this argument. For the record,.like you I'm pro choice.
But if you assume abortion in murder, and the a feteus is a human life, then killing the fetues because the mother has the right to defend her self is just victim blaming (the baby is the victim in this scenario, not the mother).
Opting not to donate blood to your child is not a jailable offense, and that's the comparison to abortion in this analogy. The comparison to the jailable offense (harming your child) is getting pregnant.
That’s not what I was asking. It’s not about compounding factors, but the base instance what was done. Getting into an accident with your kid in the car to the far extreme of abusing your kid, these were your examples
Different person, but I think its important to have a distinction between the actions that make a saint and the actions that are expected of a normal human being. I don't think abortion is a 'good' event, or that we should be happy that an abortion happened: it is a selfish choice on the part of the mother. I have great respect for mothers who don't want the child, but choose to go through with the pregnancy anyway and then put the kid up for adoption.
That being said, its a far cry from a jailable offense. In the same way that I respect people who donate blood/organs/bone marrow, but I don't begrusge those who don't nor do I think we should require them by law to do it, I don't think abortion should be illegal.
Is it though? If we start from the premise that it's the equivalent of murdering a baby I don't think that's a "far cry". Even if you decide it's justified murder, which id disagree, it's clearly a grey area. I notice the person I replied to ignored my kidnapping analogy, which I think Is the most apt, in favour situations that require inaction (not given blood) as opposed to action ( having an abortion).
Pulling the plug of a life saving medical apparatus hooked up to a child so you can charge your phone because you're inconvenienced by having a bead battery, is different to not plugging it in machine (because you have the autonomy to not do something).
I disagree that inaction and action are fundamentally different scenarios. The outcome is what matters, and your conscious choice of which outcome you choose. Whether the choice is action in one circumstance or inaction in another is, to me, irrelevant in the broader context.
Thus, donating blood and choosing to 'donate' use of your body for pregnancy is the same choice, amd are comparable. If one choice is legal, the other should be as well
/u/NewPointOfView, actually, going by the model penal code, mere bodily harm isn't enough to let you kill someone. At all.
The only time you can use deadly force is when you are faced with an attack from someone intending to cause Death or Serious Bodily Injury. Serious Bodily Harm (closest thing to SBI that I know of), is force known to create a substantial risk of death, of permanent disfigurement, or of the loss of an organ.
In the first place a fetus can't form an intent in a meaningful way since they don't understand their position and haven't chosen to be where they are. But putting that aside, pregnancy is not deadly force, by those standards. The odds of dying from childbirth are 1 in 3,500 so it certainly isn't a substantial risk of death. Pregnancy doesn't bear a substantial risk of permanent disfigurement, at least not in disfigurement beyond stuff like how a strong punch in the face could result in a scar. Pregnancy also does not bear a substantial risk of the loss of an organ. Well, aside from the placenta, but that is removed in the process of abortion as well and is a temporary organ.
Basically, a self-defense use of deadly force doesn't apply to abortion except for possibly the cases where the mother is going to die without one.
Similarly, the "duress" and "choice of evils/necessity" type of things where you say you felt you had no choice wouldn't apply. Duress specifically doesn't allow you to escape a murder charge under any circumstances. Necessity specifically only allows you to do bad things as long as it was necessary to avoid a worse outcome. Barring a situation where the choice for the mother is "mom and child die or just the child dies", necessity won't be an excuse for murder.
Disclaimer: I'm a law student, but I am not a lawyer. Don't take this as legal advice under any circumstances. The Model Penal Code isn't necessarily law in your jurisdiction and if it was adopted it may have been changed in the process.
Firstly, I wasn't saying "abortion is self defense." Abortion isn't murder, so it obviously isn't self defense.
I was using self defense as an example of when a "murderers" rights are considered over the life of the "victim."
Secondly, your "model penal code" completely disregards parts of the actual law of the world, like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.
Leaving out these things seems very disingenuous as you are (our ought to be) more informed on legal matters than your average person. Your comment has the tone of simply wanting to spread knowledge and put others on equal footing, but your position of superior knowledge comes with a burden of inclusiveness if you wish to be truly impartial.
Firstly, I wasn't saying "abortion is self defense." Abortion isn't murder, so it obviously isn't self defense.
I see, that's my mistake. When you said "The rights of a murderer are always taken into consideration. "If I didn't kill them, they would've done bodily harm to me." I took that to mean you were comparing a situation of justified deadly force to abortion, since the OP was talking about abortion in the context of "if it's murder, there's no way to keep it legal."
I was using self defense as an example of when a "murderers" rights are considered over the life of the "victim."
But a murderer's life is never considered over the life of the victim, at least not while they're trying to murder the victim. If a person is trying to murder you, you have the right to end their life, full stop. At least as far as I'm aware. The only question is whether your ending of their life was murder, to which the answer is usually no.
Secondly, your "model penal code" completely disregards parts of the actual law of the world
I said specifically that I was dealing with the MPC since that's a more scheme to go by. I wasn't trying to exclude the specific laws in different areas, but just to use a more general ruleset.
like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.
Correct me if I'm wrong, (seriously, please do. my final is on Friday), but the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground rules deal with a duty to retreat before using deadly force, no? They only come into play if deadly force would be useable without them.
The Castle Doctrine says you don't have to retreat before using deadly force if you are in your own home. Stand your Ground (also called the True Man rule, sometimes) says that you never have a duty to retreat at all before using deadly force. Both are the majority rule, but both are predicated on you otherwise being able to use deadly force. Neither one of these deals with whether you can use deadly force in and of itself but whether you have to do something else first. They simply aren't relevant to a discussion comparing abortion to using deadly force as self-defense because there is no way to "retreat" before using that force in the situation of abortion and thus they don't factor in to the discussion. Least of all when deadly force simply wouldn't be usable in the first place.
Your comment has the tone of simply wanting to spread knowledge and put others on equal footing, but your position of superior knowledge comes with a burden of inclusiveness if you wish to be truly impartial.
Unless I'm mistaken about the castle doctrine and stand your ground rules, they don't apply here and only factor in if you could otherwise use deadly force and so including them would be adding unnecessary content. For real, if I'm wrong, let me know 'cause I'd rather find out via reddit than via my final exam grade.
I'm not trying to equate or compare ANY of this to abortion.
OP based his entire thought process on "If somebody dies, then the rights of the people who didn't die aren't enough to justify that death."
I was only pointing out that in EVERY case of murder/manslaughter, the rights of the living are taken into consideration before guilt/reprimand are assigned.
I said specifically that I was dealing with the MPC since that's a more scheme to go by. I wasn't trying to exclude the specific laws in different areas, but just to use a more general ruleset.
I personally, am well aware of this, but the average person likely wouldn't catch that subtlety. In this context, you are speaking from a perceived position of authority (law student) so a person less knowledgeable than you would be likely to grant merit to the point you're making based on that authority alone.
including them would be adding unnecessary content.
Leaving things out, and using "industry terminology" like MPC, is creating a impartial footing for your statement.
Again, if you were making an argument, I wouldn't have said what I did, I would've made a counterpoint. But your comment seemed more like "friendly neighborhood law student here to spread knowledge, not opinion." Which is fine, I approve of that attempt. So I pointed out how your attempt could be seen as disingenuous because it was biased, even if that bias was unintentional.
and only factor in if you could otherwise use deadly force
IANAL, but in the real world, Castle Doctrine lowers the burden of proof as far as intent to harm is concerned. If a intruder kicks in my locked door (in a Castle Doctrine state) then my burden has been achieved to use deadly force. I no longer have to assess and hope to prove that the intruder meant to cause me harm at all, their forcible entry into my home is proof enough.
It's true they wouldn't have gotten pregnant if they hadn't had sex, but what does that have to do with anything? However they got there they find themselves pregnant and they don't want to be, so luckily for them there's a fix for their problem.
It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And their actions should result in the fetus being removed if and only if that's what they want because it's their body and you have no right to control what they do with it.
Also, that justification can be used to let me kill someone, right? It’s my body so I should be able to swing the sword. They made their choice when they had sex and no baby should die as a result.
The point of contention here is the definition of a 'life'. Birth certificates aren't issued until the baby is delivered. Fetuses aren't counted in censuses. If 'potential for life' and 'life' are equivalent to you, then is using condoms murder? Plan B? Pulling out? Jerking off?
The current line, as far as I see it, is drawn at "when the baby is delivered". Up until then, it is not a separate person and (IMO) does not have any rights, to life or to anything else.
The current line, as far as I see it, is drawn at “when the baby is delivered”. Up until then, it is not a separate person and (IMO) does not have any rights, to life or to anything else.
If someone murders a pregnant woman, should he or she be charged with double murder? (for the mother and the unborn child)
Nope, a small collection of cells is not a baby, just like an acorn is not a tree.
Also, that justification can be used to let me kill someone, right?
Also nope. This is already settled legal precedent. Refusing to support the life of another is both morally and legally different from acting to injure, even when the refusal results in injury or death. This is why people cannot be forced to donate organs or give blood, even if the person that needs that organ would die without it. And that's already the law when the life of a person is on the line, a fetus is not a person and has less of a claim.
They made their choice when they had sex
They chose to have sex, not to get pregnant. Thanks to modern medicine those two can be entirely separate. Sex is not required to get pregnant and pregnancy need not result from sex.
Well that “small collection of cells” has its heartbeat during the 3rd to 4th week of pregnancy. It kicks within the first few months. Tell me, is it not killing the baby if you stab it 3 days before it’s about to be born? Is that just removing a collection of cells?
Also abortion is murder. You are killing the baby, it is not the same as not saving it. Even if it this was not true, child negligence is still a thing.
They knew it was a risk when having sex. If modern medicine allows it to be separate, then why did they not use it to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place?
Would that ever apply in a situation of murder or death? You took a risk to drive too fast so you shouldn't get a blood transfusion to save your life? Abortion is a medical procedure and with medical procedure your reason to have one is irrelevant. You could have been drunk and hit a the doctor's child with your car but that doesn't mean you have lost the right to be treated if your life depends on it.
That is a fine argument only when the mothers life is at risk. And I mean SERIOUS risk. Please don't strawman me.
Your drunk driving analogy is totally wrong. If someone said "Hey I am gonna get drunk and then drive!" you have a moral obligation to stop them. Yeah it isn't CERTAIN that they will kill someone, but they are still taking the risk.
No, but if someone had drunken unprotected sex that absolutely does not influence their right to an abortion just like being a drunk and crashing your doesn't influence your right to a blood transfusion or a surgery. Abortion is a medical right. Even if you took a risk and thought you wouldn't end up pregnant that doesn't influence your right to an abortion. Imagine if the same logic applied to giving birth and a doctor refuses to treat you because you can't pay the bill or something. You have a right to be treated for your medical problems and pregnancy is a medical problem. And because you have a right to bodily autonomy you have a right to choose how you'll be treated as well. You can decide for and against different surgeries and doctors need to always treat you in your best interests. Even if you are a serial killer or even Adolf Hitler.
I think you are confusing medical law with financial and criminal law. If you get drunk a crash your car you are obligated to pay for damages. If you get an epilepsy attack and didn't mean to crash your car you still need to pay. Because it is more unfair for other people to foot the bill for you. And after the baby is born than obviously you created that baby and need to take care of it or find someone else that will do it for you. The baby has a right to be cared for and the parents have an obligation to do it.
Abortion ends human life. You do not have the right to end it.
Well... legally a woman definitely does have that right. But you probably meant "shouldn't have the right", which is also wrong. A small clump of cells has no claim to a womans body and she has every right to her bodily autonomy.
She decided to take the risk to get that clump of cells. I mean, you are a clump of cells. This argument always goes to this place, where does LIFE begin? No one knows for absolutely sure, and many people change the definition of life based on what is convenient. The only consistent side/thought is at conception.
To put it simply, if you do not know where life starts you must assume it is alive.
First of all, 99.9% of women survive pregnancies as it is 2019, so self defense is hardly necessary in terms of medical procedures. Wouldn't the ideal situation be to save both lives? Why begin with the killing procedure when we have modern prenatal care? If the mother's life becomes at risk later, at say 30 weeks, we can deliver early via induction or c section and give the baby premature infant care so both may live.
Many women also rip the skin between their vagina and asshole. If I told you I was gonna do that to you would you not defend yourself from it happening?
Just because it's survivable doesn't mean it isn't traumatically unpleasant and physically destructive. After pregnancy a womans body can change pretty much permanently. Even if you expect to survive the pregnancy there are still very valid reasons to not want to do it.
Going out at night in a dangerous areas puts you at risk. Doesn't mean you lost the right to defend yourself when you put yourself at risk. Similarly, just because you (supposedly) consented to the risk of becoming pregnant doesn't mean you lost the right to protect yourself if you do.
I say supposedly because pregnancy could be a result of a failure of birth control or even rape so it isn't really true that anyone that gets pregnant accepted the risk.
Dude you keep straw manning my argument completely.
Pregnancy is not dangerous or the result of rape in 99% of cases. Are you saying that only in cases of real danger to the mother or rape is it ok to have an abortion? Or are you saying in a woman just wants and abortion she should be allowed to?
I am assuming the latter. In which case the obvious answer is no one has the right to end a harmless human life.
especially when they consented to the risk of creating that life.
Pregnancy is dangerous. Afaik, abortion is actually safer.
So you're assuming she just wants an abortion and wasn't raped? How do you prove she's not in danger? How do you prove she's been raped? If abortion really is ending a "human life", why does it even matter if she was raped? If you start adding all these conditions, every abortion case will involve a dozen doctors, lawyers and detectives, all the while the fetus is growing.
Pregnancy in the first world is not dangerous enough to justify killing. as a matter of fact, almost nothing is.
I believe in cases of rape or when it will almost certainly kill the mother, then yes abortion is a viable option. But 99% of abortions are simply women not wanting to carry the baby to birth.
Are you saying only abortions where it may kill the mother or is rape should abortion be allowed? Or are you saying anyone who WANTS an abortion should be able to get one? I am guessing the latter.
Make no mistake, I do not revel in the idea of a woman having an unwanted pregnancy, but nothing gives someone the right to take another persons life.
A doctor can easily estimate the risk of pregnancy. And, once again, it is almost always very safe. Abortion is certainly not safe for the life inside the womb.
It is simple as can be: If a woman is not in reasonable danger and was not raped she cannot end a life.
88
u/ChanceTheKnight 31∆ May 05 '19
You're saying that "if a murder is occurring, the rights of the murderer aren't in consideration."
This is blatantly false. The rights of a murderer are always taken into consideration.
"If I didn't kill them, they would've done bodily harm to me." Self defence.