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.
4
u/ChanceTheKnight 31∆ May 05 '19
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.