Thanks for taking the time to type that out. It helps me figure out whats going on in their head. I don’t think I could agree with that, since we have specific laws in our country that are supposed to separate the belief in a Zeus looking guy that floats in the clouds that split himself in three parts, raping a virgin in the middle east to inseminate her with himself just to kill himself, for, uh, our benefit, from the laws of the land.
ETA: On retrospect, there seems a lot of the bible that is a little rapey.
I’m a man, and my aversion to abortion is that an innocent life is being destroyed.
I’m not elderly, but I oppose elder abuse. I’m not a wife, but I oppose wife-beating. I’m not a child, but I oppose child abuse. I’m not a fetus, but I oppose the legalized terminating of those lives.
Georgia mentions miscarriage in the law that is the subject of this thread. I already pointed out, it’s on line 108:
In asahi’s story of the backseat delivery, the child was no longer “unborn”. It was a born alive child. It died 30 minutes later, but for 30 minutes it was a living, breathing person. That story is not in any way, shape, or form, about a “miscarriage”.
Generally the use of lethal force, including in SYG cases, requires a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
No, it’s not a good point. It would require establishing the intent of the fetus. If you want to go down that route, go ahead I guess, but you’ll be doing a lot of your opponent’s work of establishing that it is indeed a person by doing so.
Why would intent matter? If some stranger is pointing a gun at me, does it matter (with regards to whether I can engage in deadly force) whether they’re intending to kill me or whether they’re doing it by accident? I’m pretty sure the law does not require ill intent to be established for self-defense, as long as the person in question has reasonable fear of bodily harm.
Based on the incredible damage pregnancy can do to women’s bodies and health, then it’s entirely possible that a woman might have legitimate and reasonable fear of harm to their body, health, and even life. The intent of the fetus doesn’t matter at all, if we’re using the same basis as for self-defense.
Despite the oh-so-authoritative nature of your first-thing-I-Googled methodology, the state of Georgia actually provides definitions for these sort of things. Let’s see if you can match up which one describes the case asahi brought up:
Well, your quote says “miscarriage or stillbirth” (emphasis added) so a distinction is implicitly recognized, therefore “miscarriage” and “stillbirth” cannot be assumed to be synonymous, therefore the opposite of stillbirth (“live birth”) cannot be assumed to be contradictory, and I stand by my usage.
Well, if that’s how you want to define miscarriage, have at it. I shan’t be joining you in this.
So are you on board with applying it to pregnancy, then? That would be reasonably consistent, given the facts about pregnancy and the toll it can take. If someone threatened to do to Johnny Guntoter what a pregnancy can do to a woman, can he defend himself or does he just have to take it?
I wasn’t the one that introduced the idea of intent. That was Rick Kitchen (or possibly another poster before him). He wrote: “Could the woman claim the baby is trying to kill her …”. “Trying to” implies intent whereas something like “Could the woman claim the baby / pregnancy may kill her” would not.
If someone threatens (or appears to threaten, whatever their intent) to use the inside of my body as their home, slowly grow by utilizing my nutrients, cause me periodic physical pain and nausea, permanently change the way my skin looks, then I’m sure as hell gonna use force to prevent them from doing this, even if they’re very small. Maybe under some circumstances I might allow it, but that should be my choice, not the government’s.
Yes, there is a difference. Do you know what that is? The CDC website may help:
If you can’t understand that a live birth is something different from those two things (stillbirth or miscarriage), I guess I can’t help you further.
No, I don’t think it applies at all. First of all, I’m not sure a normal pregnancy and delivery (the reasonably likely outcome) amounts to “great bodily harm”. Secondly, there are other options on the force continuum aside from deadly force when someone is facing a threat of violence, but violence that is not reasonably likely to result in death or great bodily harm. This whole SYG / self defense hijack is absurd, but carry on I suppose. What was it you said? “I shan’t be joining you in this”
If intent did not matter you could kill every one at a gun range, every chef in a kitchen with a knife, or everyone who knows karate. The bodily harm also has to be imminent, you can’t just kill someone because you think that down the line somewhere they could hurt you.
The person in the car next to mine could run me off the road and kill or seriously injure me, does that mean it is okay to shoot everyone who is driving a car.
So you would also be in favor of repealing all the child neglect laws, elder neglect laws, and medical duty of care laws? Are you in favor of letting all vulnerable people be killed, or do you just hate babies?
Getting back to the OP (since this is turning into yet another abortion-in-general thread): If this bill was meant to be a challenge to Roe v. Wade, it sure doesn’t seem like it will achieve its aim.
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Everything I’ve written about my position on abortion comes from my belief that the right to control one’s own body is paramount.
In this hypothetical, the fetus is already causing harm to the woman’s body every day, regardless of its intent. The harm is not only imminent, but ongoing.