Atheists and anti-theists

[Dr. Who]

Right to m or at least justification by, self-defense. A distinction without a difference only because you don't see it.

Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence.

No fetus could be said to be attacking or using force against the mother, only that its very existence puts the mother's life at risk, either because she has sustained a trauma or because of some dangerous condition that has developed in the mother's body, or where the pregnancy is ectopic.

No doctor has ever referred to a medically necessary termination as an act of defense, but rather an action to save the mother's life. Also, the mother is not the one performing the procedure, so it's not self anything.

Try again.

[Dr. Who]

I am guilty here--as the left is, also--of using the term "viable" in a rather nebulous way.

An infant--or a toddler, or even a small child--certainly could not take care of himself (or herself, as the case might be)--including working for a living, in order to bring in some money, which is necessary in order to live--so it is not really "viable," either.

That is why I have been careful to use the terms zygote and embryo which are specific to the 1st trimester.

[Chris]

Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence.

No fetus could be said to be attacking or using force against the mother, only that its very existence puts the mother's life at risk, either because she has sustained a trauma or because of some dangerous condition that has developed in the mother's body, or where the pregnancy is ectopic.

No doctor has ever referred to a medically necessary termination as an act of defense, but rather an action to save the mother's life. Also, the mother is not the one performing the procedure, so it's not self anything.

Try again.

No.

If the baby is medically harming the woman, her life, her health, self-defense is justification.

[Dr. Who]

No.

If the baby is medically harming the woman, her life, her health, self-defense is justification.

She would be in no position to engage in "self-defense" (the term is still inappropriate). She would be in a hospital bed, possibly unconscious. She may or may not even be able to give consent, if it is an emergency situation.

[Chris]

She would be in no position to engage in "self-defense" (the term is still inappropriate). She would be in a hospital bed, possibly unconscious. She may or may not even be able to give consent, if it is an emergency situation.

She doesn't perform the abortion either, not usually.

Under the premise of life beginning at conception and thus the baby having equal rights, that I was asked about, self-defense is a justification. Those who reject it reject not it but the premise.

Abortion in self-defence cites "some people argue that this is a case of the doctrine of double effect rather than a self-defence argument, and that the death of the foetus is merely the side-effect of medical treatment to save the mother's life." Self-defense, doctrine of double effect, semantics.

[carolina73]

I tend to see abortion or personhood debates as an exercise in frustration where very few on the pro-life side of the debate bother to offer much more than "because life begins at conception" as an argument.

I have to disagree with that.
I think the vast majority of people in the USA do not see a fertilized egg as a "human life". I don't think the vast majority of people want to see a child aborted at 6 months of pregnancy. A one year old will die if you put it on the floor and do not take care of it. Birth has nothing to do with being a human life.

I think politically people often take these religious or political positions against their own true beliefs, because they do not want to cross the lines their group has set. So they will take a ridiculous position.
They will tell you that they will not eat a chicken egg but they would gladly approve of killing a baby 2 minutes before birth. Or in the case of the Virginia Assembly even after it is born as long as the decision to kill it was made before it was born.

[jet57]

Everyone is missing the point, it is not required, you chose to be there. If my church requires I listen to punk rock before, or during Sunday service, and it upsets me. I don't change the Church, I change what church I attend.
If I own any business, I as the business owner I should be able to choose any, theme/music/motto I want. If it offends a person, who cares. If it offends some people, still don't care. If it offends enough people to effect my profit line, I should care. That is why I think cancel culture, and government intrusion is unnecessary. If it is wrong we as individuals will chose what we want, businesses will follow suit due to profits.

No, I get the point: you're not required to be there, but when you pay over $100 for a sporting event ticket, it becomes required that you listen. Unless you try to plug your ears er' something. So the point that you seem to miss is that - politics or religion don't belong at a sporting event. Being the business owner has nothing to do with the price of admission.

[carolina73]

No, I get the point: you're not required to be there, but when you pay over $100 for a sporting event ticket, it becomes required that you listen. Unless you try to plug your ears er' something. So the point that you seem to miss is that - politics or religion don't belong at a sporting event. Being the business owner has nothing to do with the price of admission.

I'm with you until the very last sentence that I don't understand, since the owner of the event business would set the price.

[jet57]

I'm with you until the very last sentence that I don't understand, since the owner of the event business would set the price.

It's a euphemism.

[countryboy]

No, I get the point: you're not required to be there, but when you pay over $100 for a sporting event ticket, it becomes required that you listen. Unless you try to plug your ears er' something. So the point that you seem to miss is that - politics or religion don't belong at a sporting event. Being the business owner has nothing to do with the price of admission.

So you agree the kneelers are wrong?