Anonymous #2 7w

how so

1

Anonymous discotheque 7w

the question is not “should you kill them”, its “should you go to jail if you do”

2

Anonymous discotheque 7w

In both hypothetical scenarios, I am indisputably at risk of bodily harm from that individual no matter what. They will affect my health and wellbeing to a severe disabling degree, at a varied level and frequency, for months at a time. Regardless on if this individual stays alive, it’s my body that is keeping it alive. I should be able to revoke that consent at any time if I choose to grant that individual the ability to literally survive off of my life blood.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Because you don’t stand your ground against babies and that’s what anti-abortion people view fetuses as. And you also can’t shoot literally anyone who is at your house especially if they are there due to actions you took. Abortion isn’t murder, that’s why it’s moral. Because early development fetuses aren’t people. You can’t phrase it as “but what if you need to stand your ground against a baby”

1

Anonymous #2 7w

I think this argument is particularly useful against those with religious foundations of morality because you can’t just dismiss their belief that a fetus is a true person, so arguments like this by diverting to justified killings when at risk of bodily harm actually seem to carry some weight over there, particularly with men. i’ve seen it happen in real time. you wouldn’t think it would work but strangely it does.

3

Anonymous #3 7w

I find the similar “organ donor” argument to be frankly unconvincing but it’s still more coherent than phrasing it as the castle doctrine.

1

Anonymous discotheque 7w

You could call the police and get the kidnapped guy back to their family? What psycho immediately goes to killing an innocent stranger?

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Dude just call the police and take the guy home. Idk what you’re talking about “I am indisputably at risk of bodily harm” my ass

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Every pregnancy puts the person at an exponentially increased risk of bodily harm as opposed to not being pregnant. Therefore this “stranger dumped onto my doorstep or into my house” analogy automatically comes with the fact that they are endangering my health and wellbeing, with a high risk of fatality, as opposed to their absence.

6

Anonymous #3 7w

I genuinely wonder if one argument is more convincing to Protestants vs Catholics. When I was religious I found the bodily autonomy argument wholly unconvincing but found the personhood argument really persuasive. So persuasive I became pro-choice. (I had jesuit education)

3

Anonymous discotheque 7w

sometimes i’ll tune into debate streams and there’s one guy who does all theism debates some days and other days will accept abortion debates (out of like 6 other topics), and he’s actually really good at bringing people to confront their religious beliefs vs. the medical science of abortion. some arguments are absurdist but sometimes those work the best for some reason lol.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

youre making it something it isnt. you dont stand your ground against an intruder because of however scary the intruder looks, you do it because you know that you might be severely injured or killed in this situation, and you have a reasonable legal right to prevent that

1

Anonymous #2 7w

if a 12 year old broke into your home with some kind of weapon, and you killed them in your home in self defense, you would not go to jail for that…. likewise, the judicial system should not be able to punish women for preventing bodily harm to themselves morality is subjective and we will never all agree on that. what truly matters is the legal side of this

1

Anonymous #5 7w

again, we are not discussing what you SHOULD do as morality is extremely subjective we are discussing only how the law should respond to these situations. should someone go to jail for murder if they kill someone in their house when they had good reason to believe they could be severely injured or killed

1

Anonymous #4 7w

to prove it was an act of defense you only have to prove that you had reason to believe you could be harmed, which you do with every pregnancy

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Claiming self defense requires you to show that the threat is a) sufficiently imminent, b) reasonable justification for force and c) a proportional/reasonable response to the threat. Just because something (like pregnancy) carries risks doesn’t automatically justify a self defense claim.

4

Anonymous #5 6w

it being imminent is the only measure it fails. but if you woke up strapped to a bomb that was set to go off in 8 months you’d probably act right away too

1