In response to another thread, Would I be justified in killing a man who was holding my dog at knife-point ?, I thought I would start a little thread of my own in the Abortion section... Imagine you saw a man gripping on to your pregnant wife. He tells you that he is going to cause the fetus to be miscarried. He works for a pharmaceutical company and has some experimental patches that, when applied to the skin, will induce an abortion. The chemicals in the patch are very potent and will be absorbed through the skin in a matter of minutes. Now, we know that it would not be justifiable to kill if the man was merely threatening to punch your wife (minor assault does not justify deadly force). Is causing the fetus to be aborted different, and if so, how?
Another "Weird Way To Harm A Woman" thread.....Do you see nothing wrong with continually posting these?
I would be completely justified in killing a man attacking my wife, and as the fetus is a part of her and inseperable....he would die.
I would say you would definitely be justified, morally... but be ready for the liberal judge who will give you life in prison with the excuse that the 'fetus' was not a legal person.
Whether or not the fetus is considered a life depends upon the value the woman who is carrying it assigns to it.
What don't you get about FORCING women to do something is against the law? Why are you continually trying to justify harming women? And, guess what, if anyone threatens a woman and grabs her SHE has every right to put a bullet through them.....and should....SHE has every right to stop the harm anyway she can...
I don't understand why you can't get the simple fact that you cannot harm a fetus without harming the woman host FIRST. You cannot GET TO a fetus without going through a woman.
I think the problem is that the woman isn't seen as an individual with rights...afterall, OP is anti-Choice.......the fact that he addresses the "husband" of the woman instead of asking if the women would be justiified.to use deadly force......he views women as property, things, not humans with rights ..................and refuses to learn what "consent" and "choice" mean
I have a feeling that if some guy was gripping on to your wife and threatening to induce chemicals into her body, there's few that would convict of anything more than a misdemeanor homicide with most giving a not-guilty verdict with little deliberation on the matter.
Why are you asking? You have never heard of self defense? The rest of the world has. And you missed this...... What don't you get about FORCING women to do something is against the law? Why are you continually trying to justify harming women? And, guess what, if anyone threatens a woman and grabs her SHE has every right to put a bullet through them.....and should....SHE has every right to stop the harm anyway she can...
The presence of the fetus doesn't matter since this man's threatening actions are being done to the woman's body. He is causing her body to absorb chemicals against her will. If someone was doing that to my wife, I would use force. Who's to say the man was being honest about what he is giving her or that there won't be side effects. The force would be used to prevent the wife from being exposed, up to and including deadly force if that was what it took. How about we just make it a crime to make choices about a pregnancy for the mother, period. Then all these what-if situations will all have the same logical answer. Well, they already do have that I suppose, just not always with the force of law.
Herself but it doesn't make any difference if she puts a bullet in the guys forehead And try and apply SOME logic...HOW does she defend the fetus without defending herself..? Now is the following too INconvenient for you? Why are you asking? You have never heard of self defense? The rest of the world has. And you missed this......Again What don't you get about FORCING women to do something is against the law? Why are you continually trying to justify harming women? And, guess what, if anyone threatens a woman and grabs her SHE has every right to put a bullet through them.....and should....SHE has every right to stop the harm anyway she can...
So just for the record, pro-choicers support the use of deadly force against an assailant, even when no one's life was in danger and the assailant was only seeking to cause minor harm?
LOL, when a woman is attacked by an assailant, the assailant will tell the woman: "Oh, don't worry, I'm only gonna cause you minor harm? Somehow, I don't see that happening. When you are attacked, you fight back whole-heartedly.
I see you continue to only read your own posts....that reply was a total "misrepresentation" of what was posted.. NO one posted that. ""What don't you get about FORCING women to do something is against the law? Harm is harm. Why are you continually trying to justify harming women? And, guess what, if anyone threatens a woman and grabs her SHE has every right to put a bullet through them.....and should....SHE has every right to stop the harm anyway she can.....
yet another pointless and irrelevant thread. What ever the motive of the attacker the fetus is irrelevant, the reality is that the attacker is threatening the wife in the first instance because he has to "go through her" in order to attain his goal, ergo you would be justified in defending your wife, the fetus is irrelevant. It would be exactly the same if she were not pregnant.
Who are you to judge when a person considers their life to be endangered or not and BTW you conveniently forgot (yet again) that deadly force in self-defence can be used in the case of serious injury or loss of liberty, injecting or causing a persons body to absorb chemicals without consent IS a serious injury.
Anyone willing to force their intentions onto women and deny them their right to choose should be treated like the violent criminal they are.
