NationStates Jolt Archive

That's twice you couldn't spell college. Your grammar barely resembles English.

Until next Tuesday, I work for a research and consulting firm. I primarily manage projects, so I work in a lot of different sciences and areas.

As of next Wednesday, though, I'll be the owner of my own consulting firm (actually one of several owners).

coola boola. just wondering what you did. what kind of projecs do you manage? i would guess something in the biology field?
you dont come off as a physics dude, i'm sorry if you are.
i find it strange that i science person cares too much about grammar and spelling.

i find it strange that i science person cares too much about grammar and spelling.
Yeah, because literacy isn't really an important skill for scientists...

Collage, huh? Clown, or barber?

Seriously, though. People who can't spell "college" shouldn't try to pretend that they've got an education worth bragging about.

did i brag?
spelling is not i skill have nor do i concider it important. also decusing my spelling is off topic.

Yeah, because literacy isn't really an important skill for scientists...

anything important i spell check.

OK, I see where you're going. Given this hypothetical fact pattern:

IF a fetus was defined as a person within the context of a self defense framework, and;

IF the fetus subsiding on the nutrients from the host mother was considered a threat within the doctrine of self defense, and;

IF her response to shooting a bullet through the umbilical cord was a reasonable method of eliminating the threat based on the facts as she reasonably believes them to be, and;

IF the result of accidentally shooting the fetus and killing it was an unavoidable potential concequence to her self defense which could not be minimized, mitigated or eliminated through other means that she reasonably believed to be equally effective at lessening the threat to her

THEN a self defense argument could work, yes. Unfortunatly to get this far you need to build a monuments of "ifs", not one of which is supported by any legal precident that I am aware of.

The point being that if the fetus were a person (which is a requirement for either a homocide or self-defense to a homocide), she'd still have to show that her actions were a reasonable response to the threat and that there was no more reasonable response to the threat. She shot herself, an action presenting more of a threat than a fetus possibly could. No reasonable person would believe shooting yourself was self-defense.

As a side-note, it's precisely this argument that shows this woman was desperate and not of sound mind.

Jello - no worries. Your responses here are adequate to my posts.

decusing my spelling is off topic.
You don't seem interested in actually addressing the topic. If you would like to, please answer the questions I've been posing to you for the last several pages. Please provide a non-religious justification for your belief that female human beings do not deserve the same rights as male human beings or human fetuses. Please provide non-religious justification for your belief that women do not have the right to decide what happens to their reproductive organs. Please explain why your belief that women's reproductive organs belong to you is different from a rapist's belief that women's reproductive organs belong to him.

coola boola. just wondering what you did. what kind of projecs do you manage? i would guess something in the biology field?
you dont come off as a physics dude, i'm sorry if you are.
i find it strange that i science person cares too much about grammar and spelling.

I'm a computer engineer and most of my projects have some aspects of computing in them and starting in a week will be all computers. I'm very skilled in physics and it was a requirement in my field of study, but I do prefer biology.

Meanwhile, you are a sciences person and you don't recognize the fundamental need to express yourself clearly?

Spelling and grammar are necessary to being understood. The occasional spelling error or typo, particularly on this forum, is really not an issue. But you're not making mistakes. Your misspellings are consistent and they are common words. You tend to have several spelling and grammar errors per sentence and then complain you're not being understood. Perhaps it's more important than you allow for, hmmmm...

I don't understand. What is difference between what she did and what an abortion doctor does? The baby, fetus, embryo, whatever dies in either case.

Can someone quantify this for me?

And I'm so tired of people stating that because someone attempts suicide, they need mental help. Just stop it. You don't know anything about what is going on in their head. Stop pretending you do.

The point being that if the fetus were a person (which is a requirement for either a homocide or self-defense to a homocide), she'd still have to show that her actions were a reasonable response to the threat and that there was no more reasonable response to the threat.

Again, merely to clarify legal semantics, without picking one side or the other, it is more proper to state that she'd have to show that her actions were a reasonable response to the threat "as she reasonably believed it to be"

The thing about self defense is that you don't necessarily need to be RIGHT, you just have to reasonably BELIEVE you are right.

You don't seem interested in actually addressing the topic. If you would like to, please answer the questions I've been posing to you for the last several pages. Please provide a non-religious justification for your belief that female human beings do not deserve the same rights as male human beings or human fetuses. Please provide non-religious justification for your belief that women do not have the right to decide what happens to their reproductive organs. Please explain why your belief that women's reproductive organs belong to you is different from a rapist's belief that women's reproductive organs belong to him.

collectively, we decide what people can or cannot do. my country decided it this way then so be it. just learnt from other thread is joint number one for free press. thats a very cool. so we are not that oppressive.

For further argueing i'm to make up something i call 'my primary goal'. so you understand why i think the way i do. i'll have it in a jiffy.

OK, I see where you're going. Given this hypothetical fact pattern:

IF a fetus was defined as a person within the context of a self defense framework, and;Well, the initial discussion began with the hypothetical that the fetus was defined as a person. I'm not sure how one could define someone as a person that wouldn't apply in a self-defense framework, but I suppose it's possible.

IF the fetus subsiding on the nutrients from the host mother was considered a threat within the doctrine of self defense, and;I suppose the equivalent would be if someone was hooked up to your kidneys. You initially consented but then ceased consenting. You were unable to communicate this to them, so you attacked the place where the two of you were connected.

IF her response to shooting a bullet through the umbilical cord was a reasonable method of eliminating the threat based on the facts as she reasonably believes them to be, and;I think this might be the sticking point, I would say so, given the other analogy of shooting the attacker in the arm that I used, but perhaps legally it wouldn't be.

IF the result of accidentally shooting the fetus and killing it was an unavoidable potential concequence to her self defense which could not be minimized, mitigated or eliminated through other means that she reasonably believed to be equally effective at lessening the threat to her I think the smallness of the womb would mean that the threat couldn't be lessened by shooting elsewhere or coming in from a different angle.

THEN a self defense argument could work, yes. Unfortunatly to get this far you need to build a monuments of "ifs", not one of which is supported by any legal precident that I am aware of.True, a lot of this is speculation, and to my knowledge it isn't technologically possible to be hooked up to someone else's kidneys.

I don't understand. What is difference between what she did and what an abortion doctor does. The baby, fetus, embryo, whatever dies in either case.

Can someone quantify this for me?

The difference between what she did and what the abortion doctor does is that abortion doctors who perform abortions at nine months don't exist and she does. Had an abortion doctor done it, s/he would be equally wrong.

An embryo can't die. It doesn't qualify as living.

I don't understand. What is difference between what she did and what an abortion doctor does. The baby, fetus, embryo, whatever dies in either case.

Can someone quantify this for me?

Because under a loophole in the law what she did to herself was legal but a doctor killing a 9 month old fetus would not have been.

If a doctor did it the doctor could have been convicted, however by doing it to herself she could not be, based on a legal loophole (I will leave out the question of morality of whether it should or should not be legal for her/a doctor to do it that late in term).

collectively, we decide what people can or cannot do. my country decided it this way then so be it. just learnt from other thread is joint number one for free press. thats a very cool. so we are not that oppressive.

So your argument is that because a law has been passed, that's the end of it?

My country used to have laws that said slavery was ok. We also had a free press at the time. Does that mean that our country was "not oppressive" as we enslaved African Americans?


For further argueing i'm to make up something i call 'my primary goal'. so you understand why i think the way i do. i'll have it in a jiffy.
As I understand it, your goal is to breed up some babies for yourself. What I really need to know is why anybody should care, or why your personal goals are remotely important to this discussion.

If my personal goal is to eat 7000 human babies before I die, does that mean that I should be legally allowed to go around killing babies and eating them?

I'm a computer engineer and most of my projects have some aspects of computing in them and starting in a week will be all computers. I'm very skilled in physics and it was a requirement in my field of study, but I do prefer biology.

Meanwhile, you are a sciences person and you don't recognize the fundamental need to express yourself clearly?

Spelling and grammar are necessary to being understood. The occasional spelling error or typo, particularly on this forum, is really not an issue. But you're not making mistakes. Your misspellings are consistent and they are common words. You tend to have several spelling and grammar errors per sentence and then complain you're not being understood. Perhaps it's more important than you allow for, hmmmm...

i've been told i'm dylexic. but i'm told alot of things. some pyschollogy dude was trying to tell me i have some rare pyschollogicall condition that i'm the only one in ireland that has it. not saying what it is, cause hate explaining it.

collectively, we decide what people can or cannot do. my country decided it this way then so be it. just learnt from other thread is joint number one for free press. thats a very cool. so we are not that oppressive.

For further argueing i'm to make up something i call 'my primary goal'. so you understand why i think the way i do. i'll have it in a jiffy.

Again, you are talking about tyranny. You may support tyranny, but we don't.

An embryo can't die. It doesn't qualify as living.

oh I HIGHLY beg to differ. An embryo meets every definition of "life" you can throw at it. It has a cellular structure, it grows, it requires nurishment, it is by every measure alive.

Whether it is HUMAN is another issue all together, but it is quite technically incorrect to say it is not alive.

some pyschollogy dude was trying to tell me i have some rare pyschollogicall condition that i'm the only one in ireland that has it. not saying what it is, cause hate explaining it.
My money is on psychopathic narcisistic personality disorder.

So your argument is that because a law has been passed, that's the end of it?

My country used to have laws that said slavery was ok. We also had a free press at the time. Does that mean that our country was "not oppressive" as we enslaved African Americans?


As I understand it, your goal is to breed up some babies for yourself. What I really need to know is why anybody should care, or why your personal goals are remotely important to this discussion.

If my personal goal is to eat 7000 human babies before I die, does that mean that I should be legally allowed to go around killing babies and eating them?

we fought to be free when we were be occupied, we won, we get our rules.

slavery based on race can cause problems. not expanding, off topic.

you eating 700 babies goes against my goal.

My money is on psychopathic narcisistic personality disorder.

i've benn told that too, but thats not it.

Well, the initial discussion began with the hypothetical that the fetus was defined as a person. I'm not sure how one could define someone as a person that wouldn't apply in a self-defense framework, but I suppose it's possible.

Generally you can't...but whether it's a person or not is still in debate, but you said the hypothetical began there, so ok.

I suppose the equivalent would be if someone was hooked up to your kidneys. You initially consented but then ceased consenting. You were unable to communicate this to them, so you attacked the place where the two of you were connected.

You presuppose that killing the person would be a reasonably proportionate response to the situation, rather than say...get a doctor to do it. Moreover I can not think of a life support situation that would require one to be hooked up to another...perhaps a direct blood transfusion in which, half way through, decide you're done.

I think the smallness of the womb would mean that the threat couldn't be lessened by shooting elsewhere or coming in from a different angle.

You are ignoring the possibilities of NOT shooting a bullet, but doing it through other means.

Yes, again, if you can meet all the hypothetical "ifs" then the argument would be with merit, however you can't even legally get past "if" #1, so the rest are somewhat superfluous when applying it back to real world legality.

we fought to be free when we were be occupied, we won, we get our rules.

slavery based on race can cause problems. not expanding, off topic.

you eating 700 babies goes against my goal.
Gotcha.

Your arguments are:

1) I want it. Gimme.
2) We won, so we get what we want. If we want slavery, tough titties. If we want women to be incubators for us, them bitchez can shut up and make us sammiches.
3) I don't care what you want. No, that doesn't make me a rapist, it makes me "charming."
4) My goals! MINE MINE MINE!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Again, you are talking about tyranny. You may support tyranny, but we don't.

no longer bring up the point of what is or is not tyranny. for last time i'm saying this, the few should not dictate over the many. strong survive, strenth in numbers. majority rules.:upyours:

i've benn told that too, but thats not it.
Of course not. You're far too hot and charming and smart to have narcisistic personality disorder.

You don't seem interested in actually addressing the topic. If you would like to, please answer the questions I've been posing to you for the last several pages. Please provide a non-religious justification for your belief that female human beings do not deserve the same rights as male human beings or human fetuses. Please provide non-religious justification for your belief that women do not have the right to decide what happens to their reproductive organs. Please explain why your belief that women's reproductive organs belong to you is different from a rapist's belief that women's reproductive organs belong to him.
Yes, Gorias, please address these points. I'd be fascinated to read them.

(Not that your Casanova fantasies aren't entertaining too. I haven't laughed so much all week. :p)

Gotcha.

Your arguments are:

1) I want it. Gimme.
2) We won, so we get what we want. If we want slavery, tough titties. If we want women to be incubators for us, them bitchez can shut up and make us sammiches.
3) I don't care what you want. No, that doesn't make me a rapist, it makes me "charming."
4) My goals! MINE MINE MINE!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

1/ yeah ok.
2/ almost, but i did say slavery causes problems, being from a country that was inslaved.
3/its not rape,its suprise sex.joking.
4/almost.

You presuppose that killing the person would be a reasonably proportionate response to the situation, rather than say...get a doctor to do it. Moreover I can not think of a life support situation that would require one to be hooked up to another...perhaps a direct blood transfusion in which, half way through, decide you're done.No, I don't think killing the person would be proportionate, I think eliminating the attachment would be. In this case, the process of eliminating the source of the attachment results in the death of the other person.

You are ignoring the possibilities of NOT shooting a bullet, but doing it through other means.This was also a sticking point. There are other means available, but not at that moment. How long must someone wait for the other means?
For instance, in the knife scenario, if I said 'wait till I run to the car to get the pepper spray', would you be obligated to wait before firing?

Yes, again, if you can meet all the hypothetical "ifs" then the argument would be with merit, however you can't even legally get past "if" #1, so the rest are somewhat superfluous when applying it back to real world legality.That's true, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree?

oh I HIGHLY beg to differ. An embryo meets every definition of "life" you can throw at it. It has a cellular structure, it grows, it requires nurishment, it is by every measure alive.

Whether it is HUMAN is another issue all together, but it is quite technically incorrect to say it is not alive.

A living organism requires more than an embryo meets. It may be a stage and it may eventually become an organism, but at the embryo stage it doesn't meet any definition that an organ doesn't equally meet.

This was also a sticking point. There are other means available, but not at that moment. How long must someone wait for the other means?For instance, in the knife scenario, if I said 'wait till I run to the car to get the pepper spray', would you be obligated to wait before firing?

The rule is that the forseen risk could not be lessened or eliminated by other EQUALLY VIABLE means of protection.

That's true, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree?

I'm not sure what there is to disagree on. Under current legal framework such an argument would NOT succeed on a self defense claim, it just wouldn't, you can disagree with that assertion, but you would be factually wrong.

I have not stated my opinion one way or the other as to whether or not it SHOULD, but if you wish to disagree with me that at this point in our legal system it WON'T, then you are free to do so, but I assure you you're wrong.

collectively, we decide what people can or cannot do. my country decided it this way then so be it. just learnt from other thread is joint number one for free press. thats a very cool. so we are not that oppressive.

For further argueing i'm to make up something i call 'my primary goal'. so you understand why i think the way i do. i'll have it in a jiffy.
This is not an answer. Bottle asked you why YOU think these things. All you give us is some vague, evasive reference to some unspecified authority outside yourself. Try again, please.

A living organism requires more than an embryo meets. It may be a stage and it may eventually become an organism, but at the embryo stage it doesn't meet any definition that an organ doesn't equally meet.

sorry, for some reason I mentally flipped "fetal" with "embryotic". I think it's without question that a FETUS is alive, I suppose it is up to debate whether an embryo qualifies.

no longer bring up the point of what is or is not tyranny. for last time i'm saying this, the few should not dictate over the many. strong survive, strenth in numbers. majority rules.:upyours:

That's tyranny. The few don't dictate the many. When you respect human rights the few get what they want AND the many get what they want. The only thing the many don't get is to dictate what the few do with their persons.

I know. You don't know what tyranny is, but you just explained why tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the majority. You also gave a bunch of reasons why murder shouldn't be illegal, or rape, or pretty much anything. Because if you were truly strong, by your definition, you could prevent it anyway.

The rule is that the forseen risk could not be lessened or eliminated by other EQUALLY VIABLE means of protection.Well, there were other viable options, such as a c-section, but the time it would take to get one makes me unsure if it counts as equally viable or not.

I'm not sure what there is to disagree on. Under current legal framework such an argument would NOT succeed on a self defense claim, it just wouldn't, you can disagree with that assertion, but you would be factually wrong.

I have not stated my opinion one way or the other as to whether or not it SHOULD, but if you wish to disagree with me that at this point in our legal system it WON'T, then you are free to do so, but I assure you you're wrong.No, I don't dispute that. Is the reason it doesn't count as self-defense solely or mostly because the fetus doesn't legally qualify as human?

sorry, for some reason I mentally flipped "fetal" with "embryotic". I think it's without question that a FETUS is alive, I suppose it is up to debate whether an embryo qualifies.

Actually, it was my fault. I swapped to addressing a separate argument of the post without making that clear. You're right that at the stage this pregnancy was at, there is no doubt that the fetus qualifies as a life and in any definition that doesn't specify that it must be outside the womb it would qualify as a person every bit as much as a newborn.

i've been told i'm dylexic. but i'm told alot of things. some pyschollogy dude was trying to tell me i have some rare pyschollogicall condition that i'm the only one in ireland that has it. not saying what it is, cause hate explaining it.
You are in Ireland? I believe rape is illegal in Ireland. I believe rape laws in Ireland include non-violent coercion. I believe there are also laws in Ireland against various forms of sexual harrassment. All of which could cover your coercive "charm" offensives on women who say no to you. In other words, even in Ireland, "no" means "no," your desire to sire babies notwithstanding.

No, I don't dispute that. Is the reason it doesn't count as self-defense solely or mostly because the fetus doesn't qualify as human?

Hard to say. There's a general maxim in legal thought that you don't go further than you need to. A self defense argument would fail at the very first step, therefore there's no need to expound further.

I suppose if you were to continue on, the next most damaging question is whether or not the "threat" of the nutrients being taken is propotionate. The general idea is life should only be taken to protect life, otherwise it's disproportionate. Your argument of "I wasn't aiming for the fetus, but the cord, just like I aimed for the hand of the assailant but hit his chest" doesn't work if you consider that severing the umbilical cord WILL kill the fetus. It's still an act in which the end result is death.

So if we consider it "human", then we run into a disproportionality problem. If you then argue that this particular fetus was old enough to be birthed alive after the severing of the umbilical cord, in which point the proportionality argument sort of goes away, you might have stronger ground to stand on. But again, only if you demonstrate it as a threat, not merely an inconvenience.

Also you run into another problem, is the umbilical cord part of the fetus or part of the mother? Generally thought of that which attaches the fetus TO the mother, so it's questionable whether severing it would count as an assault on the fetus, or an assault on the mother....

we fought to be free when we were be occupied, we won, we get our rules.
Um, no. Not in reality, anyway.

slavery based on race can cause problems. not expanding, off topic.
But slavery so you can get laid, that's just fine?

you eating 700 babies goes against my goal.
Why? You can always make more, once you've gathered your little harem.

Primary goal.

The primary goal is to mass produce healthy, educated, people. In order to speed up evolution process until the human race is perfect. Some would say, the human race is supposed to be flawed, because that’s life. I say, try the best we can and we will be good enough.

We should always push ourselves to make our education and health systems better. Every generation should thrive to make life better than it was yesterday.

People should try to reproduce as much as possible, as much as they can support them. The government should fund state of the art orphanages, in order to raise children perfectly. It is the government job to tell parents how raise their children and it is the parent’s job to do it. Any change on how to raise a child, should be done via voting. Majority rules over minority. Working out what should be done via unrestrained freedom of speech.

Any action that goes against this should be highly punished, like random murder, genital mutilation, knowingly spreading disease, child abuse and abortion. These acts should be considered treason.

It should be every cultures aim to achieve this. It is my personal goal to have sex with as many healthy women as possible and have as many children with them as possible. For appropriate mates; I look for firstly health, then intelligence, to increase of the child being brought up correctly.

no longer bring up the point of what is or is not tyranny. for last time i'm saying this, the few should not dictate over the many. strong survive, strenth in numbers. majority rules.:upyours:
You're not the majority, pal.

1/ yeah ok.
2/ almost, but i did say slavery causes problems, being from a country that was inslaved.
3/its not rape,its suprise sex.joking.
4/almost.
Is this an example of your "charm"? You must be the Prince of all the bus stops.

And speaking of charming women on buses after they've already said no, I believe public lewdness is illegal in Ireland, too.

Primary goal.

The primary goal is to mass produce healthy, educated, people. In order to speed up evolution process until the human race is perfect. Some would say, the human race is supposed to be flawed, because that’s life. I say, try the best we can and we will be good enough.

We should always push ourselves to make our education and health systems better. Every generation should thrive to make life better than it was yesterday.

People should try to reproduce as much as possible, as much as they can support them. The government should fund state of the art orphanages, in order to raise children perfectly. It is the government job to tell parents how raise their children and it is the parent’s job to do it. Any change on how to raise a child, should be done via voting. Majority rules over minority. Working out what should be done via unrestrained freedom of speech.

Any action that goes against this should be highly punished, like random murder, genital mutilation, knowingly spreading disease, child abuse and abortion. These acts should be considered treason.

It should be every cultures aim to achieve this. It is my personal goal to have sex with as many healthy women as possible and have as many children with them as possible. For appropriate mates; I look for firstly health, then intelligence, to increase of the child being brought up correctly.

Without even touching on this...warped ideology, I will say only this. Your views do not reflect that of the majority. So please follow your own edicts and go away, as you have lost.

Primary goal.

The primary goal is to mass produce healthy, educated, people. In order to speed up evolution process until the human race is perfect. Some would say, the human race is supposed to be flawed, because that’s life. I say, try the best we can and we will be good enough.

We should always push ourselves to make our education and health systems better. Every generation should thrive to make life better than it was yesterday.

People should try to reproduce as much as possible, as much as they can support them. The government should fund state of the art orphanages, in order to raise children perfectly. It is the government job to tell parents how raise their children and it is the parent’s job to do it. Any change on how to raise a child, should be done via voting. Majority rules over minority. Working out what should be done via unrestrained freedom of speech.

Any action that goes against this should be highly punished, like random murder, genital mutilation, knowingly spreading disease, child abuse and abortion. These acts should be considered treason.

It should be every cultures aim to achieve this. It is my personal goal to have sex with as many healthy women as possible and have as many children with them as possible. For appropriate mates; I look for firstly health, then intelligence, to increase of the child being brought up correctly.

Ok, I'm done. There is no way this is the argument of an adult. Not buying what you're selling, Mr. Charm. I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe anything you're saying is a reasoned argument or honest. I honestly suspect that you're someone younger trying to pretend to be older because you think it lends credibility to your argument. You advocate education and then when challenged on not knowing something you saying knowing things isn't worthwhile even on the topic you're discussing and fighting for. You talk about respecting children but not adults. You talk about coercing women and how charming you are. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this. Sorry, bud.

That's tyranny. The few don't dictate the many. When you respect human rights the few get what they want AND the many get what they want. The only thing the many don't get is to dictate what the few do with their persons.

I know. You don't know what tyranny is, but you just explained why tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the majority. You also gave a bunch of reasons why murder shouldn't be illegal, or rape, or pretty much anything. Because if you were truly strong, by your definition, you could prevent it anyway.

my country has great freedom of speach record apparently. so if people dont like something it will get change.

Hard to say. There's a general maxim in legal thought that you don't go further than you need to. A self defense argument would fail at the very first step, therefore there's no need to expound further.That makes sense.

I suppose if you were to continue on, the next most damaging question is whether or not the "threat" of the nutrients being taken is propotionate. The general idea is life should only be taken to protect life, otherwise it's disproportionate. Your argument of "I wasn't aiming for the fetus, but the cord, just like I aimed for the hand of the assailant but hit his chest" doesn't work if you consider that severing the umbilical cord WILL kill the fetus. It's still an act in which the end result is death.Yeah, the problem here is that there isn't a totally appropriate comparison to make to this. The only thing that I could think of is to check if there are laws on the book that make it illegal for someone to be hooked up to someone else if one person doesn't consent regardless of the reason.

So if we consider it "human", then we run into a disproportionality problem. If you then argue that this particular fetus was old enough to be birthed alive after the severing of the umbilical cord, in which point the proportionality argument sort of goes away, you might have stronger ground to stand on. But again, only if you demonstrate it as a threat, not merely an inconvenience.If she severed the cord, would she be obligated to go to the hospital and have them induce birth, or could she just let it sit there indefinitely?

Also you run into another problem, is the umbilical cord part of the fetus or part of the mother? Generally thought of that which attaches the fetus TO the mother, so it's questionable whether severing it would count as an assault on the fetus, or an assault on the mother....Ah, I see. In this case, I suppose the argument would have to be made that the assault on the fetus is less than or equivalent to the assault of the fetus on the mother.

You're not the majority, pal.

judging by what parties people vote for, i am.

Is this an example of your "charm"? You must be the Prince of all the bus stops.

And speaking of charming women on buses after they've already said no, I believe public lewdness is illegal in Ireland, too.

AGAIN I'M SAYING I'M POLITE WHEN I TALK TO WOMEN SAYING THAT FORCE SEX ON TO WOMEN IS REDICULOUS.

Without even touching on this...warped ideology, I will say only this. Your views do not reflect that of the majority. So please follow your own edicts and go away, as you have lost.

my entire goal my not be shared but ireland is mostly pro-life. the last time the gov tried to change the law, is was to make it stricter. it ddnt work though by 10 thousand more votes against i think. close though. we have have stricter rules on abortion than iran.

Hard to say. There's a general maxim in legal thought that you don't go further than you need to. A self defense argument would fail at the very first step, therefore there's no need to expound further.

I suppose if you were to continue on, the next most damaging question is whether or not the "threat" of the nutrients being taken is propotionate. The general idea is life should only be taken to protect life, otherwise it's disproportionate. Your argument of "I wasn't aiming for the fetus, but the cord, just like I aimed for the hand of the assailant but hit his chest" doesn't work if you consider that severing the umbilical cord WILL kill the fetus. It's still an act in which the end result is death.

So if we consider it "human", then we run into a disproportionality problem. If you then argue that this particular fetus was old enough to be birthed alive after the severing of the umbilical cord, in which point the proportionality argument sort of goes away, you might have stronger ground to stand on. But again, only if you demonstrate it as a threat, not merely an inconvenience.

Also you run into another problem, is the umbilical cord part of the fetus or part of the mother? Generally thought of that which attaches the fetus TO the mother, so it's questionable whether severing it would count as an assault on the fetus, or an assault on the mother....

The fetus in this scenario was viable.

And one should point out that you cannot claim to be attempting to shoot the knife out of your attackers hand if you can't see your attacker's hand. To suggest that should could have any idea where the bullet would hit is unreasonable.

She had a solution that would not kill the fetus, a c-section. There would be no qualitative change to the threat or her chances of being injured by waiting. In fact, the only change to the danger she faced was due to a gunshot wound she inflicted upon herself intentionally. Once the fetus becomes a person in this scenario, there is pretty much no way for this to become self-defense. She still needed the c-section, up until the c-section she continued to lose nutrients via bleeding and now she has to deal with the bullet. The shooting in no way dealt with the claimed threat but it deal with the pesky little inconvenience of a child. All signs point to this being about preventing the child from living, not to protect herself in any fashion.

Sounds like a dumb Lifetime movie, but this is true. A woman, 9 months pregnant, shoots herself in the stomach to kill her unborn baby and the Judge finds her not guilty of any crime. Apparently this type of "abortion" is legal according to the Judge's interpretation of the law. The law in the state of Virginia states that "any" person performing the abortion is performing a legal act. The problem is this wording was meant to protect doctors from prosecution, not a mother shooting herself to kill a 9 month old fetus. Virginia does not perform abortions in such a late term.

In my opinion this is a clear case of murder. The judge however focused on a loophole in the wording of the law.


http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=104124&ran=195201


Where the hell are all these damn Judges coming from? Wherever I look I see judges, doing Roe v Wade and, allowing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to pass. Who's in charge of Judges? Alberto Gonzales? (shudder)

That makes sense.

Yeah, the problem here is that there isn't a totally appropriate comparison to make to this. The only thing that I could think of is to check if there are laws on the book that make it illegal for someone to be hooked up to someone else if one person doesn't consent regardless of the reason.

If she severed the cord, would she be obligated to go to the hospital and have them induce birth, or could she just let it sit there indefinitely?

Ah, I see. In this case, I suppose the argument would have to be made that the assault on the fetus is less than or equivalent to the assault of the fetus on the mother.

Again, the comparison here with the cord scenario would be if she put a child out in the cold. She could have taken steps to protect the child and herself, but instead chose to increase the risk to herself and to the child resulting in the death of the child. The child was defenseless and in her care. She had a responsiblity to attempt to procure care for it. She could have done so at less of an inconvenience to herself and the child, but instead chose to kill it. That's not self-defense.

my entire goal my not be shared but ireland is mostly pro-life. the last time the gov tried to change the law, is was to make it stricter. it ddnt work though by 10 thousand more votes against i think. close though. we have have stricter rules on abortion than iran.
I think that the last referendum was very badly worded and in the light of the X case probably did not have the best timing.I also believe that if a referendum on weather abortion were to be held today it would be passed, but narrowly.The main reasons it would be passed wouldd be down to a greater percentage of younger voters and a decline in the influence of the catholic church.

my country has great freedom of speach record apparently. so if people dont like something it will get change.

Only if the majority agrees to it. So if the majority decides that black people get no rights, it's done. That's tyranny.

The fetus in this scenario was viable.

And one should point out that you cannot claim to be attempting to shoot the knife out of your attackers hand if you can't see your attacker's hand. To suggest that should could have any idea where the bullet would hit is unreasonable. I was under the impression that fetuses in the womb usually end up in certain positions. Also, she could have thought she knew where the cord was from ultrasounds.

She had a solution that would not kill the fetus, a c-section. There would be no qualitative change to the threat or her chances of being injured by waiting. In fact, the only change to the danger she faced was due to a gunshot wound she inflicted upon herself intentionally. Once the fetus becomes a person in this scenario, there is pretty much no way for this to become self-defense. She still needed the c-section, up until the c-section she continued to lose nutrients via bleeding and now she has to deal with the bullet. The shooting in no way dealt with the claimed threat but it deal with the pesky little inconvenience of a child. All signs point to this being about preventing the child from living, not to protect herself in any fashion.Yes, it was a viable solution, but was it equally viable? I'm arguing that it is unequal due to the time it would take to enact the solution.

Again, the comparison here with the cord scenario would be if she put a child out in the cold. She could have taken steps to protect the child and herself, but instead chose to increase the risk to herself and to the child resulting in the death of the child. The child was defenseless and in her care. She had a responsiblity to attempt to procure care for it. She could have done so at less of an inconvenience to herself and the child, but instead chose to kill it. That's not self-defense.I'm saying that the comparison is different because the child is not actively using her body, and as such, is subject to a different set of laws. I believe that the current laws for using someone's body require their consent, which is why I think the same would be true for a fetus, however it is true that there probably isn't a law that says you can't use someone else's body against their consent for any reason.

Primary goal.

The primary goal is to mass produce healthy, educated, people. In order to speed up evolution process until the human race is perfect. Some would say, the human race is supposed to be flawed, because that’s life. I say, try the best we can and we will be good enough.
I see. And how, exactly, is YOUR seed going to contribute to this natural master-race-ification of all humanity?

We should always push ourselves to make our education and health systems better. Every generation should thrive to make life better than it was yesterday.
But you see no reason to strive to express yourself clearly to others or even to spellcheck your own posts after acknowledging your own reading problems. And you argue for absolute majority rule even to the point of sexual enslavement of women -- a very progressive viewpoint (/sarcasm/). And rule by force. Yeah, those are high standards you're setting. I think we achieved them over 7000 years ago. The class has moved on since.

People should try to reproduce as much as possible, as much as they can support them. The government should fund state of the art orphanages, in order to raise children perfectly. It is the government job to tell parents how raise their children and it is the parent’s job to do it. Any change on how to raise a child, should be done via voting. Majority rules over minority. Working out what should be done via unrestrained freedom of speech.
You clearly have not thought this through. Voting and unrestrained free speech are guaranteed to destroy the state-controlled totalitarian slave-society you envision because people do not like to be told what to do. The majority are still human beings, not Borg all sharing the collective hive mind. If they can express their wishes and vote to enact them, they will, and conflict and pluralities will quickly emerge. (This would explain why the majority do not actually agree with you and in fact have laws prohibiting what you think they should be doing.) History proves it because (horrifyingly) you aren't the first to come up with these notions.

Any action that goes against this should be highly punished, like random murder, genital mutilation, knowingly spreading disease, child abuse and abortion. These acts should be considered treason.
Why should they be treason when most of them are already crimes?

Random murder (I suppose you're okay with targeted murder?), knowingly spreading disease, and child abuse are all already crimes pretty much everywhere.

Genital mutilation is on the long road towards being outlawed everywhere, thanks to public health and women's and children's rights initiatives. Though I do not see why you should want to outlaw it. It typically does not interfere with reproduction.

As for abortion, you have not shown why it should be banned under this master plan of yours. If your goal is to perfect the species, why would you wish to have unhealthy people born into the world? I would think you'd be all for abortion, as long as you get to choose who gets one.

Again, you clearly have not worked out the major chinks in your plan.

It should be every cultures aim to achieve this.
Get back to us when you have worked out the bugs in your system.

It is my personal goal to have sex with as many healthy women as possible and have as many children with them as possible. For appropriate mates; I look for firstly health, then intelligence, to increase of the child being brought up correctly.
Well, keep charming 'em at the bus stop, and you'll achieve that goal in no time, I'm sure.

Gotcha.

Your arguments are:

1) I want it. Gimme.
2) We won, so we get what we want. If we want slavery, tough titties. If we want women to be incubators for us, them bitchez can shut up and make us sammiches.
3) I don't care what you want. No, that doesn't make me a rapist, it makes me "charming."
4) My goals! MINE MINE MINE!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

The sammiches bit sounds okay...

judging by what parties people vote for, i am.

Name the party that supports of your views and give the percentage of the electorate they represent in your country. You are bullshitting us on this as well as on your ways with the ladies.

The sammiches bit sounds okay...

Damnit now I am hungry for sammiches

Any action that goes against this should be highly punished, like random murder, genital mutilation, knowingly spreading disease, child abuse and abortion. These acts should be considered treason.

It should be every cultures aim to achieve this. It is my personal goal to have sex with as many healthy women as possible and have as many children with them as possible. For appropriate mates; I look for firstly health, then intelligence, to increase of the child being brought up correctly.But if these women are so eager to have sex with you, then naturally they'd be honored to carry your seed, and therefore the idea of abortion would be silly, right? No need to make it illegal in that case.

First, I'll admit to only having read about 15 of the 30-some-odd pages of this thread (which, I'm sure, is more than a lot of the posters here, I'm just willing to admit to it...), so if I've missed some argument or other, I'm sorry. I don't want someone's you-obviously-didn't-read-my-post post to obscure the fact that there are points to be debated here.

To the "pragmatists" that don't equate infanticide with murder:
The fact that infanticide may not be equivalent to murder does not make it right. Even if it's a lesser degree of killing, it's still killing. Generally speaking, lesser forms of killing are also illegal, not just murder. For example, cruelty to animals, excessive force, etc. Cruelty to animals is especially salient in this case, because it is illegal to kill an animal without just cause, and simply being on your property, as her body is proposed to be hers, is not just cause.

To the people that say a woman's body is hers and hers alone:
How does the government justify drug laws, suicide laws, required immunizations, etc.? At some point, the social contract must have been expanded to include government regulation of our bodies. Right or wrong, this is the case, and there is more than enough precedent to show that the government can and does regulate what we can do with our own bodies, and society, for the most part, accepts this as the way things are. The government can easily extend these precedents to unborn babies, just as it extended quartering of troops to abortion in Roe v. Wade. The government has every means to go whichever way it chooses as far as abortion and methods of abortion are concerned, and the fact that it has legalized abortion in the past is no reason to assume that has relinqued all power over the bodies of its citizens (including limiting abortion if it so chooses).

To that woman:
How traumatic. How very sad.

To the self-defense-ists (for lack of a better word):
I agree, for the most part. After all, self-defense is not only legal, but should be to the highest degree, because protection of your personal rights should be a protected right. However, it is hard to justify a ninth-month abortion as self-defense, regardless of method, simply because by the time that baby has reached the ninth month, whatever health risks involved to the mother have been fully realized. There's no potential for further complications left. The self-defense arguments don't apply for the mere fact that you aren't making a difference in your own safety, and therefore any force is too much proportional to your goals. It's like getting a breast exam after your breasts have already turned black and fallen off. It's too late.

There's so much more, but I'll leave it at that, since my desk shift is over and my replacements want this computer (I've stayed here fifteen minutes longer than I have too, heh)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1 on the Moral Order axis and -5.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

System: Liberalism
Variation: Economic Liberalism
Ideologies: Progressive NeoLiberalism

I don't want anyone to assume anything not explicit in this post. Points made here do not reflect my religion/political party/age/race/gender/nationality/sexual orientation/etc. They are merely points.

The necessity of such a signature is why I don't post often.

AGAIN I'M SAYING I'M POLITE WHEN I TALK TO WOMEN SAYING THAT FORCE SEX ON TO WOMEN IS REDICULOUS.
Sarcastic response: Any conversation with you would necessarily involve force.

Serious response: When a woman says "no," that is the end of the conversation. Period. If you hope for another chance, you wait for her to come to you on her own. If she doesn't, it means she isn't going to, so you forget her and move on. That's what you are supposed to do. But according to you (and by the way, I don't really believe you), what you do when a woman says "no" is hound her and bother her with your so-called "charm" until she gives in because you are so confident that you know her mind better than she does. Well, I hate to break it to you, but 90% of all the rapists in jail say the exact same thing about their own powers to "charm" women into changing their minds. Only the women hadn't really changed their minds, and what those men did turned out to be a sex crime.

...it is illegal to kill an animal without just cause...

Illegal, where?

my entire goal my not be shared but ireland is mostly pro-life. the last time the gov tried to change the law, is was to make it stricter. it ddnt work though by 10 thousand more votes against i think. close though. we have have stricter rules on abortion than iran.
Banning abortion does not automatically translate into demanding that women have lots of babies. There is nothing in Ireland that seems to support your views about how society should work or what women are for.

I was under the impression that fetuses in the womb usually end up in certain positions. Also, she could have thought she knew where the cord was from ultrasounds.

Yes, it was a viable solution, but was it equally viable? I'm arguing that it is unequal due to the time it would take to enact the solution.

I'm saying that the comparison is different because the child is not actively using her body, and as such, is subject to a different set of laws. I believe that the current laws for using someone's body require their consent, which is why I think the same would be true for a fetus, however it is true that there probably isn't a law that says you can't use someone else's body against their consent for any reason.

Using the body is not justification for causing it to die. She is actively and knowingly killing it. If the child starved while in her care, I guarantee the fact that she could have breastfed (assuming she could) would be mentioned. This child was in her care by her choosing. She can't simply starve it because it's feeding is inconvenient.

The solution was MORE viable even though it took more time. Timeliness isn't a factor of viability or I could shoot someone every time I felt inconvenienced by waiting for the cops to arrive.

And as far as using the body without their consent, she did consent. She can't then kill someone because choosing a method that is safe for both of them is inconvenient.

As to the first point, that's completely wild speculation on your part and her part. That's not a reasonable argument.

I believe that the current laws for using someone's body require their consent

Stop right there. You are talking consent, or lack thereof. For a self defense claim to work, as we were discussing, there must be THREAT. Not a lack of consent. An argument for abortion can be made (and I think it's a good one) that the mother no longer consented to the fetus being there.

But for a self defense argument to work there must be a THREAT to the person, not merely the person no longer consenting.

Yeah, the problem here is that there isn't a totally appropriate comparison to make to this. The only thing that I could think of is to check if there are laws on the book that make it illegal for someone to be hooked up to someone else if one person doesn't consent regardless of the reason.

Once again, you're talking consent. That is the totally wrong word for a self defense context. You must be talking about a THREAT to the mother that the fetus imposed, a threat mitigated by her actions. It can not be that the mother did not CONSENT to the fetus.

If we want to talk theory along those lines sure, but please do NOT try to make a self defense hypothetical argument based on a mother's lack of consent, that is NOT what a self defense argument would require. There must be THREAT.

Ah, I see. In this case, I suppose the argument would have to be made that the assault on the fetus is less than or equivalent to the assault of the fetus on the mother.

Correct, it's not about consent, it's about threat of harm.

Where the hell are all these damn Judges coming from? Wherever I look I see judges, doing Roe v Wade and, allowing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to pass. Who's in charge of Judges? Alberto Gonzales? (shudder)

have you bothered to read this thread, and do you know anything about our legal structure:

a) it's already been discussed, the judge was perfectly right in doing what he did based on the wording of the law

2) judges do not pass legislature, they had no hand in passing the MCA, if someone challenges it based on a harm they claim it caused them, then the courts can review it

3) Gonzales is the Attorney General, and as such is in charge of the US Attorney's Office, it is an executive branch agency not a judicial one, he has no authority over judges at all.

Once again, you're talking consent. That is the totally wrong word for a self defense context. You must be talking about a THREAT to the mother that the fetus imposed, a threat mitigated by her actions. It can not be that the mother did not CONSENT to the fetus.

If we want to talk theory along those lines sure, but please do NOT try to make a self defense hypothetical argument based on a mother's lack of consent, that is NOT what a self defense argument would require. There must be THREAT.



Correct, it's not about consent, it's about threat of harm.

Yes, that's been my point all along. he keeps that the sudden lack of consent makes it okay to shoot. That's what makes it comparable to the guy who gets stuck after she consented to sex. Because in this case the person is there by consent and now stuck. A medical procedure could remove the 'intruder', but she instead choose to shoot the 'intruder' which in NO WAY addresses the claimed threat.

Using the body is not justification for causing it to die. She is actively and knowingly killing it. If the child starved while in her care, I guarantee the fact that she could have breastfed (assuming she could) would be mentioned. This child was in her care by her choosing. She can't simply starve it because it's feeding is inconvenient.I agree. However, breastfeeding isn't the only option, she could have taken the infant to the hospital or stolen some baby formula. She would be perfectly within her rights to refuse to breastfeed, but not to starve the infant.

The solution was MORE viable even though it took more time. Timeliness isn't a factor of viability or I could shoot someone every time I felt inconvenienced by waiting for the cops to arrive.Certainly, the response would have to be equivalent to the threat, but nonetheless, your options at any particular moment have to be taken into account.

And as far as using the body without their consent, she did consent. She can't then kill someone because choosing a method that is safe for both of them is inconvenient. She did consent, but ceased consenting. I don't see why consenting at one point means that you consent indefinitely.

As to the first point, that's completely wild speculation on your part and her part. That's not a reasonable argument.So there's no way to tell where a fetus is in the womb?

Once again, you're talking consent. That is the totally wrong word for a self defense context. You must be talking about a THREAT to the mother that the fetus imposed, a threat mitigated by her actions. It can not be that the mother did not CONSENT to the fetus.

If we want to talk theory along those lines sure, but please do NOT try to make a self defense hypothetical argument based on a mother's lack of consent, that is NOT what a self defense argument would require. There must be THREAT.

Correct, it's not about consent, it's about threat of harm.It's entirely possible to consent to something that is harmful to you, and then cease consenting to it.

Illegal, where?

My mistake, I meant to add "depending on means." All I know is that if I were to suddenly get up and shoot my dog, who is a perfectly healthy three year old Great Dane, but who is institutionalized now to the point that it could not live without human attention, and my neighbor saw me do it, and when asked I said "I don't want to take care of it anymore," I'd be hauled off for animal cruelty. The socially acceptable thing to do is to take it to an animal shelter or find someone else to take care of it (coincidentally, the same as with an unwanted kid in the ninth month).

Certainly, the response would have to be equivalent to the threat, but nonetheless, your options at any particular moment have to be taken into account.

What threat? Tell me, please, if you're going down these lines, what threat did a 9 month old fetus, about to be birthed, pose to her that SHOOTING HERSELF lessened?

She did consent, but ceased consenting. I don't see why consenting at one point means that you consent indefinitely.

Perhaps, but this is an entirely different argument. Lack of consent does not make a self defense claim.

My mistake, I meant to add "depending on means." All I know is that if I were to suddenly get up and shoot my dog, who is a perfectly healthy three year old Great Dane, but who is institutionalized now to the point that it could not live without human attention, and my neighbor saw me do it, and when asked I said "I don't want to take care of it anymore," I'd be hauled off for animal cruelty. The socially acceptable thing to do is to take it to an animal shelter or find someone else to take care of it (coincidentally, the same as with an unwanted kid in the ninth month).

totally OT but this thread made me sad, my brother had to put down his 8 year old dane this past weekend.

I loved that dog...

It's entirely possible to consent to something that is harmful to you, and then cease consenting to it.

Totally true, and absolutely irrelevant for a self defense claim.

For such a claim to work you have to demonstrate that there was a threat to you, that your actions were proportional to the threat, and that your actions would reasonably eliminate that threat to you.

I can not see what the threat TO her was, and most importantly, I can not see what a BULLET would do to LESSEN the threat to herself. If anything that act put her in MORE danger.

Now, if you can give me one example, one possible scenario in which the fetus posed a threat to her, and that by SHOOTING HERSELF she REDUCED the risk of injury/death, I will concede that point, yet I can think of none.

What threat? Tell me, please, if you're going down these lines, what threat did a 9 month old fetus, about to be birthed, pose to her that SHOOTING HERSELF lessened?Well, to take the argument on a slightly different tangent, but one that I've been touching upon in my past few posts, here goes:

There are plenty of reasons that rape is a felony. These reasons usually fall under the guise of human dignity - it is an assault on human dignity to force someone against their will.
I believe that if personhood were granted to fetuses, then the same principle would apply. It's entirely reasonable that a legal argument would be made that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term would be an assault on human dignity for the same reason. Therefore, the threat would be the same as any threat that a felony causes.
Of course, I admit this is speculation, but I don't see it as being possible that granting personhood to fetuses would leave all other laws unchanged.

Perhaps, but this is an entirely different argument. Lack of consent does not make a self defense claim.True, the harm does, and it's entirely possible to consent to harm and then withdraw consent. (I edited this into the post you're quoting here.)

My mistake, I meant to add "depending on means." All I know is that if I were to suddenly get up and shoot my dog, who is a perfectly healthy three year old Great Dane, but who is institutionalized now to the point that it could not live without human attention, and my neighbor saw me do it, and when asked I said "I don't want to take care of it anymore," I'd be hauled off for animal cruelty. The socially acceptable thing to do is to take it to an animal shelter or find someone else to take care of it (coincidentally, the same as with an unwanted kid in the ninth month).
That depends entirely on the state you live in. In most places, no, you would not be hauled off for animal cruelty for shooting your old, half-dead dog, especially if you lived in a rural area. If you had ready access to a vet, you might have to pay a nominal fine, but there would be no arrest if you can show that the animal had been under adequate care and was dying and suffering at the time you shot it. If you lived in a densely populated area, you would probably be charged with discharging a weapon. If you allowed your old, half-dead dog to starve to death without care because it was dying anyway, then yes, you would be done for animal cruelty. And if you dispose of your dead dog in a way that violates public health and sanitation ordinances, then you would probably be fined to that, too.

EDIT: I'm just pointing out why the animal cruelty example is not a good one. As to the OP story, I really don't know why we are debating it. The woman was clearly not in her right mind. I don't see how this bizarre story stands as an example of anything.

There are plenty of reasons that rape is a felony. These reasons usually fall under the guise of human dignity - it is an assault on human dignity to force someone against their will.
I believe that if personhood were granted to fetuses, then the same principle would apply. It's entirely reasonable that a legal argument would be made that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term would be an assault on human dignity for the same reason. Therefore, the threat would be the same as any threat that a felony causes.
Of course, I admit this is speculation, but I don't see it as being possible that granting personhood to fetuses would leave all other laws unchanged.


None of which, NONE of which, has anything to do with a self defense claim. What you do not seem to understand is that "self defense" is what we call "a term of art". It has a very specific meaning to it. It means what it means, and nothing more.

For a self defense claim to work there must be a threat of harm. Not a threat "against human dignity" not a lack of consent to general action, there must be a threat of actual, physical harm. Nothing else works.

NOTHING ELSE WORKS.

Now tell me, what threat of ACTUAL PHYSICAL HARM was there in this context that her action lessened?

Don't talk to me about consent, don't talk to me about human dignity, don't talk to me about bodily autonomy.

We're talking self defense here, and self defense REQUIRES A THREAT OF PHYSICAL HARM. What THREAT OF PHYSICAL HARM was there that her actions lessened?

If you can not answer that question then a self defense argument is done, it's toast, finished, impossible to make. The only way you can possibly fit a self defense argument into a concept of "assault on human dignity" is to change the very definition of the word.

None of which, NONE of which, has anything to do with a self defense claim. What you do not seem to understand is that "self defense" is what we call "a term of art". It has a very specific meaning to it. It means what it means, and nothing more.

For a self defense claim to work there must be a threat of harm. Not a threat "against human dignity" not a lack of consent to general action, there must be a threat of actual, physical harm. Nothing else works.

NOTHING ELSE WORKS.

Now tell me, what threat of ACTUAL PHYSICAL HARM was there in this context that her action lessened?

Don't talk to me about consent, don't talk to me about human dignity, don't talk to me about bodily autonomy.

We're talking self defense here, and self defense REQUIRES A THREAT OF PHYSICAL HARM. What THREAT OF PHYSICAL HARM was there that her actions lessened?

If you can not answer that question then a self defense argument is done, it's toast, finished, impossible to make. The only way you can possibly fit a self defense argument into a concept of "assault on human dignity" is to change the very definition of the word.According to the link that Jocabia posted, there doesn't have to be a threat of physical harm; as long as the defense is done against someone in the process of committing a felony, it counts as self-defense.

According to the link that Jocabia posted, there doesn't have to be a threat of physical harm; as long as the defense is done against someone in the process of committing a felony, it counts as self-defense.

nonsensical, if I see someone trying to steal my computer, I am not entitled to shoot him dead. It is neither proportional, nor in defense of SELF.

Please show me this link?

nonsensical, if I see someone trying to steal my computer, I am not entitled to shoot him dead. It is neither proportional, nor in defense of SELF.

Please show me this link?The link:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

The wording I am referring to:
1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.


I am arguing that force is being used in defense of her person against the force of the fetus.

The link:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

The wording I am referring to:
1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.


I am arguing that force is being used in defense of her person against the force of the fetus.

I suggest you read the first two lines of that page, upon which the rest of the entire discussion is predicated:

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.


emphasis mine.

Note the: Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm

This is taken from the VERY page you just quoted to me. Answer me this. In what way did SHOOTING HERSELF prevent death/great bodily harm? In what situation would this have caused her LESS injury or a lesser chance of death?

That is the law, you missed that part apparently when you went on to quote the rest. But you should reread. In what way did shooting herself decrease the chance of death/great bodily harm?

You are not simply allowed to meet force with force, your force must be proportionate in the circumstances, and neccessary to prevent injury/death to yourself. Shooting herself DID NOT in any way reduce the chance of injury/death. Answer the question I asked, in what way did it? If you can't answer that, IT IS NOT SELF DEFENSE.

I agree. However, breastfeeding isn't the only option, she could have taken the infant to the hospital or stolen some baby formula. She would be perfectly within her rights to refuse to breastfeed, but not to starve the infant.

Those aren't immediate solutions. If the infant was starving and she refused to breastfeed it or take it somewhere to be cared for she would certainly be found negligent.

Certainly, the response would have to be equivalent to the threat, but nonetheless, your options at any particular moment have to be taken into account.

She did consent, but ceased consenting. I don't see why consenting at one point means that you consent indefinitely. She consented to getting the child into the position it was in and ACCORDING TO YOU she suddenly denied consent and that turns the child into an attacker. It doesn't and her retraction has no bearing on whether it is self-defense.

Consent is only relevant to how she got in the situation. A lack of consent does not relate to a threat. That's the point.

So there's no way to tell where a fetus is in the womb?

There is no way that in your home you could tell where the umbellical cord was in the womb.

It's entirely possible to consent to something that is harmful to you, and then cease consenting to it.

Which has nothing to do with self-defense. Again, you can't draw someone into a position they can't get themselves out of and then once they're in change your mind and shoot them. It's not only not self-defense, it's absurd.

I suggest you read the first two lines of that page, upon which the rest of the entire discussion is predicated:

emphasis mine.

Note the: Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harmI was under the impression that the part about the felony was an exception. How does defending your property count as protecting yourself from bodily harm?

Those aren't immediate solutions. If the infant was starving and she refused to breastfeed it or take it somewhere to be cared for she would certainly be found negligent.The infant starving isn't immediate, either.

Consent is only relevant to how she got in the situation. A lack of consent does not relate to a threat. That's the point.Not in and of itself, no.

There is no way that in your home you could tell where the umbellical cord was in the womb.Do you happen to have a link for this? I wouldn't ask, but there's a lot of biology being brought up that I didn't know, and I thought I was somewhat well informed about biology.

I suggest you read the first two lines of that page, upon which the rest of the entire discussion is predicated:



emphasis mine.

Note the: Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm

This is taken from the VERY page you just quoted to me. Answer me this. In what way did SHOOTING HERSELF prevent death/great bodily harm? In what situation would this have caused her LESS injury or a lesser chance of death?

That is the law, you missed that part apparently when you went on to quote the rest. But you should reread. In what way did shooting herself decrease the chance of death/great bodily harm?

You are not simply allowed to meet force with force, your force must be proportionate in the circumstances, and neccessary to prevent injury/death to yourself. Shooting herself DID NOT in any way reduce the chance of injury/death. Answer the question I asked, in what way did it? If you can't answer that, IT IS NOT SELF DEFENSE.

Precisely what I said nearly word for word. I've pointed out several times that he is not reading the actual page. He is trying desperately to make this into a self-defense comparison when there is no way to stretch this into self-defense. He keeps going back to it being immediate and to consent, but neither has any bearing.

The infant starving isn't immediate, either.

It certainly could be and in this case it is. Because you're talking about starving it by removing the umbellical cord but not offering any other form of sustinance.

Not in and of itself, no.

Not at all. It has no bearing. None.

Do you happen to have a link for this? I wouldn't ask, but there's a lot of biology being brought up that I didn't know, and I thought I was somewhat well informed about biology.

You want me to prove to you that she couldn't have known where the cord is? You realize that yours is the positive assertion, yeah? You've suggested she could know with reasonable certainty the location of the umbellical cord. The burden of proof falls on the positive assertion.

I was under the impression that the part about the felony was an exception. How does defending your property count as protecting yourself from bodily harm?

It doesn't. That's why you can't, for example, set up lethal traps on the windows of your home.

It doesn't. That's why you can't, for example, set up lethal traps on the windows of your home.
Then why does it mention property at all?

Then why does it mention property at all?

Did you read the last part? "Until he has secured HIMSELF from all danger." There is the presumption that you are physical danger when someone is caught in the commission of a felony. In the quoted part they mention that violence and surprise must be aspects. However, there have been actual cases of people setting fatal traps for intruder and it is very much illegal.

I was under the impression that the part about the felony was an exception. How does defending your property count as protecting yourself from bodily harm?

It does not. Which is why you are NOT allowed to use lethal force (or Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm) in defense of property.

You may use FORCE to protect your property, however, as I said many pages ago, when you use LETHAL FORCE, the rules change somewhat.

Force may be used in defense of property, LETHAL force (or force likely to cause death or great bodily harm) may ONLY be used in defense of self, against force likely to cause your death or great bodily harm.

Again it's ALL ABOUT PROPORTIONALITY. You can use lethal force to protect your LIFE, you CAN NOT use lethal force to protect your property (however you may use some degree of force provided that this force is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm).

Did you read the last part? "Until he has secured HIMSELF from all danger." There is the presumption that you are physical danger when someone is caught in the commission of a felony. In the quoted part they mention that violence and surprise must be aspects. However, there have been actual cases of people setting fatal traps for intruder and it is very much illegal.Yes, that's true, but the law also mentions that it's acceptable to chase down the person who is committing the felony. Wouldn't that be putting yourself in more danger?

Then why does it mention property at all?

because you may use force to protect your property. Just not lethal force.

It does not. Which is why you are NOT allowed to use lethal force (or Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm) in defense of property.

You may use FORCE to protect your property, however, as I said many pages ago, when you use LETHAL FORCE, the rules change somewhat.

Force may be used in defense of property, LETHAL force (or force likely to cause death or great bodily harm) may ONLY be used in defense of self, against force likely to cause your death or great bodily harm.

Again it's ALL ABOUT PROPORTIONALITY. You can use lethal force to protect your LIFE, you CAN NOT use lethal force to protect your property (however you may use some degree of force provided that this force is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm).Yes, that's why I brought up that the lethal force could have been an accident; it was force that became lethal, but wasn't intentionally.

because you may use force to protect your property. Just not lethal force.

Actually, it says lethal force.

Yes, that's true, but the law also mentions that it's acceptable to chase down the person who is committing the felony. Wouldn't that be putting yourself in more danger?

possibly, possibly not. That would be an issue for trial. If by your actions you had a reasonable belief that you put yourself at greater risk, then you fail at a self defense argument.

It only says that a self defense argument is not AUTOMATICALLY defeated if you pursue. But remember, it's an affirmative defense, you still have to prove what you did was right based on the facts you reasonably believed them to be.

Yes, that's why I brought up that the lethal force could have been an accident; it was force that became lethal, but wasn't intentionally.

remember, it's "likely to cause death". Severing the umbilical cord is likely the kill the fetus.

Additionally firing a bullet into your abdomen is likely to cause the death of the fetus. You don't necessarily have to WANT to kill it, as long as your acts are LIKELY to kill it.

Yes, that's true, but the law also mentions that it's acceptable to chase down the person who is committing the felony. Wouldn't that be putting yourself in more danger?

No, it wouldn't. It says you can chase down the person until you are no longer in danger. It is meant to protect me in the event that he slips away within my house but is still a threat to me. If you had an intruder in your home it's actually more dangerous not to pursue an intruder. However, in most jurisdictions you cannot chase that intruder outside of your property because it is assumed that the threat has subsided.

You're scrambling here. Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about at first and that you now know your claims were incorrect.

Actually, it says lethal force.

only if it is in defense of self, as you said, you can't set up a trapped front door to blow someone away when he opens it, disproportionate.

The general exception to this is that someone whose home has an intruder is not held to the higher standard, and it is generally acceptable to assume that an intruder means you harm, as such you do not need to show a great degree of proportionality, it is assumed that someone who enters your home creates a risk to your life.

This however is based on the idea that an intruder who enters the home to do criminal acts intends to carry them out, and can not be logically applied to a fetus that did not chose to be there.

You are allowed to use a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury only if, ONLY IF you are threatend by a force likely to cause death or great bodily injury AND if your use of force will eliminate the threat against you.

That's it, that's the law. That's the only time. Period. I don't get to pull the "trust me I'm a lawyer" card out very often, but in this case...trust me, I'm a lawyer.

For your argument to work you can do one of two things:

a) argue that the use of force was not such a use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury to the fetus

OR

b) argue that the use of force WAS such a force likely to cause death or great bodily injury to the fetus but the fetus was threatening death or great bodily injury to the mother and the mother's use of force prevented that threat against her.

Argument A is bull. Even if you argue she didn't INTEND to do it, it's irrelevant. Firing a bullet into a small space does create a very high risk of death/great injury. Even if she was directly on mark, even if she just struct the umbilical cord, the force of the bullet traveling through her abdomen would have greatly harmed, if not killed the fetus, by the sheer force of the bullet travel alone

B is likewise bull, because you can not point to me, in ANY WAY how the fetus was threatening her with death or great bodily harm. Even if you argue that birthing the child had an element of risk to it, killing the fetus in this manner would in NO way eliminate that risk to her because 1) she'd still have to have the now dead fetus removed from her in pretty much the same traumatic fashion that birthing a live one would have been, 2) she now has a decaying organism inside her body, causing a great risk of infection and 3) SHE SHOT HERSELF. Death by bullet is FAAAAAAAR more likely than death by birthing a child. She did not in any way reduce or eliminate the risk to her.

Well, I have to say that I still believe that this would be self-defense, and therefore perfectly justified, or at least it would be if personhood were granted to fetuses.

However, I realize that I don't know as much about the law or about biology as I thought I did. I am unable to prove my case. It is for these reasons that I must concede this argument.

So, I must congratulate you both. While this discussion wasn't rewarding in the ways I'd hoped it would be, it was nonetheless very educational.

Well, I have to say that I still believe that this would be self-defense, and therefore perfectly justified, or at least it would be if personhood were granted to fetuses.



Only if you fundamentally alter the definition of self defense to fit your argument. Under current definitions it would not.

Only if you fundamentally alter the definition of self defense to fit your argument. Under current definitions it would not.Hey, I conceded the argument, don't drag me back in. :)

I see. And how, exactly, is YOUR seed going to contribute to this natural master-race-ification of all humanity?


But you see no reason to strive to express yourself clearly to others or even to spellcheck your own posts after acknowledging your own reading problems. And you argue for absolute majority rule even to the point of sexual enslavement of women -- a very progressive viewpoint (/sarcasm/). And rule by force. Yeah, those are high standards you're setting. I think we achieved them over 7000 years ago. The class has moved on since.


You clearly have not thought this through. Voting and unrestrained free speech are guaranteed to destroy the state-controlled totalitarian slave-society you envision because people do not like to be told what to do. The majority are still human beings, not Borg all sharing the collective hive mind. If they can express their wishes and vote to enact them, they will, and conflict and pluralities will quickly emerge. (This would explain why the majority do not actually agree with you and in fact have laws prohibiting what you think they should be doing.) History proves it because (horrifyingly) you aren't the first to come up with these notions.


Why should they be treason when most of them are already crimes?

Random murder (I suppose you're okay with targeted murder?), knowingly spreading disease, and child abuse are all already crimes pretty much everywhere.

Genital mutilation is on the long road towards being outlawed everywhere, thanks to public health and women's and children's rights initiatives. Though I do not see why you should want to outlaw it. It typically does not interfere with reproduction.

As for abortion, you have not shown why it should be banned under this master plan of yours. If your goal is to perfect the species, why would you wish to have unhealthy people born into the world? I would think you'd be all for abortion, as long as you get to choose who gets one.

Again, you clearly have not worked out the major chinks in your plan.


Get back to us when you have worked out the bugs in your system.


Well, keep charming 'em at the bus stop, and you'll achieve that goal in no time, I'm sure.

firstly, i did that one in word and i did spell check it.
i dont have a totalitarian government. people usually vote in the pro-life parties.
also public places are the best place to pick up women other than bars and clubs. cause it is easier to talk also they expect to be chatted up in clubs.

Name the party that supports of your views and give the percentage of the electorate they represent in your country. You are bullshitting us on this as well as on your ways with the ladies.

ah well our current government has the majority and they are pro-life so what do you want?

firstly, i did that one in word and i did spell check it.
i dont have a totalitarian government. people usually vote in the pro-life parties.
also public places are the best place to pick up women other than bars and clubs. cause it is easier to talk also they expect to be chatted up in clubs.

That said, it's not impossible for Irish women to get abortions. Statistics say that up to 4000 women a year go to the UK to have an abortion.
The need is there, but so's the hypocrisy.

Sarcastic response: Any conversation with you would necessarily involve force.

Serious response: When a woman says "no," that is the end of the conversation. Period. If you hope for another chance, you wait for her to come to you on her own. If she doesn't, it means she isn't going to, so you forget her and move on. That's what you are supposed to do. But according to you (and by the way, I don't really believe you), what you do when a woman says "no" is hound her and bother her with your so-called "charm" until she gives in because you are so confident that you know her mind better than she does. Well, I hate to break it to you, but 90% of all the rapists in jail say the exact same thing about their own powers to "charm" women into changing their minds. Only the women hadn't really changed their minds, and what those men did turned out to be a sex crime.

again i say,
I DONT FORCE WOMEN TO SLEEP WITH ME!
i'm very much against rape.
i also dont say "do you want shag?" i have more tact than that. stop pretending i'm some tyrannical rapist.

Banning abortion does not automatically translate into demanding that women have lots of babies. There is nothing in Ireland that seems to support your views about how society should work or what women are for.

i'm not banning abortion. abortion is already banned.

That said, it's not impossible for Irish women to get abortions. Statistics say that up to 4000 women a year go to the UK to have an abortion.
The need is there, but so's the hypocrisy.

never said it was imposible. i would like england to co-operate with us, but i cant vote over there.

never said it was imposible. i would like england to co-operate with us, but i cant vote over there.

What do you mean by cooperate?
To be honest, I'm glad it's at least possible in England. Having to fly all the way over to the rest of Europe would be a bit of a drag...

What do you mean by cooperate?
To be honest, I'm glad it's at least possible in England. Having to fly all the way over to the rest of Europe would be a bit of a drag...

i've heard, but sounds unlikely that the are thinking of restricting irish allowed to get abortions in thier clinics.
i propose that if an irish person comes back from england after having an abortion, that they should be charged about €16,000 every year for 18 years. so getting an abortion, in the long term, would be alot more expensive than keeping the baby.

i've heard, but sounds unlikely that the are thinking of restricting irish allowed to get abortions in thier clinics.
i propose that if an irish person comes back from england after having an abortion, that they should be charged about €16,000 every year for 18 years. so getting an abortion, in the long term, would be alot more expensive than keeping the baby.

That would mean that doctors would have to break their oath and reveal private data about patients to the government. I would definitely NOT support any such notion.
And I haven't heard anything about them trying to have the Irish banned from their clinics... it would be rather pointless, too. As I said, it would simply result in Irish women having abortions in the Netherlands instead of in England.

i've heard, but sounds unlikely that the are thinking of restricting irish allowed to get abortions in thier clinics.
i propose that if an irish person comes back from england after having an abortion, that they should be charged about €16,000 every year for 18 years. so getting an abortion, in the long term, would be alot more expensive than keeping the baby.

I propose that Ireland catch up with the 1900s and legalize abortion like the rest of the free world. ;)

That would mean that doctors would have to break their oath and reveal private data about patients to the government. I would definitely NOT support any such notion.
And I haven't heard anything about them trying to have the Irish banned from their clinics... it would be rather pointless, too. As I said, it would simply result in Irish women having abortions in the Netherlands instead of in England.

sorry i should have said, other countries as well as england. we share medical information with england, so probably the other european countries too.

I propose that Ireland catch up with the 1900s and legalize abortion like the rest of the free world. ;)

should ireland catch up with the 1900's and startgoing to war with smaller nations? (even though theres not much smaller).
how about we should start enslaving black people like other white countries have done?
i know lets start torturing muslims for fun! so we can be like usa, the land of the 'free'.

I propose that Ireland catch up with the 1900s and legalize abortion like the rest of the free world. ;)

seconded.

sorry i should have said, other countries as well as england. we share medical information with england, so probably the other european countries too.

You're not sharing information about individual patients. And coming from Germany, that would break rights granted in the German Grundgesetz. Dream on.

I'd like to see Ireland providing full rights to all its adult citizens, but as I am not one of them I will not push that issue in any way. I am, however, glad that women here have the possibility to avoid their own countries somewhat archaic laws and don't have to resort to coathangers again.

should ireland catch up with the 1900's and startgoing to war with smaller nations? (even though theres not much smaller).
how about we should start enslaving black people like other white countries have done?
i know lets start torturing muslims for fun! so we can be like usa, the land of the 'free'.

In the 1900s? Even the USA had freed their slaves by then.
And I can't recall any Muslims being tortured for their religion back then, either. On the contrary, during that era Europe and America greatly admired the Arab world and its culture.

ah well our current government has the majority and they are pro-life so what do you want?

Fight the evil, inherent in the system?

Just because it is the way it is... Just because you are in the minority...

Doesn't mean you shouldn't TRY to make the world a better place.

should ireland catch up with the 1900's and startgoing to war with smaller nations? (even though theres not much smaller).
how about we should start enslaving black people like other white countries have done?
i know lets start torturing muslims for fun! so we can be like usa, the land of the 'free'.

Someone else has alrady dealt with the fundamental errors...

I'll just point out, it IS possible to pick up the areas of social progress that have criss-crossed the globe, without picking up ALL of the bad stuff, too.

The recent few years of the US haven't been a great example - but that is because rightwing fundamentalists have been 'on the throne' and have unified the very worst elements of society (the racists, the nationalists, the religious extremists, the homophobes) into one 'voting bloc'.

It can't last, unless we slide ALL the way into despotism (which isn't looking IMPOSSIBLE), because people who base their agenda on hating others find it hard to stay united with others for long.

Try looking at the OVERVIEW of the direction of social progress for the last hundred years, and you'll see an 'America' it is much easier to appreciate.

should ireland catch up with the 1900's and startgoing to war with smaller nations? (even though theres not much smaller).
how about we should start enslaving black people like other white countries have done?
i know lets start torturing muslims for fun! so we can be like usa, the land of the 'free'.

Yes, you're kind enough not to harm the rights of a small group of people (and you're right, it's very wrong), instead choosing to harm the rights of about 50% of your population. Yep. I can see why you'd want to not be more like the US. The US isn't perfect in any way, but until we start saying "abortion should be illegal so women have lots of my children", we'll always have something on you.

What's really funny is that Gorias ignores the fact that most abortions are performed on women who already have at least one child. He, like most anti-choice morons, hasn't ever actually spoken to women or taken interest in their lives. Women are a different species, existing to act as baby-growers for Mankind, so why should Man bother to learn what they're actually up to?

Hate to burst the bubble, but most women who have abortions already have kids, and most of the women who don't say that they ARE planning to have children in the future. Choosing not to continue one's current pregnancy does not in any way preclude having children in the future. It just means that the woman in question is making the responsible choice to not make a baby when she doesn't want one.

Pardon? I never suggested that the woman be in prison. I simply suggested that she not be permitted to shoot a fetus. The point was that were the law followed (which is what we were talking about) the child would be alive.

Pardon me but how would have not permitted her to shoot the fetus?
By law?
How could you enforce that law?
Could she have shot herself (and the fetus) even if that was illegal?

In the end you are not giving a solution to the problem but you are implying that her actions should have been a crime (if your opinions were law) and thus that she should be jailed (usually when somebody breaks the law that person is jailed).
I know that you did not suggest it, but you implyed it in your answers.
I was just pointing out this inconsistence.

However, by your logic, I shouldn't make rape illegal because the rape victims would still be raped. The only thing that would be different is that the rapist would be in prison or could be sentenced to death.

My logic is that your solution would not have saved the child since it would have not deterred said woman to commit homicide/attempted suicide.
We make rape, murder, robbery, etc. illegal to deter people from commiting them. This is evidently useless when the crime is commited by a person unable to recognize the consequences of their acts (deranged) as in this case.

This woman should not be in prison. She was clearly ill.

I'm glad we agree.

It doesn't appear the instability was temporary. She needs help something I've said repeatedly. Something you obviously couldn't be arsed to read.

I wrote that she could have proclaimed temporary mental instability as a legal loophole.
Something, obviously, you couldn't be arsed to read.

Good, then we agree. Of course, you'd know that if you'd actually read my statements. She shouldn't be jailed. She is clearly deranged. She is pitiful. I've said all of that explicitly.

Oh, sorry, i did not find a word in your posts saying that she should have been cured, but i could have missed it. Can you point it out for me?

But, hey, what difference does that make, right? Just so long as you say your bit while making it look like it actually replies to me.

As a fellow person another thing you could have done is, oh, I don't know, read the thread BEFORE you replied.

Sorry that I hold an opinion, I'll try to better myself.

should ireland catch up with the 1900's and startgoing to war with smaller nations? (even though theres not much smaller).
how about we should start enslaving black people like other white countries have done?
i know lets start torturing muslims for fun! so we can be like usa, the land of the 'free'.

No, Ireland should remain in the 2000s with refraining from war, they're not lagging there. I'm not American, and they should catch up with the world regarding war crimes, just like Ireland should with abortion.

firstly, i did that one in word and i did spell check it.
I was referring to your earlier statement that you don't think it's important to do that, when others complained about your spelling and grammar, which are so poor that it seems like you don't actually speak English, even though you claim to.

I notice you didn't spell check this post.

i dont have a totalitarian government. people usually vote in the pro-life parties.
No, they don't. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing the information I asked you for. Your mere assertion will not carry the argument.

Also, if you [edit] think that a society in which all children are raised by the state in state orphanages and that all aspects of human reproduction are controlled by the state by punitive laws, is not totalitarian, then you do not know what "totalitarian" means.

also public places are the best place to pick up women other than bars and clubs. cause it is easier to talk also they expect to be chatted up in clubs.
I'm not surprised that you completely missed the point. The problem is not that you flirt in public places. The problem is your remarks in this thread in which you stated that, when a woman says no, you don't take that as her final answer, but keep working on her because you know that, even though she says no now, she'll say yes if you keep pushing her. THAT is the problem. Of course you don't get it, because if you did, you wouldn't be acting like that.

I'm starting to think you might be one of those obnoxious idiots that I and my women friends often have to be rude to or even appeal to other men to chase away for us because you won't take "no, thank you" for an answer. In fact, such morons won't even take "I'm not interested," "good-bye," "scram," "go to hell," or "get away from me or I'll call a cop" for answers, either. They just keep coming at us like smiling, wheedling, horny, little dogs trying to hump our legs (figuratively) and thinking that they are "charming" us. And when they finally do get it into their heads that they are being told off, they have to call us "bitches" or "dykes" before leaving.

I knew two like you who commuted on the same route as me when I lived in Vermont. And when I lived in NYC, such losers were like flies in the summertime.

ah well our current government has the majority and they are pro-life so what do you want?
I want proof to back up your ridiculous assertions. Clearly you have none, so we may be confident that you argument is nonsense and dismiss it as such. Thanks for playing.

again i say,
I DONT FORCE WOMEN TO SLEEP WITH ME!
i'm very much against rape.
i also dont say "do you want shag?" i have more tact than that. stop pretending i'm some tyrannical rapist.
Just about everyone who has argued with you in the past 10+ pages has explained in detail what is wrong with your attitude as you have expressed it here. The fact that you just don't get it shows we are right -- you are a clueless loser who, like most such, has no idea that he is speeding down the date-rape highway.

I don't care whether you ever get it or not. I don't care if you ever get hit with a date rape charge, or whether you end your miserable days unwanted and alone. Your lack of social grace has been an amusing pinata to whack around, but it is off the topic of the thread.

i'm not banning abortion. abortion is already banned.
A) Abortion is banned in Ireland on paper only. AFAIK, that law is so unenforceable that there is no attempt to enforce it. Irish women are completely free to go to England or Scotland to get their abortions. The only effect of Ireland's law is to discriminate on the basis of economics, as only the poorest of women who cannot afford the trip, cannot get safe, legal abortions. Ireland clings to its loyalty to Catholic doctrine, but every year it seems that loyalty gets less relevant to Irish society and challenges to the abortion ban get stronger. Personally, I would bet that this non-functional, non-law will be repealed when a sufficient number of Irish citizens decide that clinging to this particular bit of catechism is too much of a burden.

B) Also, as usual, you have simply not addressed the point. Abortion is (pseudo-)banned in Ireland, but how does that lead to the rest of your dystopian vision for how society should work? It doesn't, and I do not believe for one moment that any Irish would vote in favor of your vision if it were presented as a political platform in an election. You have utterly failed to show any evidence otherwise.

A) Abortion is banned in Ireland on paper only. AFAIK, that law is so unenforceable that there is no attempt to enforce it. Irish women are completely free to go to England or Scotland to get their abortions. The only effect of Ireland's law is to discriminate on the basis of economics, as only the poorest of women who cannot afford the trip, cannot get safe, legal abortions. Ireland clings to its loyalty to Catholic doctrine, but every year it seems that loyalty gets less relevant to Irish society and challenges to the abortion ban get stronger. Personally, I would bet that this non-functional, non-law will be repealed when a sufficient number of Irish citizens decide that clinging to this particular bit of catechism is too much of a burden.

Ryanair is acting as a social equaliser here ;)

Pardon me but how would have not permitted her to shoot the fetus?
By law?
How could you enforce that law?
Could she have shot herself (and the fetus) even if that was illegal?

In the end you are not giving a solution to the problem but you are implying that her actions should have been a crime (if your opinions were law) and thus that she should be jailed (usually when somebody breaks the law that person is jailed).
I know that you did not suggest it, but you implyed it in your answers.
I was just pointing out this inconsistence.

Amusing. Again, no laws prevent people from breaking them. However, their point is to deter them. Had this been illegal would it have stopped this specific woman? Don't know. It would deter her in the future, though. And some laws are specifically designed to get people into treatment if they break them, like laws about suicide.

You're intentional oversimplification directly argues for nothing being illegal. Why make murder illegal since people are still capable of murdering? In fact, since the only things we make illegal are things that people are capable of doing, apparently, all laws are nonsensical. Laws are meant to be more than punitive. They are meant to deter. Deterence isn't the same as making impossible.

By the way, "not permitted" means "not allowed". You are using it like it means "make impossible". When posting in English, it's good to be aware of the English definitions of words.



My logic is that your solution would not have saved the child since it would have not deterred said woman to commit homicide/attempted suicide.
We make rape, murder, robbery, etc. illegal to deter people from commiting them. This is evidently useless when the crime is commited by a person unable to recognize the consequences of their acts (deranged) as in this case.

She didn't attempt suicide. There is no indication that she was trying to die. She did appear to know the consequences of her actions. She just seemed to be irrational. You cannot say for sure how making illegal would have affected her. However, in analyzing a law, the point is to analyze the affect if it were followed, and of course whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

In this case, the person I was replying to said I had to show why people would benefit from a law against shooting a fully-developed fetus. I pointed out that what was obvious, that as much as rape law is about preventing rape this law would be about preventing shootings.


I wrote that she could have proclaimed temporary mental instability as a legal loophole.
Something, obviously, you couldn't be arsed to read.

Amusing. I did read it. My reply directly addressed what you said. Were she to make that claim she would be required to get mental help, something I would like for her to do. Your claim would actually have the outcome I would prefer and you said it like that would be a bad thing. I simply explained how and why I think it would be a good thing.


Oh, sorry, i did not find a word in your posts saying that she should have been cured, but i could have missed it. Can you point it out for me?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was responsible for making sure you read my posts BEFORE you reply to them. Here. Let me fulfill my responsibilty to account for your laziness.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11842579&postcount=159
"I imagine she'll likely be hospitalized to deal with the mental instability that would bring about such an event. I'm glad that you're happy to allow the mentally unstable to decide which infants live and which are shot. I'm not."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844052&postcount=164
"This woman was mentally unstable and I feel sorry for her."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844597&postcount=181
"Don't get me wrong, this woman was clearly unstable. I'm not suggesting she belongs in prison. But this is hardly a good outcome."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11845620&postcount=208
"This reaction was the reaction of an ill person."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11845872&postcount=223
"She was clearly and obviously mentally ill."

I repeat myself in every couple of posts relating to this event. I didn't realize that because some people are too lazy to read for context before they post that I have to put a disclaimer on every post. Now, if you like you can search out and see how many times I suggested she be jailed. You'll find it's ZERO.

Sorry that I hold an opinion, I'll try to better myself.

I never told you aren't allowed to have an opinion. Again, you seem to simply avoid reading what people write. What I said is that if you're going to comment on what people think, you should probably actually know what they think by, you know, reading their posts. This has nothing to do with your opinion. This is about your ignorance of the claims of a poster and then telling that poster what he claimed.

DISCLAIMER: IF YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ OTHER POSTS, YOU SHOULD NOTE THAT I HAVE NEVER ADVOCATED THIS WOMAN GOING TO JAIL. SHE IS MENTALLY ILL AND NEEDS PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP.

Ryanair is acting as a social equaliser here ;)

Ryanair....?

Ryanair....?

Ryanair (http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/)... low fare airline. Extremely low fare. Flights can start from 0.01 Euro.
Although the average flight from Dublin to, say, Manchester would be around 50 Euros, one way.

Ryanair (http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/)... low fare airline. Extremely low fare. Flights can start from 0.01 Euro.
Although the average flight from Dublin to, say, Manchester would be around 50 Euros, one way.

...charge you extra to lose your luggage; charge you extra to complain about this; charge you extra to be disabled, charge you extra to breathe...

...charge you extra to lose your luggage; charge you extra to complain about this; charge you extra to be disabled, charge you extra to breathe...

Hey, if your just flying to the UK to have an abortion, you'd only need hand luggage anyway. It's not as if you were of for a week's holiday, you can get back the next day. Or even the same day.

Ryanair (http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/)... low fare airline. Extremely low fare. Flights can start from 0.01 Euro.
Although the average flight from Dublin to, say, Manchester would be around 50 Euros, one way.
Nifty. :)

Hey, if your just flying to the UK to have an abortion, you'd only need hand luggage anyway. It's not as if you were of for a week's holiday, you can get back the next day. Or even the same day.

Well, you can do it all in a day until you find that your 'London' flight actually lands in a small field outside of Exeter, and they left your luggage in Ireland...

Edit: Ignore the second bit. I realise it makes no sense with regard to what you actually said.

Shouldn't be charged for shooting an unborn creature in her stomach...

Well, you can do it all in a day until you find that your 'London' flight actually lands in a small field outside of Exeter, and they left your luggage in Ireland...

Wouldn't you rather use the rant thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504575) to get this of your chest? ;)

I only mentioned Ryanair here because it was said that people might not be able to afford flights to the UK to get an abortion.

Wouldn't you rather use the rant thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504575) to get this of your chest? ;)

I only mentioned Ryanair here because it was said that people might not be able to afford flights to the UK to get an abortion.

Probably. But I don't actually have that much against them, except for their policy on disabled people. I just had no idea what this thread was about anymore. :p

Probably. But I don't actually have that much against them, except for their policy on disabled people. I just had no idea what this thread was about anymore. :p

I'm not particularly fond of their new luggage policy, either. But thankfully Aerlingus is almost as inexpensive now. ;)

In the 1900s? Even the USA had freed their slaves by then.
And I can't recall any Muslims being tortured for their religion back then, either. On the contrary, during that era Europe and America greatly admired the Arab world and its culture.

what i ment was if we are some behind and we have to catch up, then we have go all that stuff first so we are at the same level.
i was also taking the piss.
dispite we are apparently 'subjucating women', we havent done all of stuff most countries have done in thier history. we have rarely messed with other countries policies.

Fight the evil, inherent in the system?

Just because it is the way it is... Just because you are in the minority...

Doesn't mean you shouldn't TRY to make the world a better place.

how do you know which way will make the world a better place?
ireland has stronger family vaules than most western countries. most of regard abortion breakes up the family unit. we are in control of our own culture, no one else should tell us what to do. we dont react well to outsiders telling us what to do.

Fight the evil, inherent in the system?

Just because it is the way it is... Just because you are in the minority...

Doesn't mean you shouldn't TRY to make the world a better place.

how do you know which way will make the world a better place?
ireland has stronger family vaules than most western countries. most of regard abortion breakes up the family unit. we are in control of our own culture, no one else should tell us what to do. we dont react well to outsiders telling us what to do.

What's really funny is that Gorias ignores the fact that most abortions are performed on women who already have at least one child. He, like most anti-choice morons, hasn't ever actually spoken to women or taken interest in their lives. Women are a different species, existing to act as baby-growers for Mankind, so why should Man bother to learn what they're actually up to?

Hate to burst the bubble, but most women who have abortions already have kids, and most of the women who don't say that they ARE planning to have children in the future. Choosing not to continue one's current pregnancy does not in any way preclude having children in the future. It just means that the woman in question is making the responsible choice to not make a baby when she doesn't want one.

i know "anti-choice morons" that are women.

what i ment was if we are some behind and we have to catch up, then we have go all that stuff first so we are at the same level.
i was also taking the piss.
dispite we are apparently 'subjucating women', we havent done all of stuff most countries have done in thier history. we have rarely messed with other countries policies.

Not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say, sorry

how do you know which way will make the world a better place?
ireland has stronger family vaules than most western countries. most of regard abortion breakes up the family unit. we are in control of our own culture, no one else should tell us what to do. we dont react well to outsiders telling us what to do.

I have Irish family, and have spent time IN Ireland, so I know how strong Irish family values are... which is - exactly as strong as the family in question.

I have seen Irish families torn apart by disagreement over religion, by disagrements over which party someone favours. DOn't give me this 'strong family values' bullshit... the fact that some Irish women stay in abusive relationships because the church tells them they'll go to hell if they divorce is NOT the same as actually having a 'strong family'.

As for "how do you know which way will make the world a better place?" I apply a certain amount of logic to this situation.

First - I don't necessarily believe that the 'best' world would be the richest, most technologically advanced or even the prettiest place. Instead - I look at values like 'how many people can afford to eat', 'what is the health of the WHOLE population', and 'how much liberty does the individual have'?

You and I could argue about architecture of our dream world... we could argue about political models and economic models. We could argue about whether a society should pursue science for science' sake, or revert to barbarism.

But- we'd both agree we'd like to get fed. We'd both agree we don't want to die of horrible diseases. We'd both agree we don't want the other dictating our religion. Thus, the 'best world' is logically obvious. And, currently, Ireland isn't 'it'.

Amusing. Again, no laws prevent people from breaking them. However, their point is to deter them.

Glad we agree since i too pointed out that in my previous post.

Had this been illegal would it have stopped this specific woman? Don't know.

So you now you admit that you cannot be sure that the fetus would have survived. Remember that my first post was attacking your statement that "Were my opinion to be law, the child would be living."

It would deter her in the future, though.

Any proof of this?

And some laws are specifically designed to get people into treatment if they break them, like laws about suicide.

I agree, but the child would still be dead since she would be treated after the deed.

You're intentional oversimplification directly argues for nothing being illegal. Why make murder illegal since people are still capable of murdering? In fact, since the only things we make illegal are things that people are capable of doing, apparently, all laws are nonsensical. Laws are meant to be more than punitive. They are meant to deter. Deterence isn't the same as making impossible.

But, as i already pointed out deterrent is insufficient if the person is unable to recognize the consequences of its acts.

By the way, "not permitted" means "not allowed". You are using it like it means "make impossible". When posting in English, it's good to be aware of the English definitions of words.

First:
I was using your words.
Second:
permit
–verb (used with object)
1. to allow to do something: Permit me to explain.
2. to allow to be done or occur: The law does not permit the sale of such drugs.
3. to tolerate; agree to: a law permitting Roman Catholicism in England.
4. to afford opportunity for, or admit of: vents to permit the escape of gases.

The meaning i intended is the 2nd, so let me ask you again.
How would your solution have not permitted her to shoot the fetus?
I believe that we are agreeing that deterrent in this case would not have been enough.

She didn't attempt suicide. There is no indication that she was trying to die. She did appear to know the consequences of her actions. She just seemed to be irrational. You cannot say for sure how making illegal would have affected her. However, in analyzing a law, the point is to analyze the affect if it were followed, and of course whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

She shoot herself in the lower abdomen with a gun!
I call that attempted suicide. She might have not realized this herself but in the end her actions could have brought her death or severe injury (internal bleeding, damage to intestines, kidneys, bladder).
Do you think that she knew the consecuences of her actions?
Do you really think that she would have shot herself in her body if she did not in some way seek death herself?
Do you really think that she could kill the fetus inside her without suffering any collateral damage?

By the way:
irrational
–adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
and
reason
–noun
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
Note that every meaning of the world irrational is about not being able to judge consecuences.
So if you agree that she was irrational, you are also agreeing that she couldn't be aware the consecuences of her actions.

In this case, the person I was replying to said I had to show why people would benefit from a law against shooting a fully-developed fetus. I pointed out that what was obvious, that as much as rape law is about preventing rape this law would be about preventing shootings.

And i argue that it is not obvious. This law would prevent only mentally sane people from doing it. Exactly in the same way as rape laws prevent mentally sane people from raping (IMO not much, unluckly, but this would be for another thread...)

Amusing. I did read it. My reply directly addressed what you said. Were she to make that claim she would be required to get mental help, something I would like for her to do. Your claim would actually have the outcome I would prefer and you said it like that would be a bad thing. I simply explained how and why I think it would be a good thing.

What i was trying to point out was that the law you advocate would be utterly useless because the defendant would in any case use the mental instability.
No sane person shoots itself to have an abortion.
Oh, and as a side note, not in every state can a judge sentence a convicted criminal to undergo medical treatment. This is the reason why i see this outcome as bad.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was responsible for making sure you read my posts BEFORE you reply to them. Here. Let me fulfill my responsibilty to account for your laziness.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11842579&postcount=159
"I imagine she'll likely be hospitalized to deal with the mental instability that would bring about such an event. I'm glad that you're happy to allow the mentally unstable to decide which infants live and which are shot. I'm not."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844052&postcount=164
"This woman was mentally unstable and I feel sorry for her."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844597&postcount=181
"Don't get me wrong, this woman was clearly unstable. I'm not suggesting she belongs in prison. But this is hardly a good outcome."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11845620&postcount=208
"This reaction was the reaction of an ill person."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11845872&postcount=223
"She was clearly and obviously mentally ill."

I repeat myself in every couple of posts relating to this event. I didn't realize that because some people are too lazy to read for context before they post that I have to put a disclaimer on every post. Now, if you like you can search out and see how many times I suggested she be jailed. You'll find it's ZERO.

I never told you aren't allowed to have an opinion. Again, you seem to simply avoid reading what people write. What I said is that if you're going to comment on what people think, you should probably actually know what they think by, you know, reading their posts. This has nothing to do with your opinion. This is about your ignorance of the claims of a poster and then telling that poster what he claimed.

DISCLAIMER: IF YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ OTHER POSTS, YOU SHOULD NOTE THAT I HAVE NEVER ADVOCATED THIS WOMAN GOING TO JAIL. SHE IS MENTALLY ILL AND NEEDS PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP.

You evidently do not want to understand what I am trying to say.
By advocating a law that forbids to do what she has done you imply that her actions should have been a crime and thus that she should have been condemned to detention. I am well aware that you did not suggest her to be imprisoned, but your solution implyes it. My statement was to point out the implications of your solution and you bring no proof of the contrary.

Just a note... There is no need to become insulting, expecially since we basically agree on the problem altough we disagree with the solution. You sure are not responsible for making sure i read your posts, but my missing or misunderstanding a point you made is hardly reason for insulting me.

She shoot herself in the lower abdomen with a gun!
I call that attempted suicide. She might have not realized this herself but in the end her actions could have brought her death or severe injury.

Then you are wrong. 'Attempted suicide' is judged on INTENT.

how do you know which way will make the world a better place?
ireland has stronger family vaules than most western countries. most of regard abortion breakes up the family unit. we are in control of our own culture, no one else should tell us what to do. we dont react well to outsiders telling us what to do.

There will be an animosity to Ireland in this forum because Ireland pretty much represents all things anti-permissive and anti social-liberalism. The Catholic/Christian heritage, the anti-abortion laws etc., all come into play.

However, as many jokes and implications that Ireland is somehow 'backwards' because of it should be dismissed out of hand. Because in addition to the things already mentioned, Ireland is also enjoying an economic boom, essentially 0% unemployment rate, Immigration applications from educated people all over the world, including America and the rest of western Europe, of people wanting to move to Ireland to improve their standard of living. The reality of the situation is the Ireland is and has been a desirable place to live and immigrate to for many years now, not a backwards wasteland as the implications go from the liberals who would like to pretend that hicks run the place in ignorance.

There will be an animosity to Ireland in this forum because Ireland pretty much represents all things anti-permissive and anti social-liberalism. The Catholic/Christian heritage, the anti-abortion laws etc., all come into play.


Where was animosity to Ireland? I like Ireland. I just disagree with the fundamentalism, just as I do in other retrogressive nations.


However, as many jokes and implications that Ireland is somehow 'backwards' because of it should be dismissed out of hand. Because in addition to the things already mentioned, Ireland is also enjoying an economic boom, essentially 0% unemployment rate, Immigration applications from educated people all over the world, including America and the rest of western Europe, of people wanting to move to Ireland to improve their standard of living.

Economic growth, unemployment, immigration... none of which has ANY bearing on whether or not Ireland is SOCIALLY backwards. Nice try, but you lose.

Economic growth, unemployment, immigration... none of which has ANY bearing on whether or not Ireland is SOCIALLY backwards. Nice try, but you lose.

I've lived here for a little over 3 years now... I like the place overall, a lot. I like the positive attitude of people, I like the general pace of life, the fact that things are very laid back here. But there are some instances I do have problems with.

One of them is the hidden intolerance regarding anything sexual. Sure, going to the pubs on a Saturday night you'll see girls wearing transparent shawls and high heels and not much else. Christopher Street Day parades are held each year and don't draw much criticism as far as I could see so far.

But don't mistake that for a sign of an open society.
I've got a good friend here who is transsexual. He lives in constant fear that someone of his family or "the lads" would find out. It would lose him all his social life and contacts.
Another friend of mine was recently beaten up outside a gay bar here.
And it's not at all uncommon to see 14 year-old mothers pushing prams down the street.
Ireland has a lot to catch up on, but then what country doesn't? :)

I've lived here for a little over 3 years now... I like the place overall, a lot. I like the positive attitude of people, I like the general pace of life, the fact that things are very laid back here. But there are some instances I do have problems with.

One of them is the hidden intolerance regarding anything sexual. Sure, going to the pubs on a Saturday night you'll see girls wearing transparent shawls and high heels and not much else. Christopher Street Day parades are held each year and don't draw much criticism as far as I could see so far.

But don't mistake that for a sign of an open society.
I've got a good friend here who is transsexual. He lives in constant fear that someone of his family or "the lads" would find out. It would lose him all his social life and contacts.
Another friend of mine was recently beaten up outside a gay bar here.
And it's not at all uncommon to see 14 year-old mothers pushing prams down the street.
Ireland has a lot to catch up on, but then what country doesn't? :)

That's the point I'm making... I like Ireland, but I'm not going to pretend it is perfect. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Ireland could take HUGE leaps forward in social progress.... and so could a lot of other places. We hardly live an a socially utopian world.

i know "anti-choice morons" that are women.
Yes, hence my word "most." See, "most" =/= "all."

We clear?

Glad we agree since i too pointed out that in my previous post.

You continue in this post to claim that adding a law about something has nothing to do with not permitting them to do it.

So you now you admit that you cannot be sure that the fetus would have survived. Remember that my first post was attacking your statement that "Were my opinion to be law, the child would be living."

This is a comment you took out of context. If you were to, you know, read my posts you would see me actually comment to the effect that it would only be true if the law were followed. Of course, you've already demonstrated that this is asking too much of you.

Any proof of this?

Pardon? Yes, I've travelled into a future where the current events are different. Here is the news story about how it turned out... www.yourefullofcrap.com. I was openly speculating. However, it is the express purpose of the legislation and the treatment. She's mentally ill. I advocated a treatment that would either treat her until she is better or keep treating her. I can't prove a positive effect on a given individual in a case where the treatment hasn't happened, but it certainly is a logical expectation.


I agree, but the child would still be dead since she would be treated after the deed.

Since you're so fond of nonsensical requirements. I require you to prove that had a law existed that the child would still be dead.


But, as i already pointed out deterrent is insufficient if the person is unable to recognize the consequences of its acts.

Prove it. Again, since you're fond of nonsensical requirements, prove the child in this specific case would be dead if she there were a law in place. I'll wait. Meanwhile, you are going to argue later in this post that she was attempting suicide because she must have recognized the consequences of her act. Inconsistent much?


First:
I was using your words.

Out of context. I was responding to a request that I show what the benefit of such legislation would be, who it would protect. I pointed it out. It was a general comment, it was not about this specific child.

Second:


The meaning i intended is the 2nd, so let me ask you again.
How would your solution have not permitted her to shoot the fetus?
I believe that we are agreeing that deterrent in this case would not have been enough.

More proof that you don't like context. Let's point out the rest of that argument. "The law does not permit the sale of such drugs." As you know, this does not mean 'prevent'. It means it is illegal (not permitted) and nothing more. I'm sorry that you're struggling with English. Would you prefer I post in Mandarin?



She shoot herself in the lower abdomen with a gun!
I call that attempted suicide. She might have not realized this herself but in the end her actions could have brought her death or severe injury (internal bleeding, damage to intestines, kidneys, bladder).

So you call that attempted suicide so it must be. She didn't die. All evidence suggests she didn't intend to die. It was stupid, but it wasn't an attempt to kill herself.

Suicide - 1 a : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/suicide

Suicide by definition must be voluntary and intentional.

Do you think that she knew the consecuences of her actions?
Do you really think that she would have shot herself in her body if she did not in some way seek death herself?
Do you really think that she could kill the fetus inside her without suffering any collateral damage?

Killing herself must be the intent for it to be suicide. As you're so fond of saying, prove that she intended to kill herself. I'll wait. Amusingly you've already made the argument she could not understand any consequences of her actions and now you're arguing that she must have understood.

By the way:

and

Note that every meaning of the world irrational is about not being able to judge consecuences.
So if you agree that she was irrational, you are also agreeing that she couldn't be aware the consecuences of her actions.

I did say she was irrational. That means that she could not properly judge things or could not properly draw conclusions. That doesn't mean that whatever consequences she was aware of would not deter her. See in this instance it simply means that some consequences might excape her, ones that require her to actually use logic. One can still be irrational and be aware of some consequences. If I ran a car into a wall thinking I would destroy the car but that my body wouldn't be at any risk because I'm invincible, I'd be irrational, but still aware of the consequences to the car.

Meanwhile, I find it amusing that in one sentence you're claiming that she was attempting suicide because she was aware of the consequences of shooting herself in the stomach and the next sentence you're saying that since she was irrational she couldn't be aware of consequences. Speaking of irrational.


And i argue that it is not obvious. This law would prevent only mentally sane people from doing it. Exactly in the same way as rape laws prevent mentally sane people from raping (IMO not much, unluckly, but this would be for another thread...)

Prove it. I would like for you to prove that the law has never prevented the qualifiably insane to not perform a crime. Rational people commit crimes. Irrational people commit crimes. But insane people are not necessarily completely unable to weigh consequences at all. It's not a requirement for insanity. And an inability to deal with one consequence does not mean an inability to deal with all consequences. Your argument is flawed at the base.

What i was trying to point out was that the law you advocate would be utterly useless because the defendant would in any case use the mental instability.
No sane person shoots itself to have an abortion.
Oh, and as a side note, not in every state can a judge sentence a convicted criminal to undergo medical treatment. This is the reason why i see this outcome as bad.

The judge can if the law explicitly allows it. Meanwhile, again, it would be a good outcome if she did claim mental instability provided the law dealt with such an issue, which is the law I advocate.

I find it amusing that you make assertions that require the law I advocate to be different than it is to prove yourself right. I know you enjoy being contrary, but you really suck at it.


You evidently do not want to understand what I am trying to say.
By advocating a law that forbids to do what she has done you imply that her actions should have been a crime and thus that she should have been condemned to detention. I am well aware that you did not suggest her to be imprisoned, but your solution implyes it. My statement was to point out the implications of your solution and you bring no proof of the contrary.

Nope. You've already accepted that some laws are not formed with intention of detaining people in prison.

And some laws are specifically designed to get people into treatment if they break them, like laws about suicide.
I agree

You've admitted that some laws are about treatment. Now you pretend like they are all about imprisoning people. Seriously, this isn't even a few pages apart, you are making incongruent arguments in the SAME POST.

And now that I've proven to you that I expressly stated the opposite of what you claim I stated, you're going to squirm and keep claiming it's 'implied' against all logic? How sad.

Amusing. I have to prove that my intention was to do the opposite of my stated claim. You're an idiot. (however, I may be implying that you're not an idiot. Apparently, my statement could actually mean the exact opposite of what it says.)

The proof to the contrary is that it is my law and I've said it would not be a law that seeks imprisonment. Are you actually claiming that you are unaware of such laws after admitting you were aware of them.

Just a note... There is no need to become insulting, expecially since we basically agree on the problem altough we disagree with the solution. You sure are not responsible for making sure i read your posts, but my missing or misunderstanding a point you made is hardly reason for insulting me.

You're insulting yourself with this nonsensical argument. You argue that she was attempting suicide because she knew the consequences and then attempt to prove that she couldn't have understood the consequences. You try to prove that unless you make something impossible then you are permitting it, despite the definition you provided saying it's about whether it is allowed not whether it is possible. You ask me to prove any speculation about what would happen if there were a law against this act and yet you also speculate what would happen if there were a law against this act. You argue that despite the fact that in my arguments I expressly state my intentions that my implied intentions are the opposite. You argue that despite the fact that some laws are made with the intent to deal with mental instability rather than imprisonment, that by arguing for a law I automatically must be arguing for incarceration.

Everything you've argued requires one to ignore context and to defy basic logic. It's not insulting to point that out.

It's also not insulting to point out that you required me to not just restate my arguments but link to them as they appeared in the rest of the thread which is obviously lazy.

Worse, you asked me to link to these posts and then openly ignored what they said instead claiming I meant the EXACT OPPOSITE.

However, if you felt insulted please remember that apparently my posts can imply the opposite of what they expressly say and were intended to say, according to you.

Then you are wrong. 'Attempted suicide' is judged on INTENT.

Amusingly, he suggests she must have been seeking death because it's such an obvious consequence of the act a few sentences later and a few sentences before is arguing that she cannot understand any consequences which is why a law could have no deterrent affect. His inconsistency is hilarious.

Definition
Suicide is the act of deliberately taking one's own life. Suicidal behavior is any deliberate action with potentially life-threatening consequences, such as taking a drug overdose or deliberately crashing a car.

Causes, incidence, and risk factors
Suicidal behaviors can accompany many emotional disturbances, including depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. More than 90% of all suicides are related to a mood disorder or other psychiatric illness.

Suicidal behaviors often occur as a response to a situation that the person views as overwhelming, such as social isolation, death of a loved one, emotional trauma, serious physical illness, growing old, unemployment or financial problems, guilt feelings, and alcohol or other drug dependence.

In the U.S., suicide accounts for about 1% of all deaths each year. The highest rate is among the elderly, but there has been a steady increase in the rate among adolescents. Suicide is now the third leading cause of death for those 15 - 19 years old, after accidents and homicide.

Suicide attempts that do not result in death far outnumber completed suicides. Many unsuccessful suicide attempts are carried out in a manner that makes rescue possible. They often represent a desperate cry for help

The method of suicide varies from relatively nonviolent methods (such as poisoning or overdose) to violent methods (such as shooting oneself). Males are more likely to choose violent methods, which probably accounts for the fact that suicide attempts by males are more likely to be completed.

Suicide attempts should always be taken seriously and mental health care should be sought immediately. Dismissing them as attention-seeking can have devastating consequences.

Relatives of people who seriously attempt or complete suicide often blame themselves or become extremely angry, seeing the attempt or act as selfish. However, when people are suicidal, they often mistakenly believe that they are doing their friends and relatives a favor by taking themselves out of the world. These irrational beliefs often drive their behavior.

Symptoms
Early signs:

Depression
Statements or expressions of guilt feelings
Tension or anxiety
Nervousness
Impulsiveness
Critical signs:

Sudden change in behavior, especially calmness after a period of anxiety
Giving away belongings, attempts to "get one's affairs in order"
Direct or indirect threats to commit suicide
Direct attempts to commit suicide

Treatment
Emergency measures may be necessary after a person has attempted suicide. First aid, CPR or mouth-to-mouth resuscitation may be required.

Hospitalization is often needed, both to treat the recent actions and to prevent future attempts. Psychiatric intervention is one of the most important aspects of treatment.


Expectations (prognosis)
All suicide threats and attempts should be taken seriously. About one-third of people who attempt suicide will repeat the attempt within 1 year, and about 10% of those who threaten or attempt suicide eventually do kill themselves.


Complications
Complications vary depending on the type of suicide attempt.


Calling your health care provider
A person who threatens or attempts suicide MUST be evaluated by a mental health professional promptly. NEVER IGNORE A SUICIDE THREAT OR ATTEMPT!


Prevention
Many people who attempt suicide talk about it before making the attempt. Sometimes, simply talking to a sympathetic, nonjudgmental listener is enough to prevent the person from attempting suicide. For this reason suicide prevention centers have telephone "hotline" services. Again, do not ignore a suicide threat or attempted suicide.

As with any other type of emergency, it is best to immediately call the local emergency number (such as 911). Do not leave the person alone even after phone contact with an appropriate professional has been made.

http://www.healthline.com/adamcontent/suicide-and-suicidal-behavior

Sorry, I correct my previous post. She shows Suicidal behavior.
Suicidal behaviour does not require rationality.

Amusingly, he suggests she must have been seeking death because it's such an obvious consequence of the act a few sentences later and a few sentences before is arguing that she cannot understand any consequences which is why a law could have no deterrent affect. His inconsistency is hilarious.

I can understand this - it IS a very pretty field we are in, we should jump around it as much as we can, to get the best view. :)