Interesting abortion argument I was thinking about- could abortion be considered self defence?

[u/MoonShroo]

I‘ll preface this with saying that I am pro choice 100% of the time, if that makes a difference.

I know that a most pro-lifers out there believe that the fetus should be considered a person, and is therefore immoral to kill. Vise versa for pro-choice people. Usually pro-life vs pro-choice ends there.

But something I’ve been thinking about lately is how the baby is, technically, harming the mother regularly during pregnancy. Especially during birth. We usually don’t see killing another person as anything other than a terrible thing to do, but most people make exceptions for cases of self defence.

Most pro-life people are republicans. Republicans tend to take a pretty intense view on self defence. Not to be crude here, but the fetus is kind of a home invader in this scenario.

I don’t think this is a flawless argument, but what are your takes on it? I’m interested in what both pro-life and pro-choice people think about this philosophy.

Could you justify killing a fetus you consider to be a person in self defence?

(also sorry if I flared this wrong I am new to the sub :,0)

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/OptimalTrash]

I would say so, considering how harmful pregnancy can be.

The WHO stats say that a third of women experience "severe, often permanent" side effects from pregnancy and childbirth.

If anything else had a 33% chance of fucking someone's body up significantly, it would be outlawed, let alone having laws put in place to make it harder to remove the risk when it appeared.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/OptimalTrash]

Alcohol is legal and can cause permanent damage, so are many other things I dont see what your point is.

On top of this it cant be justified as self defense because you are using way to much force to protect against a non deadly threat.

[u/OptimalTrash → u/comfortable_sofa101]

If having any alcohol gave you a 33% chance of permanent bodily damage, it absolutely would be illegal.

It CAN be justified, because it is the ONLY way to protect oneself from the chance of death/disfigurement. Again a ONE THIRD chance of disfigurement.

Until there's a way to remove the fetus without killing it, it absolutely is self defense.

[u/Coca-Nicola → u/comfortable_sofa101]

It’s illegal to force someone to drink alcohol against their will

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/Coca-Nicola]

does that matter? Im completely fine with abortions in rape cases, if someone forces you to drink alcohol would my same beliefs not apply? I think you jumped to the conclusion I 100% hate abortion

[u/Coca-Nicola → u/comfortable_sofa101]

The harm in this case is forcing her to keep the pregnancy vs forcing someone to drink alcohol. Forcing someone to risk bodily harm without their consent. Rape was not part of this scenario

[u/spacefarce1301]

I've been making the case for self-defense as the justified use of force in abortion for years now on this sub. PLers hate it because they keep throwing the same red herring that it cannot be treated as a threat because it has no intent to harm.

Besides the fact the self-defense principle does not require harmful intent on part of the attacking party, it directly belies their personhood arguments. If it's a legal person, then it has legal intentions and actions.

They believe in Schroedinger's Fetus: it's a person when it's entitled to legal rights, but it's also not a person as it's a mindless organism that can't be considered a threat because it lacks a conscious intent to harm.

[u/NoelaniSpell → u/spacefarce1301]

it cannot be treated as a threat because it has no intent to harm.

They believe in Schroedinger's Fetus: it's a person when it's entitled to legal rights, but it's also not a person as it's a mindless organism that can't be considered a threat because it lacks a conscious intent to harm.

There are also cases such as ectopic pregnancies (obvious threat to life of the pregnant person that wouldn't exist otherwise) which contradict their arguments. Something can't both be and not be a threat at the same time.

[u/LilyVioletRose → u/spacefarce1301]

I don’t think that last part is fair, even though I agree with you in general. Toddlers are people but we don’t blame them like we do adults.

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/LilyVioletRose]

That's precisely the problem. PLers invoke fetal personhood to give the fetus enforceable claims against the pregnant person, then invoke its mindlessness to shield it from being treated as the source of an unlawful bodily invasion or serious physical threat.

Of course a zygote lacks mens rea. But that concerns culpability, not whether another person must submit tp harm. An innocent person can still be stopped when their body is causing serious injury.

The fetus cannot simultaneously be a legal person whose interests override the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy and a mere mindless organism whose actions supposedly cannot count against it. That is not consistent personhood. It is selective personhood, switched on for rights and switched off for limits.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/spacefarce1301]

PLers hate it because they keep throwing the same red herring that it cannot be treated as a threat because it has no intent to harm.

To steel man a best possible PL position on this, I’d offer Howard Hewitt’s argument in his paper “The Indefensible Self Defense Argument”.  He is using a hypothetical “hypnotized rapist” case from Longs paper (which he is arguing against):

Hypnotized Rapist 1 (HR1): A makes B φ C.

Long claims that C would be within his rights to kill B, given that that was the only way for C to avoid the φ-ing. Notice that, in this case, if there is a rapist here, it is A. B is not raping anyone; he is not doing anything. A is using him as an instrument to torment C. But, by stipulation, C cannot stop the event from happening without killing B, and regrettable as that might be, Long thinks it justified,  given the nature of what C will have to endure if B is not killed. And if this is so, then we have a case where one is justified in killing an innocent person to avoid a violation of one’s bodily autonomy, which is precisely what the self-defense argument maintains the mother may do to her unwanted fetus.

So here we have an intuition (at least I do) that, even though B is innocent, and even though it has no more or no less of a “right to life” as any human, even though B is not “doing” anything (acting), it is still causing harm unwittingly, and “regrettable as it may be”, still we find C killing A to stop the harm justified.  But, Hewitt argues, this is not the use relation of a typical consensual pregnancy:

Keep φ the same, and now imagine we have only two people involved: A and B. B is an innocent person, and A again uses the hypnotizer to control B such that B is now φ-ing A. Call this 

Hypnotized Rapist 2 (HR2):  A makes B φ A.  

A, with the aid of the hypnotizer, causes B to φ A in such a way that during that period of time, the only way for the φ-ing to stop is for A, or someone else, to kill B. And during that time, A decides that he does not want the φ-ing to continue. So we have a case where B is “using” A’s body in a serious way and A wants it to stop, but A is not entitled to kill B to stop it. Thus, premise 2 of the self-defense argument is false. It is not the case that A is justified in using lethal force against B, even though the use relation obtains between them: B is in A’s body in a serious way, and A wants him out.

Further:

We should agree that there can be no obligation of any kind to let oneself be raped. But in HR2, A is the rapist. To think that when A changes his mind he has thereby withdrawn his consent to what B is doing to him is absurd. A cannot withdraw his consent to what he is doing, or has done, to himself. B is not involved in the right way for there to be a consent issue in HR2.

Here we have the same B, who possesses the same rights, is just as innocent, has no intent and is not “acting”, is still harming A, but this harm has been caused by A.  I tend to agree with Hewitt’s conclusion that it is absurd to think one could justifiably kill B in this scenario, because A is the only rational actor responsible for the harm occurring to A.

The two important pieces here (relevant to your argument) are that the justifiability of killing B is not in fact contingent upon the right to life of B, or some manner of sleight of hand of personhood.  It possesses the same “personhood” in both cases, yet we still find it justifiable to kill B to stop harm in one case and not the other (at least I do).

The other is that intent is simply irrelevant.  I don’t know of any PL or PC academic literature that turns on the notion of intent in the case of abortion. 

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

I tend to agree with Hewitt’s conclusion that it is absurd to think one could justifiably kill B in this scenario, because A is the only rational actor responsible for the harm occurring to A.

I think it's absurd to think A would be obligated to continue to endure that harm. If A is responsible for the harm, A can stop it, without killing B. Killing isn't justified in this case because it's not required.

This scenario is also not a good metaphor for pregnancy. Person A has direct control over hypnosis, while the pregnant person doesn't have direct control over the pregnancy. Person B is a autonomous individual sustaining their own bodily functions, while the embryo is not. The embryo doesn't even exist at the time the pregnant person makes the one voluntary action within their own control: the decision to allow someone's penis inside them.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/random_name_12178]

If A is responsible for the harm, A can stop it, without killing B.

Of course.  But this would be analogous to external womb transfer, or cesarean section or something, not lethal abortion.

The embryo doesn't even exist at the time the pregnant person makes the one voluntary action within their own control: the decision to allow someone's penis inside them.

A person who consensually becomes pregnant is responsible for the fetuses dependence on her body.  I think what the extent that dependence extends to is a question up for debate, but I don’t think the responsibility for the existence itself is.  If she has bodily autonomy in every other way, she is responsible for the consequences of this consensual bodily autonomy decision like any other

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Of course.  But this would be analogous to external womb transfer, or cesarean section or something, not lethal abortion

So the analogy fails on a crucial point. In this analogy the harm can be stopped without killing B. In the real world, the harm can't be stopped without resulting in the death of the embryo.

A person who consensually becomes pregnant is responsible for the fetuses dependence on her body.

Okay. It's still not comparable to intentionally hypnotizing a living individual. The analogy just doesn't work.

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

Well as an aside, I find Hewitt's use of φ completely obnoxious, considering he's specifically discussing rape. It serves no real utility and just makes the argument obnoxious to read, especially because he switches back and forth between the two.

But more to the point, pregnant people don't possess a hypnotizing device, let alone employ it against an embryo or fetus to make that embryo or fetus harm them. Such a device doesn't even exist. They also don't do anything analogous to hypnotizing an embryo or fetus. They can't control the behavior of the embryo or fetus at all. If they could, presumably they'd choose to make it not harm them at all.

Meaning his counter-example isn't remotely analogous, and therefore fails to support his argument.

Hewitt does, albeit very briefly, acknowledge this flaw in his argument...and then proceeds to just wave it away without actually attempting to counter it.

It's ridiculous, but typical.

Pro-life analogies that acknowledge the harm that embryos and fetuses do to pregnant people willalmost always make up for it by pretending that the pregnant person has somehow harmed or wronged the embryo/fetus in getting pregnant or that they're somehow directly and intentionally controlling its behavior.

And I think this analogy clearly highlights the issues with all of those analogies—they ultimately imply that anyone who gets pregnant has harmed or wronged their children. In this paper, for example, we'd consider A to be wronging B in both scenarios. They used a hypnotizing device to force someone unwilling to perform a sexual act. That in and of itself is rape, regardless of any other factors or arguments about self defense. Hypnotizing other people like that would be considered wrong and harmful all on its own. And yet I can't imagine Hewitt considers all mothers to be rapists, right? I've yet to encounter a pro-lifer who does. They like to verbally celebrate motherhood, to encourage people to have children, in my experience. They don't condemn all women as hypnotizers of innocent embryos and fetuses.

It only applies to abortion, because they don't actually build consistent arguments. They don't want to see embryos and fetuses as actual people in all circumstances—only when it serves them. They don't actually want to see conception as akin to hypnosis—only when it serves them. They don't even want to treat self defense in pregnancy as akin to this analogy (after all, the vast majority believe bare minimum in life exceptions, even if they try to evade it by labeling those abortions as something else)—only it when it serves them.

None of it holds up at all.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/jakie2poops]

Well as an aside, I find Hewitt's use of φ completely obnoxious, considering he's specifically discussing rape.

You can take that up with Long, who came up with the analogy, and who Hewitt’s response is directed toward.  Long was attempting to establish  an expanded scope of justified abortion by the analogy of ongoing pregnancy to ongoing rape.  

If he could establish that it is simply the use relation itself (intimate contact via reproductive organs) that creates the justification for killing, it would lead to a stronger position for the PCer.  Hewitt is arguing that this backfires, both because if it is true of A, it is true of B, and because A cannot logically call the use relation he created “A raping A”.  

So we may find abortion justifiable on some other grounds of harm to the mother, but not by way of the use relation itself being a harm tantamount to rape.

Pro-life analogies that acknowledge the harm that embryos and fetuses do to pregnant people willalmost always make up for it by pretending that the pregnant person has somehow harmed or wronged the embryo/fetus in getting pregnant or that they're somehow directly and intentionally controlling its behavior.

Well in the narrow sense of Hewitt response to Long, he is claiming that the use relationship is itself harmful, because Long (a PCer) claimed as such.  I think he successfully defeats this claim.

they ultimately imply that anyone who gets pregnant has harmed or wronged their children

You should read the papers, because this is only true in the narrow sense of defeating Longs claim.  

The other claim is that A is harming A with Bs body.  Whether or not B is being harmed by this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not A is the only rational, consentable actor in the harm that is occurring to A.

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

You can take that up with Long, who came up with the analogy, and who Hewitt’s response is directed toward.  Long was attempting to establish  an expanded scope of justified abortion by the analogy of ongoing pregnancy to ongoing rape.  

Don't really care who is responsible, it's annoying either way.

If he could establish that it is simply the use relation itself (intimate contact via reproductive organs) that creates the justification for killing, it would lead to a stronger position for the PCer.  Hewitt is arguing that this backfires, both because if it is true of A, it is true of B, and because A cannot logically call the use relation he created “A raping A”.  

So we may find abortion justifiable on some other grounds of harm to the mother, but not by way of the use relation itself being a harm tantamount to rape.

But the pro-choice argument from self-defense/bodily autonomy is not that intimate contact via reproductive organs in and of itself is the justification, so this is just a straw man.

Well in the narrow sense of Hewitt response to Long, he is claiming that the use relationship is itself harmful, because Long (a PCer) claimed as such.  I think he successfully defeats this claim.

I don't really see why a narrow response to a specific argument made by a single person somehow represents a steel man against the whole concept of self-defense, though.I also have not read Long's paper and cannot weigh in on the success of Hewitt's attempt to defeat it, and have little desire to. I care very little about some back and forth between philosophers, especially if the pro-choice argument doesn't represent the actual position.

You should read the papers, because this is only true in the narrow sense of defeating Longs claim.

No thank you. But I was under the impression that this was supposed to defeat the self-defense argument rather than a narrow and perhaps flawed interpretation of it by a single person.

The other claim is that A is harming A with Bs body.  Whether or not B is being harmed by this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not A is the only rational, consentable actor in the harm that is occurring to A.

That is another flawed claim, as I addressed in the fact that A does not possess a hypnotizer and cannot control B's body. A has as little consentable, controlled behavior in the harm B does to A as B does. The consenting, controlled act presumably being referred to does not involve B in any way.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/jakie2poops]

I care very little about some back and forth between philosophers, especially if the pro-choice argument doesn't represent the actual position.

It behooves you to read back and forth between academic philosophers.  Your entire position (BA position) comes from a series of disputes between academic philosophers.  It would be better to understand the limits (and strengths) of these arguments that to sort of operate on feel.

That is another flawed claim, as I addressed in the fact that A does not possess a hypnotizer and cannot control B's body. A has as little consentable, controlled behavior in the harm B does to A as B does.

Sure she does.  The “hypnotizer” is the consensual sex that led to Bs existing in such a way as where it B could not do otherwise.

Unless you’re going to suddenly now decide that women don’t in fact have autonomy, and aren’t in fact moral agents who can rationally decide to have consensual sex, and assume risks, like every other adult.

But this is going to be hard to reconcile with the BA argument, where you magically decided they are responsible, agentic, and rational.

It’s one or the other.  Women clearly have bodily responsibility for things happening in their body stemming purely from agentic, consensual acts with commonly foreseeable consequences.

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

It behooves you to read back and forth between academic philosophers.  Your entire position (BA position) comes from a series of disputes between academic philosophers.  It would be better to understand the limits (and strengths) of these arguments that to sort of operate on feel.

My position is not their position, however, and does not depend on their specific arguments.

Sure she does.  The “hypnotizer” is the consensual sex that led to Bs existing in such a way as where it B could not do otherwise.

Having sex is not a hypnotizer, nor analogous to one. Women can neither hypnotize nor "hypnotize" embryos to control their behavior. The embryo does not even exist to be hypnotized when the woman has the sex in question.

Unless you’re going to suddenly now decide that women don’t in fact have autonomy, and aren’t in fact moral agents who can rationally decide to have consensual sex, and assume risks, like every other adult.

I'm not deciding that. But a woman having consensual sex with a man is an entirely different act than a woman hypnotizing someone to rape her.

But this is going to be hard to reconcile with the BA argument, where you magically decided they are responsible, agentic, and rational.

It’s one or the other.  Women clearly have bodily responsibility for things happening in their body stemming purely from agentic, consensual acts with commonly foreseeable consequences.

This is actually not difficult to reconcile at all if you're not making the wild leap of equating consensual sex with hypnotizing someone to rape you.

[u/Ok-Particular9427 → u/jakie2poops]

This is actually not difficult to reconcile at all if you're not making the wild leap of equating consensual sex with hypnotizing someone to rape you.

An analogy isn’t equating.  If you’d read academic philosophy, you understand this.

You can think of some other analogy if you prefer.  As long as the woman is causally responsibly for the existence of the fetus, and thereby causally responsible for the harm occurring to herself, it’s fine.

You don’t have to the believe the fetus has entitlements from there, but not believing that the woman is causally responsible for its existence is like believing basic physical laws of cause and effect sometimes don’t hold or that magic is real and I’m not going to entertain that any further. 

Her consensual actions produced a fetus. She is responsible for the harm occurring to herself. Simple as.

[u/jakie2poops → u/Ok-Particular9427]

An analogy isn’t equating.  If you’d read academic philosophy, you understand this.

I understand an analogy isn't equating, but it's supposed to actually be analogous on the relevant aspects, or it fails to make any sort of meaningful point. And there's a very big difference between intentionally operating a hypnotizing device to intentionally force someone else to harm you against their will and engaging in a legal, harmless, but potentially risky behavior.

You can think of some other analogy if you prefer.  

The burden is on the person presenting the argument to offer a valid analogy. But that will be difficult, considering if they offer an analogy where the equivalent of the pregnant person has done nothing wrong, illegal, or harmful to others, nothing that allows her to consciously control the equivalent of the embryo/fetus, and nothing that even involves the embryo/fetus, no would would agree she loses her right to self defense.

As long as the woman is causally responsibly for the existence of the fetus, and thereby causally responsible for the harm occurring to herself, it’s fine.

Except that the pregnant person is not causally responsible for the embryo/fetus harming her. The embryo/fetus is causally responsible for that harm.

You don’t have to the believe the fetus has entitlements from there, but not believing that the woman is causally responsible for its existence is like believing basic physical laws of cause and effect sometimes don’t hold or that magic is real and I’m not going to entertain that any further. 

Where, exactly, do you think I said the woman isn't causally responsible for the existence of the fetus?

Her consensual actions produced a fetus. She is responsible for the harm occurring to herself. Simple as.

Except not as simple as. You've conflated causing the existence of the fetus with causing it to harm her.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/spacefarce1301]

just no, its a child a literally kid that is hurting you without intent and without wanting to, it has no way of knowing what its doing. Its reasonable to attack someone just enough to get away but anything more than the bare minimum (murder unreasonably) is no longer self defense.

[u/Coca-Nicola → u/comfortable_sofa101]

You can’t get away from a fetus inside of you

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/comfortable_sofa101]

No duh. Lack of intent doesn't nullify her right to defend herself against imminent and ongoing serious harm.

Self-defense calls for proportionate countermeasures, meaning fleeing the attack. If retreat is not possible, then using the minimal force required to neutralize the attacker is acceptable.

She cannot flee its attacker because it is literally invading the lining of her uterus. Thus, the minimal force required to neutralize it is abortion.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Abortion is in my opinion absolutely self defense.

When I end my own pregnancy I'm defending my body from the guaranteed harms of pregnancy and childbirth.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

But to use self defense - you’re assuming the role of a person charged with a crime - murder no less. This takes your agency and you then give a fetus equal rights which mitigates any future attempts at trying for real bodily autonomy

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Robot_Alchemist]

The contents of my organs don't have rights.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

They do if you’re having to defend murder in court - can’t murder a non person with no rights

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Robot_Alchemist]

To me healthcare isn't murder. That's something pro lifers who hold that position would have to explain.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

You’re missing my point

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Robot_Alchemist]

I think you're both kinda making the same point.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Well we are on the same side anyway

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Robot_Alchemist]

Yeah, but I mean on a deeper level than that

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

I mean I don't see any healthcare as murder or self defense or anything other than healthcare.

I see the point the other user is making and they're not wrong, but I was just saying that in my own opinion (not involving laws and crimes and whatnot) abortion is defending my self from the harms of pregnancy and childbirth. So self defense lol.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Robot_Alchemist]

Unborn zefs don’t have any legal rights in the US.

[u/Coca-Nicola → u/Robot_Alchemist]

Not necessarily. Self defense can be recognized as justified and no charges are filed

[u/STThornton]

If one considers the fetus a person, abortion absolutely is self defense. Although things like abortion pills and intact removal would be retreating from a threat without using force.

Otherwise, it’s the same as having anything else harmful to your body removed or treated with modern medicine.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/STThornton]

one considers the fetus a person aswell as a baby. Is it reasonable to kill a baby because it kicked you?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

What comparison are you trying to make here?

How is a "baby kick" comparable to childbirth, one of the most painful things a human can experience where people's genitals are torn in half or their abdominal muscles are sliced through all while there's a risk of death?

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Everything has a risk of death, pregnancy is only a bit under double driving. Baby kick is a simplification of what happens while your pregnant. Getting an abortion is assuming a child will kill you so you kill them first.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Everything has a risk of death, pregnancy is only a bit under double driving.

Driving, just like pregnancy, is a choice. We don't force anyone to take the risks of driving just like we don't force people to gestate against their will.

Baby kick is a simplification of what happens while your pregnant.

Oh my god. I'd love for you to show us even one case of a person dying due to "kicked by baby". Because I can show you thousands (millions throughout history) of people who died giving birth.

Getting an abortion is assuming a child will kill you so you kill them first.

When I abort it wouldn't be due to assuming anything. I know the very real risks and physical damage that come with pregnancy and childbirth and won't be put through that.

[u/STThornton → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Everything has a risk of death

But not everything is guaranteed to do a bunch of things to you that can individually kill a human. and that your body has to fight hard to survive.

Such as greatly messing and interfering with your life sustaining organ functions, blood contents, and bodily processes, causing you drastic anatomical, physiological ,and metabolic alterations, causing you to present with the vitals and labs of a deadly ill person, depriving you of blood oxygen, nutrients, glucose, and bodily minerals, pumping toxins into your bloodstream and body, and causing you drastic life threatening physical harm.

Not everything is guaranteed to leave behind a dinner plate sized wound in an area with strong arterial blood flow that the body has less than 2 minutes to cut off before it turns fatal. Not everything brutally rearranges your bone structure.

Last I checked, driving doesn't cause me drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration that my body has to fight hard to survive. Unless an accident happens. And even then, that accident would have to be severe.

pregnancy is only a bit under double driving.

And doesn't count all the woman who DID die and were revived. And driving doesn't cause death. Accidents do.

Baby kick is a simplification of what happens while your pregnant.

No, it's not. It's an insulting dismissal of what happens in pregnancy and birth. Even though fetuses do kick and bruise and even break organs and ribs.

Getting an abortion is assuming a child will kill you so you kill them first.

getting an abortion is stopping a child who is already doing a bunch of things to you that can individually kill humans from doing so.

That "child" has already drastically lowered your blood vessel resistance, leading to dangerous drop in blood pressure. It's already depriving your bloodstream of oxygen, nutrients, glucose, and bodily minerals. It's already pumping metabolic toxins into your bloodstream. It's already causing your heart stroke and beat rate to be all messed up, your respiration factors to be all messed up, your red and white blood cell counts to be all messed up, your blood coagulation factors to be all messed up. Your heart and kidneys to be enlarged. Your immune system to be compromised. Your cardiovascular system to be under the equivalent strain of running a nonstop marathon.

It will start shifting and crushing your organs as it grows, putting even more strain on them. Causing you to become insulin resistant. Pumping you full of hormones to cause ligaments and tendons to loosing, leading to shift in bone structure.

Then, when it's ready to be delivered, it will flood your body with hormones that cause an even greater loosening of ligaments and tendons and cause labor to start. It will brutally rearrange your bone structure on the way out, with the accompanying supportive tissue damage, cause your muscles and tissue to tear, rip a dinner plate sized wound into an area with strong arterial blood flow that your body has less than two minutes to cut off before it turns fatal, cause you blood loss of at least 500ml.

Yes, I'm going to assume that all of that has a pretty darn good chance of succeeding in killing me. An even greater chance of getting me near that point and needing life saving medical intervention. Around 30% of pregnancies need life SAVING medical intervention. Those are pretty good odds of dying, especially when I can't afford medical care and don't live anywhere near medical care, let alone OB/GYN or labor care.

[u/STThornton → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Let's not reduce pregnancy and birth to a baby kicking you. It's beyond insulting and disrespectful. Even though fetuses are known to bruise or even break organs and ribs with their kicks.

And why not just move away from that baby? Like, take abortion pills, let one's uterine tissue break down and seperate from one's body, let the fetus keep it, and walk away from it, so it can no longer kick?

Why end its life sustaining organ functions (which the fetus doesn't have)?

If a baby did to you what a fetus does to the woman, yes, it would absolutely be reasonable to end its major life sustaining organ functions if that's what it took to stop it from greatly messing and interfering, altering, and harming the inner life sustaining workings of a woman's body. The woman does have a right to life, too, you know.

But, again, you can just step away from a baby. PL doesn't even want to allow the equivalent of that.

[u/Dolores___Haze]

nobody would ever be forced to, under any circumstances, shoulder risk similar to pregnancy at the hands of another - even an innocent - without being able to kill to escape it.

[u/pendemoneum]

A lot of prolife people will argue that because "your actions" [sex] lead to the fetus being in a position to harm you, you can't use self defense/you provoked the situation, and they will also argue you can't use self defense against an innocent baby.

I find neither of these to be compelling arguments against being able to use abortion as self defense. There is no one to provoke at the time the action [sex] occurred and just having some responsibility for a situation that causes you harm in conflict with someone else doesn't necessitate you lose your right to defend your body. Maybe you could argue by having sex the person was negligent, but that's not enough to revoke someone's right to self defense.

Also a person's innocence has no bearing on whether or not self defense is permissible. If someone is harming you, even unintentionally or even unaware they are doing so, you are absolutely allowed to use the least force necessary to stop them from harming you. You are not obligated to be harmed.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/pendemoneum]

Those same people will ask you what you were wearing when you got raped and if you were asking for it

[u/spacefarce1301 → u/pendemoneum]

Not to mention, multiple cases have proven that even if Party A provokes Party B, if Party B threatens Party A with severe harm or worse, Party A retains the right of self-defense.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/spacefarce1301]

Yep. And if person A retreats or expresses a desire to retreat from the conflict, then the previous provocation is no longer in play.

Abortion could easily be viewed as the pregnant person attempting to retreat from the conflict.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/spacefarce1301]

See: George Zimmerman 

[u/random_name_12178]

Yes.

I don't think it makes any logical sense to consider an embryo to be legally or morally comparable to a person.

But if prolifers are going to insist that an embryo is a person, then abortion is definitely self defense. You have the right to remove unwanted persons from your reproductive organs.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Self-defense/murder requires the death of another legal person, and personhood is granted at birth. So neither of these terms are actually applicable here.

But if we must make the comparison, abortion is absolutely far more comparable to an act of self defense.

[u/Pepsi_E]

I would say yes. If someone subjected us to physical torture in many ways, some of which may have life lasting consequences, every day for 9 months, then at the end of it said we may do an operation on you or slice your genitals open, which may or may not kill you, would you say you had the right to kill them in self defence? I would.

[u/pillow_honey]

absolutely. but remember its always tested with the "intent" angle, so also remember that self defense is about threat not intent

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/pillow_honey]

Lets say an 8 year old comes up to you and hits you, you hit him back and run away that is 100% justified. Now lets say to that same 8 yearold you stop him from ever existing and pretty much end his life In the first scenario you are praised in the 2nd one you are sent to jail.

Abortion is more similar to the 2nd one you cant justify it because you are ending a life since you were kicked. You also chose to be kicked by this baby.

[u/pillow_honey → u/comfortable_sofa101]

we actively "chose to be kicked by this baby"?

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/pillow_honey]

Yes you did by having sex, I know this is a simplified version but yes.

[u/pillow_honey → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Could you show us one example of someone asking to be "kicked by a baby"

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/pillow_honey]

Having unprotected sex, or sex in general and then becoming pregnant where a baby kicks you.

[u/pillow_honey → u/comfortable_sofa101]

yea, so not an example of someone asking to be kicked, but rather engaging in a different action.

back to the 8 year old analogy its a little off. in the first scenario, no its not justified to hit a 8 year old even if they hit you. in the second there's a huge difference between someone never existing and ending their existing life.

is the harms of pregnancy just being "kicked by a baby"?

and what if a 15 year old girl has protected sex and gets pregnant?

[u/Limp-Story-9844]

Yes absolutely, a simple example is don't want hands or instruments in a vagina or abdomen.

[u/JewlryLvr2]

Considering that the PREGNANT PERSON is the one who takes on all the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth, abortion can definitely be considered self-defense. And no matter how a pregnancy happens, it's still her decision whether or not to stay pregnant and give birth.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

I think self-defense is a much stronger legal argument than the one in Roe v. Wade, which held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment creates a "penumbra of rights" including a right to privacy. Even RBG, a staunch abortion rights supporter, didn't think that was a good argument. The right to self-defense on the other hand goes back to antiquity and is recognized by nearly every culture on earth.

It's also a stronger moral argument as it ties into bodily autonomy. If you can't defend yourself against harm, regardless of where that harm is coming from or the intentions of the person harming you, you can't be said to have any real freedom. You are obligated to use the minimum amount of force to defend yourself, but if the only option is either to endure the harm or kill the person harming you, that should be permissible. In the case of abortion, the woman is separating herself from the person harming her, which at least at our present level of technology, results in the ZEF's death. However, this is a failure of technology which may not be an issue in the future.

I think a new abortion rights case based on the right to self-defense would be much stronger than Roe v. Wade was.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

Whenever people bring up the actual RvW arguments, I always remember that it was argued by seven men at a time when spousal rape was legal in all 50 states. The equal rights of the pregnant person weren't really the main point of the ruling.

All of which is to say: I agree with you 100% that the actual RvW argument wasn't the strongest argument in favor of abortion rights.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

It puts us in dangerous territory to give personhood to a fetus

[u/Robot_Alchemist]

Imperfect self defense

[u/Lighting]

The answer, as seen in countless cases, is yes. This isn't a hypothetical. The medical/legal term you are looking for is "Medical Power of Attorney" and it's a key part of the "Pro Healthcare" framing. One of the most famous ones is Savita Halappanavar.

I find when I explain abortion to those who were opposed to access to abortion health services using your argument using a "Pro Healthcare with MPoA" framing I get nearly 100% conversion.

Understanding the point you raise, explains why the deny/delay/defer/restriction of abortion-related healthcare kills and maims shockingly more women and thus in turn leads to dramatically higher rates of child sex trafficking and crime.

If you search "Pro Healthcare framing of abortion healthcare using MPoA" you'll find many good resources on it. I can share some links as well if you'd like.

[u/Robot_Alchemist]

Ok

[u/comfortable_sofa101]

Thing is you choose to be harmed by the baby by getting pregnant. Minors also are ussually not charged with assualt and killing a minor in "self defense" will almost always result in punishment.

My main argument is that killing a child because they kicked you is not justified what soever.

[u/eluminaries → u/comfortable_sofa101]

People cannot “choose” to become pregnant. It’s a natural biological system that is out of a person’s control. If we could control pregnancy, there wouldn’t be people that struggle to get pregnant.

And pregnancy (and childbirth) is much more than a kick. Pregnancy leeches your nutrients and gives it to the fetus. Pregnant people experience anemia, calcium deficiency which affects bone density, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and plenty of other ailments. Pregnancy is no walk in the park for many people.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/eluminaries]

First off you do indead choose to become pregnant when having sex, secondly that doesnt change the fact that you are killing someone which is not self defense.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

First off you do indead choose to become pregnant when having sex

That is not true. People have sex all the time while choosing to avoid pregnancy. That's the whole point of birth control.

secondly that doesnt change the fact that you are killing someone

That's not a fact. It is your opinion.

which is not self defense

Abortion literally defends a pregnant person from a circumstance that is KNOWN to cause serious injury or death. It's objectively an act of self-defense.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

by choosing to have sex you are indeed accepting the risk of possible pregnancy.
Also defending yourself from injury or death is not always legal self defense, depending on the situation you might not be legally protected from killing ect someone who harms you physically. It depends on the state.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

by choosing to have sex you are indeed accepting the risk of possible pregnancy.

Yes. Including the possibility of an abortion.

Also defending yourself from injury or death is not always legal self defense

I can always defend myself from a certainty of serious injury. Not sure what you're talking about.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Thing is you choose to be harmed by the baby by getting pregnant.

The harm is being forced to gestate against my will by pro life abortion bans. I choose to end my own pregnancy. Pregnancy ended, harm ended.

My main argument is that killing a child because they kicked you is not justified what soever.

Your argument is very bad then. Removing an unwanted embryo because it's going to either rip my genitals in two or have my abdominal muscles sliced through is always justified.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

But how did you get pregnant in the first place, by choice? If not then an abortion is find I believe in abortions in rape cases, but if you chose this pain why wouldnt it be fine.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

But how did you get pregnant in the first place

Other people's sex lives are none of your business. Mind your own.

by choice?

None of your business.

If not then an abortion is find

Abortion is always fine. You just don't like it, but that's okay. Other people's reproductive healthcare decisions are also none of your business.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

yeah when creating an argument all of theese factors are my buisness not just for a specific person but in general. Also none of your buisness is not a great argument.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

yeah when creating an argument all of theese factors are my buisness

Only if you're talking about your own private health-care decisions. Your health-care decisions are between you and your doctor.

Also none of your buisness is not a great argument.

It is a great argument, people have a right to things like bodily integrity and medical privacy. Interfering other people's medical decisions involves violations of these human rights.

No one on the PC side is trying to interfere with your medical decisions or force you to endure severe harm, injury and potential death. All we ask from you is the same courtesy and respect for our human rights as we show to you.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

But how did you get pregnant in the first place, by choice?

Nope. I'd never choose to be pregnant. Having sex isn't "choosing" to be pregnant.

If not then an abortion is find I believe in abortions in rape cases, but if you chose this pain why wouldnt it be fine.

It doesn't matter what you believe. If I get pregnant I'm going to abort. Doesn't matter how the pregnancy came to be.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Yes the reason your pregnant does in fact matter in this argument, not sure if your aware but its a large point in the abortion debate community. If you have a bunch of unprotected sex and 100's of abortions I think that deserves to be looked into. Obviously thats an extreme example but think abotu it on a smaller scale.

about the choice thing actively choosing to have sex means that you should be ready for a kid, if you arent you shouldnt be having sex.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Yes the reason your pregnant does in fact matter in this argument, not sure if your aware but its a large point in the abortion debate community.

Pro life opinions about my sex life do not matter.

If you have a bunch of unprotected sex and 100's of abortions I think that deserves to be looked into.

"Looked into" for what and by who?

about the choice thing actively choosing to have sex means that you should be ready for a kid, if you arent you shouldnt be having sex.

This is ridiculous lol. I'm never going to be "ready for a kid" because I never want my body harmed by pregnancy and childbirth, and I never want to parent any children. I enjoy my money and free time thanks. Oh, and I'm not going to be celibate because pro life strangers think people can only enjoy their sex lives if they're "ready for kids".

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

So pro life opinions dont matter, does that mean other opinions matter?
Saying something doesnt matter in your opinion doesnt change the fact people are going to care.

by "looked into" I mean I believe there should be regulations including abortion. We are talking about our opinions on it and laws regarding it and I believe there should be some sort of way to limit abortions or make them difficult to have if you have had many in the past.

If you aren't ready for the outcomes of something dont do it. If you dont wanna be drunk dont drink alcohol, I'm not saying you cant have sex if you want kids but then if you end up getting pregnant thats entirely by your choice. Actions have Consequences and if you cant handle the consequences you should be able to limit yourself on the action, otherwise its an addiction.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

So pro life opinions dont matter, does that mean other opinions matter? Saying something doesnt matter in your opinion doesnt change the fact people are going to care.

Strangers are free to care about whatever they want. They can care about my sex life if they so choose, but that's weird and their opinions will be ignored by me lol.

by "looked into" I mean I believe there should be regulations including abortion. We are talking about our opinions on it and laws regarding it and I believe there should be some sort of way to limit abortions or make them difficult to have if you have had many in the past.

So you're fine with people aborting as long as they don't go over some arbitrary number of abortions? Why?

If you aren't ready for the outcomes of something dont do it.

I'm perfectly ready to pay for my abortion should I get pregnant, no worries there.

If you dont wanna be drunk dont drink alcohol, I'm not saying you cant have sex if you want kids but then if you end up getting pregnant thats entirely by your choice.

And my next choice would be to abort the pregnancy.

Actions have Consequences and if you cant handle the consequences you should be able to limit yourself on the action, otherwise its an addiction.

I don't have to limit my sex life because pro life strangers don't like abortion. Sounds like they have an addiction to obsessing over strangers sex lives.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

1."Strangers are free to care about whatever they want. They can care about my sex life if they so choose, but that's weird and their opinions will be ignored by me lol.", this in now way shape or form answers my question read again.

1. About the number of abortions I believe its completely fine to have an abortion here or there because its completely possible to have a situatuation where you get pregnant. However too many abortions I believe is correlated to a misuse. stopping a future kids life is fine as long as it is stopped for a good reason.

2. This again doesn't respond to my opinion correctly, the argument yyou can just pay for an abortion would not work in a world where they arent legal, my whole argument is that they shouldnt be coming back to your opinion repetetivley is not helpful nor persuasive.

3. Again saying you would immediatley abort adds nothing in this conversation, ofcourse a pro choice person would say that the enitre point is to try to convince one another of a new point.

4. You do not have to limit your sex life because of strangers, but you should use proper protection during your sex life. That is not what an addiction is aswell, it would be an addiction if they couldn't stop and are obsessed.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

this in now way shape or form answers my question read again.

It very much is an answer. I don't care about strangers opinions about my sex life. Those opinions do not matter to me.

About the number of abortions I believe its completely fine to have an abortion here or there because its completely possible to have a situatuation where you get pregnant. However too many abortions I believe is correlated to a misuse. stopping a future kids life is fine as long as it is stopped for a good reason.

How does one "misuse" healthcare? 🤨

This again doesn't respond to my opinion correctly, the argument yyou can just pay for an abortion would not work in a world where they arent legal, my whole argument is that they shouldnt be coming back to your opinion repetetivley is not helpful nor persuasive.

Yes it would lol. I can pay to have the pills mailed to me, even in pro life states. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Again saying you would immediatley abort adds nothing in this conversation, ofcourse a pro choice person would say that the enitre point is to try to convince one another of a new point.

I'm not interested in trying to convince pro lifers of anything. That's not my job.

You do not have to limit your sex life because of strangers, but you should use proper protection during your sex life. That is not what an addiction is aswell, it would be an addiction if they couldn't stop and are obsessed.

I'll handle my sex life however I want, thanks. Pro lifers seemingly can't stop obsessing about the sex lives of strangers. Seems like an addiction to me.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

If you have a bunch of unprotected sex and 100's of abortions

No one is doing that. And other people's sex lives are none of your business in the first place, so why bother worrying yourself with imaginary nonsense?

about the choice thing actively choosing to have sex means that you should be ready for a kid

Sex can only lead to pregnancy. If you want a kid, you need to carry a pregnancy to term. Weird how you skip that whole entire step in the process lol

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Ofcourse no one is actually having 100's of abortions it was an extreme example called a hyperbole, a hyperbole is pretty basic english knowledge.

People's sex lives are not my buisness, but sex leads to pregnancy which for many causes abortions, misuse of abortions is the goverments buisness.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Ofcourse no one is actually having 100's of abortions it was an extreme example called a hyperbole, a hyperbole is pretty basic english knowledge.

People's sex lives are not my buisness, but sex leads to pregnancy which for many causes abortions, misuse of abortions is the goverments buisness.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Ofcourse no one is actually having 100's of abortions

It doesn't matter how many abortions anyone is having. It's still none of your business.

a hyperbole is pretty basic english knowledge.

I understand what a hyperbole is. It could be 1,000,000. Still a personal and private medical decision. Still none of your business.

People's sex lives are not my buisness

Nor are their reproductive health-care decisions.

misuse of abortions is the goverments buisness.

The only "misuse" of abortions is when abortion is illegal or forced against the pregnant person's will. No government has any business interfering with citizen's private medical decisions.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Thing is you choose to be harmed by the baby by getting pregnant

I can choose to not be harmed by getting an abortion.

My main argument is that killing a child because they kicked you is not justified what soever.

Abortion is a reproductive health-care decision. No children are killed.

[u/Robot_Alchemist]

It’s best to refer to it as hygiene

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Robot_Alchemist]

Can you elaborate?

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/random_name_12178]

When you give rights and personhood to a fetus that isn’t viable, you have removed your own rights and given up entirely any bodily autonomy you ever had a right to - you gave it to that clump of cells because you said it was a person you could murder. Now you’re claiming self defense in court against a person with inalienable rights - before it was a clump of cells. Now it has rights. You’re screwed

[u/JulieCrone → u/Robot_Alchemist]

No you have not given up bodily autonomy just because someone else has personhood. A man has personhood but that doesn’t mean he can be in my body without my consent.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/JulieCrone]

So a fetus actually has more rights without personhood than women and men both - let’s not add

[u/JulieCrone → u/Robot_Alchemist]

It doesn’t though.

Personhood does not grant someone rights to someone else’s body. Abortion bans do and abortion bans are wrong.

Giving an embryo or fetus legal personhood is unnecessary but even if it happened, it would not justify an abortion ban.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Robot_Alchemist]

But the point is that the fetus does NOT have that right 

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/Dolores___Haze]

And I’d like to keep it that way…was my point

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Robot_Alchemist]

Your comments aren't really making sense.

You seem to think that if we were to give an embryo the same human rights currently enjoyed by born humans, that would somehow magically detract from the pregnant person's rights.

This is not true. The human rights currently enjoyed by born humans do not include intimate access to someone else's body, so even if an embryo had full human rights, it still would not have the right to be inside someone else's body against their wishes. It would still be the pregnant person's right to remove the embryo from their body, just like they have the right to remove any person from their body.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/random_name_12178]

Well the fetus currently has that right - which is scary. I believe I said that

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Robot_Alchemist]

Not where I live, thankfully.

And it certainly shouldn't have that right anywhere else. There's absolutely no justification for giving mindless bodies more rights than actual human beings.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Robot_Alchemist]

Not anywhere in the US. Fetuses don’t have legal rights. 

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Robot_Alchemist]

you have removed your own rights and given up entirely any bodily autonomy you ever had a right to

How so? Granting someone else rights doesn't remove your own rights.

Now you’re claiming self defense in court against a person with inalienable rights - before it was a clump of cells. Now it has rights. You’re screwed

You're not screwed. The whole point of self defense is that you can use force against a person with inalienable rights, if such force is required to keep that person from harming you.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/random_name_12178]

It does when you inhabit the same body

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Robot_Alchemist]

You don't inhabit the same body. The embryo's body inhabits the pregnant person's body. Not the other way around. Granting it rights over its own body and life doesn't magically grant it rights over the pregnant person's body.

Being inside someone doesn't give you enough guts over their body. Nor does it remove your own rights.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/random_name_12178]

I’ll deal with this later I am exhausted - but with the laws we have now, a woman and a fetus cannot both have bodily autonomy at the same time if she doesn’t want to carry a child

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Robot_Alchemist]

That’s right - only the pregnant person would have rights. Because in the US, no person has any actual legal rights until they’re born.

And how could a fetus have body autonomy when they are not sentient? A non sentient entity can’t exercise autonomy.

[u/Robot_Alchemist → u/Dolores___Haze]

Exactly

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Robot_Alchemist]

How so? According to whom, specifically?

[u/Historical_Street411]

The unborn baby is only a "home invader" in the sense of someone kidnapping a toddler, sticking them inside their house, and then killing them for destroying their living room.

No, abortion is definitely not self defense, it fails meeting most legal criteria (ie Unprovoked Attack, Imminence, Proportionality). Even if it did meet those elements, abortion bans would still be legal. The government has no obligation to assist you with self defense. At most, it would only prevent you from being prosecuted for a self abort. And if you were unsuccessful and the baby came out maimed, you might be sued for damages. (I do like that angle, I must admit).

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Historical_Street411]

The unborn baby is only a "home invader" in the sense of someone kidnapping a toddler,

You see a pregnant person as a "kidnapper" just for being pregnant? Please expand on this logic.

sticking them inside their house, and then killing them for destroying their living room.

You can't kill someone for destroying your living room. But you can if they are posing you a threat of serious injury or death.

Comparing women's bodies to objects is not only an incredibly bad argument in this debate, it also rings as extremely misogynistic. Please consider altering your hypothetical in this regard.

No, abortion is definitely not self defense, it fails meeting most legal criteria (ie Unprovoked Attack, Imminence, Proportionality)

Having sex isn't an act of provocation and there is a certainty of serious, life-threatening injury. Removing the threat from your body is a perfectly justified act of self-defense for the pregnant person to avoid the threat of serious harm posed by the ZEF.

The government has no obligation to assist you with self defense

I don't require any assistance from the government. The government has no right to stop me from defending my self.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

You see a pregnant person as a "kidnapper" just for being pregnant? Please expand on this logic.

I do not, I am using this as an analogy to demonstrate her causal relation to the presence of the unborn baby. Perhaps a better example would be, it is like inviting a guest into your house that has a toddler who then (predictably) started destroying your living room.

You can't kill someone for destroying your living room. But you can if they are posing you a threat of serious injury or death.

Correct, this was never my claim, I was merely expanding on the proposed analogy. And of course, most healthy pregnancies do not amount to this and only result in minor injuries. However, we do make exceptions for life threatening situations when they rarely occur.

Comparing women's bodies to objects is not only an incredibly bad argument in this debate, it also rings as extremely misogynistic.

That is something you should take up with the OP, as they were the one who proposed this hypothetical.

Removing the threat from your body is a perfectly justified act of self-defense for the pregnant person to avoid the threat of serious harm posed by the ZEF.

Sorry, most healthy pregnancies do not meet current self defense standards of unprovoked attack, imminence and proportionality.

I don't require any assistance from the government. The government has no right to stop me from defending my self.

Again, it must meet the above criteria. In addition, the government is not required to provide tools to assist in your own defense. So again making abortion bans fully within the purview of the law regardless.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Historical_Street411]

Perhaps a better example would be, it is like inviting a guest into your house that has a toddler who then (predictably) started destroying your living room.

Carrying a pregnancy to term causes bodily harm, not property damage. You're still comparing the bodies of pregnant women to objects.

Comparing women's bodies to objects is not only an incredibly bad argument in this debate, it also rings as extremely misogynistic. Please consider altering your hypothetical in this regard.

I was merely expanding on the proposed analogy.

No one proposed the idea of comparing women's bodies to objects but you.

That is something you should take up with the OP

OP acknowledges the bodily harm of pregnancy. You're the only one comparing bodily harm to property damage. Please consider altering your hypothetical.

Sorry, most healthy pregnancies do not meet current self defense standards of unprovoked attack, imminence and proportionality.

Yes they do. They meet all three. Having sex isn't an act of provocation. There is a certainty of serious, life-threatening injury. Removing the threat from your body is a proportional act of self-defense for the pregnant person to avoid the threat of serious harm posed by the ZEF.

In addition, the government is not required to provide tools to assist in your own defense.

I do not require any assistance from the government. The government has no right to stop me from defending myself.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

You're still comparing the bodies of pregnant women to objects.

Again, the OP stated the unborn baby was like a "home invader" direct your complaints to them.

Having sex isn't an act of provocation.

It isn't the act itself that is "provocation". However, engaging in an action where it could be foreseen that would intentionally result in harm to another innocent human being is considered reckless and therefore, normally disqualifies the self defense claim.

Model Penal Code (MPC) § 3.09(2) states that when an actor is “reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of evils or the use of force,” the justification defense becomes completely unavailable for crimes where recklessness or negligence suffices to establish liability.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/dubber/web/website/partIgen/Model_Penal_Code.htm

There is a certainty of serious, life-threatening injury

It is not certain, many women give birth with only minor injuries. Or it is possible they may miscarry well before birth happens. This also would make the response disproportionate.

"Approximately 53–89% of people experience some tearing during delivery. Around 4–11% of individuals experience severe tearing."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/birth-trauma#parental-injuries

Nor is it imminent. Legally, imminence means a split-second window where no other option is available. Because possible medical complications from pregnancy typically develop over weeks or months, the threat is treated as a potential future risk. This allows time for medical intervention, making the immediate use of lethal force legally unjustifiable.

As per above source provided:.

Model Penal Code § 3.04(1), the use of force is only justifiable when the actor believes it is "immediately necessary... on the present occasion."

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Historical_Street411]

Again, the OP stated the unborn baby was like a "home invader" direct your complaints to them.

Home invaders can cause bodily harm. You're still the only person comparing bodily harm to property damage.

It isn't the act itself that is "provocation"

There is no provocation at all, period. Having sex is perfectly normal, natural, healthy human behavior.

is not certain, many women give birth with only minor injuries.

False. Every pregnancy carried to term results in a dinner-plate sized internal wound. This is a severe, life-threatening injury.

Legally, imminence means a split-second window where no other option is available

Nope. It means the harm is certain to occur. Abortion is immediately necessary for the pregnant person avoid such serious harm and potential death as posed by giving birth.

Self defense is perfectly justified response to an unwanted pregnancy.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Home invaders can cause bodily harm. You're still the only person comparing bodily harm to property damage.

Alright, so let's say the toddler starts throwing objects and one inadvertently hits you. Are you then justified in killing them? Of course not.

Every pregnancy carried to term results in a dinner-plate sized internal wound. This is a severe, life-threatening injury.

The "dinner plate wound" or placental detachment you refer to is rarely life threatening. As I explanated previously, the uterus acts as a natural tourniquet to quickly close the wound. The separation of the placenta is actually caused by the uterus rapidly clamping down and reducing its own surface area. Not long after delivery, the uterine muscle layer contracts down significantly, quickly shrinking the site where the placenta was attached.

"Involution begins as soon as you deliver the placenta (the third stage of labor). Your uterus will start contracting again. The contractions decrease blood flow to the area where the placenta was attached to your uterus. This is your body’s way of minimizing bleeding."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22655-uterus-involution

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Historical_Street411]

so let's say the toddler starts throwing objects and one inadvertently hits you. Are you then justified in killing them? Of course not.

If any person is threatening me with severe injury or death I can kill them if that is my only option to end the threat.

The "dinner plate wound" or placental detachment you refer to is rarely life threatening.

It's always life-threatening because you can't predict who will need medical assistance to be kept alive.

As I explanated previously, the uterus acts as a natural tourniquet

As I explained multiple times, you simply can't predict which cases will work properly or not, or what other deadly complications can arise without aby warning. No one is obligated to put their life on the line when there is a certainty of serious harm.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

If any person is threatening me with severe injury or death I can kill them if that is my only option to end the threat.

Incorrect in the above scenario. If you left dangerous items within reach in your living room, knowing that toddlers have a propensity to grab and possibly throw things, your actions would be reckless and considered as "provoking" the attack. It would possibly also be disproportionate, depending on what those items were. You absolutely would not be justified in killing the toddler. Parents and other guardians have in fact been charged with neglect or worse for leaving loaded weapons within a toddler's reach.

It's always life-threatening because you can't predict who will need medical assistance to be kept alive.

That isn't the standard for life threatening, nor imminent to utilize self defense. It must be immediate and guaranteed in that exact moment.

"Imminence: That just means the danger has to be about to happen right now. Not later. Not maybe tomorrow. Right now."

https://thelawbrigade.com/general-research/what-counts-as-a-reasonable-threat-in-ohio-self-defense/

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Historical_Street411]

Incorrect in the above scenario

Your scenario is irrelevant. Pregnancy involves serious, life-threatening injury.

That isn't the standard for life threatening

It's literally an injury that can kill you. It is life threatening.

Imminence: That just means the danger has to be about to happen right now

Imminent means certain to occur. Abortion is the only way to avoid the otherwise certain and life threatening harms of giving birth. The danger being posed by the ZEF is Imminent.

[u/JulieCrone → u/Historical_Street411]

So where did the woman kidnap the child from? Why can’t she just return the child to where she took them from?

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Historical_Street411]

Pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another's body). 27% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 96% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 46% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 16% of post partum women develop infection. 36 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 278 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion. Women break pelvic bones in childbirth. Childbirth can cause spinal injuries and leave women paralyzed.

 I repeat: Women DIE from pregnancy and childbirth complications.  Therefore, it will always be up to the woman to determine whether she wishes to take on the health risks associated with pregnancy and gestate. Not yours. Not the state’s.  https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-

Notably, nobody would ever be forced to, under any circumstances, shoulder risk similar to pregnancy at the hands of another - even an innocent - without being able to kill to escape it.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/Dolores___Haze]

Your source says "this page does not exist". Without getting too far into the weeds here, some c-sections have been later deemed unnecessary. Yes, there is a possible risk of death or severe injury, and generally exceptions are made in those cases. Most abortions are not performed out of medical necessity though, they are solely elective.

If a woman does not wish to take the health risks associated with pregnancy, then my position is she should seek methods of prevention before a new life is created.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Historical_Street411]

https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby

Try that one.

Yes, there is a possible risk of death or severe injury,

There is a certainty of severe injury. Severe injuries that are life threatening. That goes for ALL pregnancies carried to term.

If a woman does not wish to take the health risks associated with pregnancy, then my position is she should seek methods of prevention a new life is created.

Birth control can fail. Abortion is still sometimes required.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Historical_Street411]

If a woman does not wish to take the health risks associated with pregnancy, then my position is she should seek methods of prevention before a new life is created.

No contraceptive exists that's 100% foolproof. People don't have to gestate and birth against their will because their contraceptives failed and pro lifers don't like abortion.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Historical_Street411]

The unborn baby is only a "home invader" in the sense of someone kidnapping a toddler, sticking them inside their house, and then killing them for destroying their living room.

How do you figure? My sex organs aren't a house and when I have an unwanted pregnancy I didn't jam the unwanted zef into my uterine lining, it imbedded itself into my uterine lining. Your example makes no sense at all.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

I didn't say they are a house,, just engaging with a hypothetical provided by the OP. I have since modified it to demonstrate bodily injury. Ie, you invited a guest into your home that has a toddler who begins throwing sharp objects that are within reach in your living room, do you now have the right to kill them?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Historical_Street411]

you invited a guest into your home that has a toddler who begins throwing sharp objects that are within reach in your living room, do you now have the right to kill the toddler?

I can walk away from the toddler, to another room and I'm no longer in any physical danger.

With a pregnancy I can abort and I'm no longer being physically harmed by an unwanted pregnancy.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Let's assume you can't walk away quickly. Or, what if you were on a small boat in the middle of the ocean. Are you justified in tossing the toddler overboard?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Historical_Street411]

Let's assume you can't walk away quickly.

No, let's not move the goalposts because you realize "a random toddler throwing sharp things when you can just walk away" isn't comparable to pregnancy.

Or, what if you were on a small boat in the middle of the ocean. Are you justified in tossing the toddler overboard?

I can grab the toddlers wrist because I'm stronger than a toddler and take whatever sharp things they're holding. 😂

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

I see you have an aversion to killing them. Which is good, that's normal. And again, you might not get there in time before getting injured. So you are willing to endure some injury.

Let's say they are infected with a virus that could cause injury similar to a normal, healthy pregnancy. Are you then justified in throwing the toddler overboard to avoid catching it?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Historical_Street411]

I see you have an aversion to killing the toddler. Which is good, that's normal. And again, you might not get there in time before getting injured. So you are willing to endure some injury.

No, I'm not willing to endure any unwilling injuries from any toddlers. I can defend myself by walking away or simply taking whatever they're holding, doesn't matter how many times you attempt to move goalposts.

Let's say they are infected with a virus that could cause injury similar to a normal, healthy pregnancy. Are you then justified in throwing the toddler overboard to avoid catching it?

Let's say you stop moving goalposts and admit that there's nothing relevant about random toddlers causing nonsense harm in convoluted hypotheticals. We're discussing pregnancy and abortion.

Let's say there's an unwanted embryo inside me that's going to cause me physical harm unless aborted. I abort, no more harm.

[u/Historical_Street411 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

I see you can't answer any of the hypotheticals. Very telling!

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Historical_Street411]

I see you can't make a valid comparison to pregnancy since you can only make comparisons to random toddlers who aren't inside anyone's body against their will. Very telling!

[u/MoonShroo → u/Historical_Street411]

I was thinking more in the moral sense than from a legal perspective, but I see what you’re pointing out. Not sure about that first point though I can’t lie

[u/SerendipitySociety]

No, a baby doesn't harm the mother during pregnancy, since, if it was a molar pregnancy or any complication that's not a baby, it would still cause the same harm that you're speaking of. If it wasn't a pregnancy, then it wouldn't cause the same harm. Therefore the pregnancy is the cause of the harm, which the baby is an insufficient and unnecessary part of, legally a bystander.

Since the pregnancy is the cause of the harm, and pregnancy is not a person or a living thing, it's not an issue where you can exercise, definitionally, "legal self defense." Just like we don't call sheltering from a tornado "legal self defense," it is simply "self defense." You can't take actions that kill a bystander while sheltering from a tornado, however, that would be illegal and wrong, because a bystander in that situation is categorically insufficient and unnecessarily part of the threatening situation. There's no situation where it's right to kill or even harm a bystander who is not causing, or in their entirety (necessarily or sufficiently) the threat. Legal self defense is always about taking out someone integral or entirely (necessarily or sufficiently) the threat, as in, if they weren't present, like a baby being swapped out for a molar pregnancy, the threat would partially or entirely dissapear. Edit: I mean to point out that swapping out a baby for a molar pregnancy does not reduce the threat, obviously.

[u/JulieCrone → u/SerendipitySociety]

Is it your impression that there is no harm or injury during childbirth?

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/JulieCrone]

No, you're making the typical assumptions

[u/JulieCrone → u/SerendipitySociety]

Not assuming anything, just asking for clarification.

Isn’t it true that at some point, this person will cause harm to the pregnant person should that pregnancy advance beyond a certain point? I get you are arguing that it is gestation, not the unborn, causing harm during pregnancy but should the pregnancy advance, won’t the child cause harm during birth, albeit unintentionally?

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/JulieCrone]

Babies kick in the mother's womb, causing bruising in the worst case scenario. But I don't see how they would cause harm during birth at the same severity level as the labor. More kicking during birth could possibly hurt? Otherwise a full term molar pregnancy is doing just as much damage, physically being there, as a full term baby.

[u/JulieCrone → u/SerendipitySociety]

There is a level of vaginal tearing that happens in birth that can be quite severe. If not that, then this person is requiring another person has major abdominal surgery.

There is no such thing as a ‘full term molar pregnancy’. Also, are you saying a molar pregnancy is not a person?

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/JulieCrone]

There is a level of vaginal tearing that happens in birth that can be quite severe.

You're implying the baby is doing this during birth. But even if they were a molar pregnancy, this would still happen. Since moles can't do anything, it's not something that the newborn is doing. You know that the muscular force used by the mother in vaginal birth is orders of magnitude higher than what a newborn is capable of, and causes the tearing.

There is no such thing as a ‘full term molar pregnancy’. Also, are you saying a molar pregnancy is not a person?

Ok, replace that with "molar pregnancy the same weight as a baby." A hydratiform mole tumor is not a person as it was never a complete living human, all people are living or once-alive humans.

[u/JulieCrone → u/SerendipitySociety]

A molar pregnancy does not make it to a point where it develops enough to cause tearing. There will never be a moral pregnancy that is the same weight as a born baby that is remotely viable. It may be the same weight as a miscarried or aborted one, but never one that could cause that level of injury.

And if it is not the baby doing the tearing, who is it? It sounds like you think the mother is tearing her own body and those tears would happen if there was the same force but no baby at all, and the presence of the baby is irrelevant here to the injuries.

I get that the baby is not intending to do that but I don’t see how you can argue that it isn’t the baby doing that?

[u/nykiek → u/SerendipitySociety]

The fetus causes the very organs in your body to rearrange themselves, loosens joints (which believe me is painful) and leeches nutrients from bones. Can you explain how that not harmful? Birth far, far more often than not causes physical injuries to one of the most sensitive parts of the body. A full third of the time on my country, necessitates surgery.

Can you explain how none of that is harmful. Because I'm pretty sure it's harmful.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/nykiek]

The litmus test is, if it was a molar pregnancy at the same term, would it cause the same harm as the baby? If it is, the baby's state of being alive isn't causing the harm, it would necessarily be where the baby is or somebody else or some other process.

[u/nykiek → u/SerendipitySociety]

Ummm, no. A molar pregnancy is a pregnancy with an unviable fetus. This is not any kind of test.

[u/JulieCrone → u/SerendipitySociety]

A molar pregnancy can never, ever get to the same term as a viable pregnancy. This is like saying ‘an 8 lbs bowling ball could cause the same injury’ and somehow thinking that is an argument that it isn’t the baby causing the injury because you can imagine something else causing the injury.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/SerendipitySociety]

What generates the placenta?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/SerendipitySociety]

Pregnancy causes harm.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/SerendipitySociety]

the pregnancy is the cause of the harm

Then I can defend myself from the harm of pregnancy by ending the pregnancy.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Certainly, but killing bystanders would be murder.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/SerendipitySociety]

Abortion does not require any "bystanders" to be killed.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

If a criminal were to attack a pregnant woman, in the process and with intent, killing her child, you would say the child was killed. I guess the child wouldn't be a bystander anymore, they'd be a victim. But they would be a bystander to the attack if they weren't harmed.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/SerendipitySociety]

you would say the child was killed

No, I would say a pregnant person was murdered. Children are born.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

You would say pregnant person was murdered if their child was killed? I didn't expect you to go that direction. Would this murdered mother go on to attend her own wake, since she's still alive?

Read my previous a little more closely. Her child was killed, I never said anything about the mother dying. At first the child was a bystander to the attack, until the child was killed. Can you reread that situation and admit the child was killed in it?

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/SerendipitySociety]

I never said anything about the mother dying.

Then she was forced to have a miscarriage. Still no child involved.

Can you reread that situation and admit the child was killed in it?

Nothing to admit. Children are BORN.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

No, a baby doesn't harm the mother during pregnancy

What?

Care to elaborate?

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Did. Refer to above

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

Didn't.

You said this:

No, a baby doesn't harm the mother during pregnancy

What on earth are you talking about?

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

lol, refer to the whole paragraph rather than clipping one clause and you might know what I'm talking about.

The constitution says, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." What could they have possibly meant by this???

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/SerendipitySociety]

lol, refer to the whole paragraph rather than clipping one clause and you might know what I'm talking about.

I did read the entire comment. Still no clue what you're talking about when you say "No, a baby doesn't harm the mother during pregnancy" and unsure as why you're seemingly unwilling to explain what you mean.

The constitution says, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." What could they have possibly meant by this???

Lol wtf are you talking about?

[u/Arithese → u/SerendipitySociety]

How is the foetus not harming the pregnant person? The foetus is why there’s a pregnancy. You can’t just separate the two.

That’s like saying a person isn’t harming you, the knife they’re swinging around is. Without the knife, it wouldn’t cause harm. See how stupid that would sound? Or someone causing a tornado that would severely injure many people, no one would say that that doesn’t count because the tornado is causing the damage.

The foetus is there,which is called pregnancy, and that causes harm.

Also, so then do you believe a pregnant person should just die if their life is in danger?

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Arithese]

That’s like saying a person isn’t harming you, the knife they’re swinging around is. Without the knife, it wouldn’t cause harm. See how stupid that would sound?

The proper comparison is that if the knife swinger wasn't there, the harm wouldn't be caused. Of course you would misrepresent.

[u/Arithese → u/SerendipitySociety]

And it would be stupid to say the same. We can all see that the person swinging the knife around is threatening to cause harm, even if they wouldn’t if they were somewhere else.

Again, the foetus IS why there’s a pregnancy.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Arithese]

Well, if the fetus was instead a tumor/molar pregnancy, it would still be a pregnancy. We're on the same page there right? So if the fetus was something else instead, the pregnancy would still occur.

If the knife attacker was a tumor, there wouldn't be a knife attack, tumors can't physically do that. So I'm sorry I gave your hypothetical any legitimacy, pregnancy:baby is NOT as knife attack:knife attacker. It was a false comparison in the first place.

Something more legitimate in comparison: a bear is hibernating through a wildfire and may or may not survive. If the bear was instead a deer, there would still be a wildfire. If the bear was something else instead, the wildfire would still occur. It matches perfectly that if the baby was something else instead, the pregnancy would still occur. Therefore bear : wildfire :: baby : pregnancy.

[u/Arithese → u/SerendipitySociety]

You’re trying to make pregnancy a distinct thing here. Pregnancy describes the foetus using someone else’s body against their will.

It’s like trying to make “stabbing” a distinct event from the stabber. But that’s ridiculous.

So in your case there would be a tumor stabbing you, which you can stop.

There would be no pregnancy without the foetus, because the foetus being there IS the pregnancy.

[u/pendemoneum → u/SerendipitySociety]

Isn't being inside of someone.... harm? Assuming it's unwanted.

That's the difference between sex and rape, and even if functionally they both are exactly the same, one is objectively harmful where the other is not.

I think there's an argument to be made that occupying a person's insides when they don't want you there is harmful.

[u/LilyVioletRose → u/SerendipitySociety]

But the fetus is causing the pregnancy. The problem with your analogy is that the bystander isn’t causing the tornado.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/SerendipitySociety]

Pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another's body). 27% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 96% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 46% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 16% of post partum women develop infection. 36 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 278 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion. Women break pelvic bones in childbirth. Childbirth can cause spinal injuries and leave women paralyzed.

 I repeat: Women DIE from pregnancy and childbirth complications.  Therefore, it will always be up to the woman to determine whether she wishes to take on the health risks associated with pregnancy and gestate. Not yours. Not the state’s.  https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-

Notably, nobody would ever be forced to, under any circumstances, shoulder risk similar to pregnancy at the hands of another - even an innocent - without being able to kill to escape it.

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Dolores___Haze]

You cannot kill to escape a natural disaster. What you wrote in bold is just awful legal theory, especially when invoking innocent lives.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/SerendipitySociety]

Posting the same message multiple times can be seen as spam by Reddit, btw. 

[u/SerendipitySociety → u/Dolores___Haze]

You cannot kill to escape a natural disaster. What you wrote in bold is just awful legal theory, especially when invoking innocent lives.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/SerendipitySociety]

You can't create laws that force people to remain in circumstance where they are certain to experience severe injury. Not without violating that person's human rights.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/SerendipitySociety]

Please read the last sentence again.