(Nov 10, 2020 03:40 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 10, 2020 06:09 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Shooting to injure is the surest way to get killed, which is why no law enforcement in the world trains to injure. Only center mass is likely to stop an attacker, and if not stopped, they will take your gun and use it against you.
Aside from it being one of the most basic rules of gun safety that you don't even point a gun at anything you don't intent to kill.
Interesting. That makes sense, but it has to do a number on a person's conscience when one finds the need to use lethal force to protect themselves. Even in self defense, it's probably a tough call.
Absolutely. Most people who own guns for self-defense hope they never have to use them. And even in the most justified shooting, many police (trained to handle such situations) seek counseling to deal with the aftermath.
(Nov 10, 2020 03:38 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 10, 2020 04:48 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone has the inherent right to risk their own life. But I'd only take the life of another who's intent on threatening mine. Considering the rate of traffic fatalities, I certainly don't want to kill people who only incidentally threaten my life. And I would not kill over a known, temporary loss of freedom, like an unjust prison terms of 9 months. But we're not taking about injustice here, we're talking about someone who made a choice, knowing the possible consequences (unless you're still infantilizing women).
So unless you want to claim a fetus has intent against the life of the mother, you're pissing into the wind. And if you do think a fetus has intent, you've defeating the consciousness/personhood argument for abortion. Then all you have left are the "woman's body" and "parasite" arguments, which are both 100% anti-science.
But certainly, you have more mental gymnastics.
What about something a little more permanent? Instead of a temporary prisoner, let’s say something like being forced to live under a communist regime. Your life isn’t being threatened though just your freedom. You’re forced to breed to produce future workers but you’re not allowed to raise your children because they want to indoctrinate them with their beliefs.
That's where you're wrong. The only way your freedom can be restricted is with the threat of force against your life. IOW, if you resist enough, they will use lethal force. There is no threat against your freedom without a possible threat against your life.
If you refuse to breed or have your children taken, the only thing that can make you is force, and that force will increase until either you obey or you die.
Quote:Would you be willing to fight to prevent this from happening? Of course, you would, and we have. We entered the Vietnam War in an attempt to prevent the spread of communism. Over a million lives were lost during the Vietnam War. It wasn’t voluntary, it was mandatory. Men forced young men to die to protect our potential loss of freedom. The lives of those who fought were changed forever, mentally and physically.
Again, the only way to threaten freedom is to threaten potentially lethal force.
Quote:Pregnancy changes a woman’s body forever. Her neural network changes. Her hips get wider. Her breasts change. Some have permanent scares, e.g., C-sections, stretchmarks, etc. Over three hundred thousand women die each year during childbirth or pregnancy.
And women have agency...in deciding to have sex, just like men do. If you demand that a man can't absolve himself of responsibility after the fact, then you're infantilizing women as being less capable of being responsible for their own choices (knowing all those repercussions you just mentioned). Is that because they're more emotionally motivated? Is a woman really less than a man, by lacking "reason and accountability"? O_o
Hey, I get that you may regret what having children has done to your mind and body, but you made that choice. And even if you didn't (as in the extremely rare case of rape), we don't take one human life for the crimes of another. The evolutionary psychology of women make them pickier in sexual partner selection (driving natural selection) for a reason, as they inherently risk more. If a woman chooses to ignore that fact,...well, she is equal to a man, right? O_o
Quote:Everyone has the inherent right to risk their own life. Women should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. The right to abortion is vital for them to achieve their full potential.
No it's not. Amy Coney Barrett shows that's a lie. The Supreme Court is the highest potential any lawyer could hope to achieve.
So you're just making a bare assertion here, without any argument...except maybe an emotional one. It's like a kid throwing a tantrum because you tell him he has to go to bed (what to do with his body).
If a child makes the choice to drink something harmful, we don't give them the right to avoid having their stomach pumped or other life-saving measures. And if a woman decides to have sex, we shouldn't give them the right to end another human beings life. You do see where you're asking us to treat women like children, right? O_o
Quote:BTW, how many times did God order people to kill and why?
Non sequitur, as abortion isn't wrong simply because "God said so". It's wrong because all sane people agree murder is wrong.
