18 comments
Avatar Placeholder
Nick V.
Well it's as they say, a gram in time saves nine...
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
"In my article on abortion and moral culpability, I use a thought experiment in which I demolish an old warehouse building with Josh inside."

Please stop comparing people's bodies to buildings. If Josh is inside of you, do you think you should have the right to "remove" him, even if that means using lethal force?
Hide Replies 16
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
The purpose of the article was to address the ethics of giving a woman pills that might kill her child when she would be uncomfortable with deliberate abortion. It wasn't meant to address bodily rights (there is plenty of other material on this site that does that), so the analogy holds.

No, you wouldn't have the right to use lethal force unless he was actually attacking you (which unborn children don't do). If the "right to remove" held up, that would imply a woman has the right to abort at 30 weeks if early induction and NICUs are unavailable.
Hide Replies 15
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
According to your logic, if a comatose person falls on you and is crushing your body/organs you should let him do so until he wakes up.
Hide Replies 14
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
If doing so would only lead to several broken bones on your part, you would indeed have an obligation not to kill him. If both of you would die unless you killed the comatose man, it would be a different story (probably falling under the doctrine of necessity).
Hide Replies 13
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
Your opinion, not mine. I’m glad you don’t have legislative powers because the requirement for self-defense is “grievous harm” not “life.”
Hide Replies 12
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
I don't have legislative powers (neither do you, as far as I know anyway). However, many US states have pro-life governors and legislative majorities. Probably enough to ban most abortions in at least 20 states after the Supreme Court overturns Roe and returns the issue to the democratic process.

A requirement of self-defence is that you can only use it to harm the person that's actually attacking you. But for some reason, it seems most pro-choice people are a little bit frosty on self-defence these days.
Hide Replies 11
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
"A requirement of self-defence is that you can only use it to harm the person that's actually attacking you. " Citations needed.

"If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification." (Wikipedia)
Hide Replies 10
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
If the other person doesn't need to be attacking you, then anyone that's above you on the organ transplant list is liable to be killed. They pose a threat to your life by their very existence, and you're far more likely to die or experience serious harm waiting for an organ than you are from pregnancy.
Hide Replies 9
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
"If the other person doesn't need to be attacking you, then anyone that's above you on the organ transplant list is liable to be killed. They pose a threat to your life by their very existence, and you're far more likely to die or experience serious harm waiting for an organ than you are from pregnancy."

This is literally the worst strawman I've ever heard, what part of "grievous harm" do you not understand? You cannot even give me one piece of evidence where self-defense is only applicable to life-threatening instances, legally or semantically otherwise, apart from your own opinion.
Hide Replies 8
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
Talk about strawmanning? I never said that one's life needs to be threatened for self-defence to be applicable.
Replying to Navi
Hide Replies 7
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
Thanks for the links. That’s literally all I ask for. I rescind my previous claims about self-defense, and I believe self-preservation would be a more appropriate term.

No, you must be in some sort of physical contact to cause harm. Someone pointing their gun at you isn’t causing harm; they are threatening to cause harm (e.g. with intention). Being at the wrong place or having no intention does not mean it is harmless, otherwise all parasitic twins would be benign. We should specify between causing harm and intentionally using force to cause harm (i.e. aggression/assault).
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
Because you asked so nicely, here are self-defence statutes from a couple of the states that have been in the news lately:

Georgia: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-21

Wisconsin: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Florida: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

Texas: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31.html

Each of these laws specifies that self-defence only applies to someone that uses "imminent unlawful force" against you (or something along those lines). In other words, they must be the attacker or the cause of the harm (I don't know where "physical contact" comes into play, as someone threatening to bomb you or shoot you would not be in physical contact with you but would certainly be an attacker). The person above you on the heart transplant list, the person thrown out of the window, and the unborn child are not using imminent unlawful force against anyone (they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). A sleepwalker that attacks you would be using imminent unlawful force (though they would not be criminally or civilly liable for such conduct).

"You do not forfeit your right to self defense because of something you have done"

That's silly. Of course you can. That was the prosecutors' main argument in the Kyle Rittenhouse case (though they failed to actually persuade the jury that Rittenhouse's actions constituted provocation)

If the self-defence argument for abortion is so rock-solid, why hasn't anyone tried to argue it in court? 20 years ago Eileen McDonaugh thought casting the unborn child as a (criminally innocent) rapist was the silver bullet that would finally end the Hyde Amendment (which has now prevented over 2,000,000 abortions). Yet I couldn't find any reference to self-defence in any of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Sonia Sotomayor's diatribes about abortion. When it came time to argue a constitutional right to abortion before the Supreme Court, all abortion advocates could do was hope saying "stare decisis" a bunch of times would persuade Roberts and Kavanaugh. So what gives? Do you know better than the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU, and the United States Solicitor General? Considering how badly they're doing in court these days, they really could use all the help they can get.
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
"The other person must actually be the cause of the harm (ie the attacker)."
For the millionth time, where are your citations?

"The person above you on the heart transplant list is not the cause of the harm (your heart failure is). "
A person needing a heart transplant is not causing grievous harm because he/she/they are not in physical contact with anyone, thus not causing harm.

"Someone that was thrown out of a window at you is not the cause of the harm (the person that them out of the window is)."
Intention =/= harm. If the person being thrown out of the window is a threat and will cause grievous harm to someone, that person has the right to defend themselves against the body of the person who was thrown out, as long as the force is proportional.

"And the fetus is not the cause of pregnancy (the people that put the fetus there, either through sexual intercourse or artificial implantation, caused it to happen)."
It doesn't have to be. You do not forfeit your right to self defense because of something you have done. If you leave your door open at night, and a sleepwalker (who is innocent, by the way, because of automatism) comes in and starts attacking (intentionally, according to you) you or crushing you by falling on top of you (unintentionally), you still have the right to defend yourself.
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
The other person must actually be the cause of the harm (ie the attacker). The person above you on the heart transplant list is not the cause of the harm (your heart failure is). Someone that was thrown out of a window at you is not the cause of the harm (the person that them out of the window is). And the fetus is not the cause of pregnancy (the people that put the fetus there, either through sexual intercourse or artificial implantation, caused it to happen).
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
No, as long as the other person is causing grievous harm, you have the right to use whatever proportional force to defend yourself against that harm. The other person does NOT need to be attacking for it to constitute as self-defense.
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
Yes, neither case would be considered self-defence.
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Disagreement
"If doing so would only lead to several broken bones on your part, you would indeed have an obligation not to kill him. If both of you would die unless you killed the comatose man, it would be a different story (probably falling under the doctrine of necessity)."