No, it's not close. The child is not inside the woman, living off her body in your situation, so no claim to bodily autonomy decision. There would be other ways to potentially save herself, and that wouldn't have a strong likelihood of ending the threat, so ridiculous and absurd scenario.
Her political ambitions? They moved to NY AFTER her husband retired
Once again you have your facts wrong.
Well that's all your opinion. The child, the baby in the womans womb is a living being. It's a human being regardless of what you choose to call it. It will only ever be a human being. You scenario actually has nothing to do with what I proposed. The mother being responsible for taking the life of a baby or child because it saved her. I know those who favor abortion make lots of but, what if, or it's not really a human being or it's dependent on the mother. Well, all children are dependent on either the parent or a parental caregiver for years before they can manage for themselves.
Taking a life in defense of self, that is inside you, is a right. And being dependent on any person willing to provide for your needs is different than actually stealing resources from someone who has no choice at all, is the only one who can provide for that "living being" and may die or face great hardship in doing so. That is a decision for them to make, not you.
They are human beings. They are life. If you wonder then go with a friend when they have their visit to their obstetrician and hear the heartbeat or when they have their ultrasound and actually get a picture of the baby. The tell your friend it's not alive, it 's not a human being, it's just a clump of cells. See if they are still your friend after that BS.
So are you claiming that every abortion is done to prevent the death of the mother? Because that's an enormous load of BS. The number of abortions performed to protect the mother from a possible death caused by carrying the child, the act of rape or incest or even sever fetal abnormality is less than 3% of all abortions. So please, tell me you misspoke or you don't think taking a life that is inside you is defense of self. A right, not hardly. Please document for me where the Constitution says that.
Notice that you missed part of the argument. To claim self defense at all, you don't just need to be facing "death". It can be bodily harm. Rape can even be a reason to use lethal force against another.
I have two children, have heard their heartbeats. What I don't do is assume I speak for anyone else when it comes to the decisions they make for their bodies, their pregnancies. My pregnancies involved me wanting to have my children. That happened. Other people don't have to feel the same as I did because it is their body, their feelings about the risks they are taking.
well said
I noticed that you can't read. The following was from the post #39
If you intend to end a life, or if you intend to use medical care, particularly government paid for care. Yes!
Castle Doctrine pretty much just says the person needs to feel the intrusion is a threat. If a part of someone's body going inside another without permission is rape or sexual assault, then so too would be a body inside without permission.
You are just ignoring the fact that it is not one life. It is two.
No. That isn't true at all. In fact, working for the government while pregnant, the shipyard worker was adamant about insisting that the government, as the employer, has no legal right to know you are pregnant (that only doesn't apply to the military, but has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with health and fitness level of servicemember who would be pregnant).
you guys are gonna get annihilated in elections for a long time and it's because you're trying to control young women you don't even know.