Women, especially minority women, don't get the benefit of stand your ground - that's only for white men.

But, I believe a woman's right to choose should be a MEDICAL decision. Leaving it up to lawyers or politicians is a sad state of affairs for America.

From the time of Thomas Hobbes, man always has the right to defend himself. Such it is when life is a state of war, survival-of-the-fittest, cutthroat capitalism. Survival is paramount, paramount to 1A, 2A and all the rest. Without survival, you just aren't.

save another person's life, even if that person is a "potential person," i.e., a fetus growing inside her. One of his examples was the fact that there are thousands of people on a waiting list for a new kidney. Although it would be laudable for someone to step up and save the life of a stranger who needs a kidney, no one should be forced to do so or imprisoned for failing to do so.

Therefore, a pregnant woman who might die in childbirth is not obligated to sacrifice her life for a fetus that she would die giving birth to.

Interesting argument, at any rate.

when it comes to a fetus. but once born, they've got a million reasons to kill and let die. anyone momentarily fearful of another person can shoot to kill with no obligation to seek an alternative that lets both people survive.

i guess it comes down to abortion bad, gunz good.

so what if a pregnant woman goes into a hospital and shoots herself in the abdomen so the fetus dies, then they can immediately treat her for the gunshot wound. boy wouldn't that be a conundrum for the right wing.


these people are utterly illogical. they get an idea in their pea brains and run with it, not worrying about it making any sense. stand your ground laws don't require you to establish the intent of the person you're shooting, you just have to be momentarily fearful (and a jury has to find that the fear was "reasonable&quot but when a pregnant woman has doctors telling her she has a solid chance of dying in labor, that's not good enough for her to be fearful apparently, she has zero choice and must deliver. even if the fetus is stillborn. because abortion bad and the logic stops there.


in many ways, the right wing is just trolling us. they've got more power than they have in decades and they're flexing their muscles and showing us what they can get away with. they laugh at our need for logic and truth and fairness and justice and other principles. they have power and they're doing whatever the f they want.

a potential baby and they see it as their moral imperative to oppose it the way I oppose genocide.

But the second group is made up of those who aren't all that morally offended by abortion, but they see opportunity in pretending that they are. These people are called Republican politicians (although there are probably some who genuinely oppose it on moral grounds).

But per the First Amendment's freedom of religion, neither type of anti-abortionist has the right to impose their beliefs (or ambitions) on people who feel differently than they do.

Funny how anti-abortionists embrace the Second Amendment while ignoring the First Amendment. They would probably do away with the First Amendment if they could.

How is a woman not enslaved if she has no way out of a pregnancy other than to carry it to term? What other situation does the law require you and only you to do and not do a whole host of things without the ability to shift done if the burden to others? Incarceration, that's about it.

Parenting? I can get a sitter.
Taxes? I can get an accountant.

Pregnancy? Nope. No way to shift it or get out of it. If abortion is not an option, a pregnant woman is a slave to the fetus and the state.

That's all the reasoning you need?

Why look for loopholes in that pile of shit.

To Republican women: Remove the fuckwad legislators and governors. Stop voting for GOPs because you're a hopeless bigot.

"Stand Your Ground" was never originally written with abortion in mind.

For example, using the 2nd Amendment to defend the right to bear arms and form militias, even when those arms are AK-47s that can blow the heads off schoolchildren and the militias are domestic terrorists.

Interesting paper on the flaws of originalism here:

[link:https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=9995&context=journal_articles|

Excerpt:

Any theory of interpretation, including originalism, can produce sharply different results, depending on who is using the theory. Of course any theory might be used in bad faith, but that is not what I mean. The point is that even good-faith interpreters can reach different results with the same theory. That is why one quick way to test the soundness of a theory of interpretation is toask the question: What theory would you want your opponents to use, if you could assign a theory to them? If your political opponents were, say, appointing Justices to the Supreme Court, would you want those appointees to believe in originalism, or in
some other view, such as one based on precedent? It seems to me that once you ask that question, you are going to conclude
that a precedent-based approach is superior to originalism, even if you have conservative inclinations. The reason is twofold:
originalism makes it too easy for people to find, in the law, the answers they are looking for; and originalism causes people to hide the ball, to avoid admitting, perhaps even to themselves, what is really affecting their decisions.