Does the Second Amendment protect abortion? Consider the following argument:
1. The "right of self-defense" is "central to the Second Amendment", as held by the Supreme Court in *DC vs Heller* (2008).
2. The right of self-defense includes the right to use force, including lethal force when necessary, to protect bodily autonomy.
3. Being forced to carry a fetus in her womb infringes a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
4. CONCLUSION: A woman may use force, including lethal force if necessary, to remove a fetus from her uterus.
>>69727091
the 2nd amendment is not about self defence
it is about being military ready
There is no such thing as a right to self defence
>>69727514
self defense is a basic human right
>>69727859
Human rights are imaginary fedora faggotry
>>69727514
>There is no such thing as a right to self defence
The Supreme Court disagrees.
>>69727967
The Supreme Court says a lot of crazy shit
I care about the Constitution not their enlightened world view
>>69727091
The right of self defense is reserved for cases where there's a credible threat on your life.
You're not allowed to kill someone for standing in your way "violating your personal autonomy"
>>69727965
human rights are the foundation of every society.
>>69728299
No that would be constitutional rights
>>69727514
>There is no such thing as a right to self defence
*checks flag*
You should know better, as an American. Every state has laws that recognize the right of self-defense and provide that killing in lawful self-defense is not murder.
>>69728425
hunter gatherers didn't have a constitution. they still understood that if you punch someone it's okay to punch back. you are literally autism.
>>69727091
No, no, get out of here you fucking shill. Go back to plebbit shitstain.
>>69728469
yes states
the feds shouldn't be involved in murder cases at all
>>69728214
>The right of self defense is reserved for cases where there's a credible threat on your life.
That's not true. Lethal self-defense is also legally justified to stop serious bodily injury, rape, and kidnapping.
>>69727965
So is the constitution dipshit.
It's real if we enforce as such.
Don't be that guy. The guy who is purposely obtuse and retarded.
>>69728766
>That's not true. Lethal self-defense is also legally justified to stop serious bodily injury, rape, and kidnapping.
None of which a fetus is going to do, generally speaking.
>>69728904
The constitution is a actual legal document that defines how our government will operate
Human rights are some faggoty some shity ethics philosophers dreamt up
>>69729370
>Birth Rape
>>69727091
>Being forced to carry a fetus in her womb infringes a woman's right to bodily autonomy
>being forced
Even the most ardent pro life anti abortion activists acknowledge the need for abortions for rape victims
>>69727091
If she shoots the fetus out of her womb, maybe.
>>69729466
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/hr/
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2008/108544.htm
Tell me again about how it's not legal documents defining human rights?
>>69729803
>0 days without jewish tricks
>>69729803
>Even the most ardent pro life anti abortion activists acknowledge the need for abortions for rape victims
Little Marco doesn't.
>>69729874
Some gay article on a government website is not a legal document
If you believe in human rights you are arguing the the constitution is no longer the highest law of the land
>>69730456
The constitution states that human rights exist independently of the constitution.
>>69729874
>United Nations General Assembly
>enforceable legal document
Pick one. The UN is a fucking joke.
>>69727514
Nigga he just cited a case where the Supreme Court disagreed with you. Do you think you know more than the Supreme Court?
>>69730603
Where?
Also they cant be independent if they are in conflict then one has to take precedence
>>69730603
Particularly the 9th Amendment.
>>69730761
>Do you think you know more than the Supreme Court?
Yes
The infallible Supreme Court overturns their own precedent all of the time
>>69730791
>Where?
See >>69730805
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>>69729370
>Pregnancies never result in serious bodily injury
>rape pregnancies aren't the 9 month continuation of rape
>unwanted births aren't rape
>>69730805
So they only exit because of the 9th amendment?
If the 9th amendment still existed would they still exist?
>>69729803
If it's illegal with some exceptions, it still needs the same amount of attention from the government as it does if it were legal. There needs to be somewhere these people can go for the prodecure, and those places couldn't exist if it were 100% illegal.
>>69730997
>So they only exi[s]t because of the 9th amendment?
No. The 9th Amendment merely acknowledges their existence.
>>69730935
the 10th also says they are left of to the states
And also even under the 9th anything can still be be overturned by an amendment
>>69731102
No the 9th restricts the feds from overstepping their authority
>>69731202
The 10th talks of "powers" in contrast to the "rights" referred to by the 9th.
>>69731327
Ok but then why isnt the 9th unamendable like the allocation of senators
It still falls under constitutional rights not 'human rights'
>>69727091
>2. The right of self-defense includes the right to use force, including lethal force when necessary, to protect bodily autonomy.
No, it's to protect from grievous injury, loss of life, or government tyranny. Neither of which include a women being able to murder her children at will.
>>69731602
pregnancies have a risk of grievous injury and loss of life
>>69731703
That can be determined by a doctor and presents no impending threat. Bodily autonomy is an imaginary right.
you're thinking of the fetus as some sort of ILLEGAL MEXICAN rather than the woman's child, her flesh and blood...
>>69727091
I'd like to start by saying I'm pro choice, but this logic isn't complete. In order to "be forced to carry the fetus" the woman had to of done an action directly related to becoming pregnant IE had sexual relations (excluding rape). It would be like punching someone and when they go to hit you back you shoot them in the fucking face. Or rather you let someone into your "car" they leave and you start driving, then you notice they left a kid in the backseat and hes an annoying fucker eating all your shit and making your life worse so you throw him out the window. Either of these situations are considered murder
>>69732072
>That can be determined by a doctor
Not with 100% certainty.
Just like with being attacked, there's always a risk that you'll be dead by the end of it, but that risk varies greatly case-by-case
>>69732652
The risk is impending in an attack. You can't go murder someone because you think they might break into your house in a few months.
>>69730456
The UN is the US.
>>69732832
>you think they might break into your house
Now imagine if instead of your house it was your cunt.
And instead of "thinking they might", you and everyone else in the world knew, without a doubt, that they were absolutely going to.
>>69730964
Is this a joke?
>>Pregnancies never result in serious bodily injury
Never suggested that.
>>rape pregnancies aren't the 9 month continuation of rape
LOL what? No, they aren't.
>>unwanted births aren't rape
No, they aren't.
>>69733120
and?
>>69733160
The "breaking into your house" is synonymous with causing severe harm or death. Neither of which is likely in a standard pregnancy. If you're concerned about giving birth, get a C-section.
Though it's pretty clear that you don't buy your own argument.
>>69733168
>another living being comes into direct contact with a woman's genitals without her consent
>not rape
