oh good then by this idiotic logic mothers can legally kill their kids if they live in her house now.
blamo, ace
There were pretty big fights on this board about it. Specifically the stand was that any education that includes education about safe sex will result in teenagers having more sex
In terms of social conservatives out of this board as recently as President Bush (the younger) there was significant funding by social conservatives for abstinence only education
You cons love the castle doctrine, don’t blame us.
This demands details.
You are correct. If the child is kicked out of the house and tries to break in then the Castle Doctrine applies.
yeah to protect our home not kill innocent babies or kids living inside home
what a ridiculous tangent
Cons are willing to kill over pocket change.
Castle Doctrine refers to those uninvited guests trying to enter your home. Your own kids do not apply unless they were kicked out and were trying to force their way back in.
You are not making a good analogy.
mmkay
then why did you bring it up in reference to abortion?
My analogy was good. Yours was not because you are not considering the “invited in” part. If you go back a few posts you will see where I made that distinction in hopes you would see.
oh then please, post the link of the post where you mafe this “distinction” and how it applies to abortion
was it the post where you just posted “castle doctrine” and the wiki without saying anything else?
I bolder it above and felt the reader would immediately see the obvious distinction (invited vs non-invited). I also provided the link to the full definition.
Regardless, the Castle Doctrine applies to both your kids scenario and a fetus if we keep the operative adjective “uninvited” constant in both scenarios. That is what the Castle Doctrine is based on, right?
can the fetus/baby make the choice of entering or not?
are people who break-in and enter innocent like a fetus/baby?
this is staggering, that you try to draw a parallel between these two situations as some kind of perverse analogy, or attemp to expose hypocrisy among castle doctrine supporters
Castle Doctrine makes no mention if the invader has a choice or not so it is immaterial. It certainly is not the responsibility of the homeowner to yell out questions about the motivations of the invader.
Innocence doesn’t matter for the Castle Doctrine. If someone aggressively tries to break into your house under the mistaken assumption it is their house, you still have the right to defend yourself.
ok. just so everyone sees you equate a fetus with someone breaking into someone’s house
full insanity on display
shrug. Oh I agree they are different. But from a Castle Doctrine perspective not so different. You tried to point out the inapplicability of the Castle Doctrine for abortion but it was quite easy for me to rebut you. Perhaps you should try better arguments?
And before anyone goes off, I am NOT saying Castle Doctrine be used to justify abortion legally. I know some of the details of the Castle Doctrine (home or abode, …) preclude it being applied for a pregnancy.
But many of the ideas of the Castle Doctrine apply, perhaps Stand Your Ground too, I’ll have to read up on that.
Did I say anything about a consultation and waiting period? I was talking about the ideal—can’t seek it ine one state, find a way to cross the line snd seek it in another.
And second trimester abortion, IMO, shouldn’t be allowed. But then, abortion is like the death penalty—you don’t get into such nuances and complications when it isn’t offered, except in the most extreme cases, like an infant or a mother that won’t survive the pregnancy.
I’m out of this topic. Abortion threads really are disgusting.
No you didn’t say anything about a consultation and waiting period but that’s the problem. You claimed it was simple for someone to get in their car and go to a neighboring state where abortion is legal. I showed that conservatives are trying to make that more difficult as well with the waiting period laws. I’ll also throw in many people live many hours away from a neighboring state, and that assumes the neighboring state has legal abortion. It could putlaw it as well so now the person has to driven even further. Not as simple as you make it out to be.
I’d be willing to compromise on some restrictions on 2nd trimester. I think, for the most part, there already are.
