DAS Blog

In MI they want to make it under all conditions legal to shoot to kill so long as, Jimbo and Ned style, you shout "he's coming right for us" before hand.

My question is whether any of the people supporting this bill would support an SD-style, no health exceptions abortion ban.

After all, let us assume for the sake of argument (e.g. as they do in the Rabbinical lit. at some points), that a fetus does count as an ensouled human. Then, if the mother-to-be experiences the potential for injury from a pregnancy, prevention of said injury (or death), even if it means harming the fetus, would count as self-defense, wouldn't it?

Thus, if you can shoot to kill due to a home invasion (before you know what harm the trespassers wish for you), can't you abort to kill when your very body is invaded by "someone" who is causing, however inadvertantly, harm?

I wonder if any righty-tighties will see the disconnect (it would be more ironic if the laws in question were in the same state, but still -- I bet people will take incoherent positions on these two laws): or do they actually, as liberals parody it, care more about the unborn than the born?