Post this on r/unresolvedmysteries - pretty wild stuff.

So killing conservatives is justifiable. Thank you for this clarification.

Career Advisor

Dems had 50 years to codify it into law. Meanwhile Clinton and Obama pissed away the chance to do it. Now we have to deal with this nonsense.

From the article:

> A missing street preacher from Pennsylvania has been "found alive and well" in Puerto Rico, authorities announced in a press conference on Thursday, March 2, 2023.

> Patricia "Pat" Gail Kopta, had not been seen since June 20, 1992, and her husband Robert "Bob" Kopta reported her missing on Nov. 27 of that year, according to the police.

Which position?

> I never said it was only up to a judge.

Who else defines the legal standard of "reasonable person"? In practice, that standard is defined by a judge.

>I don't believe that someone else should have a legal right to a body.

But you believe that a woman should be legally forbidden from removing a fetus if she doesn't want it to use her body... You're contradicting yourself. Either you believe that she should be able to control whether the fetus uses her body, or you believe that the fetus has a legal right to her body. You can't believe both.

>Do you want to still say that risk is reasonable to kill another human being?

I believe that each person should get to define how much risk they want to take with their body. That a woman should not be legally required to take even that small risk.

I certainly don't believe that the government should define an acceptable level of risk for an individual.

right after the school refunds all the taxes it took from the family. education is obviously something we can no longer do together. people have a right to their own beliefs and it is beyond unjust to take someone's property and then use it in a way that is against that persons belief system. the split is a reality. we should formalize it and go our seprate ways. the union is failed.

Army national guard were running training missions this week.

It didn’t say it was out of 100 (could be?) it also was a position that required an exam (full on exam, not a form) at the time and I had a professional certification. So it may have been a weird way of including the test score into the overall score.

I am thankful for you keeping calm explaining your viewpoint. But now, you are telling me what I believe and making assumptions on that belief. The very nature of the strawman falicy.

I never said it was only up to a judge. I have said before how I defined it. I don't believe that someone else should have a legal right to a body. The 1% chance was me rounding up.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/e-stat-maternal-mortality-rates-2022.pdf

> Rates in 2020 were 13.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for women under age 25, 22.8 for those aged 25–39, and 107.9 for those aged 40 and over

13.8 + 22.8 + 107.9 = 144.5 per 100,000 births.

.001445%

Do you want to still say that risk is reasonable to kill another human being?

Probably looking for your mom's house

Okay, so you're saying that you want judges to define what the line is based on the "reasonable person" standard. Thank you for (finally) defining that.

Now, do you see how inserting a judge into the decision making process is not leaving it up to the woman and her doctor? When I asked you who decides when her life is in enough risk, you said

>The doctor and woman most likely.

But now you're saying that it should be the judiciary's interpretation of what a resonable preson would do. Ultimately, you believe that whether a woman should have access to legal abortion should be up to whether a judge believes her pregnancy is risky enough.

Personally, I think a 1% chance of death is more than acceptable to allow a legal abortion -- even if you believe that it's murder.

But that belief is rooted in the idea that people have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy. Which means that if someone depends on your body to survive that you have a right to cut them off from your body at anypoint, even if it kills them. It's dissapointing (and a little disturbing) that you believe that someone else should have a legal right to your body.

And a 1-in-100 chance is very high when you're talking about death. Would you get on an airplane if 1 in 100 crash? Would you play a sport where there's a 1-in-100 chance that you'd die?

I think you are trying to be sly and make a point without saying it. Are you being sarcastic? Because yes. We both agree here.

> The entire discussion is about who defines what is reasonable? You keep dancing around that question. Please just answer it.

I have not. I'm using a term used in called the legal concept of the “reasonable person".

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

> Sometimes, self-defense is legally justified even if the perceived aggressor did not actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person" in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm.

> Under the legal concept of the “reasonable person," legal systems determine whether a person's feelings and experience of imminent danger justify the use of force as a response to a threat.

> As an example, imagine two strangers walking past each other in a city park. A bee is buzzing around the head of one of the two people. The other person sees this. Trying to be friendly, the other person reaches quickly to try to swat the bee away from the bee's soon-to-be-victim. The person with the bee by their head, only seeing a stranger's hand move quickly toward their face, might understandably slap the other person's hand away violently.

> In other circumstances, the slap would amount to a textbook assault, but a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger's hand toward a person's face would cause a reasonable person to conclude that they were in danger of immediate physical harm. This would likely render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right to self-defense. It would not matter that the perceived attacker meant no harm and was, in fact, actually trying to help!

So who defines what is "reasonable" is already a matter of law. I am using the legal definition of reasonable. A "reasonable person" would not think a 1% chance of death is acceptable to murder someone.

Of course, because if safe abortion was not legal then a lot of accidental murder would occur. Now we don’t want hundreds of dead women and deformed fetuses at birth, don’t we?

Like I said, so glad that we agree.

Sorry, wasn’t the Sherriff, it was the “former Lansford Police Chief Jack Soberick” that they contacted. I first read it on the local Philly NBC affiliate.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/pennsylvania-man-accused-of-trying-to-place-explosive-on-airplane/3511910/

The sad thing about the guy who commented is that they’ll take this as “persecution” and double down on their delusions. It’s in win in their book because to them, we’re just lost souls who are floating through life, destined to burn for all of eternity and us pointing out things they disagree with, is proof to them that they’re doing gods work.

The really sad thing is how they don’t understand basic history and refuse to acknowledge reality. It’s impossible arguing facts with a Christian in the same way that you can’t argue facts with an idiot. They don’t understand fact from fiction and would rather live in a fantasy than work with actual truth.

> I said as long as the risk is reasonable.

The entire discussion is about who defines what is reasonable? You keep dancing around that question. Please just answer it.

Bear in mind when voting on this post: The article name is used as the Topic, OP isn't the writer.

The reverse soul patch is a dead giveaway

Just a few months after 9/11 a friend went through LVIA with a pocket knife and pepper spray and they didn't say a word. He was smoker and they had already seen 1 lighter in his stuff and just assumed the other 2 lumps were the same.

So let me ask you this. Do you agree that the baby is a living human being?

> In this hyothetical, both the woman and the doctor believe her life is in enough jeopardy to be covered under the life of the mother exemption.

This is where your hypothetical breaks down. A doctor isn't going to agree that a 1% risk is worth killing a human life. If he is, then he is a terrible doctor and should have his license revoked. He would also never suggest anything to patients because all drugs have a 1% chance of killing someone in a freak accident type of way.

> So it's clear that you do not believe that the doctor and woman decide when her life is in enough peril to be allowed a legal abortion.

I said as long as the risk is reasonable. I don't believe people would agree with you that a 1% chance of death in childbirth is a reasonable concern.

You do realize that if you are arguing that it should just be up to the woman and doctor if they kill someone, then you are suggesting people like Michael Joseph Swango did nothing wrong because those people had a 1% chance of killing him.

[deleted]