this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
88 points (98.9% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14381 readers
700 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 29 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Wouldn't it also allow these same women to use lethal force on someone attempting to kill them?

[–] NephewAlphaBravo@hexbear.net 27 points 4 days ago

no, because the point is killing women

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 20 points 4 days ago

See at the end "who have not committed any crime punishable by death" (which they are defining seeking an abortion as being)

So no, it's a pass to kill these women while they are not entitled to violence in self-defense.

[–] mar_k@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Yeah it honestly sounds vague and broad enough to be some kind of legal paradox

any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.

So if I'm in public and witness John attempting to kill Jane, I now have the legal right to kill John to defend Jane's life.. but attempting to do so means John now has the legal right to kill me to defend his own life? And let's say Jane has Stockholm Syndrome and is defensive of John, she would also have the right to kill me? Which would then mean John has the right to kill Jane to defend me?

[–] aanes_appreciator@hexbear.net 11 points 4 days ago

two men walk into the street and shoot eachother in the head simultaneously. however, one of them jerked off today. which one should face the death penalty?

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

even if none of that was happening, my defense for randomly blasting all three of you and everyone behind you is that I could claim you were all mutually willful destructing each other.

[–] mar_k@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

Come to think of it this technically means you should have the right to save someone on death row by killing the entire legal prosecution team, as well as anyone apart of the state execution team for administering lethal injection

I think the point is that everyone ends up dead.

[–] peeonyou@hexbear.net 14 points 4 days ago

or allow others to kill the authorities who are trying to kill the woman?

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No because they're in the middle of committing a crime. Someone invading your home to murder you and loot your belongings doesn't have a legal right to self-defense in the middle of the crime. Neither would the women who have been criminalized as murders have a right to defend themselves.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago

tell that to kenosha, wisconsin where an illegal possessor of a firearm who has crossed state lines to do terrorism was aquitted of murder charges