♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 4, 2009 4:40:02 GMT
It shocks me that a Michigan woman was convicted of manslaughter for trying to save her unborn children from a homicidal predator! For the "politically correct" an unborn child is not a human being and would not justify the use of lethal force to defend! RIDICULOUS! Click the link to vote on the poll! SURVEY Do you agree with the bill that would allow pregnant women to use lethal force to protect their baby? Yes No
Of course i voted YES!www.koco.com/cnn-news/19082604/detail.html QUOTE: Bill Lets Moms-To-Be Kill To Save Baby Measure Would Authorize Deadly Force If Unborn Child's Life At Risk UPDATED: 12:17 pm CDT April 3, 2009 OKLAHOMA CITY -- A bill in the Oklahoma Legislature would allow pregnant women to use deadly force in order to save the lives of their babies. The bill stems from a Michigan case where a woman who was carrying quadruplets stabbed and killed her boyfriend after he hit her in the stomach. The woman lost the babies and was convicted of manslaughter. Oklahoma lawmakers said they want to make sure that a woman can legally protect her unborn child. "Unfortunately, we feel we need legislation like this," said Rep. Mike Thompson. "What we want to make sure is that a woman feels safe and secure defending herself and her unborn child against any attacker." The group Americans United for Life came to state lawmakers and asked for the bill that Thompson co-authored. It's called the Use of Force For the Protection of the Unborn Act. "You have the right to use lethal force, if needed, to protect your unborn baby," he said. Oklahoma already has a law allowing a person to use force to protect himself or another person from someone else. The new bill includes an unborn child as "another" person. Oklahoma has also had a law covering the murder of unborn babies since 2005. "Anytime a bill encourages a woman to be safe, we stand by that," said the YWCA's Josh Beasley. He said the statistics about the abuse of pregnant women are startling. "It is good to see legislators educating themselves on this issue," Beasley said. "Domestic violence is the second-leading cause of death among (pregnant) women nationwide, so it's good they are taking the issue seriously and wanting to do something about it." The bill has already passed the House and Senate with no opposition and is back in the Senate for a final vote. If it passes, as expected, it will go to the governor's desk.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 4, 2009 5:27:36 GMT
Fortunately the conviction of the Michigan woman was later overturned! Still it's an outrage that she was brought to trial and convicted!tinyurl.com/dfqu2r
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 4, 2009 12:42:48 GMT
Do you agree with the bill that would allow pregnant women to use lethal force to protect their baby?
I believe that every human being has a right to protect themselves via the use of force (lethal or othewise).
I don't see why women should have special rights though, every man woman and child has this right IMO, no amount of legislation and documents by pen pushers will ever change this.
AH
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 4, 2009 15:03:18 GMT
Do you agree with the bill that would allow pregnant women to use lethal force to protect their baby?I believe that every human being has a right to protect themselves via the use of force (lethal or othewise). I don't see why women should have special rights though, every man woman and child has this right IMO, no amount of legislation and documents by pen pushers will ever change this. AH The mindset of some is that an unborn child has no more value or importance than a tumor and is not considered an integral part of a woman's body.. Sadly that's why Oklahoma feels compelled to pass this bill; otherwise another woman may get convicted by a jury of abortion mongers.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 5, 2009 2:50:28 GMT
How does killing to protect unborn children differ from denying abortion to protect unborn children?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2009 13:58:01 GMT
Sorry, ratarsed, but that question has stumped me!
However, I really can't see why the bill is needed. Surely if someone is punching a woman in the stomach and the only way to stop them is to kill them, this would be reasonable self defence anyway? It could cause a serious injury to her internal organs - and having a miscarriage is also potentially harmful, irespective of how you regard the foetus/embryo..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2009 7:19:11 GMT
Sorry, Anna, I hadn't read the appeal court judgment when I posted that last bit. It seems her own life wasn't in danger and that the only question was protection of her foetus(es). (What is the plural of foetus, anyone?)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2009 17:00:12 GMT
Another - more important - question. I note that the mother was expecting quadruplets - does this mean tht she must have had some kind of fertility treatment?
The answer might (or might not) prompt me to start another thread!
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 7, 2009 18:46:01 GMT
How does killing to protect unborn children differ from denying abortion to protect unborn children? That's a pretty damn good question actually. AH
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2009 19:03:54 GMT
The simple (and technical) answer is that in the first case, the mother is exercising her right to choose to keep the foetus/embryo. The father does not have the legal right to decide whether the embryo develops; where abortion is permitted, it is I think always (in theory at least) the woman's right to decide.
By contrast, in the second case, the woman is denied the choice by law. Again I don't think the man's wishes ever count for much; there are general legal principles which are applied by medics and the courts to decide whether the abortion should be granted. ( But someone is bound to prove me wrong and tell me that in some country or other the father's wish can over-ride the mothers'!)
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 7, 2009 20:16:58 GMT
(What is the plural of foetus, anyone?) You have it right, I think. Foetuses.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 7, 2009 20:18:49 GMT
How does killing to protect unborn children differ from denying abortion to protect unborn children? I suppose it doesn't, theoretically, but the bill presumably allows for only a mother to use this defence (and only for a foetus in her own womb) so there's no conflict in real terms.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 7, 2009 20:22:27 GMT
The simple (and technical) answer is that in the first case, the mother is exercising her right to choose to keep the foetus/embryo. The father does not have the legal right to decide whether the embryo develops; where abortion is permitted, it is I think always (in theory at least) the woman's right to decide. By contrast, in the second case, the woman is denied the choice by law. Again I don't think the man's wishes ever count for much; there are general legal principles which are applied by medics and the courts to decide whether the abortion should be granted. ( But someone is bound to prove me wrong and tell me that in some country or other the father's wish can over-ride the mothers'!) When you think about it in terms of the 'choice' argument, it is weird to have a law in place to protect your choice to terminate a foetus but no law to allow you to defend a foetus at all costs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2009 20:29:57 GMT
That's the fasinating thing about the law. It is only when a "difficult" case comes up that the court has to decide whether it fits into - or falls outside - an existing law. Perhaps no-one had thought of the possibility before?
I note that the woman hasn't actually been acquitted yet, and has to have a re-trial. As the boyfriend is dead, we only have her side of the story, which seems to be that he got angry when he discovered she was pregnant.
She was carrying quadruplets, which suggests to me that she had some kind of fertility treatment. Without his knowledge? Nasty, in my opinion, and immiadately prejudices me against her as a credible witness!
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 7, 2009 20:56:27 GMT
That's the fasinating thing about the law. It is only when a "difficult" case comes up that the court has to decide whether it fits into - or falls outside - an existing law. Perhaps no-one had thought of the possibility before? I note that the woman hasn't actually been acquitted yet, and has to have a re-trial. As the boyfriend is dead, we only have her side of the story, which seems to be that he got angry when he discovered she was pregnant. She was carrying quadruplets, which suggests to me that she had some kind of fertility treatment. Without his knowledge? Nasty, in my opinion, and immiadately prejudices me against her as a credible witness! OK, but he had hospitalised her before and she was convicted as a fourth time offender (don't know what offences) so we probably have to leave credibility of either aside. Also, the claim seems to be that the pregnancy was brought up during the fight rather than the reason for the fight. From the Court of Appeal ruling: HTML version : 209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xUNQD6pxZCgJ:news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/mikurr10402opn.pdf +Michigan+case+where+a+woman+who+was+carrying+quadruplets&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie PDF version: fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/mikurr10402opn.pdfsame link - www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Michigan%20fetal%20defense%20ruling.pdfQuote: Defendant stabbed Pena on October 9, 1999. According to a Kalamazoo police officer, defendant told him that she and Pena had argued that day over Pena’s cocaine use. Defendant told the officer that Pena subsequently punched her two times in the stomach and that she warned Pena not to hit her because she was carrying his babies. Defendant stated that when Pena cametowards her again, she stabbed him in the chest. He died as a result of the stab wound
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2009 21:03:39 GMT
Thanks - that puts it in perspective. It sounds as though he wasn't kicking her in order to cause a miscarriage.
But surely she should have had the right to defend herself anyway, irrespective of the fact she was pregnant? That's what I don't understand. the court seem to be saying "you can kill if you think a life is at risk, otherwise you will just have to put up with the abuse."
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 7, 2009 21:08:06 GMT
No, that wasn't his intent maybe but having been warned of the risk of damaging them he continued his attack.
She can kill in self defence already. It's always a defence that can be offered. If you are anyone being beaten up by anyone you can state that was your belief. (I say that realising that I don't know every law in all 50 states but I think that it's generally true in all states and across the Atlantic).
I suppose you can't really have a law saying that someone slapped you and it hurt and they shouldn't have done it and it in return you are allowed to shoot them.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 7, 2009 22:39:30 GMT
As i understand the case the man, who fathered the 4 children apparently had no desire to bear any responsibility for these children and tried to force this woman to have a miscarriage with his attack..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2009 6:44:41 GMT
As i understand the case the man, who fathered the 4 children apparently had no desire to bear any responsibility for these children and tried to force this woman to have a miscarriage with his attack.. Well, to attack her was terrible! But is it likely that she was bearing quadruplets without having had some kind of fertility treatment? If I was a man in that situation, and found out that my partner was deliberately trying to get pregnant without my knowledge, I'd be furious! I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that this in no way justifies an attack. But the ethical dilemma I was going to raise in another thread was: if it is the case that she sought a fertility treatment without his knowledge, should he be made to bear any responsbility for the children, given that his partner never intended to involve him in the decision? (I can pop this on another thread if you think it might make a good debate)
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 8, 2009 21:00:26 GMT
How does one go about conceiving quadruplets with a man without him knowing about it?
|
|