[tpaine]

"It does not preclude violent defence of ourselves, our loved ones," --
Indeed it does not, and it would apply in this circumstance, imo:

-- My wife & I decide to abort her just discovered pregnancy. As we prepare to do so, the police enter our home to prevent us from doing so under our States new 'anti-abortion amendment'.

Do we have a right of self defence in this instance?
99 tpaine

---

If the couple goes on trial and claims self-defense, it will be up to their peers to determine whether the community will accept that argument and determine whether the state will punish or not punish.

Why not use a two-year old as an example? Why does it have to be a question of in utero?
-JG-

---

The argument here is about early term abortion, not the murder of viable children.

And, -- you would have the state prohibit abortion, making it a defacto criminal act. Juries who obeyed the 'law' could find offenders guilty as charged..

[JohnGalt]

'viable children' is a completely subjective and ever changing standard. Hardly the basis for a universal discussion on rights.

Just so are clear on where I stand, I don't care what non-Christians do to themselves because it would serve no purpose. However, there is an effect on my liberty and the erosion of my rights in a democracy to have 20,000,000 women living amongst us who contracted to murder their own children.

If political entities were reduced to nothing larger than 100,000, I would have no problem with each city-state regulating their sphere as they saw fit; Lord knows I would not want City-state A to be regulating what I am doing in City-state B.