>>the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
KidGlock, I was in the middle of this debate over the use of force over and abortion 12 years ago... I even talked to Paul Hill on the telephone while he was in Prison...
The argument doesn't fit the case, because in actuality you'd have to shoot the mother taking the child to be slaughtered. Shooting the abortionist will stop it temporarily, but the woman will simply find another who will kill the child.
Now if a woman was carrying a toddler, you have some standing since you could shoot her without killing the toddler...
>>So now we are back to the "asinine" statement I made earlier.
Exactly, it's asenine, and non-sequitor. We are not talking about stopping Terri's husband, we are talking about the Gov. exercising power he has.
>>And you wonder why I thought you were the type to to advocate taking a gun to an abortion clinic?
Actually, like I said, I don't advocate it. Quite the contrary...
You just assumed I did. Look up the word asinine, and apply the root word to yourself..
"Now if a woman was carrying a toddler, you have some standing since you could shoot her without killing the toddler..."
Yes that is precisely the difference. You are absolutely right!
If you think any governor is going to call out the national guard for something like this you are as wacky as Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph and the rest.
End of story.
And the fact that the "justifiable force" people have showed up on this thread validate what I said.
BTW, I will have to assume you never found any law that gives the governor the power to send the National Guard or State Troopers to the hospital.