Posted on 04/03/2009 3:15:25 PM PDT by Sopater
Oklahoma lawmakers are close to approving a bill that allows pregnant women to use deadly force to protect their unborn children.
State lawmakers passed the Use of Force for the Protection of the Unborn Act this week and if the Senate approves it in a final vote, as expected, it will be sent to the governor's desk.
The bill was crafted after a Michigan woman who was carrying quadruplets stabbed and killed her boyfriend after he struck her in the stomach. The woman lost the babies and was convicted of manslaughter.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Cool. So, by extrapolation . . . I’m just sayin’.
Yes.
I wonder what kind of people were on that jury?
They obviously didn’t have any.
... I know ...
How could this be legally defensible unless the unborn considered human beings?
Certainly, it makes sense to me, just like any other kind of self-defense measure to protect one’s own life against someone else trying to kill you...
The constitutional question is why is the privilege to kill to protect the unborn limited to pregnant women? This premise is discriminatory. To pass the equal protection clause, everyone would have to get a free pass on killing to protect the unborn.
Now, that is an extrapolation with teeth...
Especially since it's pretty difficult to harm preborn children without attacking the mother, too. A simple self-defense situation, I would think, irrespective of pregnancy.
Uh, no, Senator, not in any commonly understood statistical sense of "primary." Perhaps in a legal sense, where in specific domestic-violence cases the miscarriage/stillbirth would not have otherwise occurred, making the violence the "primary" cause.
The only way an abortionist could justify this is if they are merely giving those wacky hormonal pregnant people a pass for being mentally unstable.
The woman had a broken arm and did not want to have an abortion.
This occurred at about the time that Norma McCorvey switched from being pro-abortion to pro-life. This also happened in Dallas, where Norma was living.
I seem to sense that the broken arm was the result of violence from the boyfriend. But the pro-lifers were just mute on the subject -- to protect the woman (or girl) and protect the confidentiality that they were entrusted with.
Once the judge granted the restraining order, the woman (or girl) was able to clearly keep the baby, and not have to worry about the boyfriend...
Too bad such story do not make the Main Stream Media, but at the rate they are going, they will be out of business...
Exactly the one I had in mind.
What pregnant woman wouldn’t kill to protect her unborn child (and herself)?
The headline is as silly as this one would be: Oklahoma allows female lions to kill anything messing with their cubs.
Get real lawmakers. Women don’t need a law to ‘allow’ them to protect their young. That’s insulting.
Men do need a law recognizing their natural right to protect their young sons and daughters.
Specifically, a law instituting a requirement that without the signature of the father of the baby (as well as the mother seeking the abortion), no abortion can happen.
That would be the law recognizing the deep, primal, natural right of fathers to protect their children's lives.
It's insulting that no such law is in place now.
I would agree with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.