Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

COURT RULES MOTHER CAN USE LETHAL FORCE TO PROTECT FETUS
Lifesite.org ^ | October 16, 2002

Posted on 10/17/2002 12:27:25 PM PDT by nickcarraway

DETROIT, October 16, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a pregnant woman may use deadly force to protect her fetus even when she does not fear for her own life. Legal experts quoted by the New York Times suggest that the decision has "opened another front in the legal wars surrounding abortion."

The case involves Jaclyn Kurr and her late boyfriend, Antonia Pena, the man with whom she became pregnant. She testified that after Pena punched her in the stomach when she was 16 to 17 weeks pregnant with quadruplets, Kurr stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife, killing him. She was charged with manslaughter, and the jury rejected her assertion that she had been acting in self-defense. She was sentenced to five to 20 years in prison. But the Michigan appeals court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, on grounds that the trial judge failed to allow for the defense that she was acting to protect not only her own life but also "in defense of others," namely "her unborn children."

Judge Patrick M. Meter wrote: "Our holding today does not apply to what the United States Supreme Court has held to constitute lawful abortions [in Roe v. Wade]. ... This issue... is not raised by the parties, is not pertinent to the resolution of the instant [i.e. the current] case, and does not drive our ruling today.

"Indeed, the issue today is straightforward: Is a nonviable fetus entitled to the protection of the laws of the state of Michigan such that an individual, typically the mother, may defend the fetus during an assault against the mother? We conclude that an individual may indeed defend a fetus from such an assault and may even use deadly force if she honestly and reasonably believes the fetus to be in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: prolife; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: nickcarraway
Well, DUH!!!!!!!!
21 posted on 10/17/2002 1:11:09 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Interesting.

Can she also use deadly force against those who would try to counsel her from aborting that same fetus?

22 posted on 10/17/2002 1:12:16 PM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
read later
23 posted on 10/17/2002 1:22:55 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
"We conclude that an individual may indeed defend a fetus from such an assault and may even use deadly force if she honestly and reasonably believes the fetus to be in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm."

That was a good ruling by the Appelate Court!
Unfortunately it begs the question "what if the mother chooses NOT to defend the fetus?" If the baby died would she be complicit in a homicide or manslaughter? Interesting stuff!
24 posted on 10/17/2002 1:29:47 PM PDT by Roadstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Great! Anotherone for the good guys.
25 posted on 10/17/2002 1:32:13 PM PDT by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Quads are VERY rare except when fertility drugs are used. I wonder if the couple was in fertility treatment. If so, why would he apparently want to hurt babies he had spent time and money on?

Does not compute.

Did anybody see him slug her, or does she just say he slugged her in the tummy, which usually doesn't leave marks?
26 posted on 10/17/2002 1:33:54 PM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Dude, we're talking a jury pooled from Detroit

I'll call us even...

SR

27 posted on 10/17/2002 1:42:15 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Undivided Heart
The question is, why would he not be viable? Because he's not in his natural environment. What is the natural environment for a unborn child?

That is an EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT point. The best analogy along those lines I have ever heard til yours is "dump a naked man on the north pole and see how long he survives." Your point applies nicely there also.

28 posted on 10/17/2002 2:02:28 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
What kind of man would do that?
29 posted on 10/17/2002 2:03:33 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Judge Patrick M. Meter...

Kudos to the Judge!

30 posted on 10/17/2002 2:07:07 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
I guess they use the term ``man'' loosely.
31 posted on 10/17/2002 2:12:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
Only things that are alive can "be in danger of imminent death", "bodily harm" requires a body. Sounds like an admission that a fetus is a human being

Such is the manifest absurdity of the illogical "pro-choice" position.

32 posted on 10/17/2002 2:17:41 PM PDT by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
In my opinion, from my pro-life perspective, this judgment isn't as great as it first appears. As it stands, it does nothing to weaken the feminist ideal:

I understand your sentiments but we must take a lesson plan from our opponents time tested playbook and that is we will eventually get what we want (with one small step at a time). We will not get Roe v. Wade overturned (at least in its entirety) in one fell swoop. That abhorrent decision will be whittled down with small victories from every corner of this nation over time.

Unfortunately though that means that in the mean time thousands/millions of Makers' miracles will still be murdered until that time comes.

33 posted on 10/17/2002 4:17:35 PM PDT by Ron H.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson