Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Measure Would Authorize Deadly Force If Unborn Child's Life At Risk

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.

http://www.koco.com/cnn-news/19082604/detail.html

Rule of the woods-

Get between a moose and her calf and all bets are off.

National Organization of Women aka league of communist bull dykes don't want this passed. The language is akin to actually admitting that it is indeed a child in that belly instead of a mishap, a mistake, a choice, etc, etc.

Then again, in some rare cases abortion may be the only option but this is good. Common sense dictates that a mother should have every right to fight for her young. Besides, if it pisses off chicks who wished they had dicks then I'm all for it.

Wedgebuster wrote:Rule of the woods-

Get between a moose and her calf and all bets are off.

That is worse than getting inbetween a Grizzly mom and her cub. Nothing good will come of it.

catamount man wrote:National Organization of Women aka league of communist bull dykes don't want this passed. The language is akin to actually admitting that it is indeed a child in that belly instead of a mishap, a mistake, a choice, etc, etc.

Then again, in some rare cases abortion may be the only option but this is good. Common sense dictates that a mother should have every right to fight for her young. Besides, if it pisses off chicks who wished they had dicks then I'm all for it.

Cat mounter, don't tell me you are a virgin?

catamount man wrote:National Organization of Women aka league of communist bull dykes don't want this passed. The language is akin to actually admitting that it is indeed a child in that belly instead of a mishap, a mistake, a choice, etc, etc.

Then again, in some rare cases abortion may be the only option but this is good. Common sense dictates that a mother should have every right to fight for her young. Besides, if it pisses off chicks who wished they had dicks then I'm all for it.

this is another piece of bullshit disingenuous legislation by fanatical anti-choice activists. i would salute their intent if it were noble, but it's a sham designed to get a zygote declared a life and then convict any woman who terminates a pregnancy a murderer.

here's the problem with their deeply flawed logic - in the case of rape, incest or life of mother... she's still a murderer in those circumstances... and what of women who drink and smoke while pregnant? or those who miscarry? is that then considered manslaughter?

they want to open up a legal pandoras box that will lead to only banning it outright, and forcing back in to the alleys and driving it underground. putting the stu in stupid...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:this is another piece of bullshit disingenuous legislation by fanatical anti-choice activists. i would salute their intent if it were noble, but it's a sham designed to get a zygote declared a life and then convict any woman who terminates a pregnancy a murderer.

Whoa! And you think Tman blows pieces of legislation out of proportion? The woman actually has to want the baby in the first place, does she not?

Pwns wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:this is another piece of bullshit disingenuous legislation by fanatical anti-choice activists. i would salute their intent if it were noble, but it's a sham designed to get a zygote declared a life and then convict any woman who terminates a pregnancy a murderer.

Whoa! And you think Tman blows pieces of legislation out of proportion? The woman actually has to want the baby in the first place, does she not?

not really, no. this is a piece of legislation that is written not for what it does per this circumstance (a woman protecting a fetus) but what it does is give a legal status to fetus or zygote. THAT is the intent of this bill, so that they can begin filing lawsuits against abortion providers. Seriously, I spent 5 years working among folks in the anti-choice movement. Such is the measure of the resolve (right or wrong is a matter of opinion) that they have spent the better part of the last 15 years looking for backdoors to making abortion illegal.

They have also tried "personhood" bills that declare life at conception and many other things. But again, it's a legislative backdoor, which is why NOW is fighting it. It's also why the law is written as it is... Joe and Jane Sixpack think such a bill is reasonable, and you force your opponents to "defend the undefendable" or vote for it, knowing full-well the long-term legal consequences.

it's kind of f'd... but it is what's happening here.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:
Whoa! And you think Tman blows pieces of legislation out of proportion? The woman actually has to want the baby in the first place, does she not?

not really, no. this is a piece of legislation that is written not for what it does per this circumstance (a woman protecting a fetus) but what it does is give a legal status to fetus or zygote. THAT is the intent of this bill, so that they can begin filing lawsuits against abortion providers. Seriously, I spent 5 years working among folks in the anti-choice movement. Such is the measure of the resolve (right or wrong is a matter of opinion) that they have spent the better part of the last 15 years looking for backdoors to making abortion illegal.

They have also tried "personhood" bills that declare life at conception and many other things. But again, it's a legislative backdoor, which is why NOW is fighting it. It's also why the law is written as it is... Joe and Jane Sixpack think such a bill is reasonable, and you force your opponents to "defend the undefendable" or vote for it, knowing full-well the long-term legal consequences.

it's kind of f'd... but it is what's happening here.

Well pro-abortion people had better do the same thing they did with the born alive act and come up with a bill that grants the same rights without affecting the abortion issue. Otherwise, I say tough sh^t. If it's a woman's right to have a medically unneccesary abortion versus a woman's right to self-defense of her unborn child, the latter is going to have to take priority.

Pwns wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
not really, no. this is a piece of legislation that is written not for what it does per this circumstance (a woman protecting a fetus) but what it does is give a legal status to fetus or zygote. THAT is the intent of this bill, so that they can begin filing lawsuits against abortion providers. Seriously, I spent 5 years working among folks in the anti-choice movement. Such is the measure of the resolve (right or wrong is a matter of opinion) that they have spent the better part of the last 15 years looking for backdoors to making abortion illegal.

They have also tried "personhood" bills that declare life at conception and many other things. But again, it's a legislative backdoor, which is why NOW is fighting it. It's also why the law is written as it is... Joe and Jane Sixpack think such a bill is reasonable, and you force your opponents to "defend the undefendable" or vote for it, knowing full-well the long-term legal consequences.

it's kind of f'd... but it is what's happening here.

Well pro-abortion people had better do the same thing they did with the born alive act and come up with a bill that grants the same rights without affecting the abortion issue. Otherwise, I say tough sh^t. If it's a woman's right to have a medically unneccesary abortion versus a woman's right to self-defense of her unborn child, the latter is going to have to take priority.

You're not wrong...

You were just asking why I reached the conclusion that I did... that's why. And yes... I think I think that compromise would seem reasonable... however the anti-choice groups will fight that tooth and nail. My only point was that, especially on matters like these, appearences in politics can be deceiving.