Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Nebraska Bill Would Make Killing An...
Show More
Loading...
Flag TPaine February 26, 2011 2:51 PM EST
When will the Christian Right learn that the Bible is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. The Nebraska legislature is considering a bill by State Senator Mark Christensen that would consider killing to protect the life of a fetus justifiable homicide.

Last week, South Dakota's legislature shelved a bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen, which would  have allowed the use of the "justifiable homicide" defense for killings  intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Now a nearly identical bill is being considered in neighboring Nebraska, where on Wednesday the state legislature held a hearing on the measure.

The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which  would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or  her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus,  the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party. Link to article Link to bill


Flag Roodog February 26, 2011 3:14 PM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 2:51PM, TPaine wrote:

When will the Christian Right learn that the Bible is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. The Nebraska legislature is considering a bill by State Senator Mark Christensen that would consider killing to protect the life of a fetus justifiable homicide.

Last week, South Dakota's legislature shelved a bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen, which would have allowed the use of the "justifiable homicide" defense for killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Now a nearly identical bill is being considered in neighboring Nebraska, where on Wednesday the state legislature held a hearing on the measure.


The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party. Link to article Link to bill






When do they start issuing "Abortionist Hunting Licences"?


Will they have a specific season on abortionists?

Flag IreneAdler February 26, 2011 3:58 PM EST

 



From article:



Christensen insisted that his measure is not intended to target abortion providers. Like Jensen, Christensen claimed that his bill is merely meant to allow pregnant women to defend their unborn children without fear of prosecution. "LB 232," he said, "is really nothing more than an attempt to make sure a pregnant woman is not unnecessarily charged with a crime for using force to protect her unborn child from someone who means to bring harm to her unborn children."



This sounds like the most contrived piece of baloney I have ever heard. Is there a need (either legal or otherwise) for a pregnant woman to have legislation protecting her in the defense of her unborn child?  When has a pregnant woman ever been charged with a crime whilst 'using force' to protect her unborn child? Never heard of such a thing.


 Did I wake up in the land of the stupid this morning?


Irene



 

Flag Iwantamotto February 26, 2011 4:35 PM EST

There are sooooooo many things wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.

Flag mountain_man February 26, 2011 4:58 PM EST

This is nothing more than a political stunt. They know it  has absolutely no chance of passing. They do stuff like this go get votes. This is all part of their stated agenda; to get some kind of anti abortion bill passed and then have the Supreme Court review it. With the SC being packed with Right Wing extremists legislating from the bench, they might have a good chance of it being OKed.


Beware the Christian Taliban.

Flag REteach February 26, 2011 5:07 PM EST

I hope all the chicken littles who voted for some of these morons wake up and realize that a Christian Taliban would be just as nasty as the Muslim Taliban in Afghanistan.  


Gag me.

Flag Hatman February 26, 2011 5:37 PM EST
What gets me is that in the misplaced zeal to protect the life of a fetus that has yet to draw a breath, they are attempting to invalidate the lives of the living who have drawn hundreds of thousands---if not millions---of breaths.

Whaddawanna bet that Mr. Inconsistency is also quite on-board with the death penalty, too?

"Protect the unborn!  Kill them once they're old enough to piss me off!"

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman
Flag IreneAdler February 26, 2011 5:47 PM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 4:58PM, mountain_man wrote:


Beware the Christian Taliban.





Oh, yeah.  I think they are on overtime with this stunt.


Irene.

Flag DotNotInOz February 26, 2011 6:18 PM EST

I don't know that I agree that this bill was proposed simply to curry voter favor. There are a lot of extremist nutjobs like this in the central U.S. Enough to make me wish a person could petition for a legal change of place of birth as can be done with one's name. I'm ashamed I was born in Nebraska!

Flag mytmouse57 February 26, 2011 9:55 PM EST

I was born in Nebraska, and I'm not ashamed.


The grandstanding of goofy ideas can happen anywhere.

Flag costrel February 26, 2011 10:55 PM EST

And I'm ashamed to be from South Dakota. Politicians from South Dakota tried to get us to believe that this bill was supposed to focus on protecting an unborn child from domestic violence -- that is, from husbands and boyfriends and fathers trying to harm a woman so she would miscarry her baby -- but even our local South Dakota news understood that this was a sly attempt at legalizing and justifying the killing of abortion providers. The people of South Dakota have twice voted down bills that would have outlawed abortion, yet these damn politicians will not give up. It makes me realize that politicians are as useful and relevant as theologians debating the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.

Flag Roodog February 26, 2011 11:01 PM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 4:58PM, mountain_man wrote:


This is nothing more than a political stunt. They know it  has absolutely no chance of passing. They do stuff like this go get votes. This is all part of their stated agenda; to get some kind of anti abortion bill passed and then have the Supreme Court review it. With the SC being packed with Right Wing extremists legislating from the bench, they might have a good chance of it being OKed.


Beware the Christian Taliban.





God, I hope you are wrong on this one,MM.


The last thing Right to Life needs is a John Brown.

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 12:55 AM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Roodog wrote:

God, I hope you are wrong on this one,MM.


The last thing Right to Life needs is a John Brown.


Since these "right to life" people want to make it OK to kill someone then they really aren't all that keen on everyone's right to life. The anti choice, anti women, side already has several John Browns that have killed doctors and blown up womens health clinics. See how the Christian Taliban will work? They that agree with them will have the "right to life." Others are exterminated as their god requires.

Flag DotNotInOz February 27, 2011 6:00 AM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 10:55PM, costrel wrote:

And I'm ashamed to be from South Dakota. Politicians from South Dakota tried to get us to believe that this bill was supposed to focus on protecting an unborn child from domestic violence -- that is, from husbands and boyfriends and fathers trying to harm a woman so she would miscarry her baby -- but even our local South Dakota news understood that this was a sly attempt at legalizing and justifying the killing of abortion providers. The people of South Dakota have twice voted down bills that would have outlawed abortion, yet these damn politicians will not give up. It makes me realize that politicians are as useful and relevant as theologians debating the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.


Actually, I think it's more a problem with the fact that so many voters are oblivious to what is going on in their state government.


However, both the Nebraska and S. Dakota bills may well be due to another frightening fact--that militant pro-lifers have gotten themselves elected and are now carrying out the mandate of their staunch supporters.

Flag costrel February 27, 2011 7:58 AM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 6:00AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Feb 26, 2011 -- 10:55PM, costrel wrote:

And I'm ashamed to be from South Dakota. Politicians from South Dakota tried to get us to believe that this bill was supposed to focus on protecting an unborn child from domestic violence -- that is, from husbands and boyfriends and fathers trying to harm a woman so she would miscarry her baby -- but even our local South Dakota news understood that this was a sly attempt at legalizing and justifying the killing of abortion providers. The people of South Dakota have twice voted down bills that would have outlawed abortion, yet these damn politicians will not give up. It makes me realize that politicians are as useful and relevant as theologians debating the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.


Actually, I think it's more a problem with the fact that so many voters are oblivious to what is going on in their state government.


However, both the Nebraska and S. Dakota bills may well be due to another frightening fact--that militant pro-lifers have gotten themselves elected and are now carrying out the mandate of their staunch supporters.


I do not doubt that militant pro-lifers have been elected. In fact, it seems as if even the local Democrats of South Dakota are pro-life rather than pro-choice. No politician appears to want to suffer the fate of South Dakota Senator Thomas Dascle, who claimed to be privately pro-life but politically pro-choice. His argument seems to have been that his private pro-life stance should not interfere with his politics, since abortion was legal and should remain legal (as not everyone in the democratic and pluralistic U.S. was pro-life). For this stance he came close to being formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and was then voted out of office and replaced by the pro-life politician John Thune, who is now even considering a run for the presidency. As South Dakota's Bishop Carlson wrote in a 2004 article in the Bishop's Bulletin in reference to Tom Dascle:


Today nominal Catholics are soft on abortion and badly misinformed about this and other aspects of the faith including the Eucharist and the proper formation of one's conscience. They fail to grasp the difference between the common good and excessive individual rights. [...] When a politician says, "I am personally opposed to abortion but don't want to impose my Catholic beliefs" or says something like, "You can't legislate morality," he or she fails the common good. As the bishops stated in "Faithful Citizenship," Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy and pluralism, but rather enrich them and the nation. The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but rather protects the rights of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life. [...] You cannot vote for a politician who is pro-abortion when you have a choice and remain a Catholic in good standing. For some Catholics this is a hard teaching, but I am simply repeating church teaching." -- For Bishop Carlson's entire article, please see www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.ht... 



According to Bishop Carlson, Catholic voters cannot remain in good standing if they willfully vote for a politician who is pro-choice, Catholic politicians must vote pro-choice, and the issue facing the nation is "excessive individual rights" versus "the common good." In addition, as you mentioned concerning voters not really knowing what is going on in state government, Carlson asserts that Catholics are also misinformed about the actual teachings of the Church.


Faced with this kind of opposition, it seems as if only non-Christians, ex-Catholics, ex-Christians, and atheists like myself have the luxury of being pro-choice these days, as we don't have to -- and are not expected to -- divorce personal conscience from how we vote and who we vote for. Thus, we do not have to deal with the problem of going against our consciences or remaining faithful to the Church and her teachings and voting according to how we are told to vote. Christian unbelievers can assert that "individual rights" ARE "the common good," that these individual rights are not "excessive," and can vote according to their consciences and not fear falling into mortal sin and displeasing Christ or his representatives on Earth.

Flag MSaraTemp February 27, 2011 9:52 AM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 2:51PM, TPaine wrote:

When will the Christian Right learn that the Bible is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. The Nebraska legislature is considering a bill by State Senator Mark Christensen that would consider killing to protect the life of a fetus justifiable homicide.

Last week, South Dakota's legislature shelved a bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen, which would have allowed the use of the "justifiable homicide" defense for killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Now a nearly identical bill is being considered in neighboring Nebraska, where on Wednesday the state legislature held a hearing on the measure.


The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party. Link to article Link to bill




But what about the "pregnant woman" herself?  --If she "miscarries" for instance.
Will she be "investigated" for suspicion of "embryo" or "fetal" homicide and be charged with a crime?

And what if the woman does want to terminate her pregnancy and gives permission to her HCP to perform an abortion, does the state still get to charge the woman with a crime under this bill?  Because after all, it's the woman who is the main instigator and not some mire accomplice in the act.


But in all seriousness, where do they grow these evil nitwits? --Something must be in the soil, the air & the water because since November 2010, there's been a particular bumper-crop that was harvested.

Flag Ebon February 27, 2011 11:07 AM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Hatman wrote:

What gets me is that in the misplaced zeal to protect the life of a fetus that has yet to draw a breath, they are attempting to invalidate the lives of the living who have drawn hundreds of thousands---if not millions---of breaths.  Whaddawanna bet that Mr. Inconsistency is also quite on-board with the death penalty, too?  "Protect the unborn!  Kill them once they're old enough to piss me off!"  With goodwill to all the People-  Hatman



Quite. It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. The Catholic church opposes abortion but they also oppose the death penalty and the majority of wars. I don't agree with it but I can respect that, it's an intellectually consistent stance. This, this is just playing games.

Flag REteach February 27, 2011 11:27 AM EST

Too bad they don't give a rat's patootie about postborn kids. After they are here, too bad, so sad, fend for yourself.  Cut education, cut healthcare, forget about childcare.  

All they seem to care about is embryos and fetuses. Not independent living human beings.  

Flag MSaraTemp February 27, 2011 12:06 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:27AM, REteach wrote:

Too bad they don't give a rat's patootie about postborn kids. After they are here, too bad, so sad, fend for yourself.  Cut education, cut healthcare, forget about childcare.  

All they seem to care about is embryos and fetuses. Not independent living human beings.


Yet that too REt isn't true either.

Case in point: Op-Ed piece from NYTimes the other day.



Op-Ed Columnist

The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies





Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.  . . . . .


..... The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. The budget proposes:


$50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”


$1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”


• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.


This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood.


It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?


And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.


This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish — and ultimately deadly.
Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blo...

Flag newsjunkie February 27, 2011 12:16 PM EST

If it's not justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a pregnant woman from being killed or harmed, why would it or should it be justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a fetus from being killed or harmed? 

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 12:23 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:16PM, newsjunkie wrote:

If it's not justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a pregnant woman from being killed or harmed, why would it or should it be justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a fetus from being killed or harmed?


Choice. No matter how you wish to frame it with emotional rhetoric it is up to the woman to decide what goes on inside her body. Until the embryo is in YOUR body, you get no say. Since men can never become pregnant the only moral position a man can honorably hold is pro choice.

Flag newsjunkie February 27, 2011 12:28 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:06PM, MSaraTemp wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:27AM, REteach wrote:

Too bad they don't give a rat's patootie about postborn kids. After they are here, too bad, so sad, fend for yourself.  Cut education, cut healthcare, forget about childcare.  

All they seem to care about is embryos and fetuses. Not independent living human beings.


Yet that too REt isn't true either.

Case in point: Op-Ed piece from NYTimes the other day.



Op-Ed Columnist

The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies





Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.  . . . . .


..... The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. The budget proposes:


$50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”


$1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”


• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.


This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood.


It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?


And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.


This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish — and ultimately deadly.
Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blo...




"It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?"


Of course you know, marysara, that according to the "morality" of some folks, what's important is that the pregnant woman endure her punishment for being irresponsible (or immoral) and getting pregnant. If part of that punishment is poverty for her and her children, so be it -- if you're poor and were irresponsible you're really bad and deserving of more punishment. I think it's that kind of thinking that must come into play when advocating for denial of or reduced assistance to women and their infant children while at the same time applauding anti-abortion legislation and elimination of funding to planned parenthood.

Flag newsjunkie February 27, 2011 12:33 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:23PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:16PM, newsjunkie wrote:

If it's not justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a pregnant woman from being killed or harmed, why would it or should it be justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a fetus from being killed or harmed?


Choice. No matter how you wish to frame it with emotional rhetoric it is up to the woman to decide what goes on inside her body. Until the embryo is in YOUR body, you get no say. Since men can never become pregnant the only moral position a man can honorably hold is pro choice.




Hey mountainman, remember me from the abortion debate board?? I'm pro-choice. I'm saying these justifiable homicide bills are unnecessary. They are either misdirected -- the pregnant woman is the one who should be protected -- or simply an anti-abortion sham.

Flag newsjunkie February 27, 2011 12:45 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:07AM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Hatman wrote:

What gets me is that in the misplaced zeal to protect the life of a fetus that has yet to draw a breath, they are attempting to invalidate the lives of the living who have drawn hundreds of thousands---if not millions---of breaths.  Whaddawanna bet that Mr. Inconsistency is also quite on-board with the death penalty, too?  "Protect the unborn!  Kill them once they're old enough to piss me off!"  With goodwill to all the People-  Hatman



Quite. It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. The Catholic church opposes abortion but they also oppose the death penalty and the majority of wars. I don't agree with it but I can respect that, it's an intellectually consistent stance. This, this is just playing games.




When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just, On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.

Flag Ebon February 27, 2011 12:51 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:45PM, newsjunkie wrote:

When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just



Not saying it is. I don't agree with the position, I can just respect it as a consistent statement of belief. It's a lot easier to debate someone when their ideas actually state a comprehensible position. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, while abortion is not allowed for any reason, it is allowable to take an action which will result in the death of the foetus if the primary reason is to save the mother's life (or health if that would be seriously damaged).


On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.



Hmm. A good point and one I hadn't considered.

Flag Roodog February 27, 2011 1:12 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:51PM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:45PM, newsjunkie wrote:

When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just



Not saying it is. I don't agree with the position, I can just respect it as a consistent statement of belief. It's a lot easier to debate someone when their ideas actually state a comprehensible position. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, while abortion is not allowed for any reason, it is allowable to take an action which will result in the death of the foetus if the primary reason is to save the mother's life (or health if that would be seriously damaged).


On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.



Hmm. A good point and one I hadn't considered.





 There are some in the RCC who opposes self defense altogether.They prefer that one accepts "martyrdom" than use force to defend themselves.


There was a case where a young lady was beatified because she allowed her attacker to kill her rather than to rape her.

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 1:15 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:33PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Hey mountainman, remember me from the abortion debate board??


Sort of. I haven't been there in years. I'd bet that nothing has changed, just more of the same arguments over and over and over and over and over again.

I'm pro-choice. I'm saying these justifiable homicide bills are unnecessary. They are either misdirected -- the pregnant woman is the one who should be protected -- or simply an anti-abortion sham.


I think they are an anti-abortion scam. These bills are only playing to the anti-choice, anti-women, crowd to get votes. If they really cared about being "pro life" then they would not try to justify the killing of anyone.

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 1:17 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:45PM, newsjunkie wrote:

When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just, On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.


Then let the fetus kill in self defense.

Flag costrel February 27, 2011 2:09 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 1:12PM, Roodog wrote:

There was a case where a young lady was beatified because she allowed her attacker to kill her rather than to rape her.


Maria Goretti was 11 years old, and according to her official hagiography, Alessandro Serenelli stabbed her fourteen times because she was putting up a fight as he was trying to rape her. Supposedly Goretti told Serenelli that she would rather die than be raped, but that does not mean that she allowed him to kill her. And even though her official hagiography asserts that she was not raped and died a "virgin-martyr," Bruno Guerri (author of the 1985 book Poor Assassin, Poor Saint: The True Story of Maria Goretti) seems to have found evidence that Serenelli stated afterwards that he did, in fact, rape her, which would seem to imply that he stabbed her to death after he raped her.

Flag MSaraTemp February 27, 2011 2:13 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 1:12PM, Roodog wrote:

There are some in the RCC who opposes self defense altogether.They prefer that one accepts "martyrdom" than use force to defend themselves.


There was a case where a young lady was beatified because she allowed her attacker to kill her rather than to rape her.


That's nothing.  Of course they, in 2004, made a saint of an Italian woman age 39, and a pediatrician at the time of her death in 1962.  She died from untreated uterine fibroid tumor one week after giving birth to her 4th child.  Her chances of survival would have been greater had she undergone an abortion earlier in her pregnancy but she refused. 
Her "personal choice" to kill herself left her 4 children with one being a newborn, now motherless and a husband without his life's partner. 

So much for being "pro-life" towards the living.
But, that was her "personal choice" and the RCC made her a martyr for the Anti-abortion fraction.

Flag mytmouse57 February 27, 2011 7:40 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:07AM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Hatman wrote:

What gets me is that in the misplaced zeal to protect the life of a fetus that has yet to draw a breath, they are attempting to invalidate the lives of the living who have drawn hundreds of thousands---if not millions---of breaths. Whaddawanna bet that Mr. Inconsistency is also quite on-board with the death penalty, too? "Protect the unborn! Kill them once they're old enough to piss me off!" With goodwill to all the People- Hatman



Quite. It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. The Catholic church opposes abortion but they also oppose the death penalty and the majority of wars. I don't agree with it but I can respect that, it's an intellectually consistent stance. This, this is just playing games.





There is no inconsistency -- at least as moral matters -- in opposing abortion, and favoring the death penalty.


As legal matters? That's a different matter. But, more on that later.


A fetus is totally innocent and defensless, whereas a convicted murderer is a capable adult who made a concious choice to murder -- and conciously and deliberatly went through with the action of killing another person.


You cannot compare the two -- a fetus and a convicted murderer, and say it is "inconsistent" to wish to save one, and execute the other. It is a classic of an apples-and-oranges scenerio.


Now, as to whether abortion should be illegal, that's a whole other can of worms, and a much more difficult position to defend.


And yes, I think this proposed law is stupid and illogical.

Flag REteach February 27, 2011 8:45 PM EST

Unfortunately being convicted of a crime does not mean you are guilty of it. 

Flag mytmouse57 February 27, 2011 9:21 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 8:45PM, REteach wrote:


Unfortunately being convicted of a crime does not mean you are guilty of it. 





No. Not always.

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 9:26 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 7:40PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There is no inconsistency -- at least as moral matters -- in opposing abortion, and favoring the death penalty.


There is, but those that are pro birth are unable to see the inconsistency. If you honestly value life, then a life is a life, all lives are equal. Just because you do not like the person does not mean you can devalue their life.

Flag mytmouse57 February 27, 2011 9:29 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:26PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 7:40PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There is no inconsistency -- at least as moral matters -- in opposing abortion, and favoring the death penalty.


There is, but those that are pro birth are unable to see the inconsistency. If you honestly value life, then a life is a life, all lives are equal. Just because you do not like the person does not mean you can devalue their life.





Then, by your own reasoning, it is just as inconsistent to oppose the death penalty and be pro-choice as it is to oppose abortion and support the death penalty.


 

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 9:38 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:29PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Then, by your own reasoning....


You mean by your strawman version of my own reasoning....

Flag mytmouse57 February 27, 2011 9:43 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:38PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:29PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Then, by your own reasoning....


You mean by your strawman version of my own reasoning....





Nope, by your own reasoning. And, ironically, your point, which missed the point, was sort of a strawman anyway.


The death penalty isn't about "not liking" people. It's about the actions they conciously and deliberatly take.


Because a fetus is helpless, and cannot conciously and deliberately take any action, it can therefore not be compared to a grown person who takes the concious and deliberate action to kill somebody.


Therefore, again, there is no inconcistancy in being opposed, morally, to abortion, while supporting the death penatly.


But, as a legal matter, it's much tougher to try to argue that abortion should be illegal. In fact, I would say it's impossible to argue that posistion.

Flag belleo February 27, 2011 10:37 PM EST

"...acy of abortion is dealt with as an aesthetic, not a moral, problem.  That is why, for instance, the person writing this thinks that abortion is the solution to infanticide.  Abortion is private and we are strongly encouraged not to look at what is done.  Infanticide is more public and there is a danger that there might blood or screaming or a tiny corpse visible.


This aesthetic approach to killing people also, by the way, completely dominates our discourse about the death penalty.  That is why we blab about “deterrence” while making sure that there are as few witnesses as possible.  We desire death and lots of it.  But we want it very very tidy, quiet and *clean*.


That’s one of the signs of a troubled conscience: a refusal to look our choices in the eye.


Jesus, through Holy Church, offers us a resolution to the conflict our culture of death feels within its breast: stop choosing death.  This includes both the death of the unborn and the death of the criminal.  No, they are not morally equivalent.  But neither is the death penalty the expression of the mercy of God.  The Church’s teaching seems reasonable to me." By Mark Shea


And I wholeheartedly agree.  Marie

Flag belleo February 27, 2011 10:46 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 2:09PM, costrel wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 1:12PM, Roodog wrote:

There was a case where a young lady was beatified because she allowed her attacker to kill her rather than to rape her.


Maria Goretti was 11 years old, and according to her official hagiography, Alessandro Serenelli stabbed her fourteen times because she was putting up a fight as he was trying to rape her. Supposedly Goretti told Serenelli that she would rather die than be raped, but that does not mean that she allowed him to kill her. And even though her official hagiography asserts that she was not raped and died a "virgin-martyr," Bruno Guerri (author of the 1985 book Poor Assassin, Poor Saint: The True Story of Maria Goretti) seems to have found evidence that Serenelli stated afterwards that he did, in fact, rape her, which would seem to imply that he stabbed her to death after he raped her.



I also know a dear soul who said no to abortion . The baby was born healthy . That is not what the medical profession had told her . She decided at the time she had  lived her life and if she died ...well she didn't . I suppose it depends on your spiritual orientation . Mine wasn't all that great at one time and I didn't choose life . Has it haunted me ?  I'd say it did

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 11:02 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Nope, by your own reasoning. And, ironically....


Ironically, you don't get it.... again.

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 11:06 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 10:37PM, belleo wrote:

....That’s one of the signs of a troubled conscience: a refusal to look our choices in the eye.....


Exactly! Instead of looking their choices in the eye the pro birth crowd hides behind religion and it's blind, thoughtless, demands. They blindly follow these demands and then have the nerve to talk about morals. If you blindly follow some demand, you have no morals. To have actual morals means making a choice to do right or wrong.

Flag mountain_man February 27, 2011 11:08 PM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 10:46PM, belleo wrote:

I also know a dear soul who said no to abortion . The baby was born healthy . That is not what the medical profession had told her . She decided at the time she had  lived her life and if she died ...well she didn't . I suppose it depends on your spiritual orientation . Mine wasn't all that great at one time and I didn't choose life . Has it haunted me ?  I'd say it did


Such is life. That does not give you the right to make the decision for other women.

Flag MSaraTemp February 28, 2011 12:40 AM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:29PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:26PM, mountain_man wrote:

Feb 27, 2011 -- 7:40PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There is no inconsistency -- at least as moral matters -- in opposing abortion, and favoring the death penalty.


There is, but those that are pro birth are unable to see the inconsistency. If you honestly value life, then a life is a life, all lives are equal. Just because you do not like the person does not mean you can devalue their life.


Then, by your own reasoning, it is just as inconsistent to oppose the death penalty and be pro-choice as it is to oppose abortion and support the death penalty.


The term/label of "Pro-CHOICE" is only connected to "Women's Reproductive Rights" and nothing else.
For women to decide first-- if they want children or not.
2nd, if they do want children, then how many they want/desire and can afford to care for.
3rd, to space their children how they see fit be it 2 yrs apart or 5 or 10, it's their choice.
And 4th, when to stop reproducing and calling it a day.

It never was related to the Death Penalty at all.

Flag DotNotInOz February 28, 2011 7:02 AM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 2:13PM, MSaraTemp wrote:

That's nothing.  Of course they, in 2004, made a saint of an Italian woman age 39, and a pediatrician at the time of her death in 1962.  She died from untreated uterine fibroid tumor one week after giving birth to her 4th child.  Her chances of survival would have been greater had she undergone an abortion earlier in her pregnancy but she refused. 


Her "personal choice" to kill herself left her 4 children with one being a newborn, now motherless and a husband without his life's partner. 

So much for being "pro-life" towards the living.
But, that was her "personal choice" and the RCC made her a martyr for the Anti-abortion fraction.




Okay, well, nutty though this will sound (and it does to me, too, having been amicably divorced from RCism for about four decades), the RCC's position as well as this woman's decision makes perfect sense within the Catholic context.


Dipping back into my mental archives, one's first duty in life is to carry out God's wishes as presented in scripture and via the mandates of the RCC. Thus, this Italian saint chose absolutely the right thing in deciding that she must sacrifice her own life if it came to that to better ensure her fetus would survive to term and be born.


This is a situation where I expect her children and husband feel very blessed to have had a mother and wife who was ultimately granted sainthood. That would be a distinct honor for a Catholic family.


Yes, it's impossible to comprehend how there is anything meritorious in such a decision when you're non-Catholic, but to a Catholic, what this woman did would be regarded as not only absolutely right but a wonderful sacrifice, demonstrating her intense devotion to God as well as her love for her unborn child over herself.

Flag Iwantamotto February 28, 2011 9:16 AM EST

Dipping back into my mental archives, one's first duty in life is to carry out God's wishes as presented in scripture and via the mandates of the RCC. Thus, this Italian saint chose absolutely the right thing in deciding that she must sacrifice her own life if it came to that to better ensure her fetus would survive to term and be born.



Parents who would sacrifice their lives for kids who can't take care of themselves haven't done the kid any favors.  Now the kids get to die a long, malingering death.  But, hey, God knows best, right?  That's why God invented the concept of animals having children even when there aren't enough resources -- oh, wait, no, I don't have that right ... He ACTUALLY told the animals to give it a rest.  We seem to be the only species to be dumb enough to have kids we can't raise.


but to a Catholic, what this woman did would be regarded as not only absolutely right but a wonderful sacrifice



I can grasp she thought it was wonderful.  I can also grasp that long-term thinking is not her strong suit, is it?

Flag mytmouse57 February 28, 2011 10:02 AM EST

Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:02PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 9:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Nope, by your own reasoning. And, ironically....


Ironically, you don't get it.... again.





Of course I get it.


The argument I'm objecting to hinges upon two basic assumptions. That a fetus isn't not, or isn't "really" human life, and that the death penatly is about revenge.


But, from another point of view, a fetus is human life, and the death penalty is about the logical consequences for deliberate actions certain people conciously decided to take.


Therefore, again, one can -- on moral grounds -- oppose abortion and support the death penalty, and still be consistent.


Also, it would be great sometime if you actually tried to debate ideas, rather than pulling a sentence or two out of somebody's post and leveling an "I know you are, but what am I?" response.

Flag Cesmom February 28, 2011 10:56 AM EST

Feb 26, 2011 -- 3:58PM, IreneAdler wrote:


 



From article:



Christensen insisted that his measure is not intended to target abortion providers. Like Jensen, Christensen claimed that his bill is merely meant to allow pregnant women to defend their unborn children without fear of prosecution. "LB 232," he said, "is really nothing more than an attempt to make sure a pregnant woman is not unnecessarily charged with a crime for using force to protect her unborn child from someone who means to bring harm to her unborn children."



This sounds like the most contrived piece of baloney I have ever heard. Is there a need (either legal or otherwise) for a pregnant woman to have legislation protecting her in the defense of her unborn child?  When has a pregnant woman ever been charged with a crime whilst 'using force' to protect her unborn child? Never heard of such a thing.


 Did I wake up in the land of the stupid this morning?


Irene



 




Not saying that this is truly his motivation, but apparently, there is a history of exactly such a thing...


 


Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, who introduced the bill (LB232), said it was prompted by a Michigan case in which a pregnant woman carrying quadruplets was found guilty of manslaughter for killing her boyfriend after he punched her in the stomach, causing a miscarriage. She was sentenced to five to 20 years as an habitual offender.


A Michigan Appeals Court later overturned the case.


Christensen said he did not want to see a woman in Nebraska go through the trauma of losing a baby, only to be prosecuted and punished for trying to protect it.


 

Flag mountain_man February 28, 2011 11:25 AM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 7:02AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Okay, well, nutty though this will sound (and it does to me, too, having been amicably divorced from RCism for about four decades), the RCC's position as well as this woman's decision makes perfect sense within the Catholic context.....


They can believe that all they want. The problem is that the RCC MUST keep it's beliefs in it's churches and out of our laws. They have no right to even attempt to force their beliefs on anyone through our laws. They need to stay out of it.

Flag mountain_man February 28, 2011 11:26 AM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 10:02AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Of course I get it.....


We've had this discussion before. You didn't get it then and you won't get it now, so I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Flag mountain_man February 28, 2011 11:33 AM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 10:56AM, Cesmom wrote:

Not saying that this is truly his motivation, but apparently, there is a history of exactly such a thing...


Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, who introduced the bill (LB232), said it was prompted by a Michigan case in which a pregnant woman carrying quadruplets was found guilty of manslaughter for killing her boyfriend after he punched her in the stomach, causing a miscarriage. She was sentenced to five to 20 years as an habitual offender.


A Michigan Appeals Court later overturned the case.


Christensen said he did not want to see a woman in Nebraska go through the trauma of losing a baby, only to be prosecuted and punished for trying to protect it.


Since she is not in prison for that crime then there is no need for the law. This is just another back door attempt to criminalize elective abortion. Women already have the right to protect themselves and any fetus they may be carrying. Also note that this woman was designated as a "habitual offender." That means there is more to the story than we know since she has already been convicted of at least one felony.

Flag Girlchristian February 28, 2011 11:41 AM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 11:33AM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 28, 2011 -- 10:56AM, Cesmom wrote:

Not saying that this is truly his motivation, but apparently, there is a history of exactly such a thing...


Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, who introduced the bill (LB232), said it was prompted by a Michigan case in which a pregnant woman carrying quadruplets was found guilty of manslaughter for killing her boyfriend after he punched her in the stomach, causing a miscarriage. She was sentenced to five to 20 years as an habitual offender.


A Michigan Appeals Court later overturned the case.


Christensen said he did not want to see a woman in Nebraska go through the trauma of losing a baby, only to be prosecuted and punished for trying to protect it.


Since she is not in prison for that crime then there is no need for the law. This is just another back door attempt to criminalize elective abortion. Women already have the right to protect themselves and any fetus they may be carrying. Also note that this woman was designated as a "habitual offender." That means there is more to the story than we know since she has already been convicted of at least one felony.




You're carelessly dismissing the time and effort it took for this woman to fight the charge and have it overturned.

Flag lulu2 February 28, 2011 11:42 AM EST

somethings have nothing to do with relgion, they just have to do with what's right. Congress at the time of RoeVs Wade, was predominately composed of men. Most women dont take lightly, killing whats living within them. There just seems to be something wrongi, n todays world of pregnancy prevention. That such a progessive country, still feels it necessary to fight less for the right to kill a developing human, than it does a developing puppy?

Flag MSaraTemp February 28, 2011 12:03 PM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 11:41AM, Girlchristian wrote:


Feb 28, 2011 -- 11:33AM, mountain_man wrote:

Feb 28, 2011 -- 10:56AM, Cesmom wrote:

Not saying that this is truly his motivation, but apparently, there is a history of exactly such a thing...


Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, who introduced the bill (LB232), said it was prompted by a Michigan case in which a pregnant woman carrying quadruplets was found guilty of manslaughter for killing her boyfriend after he punched her in the stomach, causing a miscarriage. She was sentenced to five to 20 years as an habitual offender.


A Michigan Appeals Court later overturned the case.


Christensen said he did not want to see a woman in Nebraska go through the trauma of losing a baby, only to be prosecuted and punished for trying to protect it.


Since she is not in prison for that crime then there is no need for the law. This is just another back door attempt to criminalize elective abortion. Women already have the right to protect themselves and any fetus they may be carrying. Also note that this woman was designated as a "habitual offender." That means there is more to the story than we know since she has already been convicted of at least one felony.


You're carelessly dismissing the time and effort it took for this woman to fight the charge and have it overturned.


She should have never been charged to begin with.  Self-defense.

Was there an over-zealous prosecutor involved that charged her? 
And the trial court dismissed her reasons for the self-defense claim against not only her person/body but the gestating entities within her uterus.
It was overturned based on the point of self-defense.

Flag TPaine February 28, 2011 12:15 PM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 11:42AM, lulu2 wrote:


somethings have nothing to do with relgion, they just have to do with what's right. Congress at the time of RoeVs Wade, was predominately composed of men. Most women dont take lightly, killing whats living within them. There just seems to be something wrongi, n todays world of pregnancy prevention. That such a progessive country, still feels it necessary to fight less for the right to kill a developing human, than it does a developing puppy?



So are you saying that a 12-year-old who was impregnated by her father should be forced to carry the fetus to term? Also, since when has it been illegal for dog owners to have their pet's puppies aborted?


Besides the language of the bill would make it justifiable homicide for a third party (Scott Roeder for instance) to kill an abortion doctor to protect a fetus even if the woman wanted the abortion.

Flag mountain_man February 28, 2011 12:18 PM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 11:41AM, Girlchristian wrote:

You're carelessly dismissing the time and effort it took for this woman to fight the charge and have it overturned.


I know you need to believe I am dismissing something, but it seems you are dismissing the law as it is now. I know of no state that does not have a self defense law. If this woman killed the man in self defense there would have been no trial. If she killed him AFTER she got out of the hospital, or at a later time, that's murder, not self defense.


You are also dismissing the fact that this proposed bill is nothing more than a back door attempt to criminalize elective abortion. So, before you claim I am dismissing something, take care of your own dismissals.

Flag mountain_man February 28, 2011 12:24 PM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 11:42AM, lulu2 wrote:

somethings have nothing to do with relgion, they just have to do with what's right.


In this case we have a religion DEMANDING that we MUST obey their rules as to what is right and what is not.

Congress at the time of RoeVs Wade, was predominately composed of men.


Congress had nothing to do with Roe V Wade.

Most women dont take lightly, killing whats living within them.


No, they do not. If they do, then it might be better if they do have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

There just seems to be something wrongi, n todays world of pregnancy prevention. That such a progessive country, still feels it necessary to fight less for the right to kill a developing human, than it does a developing puppy?


That's your belief and you have a right to it. The right you do not have is to force that belief on others. It is immoral to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want or that is creating a health problem that could kill her. Do you think it is right to see women as nothing more than a female dog forced go have litter after litter of puppies? Should we put women in puppy mills? How can you think so little of women?

Flag Girlchristian February 28, 2011 12:38 PM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 12:18PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 28, 2011 -- 11:41AM, Girlchristian wrote:

You're carelessly dismissing the time and effort it took for this woman to fight the charge and have it overturned.


I know you need to believe I am dismissing something, but it seems you are dismissing the law as it is now. I know of no state that does not have a self defense law. If this woman killed the man in self defense there would have been no trial. If she killed him AFTER she got out of the hospital, or at a later time, that's murder, not self defense.


You are also dismissing the fact that this proposed bill is nothing more than a back door attempt to criminalize elective abortion. So, before you claim I am dismissing something, take care of your own dismissals.





I'm not dismissing your last statement, I simply do not agree with it based on the actual wording.

Flag mountain_man February 28, 2011 12:54 PM EST

Feb 28, 2011 -- 12:38PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Feb 28, 2011 -- 12:18PM, mountain_man wrote:

,,,You are also dismissing the fact that this proposed bill is nothing more than a back door attempt to criminalize elective abortion. So, before you claim I am dismissing something, take care of your own dismissals.


I'm not dismissing your last statement, I simply do not agree with it based on the actual wording.


Of course it doesn't. They are not stupid enough to phrase the bill in a way that would outright criminalize abortion or make it legal to murder abortion doctors. That's why it's a "back door" attempt and it's just one of many such bills. The pro birth gang sees no problem in forcing their religious beliefs on others and they have no problem lying to get that done.

Flag watcher59 June 27, 2011 4:56 AM EDT

When will the Christian Right learn that the Bible is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. The Nebraska legislature is considering a bill by State Senator Mark Christensen that would consider killing to protect the life of a fetus justifiable homicide.


I'm curious. Where in the bible is this addressed?

Flag belleo June 27, 2011 7:41 AM EDT

The word abortion is not mentioned in the Bible That's probably because the Jews believed in life . By the way the word Trinity isn't  in the Bible  but the Christians I know believe in the trinity - that is father , Son , Holy Spirit . Relevant Scripture passages on the inborn , we were all there once upon a time :


 "This is what the Lord says- He who made you, who formed you in the 
womb, and who will help you" --Isaiah 44:2

"For You created my innermost being; You knit me together in my 
mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully 
made." --Psalm 139:13-14

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived 
me." --Psalm 51:5

"Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from Him." --Psalm 
127:3

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless...Rescue the weak and 
needy." --Psalm 82:3-4

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV)

"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the fullest." --Jesus 
Christ (John 10:10)

"Rescue those being led away to death." --Proverbs 24:11 (NIV)

Talking about John the Baptist, "and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit 
even from his mother's womb." --Luke 1:15(NIV) There is no record of the 
Holy Spirit ever filling anything but a person.


 

Flag watcher59 June 27, 2011 10:24 AM EDT

Silly me. I didn't source check before I posted. The first line of the text specifically addresses self defense and extending protection to unborn children.


Everyone can relax; THE SKY IN NOT FALLING!

Flag anidominus June 27, 2011 11:04 AM EDT

Is this law neccessary?  I doubt it.  I don't think any women would be arrested for protecting her unborn child. 


Is this a political stunt?  Probably.


Would this law endanger the lives of Abortion Doctors?  No.  


If find it amazing how people believe the government is not extremist enough to arrest a woman for protecting her unborn child when there is no law preventing them for doing so.  Yet these same peole will beleive the government is extremist enough to not allow the prosecution of people who kill abortion doctors when abortion is legal in every state.


Is there any reason why this kind of law would be necessary?  Yes.  It's one thing to assume a woman would never be arrested for "Defending the life of her unborn child" but its another to have it in black and white.


One of the problems with the abortion issue is that it has for all practical purposes made the fetus property.  In certain circumstances you can't kill someone for harming property.  Would a woman ever be expected to judge the diffrence between a person attempting to kill an unborn child vs herself?  I doubt it once again.  To make such a distinction during a heated argument etc would be nearly impossible.  If the person had a bat or any other such weapon you could easily assume they were aiming to kill you making this law pointless.  However, a person swining with a fist may be a diffrent issue, but you can be beat someone to death with your fists.


I think the group of people who should be most anxious about a bill like this getting passed is boyfriends who have pregnant girfriends they are not getting along with.  How easy would it be , after she kills him, for her to say, "He was trying to kill my baby", when in fact he just got mad enough to push her down.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook