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.
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!
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
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.
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?
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
,,,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.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
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.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
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?
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
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.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
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 thebill 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.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
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.
