Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is great news from a pro-life state:
"A bill that would clarify that a mother or another person could use force -- even deadly force -- to protect an unborn child got a hearing Wednesday in front of the Judiciary Committee ...
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."
Although I'm amazed that such laws are not on the books everywhere. Perhaps they are, but are not enforced.
Not sure why it's a big deal that they're "pro-life" when in reality, the concept is just common sense. Even "pro-choicers" would agree that a woman should have the ability to protect her unborn child if she so desires.
Even "pro-choicers" would agree that a woman should have the ability to protect her unborn child if she so desires.
Why? It's just a fetus, isn't it? A woman can't use deadly force to prevent a thief from stealing her purse, can she?
And the bill says the mother "or another person". The father, perhaps? Let's hope so. I'll come right out and say it: a father ought to be able to use deadly force to protect his unborn child from an abortionist. Period.
Why? It's just a fetus, isn't it? A woman can't use deadly force to prevent a thief from stealing her purse, can she?
And the bill says the mother "or another person". The father, perhaps? Let's hope so. I'll come right out and say it: a father ought to be able to use deadly force to protect his unborn child from an abortionist. Period.
Are abortionists running around trying to force abortions on women? I must have missed that.
Why? It's just a fetus, isn't it? A woman can't use deadly force to prevent a thief from stealing her purse, can she?
And the bill says the mother "or another person". The father, perhaps? Let's hope so. I'll come right out and say it: a father ought to be able to use deadly force to protect his unborn child from an abortionist. Period.
So, in other words, You blieve it would give YOU the right to protect another womans unborn "child" by killing a doctor that performs abortions.
Everyone getting the point now? Hmmmmmm
Against the mother's will? Because that would be holding the mother's body hostage at that point.
If a father wanted to have a child no matter what the mother thought, then he needs to devise a way to remove said fetus from the mother's body without killing it. Until then, she gets the final say re: abortion.
Methinks the OP just wants a bill that would allow men to have the final say regarding what a woman does with her body.
Let me clarify. In the present milieu where abortion is unfortunately legal, a married father should be able to prevent an abortionist from killing his child, even if the mother wants it dead.
There are other kinds of fathers. Rapists, one-night-stand-sperm-donors, unmarried live-ins, or others not married to mother have no claim on the child as their own.
Let me clarify. In the present milieu where abortion is unfortunately legal, a married father should be able to prevent an abortionist from killing his child, even if the mother wants it dead.
There are other kinds of fathers. Rapists, one-night-stand-sperm-donors, unmarried live-ins, or others not married to mother have no claim on the child as their own.
So basically, a man should be able to hold his wife's body hostage for a kid she doesn't want attached to her uterus and he should be able to use deadly force to accomplish this.
If you want that, then please get with the science and medicine to find a way to remove the child without killing it. Until then, her uterine wall, her choice.
So, in other words, You blieve it would give YOU the right to protect another womans unborn "child" by killing a doctor that performs abortions.
Everyone getting the point now? Hmmmmmm
No, I wouldn't go that far. For prudential reasons alone.
Morally, though, if there is an imminent threat to the child, I would have a hard time condemning any third-party for physically preventing an abortionist from performing the dirty deed. And if I were in the room myself, I'd tackle the SOB.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
