[ssmit132]

Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Mars]

At best this is political posturing, at worst it is very sinister.

[PsychoLandlord]

And why exactly is that needed?

Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.

This. Exactly this. There is no reason for this law to exist other than to send the message we're worried it's sending, simply because Justifiable Homicide already covers pretty much every situation it could ever be considered "Justifiable." At this point, I'm pretty sure the people who brought this crap into existence did so simply for exactly the reason the article indicates. And if they didn't? Then they're utter morons for allowing such a poorly worded and unnecessary piece of writing into the legal system.

And I Third the Barge Idea.

[Klaustrophobia]

oh my GOD this is being blown out of proportion.  this is NOT a kill abortionists law.  this is a law providing legal justification for using deadly force against someone about to attack a pregnant woman. 

And why exactly is that needed?

Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.

i'm not arguing the point that this is a useful law.  i should have clarified that in my first post.  i would think that an attack on a fetus would be equally as threatening to the mother and therefore defending against such an attack would probably still be justifiable homicide (in the spirit of the law at least, god knows there's been some stupid judgements thrown at self-defense in reality).  i'm saying that the abortion related ****-slinging over this is retarded.

[PsychoLandlord]

You aren't reading into it enough. Everything that could possibly be considered Justifiable is covered by existing laws. The only reason this came into being, despite how well worded some may consider it, is so people with that particular agenda can give others a loophole to do exactly as the thread title dictates. There isn't any actual ****-slinging going on here. Look around. Anywhere this discussion is being had, both sides of the coin are calling this out as stupid and disgusting.

[karajorma]

Once this is on the books it becomes easier to bootstrap in other laws since they can now make the argument "Well the foetus is considered a human when it comes to self defence so why isn't it considered a human in cases of......."

So the law is pointless as you agree but let's address the fact that it's dangerous too. All some anti-abortionist needs is some tiny justification to claim that the abortion was illegal and they can justify murder. "He hadn't got the papers stamped so the abortion was illegal which means I can kill him"

It might be unlikely to sway most juries but get enough anti-abortionists on a jury and it might get through as a legal defence.

[Mars]

It does have to be a felony, but it's amazing what is technically considered felonious. The fact is, this is a base for something to be built upon, if it was passed.

[WeatherOp]

One side - Tea Party

Other side -  this thread.

All reason has gone out the window here......

[NGTM-1R]

All reason has gone out the window here......

I would like you to present where we are not behaving in a reasonable fashion.

[Goober5000]

Perhaps you should fix that typo.

derp.  I had my "is not lawful" and "is unlawful" wires crossed.  Fixed.

[PsychoLandlord]

All reason has gone out the window here......

I too, would like to see you point out any sort of unreasonable conversation in this thread so far. We're expressing our opinions on a controversial topic, and have yet to argue, flame, or spout uninformed rhetoric for either side of the issue. That qualifies as a successful and reasonable discussion in my book.

Granted, most of us appear to be in agreement that this particular piece of legislation is a problem waiting to happen, if thats your argument. 

[Black Wolf]

I have to hope you guys still have a strong enough supreme court to knock this **** down if it passes before anyone gets a chance to test it in court. Because there's enough wiggle room in that wording to cause problems, especially if the jury is a sympathetic one, and that sets a precedent, and bad things happen.

[Qent]

i would think that an attack on a fetus would be equally as threatening to the mother

Nope, I'm pretty sure one could perform an abortion against her will without causing her physical harm, though I'd hope that that warrants defense by lethal force without this law.

[Nuclear1]

I have to hope you guys still have a strong enough supreme court to knock this **** down if it passes before anyone gets a chance to test it in court. Because there's enough wiggle room in that wording to cause problems, especially if the jury is a sympathetic one, and that sets a precedent, and bad things happen.

Five of our nine SC justices lean to the right.  Even if they don't make any mention of abortion in their decision, this law is broad enough that the majority would likely uphold it. 

Alright, let me make something clear that people are missing here:  this law isn't make murder of abortion providers or people attacking pregnant women legal.  Murder is murder.  Justifiable homicide is a defense used at trial to either result in a reduced sentence for the defendant or an acquittal.  It's not really a common defense; it usually only really applies to members of the Armed Forces engaged in war, police officers killing someone in the line of duty, or those involved with capital punishment.

That said, this whole law is stupid because unless the murderer caught the doctor in the act or immediately before the procedure, a good DA can still make a case for premeditated murder or at the very least manslaughter. 

[MP-Ryan]

And why exactly is that needed?

Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.

Hold on a second.

While I don't agree with the amendment because of the way it's extending definitions through the backdoor, the current law would NOT permit "justifiable homicide" in cases where the pregnant mother is under an attack that is not deadly to her but is deadly to her fetus.  Deadly force is only authorized where there is intent to threaten the life of a person; under current law, fetuses are not defined as persons (this amendment is trying to circumvent that).  Thus, if someone starts assaulting a pregnant woman in a manner which is illegal but does not threaten her life, you would currently not be justified in killing the assailant to protect the fetus.

As I said before, however, there is no way the proposed amendment would survive a challenge on Constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court.

[MP-Ryan]

I need to find out how to write "The American Taliban." in Pashto.

I can't remember, and cannot bother, to check up where this happened in America, but there was a bill or whatever raised to force women to see an x-ray image of their unborn fetus before they could have an abortion, and it was of course the Republicans who backed it.

Indeed. Assuming you'd move to Canada or some European country, you'd move from a country that has free speech to one that thinks it has free speech. As odd as it sounds, that's one aspect where, even though they're chipping away at it, America is still #1, - Free speech issues.
There is way too much bull**** in america. I would move but I don't think other countries are much better.

I wish I could start my own country.

I'm confused, as I don't see the text that you've quoted in Top Gun's post so I don't know if it's yours or his.

Regardless, Canada has the same Freedom of Speech protections as the United States.  I don't know where whoever is getting their information, but it's flatly wrong.

[SpardaSon21]

I seem to recall something about Mark Steyn getting hauled before some civil rights commission because he offended some Muslims.

[MP-Ryan]

I seem to recall something about Mark Steyn getting hauled before some civil rights commission because he offended some Muslims.

Steyn was the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, an administrative tribunal that ultimately declined the case because it did not have jurisdiction.  The same complaint was also lodged with the federal Human Rights Commission and the BC equivalent.  All of the cases never proceeded.  This is because, although they are civil rather than criminal bodies, they are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court - which favour individual rights to free speech except in cases of hate speech, of which extreme is a required element.

I misspoke earlier.  Constitutionally, Canada's freedom of speech protections are in essence identical to those which exist in the US.  In law, one criminal restriction on freedom of speech does exist (hate speech) though the burden of proof is significant.  As in the US, civil liability for false/misleading/defamatory/libelous statements also exists.

[Bobboau]

And why exactly is that needed?

Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.

Hold on a second.

While I don't agree with the amendment because of the way it's extending definitions through the backdoor, the current law would NOT permit "justifiable homicide" in cases where the pregnant mother is under an attack that is not deadly to her but is deadly to her fetus.  Deadly force is only authorized where there is intent to threaten the life of a person; under current law, fetuses are not defined as persons (this amendment is trying to circumvent that).  Thus, if someone starts assaulting a pregnant woman in a manner which is illegal but does not threaten her life, you would currently not be justified in killing the assailant to protect the fetus.

As I said before, however, there is no way the proposed amendment would survive a challenge on Constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court.

I have a hard time envisioning an attack that could be lethal to a fetus, that would also not be obviously non-life threatening to the mother. That is an attack that I could not easily justify a belief that the mother's life was in danger.

[Scotty]

FALCON PUNCH!

But srsly, it'd be pretty obvious.