What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
225 Comments
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -12/+164Call me crazy, but I think anyone should have the right to protect themselves with deadly force, pregnant or not, male or female. Not that I have anything against women protecting themselves or their babies, but I'm pretty sure this is just another ploy for pro-life groups, trying to further their agenda against abortion.This bill, to my eye, doesn't do anything of real practical use. An expectant mother when protecting her unborn child is by default protecting herself and as such already has rights long enshrined in law to use force in defence. Any justifiable use of lethal force is already allowed under the law and where it's not, it should be revised not just for expectant mothers but everybody. Pregnant women aren't entitled to any more or less rights than the rest of us on that score. Are there laws that specifically state you're allowed to kill someone to protect your (insert random age) kid?
- mentallyinhell, on 04/04/2009, -8/+87I guess that ends my days of going to Oklahoma to push fatties down stairs.
- ManUnitdFan, on 04/03/2009, -14/+78This sounds like the kind of legislation that will have almost no affect on anyone, yet give the politicians who introduced it and sponsored it the chance to do "I stood up for victims of domestic abuse" campaign ads.
That and it inches us closer to giving full rights to embryos and fetuses - something that makes me pretty uneasy. - smashblu, on 04/03/2009, -11/+44You're not crazy, why should a pregnant women have more of a right to defend herself than anyone else? This is stupid.
- JDLamb88, on 04/04/2009, -9/+42This infringes on my inalienable right to kill pregnant women's babies.
- thejohnfloyd, on 04/04/2009, -5/+37Why wouldnt she be able to? I mean, if she is in the kitchen, knives should be at arms reach.
- Y0tsuya, on 04/04/2009, -0/+30Hell, I'd shoot you myself.
- Necoras, on 04/04/2009, -4/+34The problem is that the woman wasn't in lethal danger herself, only the unborn children. If she had felt her own life in danger, because the man was armed with say a knife, lethal force in self defense would have been permissible. As it was the man was unarmed and showed no intent of killing her.
She used an un-proportional response to the threat offered to her. If I slap you and you shoot me for it, that's manslaughter. Same if I punch you in the stomach. If I run at you with a knife, you have every right to shoot me and it will be self defense.
This bill defines the fetus inside a woman as a human and that she now has the right to defend that human with lethal force when the force directed against her is strong enough to kill the fetus but not her. - inactive, on 04/04/2009, -4/+26How to murder your husband or boyfriend and get away with it.
1) Get pregnant (anyone will do)
2) Tell him he's not the father at the first trimester, make sure hes good and drunk at the time.
3) When he gets violent, kill him with a handgun, but make sure you get bruised up a bit.
4) After the police report is filed and all charges dropped. Abort the child.
With no prior evidence of domestic violence, this would apparently be legal. - DrCyclops, on 04/04/2009, -5/+24Where I live there are gangs of marauding abortion doctors who just wait outside of town. Whenever a pregnant women lets her guard down they swoop in and perform a third-trimester abortion.
Hopefully this law will put a stop to that, though I'd prefer if the legislature focused on renovating the state Thunderdome. - TexMexRex, on 04/04/2009, -9/+28You are all missing the point. This is the beginning of an attack on abortion rights. It is an attempt to define the fetus as a human life. A woman has a right to defend the "life" of her unborn child with deadly force will soon become: We/I have the right to defend the unborn child from the mother seeking an abortion using you guesses it, deadly force.
Why would a bill in Oklahoma "stem" from Michigan case. In most states you can only use deadly force in the defense of human life. - absentmindedjwc, on 04/04/2009, -7/+25yes, but I dont like the precedence this is setting, it is defining a unborn child as a person, which can ***** up a womans right to abortion
- 87Knox, on 04/04/2009, -2/+20Josh Basely, YWCA:
"Domestic violence is the second-leading cause of death among women nationwide."
CDC list of causes of death, all women, all ages:
#1: Heart Disease (27.2%) #2: Cancer (22.0)
Domestic violence isn't even in the top ten. - inactive, on 04/03/2009, -5/+22Both of you make a great deal of sense. Surely a woman (pregnant or not) can defend herself with force if necessary anyway?
- emmettgolf, on 04/04/2009, -2/+19Most state self defense laws also allow you to use deadly force to defend others, related or not.
- inactive, on 04/04/2009, -2/+19Someone's going to get shot in the face for smoking near a pregnant woman.
- ryan83189, on 04/04/2009, -0/+16Deadly force was probably a gray area, and this clears it up. The thought process for it being (I guess) that it could be misconstrued as "excessive force" to kill someone trying to punch you in the gut, by some of the most idiotic judges who work on the principles of zero tolerance and other such nonsense.
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -6/+22Of course an expectant mother should be able to defend herself and by proxy she defends her child. This law seems silly. All of us should have the right to use deadly force in defense of our lives.
- xenuxenuts, on 04/04/2009, -1/+15Nec, she had every right to kill that guy. Part of being pro-choice is having the choice to keep the chid.
- Necoras, on 04/04/2009, -1/+14Natural miscarriage is the same as you dying from heart disease or cancer. Natural death is not a crime, only that caused by another human.
- inactive, on 04/04/2009, -3/+15You mean there are places where I can't use deadly force to protect myself? WTF.
- lisaawesome, on 04/04/2009, -3/+14We also just made it a requirement that a woman get an ultrasound an hour prior to a scheduled abortion and have the baby described to her during the ultrasound. I have no doubt this bill will also pass. After 17 years here, I have just given up. This state is dead set on dragging its citizens into the dark ages and no amount of logic and reason can be used with roughly 98% of the population here. I'm moving next year and once I'm gone to hell with this state. Let it go under. If that's what these idiots want then so be it. They can all rot in their religion induced hell. Maybe another dust bowl will develop and it will just magically sweep it all away. Oh fantasies.
- danj484, on 04/04/2009, -0/+10It's already considered a crime to kill a fetus in a non-abortion setting. Scott Peterson got double homocide for killing his pregnant wife. I also remember a woman a few years ago who refused a c-section, her baby died, and she was facing manslaughter charges. The problem is that to make abortion legal, the law has to state that a fetus is not a person, but the laws resulting from this decision are inconsistent.
- mycoplasma, on 04/04/2009, -4/+14So you'd rather let a woman go to jail for defending her unborn children solely because it furthers your political views?
You're so much better than them /s. - mc88, on 04/04/2009, -2/+12Exactly. Self defense is a human rights issue, not just a pregnant human rights issue. I do agree, however, that more women should take a proactive stance when it comes to personal defense.
- offrdbandit, on 04/04/2009, -2/+11A miscarriage is no more manslaughter than dying from sleep apnea. The comparison is ridiculous and you know it.
- mark5hs, on 04/04/2009, -1/+10...why do they need a separate law for this? You would think this falls under basic self defense.
- Fafnir43, on 04/04/2009, -1/+9Necoras: there are two reasons I disagree with that argument. The first is that generally placing a pregnant woman's unborn baby in danger /is/ placing her in danger - miscarriages are serious, medically speaking. The second is that as I understand it, losing a wanted child is one of the most horrific mental traumas it's possible for a woman to go through - I think preventing it's certainly a better reason for being able to shoot someone than the Castle Doctrine. Neither of those arguments requires defining an unborn child as a person (which as far as I'm concerned is isn't, at least until some point in the third trimester).
Of course, all that goes out the window if the bill explicitly defines the foetus as a person, which considering the source wouldn't be a massive surprise. (Or worse, if the bill could somehow be turned on abortion doctors...) - matt247, on 04/04/2009, -3/+11Kill Bill
- unitedkronos, on 04/04/2009, -1/+9Nothing, that's why it happened.
- Midtowner, on 04/04/2009, -3/+11Oklahoman here.
We recently, for the first time in state history elected both a Republican House and Senate.
These people are effing crazy and they're ramming through all of their culture warrior bullcrap. Stay tuned, they have only just begun. - mrseptic, on 04/04/2009, -4/+12So if I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, she can shoot me?
- offrdbandit, on 04/04/2009, -0/+8How exactly is that ironic?
- Bobski, on 04/04/2009, -1/+9Read the article dumbass
- lisaawesome, on 04/04/2009, -4/+12It's DEFINITELY going to be used by pro-lifers to advance their agenda.
- absentmindedjwc, on 04/04/2009, -0/+8[Australian accent] "amazing! Like a hawk, the nocturnal obstetrician swoops in and destroys its prey with a flick of its wrist. Lets see that once more in slow motion."
- TexMexRex, on 04/04/2009, -1/+8No I did not say that. Everybody is asking what is the point of this bill. I am explaining what the point is. I did not express an opinion on abortion either way.
Read these two lines from the article: "Measure Would Authorize Deadly Force If Unborn Child's Life At Risk" and "The new bill includes an unborn child as "another" person." - Matri, on 04/04/2009, -2/+9"Pro-lifers" wanting a law that will allow them to kill people. Oh, the irony.
- Y0tsuya, on 04/04/2009, -1/+8Well if it really is based on the woman's choice, she can decide whether the fetus is human or not. If she decides it's not human she's free to abort it. If she decides it's indeed human she'll do everything humanly possible to bring it to term, including killing another person to defend her unborn child.
- RudeTurnip, on 04/04/2009, -0/+7*cough*UK*cough*
- sampsonresume, on 04/04/2009, -1/+7>> Giving full rights to embryos and fetuses indicate
>> that they are considered a person...
By every scientific measure, they ARE people. Do you suggest we take some pseudo-scientific approach and suggest that an unborn human is no human at all? Do you suggest double-murder for people who kill a woman, and her unborn child?
>> ...letting a woman choose to continue or abort a
>> pregnancy goes right out the ***** window.
As it should. Why should a woman have the authority to end an another person's life? If you think she should, why should that authority change once the baby is born?
>> Along those lines, that would also ***** up any chance
>> we have of using stem cell research to help treat/cure
>> diseases.
Not exactly. Pluripotent cells can be harvested from your own fat, bones, and brain-cells. Stem cell research has made great advancements over the years from Adult Stem Cells. Google it. - allocate, on 04/04/2009, -5/+11As emmettgolf pointed out, this is consistent with the self defense of others defense found within a large number of states. I'm sure that it's a political move so that someone say say, "look at me, i save teh babbies!"
- transitive, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6dugg for Thunderdome
TWO MEN ENTER ONE MAN LEAVES!
question: if a pregnant woman enters, but she's alone in the Thunderdome, does she have to abort her own baby in order to be allowed to leave the Thunderdome? - mycoplasma, on 04/04/2009, -3/+9The reply button: Learn it. Use it. Love it.
- gixxer600, on 04/04/2009, -5/+11WTF were Michigan prosecutors thinking when the convicted that woman for defending herself from her loser boyfriend.
- Slackdragon, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5Ironically, nugx has an impaired sense of irony.
- absentmindedjwc, on 04/04/2009, -6/+11how the hell does this have 4 diggs? If the right wing hated terrorists, they would have gone after them during their "war on terror" instead of invading a country that had nothing to do with anyone (and is just about the only country in the region without nuclear weapons, making the weapons of mass destruction argument seem even more retarded)
- soulonfire928, on 04/04/2009, -3/+8Giving full rights to embryos and fetuses indicate that they are considered a person, and as a result, letting a woman choose to continue or abort a pregnancy goes right out the ***** window. The decision will be made for her, and that's the problem.
Along those lines, that would also ***** up any chance we have of using stem cell research to help treat/cure diseases. - BoxAdorable, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5I'm pretty sure getting pushed down the stairs and being attacked with a bat both pose a harm to people in general. And being given booze, unless in huge quantities over a long period of time, don't pose a serious threat to the fetus.
- Akairenn, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5There are state based laws, and some of those laws are absolutely absurd.
I'm as anti-overreaching-Federal government as they come, but we really need Castle doctrine and self-defense legislation at the national level.
(I mean, if it's the sort that allows you to defend yourself, that is. :p) -
Show 51 - 100 of 233 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is