Bill Would Let Moms-To-Be Kill To Save Baby

[OnePimpTiger]

Bill Lets Moms-To-Be Kill To Save Baby

A bill in the Oklahoma Legislature would allow pregnant women to use deadly force in order to save the lives of their babies.

The bill stems from a Michigan case where a woman who was carrying quadruplets stabbed and killed her boyfriend after he hit her in the stomach. The woman lost the babies and was convicted of manslaughter.

Oklahoma lawmakers said they want to make sure that a woman can legally protect her unborn child.

I thought this was very interesting...

[duwal]

yeah, I honestly don't know how I'd feel about this one. For me it would almost have to be on a case by case scenario to determine if deadly force was really warranted

[RedGoneWILD]

How is this any different than using deadly force to protect the life of yourself? Are they saying if the mother wasn't pregnant, that she would not be able to use deadly force? They say in the article, "if needed" a pregnant woman would be allowed to use deadly force....but if it's "needed" to protect my life, better believe i'm using deadly force also

The article a week or two ago about the BK incident...how come that guy could use deadly force? He wasn't pregnant...

Judge: "How does the defendent plead?"
Defendent: "Not guilty by reason of pregnancy"

[OnePimpTiger]

yeah, I honestly don't know how I'd feel about this one. For me it would almost have to be on a case by case scenario to determine if deadly force was really warranted

I agree, which kind of bothers me. I don't like laws like this being such a judgment call. I know most cases have some level of judgment or else they wouldn't be tried in court and of course there will be some that aren't a very hard decision at all, but I think there will be a large percentage that are very tough to call.

How is this any different than using deadly force to protect the life of yourself? Are they saying if the mother wasn't pregnant, that she would not be able to use deadly force? They say in the article, "if needed" a pregnant woman would be allowed to use deadly force....but if it's "needed" to protect my life, better believe i'm using deadly force also

The article a week or two ago about the BK incident...how come that guy could use deadly force? He wasn't pregnant...

Judge: "How does the defendent plead?"
Defendent: "Not guilty by reason of pregnancy"

I think it's a matter of how do you judge if your baby's life is in danger. I know some times it's obvious, but other times perhaps not. I keep thinking how does the mom know that a specific action will actually lead to the death of their baby and process that information quickly resulting in an attempt to kill someone else...And not to sound sexist or anything, but isn't it common knowledge that pregnant women aren't always the most rational people?

A question that came to my mind: What about protecting the life of a baby when you see a mother drinking alcohol, doing drugs, smoking cigarrettes, etc. Is there some kind of law that someone is allowed to step in in that situation, because it can be just as harmful and I would wager happens a lot more.

[GrimUSMC]

I dont see how the woman would be prosecuted. If someone hit my pregnant wife in the stomach, he woudl catch a 0,45 caliber bullet to his grape. It is pretty obvious you dont hit a pregnant woman in the stomach, so the guy who got stabbed had it coming and deserved it.

[gatorboymike]

I don't agree with this by reason of it being too easy to abuse. As they said on South Park, "It's comin' right for us!"

[tutall]

I don't agree with this by reason of it being too easy to abuse. As they said on South Park, "It's comin' right for us!"

do you support being able to use deadly force if someone enters your house and puts your life in danger?

[OnePimpTiger]

I don't agree with this by reason of it being too easy to abuse. As they said on South Park, "It's comin' right for us!"

I understand the reasoning behind the law and agree with it, but that's the concern I have as well. And it's kind of hard for me to put my finger on why, but I think it comes down to the fact that it's much different to know what is putting an unborn baby's life in danger than it is in regular situations. If someone breaks into your house and has a gun, that's pretty obvious. But what will put an unborn baby's life in danger is completely different and not always understood by the common person.

[angel0430]

They have to evaluate this on a case by case basis because some peeople would use this as an excuse.

[doniceage]

How is this any different than using deadly force to protect the life of yourself? Are they saying if the mother wasn't pregnant, that she would not be able to use deadly force? They say in the article, "if needed" a pregnant woman would be allowed to use deadly force....but if it's "needed" to protect my life, better believe i'm using deadly force also

The article a week or two ago about the BK incident...how come that guy could use deadly force? He wasn't pregnant...

Judge: "How does the defendent plead?"
Defendent: "Not guilty by reason of pregnancy"

I agree the women should be allowed to protect herself with deadly force. As the man intent was to harm she should be able to bring about any means of force to get it to stop.

DON'