Re: A law protecting your unborn baby
pnyikos
> Committee Approves Protections for Pregnant Women
>
> By Melanie Johnson
> March 23, 2009
>
> Oklahoma City – Legislation increasing legal protections for pregnant
> women and their unborn children received committee approval today.
>
> Senate Bill 1103, by state Sen. Glenn Coffee and state Rep. Mike
> Thompson, would create the “Use of Force for the Protection of the
> Unborn Act.”
>
> “Too often, pregnant women who refuse to abort a child are attacked by
> their partner in an effort to force a miscarriage,” said Thompson, R-
> Oklahoma City. “This legislation will make it crystal clear that those
> women can use lethal force to protect the life of their child in those
> cases.”
Thank you for posting this, Annie. I've added talkabortion and
alt.abortion.inequity, a little-used newsgroup whose original intent
was to discuss the inequity of men being forced to provide money for
the support of their unwanted-by-them children while not having to pay
for the abortions of their partners. If any of the people monitoring
that newsgroup still are interested in that, this post is indirectly
relevant since it partly "targets" males with that mindset.
> Under the bill, a pregnant woman is legally justified in using deadly
> force if she “reasonably believes” an attacker is “threatening her
> unborn child” and “use of force or deadly force are immediately
> necessary to protect her unborn child.”
>
> According to the American Pregnancy Association, 240,000 pregnant
> women are subject to domestic violence each year and pregnant women
> face twice the risk of battery.
>
> Senate Bill 1103 passed the House Judiciary Committee today. It now
> proceeds to the floor of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The
> bill previously passed the state Senate 44-0.
>
> Source:http://blog.aul.org/2009/03/23/committee-approves-protections-for-pre...
Laws like this are long overdue. One of my very first posts had to do
with forced and coerced abortion, and about their resemblance to rape,
against which the use of deadly force has long been accepted.
Well...almost. Here is a case of deadly force in California against
rape, which, if the facts in the case are as listed in the following
websites, there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice:
http://www.cashill.com/california/gov_schwarzenegger.htm
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/gov_schwarzenegger.htm
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>> Under the bill, a pregnant woman is legally justified in using deadly
>> force if she �reasonably believes� an attacker is �threatening her
>> unborn child� and �use of force or deadly force are immediately
>> necessary to protect her unborn child.�
[...]
>> Source:http://blog.aul.org/2009/03/23/committee-approves-protections-for-pre...
>
>Laws like this are long overdue.
Rightards never saw a problem they didn't think should be solved by
killing people.
> One of my very first posts had to do
>with forced and coerced abortion,
Since you advocate for forced and coerced childbirth you really are
quite the hypocrite for whining about forced abortion.
> and about their resemblance to rape,
Like, say, being forced to provide the use of your body for the
benefit of another? Isn't that exactly what you advocate?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
elizabeth
> On Jul 20, 5:04 pm, Annie <anniewil...@fmgirl.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Committee Approves Protections for Pregnant Women
>
> > By Melanie Johnson
> > March 23, 2009
>
> > Oklahoma City – Legislation increasing legal protections for pregnant
> > women and their unborn children received committee approval today.
>
> > Senate Bill 1103, by state Sen. Glenn Coffee and state Rep. Mike
> > Thompson, would create the “Use of Force for the Protection of the
> > Unborn Act.”
>
> > “Too often, pregnant women who refuse to abort a child are attacked by
> > their partner in an effort to force a miscarriage,” said Thompson, R-
> > Oklahoma City. “This legislation will make it crystal clear that those
> > women can use lethal force to protect the life of their child in those
> > cases.”
>
> Thank you for posting this, Annie. I've added talkabortion and
> alt.abortion.inequity, a little-used newsgroup whose original intent
> was to discuss the inequity of men being forced to provide money for
> the support of their unwanted-by-them children while not having to pay
> for the abortions of their partners. If any of the people monitoring
> that newsgroup still are interested in that, this post is indirectly
> relevant since it partly "targets" males with that mindset.
Oh, great, now those fucktards C4M dudes will all be trolling in
here. Great work, fauxNy.
> > Under the bill, a pregnant woman is legally justified in using deadly
> > force if she “reasonably believes” an attacker is “threatening her
> > unborn child” and “use of force or deadly force are immediately
> > necessary to protect her unborn child.”
Uh, it's always been totally legal to use deadly force to protect
one's own body, male or female, pregnant or not pregnant. And since
anything that would harm her fetus would also harm the woman, this law
is completely unnecessary.
> > According to the American Pregnancy Association, 240,000 pregnant
> > women are subject to domestic violence each year and pregnant women
> > face twice the risk of battery.
Old news, this was brought up during the Scott Peterson case. It is
hardly new, see _An American Tragedy_ by T. Dreiser, based on a case
he covered as a journalist.
> > Senate Bill 1103 passed the House Judiciary Committee today. It now
> > proceeds to the floor of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The
> > bill previously passed the state Senate 44-0.
>
> > Source:http://blog.aul.org/2009/03/23/committee-approves-protections-for-pre...
What a great source . ..NOT!
> Laws like this are long overdue. One of my very first posts had to do
> with forced and coerced abortion, and about their resemblance to rape,
> against which the use of deadly force has long been accepted.
Forced gestation is worse than rape. So, you now say that any woman
who is pregnant is fine killing anyone and then she can claim that the
person "threatened" not her, but her fetus? Wonderful!
So, you'd also agree that a woman can use deadly force if someone
wants to force her to gestate, too?
> Well...almost. Here is a case of deadly force in California against
> rape,
It's always been legal for women to use deadly force to prevent rape.
Far too few women do so. If they did, the frequency of rape would
decline considerably.
> which, if the facts in the case are as listed in the following
> websites, there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice:http://www.cashill.com/california/gov_schwarzenegger.htmhttp://www.cashill.com/natl_general/gov_schwarzenegger.htm
That has exactly what to do with the subject at hand?
Let's see .... this is about a man who CLAIMS he was raped and used
deadly force, against another man. Has nothing to do with the subject
at hand. Nothing. Terence Hallinan was DA back then, he was a drunk
and incompetent, never saw a plea deal he didn't like, hadn't taken a
case to court in decades. Must have been a slam-dunk case for him to
take it to trial. He dropped or delayed most murder cases, esp the
gang killings.
I used to say about him, as a DA he's a great public defender. In
fact, he took his fists to me at a public forum when I asked him about
his overt lies to the Board of Supervisors hearing I'd attended. The
only reason I didn't pop him was that there were too many witnesses
(some of them told me that they hated Hallinan for dropping murder
charges on a horrible case where a truck driver deliberately ran over
a bicyclist who was a friend of theirs and refused to talk to them
about the case, they wanted to do more than smack him upside the
head) and both the guys he was with had guns. One of his pals, named
Addario, had to quit the DA's office, where he was an investigator,
because he'd sexually assaulted a woman at a forum for prosecutors in
LA, and if there had been a hearing into the matter, he'd have lost
his City pension.
The jury didn't buy his story. He should have taken the plea bargain
that Hallinan must have offered.
BTW, the Palladium had a most unsavory reputation, for drugs and
prostitution and was not gay or straight, it was totally mixed! it's
been closed for a long time, FYI. One thing that made his story seem
a bit ... convenient was his claim that he had no idea how he got from
the Palladium, which is in North Beach, to the Castro, which is about
4 miles away. Now, a big, strong, 18 year old sailor would be noticed
if some wicked gay man carried him, lifeless, out of the club . .. and
since North Beach has lots and lots of cops around as well as private
security .. . kinda odd no one noticed a thing. Also odd that his
"buddy" bailed on him. Now, there have been many a case of older gay
men being mugged and worse by hot young men trolling to gay bash.
IOW, it was far more likely that this was just another case like
Matthew Shepherd. There was no rape, and if he ingested drugs, he did
so freely. EVen in very tolerant SF, the Palladium had a very bad
reputation. It was an after hours club and virtually all the pimps
and drug dealers hung out there, as well as some serious party
animals.
The drug charges would have gotten him court-martialed and
discharged. Even if the USN didn't care about any sexual
orientation . ..
I can't remember the specifics of the case, but I'm sure if you want
the details you can find them. Just don't use such a biased source.
Try the actual court records.
Or are you now saying that women being sexually assaulted MUST use
deadly force? I'm fine with that. Might have a hard time enforcing
it, though. So now you're reduced to using blogs and websites for
your research?
> Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 20, 5:04 pm, Annie <anniewil...@fmgirl.com> wrote:
> >> Under the bill, a pregnant woman is legally justified in using deadly
> >> force if she “reasonably believes” an attacker is “threatening her
> >> unborn child” and “use of force or deadly force are immediately
> >> necessary to protect her unborn child.”
> [...]
> >> Source:http://blog.aul.org/2009/03/23/committee-approves-protections-for-pre...
>
> >Laws like this are long overdue.
>
> Rightards never saw a problem they didn't think should be solved by
> killing people.
Since there are no rightards posting here (by your definition) except
maybe Adam Wanderer (although I think he is trolling when he talks
like that), I don't see your point.
I've flushed some crap of yours which I've responded to on another
thread today, along with a provocative suggestion for why you are so
coy about whether YOU are for or against some, all, or no forced or
coerced abortions.
Peter Nyikos
elizabeth
Now all you have to do is prove that there are any forced abortions.
Some women may like to say they were "forced" or "coerced" but that
doesn't mean they were. All any woman has to do is say NO at any
point. No one drags those women to any clinics.
Some folks like to blame others for their own actions. It indicates
poor coping skills to blame others for one's own actions.
Why are you so coy about being for or against forced gestation?
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 21, 1:26�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 20, 5:04�pm, Annie <anniewil...@fmgirl.com> wrote:
>> >> Under the bill, a pregnant woman is legally justified in using deadly
>> >> force if she �reasonably believes� an attacker is �threatening her
>> >> unborn child� and �use of force or deadly force are immediately
>> >> necessary to protect her unborn child.�
>> [...]
>> >> Source:http://blog.aul.org/2009/03/23/committee-approves-protections-for-pre...
>>
>> >Laws like this are long overdue.
>>
>> Rightards never saw a problem they didn't think should be solved by
>> killing people.
>
>Since there are no rightards posting here
There are plenty, idiot.
>(by your definition)
What definition is that?
>I've flushed some crap of yours which I've responded to
"Responded" only in the purely technical sense in that you posted some
followup. Your ability to actually respond to what I write is very,
very limited.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> Annie <anniewil...@fmgirl.com> wrote:
> > Senate Bill 1103 passed the House Judiciary Committee today. It now
> > proceeds to the floor of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The
> > bill previously passed the state Senate 44-0.
> >
> > Source:http://blog.aul.org/2009/03/23/committee-approves-protections-for-pre...
> Laws like this are long overdue.
The law already allows the use of lethal force to defend oneself
against assault, rape and kidnapping. Btw, the Oklahoma State
Legislature is infested with religionist lunatics.
william mosco
Hmmm... Wasn't the motivation for the bill because existing laws did
not fully protect pregnant women from prosecution when using deadly
force so to prevent a forced miscarriage?
I seem to recall a case in Michigan about 10 years ago where a woman
was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing the future father after
he struck her several times in the stomach...
The Chief Instigator
It's just a coincidence that you're too clueless to figure out who stands for
what, as the real Nyikos would have.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
John Doe
> Thank you for posting this, Annie. I've added talkabortion and
> alt.abortion.inequity, a little-used newsgroup whose original
> intent was to discuss the inequity of men being forced to
> provide money for the support of their unwanted-by-them children
> while not having to pay for the abortions of their partners.
Yes, that is a good one.
One of my favorite logical problems with abortion is the parallel
between a woman having the right to privacy (to the extent of
killing the life inside of her) and comparing that to the right of
a man to control what goes on in his own home. Some left-wing
liberal lunatics argue that a woman should have equal rights in a
common man's home (hypocritically not true among the rich and
powerful), but that violates all the laws of decisionmaking known
to humanity. In other words... What better way to weaken/dissolve
the common people, by making each of the two marriage participants
"equal".
John Doe
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> They are equal except to Neanderthal holdovers.
Says a regular troll who is apparently so blind he does not
understand the universally accepted concept of decisionmaking via
an odd number of participants/votes.
--
>
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
>
> Support H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
>
> Any organizations with any of the following words or phrases in their name should
> be avoided at all costs:
>
> Catholic Anything
> Decency
> Family - Other than Family Planing
> Faith Based
> Justice Institute
> Life
> Moral
> Parents Television Council
> United for Life
> Values
>
> Michael Vick should be stripped naked and put in a pit
> with at least a dozen of his dogs.
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post02.iad!not-for-mail
> From: Attila <<prochoice here.now>
> Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
> Subject: Re: A law protecting your unborn baby
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:09:01 -0400
> Organization: UseNetServer - www.usenetserver.com
> X-Complaints-To: abuse usenetserver.com
> Message-ID: <hpag95pl54ps83hc7eng377dhvfdv87q6f 4ax.com>
> References: <1db39b4e-0b94-4ff5-bdf4-d0e515f28db3 p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <91c35e06-0bb5-4c5c-bf3d-41c1df0267d8 c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <0008a6e2$0$4263$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 52
>