North Carolina bill authorizes deadly force against abortion doctors and patients.

[TLK Valentine]

This bill is "unlikely to see a vote" -- but better luck next time, eh?

A 2021 North Carolina bill would authorize deadly force to stop an abortion — but is not likely to see a vote

A bill introduced last year in North Carolina is receiving fresh attention after critics noted that it would both define abortion as first-degree murder as well as authorize the use of deadly force to stop someone from terminating a pregnancy.

The legislation, filed by Republican state Rep. Larry Pittman in February 2021, is extremely unlikely to become law.

"A lot of my bills have not even been given a hearing," Pittman, a conservative gadfly who is retiring from politics, conceded at a sparsely attended rally for the legislation last fall.

That is true of HB 158. Republicans, who control the state legislature, have promised to take up further abortion restrictions in 2023, hoping by then to have a supermajority capable of overriding a veto from Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper.

It's inevitable -- Texas started by offering bounties on those involved in abortion; someone was going to one-up them by adding "...dead or alive."

Thoughts?

 

[Paulos23]

Just goes to show how far some in the pro-life crowd want to go. And how much fear they want to generate.

 

[Norbert L]

Has anyone read this new law and is there a link to it? It would be the smart thing to do and formulate a response based on what it says rather than what any media outlet's hearsay.

 

[SilverBear]

its all about the sanctity of human life

 

[ByTheSpirit]

This proposal is only applying current definitions of life and the law, that people have a right to defend themselves, to the fetus. But why all the hubbub over something that will never see the light of day? Reaching for straws much?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Just goes to show how far some in the pro-life crowd want to go. And how much fear they want to generate.

Not nearly as far as the pro-choice crowd has already went. Ripping apart fully developed children and such. That's truly despicable.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Has anyone read this new law and is there a link to it? It would be the smart thing to do and formulate a response based on what it says rather than what any media outlet's hearsay.

The link to the bill was included in the link to the article...

HB158 | North Carolina 2021-2022 | Const. Amend./Life at Fertilization. | TrackBill

It is a matter of indisputable scientific fact that a distinct and separate human life begins at the moment of fertilization. As such, that new human life is recognized by the State as an individual person, entitled to the protection of the laws of this State from the moment of fertilization until the moment of natural death. Any person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person, by any means, at any stage of life, or succeeds in doing so, shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder, respectively. Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. The State has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not nearly as far as the pro-choice crowd has already went. Ripping apart fully developed children and such. That's truly despicable.

Would you kill an abortionist in order to prevent that from happening?

 

[TLK Valentine]

This proposal is only applying current definitions of life and the law, that people have a right to defend themselves, to the fetus. But why all the hubbub over something that will never see the light of day? Reaching for straws much?

Are you grateful or disappointed that this bill (probably) will never become law?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Would you kill an abortionist in order to prevent that from happening?

No I wouldn't. I wouldn't encourage it either, only explaining from what I perceive to be the purpose of this proposal. But again, as you yourself acknowledge, this will likely not see a vote and even if it did, I'm confident this guy would be one of the very few to support it.

Politicians of all shapes, sizes, and party's support all kinds of lunacy for any number of reasons, this is just one of the same.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Are you grateful or disappointed that this bill (probably) will never become law?

see my previous response.

 

[Norbert L]

The link to the bill was included in the link to the article...

HB158 | North Carolina 2021-2022 | Const. Amend./Life at Fertilization. | TrackBill

It is a matter of indisputable scientific fact that a distinct and separate human life begins at the moment of fertilization. As such, that new human life is recognized by the State as an individual person, entitled to the protection of the laws of this State from the moment of fertilization until the moment of natural death. Any person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person, by any means, at any stage of life, or succeeds in doing so, shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder, respectively. Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. The State has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death."

Odd. It wasn't working the first several attempts. Thanks

[Edit] How will a court of law judge "from willful destruction by another person." Like in.. they were thinking about an abortion? Or should it be "from a willful act of murder by another person" seems more to the point?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No I wouldn't. I wouldn't encourage it either, only explaining from what I perceive to be the purpose of this proposal. But again, as you yourself acknowledge, this will likely not see a vote and even if it did, I'm confident this guy would be one of the very few to support it.

Politicians of all shapes, sizes, and party's support all kinds of lunacy for any number of reasons, this is just one of the same.

Are you saying that what this bill is proposing is "lunacy"?

 

[Paulos23]

Not nearly as far as the pro-choice crowd has already went. Ripping apart fully developed children and such. That's truly despicable.

So legalized violence is then justified?

I have posted in the past what I think needs to be done to lower the abortion rate. Better sex ed, free contraceptives, free day care and paid maternity leave for the parents. Those would lower the abortion rate far better than making it illegal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

see my previous response.

I did. And then I saw the responses before it, and you seem to be sending a mixed message.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I did. And then I saw the responses before it, and you seem to be sending a mixed message.

Where's the mixed message? Perhaps my delivery was off, as stated, I was only trying to explain what it seemed to be accomplishing. Now I don't know this guy, never will, so perhaps he is just another crazy politician, but it seems he was only trying to apply the law to embryo's and fetus'. I clarified with my follow on response stating:

No I wouldn't. I wouldn't encourage it either, only explaining from what I perceive to be the purpose of this proposal. But again, as you yourself acknowledge, this will likely not see a vote and even if it did, I'm confident this guy would be one of the very few to support it.

Politicians of all shapes, sizes, and party's support all kinds of lunacy for any number of reasons, this is just one of the same.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Are you saying that what this bill is proposing is "lunacy"?

Yes, this is lunacy. Just because it's a Republican proposing it doesn't make it any less crazy than some of the nonsense Democrats have done. Both parties are equally capable of political lunacy and shenanigans.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

So legalized violence is then justified?

I have posted in the past what I think needs to be done to lower the abortion rate. Better sex ed, free contraceptives, free day care and paid maternity leave for the parents. Those would lower the abortion rate far better than making it illegal.

You'd have to read my other responses here, but no, violence is not justified, not even in this case. Seems rather odd this pro-lifer would want to defend life by taking life. And yes, I think the answer to lower abortions is having better sex education (including teaching about abstinence), and such

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, this is lunacy. Just because it's a Republican proposing it doesn't make it any less crazy than some of the nonsense Democrats have done. Both parties are equally capable of political lunacy and shenanigans.

"Abortion is murder." Either that's a meaningless soundbyte, or a belief which carries certain inevitable moral and legal ramifications.

Now, personally, I think 99% of the people who say it don't mean anything by it except as a soundbyte that's better suited to a bumper sticker than actual law... but that still leaves 1% who sincerely do believe it, want to act accordingly, and wish for the laws of the land to reflect that.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call such people "lunatics" -- what say you?

 

[Hammster]

This bill is "unlikely to see a vote" -- but better luck next time, eh?

A 2021 North Carolina bill would authorize deadly force to stop an abortion — but is not likely to see a vote



It's inevitable -- Texas started by offering bounties on those involved in abortion; someone was going to one-up them by adding "...dead or alive."

Thoughts?

Why is that a problem? If there’s a school shooter, don’t we want someone to use deadly force to stop them?