Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-29-2011, 01:40 PM
Antitrust32 Antitrust32 is offline
Jerome Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ft Lauderdale
Posts: 9,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Plenty of sane, rational lawyers - political persuasion immaterial - say it opens a wide hole to do exactly that.

Clearly a husband could murder the doctor performing an abortion on his wife.
not according to this law or the law of the land. I think its quite easy to see, even if the wording might be a small bit confusing. They are clearly protecting a pregnant woman or her relative from prosecution if they kill someone who is attacking her womb illegally.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Can I start just making stuff up out of thin air, too?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-29-2011, 01:51 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 View Post
not according to this law or the law of the land. I think its quite easy to see, even if the wording might be a small bit confusing. They are clearly protecting a pregnant woman or her relative from prosecution if they kill someone who is attacking her womb illegally.
?? The wording isn't confusing at all - it says right there, the husband can kill someone trying to harm his wifes baby.

It doesn't limit in any way who that person could be.

The point is indeed that the intended consequences of a law are not presumed to be the only possible consequences, dependent upon the wording.

In other words, you write a law to do one thing, but there is very frequently unintended (or indeed intended) consequences that are permitted by the wording.

Again - why is this change being added to the current law? Hum?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-29-2011, 01:56 PM
Antitrust32 Antitrust32 is offline
Jerome Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ft Lauderdale
Posts: 9,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
?? The wording isn't confusing at all - it says right there, the husband can kill someone trying to harm his wifes baby.

Again - why is this change being added to the current law? Hum?
yes on the first statement but they can not legally, according to this law, murder laws, roe vs wade, etc, murder an abortion doctor and recieve no punishment! The husband can kill an armed robber who shoots his wife in the stomach therefor killing his unborn baby.

and i believe it is added to the current law to protect a woman from prosecution if someone beats or harms her womb in an illegal manner. currently the law does not protect someone who kills because they fear for the life of their unborn child.

if abortion was Illegal, than I can see people thinking "okay we can justify killing an abortion doctor". than again, if abortion was illegal, in theory, there would not be abortion doctors.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Can I start just making stuff up out of thin air, too?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.