Self-defense with a pregnant woman...

[DoNotRefill]

OK, my wife is officially pregnant (blood test results came back from the Dr. yesterday, positive for HCG. YAY!!! :) )

Should there be a lower threshold for self-defense when a woman is pregnant than when she isn't? I ask this because violence poses a much greater risk to the life of the baby, and a miscarriage triggered by violence is very detrimental to the life of the mother. If a woman is punched when she's not pregnant, she'll bruise, but the damage would be comparable to a man's being punched. Once she's pregnant, however, the odds of serious harm to her and the baby from being punched are much greater.

So, what say you all? Should there be a legally recognized lesser standard for self-defense for a pregnant woman given her condition? I think so. Of course, I'm in hovering "Papa Bear" mode with my wife now, and am feeling WAY beyond my normal level of protectiveness for her.

[demsrule4life]

1. I have always believed that any man that would strike a woman

needs to be shot.

[interupt]

2. I am curious

I believe that this is a general question, but I am puzzled why you would even consider the issue of someone assaulting your wife?

[DoNotRefill]

7. I don't think anybody will assault my wife.

If somebody did, they'd probably get shot for their efforts, even if I'm not there. She has a CCW permit, carries a firearm regularly, and is good with it.

If it were an assault situation where I was there and somebody tried to punch her, my first reaction wouldn't be to shoot the person, it'd be to put myself between the attacker and her. That's a non-lethal response that I'd feel extremely comfortable with, and I guarantee that the person would not likely get through me. I don't mind being punched terribly, it's happened a lot in the past, and I always survived it. However, if a person was attacking her while she was by herself, I'd want the law to recognize that since she is pregnant, she's more susceptable to being seriously injured (miscarriage) than she would be otherwise.

[efhmc]

3. The number one cause of death to pg women in the US is murder.

I know you are feeling very protective but changing these laws will further erode a woman's right to choose. Pardon, I forgot to offer my warmest congratulations.

[iverglas]

4. very true ...

"The number one cause of death to pg women in the US is murder."

--- at the hands of their intimate partners. Statistically, our friend's wife is at greater risk of harm from him than from a stranger. He might want to reconsider the implications of his proposal ...


Laws that treat causing a miscarriage as if it were homicide very definitely jeopardize women's reproductive rights, and should also be found to be unconstitutional as denials of due process and equal protection to the individuals charged/convicted under such laws.

Courts that treat causing a miscarriage as a very serious assault on the pregnant woman, regardless of the level of injury to the rest of her body, are acting perfectly correctly. The damage to *her* body, of which the fetus is part, is indeed serious. Also, the nature of an assault intended to cause damage to the fetus or miscarriage is serious regardless of whether miscarriage or any other injury is caused, just as sexual assault on a person of either sex, regardless of whether any actual injury is caused, is treated as serious.

The implication that I might see for self-defence laws is this (and here I speak of the traditional self-defence justification, not of "make my day" or other aberrations).

In order to use force likely to cause serious injury or death, an individual must (a) reasonably apprehend serious injury or death, and (b) have no reasonable alternative, for avoiding the risk, than to use the level of force used.

With respect to (a), a pregnant woman could argue that her reasonable apprehension that something was about to be done to her that would not seriously injure someone else, but would very possibly damage her fetus or cause her to miscarry, is reasonable apprehension of serious injury in her case, if not in someone else's. E.g. she might be entitled to use more force to avoid being punched or kicked than someone else would be entitled to use.

With respect to (b), it may be that there are fewer alternatives available to a pregnant woman in order to avert serious injury or death -- she may be less able to run away, less able to defend herself without risking damage to her fetus or miscarriage.

Interesting question, now that I think about it. My answer would be that the standards (reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, no reasonable alternative for avoiding the risk) would not be lower, but that those standards could possibly be met by pregnant women in circumstances in which others might not meet them.

.

[demsrule4life]

5. I can't agree

"Laws that treat causing a miscarriage as if it were homicide very definitely jeopardize women's reproductive rights, and should also be found to be unconstitutional as denials of due process and equal protection to the individuals charged/convicted under such laws."

The woman has the right to choose. If she chooses to keep the baby and someone assaults her and she looses the baby it should be murder. Or as in the Scott Peterson case get charged with a double murder.

[iverglas]

10. yeah, well

"The woman has the right to choose <whether or not to have a baby>. If she chooses to keep the baby and someone assaults her and she looses the baby it should be murder. Or as in the Scott Peterson case get charged with a double murder."

I have a right to choose whether or not to keep cats. If I choose to keep cats and someone kills them it should be quadruple murder. If they killed me too, that would make it quintuple murder.

Individual preferences really do not govern the law, you see.

A fetus is what it is, which is not a human being. Homicide is the killing of a human being. Homicide is subject to the most serious criminal sanctions available.

Treating an act which is not homicide as if it were homicide is a denial of due process and equal protection to the individual charged/convicted.

Treating a person who punches a pregnant woman and terminates her pregnancy as if s/he has committed a murder, but treating a physician who uses surgical instruments to terminate a pregnancy as if s/he has done nothing illegal, is a denial of due process and equal protection to the individual charged/convicted.

(Surely you understand that NO ONE can EVER consent to the homicide of someone else. So if a pregnant woman can consent to having her pregnancy terminated, how could a z/e/f possibly be a human being?? Since it plainly isn't, how could "killing" it possibly be homicide??)

You guys do know about things like due process and equal protection, and constitutions in general, and all that jazz, right?

If you shoplifted something worth 75 cents, and were charged under the statute governing thefts of things worth $5,000, which made you liable to 10 years' imprisonment instead of 6 months, and a felony conviction rather than a misdemeanour conviction, wouldn't you be crying "denial of due process and equal protection!"? I think you might.

Ditto if you killed my cat and I got you charged with homicide ... when last year I had had one of my cats euthanized rather than keep paying for cat food. Yup, I could have you charged under whatever law governs killing other people's cats -- but not with homicide. A cat ain't a human being.

Ditto inducing miscarriages -- it's an assault when it is done w/o the woman's consent, it is not an assault when it is done with her consent, and it is not homicide.

Sexual intercourse can be lawful or unlawful. If one person is forced to engage in it by another against the first person's will, it is an assault. Ditto inducing miscarriages: with consent, lawful; without consent, an unlawful assault. If you committed a sexual assault and were charged with homicide, would you feel like you'd received due process and equal protection? Would sexual intercourse suddenly become homicide because it was engaged in by force? So why would inducing a miscarriage become homicide if it was done by force?

Nobody likes a person who causes someone else to miscarry against her will. Duh. It's nasty, and should be severely frowned upon, and even severely punished. But that doesn't make causing a miscarriage, against the victim's will, homicide.

So, to return to the subject of this discussion, it doesn't elevate reasonable apprehension of a miscarriage being caused to the level of reasonable apprehension of death, for purposes of the self-defence justification. (There is also, of course, no "defence of others" justification available.)

But that's not much different from the situation for non-pregnant people. When someone comes at you with a knife, you can't predict whether you're likely to get a superficial cut to your bicep, or a deep stab through your heart. That's why the traditional standard, for the self-defence justification to be available against a charge of homicide, doesn't require certainty of death if one doesn't defend one's self, or even reasonable apprehension of death; it just requires reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death.

And as I said, it seems reasonable to think that a pregnant woman would have such a reasonable apprehension in circumstances where another person would not, so she might well be able to meet the standard in circumstances where another person would not.

So the end result is the same: she might well be justified in using force, and even deadly force, to prevent being assaulted in a way that it is reasonable to apprehend will cause her to miscarry.

.

[demsrule4life]

11. In the Scott Peterson case

his wife was far enough along for the baby to survive outside the womb. Sorry murder in my book..

[DoNotRefill]

12. Hmmmm....

"But that's not much different from the situation for non-pregnant people. When someone comes at you with a knife, you can't predict whether you're likely to get a superficial cut to your bicep, or a deep stab through your heart. That's why the traditional standard, for the self-defence justification to be available against a charge of homicide, doesn't require certainty of death if one doesn't defend one's self, or even reasonable apprehension of death; it just requires reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death."

I look on it this way: If a person comes at another person, and it reasonably seems that the attacker is going to chop off the victim's arm, that justifies the use of lethal force to stop them, right? After all, there's an imminent risk of grave bodily harm (losing a limb), right?

I buy the z/e/f or whatever you want to call it being defined as tissue as opposed to being defined as a separate life. But if you're able to use lethal force to keep from losing your arm, you should be able to use lethal force to keep from losing the z/e/f, right? I mean hell, tissue is tissue. My point is that since z/e/fs are more susceptable to damage/less able to take abuse without being injured than, say, an arm, that part of a woman should have a recognized lesser standard for the use of self-defense. What'cha think?

[iverglas]

13. I think

... that's pretty much what I said. Winkyface.

The only point I was making that differs from yours is that it isn't actually a "lesser standard for the use of self-defence", it's recognition that the standard is met in circumstances where it might not be met by someone else.

A pregnant woman who reasonably apprehends a forceful blow to her abdomen could indeed argue that she had a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death. You couldn't argue that quite as easily. She could also reasonably argue that she did not have the option of running out the door fast enough to escape the assault. Again, you couldn't argue that quite as easily. (And the consequences of failing to outrun the assailant would be more serious for her than for you.)

The standard is still the same: reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, no reasonable alternative for avoiding it. It's just arguably easier for a pregnant woman to meet the standard.

It would also be arguably easier for a disabled or very old person to meet the standard, too.

No need to go having special standards for different people.

.

[demsrule4life]

15. Thank god for them pesky juries

They do have a habit of making the law fair for different people.

[iverglas]

19. did you have a point?

A properly instructed jury, in a case in which a pregnant woman was charged with homicide and claimed self-defence, and in which

- the jury found her stated apprehension of serious injury or death to have been reasonable;

- the jury found that she had had no other reasonable alternative available to her to avert serious injury or death; and

- the jury found she had used only the force that was necessary to avert serious injury or death,

would acquit her. Those are all questions of fact that are properly within a jury's jurisdiction to decide.

This has nothing to do with "pesky juries" ignoring the law in favour of their own prejudices. If a jury were to believe that a pregnant woman charged with killing someone had NOT, for instance, had a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, or had used force out of all proportion to what was needed in order to defend herself, and nonetheless acquitted her -- basically, if the jury just decided that people who assaulted pregnant women deserved to die anyhow -- then you would indeed have a "pesky jury". A group of citizens who had decided that they would not do their sworn duty to uphold the law.

What it does have to do with is the proper application of the existing standards to the circumstances of individual cases. WHAT I SAID was that because the circumstances of our hypothetical case include

- the fact that a pregnant woman is susceptible to injuries that other individuals are not susceptible to; and

- the fact that it may be more difficult for a pregnant woman to avert serious injury or death by retreating from the situation,

a pregnant woman might be justified in using degrees of force that another person might not be justified in using, and in using force in situations in which another person might not be justified in using it.

What your problem with that might be, I just dunno.

.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

18. WOW

Iverglas, you and I agree totally on this topic. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[MrBenchley]

6. Great post...

What a peculiar thread this is to start with: "Just found out my wife's pregnant...who can she get away with shooting?"

[DoNotRefill]

9. MrBenchley, I'm so happy that I'm not going to take offense....

:loveya: , guy! :)

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

8. WOW!!! A rational response!!!

Iverglas,

I wouldn't necessarily want the law to recognize that causing the death of a fetus is homicide. I FIRMLY support the right to choose for all women, and wouldn't want to jeopardize that right in any way. However, as you so cogently pointed out, a miscarriage is indeed serious not only to the fetus/child to be, but also it's INCREDIBLY damaging to the expectant mother. As such, I'm talking about the use of lethal force not to defend the fetus, but to defend the woman, who is in a more vulnerable condition (and therefore more susceptable to grave bodily harm, which is one part of how our statute defines when lethal force is justified in self-defense) because she's pregnant.

BTW, for those who think I'm some kind of a knuckle-dragging "wife beater" wearing thug who would EVER strike my wife, I'd point out that my State generally looks upon that with a very negative eye, and has been known to hold that in situations of domestic violence, the self-defense rules should be somewhat relaxed if the woman has a bona fide reason to think her spouse will harm her again. In other words, no only would it be morally repugnant to me to strike my wife intentionally, but if I did, she'd have an excellent chance of not being prosecuted for shooting me in my sleep. We both know this. :) Oh, yeah...her brother is crazy, and would stomp my ass if I ever did something like that, too.

[MojoKrunch]

14. More excptions than the rule.

Why not greater punishments for assaulting children and old people?
Or cripples?
Or people with asthma?
Or people who wear glasses?

//Should there be a legally recognized lesser standard for self-defense for a pregnant woman given her condition?//
Do you mean should pregnant women have the right to use lethal force in situations where other women might not?

IOW, if I was in a hurry and bumped your, unbenknownst to me, pregnant wife out of my way and she took this as an assault against her person, whipped out her handgun and shot me down, would that be ok?

//Once she's pregnant, however, the odds of serious harm to her and the baby from being punched are much greater.//
There are typically laws that deal with the consequences of such assault if the fetus dies or is born damaged.

I wonder how many Springer guests would be in jail now if a lower set of standards were used for pregnant women?
What could you plead if some pissed-off, trailer-park-mama came tearing after *your* ass for sleeping with her sister and you "defended" yourself against her?

I've had similar discussion with Anti-choice activists who fallaciously argue that feticide laws are proof that the law recognizes fetuses as legal persons.

What I've never understood, political agenda aside, is why lawmakers don't simply increase the punishment for assaults on pregnant women.
Maybe some lawyer folks here can help.
I'm pretty sure I read something about punishments needing to be "fair and equal" and that increasing the punishment for assault on a pregnant woman which results in feticide is not in line with other forms of punishment from assault.
(ok, badly worded, sorry)

Mojo

[iverglas]

16. well ...

"Maybe some lawyer folks here can help."

This ex-lawyer folk here actually did. (See post #10, e.g.)

You're absolutely correct about the illegitimacy of fetal-homicide laws, and the appropriateness of using assault laws against persons who cause miscarriages by force. Heavy sentences can be imposed by the sentencing court based simply on general sentencing principles, or a legislature can make the miscarriage an aggravating factor to be considered in sentencing, or a legislature could even create a separate offence: assault causing a miscarriage, although it's really already covered by assault causing bodily harm.

"I'm pretty sure I read something about punishments needing to be 'fair and equal' and that increasing the punishment for assault on a pregnant woman which results in feticide is not in line with other forms of punishment from assault."

Equal protection requires similar treatment in similar circumstances. It's arguable that a blow to the abdomen that causes bruising is not "similar" to a blow to the abdomen that causes a miscarriage.

This decision is reasonable: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/06/02/prsc0602.htm

Connecticut's high court ruled that a fetus is part of the mother's body, opening the door for serious assault charges against anyone who attacks it. The implications for abortion law are unclear.

In a concurring opinion in the May 13 Supreme Court decision, one justice was quick to point out that the ruling doesn't suggest that the court "concluded that a fetus may not have its own independent existence." He said a fetus may be both "a part of its mother as well as its own individual being."

(The court was not called on to decide the question of "individual being". Anything it said on that point would have been obiter dictum; what it did say, and all it said, was that it was not deciding the issue.)

What the opinion in State of Connecticut v. Edwin Sandoval does, however, is allow prosecutors to charge people who attack fetuses with a more serious crime.

"Connecticut law makes it a more serious crime if you try to chop someone's arm off or try to destroy or harm another organ or part of the body," Sugrue said. "The court said the fetus is a body part."

The accused man had wanted the pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy; she refused, he pretended to make up with her in order to have sexual intercourse with her, she experienced pain and subsequently bleeding, and a medical examination found two pills inside her vagina (not identified in this report).

The state charged Sandoval with attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault in the first degree and attempt to commit assault in the first degree. A jury convicted him on those higher counts and on appeal he argued that the state never proved he assaulted the woman "with the intent … to destroy … or disable permanently a member or organ of <her> body."

The high court disagreed. While the court said the fetus was not an organ, it did say that the fetus was a member of a woman's body under the assault and sexual assault statutes used to charge Sandoval.

"Do you mean should pregnant women have the right to use lethal force in situations where other women might not?"

I addressed that one too.

The question of reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death is considered in the actual circumstances of the case. It would not be reasonable for an adult to apprehend serious injury or death if a three-year-old tried to kick him/her in the shins. It might be reasonable for a pregnant woman to apprehend serious injury or death if a large, strong adult raised an arm, made a fist, stared at her abdomen and said "I'm going to get rid of that thing", and to use force causing injury or death to avoid the blow. Just as it might be reasonable for a person unable to get out of a wheelchair to shoot someone advancing toward him/her and making death threats, whereas you or I could be expected to run the other way.

"if I was in a hurry and bumped your, unbenknownst to me, pregnant wife out of my way and she took this as an assault against her person, whipped out her handgun and shot me down, would that be ok?"

"Taking" an accidental touch as an assault is a long way from establishing reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death. And NO self-defence standard permits retaliation, and a standard that permitted it for pregnant women would no longer be a self-defence justification, it would be permission to lynch, and of course a denial of due process and equal protection.

"What could you plead if some pissed-off, trailer-park-mama came tearing after *your* ass for sleeping with her sister and you 'defended' yourself against her?"

There is actually (at least in the traditional law of self-defence) a higher standard that must be met by anyone who initiates a violent conflict and is subsequently faced with having to defend him/herself from reasonably apprehended serious injury or death. That person has a positive duty to terminate the conflict before the need for self-defence arises. So your trailer-park mama would not be able to claim self-defence, if she assaulted you first, unless she had tried to back off and you had continued to assault her.

You, of course, would be able to claim self-defence if you used only the force that was necessary to defend yourself against the attacking pregnant woman. (I guess I'd neglected to mention that bit earlier; of course the degree of force permitted in self-defence is only the degree of force that is necessary to avoid serious injury or death.) If that force ultimately caused a miscarriage, that fact would be irrelevant, just as the death of someone else you had defended yourself against would be, as long as you had acted out of reasonable apprehension of serious death or injury, had no alternative but to use force, and had used only the force necessary to avert serious death or injury.

.

[DoNotRefill]

22. How about...

classifying an assault causing a miscarrage differently than a regular assault? I'm thinking something along the lines of a malicious wounding charge, which here is much more serious than a simple assault and battery charge...

That's a legislative change I could get behind....

It doesn't set the z/e/f out as a separate person, but acknowledges that it's a more serious attack than just a regular punch.

[iverglas]

26. possibility

There's no real reason why "assault causing a miscarrage" couldn't be a separate offence.

Up here, quite some time back, we did away with all the categories of sexual assault -- on a male or female, penetration or no penetration etc. I.e. "rape" and "buggery" no longer exist as offences ... although for some strange reason I'm still seeing "anal intercourse" in my Criminal Code, still an offence except "in private" and between married people of any age and any two other people over 18 ... and I don't think that would survive a Charter challenge (discrimination) ... oops, I was right, it didn't. Struck down in 1995, just sitting around dead on the books now.

I digress. It's now just "sexual assault" (although there is "aggravated sexual assualt", where there is also wounding, or endangering life, or the use of a firearm). But what I'm getting at is that although "sexual assault" could arguably just be eliminated and sexual assaults prosecuted as assaults, it has been kept as a separate offence because it really is qualitatively different from an ordinary assault. In an ordinary assault, the intent is to hurt someone physically. The intent is different in a sexual assault, and arguably also in an assault causing a miscarriage.

The other way to deal with it is as an official "aggravating factor" for sentencing purposes, if that is how the jurisdiction approaches things. In Canada, for instance, the Criminal Code expressly provides that the fact that a crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, etc., or the fact that the victim was the accused's spouse or child, is an aggravating factor for sentencing, rather than "hate crime" or "assault on a family member" being a separate category of offence.

I do think that "assault causing a miscarrage", especially where the intent is to cause a miscarriage (but also where the offender knew of the pregnancy and committed an assault likely to terminate it anyway), is a qualitatively different kind of offence from "assault". The assault is specific to the characteristics of the victim. And the victim is specially vulnerable in the same way as a member of a minority group, or a family member, is specially vulnerable, not in the sense of being more likely to be hurt by an assault, but in the sense of being more likely to be assaulted. So harsher sentences, that are designed to be especially deterrent (as regards both the accused and the general public), would be appropriate.

There's also the public interest at stake in such cases. While I don't think that the state (society) has sufficient interest in anyone's particular pregnancy to overcome her own interests in life and liberty, and thus to justify legislative interference with access to abortion, I would readily agree that society has some interest in pregnancies, successful pregnancies being necessary to the perpetuation of the society, obviously. I would say that the interest might also be sufficient to justify treating "assault causing a miscarriage" as especially abhorrent to society, by making it a separate offence subject to severe punishment.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that "assault causing a miscarriage" is "a more serious attack than just a regular punch". And calling it that, a serious attack on a woman, both recognizes that fact and makes sense, unlike the idiot fetal-homicide laws, which purport to express abhorrence at what happens to the fetus as a "separate entity" and yet spare no thought for z/e/fs voluntarily aborted.

I'd say we're in virtually complete agreement on both sides of this coin: the application of the self-defence justification to pregnant women, and the application of the criminal law to causing miscarriages without consent.

.

.

[DoNotRefill]

28. In order for there to be legal protection....

I don't necessarily think we'd have to codify a special offense of assault causing a miscarriage....just put appropriate language in the malicious wounding statute (or whatever statute would be applicable) making sure that an assault on a woman causing a miscarriage would qualify under it instead of under the simple assault statute, with the injured party being the woman.

What would bother me is if an assault causing a miscarriage was treated the same in the eyes of the law as, for example, an assault where a tooth is knocked out or somebody gets scratched or skinned up, in other words, one that causes tissue damage of a minor sort. As long as it's treated as an assault causing a really serious injury (like the loss of an arm example) it'd be OK.

[MojoKrunch]

27. Thanks...

Slow poke that I am... three people posted before I finished.

Hey, at least no one *here* complains about your post length, right?
:D

//Just as it might be reasonable for a person unable to get out of a wheelchair to shoot someone advancing toward him/her and making death threats, whereas you or I could be expected to run the other way.//
Can't I just claim I thought they were Canadian instead of running away?
:D

//Heavy sentences can be imposed by the sentencing court based simply on general sentencing principles, or a legislature can make the miscarriage an aggravating factor to be considered in sentencing, or a legislature could even create a separate offence: assault causing a miscarriage, although it's really already covered by assault causing bodily harm.//
So there really isn't any reason for our legislators to write those feticide laws the way they're written, beyond supporting the Anti-choice agenda, is there?

Ok, enough with all this heavy thinking, I'm going back to the Lounge.

Mojo

[CO Liberal]

17. I Wouldn't Use a Pregnant Woman for Self-Defense

A baseball bat is easier to carry......

:-)

[DoNotRefill]

21. I dunno....

my wife's been showing some serious mood swings....using her for self defense would be throwing open a big ole can of whoop-ass.... ;-)

[iverglas]

20. so ...

DoNotRefill, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot and I are in agreement.

Surely this calls for champagne.

Or perhaps a 21-gun salute.

.

[DoNotRefill]

23. either that, or...

we could simply acknowledge that we probably have more in common philosophically than we are opposed on...common ground and all that... ;-)

(sign me "Winkyman!!!")

[jhfenton]

24. "21-gun salute"

I agree with you too. Your legal analysis was right on.

Of course, I vote for the 21-gun salute. I don't drink much.

[jhfenton]

25. BTW, Congratulations

By the way, congratulations. My wife is also pregnant, with our second. Our first will be a year old in two weeks. :o

Happy times.

[Paladin]

29. What A Sad Thread This Is

DoNotRefill, you and your wife are expecting your first-born child, and all you seem to want to do is indulge in violent, wishful-thinking self-defense fantasies. I sincerely hope that this child makes a real and positive difference in your life.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Paladin...

There's a considerable difference between having a philosophical discussion and indulging in "violent, wishful thinking self-defense fantasies."

Or have I been fantasizing about being female and having an abortion every time I've discussed the abortion issue prior to my wife's getting pregnant? Or have I been dreaming about beating my wife every time I've discussed domestic violence? I certainly hope not...

[juancarlos]

32. Right On!

Way to expose the falsity of Paladin's and Bench's posts in this thread. Congrats, I am a daddy for two years now, and love it.

[CO Liberal]

33. I'm The Father of Two

So my first wife was pregnant for eighteen months. And during none of that time were my thoughts consumed with gun rights or self-defense - they were consumed with the impending births.

Guess it's all a matter of personal priorities.........

[juancarlos]

34. I'm sorry for COLib

A man is concerned about the health of his baby, and COLib attacks him. It appears that COLib is the one consumed here.

[CO Liberal]

35. I Didn't Attack Anyone, Juancarlos

I simply questioned priorities.

[juancarlos]

36. IMHO

Your clever questioning was a veiled attack. Do you believe that a man should not be concerned for the safety of his wife and baby? If you believe that he should be concerned, then why would you question his priorities when he is concerned?

[CO Liberal]

37. If That's The Way You Feel.....

...be my guest and use the "Alert" key. I'll abide by the moderators' decision.

[juancarlos]

38. You conveniently forgot to answer:

Do you believe that a man should not be concerned for the safety of his wife and baby? If you believe that he should be concerned, then why would you question his priorities when he is concerned?

[CO Liberal]

39. I'm Not Gonna Be Dragged Into This Any Further

In the interest of DU tranquility.

[juancarlos]

40. Oh, Please...

"Do you believe that a man should not be concerned for the safety of his wife and baby? If you believe that he should be concerned, then why would you question his priorities when he is concerned?"

If you had answered "yes" to Q1, then the questioning of his priorities would have been shown to be bankrupt. If you had answered "no" to Q1, then Q2 would have been irrelevant...and your answer would have seemed somewhat nuts to others. So, you decline to answer at all, and spin it as being in the interests of "tranquility".

[CO Liberal]

41. I'm Sick and Tired......

...of people employing circular logic in an attempt to box their opponents into a corner. When I recognize it, I drop the subject.

Nice try, Juan, but I'm not falling for it.

[juancarlos]

42. You could admit that you were wrong to question him.

It would do much for your credibility.

[CO Liberal]

43. NO WAY!!!!!

Are you gonna start deciding what should and should not be posted here? No thanks......

[MrBenchley]

44. Frankly,

even for the gun nut crowd this is a sick sick thread.<sarcasm> "Who can my pregnant wife get away with shooting?"</sarcasm>

[juancarlos]

49. Then kindly answer:

"Do you believe that a man should not be concerned for the safety of his wife and baby? If you believe that he should be concerned, then why would you question his priorities when he is concerned?"

[leanings]

48. Let me give you my impression of your post

"So my first wife was pregnant for eighteen months. And during none of that time were my thoughts consumed with gun rights or self-defense - they were consumed with the impending births.

Guess it's all a matter of personal priorities........."

I read that as:

"Look at that crazy gun nut! He doesn't care about his baby on the way, he's just CONSUMED with his gun fantasies! I mean, can you imagine the mind of this man, to have his PRIORITIES so screwed up?"

Is there another message you were attempting to get across? Because I don't see the message that you're putting out in the first place to be in the interests of DU tranquility.

I see the original post as relevant. It even has ties to recently considered legislative activity that may have an impact on abortion rights. And you (and Paladin) have nothing to say about it other than to smear the poster, however lightly it was accomplished.

That's a pretty common occurence here, and you're not the worst offender by far. Even in this thread.

But if you don't have anything constructive to say, why say anything at all?

[CarinKaryn]

46. COLib is right

You spend enough time thinking about all the different variations on who MIGHT attack you -what if they're armed with a 3 foot stick, what if they're on my property, what if it's night - seems like you're all pretty well armed and don't really need another situation. The answer is pretty clear. Most people in the dungeon will shoot to kill when they or their "loved ones" feel scared. So the whole question is moot.

[DoNotRefill]

47. Actually, Carin...

the general gist of this entire thread is about a pregnant woman who is ALONE when attacked, and if she should have a reduced burden for her response to the situation to be legally classified as self-defense.

As for the "feeling scared" bit, you're wrong there, too. I recently went through a hurricane. It scared the hell out of my family. I didn't shoot anybody because of it, though.

It's not just a matter of being in fear for somebody's life. It's a person making a THREAT to somebody's life that's the justifying factor.

[a2birdcage]

51. Actually.....

most people shoot to stop, not to kill. A gun is the most effective tool at stopping another human from physically hurting you.

[DoNotRefill]

45. So, during those 18 months...

you thought of NOTHING but the impending births? I find that hard to believe...

I'm planning on "child-proofing" my house (nothing that could be pulled over, plastic power outlet seals, et cetera), so that when the baby is born, s/he will be safe. Is THAT a violation of "CO's thought policing" ideals, or is that OK with you?

If safety never crossed your mind when you had kids, I am truly worried about you, Co...

[a2birdcage]

52. Do us all one favor and................

teach that kid to shoot and shoot well the minute s/he is old enough to do so. Teach them at a young age about the people of this country who want to steal our freedom and teach that kid how to fight it.

[jhfenton]

53. Babies

Since we're talking about pregnancies, babies, and self defense, I can't resist chiming in. :) I have strong feelings about all three. Our first child will be a year old in less than two weeks. Our second is due June 25, 2004.

Pregnancy: My wife and I are very fortunate. She experiences neither morning sickness nor "emotional fragility" when pregnant. Last time we took a "hypnobirthing" class to assist with natural childbirth. The results were phenomenal. She had a short labor, with all but about an hour of it at home. No IV, no drugs, no episiotomy, no post-childbirth stupor, no drugged baby.

Babies: Our son is a delight. He is the happiest child I have ever seen. He's walking, clapping, and playing catch (or at least throw). He clearly understands about a dozen words. He meaningfully says mama and dada and baba (bottle). He's clearly brilliant and is destined for Harvard. :) We're quietly hoping for a girl this time, but will be delighted either way. We're fortunate enough to have my wife's mother living in our 3rd floor apartment, so we have the best day care possible.

Self Defense: I certainly spent far more time during the last pregnancy obsessed with pregnancy, childbirth, and babies than I did with firearms, but that didn't mean that I ignored my obligation to protect myself and my wife. My wife and I both have carry permits. I carry daily in KY. We both carry OC spray. (Even my mother-in-law has a carry permit.)

DoNotRefill ask a perfectly reasonable question regarding self-defense by his wife. Iverglas gave a perfectly reasonable answer. Too bad the thread didn't end there.

[DoNotRefill]

54. Congrats!

This breeding thing seems to be going around.... ;-)

[interupt]

30. I must offer congratulations

G'day.
Considering I am the father on one child and looking forward to commencing on the next one. (I finish my university degree in approx 4 hours....yay!...oopps sidetracked) I just felt that you are looking at the wrong priorities.

My advice is don't become paralysed with the "what if's" on topics that may or may not happen completely outside the sphere of pregnancy, birth and your wife's health, believe me you will be a nervous wreck on the main subject before the baby is even born.

Women become quite emotional and fragile during pregnancy and will require your support and strength (and no Im not being sexist) so be that person your wife married you for.

I completely agree with your sense of justice and social responsibility, however since the US legal system confuses the hell out of me, I will not even consider making a comment on that, suffice to say, if the worst would ever happen, you would want the punishment to fit the crime.

Congratulations!