Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Anandasubramanian

Published Letters: 366
Editor's Choice: 7

Saturday, April 4, 2009 12:36 AM

The law must be extended to allow ANYONE to kill a person threatening a pregnant lady

There have been numerous crimes against pregnant women to be counted:

Babies have been cut out of women, letting them gutted to death.

Kicked in the stomach to cause abortion.

Beaten by worthless boyfriends...numerous.

I say extend the law to immunize anyone (even someone who passes by) who defends a pregnant woman from physical harm and in the act causes the death of the attacker.

Cowards and Untermenchen attack pregnant ladies.

Am sure if such cowards go to prison, they will definitely be "gently" handled by the inmates...

Saturday, April 4, 2009 05:16 AM

@Asehpe

You are paranoid with a tin-foil hat on at all times.

This is NOT a right-wing conspiracy.

This is simply common sense: Suppose you were pregnant, swollen belly and all, and are mugged outside the ATM. Somehow, (highly unlikely), if you were to stab and kill your mugger, you are free to go. No charges.

Unlike today, where you will face involuntary manslaughter charges.

God, Bush neocons did mess you up.

Sunday, April 5, 2009 12:44 AM

@Asehpe

Probably you think pregnancy is a waste of time.

Probably you would not even think twice before pushing that pregnant lady out of your way at the SALE at the nearest Nortdstorm.

Probably you think survival of the fittest applies to pregnant ladies too: so that if they are slow in defending themselves against a maniac like you, they deserve to die.

Wonderful.

With people like you around, no wonder we need laws like this.

Tell me, does it make you feel ecstatic when you push a pregnant lady down as you rush before her to pick the latest 55% OFF SALE in the nearest Victoria's Secret?

Monday, April 6, 2009 01:44 AM

@@Asehpe

Ok, Asehpe, its dialogue you want? You got it.

Why do you say the law is wrong?

Because it enables pregnant women to go on a rampage?

Or because you think existing laws of self-defence are enough to protect oneself?

Because, in this case, those laws did NOT prevent the pregnant lady from being sued and sentenced BECAUSE she attacked someone who was trying to harm her baby?

Was it Self Defence according to current law? NO. It was assault.

Conveniently forgetting the fact that the man was initially trying to harm her AND her baby, the jury pronounced her guilty and a judge sentenced her FOR defending herself.

Morally it is reprehensible. Ethically, plain stupid and wrong.

Plus it sends a wrong message to pregnant ladies and their attackers everywhere.

That's supposed to be corrected by this law.

Tell me, honestly speaking, was that woman guilty of assault for defending her unborn child?

Monday, April 6, 2009 01:50 AM

@livemike2

It seems you didn't bother to read the article clearly.

Let me explain it to you, in simple English:

1) A pregnant woman was attacked by a man.

2) She lost her babies when the man kicked her in her belly.

3) She attacked him for defemding herself.

4) She was convicted of assault. Her attacker? He went scot-free.

Got it?

Now, WHAT law are you talking about that would have convicted this attacker instead of convicting this suffering woman?

She lost her babies, AND she is in jail for defending herself.

Monday, April 6, 2009 01:51 AM

@Brightstar 2 - The Resurrection

You are despicable. And deplorable.

May you live in interesting times.

Monday, April 6, 2009 03:56 AM

@Asehpe

Well Said, and well explained.

My apologies for my initial emotional outbursts. I had witnessed the harm a very pregnant lady suffered, a long time ago, and it has affected me ever since.

From that time, i have been (and will be) fiercely protective of pregnant women.

Guess, i need to step back and take a look at the facts, as you say, instead of reacting over-angrily to a situation.

Monday, April 6, 2009 04:11 AM

Brand all Republicans as Traitors and charge them with Treason

Dissent is Treason - A Great Fat Republican once said.

Apply it to senators and congressmen.

Obama is handling Republicans with kid gloves and that is why they are able to claw back from their graves.

Have brass knuckles inside the kid gloves, Obama. Hit them where it hurts.

1) Continue to harass Ted Stevens. Your action of withdrawing the Federal case against him is cowardly.

Charge him with many cases. After all, he MUST be guilty of something.

2) Expose opposing republicans in the public as frauds and involved in stealing public money from TARP-II. It doesn't need to be factual. Just "leak it out" like Cheney did with the CIA agent. Destroy their reputation and re-election chances.

3) Push for unchanged Budget proposals. Stand ground like Bush did, adamant and arrogant.

4) Charge and jail some rich arrogant bankers. Nothing will increase your popularity than some corrupt fat cat treated "gently" by the hand of law and jail.

***sigh*** am sure none of them will come to pass. Obama as we all know, is not OUR president. Of course he did take our money to win, but he serves the fat cats instead of us....

Once more, we, the people, bite the dust...

Most Active Letters Threads

516

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
378

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
175

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon