From the article:

A bill making its way through the North Carolina Legislature states it would be permissible for a person to use deadly force on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion, something Democrats have branded as "wildly extreme."

The legislation, now only backed by Republican State Representative Keith Kidwell, would classify abortion as first-degree murder and open up the right of another person to defend the life of the unborn baby as they see fit.

"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 bill reads. "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."

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/republican-bill-deadly-force-stop-abortions-north-carolina-12005136

Nothing says being pro-unborn-child like murdering the mother while she's pregnant. That'd really protect the fetus.

Who am I kidding? It's really a cover hoping that someone will storm in and kill the doctors.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 106 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Inb4 this is clearly an excuse for men to murder their pregnant partners and wipe it away as “she was trying to get an abortion” so he can get off scot-free as dead women can’t say anything to defend themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 142 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Ummm. Wouldn't that also kill the baby?

    When was the last time someone checked the lead levels in the drinking water in North Carolina?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    When was the last time someone checked the lead levels in the drinking water in North Carolina?

    It's the US. I'm sure it was checked, found to be dangerously high, they determined that work needed to be done immediately and then it just wasn't done.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -26 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Not necessarily.

    By the time any death penalty (execution) would actually occur the birth would have ample time to come to term, if it was viable.

    That'd be interesting though. I suppose the mother could continue to attempt to abort the pregnancy while incarcerated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    ? the deadly force would be used against the pregnant woman thus killing her and the baby

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    People aren't necessarily good lethal shots. Modem medicine is amazing. And funny enough. That dimwit just might consider that and shoot below the waist. To incapacitate but not kill. This is an important distinction in many jurisdictions.

    The irony being the perpetrator of an attempted murder would enjoy freedom while the victim of an attempted murder would be incarcerated.

    Ultimately, the value of life is arbitrary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Ah yes, defending an unborn child by checks notes murdering the person carrying the child and therefore also the child

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 47 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Nothing says that your pro-life like murdering people.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    "Pro-life" is an intentional misnomer.

    Lot of antisemites described themselves as "anti-usury" and "anti-predatory loaning" instead of antisemite. Lot of anti-queer people describe themselves as "anti-grooming" and "for the diversity of opinions" instead of anti-queer.

    Likewise anti-women's rights people are describing themselves as "pro-life". Sure, some pro-lifers are true believers, otherwise it's the same kind of emotional manipulation militant vegans use when they call people "zoocannibals" instead of using actual arguments (which there are a lot actually).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 5 months ago

    'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." [Methodist Pastor David Barnhart]

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Wait wait wait. Let me make sure I understand. In order to save the fetus you would kill the only entity capable of keeping it alive?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Let's do a little transitive property game.

    The bill presupposes that there is an absolute moral duty to protect the unborn.

    A theoretical woman is considering an abortion, so it must therefore be okay to murder her.

    Therefore, it is okay to murder someone to protect an unborn person.

    This bill would make it okay to murder women to protect the unborn.

    But that would kill the unborn!

    So, it must therefore be okay to kill in order to prevent this bill from passing.

    So by this bill's own logic, it would be morally correct to kill Keith Kidwell.

    ALL OF THE ABOVE IS PURELY AN EXERCISE IN ARGUMENTUM AD ABSURDUM AND NOT AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL. DO NOT DO MURDERS.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago*

    Wait a second... If someone is going to kill the mother, they are almost certainly killing the fetus. Therefore wouldn't it be totally legal to shoot anyone who is trying to shoot a pregnant woman as your defending the fetus too?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    make it legal to murder women for having abortions

    effectively makes it legal to murder women who are pregnant

    now you may legally murder / assault any woman, under the guise she was pregnant/was going to have an abortion, if the woman is even a little bit pro abortion or just isn’t a pro”life” psycho, it will be proven that “this man believed she had endangered her baby within reasonable doubt”

    Not only would this sexist, misogynist, murderous law allow people to murder women with near impunity, but it is just another piece of legislation that is attempting to legalize Republicans killing any democrat, leftist or otherwise. They tried to do it with Rittenhouse, J6, and inch closer and closer with their “legal” jargon like this all the time, now

    I firmly believe this is the end goal of American and other oligarch capitalists when it comes to laws like this. I really hope it would be like “fighting words” where it’s not very enforceable in practice, but that doesn’t matter when women are being killed or even dying being denied healthcare.

    They don’t care about the “unborn”. They want to force you to have children so your children can become their worker slaves or even worse with what we’ve seen in all this Epstein stuff. God I hate this place

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Just waiting for a Jewish legal group to sue for breaching freedom of religion protections. The life of the mother takes precedence.

    An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until 40 days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I’m sure the originalists on the supreme court would argue that since it says freedom of religion, and not freedom of religions, that the founders clearly meant only one religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    How any woman could vote Republican is beyond me.

    It's like a black person voting for the KKK

    Like wtf is wrong with you?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    How any woman could vote Republican is beyond me.

    because "The only moral abortion is my abortion"

    because " I'm against this because those filthy non-whites use it, but its okay once I need it"

    because " I support this because it hurts people that arent me " ( cue inevitable wailing about the unfairness and cruelty of it all when it comes home to hurt them too.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago

    Why not just call yourself anti-abortion instead of pro-life? You aren’t doing anything to prevent a death here.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Okay, aside from the obvious "that would also kill the fetus," that's also some really dangerous wording...

    states it would be permissible for a person to use deadly force on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion,

    "permissible" implies there would be no accountability

    "a person" implies that anyone would be permitted to do it

    "use deadly force" implies that they can literally murder pregnant mothers

    "on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion" implies that they don't need any solid evidence; only the mere belief is enough.

    Put it all together, and this bill would give any person in the state free license to murder any pregnant woman, or potentially any woman, for any reason, as long as they claim that they believed she was seeking an abortion.

    If anyone needs me to explain why that's bad, then they might be suffering from some sort of brain damage or other cognitive impairment.

    Only in a fascist hellscape could a bill like this become law.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    This could also extend to killing men that you think are about to murder a woman.

    Any man could be about to murder a woman they think is pregnant, and anyone has the right to protect their life or another's.

    This is just legalizing murder, full stop.

    They wouldn't interpret it that way, but a plain reading of the text supports it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Oh you mean all the things we said would happen weren't just hysteria after all?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    So to defend the life of an unborn baby they're going to make it legal to kill the mother carrying it? What the actual fuck do they think would happen to the unborn baby in that scenario? Dumb beyond belief doesn't even come close to describing this and is a prime example why religion should be absolutely nowhere near law making.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)
    • a woman is going to have an abortion
    • someone goes after her to kill her
    • someone else goes after the person above to kill them, protecting the woman
    • repeat as many times as you wish

    Cherry on top: this gets into court, and judge goes "it's all woman's fault, jail her for life"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    It's going to be legal to murder women in North Carolina?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    If they are on birth control and have a fertilized egg that could be killed by said birth control, the bill authourized lethal force.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    That's not how birth control medication works

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I think the point is that the people making these laws are extremely ignorant about human biology

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    GOP policy is a deadly force

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
    [–] 14 points 5 months ago

    They sure moved past the whole "we don't want to punish the people seeking abortions" excuse right quick, thanks SCOTUS. You've enabled justifiable homicide for abortion, which not only kills the mother but also the fetus for good measure.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    We did it, Patrick! We saved that unborn child!

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    I'm old enough to remember all these assholes gaslighting about how rolling back Roe won't "really" bring about Gilead states.

    I had at least one poster trying to get me banned from Denver Post forums for saying it, by the way. Apparently they found the comparison to Gilead to be hurtful and against community guidelines and not sufficiently milquetoast or whatever. Gotta love the Tone Police.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    Pro-life, amiright?

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Finally someone tells that ugly goblin to shut up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    insulting to ugly people though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Nah, only if they look like a human q-tip and have all the inner character of Joseph Goebbels. Then yeah, I'd expect there would be a bit of unwanted self-recognition.

    Oh, the horror. Let me just cry some liberal tears over here for the weird-ass no-discernible-conscience Miller/Goebbels-lookalike NPC motherfuckers personally affected by this egregious slur. Okay, done.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Is that Talarico? I didn't know he was trans. Or is Steven Millhouse just full of shit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    no, the mastermind of the regime is genuinely essentially just saying "ur gay" like a middle schooler in 2003. that's the best he could come up with. and it will work with their voter base

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    Copy-and-pasting this from another thread:

    Republicans must be scared of Talarico. His message seems to resonate with his base. He's a white christian man, so in other words "Just a great guy!" in their view.

    Also, he's not afraid to call out the establishment. The republican base likes that kind of stuff, they've just been misled into believing that "the establishment" means jews and diversity hires instead of corporate-financial oligarchs and their political lackeys.

    Talarico has been pretty effective at meeting these people where they're at and redirecting their ire towards the oligarchy where it belongs.

    That must terrify republican politicians.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    wildly extreme

    Uhhh. I mean. They're not wrong per se... 😅

    He's advocating murdering pregnant women; wildly extreme doesnt quite seem to cover it

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    The only moral abortion is the one that they perform

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    The only psycho backing this bill is Keith Kidwell who represents the tiny coastal district 79.

    https://www.ncleg.gov/Members/Biography/H/749

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Text of the bill:

    Subject to approval by a majority of voters during the 2026 general election, adds new Section 39 to Article I of the North Carolina Constitution as follows. Specifies that human life begins at fertilization. Recognizes a new human life 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. Holds persons willfully seeking to destroy the life of another, at any stage of life, or who succeeds in doing so, accountable for first-degree murder, or attempted murder. Specifies that any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. Specifies that 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. If approved, effective January 1, 2027.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Holds persons willfully seeking to destroy the life of another, at any stage of life, or who succeeds in doing so, accountable for first-degree murder, or attempted murder.

    That's the part where I see them giving leeway to dumbfucks to just got shoot up abortion clinics. Its not really about killing the women (through they'd let that go by too) its about killing the doctors.

    *Edit: its also about killing the mom who takes her raped daughter across state lines to get an abortion elsewhere

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    What idiotic wording. So if I see some asshole shooting a woman who they believe is having an abortion, I guess I can then legally kill him too since “any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.”

    Oh no, then someone can kill me for the same reason.. and so on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    So "pro life" they'll kill you over it.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    We're going to MURDER PREGNANT WOMEN to Save Unborn Babies!

    -Republicans LITERALLY!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago*

    How about a bill urging deadly force for rapists? Deadly force for congressional insider trading? Deadly force for using deadly force without an act of congress? Deadly force for fraud? Deadly force for accepting "gifts" while in office? Deadly force for ignoring congressional subpoenas? Deadly force for using the justice dept to harass rape victims? Deadly force for using office to make billions? Deadly force for hiring your own kids and placing them in office?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Let's kill the mothers, that'll save the children.

    Makes perfect sense.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    How about lethal force to protect women who are seeking out medical services from places such as Planned Parenthood? These anti-choice motherfuckers need to fuck all the way off.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    If someone attempts to use lethal force against a pregnant woman who is seeking an abortion, then it would stand to reason that that person is threatening the life of the fetus and can thus be stopped by the pregnant woman or a bystander with lethal force

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    I asked the "Ask Conservatives" subreddit if they thought murdering a doctor about yo perform an abortion would be a just killing. I guess I have my answer.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    use deady force on a woman to stop an abortion

    Do... Eh. Do these people understand how life works, and that ending the mothers life would surely stop the abortion, but also kill the fetus? Like, do I need to explain this?

    Talking about throwing out the baby with the bathwater

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›