Abortion?

Yes I did think that and figured on someone pointing that out to me.

Slothbutt wrote: Clark Kent wrote: And under current law, you can shoot to kill anybody who was just trying to rob you of a few hundred dollars can you point out this law? Just because people are killed unjustly everyday doesn't make it ok.

In every state in the US you can kill to defend yourself from a felony.  What constitutes a felony varies, but robbery of $500 is a common limit.

In some states, I believe, you can shoot to kill for a lot less than that.  In Texas, for instance, you can kill trespassers, even the harmless ones.

themovielife wrote: I think it is fine. Their body, their choice.

its not her body its her baby's

I will have to check my sources...   That was my understanding of the legal situation.

Regardless, however, I will stand by my general statement that killing =/= murder, generally speaking.

I'm happy to see that this debate has gone quite well for 4 pages.

I will continue to side with earlier comments made by Hades and be pro-choice. Morally, it may be wrong or hard to deal with. However, morales are not always laws. This is one situation that should apply.

All right - this is from teh Texas Penal Code (sorry for big cut'n'paste):

§ 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41;  and
(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property;  and
(3)  he reasonably believes that:         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;    
(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means;  or
(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43.  PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.  A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1)  the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;  or
(2)  the actor reasonably believes that:         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp;       
(A)  the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B)  he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property;  or
(C)  the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

-----------------------------

That kind of matches what I said earlier.  But, regardless, for current inability to back up my claim, I retract my statement about 50 state shootin'.  My substantive point, however, still stands.

Sorry about the partial hijack - let's get back to discussing baby-killing.