Pregnant women shot by Police Officer

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhiriTalk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would only be a direct act against the child if he was intentionally targeting the child and/or if the mother did not pose an immediate threat to his life.
 
How can the government know when any women is pregnant?

Should abortion only be illegal when the government can prove the woman was pregnant?
 
Why though? The mother is dead and the person who killed the innocent unborn child was the police officer, not the mother. The mother and the child are wholly separate individuals each with their own separate right to life.
 
So even if the officer directly shot the innocent unborn child, that still wouldn’t be murder?
 
You are expecting police officers to be psychic. And you have not directly answered the question as to whether or not you think police officers should not defend themselves against dangerous women because the woman might be pregnant. Do you think they should not defend themselves? Yes or No?
 
I think the officer should make every effort possible to not kill an unborn child. Especially if the cop knows that the innocent unborn child is there.

I don’t know how one could defend themselves against an unborn baby.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Why though? The mother is dead and the person who killed the innocent unborn child was the police officer, not the mother. The mother and the child are wholly separate individuals each with their own separate right to life.
Click to expand...
You do realize that it is always the person who is engaged in unlawful behavior that is responsible for anyone killed during the commission of the crime, right?

This is why police officers are generally not prosecuted for killing bystanders.
 
Last edited:
PhiriTalk said:
So even if the officer directly shot the innocent unborn child, that still wouldn’t be murder?
Click to expand...
We’ve already covered that point. For it to be murder, the guy has to think, “You know what, she’s pregnant. Hm. You know what would be really awful? If I shot her. And her baby. And they both died. I think I’ll do that.”

If he has a pregnant woman raging towards him like a maniac, and he tells her to freeze and put her hands up, and she ignores him and continues her approach/attack, and he shoots---- any deaths are the woman’s responsibility, for not following directions.

But it’s not murder.
 
I didn’t know that. Do you have a source to confirm this statement?
 
You said that the police officer thinks that the woman might be pregnant. A police officer who shoots an unborn child is committing a crime in my view.
 
So it’s the woman’s fault even if the police officer could have not killed the innocent unborn child?
 
Nope. I asked if an officer should not defend himself because the woman may be pregnant.
 
I think the police officer should be protecting the innocent unborn child, if that involves not killing the woman to protect the child, then yes.

Justifying collateral damage is antithetical to pro-life beliefs. The unborn have full constitutional rights no matter what.
 
This thread should be closed. People please stop feeding the troll.
 
PhiriTalk said:
So it’s the woman’s fault even if the police officer could have not killed the innocent unborn child?
Click to expand...
Yes. Because she’s recklessly endangering herself and her unborn child by refusing to follow directions from legitimate authority.

If I tell my baby brother to go steal a cookie, he might be the one stealing the cookie— but morally, I’m just as guilty (and depending on his age/reasoning level, probably even more guilty) than he is, because he wouldn’t have done the action if I hadn’t put it into his head.

The officer is the one who pulls the trigger— but it’s the woman who created the situation with her actions.
 
Sorry. I’m bored (avoiding the dishes) and this was mildly entertaining. I’ll stop now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top