Someone please explain this to me? I seriously don’t get it.
The AP reports:
A pregnant Pittsburgh woman is hospitalized after police say she may have shot herself in the stomach during an argument with her boyfriend.
Authorities say 26-year-old Nicole Lashuk suffered a gunshot wound to the abdomen Tuesday evening at a home in the city’s Oakland neighborhood. Police say the bullet missed the fetus.
Police say Lashuk, who is seven months pregnant, had been arguing with her boyfriend, Sean Liddle.
Liddle says Lashuk loaded a handgun and pointed it at her head before pointing it at her abdomen. He says he was trying to take the gun from her when it fired.
Authorities say Lashuk could face charges if they determine she tried to harm the fetus.
How is this different from her walking into an abortion clinic?
Is it because the shooting attempt is so late term that she faces charges? Or are there laws against shooting babies as opposed to ripping them limb from limb? Or is it a medical licensing issue?
I mean seriously, I applaud charges being brought but I just don’t understand the logic of saying that it would be ok to kill the baby in some ways but not others. Or that only a doctor is allowed to kill the baby? What kind of mad world do we live in?
HT Jill Stanek
June 10, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I used to live in S. Oakland and my then girlfriend (now wife) lived in N. Oakland. The abortion mill was about 5 blocks north.
"How is this different from her walking into an abortion clinic?"
I'm guessing the doctor has a license to kill (a real 007), and she did not.
Further, no "legal" abortion practitioner ever used a gun as an abortion instrument in a "safe" medical procedure.
gbm3
June 10, 2010 at 1:37 pm
It's true that there is a horrible disconnect here.
One can be charged with murder or attempted murder in most (if not all) states for walking up to a pregnant woman on the street and stabbing her baby.
Fetuses are persons in the eyes of the law in this instance, but not when the same law gives doctors the right to terminate their existence.
June 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm
We live in a mad world. Period.
June 10, 2010 at 1:58 pm
They didn't say what charges she might face.
Perhaps "practicing medicine without a license"?
June 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Anonymous said: "Further, no "legal" abortion practitioner ever used a gun as an abortion instrument in a "safe" medical procedure."
Not so safe for the baby, though. Of course, that doesn't mean much to those who have so little respect for life. Those who call abortion a "medical procedure" should look at what the "procedure" does to the baby.
June 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm
"What kind of mad world do we live in?"
Your question answers itself. Nobody can make sense out of nonsense, give up now while you're still relatively sane.
June 10, 2010 at 4:53 pm
A bullet for her might have been considered cheaper than an abortion, and insurance would cover bullet wounds.
I'm thinking more pregnant women die at the hands of boyfriends than die from delivery.
June 10, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Abort73 has a shirt that says something like "would we have a problem if they used guns instead?"
June 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Same choice, different method, same result, but…different consequences?
June 11, 2010 at 1:13 pm
A shot to the abdomen IS harmful to the "fetus".
June 11, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Mary Ellen, (June 10, 2010 9:46 AM)
My last sentence was sarcastic. I put safe (with medical procedure) in quotes since obviously abortion is not safe for the preborn baby. I put legal in quotes because killing innocents is never legal no matter what laws people make up (see MLK letter from Birm. Jail).
gbm3
June 11, 2010 at 10:49 pm
So if the bullet missed the baby, is she still pregnant or did the baby have to be delivered?
Is she going to be allowed to keep this baby after trying to shoot it? This doesn't bode well for her behavior as a mother.
I understand that people go a bit insane during arguments with their spouses or boy/girl friends. But making threats with a loaded gun is one of those things one just doesn't do.
I also wonder if she isn't covering for her boyfriend. The struggle for the gun scenario is to cover that his fingerprints are on the gun. But I am sure this will also occur to the police, who will do all that stuff with angle of entry etc and figure it out.
Susan Petereson
June 12, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Once again, we will not win the war on abortion by who sits on the Supreme Court. They are a bunch of fossilized potted-plants (Scalia unfortunately included there). The war will only be won on the individual, grass-roots local level.
This story is WONDERFUL. It shows that a mother does NOT have "choice" to kill her 7-month-old unborn baby without consequences. We need to add "personhood" clauses to ALL local/state constitutions. Only when people actual realize that fetuses are PERSONS will the reality and magnitude of the tragedy be brought to light for society as a whole.
June 12, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Third trimester abortions are only allowed (in theory, not in practice) on the grounds of an impending health/probability of fetal death issue should it be carried to term. Of course, these technicalities are easily skirted (a doctor may determine carrying to term and attempting to rais a child could lead to permanent psychological trauma, etc…the list of loopholes are endless as well as senseless).