Compliments from Ladysmith are guaranteed to overcome my reluctance to get folks to do their own brainwork. Here goes!
The Legislature finds that:
1. Violence and abuse are often higher during pregnancy than during any other time in a woman’s lifetime;
2. Women are more likely to suffer increased abuse as a result of unintended pregnancies;
3. Younger women are at a higher risk for pregnancy-associated homicide;
4. A pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause;
5. Homicide and other violent crimes are the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age;
6. Husbands, ex-husbands or boyfriends are often the perpetrators of pregnancy-associated homicide or violence;
7. Moreover, when husbands, ex-husbands or boyfriends are involved, the violence is often directed at the unborn child and/or intended to end or jeopardize the pregnancy; and
8. Violence against a pregnant woman puts the life and bodily integrity of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child at risk.
Eight reasons women who are pregnant are at high risk for being the victim of violence leading to death. Nothing here about harm to the unborn child yet. Hang on, more to come.
As used in this section:
1. "Another" means a person other than the pregnant woman;
2. "Deadly force" means force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical harm;
3. "Force" means violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against another;
4. "Embryo" means a human embryo as defined in Section 1-728.1 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes;
5. "Pregnant" means the female reproductive condition of having an unborn child in the woman’s body;
6. "Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from conception until birth; and
7. "Unlawful force" means force which is employed without the consent of the pregnant woman and which constitutes an offense under the criminal laws of this state or an actionable tort.
We now distinguish between an "embryo" and an "unborn child". "Embryo" means "a human organism that is derived by fertilization, parthonenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gamets or human diploid cells."
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os63.rtf @ pg 120 Besides one definition being extremely technical and the other very broad and simple, what's the difference? I suggest you look further ar Title 63, Section 1-278 et seq. regarding stuff like abortions (HINT!)
A. A pregnant woman is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:
1. Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and
2. She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
B. This affirmative defense to criminal liability does not apply to:
1. Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;
2. Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense. However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the complete safety of her unborn child; or
3. The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body.
Let's look at this stuff.
First:
1. Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and
2. She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
The pregnant woman is justified in using force or deadly force to protect herself against force threatening the unborn child. Sort of a conundrum, no? As previously asked, can a woman protect her unborn child without protecting herself? Amazingly, I believe the answer is clearly "YES" as does, apparently, the Oklahoma legislature. If it were not possible, then they would not have separated justifiable defense of self or another from justifiable defense of an unborn child. Part #2 of the above I believe clearly states that to be the case.
As to the entirety of Section B, including the taking away of the protection by the baby-momma of her "human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body," is completely unsupported, as far as I can find in the statements of intent, purposes, and findings. There is nothing, nada, zilch, zip, bupkis regarding any reason why baby-daddys or complete strangers cannot be justified in using lethal deadly force in defending the unborn child even if the actions threatening death or grevious bodily injury to the unborn child do not threaten the same to the baby-momma. The only conclusion I can draw is that the Oklahoma legislature firmly believes that only a baby-momma can reasonably believe she knows when her unborn child is threatened with death or grevious bodily harm.
(Is this where I get to blather on about hormone-laden women and the cognitive impediments that arise under such conditions? Just want to check and see if I'm risking any flying shoes for that before actually going there.
)
Now, how does any of that provide an answer to Ladysmith's question: "Under what premise are they giving baby-mamas the ok to use lethal force to protect the unborn? Are they saying it's because the baby is a human being (which is nullified by Wade, right?) or because it's something valuable to the mother that just happens to be inside her body?"
Even though I am not an attorney, and certainly not Ladysmith's attorney, and I have not been near any Holiday Inn Expresses in a long while, I can state with a great deal of certainty that the only discernable premise is found under the BISS Doctrine. Although most of you may not recognize the citation, I am willing to bet the farm that you all were exposed to the BISS Doctrine throughout your childhood, and many of you continue to act under its aegis. BISS Doctrine = "Because I Said So!"
Taking Ladysmith's question and expanding it to what is should have been, the BISS Doctrine applies especially because the legislature gave the exclusive justification for use of deadly force to baby-mommas and denied that justification to all others.
However, it is my very sure conclusion that the BISS Doctrine is at play when we read the very last section of the law: "B. This affirmative defense to criminal liability does not apply to: ... 3. The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body." A baby-momma is prevented from using deadly force to protect the human embryo existing outside her body.
BUT the law makes a distinction between a human embryo and an unborn child. Another bet of the farm that the legislature did not think that one through before committing words to paper!
Hope you are now in need of something better than Motrin.
I believe Ladysmith and I are located relatively close to each other. I would not mind picking her up for a drive to Oklahoma for some shoe throwing or sandal-slapping fun, but we will have to stop at every other gas station, and if the men's room is not clean I claim a right to whine and say we need to go somewhere else.
Anyone else willing to drive to Oklahoma under those conditions is welcome to come along.
stay safe.
skidmark
