Posadas [he/him, they/them]
Chapotraphousehttps://lrs.sog.unc.edu/billsum/h-1232-2025-2026
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
First time conservatives enshrine equality to a non-binary person, and it's to a single-celled organism
the wording as written there completely makes all forms of self defense illegal and also criminalizes incarcerating pregnant women
also obligates the state to execute any cop who kills anyone who isnt committing a crime that otherwise would carry the death penalty
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble processing what that second one means.
the state would carry the duty to prosecute anyone who takes the life of any living person per this law who hadn't committed a crime worthy of the death penalty
so under this law a cop who slams a pregnant woman to the ground and she has a miscarriage? the state is obligated to prosecute them, they dont have a choice. or if you saw a cop do this, you would then have the right to shoot the cop. or if you feared a cop might do this, you would have the right to shoot the cop.
Now wait a minute, if one can use deadly force to stop someone from killing another, and the state has a duty to defend people from "willful destruction of their lives" doesn't this basically codify that you can kill politicians if they try to pass laws that lead to social murder?
this is precisely why abortion is self defense and why the argument that getting an abortion is self defense must be normalized!
I think if you try explaining the concept of social murder to a North Carolinian they're programmed to kill you on the spot.
There are NC communists on this very forum lol they were posting last week
yeah that's actually the next line in the constitution after this one
So does this apply to lawmakers who support military aid to the genocidal entity?
Something something in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind,
Something something out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
internet forum liberals want to legalize killing north carolina republicans
it would definitely help our housing market
so, if you kill a woman for seeking an abortion, doesn't that also put one in the crosshairs for terminating her pregnancy too?
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.
This would legalize the bombing of abortion clinics
Wouldn't it also allow these same women to use lethal force on someone attempting to kill them?
no, because the point is killing women
or allow others to kill the authorities who are trying to kill the woman?
See at the end "who have not committed any crime punishable by death" (which they are defining seeking an abortion as being)
So no, it's a pass to kill these women while they are not entitled to violence in self-defense.
Yeah it honestly sounds vague and broad enough to be some kind of legal paradox
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.
So if I'm in public and witness John attempting to kill Jane, I now have the legal right to kill John to defend Jane's life.. but attempting to do so means John now has the legal right to kill me to defend his own life? And let's say Jane has Stockholm Syndrome and is defensive of John, she would also have the right to kill me? Which would then mean John has the right to kill Jane to defend me?
even if none of that was happening, my defense for randomly blasting all three of you and everyone behind you is that I could claim you were all mutually willful destructing each other.
I think the point is that everyone ends up dead.
two men walk into the street and shoot eachother in the head simultaneously. however, one of them jerked off today. which one should face the death penalty?
No because they're in the middle of committing a crime. Someone invading your home to murder you and loot your belongings doesn't have a legal right to self-defense in the middle of the crime. Neither would the women who have been criminalized as murders have a right to defend themselves.
tell that to kenosha, wisconsin where an illegal possessor of a firearm who has crossed state lines to do terrorism was aquitted of murder charges
Yeah, and you could bet your ass they'd never allow the logical conclusion of killing politicians and capitalists.
"If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-schooled, you're fucked. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life, these people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors, what kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do everything they can do save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?"
Democrats strategizing... "This is great! It'll help us electorally!"
Let me just tweet real quick about how ugly you are!
"This is ... weird, right guuise?"
You’re killing a bundle of cells?! LET ME INCLUDE YOU IN THE DEATH SCROLL.
We’re such a joke.
Maybe I'm just good at noticing pedantic shit, but I skimmed for 4 seconds and immediately saw these idiots made a typo with a double (or triple?) space. Which is something any basic typing software would highlight with a blue underline. Or if they had a single person under 65 proofread it
I mean cmon it's an official government bill, how are you already making mistakes in the first paragraph of the front page summary. It's glaringly obvious when you get to the sentence
at least we know it’s not ai generated
it doesn't tell you they didn't copy an AI generated phrase into another AI generated document (and accidentally copied an extra space).
they got heritage foundation ghouls to write this kind of shit for them
