Speaking of abortion by canttakesky

That is a mite scary, looks like the wording can allow for the interpretation of legal killing of abortion doctors.

Quote:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

So from what I understand... the 'unborn child of such enumerated person' would mean it's a justifiable homicide to kill an abortion doctor attempting to abort the unborn child of your wife, child, parent, etc... not just any abortion doctor you happen to see. Let's keep things in perspective here. This is still dangerous, but this does NOT make it open season on abortion doctors in a legal sense. Theoretically, this should only be legally possible if said doctor was doing the abortion without the parent's consent, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 7:47 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm anti abortion, but I don't think killing abortion doctors really solves anything, so I don't think it should fall under justifiable homicide. A question though, do vendetta killings fall under justifiable homicide? Like say, if my neighbor killed my brother and I have a revenge vendetta against her and I kill her, would that be considered justifiable. If it is, then the only way I reckon killing an abortion doctor would be justifiable is if you have a vendetta against him, like say you're the father and the woman carrying the child went and had the child aborted without your consent, since it is your baby too, and you killed the doctor in a act of revenge.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
it's a justifiable homicide to kill an abortion doctor attempting to abort the unborn child of your wife, child, parent, etc... not just any abortion doctor you happen to see. Let's keep things in perspective here. This is still dangerous, but this does NOT make it open season on abortion doctors in a legal sense.

If passed, this would be open season on abortion doctors about to abort a child of your husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant. I don't know what kind of perspective you are looking for here. Really.

Your husband has an affair. His mistress is about to get an abortion because you are convinced it is his child. You can storm in and shoot the physician and clinic staff--and be acquitted of murder.

Or you hear that your employee has taken off work to go to the clinic. You decide to save her baby by killing everyone there. Justifiable homicide.

Or let's say your mom has been feeling nauseous and decides to take an afternoon off without telling you where she is going. You follow her. And in an rage of passion to protect your sibling, you kill 5 people at the clinic. Justifiable homicide.

So you can't storm in and kill the physician aborting just some stranger's baby. I am sure that is a great comfort to the physician--since EVERY SINGLE FETUS is the child of SOMEONE's husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant.

My TEN year old pointed out that if abortion is viewed as murder, then the REAL murderers are the mothers, who have ASKED for the murders. They are the ones who took out contracts on their children. Shouldn't homicides against these baby murderers target them either first or instead?

Shows how silly it is to pretend to be saving lives by taking them, doesn't it?

And why do I even have to make this argument? My 10 year old gets how horrifying this is.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:33 PM

Actually CTS we are in complete agreement, I'm sorry if I mislead or inadvertently projected some facebook suppositions here. On facebook many friends seem to think this will inspire roving gangs of abortion doctor hunters or somesuch.

If they are going to make the law 'more specific' to include defense of the unborn child, then they should also make the law 'more specific' as to how abortion factors into this. I also agree that killing doctors is not the way to stop abortion. That should only apply in the rare to nonexistant case where some mad scientist of an abortion doctor attempts to abort the fetus against both parents will, something I don't see as really being possible.

As your and I suspect any 10 year old can see, the doctors are facilitating the abortion, but the parents are making the decision to kill their unborn child. At least the doctor can work to minimalize the risk to the mothers health and prevent 2 deaths.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:45 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

The idea of the abortion doctor being a hit man and the parent being the mastermind is an interesting one, never thought of that one before. Hmmmm ...

Yeah this is too broad, I still think that the only way it should be legally justifiable is if bendetta killings/revenge killings are considered legally justifiable, which maybe they should be if they aren't. Would I engage in revenge killing? I don't think so, the new testament is pretty clear about that not being a very good idea. But I'm only human, so I can definitely understand and empathize with the desire to take revenge. Maybe its one of those things where you don't know what you'd do until it happens and you find yourself in that situation.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Actually CTS we are in complete agreement,

Thanks for clarifying. Whew. I was a bit worried.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I still think that the only way it should be legally justifiable is if bendetta killings/revenge killings are considered legally justifiable, which maybe they should be if they aren't.

I can live with that--both revenge for violence and preemptive strikes against violence. If it can be considered justifiable homicide to kill the people who killed your husband, wife, child, master, servant, etc.--sure make it legal. Or kill your priest cause he raped your kid. Or kill your stalker. Or kill your abusive spouse who is looking for you after you escaped.

But I'd rather not live with it. I'm in favor of having no laws, don't get me wrong. But laws against murders should be one of the last to go.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:18 AM

I'm going to disagree.

I think this interpretation is radical and alarmist and would never be applied in law. After all, doctors already kill a million people a year, which is to say, a million people a year die from complications from surgery, medications, etc, who would not have died otherwise, in the US, according to the UN, and how many of them are convicted of murder as a result?

Looks to me like a law for domestic violence, to give women who are attacked, most probably by their abusive significant others, who kill said abuser though they were not in direct danger of dying from the attack can have a self defense clause on the grounds of the unborn child.

IOW, I think y'all are coming down in opposition to women's rights here, on the side of domestic abuse.

Think about it, think how laws are actually applied in practice, and how often society rules in favor of the psychopath or even random citizenry against the medical establishment in a criminal court, which would be essentially never.

Oh, and since this is obvious troll bait, I'm not going to argue, I just wanted to point out what i thought was the rather obvious detail that this looked like a radical left wing interpretation, alarmist and intended to scare people.

The law does not provide protection for vendettas as you seem to b e claiming, but self defense. No one is going to be in the position of self defense against an abortion doctor anyway.

So, keep on beating your wives people. The leftlies have your back.

Oh, and CTS, nice try on the sheep bait, and yeah, I'm a sheep for posting to it. For extra kicks I enjoyed repeatedly telling the people that they were sheep for even posting, from day one.

Now back to out regularly scheduled programming,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:35 AM

Riona

I oppose vendetta killings, as this leads to a circle of retribution, but I don't see where this law applies to that or even suggests it, as mother jones is suggesting, strikes me as left with scare tactics.

Abortion doctor killings are very very rare, and the law never even considers siding with the killer and this law gives them no grounds to do so.

By contrast, around 1200 women are killed in domestic violence, and about one third of that will be women who kill their partners in self defense. These women are stuck in a legal position that requires proof of lethal intent by their attacker, which they're seldom able to conclusively provide. The proposed law appears to offer them extra protection.

It wont pass of course because the left will raise a stink, even though the law clearly does not provided protections for vendetta killing, since a vendetta will not save the unborn child of the relative. If a would be father kills the doctor who aborted his child, its still a vendetta killing.

The law seems to specifically state protect for family members in the act of preventative action to protect the child, which makes it pretty cut and dried that this is a proposal for a domestic violence law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:50 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

I agree with you on vendetta killings as I follow the whole "An eye for an eye until the whole world's blind" ideal.

But I also think of the road to Hell when I read this.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The law does not provide protection for vendettas as you seem to b e claiming

Nobody is claiming this in the least. Apparently you only read part of our posts, not all of it.

This is not troll bait. Don't participate if you don't want to.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Looks to me like a law for domestic violence, to give women who are attacked, most probably by their abusive significant others, who kill said abuser though they were not in direct danger of dying from the attack can have a self defense clause on the grounds of the unborn child.

I think that was the original intent of the law. But as the bill says, it's been "hoghoused," maybe to sabotage the bill, I don't know.

As is, the law is so vaguely worded that it can be argued to apply to someone storming into a clinic to prevent the death of the fetus.

Homicide is justifiable... if

A) there is reasonable ground to

1) apprehend a design to commit a felony, OR
2) do some great personal injury

AND

B) imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

If they didn't have part (2) up there on its own, if the bill restricted itself to "reasonable ground" that 1) someone is planning a felony and 2) there is imminent danger that a felony is being carried out, this bill would be something else entirely. Since abortion is not a felony, this bill would not apply to abortions.

Take out part (2) and amend the previous section similarly (such as define "dwelling house" to specifically to rule out abortion clinics), and I won't complain.

As it stands, if someone is planning to do great personal injury to a fetus and there is imminent danger that the plan is being carried out, there is cause for justifiable homicide.

That is unacceptable.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:54 AM

No, It doesn't.

Even *if* the law was applied to call legal medical procedures murder, or attempted murder, which it never has been before, so thats a very big if... It would still require the fairly absurd situation: A family member would have to storm into and abortion clinic to protect their own child from being aborted by a doctor who refuses to abort the abort, during the procedure itself. That's absurd, and the court would never uphold this.

IIRC, in SD this wouldn't come up because relatives have a right to oppose an abortion anyway.

So no, it doesn't mean this, it means that in addition to not beating your wife at home, you cannot try to kill her elsewhere.

If you want to argue that this is an incremental step to avoiding the Dred Scott aspect of Roe v Wade, then I would admit you'd have a point. However, I'd agree with them that it should be done. I've known people who have beaten their girlfriends intentionally as a form of abortion. Saves money, you know, and that just the man demonstrating *his* right to choose, right? Sorry, I'm trolling. And tis still troll bait, we went over this last time, wedge issues are not real world events, sorry if I was spoiling your fun, but remember how many times I posted that my own thread was troll bait to no effect.

Unless you want me posting Paris Hilton hooks up as a RWED

ETA: Happy. Said gangs would have to be made of the parents, you just posted the law.

Its just saying that the foetus is a person, something no one seemed to take issue with in the Pennsylvania killing thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Wasn't this debunked like 5 minutes after it came out?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/south_dakota_legisl
ator_defend.html

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
IIRC, in SD this wouldn't come up because relatives have a right to oppose an abortion anyway.

Parents have a right to oppose an abortion in a minor, and relatives have a right to stand in for the parents in their absence.

Relatives don't have a right to oppose an abortion of an adult woman.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Wasn't this debunked like 5 minutes after it came out?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/south_dakota_legisl
ator_defend.html

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

This is not a debunking. This is an explanation of the original intent of the law. This does not preclude the law being used for purposes outside the original intent.

Quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/lawmaker-behind-south-dakota-
justifiable-homicide-bill_n_823553.html

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

Is there a localized outbreak of women having their abdomens beaten by people who want to avoid paying child support? Is it not already a crime in South Dakota to beat on your ex-girlfriend's abdomen? And is it not yet permissible in South Dakota to defend oneself, with deadly force if necessary, against the threat of immediate harm to your person? (Maybe South Dakota is simply lagging behind on legal protections for ex-girlfriends.)

Jensen was dismissive of the notion that this law could be seen as an invitation to kill abortion providers: "Never say never, but if some loony did what you're suggesting, then this law wouldn't apply to them. It wouldn't be justifiable homicide."

I guess I'm pretty hung up on that whole "never say never" part.

This guy says it for me.

You can TELL me this law wouldn't apply to loonies who kill abortion providers. But I'd like to see it in writing. Yanno?

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Do you really think they would make a law saying that its ok to kill abortion doctors? Or at least, worthy of just a fine? I mean, thats where you are going right?

When I say they will make a law to monitor, then eventually confiscate, weapons from gun owners... Im called crazy...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:23 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Heard about this and was appropriately sickened; not just by the intent (because we all know exactly what the intent IS), but because it reflects what's happening in this country today. Extremists are having an enormous influence, and if that doesn't change, they could get influence over many of our lives.

I can't believe this is going to pass; it's patently insane, but sanity seems to have gone out the window with a lot of Americans these days...sadly.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:36 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Give me a break.

How crazy do you think things have gotten? That a government would allow for the murder of its citizens...?

Ooops...

That a government could force its people to buy something and be beholden to it from the minute they are born?

Oh wait...

That a government could use technology to infiltrate, watch, monitor, and in most ways, control the population?

No way!

That we must now be told what to eat?

Oh, come on!

That when the new people come in, they might push for THEIR wants and easily pushed buttons...

Good grief... no..

Starting to wake up? Cus Im tired of poking you.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:14 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

The only reason I brought up revenge killings is because I thought that was the only way people should legally be allowed to kill abortion doctors, if revenge killings are legally justifiable homicide. From what I'm hearing here it sounds like revenge killings are not justifiable homicide. So that answers that one for me.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:40 PM

Yes, a justifiable homicide would be if Sam has a gun pointed at Judy and you shoot Sam. This is justifiable homicide because it is an act of necessity. If Sam were to shoot Judy and you responded by shooting Sam, it would a crime of passion, which IIRC, is given more leniency under the Napoleonic code than under the English system which is used in 49 states. Under our judicial system, it would undoubtedly matter how much time had passed. If 3 seconds passed, you would probably not be in a lot of trouble, provided your story was verifiable. If 3 days passed, you would be in more trouble. It would clearly indicate that you had motive, and that it was premeditated. Ironically, abortion itself is legal under the clause of justifiable homicide, since it is not legal to kill the foetus of another woman.

This looks to me like a domestic violence bill, and the right to lifers are trying to gain a little ground in extending the recognition of a foetus as a human being, which they then intend to use to overthrow Roe v. Wade on the basis of Dred Scott, which has been their intention for a long time. I assume the fallout of the scare piece will be that either the bill is amended in a manner which specifically does not include protection for those who kill doctors, or the bill will fail to pass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:21 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
That when the new people come in, they might push for THEIR wants and easily pushed buttons...

That is such incredible bullshit, it’s mindboggling. So the “new people” are pushing to have the right to kill abortion doctors with impunity??...this is an improvements?!?! I can’t believe you’re serious! Or are you just tossing out whatever comes to mind from your mental library of "talking points"?

I’m also sick to death of the “government telling us what to eat” bullshit...if you want to keep blathering about that, at least—well, I’d ask someone who gave a shit about whether they were telling the truth or not, I suppose that’s not you. But it’s a lie, and I’d ask a RESPONSIBLE person to show some facts to back it up. I know you’re not into facts, only rhetoric, be it truth or lie, I’m just sick to death of that particular politispeak...just like the birther shit.

Quote:
This looks to me like a domestic violence bill, and the right to lifers are trying to gain a little ground in extending the recognition of a foetus as a human being, which they then intend to use to overthrow Roe v. Wade on the basis of Dred Scott, which has been their intention for a long time.

Bang on, DT, that’s the INTELLIGENT understanding of its purpose. I just hope there are enough intelligent people out there to rise up and kill this disgusting piece of legislation before it even gets started.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:33 AM

KANEMAN

I think more liberal babies should be aborted. Really. If your mom smokes pot and your dad wears berkenstocks....you should be aborted. If your mom has a girlfriend....you should be aborted. If your mother likes the taste of government cheese.....you should be aborted. If your parents don't think score should be kept in little league games....you should be aborted.

-------------------------------------------------
Kwicko, I formally condemn your mother for not aborting you. Yeah, I'm sure her brother was happy to have a son, but you are inexcusable....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:56 AM

I think I'm starting to get a clearer understanding of how 'wedge' issues work. Now, I've been cognizant 'that they work' for some time now, but I'm slowly beginning to grok more and more the 'how.'

Nowhere in there does it suggest "kill abortion doctors with impunity" but there is no shortage of folks jumping to that conclusion. If I wanted to jump to the opposite extreme I could claim those in opposition believe "Doctors should be allowed to perform abortions against the will of their patients with no consequences and full legal protection." Where the hell did I get that from? Oh yeah, knee-jerk reactionism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I think I'm starting to get a clearer understanding of how 'wedge' issues work..."

Welcome to the suck.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Welcome to the suck.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

I must say I'm rather disappointed, I was told the dark side had cookies or something. No cookies? How about a cake... a pie?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:16 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sorry, no pie... just bitter fruit.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:21 AM

I will make lemon bars!

I make DAMN awesome lemon bars. :D *slightly crazy*

*okay, not just slightly*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:25 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I think I saw some sour grapes around here a little while ago...

True, sour grapes make for a bitter whine... but... HIYO!

lol

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/us/16abortion.html?_r=1

Some more fuel for the fire..

ETA: I think we can all agree, that if the baby is outside the womb and crying, cutting its throat with a pair of scissors is not "abortion".

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Happy, I'm just going by the text of the bill:

Quote:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:

22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm

If you don't think that "says" that it's justifiable homicide to kill an abortion doctor, I'm not sure how you're reading it. Seems pretty clear to me: "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person (the unborn child)...if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to...do some great personal injury." In other words, if a doctor is trying to do "some great personal injury" to an unborn child (i.e., abortion), it's justifiable homicide to off them.

Hell, the very TITLE of the bill focuses on it: "expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children."

I don't think that so MANY people "jumping" to that conclusion is illogical, I think it's quite "justifiable".

So how are you reading it?

On the other hand, you're absolutely right about wedge issues; they distract the focus from the serious problems we need to be dealing with in this country. To me it's just another indication that legislators are ignoring what they say they are for (jobs! jobs! jobs!) to focus instead on "social issues", just as the newbies in the House are doing. What have been their first few bills, or haven't you noticed? Pure social issues; nothing about jobs or the economy.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:23 AM

Keywords, Niki: "lawful defense." Murdering an abortion doctor to save an unborn child really doesn't fall under lawful defense in preventing of homocide as it's a medical procedure, agreed to presumably by at least one of the "enumerated parties." Which DT already pointed out. This law doesn't change that.

Similarly, taking a person in a persistent vegetative state off of oxygen wouldn't be considered a homocide, and the doctor who did it would likely not be subject to a potential justified homocide. Despite Terry Schiavo's parents struggle otherwise.

(As a side note, there's been some recent strides in waking people up from vegetative states, even people who had lost nearly as much brain mass, that makes me wonder if Terry was actually viable. We'll never know now I guess)

Quote:
Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person (the unborn child)

That sounds like quite a limitation of the scope of the law to me. The law also points out that this is applicable "in the lawful defense" of husbands, wives, parents, children, servants (huh?), masters (double huh?), mistresses, AND unborn children.

Really, it sounds like a clarification of a law already under the book, where a guy threatening to kill a mother and an unborn child in regular violence/bloodshed (i.e. not-an-abortion) would be charged for a double attempted homocide. And that defending someone against homociding someone else is a justifiable homocide. I'm honestly more thrown by "servants" and "masters." This must be a REALLY old law they're updating.

As for "expanding" the law for "certain unborn children," I'd have to be more familiar with the law of the state; maybe they don't have the double homocide/infanticide rule spelled out. I mean, if the law still calls out masters and servants... It's pretty outdated. It stands to reason they're trying to update the language to something approaching the modern understanding of self-defense, homocide, and justifiable homocide.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay. I buy your point. It can be interpreted that way.

For me, given the state in question and the consistent tactic of using means other than federal law to make abortion difficult/impossible to obtain, I read it the other way. I don't know their existing laws either, but I assume in most states, killing a pregnant woman is considered doubt homicide. Isn't causing the miscarriage of a pregnant woman by beating her in such a way as to cause same already considered homicide in most sates?

It can be seen either way; goes to "intent" of the law, and I think giving judges a way to interpret it. I see it as a roundabout way of justifying the killing of abortion doctors, and I'll bet dollars to donuts some anti-choice extremists interpret it that way, too.

We've already seen, all around the country, that because they've had no luck overturning Roe v. Wade, various state, county and city governments have found as many ways as they can think of to "outlaw" abortion. The one that really stuck was where they made a law that any women's health clinic which provides abortions must be set up exactly the same as a hospital...which of course would cause them all to close, because that's impossible to do. There are so many tactics being used, starting with the gruesome laws requiring what doctors can and can't do, I see this as yet another imaginative effort to further their cause.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:40 AM

Hey Niki, I didn't mean to call you out in particular, quoting you was just convenient. The fact that there's no shortage of folks feeling the same way IMO is no small thing. I'm not viewing this as a 'they are wrong and stupid' kinda thing, just commenting on our political reflexes to assume the worst, and not always without good reason.

It's already been said, but I read it as the lawful defense of the unborn child of such enumerated persons not just any child and any doctor. I also find it highly unlikely that a situation would arise in which an abortion doctor would abort or cause harm to an unborn child against the parents' will, but as I have been informed via private message, sadly this has happened before, which is probably why the law was made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:49 AM

As a supplement to that comment, always check your prescriptions VERY carefully, and have the pharmacist double check the prescription, and the pills themselves, to make sure they're right and that you haven't been mixed up with someone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I know you didn't, Happy, I was just responding to your argument. But as to

Quote:
highly unlikely that a situation would arise in which an abortion doctor would abort or cause harm to an unborn child against the parents' will

what about a husband who doesn't want the wife to have the abortion? Would he be "justified" under such a statute in shooting the doctor? The thing is, stuff like this is (I believe deliberately) left so vague that it can be intended to open "back doors" to using "justificable homicide" as a defense.

We can't know for sure, obviously, unless we could pin down the legislators supporting the bill, which would never be possible because if many of us are right, they'd never admit it. I'd like to know what their rationale is for putting up a bill such as this. I see it as a sign of the times, given all that's happening.

By the bye, I find the "masters", "mistresses" and "servants" thing really weird too, and it makes me wonder just how archaic their laws are, too. Strange...

And yes, Byte, VERY good thing to remember, given how many times people have been harmed/killed by medication mistakes!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:11 AM

I can understand mistresses still being on the book, because that suggests a whole paramour situation, if someone is going to kill a guy's mistress (or girlfriend) it might make sense that it's justified he defend them.

But the other two are very strange, and I can only assume are old holdovers, which makes me wonder why they're leaving the language in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:50 PM

The masters gave me pause as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 3:05 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Byte, I don't think they mean mistresses like we use the word today, I think in the law it just means female masters. Yeah the language in there is pretty archaic, are laws in all states that wordy?

Yeah, I saw an episode of Dr. G, Medical Examiner (good show) where a little boy's medicine got mixed up with methodone at the pharmacy, his medicine had a name that sounded a little similar, and he died, it was horrible I felt bad for everyone involved in that, the boy, the parents, I'm sure the pharmacist will never forgive him/herself. Horrible all around.

Don't get me going about Terri Shiabo.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 3:10 PM

Good point. Mistress is probably a language holdover as well.

On that last point, Yes, half of us would agree with you and half would disagree and then there would be a war ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2011 4:39 PM

I assumed that, I was merely providing justification for why that wording might still work today. The other two, not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:06 PM

New, scarier bill in Nebraska:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/484527/ne_follows_sd%27s_
lead%2C_proposes_bill_that_would_make_the_murder_of_an_abortion_provider_a_%22justifiable_homicide%22/

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/nebraska-justifiable-homicide-
abortion-bill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+%28MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed%29

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 9:43 AM

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY

The crazy bills won't stop coming:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-g
eorgia

Quote:
It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin—who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"—has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.

snip

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 11:17 AM

As a former fetus, I am against abortion, however I am really against Planned Parenthood making 100's of millions off the suffering of young girls and at the same time calling it choice. Then the stifle any voice that wants to give these little whores a real choice. letting their loser sperm donors raise the little bastards.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 5, 2011 3:28 PM