It doesn't matter what the intent of the law is; it only matters what the letter of the law is, and the law as currently written would define anti-abortion terrorism as justifiable homicide.
I find this whole thing amusing. The law started out as a wholly superfluous attempt to extend the definition of self-defense as applied to pregnant women, and has been transformed into a legal justification for terrorism. On some level, I have to applaud the South Dakota legislature for its single-mindedness and tenacity.
It doesn't matter what the intent of the law is; it only matters what the letter of the law is, and the law as currently written would define anti-abortion terrorism as justifiable homicide.
I find this whole thing amusing. The law started out as a wholly superfluous attempt to extend the definition of self-defense as applied to pregnant women, and has been transformed into a legal justification for terrorism. On some level, I have to applaud the South Dakota legislature for its single-mindedness and tenacity.
Here ya go, another link you won't read because it proves you wrong:
OK, in South Dakota it is a class 2 misdemeanor to carry out an unlawful abortion. Murder is a felony.
This is getting old..... South Dakota Codified Laws
There is a huge difference between unauthorized abortions and unlawful abortions. Unauthorized abortions are caused by bodily injury to a pregnant female. Unlawful abortions occur when the doctor does not receive informed consent, which is a misdemeanor.
HB 1215 was rejected by voter referndum in 2006: South Dakota Nixes Abortion Ban; Michigan Voters OK Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.comI didn't realize the distinction. It was unauthorised abortion I had in mind.
The other pieces of legislation belong to South Dakota Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act (HB 1215), where some portions are in force as of 2006 while others take force upon a SCOTUS decision in the afirmative of States rights over Federal rights.
So can you and I agree that the law should have an amendment that protects abortion providers pursuing their profession according to state and federal laws? Such a provision would remove such protections from abortion providers who do so against state and federal law. Is that fair?
In the Scott Roeder case and the particulars around it, yes, you are right. But you have to remember that many of the critics of Roeder suggest that he was "pushed" into killing Tiller by other extremists who wouldn't bear any of the responsibility of their role in Tiller's murder.
So what pro-choicers fear is that a male partner, or even some other family member, of a woman they know is seeking an abortion will use lethal force "to prevent harm to the unborn child." And that person will be pushed into it by pro-life militants.
Note it doesn't necessarily matter if the law, as it is amended now, allows such an interpretation or not. What matters is that such pro-life militants may convince that person to use violence against abortion providers by lying to them about the effect of the amendment. So making such a clarification in the law could preempt militants from convincing others to commit violent acts with the amendment as a justification for it.
And I hope you're right and that the exception for legal abortion providers is installed. I just wanted to point out that pro-choicers didn't criticize this amendment to strike back at pro-lifers but rather as an effort to stop violence that may be initiated against militants who makes things worse for both sides.
All are cases where someone is illegally performing an action.That is significantly different than someone LEGALLY performing an action.
Yes, extremists do think its pretty simple.
They also think bombing buildings is perfectly justifable and is nothing at all similar to terrorism.
No. I'd push for the law making it legal to kill a gay person to be overturned, but I would not push for a law legally allowing people to kill someone for performing a legal action.
And what if that fails? Go oh well nothing can be done?
HB 1215 was rejected by voter referndum in 2006: South Dakota Nixes Abortion Ban; Michigan Voters OK Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Don't you like how pro-choice is strangely quiet on unlawful late-term abortions?
They just want to jump right into clinic bombings as though they happen all the time.Pro-choice takes the radical behavior of a domestic terrorist group and paint all of pro-life/anti-abortion with the same broad brush. I suppose these are the same people who insist all Muslims are terrorists and that all gays are pedophiles.
Here's a challenge for pro-choice: please paint a hypothetical where you would support a family member using lethal force to stop a wanted abortion.
Speaking out against unlawful late term abortions goes against their treating a child in the womb as a human being beliefs.
I think its funny that they act as though only pro-life/anti-abortion people are guilty of violence.
AbortionViolence.com
Pro-Abortion Violence
Moms For Life: Pro-Abortion Violence Escalates: Man Pulls Gun on Protestors at Planned Parenthood
That's like asking a crackhead to not smoke crack out of his own free will. It isn't going to happen.
I support this law. I believe people should be allowed to use lethal force in order to protect an unborn child that is at threat for murder and being attacked.
As the law stands today, if a man punches her in the stomach and she pulls out a gun and kills him, she gets charged with murder.
So essentially you're in favor of legalizing murder, as long as its murder you approve of.
How in the world is allowing people performing a legal action that is part of their job be legally murdered a "good" thing. Even if you think abortion is a bad thing, legalizing further murder isn't a solution.
Pro-choice does this all the time.
If the woman kills her unborn in the proscribed manner, it's "a right", but if anyone else kills the unborn, even with her consent, in any non-sanctioned fashion, it's "murder".
The nature and reality of the thing being killed doesn't change, only the context of it's death, and pro-choice approves of this. Elective abortion is therefore nothing short of legalized murder, just as 'murder' is unlawful 'killing'.
Now please don't take this wrong, I'm all for legalizing murder that we agree with and calling it killing instead. That's fine. You have the right to legally murder someone who is a threat to your life. You have the right to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, trespassing, etc. See I can play your word game too. But since pro-choice also supports this it is nothing short of pure hypocrisy to try and accuse someone else of the same as though it's wrong.
I agree with this. The correct thing to do is make abortion illegal, that way the 'procedure' is unlawful the family member remains within the law when killing said abortion doctor.
However, until such a time that those abortions are outlawed, everyone should be legally restrained from using lethal force to stop them.
Moderator's Warning: |
Pro-choice does this all the time.
If the woman kills her unborn in the proscribed manner, it's "a right", but if anyone else kills the unborn, even with her consent, in any non-sanctioned fashion, it's "murder".
The nature and reality of the thing being killed doesn't change, only the context of it's death, and pro-choice approves of this. Elective abortion is therefore nothing short of legalized murder, just as 'murder' is unlawful 'killing'.
Now please don't take this wrong, I'm all for legalizing murder that we agree with and calling it killing instead. That's fine. You have the right to legally murder someone who is a threat to your life. You have the right to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, trespassing, etc. See I can play your word game too. But since pro-choice also supports this it is nothing short of pure hypocrisy to try and accuse someone else of the same as though it's wrong.
I agree with this. The correct thing to do is make abortion illegal, that way the 'procedure' is unlawful the family member remains within the law when killing said abortion doctor.
Abortions which should remain legal forever are only those which jeopardize the mother's life or will cause a serious injury, and even then every reasonable effort should be made to save the unborn. All other abortions should be outlawed and lethal force therefore authorized to stop them.
However, until such a time that those abortions are outlawed, everyone should be legally restrained from using lethal force to stop them.
And that makes it right how? And that makes pro-life people supporting legalized murder how?
Yep, that's the law as it is now. If you think its a bad law, try to get the law changed. I have no issue with that.
Wonderful, then try and get the law changed. My issue is not with people wanting to get the law changed. My issue is with people further attempting to legalize murder of individuals who are performing legal activities.
Someone whose a ILLEGAL threat to your life. If you think that the Milk Man is a threat to your life because he's serving you milk and you think its a secret plot to kill you because milk is poisonous, its not legal to kill him. You're allowed to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, and trespassing (in some states) because in all those cases the person is performing ILLEGAL activities. You can't just declare someone in the middle of the street "Trespassing" and shoot him. You can't just declare that a kid whose called your son a boogerface is a threat to him and thus shoot him. It is only justifiable in situations where an individual is performing an illegal action that violates your rights/the rights of your families and its deemed that the murder is necessary to protect those rights from that illegal action.
Such is not the case here, as the law allows for the murder of people performing a LEGAL action.
Hey, if you manage to get abortion banned, and you want to try that killing an abortion doctor whose in the midst of attempting to get an illegal abortion in order to save your kid is justifiable homicide, I'd have less issue with it.
But the fact is, abortion isn't illegal now, so I'm not for a law allowing someone to legally kill someone for performing a legal act.
And this law doesn't do that, because this law allows for the loophole of claiming justifiable murder for killing someone who is doing it within the boundaries of the law.
there must be community colleges in your area even in the south....take some courses in history and philosophy (esp. plato and emm. kant) and you won't sound like a dumb hillbilly (or a candidate for the sa, 80 years late)
SPCM 222 - Argumentation and Debate
Common Course Number & Description
Explores argument as a communication activity, construction sound arguments in a variety of venues and analyzing the contribution of argument to public dialogue on contemporary issues.
PreRequisite:
3 semester hours
One class I won't need is geography, because I know that although my state's name includes "south", that South Dakota is not in the south. We're actually further north than California.
tru dat jerry, my mistake in thinking your arguments were from the sunny south....you simply sound like the welfare suckin, obams hatin of white folks from mississippi...who voted for orville faubus, ronald regan and george bush
Moderator's Warning: |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?