It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

This bill allows women to use deadly force to protect their unborn from harm.

I guess some people think that a woman who kills a "real person" to protect a "lump of tissue" should rot in prison like any other murderer... this is what "protecting women's rights" has come to I guess.




If you have a problem with it, please tell me why protecting women and children from things so that it didn't need to be legislated never occured to anyone with any significance for the 4 thousand years you had before this century.

You'd think that 4 thousand years of having the legal upper hand to make changes would have empowered men with these views to fix the myriad of problems to a satisfactory conclusion, or at least manage it with some grace. But it didn't.

You'all had yer chance to get it right or even close to right, a good long long chance at that, and you blew it. Step back and shut up.
edit on 2011/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
If you have a problem with it, please tell me why protecting women and children from things so that it didn't need to be legislated never occured to anyone with any significance for the 4 thousand years you had before this century.


Do you or don't you think that a woman should rot in jail like any other murderer, for using deadly force as a last resort to protect her unborn from harm?

I don't think she should.

And please don't address me as if I'm a gender... I'm an individual person. Thanks.
edit on 15-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
An assault on a pregnant woman is an assault on a person already. I believe you are allowed to use force to protect yourself from harm.

Or does the punch in the stomach of the woman not apply to the WOMAN being punched?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Aeons
 


Does the current law permit you to use deadly force to prevent being hit in the stomach?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I see nothing in that bill that even remotely suggests making it legal to kill "abortion doctors". Good spin, though. Really stimulates the partisans.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


...considering that sd only has 1 abortion clinic and a doctor has to fly in to provide a LEGAL medical procedure, this bill most certainly is anti-female-rights and is also attempting to decriminalize the murder of doctors who perform abortions by allowing the murders to be called justifiable homicide... there is no other reason for this bill...

legis.state.sd.us...


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.



...below is a link to sd's codified laws dealing specifically with homicide (including justifiable homicide)... show me where the void is that requires the bill in question...

legis.state.sd.us...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Both sides look stupid on this issue. It's ok to kill babies but not doctors that kill babies OR its ok to kill doctors that kill babies but not ok to kill babies.

Human life is human life. How about it's not ok to do any killing!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
An assault on a pregnant woman is an assault on a person already. I believe you are allowed to use force to protect yourself from harm.

Or does the punch in the stomach of the woman not apply to the WOMAN being punched?


I think that in most cases people would have a pretty difficult time justifying the use of deadly force because of someone hitting you in the stomach.

Being pregnant obviously changes the nature of the assault (IE. one punch could kill your unborn child).



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
You'all had yer chance to get it right or even close to right, a good long long chance at that, and you blew it. Step back and shut up.


Just because past generations failed to get a perfect society, doesn't mean that the situations in our current society is ''right'', or even any better than the previous ones.

Your point may have had some value if you hadn't made an illogical and contradictory comment assigning blame to one gender based on thousands of years of history that men in the current era are not responsible for.

I'm sure that most of us - male or female - are not 4 thousand years old, thereby making your comment completely superfluous and pointless.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

...below is a link to sd's codified laws dealing specifically with homicide (including justifiable homicide)... show me where the void is that requires the bill in question...

legis.state.sd.us...


I'm no lawyer. Are you saying that you can show me where there is already provision in the statutes for classifying a homicide as "justifiable" in the event someone is attempting to prevent harm to an unborn child?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
An assault on a pregnant woman is an assault on a person already. I believe you are allowed to use force to protect yourself from harm.

Or does the punch in the stomach of the woman not apply to the WOMAN being punched?


I think the problem lies in legislation such as the ''Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' in the USA.

Punching someone in the stomach is assault, whereas this type of legislation makes the crime worse if the punch to the stomach was delivered towards a woman who is carrying an unborn child.

This is just typical of the illogical hypocrisy and the ''have my cake and eat it'' ideology of the warped and twisted feminist movement.


Either an unborn child has rights, and is treated in such a way, or it doesn't.

The status of a child can't be changed to whatever happens to be the most favourable, beneficial or advantageous scenario to the potential mother.

The existence of an unborn child as a legal human cannot be picked and choosed on an arbitrary whim that happens to benefit the mother.


edit on 15-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

...below is a link to sd's codified laws dealing specifically with homicide (including justifiable homicide)... show me where the void is that requires the bill in question...

legis.state.sd.us...


I'm no lawyer. Are you saying that you can show me where there is already provision in the statutes for classifying a homicide as "justifiable" in the event someone is attempting to prevent harm to an unborn child?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


...you dont have to be a lawyer... you just have to be able to read and willing to read the laws...

...how can you make the determination if an additional law or a change to an existing law is required if you're clueless about the existing laws?... i dont require an answer to that and i'll answer your question even though i provided links for you to check out the info yourself...

legis.state.sd.us...


22-16-1.1. Fetal homicide--Felony--Application.

Homicide is fetal homicide if the person knew, or reasonably should have known, that a woman bearing an unborn child was pregnant and caused the death of the unborn child without lawful justification and if the person:

(1) Intended to cause the death of or do serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or the unborn child; or

(2) Knew that the acts taken would cause death or serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) If perpetrated without any design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony.

Fetal homicide is a Class B felony.

This section does not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, lawful or unlawful, to which the pregnant woman consented.



22-16-34. Justifiable homicide--Resisting attempted murder--Resisting felony on person or in dwelling house. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.


...this one below is the one they're trying to change... i posted the proposed changes in a previous post if you would like to compare them...


22-16-35. Justifiable homicide--Defense of person--Defense of other persons in household. 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 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.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


The nature of the assault changes, and can be accomodated without relying on legislation that can so easily be misused. Intentionally crafted TO BE misused.
edit on 2011/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Several thousands of years of wrong for a type of thought process is a pretty hefty correlation that I'm comfortable making some judgement using. Thanks.
edit on 2011/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

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


MASTERS? Are the Republicans trying to bring back slavery?


edit on 15-2-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


from the other thread.


Originally posted by Aeons
Wow, as amendments go those ones suck.

What 13 century moron did they let loose with a pen after cocktails?
edit on 2011/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
The nature of the assault changes, and can be accomodated without relying on legislation that can so easily be misused. Intentionally crafted TO BE misused.


I'm not attempting to justify any misuse of this legislation. On the contrary, I'm contesting why someone who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach gets more harshly treated by law than someone who punches a non-pregnant woman in the stomach.

This is completely inconsistent, as the child doesn't legally become a ''person'' until after it has been born or after a certain stage in the pregnancy ( depending on which country someone is in ).

It is completely illogical for someone to be able to legally terminate their unborn child, while at the same time, making it a more serious crime if someone intentionally tries to harm an unborn child.

It's either one or the other.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Several thousands of years of wrong for a type of thought process is a pretty hefty correlation that I'm comfortable making some judgement using.


Which just shows you up as being bitter, bigoted and illogical.

A subjective interpretation of previous societies' alleged failings doesn't in any way validate the attitudes of modern society on the same issues.






edit on 15-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
It does not mater what South Dakota does because the feds would be there to use the federal laws.

Likely federal hate crime and other terrorist type laws would cover killing abortion doctors.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I think there is an excellent basis for it being an aggravating factor in an assault.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Aeons
Several thousands of years of wrong for a type of thought process is a pretty hefty correlation that I'm comfortable making some judgement using.


Which just shows you up as being bitter, bigoted and illogical.

A subjective interpretation of previous societies' alleged failings doesn't in any way validate the attitudes of modern society on the same issues.


BS. When something has been done to death in a hundred different forms and all of them failed at least 50% of the time for more than 50% of the people, over thousands of years, ignoring that is seriously stupid.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join