South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors

I read an article about this earlier, too, and without reading the actual bill, it seems that the interpretation of the bill can be construed to include the killing of abortion doctors, by default, which doesn't that it *does* catergorize it as a "justifiable homicide," which i do find hard to believe, even with the insanity and irrationality of the GOP. Having not read the bill, i do not know the validity of of claim, but it seems to be interpretation--and many things can be interpreted in many ways, legally.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm anti-abortion, but the people who wish to harm or kill abortion doctors are hypocritical scumbags.

Thankfully, this bill won't see the light of day.

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

About as hypocritical as pro-lifers (mainly christians?) supporting (unjustifiable--or any) war? And the killings of innocents and all the other victims caught between opposing governments ? Sounds about right. Hypocrisy at its height.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
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.

A fetus is the property of the woman carrying it. Punching a non-pregnant woman in the stomach is assault. Punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, should it cause the fetus harm, is assault PLUS destruction of property. Is it hypocritical that I can throw a rock through my own window and break it, but if someone else throws a rock through my window and breaks it it's a crime? No, because its MY window. I don't see why this concept is so difficult to understand. Acknowledging that the fetus has some intrinsic value TO ITS OWNER doesn't neccessitate endowing said fetus with human rights.

reply to post by the Gospel of Luke


I think you're missing my point.

Legally, a fetus, in all intents and purposes, is considered to be a part of the mother's body. Therefore, why is any damage caused to it in an assault, considered worse than any other part of the body that is damaged in a similar assault on a person who is not pregnant ?

What makes damaging an unborn child any worse than other internal damage that can be caused from an assault ?

I think a more accurate analogy than the one you posted, would be: If someone throws a brick through your window, should they be charged with a different, more serious crime if they threw a brick through your window and the brick also damaged a vase in the process ?

Originally posted by Liquesence
About as hypocritical as pro-lifers (mainly christians?) supporting (unjustifiable--or any) war? And the killings of innocents and all the other victims caught between opposing governments ? Sounds about right. Hypocrisy at its height.

Yes, sadly hypocrisy runs rife in many people's views. I think it's most dangerous when people convince themselves that their hypocritical stance is correct or excusable.

I don't see how anybody could be anti-abortion and also support actions where other innocent lives are lost. I guess they have a way to rationalise it to themselves.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors

www.salon.com

South Dakota Legislature is considering a bill to let relatives of a woman seeking an abortion legally kill the provider performing the procedure.

According to Mother Jones:


The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So in other words... the attending physician should make sure that the immediate family agrees before the procedure is done. I can understand why a husband would be angry if the wife did it on the sly... or the parents whose minor daughter did it without their knowledge/permission. This bill isn't giving anyone permission to kill the doctors and walk away scott free. There will still be consequences... I can assure you.

Originally posted by Aquarius1these wacko politicians are totally out of control, we need to get rid of most if not all of them, time to take back our country.

While I agree with this, it seems to me they are just mirroring the extremism at large in our own culture. We've become a danger to ourselves and our way of life. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

I think this representative should be removed from office for advocating violence and vigilantism which I would hope is a violation of some element of his oath of office.

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Originally posted by Aquarius1these wacko politicians are totally out of control, we need to get rid of most if not all of them, time to take back our country.

I think this representative should be removed from office for advocating violence and vigilantism which I would hope is a violation of some element of his oath of office.

There was a time when I thought our Representatives really cared about our country and truly wanted to help the people and had our best interest at heart, these days it looks more like self interest and they think they know what is best. Politicians no longer listen to the people they are suppose to represent.

I hope the people of South Dakota will throw the bum out.

Another write up on this story today:

The South Dakota Bill That Could Legitimize Murder of Abortion Providers

HB 1171 is one of three new bills being considered by the South Dakota legislature which seems, in "representing the people," to have completely forgotten that those same South Dakotans have repeatedly rejected such measures at the ballot box. The other two gems? House Judiciary Committee HB1217 would institute forcible “counseling” at anti-choice clinics (as Tiffany Campbell reported earlier) and HB 1218, would criminalize all surrogacy in South Dakota.

"While each of these bills is absurd in their own right," according to South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, "they have one thing in common."

They are all attempts to allow government intrusion in to personal decisions best made by a woman, her family and doctor. Yet, a few ideologues continue to press their personal agenda and interfere with private decisions.

Full Article:

www.alternet.org...

Originally posted by 1088no5

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors

www.salon.com

South Dakota Legislature is considering a bill to let relatives of a woman seeking an abortion legally kill the provider performing the procedure.

According to Mother Jones:


The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So in other words... the attending physician should make sure that the immediate family agrees before the procedure is done. I can understand why a husband would be angry if the wife did it on the sly... or the parents whose minor daughter did it without their knowledge/permission. This bill isn't giving anyone permission to kill the doctors and walk away scott free. There will (would) still be consequences to face... I can assure you.

edit on 16/2/11 by 1088no5 because: (no reason given)

Not sure WHY... but after less than 3 hours, I was not allowed to make a second correction. I thought you had FOUR hours. I've noticed this ALOT when attempting to make corrections... especially when coming back later and catching an error that needs to be corrected.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

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?

Can somebody explain what "master" means?
Since when are "servants" a class of people in the US with special rights?

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

They are all attempts to allow government intrusion in to personal decisions best made by a woman, her family and doctor. Yet, a few ideologues continue to press their personal agenda and interfere with private decisions.

www.alternet.org...

This is the bottom line for me. Republicans preach about less government.... that is, unless they want to control other people, then they're all for the government intruding into one's private life. There should be NO mandatory counseling and certainly no criminalizing of surrogacy! Who's business is that? Not the government's, that's for sure!

Why don't Republicans hold these representatives accountable?

Big surprise... They don't REALLY want a free society. They don't REALLY want smaller government.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


This is garbage. You can't say there is an "OK to kill people bill" and not sight a source. Where can we find this "bill"?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by the Gospel of Luke

 

I think you're missing my point.

Legally, a fetus, in all intents and purposes, is considered to be a part of the mother's body. Therefore, why is any damage caused to it in an assault, considered worse than any other part of the body that is damaged in a similar assault on a person who is not pregnant ?

What makes damaging an unborn child any worse than other internal damage that can be caused from an assault ?

I think a more accurate analogy than the one you posted, would be: If someone throws a brick through your window, should they be charged with a different, more serious crime if they threw a brick through your window and the brick also damaged a vase in the process ?

There are other places in the law where different parts of the body have different values. By your logic, rape and sexual assault shouldn't even exist as separate crimes from assault because it's merely assault on a different body part.

But that is really beside the point, because you didn't merely state that the law, as it stands now, endowing the fetus with personhood when convenient, is illogical. If that was all you had stated, I wouldn't have bothered to disagree. Instead, you stated that:

"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."

However, if one views the fetus as property, as do I and many others, then there is nothing illogical about it. Insisting that a fetus must be categorized as either worthless or a human being is to create a false dilemma.

Originally posted by TimBrandSurveillanceMan
Where can we find this "bill"?

On the Internets, of course.

South Dakota HB 1171
.

Originally posted by the Gospel of Luke
There are other places in the law where different parts of the body have different values. By your logic, rape and sexual assault shouldn't even exist as separate crimes from assault because it's merely assault on a different body part.

No, that isn't my logic at all.

They are a completely different kind of assault. I'm talking about exactly the same assault. eg. Punching someone in the stomach.

Originally posted by the Gospel of Luke
But that is really beside the point, because you didn't merely state that the law, as it stands now, endowing the fetus with personhood when convenient, is illogical. If that was all you had stated, I wouldn't have bothered to disagree. Instead, you stated that:

"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."

And my point is entirely accurate.

If someone can legally terminate their child, then the law obviously does not class that fetus as any different to another part of the woman's body.

But if someone else were to damage it, then the fetus' status is suddenly upgraded from just another part of the woman's body, to a sort of ''semi-human'', so as the attacker can be punished more severely.

This is completely illogical and inconsistent.

Originally posted by the Gospel of Luke
However, if one views the fetus as property, as do I and many others, then there is nothing illogical about it. Insisting that a fetus must be categorized as either worthless or a human being is to create a false dilemma.

It's not a false dilemma, as in this case it is either one or the other.

A fetus is either an extension of a woman's body or it has rights which are independent of the woman. There really is no middle ground on this.

Saying the fetus is property certainly doesn't work, because why would damaging or destroying property that a woman was storing internally be any worse than damaging internal organs in a similar assault on a non-pregnant person ? How would the value of the ''property'' be assessed ? Would we be talking about the equivalent of damaging someone's fence or knocking their house down ?


The law I'm referring to in the USA is the ''Unborn Victims of Violence Act'', not the ''Property Stored in a Woman's Womb Act''. LOL.

The act gives the fetus ''human'' status in incidences of another person killing the unborn child ( with the obvious exception of abortion doctors ).

I'm not sure that this law has ever been used, but it is on the statute books nonetheless, and typifies what I mean when pointing out the selective use of giving the fetus ''person'' status.


I think we all know the fundamental reality of this:

We instinctively know that someone intentionally trying to kill a fetus in a woman's womb is a serious and heinous crime, yet so many people let cognitive dissonance, lack of personal responsibility and selfish expediency rule the day when ignoring the mother soliciting the same ''crime''.

Originally posted by the Gospel of Luke
However, if one views the fetus as property, as do I and many others, then there is nothing illogical about it. Insisting that a fetus must be categorized as either worthless or a human being is to create a false dilemma.

Sorry to re-reply to your post, but I'd just to comment on the erroneous view that a fetus is ''property''.

It is illegal to sell fetal parts and it is also illegal in most States to abort the fetus yourself or to have the procedure done by an unlicensed medical professional.

How can it be your ''property'' if you are not allowed to do with it as you reasonably wish ?

No, the property idea is absurd, and would also make it perfectly acceptable to do even more disgusting things with the fetus when it is alive or dead.


It can only be treated as an extension of the woman's body or as, at the very least, a partially separate entity.

The problem is that the laws surrounding the issue are so illogical and inconsistent in their attempt to bridge these two positions that it makes the whole thing a complete mess, as I've outlined in the examples of contradictory and selectively applied legal status of the fetus.

There is a moral obligation in every actions. The New York Times reports that South Dakota House speaker Val Rausch has announced that House Bill 1171 - the abortion-related bill several believe would create a legal loophole through which the assassination of abortion physicians might be considered justifiable homicide - has been indefinitely postponed. Instead of personalmoneystore.com... og/2011/02/15/south-dakota-bill-could-justify-killing-abortion-doctorsas a civilized state that respects life and abides by the tenets of the U.S. Constitution, legislators agreed to indefinitely postpone voting on House Bill 1171.