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.

 

Abortion providers will be killed in South Dakota - Islam is not the only extremist breeding hole.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I'm really not quite sure to make of this.

I see lots of people in the west saying how barbaric the Islamic world is for how they treat their females and children, yet I find serious articles like this saying that doctors will be 'killed' for preforming an abortion.

Now I have the upmost respect for human life, and there comes a point where I do believe birthing the child should be encouraged by all means unless somehow hideously deformed and damaged due to environmental conditions or negligent actions by the mother.

But killing the doctor?
Source Article

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers."
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. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators. UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." Jensen also aggressively defended the bill in an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent on Tuesday morning.

"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week.



I just dont know what to think of this - Its a touchy issue.


-GM


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




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


Your own post pretty much sums it up:


UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."


Sorry, but comparing the whole 8 (not 800 or 8000) abortion doctors murdered in 28 years by a few kooks to the body count of the Islamic extremist is a bit of a stretch. Well, more than a bit.

More people were killed by space shuttle accidents in the last 28 years than abortion doctors....
edit on 15-2-2011 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Just republicans being republicans

2nd



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


The largest factor is likely education in the west, assisting people to gain some kind of sense.

Yet the point I'd like to make is that brainwashing is evident.

No human being would think like this in their rational mind.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I think the article is very slanted, the bill only effects if the person is committing a crime, abortion is legal so you can't shoot an abortion doctor. It's a pro abortion site so it's trying to drum up business so to speak.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


Who is more extreme?

The "doctor" that has justified to him or her self that destroying the lives of millions of babies is okay?
Or the "nut-job" that thinks it's okay to kill one person that has destroyed the lives of millions of babies?

It's as simple as you want to make it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981
I think the article is very slanted, the bill only effects if the person is committing a crime, abortion is legal so you can't shoot an abortion doctor. It's a pro abortion site so it's trying to drum up business so to speak.


Illegal Abortions - Source

As this link states - nearly all abortions are illegal in South Dakota

If this bill passes, its the "Big Stick" to keep doctors and practitioners from doing it anyway.

"If you do it, we will kill you"

Errr, this seems slightly insane to me. Especially considering we live in a pro choice world.

Just not in South Dakota apparently.

Imagine if you were raped or had a baby filled with tumors and the government says to you.

"Sorry, you're gonna have that baby, and if anyone tries to stop it, we will kill them"



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


although i'm against abortions 100%, and believe legalizing abortions leads women to be more, how shall i say, promiscuous. this is absolutely absurd. people of "Christian faith" get it wrong again.

the rules of Christianity are not to kill any who oppose you, but rather to accept and love them... this is just silly.
edit on 15-2-2011 by stuncrazy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TreadUpon
 


Yes...its a touchy subject.

Frankly though, this is the business of a woman to decide. She is the one who must go through this process.

Who are we to make demands of another human being, based upon experience that will only effect her?

As if we know better?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Additional info:



Since the original outcry, a change has been made to the bill: it only allows the "justifiable homicide" defense in cases of self-defense. It's no longer applicable to fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, or husbands.


HuffPo

Here's the bill amendment, I believe.



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.


Source

Master or servant?


I haven't been able to make sense of it yet. Why do they have to speak like that? Why don't they just say what they mean??


edit on 2/15/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stuncrazy
 


Its all insane I agree.

But this stagnation is only going to be purged from our society when its brought to light.

Personally I dont know any women who've gotten abortions, even if they dont know the dad, they have the baby anyways. It takes a certain kind of person to destroy a healthy baby but I can't speak for any who have, nor can I judge them for their choices, after all it is their body.

Its just...sad...To think so many are dying - To also witness their response to this, is to threaten more death.

I see a pattern, and its ugly.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
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 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Okay without getting into the morality of the deal this to me is obvious stepping stone legislation.

By doing this they are getting a step closer to establishing the rights of an unborn fetus as something separate from the mother. The current law that allows the protection of the mother is sufficient, but this is overkill to set legal precedent to the independence and value of the unborn. This will in turn add much more to the pro life legal argument towards the ultimate goal of completely outlawing the practice.

This is an insanely touchy subject and the pro-life people will stop at nothing to put an end to what they feel is murder, and the pro choice people will stop at nothing to retain what they feel is an essential human right of a mother (having complete control over her body and everything in it). The reality is this is a difficult thing and both sides are choosing the lesser of 2 evils, there can be no winners in this debate.

Hopefully you can't see what side I'm on as I'm trying to be neutral here and just give my opinion as to what this law is actually designed for.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
To also witness their response to this, is to threaten more death.

I see a pattern, and its ugly.


I forgot to respond to this. When I first heard about this, I immediately thought of "honor killings" that people have talked about. That's ugly, all right.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Yup...its a gong show, thats for sure.

Every child is a potential tax payer, and the government wants them alive and healthy until the age of 50

Its really out of any of our hands - but to allow the murder of a doctor seems like they are crossing a line in the sand.

Isnt it enough to just make the abortions illegal? We now have to enforce a death penalty?

When does it end? Do we threaten to burn down a hospital if they allow an abortion?
edit on 15-2-2011 by Gradius Maximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


Ah, wonderful South Dakota, the state where:

One out of every seven adult women in the state has been the victim of forcible rape in her lifetime. And now the Rethugs want to subject all of them to forcible childbirth.

A parent standing by and watching a child be raped and not notifying the authorities is only a misdemeanor.

Infant mortality is at the highest rate in 10 years. apps.sd.gov...

Spending on K-12 education is dead last. Yeah, 50th out of 50.madvilletimes.blogspot.com...

Just three quarters of all children make it through high school. www.all4ed.org...

SD is obviously a state where much more care is given to a clump of undifferentiated cells than a living, breathing concious child.

An unintended consequence: Want to get rid of your wife? Get her pregnant and then if she, the irresponsible slut, engages in any behavior which is dangerous to the fetus, or embryo if you can't wait that long, kill her claiming justifiable homicide, since you were "protecting" the unborn



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


amen sister. for a country with "Christian values" we are pretty big hypocrites. i mean it is just as our main man Jesus said we kill the prophets before him and after him including him. (malcom x, abraham lincoln, MLK, JFK, and prolly Ron Paul if he gets elected if not before cause he's messing with the fed)

we live in a sinister time, when the world more and more each day seemingly deliberately takes the completely wrong course of action. idk why anyone in the world feels like you can force people into submission, people get pissed off when they're backed into corner, and sooner or later we'll set things straight we just haven't gotten pissed off enough yet.

this is just more proof to how upside down and backwards society is in today's day and age.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Yeah, abortions are legal... for now.

This reminds me that the GOP pushed a bill to redefine rape in such a way as to make date-rape and marital rape legal.

The overall message is clear to me; "We will increase the birth rate in America and if you disagree with us, we will force you."

When the 'Stuf hits the fan' scenario happens, it won't be a sudden collapse of order. In America, it will be an extension of what is happening now; a gradual decay in law and order as popular politicians, especially Republicans, begin pushing for increasingly barbarous laws to replace the old civil society with a rootin' tootin' cowboy society.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


What about Jim Jones, Dave Koresh, McVey and the many others you never hear about.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
My bull$hit detector registered a 9.7 when I read this, and for good reason it turns out.

Has anybody bothered to actually read the law, or do we take what some left wing rag like MotherJones prints as gospel truth?

The law reads as follows: (didn’t see a link to the actual legislation in the MotherJones post, wonder why?)


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


The full bill has to be read in context with the remainder of SD’s self defense law. But in summary:

Section 1, from a legal POV is pretty clear that if someone is attacking you, you are pregnant, and you have a reasonable belief that your unborn baby is in danger (even if you aren’t), then you have the legal right to kill that person.

Section 2, from a legal POV, states that if you witness someone being forcibly assaulted and you have a reasonable belief that the victims unborn baby is in danger (even if the victim isnt), then you have justifiable cause to use lethal force against the aggressor.

In both instances, its only justifiable if the aggressor is committing a felony, and abortion is not a felony in SD.

So everyone stop hyperventilating, and take the time to actually read the damn thing instead of taking the word of a not so disinterested party at face value.

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



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join