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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
AMERICAN SHARIA LAW is coming and it wont be from Islam!

I am glad to see someone connecting this to the myriad attempts to label ALL Muslims with the fanatic nuts [and they are nuts] in Islam.

You see it is always wrong to lump all or anyone with a group who may belong to the same religion or nation to the actions of others.

Now this nut is likely a fundamentalist Christian as some have already presumed.

Therefore now we can say ALL FUNDIE CHRISTIANS ARE NUTS! RIGHT?
WRONG!




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


Hey dingle dorf .... you bother to read the post that pretty much called out MotherJones for distoring the living you know what out of the law?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Everything should be read with an eye on the source of the information and the truth can be fairly easily divined. This is essentially what I assumed when I read the OP. The reality is it couldn't be as overt as stated (we haven't gone that far yet).

But you must also look at the opposing side. The people creating this legislation are publicly pro-life as is their constituency. As such you must also look at what they are doing with a BS filter. I still think it is a strategic move towards increasing legal precedent of an unborn child being an independent entity beyond its mother that is entitled to rights above and beyond the mother's. Which is after all the crux of the debate and does make it an abortion issue.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

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


But in summary:
...
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...


Can I ask where this information comes from? It doesn't state that in the bill.

The first section, I agree with you, but the second section (22-16-35) states that homicide is justifiable when committed by ANY PERSON in the lawful defense of themselves, their family or their unborn child. So, this means that a man whose wife is going to have an abortion could kill the Dr. to protect his unborn child. (Doesn't it?)

Where do you get that the person has to be under attack by someone committing a felony?
.
edit on 2/15/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I dont doubt the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is the recognition of the unborn as full citizens and all, but to think that even in a state as conservative as SD, that there would be a move to legalize the murder of abortion providers strains credulity.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


My intention was not to take a side of either extreme - but to bring this idiotic possibility of law to light in hopes that it will surely be squashed before it ever begins.

Live and let live...Do unto others...may peace rain down upon the earth.

That sanity may one day return to the west, is a bold dream which I hold dear.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Give me an T
Give me an E
Give me an R
Give me another R
Give me an O
Give me another R
Give me an I
Give me an S
Give me an M

What does that spell?! Terrorism!

I hope that the legislature is ok with the terrorising of doctors.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Christian extremism is the elephant in the room in the States. It colors all our politics now, it is central to who we send our military to kill, it is even driving re-writing of history and textbooks. No one with real authority have the balls to confront it either. We get all terrified and up in arms about the supposed Islamic threat, but the real enemy is within and it is killing its host.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Well, I can bet that if this law is passed, moving companies will be busy.

The people who require this freedom, will leave to find it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


I agree; I never really thought the intent was to legalize the murder of a person carrying out a lawful surgery. I think it could get there one day but we aren't there yet. If abortion was a felony it could make it legal; however even then it would be difficult to cover justifiable homicide.

Vengeance / revenge is not covered under the laws. Even if it was a felony the homicide would need to be justified in that the only way to stop the clear and persistent danger to the life of the unborn was to kill the doc as he was in the process and there was no other reasonable way to stop him.

So the reality is this can never be an excuse to kill abortion docs legally, but it is an important step in outlawing abortion.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Can you explain this bill as you see it, because to me, it DOES sound like they're making it justifiable homicide to endanger the life in an unborn child.

See my post above. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



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,.



I think the most important parts here are the commission of felony and this:


and imminent danger of such design being accomplished


So you're right it could mean that an abortion doc can be legally killed IF it becomes a felony AND he is caught in the process and killing him was the only way to stop him from the immediate action.

Nowhere does this allow for revenge killing or killing to prevent an action someone is not engaged in at present.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Well, many states, including my home state, the Bluest of Blue Illinois, adds fetuses to the list of aggravating factors on homicide and assaults, even if the baby is the only one injured.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Its just what the wacko's need though - to boot down the door and pump the Doc full of lead.

As the above poster mentioned. This bill is an act of terrorism.

To make Doctors fearful of even doing their job, regardless of what individuals think is right.

They are being threatened with death, by an extremist party, who may soon have the legal right to kill him in a nation that claims to be the land of the free. Even though the woman is consenting to the abortion.

Hmm...Its just so insane - It hardly seems real.

Are we sure this isnt just a bad scene from a bad movie?

*Checks the link*

Nope...Its real...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
I think the most important parts here are the commission of felony ...


And where are you picking up that a felony has to be in process? That's my biggest question.
I don't see that anywhere. What am I missing?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Reading posts like this reminds me of some people's reactions when Hinckley shot Reagan: “its because of what he did to the Sandinistas/peace protesters/Grenada/Libyians/etcetera” just to find out it was all about Jody Foster.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Jinglelord
I think the most important parts here are the commission of felony ...


And where are you picking up that a felony has to be in process? That's my biggest question.
I don't see that anywhere. What am I missing?


I will highlight the important bits:


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


So, if you "reasonably believe" that a forcible felony is being committed against a unborn child, you may use deadly force to stop it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 



Originally posted by SirMike

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



Thank you!
But what about the bit right after that highlighted bit? If a felony is being committed OR to do some great personal injury. It says OR. A felony OR personal injury...

Can you clear that up for me? (Sorry to be so ignorant on this!)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Did SirMike answer the question?

I think it clearly says a Felony must be in progress.

Granted I do see how a loose interpretation could lead one to believe it is okay to bust down the door and pump the doc full of lead before he is able to complete the process. If they do indeed do this and judge interprets the law to mean that was justifiable I will at that point panic and set up a shelter for SD women here in CA.


Edit: Ok, crud I can't explain the great personal injury part...

But... I still stick with my original interpretation for this law.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Jinglelord because: Great Personal injury bit



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Isn't aggravated assault already considered a felony? Aren't you already specifically allowed to protect yourself in the case of aggravated assault?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join