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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Yeah, it's kind of confusing.


22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person...

I guess stopping an abortion wouldn't be considered "lawful defense".

But there are so many restrictions on abortion in SD.But I'm thinking that if the doctor is performing an abortion on an underage girl for example (unlawful) then this might come into play. I guess it's justifiable homicide to kill the doc then.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


It is, but I think the primary voiced concern is whether or not the actions of an abortion doctor while not assault on the mother would constitute assault on the fetus thus legalizing the killing of said Doc even though it was not a felony. It does seem to have an amendment tacked on the end where it doesn't NEED to be a felony.

I don't think a Judge would interpret it that it is okay to kill a doc doing his job but I can't say that it couldn't be interpreted that way for sure.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I don't think you are missing anything... it seems pretty clear, on reading the text of the ammendments, that this is either

A) Another example of a law so poorly written it should be rejected out of hand, or

B) A law deliberately written to create a legal grey area, where an argument may be made using the "or to do some great personal injury" clause, to excuse or justify the murder of abortion doctors.

Here's my question... where has the author of this change been in terms of improving education, making birth control easy to get and so on?

Why does his great concern only show up in this way; in some sickazoid attempt to justify murder? If he is so concerned about abortions, why not work to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

Eh?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


This is a confusing law with some vague language. Perhaps they should clean up their language a bit. I do think the goal is to establish legal precedent towards outlawing abortion. And perhaps making the language vague they are hoping someone will try out if it is justifiable and bring it to the supreme court to once again bring their issue into the limelight...

Everything to do with abortion is confusing, difficult, and a really tough topic. Including all the laws. This is why I almost always participate in discussions.

To be clear I am very very pro choice and that likely colors my responses but I do try very hard to see both sides as the pro life people have very good arguments in my opinion. Where you sit here is based on a fundamental choice everyone involved must make: Do I believe more in the sanctity of a humans right to choose what to do with their body or more in the sanctity of the unborn. Not an easy question to answer, which is why once answered people usually get very adamant about it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Here's my question... where has the author of this change been in terms of improving education, making birth control easy to get and so on?


Good question. I also wonder where the authors stand on defending the Constitution and personal and privacy rights... No, I don't wonder at all. Both Sides Want to Restrict Our Rights. But when a Republican does it, it's for our own good.



Originally posted by Jinglelord
Do I believe more in the sanctity of a humans right to choose what to do with their body or more in the sanctity of the unborn. Not an easy question to answer, which is why once answered people usually get very adamant about it.


It is an easy question to answer for me.


This legislation reminds me of hate crimes. If you commit a crime against someone, it shouldn't matter if that someone is gay, black or a woman. The crime is committed. But some in government want to add punishment to the crime depending on the victim's social group. I thought the right hated that stuff! And here they are, trying to enact their own special type of 'hate crime' legislation.

If you attack a woman, it's a crime. But if she's pregnant, it becomes a more serious crime?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Life is sacred.
Unless you happen to grow up to be an abortion doctor, then your life isn't as sacred.
edit on 15-2-2011 by hippomchippo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
This is a confusing law with some vague language. Perhaps they should clean up their language a bit. I do think the goal is to establish legal precedent towards outlawing abortion.


Bingo! That's exactly the goal: To further control the population. (My opinion)



Do I believe more in the sanctity of a humans right to choose what to do with their body or more in the sanctity of the unborn. Not an easy question to answer, which is why once answered people usually get very adamant about it.


This one is easy for me, too. I place individual liberty very highly, even when I disagree. And in this case, I also consider the longer term harm:

Is it better to abort a fetus, that might be aware and concious, or is it better to force a woman to bring an unwanted child into the world, that may then be exposed to miserable living conditions until she is raped to death by Uncle Bob when she's 5 and very definitely aware and concious?

I don't like abortions, but I am very pro-choice, and the above scenario is part of why.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
...the bill in question fills NO void in sd criminal law - but - thats jmo... read the existing laws that are pertinent to this deal (below or via the link) and if you find a void that requires this badly penned proposed bill, i'd sure like to hear about it...



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.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 

Thank you for showing us that this horrifying future world in which vigilante justice is the norm, is something that people in the present are actively demanding.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


You are correct. Islam is not the only religion to breed fevered, violent, delusional religious people. Christianity does too. We need to hold a FIRM line on the separation of church and state, because if we dont, that sort of fanaticism will increase. Just like it has in the Muslim world when the secular have been knocked out of power by whatever means.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Truly, democracy is the worst form of government when the public is as ignorant and mind-controlled as America, a country in which a third of the populace has read the bible cover to cover and forty percent think that evolution is a myth.

p.s. I starred you, that was me
edit on 15-2-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Politics is no place for immature behavior and your personal beliefs.

Then again, politics has no place in the real world.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Well since the majority of the populace has been ignorant and easily manipulated for as long as we have records, I guess Plato was right when he said democracy was only marginally better than outright Tyranny.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
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...


Your above post is nothing but liberal political rhetoric attacking what you refer to as an "extremist party".
Drivel in other words.

A Doctors job is to save lives not discard lost lives in a bloody bin! Any time a "Doctor" performs an abortion he breaks his Hippocratic oath to practice medicine ethically. Abortion by definition can be described as the taking of a human life. Another definition of this act is murder.
Unless abortion is absolutely necessary to save the live of the mother due to some serious medical issue, what logical premise can one have for justifying the taking of a life already created?

We all know that sex is an act which creates life. That is its' ultimate goal you know.
Personal responsibility should come into play when considering the social ramifications of giving so little consideration to human life, as to allow the destruction of life for the convenience of abortion to be used as a means of birth control. What is your moral justification of violence against a non-violent entity?

The root problem associated with the abortion debate is not the rights of an entity to life as all life has a morally justifiable right to life unless another entities right supercedes it. Exempli gratia: The lion and gazelle. The root problem is lack of moral personal responsibility to life.

It simply amazes that those of you that viciously attack a person defending life could possibly look at yourselves in the mirror with any sense of ethical honor.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by hippomchippo
 

Thank you for showing us that this horrifying future world in which vigilante justice is the norm, is something that people in the present are actively demanding.


People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TexasChem
Your above post is nothing but liberal political rhetoric attacking what you refer to as an "extremist party".
Drivel in other words.

True. Sorry Gradius, I agree with your post but this is a true statement.



A Doctors job is to save lives not discard lost lives in a bloody bin! Any time a "Doctor" performs an abortion he breaks his Hippocratic oath to practice medicine ethically. Abortion by definition can be described as the taking of a human life. Another definition of this act is murder.


If we define the start of life as conception this is true. I personally can't see that a life that is wholly dependent on another life to survive as having any rights that the host does not wish to provide.



Unless abortion is absolutely necessary to save the live of the mother due to some serious medical issue, what logical premise can one have for justifying the taking of a life already created?

Who gets to decide what is absolutely necessary? What if the baby can be saved at the expense of the mothers life? Who makes these decisions? My logical premise is that a mother, and only a mother gets to decide. She is the ultimate decision maker for that life and it is up to her if it lives or dies. And no matter her choice I will support it. Once that life can live on its own it is no longer her choice, but societies choice. Until it can live on its own it falls under the mother's personal domain to do whatever she choses with her body.



We all know that sex is an act which creates life. That is its' ultimate goal you know.


This is why humans are one of the few animals on the planet who enjoy sex? This is why sex is used to secure social bonds? This is why human's have one of the lowest rates of successful pregnancy in mammals? Sex is a fun social activity with pregnancy being a side effect. And in the modern world with a little care and education that side effect can easily be negated.



Personal responsibility should come into play when considering the social ramifications of giving so little consideration to human life, as to allow the destruction of life for the convenience of abortion to be used as a means of birth control. What is your moral justification of violence against a non-violent entity?

Not sure how many women who have had abortions you've known but I guarantee you nobody is purposefully using it as birth control. Not more than once at least. I do agree that personal responsibility is important, and I think taking the responsibility and grown up decision that one can't properly care for a child is VERY responsible.



The root problem associated with the abortion debate is not the rights of an entity to life as all life has a morally justifiable right to life unless another entities right supercedes it. Exempli gratia: The lion and gazelle. The root problem is lack of moral personal responsibility to life.

It simply amazes that those of you that viciously attack a person defending life could possibly look at yourselves in the mirror with any sense of ethical honor.


So I believe that a mother's choice supersedes an unborn fetuses right to life. It is the mother. In my world the mother should have ultimate choice over the life of her children until they can live independently of her womb. At this point, and only at this point is society allowed to step in and dictate.

Really I have a hard time with most of my arguments against you and understand they are a little weak (except the sex one). The bottom line is I believe in every humans personal freedom to do whatever they want with their own body and mind very strongly.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TexasChem
 


Okay - Excuse me for a moment - But what does any of that have to do with it being okay to kill the doctor for accepting a contract of abortion?

When you have fully imagined the process of being raped, and impregnated with the man's sperm, and you feel his child growing within you. Then you can have a realistic opinion of abortion being good or bad.

The mother is not a slave of birthing to the government and a clump of cells or a fetus is NOT a person.

Its all too easy for us to say what is right in regards to another person's situation.

But frankly - They dont give a damn. Its their business what they do with their womb and its contents. Not ours.



edit on 16-2-2011 by Gradius Maximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by infolurker
 


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


Im not following, what does a cult leader, a seventh day adventist, and an admitted athiest have in common?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
They are white and from the USA.

I wonder if anyone is going to suggest that by noticing that I'm being racist.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Here's something to think about....

If the current laws state that an unborn fetus is NOT a viable Human Being then it wouldn't be a crime to do harm to that fetus... right? So with that in mind, if the mother of an unborn fetus kills someone for trying to harm her unborn child/fetus, she could be prosecuted for murder UNLESS there was a law in place making it legal to use deadly force to protect her un-born non-human entity growing inside her... does that make any sense???





top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join