And the goose steps keep coming...

B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
And the goose steps keep coming...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/its_gonna_be_open_season_on_ab.php

I just was reading about this on Pharyngula and I consider it FUCKING TERRIFYING!

These people are not going to stop. They will continue their assaults on human freedom until it's only a memory. These fascists want full control over everyone, and they won't be satisfied until everyone is cowed into submission under their iron fist. What is it going to take to wake people up to the fact that this is only the tip of the iceberg? I just feel bad for the sane people stuck within the confines of SD borders...

We need to keep our eyes on how this progresses, as I can guarantee that rational supporters of human freedom are not the only ones watching this very closely.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Read the law, it says

 Read the law, it says

Quote:
 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.

 

Clearly the law is intended to clarify justifiable homicide in cases where a pregnant woman is being attacked. For example, if a pregnant woman is being punched in the stomach homicide may be justifiable. To imagine that the law would extend to abortion doctors conducting a voluntary and legal abortion is ignorant and a gross misinterpretation of the law. I haven't looked up the rest of the SD law on justifiable homicide but I am willing to bet it also includes provisions that require evidence that the amount of force used was necessary and not excessive with probably a slough of court cases determining exactly where the line is that you can justifiably kill someone. It is sad that a college professor is either so ignorant or intentionally misleading. He probably should have chatted with someone in the law school before showing his ignorance on the web.

 

The only affect this law may have on the abortion issue is that it does grant legal protection to a fetus, recognizing it as having at least some importance. But the scope is quite narrow and if it was my baby and someone was hitting my girlfriend in the stomach I would shoot his ass dead regardless of what stage the pregnancy was in.  

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
It was originally intended as just that but...

Beyond Saving wrote:
Clearly the law is intended to clarify justifiable homicide in cases where a pregnant woman is being attacked.

That is what it was originally intended for, absolutely. But some adding this kind of specific language is dangerous to say the least. The anti-choice groups who have pushed for this are not thinking of this as an endpoint but just another hammer fall on the social wedge. I don't quite agree with you that this isn't going to have farther reaching implications.

Beyond Saving wrote:
if it was my baby and someone was hitting my girlfriend in the stomach I would shoot his ass dead regardless of what stage the pregnancy was in.

I completely agree with you on this. I'm not one to sit idly by, waiting for someone else to defend me and the people I care about. I would do the same!

I just think this law, by looking at the groups pushing hard for this language, isn't just intended for purely self-defense situations and is being used for more long term, and political, purposes and THAT'S what I find scary about it.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I may not be paying close

I may not be paying close enough attention, but I'm not particularly worried if some midwesterners want to limit their liberties to protect a few embryonic clumps of cells, I say... let them eat cake.

They are midwestern after all. The more they are enabled at the state level, the less we have to worry about them fucking things up at the federal level...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I did a little bit more

 I did a little bit more research on SD law and discovered that the change to include unborn child is in fact rather necessary in a case where a pregnant woman was being assaulted in a manner which threatened the fetus but not her. In Wiersma v. Maple Leaf Farms a pregnant woman was suing Maple Leaf Farms for negligence that led to her having a miscarriage. Because the negligence laws had been changed to specifically include injury/death to an "unborn child" the issue before the court was whether a fetus that was not yet viable qualified as an "unborn child". The important part of the decision is that the judge made it very clear that the case had no standing without the recent change in the law. 

 

South Dakota also has murder and manslaughter laws which specifically protect an unborn child. The change to the justifiable homicide law merely makes it more consistent with the rest of the law. Without this change, a pregnant woman being punched in the stomach with intent to cause a miscarriage would not be justification for homicide. The court would certainly point out that other laws had been modified to include an unborn child but not this one, therefore, the legislature did not intend the killing of an unborn child to be an offense a person could legally use force to prevent. I wasn't able to find any court cases where this specifically happened so I don't know if the change was inspired by an actual situation but court proceedings below Supreme Court level are a bitch to find unless you know the exact case you are looking for. I wish I still had Lexis Nexus so I could do a decent search of case law. 

 

Regardless, it is quite clear that all the hype about "killing abortion doctors" being legalized is pure bullshit being propagated by a bunch of left wing sites. I have no doubt that many people are seeking legal protection of unborn children for the ultimate goal of getting fetuses recognized as having the same rights as people. But really, the laws about murder and manslaughter that are specifically applied to fetuses in most if not all states (including liberal ones like California) go far more in that direction than this one. 

 

 

Edit

FYI The original version of the amendment that was "hoghoused" only gave the pregnant woman the right to kill to protect the fetus. The only real legal difference between the new version and the old is that the new one allows someone else to protect the pregnant woman and the fetus. Since pregnant women are not known for their Muay Thai killing skills I think that is a pretty reasonable change. And rather than creating a new act the new one simply modifies the existing code.

The original amendment said

Quote:

 

 FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in § 22-16-1 or assault as defined in § 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:
            (1)    Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and
            (2)    She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
    Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:

            (1)    Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;
            (2)    Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense. However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the complete safety of her unborn child; or

 

            (3)    The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman's body. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 You know this is really

 You know this is really starting to piss me off. I can't do a decent google search because all these dumb ass sites come up with headlines of "SD attempts to legalize killing abortion doctors!" You all criticize Fox News for their biased reporting and many times rightly so, but MJ, Daily Kos, ABC etc. all portraying the law in a way that no judge or lawyer would interpret it is simply irresponsible journalism. The sad part is that the result of all of this is that if the law does pass some dumb fuck yahoo is going to kill an abortion doctor then be surprised when he can't claim justifiable homicide. The moral of the story is, don't trust your news source. Do a little research for yourself. Because most if not all journalists in America today are lazy and just cut and paste what some other journalist says rather than calling up a SD lawyer and asking for their take. The only journalists that seem to create new stuff are the really radical ones. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hurting the vulnerable, IE,

Hurting the vulnerable, IE, elderly, handicap, mentally challenged, is emotionally appalling to any rational empathetic person.

There is a tendency in our current social climate on BOTH SIDES, to put one label above another label, when simple logic should protect all of us as individuals regardless of label or status.

Physically harming others is out of bounds REGARDLESS, and is what all our laws banning physical violence are based on.

However, for anyone to claim that there is no danger in this law has to be out of their mind. The religious right wing in this country have done everything within their power to retard any competition to their biblical view of this country. They constantly try to bastardize science by trying to claim that ID is equal to evolution. These same idiots believe that Obama is a secret Muslim.

To say that laws like this wont lead to the murder of abortion doctors is willful ignorance. The murder of the abortion doctor a couple years ago, has successfully, NOT LEGALLY, but successfully usurped the rule of law through the use of religious violence. Now you'd have me believe that the lawmakers who sit in power and might be of the social right wing, that could "interpret" this law, won't attempt to use it to their advantage?

If they can throw one person, Scot Roeder, under the bus, and goad him into becoming a martyr for their cause, imagine what they can do with "laws" written in words. I warn you against handing them the loaded weapon you say they don't have.

As long as laws are written by humans and as long as power shifts from one end to the other, from time to time, we must be careful as to how we write laws because we might not be, ourselves, the ones enforcing them or writing them.

I see this as an open door to turn back the clock that has been around since Roe v Wade. It is another step backwards.

Will you admit you are wrong when the next abortion doctor killer gets a lighter sentence because of a stacked jury or a defense lawyer who successfully argues, "Although he shouldn't have done it, he truly believed what he was doing was right"?

You do know, even outside this issue, that defense lawyers can and often do, use the argument, even in domestic murder, "My client was wrong, he did do it, but he truly believed his life was being threatened, no matter how unreasonable that thought was in reality"

The same could be the defense for an abortion doctor killer, "My client truly believed that he was saving lives"

Instead of creating new laws to protect pregnant women, why not enforce the common law of NOT PHYSICALLY HARMING ANYONE for any reason?

By giving them special status you are giving the religious right the very ammo they want. Whereas if you simply say, "Violence as a tactic to solve disputes, is never acceptable" you take away their ability to make it a political issue.

This greater harm in this is that even if an abortion doctor killer is still arrested, it opens the door to use the courts as a platform for their religious agenda. DONT give them that power.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: You

Beyond Saving wrote:

 You know this is really starting to piss me off. I can't do a decent google search because all these dumb ass sites come up with headlines of "SD attempts to legalize killing abortion doctors!" You all criticize Fox News for their biased reporting and many times rightly so, but MJ, Daily Kos, ABC etc. all portraying the law in a way that no judge or lawyer would interpret it is simply irresponsible journalism. The sad part is that the result of all of this is that if the law does pass some dumb fuck yahoo is going to kill an abortion doctor then be surprised when he can't claim justifiable homicide. The moral of the story is, don't trust your news source. Do a little research for yourself. Because most if not all journalists in America today are lazy and just cut and paste what some other journalist says rather than calling up a SD lawyer and asking for their take. The only journalists that seem to create new stuff are the really radical ones. 

 

Lol, is this some kind of revelation to you, Beyond?  

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Hurting the

Brian37 wrote:

Hurting the vulnerable, IE, elderly, handicap, mentally challenged, is emotionally appalling to any rational empathetic person.

There is a tendency in our current social climate on BOTH SIDES, to put one label above another label, when simple logic should protect all of us as individuals regardless of label or status.

Physically harming others is out of bounds REGARDLESS, and is what all our laws banning physical violence are based on.

However, for anyone to claim that there is no danger in this law has to be out of their mind. The religious right wing in this country have done everything within their power to retard any competition to their biblical view of this country. They constantly try to bastardize science by trying to claim that ID is equal to evolution. These same idiots believe that Obama is a secret Muslim.

To say that laws like this wont lead to the murder of abortion doctors is willful ignorance. The murder of the abortion doctor a couple years ago, has successfully, NOT LEGALLY, but successfully usurped the rule of law through the use of religious violence. Now you'd have me believe that the lawmakers who sit in power and might be of the social right wing, that could "interpret" this law, won't attempt to use it to their advantage?

If they can throw one person, Scot Roeder, under the bus, and goad him into becoming a martyr for their cause, imagine what they can do with "laws" written in words. I warn you against handing them the loaded weapon you say they don't have.

As long as laws are written by humans and as long as power shifts from one end to the other, from time to time, we must be careful as to how we write laws because we might not be, ourselves, the ones enforcing them or writing them.

I see this as an open door to turn back the clock that has been around since Roe v Wade. It is another step backwards.

Will you admit you are wrong when the next abortion doctor killer gets a lighter sentence because of a stacked jury or a defense lawyer who successfully argues, "Although he shouldn't have done it, he truly believed what he was doing was right"?

You do know, even outside this issue, that defense lawyers can and often do, use the argument, even in domestic murder, "My client was wrong, he did do it, but he truly believed his life was being threatened, no matter how unreasonable that thought was in reality"

The same could be the defense for an abortion doctor killer, "My client truly believed that he was saving lives"

Instead of creating new laws to protect pregnant women, why not enforce the common law of NOT PHYSICALLY HARMING ANYONE for any reason?

By giving them special status you are giving the religious right the very ammo they want. Whereas if you simply say, "Violence as a tactic to solve disputes, is never acceptable" you take away their ability to make it a political issue.

This greater harm in this is that even if an abortion doctor killer is still arrested, it opens the door to use the courts as a platform for their religious agenda. DONT give them that power.

 

 

Your missing the point of the law Brian. It is illegal for the person to punch the pregnant woman but that does little good while the act is happening. The proposed law would modify the justifiable homicide law so that force can be used to protect her. You can't just shoot someone for breaking into your house or even punching you. You have to demonstrate that there was imminent danger to your life, otherwise you go to jail for a long time. The amendment simply adds a threat to the fetus to the list of reasons that can be used as defense for justifiable homicide. The law makes it quite clear that the person doing the attacking must be breaking a law and must present a clear threat to the fetus and/or the life of the woman. To say that it could possibly be used as a defense for murdering an abortion doctor demonstrates an extreme ignorance of the law. You could only kill an abortion doctor if that doctor were trying to perform an abortion against the will of the woman and therefore in the process of committing a felonious act.

 

@ Mellestad

Not really a revelation, although with this story I think it has reached a new low. It is one thing to leave out a few details, emphasize certain angles or to put a spin on a story. This is an outright and knowing lie that can easily be verified. Just pointing it out to all those who love to heap onto "Faux News" but seem to think other news sources are trustworthy.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: You

Beyond Saving wrote:

 You know this is really starting to piss me off. I can't do a decent google search because all these dumb ass sites come up with headlines of "SD attempts to legalize killing abortion doctors!" You all criticize Fox News for their biased reporting and many times rightly so, but MJ, Daily Kos, ABC etc. all portraying the law in a way that no judge or lawyer would interpret it is simply irresponsible journalism. The sad part is that the result of all of this is that if the law does pass some dumb fuck yahoo is going to kill an abortion doctor then be surprised when he can't claim justifiable homicide. The moral of the story is, don't trust your news source. Do a little research for yourself. Because most if not all journalists in America today are lazy and just cut and paste what some other journalist says rather than calling up a SD lawyer and asking for their take. The only journalists that seem to create new stuff are the really radical ones. 

I know what you mean.

It can be very difficult to cut through all of the crap to try to find the truth when it comes to the newsmedia.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Hurting the vulnerable, IE, elderly, handicap, mentally challenged, is emotionally appalling to any rational empathetic person.

There is a tendency in our current social climate on BOTH SIDES, to put one label above another label, when simple logic should protect all of us as individuals regardless of label or status.

Physically harming others is out of bounds REGARDLESS, and is what all our laws banning physical violence are based on.

However, for anyone to claim that there is no danger in this law has to be out of their mind. The religious right wing in this country have done everything within their power to retard any competition to their biblical view of this country. They constantly try to bastardize science by trying to claim that ID is equal to evolution. These same idiots believe that Obama is a secret Muslim.

To say that laws like this wont lead to the murder of abortion doctors is willful ignorance. The murder of the abortion doctor a couple years ago, has successfully, NOT LEGALLY, but successfully usurped the rule of law through the use of religious violence. Now you'd have me believe that the lawmakers who sit in power and might be of the social right wing, that could "interpret" this law, won't attempt to use it to their advantage?

If they can throw one person, Scot Roeder, under the bus, and goad him into becoming a martyr for their cause, imagine what they can do with "laws" written in words. I warn you against handing them the loaded weapon you say they don't have.

As long as laws are written by humans and as long as power shifts from one end to the other, from time to time, we must be careful as to how we write laws because we might not be, ourselves, the ones enforcing them or writing them.

I see this as an open door to turn back the clock that has been around since Roe v Wade. It is another step backwards.

Will you admit you are wrong when the next abortion doctor killer gets a lighter sentence because of a stacked jury or a defense lawyer who successfully argues, "Although he shouldn't have done it, he truly believed what he was doing was right"?

You do know, even outside this issue, that defense lawyers can and often do, use the argument, even in domestic murder, "My client was wrong, he did do it, but he truly believed his life was being threatened, no matter how unreasonable that thought was in reality"

The same could be the defense for an abortion doctor killer, "My client truly believed that he was saving lives"

Instead of creating new laws to protect pregnant women, why not enforce the common law of NOT PHYSICALLY HARMING ANYONE for any reason?

By giving them special status you are giving the religious right the very ammo they want. Whereas if you simply say, "Violence as a tactic to solve disputes, is never acceptable" you take away their ability to make it a political issue.

This greater harm in this is that even if an abortion doctor killer is still arrested, it opens the door to use the courts as a platform for their religious agenda. DONT give them that power.

 

 

Your missing the point of the law Brian. It is illegal for the person to punch the pregnant woman but that does little good while the act is happening. The proposed law would modify the justifiable homicide law so that force can be used to protect her. You can't just shoot someone for breaking into your house or even punching you. You have to demonstrate that there was imminent danger to your life, otherwise you go to jail for a long time. The amendment simply adds a threat to the fetus to the list of reasons that can be used as defense for justifiable homicide. The law makes it quite clear that the person doing the attacking must be breaking a law and must present a clear threat to the fetus and/or the life of the woman. To say that it could possibly be used as a defense for murdering an abortion doctor demonstrates an extreme ignorance of the law. You could only kill an abortion doctor if that doctor were trying to perform an abortion against the will of the woman and therefore in the process of committing a felonious act.

 

@ Mellestad

Not really a revelation, although with this story I think it has reached a new low. It is one thing to leave out a few details, emphasize certain angles or to put a spin on a story. This is an outright and knowing lie that can easily be verified. Just pointing it out to all those who love to heap onto "Faux News" but seem to think other news sources are trustworthy.  

No you are missing my point. This is a law that is based on the very real emotion of reacting any empathetic person would have. My point is that it shouldn't matter if someone is being punched for their money, or punched for their race or punched because they are pregnant.

There ARE defenses lawyers use to cut deals or get juries to give a lesser sentence. "iminate danger" RIGHT, but you are assuming that the Jury and judge wont have their own bias. There are plenty of populations in this country that would buy "iminate danger" if someone shot an abortion doctor.

It isn't the law's intent I object to. I object to future laws in more fundy spots that might pop up.

Whats to stop fundie lawmakers to say, "Well if you are going to protect a fetus in this situation, why not protect it in all situations".

You are talking about ONE law and I am talking about the door that that law can open in the future.

Good intent is a cluster fuck long term.

Just leave it at common law.

Punish people more for premeditation REGARDLESS OF REASON

And punish them less for "sudden reaction"

If someone dies as a result of ANY assault for any reason, that doesn't make them any less dead or less important or more important.

If you get punched in the chest in just the right way hard enough, you can cause death. If I hit you in the head with a pipe I can cause death. How does not being pregnant make you less dead if someone kills you?

Believers want this law because it will allow them in the future to say, "If you are willing to protect a fetus in this case, why not all cases?"

Again, we already have laws that ban physical harm FOR ANY REASON and the only difference between punishment is premeditation vs sudden act.

There is nothing stopping a future climate where a right wing bias jury could sympathize with the plight of the killer. They might say, "you shouldn't have done that but we will punish you less because you were trying to do the right thing"

One law is not the issue, climate over all with respect to the future IS.

We do not want to become a society where courts are used as battlegrounds used to justify violence as a political statement.

This is like taking a pill not understanding the long term side affects that are even more dangerous than the intended cure.

Is it wrong to hit a pregnant woman? YES! But it is wrong to hit anyone for that matter.

I wish I could believe you in thinking I am over reacting. I don't think I am. I think fundie lawmakers will look at this and say, "if they can do it, we can go even further".

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No you are

Brian37 wrote:

No you are missing my point. This is a law that is based on the very real emotion of reacting any empathetic person would have. My point is that it shouldn't matter if someone is being punched for their money, or punched for their race or punched because they are pregnant.

There ARE defenses lawyers use to cut deals or get juries to give a lesser sentence. "iminate danger" RIGHT, but you are assuming that the Jury and judge wont have their own bias. There are plenty of populations in this country that would buy "iminate danger" if someone shot an abortion doctor.

It isn't the law's intent I object to. I object to future laws in more fundy spots that might pop up.

Whats to stop fundie lawmakers to say, "Well if you are going to protect a fetus in this situation, why not protect it in all situations".

You are talking about ONE law and I am talking about the door that that law can open in the future.

Good intent is a cluster fuck long term.

Just leave it at common law.

Punish people more for premeditation REGARDLESS OF REASON

And punish them less for "sudden reaction"

If someone dies as a result of ANY assault for any reason, that doesn't make them any less dead or less important or more important.

If you get punched in the chest in just the right way hard enough, you can cause death. If I hit you in the head with a pipe I can cause death. How does not being pregnant make you less dead if someone kills you?

Believers want this law because it will allow them in the future to say, "If you are willing to protect a fetus in this case, why not all cases?"

Again, we already have laws that ban physical harm FOR ANY REASON and the only difference between punishment is premeditation vs sudden act.

There is nothing stopping a future climate where a right wing bias jury could sympathize with the plight of the killer. They might say, "you shouldn't have done that but we will punish you less because you were trying to do the right thing"

One law is not the issue, climate over all with respect to the future IS.

We do not want to become a society where courts are used as battlegrounds used to justify violence as a political statement.

This is like taking a pill not understanding the long term side affects that are even more dangerous than the intended cure.

Is it wrong to hit a pregnant woman? YES! But it is wrong to hit anyone for that matter.

I wish I could believe you in thinking I am over reacting. I don't think I am. I think fundie lawmakers will look at this and say, "if they can do it, we can go even further".

 

But we are not arguing about what the legal punishment should be for punching a pregnant woman, we are arguing about whether or not the person who kills someone who is in the act of punching her should be punished. If someone comes and punches me in the face, it is illegal for me to shoot them unless I can make a damn good argument that I felt my life was in danger.

 

I totally understand you slippery slope argument. But as I have pointed out, laws regarding manslaughter and murder across the country recognize that killing a fetus without consent of the mother is equivalent to killing any other person. So that slippery slope is long past. And if someone was posing a threat to a fetus that was mine I would probably kill him/her if it was the only way to stop them. Under current law in SD, I would go to jail for a long time. In Ohio, I could shoot them if it was on my property or in my vehicle, but not if it occurred in a public place. It is illegal in both states to kill someone for punching you or a family member if you can't demonstrate a reasonable expectation that your actual life was in danger. 

 

The central question is should a person be allowed to use lethal force to protect the life of a fetus from a felonious assault like they can for any family member. I say yes, since I would and I am hesitant to send people to jail for doing things I would do in their situation. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Yea...my reading of this

Yea...my reading of this bill is that the only way this would support the killing of an abortion doctor is if abortion was legally defined as murder, which it obviously isn't.

 

If abortion *were* legally defined as murder then the whole abortion rights battle would be over anyway, so the point would be moot.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Yea...my

mellestad wrote:

Yea...my reading of this bill is that the only way this would support the killing of an abortion doctor is if abortion was legally defined as murder, which it obviously isn't.

 

If abortion *were* legally defined as murder then the whole abortion rights battle would be over anyway, so the point would be moot.

 

Not now, no. AGAIN, I am not talking about current laws, I am talking about social climate and the future of laws.

There is a group of fundies in this country who want nothing more to outlaw abortion IN EVERY CASE.

You missed what I said earlier.

What is to stop a religious PAC or politician from marketing, "Well, if your going to protect a fetus in this situation, why not protect it in all situations?"

This group of fundie nuts bully clinics into closing, post adresses and names and use language like "baby killer". So even though abortion is still legal, it is damned near impossible in lots of places to obtain. You allow these people to become law makers, considering that they already have virtually outlawed abortion(even if not on paper) they will use the "good intent" of this law to their advantage.

Laws should not give special treatment based on emotional appeal. It should always be wrong to hit anyone FOR ANY REASON, be it a man assaulting another man, a man assaulting someone to rob them, a man assaulting someone because they are black, gay, muslim......OR a pregnant woman.

Common law already takes into account degree of intent in that of plotting and planning vs sudden act.

You are thinking short term. Long term EVERYONE on any side of an issue must always remember that power shifts over time and special pleading is the quickest way to give that loaded weapon to your opposition. Laws should be based on the things we all have in common, and no one likes to be physically assaulted. Leave it at that and then base the punishment, not on emotional reaction, but on plotting vs sudden act. When you do that you take the politics out of it.

This is a dangerous road to go down for this country. As long as there are people willing to secretly nod at sickos like Scot Roeder, and those people vote and get elected to office, and sit on benches, and are are part of the jury pool, it is a bad idea LONG TERM to write laws they can look at and expound on in the future when they have the power.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Because they would have to

Because they would have to pass a law defining abortion as murder, which would not pass judicial review because it would require the supreme court to backtrack on their past decisions.

That isn't to say that won't happen some day, but it won't have anything to do with this bill if it does.

 

Honestly, this just looks like closing a potential loophole to me, I don't see any problem with it.    (That is the stupidest smiley ever...I want the smiley shit from the Catholic forum...how much fun would we have with smileys that pray, bow and cross themselves?  Lots.)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Because they

mellestad wrote:

Because they would have to pass a law defining abortion as murder, which would not pass judicial review because it would require the supreme court to backtrack on their past decisions.

That isn't to say that won't happen some day, but it won't have anything to do with this bill if it does.

 

Honestly, this just looks like closing a potential loophole to me, I don't see any problem with it.    (That is the stupidest smiley ever...I want the smiley shit from the Catholic forum...how much fun would we have with smileys that pray, bow and cross themselves?  Lots.)

YES IT DOES.

You cannot tell me that some fundies are not looking at this and saying, "If you are willing to protect the unborn here, why cant we do this in all cases"?

You trust our current Supreme Court? The same court that gave corporate America the same status as an individual?

You are assuming that "that can't happen". Not now maybe. But since that same Supreme Court will change and has the power to reverse prior rulings, don't take that future possibility off the table and assume things will always stay the same.

Don't focus on the now. There are always unintended results to every action. The way laws are written are looked at and can be used to model future laws.

No one thought about how much violence prohibition brought about until it became law. And I am sure before it became federal law, localities had their own versions that the eventual law became.

You are talking about ONE law, in one location, in the current,  when I am talking about the more important issue of what it will do to the future.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
PZ is rightly suspicious of

PZ is rightly suspicious of the reason for this law.

Apparently this amendment was specifically pushed for by anti-abortion groups, from one of the articles he references

Quote:

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights...

So it is NOT just a matter of 'cleaning up a loop-hole', that is a cover, and the fact that there is a reasonable case for the 'clean-up' is convenient, but that apparently is not the main focus of the groups who directly got this through. So it is more than just a possible 'slippery slope'. That is what PZ is concerned about,

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Well, now I had to go read

Well, now I had to go read about the stupid thing more.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers?page=2

 

At least according to that, even the bill creator says I was wrong, because it doesn't explicitly state 'unlawful', which would be needed to exempt abortion providers from death.  So yea, light the torches and get the pitchforks.

 

Interestingly, the guy who made the bill wants to amend it to make it clear abortion providers are exempt.  I wonder if it is just back peddling to save face, or if he just didn't realize the language implied that?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.