Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: PsychoLandlord on February 15, 2011, 11:07:43 am
-
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.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers)
Well now, this ought to be an interesting discussion.
-
Let's abort this thread :shaking:
(and no you're not breaking any rules, you've done nothing wrong, just GenDisc and its history and this topic)
-
What. Isn't abortion legal in the states?
-
It is legal. Yes. Just saw this article the other day myself.
-
Let's abort this thread :shaking:
(and no you're not breaking any rules, you've done nothing wrong, just GenDisc and its history and this topic)
Well the topic of Abortion is one thing, but I figured a topic on a law like this would be another thing entirely. Even if there is a bit of a precarious slope into the Former topic here. But hey, you need to lock it, lock it. I'm new here, so feel free to call me out if I do something stupid.
-
Oh I'm not locking anything, just going to cover my eyes and quiver over here
-
Oh I'm not locking anything, just going to cover my eyes and quiver over here
Oh god now I'm afraid.
On topic though, what the hell? Personal beliefs are one thing, but who thought THIS was a good idea?
-
What. Isn't abortion legal in the states?
yes, however there is a large portion of the population who want to change that though.
-
Oh I'm not locking anything, just going to cover my eyes and quiver over here
Oh god now I'm afraid.
On topic though, what the hell? Personal beliefs are one thing, but who thought THIS was a good idea?
Yeah Im pro life but I think this is stupid.
-
Well then, so it's legal. And this law would apparently, due to poor wording, make it legal to kill people for doing something... legal. I'm assuming here that the whole killing of doctors bit is unintentional (call me naive if you will), so in all likelyhood it'll be fixed up now that attention has been drawn to the fact. Or just voted down if it goes up for a vote unchanged.
After all, the consequences of passing it as-is would be severe - If a group of people are legally allowed to murder another, then strictly speaking wouldn't that also allow the latter group to pre-emptively kill the former in self defense if they see them anywhere near themselves? As I recall, the US is rather permissive of deadly force when threatened, and if this bill were to pass into law then any anti-abortionist going anywhere near a person affiliated with abortion could certainly be considered threatening. Somehow, I don't see any sane politicians letting that happen, regardless of their opinions on abortion itself.
-
I think this law was made to protect people who use deadly force to protect others, so you are probably right.
-
Call me an Idealist, but even if the Sane politicians shoot this down, it's a horrifying thought that this law even came into being in the first place. I would hope that those with the power to put this thing on the radar would be capable of taking the time to think "Hey. This could potentially cause a lot more trouble than it's worth. Not to mention the way many people will interpret it."
Instead we have this causing a stir all over the south, Hell, the nurse in the next room over is talking about it loudly with a gunshot victim, and now the Vocal Minority that always loves to scream its rhetoric on topics it has no real knowledge of is likely to have a field day. It's just sad.
-
(call me naive if you will)
you are naive. I can promise you who ever came up with that wording did it on purpose.
-
Even if it passes, it won't survive a USSC challenge on constitutional grounds. It's creative, I'll grant them that.
-
If we're legalizing murder couldn't we start with the Westboro Baptist Church instead?
-
sane politicians
Sane politicians
:wakka::wakka::wakka:
-
Yeah, Quotation marks should have been inserted a few times. Sane-er is more apt, I believe.
-
If we're legalizing murder couldn't we start with the Westboro Baptist Church instead?
this law was made by people roughly on the same side as the westborough people.
-
And I'll bet you that the of the people who really like this bill. . . at least one of their wives or girlfriends secretly made use of abortion at some point.
The fact is this is part of the logical progression if you honestly believe fetus's are people; of course you'd kill someone before you'd let them kill your child. People will be convinced of the need for this legislation until, at the very least, people don't grant full humanity to fetus's
-
They're also pushing this:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/02/04/new-bill-will-let-doctors-refuse-to-save-the-lives-of-pregnant-women/
-
The fact is this is part of the logical progression if you honestly believe fetus's are people; of course you'd kill someone before you'd let them kill your child. People will be convinced of the need for this legislation until, at the very least, people don't grant full humanity to fetus's
Except that its the mother deciding to have an abortion, so no, its not the logical conclusion.
-
I need to find out how to write "The American Taliban." in Pashto.
I can't remember, and cannot bother, to check up where this happened in America, but there was a bill or whatever raised to force women to see an x-ray image of their unborn fetus before they could have an abortion, and it was of course the Republicans who backed it.
-
I need to find out how to write "The American Taliban." in Pashto.
I can't remember, and cannot bother, to check up where this happened in America, but there was a bill or whatever raised to force women to see an x-ray image of their unborn fetus before they could have an abortion, and it was of course the Republicans who backed it.
There is way too much bull**** in america. I would move but I don't think other countries are much better.
I wish I could start my own country.
-
Pro life just became a contradiction in itself :banghead:.
-
The fact is this is part of the logical progression if you honestly believe fetus's are people; of course you'd kill someone before you'd let them kill your child. People will be convinced of the need for this legislation until, at the very least, people don't grant full humanity to fetus's
Except that its the mother deciding to have an abortion, so no, its not the logical conclusion.
Did you see an exclusion for mothers on there? Cause I sure didn't. Under this it would be legal to accidentaly kill your wife if she was planning on getting an abortion.
-
Did you see an exclusion for mothers on there? Cause I sure didn't. Under this it would be legal to accidentaly kill your wife if she was planning on getting an abortion.
-
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.
-
So when charged with being evil, he pleads incompetence?
-
I need to find out how to write "The American Taliban." in Pashto.
I can't remember, and cannot bother, to check up where this happened in America, but there was a bill or whatever raised to force women to see an x-ray image of their unborn fetus before they could have an abortion, and it was of course the Republicans who backed it.
Indeed. Assuming you'd move to Canada or some European country, you'd move from a country that has free speech to one that thinks it has free speech. As odd as it sounds, that's one aspect where, even though they're chipping away at it, America is still #1, - Free speech issues.
There is way too much bull**** in america. I would move but I don't think other countries are much better.
I wish I could start my own country.
-
who thinks it's time to buy a few barges and form the nomadic nation of Pacifica?
-
You know, as terrible as this bill is, and as sad as it is that there are people who will support it; the fact is the bill hasn't a chance in hell of passing, and that a majority of people (even if they're pro-life) think that it's retarded.
The US has its troubles, such as wealth disparity and under-education, but this is not the biggest one. It may get the blood boiling, but the fact is it's just political posturing.
-
I think we of HLP should all get together and build a spacestation, and then all climb aboard it and blast off into space, forming our own nation.
-
oh my GOD this is being blown out of proportion. this is NOT a kill abortionists law. this is a law providing legal justification for using deadly force against someone about to attack a pregnant woman. abortion supporters convienently interpreted the admittedly poorly worded (but show me a law that isn't) meaning of the law as declaring open season on abortion providers.
-
oh my GOD this is being blown out of proportion. this is NOT a kill abortionists law. this is a law providing legal justification for using deadly force against someone about to attack a pregnant woman.
Did you actually read the law?
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
accomplished.
This actually accomplishes very little, since any conceivable situation in which the fetus is harmed would usually constitute felony assault, thus would ALREADY BE COVERED under this current law. Moreover, if abortion, say, for people under 18 became illegal, killing of a daughter planning to get an abortion would become legal.
This bill is essentially useless, but could create serious problems.
abortion supporters convienently interpreted the admittedly poorly worded (but show me a law that isn't) meaning of the law as declaring open season on abortion providers.
Almost every law you will ever see is worded very exactly, and means EXACTLY what it was intended to mean. Sometimes they are not, and that's what supreme courts are for.
-
When people start jumping to conclusions and wringing their hands over some perceived misinterpretation of a proposed law, it's useful to get your information from as many sources as you can, as opposed to limiting yourself to a single partisan blog.
Have a look at the Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-southdakota-abortion-idUSTRE71E67N20110215), which quotes from both the representative and the executive director of NARAL. Furthermore, it provides an excerpt of the actual text of the bill:
If passed, it would provide protection to a family member who kills "in the lawful defense of ... his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person" by defining the killing as a justifiable homicide.
Abortion is still lawful. Therefore, the killing of an abortion provider would not qualify as justifiable homicide under this bill.
EDIT: Posted at the same time as Mars, who somehow managed to reach the opposite conclusion while reading the same text. :blah:
-
i'm not arguing the point that this is a useful law. i should have clarified that in my first post. i would think that an attack on a fetus would be equally as threatening to the mother and therefore defending against such an attack would probably still be justifiable homicide (in the spirit of the law at least, god knows there's been some stupid judgements thrown at self-defense in reality). i'm saying that the abortion related ****-slinging over this is retarded.
-
Abortion is still unlawful. Therefore, the killing of an abortion provider would not qualify as justifiable homicide under this bill.
EDIT: Posted at the same time as Mars, who somehow managed to reach the opposite conclusion while reading the same text. :blah:
Perhaps you should fix that typo.
-
I'm saying that the abortion related ****-slinging over this is retarded.
Not really; it's not bad as long as laws remain exactly as they are. If the dominionists had their way however (if recent history is any indication) abortion would become a felony in several situations; thus the law would suddenly become much more sinister.
-
who thinks it's time to buy a few barges and form the nomadic nation of Pacifica?
/me Raises hand
-
oh my GOD this is being blown out of proportion. this is NOT a kill abortionists law. this is a law providing legal justification for using deadly force against someone about to attack a pregnant woman.
And why exactly is that needed?
Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.
-
Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.
Exactly what I was thinking.
-
At best this is political posturing, at worst it is very sinister.
-
And why exactly is that needed?
Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.
This. Exactly this. There is no reason for this law to exist other than to send the message we're worried it's sending, simply because Justifiable Homicide already covers pretty much every situation it could ever be considered "Justifiable." At this point, I'm pretty sure the people who brought this crap into existence did so simply for exactly the reason the article indicates. And if they didn't? Then they're utter morons for allowing such a poorly worded and unnecessary piece of writing into the legal system.
And I Third the Barge Idea.
-
oh my GOD this is being blown out of proportion. this is NOT a kill abortionists law. this is a law providing legal justification for using deadly force against someone about to attack a pregnant woman.
And why exactly is that needed?
Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.
i'm not arguing the point that this is a useful law. i should have clarified that in my first post. i would think that an attack on a fetus would be equally as threatening to the mother and therefore defending against such an attack would probably still be justifiable homicide (in the spirit of the law at least, god knows there's been some stupid judgements thrown at self-defense in reality). i'm saying that the abortion related ****-slinging over this is retarded.
-
You aren't reading into it enough. Everything that could possibly be considered Justifiable is covered by existing laws. The only reason this came into being, despite how well worded some may consider it, is so people with that particular agenda can give others a loophole to do exactly as the thread title dictates. There isn't any actual ****-slinging going on here. Look around. Anywhere this discussion is being had, both sides of the coin are calling this out as stupid and disgusting.
-
Once this is on the books it becomes easier to bootstrap in other laws since they can now make the argument "Well the foetus is considered a human when it comes to self defence so why isn't it considered a human in cases of......."
So the law is pointless as you agree but let's address the fact that it's dangerous too. All some anti-abortionist needs is some tiny justification to claim that the abortion was illegal and they can justify murder. "He hadn't got the papers stamped so the abortion was illegal which means I can kill him"
It might be unlikely to sway most juries but get enough anti-abortionists on a jury and it might get through as a legal defence.
-
It does have to be a felony, but it's amazing what is technically considered felonious. The fact is, this is a base for something to be built upon, if it was passed.
-
One side - Tea Party
Other side - this thread.
All reason has gone out the window here......
-
All reason has gone out the window here......
I would like you to present where we are not behaving in a reasonable fashion.
-
Perhaps you should fix that typo.
derp. I had my "is not lawful" and "is unlawful" wires crossed. Fixed.
-
All reason has gone out the window here......
I too, would like to see you point out any sort of unreasonable conversation in this thread so far. We're expressing our opinions on a controversial topic, and have yet to argue, flame, or spout uninformed rhetoric for either side of the issue. That qualifies as a successful and reasonable discussion in my book.
Granted, most of us appear to be in agreement that this particular piece of legislation is a problem waiting to happen, if thats your argument.
-
I have to hope you guys still have a strong enough supreme court to knock this **** down if it passes before anyone gets a chance to test it in court. Because there's enough wiggle room in that wording to cause problems, especially if the jury is a sympathetic one, and that sets a precedent, and bad things happen.
-
i would think that an attack on a fetus would be equally as threatening to the mother
Nope, I'm pretty sure one could perform an abortion against her will without causing her physical harm, though I'd hope that that warrants defense by lethal force without this law.
-
I have to hope you guys still have a strong enough supreme court to knock this **** down if it passes before anyone gets a chance to test it in court. Because there's enough wiggle room in that wording to cause problems, especially if the jury is a sympathetic one, and that sets a precedent, and bad things happen.
Five of our nine SC justices lean to the right. Even if they don't make any mention of abortion in their decision, this law is broad enough that the majority would likely uphold it.
Alright, let me make something clear that people are missing here: this law isn't make murder of abortion providers or people attacking pregnant women legal. Murder is murder. Justifiable homicide is a defense used at trial to either result in a reduced sentence for the defendant or an acquittal. It's not really a common defense; it usually only really applies to members of the Armed Forces engaged in war, police officers killing someone in the line of duty, or those involved with capital punishment.
That said, this whole law is stupid because unless the murderer caught the doctor in the act or immediately before the procedure, a good DA can still make a case for premeditated murder or at the very least manslaughter.
-
And why exactly is that needed?
Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.
Hold on a second.
While I don't agree with the amendment because of the way it's extending definitions through the backdoor, the current law would NOT permit "justifiable homicide" in cases where the pregnant mother is under an attack that is not deadly to her but is deadly to her fetus. Deadly force is only authorized where there is intent to threaten the life of a person; under current law, fetuses are not defined as persons (this amendment is trying to circumvent that). Thus, if someone starts assaulting a pregnant woman in a manner which is illegal but does not threaten her life, you would currently not be justified in killing the assailant to protect the fetus.
As I said before, however, there is no way the proposed amendment would survive a challenge on Constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court.
-
I need to find out how to write "The American Taliban." in Pashto.
I can't remember, and cannot bother, to check up where this happened in America, but there was a bill or whatever raised to force women to see an x-ray image of their unborn fetus before they could have an abortion, and it was of course the Republicans who backed it.
Indeed. Assuming you'd move to Canada or some European country, you'd move from a country that has free speech to one that thinks it has free speech. As odd as it sounds, that's one aspect where, even though they're chipping away at it, America is still #1, - Free speech issues.
There is way too much bull**** in america. I would move but I don't think other countries are much better.
I wish I could start my own country.
I'm confused, as I don't see the text that you've quoted in Top Gun's post so I don't know if it's yours or his.
Regardless, Canada has the same Freedom of Speech protections as the United States. I don't know where whoever is getting their information, but it's flatly wrong.
-
I seem to recall something about Mark Steyn getting hauled before some civil rights commission because he offended some Muslims.
-
I seem to recall something about Mark Steyn getting hauled before some civil rights commission because he offended some Muslims.
Steyn was the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, an administrative tribunal that ultimately declined the case because it did not have jurisdiction. The same complaint was also lodged with the federal Human Rights Commission and the BC equivalent. All of the cases never proceeded. This is because, although they are civil rather than criminal bodies, they are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court - which favour individual rights to free speech except in cases of hate speech, of which extreme is a required element.
I misspoke earlier. Constitutionally, Canada's freedom of speech protections are in essence identical to those which exist in the US. In law, one criminal restriction on freedom of speech does exist (hate speech) though the burden of proof is significant. As in the US, civil liability for false/misleading/defamatory/libelous statements also exists.
-
And why exactly is that needed?
Surely any attack against a pregnant woman ALREADY allows you to use deadly force in her defence.
Hold on a second.
While I don't agree with the amendment because of the way it's extending definitions through the backdoor, the current law would NOT permit "justifiable homicide" in cases where the pregnant mother is under an attack that is not deadly to her but is deadly to her fetus. Deadly force is only authorized where there is intent to threaten the life of a person; under current law, fetuses are not defined as persons (this amendment is trying to circumvent that). Thus, if someone starts assaulting a pregnant woman in a manner which is illegal but does not threaten her life, you would currently not be justified in killing the assailant to protect the fetus.
As I said before, however, there is no way the proposed amendment would survive a challenge on Constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court.
I have a hard time envisioning an attack that could be lethal to a fetus, that would also not be obviously non-life threatening to the mother. That is an attack that I could not easily justify a belief that the mother's life was in danger.
-
FALCON PUNCH!
But srsly, it'd be pretty obvious.
-
FALCON PUNCH!
I was wondering how long it was going to take for that to show up.
-
I have a hard time envisioning an attack that could be lethal to a fetus, that would also not be obviously non-life threatening to the mother. That is an attack that I could not easily justify a belief that the mother's life was in danger.
In seriousness, it does not take terribly much to induce a miscarriage, which is part of the problem with this law. You could in theory kill someone to prevent a hard slap or a minor fender-bender.
-
Or making a pregnant woman upset, or giving her coffee whilst unaware of her condition . . .
-
I have a hard time envisioning an attack that could be lethal to a fetus, that would also not be obviously non-life threatening to the mother. That is an attack that I could not easily justify a belief that the mother's life was in danger.
In seriousness, it does not take terribly much to induce a miscarriage, which is part of the problem with this law. You could in theory kill someone to prevent a hard slap or a minor fender-bender.
This. Also, when you add to it, the self-defense laws in the first place don't even rely on objective assessments. The important thing is if you *think* someone is going to cause serious harm to you. A pregnant woman already has a lot of leeway with that through both jury sympathy and that yea pregnancy does cramp your physical ability to fight back.
-
I have a hard time envisioning an attack that could be lethal to a fetus, that would also not be obviously non-life threatening to the mother. That is an attack that I could not easily justify a belief that the mother's life was in danger.
Exactly the point I was going to make. I can't think of many situations where you can claim that the foetus would be in danger where you can't say the woman would be too. While it might not take much to cause a miscarriage, it doesn't take that much to accidentally kill someone either. A punch to the belly could cause complications which threaten the mother too, as could any of the more outlandish suggestions. You could easily justify the use of deadly force on the grounds that the woman is pregnant instead of to save the foetus.
-
If you try to justify the use of deadly force based on the possibility someone is about to slap someone else, that's bull**** and you will be called on it by just about anyone. Indeed if you hit someone before the first blow lands in any other circumstances, that's probably still going to be counted as assault though it might not be prosecuted.
Except in this particular case. Justifiable homicide, as in this law, deals with prevention, not with ex-post-facto reaction to an attack. That is the fundamental problem here, in that it lowers the bar on which you may kill someone to suspicion of intent to assault.
-
Well not just in this case though. You could use the same logic for the very elderly, very young or anyone with a health condition which makes them exceptionally frail (brittle bones, etc).
So the bar already is that low. This just means that the number of cases it is that low for got extended to include maybe 50% of the population at some point in their lives.
-
leegalize murder!
-
I misspoke earlier. Constitutionally, Canada's freedom of speech protections are in essence identical to those which exist in the US. In law, one criminal restriction on freedom of speech does exist (hate speech) though the burden of proof is significant.
So what, if anything, would happen to the Westboro Baptist Church if it decided to hold a demonstration in Canada?
leegalize murder!
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
-
It's not South Dakota. It's one representative not listening to his constituents.
-
It's not South Dakota. It's one representative not listening to his constituents.
Aren't there two effectively two people in that state's government period at this point? And the other guy, while cool headed, is incredibly quiet and tends to never really do anything publicly? Not implying that he doesn't do anything or that state would probably be worse off than it is
-
It's not South Dakota. It's one representative not listening to his constituents.
Aren't there two effectively two people in that state's government period at this point? And the other guy, while cool headed, is incredibly quiet and tends to never really do anything publicly? Not implying that he doesn't do anything or that state would probably be worse off than it is
What could he do to stop this? If he's doing his job properly, then he can't scream and shout and carry on like the other guy. Sometimes the strongest person is the person who remains silent.
That being said, I know nothing about the other representative.
-
No no, that was a question, not an argument. I don't know much about either of them, save that the one backing this is apparently somewhat of a demagogue. Like I said, from what little I've read, the other guy seems to quietly counteract everything the first guy does, but almost never makes any public statements.
I really could have worded that better, yeah.
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM#t=3m12s
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM#t=3m12s
Come on guys, this was going well. This is a discussion on a potentially troublesome law, not who's right and wrong about abortion, and we have yet to resort to ****-slinging. Let's be intelligent, and keep it that way.
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
And Goober proves exactly why so many people have a problem with this law. It only takes one person who thinks abortion is murder who also thinks he can get off using this law to make it the problem we see it being.
-
It's a position that I deeply disagree with, but that a large number of American's believe, and I expect South Dakota is no exception. I really doubt that it'd just be one person who firmly believed that and took matters into their own hands. (Although I completely agree with you otherwise Kara)
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
And Goober proves exactly why so many people have a problem with this law. It only takes one person who thinks abortion is murder who also thinks he can get off using this law to make it the problem we see it being.
And he would be a murderer unless the doctor were performing an illegal abortion.
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM#t=3m12s
I see your Carlin, and raise you Hicks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJcebIEOkhY)
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
And Goober proves exactly why so many people have a problem with this law. It only takes one person who thinks abortion is murder who also thinks he can get off using this law to make it the problem we see it being.
And he would be a murderer unless the doctor were performing an illegal abortion.
Unless he can convince a jury otherwise. This law makes it easier. Maybe not much, but easier.
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
Given the natural failure rate on early-term pregnancies it's hard to see it as a big deal. The primary function of unborn children appears to be to die.
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
Given the natural failure rate on early-term pregnancies it's hard to see it as a big deal. The primary function of unborn children appears to be to die.
at what period should people consider a fetus a human? I don't consider a fertilized egg a human being, but its kind of hard to just pick some random date after conception.
-
at what period should people consider a fetus a human? I don't consider a fertilized egg a human being, but its kind of hard to just pick some random date after conception.
Well there you go, that's the real issue at hand here. Too many people giving too many damn definitions on what time that little cluster of cells can be called a human being befitting all the rights accorded to you and me. If we can sort that out and define it, we can at least remove the legal arguments from abortion and focus entirely on the people who still object to the practice completely. Specifically, we'd be able to use the law to nail those that would limit our personal freedom. That'd be damn satisfying.
Also; pro-lifers killing doctors. Hahahahaaahaha!
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
Given the natural failure rate on early-term pregnancies it's hard to see it as a big deal. The primary function of unborn children appears to be to die.
at what period should people consider a fetus a human? I don't consider a fertilized egg a human being, but its kind of hard to just pick some random date after conception.
That's the issue. There's no objective threshold, it's basically down to (fairly arbitrary) human judgment. Consciousness probably doesn't just flip on at some given point, and all assignments of moral value are ultimately instrumental anyway. Barring something I'm not aware of, arguments for humanity on day 30 are basically as compelling for those on day 90 or 180 - though the more developed the fetus is the less comfortable I personally am.
-
at what period should people consider a fetus a human? I don't consider a fertilized egg a human being, but its kind of hard to just pick some random date after conception.
Well there you go, that's the real issue at hand here. Too many people giving too many damn definitions on what time that little cluster of cells can be called a human being befitting all the rights accorded to you and me. If we can sort that out and define it, we can at least remove the legal arguments from abortion and focus entirely on the people who still object to the practice completely.
People who object to it completely (IE, are against plan b and what not) do it out of ignorance.
-
at what period should people consider a fetus a human? I don't consider a fertilized egg a human being, but its kind of hard to just pick some random date after conception.
Well there you go, that's the real issue at hand here. Too many people giving too many damn definitions on what time that little cluster of cells can be called a human being befitting all the rights accorded to you and me. If we can sort that out and define it, we can at least remove the legal arguments from abortion and focus entirely on the people who still object to the practice completely.
People who object to it completely (IE, are against plan b and what not) do it out of ignorance.
Or out of a profound moral certainty. You shouldn't make sweeping generalizations like that.
-
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
Given the natural failure rate on early-term pregnancies it's hard to see it as a big deal. The primary function of unborn children appears to be to die.
at what period should people consider a fetus a human? I don't consider a fertilized egg a human being, but its kind of hard to just pick some random date after conception.
That's the issue. There's no objective threshold, it's basically down to (fairly arbitrary) human judgment. Consciousness probably doesn't just flip on at some given point, and all assignments of moral value are ultimately instrumental anyway. Barring something I'm not aware of, arguments for humanity on day 30 are basically as compelling for those on day 90 or 180 - though the more developed the fetus is the less comfortable I personally am.
maybe we need a gradient instead of a hard line? For example, after day thirty you can only abort if your life would otherwise be at risk or something like that.
Also, nice badge
-
A single, hard line would be far better, with exceptions allowed for medical complications.
Perhaps when the foetus can survive independent of it's mother? Surely a human is really a human when it's more person than parasite?
-
A single, hard line would be far better, with exceptions allowed for medical complications.
Perhaps when the foetus can survive independent of it's mother? Surely a human is really a human when it's more person than parasite?
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
-
That threshold is constantly moving up and might someday occur as early as day zero. Unless you mean 'without technological assistance'.
-
That threshold is constantly moving up and might someday occur as early as day zero. Unless you mean 'without technological assistance'.
in which case most premies qualify.
-
That threshold is constantly moving up and might someday occur as early as day zero. Unless you mean 'without technological assistance'.
That... I hadn't thought of. Good point!
Well, I never said finding that line would be easy.
-
I still think it needs a gradient based on its development.
-
I still think it needs a gradient based on its development.
But even a gradient must have that point of transition between voluntary abortion and having it prohibited unless medically required.
-
Look, in the end I think what you think about abortion simply comes down to what you think about abortion. The whole issue is so intensely frustrating because it bumps up against the fact that there is no objective morality out there for us to uncover. We simply have to locate events (fetus can respirate on its own, fetus displays whatever brain activity, blah blah) and assign some kind of moral meaning to them. Then fight about it.
It's not like gay marriage or something where people can appeal to universal human rights. This is a more profound question about the difference between 'alive and moral' and 'not alive and not moral', and since nature, independent of human interpretation, draws no hard lines between life and nonlife and refuses to assign any morality at all, we're basically making it up as we go.
-
leegalize murder!
50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...
why limit it to fetuses?
-
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
False.
Children cannot survive independent of a parent.
They can survive just fine independent of the female they were gestated in after a certain point.
I am adopted BTW. I survived just fine independent of the person who bore me, (AFAIK) never having physical contact following delivery. (though it's possible they let her hold me or some such, I was with the parents who ultimately raised me within 3 days IIRC)
-
If you try to justify the use of deadly force based on the possibility someone is about to slap someone else, that's bull**** and you will be called on it by just about anyone. Indeed if you hit someone before the first blow lands in any other circumstances, that's probably still going to be counted as assault though it might not be prosecuted.
Except in this particular case. Justifiable homicide, as in this law, deals with prevention, not with ex-post-facto reaction to an attack. That is the fundamental problem here, in that it lowers the bar on which you may kill someone to suspicion of intent to assault.
When I read that bill, I see it modifying the original clause to include fetuses, but not actually saying 'it is legal to kill someone on suspicion of intent to abort.' That seems to me to still keep the bill subject to the constraints higher courts have established, and prevents this law from meaning what everyone thinks it does.
I don't have nearly as much experience in these matters, but I'll try to add my two bits based on the law class I took last semester. The use of lethal force in the prevention of a felony is one of the messiest parts of US law. As I recall, in order for it to actually be used as a defense, there must be imminent danger that a reasonable person would be able to perceive. And the question of what qualifies as 'imminent' is messy, too. Usually it is interpreted to mean at the moment violence is initiated. It means if you're caught in an abusive relationship and your partner has explicitly said 'I'm gonna kill you tomorrow,' and you've seen the loaded gun they intend to use, you still have to wait until the gun is drawn in order for it to not be premeditated murder. You can't up, take the gun and shoot him or her in the middle of the night.
That said, it seems to me any vigilante trying to defend fetuses would get shredded in court, because they would be incapable of intervening right before the abortion occurs in a way that isn't blatantly premeditated. I feel their justification of use of deadly force would fail, because they'd pretty much have to camp outside the office with a high power rifle or other device capable of harming the building's occupants to intervene, and the amount of preparation that takes makes it perfectly clear that the use of force is not 'in the moment.'
Also, they'd need to have some *****in' x-ray scopes and **** because most clinics don't have windows in their treatment rooms.
Personally, this feels like legislative trolling, both against pro-choice and pro-life elements.
And holy christ you guys, 16 new posts while I was typing. :P A heated topic indeed.
-
I don't have nearly as much experience in these matters, but I'll try to add my two bits based on the law class I took last semester. The use of lethal force in the prevention of a felony is one of the messiest parts of US law. As I recall, in order for it to actually be used as a defense, there must be imminent danger that a reasonable person would be able to perceive. And the question of what qualifies as 'imminent' is messy, too. Usually it is interpreted to mean at the moment violence is initiated. It means if you're caught in an abusive relationship and your partner has explicitly said 'I'm gonna kill you tomorrow,' and you've seen the loaded gun they intend to use, you still have to wait until the gun is drawn in order for it to not be premeditated murder. You can't up, take the gun and shoot him or her in the middle of the night.
The problem with the concept of Justifiable Homicide in general is that what qualifies as "Justifiable" varies greatly from State to State. What you described fits the Massachusetts definition perfectly, which is where I'm currently living.
However, I spent my Childhood in Texas, and down there, any stranger who came near your house fell under the term "Justifiable." Even in the suburbs, though such killings tend to only happen in the more rural areas of central Texas, where the conspiracy nuts and religious sects set up shop, nowadays.
The point is that If, god forbid, this law became official, and some nut did go and shoot up a clinic, if he was in Texas, South Dakota, or any of the other "Republican under god even if it makes no damn sense" states, theres a possibility they could, in fact, use this little loophole to get out of any real punishment. Meanwhile, the more Northern states, except maybe Maine, would be able to look at it as you have stated.
-
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
False.
Children cannot survive independent of a parent.
They can survive just fine independent of the female they were gestated in after a certain point.
I am adopted BTW. I survived just fine independent of the person who bore me, (AFAIK) never having physical contact following delivery. (though it's possible they let her hold me or some such, I was with the parents who ultimately raised me within 3 days IIRC)
That's not any different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, if we had the technology to do something like that.
-
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
False.
Children cannot survive independent of a parent.
They can survive just fine independent of the female they were gestated in after a certain point.
I am adopted BTW. I survived just fine independent of the person who bore me, (AFAIK) never having physical contact following delivery. (though it's possible they let her hold me or some such, I was with the parents who ultimately raised me within 3 days IIRC)
That's not any different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, if we had the technology to do something like that.
I'm not sure what you're point is, since your argument is hypothetical. Yes, if that was a viable option, it'd be preferable to an abortion. But it's not.
Also, I'm really not sure the call for a stranger's fetus would be enough to take all the fetuses that weren't wanted.
-
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
False.
Children cannot survive independent of a parent.
They can survive just fine independent of the female they were gestated in after a certain point.
I am adopted BTW. I survived just fine independent of the person who bore me, (AFAIK) never having physical contact following delivery. (though it's possible they let her hold me or some such, I was with the parents who ultimately raised me within 3 days IIRC)
That's not any different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, if we had the technology to do something like that.
I'm not sure what you're point is, since your argument is hypothetical. Yes, if that was a viable option, it'd be preferable to an abortion. But it's not.
Also, I'm really not sure the call for a stranger's fetus would be enough to take all the fetuses that weren't wanted.
No I am saying that adoption is no different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, not that we can use that instead of abortion.
-
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
False.
Children cannot survive independent of a parent.
They can survive just fine independent of the female they were gestated in after a certain point.
I am adopted BTW. I survived just fine independent of the person who bore me, (AFAIK) never having physical contact following delivery. (though it's possible they let her hold me or some such, I was with the parents who ultimately raised me within 3 days IIRC)
That's not any different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, if we had the technology to do something like that.
I'm not sure what you're point is, since your argument is hypothetical. Yes, if that was a viable option, it'd be preferable to an abortion. But it's not.
Also, I'm really not sure the call for a stranger's fetus would be enough to take all the fetuses that weren't wanted.
No I am saying that adoption is no different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, not that we can use that instead of abortion.
what
-
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
False.
Children cannot survive independent of a parent.
They can survive just fine independent of the female they were gestated in after a certain point.
I am adopted BTW. I survived just fine independent of the person who bore me, (AFAIK) never having physical contact following delivery. (though it's possible they let her hold me or some such, I was with the parents who ultimately raised me within 3 days IIRC)
That's not any different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, if we had the technology to do something like that.
I'm not sure what you're point is, since your argument is hypothetical. Yes, if that was a viable option, it'd be preferable to an abortion. But it's not.
Also, I'm really not sure the call for a stranger's fetus would be enough to take all the fetuses that weren't wanted.
No I am saying that adoption is no different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, not that we can use that instead of abortion.
what
A baby cannot survive on its own, it is impossible THUS you cannot use that to determine if you should be allowed to abort or not.
Understand?
-
children cannot survive independent of their mother....
False.
Children cannot survive independent of a parent.
They can survive just fine independent of the female they were gestated in after a certain point.
I am adopted BTW. I survived just fine independent of the person who bore me, (AFAIK) never having physical contact following delivery. (though it's possible they let her hold me or some such, I was with the parents who ultimately raised me within 3 days IIRC)
That's not any different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, if we had the technology to do something like that.
I'm not sure what you're point is, since your argument is hypothetical. Yes, if that was a viable option, it'd be preferable to an abortion. But it's not.
Also, I'm really not sure the call for a stranger's fetus would be enough to take all the fetuses that weren't wanted.
No I am saying that adoption is no different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, not that we can use that instead of abortion.
what
A baby cannot survive on its own, it is impossible THUS you cannot use that to determine if you should be allowed to abort or not.
Understand?
That was not a 'what' of 'I don't understand', it was a 'what' of 'this is stupid'
No I am saying that adoption is no different than taking the fetus out prematurely and putting it into another woman, not that we can use that instead of abortion.
that statement right there, that makes me laugh, so much of the debate about abortion is tied up in the actual fact of a given woman having to carry and give birth to a child.
-
I was just responding to bob's post about adoption. I know we can't do that IRL and if we could it would change the debate quite a bit.
-
Exactly the point I was going to make. I can't think of many situations where you can claim that the foetus would be in danger where you can't say the woman would be too. While it might not take much to cause a miscarriage, it doesn't take that much to accidentally kill someone either. A punch to the belly could cause complications which threaten the mother too, as could any of the more outlandish suggestions. You could easily justify the use of deadly force on the grounds that the woman is pregnant instead of to save the foetus.
There is a difference between physical danger and the requisite amount of force to reasonably be perceived as likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm - and those elements are bound into definitions and case law surrounding justifiable homicide.
For example - while a hard strike to the abdomen of a woman would not meet the force criteria for self-defense involving lethal force in the majority of cases, this new law would allow it to apply in cases where the woman was pregnant.
It is not enough for an assault to be serious to invoke lethal force - it has to approach a lethal assault. And in legal terms, that's a very specific set of criteria. I'll grant you that American states are, in general, more lenient on the interpretation of that force, but there is still a requirement beyond simple assault - and a simple assault on a pregnant woman can cause a miscarriage. The change in the proposed law would effectively expand the force used on a party under attack to common assault on a pregnant woman.
And, for the record, I don't think that's necessarily a good way to invoke such a law, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here and pointing out that a legal gap on the subject does currently exist.
-
I think it might be a good thing their is some legal gap, it adds flexibility. I don't know how much there should be though.
-
I misspoke earlier. Constitutionally, Canada's freedom of speech protections are in essence identical to those which exist in the US. In law, one criminal restriction on freedom of speech does exist (hate speech) though the burden of proof is significant.
So what, if anything, would happen to the Westboro Baptist Church if it decided to hold a demonstration in Canada?
As already happened, they would be blocked from the country. Our immigration laws have some convenient sections that keep hate groups out.
That said, if they were Canadian citizens and spouted the crap that they normally do, it would be tough to make a legal case other than generic things like disturbing the peace and trespassing. Invoking hate speech legislation usually involves a specific target, whereas Westboro's brand of idiocy tends to be a little more general.
-
The problem with the concept of Justifiable Homicide in general is that what qualifies as "Justifiable" varies greatly from State to State. What you described fits the Massachusetts definition perfectly, which is where I'm currently living.
Oh me too.
However, I spent my Childhood in Texas, and down there, any stranger who came near your house fell under the term "Justifiable." Even in the suburbs, though such killings tend to only happen in the more rural areas of central Texas, where the conspiracy nuts and religious sects set up shop, nowadays.
The point is that If, god forbid, this law became official, and some nut did go and shoot up a clinic, if he was in Texas, South Dakota, or any of the other "Republican under god even if it makes no damn sense" states, theres a possibility they could, in fact, use this little loophole to get out of any real punishment. Meanwhile, the more Northern states, except maybe Maine, would be able to look at it as you have stated.
Hmmm it does seem that a jury might lean like that, though I'm not sure what the judge's obligations are. When he's dealing with a Supreme Court decision, can he toss it out on a whim? I guess he can if he wants to stir up trouble, but afaik judges aren't in the habit of ignoring what the higher courts have decided.
-
Hmmm it does seem that a jury might lean like that, though I'm not sure what the judge's obligations are. When he's dealing with a Supreme Court decision, can he toss it out on a whim? I guess he can if he wants to stir up trouble, but afaik judges aren't in the habit of ignoring what the higher courts have decided.
They were back in Texas, though I cant speak for anywhere else, admittedly.
-
There is a difference between physical danger and the requisite amount of force to reasonably be perceived as likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm - and those elements are bound into definitions and case law surrounding justifiable homicide.
For example - while a hard strike to the abdomen of a woman would not meet the force criteria for self-defense involving lethal force in the majority of cases, this new law would allow it to apply in cases where the woman was pregnant.
It is not enough for an assault to be serious to invoke lethal force - it has to approach a lethal assault. And in legal terms, that's a very specific set of criteria. I'll grant you that American states are, in general, more lenient on the interpretation of that force, but there is still a requirement beyond simple assault - and a simple assault on a pregnant woman can cause a miscarriage. The change in the proposed law would effectively expand the force used on a party under attack to common assault on a pregnant woman.
And, for the record, I don't think that's necessarily a good way to invoke such a law, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here and pointing out that a legal gap on the subject does currently exist.
because it can be proven in a court of law and agreed upon by a jury of my peers that I, as an everyday American citizen have the experience and knowledge allowing me to know that a hard strike to the abdomen of a pregnant woman is not life threatening, and it can be proven as well that beyond a shadow of a doubt that I knew for a fact that the perpetrator of this act was not going to just keep on hitting her until she died.
if I think her life is in danger it is justified, if I can convince a jury that this was my belief and motivation, I don't get butt raped for life.
A baby cannot survive on its own, it is impossible THUS you cannot use that to determine if you should be allowed to abort or not.
Understand?
strawman - we are not using "survival on its own" as the criteria, we are using "survival independent of it's mother". you are arguing against a definition that no one is promoting.
-
if I think her life is in danger it is justified, if I can convince a jury that this was my belief and motivation, I don't get butt raped for life.
Your belief must still meet a standard of reasonableness that is ultimately interpreted by the judiciary, not juries. It doesn't matter if you can convince twelve uneducated hillbillies [not characterizing all juries this way, incidentally] that you reasonably believed a woman's life was in danger because someone punched her in the abdomen and you therefore killed said someone, I promise you that will be successfully appealed if there is medical evidence to the contrary - and medical expertise will be a feature in any trial such as the hypothetical one we've laid out because, as it stands, a fetus is not a protected person under the law.
Do I think that the law needs to be extended in the way some South Dakotan legislators have decided? No.
Are there situations where a person would not be justified in using lethal force to stop an attack on a pregnant woman where the attack is likely to kill her fetus under the current legal framework? Absolutely (though such situations appear not to have manifested in case law, which goes to show just how rare they would be).
The amendment is a thinly-veiled attempt to establish person protections to fetuses, through a very circuitous route.
-
Read the bill again, all of you.
because it can be proven in a court of law and agreed upon by a jury of my peers that I, as an everyday American citizen have the experience and knowledge allowing me to know that a hard strike to the abdomen of a pregnant woman is not life threatening, and it can be proven as well that beyond a shadow of a doubt that I knew for a fact that the perpetrator of this act was not going to just keep on hitting her until she died.
if I think her life is in danger it is justified, if I can convince a jury that this was my belief and motivation, I don't get butt raped for life.
It's not prevention of imminent death, it's "a felony" and the assault of a pregnant woman; at least in the form you described (a hard blow to the abdomen) would almost certainly constitute felony assault.
or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
As you see, it's justified in in resistance to any felony involving the person or their home. Coincidently it sounds rather similar to Colorado's and Texas' "Make My Day Laws." Which has actually not proved to be a significant issue in this state.
(sorry for late edits)
-
Also; pro-lifers killing doctors. Hahahahaaahaha!
Interesting how a fair number of 'pro-lifers' are also pro-war, pro-death penalty, and are against welfare? I just call them anti-abortion.
-
And he would be a murderer unless the doctor were performing an illegal abortion.
A happy thought. However this law both weakens that defense, and more importantly given the demonstrable level of ignorance among some of the fringe groups, creates circumstances where the uninformed will assume any and all are now fair game.
-
It appears that the sane politicians did step up and shelve this bill. (old news a bit but I didn't see anyone mention it)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17dakota.html?_r=2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17dakota.html?_r=2)
Though I suspect that means they will keep it like that until post-election and then ram it through when everyone is tired of hearing about politics so they don't muster the same outrage.