[sayoqod]

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.

[Topgun]

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.

[General Battuta]

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

[Topgun]

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?

[General Battuta]

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.

[Topgun]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Topgun]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[esarai]

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.

[PsychoLandlord]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Mars]

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)

[Nuclear1]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Suongadon]

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


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.