[PsychoLandlord]

FALCON PUNCH!

I was wondering how long it was going to take for that to show up.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Mars]

Or making a pregnant woman upset, or giving her coffee whilst unaware of her condition . . .

[DarkBasilisk]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Nuke]

leegalize  murder!

[Goober5000]

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...

[Unknown Target]

It's not South Dakota. It's one representative not listening to his constituents.

[PsychoLandlord]

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

[Unknown Target]

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.

[PsychoLandlord]

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.

[Spicious]

50 million unborn children have been legally murdered since 1973...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM#t=3m12s

[PsychoLandlord]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Mars]

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)

[Qent]

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.

[Mefustae]

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

[karajorma]

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.