Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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.

"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers."
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 02x4733561" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The pro-life movement is growing.

State's Rights issue....

89Hen wrote:The pro-life movement is growing.

The pro-life movement is growing by advocating murder. Gotta love it.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

89Hen wrote:The pro-life movement is growing.

The pro-life movement is growing by advocating murder. Gotta love it.

Not really. You have to read between the lines on this one. The crux of the issue is that legislators are starting to see the inconsistency on how unborn babies are treated in this country. A person can be charged with double murder for killing a pregnant woman, but abortion is legal.

89Hen wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:
The pro-life movement is growing by advocating murder. Gotta love it.

Not really. You have to read between the lines on this one. The crux of the issue is that legislators are starting to see the inconsistency on how unborn babies are treated in this country. A person can be charged with double murder for killing a pregnant woman, but abortion is legal.

Bingo. Hen & myself are on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding this issue. But I believe we can both acknowledge the inconsistency described by Hen. It's either a person that can be murdered or it's an unborn fetus that has no rights until born. It can't be both....

Yes, there is that inconsistency in law. It all depends on what ONE person wants to do with a pregnancy (and those who may or may not be trying to force her into an abortion for their OWN convenience). But murder does not excuse murder. While I would like to see abortionists executed, that's not practical because it would jam up the legal system. An execution, IMO, is the only justified way to get rid of these guys. Any other way is just another murder, which canNOT be justified.

SuperHornet wrote:Yes, there is that inconsistency in law. It all depends on what ONE person wants to do with a pregnancy (and those who may or may not be trying to force her into an abortion for their OWN convenience). But murder does not excuse murder. While I would like to see abortionists executed, that's not practical because it would jam up the legal system. An execution, IMO, is the only justified way to get rid of these guys. Any other way is just another murder, which canNOT be justified.

From legal to executable offense in 1 move.

I think it's a state issue. If your state makes it near impossible to have one, then have it in a different one.

edit: should've said "I think it should be a state issue." Obviously it's not right now.

SuperHornet wrote:While I would like to see abortionists executed

For what?

∞∞∞ wrote:I think it's a state issue. If your state makes it near impossible to have one, then have it in a different one.

edit: should've said "I think it should be a state issue." Obviously it's not.

Honest question... is murder a states issue?

89Hen wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I think it's a state issue. If your state makes it near impossible to have one, then have it in a different one.

edit: should've said "I think it should be a state issue." Obviously it's not.

Honest question... is murder a states issue?

No. It falls under the whole "No person shall be deprived of...life...without due process of law."

So...at what point is a fetus considered a "person" or not.

If a person can be charged with double murder for an unborn fetus, why is killing just the fetus okay?

clenz wrote:So...at what point is a fetus considered a "person" or not.

If a person can be charged with double murder for an unborn fetus, why is killing just the fetus okay?

so is having a miscarriage murder?

because all this does - and all banning abortion does - is force those seeking them to achieve them through different means...

it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

Unless "she" refers to the fetus, then this is simply the same bullcrap that got us to where we are today. The woman has the right to kill the fetus (that is considered a murder victim when she is killed along with it). Yeah....

But it's okay to kill it if she wants to! It's her body... unless there's a murder. Then it's a different human.

I know this won't change for a while, if ever, but this whole thread is proof that this has just become another deeply-entrenched left-wing agenda to push for whatever reason (probably just to be contrarian to the right). Jon is always fighting for the defenseless and the underappreciated and misrepresented, but dammit, don't stop him for killing babies!!!

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

clenz wrote:So...at what point is a fetus considered a "person" or not.

If a person can be charged with double murder for an unborn fetus, why is killing just the fetus okay?

so is having a miscarriage murder?

because all this does - and all banning abortion does - is force those seeking them to achieve them through different means...

This is a really slippery slope.

Murder is illegal, but people still find a way to murder. Should we make murder legal so that we don't have people finding ways to murder illegally?

Heroin is illegal, but people still sell and use heroin. Should we make it legal so we don't have people finding ways to use it illegally?

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who recognize and respect the law. It's not like every single abortion that goes on today would be carried out illegally tomorrow if abortion were made illegal. And just because people would continue to do it illegally isn't grounds for not making it illegal.

Murder is murder no matter how you slice it. (or suck it)

clenz wrote:So...at what point is a fetus considered a "person" or not.

When it can survive outside the womb.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

clenz wrote:So...at what point is a fetus considered a "person" or not.

When it can survive outside the womb.

Okay, 50 years ago a fetus couldn't really survive outside the womb if it was more than a couple weeks premature. Today there are babies being born at 22 or 23 weeks and surviving.

So...this is a rule that would have to change every so often as technology increases?

clenz wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
When it can survive outside the womb.

Okay, 50 years ago a fetus couldn't really survive outside the womb if it was more than a couple weeks premature. Today there are babies being born at 22 or 23 weeks and surviving.

So...this is a rule that would have to change every so often as technology increases?

Nope. Just need the doctor's to quit playing God....

(I'm so glad we've got another abortion thread going.... )

Appaholic wrote:

clenz wrote: Okay, 50 years ago a fetus couldn't really survive outside the womb if it was more than a couple weeks premature. Today there are babies being born at 22 or 23 weeks and surviving.

So...this is a rule that would have to change every so often as technology increases?

Nope. Just need the doctor's to quit playing God....

(I'm so glad we've got another abortion thread going.... )

So all forms of modern medicine and technology should be abolished?

if the person proposing this were Muslim or a Democrat... all we'd hear is "THIS IS SHARIA! THIS IS SHARIA LAW IN THE USA AND PROOF OF THE CONSPIRACY!"

seriously, while we're at it can we punish women seeking abortions with stoning too? (i mean, since we're in the neighborhood...)

Argue the scientific/religious points of the discussion all you want, but the Constitution is meant to protect citizens from the government. A fetus, unlike its mother, is not a citizen of the United States. If states want to take up the issue that's fine by me, but I don't think it should be the concern of the federal government.

How is the fetus not an American citizen? If both parents are American citizens would the child not be a citizen regardless where they are born?

clenz wrote:How is the fetus not an American citizen? If both parents are American citizens would the child not be a citizen regardless where they are born?

"until you're in my phonebook, you aren't a person" - Bill Hicks