South Dakota moves to legalize killing abortion providers - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 02-15-2011, 07:51 AM

Quote:

South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers

A bill under consideration in the Mount Rushmore State would make preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide" in many cases.

By Kate Sheppard

Tue Feb. 15, 2011 3:00 AM PST

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.

Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators.

"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week.

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

Jensen, the bill's sponsor, has said that he simply intends to bring "consistency" to South Dakota's criminal code, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. But there's a difference between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes—which is permissible under law in many states—and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.

"They always intended this to be a fetal personhood bill, they just tried to cloak it as a self-defense bill," says Kristin Aschenbrenner, a lobbyist for South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women. "They're still trying to cloak it, but they amended it right away, making their intent clear." The major change to the legislation also caught abortion rights advocates off guard. "None of us really felt like we were prepared," she says.

Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress about abortion legislation, says the bill is legally dubious. "It takes my breath away," she says in an email to Mother Jones. "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."

South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure.

Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision.

The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible. "They seem to be taking an end run around that," says state Sen. Angie Buhl, a Democrat. "They recognize that people don't want a ban, so they are trying to seek a de facto ban by making it essentially impossible to access abortion services."

South Dakota's legislature is strongly tilted against abortion rights, which makes passing restrictions fairly easy. Just 19 of 70 House members and 5 of the 35 state senators are Democrats—and many of the Democrats also oppose abortion rights.

The law that would legalize killing abortion providers is just one of several measures under consideration in the state that would create more obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion. Another proposed law, House Bill 1217, would force women to undergo counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) before they can obtain an abortion. CPCs are not regulated and are generally run by anti-abortion Christian groups and staffed by volunteers—not doctors or nurses—with the goal of discouraging women from having abortions.

A congressional investigation into CPCs in 2006 found that the centers often provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"—alleging ties between abortion and breast cancer, negative impacts on fertility, and mental-health concerns. "This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion," the report concluded, "but it is an inappropriate public health practice." In a recent interview, state Rep. Roger Hunt, one of the bill's sponsors, acknowledged that its intent is to "drastically reduce" the number of abortions in South Dakota.

House Bill 1217 would also require women to wait 72 hours after counseling before they can go forward with the abortion, and would require the doctor to develop an analysis of "risk factors associated with abortion" for each woman—a provision that critics contend is intentionally vague and could expose providers to lawsuits. A similar measure passed in Nebraska last spring, but a federal judge threw it out it last July, arguing that it would "require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients" and would create "substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles" to women who want abortions. Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for women—especially for women who work or who already have children.

The South Dakota bills reflect a broader national strategy on the part of abortion-rights opponents, says Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a federal reproductive health advocacy and research group. "They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, 'I can't climb that mountain'? This is where we're getting to."

South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers | Mother Jones

This is insane.

If this bill passes, it essentially makes it legal to kill a doctor attempting to perform an abortion under "justifiable homicide" for protecting a fetus.

I'm not a lawyer, so I need to get some context on this. Could this allow someone to make the case for fetal personhood? What is the purpose of the law beyond restricting a woman's right to an abortion?

It essentially makes it permissible for a woman's relative to kill a doctor performing an abortion on her. You will have to excuse me if I think this sounds like something the Taliban would pass as a law.

Help me out here. How can this be justified beyond religious belief?

If this law passes, will this set a precedent for other states?

Is this a major salvo in the fight over abortion?

What do you make of this?

Cimarron29414 · 02-15-2011, 08:02 AM

For the record, I know three atheists who are staunchly anti-abortion, so I wouldn't make this a religious thing.

I know you aren't going to like this answer, but this really is up to the state of S.D.'s legislature and then judicial system. I am politically pro-choice, but personally pro-life (I think you know what I mean. Let me know if this needs explaining.) I can understand being the father of an unborn child and being willing and able to raise that child, only to have no say-so in the fetus' abortion. I could see that as a very frustrating feeling. However, I don't think the ability to terminate the life of the doctor is a rational legislative path. A rational alternative would be to give the birth father or grandparent a right of refusal, understanding the child would be theirs at birth. I haven't thought that out all the way, but it seems reasonable. What do you think?

Baraka_Guru · 02-15-2011, 08:25 AM

Well, I can't many among the nonreligious supporting the right to kill a doctor in defense of a fetus suitable for abortion, with the assumption that the fetus is more or less a person.

That aside, my own position is that I believe women have the right to an abortion because it's their body, and a fetus suitable for an abortion isn't a person. I don't support the idea that someone other than the pregnant woman has the right to refusal. To me, that's akin to a woman having the right to extract sperm from her husband to artificially inseminate herself to have a child if he were reluctant.

The bottom line is: your body, your choice.

With this law, having the doctor's life being at the mercy of the woman's relatives as some kind of moral prerogative is bullshit. I thought America prized liberty.

Cimarron29414 · 02-15-2011, 08:43 AM

I see your side as well and agree that this law is extreme and could lead to some horrible consequences. Like I said, if the people of SD think this is the way they want their state to run...I would oppose this legislation in my state. I would be surprised if this comes even close to becoming law.

I don't think your scenario is the same, but I don't want to pursue the argument. It would detract from the debate on the legislation.

dc_dux · 02-15-2011, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

For the record, I know three atheists who are staunchly anti-abortion, so I wouldn't make this a religious thing.

...

There are those on the center and left who are opposed to abortion as well, but the organized opposition that is intent on influencing policy at the state and federal level is from the religious right.

From those who are religious fundamentalists and extremist n their rhetoric, like the Family Research Council, to those who are religious fundamentalists and extremists in their actions, like Operation Rescue.

And it is not just happening in South Dakota. Since the most recent election, there have been harsh anti-abortion bills introduced in state legislatures across the country and several bills in Congress as well.....all coming from social conservative religious right.

Cimarron29414 · 02-15-2011, 10:08 AM

If that is the route you guys want to go in this thread, that's fine.

roachboy · 02-15-2011, 10:25 AM

the article i just read in the washington post

The Plum Line - South Dakota legislator defends bill to make killing to defend fetuses a "justifiable homicide"

contains a short interview with the bill's author. i can't for the life of me figure out what he's saying here:

Quote:

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

Pushed on whether the new measure could inflame the unhinged to kill abortion doctors, as some critics allege, Jensen scoffed. "You can fantasize all you want, but this is pretty clear cut," he said. "Never say never, but if some loony did what your suggesting, then this law wouldn't apply to them. It wouldn't be justifiable homicide."

Asked whether he was conceding that the law could conceivably encourage such behavior, Jensen pushed back: "You could cross the street and get hit by a car. Could happen, couldn't it?"

i suppose it's possible that he could have crafted a bill that would address only cases like the one he outlines and excludes all others....

then there's this:

Quote:

I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.

"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion." In other words, since abortion is not "homicide," the law could not apply.

Jensen's defense of the bill, however, is unlikely to make abortion rights advocates any happier, since he seemed to dismiss as irrelevant the possibility that the measure could inflame anti-abortion fanatics to violence.

which also makes no sense to me, really.
i mean i understand the words.
but...well.....what?

Cimarron29414 · 02-15-2011, 10:43 AM

I agree. If one believes what he says, then how does this law extend the right of justifiable homicide beyond what already exists?

In my state, there is an alter ego statute. In short, if the person being attacked has the legal right to self defense, one can act on their behalf and execute that right. For example, if you see a person being raped in an alley, you could draw your firearm and shoot the perp. You would not be prosecuted. So, the scenario he lays out, the woman has the right to defend herself. The new boyfriend of the woman has the right to defend her (alter ego). The father of the woman has the right to defend her (alter ego). etc.

I wish he just had the balls to say, "Yeah, this law lets the father of the unborn child shoot the doctor about to perform the abortion." and let the chips fall where the may legislatively and professionally. Instead, he had to say something as stupid as this bill appears to be.

The_Jazz · 02-15-2011, 10:51 AM

I have little respect for most state legistlators. I need to be explicit about that. In my opinion, they are uniformly either corrupt or corruptable and prone to grandstanding on principle for their own sole benefit. I include in that every single state legislator that's ever represented me, including the one that I know personally.

This whole thing only convinces me that I'm right. Do we really expect any better from South Dakota's legislature, who's second to only Kansas' in a race to the far right on this particular issue?

kaerlyon · 02-15-2011, 11:54 AM

What do you make of this ?
So, this law accept murder for protect fetus. A murder against a murder !!! I don’t understand how many people can kill for protect the life. An abortion is a terrible act and women haven’t chosen this with pleasure. How legislators make a so stupid law and who can accept it and vote. Cimarron, I understand your point of vu. You think about your future baby but there are women haven’t chance to live in a good home, women have an “accident” or very young girl. Can you imagined the life to this girl with a baby : a child with a baby. When I went to school, I saw a girl (about 15 old) pregnant. Often I imagined her future : stop the school, look for a little job, need help from his family and society, became adult quickly. No, sorry but it’s not a good life and abortion is a solution. Women must to have the choice !

Baraka_Guru · 02-15-2011, 12:09 PM

kaerlyon, that's more or less my point. A woman's right to an abortion—free and clear of influence from a relative who may or may not one day have the legal right to protect it via justifiable homicide—is in relation to her right to self-determination.

I brought up the Taliban in the OP on purpose. Afghanistan is the perfect case study of what is wrong with women's rights. I recently heard a speech conducted by an Afghani woman who was the first woman in political office. She was literally and invariably ignored whenever she spoke. They treated her as though she weren't even in the room. She was eventually dropped from office, and she consequently started an nonpartisan organization that vies for the rights of women in Afghanistan.

When she was young, her sister was forced into an arranged marriage, and died four years later. The one piece of advice she gave her was above all else, study hard. She did. She had earned scholarships to medical school in Australia and Hungary, but her father refused to let her leave the country. She would later be allowed to attend school in Kabul, but only if she agreed to an arranged marriage. Unfortunately, her husband disappeared 10 years later, which was the kind of thing that happened.

Under the Taliban, women weren't even allowed to be outside without a close male relative (father, brother, or husband only).

It's this kind of governance (call it religion if you want, but in practice, it's governed by law) is basically in place to take away from women their self-determination. If you control a woman's education, her ability to earn money, her sexuality, her reproductive system, etc., you control the woman.

In the U.S., this move to make abortion either illegal, expensive, inaccessible, and/or far more difficult than it needs to be is a move to control a woman's right to self-determination with regard to whether she decides to carry a baby to term or not.

This is not characteristic of a free society.

Cimarron29414 · 02-15-2011, 12:11 PM

kaerlyon,

I appreciate your post, but I think you misunderstood my point. I VOTE for pro-choice candidates. However, I personally would not choose for an abortion. That, is actually the perfect example of "pro-choice": the ability to have an abortion, but the choice not to.

bg-

Come on. You honestly think that there is a significant portion of the US population that seeks to control women the way the Taliban do? Uh, no. The MASSIVE difference that the two of you seem to be forgetting is adoption. A woman does not have to raise the child she births. In Afghanistan, she does. It's just not the same thing.

Again, I'm not trying to make an argument for the curtailing or elimination of abortion - it is up to each person to decide. This law has little or nothing to do with self-determination. I would bet dollars to doughnuts this guy just thinks life begins at birth and a human is being murdered in an abortion. He doesn't care who raises it after it is born. He's not forcing that 15-year-old mother into a life serving coffee at the diner, uneducated and lost to personal prosperity.

mixedmedia · 02-15-2011, 01:25 PM

There is obviously a significant portion of the US population that believes it has the right to control whether a woman carries a fetus to term or not. How is that not trying to control a woman's right to self-determination? And the attitude that, 'yeah, just carry that baby, give birth and go on about your life' is really, really dismissive of the emotional and physical realities of pregnancy. It's bullshit. No one has the right to force another person through that.

I was talking to my daughter about this a little while ago and her instant reaction was, 'well, what if the son or husband of the doctor kills the person trying to murder their wife or mother...that's justifiable, too, right?' Such a smart girl.

I can't believe that this is really happening...

Baraka_Guru · 02-15-2011, 01:43 PM

Cimarron, I brought up the Taliban to point out the worst of cases when it comes to women's rights. I used it to demonstrate how a society can have complete control over a woman. I did this to point out that legislating to make abortions more difficult to come by is essentially limiting a woman's right to self-determination.

I'm not calling parts of the U.S. "just like the Taliban." I'm pointing out how this kind of legislation has the same effect on one factor of women's rights as you would see as a part of the many under the Taliban.

There is a parallel: it's the state legislating the control a woman has over her body away from her.

If this were legislation meant to protect pregnant women from being assaulted for being pregnant, it would be much clearer.

Cimarron29414 · 02-15-2011, 02:14 PM

I wrote a long reply and realized it unnecessary. Our laws have many examples of instances where one makes a choice to go in a direction and can't turn back. Do those laws also limit self-determination? I really don't want to argue the point because I am in agreement with you, except for your forcing me to accept that self-determination occurs at only one point, and that is the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. That is not the case, and you both know that. For the third time, I vote pro-choice. I oppose legislation that places unreasonable restrictions on abortion.

And your daughter thought exactly what I did - if I was a doctor who intended to continue to practice in SD, I would arm myself. I would shoot anyone who intended to shoot me. What a case it will be: "justifiable homicide" vs. "justifiable self-defense".

...and this is all moot anyway. This law has as much chance of making it as a fetus in an abortion clinic. Pardon the pun.

ASU2003 · 02-15-2011, 07:31 PM

"Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."

I thought federal law trumps state law, at least for now. Abortion is legal in all 50 states due to a supreme court case, how SD could say that killing a doctor is ok while performing a legal procedure is beyond me..

---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

"Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."

I thought federal law trumps state law, at least for now. Abortion is legal in all 50 states due to a supreme court case, how SD could say that killing a doctor is ok while performing a legal procedure is beyond me..

FoolThemAll · 02-16-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

And the attitude that, 'yeah, just carry that baby, give birth and go on about your life' is really, really dismissive of the emotional and physical realities of pregnancy. It's bullshit. No one has the right to force another person through that.

What's 'bullshit' is a condemnation like yours that implicitly ignores the core argument: that BOTH sides are advocating that some rights some times must be violated, that it's no so simple as choosing the side that respects human rights because NEITHER side fully does.

Neither side can. Abortion is a clash of irreconcilable rights. The debate is determining which rights should win out. Any other debate amounts to standing in front of a mirror and practicing self-righteousness.

It's really pointless legislation unless it backfires, sure. I can't and won't defend it. I doubt you guys would get much dissent even on more ideologically-balanced boards.

(psst: of course they aren't persons. the law decided they aren't.)

mixedmedia · 02-16-2011, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

What's 'bullshit' is a condemnation like yours that implicitly ignores the core argument: that BOTH sides are advocating that some rights some times must be violated, that it's no so simple as choosing the side that respects human rights because NEITHER side fully does.

Neither side can. Abortion is a clash of irreconcilable rights. The debate is determining which rights should win out. Any other debate amounts to standing in front of a mirror and practicing self-righteousness.

It's really pointless legislation unless it backfires, sure. I can't and won't defend it. I doubt you guys would get much dissent even on more ideologically-balanced boards.

(psst: of course they aren't persons. the law decided they aren't.)

Sure, I am choosing the side of the air-breathing, cognizant female who has to get up in the morning and go to school or go to work or feed her family, etc., etc. If you want to call that standing in a mirror and practicing self-righteousness then that's fine. What do you call what you do?

FoolThemAll · 02-16-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Sure, I am choosing the side of the air-breathing, cognizant female who has to get up in the morning and go to school or go to work or feed her family, etc., etc. If you want to call that standing in a mirror and practicing self-righteousness

No, I don't want to call that self-righteousness. And I haven't.

It's like going into an Iraq War thread and railing against the 'bullshit' idea that Iraqis don't deserve the same rights we have. That was never a point of disagreement. You're talking to yourself.

ring · 02-16-2011, 10:53 AM

This thread is about lunatic representatives sponsoring bills they know will never be made
law. It's huffy-puffy drivel to gain attention for their pet causes.
Much the same as that idiot Hal Wick sponsoring a bill
that makes it mandatory for all adults over 21 to own a handgun. He did that
in a feeble attempt to prove that Obama's universal health care was unconstitutional.

Perhaps we could keep the debate about abortion itself, out of this thread.
Maybe not.

mixedmedia · 02-16-2011, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

No, I don't want to call that self-righteousness. And I haven't.

It's like going into an Iraq War thread and railing against the 'bullshit' idea that Iraqis don't deserve the same rights we have. That was never a point of disagreement. You're talking to yourself.

um, no. I was talking to someone else in response to ideas purported on this thread. I'm a little confused now about what you are doing.

I think your analogy is inconsistent with the relevant facts of the abortion debate. You may disagree and that's fine. You can even say my opinion is bullshit if you feel strongly about it. My sensibilities can handle it.

I'm not sure why you decided to step in here, but I will say this right now: I'm not apt to engage in an exchange of generalized snippiness with someone who might be the only person on this board who is more of a pisser than I am. Those days are over for me. There's just not enough hours in the day.

Willravel · 02-16-2011, 11:44 AM

How can this be justified beyond religious belief?
I've never bought the religious argument behind the pro-life stance. It's been a while, but once upon a time I was a fundamentalist Christian myself and having read the Bible many times cover to cover, I can assure you that nowhere in the entire thing is abortion specifically mentioned, nor the moment when life begins. I've read the Qur'an and the Torah, too. The documents were written before our understanding of the human reproductive process had progressed to a point where abortion existed as we understand it today. While religious leaders preach about abortion, they're not preaching from their holy books.

In short, this is simply political football, something meant to be tossed back and fourth with no resolution in order to distract from real issues. Roe v. Wade is settled and will almost certainly never be overturned as it's a fundamental privacy issue. It's similar to gay marriage in that it's been politically tied to religion in the country, but like the pro-war or low-tax movement, even with their strong ties to the church there's no real rooting in scripture.

If this law passes, will this set a precedent for other states?
Possibly, though I doubt this will pass without being immediately challenged by civil rights organizations like the ACLU. As an aside, if this legislation pisses you off and you're wondering what you can do about it, donate to the ACLU.

Is this a major salvo in the fight over abortion?
This seems more like the crazy guy in the back of the room.

What do you make of this?
I think we should invade South Dakota and install a secular democracy there.

Baraka_Guru · 02-16-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I think we should invade South Dakota and install a secular democracy there.

Silly humanist, there's no such thing!

Cimarron29414 · 02-16-2011, 12:20 PM

Will, you and your violent rhetoric.

I believe the religious foundation behind opposing abortion would be "Thou shall not murder." Obviously, that is why the "when is it a 'person' argument" becomes so important in their debate. So, yes, there is scripture reference to murder and the opposition to murder. Again, I'm not debating abortion. I simply correcting your assertion that there is no foundation.

As to "gay marriage", uh, yeah - it's in there too. That would be the several references to homosexuality being a sin coupled with keeping marriage "holy". As I've said before, I support giving same sex couples the exact same legal status my wife and I have.

Willravel · 02-16-2011, 12:53 PM

There's certainly a Biblical foundation to argue against murder, yes. The stretch is made when asserting that an embryo or fetus can be murdered, though. Unless that can be established that an embryo and fetus are alive and thus can be murdered, the sixth commandment can't be argued. Gay marriage isn't in the Bible, either, but rather gay sex.

Cimarron29414 · 02-16-2011, 01:22 PM

Well, it isn't a stretch if one believes a human soul exists at conception. Which is what the religious folk believe. My personal choice of life doesn't really follow this argument, I just don't want to be the person who gives a say-so in aborting the person who was going to cure cancer or non-fattening fried chicken or something.

For Pete's sake, that is splitting hairs on the GM thing. Are you trying to null the religious argument by saying gays want to hold the same legal status as hetero married couples and proclaim their love to be equal, but they won't be having sex? There's a reason it is called "homo-S.E.X.U.A.L." Come on, that is weak.

Sorry, I have to include this in every post so that some knucklehead doesn't start in:
I vote pro-choice. I vote "pro-gay marriage".

Willravel · 02-16-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Well, it isn't a stretch if one believes a human soul exists at conception. Which is what the religious folk believe. My personal choice of life doesn't really follow this argument, I just don't want to be the person who gives a say-so in aborting the person who was going to cure cancer or non-fattening fried chicken or something.

I get that you're arguing for someone else, but the argument is an unsupported one. While claims are made in the Bible of God knowing people before they are born, that is attributed to God's omniscience and not to a state of existence before birth. There's nothing in the Bible to say that the soul itself exists connected to an embryo or fetus. The issue I take with arguments that abortion is banned or condemned by the Bible is that it's not. It's simply not in there. I'll happily welcome arguments and further evidence, but I've argued this before with a lot of folks ranging from fellow Sunday school goers to folks with their PhD in theology. The only religious rulings on abortion are in the form of extra-Biblical doctrine and the terrible mash-up of conservative politics with religious fundamentalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

For Pete's sake, that is splitting hairs on the GM thing. Are you trying to null the religious argument by saying gays want to hold the same legal status as hetero married couples and proclaim their love to be equal, but they won't be having sex? There's a reason it is called "homo-S.E.X.U.A.L." Come on, that is weak..

I'm arguing a technicality. Gay sex is an abomination worthy of the death penalty in the Bible, but the right to marriage is not spoken of. If the legal issue to murder innocent gay people comes up and religious folks want to vote to kill them, as wrong as they'd obviously be, at least they could reference the Bible. Too often people are allowed to simply make up what the Bible means, giving themselves false religious cover for stupid or hateful opinions. If they aren't even using the Bible correctly, they should be called on it. imho.

Sorry, this has turned into a bit of a threadjack.

Baraka_Guru · 03-16-2011, 04:43 AM

The more I look, the weirder things get.

So I'm not sure what, if anything, will happen in South Dakota. Apparently the bill was withdrawn after the outrage.

However, it appears that the idea of the justifiable homicide of abortion doctors is being taken into consideration in both Iowa and Nebraska:

Iowa Bills Could Also Allow for "Justifiable Homicide" Defense Against Abortion Docs | Mother Jones
Nebraska Resurrects "Justifiable Homicide" Abortion Bill | Mother Jones

Apparently, the bill in Nebraska is even more sweeping than the one proposed in South Dakota.

02-15-2011, 08:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	For the record, I know three atheists who are staunchly anti-abortion, so I wouldn't make this a religious thing. I know you aren't going to like this answer, but this really is up to the state of S.D.'s legislature and then judicial system. I am politically pro-choice, but personally pro-life (I think you know what I mean. Let me know if this needs explaining.) I can understand being the father of an unborn child and being willing and able to raise that child, only to have no say-so in the fetus' abortion. I could see that as a very frustrating feeling. However, I don't think the ability to terminate the life of the doctor is a rational legislative path. A rational alternative would be to give the birth father or grandparent a right of refusal, understanding the child would be theirs at birth. I haven't thought that out all the way, but it seems reasonable. What do you think? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-15-2011, 08:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, I can't many among the nonreligious supporting the right to kill a doctor in defense of a fetus suitable for abortion, with the assumption that the fetus is more or less a person. That aside, my own position is that I believe women have the right to an abortion because it's their body, and a fetus suitable for an abortion isn't a person. I don't support the idea that someone other than the pregnant woman has the right to refusal. To me, that's akin to a woman having the right to extract sperm from her husband to artificially inseminate herself to have a child if he were reluctant. The bottom line is: your body, your choice. With this law, having the doctor's life being at the mercy of the woman's relatives as some kind of moral prerogative is bullshit. I thought America prized liberty. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-15-2011, 08:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I see your side as well and agree that this law is extreme and could lead to some horrible consequences. Like I said, if the people of SD think this is the way they want their state to run...I would oppose this legislation in my state. I would be surprised if this comes even close to becoming law. I don't think your scenario is the same, but I don't want to pursue the argument. It would detract from the debate on the legislation. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-15-2011, 10:08 AM	#6 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	If that is the route you guys want to go in this thread, that's fine. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-15-2011, 10:43 AM	#8 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I agree. If one believes what he says, then how does this law extend the right of justifiable homicide beyond what already exists? In my state, there is an alter ego statute. In short, if the person being attacked has the legal right to self defense, one can act on their behalf and execute that right. For example, if you see a person being raped in an alley, you could draw your firearm and shoot the perp. You would not be prosecuted. So, the scenario he lays out, the woman has the right to defend herself. The new boyfriend of the woman has the right to defend her (alter ego). The father of the woman has the right to defend her (alter ego). etc. I wish he just had the balls to say, "Yeah, this law lets the father of the unborn child shoot the doctor about to perform the abortion." and let the chips fall where the may legislatively and professionally. Instead, he had to say something as stupid as this bill appears to be. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 02-15-2011 at 11:27 AM..

02-15-2011, 10:51 AM	#9 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I have little respect for most state legistlators. I need to be explicit about that. In my opinion, they are uniformly either corrupt or corruptable and prone to grandstanding on principle for their own sole benefit. I include in that every single state legislator that's ever represented me, including the one that I know personally. This whole thing only convinces me that I'm right. Do we really expect any better from South Dakota's legislature, who's second to only Kansas' in a race to the far right on this particular issue? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-15-2011, 11:54 AM	#10 (permalink)
kaerlyon Upright Location: France	What do you make of this ? So, this law accept murder for protect fetus. A murder against a murder !!! I don’t understand how many people can kill for protect the life. An abortion is a terrible act and women haven’t chosen this with pleasure. How legislators make a so stupid law and who can accept it and vote. Cimarron, I understand your point of vu. You think about your future baby but there are women haven’t chance to live in a good home, women have an “accident” or very young girl. Can you imagined the life to this girl with a baby : a child with a baby. When I went to school, I saw a girl (about 15 old) pregnant. Often I imagined her future : stop the school, look for a little job, need help from his family and society, became adult quickly. No, sorry but it’s not a good life and abortion is a solution. Women must to have the choice !

02-15-2011, 12:09 PM	#11 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	kaerlyon, that's more or less my point. A woman's right to an abortion—free and clear of influence from a relative who may or may not one day have the legal right to protect it via justifiable homicide—is in relation to her right to self-determination. I brought up the Taliban in the OP on purpose. Afghanistan is the perfect case study of what is wrong with women's rights. I recently heard a speech conducted by an Afghani woman who was the first woman in political office. She was literally and invariably ignored whenever she spoke. They treated her as though she weren't even in the room. She was eventually dropped from office, and she consequently started an nonpartisan organization that vies for the rights of women in Afghanistan. When she was young, her sister was forced into an arranged marriage, and died four years later. The one piece of advice she gave her was above all else, study hard. She did. She had earned scholarships to medical school in Australia and Hungary, but her father refused to let her leave the country. She would later be allowed to attend school in Kabul, but only if she agreed to an arranged marriage. Unfortunately, her husband disappeared 10 years later, which was the kind of thing that happened. Under the Taliban, women weren't even allowed to be outside without a close male relative (father, brother, or husband only). It's this kind of governance (call it religion if you want, but in practice, it's governed by law) is basically in place to take away from women their self-determination. If you control a woman's education, her ability to earn money, her sexuality, her reproductive system, etc., you control the woman. In the U.S., this move to make abortion either illegal, expensive, inaccessible, and/or far more difficult than it needs to be is a move to control a woman's right to self-determination with regard to whether she decides to carry a baby to term or not. This is not characteristic of a free society. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 02-15-2011 at 12:13 PM..

02-15-2011, 12:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	kaerlyon, I appreciate your post, but I think you misunderstood my point. I VOTE for pro-choice candidates. However, I personally would not choose for an abortion. That, is actually the perfect example of "pro-choice": the ability to have an abortion, but the choice not to. bg- Come on. You honestly think that there is a significant portion of the US population that seeks to control women the way the Taliban do? Uh, no. The MASSIVE difference that the two of you seem to be forgetting is adoption. A woman does not have to raise the child she births. In Afghanistan, she does. It's just not the same thing. Again, I'm not trying to make an argument for the curtailing or elimination of abortion - it is up to each person to decide. This law has little or nothing to do with self-determination. I would bet dollars to doughnuts this guy just thinks life begins at birth and a human is being murdered in an abortion. He doesn't care who raises it after it is born. He's not forcing that 15-year-old mother into a life serving coffee at the diner, uneducated and lost to personal prosperity. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 02-15-2011 at 12:27 PM..

02-15-2011, 01:25 PM	#13 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	There is obviously a significant portion of the US population that believes it has the right to control whether a woman carries a fetus to term or not. How is that not trying to control a woman's right to self-determination? And the attitude that, 'yeah, just carry that baby, give birth and go on about your life' is really, really dismissive of the emotional and physical realities of pregnancy. It's bullshit. No one has the right to force another person through that. I was talking to my daughter about this a little while ago and her instant reaction was, 'well, what if the son or husband of the doctor kills the person trying to murder their wife or mother...that's justifiable, too, right?' Such a smart girl. I can't believe that this is really happening... __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

02-15-2011, 01:43 PM	#14 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Cimarron, I brought up the Taliban to point out the worst of cases when it comes to women's rights. I used it to demonstrate how a society can have complete control over a woman. I did this to point out that legislating to make abortions more difficult to come by is essentially limiting a woman's right to self-determination. I'm not calling parts of the U.S. "just like the Taliban." I'm pointing out how this kind of legislation has the same effect on one factor of women's rights as you would see as a part of the many under the Taliban. There is a parallel: it's the state legislating the control a woman has over her body away from her. If this were legislation meant to protect pregnant women from being assaulted for being pregnant, it would be much clearer. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-15-2011, 02:14 PM	#15 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I wrote a long reply and realized it unnecessary. Our laws have many examples of instances where one makes a choice to go in a direction and can't turn back. Do those laws also limit self-determination? I really don't want to argue the point because I am in agreement with you, except for your forcing me to accept that self-determination occurs at only one point, and that is the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. That is not the case, and you both know that. For the third time, I vote pro-choice. I oppose legislation that places unreasonable restrictions on abortion. And your daughter thought exactly what I did - if I was a doctor who intended to continue to practice in SD, I would arm myself. I would shoot anyone who intended to shoot me. What a case it will be: "justifiable homicide" vs. "justifiable self-defense". ...and this is all moot anyway. This law has as much chance of making it as a fetus in an abortion clinic. Pardon the pun. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-15-2011, 07:31 PM	#16 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	"Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act." I thought federal law trumps state law, at least for now. Abortion is legal in all 50 states due to a supreme court case, how SD could say that killing a doctor is ok while performing a legal procedure is beyond me.. ---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ---------- "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act." I thought federal law trumps state law, at least for now. Abortion is legal in all 50 states due to a supreme court case, how SD could say that killing a doctor is ok while performing a legal procedure is beyond me..

02-16-2011, 10:53 AM	#20 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	This thread is about lunatic representatives sponsoring bills they know will never be made law. It's huffy-puffy drivel to gain attention for their pet causes. Much the same as that idiot Hal Wick sponsoring a bill that makes it mandatory for all adults over 21 to own a handgun. He did that in a feeble attempt to prove that Obama's universal health care was unconstitutional. Perhaps we could keep the debate about abortion itself, out of this thread. Maybe not.

02-16-2011, 11:44 AM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	How can this be justified beyond religious belief? I've never bought the religious argument behind the pro-life stance. It's been a while, but once upon a time I was a fundamentalist Christian myself and having read the Bible many times cover to cover, I can assure you that nowhere in the entire thing is abortion specifically mentioned, nor the moment when life begins. I've read the Qur'an and the Torah, too. The documents were written before our understanding of the human reproductive process had progressed to a point where abortion existed as we understand it today. While religious leaders preach about abortion, they're not preaching from their holy books. In short, this is simply political football, something meant to be tossed back and fourth with no resolution in order to distract from real issues. Roe v. Wade is settled and will almost certainly never be overturned as it's a fundamental privacy issue. It's similar to gay marriage in that it's been politically tied to religion in the country, but like the pro-war or low-tax movement, even with their strong ties to the church there's no real rooting in scripture. If this law passes, will this set a precedent for other states? Possibly, though I doubt this will pass without being immediately challenged by civil rights organizations like the ACLU. As an aside, if this legislation pisses you off and you're wondering what you can do about it, donate to the ACLU. Is this a major salvo in the fight over abortion? This seems more like the crazy guy in the back of the room. What do you make of this? I think we should invade South Dakota and install a secular democracy there.

02-16-2011, 12:20 PM	#24 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Will, you and your violent rhetoric. I believe the religious foundation behind opposing abortion would be "Thou shall not murder." Obviously, that is why the "when is it a 'person' argument" becomes so important in their debate. So, yes, there is scripture reference to murder and the opposition to murder. Again, I'm not debating abortion. I simply correcting your assertion that there is no foundation. As to "gay marriage", uh, yeah - it's in there too. That would be the several references to homosexuality being a sin coupled with keeping marriage "holy". As I've said before, I support giving same sex couples the exact same legal status my wife and I have. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-16-2011, 12:53 PM	#25 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There's certainly a Biblical foundation to argue against murder, yes. The stretch is made when asserting that an embryo or fetus can be murdered, though. Unless that can be established that an embryo and fetus are alive and thus can be murdered, the sixth commandment can't be argued. Gay marriage isn't in the Bible, either, but rather gay sex.

02-16-2011, 01:22 PM	#26 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Well, it isn't a stretch if one believes a human soul exists at conception. Which is what the religious folk believe. My personal choice of life doesn't really follow this argument, I just don't want to be the person who gives a say-so in aborting the person who was going to cure cancer or non-fattening fried chicken or something. For Pete's sake, that is splitting hairs on the GM thing. Are you trying to null the religious argument by saying gays want to hold the same legal status as hetero married couples and proclaim their love to be equal, but they won't be having sex? There's a reason it is called "homo-S.E.X.U.A.L." Come on, that is weak. Sorry, I have to include this in every post so that some knucklehead doesn't start in: I vote pro-choice. I vote "pro-gay marriage". __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-16-2011, 04:43 AM	#28 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The more I look, the weirder things get. So I'm not sure what, if anything, will happen in South Dakota. Apparently the bill was withdrawn after the outrage. However, it appears that the idea of the justifiable homicide of abortion doctors is being taken into consideration in both Iowa and Nebraska: Iowa Bills Could Also Allow for "Justifiable Homicide" Defense Against Abortion Docs \| Mother Jones Nebraska Resurrects "Justifiable Homicide" Abortion Bill \| Mother Jones Apparently, the bill in Nebraska is even more sweeping than the one proposed in South Dakota. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot