Wait On That Abortion

[Mike]

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?
Here in Vermont, I see that we already have laws regarding causing an abortion. I do have to wonder if this state proposal is preparing for a possible overturn in Roe v Wade

And, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do something about non-functioning adults who proceed to have child after child. Perhaps forced sterilazation could cut down on the number of abortions.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Mike

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?
Here in Vermont, I see that we already have laws regarding causing an abortion. I do have to wonder if this state proposal is preparing for a possible overturn in Roe v Wade

And, I wholeheartedly agree that we should do something about non-functioning adults who proceed to have child after child. Perhaps forced sterilazation could cut down on the number of abortions.

Who wants more killing though? It simpler and cleaner, legally, to outlaw abortion and then not have to worry about "justifiable homicide".

Your latter point alludes to another trend. The welfare recipients are the highest producers of child after child that they cannot themselves afford. There is no financial disincentive. But since receiving welfare is the same as being in a contract with the government, a "temporary" contraceptive injection at the time one receives their check is consistent with contract law. When one gets off welfare, obviously they should be free to go about their lives, and have kids which presumably they can now afford to support.

It would be hard to find another contract where one side can unilaterally increase the costs for the other side without bound. And nobody has the right to have more kids than they can afford. What sound judgment and discipline cannot prevent, technology can. But again, we're talking about prevention -- non-conception, not early execution.

No permanent sterilization should be arbitarily handed down. That sounds too much like the Hitlerian eugenics nightmare that we thankfully defeated. Short duration, temporary, injectible birth control only for the duration where one is dependent on the government for support, because this person by definition cannot support more dependents anyway. In fact, the welfare recipient's children are dependents on the taxpayer.

[Mike]

I'm going to find the actual bill

And, yes, I halfhazardly thru out the idea of sterilization, when birth control injections (is Norplant still the name?) might be suitable for some

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

I'm going to find the actual bill

And, yes, I halfhazardly thru out the idea of sterilization, when birth control injections (is Norplant still the name?) might be suitable for some

I posted the whole bill two posts above

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Mike

I'm going to find the actual bill

And, yes, I halfhazardly thru out the idea of sterilization, when birth control injections (is Norplant still the name?) might be suitable for some

IIRC, Norplant was an under the armpit subcutaneous implant. I think Depo Privera is the one that comes in an injectable form. It lasts a few months, then has to be repeated. It would be perfectly suited to this job.

[Mike]

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

There's the catch (possibly). Help me out here, I thought I remembered elsewhere legal abortion providers being exempt from the justifiable homicide, but I must be missing it here (and I had my coffee)

[Mike]

It's that lawful defense line, I'm not sure that alludes to a legal abortion ?

Where's the DT legal interpreters?

[Antitrust32]

Its okay if you are liberal.

But I just dont see how people can read that bill and think it means its okay to kill an abortion doctor.

If somehow abortion was illegal, I could understand. But abortion is legal, I just dont get it.

Liberals in the media do spin things just like Right Wingers in the media do. Thats what I feel this issue is about.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

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

There's the catch (possibly). Help me out here, I thought I remembered elsewhere legal abortion providers being exempt from the justifiable homicide, but I must be missing it here (and I had my coffee)

Abortion is not a felony. This bill in no way makes it justifiable to murder an abortion doctor.

it specifically states If there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony

as its been explained by the writers of the bill, it only is for Illegal acts, like if your boyfriend doesnt want a baby and starts beating your pregnant stomach, the woman is justified in killing the boyfriend.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Abortion is not a felony. This bill in no way makes it justifiable to murder an abortion doctor.

it specifically states If there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony

as its been explained by the writers of the bill, it only is for Illegal acts, like if your boyfriend doesnt want a baby and starts beating your pregnant stomach, the woman is justified in killing the boyfriend.

I can agree with that. A lot of these guys, especially the vaunted athletes, should be finished for kicking and punching their pregnant girlfriends in the stomache

[Mike]

design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

as its been explained by the writers of the bill, it only is for Illegal acts, like if your boyfriend doesnt want a baby and starts beating your pregnant stomach, the woman is justified in killing the boyfriend.

If the situation is reversed, and the boyfriend wants the baby but the woman doesn't, the boyfriend (would-be father) has the option of not driving his girlfriend to the abortion clinic. So much for the equality of male/female parenthood.

You're correct in that a currently legal act cannot be a felony of course. At least not at the same level of law. Federally legal may or may not have a bearing on the State, County or Local definitions. The law is peculiar that way. You can try a guy for murder (like O.J), find him innocent of the murder, but yet win a wrongful death civil lawsuit for the same set of events you found him innocent of criminally.

[Antitrust32]

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

[Antitrust32]

any sane, rational person can see that the law does NOT justify killing an abortion doctor. Liberal spin.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

any sane, rational person can see that the law does NOT justify killing an abortion doctor. Liberal spin.

Plenty of sane, rational lawyers - political persuasion immaterial - say it opens a wide hole to do exactly that.

Clearly a husband could murder the doctor performing an abortion on his wife.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Plenty of sane, rational lawyers - political persuasion immaterial - say it opens a wide hole to do exactly that.

Clearly a husband could murder the doctor performing an abortion on his wife.

not according to this law or the law of the land. I think its quite easy to see, even if the wording might be a small bit confusing. They are clearly protecting a pregnant woman or her relative from prosecution if they kill someone who is attacking her womb illegally.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

not according to this law or the law of the land. I think its quite easy to see, even if the wording might be a small bit confusing. They are clearly protecting a pregnant woman or her relative from prosecution if they kill someone who is attacking her womb illegally.

?? The wording isn't confusing at all - it says right there, the husband can kill someone trying to harm his wifes baby.

It doesn't limit in any way who that person could be.

The point is indeed that the intended consequences of a law are not presumed to be the only possible consequences, dependent upon the wording.

In other words, you write a law to do one thing, but there is very frequently unintended (or indeed intended) consequences that are permitted by the wording.

Again - why is this change being added to the current law? Hum?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

?? The wording isn't confusing at all - it says right there, the husband can kill someone trying to harm his wifes baby.

Again - why is this change being added to the current law? Hum?

yes on the first statement but they can not legally, according to this law, murder laws, roe vs wade, etc, murder an abortion doctor and recieve no punishment! The husband can kill an armed robber who shoots his wife in the stomach therefor killing his unborn baby.

and i believe it is added to the current law to protect a woman from prosecution if someone beats or harms her womb in an illegal manner. currently the law does not protect someone who kills because they fear for the life of their unborn child.

if abortion was Illegal, than I can see people thinking "okay we can justify killing an abortion doctor". than again, if abortion was illegal, in theory, there would not be abortion doctors.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Mike

I may have missed it here, but could someone provide the link to the proposed bill regarding justified homicide of one who kills a fetus?

google: south dakota nebraska murder abortion

And you'll get lots of hits.