Hill Climb Racing 2 Industrial Deals Beauty Little FIres Everywhere Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Trade in. Get paid. Go shopping. Tailgating ToyHW17_gno
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

South Dakota Wants to Legalize Murdering Abortion Providers


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 15, 2011, 11:47:46 AM PST
Just about the time I think the craziness of the radical right wing has lost its ability to shock and sicken me, along comes this piece of dreck.

By By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | Sourced from AlterNet

We knew the abortion debate was moving to scary extremes, but WHAT? New legislation in South Dakota is being introduced that would make killing abortion doctors a 'justifiable homicide.' Legal. Murder. It's too shocking to comprehend. Mother Jones:

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, 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.

Originally the bill was meant to clarify language in the state's justifiable homicide laws, but the anti-choicers immediately latched on with the abortion amendment after testimony in support made by representatives of 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.

Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University, told Mother Jones, "It takes my breath away. Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 11:49:57 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
It's best to think of this as "later term abortion."

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 11:52:30 AM PST
So your contribution is that this is a joke?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 11:54:00 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
Killing people is never a joke. I think that's the point South Dakotans are trying to make.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 11:56:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 15, 2011, 11:57:57 AM PST
For RRR:

I guess the State of South Dakota does not believe that humans in America have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, especially a woman who wishes to control her life and to chose whether she wishes to have a baby. One has to love America sometimes.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 11:57:09 AM PST
I disagree. I think they are the typical anti-woman, anti-choice zealots like Scott Roeder, the murderer of Dr. George Tiller. I think this law, if passed, will quickly be declared unconstitutional, as the law professor said. It probably comes down to political posturing.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 11:59:34 AM PST
Well put, indeed. Apparently the compassion of the South Dakotans extends only to the unborn. They are weighing potential life against existing life. I wonder how SD rates in terms of public assistance to unwed mothers.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:06:52 PM PST
For Rachel Rebecca Riordan:

It appears to me most Christians love for children to be born at all costs because they so love "life." After that, they do not care if the babies die in the streets. They do not want to provide assistance to poor women with children or to build schools or to provide health care. They are pro birth and anti life. Praise Jesus.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:14:47 PM PST
Yes, praise Jesus. They have to be pro-life because their anti-woman and atavistically pro-fetus religion demands it, while at the same time demanding that funds be cut off to the homeless, the indigent, and the unwed mother because "welfare is bad." As the saying goes, they love the fetus but hate the child. Thank you for your contribution.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:16:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 15, 2011, 12:16:24 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 12:18:48 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:20:45 PM PST
RRR:

You are so welcome.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:22:51 PM PST
John:

It appears to me that the problem is that the state does not care about what a woman needs and wants and does not care about the children who are born. The women are in a bad situation.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:36:51 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Hello Lawrence Holcomb,

I see the problem in different terms. The state does care about life. I think that's the underlying issue.

For a poor, rural state, South Dakota has a good support system for both children and women. Anybody who's at all familiar with the state knows that.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:44:12 PM PST
Your argument is inaccurate. Medicine has long held that life begins with the first breath. Infanticide is against the law. Do you celebrate your birthday or your date of conception?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 12:46:39 PM PST
The state would not want to legalize murder if it cared about women.

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 12:49:16 PM PST
James Walsh says:
The hypocrisy is amazing. If the anti-aboriton crowd really believed that life began at conception, they'd have funerals and masses for the dead after miscarriages. It's all a crock.

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 12:51:05 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 21, 2011, 2:20:59 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 12:57:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 15, 2011, 12:58:16 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 1:13:54 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 21, 2011, 8:41:35 AM PDT]

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 1:15:38 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 1:27:33 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 16, 2011, 4:46:28 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 1:42:55 PM PST
Thanks NG.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2011, 1:43:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 15, 2011, 1:43:42 PM PST
William Schlake --

You're looking at the original form of the bill. It's apparently been amended as of February 9th. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm.

It has been amended to say: "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."

Just to reiterate, the Act now says "Homicide is justifiable if committed by ANY person while resisting any attempt 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..." (emphasis obviously added).

I agree, in its original form the bill is pretty harmless -- its basically just an extension of the self-defense doctrine to pregnant women and their unborn child. But the amended portion of the bill is dramatically different --- it enables ANY person to kill to protect their unborn child, which would seem, through no real stretch of the imagination, to encompass an abortion doctor.

Posted on Feb 15, 2011, 1:44:31 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 16, 2011, 4:46:12 PM PST]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 59 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1788 10 days ago
keep one change one started 14 January 2017 4611 7 hours ago
Hardwired to believe 53 7 hours ago
What is enlightenment? 2453 7 hours ago
Scientology? Is it a cult? 55 8 hours ago
this is nuts, on every possible level 1 8 hours ago
Who made up Jesus and why? 3481 9 hours ago
"God is so good" 45 11 hours ago
Significance of the Sign in the Sky on September 23, 2017 108 11 hours ago
Are we Sims? 304 23 hours ago
Weltanschauung 179 1 day ago
Purden of Boof 214 1 day ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  75
Total posts:  1451
Initial post:  Feb 15, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 20, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers