South Dakota wants to legalize murder of abortion doctors.

Post Reply New Topic

Whew. What if he was nowhere in sight at the time and then went after the doctor later? Or, what if a doctor refused to do the work unless both parties agreed and were present?

All of that could get messy.

The whole proposal is messy IMO

read the bill carefully. Killing an abortionist after the fact would still be unlawful homicide, even with this crazy bill.

ruveyn

And I'd like it to stay that way, but this thing is an attempt to redefine self defense. Oh wait, you didn't notice that! It must have been hard seeing how the first line in the text says so. "An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children."

Little consolation seeing how this will enable a father not agreeing with an abortion that is about to happen to kill the doctor in "self-defense".

I am not a lawyer, but neither is any of you guys, please don't try to sugarcoat this ridiculous law. It is a messed up thing, it is non-sense and to me it is not justifiable. Even if "From another point of view" it would not allow it to happen. Hell, Juries exist and we all know that nobody is really going to manage to justify a murder using this silly non-sense, assuming the jury is reasonable in any extent. But that begs the question, since you are so supportive about this law, what do you think is a reasonable usage of it? Yes, really. What exact situation requires this amendment for the law to become fair? I think that the current definition of justifiable homicide is fair enough and does not need 'fixing'.


Now AceOfSpades, welcome to Inulogoskeet level.

I guess indeed, maybe the trick for pro-abortion people to make conservatives stop calling it murder was to somehow change the definition of self-defense to include abortion, it would suddenly be all right.

Actually, it really does not appear that this law would be able to extend that far. The point is to establish a legal precedent and creep up on the abortion issue. Similarly with the attempted redefinition of rape and any other number of silly anti-abortion attempts which have to beat around the bush.

I mean, the bill in its present form basically says that if someone is punching a pregnant woman in the stomach to try to kill the fetus, you are justified in killing him. That's not a problem that Oklahoma is actually facing; people aren't running around punching pregnant women in the stomach. The point here is to gradually build up to something else, and that's why the law is so ridiculous and pointless.

So Orwell, would you consider this legislation to be a slippery slope? A camel's nose perhaps? A seemingly innocuous piece of legislation designed to nudge people towards an end that isn't considered politically feasible at this time, maybe?

Crezzee Americains.

Thy ways are higher, I would have drawn the line at Babel.

I wouldn't call it slippery slope, as they aren't really interested in expanding the definition of self defense, and in other similarly-motivated laws they don't really care about expanding the ability to prosecute for murder. It's a law with an obvious ulterior motive, and ulterior motives in legislation should generally be avoided.

I don't think it's intended to nudge people toward anything, or have anything to do with political feasibility. Most of Oklahoma is already pro-life. This is being done for the benefit of the courts, so that someday they will be able to use it in an argument to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. A more obvious case of this is when someone who kills a pregnant woman is charged with two homicides instead of one. They will later use that in court to say that for certain legal purposes, a fetus is regarded as a person, so why not in the case of abortion?

It doesn't redefine self defense, it classifies babies as people. It's a reclassification not a redefinition. Another way you could've worded it is "expanding the definition of people to include babies" because the fundamental definition of self defense is still the same. And my comment about self defense specifically pertains to what the dude said about loopholes. Since it has a cut and dried definition (It's self defense until you strike the perp while he's down), it's not that easy. But anyways he wasn't being serious.

Nothing is being sugarcoated, once again you're confusing redefinition with reclassification. Self defense as legally defined, turns into assault once you attack someone who is no longer actively a threat. I'm not a lawyer either, but I used to be really into martial arts back when it was an Aspie obsession of mine and did a s**t ton of research on laws regarding self defense so I know what I'm talking about.

"After the fact" means when the abortionist is no longer actively a threat. Therefore, it's no longer self defense. Who here in this thread is supportive of this law anyways? It's unanimously considered ridiculous in this thread. As a pro-lifer, I also consider it immoral to kill a doctor performing an abortion and I don't call abortion murder. This bill is ridiculously ret*d, impractical, and immoral.

Neither of em are murder speaking from a legal perspective taking the baby being classified as a person into consideration. I'm not petty enough to call any type of killing I don't like "murder". Murder specifically means to kill with malicious intent. Just like self defense, murder has a legal definition. Since it's clear in the bill that it is no longer self defense after the person is no longer actively a threat to the baby, it turns into murder if you continue to attack the person after that to the point where that person dies.

I would argue it is talking about born alive infants that the abortionist then strangles, jams scissors in their skull, etc.

Also AceOfSpades is correct, that it is limited to defense of the infants life, not actively gunning down Abortionists.

Such histrionics. (For the record, I am no more in favour of hyperbole from the left than from the right).

My understanding is that the bill has been sent back for redrafting to exclude the argument of self-defence/defence of a third party where the victim was engaged in a lawful activity. (Though I stand to be corrected in this point).

What are the chances of an anti-abortion crusader being in the operating room when the abortion doctor does his thing? I would say there are two chances: slim and none. Killing the abortionist before he does an abortion or after he does an abortion is murder even with the crazy So. Dakota law.

ruveyn

Yeah it's really impractical. A better solution to preventing born babies from being killed would be to install cameras.

Cameras aren't like to do much, they'd probably just unplug them.