Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 169

Thread: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murder of

  1. #41
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Abortionists oppose this law because it basically treats a baby in the womb as a person that can be legally protected. Which in the long run is another baby step towards eliminating on demand abortion in their eyes.
    Abortionists oppose the law because it allows for them to be killed for doing a legal procedure that they're paid to do by the mother.

    I seriously doubt you go to the immigration threads. If you did you would know that with me its a sovereignty and nationality issue.
    So you don't give a **** about the rule of law. Gotcha.

    There are times when it is justified to ignore the law. For example if a law is blatantly unconstitutional then you as a patriotic American has the duty to ignore it. Another example would be back then when slavery was illegal, the abolitionist were justified in freeing the slaves and the slaves were justified in using lethal force to free themselves form their masters. Today its defending those in the womb against these so-called called doctors.
    Sorry, but the fact you stated the first line in and of itself disqualifies you from being taken seriously about whether something is or isn't unconstitutional...as it is not your place to deem whether something is or isn't constitutional.

    And no, I don't think even back in revolutionary times...as wrong as slavery was...that it was justifiable for people to walk in and shoot a plantation owner simply for performing a legal action of owning a slave.

    What is your position? Are you actually pro-life/anti-abortion or are you one of those liars who claims to be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time?
    My position has been well established. I believe this should be a state issue. I would vote in my state to ban it save for cases where the life of the mother is at risk or rape. I believe there is no scientific way to determine when it is or isn't a child, that such a determination is COMPLETELY 100% subjective based on the persons biases and views and beliefs, and as such the federal government should stay the **** out of it. And I think that right now, based on the way our government is formed based on the constitution, it is legal and until that changes it should be dealt with as such. Killing people for performing a legal activity should not be legal.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Are you really unwilling to condemn terrorism as terrorism?
    Terrorism is a specific thing. Vigilantism is just that: Vigilantism, not terrorism.

  3. #43
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Ahh. So it's not terrorism if the one committing the violence really believes he's doing the right thing.

    Let's say I really think Hollywood is corrupting American children with its sex and violence. I blow up movie studios to get them to stop making movies. Terrorism or vigilantism?

    Let's say I hate the American government in general. So many corrupt politicians. So I blow up government buildings. Let's say I'm Muslim and think America is the Great Satan. Vigilantism? America does kill Muslims on a regular basis, after all. Oh, you say that's war therefore what our troops do is legal? Abortion is legal...

    Are you really unwilling to condemn terrorism as terrorism?
    Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands. People who murder abortion providers or bomb abortion clinics do so to prevent those people from performing more abortions or to try to prevent that place from performing more abortions.This is like a father killing someone who raped and killed his daughter. This is not akin to some terrorist flying a plane into a building or a terrorist blowing himself up on a bus or someone taking shots at troops while in a crowd of people.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    My position has been well established. I believe this should be a state issue. I would vote to ban it save for cases where the life of the mother is at risk or rape. I believe there is no scientific way to determine when it is or isn't a child, that such a determination is COMPLETELY 100% subjective based on the persons biases and views and beliefs, and as such the federal government should stay the **** out of it. And I think that right now, based on the way our government is formed based on the constitution, it is legal and until that changes it should be dealt with as such. Killing people for performing a legal activity should not be legal.
    If the law passed as it is now, it wouldn't be a legal procedure; thus no one is or was ever talking about "killing people for performing a legal activity".

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    If the law passed as it is now, it wouldn't be a legal procedure; thus no one is or was ever talking about "killing people for performing a legal activity".
    State law can't supercede Federal Law or Supreme Court decisions.

    But thank you for highlighting exactly what Samsmart was saying as to why people are against this, and plainly stating why your earlier arguments otherwise were dishonest in attempting to paint this law as something else.

  6. #46
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Abortionists oppose the law because it allows for them to be killed for doing a legal procedure that they're paid to do by the mother.
    Abortionist fear the law because it treats a child in the womb as a person.

    So you don't give a **** about the rule of law. Gotcha.
    You were attempting to call me a hypocrite because of some half ass assumption of yours that all anti-illegal immigration go what about the rule of law.

    Sorry, but the fact you stated the first line in and of itself disqualifies you from being taken seriously about whether something is or isn't unconstitutional...as it is not your place to deem whether something is or isn't constitutional.

    And no, I don't think even back in revolutionary times...as wrong as slavery was...that it was justifiable for people to walk in and shoot a plantation owner simply for performing a legal action of owning a slave.
    If your were being honest you would know that the law is not always right and that it is idiotic to sit there and say that you should always obey the law even if you are a the person being royally ****ed by it like a slave for example in a society where slavery is legal.

    My position has been well established. I believe this should be a state issue. I would vote to ban it save for cases where the life of the mother is at risk or rape. I believe there is no scientific way to determine when it is or isn't a child, that such a determination is COMPLETELY 100% subjective based on the persons biases and views and beliefs, and as such the federal government should stay the **** out of it. And I think that right now, based on the way our government is formed based on the constitution, it is legal and until that changes it should be dealt with as such. Killing people for performing a legal activity should not be legal.
    Why a state issue? Should murder, rape and other crimes be a state issue instead of illegal all across the country?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #47
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I oppose any thing that kills an innocent human being to be called a medical procedure.
    So are you advocating the death of abortion doctors? Seriously, many pro-lifers are getting more and more ridiculous by the minute.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    State law can't supercede Federal Law or Supreme Court decisions.
    Which is why the law will be changed further still to account for that. We've gon over this already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    But thank you for highlighting exactly what Samsmart was saying as to why people are against this, and plainly stating why your earlier arguments otherwise were dishonest in attempting to paint this law as something else.
    You're quite welcome. Did you want to keep playing or were you finished? You're more than welcome to stay.

  9. #49
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    So are you advocating the death of abortion doctors? Seriously, many pro-lifers are getting more and more ridiculous by the minute.
    If it was legal to kill gays would you sit there and utter "but its legal" line or that you wouldn't kill someone who was attempting to kill your gay friends or family? I am sure that you will side step the question by pointing out that its not legal, gays are persons children in the womb are bit or some other thing to avoid answering the question .
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-25-11 @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    464

    Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Slaves once weren't people either.
    They were always people, and the evidence of that fact was never in credible dispute. The Confederates insisted otherwise because they were greedy, lazy scum whose entire economy depended on making other people work for them, but their laws showed that even they acknowledged this claim to be a lie - otherwise there would have been no point in making it a crime to teach slaves to read, and certainly no point in murdering any slave who tried. A fetus, on the other hand, is not even conscious. This is a matter of medical fact borne out by common sense and basic properties of neuronal density - something with a brain the size of a peanut is not a person to any more degree than a sprig is a tree. A grown, conscious dog is more of a person than a fetus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    A police K-9 is not a person, but if you kick one you are charged with assaulting a police officer.
    You are not, however, charged with murder if you kill a police dog, because - whatever the wisdom of this view - a dog is deemed to be less of a person than a human being. I don't wish to understate the difficulty of such distinctions, but there is no difficulty at all - none at all - in saying that a fetus is not a person. A mouse is more self-aware than a fetus. Tell me you even hesitate to kill a mouse, and I'll take your position more seriously. Please understand, my position is not borne of callousness - I hesitate to kill insects, and sometimes choose to let them go because I appreciate all life - but I am capable of weighing the needs of living things, and I must ultimately say that women have the final say on their own bodies. If someone invents a technology that can remove a one-month fetus and keep it alive, and you're willing to pay for its survival and upbringing, I have no objection to laws being passed that substitute such a process in place of abortion, but in lieu of that you will not turn women's bodies into state incubators. It's that simple. Their rights are absolute, and the ones asserted by the anti-abortion community on the part of an unconscious developmental stage are at best the products of religious fantasy. Let me reiterate - you will not turn women into state incubators on behalf of your religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Corporation aren't persons either, but they have rights as persons just as the unborn have rights as persons.
    Corporations have no such rights, regardless of what absurd privileges the conservatives on the Supreme Court have chosen to invent for their masters. And there is no such legal category of "the unborn" - any rights conferred thereon are an extension of the mother's rights alone. If a woman who lost a pregnancy due to an assault does not wish to press charges, none are filed. It is not murder - not morally, not rationally, not legally. Not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    SD is one state which authorizes the use of deadly force to stop a felony against your home. Surly we can all agree that a house is not a person.
    The SD law is absurd, but I recognize its logic: Deadly force to prevent a crime against property. That cannot be used as a rationale for killing abortion doctors, because the "property" in question belongs to the women obtaining abortions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    This demonstrates that it doesn't have to be a person in order to be something worth protecting with lethal force.
    But only things that actually belong to you. A part of a woman's body does not belong to other people, and certainly not to the state of South Dakota. Also understand that this intellectual debate only goes so far. I will assume, and request that you stipulate clearly, that you are not endorsing, recommending, or in any way attempting to rationalize taking the lives of abortion doctors. Real murders have already been committed by so-called "pro-life" groups and individuals who are activated by such arguments. Please make it explicit that this is entirely an intellectual exploration.
    Last edited by Troubadour; 02-16-11 at 11:45 AM.

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •