• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

It doesn't matter what the intent of the law is; it only matters what the letter of the law is, and the law as currently written would define anti-abortion terrorism as justifiable homicide.

I find this whole thing amusing. The law started out as a wholly superfluous attempt to extend the definition of self-defense as applied to pregnant women, and has been transformed into a legal justification for terrorism. On some level, I have to applaud the South Dakota legislature for its single-mindedness and tenacity.

yeah, tenacity.....like hitler
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

It doesn't matter what the intent of the law is; it only matters what the letter of the law is, and the law as currently written would define anti-abortion terrorism as justifiable homicide.

I find this whole thing amusing. The law started out as a wholly superfluous attempt to extend the definition of self-defense as applied to pregnant women, and has been transformed into a legal justification for terrorism. On some level, I have to applaud the South Dakota legislature for its single-mindedness and tenacity.

Yes that must be it...SD is a terrorist state...oh noes, you caught us....
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Here ya go, another link you won't read because it proves you wrong:

I like how you didn't include the most important part:

SL 1973, ch 146, § 2(3); SL 2006, ch 119, § 9 rejected by referendum Nov. 7, 2006.

What you are asserting was rejected over five years ago.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde


There is a huge difference between unauthorized abortions and unlawful abortions. Unauthorized abortions are caused by bodily injury to a pregnant female. Unlawful abortions occur when the doctor does not receive informed consent, which is a misdemeanor.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

There is a huge difference between unauthorized abortions and unlawful abortions. Unauthorized abortions are caused by bodily injury to a pregnant female. Unlawful abortions occur when the doctor does not receive informed consent, which is a misdemeanor.

I didn't realize the distinction. It was unauthorised abortion I had in mind.

The other pieces of legislation belong to South Dakota Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act (HB 1215), where some portions are in force as of 2006 while others take force upon a SCOTUS decision in the afirmative of States rights over Federal rights.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

I didn't realize the distinction. It was unauthorised abortion I had in mind.

The other pieces of legislation belong to South Dakota Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act (HB 1215), where some portions are in force as of 2006 while others take force upon a SCOTUS decision in the afirmative of States rights over Federal rights.
HB 1215 was rejected by voter referndum in 2006: South Dakota Nixes Abortion Ban; Michigan Voters OK Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

So can you and I agree that the law should have an amendment that protects abortion providers pursuing their profession according to state and federal laws? Such a provision would remove such protections from abortion providers who do so against state and federal law. Is that fair?

Any licensed medical practitioner carrying out a lawful abortion should be free from threat of deadly force, yes, I agree.

In the Scott Roeder case and the particulars around it, yes, you are right. But you have to remember that many of the critics of Roeder suggest that he was "pushed" into killing Tiller by other extremists who wouldn't bear any of the responsibility of their role in Tiller's murder.

My point in that regard is only to illustrate the difference between a political organization and a random lone wolf. If the abortion is lawful, then any act against the physician, staff or facility is unethical and unlawful, regardless; as it should be. IMO, after the fact, the matter turns from whether or not a crime was committed, to what kind of crime it was.

The Obama Administration was quick to say that Scott Roeder's actions were not terrorism. While he may have been influenced by the radical group Army of God, he did not act on their behalf, nor was the murder for a clear political gain. The courts decided that Scott Roeder's actions, while radical and idealistic, were not political. Thus it was not terrorism.

So what pro-choicers fear is that a male partner, or even some other family member, of a woman they know is seeking an abortion will use lethal force "to prevent harm to the unborn child." And that person will be pushed into it by pro-life militants.

I'll come clean and confess that if she is seeking an unlawful abortion, then the family member is justified. However, if she is seeking a legal abortion, then she has to be allowed to pursue it.

Note it doesn't necessarily matter if the law, as it is amended now, allows such an interpretation or not. What matters is that such pro-life militants may convince that person to use violence against abortion providers by lying to them about the effect of the amendment. So making such a clarification in the law could preempt militants from convincing others to commit violent acts with the amendment as a justification for it.

Well sure, I can agree with that. I think militant groups will use any tool and any justification they can find.

And I hope you're right and that the exception for legal abortion providers is installed. I just wanted to point out that pro-choicers didn't criticize this amendment to strike back at pro-lifers but rather as an effort to stop violence that may be initiated against militants who makes things worse for both sides.

The pro-choice source I used in making the OP played on the fact that the law is not complete, no where near, even, in order to sensationalize a few headlines. I understand that, they're just doing their job.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

All are cases where someone is illegally performing an action.That is significantly different than someone LEGALLY performing an action.

An action which kills or harms and innocent human being.



Yes, extremists do think its pretty simple.

A pro-lifer/anti-abortionist believes that the child in the womb has the same right to life as you or me and deserves the same legal protections.This view is only extreme in the eyes of abortionist.

They also think bombing buildings is perfectly justifable and is nothing at all similar to terrorism.

Would support vigilante action if law enforcement refused to stop a killer? Most people who are actually honest would say yes and cheer the individual who stopped this killer and call him a hero.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

No. I'd push for the law making it legal to kill a gay person to be overturned, but I would not push for a law legally allowing people to kill someone for performing a legal action.

And what if that fails? Go oh well nothing can be done?
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

And what if that fails? Go oh well nothing can be done?

Don't you like how pro-choice is strangely quiet on unlawful late-term abortions?

They just want to jump right into clinic bombings as though they happen all the time. Pro-choice takes the radical behavior of a domestic terrorist group and paint all of pro-life/anti-abortion with the same broad brush. I suppose these are the same people who insist all Muslims are terrorists and that all gays are pedophiles.

Here's a challenge for pro-choice: please paint a hypothetical where you would support a family member using lethal force to stop a wanted abortion.
 
Last edited:
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

I support this law. I believe people should be allowed to use lethal force in order to protect an unborn child that is at threat for murder and being attacked.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Don't you like how pro-choice is strangely quiet on unlawful late-term abortions?

Speaking out against unlawful late term abortions goes against their treating a child in the womb as a human being beliefs.

They just want to jump right into clinic bombings as though they happen all the time.Pro-choice takes the radical behavior of a domestic terrorist group and paint all of pro-life/anti-abortion with the same broad brush. I suppose these are the same people who insist all Muslims are terrorists and that all gays are pedophiles.

I think its funny that they act as though only pro-life/anti-abortion people are guilty of violence.

AbortionViolence.com
Pro-Abortion Violence
Moms For Life: Pro-Abortion Violence Escalates: Man Pulls Gun on Protestors at Planned Parenthood

Here's a challenge for pro-choice: please paint a hypothetical where you would support a family member using lethal force to stop a wanted abortion.

That's like asking a crackhead to not smoke crack out of his own free will. It isn't going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Speaking out against unlawful late term abortions goes against their treating a child in the womb as a human being beliefs.



I think its funny that they act as though only pro-life/anti-abortion people are guilty of violence.

AbortionViolence.com
Pro-Abortion Violence
Moms For Life: Pro-Abortion Violence Escalates: Man Pulls Gun on Protestors at Planned Parenthood



That's like asking a crackhead to not smoke crack out of his own free will. It isn't going to happen.

I just can't believe anyone on the left actually had a firearm :lol:

Oh noes, you can't use a gun to defend your family, but can sure as hell shoo away protesters with one :peace
 
Last edited:
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

I support this law. I believe people should be allowed to use lethal force in order to protect an unborn child that is at threat for murder and being attacked.

So essentially you're in favor of legalizing murder, as long as its murder you approve of. The law states that it could be justifiable homicide if you kill someone whose intent is:

"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, "

Note, doesn't say "harm the unborn child" illegally...but simply says harm it. So a doctor performing a legal 1st trimester abortion...hell, a person in a clinic giving the person the morning after pill...could be concievably killed under "justifiable" homicide for doing a completely lawful act that is part of their job.

How in the world is allowing people performing a legal action that is part of their job be legally murdered a "good" thing. Even if you think abortion is a bad thing, legalizing further murder isn't a solution.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

As the law stands today, if a man punches her in the stomach and she pulls out a gun and kills him, she gets charged with murder.

In Texas punching a woman, especially a pregnant woman, in the belly can get you shot by the woman or by someone who sees that an assault is in progress and they have reason to believe that the assault may cause death or serious injury. I can shoot to kill a man who is in my house breaking my dishes. I can shoot a person who in my yard at night stealing my yard rake. I don’t even have to give the warning. I can chase them and kill them if they run out of my yard with my rake.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

So essentially you're in favor of legalizing murder, as long as its murder you approve of.

Pro-choice does this all the time.

If the woman kills her unborn in the proscribed manner, it's "a right", but if anyone else kills the unborn, even with her consent, in any non-sanctioned fashion, it's "murder".

The nature and reality of the thing being killed doesn't change, only the context of it's death, and pro-choice approves of this. Elective abortion is therefore nothing short of legalized murder, just as 'murder' is unlawful 'killing'.

Now please don't take this wrong, I'm all for legalizing murder that we agree with and calling it killing instead. That's fine. You have the right to legally murder someone who is a threat to your life. You have the right to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, trespassing, etc. See I can play your word game too. But since pro-choice also supports this it is nothing short of pure hypocrisy to try and accuse someone else of the same as though it's wrong.

How in the world is allowing people performing a legal action that is part of their job be legally murdered a "good" thing. Even if you think abortion is a bad thing, legalizing further murder isn't a solution.

I agree with this. The correct thing to do is make abortion illegal, that way the 'procedure' is unlawful the family member remains within the law when killing said abortion doctor.

Abortions which should remain legal forever are only those which jeopardize the mother's life or will cause a serious injury, and even then every reasonable effort should be made to save the unborn. All other abortions should be outlawed and lethal force therefore authorized to stop them.

However, until such a time that those abortions are outlawed, everyone should be legally restrained from using lethal force to stop them.
 
Last edited:
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Pro-choice does this all the time.

And that makes it right how? And that makes pro-life people supporting legalized murder how?

If the woman kills her unborn in the proscribed manner, it's "a right", but if anyone else kills the unborn, even with her consent, in any non-sanctioned fashion, it's "murder".

Yep, that's the law as it is now. If you think its a bad law, try to get the law changed. I have no issue with that.

The nature and reality of the thing being killed doesn't change, only the context of it's death, and pro-choice approves of this. Elective abortion is therefore nothing short of legalized murder, just as 'murder' is unlawful 'killing'.

Wonderful, then try and get the law changed. My issue is not with people wanting to get the law changed. My issue is with people further attempting to legalize murder of individuals who are performing legal activities.

Now please don't take this wrong, I'm all for legalizing murder that we agree with and calling it killing instead. That's fine. You have the right to legally murder someone who is a threat to your life. You have the right to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, trespassing, etc. See I can play your word game too. But since pro-choice also supports this it is nothing short of pure hypocrisy to try and accuse someone else of the same as though it's wrong.

Someone whose a ILLEGAL threat to your life. If you think that the Milk Man is a threat to your life because he's serving you milk and you think its a secret plot to kill you because milk is poisonous, its not legal to kill him. You're allowed to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, and trespassing (in some states) because in all those cases the person is performing ILLEGAL activities. You can't just declare someone in the middle of the street "Trespassing" and shoot him. You can't just declare that a kid whose called your son a boogerface is a threat to him and thus shoot him. It is only justifiable in situations where an individual is performing an illegal action that violates your rights/the rights of your families and its deemed that the murder is necessary to protect those rights from that illegal action.

Such is not the case here, as the law allows for the murder of people performing a LEGAL action.

I agree with this. The correct thing to do is make abortion illegal, that way the 'procedure' is unlawful the family member remains within the law when killing said abortion doctor.

Hey, if you manage to get abortion banned, and you want to try that killing an abortion doctor whose in the midst of attempting to get an illegal abortion in order to save your kid is justifiable homicide, I'd have less issue with it.

But the fact is, abortion isn't illegal now, so I'm not for a law allowing someone to legally kill someone for performing a legal act.

However, until such a time that those abortions are outlawed, everyone should be legally restrained from using lethal force to stop them.

And this law doesn't do that, because this law allows for the loophole of claiming justifiable murder for killing someone who is doing it within the boundaries of the law.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Moderator's Warning:
Look! Another abortion thread that turns into personal insults and attacks. :roll: Let's stick to the topic and cease making it so personal shall we?
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

Pro-choice does this all the time.

If the woman kills her unborn in the proscribed manner, it's "a right", but if anyone else kills the unborn, even with her consent, in any non-sanctioned fashion, it's "murder".

The nature and reality of the thing being killed doesn't change, only the context of it's death, and pro-choice approves of this. Elective abortion is therefore nothing short of legalized murder, just as 'murder' is unlawful 'killing'.

Now please don't take this wrong, I'm all for legalizing murder that we agree with and calling it killing instead. That's fine. You have the right to legally murder someone who is a threat to your life. You have the right to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, trespassing, etc. See I can play your word game too. But since pro-choice also supports this it is nothing short of pure hypocrisy to try and accuse someone else of the same as though it's wrong.



I agree with this. The correct thing to do is make abortion illegal, that way the 'procedure' is unlawful the family member remains within the law when killing said abortion doctor.

Abortions which should remain legal forever are only those which jeopardize the mother's life or will cause a serious injury, and even then every reasonable effort should be made to save the unborn. All other abortions should be outlawed and lethal force therefore authorized to stop them.

However, until such a time that those abortions are outlawed, everyone should be legally restrained from using lethal force to stop them.

there must be community colleges in your area even in the south....take some courses in history and philosophy (esp. plato and emm. kant) and you won't sound like a dumb hillbilly (or a candidate for the sa, 80 years late)
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

And that makes it right how? And that makes pro-life people supporting legalized murder how?

Yep, that's the law as it is now. If you think its a bad law, try to get the law changed. I have no issue with that.

Wonderful, then try and get the law changed. My issue is not with people wanting to get the law changed. My issue is with people further attempting to legalize murder of individuals who are performing legal activities.

Someone whose a ILLEGAL threat to your life. If you think that the Milk Man is a threat to your life because he's serving you milk and you think its a secret plot to kill you because milk is poisonous, its not legal to kill him. You're allowed to lawfully murder someone who is a threat to your children's lives, taking your property, and trespassing (in some states) because in all those cases the person is performing ILLEGAL activities. You can't just declare someone in the middle of the street "Trespassing" and shoot him. You can't just declare that a kid whose called your son a boogerface is a threat to him and thus shoot him. It is only justifiable in situations where an individual is performing an illegal action that violates your rights/the rights of your families and its deemed that the murder is necessary to protect those rights from that illegal action.

Such is not the case here, as the law allows for the murder of people performing a LEGAL action.

Hey, if you manage to get abortion banned, and you want to try that killing an abortion doctor whose in the midst of attempting to get an illegal abortion in order to save your kid is justifiable homicide, I'd have less issue with it.

But the fact is, abortion isn't illegal now, so I'm not for a law allowing someone to legally kill someone for performing a legal act.

And this law doesn't do that, because this law allows for the loophole of claiming justifiable murder for killing someone who is doing it within the boundaries of the law.

If you look at the substance of our posts you'll see that we don't disagree on anything, although the tone of your posts suggests otherwise.

I would only point out that this is not a law yet. Please keep that in mind. SD has a history of protecting early abortion, so IMO there's little to worry about.
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

there must be community colleges in your area even in the south....take some courses in history and philosophy (esp. plato and emm. kant) and you won't sound like a dumb hillbilly (or a candidate for the sa, 80 years late)

One class I won't need is geography, because I know that although my state's name includes "south", that South Dakota is not in 'the south'. We're actually further north than California.

us_map.gif


While PHIL 100 - Introduction to Philosophy is available in my aria, that course is not apart of my Applied Technical Science Major.

If you scroll down the page you'll see that one gen-ed requirement is SPCM 222 - Argumentation and Debate, who's discription reads:

SPCM 222 - Argumentation and Debate
Common Course Number & Description
Explores argument as a communication activity, construction sound arguments in a variety of venues and analyzing the contribution of argument to public dialogue on contemporary issues.
PreRequisite:
3 semester hours

I wonder if I could get a transcript from DP.....
 
Last edited:
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

One class I won't need is geography, because I know that although my state's name includes "south", that South Dakota is not in the south. We're actually further north than California.

us_map.gif

tru dat jerry, my mistake in thinking your arguments were from the sunny south....you simply sound like the welfare suckin, obams hatin of white folks from mississippi...who voted for orville faubus, ronald regan and george bush
 
Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde

tru dat jerry, my mistake in thinking your arguments were from the sunny south....you simply sound like the welfare suckin, obams hatin of white folks from mississippi...who voted for orville faubus, ronald regan and george bush

As opposed to your arguments sounding like the welfare sucking, tree-hugging, nanny-state, folks of all colors from California...who voted for Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama? Oh wait, nevermind...

Moderator's Warning:
Stick to the topic and cease with the attacks, be it personal, broad or overly generalized. Final warning.
 
Back
Top Bottom