The pregnant woman doesn't have to be getting an abortion. This law makes it legal for a husband to kill his pregnant wife for receiving chemotherapy.
Now now- that would kill the unborn child as well, so he would have to kill himself.
Her husband could certainly kill the doctor providing chemotherapy though
It doesn't do any of that. There is a long line of cases and legal precedent that recognize the right to seek medical treatment. The South Dakota legislature can't override the Constitution and hundreds of years of legal precedent.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
If it does, then it would be legal for me to kill my own doctor for performing chemotherapy on ME.
Please, do not be obsurd.
Ah, but you consented to it. The unborn child did not consent to it and the father has the right to protect his unborn child from any act that can cause great personal injury like chemotherapy to the mother.
These are exactly the type of laws that are used to jail women for endangering their fetuses in third world countries.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
This law means that the lethal force I can use to protect you, now extends to your unborn child. That in no way extends to medical procedures. If it ever[/] got used as a defense for killing a doctor, I would be surprised. If that defense worked, I will eat my shoe.
If someone punches your wife in the stomach, you're generally not allowed to shoot him. This would make it acceptable to shoot him, as long as your wife was pregnant. Because that could seriously harm the unborn kid. So it allows deadly force to be used in situations that it might not otherwise have been allowed.
Wow, there's a real knee jerk overreaction circle jerk going on here. I'm glad none of you are lawers. Some reading comprehension would do some real good.
Taken from OP, here's the text again
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
Wow, there's a real knee jerk overreaction circle jerk going on here. I'm glad none of you are lawers. Some reading comprehension would do some real good.
What the heck is a lawer?
At any rate, you should probably read some of the posts before having a hysterical over-reaction to the reaction to the law.
The pregnant woman doesn't have to be getting an abortion. This law makes it legal for a husband to kill his pregnant wife for receiving chemotherapy.
Now now- that would kill the unborn child as well, so he would have to kill himself.
Her husband could certainly kill the doctor providing chemotherapy though
It doesn't do any of that. There is a long line of cases and legal precedent that recognize the right to seek medical treatment. The South Dakota legislature can't override the Constitution and hundreds of years of legal precedent.
It can certainly try, though. State legislatures are often not terribly bothered about the constitutionality of the laws they pass. Sure, it cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, but dammit, they struck a blow against the godless abortionists!
But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions.
What about just some abortionists? Is that a far-flung fantasy? After all, no doctors who performed abortions have ever been assassinated, so there's that in your favor.
Wow, there's a real knee jerk overreaction circle jerk going on here. I'm glad none of you are lawers. Some reading comprehension would do some real good.
Taken from OP, here's the text again
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
...How does this law stop that bolded part? Isn't that already covered in terms of justifiable homicide based on the fact that you would be causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman as well?
Also, did you read any of the discussion about the fact that the pregnant woman's husband and parents also have the right to use deadly force to prevent significant injury to the fetus? And the fact that the law makes is justifiable to kill anyone threatening the life of that fetus even if it is the pregnant woman herself?
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Wow, there's a real knee jerk overreaction circle jerk going on here. I'm glad none of you are lawers. Some reading comprehension would do some real good.
What the heck is a lawer?
At any rate, you should probably read some of the posts before having a hysterical over-reaction to the reaction to the law.
If you can't read typos, you won't do well on the internets. And I did read all the posts, and they're all not logical within the proper context of the law.
bgrahambo on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Wow, there's a real knee jerk overreaction circle jerk going on here. I'm glad none of you are lawers. Some reading comprehension would do some real good.
Taken from OP, here's the text again
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
I didn't know it was legal to kick a preggo in the pooch in SD before this law.
I didn't know it was legal to kick a preggo in the pooch in SD before this law.
Well, as I said earlier, it's now legal to shoot someone who is doing that, whereas if they weren't preggo, it wouldn't be legal. That's the intent of the law. And the intention of the legislature is fairly clear. Unfortunately, the way the second section is worded creates some weird situations, where it might be legal to use deadly force to prevent someone from "causing serious injury" to a fetus. I.e., an abortionist. That's mainly where the kerfluffle comes from. And courts are generally required to follow the wording of the law, rather than what they perceive the 'intent' of the law to be.
I didn't know it was legal to kick a preggo in the pooch in SD before this law.
Well, as I said earlier, it's now legal to shoot someone who is doing that, whereas if they weren't preggo, it wouldn't be legal. That's the intent of the law. And the intention of the legislature is fairly clear. Unfortunately, the way the second section is worded creates some weird situations, where it might be legal to use deadly force to prevent someone from "causing serious injury" to a fetus. I.e., an abortionist. That's mainly where the kerfluffle comes from. And courts are generally required to follow the wording of the law, rather than what they perceive the 'intent' of the law to be.
But it was already legal to shoot someone doing that because they were also causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman. This law is entirely useless except as another building block towards some future goal and/or pandering to pro-life people in south dakota.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
I didn't know it was legal to kick a preggo in the pooch in SD before this law.
Well, as I said earlier, it's now legal to shoot someone who is doing that, whereas if they weren't preggo, it wouldn't be legal. That's the intent of the law. And the intention of the legislature is fairly clear. Unfortunately, the way the second section is worded creates some weird situations, where it might be legal to use deadly force to prevent someone from "causing serious injury" to a fetus. I.e., an abortionist. That's mainly where the kerfluffle comes from. And courts are generally required to follow the wording of the law, rather than what they perceive the 'intent' of the law to be.
But it was already legal to shoot someone doing that because they were also causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman. This law is entirely useless except as another building block towards some future goal and/or pandering to pro-life people in south dakota.
Perhaps. Without caring to delve into the depths of the 'self-defense' and 'defense of others' doctrines of south dakota, I can't make a comment specifically on S.D.'s laws. Generally deadly force is only permissible when deadly force is threated; i.e., you can't respond to a punch with a gun. And so the intent of this law is to allow someone to respond to a punch with a gun if there is a pregnancy involved. Now that might be a bad policy, since it isn't always obvious that there's an embryo in there, but legislatures are allowed to pass bad laws and make bad policy, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the constitution.
I didn't know it was legal to kick a preggo in the pooch in SD before this law.
Well, as I said earlier, it's now legal to shoot someone who is doing that, whereas if they weren't preggo, it wouldn't be legal. That's the intent of the law. And the intention of the legislature is fairly clear. Unfortunately, the way the second section is worded creates some weird situations, where it might be legal to use deadly force to prevent someone from "causing serious injury" to a fetus. I.e., an abortionist. That's mainly where the kerfluffle comes from. And courts are generally required to follow the wording of the law, rather than what they perceive the 'intent' of the law to be.
But it was already legal to shoot someone doing that because they were also causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman. This law is entirely useless except as another building block towards some future goal and/or pandering to pro-life people in south dakota.
Perhaps. Without caring to delve into the depths of the 'self-defense' and 'defense of others' doctrines of south dakota, I can't make a comment specifically on S.D.'s laws. Generally deadly force is only permissible when deadly force is threated; i.e., you can't respond to a punch with a gun. And so the intent of this law is to allow someone to respond to a punch with a gun if there is a pregnancy involved. Now that might be a bad policy, since it isn't always obvious that there's an embryo in there, but legislatures are allowed to pass bad laws and make bad policy, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the constitution.
Um... this law only allows people to respond with deadly force when the act would likely kill the unborn child. Anything that is going to kill the unborn child outside of medical facilities is a threat to the pregnant woman's life as well.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
I didn't know it was legal to kick a preggo in the pooch in SD before this law.
Well, as I said earlier, it's now legal to shoot someone who is doing that, whereas if they weren't preggo, it wouldn't be legal. That's the intent of the law. And the intention of the legislature is fairly clear. Unfortunately, the way the second section is worded creates some weird situations, where it might be legal to use deadly force to prevent someone from "causing serious injury" to a fetus. I.e., an abortionist. That's mainly where the kerfluffle comes from. And courts are generally required to follow the wording of the law, rather than what they perceive the 'intent' of the law to be.
But it was already legal to shoot someone doing that because they were also causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman. This law is entirely useless except as another building block towards some future goal and/or pandering to pro-life people in south dakota.
Perhaps. Without caring to delve into the depths of the 'self-defense' and 'defense of others' doctrines of south dakota, I can't make a comment specifically on S.D.'s laws. Generally deadly force is only permissible when deadly force is threated; i.e., you can't respond to a punch with a gun. And so the intent of this law is to allow someone to respond to a punch with a gun if there is a pregnancy involved. Now that might be a bad policy, since it isn't always obvious that there's an embryo in there, but legislatures are allowed to pass bad laws and make bad policy, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the constitution.
Um... this law only allows people to respond with deadly force when the act would likely kill the unborn child. Anything that is going to kill the unborn child outside of medical facilities is a threat to the pregnant woman's life as well.
yeah.. the whole distinction is pretty strange and obvious pandering to the so called religious right
Yeah, it it almost reads as if it were somehow crafted to imply a connection to abortion procedures even if a strict legal reading would not necessarily justify that belief. What a coincidence.
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
I'm concerned that because it says 'commit a felony OR do great harm,' you could apply it to:
"Crazy can kill a doctor if the doctor is about to do 'great injury' to Crazy's wife's unborn child"
Doesn't the "unborn child of any such enumerated person" cover the father as well?
Not sure if I'm parsing this right, but it sounds like it'd be legal for the father and the mother to engage in a battle to the death to resolve an argument about abortion.
Wow, there's a real knee jerk overreaction circle jerk going on here. I'm glad none of you are lawers. Some reading comprehension would do some real good.
Taken from OP, here's the text again
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
You're a silly goose if you don't think the law can and will be construed in a manner that allows someone to claim justifiable homicide against an abortion provider.
Do you really think there is a rash of prosecutions in South Dakota where someone killed someone in self-defense after they attempted to kick their pregnant wife/girlfriend and the protector was charged with murder? Seeing as how there probably isn't, let's look to the other reasons why a law like this may be enacted. Oh wait, we can figure it out pretty quickly.
Isn't beating a pregnant woman and killing her fetus already a murder charge in most places?
The law is worded vaguely enough to be very dangerous.
Like how MS' upcoming anti texting while driving laws will technically make it illegal to read the time off of your radio display.
I don't know about all the states, but I'm sure it varies widely
It ups murder to agg murder here
And ups misdemeanor assault to felony assault if the defendant knew the victim was pregnant when they assaulted them
I don't see this statute as being terribly dangerous, but its potential for misuse is ripe given the culture in SD right now and I think it's unnecessary
Wow, there's a real knee jerk overreaction circle jerk going on here. I'm glad none of you are lawers. Some reading comprehension would do some real good.
Taken from OP, here's the text again
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
You're a silly goose if you don't think the law can and will be construed in a manner that allows someone to claim justifiable homicide against an abortion provider.
Do you really think there is a rash of prosecutions in South Dakota where someone killed someone in self-defense after they attempted to kick their pregnant wife/girlfriend and the protector was charged with murder? Seeing as how there probably isn't, let's look to the other reasons why a law like this may be enacted. Oh wait, we can figure it out pretty quickly.
Yeah, it seems a lot more likely that there's a secret government plan in South Dakota to make people think they can kill abortion providers while able to claim justifiable homicide in their trials than that two sections of law might have been poorly written.
I mean, I've never seen a poorly written law before and I'm sure no one else here has either. So. Point against that unlikely bit of conspiracy theory nonsense.
There's sure some crazy ass fox news style 'seeing shit that isn't there' stuff going on in here.
Yeah, it seems a lot more likely that there's a secret government plan in South Dakota to make people think they can kill abortion providers while able to claim justifiable homicide in their trials than that two sections of law might have been poorly written.
I mean, I've never seen a poorly written law before and I'm sure no one else here has either. So. Point against that unlikely bit of conspiracy theory nonsense.
There's sure some crazy ass fox news style 'seeing shit that isn't there' stuff going on in here.
Yeah, just like in Virginia, when they introduced a 'moment of silence' that students 'could use for prayer' that was supposed to combat 'gang violence'. That was a serious anti-gang measure, not an attempt to have official organized prayer in schools. Sure.
Yeah, it a lot more likely that there's a secret government plan in South Dakota to make people think they can kill abortion providers while able to claim justifiable homicide in their trials than that two sections of law might have been poorly written.
I mean, I've never seen a poorly written law before and I'm sure no one else here has either. So. Point against that unlikely bit of conspiracy theory nonsense.
There's sure some crazy ass fox news style 'seeing shit that isn't there' stuff going on in here.
Oh for heaven's sake Ego, the talking heads on Fox News talk about how abortion providers are monsters and need to be stopped. Suggesting that there isn't a very loud, and very influential section of the Right that believes abortion providers need to be put down is wearing blinders of the highest order. South Dakota already has some of the most draconian abortion laws in the nation, this isn't counting several of the laws that had to be stopped by the courts. I'm not talking "grand government conspiracy to kill abortion providers" here, I'm simply talking about "retarded conservatives elected to the state house who have no problem when someone kills an abortion provider, and want to give them a little cover legally."
Yeah, it seems a lot more likely that there's a secret government plan in South Dakota to make people think they can kill abortion providers while able to claim justifiable homicide in their trials than that two sections of law might have been poorly written.
I mean, I've never seen a poorly written law before and I'm sure no one else here has either. So. Point against that unlikely bit of conspiracy theory nonsense.
There's sure some crazy ass fox news style 'seeing shit that isn't there' stuff going on in here.
Yeah, just like in Virginia, when they introduced a 'moment of silence' that students 'could use for prayer' that was supposed to combat 'gang violence'. That was a serious anti-gang measure, not an attempt to have official organized prayer in schools. Sure.
Hey, don't jump all over me, I'm agreeing with you guys.
South Dakota has a secret government conspiracy to give legal protection to people who murder doctors performing abortions to appease the (no doubt immense group of) fringe voters who think we should go kill abortionists. It's perfectly obvious, and of course very comparable to people trying to sneak prayer into schools. Just that this time they're sneaking murder.
Just like how when people try to protect muslims from religious discrimination (like not being able to build the 'ground zero mosque',) it's because Obama and a sizeable number of democrats want to bring Sharia law to America.
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
...How does this law stop that bolded part? Isn't that already covered in terms of justifiable homicide based on the fact that you would be causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman as well?
Also, did you read any of the discussion about the fact that the pregnant woman's husband and parents also have the right to use deadly force to prevent significant injury to the fetus? And the fact that the law makes is justifiable to kill anyone threatening the life of that fetus even if it is the pregnant woman herself?
Let's parse out the bit that people are concerned that "makes it justifiable to kill ayone threatening the life of the fetus".
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of the unborn child of any such enumerated person if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great personal injury and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
Again, it's that "lawful defense" bit. If whatever is going on to upset you is completely legal, it wouldn't be "lawful defense". According to all the hubub over all this bit of law, that same section would have previously made it legal to kill the executioner in the process of administering capital punishment. Since that's obviously not the case, then it's obviously not the case that someone's husband/father/anyone can kill the mother/abortionist/etc imminently before the legal abortion procedure.
Before copy + pasting headlines and opinions of reactionary websites: Read. Think. Apply common sense. No one would try to make it laws to allow killing doctors doing legal procedures.
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
...How does this law stop that bolded part? Isn't that already covered in terms of justifiable homicide based on the fact that you would be causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman as well?
Also, did you read any of the discussion about the fact that the pregnant woman's husband and parents also have the right to use deadly force to prevent significant injury to the fetus? And the fact that the law makes is justifiable to kill anyone threatening the life of that fetus even if it is the pregnant woman herself?
Let's parse out the bit that people are concerned that "makes it justifiable to kill ayone threatening the life of the fetus".
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of the unborn child of any such enumerated person if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great personal injury and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
Again, it's that "lawful defense" bit. If whatever is going on to upset you is completely legal, it wouldn't be "lawful defense". According to all the hubub over all this bit of law, that same section would have previously made it legal to kill the executioner in the process of administering capital punishment. Since that's obviously not the case, then it's obviously not the case that someone's husband/father/anyone can kill the mother/abortionist/etc imminently before the legal abortion procedure.
Before copy + pasting headlines and opinions of reactionary websites: Read. Think. Apply common sense. No one would try to make it laws to allow killing doctors doing legal procedures.
Are you sure about that bolded part? Have you ever listened to the rhetoric about abortion providers that people like Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue put out?
Putting out legislation like this that explicitly gives fetuses rights normally limited to people is legislative backing for a future fetal personhood law that will turn the US into a third world country in terms of women's rights.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
...How does this law stop that bolded part? Isn't that already covered in terms of justifiable homicide based on the fact that you would be causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman as well?
Also, did you read any of the discussion about the fact that the pregnant woman's husband and parents also have the right to use deadly force to prevent significant injury to the fetus? And the fact that the law makes is justifiable to kill anyone threatening the life of that fetus even if it is the pregnant woman herself?
Let's parse out the bit that people are concerned that "makes it justifiable to kill ayone threatening the life of the fetus".
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of the unborn child of any such enumerated person if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great personal injury and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
Again, it's that "lawful defense" bit. If whatever is going on to upset you is completely legal, it wouldn't be "lawful defense". According to all the hubub over all this bit of law, that same section would have previously made it legal to kill the executioner in the process of administering capital punishment. Since that's obviously not the case, then it's obviously not the case that someone's husband/father/anyone can kill the mother/abortionist/etc imminently before the legal abortion procedure.
Before copy + pasting headlines and opinions of reactionary websites: Read. Think. Apply common sense. No one would try to make it laws to allow killing doctors doing legal procedures.
Are you sure about that bolded part? Have you ever listened to the rhetoric about abortion providers that people like Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue put out?
Putting out legislation like this that explicitly gives fetuses rights normally limited to people is legislative backing for a future fetal personhood law that will turn the US into a third world country in terms of women's rights.
Yes, pro-life groups generally consider abortions as murders and so understandably don't think highly of abortionists. Material from sources such as Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue will likely have rhetoric reflecting that. But they don't say "Kill The Abortionists". That's just a few extreme lunatics who have gone out and killed. Every political camp has a few lunitics, it's a fallacy to judge a political movement by what the extreme lunatics do or say.
You ARE correct in your second line though, it absolutely is a move towards giving more rights to fetuses. And possibly a stepping stone to fute fetal personhood. Whether that turns the US into a third world country in terms of women's rights is again a bit of an extreme claim, but at least we're looking at the correct issue here.
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
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
...How does this law stop that bolded part? Isn't that already covered in terms of justifiable homicide based on the fact that you would be causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman as well?
Also, did you read any of the discussion about the fact that the pregnant woman's husband and parents also have the right to use deadly force to prevent significant injury to the fetus? And the fact that the law makes is justifiable to kill anyone threatening the life of that fetus even if it is the pregnant woman herself?
Let's parse out the bit that people are concerned that "makes it justifiable to kill ayone threatening the life of the fetus".
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of the unborn child of any such enumerated person if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great personal injury and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
Again, it's that "lawful defense" bit. If whatever is going on to upset you is completely legal, it wouldn't be "lawful defense". According to all the hubub over all this bit of law, that same section would have previously made it legal to kill the executioner in the process of administering capital punishment. Since that's obviously not the case, then it's obviously not the case that someone's husband/father/anyone can kill the mother/abortionist/etc imminently before the legal abortion procedure.
Before copy + pasting headlines and opinions of reactionary websites: Read. Think. Apply common sense. No one would try to make it laws to allow killing doctors doing legal procedures.
Are you sure about that bolded part? Have you ever listened to the rhetoric about abortion providers that people like Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue put out?
Putting out legislation like this that explicitly gives fetuses rights normally limited to people is legislative backing for a future fetal personhood law that will turn the US into a third world country in terms of women's rights.
Yes, pro-life groups generally consider abortions as murders and so understandably don't think highly of abortionists. Material from sources such as Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue will likely have rhetoric reflecting that. But they don't say "Kill The Abortionists". That's just a few extreme lunatics who have gone out and killed. Every political camp has a few lunitics, it's a fallacy to judge a political movement by what the extreme lunatics do or say.
You ARE correct in your second line though, it absolutely is a move towards giving more rights to fetuses. And possibly a stepping stone to fute fetal personhood. Whether that turns the US into a third world country in terms of women's rights is again a bit of an extreme claim, but at least we're looking at the correct issue here.
No it's completely accurate. This is a thing third world countries do, with the attendant results for women of third world countries.
The US isn't a first world country just because you know. And seriously: you guys like, skirt the line we typically placed the USSR into a lot.
Do you really see a need for this law? Have there been cases where parents have been convicted of homicide for protecting their unborn children?
It's probably mostly being passed to make a statement. But I don't see any real harm.
From previous threads I had thought you weren't a big fan of meaningless legislative grandstanding.
I'm not, really. But this is a law passed by the legislature of a relatively unimportant state, which will not have any real impact, negative or positive. It only potentially affects the few hundred thousand people living in SD.
So, why should the rest of us care, really?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Isn't beating a pregnant woman and killing her fetus already a murder charge in most places?
The law is worded vaguely enough to be very dangerous.
Like how MS' upcoming anti texting while driving laws will technically make it illegal to read the time off of your radio display.
Beating a pregnant woman and killing the fetus is indeed a murder charge in South Dakota. Which is, supposedly, why they passed this law as well. Because as it was such an assault could be charged after the fact as a murder, yet did not necessarily justify the use of deadly force in self defense (or defense of another). Which is fairly inconsistent.
We can argue that an assault that is likely to harm the fetus would probably fall under great personal injury and thus already be covered by existing law. This just ensures it; and, more than likely, allows the use of deadly force in relatively minor assaults against pregnant women.
I'd say the mistake was defining the killing of a fetus as a murder/manslaughter to begin with. All this does is bring a related law into consistency.
And, I'm no lawyer, but I have to agree with bgrahambo; killing an abortion doctor would be no more a "lawful defense" under current law than killing an executioner. Now, if abortion were made illegal that might be another story. Or, perhaps, if a doctor were performing an abortion that's currently illegal under South Dakota law, within the borders of South Dakota (not sure what SD's laws on third trimester and such are).
But, while this law is pretty idiotic in general, most of the scaremongering I've heard over it is unwarranted.
Yes, pro-life groups generally consider abortions as murders and so understandably don't think highly of abortionists. Material from sources such as Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue will likely have rhetoric reflecting that. But they don't say "Kill The Abortionists". That's just a few extreme lunatics who have gone out and killed. Every political camp has a few lunitics, it's a fallacy to judge a political movement by what the extreme lunatics do or say.
Ah, the "isolated incident" argument. It's still bullshit.
By the way, you do know that Scott Roeder had demonstrable links to Operation Rescue leadership, right?
An incendiary story by Mother Jones making the rounds on the Web reports that a law being considered in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to apply to killings intended to prevent harm to unborn children. Mother Jones writes that the measure "could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions."
I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.
"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."
Posts
Now now- that would kill the unborn child as well, so he would have to kill himself.
Her husband could certainly kill the doctor providing chemotherapy though
No, it does not.
If it does, then it would be legal for me to kill my own doctor for performing chemotherapy on ME.
Please, do not be obsurd.
Rigorous Scholarship
Ah, but you consented to it. The unborn child did not consent to it and the father has the right to protect his unborn child from any act that can cause great personal injury like chemotherapy to the mother.
These are exactly the type of laws that are used to jail women for endangering their fetuses in third world countries.
What is the point of this bill then? Why does it exist?
--LeVar Burton
As a follow up, if you say the law itself isn't a big deal, do you see a problem with a law that a significant proportion of people will misread?
From previous threads I had thought you weren't a big fan of meaningless legislative grandstanding.
Taken from OP, here's the text again
You seem to be missing the fact that it's either resisting death of the fetus or lawful defense of the fetus from great injury. If you volunteer for an abortion, that's hardly resisting and you wouldn't have a lawful defense. If a woman was strapped down against her previously expressed will and forced to have an abortion, then that woman in this unlikely scenario would be allowed to fight back lethally. But that doesn't happen except in China.
Ok, numb nuts, here's what this proposal really is aimed at: To keep fuckwads from kicking pregnant woman in the stomach in order to kill the fetus, or similar such cases. If you don't like THAT consequence, then say so. But at least you're addressing the real issue instead of some far flung fantasy of the misinformed about gunning down all abortionists performing legal abortions. Or stories of woman changing thier mind during a procedure just to kill the doctor. WTF is wrong with you people??
What the heck is a lawer?
At any rate, you should probably read some of the posts before having a hysterical over-reaction to the reaction to the law.
Also, did you read any of the discussion about the fact that the pregnant woman's husband and parents also have the right to use deadly force to prevent significant injury to the fetus? And the fact that the law makes is justifiable to kill anyone threatening the life of that fetus even if it is the pregnant woman herself?
If you can't read typos, you won't do well on the internets. And I did read all the posts, and they're all not logical within the proper context of the law.
I didn't know it was legal to kick a preggo in the pooch in SD before this law.
Well, as I said earlier, it's now legal to shoot someone who is doing that, whereas if they weren't preggo, it wouldn't be legal. That's the intent of the law. And the intention of the legislature is fairly clear. Unfortunately, the way the second section is worded creates some weird situations, where it might be legal to use deadly force to prevent someone from "causing serious injury" to a fetus. I.e., an abortionist. That's mainly where the kerfluffle comes from. And courts are generally required to follow the wording of the law, rather than what they perceive the 'intent' of the law to be.
But it was already legal to shoot someone doing that because they were also causing great personal injury to the pregnant woman. This law is entirely useless except as another building block towards some future goal and/or pandering to pro-life people in south dakota.
Perhaps. Without caring to delve into the depths of the 'self-defense' and 'defense of others' doctrines of south dakota, I can't make a comment specifically on S.D.'s laws. Generally deadly force is only permissible when deadly force is threated; i.e., you can't respond to a punch with a gun. And so the intent of this law is to allow someone to respond to a punch with a gun if there is a pregnancy involved. Now that might be a bad policy, since it isn't always obvious that there's an embryo in there, but legislatures are allowed to pass bad laws and make bad policy, as long as it doesn't run afoul of the constitution.
--LeVar Burton
Doesn't the "unborn child of any such enumerated person" cover the father as well?
Not sure if I'm parsing this right, but it sounds like it'd be legal for the father and the mother to engage in a battle to the death to resolve an argument about abortion.
The law is worded vaguely enough to be very dangerous.
Like how MS' upcoming anti texting while driving laws will technically make it illegal to read the time off of your radio display.
You're a silly goose if you don't think the law can and will be construed in a manner that allows someone to claim justifiable homicide against an abortion provider.
Do you really think there is a rash of prosecutions in South Dakota where someone killed someone in self-defense after they attempted to kick their pregnant wife/girlfriend and the protector was charged with murder? Seeing as how there probably isn't, let's look to the other reasons why a law like this may be enacted. Oh wait, we can figure it out pretty quickly.
I don't know about all the states, but I'm sure it varies widely
It ups murder to agg murder here
And ups misdemeanor assault to felony assault if the defendant knew the victim was pregnant when they assaulted them
I don't see this statute as being terribly dangerous, but its potential for misuse is ripe given the culture in SD right now and I think it's unnecessary
Yeah, it seems a lot more likely that there's a secret government plan in South Dakota to make people think they can kill abortion providers while able to claim justifiable homicide in their trials than that two sections of law might have been poorly written.
I mean, I've never seen a poorly written law before and I'm sure no one else here has either. So. Point against that unlikely bit of conspiracy theory nonsense.
Oh for heaven's sake Ego, the talking heads on Fox News talk about how abortion providers are monsters and need to be stopped. Suggesting that there isn't a very loud, and very influential section of the Right that believes abortion providers need to be put down is wearing blinders of the highest order. South Dakota already has some of the most draconian abortion laws in the nation, this isn't counting several of the laws that had to be stopped by the courts. I'm not talking "grand government conspiracy to kill abortion providers" here, I'm simply talking about "retarded conservatives elected to the state house who have no problem when someone kills an abortion provider, and want to give them a little cover legally."
Edit: Carrot makes another great point.
Hey, don't jump all over me, I'm agreeing with you guys.
South Dakota has a secret government conspiracy to give legal protection to people who murder doctors performing abortions to appease the (no doubt immense group of) fringe voters who think we should go kill abortionists. It's perfectly obvious, and of course very comparable to people trying to sneak prayer into schools. Just that this time they're sneaking murder.
Just like how when people try to protect muslims from religious discrimination (like not being able to build the 'ground zero mosque',) it's because Obama and a sizeable number of democrats want to bring Sharia law to America.
Let's parse out the bit that people are concerned that "makes it justifiable to kill ayone threatening the life of the fetus".
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of the unborn child of any such enumerated person if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great personal injury and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
Again, it's that "lawful defense" bit. If whatever is going on to upset you is completely legal, it wouldn't be "lawful defense". According to all the hubub over all this bit of law, that same section would have previously made it legal to kill the executioner in the process of administering capital punishment. Since that's obviously not the case, then it's obviously not the case that someone's husband/father/anyone can kill the mother/abortionist/etc imminently before the legal abortion procedure.
Before copy + pasting headlines and opinions of reactionary websites: Read. Think. Apply common sense. No one would try to make it laws to allow killing doctors doing legal procedures.
Are you sure about that bolded part? Have you ever listened to the rhetoric about abortion providers that people like Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue put out?
Putting out legislation like this that explicitly gives fetuses rights normally limited to people is legislative backing for a future fetal personhood law that will turn the US into a third world country in terms of women's rights.
Yes, pro-life groups generally consider abortions as murders and so understandably don't think highly of abortionists. Material from sources such as Glenn Beck and Operation Rescue will likely have rhetoric reflecting that. But they don't say "Kill The Abortionists". That's just a few extreme lunatics who have gone out and killed. Every political camp has a few lunitics, it's a fallacy to judge a political movement by what the extreme lunatics do or say.
You ARE correct in your second line though, it absolutely is a move towards giving more rights to fetuses. And possibly a stepping stone to fute fetal personhood. Whether that turns the US into a third world country in terms of women's rights is again a bit of an extreme claim, but at least we're looking at the correct issue here.
No it's completely accurate. This is a thing third world countries do, with the attendant results for women of third world countries.
The US isn't a first world country just because you know. And seriously: you guys like, skirt the line we typically placed the USSR into a lot.
So, why should the rest of us care, really?
Rigorous Scholarship
Beating a pregnant woman and killing the fetus is indeed a murder charge in South Dakota. Which is, supposedly, why they passed this law as well. Because as it was such an assault could be charged after the fact as a murder, yet did not necessarily justify the use of deadly force in self defense (or defense of another). Which is fairly inconsistent.
We can argue that an assault that is likely to harm the fetus would probably fall under great personal injury and thus already be covered by existing law. This just ensures it; and, more than likely, allows the use of deadly force in relatively minor assaults against pregnant women.
I'd say the mistake was defining the killing of a fetus as a murder/manslaughter to begin with. All this does is bring a related law into consistency.
And, I'm no lawyer, but I have to agree with bgrahambo; killing an abortion doctor would be no more a "lawful defense" under current law than killing an executioner. Now, if abortion were made illegal that might be another story. Or, perhaps, if a doctor were performing an abortion that's currently illegal under South Dakota law, within the borders of South Dakota (not sure what SD's laws on third trimester and such are).
But, while this law is pretty idiotic in general, most of the scaremongering I've heard over it is unwarranted.
Ah, the "isolated incident" argument. It's still bullshit.
By the way, you do know that Scott Roeder had demonstrable links to Operation Rescue leadership, right?
An incendiary story by Mother Jones making the rounds on the Web reports that a law being considered in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to apply to killings intended to prevent harm to unborn children. Mother Jones writes that the measure "could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions."
I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.
"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."