Quote: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

Rev Dark Wrote:Yes - it is exactly the language used by scumbag wank-stains who who have murdered abortion doctors (eight since 1993) in their own defense.  It is exactly the defense offered up by the coward (Scot Roeder) who shot Dr. Tiller on May 31, 2009.

Quote:Somehow I don't believe the actual intent of the bill is how it is presented on that website.

Epsilon Wrote:You know Logan, sometimes its okay to just say the people behind shit like this are assholes and openly repudiate them. You don't have to struggle to justify this bullshit. You can just call it out as evil.
------------------
Epsilon

• If you are 17 or older you can go directly to a pharmacy and ask to buy emergency contraception. Be sure to bring ID with you.
• Girls under 17 can get emergency contraception (EC), but the only way to get it is with a prescription from a health care provider. To find a provider or clinic near you, call the Emergency Contraception Hotline at 1-888-NOT-2-LATE (668-2528) or click here.
• If you go to an emergency room after a sexual assault, that emergency room is not required by law to give you information about EC or to give EC to you if you ask for it.
• If you have been raped and you want EC, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673). Open 24 hours, the hotline will connect you to EC providers near you. For other helpful info, check out the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network’s Web site

Quote:If you go to an emergency room after a sexual assault, that emergency room is not required by law to give you information about EC or to give EC to you if you ask for it.

• South Dakota state law does not require sexuality education. Local school boards decide whether or not to teach sex ed and which subjects this education must cover and the grade level in which topics are introduced.
• Teaching about contraceptives, such as condoms, the Pill, or the Patch, is not required or may not be allowed.
• Abstinence is taught within state-mandated character education.
• South Dakota received at least $1,566,110 in federal funds for abstinence-only-until-marriage
  programs in Fiscal Year 2008. Think this money could go to better use?
  Want to see comprehensive sexuality education in your school? You can
  make a difference! Learn more about your state at SIECUS.org, contact a local organization like the ACLU of the Dakotas and be sure to download our Roadmap.

Rev Dark Wrote:Glad to see you have thought it out carefully.

Epsilon Wrote:You know Logan, sometimes its okay to just say the people behind shit like this are assholes and openly repudiate them. You don't have to struggle to justify this bullshit. You can just call it out as evil.
------------------
Epsilon

Quote:Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained.

Quote:"These conservatives are really something, aren't they? They are all in
favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn, but once
you're born, you're on your own! Pro-life conservatives are obsessed
with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't
want to know about you, they don't want to hear from you . . . no
neo-natal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food
stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If
you're pre-school, you're fucked.

Quote:Pro-life... these people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What
kind of pro-life is that? They'll do anything they can to save a fetus,
but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?
They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple
as it gets, anti-woman -- they don't like them. They don't like women.
They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for
the state.

Logan Darklighter Wrote:Occam's Razor usually defaults to stupidity or incompetence rather than evil, you know. No one wakes up in the morning thinking - "How am I going to be EVIL today!" No - they do evil with the best of intentions thinking they are doing good. It's the classic "law of unintended consequences."
Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained. 

Epsilon Wrote:

Logan Darklighter Wrote:Occam's Razor usually defaults to stupidity or incompetence rather than evil, you know. No one wakes up in the morning thinking - "How am I going to be EVIL today!" No - they do evil with the best of intentions thinking they are doing good. It's the classic "law of unintended consequences."
Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained. 

That isn't Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is whichever explanation requires the fewest assumptions, all else being equal, is to be prefered.
The argument you are looking for is Hanlon's Razor, which goes "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Quote:The fact is that the language in that proposed
law exactly mimics the language that actual murderers have attempted to use in actual court to defend themselves. This is not an error.

Quote:        FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for
the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain
crimes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

    Section 1. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in § 22-16-1
or assault as defined in § 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used
force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:

            (1)    Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she
would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself
against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be
threatening her unborn child; and

            (2)    She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are
immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.

    Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:

---

            (1)    Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;

            (2)    Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the
possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense.
However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly
force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the
complete safety of her unborn child; or

            (3)    The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman's body.

Quote:        FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide
for the protection of certain unborn children.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

    Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:

    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

accomplished.

Quote:

Quote:Thus the vast majority of "progressive" positions and programs are explained.

What a ludicrous statement; especially given the context of your original, incorrect assertion.

Quote:South Dakota Shelves Bill Aimed at Defending Unborn
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: February 16, 2011
A
state bill to expand the definition of justifiable homicide in South
Dakota to include killing someone in the defense of an unborn child was
postponed indefinitely Wednesday after an uproar over whether the
legislation would put abortion providers at greater risk.
The
House speaker, Val Rausch, said that the legislation had been shelved,
pending a decision on whether to allow a vote, amend the language or
drop it entirely. A spokesman for Gov. Dennis Daugaard said, "Clearly
the bill as it's currently written is a very bad idea."
The bill,
approved by the House Judiciary Committee last week on a 9-to-3
party-line vote, establishes in part that "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."
The phrasing
caused concern and disbelief on both sides of the abortion debate, with
activists in the abortion rights and anti-abortion movements calling the
language poorly conceived at best, and perhaps an incitement to
violence. The bill was cheered, though, by those anti-abortion activists
who argue that the use of violence is justified to stop doctors from
carrying out abortions.
Dr. Marvin Buehner, of Rapid City, S.D.,
who is the only doctor in the region to provide abortions for women
whose health and safety are at risk, said he was shaken by the measure.
"Once
you get the sense that the Legislature will tolerate violence against
abortion providers, even if the legislation is not enacted, it crosses
the line into intimidation," he said.
Troy Newman, leader of
Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, said he was "shocked" when he
read the bill, which he worried could encourage violence. "The pro-life
movement, by definition, is in favor of protecting human life from the
moment of conception to natural death, and we reject all forms of
violence," he said.
Republican supporters of the legislation said
it was being misinterpreted as an anti-abortion measure, The intent,
they say, is to afford equal protection to unborn children in existing
law.
But Sarah Stoesz, president of the local Planned Parenthood
chapter, said she also doubted the sponsors' claims that the legislation
was not intended to be an anti-abortion measure. "It's a very clear
shift in the conversation," she said. "We have never had a public
conversation about whether it's right to kill a doctor."
Several people convicted of killing abortion providers have tried unsuccessfully to use the justifiable homicide argument.
Dave
Leach, an Iowa anti-abortion activist, praised the bill, saying it
could end abortions in South Dakota by scaring away doctors or by
establishing grounds for someone to kill those who stay.
"There
may be something I'm overlooking, but from all appearances, this bill
would certainly justify an individual taking the life of an abortionist
in order to save human lives," he said.

Logan Darklighter Wrote:            (1)    Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;

Morganni Wrote:In a way, this bugs me. In the case it certainly sounds like it's meant to apply to, why *shouldn't* a third party be able to use lethal force to defend someone? (I'd think one could reasonably believe that it was attempt to kill the mother in a lot of cases too, so... )

But how would it have to be worded to be sure it can't be used as a defense for abortion clinic murders? Which I think no one here has actually suggested is a good idea.