SD wants to endrun Roe v Wade by legalizing murder of docs

[Sdaeriji]

But I'm not talking hold her down and shove a coathanger up her vagina. I'm talking tell her to go and get an abortion and she's scared of him, because he's an authority figure or something. Does that make sense?

Trying to get her to have ANY medical procedure in that manner would be wrong. Would it be okay to do that to your girlfriend if you were trying to, say, make her get breast implants?

Of course not, and neither scenario would constitute an immediate threat on her life that would justify homicide, either under the present law or under the proposed law.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'm not sure how the above counts as "differ[ing]" from me. Did I say the statute would allow one to go around shooting abortion doctors willy-nilly?

Moreover, the points you raise are entirely different points from the points you raised the first few times around. You are correct the that 22-16-34 is limited to defense of the person or the unborn by the person or the mother. You are further correct that this makes the additions essentially moot and silly. How does this justify them again? As to 22-16-34, it is quite a stretch to say "personal injury" requires personhood -- I'd love to see caselaw on that -- but let's assume it does: do you doubt the sponsors of this language think that fetuses are persons? Whether they would ultimately succeed is not the argument. Their intent is clear.

I agree the legislation is essentially silly. I prefer when my legislatures are doing pointless things it keeps them from doing things that annoy me.
I do not doubt they think fetsus are persons but I would love to accuse them of denying fetsus as being persons for my own amusement.
Case law, lets skip to the restatement for the tort part.
REST 2d TORTS § 869

(1) One who tortiously causes harm to an unborn child is subject to liability to the child for the harm if the child is born alive.

(2) If the child is not born alive, there is no liability unless the applicable wrongful death statute so provides.

Criminal law is more complicated.
State v. Ashley 701 So.2d 338 (mother who shot herself in the stomach during 3rd trimester conviction for felony murder overturned )
Reinesto v. Superior Court of State In and For County of Navajo, 182 Ariz. 190, 894 P.2d 733 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1995)(stating that absent a statute stating otherwise a child must be born alive); accord People v. Ward, 62 Cal. App. 4th 122, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 531 (4th Dist. 1998); see State v. Luster, 204 Ga. App. 156, 419 S.E.2d 32 (1992); see also State v. Gray, 62 Ohio St. 3d 514, 584 N.E.2d 710 (1992).


*edit note* my research was a little quick and dirty as I am off to class feel free to correct me on the finer points if you like.

None of that says that, under this statute, "personal injury" would require legal personhood and an unborn wouldn't count. To the contrary, that contradicts the express language of the statute.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[Wiztopia]

But the important part is how would a person tell that a drug is being used to cause a miscarriage? If they're attacking a woman with big hypodermics, that's obviously assaulting her in a life threatening way (or at least in a way that can justifiably be perceived as life threatening). If they are poisoning food, there's no need to kill them to stop them - just destroy the food, restrain them or have them arrested. There's no reasonable situation where it would be obvious that the sole danger is to the pregnancy

which was my point. this amendment is utterly useless expect in that it seems to provide a loophole (deliberate or otherwise) for the killing of abortion docs. I'm back to my "the representative who put this forward is an idiot" theory.

Or wants to piss off a lot of people.

[Nulono]

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/02/ ... epeat.html

[Wiztopia]

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/02/take-deep-breath-read-repeat.html

I like how they think a poll of 1,029 adults can determine the U.S. is pro-life.

[Dyakovo]

Not sure you can legally kill someone unless you reasonably believe yours or some other person's life is threatened.

If someone announces their aim to kill your widdle fetus, you may not be justified in using lethal force against them, that is, until this law is passed.

So, for the third time, just how exactly would someone go about killing a fetus without also presenting a threat to the life of the woman carrying said fetus?

You (I think) said it earlier... Abortion.

[Nulono]

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/02/take-deep-breath-read-repeat.html

I like how they think a poll of 1,029 adults can determine the U.S. is pro-life.

You DO know that's how polls work. Gallup polls are known for being accurate.

[Caninope]

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/02/take-deep-breath-read-repeat.html

I like how they think a poll of 1,029 adults can determine the U.S. is pro-life.

That's generally how polls work...

[The Cat-Tribe]

I like how they think a poll of 1,029 adults can determine the U.S. is pro-life.

You DO know that's how polls work. Gallup polls are known for being accurate.

I'm entirely unclear on why a 2% difference in how people apply the generic labels "pro-life" or "pro-choice" that Gallup says is not statistically significant is (1) relevant to anything or (2) impressive.

Other than that, the opinion of a self-described "Pro-Life" blogger that is not accurate about details AND admits some of these anti-abortion moves are "a bit ridiculous" isn't exactly persuasive evidence contradicting the CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED STATUTE itself. Nor does it explain why the extreme pro-life lobby descended on South Dakota to support this supposedly minor adjustment in the law. Finally, the "just making it consistent with fetal homicide laws" explanation doesn't make sense. The law in question is NOT a fetal homicide law, nor is it logically related to one.

[Lacadaemon]

All I want to know is can I go to SD and shoot abortion Docs and get away with it?. Because if yes, I see huge commercial opportunities here.

[Nulono]

Well, the post wasn't claiming that a majority were pro-life. The post was using the poll to demonstrate that a large percentage of Americans are pro-life. The number could've been 40%, and the point would still be valid.

[Grenartia]

I think its extreme, but technically, so is abortion itself.

*prepares for shitstorm of epic proportions*

[The Cat-Tribe]

Well, the post wasn't claiming that a majority were pro-life. The post was using the poll to demonstrate that a large percentage of Americans are pro-life. The number could've been 40%, and the point would still be valid.

Nice of you to take that position after I squashed the one you implied in your earlier answer, but you are correct on that narrow point. BUT that begs the question: what do Americans mean when they say they are "pro-life" in that poll? Could be lots of things.

Further you conspicuously don't answer my other points.

[Nulono]

Well, the post wasn't claiming that a majority were pro-life. The post was using the poll to demonstrate that a large percentage of Americans are pro-life. The number could've been 40%, and the point would still be valid.

Nice of you to take that position after I squashed the one you implied in your earlier answer, but you are correct on that narrow point. BUT that begs the question: what do Americans mean when they say they are "pro-life" in that poll? Could be lots of things.

Further you conspicuously don't answer my other points.

I implied nothing. You inferred.
What points? The rest of your post is a bunch of ad hominems.

[Nobel Hobos]

Are there actually abortion pills?

Yes, but I don't know that you can get them from the pharmacy in the USA. Usually you take the first pill in the doctor's office and then follow up with another dose at home. I actually don't know if you can just go pick up the script from a pharmacy...never thought about that.

Weren't you in that thread about a trial of free RU-486 from pharmacies in Britain?

Yes you were.

That's Britain of course, not the USA. I didn't mind being corrected, but I must point out that you corrected me about RU-486 being an "abortion pill" but here it passes without comment. Have you changed your mind on that?

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Weren't you in that thread about a trial of free RU-486 from pharmacies in Britain?

Yes you were.

That's Britain of course, not the USA. I didn't mind being corrected, but I must point out that you corrected me about RU-486 being an "abortion pill" but here it passes without comment. Have you changed your mind on that?

Mifepristone is both an abortifacient and an emergency contraceptive, depending on when you take it. It can prevent ovulation or, once fertilization has occurred, initiate a hormonal process leading to loss of the trophoblast.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

the language of the bill:
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.

shooting an abortion provider during an abortion procedure seems explicitly to be covered.

I would say that's ambigious, not explicit. For instance, it doesn't explicitly say that it's okay even if the woman consented to an abortion, which would make it explicit. And true, the bill is worded in a retarded way and could be abused, but I still don't think the authors literally thinks it's okay to shoot an abortion doctor.

I would be leaning towards disagreement after having been watching Fox News for the past day or so.

[TerraPublica]

*Jaw fucking falls off.*

[Nulono]

Weren't you in that thread about a trial of free RU-486 from pharmacies in Britain?

Yes you were.

That's Britain of course, not the USA. I didn't mind being corrected, but I must point out that you corrected me about RU-486 being an "abortion pill" but here it passes without comment. Have you changed your mind on that?

Mifepristone is both an abortifacient and an emergency contraceptive, depending on when you take it. It can prevent ovulation or, once fertilization has occurred, initiate a hormonal process leading to loss of the trophoblast.

I'm fairly certain it can work after the trophoblast stage.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Mifepristone is both an abortifacient and an emergency contraceptive, depending on when you take it. It can prevent ovulation or, once fertilization has occurred, initiate a hormonal process leading to loss of the trophoblast.

I'm fairly certain it can work after the trophoblast stage.

The trophoblast isn't a stage; it's the name of the extraembryonic cells surrounding the intial blastocyst, later acting as the layer of cells that are the placental/decidual boundary. I probably should have put syncytiotrophoblast in fairness but that's only a sub-division of trophoblast cells. I'll alter my definition then; mifepristone is a licenced abortifacient during embryogenesis, or the first 63 days from the last menstrual period. It is a potential emergency contraceptive if taken pre-ovulation but post-copulation, though it is not licensed for such use in the UK.

[Bottle]

Yes, but I don't know that you can get them from the pharmacy in the USA. Usually you take the first pill in the doctor's office and then follow up with another dose at home. I actually don't know if you can just go pick up the script from a pharmacy...never thought about that.

Weren't you in that thread about a trial of free RU-486 from pharmacies in Britain?

Yes you were.

That's Britain of course, not the USA. I didn't mind being corrected, but I must point out that you corrected me about RU-486 being an "abortion pill" but here it passes without comment. Have you changed your mind on that?

Er, I think there's confusion here. RU-486 is an "abortion pill," but it's not contraception. Contraception is used to prevent pregnancy; RU-486 is used to TERMINATE a pregnancy (at least in the USA). The "morning after pill" is a contraceptive option that does not cause an abortion; RU-486 does cause abortion. I believe that was the distinction I was making in the other thread.

[Wiztopia]

Well, the post wasn't claiming that a majority were pro-life. The post was using the poll to demonstrate that a large percentage of Americans are pro-life. The number could've been 40%, and the point would still be valid.

I didn't know 1,029 out of 300 million is a large number.

[Nobel Hobos]

Weren't you in that thread about a trial of free RU-486 from pharmacies in Britain?

Yes you were.

That's Britain of course, not the USA. I didn't mind being corrected, but I must point out that you corrected me about RU-486 being an "abortion pill" but here it passes without comment. Have you changed your mind on that?

Er, I think there's confusion here. RU-486 is an "abortion pill," but it's not contraception. Contraception is used to prevent pregnancy; RU-486 is used to TERMINATE a pregnancy (at least in the USA). The "morning after pill" is a contraceptive option that does not cause an abortion; RU-486 does cause abortion. I believe that was the distinction I was making in the other thread.

OK. I thought "morning after pill" was just the colloquial description of RU-486 (mifeprestone) but it sounds like there are others.

[Nobel Hobos]

Well, the post wasn't claiming that a majority were pro-life. The post was using the poll to demonstrate that a large percentage of Americans are pro-life. The number could've been 40%, and the point would still be valid.

I didn't know 1,029 out of 300 million is a large number.

A thousand is a decent sample, it's what most political pollsters use and they're fairly accurate. The method of selecting a sample is far more likely to be the problem.

[Bottle]

Er, I think there's confusion here. RU-486 is an "abortion pill," but it's not contraception. Contraception is used to prevent pregnancy; RU-486 is used to TERMINATE a pregnancy (at least in the USA). The "morning after pill" is a contraceptive option that does not cause an abortion; RU-486 does cause abortion. I believe that was the distinction I was making in the other thread.

OK. I thought "morning after pill" was just the colloquial description of RU-486 (mifeprestone) but it sounds like there are others.

Common misconception. The "morning after pill" is NOT RU-486. Different medications.

The morning after pill (Plan B) works by using a hormone that prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg. Obviously, if a woman is already pregnant then this isn't going to be much help.

RU-486 can also suppress ovulation, but there are better options for doing that (such as Plan B), so as far as I know it is not widely used for contraception even though I suppose technically it COULD be used that way. What RU-486 (mifepristone) is used to induce abortion, and is usually administered in concert with a dose of misoprostol to induce uterine contractions.