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

[The Cat-Tribe]

I concede there is at least one dictionary in existence that uses Nulono's definitions of "homicide" and "murder" and doesn't specify they are legal terms.

I never thought Nulono contradicted himself, only that he was playing with semantics in a disingenuous fashion and abusing language. For the purposes of this thread, I withdraw such contentions.

Now may we please return to something even vaguely resembling the topic of this thread? Or is that too painful for Nulono to defend because it is clearly indefensible?

[Geniasis]

Why can only human beings be people? And why aren't all human beings people?

Because that is one of the requirements of personhood by definition. Bit of a tautology no?

Since you seem to know more then the scientific community, please tell me to which species a fetus belongs to that has human parents, human DNA, and a human developmental trajectory. 'Cause I'd say H. sapiens. Also kindly tell us the mechanism by which an organism changes species, 'cause that's generally held to be biologically impossible.

I didn't say they were a different species.

And get back on topic.

[Risna]

ah screw the doctors they make too much money anyways! (sarcasm)

[Chazicaria]

My god. This bill is amazing! Although I know it won't pass, it would be a milestone in the pursuit of justice. Just think, using butchers (the doctors) as moving targets for a sniper rifle!

[Nulono]

Why can only human beings be people? And why aren't all human beings people?

Because that is one of the requirements of personhood by definition. Bit of a tautology no?

Why is humanity a necessary requirement but not a sufficient one?

Since you seem to know more then the scientific community, please tell me to which species a fetus belongs to that has human parents, human DNA, and a human developmental trajectory. 'Cause I'd say H. sapiens. Also kindly tell us the mechanism by which an organism changes species, 'cause that's generally held to be biologically impossible.

I didn't say they were a different species.

You said they weren't human. Let me get this straight. They aren't a member of H. sapiens, and they aren't a member of any other species either. How odd.

And get back on topic.

If you think the bill as written legalizes the murder of abortionists, take that up with the SD legislature, because that's not the intent.

[Geniasis]

You said they weren't human. Let me get this straight. They aren't a member of H. sapiens, and they aren't a member of any other species either. How odd.

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. I said that they were not "actual human beings" but "potential human beings"

So no, you don't have it straight at all.

And get back on topic.

If you think the bill as written legalizes the murder of abortionists, take that up with the SD legislature, because that's not the intent.[/quote]

And as has been repeated constantly, intent is irrelevant as it is the letter of the law that will be enforced. Even if the intentions were as noble as could be, this does not mean that this is what the bill will actually accomplish.

[Nulono]

You said they weren't human. Let me get this straight. They aren't a member of H. sapiens, and they aren't a member of any other species either. How odd.

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. I said that they were not "actual human beings" but "potential human beings"

So no, you don't have it straight at all.

Okay, potentially human beings. Currently what?

If you think the bill as written legalizes the murder of abortionists, take that up with the SD legislature, because that's not the intent.

And as has been repeated constantly, intent is irrelevant as it is the letter of the law that will be enforced. Even if the intentions were as noble as could be, this does not mean that this is what the bill will actually accomplish.

Then, as I said before, take that up with the SD legislature.

[Geniasis]

Okay, potentially human beings. Currently what?

Potential human beings.

Then, as I said before, take that up with the SD legislature.

As opposed to?

[Nulono]

Okay, potentially human beings. Currently what?

Potential human beings.

"Potential human being" means they may one day be humans. What are they before humans? A toddler is a potential adult, but a current toddler. A sapling is a potential tree, but a current sapling.

Then, as I said before, take that up with the SD legislature.

As opposed to?

As opposed to bitching on the Internet about how they're all evil.

[The Romulan Republic]

My god. This bill is amazing! Although I know it won't pass, it would be a milestone in the pursuit of justice. Just think, using butchers (the doctors) as moving targets for a sniper rifle!

You're either a troll, or evil, or mentally ill. Which is it?

[Nulono]

My god. This bill is amazing! Although I know it won't pass, it would be a milestone in the pursuit of justice. Just think, using butchers (the doctors) as moving targets for a sniper rifle!

You're either a troll, or evil, or mentally ill. Which is it?

Is "all three" not an option?

[Geniasis]

"Potential human being" means they may one day be humans. What are they before humans?

No, they are humans. They're just not human beings.

A toddler is a potential adult, but a current toddler. A sapling is a potential tree, but a current sapling.

A fetus is not a person, an acorn is not an Oak Tree etc.

As opposed to bitching on the Internet about how they're all evil.

Exactly what you're doing on the subject of abortion, then.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're either a troll, or evil, or mentally ill. Which is it?

Is "all three" not an option?

Touche.

[Nulono]

"Potential human being" means they may one day be humans. What are they before humans?

No, they are humans. They're just not human beings.

What's the difference?

A toddler is a potential adult, but a current toddler. A sapling is a potential tree, but a current sapling.

A fetus is not a person, an acorn is not an Oak Tree etc.

An acorn is not a tree, but it is an oak. You ever looked inside an acorn?

As opposed to bitching on the Internet about how they're all evil.

Exactly what you're doing on the subject of abortion, then.

I thought we were finished with the ad hominems.

[Geniasis]

I thought we were finished with the ad hominems.

Just as I had been hoping you'd actually get around to making an argument. Besides, is it a fallacy to point out double-standards?

Anyway, I've made a mistake in indulging you in your threadjack. One which I do not intend to continue. Make a separate topic if you wish, but return to the topic at hand in this thread.

[Wiztopia]

I thought we were finished with the ad hominems.

Just as I had been hoping you'd actually get around to making an argument. Besides, is it a fallacy to point out double-standards?

Anyway, I've made a mistake in indulging you in your threadjack. One which I do not intend to continue. Make a separate topic if you wish, but return to the topic at hand in this thread.

Nah. Let him continue making a fool out of himself.

[Dyakovo]

Potential human beings.

"Potential human being" means they may one day be human beings. What are they before human beings?

Foetuses.

[Egrek]

I see that the wording of the law only allows you to protect YOUR child with leathal force. So the doctor only needs to check with the mother and the father before performing the abortion. If the father says no, the mother can sue him, or he can be detained by the police during the abortion.

I win, and I did not have to deal with either the morality of abortion or the humanity of foetuses.

[Wiztopia]

I see that the wording of the law only allows you to protect YOUR child with leathal force. So the doctor only needs to check with the mother and the father before performing the abortion. If the father says no, the mother can sue him, or he can be detained by the police during the abortion.

I win, and I did not have to deal with either the morality of abortion or the humanity of foetuses.

That would be pretty bad if a male had a say in what a woman could do with her own body.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I see that the wording of the law only allows you to protect YOUR child with leathal force. So the doctor only needs to check with the mother and the father before performing the abortion. If the father says no, the mother can sue him, or he can be detained by the police during the abortion.

I win, and I did not have to deal with either the morality of abortion or the humanity of foetuses.

You get THREE GOLD STARS for returning to the thread topic!

But, you loose for not reading the proposed statute very well:

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

22-16-34 might be read as you say, but 22-16-35 expressly cannot.

[Ashmoria]

I see that the wording of the law only allows you to protect YOUR child with leathal force. So the doctor only needs to check with the mother and the father before performing the abortion. If the father says no, the mother can sue him, or he can be detained by the police during the abortion.

I win, and I did not have to deal with either the morality of abortion or the humanity of foetuses.

You get THREE GOLD STARS for returning to the thread topic!

But, you loose for not reading the proposed statute very well:

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

22-16-34 might be read as you say, but 22-16-35 expressly cannot.

isnt that "felony" stuff kinda loose?

so if there is a pregnant woman in the house....someone committing mailfraud in the house can be killed to protect her unborn child?

[The Cat-Tribe]

You get THREE GOLD STARS for returning to the thread topic!

But, you loose for not reading the proposed statute very well:

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

22-16-34 might be read as you say, but 22-16-35 expressly cannot.

isnt that "felony" stuff kinda loose?

so if there is a pregnant woman in the house....someone committing mailfraud in the house can be killed to protect her unborn child?

Good point. I was being overly generous.

[Caninope]

"It" is dehumanizing when it is applied to human beings. If I called all Chinese people "its," that would be dehumanizing, no?

Calling something you don't know what gender "it" is not dehumanizing at all.

But it is grammatically incorrect. Person(s) (or in this case, a fetus) of an unknown gender is a "he."

[Revolutionarily]

Yeah lets stop killing by killing where does this great logic come from? I wish i could be that smart

[Egrek]

isnt that "felony" stuff kinda loose?

so if there is a pregnant woman in the house....someone committing mailfraud in the house can be killed to protect her unborn child?

Good point. I was being overly generous.

So doctors should refrain from mailfraud while performing abortions, or else the second cousin once removed of the neighbor of the librarian of the pregnant woman will charge in with a shotgun and blast out the brains of that felon.

Moral of the story: Don't be a felon if you are a doctor.