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

[Wiztopia]

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.

So doctors who perform abortions are felons now?

[The Black Forrest]

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.

[Egrek]

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.

So doctors who perform abortions are felons now?

No, doctors who are performing an abortion and ALSO committing felonies can be justifiably killed.
If the doctor is just doing the abortion he is safe.

[Wiztopia]

So doctors who perform abortions are felons now?

No, doctors who are performing an abortion and ALSO committing felonies can be justifiably killed.
If the doctor is just doing the abortion he is safe.

Except since when do abortion doctors commit felons?

[Caninope]

No, doctors who are performing an abortion and ALSO committing felonies can be justifiably killed.
If the doctor is just doing the abortion he is safe.

Except since when do abortion doctors commit felons?

When they break a law which is prescribed as a felony offense.

This has been another Obvious Answer to Stupid Questions^TM.

[Wiztopia]

Except since when do abortion doctors commit felons?

When they break a law which is prescribed as a felony offense.

This has been another Obvious Answer to Stupid Questions^TM.

So by your logic abortion doctors who give abortions are felons.

[Seangoli]

When they break a law which is prescribed as a felony offense.

This has been another Obvious Answer to Stupid Questions^TM.

So by your logic abortion doctors who give abortions are felons.

I'm having a difficult time seeing how you are missing the point of what he said.

What is said is that abortion doctors who commit felonies are felons.

Venn diagrams would be great for this.

To break it down:

Some doctors who perform abortions are felons. Some felons are doctors who perform abortions. That does not mean that all doctors who perform abortions are felons, or all felons are said doctors.

[Wiztopia]

So by your logic abortion doctors who give abortions are felons.

I'm having a difficult time seeing how you are missing the point of what he said.

What is said is that abortion doctors who commit felonies are felons.

Venn diagrams would be great for this.

To break it down:

Some doctors who perform abortions are felons. Some felons are doctors who perform abortions. That does not mean that all doctors who perform abortions are felons, or all felons are said doctors.

They are also using the logic that if the abortion doctor is a felon they should be allowed to shoot them. Damn counterfeiting abortion doctors.

[Caninope]

When they break a law which is prescribed as a felony offense.

This has been another Obvious Answer to Stupid Questions^TM.

So by your logic abortion doctors who give abortions are felons.

Is giving an abortion a felon offense? No. Therefore, an abortion doctor is not a felon by the virtue of committing an abortion.

[Seangoli]

Edit: Wrong Quote

[Geniasis]

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."

As I understand it, this view is falling out of favor. I generally go with the gender-neutral "he" as a default, but "it" as well as any number of pronouns ("eir" and such) are being used to communicate the same point without the masculine bias. Now, I happen to think those unisex pronouns are ugly as fuck, and so refuse to use them on those grounds, but nonetheless.

[Seangoli]

I'm having a difficult time seeing how you are missing the point of what he said.

What is said is that abortion doctors who commit felonies are felons.

Venn diagrams would be great for this.

To break it down:

Some doctors who perform abortions are felons. Some felons are doctors who perform abortions. That does not mean that all doctors who perform abortions are felons, or all felons are said doctors.

They are also using the logic that if the abortion doctor is a felon they should be allowed to shoot them. Damn counterfeiting abortion doctors.

Actually, it appears they are poking fun at the law as worded, pointing out some of rather... troubling aspects and bringing it to its rather illogical conclusion. It doesn't appear to me as being in support of such actions.
They are also using the logic that if the abortion doctor is a felon they should be allowed to shoot them. Damn counterfeiting abortion doctors.

[Wiztopia]

They are also using the logic that if the abortion doctor is a felon they should be allowed to shoot them. Damn counterfeiting abortion doctors.

Actually, it appears they are poking fun at the law as worded, pointing out some of rather... troubling aspects and bringing it to its rather illogical conclusion. It doesn't appear to me as being in support of such actions.
They are also using the logic that if the abortion doctor is a felon they should be allowed to shoot them. Damn counterfeiting abortion doctors.

Yet they only say abortion doctor. Why not shoot a regular felon?

[Nulono]

If that interpretation is correct, it would also apply to born people. Is anyone being killed for mail fraud in SD?

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

Foetuses.

What kind of fetuses?

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.

NOT HER BODY.

[Ifreann]

If that interpretation is correct, it would also apply to born people. Is anyone being killed for mail fraud in SD?

Foetuses.

What kind of fetuses?

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

NOT HER BODY.

Women don't own the uterus in their midsections? Who does then?

[Farnhamia]

If that interpretation is correct, it would also apply to born people. Is anyone being killed for mail fraud in SD?



What kind of fetuses?


NOT HER BODY.

Women don't own the uterus in their midsections? Who does then?

I'm pretty sure mine's paid for, ever since my parents sent the last check to the hospital way back when.

[Unibot II]

Okay I haven't read the article in full yet but:



The bolded sounds like a bullshit extrapolation which is obviously not the intent of the bill.

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.

The murder and the abortion of an unborn child are treated differently in law? No?

Robert P. Tucker, Ph.D. puts it nicely for me, abortion is undoubtedly killing and terminating life.. but it is not the intentional termination of a life which is a misuse of language that anti-abortionists use to presuppose murder from the act of abortion. Without being an intentional termination of a life, not in self-defense, it is not murder.

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.

Once you make this distinction, it is clear that this clause is not legalizing homicide against abortionists.

[Is] abortion to be defined as "murder," it must meet all six of these criteria. Does it?

As for criteria #1 and #2: does abortion involve the killing of life? The answer is, yes, in 99% of all abortions, the living content of the womb is killed. However, in some extremely rare, late-term abortions, a viable fetus emerges; and in all such cases, by law, it is not killed nor allowed to die, but emergency measures are taken to preserve its life.

As for criterion #3: is the life killed by abortions "human" life? Again, the answer is, yes, because it is genetically human and belongs to no other species. However: this is not the same as saying that "a human life" has been killed, for the term "a life" refers to "personhood," which is a different matter.

As for criterion #4: is the killing of human life in an abortion done "intentionally"? Abortion is done intentionally to terminate a pregnancy. That poses no ethical problems unless criterion #6 is met, and the fetus turns out to be a "person."

A further implication is raised by abortion opponents. They claim that the intention to terminate a pregnancy also involves a determined effort to kill a person. If that were true, that would deserve our ethical condemnation. Granted that no one can ever really know the intentions which motivate other individuals' actions, I would nevertheless argue that the burden of proving such a dastardly charge falls on those who would so impugn the medical profession, especially in light of the cases in which physicians and nurses have fought hard to preserve the lives of viable post-abortion fetuses.

As for criterion #5: is the human life killed in abortions "innocent"? In most cases, the answer is, yes. However, when a pregnancy endangers the life or emotional welfare of the woman, the fetus can no longer be considered "innocent." It is irrelevant whether the fetus has "intentionally" endangered the woman. Viruses, bacteria, rabid dogs, drunk drivers, sportsmen out hunting-none of these really "intends" to harm or kill anyone, and yet all of us have the right to try and protect ourselves from them. Even if the fetus turns out to be a person, the pregnant woman is a person, too, and as such she retains the inherent right of self-defense against whatever or whoever attacks her. (Remember: killing in self-defense, even if the non-innocent human life killed is a person, is not murder, ethically!)

Finally, as for criterion #6: is the human life killed in an abortion a "person"? This is the "ontological question." It asks: "What kind of being is a fetus?" The answer given will determine the ethical status of a fetus, and that will determine how it ought to be treated.

Because "personhood" is an epiphenomenon of the human brain, it should be clear that if there is no fully functional brain, then there is no personhood.

In the case of a fetus, there simply is no brain present during the first few weeks of pregnancy, and consequently no personhood. It takes many weeks for individual cells to become transformed into neurons, for these neurons to grow and reach out to connect with other neurons, for synapses to form, and for the central nervous system to develop.

There is a great deal of theoretical debate about when during a pregnancy-if at all-a fetus achieves personhood. Some child psychologists argue that personhood does not really develop until months or years after birth, while some neuropsychologists argue that the most rudimentary elements of "sentience" and psychological activity may begin sometime around the 26th week-which is the beginning of the third trimester.

In any case, the prevailing medical opinion is that, at least as far as the first trimester goes, there simply is not yet sufficient maturation of the developing brain and nervous system to give the fetus any real ability to achieve consciousness or self-awareness. The ethical conclusion that follows from this is inescapable: at least during the first trimester and possibly into the third, a fetus is simply not a "person;" and therefore an early-term abortion does not constitute "murder."

Excerpt from Why Abortion is Not Murder (2000) Robert P. Tucker.

[Nulono]

"personhood" is an epiphenomenon of the human brain

Wow, such sound reasoning! "It just is.". Sorry, but if you want to convince someone you have to first demonstrate that this is what personhood is.

[Geniasis]

Wow, such sound reasoning! "It just is.". Sorry, but if you want to convince someone you have to first demonstrate that this is what personhood is.

I can't help but note that you never offered a definition.

Not that this is the topic, btw.

[Nulono]

If that interpretation is correct, it would also apply to born people. Is anyone being killed for mail fraud in SD?



What kind of fetuses?


NOT HER BODY.

Women don't own the uterus in their midsections? Who does then?

Maybe you need a diagram.

[Geniasis]

Maybe you need a diagram.
(Image)

And where is the fetus located?

[Nulono]

Maybe you need a diagram.
(Image)

And where is the fetus located?

Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

[Geniasis]

Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

That's about the kind of response I expected, sadly.

[Nulono]

She has jurisdiction over all of the blue, but none of the red.

[Sdaeriji]

She has jurisdiction over all of the blue, but none of the red.

She's evicting the fetus from the blue. Where the fetus goes is not her concern. Unless you believe that a person has the right to make demands on the bodily integrity of another, in which case give me your kidneys so I can sell them.