South Dakota: Republicans Post Bill to Legalize Murders of Abortion Doctors

[Revan]

This is possibly one of the most F***ED up things I've EVER heard.

http://tinyurl.com/4wy3c3y

A little info:

South Dakota GOP lawmakers have introduced a bill classifying a murder done "in the defense of a fetus" as justifiable homicide. The bill's chief sponsor is Tea Party-backed Rep. Phil Jensen.

[Beachboi92]

if this passes i am going to lose all faith in humanity and our political system

[Revan]

Yeah um if this passes? Then I think the entire WORLD will lose faith in the US political system.

[Dan82]

That’s not what the law is about: http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2...ife-terrorism/ the law is bad for reasons much less extreme than the ones being suggested.

[Jonathan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...ial-fetus-bill

Since abortion is legal, anyone killing an abortion doctor would not qualify for the law's stipulation of justifiable homicide in cases where pregnant women kill people threatening the life of their unborn child.

[Revan]

Sorry about that...I just guess I went to the wrong site lol.

[the ry guy]

it'll never fucking happen, legalize murder, yeah right maybe when my butt starts singing show tunes

[RaRa]

Originally Posted by the ry guy

it'll never fucking happen, legalize murder, yeah right maybe when my butt starts singing show tunes

I wouldve gone with crap rainbows, but that works.

[Filip]

Yeah, the way I read it, it's basically meant to justify extreme force if you want to stop a guy from kicking a pregnant woman in a non-lethal manner that might still endanger the unborn child.

I'm generally opposed to laws that relax constaints on justified homicide (as I believe they lead people towards a "shoot first, ask questions later" stance), but I can see how in some cases this might seem like a good idea.

[Fintan]

I think the argument is.

Fetus = Baby

Thus, it is justifible to kill a man who is attempting to kill a baby on the street.

Thus, it will be justifible if you kill a man attempting to prevent him from killing a fetus in your wife/girlfriend/daughter/sister etc.

Not as far fetched as the title of the article makes it sound.

Originally Posted by Filip

Yeah, the way I read it, it's basically meant to justify extreme force if you want to stop a guy from kicking a pregnant woman in a non-lethal manner that might still endanger the unborn child.

I'm generally opposed to laws that relax constaints on justified homicide (as I believe they lead people towards a "shoot first, ask questions later" stance), but I can see how in some cases this might seem like a good idea.

This.

My state actually has self-defense laws like you just described. If there you for certain can get away from a robber, but you decide to kill him, you will go to jail. If a robber is running out your door and there is no harm put on you, yet you still shoot them you will go to jail.

In some cases, it's a bit tedious to prove what actually happened. But it's logical to have laws like that. Why kill someone for a TV? I don't care if you already bought it, it's just a TV.