Should South Dakota Legalize Killing of Abortion Providers?
SodaHead News
2011/02/16 23:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
309 votes
|
|
14% | |||
|
1,895 votes
|
|
86% | |||
The Bible tells us it’s “an eye for an eye.” And in South Dakota, where the majority of the Republican state legislature is adamantly opposed to abortion rights, that Biblical truism may soon become law.
Mother Jones magazine reports that a new law that would legalize murdering abortion providers is one of several measures under consideration in the state that would erect further barriers to women seeking an abortion.
The law that’s being considered by the legislature would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Reading between the lines, that means that someone who killed an abortion doctor could technically evade prosecution for the crime.
The Republican-backed House Bill 1171, moved out of committee on a 9-3 party line vote and will move on to the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
According to the magazine, “if the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.”
A day after the magazine posted its first article on the bill, co-sponsor Rep. Phil Jensen responded to the piece, saying he disagreed with its interpretation of the proposed law’s language.
"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," explained Jensen. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."
After some backlash, Jensen said he would be willing to consider changing some of the bill’s language.
Jensen said the original bill was pitched as a clarification of the state’s justifiable homicide law, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. It did not include language related to an “unborn child,” but in a little-noticed hearing an amendment was added that included that wording after a number of right-wing groups testified in favor of the amended version.
The difference, detractors say, is between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes – which is already permissible in several states – and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.
Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers, described the bill as “an invitation to murder abortion providers.” She noted that since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts.
Should South Dakota consider making the murder of abortion doctors legal?
Mother Jones magazine reports that a new law that would legalize murdering abortion providers is one of several measures under consideration in the state that would erect further barriers to women seeking an abortion.
The law that’s being considered by the legislature would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Reading between the lines, that means that someone who killed an abortion doctor could technically evade prosecution for the crime.
The Republican-backed House Bill 1171, moved out of committee on a 9-3 party line vote and will move on to the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
According to the magazine, “if the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.”
A day after the magazine posted its first article on the bill, co-sponsor Rep. Phil Jensen responded to the piece, saying he disagreed with its interpretation of the proposed law’s language.
"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," explained Jensen. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."
After some backlash, Jensen said he would be willing to consider changing some of the bill’s language.
Jensen said the original bill was pitched as a clarification of the state’s justifiable homicide law, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. It did not include language related to an “unborn child,” but in a little-noticed hearing an amendment was added that included that wording after a number of right-wing groups testified in favor of the amended version.
The difference, detractors say, is between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes – which is already permissible in several states – and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.
Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers, described the bill as “an invitation to murder abortion providers.” She noted that since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts.
Should South Dakota consider making the murder of abortion doctors legal?
You relate the entire article, but end with a misleading and provocative question. For that reason, I will not leave my opinion of your nonsense. (And the fact that I had to choose either Yes or No, with no room for dissent, is telling as well. Who the hell writes under the SodaHead nom de plume? A mindless chimp?)
but an eye for an eye is old fashion, even in the bible! Jesus himself said not to listen to such a thing, said he was going to deal out the punishments and we shouldn't seek revenge.
I think the problem in our society is the egotistic and individualistic way of life. Our culture seems to suggest that we put ourselves first and do things the easy way. For example: Convenient stores are everywhere, and anything to make life quick and easy is popular. Anything to enhance our pleasure seems to have priority in our selfish lives. Sex is made easy and convenient in our society. Schools seem to encourage sex when they make available condoms. Isn’t this just a way to invite our kids to practice sex without considering the consequences? It appears that what counts is only our own personal pleasure and satisfaction…etc….etc. This type of thinking leads to unwanted pregnancies. This has lead to the establishment of abortion clinics. In reality abortion clinics should not be allowed and any doctor who performs an abortion should lose their license. Is there any difference between killing a vulnerable, unprotected, helpless baby and an adult standing on the street? I say NO. Life is life from birth until it ends naturally.
If a woman has to face an unwanted pregnancy she should consider not only how an abortion would affect her baby but also how it would affect her. Many report night mares, bitterness, and physical damage to the body. For some...
I think the problem in our society is the egotistic and individualistic way of life. Our culture seems to suggest that we put ourselves first and do things the easy way. For example: Convenient stores are everywhere, and anything to make life quick and easy is popular. Anything to enhance our pleasure seems to have priority in our selfish lives. Sex is made easy and convenient in our society. Schools seem to encourage sex when they make available condoms. Isn’t this just a way to invite our kids to practice sex without considering the consequences? It appears that what counts is only our own personal pleasure and satisfaction…etc….etc. This type of thinking leads to unwanted pregnancies. This has lead to the establishment of abortion clinics. In reality abortion clinics should not be allowed and any doctor who performs an abortion should lose their license. Is there any difference between killing a vulnerable, unprotected, helpless baby and an adult standing on the street? I say NO. Life is life from birth until it ends naturally.
If a woman has to face an unwanted pregnancy she should consider not only how an abortion would affect her baby but also how it would affect her. Many report night mares, bitterness, and physical damage to the body. For some it is impossible to escape the gilt as they hear people talk about abortion or reports on the news about clinics and Doctors involved in this horrendous activity.
You may ask: What about a rape or a sexual assault case? I personally know of two women who became pregnant from a sexual assault. One decided to keep the pregnancy and gave birth to a beautiful baby boy. She raised the boy and he is now a Medical Doctor specialized in (MAP) Medically Assisted Procreation. He has grown to be a wonderful man and doctor. His mother had recovered from the rape, had married the man of her dreams, and gave birth to two additional children.
The second woman gave birth to a baby girl and took care of the baby until she was 14 months old. Upon finding that she was pregnant she enrolled in an adoption agency and chose to give birth and care for the child until some one was found to adopt the child. The child was adopted when she was 14 months old. This woman too has recovered from the sexual rape. She is currently studying Psychopathology at the University in Bogota, Colombia. The adoptive parents went through a fertilization process so the child now has twin brothers from her adoptive parents. They are all very happy.
Here in America, when a teenager is pregnant they commonly say: “I F..it up” “My life is ruined” We do not think about the future baby do we? We may say: “My baby’s life is ruined” “I’m going to F… my baby’s life up” don’t we?
First of all I would like to say: if you had sex and did not consider the consequences and responsibilities that this brings, you must assume the consequences and be responsible now. The animals are the only beings that do not think about consequences, they follow instincts. Have you seen a rooster chasing a hen? He does not rest until he has possessed her. In his chasing he is not thinking or considering the future but only the present moment. Is he considering what will happen the next day or next week? No!! Absolutely not!!!
We humans think, Stop and think about the consequences of what we do, our feelings, our thoughts, and our future and so on. We are the only beings capable of standing naked in front of a naked woman and saying no! I don’t want to do it, this is not right, and then get your instincts under control and dress yourself and apologize to the woman. This may happen when you are a man who is able to think with your upper head instead of thinking with the one down below. Likewise it is important that the teenage girl has control of her impulses and bring unhealthy activities to an abrupt end. Our teenagers must stop screwing up their lives and stop avoiding responsibilities.
Many men and women walk today with pain that is very hard to get rid of. If something inside of you becomes painful today, ask yourself “When did this pain begin? The answer is: when we were given everything we wanted or asked for. We are not trained to listen to our parent’s “no”! When that happens children, go into tantrums and then, we parents, allow our children to manipulate us, and end up giving to them everything they want. It is our fault, because we don’t teach our children restraint. They are not accustomed to being denied something let alone denying themselves. This is something the children were exposed to for years this is their TRAINING. That is why they are too quick to say yes and find it difficult to say no. If they become pregnant and have not developed a sense of responsibility they may find it easier to have an abortion. If they take on the responsibility of the pregnancy, the baby will teach them patience, selflessness, and tenderness to an extent that they would never have thought possible. Do NOT give up. Allow yourself to mature, to learn and to grow.