Re: So Much For Thou Shalt Not Kill

“Of course, that’s an awfully thin semantic line preventing a pro-life extremist from legally going after one of South Dakota’s two abortion providers. Especially given the increasing array of restrictions that surround abortion in the state.”
.
Of course, that’s an awfully thin semantic line preventing a pro-life extremist from killing a doctor who performs abortions. Especially given that they are currently assassinating doctors who legally perform abortion.

Digby takes issue with Amy.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/south-dakota-coathanger-brigade-on.html

It’s not hard. The law as written makes no distinction between legal or illegal activity, it merely states that is it “justifiable” to murder, “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…”.
.
Second, it characterizes a zygote or fetus as “an unborn child.” You’d have have the mind of a child, born or otherwise, to not understand who is behind it and what it’s about.

“You’d have have the mind of a child, born or otherwise, to not understand who is behind it and what it’s about.”
.
This perfectly explains your rabid interpretation.

OK, Mr. Intellectually Superior to Liberals – let’s hear you state it.
Yes, RF, I mean you.

“Of course, that’s an awfully thin semantic line preventing a pro-life extremist from legally going after one of South Dakota’s two abortion providers.”

.
Ok, I’ll take the bait. Where’s the “thin line”? Where exactly in this proposed legislation does it say that pro-life advocates will necessarily kill abortion doctors?
.
Would you like to provide the facts on that Amy? Would you care to name names of those who have made threats in SD who have come out already and said this law will permit them to murder someone?
.
Where are your sources? Where are your facts?

Oh that’s right. I am on a Far Left Liberal Blog where facts are not what is even important. Just being a sensationalist is all that is required to be a TIME.com reporter or journalist, isn’t that right Amy Sullivan?
.
This is the ONLY fact we can say about this entire series of blogs. Baseless, factless reporters who are creating a sensational storyline, pretty much what they do everyday in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
.
Get your RAGAZINE folks. Hot off the presses, get your RAGAZINE now!!!

Others who disagree with Amy:
.
Law Professor Robert Weisberg, Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice
.
Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation
.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/south-dakota-bill-would-legalize-murder-of-abortion-providers.php?ref=fpa

The far right theocrats wont be happy until women are forced into the back alleys, have little access to contraception, and become Christianist breeders.

Careful there april2563, you are starting to sound like a Muslim.

This is all about mainstreaming the idea.
.
We can discuss this again after the next “isolated incident”.

What’s the next step in the Republican push to use “justifiable homicide” to legalize the murder of political opponents? Will a GOP lawmaker intro a bill to make the murder of their top political target (you know…) a “justifiable homicide” for perceived “threats” to America? Any Democrat? This can’t be tolerated…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org

The whole purpose of this Bill is to restore just a very small measure of protection to these tiny defenceless children at risk of lethal attack by abortionists.

Justice requires that the law defends the one being attacked–the innocent unborn child at risk of lethal violence perpetrated by the abortionist who penetrates the mother’s womb to exterminate the tiny human person being protected and nurtured therein.

Every abortion is an act of violence, albeit in a medical setting.

There is no excuse for lethal violence against any child being nurtured and protected in his/her mother’s womb.

Violence against children is never ‘necessary’. All violence against children is preventable.

Before as well as after birth, children should never receive less protection than adults.

Their mothers’ personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.

And they call Glenn Beck a “crazy Conspirator”. This is the epitome of sensationalism. Right out of the books written by Ayers, Sustein, and Frances Fox Piven.
.
I guess when the world is crashing down around Obambi’s feet, his perpetrators have to prop him up with bogus stories to take the attention away from how he is destroying this country.
.
“well it didn’t work to get people riled up about those Tea Party Racists, and Sarah Palin has been quiet lately. We have to come up with another angle to get back at them all. Let’s go after abortion again. Make them sound like they will murder abortion doctors. Yes, great idea. Let’s do it”

“And they call Glenn Beck a “crazy Conspirator”
.
And he is.

“Oh that’s right. I am on a Far Left Liberal Blog.”
.
I think there are some far right blogs out there. Use the google.

You know, the whole point of demonizing is to create conditions that make it possible – no, commendable – to kill the “demon”. And what is commendable certainly deserves protection under the law, and encouragement by the righteous.

The “they” is everyone.

OT-but more republican ideas and perhaps the start of push back.
.
http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2011/feb/15/green-bay-packers-players-join-unions-rejecting-go/
.
“GREEN BAY, Wis. (WTAQ) – Present and former Green Bay Packers are among those urging the Legislature to reject Governor Scott Walker’s proposed union cutbacks.

Current linebacker Brady Poppinga and offensive lineman Jason Spitz joined 1990’s Super Bowl kicker Chris Jacke and ex-Packers Bob Long, Charles Jordan, Curtis Fuller, and Steve Okoniewski in signing a letter.”.
.
Or another way to put it.
.
Madison Wisconsin Mayor Dave Cieslewicz: “Here’s one reliable test of good public policy: you don’t have to call out the National Guard when you propose it”

Wow, Amy, look at your snark. I note that you seem to be a lot more upset about this statute than the baby-butcher of Philly.
.
And by the way, Amy, some of us in America take seriously the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of our children–it is, after all, of Constitutional dimension. The idea that some abortionist performing an abortion on a minor without consent of the parents is not a very serious crime is utterly sick.

The idea that some abortionist performing an abortion on a minor without consent of the parents is not a very serious crime is utterly sick.

Precisely what does this obvious straw man have to do with the topic at hand? SD has a parental notification law. Perhaps you just enjoy non-sequitur rants, eh?

The above is intended for you Spob.

Spob has a months long streak of not ever commenting on topic.
.
He’s become the Cal Ripken of trolls. Admire him, don’t mock him.

I find the latter much more fitting than the former. I just thought I’d mention it.

This has never made sense to me. Is the idea that blastocysts are citizens? I really don’t see how that would work, but given the number of blastocysts that don’t make it to autonomy, this would seem to be a major problem. Leaving aside the we-will-never-speak-about-what-happens-in-fertility-clinics in writing these articles, what really is the claim here? Do you really want to go with the citizenship at conception thing? Given the rate of miscarriage?
.
What amazes me is the pass these people are given. Where are the reporters saying “Really?”

If zygotes and fetuses are children, I assume you would be in favor of prosecuting and jailing pregnant mothers who A) don’t accept pre-natal care, B) smoke during pregnancy, C) drink alcohol during pregnancy, D) do any other drugs (legal or otherwise) that could possibly injure the development of the fetus/zygote, and/or E) have or maintain an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle which could injure the fetus/zygote.
.
After all, if a mother put beer in a bottle and then fed it to her baby, Children Services would be called. Dirty, unsafe household? Same deal. If you don’t send your child to school (or otherwise prove home-schooling), that is considered educational neglect.
.
So I honestly wonder what exactly you imagine you are accomplishing by granting personhood to a fetus/zygote but only in terms of abortion. Should miscarriages be investigated as negligent manslaughter? Should all pregnant mothers have ankle-bracelets so the government can track their progress and be ready to leap into their personal lives and save the unborn from their future mothers?

How is my post off-topic? Amy specifically, and blithely, comments about an abortion doctor performing an abortion without notifying parents.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3722/26
.
Just out of curiosity, all you people who lambaste conservative South Dakota, where are you on Egyptian rates of FGM? How can anyone in the Swamp, and that includes the authors, say anything about the possibility of freedom in Egypt when a large majority of little girls have their clitorises removed. This grotesque society isn’t any more free now than it was before.

No need to go off topic spob. What can the posters here do about what has been done in Egypt, other than hope that with a regime change, there will be more compassion and justice for everybody in their country.

First of all, rwbbinla, what can we do about anything in here? But, what we can do is put pressure on the media here, which will put pressure on our government which may, just may, put some pressure on the Egyptians. And certainly all this crapola about freedom etc. is just that crapola–a country that does this to its women on a large scale is not free and cannot be free, and it’s high time that news reporters here acknowledged that fact and started asking some hard questions.
.
What IS sick over here, apart from the studied refusal of Western reporters to dig into this “peculiar institution” is David Axelrod’s attempt to take credit for the Egyptian revolution by pointing to his Cairo speech. You know what Obama’s Cairo speech communicated about FGM–sorry ladies, you don’t really need those, do you? In other words, it gave a green light to this “practice” (yet another euphemism) under the guise of letting Muslim countries find their own way.
.
Nothing in these demonstrations gives me an iota of hope that this practice is going to be reduced. Nothing. Perhaps, we should all think about that for a second while we engage in the rampant speculation/wishful thinking about what this all will lead to.
.
What’s Secretary of State Clinton saying to the Egyptians about this “practice”? I’d like to know–and I’d like to see our press ask the question.

It’s OT and wrong because Amy never said any such act is not a “very serious crime” or that it’s not “sick.” That’s also why it’s absolutely a straw man: You’re arguing against a claim that no one actually made Spob. What she said was that if that situation occurred, it’s unclear if an enraged parent could then “justifiably” kill the doctor under this law.
..
BTW, your post @ 15 is completely OT, as if you didn’t know. I doubt you can find one person in the Swamp (a sane one anyway) that supports forced genital mutilation in Egypt or anywhere else. What’s your point? This assumes you actually have one.

The issue, diecash1, re: FGM is not whether you personally support them–you don’t, but whether this issue is something that will give people pause over the idea that Egyptian society is somehow embarking on a path towards freedom when nothing in these demonstrations gives any reason to suspect that one of the most basic rights a person possesses, i.e., bodily integrity, will be any more respected in the “new” Egypt. Moreover, diecash1, where is our government here? Where is Obama? Clinton? So much of this crap in Egypt is so utterly besides the f’in point given the prevalence of this appalling brutality. Where is the press? Amy, the religion reporter, makes a silly post about this nonsense issue in SD (as I read the statute, there is no possibility of legal retaliation after the fact–theoretically, if the parents happened to walk into the clinic right as the baby is being aborted, they could threaten the doc with lethal force or shoot him, but that’s a very remote factual possibility), yet I don’t recall a whole lot, in all the posts about Egypt, anything about this Muslim issue. (And FGM is a Muslim issue.) Nor do I recall seeing any other Swampland reporters mentioning it. Why not? If we’re going to talk about freedom–why not start with little girl’s clitorises (I choose to use that word for the shock value–cutting off that organ is an appallingly cruel and sick act).
.
As for me raising a strawman, well, you can think that–but the tone of Amy’s post shows that she really doesn’t think that a lack of consent where required is that big a deal.

“The issue, diecash1, re: FGM is not whether you personally support them–you don’t, but whether this issue is something that will give people pause over the idea that Egyptian society is somehow embarking on a path towards freedom”
.
it’s not something all of the Eqyptians practice. There are religious sects all over the world that does a lot of stupid things. This happen to be amongst the worst.
.
It’s not a reflection on the overall movement towards freedom, since freedom is not singularly defined by one action.
.
It’s the sum of the desire amongst most people. There are people who don’t want to be free. Or others that define freedom as something else. But I very much doubt it’s a logical step to compare the desire of selfdetermination in the same light as what someone does in the name of batsh!t religion.
.
Newfreedom thinks Obama is the devil reborn. When you hear stuff like that do you think Newfreedom defines all of us, or just a minority?
.
The good thing is that when people explore freedom and figure things out, practices like these will slowly go away.
.
After all; kids were still sold into loveless horrible marriages even after our revolution and creation of this nation. Democracy isn’t a instant stamp of unlimited freedom. Only the beginning.

First, your argument was entirely a straw man.
..
Second, Egypt is in the process of putting a new government in place. Hopefully it will be a more open and less repressive government but that will be up to the Egyptians, not us. IMO it’s unlikely that we (the U.S. gov’t) could influence Egyptians to stop this practice. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try but I wouldn’t expect to have much success.
..
Third, you can mention it where appropriate and perhaps one of the Swamp writers will pick it up and write about it, perhaps not. Either way, there are many places to read about it on the internet, as well as the occasional story in a magazine or newspaper. BTW, the procedure is not strictly a Muslim issue as you suggest. I’m not aware of this being regularly practiced in Muslim culture. Perhaps this will shed some light on it for you:

This practice has been occurring for centuries not but it predates Christianity and Islam. In 163 B.C., a Greek papyrus mentioned that girls in Egypt were undergoing circumcision and that it was a widely accepted practice to have, which originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. This does go against other writings that this practice has been around for 5,000 years in ancient African tradition but the true origin will probably forever remain unknown.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Female-Genital-Mutilation

“So much for though shall not kill. Not exactly.”

“… would not actually make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. Not yet, anyway.”

So why all the inflammatory rhetoric, Amy? Why this article at all? Is the purpose to arouse outrage in the abortion industry? Is it a call to arms for the abortion on demand crowd?

What was your purpose in writing this article in just this way? From the little bit of information you do provide, it is obvious that abortion doctors are still safe in South Dakota if they are not performing illegal abortions. Is that not true?

Ivy_B@2,

It has always puzzled me that the people, who would shrink in horror from the prospect of putting to death a perpetrator of rape or incest, are so insistent that the innocent life produced by such an act be snuffed out. It seems illogical.

How can it be a good thing that the woman carrying the child has to endure the trauma of abortion, the unborn child is killed, and the perpetrator, at worst, gets 3 hots and a cot for a few years at taxpayer expense?

Can anyone out there explain that?

that’s definitely overstated. it’s to remove ambiguity/grey area which makes it much easier to mobilize political support/resistance, but almost never kill, except in war i suppose. on a personal level it makes everything so nice and clear in your head. who doesn’t want to be sure their cause is overwhelmingly righteous?

the idea is not about citizenship or legal rights, but about inherent rights to life for the new ‘person’ who has a soul and was knitted together in the whom by God. if a supernatural soul (the foundation for inherent rights) begins at conception, then obviously abortion is murder. at early stages it may not garner the empathy of murder of ppl w/ personalities and all (and so most ppl don’t bury fetuses), but technically, it’s a human soul snuffed out, never given a chance. tragic enough to be THE issue for many.
.
it is important to understand where they are coming from at least. it’s not really nonsense, it just starts from bad premises based on like on psalm, and the notion of the supernatural soul

paulejb: As some one who has had to personally consider the death penalty as punishment, I still oppose the state taking that action.
.
My position on the death penalty has been difficult for me to balance with my support of a woman’s right to choose. However, even though raised strictly as a Catholic, as a woman, I have seen the results of back alley abortions, the church insisting that a baby’s life is worth more than a mother, the abuse that can be visited on an unwanted child, the fear of a victim of incest, child abuse, or rape on the consequences of having to give birth, and the poor and the young who feel they have no choices.
.
This is really one of those issues that has to be left up to the judgement of women. There bodies, lives, and futures are the most impacted.
.
If you and others want to put in place the safety nets for women who are in need of help during and after pregnancy, that would be wonderful. Most everyone wishes that abortion was rare.

It matters not the laws of man.
The killing of killers is right,
And in God’s eyes no more right than
Avenging the abortion blight.
To any and all who would kill
The helpless unborn innocent,
Know that one day you killers will
Be judged guilty and consequent
Will be your execution by
The hand of us who will find you.
How and when you are gonna die -
You’ll be there when you get your due.

We, avengers of the unborn,
Killer protecting laws we scorn.

If anyone’s still paying attention, a few thoughts:

1. Demonizing people incites violence. Can anyone deny that any physician who so much as hints at a willingness to perform an abortion is going to be vilified by anti-abortion forces? It may be constitutional to hint with gross lack of subtlety that a doctor who performs abortions is a murderer and deserves to die, but it plants ideas in the heads of the lunatic fringe, and the next thing you know one of those lunatics decides that it is his or her duty to eliminate the evil murderer of thousands of unborn children. And then the vilifiers claim surprise. Give me a break!

2. Even the wacko who proudly proclaims that he killed a doctor is entitled to a fair trial and, within the bounds of that trial, a presumption of innocence. So far their contentions that their homicide was justified have fallen on deaf judicial and juror ears.

3. But if there’s any argument under state law that killing an abortion doctor is justifiable, that strenghtens the defense case for acquittal. Is there no judge in South Dakota who, reading the new law (should it be enacted), would allow a defense of justifiable homicide? Let’s look at the statutory language (copied from Ivy B’s earlier posting of it complete on the previous thread:

“Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt . . . 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 . . . .

“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 accomplished.”

Check out that second paragraph. Good. Now please remember that we’re talking about applying this to people who want to kill a specific person — a doctor who performs abortions. All our prospective killer needs is a pregnant relative within the categories in the statute. He (we’ll let the killer be male) sends the pregnant relative to an abortion doctor. Then as the doctor starts the procedure, he kills the doctor. In so doing he has protected the “unborn child of any such enumerated person” in a situation where he had “reasonable ground to apprehend a design . . . to do some great personal injury [where there is] imminent danger of such design being accomplished.”

“Oh, come on, bobell, that’s terribly far-fetched.” Hey, if I, who have no quarrel with most abortion providers, can think this up, you can bet that some anti-abortion people can think it up too. And as long as there are people out there who want to kill doctors, there’s going to be someone who will enlist a pregnant relative to participate. I hate to say it, but if I were a judge in South Dakota faced with the scenario described, I’d have a hard time ruling out the defenses of justifiable homicide unless I could find some basis to make an exception (like, for example, the “unborn child” was never really in danger because the woman knew the procedure would be interrupted).

Is this sort of legal mischief necessary? Is it even a good idea? I think you know where I stand. How about you?

apr2563@2.6,
.
1. We have also seen the results of legal abortions. The latest case is the horror of the Philadelphia abortion mill run by Kermit Gosnell.
.
2. That is not the teaching of the Church.
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
.
3. I cannot understand the rationale for killing an unborn child to avoid the possibility of abuse. Surely, there are other options.
.
4. How does the death of an unborn child assuage the fear of a victim of rape or incest? Wouldn’t the death of the victimizer be more effective?
.
5. What are the consequences of having to give birth and giving the child up for adoption? Would it be worse than terminating the life in the womb? Do we know the consequences to a woman who chooses to end that life?
.
6. It is not true that only a woman’s life, body and future are impacted by the decision to terminate life. There is a much more serious impact on the life that is terminated. Who speaks for them?

I’ll take it a step further: suppose South Dakota passes a law outlawing all abortions regardless of circumstance. Such a law might well be declared unconstitutional (although these days, you never know); enforcement might even be suspended while the case wends its way through the courts. But as long as the law is on the books – even though unenforceable – a boyfriend or relative of a woman obtaining an abortion would have an absolute defense for murdering the abortion provider.

Actually, Gosnell was performing illegal abortions. Six employees of the Departments of State and Health were fired yesterday for failing to perform required inspections and eight other workers are under review. The governor has put in place 18 new regulations to stop such abuses. Remember this kind of thing when people are railing against too many government workers and too many regulations.

He’s WELL acquainted with at least one – RedState.
.
Unfortunately (for him), they’ve made it quite clear that he’s not welcome there.

Ivy_B@2.8,
.
It would seem that, in this case, government workers weren’t of much use anyway. How would more government workers and regulations have changed anything?

Many Americans claim to believe abortion is the same thing as murder. Their refusal to stop it by violence suggests to me they know it isn’t. See Holy Prepuce!’s article “Why Aren’t There More Scott Roeders” (http://holyprepuce.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-arent-there-more-scott-roeders-or.html) for why most people won’t kill abortion providers, even if South Dakota makes it legal.

NewsBusters: TIME’s Sullivan Corrects Colleague But Echoes Fear of Violence Against Abortionists in South Dakota
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/02/16/times-sullivan-corrects-colleague-echoes-fear-violence-against-abortio