So Much For Thou Shalt Not Kill

Let’s de-fund SD

Is the legalization of what the right sees as politically acceptable murder just an outlier, or is it becoming the “new normal” in political discourse among the conservative base? Glenn Beck’s antics, Sarah Palin’s ciolent rhetoric, the targeting of Gabby Giffords and the assassination attempt on her. Six innocent Americans died when a right-wing nut tried to murder Giffords; are their deaths considered “justified” because they were seeing a Democratic lawmakers and ostensibly share her views?

Where is this country headed?
http://www.sunstateactivist.org

I know this was discussed earlier, but what a leap. Does this now mean that we need to give fetuses Social Security numbers?
.
Blowing away “abortionists” – OK
Dealing with the impregnators – “Not us!”
Caring for the kid after birth – cut the funding
The mother? Doesn’t matter what you think.

It’s a perfectly logical, if depraved and disturbed, position.
.
I’d guess more then a couple of commenters here support the legal killing of fellow citizens who aren’t breaking any law.

“Ciolent” or violent?

If Gen. Akbar (Holder) doesn’t file a lawsuit against these guys one second after this abomination passes, he should resign.

kryptik1 posted this on Adam’s “Morning Must Reads” but it does deserve a thread of it’s own.
.
Let’s not tell the crazies that murdering abortion providers is still murder and might get them sent to hell.

I would have largely dismissed the idea of a civil war OR some other internal large scale violent event being possible any time soon a few months ago; but the trending violent stance of the mainstreamed far right is a little scary.

Here’s to hoping this is just the result of a few extremists and that its not as wide spread as we’d be lead to believe… and that this whole post is just a bit over the top in the end.

Here’s to hoping.

Now I just wish there were some more doers in this country.

Greg Sargent interviewed the sponsor of the bill. It’s worth a quick read. Here’s a snippet:

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn’t abortion providers, he provided the following example:

“Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn’t want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend’s abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/south_dakota_legislator_defend.html
..
This guy is a world-class a$$hat trying to take the country backward one violent step at a time.

I know how every violent act is an “isolated incident” but wonder if mainstreaming-which really is what introducing this kind of bill is all about-the idea of killing people who have broken no laws just might have (perhaps unintended, perhaps not unintended-) consequences.

Hey blockhead. Giffords was almost murdered by one of YOUR nutballs.

So it’s come down to “YOUR nutcases are more murderous than mine!”
.
How low can you go, RF?

Liberals:
.
“Killing babies is ok, so long as you do it while the baby remains in the womb”
.
How does it feel to be accomplices to murder?

God: Excuse ME, but I wrote something once called the 10 Commandents. They weren’t suggestions. I wrote the f**king thing in stone. Exactly who said you get to decide what I meant? It’s not up to you to decide if it’s open to interpretation. You kill somebody and I’ll fry your ass like a cheap steak. If I decide abortion providers are murders, I’ll take care of it MYSELF. I don’t remember outsourcing the decision. OT, but spring is on it’s way and I’d like a few more oooh’s and ah’s about the flowers. One on MY better ideas if I do say so MYSELF.

I am thoroughly pro-choice but JNS and TPM seem to be completely misrepresenting the contents of the bill.

And I say that as someone who harbors no illusions about the efforts of anti-abortion activists to back-door policies that fit their agenda.

In fact, the explanation cited by diecash1 strikes me as entirely reasonable:

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn’t abortion providers, he provided the following example:
.
“Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn’t want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend’s abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child.”

Does being “pro-choice” now mean that we would deny women legal defenses when employing deadly force in real-world abusive situations? Is our fear of anti-abortion activists that great?

God: I meant Commandments. Spell check is my friend. The Pope might be infallible but I’M not.

As I live in the real world I’m not sure how to react if I were in yours.

Honestly Square1, I think that was a disingenuous attempt at justification by the legislator. The example he cites is reasonably concluded as self-defense whether she is pregnant or not. If that were all the SD repubs were after, they wouldn’t have to attempt to pass a bill such as this.

He also included the following in His instructions:
.
“Vengeance is mine…I will repay.”
.
Nothing in there about delegation of the decision-making…

It would still be domestic violence.
And, based on the legislator’s example, highly presumptous to think the father doesn’t want to provide for the child after birth.

South Dakota’s history with regard to abortion rights argues against that explanation.

I had read Sargent’s interview with this guy earlier. I agree with diecash, it’s just an extreme example to try to make it sound reasonable. Just another way to keep the worshippers of potential life happy while the same legislators (and I’m also looking at you Barack Obama) think it’s fine to defund things that help living children like heating assistance, food aid, etc.

Also note that that lunatic is now “one of ours”. Neat trick, eh what?
.
Anyone remember accepting delivery on that?
.
Or was this a “dead-of-night” transfer?

Exactly who said you get to decide what I meant?
.
Alas sacred, if religious life were that simple there wouldn’t be so many Christian religions out there, let alone also Judaism and Islam sharing the same God. If only Luther and Catholics could’ve agreed on indulgences or not, direct salvation or over wine / cheese + crackers, etc. Or if it’s okay to give $$$$ to Jim Bakker to build theme parks and have hot affairs. Then again, no offenses here will be noticed anyway. You seem to have the magic touch getting noticed (favorably, too) by longtimers here, with good reason. Wish you’d share the secret, sigh. JNS’s post / thread probably won’t be one of the lighter ones today.

” I’m also looking at you Barack Obama)”
.
And there appears to be nothing that he is too dear to give up! That is he is a fence sitter.

Like this Ivy?
.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/116205919.html
.

“But on Monday, President Obama proposed cutting $2.5 billion from the $5.1 billion program. The state Commerce Department estimates that 44,000 Minnesota households could lose federal energy assistance.”

There is no secret deconstructiva. I’m just as amazed and confused as anyone else by what passes for logic anymore. I blame/credit my outlook on life and everything else in general. There is no grand design. There is no master plan. There is only chaos because people are as adept at resisting thought like a leaf does the wind.

To most of the posters in this thread:

If someone were killing you, I’d most likely holster my weapon, because I wouldn’t want to offend you by killing your attacker. I guess I’m a liberal now. Whoops, I wouldn’t have my weapon if I were a liberal, so forget that. I’ll still think real hard before I shoot your attacker. Hope that makes you all feel better.

Rusty,
.
You are entitled to believe that a person becomes a “human being” at conception and is entitled to full human rights protection. Certainly nobody can prove you wrong. Just as you can’t prove anyone wrong if they believe that, morally, “personhood” does not arise until later in the pregnancy.
.
It would be nice if those who believe in personhood at conception would show more respect for those who hold different positions and refrain from using rhetoric like “murder.” But, if I believed that a blastocyst was a person, I guess I would feel strongly about the destruction of blastocysts.
.
The problem that I have with anti-abortion activists is that they are rarely logically consistent. For example, because the ordinary in vitro fertilization process produces multiple fertilized eggs — i.e. human beings according to the “life at conception crowd — the destruction of the unnecessary fertilized eggs should b equally attacked by anti-abortion activists.
.
But when was the last time that a fertility clinic was bombed or a fertility specialist shot?
.
This inconsistency leads one to conclude that anti-abortion activists are primarily interested in judging and condemning those whose sexual practices they deem to be immoral.
.
Anti-abortion activists love to use pictures of late-term abortions in their advocacy. But such abortions are opposed by the vast, vast majority of Americans except when necessary to save the live of the mother. And if you really believe that a blastocyst is as much a person as a six-month fetus, then why show a 27th-week fetus to make your point.
.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of Americans agree on the following: Abortion should be legal, but should be severely restricted after a certain amount of biological development. Obviously there is a range of what the critical amount of development is, but most people would probably agree that 8-12 weeks is reasonable.
.
What I repeatedly note is that anti-abortion extremists never try to tighten the outer bounds of legal abortion. This is because if legal abortion was limited to the first trimester then the widespread support for a blanket ban on abortion would vanish overnight.

Well as the libtards go all ballistic and attempt to make this amendment to an existing law more clear, let’s take a look at the exact words of the amendment itself which JNS sensationalizes, but doesn’t provide the exact language for it.
.

” 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 accomplished.

.
So if someone is beating a man’s pregnant spouse, and the husband then kills said assailant, that would be considered justifiable homicide. Pretty clear.
.
If a man who is beating his girlfriends stomach to cause her to abort the baby, and the girl’s father intervenes in the attack and kills the boyfriend, this is justifiable homicide.
.
Now where does it say or even preclude to say that “legalizing the murder of doctors who perform abortions” would be justifiable homicide again?
.
Hmmm. Even for you JNS, a far left liberal zealot / journalist, THIS is even a stretch. WOW. The wheels are certainly coming off the loony-bus.

Jesus, these states are getting too monstrous to even want to fly over.

And that contributed what, exactly?

That was well said square – and hey – if killing a fetus is wrong, how is killing the dr who performs abortions not wrong?

When did the two wrongs don’t make a right stop being applied? Or should we all just be vigilantes?

“But on Monday, President Obama proposed cutting $2.5 billion from the $5.1 billion program. The state Commerce Department estimates that 44,000 Minnesota households could lose federal energy assistance.”
.
That Obama fella sure doesn’t sound like no liberal, does he?

diecash1:
.
Actually, self-defense requires a level of proportionality. Generally speaking, if someone attacks you but doesn’t present a deadly threat then you are not entitled to use deadly force in opposition.
.
I am not a criminal lawyer and have no familiarity with the penal code of South Dakota. I do not actually know whether existing South Dakota penal law would allow a woman to plead justifiable homicide in the hypothetical situation.
.
What I would argue is that a woman SHOULD be allowed to plead justification and if this law makes that clearer than I can’t attack it.
.
Even if the motives of the legislator are, as you suggest, to undermine abortion rights, the conclusion that the law “legalizes the murder of doctors who perform abortions” is wildly sensational and incorrect. Although I would suggest that liberals in SD put in a provision that the law not apply to the killing of medical personal who engage in otherwise legal medical procedures.

i don’t know if i buy the example given. can he really not come up w/ a single real-life example that this law would address? laws generally react to existing problems, and if there is no existing problem, then the sponsor probably has other motives.

Gotta run. I got a little carried away playing Wii last night with my better half. Those controllers can be a missle if you don’t have the strap on. The lamp was a piece of sh!t anyway but now she’s acting like it was one of her favorites. I’d bet my next paycheck that the new one won’t look anything like the old one. Have fun.

My question is: how did they come to the conclusion that this glaring hole in the law exists. If it was an honest belief that the legal issues are not streamlined – in other words, that justifiable homicide should be in line with homicide and manslaughter, fine. I’m not in dispute with that concept. But generally, that’s only discovered when something happens and to my knowledge, there hasn’t been a case where someone was unable to plead justifiable homicide while someone is punching their baby (heck, I think I recall an instance where someone was convicted of murder of an unborn child when he injured a woman such that she miscarried while committing a home invasion). So, no, the logic behind this makes no sense.

Well square1, I am on record numerous times to say that a woman in my opinion has the right to chose whatever she choses to do, including abortion. However, she does not have the right to demand I pay with my tax dollars so she can murder her baby. Period.
.
Now so far as when to call a baby a baby, the heart begins to beat as a “fetus” within the first 5 weeks of conception. That is a fact.
.
At 10 weeks eyes are now formed along with fingers. Abortions are still allowed.
.
After 16 weeks, the following is recommended, “The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has recommended that an injection be used to stop the fetal heart during the first phase of the surgical abortion procedure to ensure that the fetus is not born alive.”
.
Yea, just inject it so it’s heart stops beating, so it won’t be alive when you suck it’s guts out with a suction tube. That is humane I suppose.
.
Of course we can only know about heart beats, eyes, noses and fingers. There is nothing we can understand or know about the “baby’s soul” at this point as we do not have the technology to know if a soul is there or not. But, I’ll let you guess on when that happens. Perhaps one day humans will be able to determine when a soul is formed in a human fetus.

Well, squares1, Rustyblog will use his magical conservative mind-reading powers to tell us liberal what we do and don’t believe. Paul also has this magical power.

“Now where does it say or even preclude to say that “legalizing the murder of doctors who perform abortions” would be justifiable homicide again?”
.
Umm, because its expanding the definition of justifiable homicide to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus.

The complete section of the present law is below with the proposed changes bolded. The bold section of the first paragraph is what is suggested could apply to doctors.

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.

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.

People take a breath. Both sides seem to be leaping at the worst and broadest possible intent of a bill that in part already exists for manslaughter charges. There have been instances where someone was charged with murder when the fetus was born.

.
Logic would lead you to believe that if a women submits to having an abortion it is unlikely, she will shoot the abortionist in self defense.
.
Of course as we have seen in our wonderful legal system there will a lawyer who will attempt to push the envelop.

The bold section of the first paragraph is what is suggested could apply to doctors.

.
In other words, wacked out libtards like IvyB believe this proposed change to the law grants permission to potential abortion doctor murderer’s to now have free license to go out and murder abortion doctors when in fact it does not say anything like it at all. In IvyB’s distorted mind, little green men from Mars will soon descend upon the earth and turn everyone into conservatives too.
.
The people on the bus go up and down, up and down, up and down. The people on the bus are all libtards, singing around the town.
.
Now what the law does specifically state is “or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is”. Is it now a felony for an abortion doctor to do abortions? If so, then perhaps you are making a rational objection to this proposed amendment to an existing law. If not, then the wheels have come off the loony-tune bus driven by the libtards.

“Umm, because its expanding the definition of justifiable homicide to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus.”

.
Grab onto IvyB’s hand real firm-like. What part of a FELONY do you not grasp?

It’s another “false equivalency” attack, with a little “defense of the 2nd Amendment” thrown in for good measure.
.
A sort of RW “Tourette’s Syndrome”… happens a lot around here.

That is so true

NewsBusters: TIME’s Newton-Small Erroneously Suggests S.D. ‘Considering Legalizing the Murder’ of Abortionists
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/02/15/times-newton-small-erroneously-suggests-sd-considering-legalizing-murd

Tourettes – that’s hilarious.

It’s comments like that which feed the misconceptions about Americans around the globe.

Way to go – those kinds of cracks are definately going to inspire people to listen to, and trust anything that comes out of America – which calls into question your opinion on security.

Moronic statements like that just show you’re no better than any other terrorist – whether they are born in the middle east, or in your own back yard.

The argument that it’s ok because i say it is – but it’s not ok for anyone else, also because i say it is; well it just doesn’t work.

It does serve to devalue anything anyone else says, however.

BTW i meant the original comment – not yours afguy – i was agreeing with you – it’s that original post i think that diminishes the entire conversation.

In typical douche bag manner, “newsbusters” slams JNS for a characterization that she did not make. She linked to an article that points out that the law could legalize the murder of doctors that perform abortions.

So bias is ok, so long as it’s right leaning i guess…

Logic would lead you to believe that if a women submits to having an abortion it is unlikely, she will shoot the abortionist in self defense.

Logic doesn’t usually enter the mind of a deranged psychopath that is about to murder someone, i.e. Scott Roeder et al.

Be very careful when trying to apply logic to some of the stuff you read here.
.
It can be hazardous to your sanity.

“In typical douche bag manner, “newsbusters” slams JNS for a characterization that she did not make”
.
Here is the first line that JNS writes. It would appear she did make that characterization by interpreting what the law was.
.
South Dakota is apparently considering legalizing the murder of doctors who perform abortions.”
.

“Logic doesn’t usually enter the mind of a deranged psychopath that is about to murder someone, i.e. Scott Roeder et al”
.
Either does the law so what is your point? Other than your wild accusations may plant the idea that your interpretation of the law would be a defense for a whacko.

Is that you stewartz? Incognito now?
.
Ladydiecash, pleasant and a joy to be around as always.
.
Yes, JNS did jump the gun. That or her reading comprehension skills are that of a 4th grader. Take your pick.

Honestly, square1, that illustration doesn’t explain the totality of the bill. The SD bill would allow anybody to kill anybody who performs abortions, even if the pregnant woman wants an abortion. It’s an all out assult to limit abortions by providing legal coverage to the very types like the guy who killed Dr. Tiller in Kansas.

And who does the hacktacular Ken Shepherd cite to prove that JNS (and many others) “erroneously” interprets the bill as saying exactly what it says…

[h]omicide 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…

…why the bills right-wing author, of course.

“Time magazine’s Swampland blog bills itself as a “blog about politics and policy.”
.
All too often, however, it’s more or less a blog about furthering liberal talking points. (Truer words have never been so succinctly written)
.
Take today’s misleading one-sentence blog post by Jay Newton-Small in which she links to the liberal blog Talking Points Memo:
.
South Dakota is apparently considering legalizing the murder of doctors who perform abortions.
“So Much For Thou Shalt Not Kill,” reads the headline for Newton-Small’s Tuesday afternoon blog post (see screen cap below page break):

.
So good I had to reprint it here!!

My point is that passing a law such as this will likely provide the impetus for some moron to murder another doctor. Worse yet, some craven lawyer will attempt to defend him with that interpretation of this law. It’s beyond ridiculous. I also fail to see the need to pass such a law. Precisely who is it protecting? If someone is violently beating my wife or daughter, whether pregnant or not, I would use what I deemed to be necessary force to stop them.

To the non-insane it would mean the self-defense of the mother and the unborn by someone with intend to harm and not one performing a legal act. I will leave how the criminally insane would interpret that to you.

I have come to one conclusion. Liberals as represented on this site are so incensed that one of the liberal websites has been challenged by great conservative minds. Incensed so much that now their favorite bloggers are attempting to take something like this SD amendment and turn it into something that it is not.
.
To me, this says how much we are making an impact on them. Literally driving them NUTS.
.
LOL, I love it.

…has been challenged by great conservative minds.
.
Where, Rusty? When did they get here?
.
Must have missed it…

Outsider2011 and afguy: Yall be careful, you’re steppign on each other while trying to bash me and all conservatives. I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourselves. Oh heck, yes I would…. SARAH PALIN!!!!!!

Now all of you will form a lib mosh pit because I typed her name… I’m sort of like the Knights who say “NIC!!!”

Just how absurd can Jay Newton-Small get? Is she this desperate to create sensationalism where none exists?
Only a far left bigot would infer that killing doctors who perform abortions is now legal and I guess she qualifies in this respect.
Equally absurd is the “rising to the occasion” by the liberals on this site….ever anxious to point fingers and hurl accusations on anything they consider to be another right wing plot.
“Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises”
Samuel Butler

“It’s beyond ridiculous. I also fail to see the need to pass such a law. Precisely who is it protecting”
.
What is beyond ridiculous is the hysterical interpretation by the left wing nut> Who is it protecting? Anyone who uses deadly force to protect someone threatened during the commission of a felony including a pregnant women.
.
This is no more ridiculous than the hate crime bill.

Even more absurd is Rusty on Joe Klein’s post “rising to the occasion” to point fingers at the Muslin Brotherhood as the attackers of Lara Logan. Of course, perhaps he was there on Friday and knows something none of the news sources knows.

In due time IvyB, in due time.
.
Enjoy!!

“Outsider2011 and afguy: Yall be careful, you’re steppign on each other while trying to bash me and all conservatives. I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourselves. Oh heck, yes I would…. SARAH PALIN!!!!!!

Now all of you will form a lib mosh pit because I typed her name… I’m sort of like the Knights who say “NIC!!!”"
.
You do remind me of the Black Knight.

For people who don’t comprehend abortion is legal and are determined to use and encourage violence in a democracy.

Accomplises to murder:

Bill O’Reilly who ranted for months against “Tiller the Killer, before he was murdered.
.
Operation Rescue that posts wanted signs against doctors giving abortion services. Includes pictures, business and home addresses, where their children attend school.
.
Army of God
.
American Coalition of Life Activists
.
Actual murderers:
.
Michael Griffin killed Dr. David Gunn
Paul Hill killed Dr. John Britton and escort James Barrett (wounded the Dr’s wife)
John Salvi killed 2 receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols (5 others wounded)
Eric Robert Rudolph killed police officer Robert Sanderson (nurse severely wounded, lost eye)
James Kopp killed Dr. Barnett Slepian
Scott Reader killed Dr. George Tiller (at his church, 2nd attempt on his life). Score one for O’Reilly.
.
Arson, bombing, and property crime
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Even though the law already protects people (including, presumably, pregnant women) who commit murder in self-defense, and those who might commit murder while defending someone else, Jensen simply argued: “It protects not only the woman, but also the life of the unborn child.”

Law Professor Robert Weisberg, Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, told TPM Jensen is either being “disingenuous or backpedaling” when he argues that the law only applies to illegal acts, and therefore not abortion, because “unless I’m misreading it, that’s not in the statute. Maybe the court would read it into a statute.” He added that any criminal defendant who killed someone performing an abortion would make the argument that the law protects them. The abortion distinction is “just not in the statue.”

This is no more ridiculous than the hate crime bill.

IIRC, you’re not exactly a fan of that either so I assume you think this bill is asinine as well.

Yeah, witness the declarations of victory, contrary evidence notwithstanding…

@19.1…. Too bad that the writer of the legislation could not be as specific as you. His bad or your mis-interpretation.

Try again, pinkyandthebrain.
.
It’s in the delivery and timing.
.
“Word salad” is OK as a side dish but you shouldn’t try to make a meal out of it.
.
Nice try with the Snowbilly Snooki reference, but it was weak enough that I doubt the kitten even caught a cold, let alone expired.