Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

[cesara]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

Those were my thoughts, Perz....if a father (or mother) kills a perp who threatens his wife(herself) he (or she) is already covered by law???

Now, whether a perp should be charged with murder is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish and not at all addressed by this law.

This law could easily be used out of context and, unless there are some HUGE changes to the language that cover some grey area that I am apparently missing, I still call it bad law.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

Exactamundo! This whole thing is about taking womens rights away, and women are being talked into it. The recession is making men more competitive for good jobs, and the best way to get rid of women in the high-paying workplace is to keep them pregnant/home/raising kids.
Being a stay-at-home housewife and/or mom is a worthy and wonderful thing, but it is NOT a choice. It is an opportunity. There's a HUGE difference. (If I say "Starting Monday at 9 a.m., I'm a housewife." - and simply stop generating income - who's gonna pay the bills? It's a partnership option, not a choice made by one sovereign person.)
Everything I fought for AND WON in the 70's is evaporating. If young women don't realize what they have to lose, they will lose it. Credit in their own name, the right to vote, the right to be a full human being.....it's now or never, girls....what do you want for yourselves and your daughters?

Kudos! If I could give you karma/wyrd I would!

I know this is all slightly off topic, but I'm really big on that sort of thing. I think it's nice when women -want- to stay home and are able to do so if they want it, but I think it should be a choice (I'm using this wording but I agree with what you said...the choice should be there between the two partners and there has to be the income to do it) and I personally want to work. I'm on the fence about having kids, but if I chose to do so I think it's really unfair that in the business world, motherhood is pretty much still barely tolerated with a lot of companies. Why, when we have kids and want to be good mothers AND good employees, do we get the short end of the stick? I think a lot of it has to do with the long hours expected in the business world, which is just a hangover from when it was just men (it's not anymore and in some business professions women outnumber men, but they still somehow run the show!) Why do we need a 60 hour work week when there are more contributors?

I'm really big on the paternity leave that's showing up in a lot of European countries and I think everyone should take it. Sweden has a good idea in that there are two extra months to parental leave, and the man HAS to take it or they're lost (use it or lose it sort of deal). In Germany they just introduced something similar where, if the guy takes at least 2 months, you get 14 months (you get a year normally, which can be taken by one parent or split between both). I feel that, when both parents want to continue to work, why is the woman expected to still take all the responsibility at home? Can't the father stay home sometimes, or do dishes or laundry or whatever? It takes two people to make a baby, and it takes two to run a household these days in a dual income household. I'm glad my mom stood up for herself and kept working when she really wanted to, but I wouldn't want to be her (in that she still did almost all the housework, childcare and cooking and my dad worked long hours and did the bare minimum).

Anyway to get back on topic, I feel that the struggle isn't over yet, but why would we want to lose ground we already gained?

---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

Yup - that's what you'd do. What does this law actually do?

Did you read the updates published in the mother Jones article?

Admittedly no I hadn't....but I stand corrected.

[Shadow Dragon]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

My biggest concern is that this gives people the right to kill abortion doctors. Since they know that the doctor will eventually destroy a fetus. If this law goes into place and then someone kills an abortion doctor, they could just get a slap on the wrist or get off completely. I'm glad that getting national press is causing him to reconsider.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

My biggest concern is that this gives people the right to kill abortion doctors. Since they know that the doctor will eventually destroy a fetus. If this law goes into place and then someone kills an abortion doctor, they could just get a slap on the wrist or get off completely. I'm glad that getting national press is causing him to reconsider.

It doesn't. Go back and read the thread.

Maybe there's a slippery slope argument, but THIS bill would not, in any way, give anybody the right to kill andybody who is NOT breaking the law.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

I think it's just easy to get upset about this because initially it seemed like it was worded poorly. But it is totally possible to distinguish between a woman choosing to have an abortion and a doctor providing that service for her, and a woman choosing to keep the baby and someone beating/shooting/stabbing it out of her against her will.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

Yes - exactly - and as long as the scope of the law is cleary defined in the law when (if) it is passed, the slippery slope is easily navigated.

When Representative Jensen says that the intent is to bring the current laws into alignment, he seems to be saying that the bill is essentially housekeeping, not remodeling. Whether he is speaking the truth or not, I don't know.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

I would like to make a motion that someone move to South Dakota,

And propose legislation where health care professionals be allowed to carry firearms for self-defense anywhere, and authorize their use even against assailants which are not using firearms in the attack. The discerning factors between this justifiable homicide, and otherwise shall be:

a) self-defense, and not that Bush-era "preemptive strike" while they don't even look threatening nonsense;
b) for the terms of this law, "health care professional," shall refer to anyone of the medical profession, who's job includes carrying out or assisting medically (physically and/or psychologically) necessary procedures.

This might be seen by conservatives as authorizing the slaughter of conservative South Dakota residents on their way to lynch a medical clinic.


I'm sorry, but the editing to the bill looks to me like it was a reaction to fit people's reasonable objections. I don't know much about domestic violence against pregnant women, but I could imagine that this is practically the only situation where conditions of "forced" and "deliberate" harm to the fetus could both be met. And I'm not aware of any statistics that show this as a prevalent problem, though I could be wrong.

This reeks to me like several someones in South Dakota either didn't read their textbook in Middle School, counted on folks not paying attention, or did this deliberately for exposure. I find all three of these unconscionable in a legislature.

[Maulus]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

It seems to me that what is intended in his raisin brain is something along the lines of "Externally originated forced abortion" where an external force of some sort causes the abortion to occur, so it is against the wishes of the mother. that way the abortion Doctors will be kept out of it altogether and it would then collect the perp who assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to abort the foetus.
However the way i have worded it is till vague, she could slip on a wet floor and the same thing could happen, could she then sue the person who left the floor wet? prosecute them for murder etc?

It has to be worded to specify specific events. just to be clear.

M

[cesara]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

However the way i have worded it is till vague, she could slip on a wet floor and the same thing could happen, could she then sue the person who left the floor wet? prosecute them for murder etc?

Well, it has nothing to do with being able to charge a perp for murdering a fetus -- it has to do with a mother/father killing a perp for intended harm to the fetus.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

I also have some issues with that as well. I mean, if the fetus' life is in danger, isn't the mothers as well? And if so it's justifiable as self defense. But otherwise you can't just kill someone. They have to really be threatening to kill you as well.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide"

I'm not certain of all the details, but in the Laci Peterson case, the right wing was all aflutter over Scott being charged with the murder of his unborn son because it counted as murder. But, that was a WANTED, EXPECTED baby..... I have a very strong stance on the abortion issue that abortion must be done very early in the pregnancy. Late-term if the mother becomes life-threateningly ill is one thing, but just for the hell of it is wrong in my book. But, with any time-frame inposition must come stipulations about forced delay. (I can just see people being forced to wait for manufactured reasons, and then it's too late....) Anyway, there's a huge difference between someone harming an expectant mother and a woman terminating her own unwanted pregnancy.