S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terrorism

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:A pregnant woman can fall down a flight of stairs without injuring the fetus. Just about anything that would put a fetus in danger would put the woman it is growing inside of in danger.

Citation needed? Intuitively, I would assume a woman doesn't need to be in mortal danger for a fetus to be so.
Here's a citation that seems to disagree with what you said: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8228881
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Jessica » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Abdomen blows are assaults to the abdomen of the mother...
I think she's more saying that it's possible to not hurt the fetus when the mother is hurt, not that it always works...
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:24 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:Abdomen blows are assaults to the abdomen of the mother...

Certainly. But not necessarily a risk of great harm to the mother. Not all assault is potentially going to cause significant damage. If tried to slap a normal healthy person in the face, that would not be grounds to use potentially lethal force to hamper my intentions. If I meant to shake a baby, however, that would be. If the bill's intent is just meaning to put a wanted fetus in the category of a baby, this seems reasonable. The mother chose she wanted the fetus, so killing it is similar to (but not exactly like) killing her newborn. It makes sense to allow defense of the fetus. And does nothing against abortion rights. If that is all the bill does.
In all cases the gravida herself escaped significant intra-abdominal injury, and external abdominal findings were minimal.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

I was thinking more along these lines.

Specifically of this.

Yes, you can hit a pregnant woman in the stomach and hurt her. This is called assault. It is already against the law, and I think there is already a defense on the books for that.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:Yes, you can hit a pregnant woman in the stomach and hurt her. This is called assault. It is already against the law, and I think there is already a defense on the books for that.

Are you going to address what I said earlier?
Not all assault is potentially going to cause significant damage. If tried to slap a normal healthy person in the face, that would not be grounds for someone to use potentially lethal force to hamper my intentions.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Jessica » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

So, the bill is attempting to make it justifiable to use lethal force in the instance of assaulting a pregnant women (assuming that assault could kill the fetus). I mean, assault is covered, but lethal force against those committing assault generally isn't accepted.

I still think the bill is pointless and is poorly written, but I guess I understand that reasoning...
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:I still think the bill is pointless and is poorly written, but I guess I understand that reasoning...

If that was the reasoning. I'm still suspicious that they may have had stronger intentions, but are playing innocent now that they're getting attention.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:41 pm UTC

While I'm glad the proposer is publicly saying they don't intend to legalize the killing of abortionists, I still think that the way the bill is written will legalize it.
Of course, as a member of the legislature, he doesn't have to be correct about what the law says or doesn't say, since it's ultimately up to the judiciary to interpret the law as it is written.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Vaniver » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:44 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Of course, as a member of the legislature, he doesn't have to be correct about what the law says
D:
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Not A Raptor
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Not A Raptor » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:54 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Of course, as a member of the legislature, he doesn't have to be correct about what the law says
D:

D: indeed.

D: indeed.

Members of the legislature could edit the bill, or any law already on the books, later on, and it would be helpful at that point to know A: what it already says and B: what they want it to say.
Van wrote:I like simple games.

Like Wizardry.

WARNING: Is acting like NaR.
Kellsbells: NAR is a sillypants
Not_A_Raptor: :p
Kellsbells: That is my expert assessment

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby achan1058 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Since I am not an American, I want to ask: If a particular state acts way too out of line compared to the American constitution, what can the feds do about it? Send in the army like Little Rock Nine?

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Spambot5546 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:28 pm UTC

Ideally when the federal government rules the laws unconstitutional the state will simply stop trying to enforce the law, but if it does get to the point, there's precedent for using the military to enforce constitutional law on the states.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
iChef
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:33 pm UTC
Location: About 5 cm. south of the ring finger, USA.

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby iChef » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:32 pm UTC

I read this bill again and it seems like in SD the following situation could arise. Man shoots abortion doctor. Co-workers of doctor shoot man. Family of man shoots doctor's co-workers and continue from there until there are no more people left in South Dakota and it's all legal. Well we can only hope.
Those whom God loves, he must make beautiful, and a beautiful character must, in some way, suffer.
-Tailsteak author of the Webcomics 1/0 and Leftover Soup

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:40 pm UTC

iChef wrote:I read this bill again and it seems like in SD the following situation could arise. Man shoots abortion doctor. Co-workers of doctor shoot man. Family of man shoots doctor's co-workers and continue from there until there are no more people left in South Dakota and it's all legal. Well we can only hope.

You have reading comprehension issues. The bill is about defense, not vengeance.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby podbaydoor » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:55 pm UTC

In a lot of cases, lots of things are justified as "defense."

I can't stop thinking about the situation where an abusive husband shoots the doctor, claims she "didn't want an abortion so it's justified", even though she tried to get one. He might even coerce her into changing her statements afterwards.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Triangle_Man » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:58 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:In a lot of cases, lots of things are justified as "defense."

I can't stop thinking about the situation where an abusive husband shoots the doctor, claims she "didn't want an abortion so it's justified", even though she tried to get one. He might even coerce her into changing her statements afterwards.


Agreed.

This is a bad law due to the massive potential for abuse that it carries with it.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby JBJ » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:08 pm UTC

I guess the only real solution to all this would be to have abortions performed only by pregnant doctors. </tongueincheek>
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:46 pm UTC

The sponsor of the bill said it wouldn't be legal to kill the doctor because abortion is legal.

Doesn't the South Dakota GOP also want to make abortion illegal? Do they plan on changing the nature of this bill then?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:46 pm UTC

The key to destroying socialists is to cook them slowly...

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby EsotericWombat » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:07 pm UTC

Here's a better question: Does this mean that if the particular abortion is illegal for any number of reasons it could be illegal under SD state law (perhaps the woman hasn't waited a full day or hasn't been sufficiently lectured about how she shouldn't be having an abortion), is it justifiable homicide then?
Image

User avatar
Crius
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Crius » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:07 pm UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
podbaydoor wrote:In a lot of cases, lots of things are justified as "defense."

I can't stop thinking about the situation where an abusive husband shoots the doctor, claims she "didn't want an abortion so it's justified", even though she tried to get one. He might even coerce her into changing her statements afterwards.


Agreed.

This is a bad law due to the massive potential for abuse that it carries with it.


Sure, the husband could claim that, but he'd still be convicted for murder. This law doesn't allow killing an abortion provider for doing a consentual abortion, and unless the doctor is performing the surgery in a back alley with the woman tied down, it'd be pretty damn hard to convince a reasonable person that a given procedure is unconsentual.

This bill is mainly symbolic and mostly pointless, but it doesn't carry any massive potential for abuse. The real danger is convincing a crazy that it does.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:24 pm UTC

I think we need to start pushing for legislation that allows abortions in every trimester up to and including the 7th.

That way, the perfectly reasonable line of "if it's in you you can have it removed" looks ... well, reasonable.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Thesh » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:33 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:I think we need to start pushing for legislation that allows abortions in every trimester up to and including the 7th.


Cartman's mom tried that with 42nd trimester abortions.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby KittenKaboodle » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:57 pm UTC

Роберт wrote: If the bill's intent is just meaning to put a wanted fetus in the category of a baby,
BINGO!, or allmost, the bill says nothing about fetus, I suspect the sponsoers would like to include embryo as well.
this seems reasonable.
to the people the sponsers of the bill want voting for them, yes, to some others maybe not so much, especialy in the case of an embryo
And does nothing against abortion rights. If that is all the bill does.
Camel's nose.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:26 am UTC

If the bill's intent is just meaning to put a wanted fetus in the category of a baby,


Then we still have a problem. If it's OK to protect a human from harm via murder, it's ok to protect a fetus from harm via murder. And all the sponsor did in his statement that murder people who perform abortions is still illegal was a) point out a contradiction in the law, and b) show us that, if abortion becomes illegal as thew GOP there wants, it will be ok to kill doctors who perform abortions.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Triangle_Man » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:33 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:I think we need to start pushing for legislation that allows abortions in every trimester up to and including the 7th.

That way, the perfectly reasonable line of "if it's in you you can have it removed" looks ... well, reasonable.


I was going to write a post stating that I only thought abortion should be performed in the first trimester, but then I used google and found out that the 7th trimester wasn't a real thing.

Stupid me.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Lazar » Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:11 am UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:I was going to write a post stating that I only thought abortion should be performed in the first trimester, but then I used google and found out that the 7th trimester wasn't a real thing.

But if you didn't know what a trimester was, then how could you...? What?
Exit the vampires' castle.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby achan1058 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:11 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Then we still have a problem. If it's OK to protect a human from harm via murder, it's ok to protect a fetus from harm via murder.
Actually, it isn't ok. While you can kill someone if a group of terrorist are holding others hostage to protect the hostage. It isn't ok when the said terrorist have killed the hostages days ago. (unless they are shooting back at you, which I am sure in the case of the doctors, they aren't) In short, the only time it would be ok, assuming that we do treat fetus as adult human beings (which I strongly disagree with), is the short window of time during abortion.

P.S. While I personally disagree with abortions without good reasons, the "pro-life" extremists disgusts me. (how can they call themselves pro-life when they are sanctioning murder is beyond me, they should simply call themselves pro-death, to be frank)
Last edited by achan1058 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:17 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Malice » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:16 am UTC

Lazar wrote:
Triangle_Man wrote:I was going to write a post stating that I only thought abortion should be performed in the first trimester, but then I used google and found out that the 7th trimester wasn't a real thing.

But if you didn't know what a trimester was, then how could you...? What?


The word "trimester" is divorced enough from its roots' meanings that my brain tends to translate it as "indeterminate period of time during which of a woman is pregnant, of which there are several", not "1/3rd of a pregnancy". My brain knew 7 was too big, not because 7 is bigger than 3, but because 7 is bigger than "several."
Image

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Zamfir » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:57 am UTC

Malice wrote:1/3rd of a pregnancy

Technically, a trimester is a period of three months, not a third of a pregnancy. An elephant's pregnancy for example does last 7 trimesters. Although elephants don't call it that, I think. And my high school divided terms into trimesters, even though usually none of the students were pregnant.
[/pedantry]

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby Роберт » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:25 pm UTC

KittenKaboodle wrote:
And does nothing against abortion rights. If that is all the bill does.
Camel's nose.

AKA "slippery slope" argument.

However, the bill in question, if intended as explained, was about increasing CHOICE. If a woman doesn't want her fetus to become her baby, she doesn't have to. If she does, she's allowed to defend it with lethal force.

Again, the phrasing of the bill is bad, and the originators may be lying about what they intended with this bill... but assuming they were telling the truth and they fix the wording, the bill is reasonable and not anti-choice in the slightest.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:55 pm UTC

Well, yes, assuming they fix the wording of the bill, the meaning will change. However, the specifics of the wording matter very, very much.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

dedwrekka
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby dedwrekka » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:30 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:Just a check, doesn't self defense include attacking someone attacking your spouse already?

As in, there is no possible way to explain this bill except as legalizing killing abortion providers.

As I recall it's also two fellonies if a fellony is commited against a woman who is pregnant.

Levi wrote:It seems like it's only makes it legal if the woman doesn't want the abortion.


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.



No, this pretty much says that if anyone is attempting an abortion that both parties agree to, but you do not, and you are either their "husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant" you get to lawfully defend against them.

Garm wrote:How far can this be slippery sloped?

An unborn child can kill their parent legally if they attempt to abort it. (and the twin of the unborn child could attempt to kill the other unborn child)
A gardener (servent) can kill their employer for getting an abortion (master/mistress). Or vise-versa

Diadem wrote:Just when you think Republicans couldn't possible get any more extremist.

I am left to wonder at what point shooting politicians becomes justifiable homicide for women who are trying to defend their life and liberty.

I suppose if they're attempting to pass a law that could justifiably harm one of the relations mentioned above, then it is justifiable. I'm no law major or anything, but if they pass this law you could justifiably harm the lawmakers for posing such a threat against your wife/husband/manservant/mistress/master/ect if they work in an abortion clinic.

LtNOWIS wrote:I'm not defending the law, but it's a fallacy to claim that it's contradictory to be "pro-life" but also be ok with war/the death penalty/whatever. Although the Catholic Church is against all 3.

Well, not to go against the mad King James and Charlton Heston here or anything, but it's "Though shalt not murder" not "kill" as evidenced by the jewish refugees going on a several generation long rampage through the entire region directly following the whole '10 commandments' episode. So at least war is still in.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby omgryebread » Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:18 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Malice wrote:1/3rd of a pregnancy

Technically, a trimester is a period of three months, not a third of a pregnancy. An elephant's pregnancy for example does last 7 trimesters. Although elephants don't call it that, I think. And my high school divided terms into trimesters, even though usually none of the students were pregnant.
[/pedantry]
No, technically, a trimester is one third of anything. It so happens that human pregnancy and the average school year are both 9 months.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby KittenKaboodle » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:57 am UTC

"My father and mother were honest, though poor—"
"Skip all that!" cried the Bellman in haste.
"If it once becomes dark, there's no chance of a Snark—
We have hardly a minute to waste!"

omgryebread wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Malice wrote:1/3rd of a pregnancy

Technically, a trimester is a period of three months, not a third of a pregnancy. An elephant's pregnancy for example does last 7 trimesters. Although elephants don't call it that, I think. And my high school divided terms into trimesters, even though usually none of the students were pregnant.
[/pedantry]
No, technically, a trimester is one third of anything. [citation needed] It so happens that human pregnancy and the average school year are both 9 months.

I can't find a source that agrees with you about "anything", Wiktionary says: "Etymology; From French; from Latin trimestris (“of three months”), from trēs (“three”) + mensis (“month”)."
http://animalscience.ag.utk.edu/ITCModules/glossary.htm does say 1/3 of a pregnancy (about 50 days for a Ewe, note the "animalscience") , but while "preganncy" is a little less off topic, "pregnancy" != "anything"
Again, a pregnancy, not "anything" , http://houstonzooblogs.org/elephant/tag/trimester/ implies that an elephant pregancy is 3 trimesters
I wanted to find a more prestigious source, say the Oxford English Dictionary, but a 12month (4 trimester) subsription costs around $300US, strangely that is more than the CD version which I assume one could use forever. Either way it was more than i wanted to pay, especialy since that is 10 times as much as I paid for my hardcopy Encyclpedia Britantica.
Image
On the internet, in Congress, in state legislatures, and everywhere. [/snark]

dedwrekka wrote:[
Garm wrote:How far can this be slippery sloped?

An unborn child can kill their parent legally if they attempt to abort it. (and the twin of the unborn child could attempt to kill the other unborn child)
A gardener (servent) can kill their employer for getting an abortion (master/mistress). Or vise-versa.

I think you are missing which direction the slope is sloping, if deadly force is justified to protect an unborn child, then surely the least the legislature can do is outlaw abortion murding children right?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: S. Dakota GOP look to legalize "pro-life" domestic terro

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:01 am UTC

If deadly force is justified to protect an unborn child, then surely the least the legislature can do is outlaw abortion murding children right?


It's less like a slippery slope and more like a sheer drop, seeing as the South Dakota GOP stated that this is specifically what they wanted to do.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests