South Dakota Mulls Changes to a Bill Whose Language Could Make Killing in Defense of the Unborn 'Justifiable'

Debate on a controversial "justifiable homicide" bill before the South Dakota state legislature has been postponed until next week after receiving a swarm of media attention Tuesday.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Phil Jensen, is considering altering the bill's language.

At issue in HB-1171 is an expansion of the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" to possibly include killing in the defense of an unborn child. Taken aback by the massive amounts of media attention the story garnered Tuesday, Jensen is mulling a change in the bill's wording.

As it currently reads, the bill would stipulate: "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 ..."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/so...d=12931794



Why bother having a Supreme Court of the USA when even after a ruling, states continue to violate the "law of the land"

Why bother having a Supreme Court of the USA when even after a ruling, states continue to violate the "law of the land"

I think homicide should be justified is someone is forcibly trying to abort a child the mother wants.

That is, if someone, say the baby daddy that doesn't want to pay child support, takes to punching her in the gut to try to kill the baby, someone would be justified in killing him to prevent further gut punches.

But really, what is the difference between the man that punches the woman and ends up killing the baby and the abortion doctor that kills the baby?
Just the fact that the mother doesn't want to kill the baby?

If you look at the baby as nothing more then a parasite, how is one worse then the other, except for the fact that the mother was assaulted?

But really, what is the difference between the man that punches the woman and ends up killing the baby and the abortion doctor that kills the baby?
Just the fact that the mother doesn't want to kill the baby?

If you look at the baby as nothing more then a parasite, how is one worse then the other, except for the fact that the mother was assaulted?

In one case the mother agrees to harbor the fetus. In the other, she doesn't.

But really, what is the difference between the man that punches the woman and ends up killing the baby and the abortion doctor that kills the baby?
Just the fact that the mother doesn't want to kill the baby?

If you look at the baby as nothing more then a parasite, how is one worse then the other, except for the fact that the mother was assaulted?

That does not answer the question of why the child should be worthy of protection in one case and not the other.

B. The fetus is not able to survive w/o the support of the mother. No one has a claim on her involuntary servitude.

[devils advocate] A newborn child is also not able to survive w/o the support of the mother. [/devils advocate]

But not a specific mother. The state can raise/adopt out the child.