North Dakota Ballot Measure Would Ban Abortions in all Circumstances No Exception

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

In a glorious display of stupid and more stupid the North Dakota state legislature has just a measure that would allow voters to vote on a personhood ammendment to the state constitution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/north-dakota-personhood_n_2934503.html

The key point here is this.

The amendment would ban abortion in the state, without exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, and it could affect the legality of some forms of birth control, stem cell research and in vitro fertilization.

Yeah I am at a loss for words. If there are any North Dakota Escapists out there you damn well better get out there and vote against this.

If you are somehow in favor of this well you can go fuck yourself. And don't bother trying to quote me and argue about it with me I'm not going to respond. Only a seriously deranged person would consider it ok to force a sexual assault victim to carry her rapist's baby to term or even deny her her the morning after pill. Or deny a woman with an ectopic pregnancy life saving medical treatment. I'm not going to waste my time.

...and the GOP REALLY wonders why they're losing the women and youth vote?

Times like these, I really just don't get it.

I don't see this law lasting very long once the personal cases start piling in, then the dumb fuckers who thought of this law would have to face the music.

CD-R:
Snip

I'm now going to get everyone I can get in contact with to vote in favor of this law.

Tanis:
...and the GOP REALLY wonders why they're losing the women and youth vote?

If it's any consolation a similar measure was put on the ballot in Mississippi and failed. So if Mississippi can vote this stupidity down North Dakota should be able to.

CD-R:

If you are somehow in favor of this well you can go fuck yourself. And don't bother trying to quote me and argue about it with me I'm not going to respond.

So tell me, o' reported one, why did you start the topic if you didn't want to discuss both sides of this issue? Me personally, I am not in favor of there being no exceptions.

Note to self: Avoid North Dakota. As a man, I'll never need an abortion, but I can understand why people would want or need them, including in instances of Rape, Incest or Death from complications at birth. This thing goes way way way to far. My family wouldn't even support this.

Yep, going to school here. Sigh, it is sadly not surprising, good news is that it will be struck down in a hurry in all likelihood.

This is after an attempt to ban plan B as well.

Shadowstar38:

CD-R:
Snip

I'm now going to get everyone I can get in contact with to vote in favor of this law.

Why? Do you actually support this, or do you want to spite the OP, or is it both?

Edit: Forgot to add my own opinion, so I will do so.

Why are they so inflexible? I mean, under no circumstance is what they're pushing for? Are they stupid?

The Rookie Gamer:

Shadowstar38:

CD-R:
Snip

I'm now going to get everyone I can get in contact with to vote in favor of this law.

Why? Do you actually support this, or do you want to spite the Op, or is it both?

Just spite. I didn't like how he worded the third paragraph.

The bill would never pass the supreme court the standard is states have an interest in protecting potential life but only to the point where it doesn't infringe upon a mothers right to choose or viability whichever comes first. In this situation you can only prevent abortion after viability which many states already do.

As a North Dakotan, I am:

A: Pissed off that elected officials voted for this stupid bill that goes directly against a ruling made by the Supreme Court of the United States

B: Confident that this bill will get struck down. Despite the impression that this bill gives, people in this state are overall not that big of dumbasses. We have quite the history of shooting down really stupid bills during a general election (Notably one that would outright abolish property tax despite that being the main way the state receives income, and another one that would legally require the University of North Dakota to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname)

C: Really happy to see my state make the news, even if it is for something so fucking stupid.

Edit: Upon doing more research, it seems that it isn't quite as bad as the OP makes it out to be, and would not outright ban abortion in the state. I mean, it is still more than I am comfortable with, but it isn't any worse than other states have passed.
Source: http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/394051/

Also, while ND only has one abortion clinic, we have only ever had one abortion clinic. There just aren't that many people in the state to warrant having any more.

Tanis:
...and the GOP REALLY wonders why they're losing the women and youth vote?

well, in this case it was a woman who sponsered it

"The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Margaret Sitte, R-Bismarck, passed the House by a 57-35 vote."

It is not QUITE the doom and gloom the OP sensationalized it as. Also, the supreme court might have something to say on the matter.

P.S. im pro-choice.

Roe v. Wade.

How do they really think this will stand?

PFt, don't they know that abortions rights should be chipped away at, rather than gotten rid of in one go?

thaluikhain:
PFt, don't they know that abortions rights should be chipped away at, rather than gotten rid of in one go?

Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?

I'm more confused about the people who don't understand the reasoning behind the measure than the measure itself. Pro-lifers are just that- they consider the fetus to have a right to life, or be alive, or whatever else. So, simple logic.

Is rape worse than murder? If no, then an abortion in the case of rape is unjustifiable. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Is incest worse than murder? Well, incest roughly doubles the chance of genetic issues cropping up because they're getting matching recessive traits. However, it takes centuries of incest for serious problems to start occurring with any kind of regularity. Incest really isn't that big of a deal. So an abortion in the case of incest is unjustifiable.

I can't really think of a justification for the last point. Trading a life for a potential life unbalances the scales a bit.

Ryotknife:

Tanis:
...and the GOP REALLY wonders why they're losing the women and youth vote?

well, in this case it was a woman who sponsered it

"The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Margaret Sitte, R-Bismarck, passed the House by a 57-35 vote."

It is not QUITE the doom and gloom the OP sensationalized it as. Also, the supreme court might have something to say on the matter.

P.S. im pro-choice.

Yeah, and I guess it's like a women support Shari Law, or the whole 'if a women is raped the rapists is forced to marry her' bit from the OT.

She sounds like the kind of person that would end up on Jerry Springer in one of those 'I'm black, but I hate black people' episodes.

Tanis:

Ryotknife:

Tanis:
...and the GOP REALLY wonders why they're losing the women and youth vote?

well, in this case it was a woman who sponsered it

"The resolution, sponsored by Sen. Margaret Sitte, R-Bismarck, passed the House by a 57-35 vote."

It is not QUITE the doom and gloom the OP sensationalized it as. Also, the supreme court might have something to say on the matter.

P.S. im pro-choice.

Yeah, and I guess it's like a women support Shari Law, or the whole 'if a women is raped the rapists is forced to marry her' bit from the OT.

She sounds like the kind of person that would end up on Jerry Springer in one of those 'I'm black, but I hate black people' episodes.

Maybe it's more like "I'm a woman and I hate murder". Pro-Life people see abortion as murder.

Wouldn't stand a chance the moment it got challenged.
...but I guess it's good that they keep demonstrating they are not beyond the "War on Women" yet. Voters need to be reminded, lest our collective short memories cause us to forget about these issues when the big elections come around.
I guess at least in North Dakota the voices that argue for moving away from Social Conservatism and being "the stupid party" aren't loud enough yet.

EDIT:

Crono1973:
Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?

It won't stick, is the thing. In some other states, they've managed to eliminate all but a few, one or even all abortion clinics through ridiculous big government intrusions and regulations that are clothed in supposedly making abortion "safer". In practice - as these people have admitted - it's about removing access to abortion altogether, but without opening yourself up to a challenge based on federal law.

Skeleon:
Wouldn't stand a chance the moment it got challenged.
...but I guess it's good that they keep demonstrating they are not beyond the "War on Women" yet. Voters need to be reminded, lest our collective short memories cause us to forget about these issues when the big elections come around.
I guess at least in North Dakota the voices that argue for moving away from Social Conservatism and being "the stupid party" aren't loud enough yet.

EDIT:

Crono1973:
Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?

It won't stick, is the thing. In some other states, they've managed to eliminate all but a few, one or even all abortion clinics through ridiculous big government intrusions and regulations that are clothed in supposedly making abortion "safer". In practice - as these people have admitted - it's about removing access to abortion altogether, but without opening yourself up to a challenge based on federal law.

War on Women...LOL.

These people believe abortion to be murder and so it makes perfect sense that they would oppose it. You too oppose what you consider to be murder, don't you?

My point is that they don't hate women, they hate murder. I wish people would atleast try to understand their opponent instead of sensationalizing things.

Crono1973:
War on Women...LOL.

These people believe abortion to be murder and so it makes perfect sense that they would oppose it. You too oppose what you consider to be murder too, don't you?

My point is that they don't hate women, they hate murder. I wish people would atleast try to understand their opponent instead of sensationalizing things.

I know that's what they believe. I know they think what they do is good. I also know it leads them to do awful things like trying to remove rights and force unnecessary medical procedures on women. I'm more an outcomes-focused kind of guy, so their misconception-based motivations are less important to me, honestly.
"War on Women" is simply a helpful media-catchphrase, like "War on Terror", "War on Drugs" or "War on Christmas". They're inaccurate but everybody knows what they refer to.

Skeleon:

Crono1973:
War on Women...LOL.

These people believe abortion to be murder and so it makes perfect sense that they would oppose it. You too oppose what you consider to be murder too, don't you?

My point is that they don't hate women, they hate murder. I wish people would atleast try to understand their opponent instead of sensationalizing things.

I know that's what they believe. I know they think what they do is good. I also know it leads them to do awful things like trying to remove rights and force unnecessary medical procedures on women. I'm more an outcomes-focused kind of guy, so their misconception-based motivations are less important to me, honestly.
"War on Women" is simply a helpful media-catchphrase, like "War on Terror", "War on Drugs" or "War on Christmas". They're inaccurate but everybody knows what they refer to.

As an outcome focused kind of guy, I bet you would find the abortion numbers staggering. I can't remember what they are but the last time I heard them they were in the millions.

This won't stand for sure but I believe that states should challenge federal rulings if the voters want it.

Crono1973:
As an outcome focused kind of guy, I bet you would find the abortion numbers staggering. I can't remember what they are but the last time I heard them they were in the millions.

Over what timespan? Anyway, the main point is that you need to adress the causes, not the symptoms. It's why Social Conservatism is such a failure when it comes to this: Abstinence-only education mixed with outright disdain for contraception and avoiding the topic altogether, for instance. It's no coincidence that states with Social Conservative policies have the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the USA. Prevent unwanted pregnancies if you want to prevent abortions. Nobody likes abortions and you'll find countless pro-choice advocates who'd argue for trying to reduce abortion rates. But do it the proper way, not through removal of rights and big government imposition.

This won't stand for sure but I believe that states should challenge federal rulings if the voters want it.

You'll have to qualify that statement. Just because a majority of people in a state want something doesn't mean they should be able to challenge, nor implement it. Not only to go back to slavery (no majority of people can be allowed to vote to enslave a minority of people again), but much more recently the opposition to, say, interracial marriage (which is still surprisingly alive and well in some parts of the USA). There is a limit to what voter-majority can be allowed to do before becoming a tyranny of the majority. Perhaps you would disagree on the question of access to abortion, but I'd hope you'd agree to it in principle at least.

Anyway, if they get to call abortion "murder", then I get to call what they're doing a "war".

Skeleon:

Crono1973:
As an outcome focused kind of guy, I bet you would find the abortion numbers staggering. I can't remember what they are but the last time I heard them they were in the millions.

Over what timespan? Anyway, the main point is that you need to adress the causes, not the symptoms. It's why Social Conservatism is such a failure when it comes to this: Abstinence-only education mixed with outright disdain for contraception and avoiding the topic altogether, for instance. It's no coincidence that states with Social Conservative policies have the highest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the USA. Prevent unwanted pregnancies if you want to prevent abortions.

This won't stand for sure but I believe that states should challenge federal rulings if the voters want it.

You'll have to qualify that statement. Just because a majority of people in a state want something doesn't mean they should be able to challenge, nor implement it. Not only to go back to slavery (no majority of people can be allowed to vote to enslave a minority of people again), but much more recently the opposition to, say, interracial marriage (which is still surprisingly alive and well in some parts of the USA). There is a limit to what voter-majority can be allowed to do before becoming a tyranny of the majority. Perhaps you would disagree on the question of access to abortion, but I'd hope you'd agree to it in principle at least.

Anyway, if they get to call abortion "murder", then I get to call what they're doing a "war".

I don't think anyone would vote to bring back slavery but I do see why people consider abortion to be murder. I may not agree with it but it's easy to see the logic.

Oh as for the abortion numbers, how far back, I don't know...since it became legal.

Ok, you call it a War on Women if you want.

Crono1973:
I don't think anyone would vote to bring back slavery...

Which is why I didn't limit myself to slavery but gave another example of interracial marriage. Right now we have the "Why can't we be segregated?"-thread on the first page. There were polls done in some Southern states with sizeable pluralities in favour of making interracial marriage illegal again. I'd argue that - even if those numbers reached a majority in those states - they shouldn't be allowed to overrule the federal standards on interracial marriage.

...but I do see why people consider abortion to be murder. I may not agree with it but it's easy to see the logic.

Yeah, if one agrees with the premises, one can arrive at that result logically. But I think those premises are faulty. Everything I've learnt convinces me of that, especially if we're talking about abortion just in general.

Skeleon:

Crono1973:
I don't think anyone would vote to bring back slavery...

Which is why I didn't limit myself to slavery but gave another example of interracial marriage. Right now we have the "Why can't we be segregated?"-thread on the first page. There were polls done in some Southern states with sizeable pluralities in favour of making interracial marriage illegal again. I'd argue that - even if those numbers reached a majority in those states - they shouldn't be allowed to overrule the federal standards on interracial marriage.

...but I do see why people consider abortion to be murder. I may not agree with it but it's easy to see the logic.

Yeah, if one agrees with the premises, one can arrive at that result logically. But I think those premises are faulty. Everything I've learnt convinces me of that, especially if we're talking about abortion just in general.

I haven't seen the segregated thread and I am guessing I probably don't want to. All I can say in defense is that if a state did try that, it would be shot down. I still think a states autonomy is a good thing.

Well, hopefully it doesn't pass. I know America has its fair share of idiots, but I also know it has its fair share of sane, rational people as well. I'm confidant this shit will not pass. At least I hope I am.

While I'm not for abortion this goes way too far. Although even if it does pass it will be struck down as unconstitutional so I'm not that worried about it.

I'm pro life and would love to see Roe v Wade overturned (yes now you can start your witch hunt on me) however even I disagree with this. There are certain rare exceptions where I think it should be allowed, however I feel the best way to go about this issue is to provide life services and encourage women to keep their babies or give them up for adoption.

Abortion is wrong. End of story. Everyone knows this even if they want to try and spin it or somehow justify it. Abortionists and so called pro-"choice" people are being hypocrites. If I gave you the "choice" to either remain where you are or become baby again and be transported into a womb that was about to be aborted, what would you choose?

You would choose to live. So what makes you think that baby wouldn't choose the same option? You're not pro-"choice", you have no right to make that choice for that baby.

That being said, the Supreme Court is the law of the land as far as I'm concerned. So for now I have to sit down and let this happen. But eventually it will be overturned and future generations will look back and consider this issue to be the biggest sin of our time.

EDIT: And just so we're clear, I think ND ballot measure is stupid and the wrong way to go about this.

TheLycanKing144:

Abortion is wrong. End of story.

Abortion is right. End of story.

Well, now that we've both provided equally strong cases for our position, I suppose we're in a stalemate, so we should cough up some proper citations if we hope to resolve it.

Everyone knows this even if they want to try and spin it or somehow justify it.

Do not presume to tell me what I "know". I am the owner of my mind, not you. I am the sole authority on the contents of my mind, not you.

Abortionists and so called pro-"choice" people are being hypocrites.

In your opinion.

If I gave you the "choice" to either remain where you are or become baby again and be transported into a womb that was about to be aborted, what would you choose?

I'd choose you should play the role of John Kramer if the Saw franchise rolls around again. Sounds the kind of "test" he'd think of. With maybe the quirk that "choosing to stay where I am" would be the "fail" condition and all.

I kid, I kid. I just wanted to make the reference cause I've seen the movies recently.

You would choose to live.

You do not know that.

So what makes you think that baby wouldn't choose the same option? You're not pro-"choice", you have no right to make that choice for that baby.

Since your assumption is wrong, this is a fallacy.

THAT SAID; You are entitled to your position. You are entitled to believe abortion is wrong, and to argue in favor of that position, elaborate on it, present sources in support of it. What you are not entitled to is assuming moral high ground. What you are not entitled to is say "I'm right, you're wrong", and expect that makes you objectively right.

Vegosiux:

TheLycanKing144:

Abortion is wrong. End of story.

Abortion is right. End of story.

Well, now that we've both provided equally strong cases for our position, I suppose we're in a stalemate, so we should cough up some proper citations if we hope to resolve it.

Everyone knows this even if they want to try and spin it or somehow justify it.

Do not presume to tell me what I "know". I am the owner of my mind, not you. I am the sole authority on the contents of my mind, not you.

Abortionists and so called pro-"choice" people are being hypocrites.

In your opinion.

If I gave you the "choice" to either remain where you are or become baby again and be transported into a womb that was about to be aborted, what would you choose?

I'd choose you should play the role of John Kramer if the Saw franchise rolls around again. Sounds the kind of "test" he'd think of. With maybe the quirk that "choosing to stay where I am" would be the "fail" condition and all.

I kid, I kid. I just wanted to make the reference cause I've seen the movies recently.

You would choose to live.

You do not know that.

So what makes you think that baby wouldn't choose the same option? You're not pro-"choice", you have no right to make that choice for that baby.

Since your assumption is wrong, this is a fallacy.

THAT SAID; You are entitled to your position. You are entitled to believe abortion is wrong, and to argue in favor of that position, elaborate on it, present sources in support of it. What you are not entitled to is assuming moral high ground. What you are not entitled to is say "I'm right, you're wrong", and expect that makes you objectively right.

^Everything Vego said is 100% correct.

I'm against it and would strongly urge all people in ND to vote against it.

People in the United States really seem to care far too much about what other people do with their bodies that in no way affects them.

Land of the free, right?

Abomination:
People in the United States really seem to care far too much about what other people do with their bodies that in no way affects them.

Land of the free, right?

it is a morally grey area. On the one hand, killing children is bad. On the other hand, so is telling someone what to do with their body.

There is no clear cut right or wrong answer.

Ryotknife:

Abomination:
People in the United States really seem to care far too much about what other people do with their bodies that in no way affects them.

Land of the free, right?

it is a morally grey area. On the one hand, killing children is bad. On the other hand, so is telling someone what to do with their body.

There is no clear cut right or wrong answer.

It most certainly is cut right & wrong.

A fertilized egg isn't sentient. A child is sentient. A child in a mother's womb is HER child, nobody else's. If she wishes to abort it then it is HER decision, nobody else's. Unless that particular individual wants to foot the bill for raising the child then MAYBE they might have a say in the proceedings but if that baby is not born how does it affect them in any way?

This is about telling people what they can or can not do with their own bodies when what they would do with their own bodies affects nobody but themselves.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here