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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Abomination:

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.

Now keep in mind im pro-choice here.

But according to your logic, I can make the argument that a mother could shoot her 8 year old child and that would not be wrong, after all it is her child, she owns it. Is not a person owning another person's life also morally wrong?

When exactly does something become human? When it is born? seconds before it is born? a day before it is born? a week? a month? two months? When something becomes human is still a matter of debate. Now, personally I say the moment the child can feel pain and/or fear that it can be considered a human being, but that is just an opinion. There is nothing solid to prove my opinion, nor is there anything solid for those who believe that a human being is created either earlier or later.

Now before you think im just on an anti-choice rant here (which would be strange), the fact of the matter is i can paint both sides as the worst examples of mankind with ease for their beliefs. Objectively, if you take a step back, anyone can come to the conclusion that this is a morally grey area. You may have a belief has to which one is worse, but belief is all that it is. There is nothing solid behind either sides belief.

EDIT: btw, you can have the last word on this, im not really all that interested in arguing with my own side.

Not G. Ivingname:
Heller v. Roe.

How do they really think this will stand?

Heller .... versus Roe?

Uhhhhhh, perhaps you mean Roe vs Wade? Or DC vs Heller?

Both are controversial rulings that opposite sides of the political spectrum like to ignore, though. Sorta like Kelo

On this topic, I think a lot of people want to force the supreme court to address Roe vs Wade again. Either to solidify the ruling's precedent or overturn it outright

Ryotknife:
But according to your logic, I can make the argument that a mother could shoot her 8 year old child

No.

Abomination:
A fertilized egg isn't sentient. A child is sentient.

Sentience is the key issue. People have varying degrees of when a child in the womb becomes sentient but I am certain we all know that until it actually starts showing signs of cognitive brain activity the embryo is not sentient.

Abomination:
Sentience is the key issue. People have varying degrees of when a child in the womb becomes sentient but I am certain we all know that until it actually starts showing signs of cognitive brain activity the embryo is not sentient.

Yes, this is the crux of the issue to me. This is why these sorts of bills make zero sense to me.
In past debates, I've argued using embryology to decide where I'd put a "deadline" of where a zygote has developed enough to be considered a child. And you know what? I've never been able to pinpoint an exact moment in time because it's such a fluid development.
Plus, at one point the brain is distinct as an organ; is it networking yet? If it is networking, does that mean there's capability for suffering in it? If there's capability for suffering in it, does that automatically override the possible suffering of the mother, a fully developed human being with interactions and experiences? And so on.
It's a difficult issue, to be sure, where to draw the line. Wherever we do, it'll be arbitrary to some extent.
But one thing is easy. Very easy: Directly after conception? Or in the early days and weeks when no discernable organs exist? There's no possibility for sentience or capability for suffering. That's the easy timespan. And that's why it's clear that these personhood amendments from conception are wrong, morally and factually.

EDIT: Oh, Skeleon hit on a lot of the points I made while I was typing. I guess I should've refreshed the page before posting. Oy, he hits on most of the points I made without getting personal so you may just want to scroll up if you wanna get the gist of this post.

Abomination:

Ryotknife:
But according to your logic, I can make the argument that a mother could shoot her 8 year old child

No.

Abomination:
A fertilized egg isn't sentient. A child is sentient.

Sentience is the key issue. People have varying degrees of when a child in the womb becomes sentient but I am certain we all know that until it actually starts showing signs of cognitive brain activity the embryo is not sentient.

And then there is the argument of viability, the point at which a child can survive outside of the uterus. I saw an ultrasound video of a woman getting an abortion. In that video it was clear the child was resisting as best it could. Sentient is defined as "experiencing sensation or feeling" or the ability to feel. If a child is able to "resist" abortion at an age before the age of viability, does that mean they are also sentient prior to that age?

This argument is not simply an issue of other people telling a mother (or would-be mother) what she can or cannot do what she wants with her body because if sentience is key, as you seem to have said in your post, then this is a matter of what a mother can do with her child's body/to her baby and not simply a matter dealing with the mother's body.

Oh and I would go searching for a video like the one I referenced in order to provide evidence for my claims, however I really do not wish to go through that again. Seeing that kind of event at a young age was almost traumatic to be honest. Some would describe it as "eye-opening", but I would not. I am not sure if it would be appropriate to insert a video of what some (not me) would consider murder on a place as public as the forums.

CM156:

Not G. Ivingname:
Heller v. Roe.

How do they really think this will stand?

Heller .... versus Roe?

Uhhhhhh, perhaps you mean Roe vs Wade? Or DC vs Heller?

Both are controversial rulings that opposite sides of the political spectrum like to ignore, though. Sorta like Kelo

On this topic, I think a lot of people want to force the supreme court to address Roe vs Wade again. Either to solidify the ruling's precedent or overturn it outright

How dare you correct my stupid mistake make it seem like I just editted my original post to be accurate gave the wrong case. D:<

>_>

<_<

In any case, I doubt any challenge to RvW would fly with the current supreme court, if they even would hear the case.

Not G. Ivingname:
Roe v. Wade.

How do they really think this will stand?

It may be a challenge to Roe v. Wade. Get to the court and even if they lose, make their arguments that this decision is loony publicized. It will make the court have to revisit and re-defend a lawless, power abusing hallucination.

I'm irked that TC doesn't say WHY this is stupid. Politically stupid? It will cause it's backers to lose bunches of elections? Intellectually stupid as there is no reasoning behind it? Or stupid cuz s/he hates it?

For the record: I am marginally pro choice politically. I am also pro-judicial restraint, even when a lack of restraint works in my favor. An example of it NOT working in my favor has been the court's criminal law and social control jurisprudence.

Kopikatsu:
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.

If you start off with the premise that the rights of a ball of cells in a woman's body outweigh the rights of the woman, then the conclusions you draw are reasonable.
captcha easy as cake

They do realise that when a Woman has a miscariage, the body can sometimes fail to nautrally abort the featus (Abortion being the correct Medical term), then an Abortion would be required to be induced or given so that the miscariage can be removed from the mother... and if not she dies...

Yeah... the USA is stupid.

Banning abortion is one thing, banning an entire medical method is just fucking ludicrous.

--------------------------

Now for some others who may disagree I'm going to inject some foriegn religious culture here to try and make the point.
The Romans believed that the soul entered the body through the ears at birth, and left through the ears after death. This explains the rather extensive armour of the Roman helmet dedicated to ear protection.

Now Imagine that a group of radicals wanted to take this a step further and wanted to ban every practice that involved interfering with the ears, other than washing them...

That is the level of stupid this legislation is.

Yeahhhhhh. I'll keep the rights to my body. Thanks.

If I were raped, impregnated and told I couldn't have an abortion, I'd probably just off myself. That's just sick.

I saw a statistic, (way too lazy to look it up) that said in 31(?) states, a rapist can go to court over his right to see his child. (the one that was conceived over the rape of the mother). In North Dakota, I just feel this almost enforces rape. It takes every choice and right away from the woman.

She's reduced to her bodily functions. She got raped. So what? She has to have the baby of her rapist. Dear god, I would kill myself in her shoes. He can even request to see the child after it's born (if he is in those certain states). She can't even access plan b. She has no access to any sort of help. What is she? Just a brood mare? What if guys could get pregnant? Would this look any different?

Why can't they just leave women alone? I didn't pick my vagina up at the government store. I wasn't issued it. Why is it the State's f*cking business (pardon the language, but this stuff pisses me off.) what goes on with my body? I like this quote I saw a while back.

"If you can't trust me with a choice, why are you trusting me with a child?"

At least the bill is logically consistent in what it supports.

I'm pro-life and I'd love to see it pass, however I would make an exception when it comes to the mother's life. If there is a situation, where I have to choose between both of them dying and only one of them dying, I'll choose the latter.

al4674:
At least the bill is logically consistent in what it supports.

I'm pro-life and I'd love to see it pass, however I would make an exception when it comes to the mother's life. If there is a situation, where I have to choose between both of them dying and only one of them dying, I'll choose the latter.

Just for my curiosity.

What about in terms of rape? In your opinion, would abortion be an option to the violated mother?

If not, do you think the rapist father should have rights to see the child? Should he be forced to pay child support (assuming he's not in jail).

Also, what about the argument, if a father doesn't want the child while the mother is pregnant, he can opt out of paying child support? Would you support that since the mother is ultimately forced into being a mother?

Just curious is all.

Crono1973:

Tanis:

Ryotknife:

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.

You're right.
Because if it had been a legitimate rape, then there wouldn't have been a pregnancy.
Or maybe it's because ever sperm and egg is a life, so don't jerk off or have a period...else you wanna be know as a cereal killer.

Again:
Republicans...do they REALLY wonder why they're losing ground?

Gorfias:

Not G. Ivingname:
Roe v. Wade.

How do they really think this will stand?

It may be a challenge to Roe v. Wade. Get to the court and even if they lose, make their arguments that this decision is loony publicized. It will make the court have to revisit and re-defend a lawless, power abusing hallucination.

Err, no. The SC has the right to refuse to hear a case. Considering that the Republicans have spent decades trying to pretend the SC deceision doesn't matter to them because they disagree with it, I wouldn't hold your breath that the same SC would give them the time of day, let alone overrule Roe v Wade because fundementally; nothing has changed. The facts all those years ago are still true today, the Pro-Life crowd can't actually prove that a fetus is alive, most laws in the US don't regonise killing a pregnant woman as counting as two murders, etc. etc.

These are all difficult questions that the pro-life view must tackle and it took me a while to develop a consistent case, so these are my answers:

ShiningAmber:
What about in terms of rape? In your opinion, would abortion be an option to the violated mother?

Given that prolifers view the fetus as an independent human being (and if they are human beings, they are entitled equal treatment before the law), we see abortion as murder. In the case of rape, one evil deed does not justify another evil deed. The human being that is conceived bears no responsibility for the actions of his father. The conceived person, like the mother, is also a victim here. It is moral hypocrisy to condemn a man for violating the woman and treating her as an object while supporting the mother while she violates the unborn human and treats him/her as some medical ailment that needs to be removed.

Given that rape is a traumatizing experience for the woman, it is highly unlikely that she'll ever forget the experiece regardless of whether the child is born or not. A civilized society does not give the wronged party the right to kill an innocent blood-relative of the offender.

Still, since the human life was conceived without the mother's consent, she should not have the responsibility to raise the child once he/she is born. The state should take care of such cases and divert funds to build quality orphanages. The rapist should cover most of the expenses that go into the raising of the said child. Sadly, since abortion is a cheaper and a more convenient method, it is unlikely that we'll see such a switch from the government.

ShiningAmber:
If not, do you think the rapist father should have rights to see the child? Should he be forced to pay child support (assuming he's not in jail).

Once he has paid his debt to society, he should have the right to see the person that came into being by his direct actions as long as the mother and/or the conceived person allows it. And yes, he should cover ALL of the expenses that go into raising the child until he becomes a legal adult.

ShiningAmber:
Also, what about the argument, if a father doesn't want the child while the mother is pregnant, he can opt out of paying child support? Would you support that since the mother is ultimately forced into being a mother?

No, the father should not be able to opt out. Since the mother and the father are directly responsible for the creation of a new human being - they bear full responsibility for his continued welfare until that child becomes an adult. Why should the innocent human being have his right to life violated simply because two people were careless, couldn't control their desires or simply made an arbitrary change in mind.

Call me old fashioned, but people should have the discipline to subvert their carnal desires under their intellectual control and reserve it for marriage and when they are truly ready and willing to have children. Sex should not be some casual way of having fun and pleasure because of the sole reason that from such activity, an innocent human being with fundamental rights may arise.

al4674:
These are all difficult questions that the pro-life view must tackle and it took me a while to develop a consistent case, so these are my answers:

ShiningAmber:
What about in terms of rape? In your opinion, would abortion be an option to the violated mother?

Given that prolifers view the fetus as an independent human being (and if they are human beings, they are entitled equal treatment before the law), we see abortion as murder. In the case of rape, one evil deed does not justify another evil deed. The human being that is conceived bears no responsibility for the actions of his father. The conceived person, like the mother, is also a victim here. It is moral hypocrisy to condemn a man for violating the woman and treating her as an object while supporting the mother while she violates the unborn human and treats him/her as some medical ailment that needs to be removed.

Alright, let's stop there.

Define human. Define the point at which a sperm and an egg cease to be a cluster of cells and become something that is human and alive. Then prove it.

I'll save you the effort, you can't. This is one of those areas where we literally do not have the capacity to make such absolute statements by dint of our limitations.

So therefore, what moral hypocrisy is there? On one hand we have something (the raped woman) who is demonstratably human; we can percieve her and her intelligence, her sentience, her breathing, her pulse, all the charactersitics we associate with being alive. We can even see that she passes the most basic test of life; "I think, therefore I am."

Now on the other hand, we have a fetus. During the timeframe where abortion is orderarily permitted it does not have any form of intelligence or sentience, it does not breath, it does not interact with the world, it cannot survive if we remove it from the womb, in short, it can't pass the most basic test of life.

So what moral hypocrisy is there? One of these things is undisputably alive, the other is not undisputably alive, nor is there any concesses on when it becomes alive instead of merely being the potential to be alive.

Given that rape is a traumatizing experience for the woman, it is highly unlikely that she'll ever forget the experiece regardless of whether the child is born or not. A civilized society does not give the wronged party the right to kill an innocent blood-relative of the offender.

I take it you've niether been raped nor given birth, so your thoughts on what's "highly unlikey" or not is utterly irrelevant. Needless to say there are some women who have been raped and demonstratably showed signs of suffering further mental trauma at giving birth which in and of itself is a highly stressful event.

Now time for Anedotal Evidence time; I have a friend who has been raped and gotten pregnant due to it. She didn't chose to get an abortion, but the child died anyway. Despite never wishing to get an abortion herself, she doesn't fault rape victims who do chose to get abortions and is very much pro-choice. So who are you to tell her that she's wrong?

Still, since the human life was conceived without the mother's consent, she should not have the responsibility to raise the child once he/she is born. The state should take care of such cases and divert funds to build quality orphanages. The rapist should cover most of the expenses that go into the raising of the said child. Sadly, since abortion is a cheaper and a more convenient method, it is unlikely that we'll see such a switch from the government.

And what if the woman doesn't want to spend nine months pregnant because of something she didn't chose? This may suprise you, but pregnancy is not easy. The woman would have to change her entire lifestyle, she won't be able to work for the last few months, she'll be dealing with the physical side of things for months after the child has been delivered, not to mention the ever-present risk of dying in childbirth.

So you don't think she should have to raise the child, but you think she should be forced to carry it to term and completely change her life, all because of your beliefs.

This is my main bone of contention with pro-lifers; forcing other people to live by your beliefs that they don't share, for reasons you can't even prove.

Call me old fashioned,

I'll call you woefully out of touch with how humans live.

but people should have the discipline to subvert their carnal desires under their intellectual control and reserve it for marriage and when they are truly ready and willing to have children. Sex should not be some casual way of having fun and pleasure because of the sole reason that from such activity, an innocent human being with fundamental rights may arise.

ANd I say, who the fuck are you to tell people how they should live their lives? No honestly, just who the fuck are you to tell other people how they should live, who are you to dictate just waht things are for? Are you some form of subject matter expert? Are you God who created the universe and knows all it's secrets? Just what gives you the right to tell others how to live their lives but doesn't give them the right to do the same to you?

Shaoken:

Gorfias:

Not G. Ivingname:
Roe v. Wade.

How do they really think this will stand?

It may be a challenge to Roe v. Wade. Get to the court and even if they lose, make their arguments that this decision is loony publicized. It will make the court have to revisit and re-defend a lawless, power abusing hallucination.

Err, no. The SC has the right to refuse to hear a case. Considering that the Republicans have spent decades trying to pretend the SC deceision doesn't matter to them because they disagree with it, I wouldn't hold your breath that the same SC would give them the time of day, let alone overrule Roe v Wade because fundementally; nothing has changed. The facts all those years ago are still true today, the Pro-Life crowd can't actually prove that a fetus is alive, most laws in the US don't regonise killing a pregnant woman as counting as two murders, etc. etc.

If pass a cop with radar doing 95 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, he can choose not to chase me. If he doesn't, for me, it is as if the zone doesn't exist. If I hate that law, this is a win for me. If he does ticket me, I get my day in court.

If no one challenges this law, RVW doesn't exist in that jurisdictional for practical purposes (they'd still be in violation, like me speeding, but it isn't enforced) or it goes to court and they get to have their say again.

As you write, most laws in the US don't recognize killing a pregnant woman as counting as two murders. If some do and they aren't being challanged, what does that mean?

Before I comment, I just want to point out that I believe that abortions should be more restircted than they are now (though not illegal before a certain point), and that I will try going for that once I am in politics. Are we clear? Good? Good, now then......

If I lived in North Dakota, I would downvote this in a flash. Its just too restrictive in my eyes and would do more harm than good, even if the point is to try and get Roe v. Wade overturned. I will wait for more senseable anti-abortion legislation before voting for it.......

At least Kansas is being sane in thier anti-abortion laws.

Kopikatsu:
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.

By that logic any woman having a period or any man masturbating is causing a wrong. The pro-choice crowd looks at it as women have the right to decide what happen to their own body.

a fertilized egg is still just a group of cells, same as sperm or an unfertalized egg. I don't know when it is right to consider it a fetus, or when to consider a fetus a human, but to consider the moment of fertilization a new human is not correct.

(face palm) Goddammit North Dakota... do they really think people will stand for this?

Not G. Ivingname:
Roe v. Wade.

How do they really think this will stand?

Exactly. It doesn't stand a chance. It's just one more Red State that is out of touch with the rest of the 21st century. What annoys me even more is how they claim to be about personal freedoms and lack of government intrusion into private lives, yet they are completely hypocritical on said issues: abortion; drugs; equality; 4th amendment; etc, etc...

Forcing a women to carry a baby to term is making the women a slave.

@HecticAdlay
While I've seen worse in my job and education for it, I fully expect you'll get taken care of quite quickly posting something like this. Spoiler it or leave a link to your propaganda-material, don't post it like that.

As for your question (I doubt you want an actual answer, though), personally I have no perfect answer. I can tell you that the line is nowhere near conception, though. No brain, no organs in general, no capability for suffering. Not a human. Not a child yet.
Perhaps when the brain has formed? But that's insufficient. Perhaps when the brain can perceive pain? Perhaps when the fetus can survive outside the womb with medical aid?
But even if those come into play, you can't draw an absolute line because you need to take the circumstances into account: Is the mother in danger? Was she raped? Is there strong emotional, psychological etc. damage risked? You need to weigh the damages at risk, the damages to a fully formed, feeling, thinking human being and to her developing child.
In Germany, the line is at twelve weeks, which is more or less in line with brain development. Off by a few of weeks at most. After that, you need a justification for abortion, but it's not an absolutist prohibition. A woman can get an abortion way later if she needs it. Sounds sensible to me.

Anyway, the good thing with choice is that you are free to carry a baby to term if you want to, no matter what. So your decisions are respected. But you don't get to force your decisions onto other people. Simple as that. You don't have to understand why other people think differently than you. You just have to respect their rights.

ShiningAmber:
Yeahhhhhh. I'll keep the rights to my body. Thanks.

If I were raped, impregnated and told I couldn't have an abortion, I'd probably just off myself. That's just sick.

The reality is that women were able to get abortions even pre-legalisation: it was akin to many prohibitions such as alcohol on the 1920s or narcotics now. As long as you knew the right people, something could be done. The risk was higher, obviously, if something went wrong.

If nothing else, women will go to somewhere that does do it now travel is so cheap and easy. Abortion tourism: quick holiday in Canada or Mexico, job done.

Agema:

ShiningAmber:
Yeahhhhhh. I'll keep the rights to my body. Thanks.

If I were raped, impregnated and told I couldn't have an abortion, I'd probably just off myself. That's just sick.

The reality is that women were able to get abortions even pre-legalisation: it was akin to many prohibitions such as alcohol on the 1920s or narcotics now. As long as you knew the right people, something could be done. The risk was higher, obviously, if something went wrong.

If nothing else, women will go to somewhere that does do it now travel is so cheap and easy. Abortion tourism: quick holiday in Canada or Mexico, job done.

That is what concerns me. This sort of legislation pushes women to the extremes that could ultimately hurt them or even kill them. Banning abortion won't stop women from wanting it. Granted I am pro-choice here. If abortion were banned, I would encourage women who desired an abortion to seek it elsewhere in the safest way possible. As a victim of sexual assault, I would doubly encourage it.

But, what of the women who lack the funds to do so, i.e. travel to Mexico or Canada? Do they risk their bodily health or even their lives to get an abortion from a not so safe source? This bill doesn't preserve life. It pushes women to the extremes in order to protect their own lives. It takes away any choice that they have.

A rape victim violated against her will. Her choice taken away.
A rape victim impregnated against her will. Her choice taken away.
A rape victim told she cannot have an abortion, because 'Two wrongs do not make a right.' Her choice taken away.

When can a woman have a choice? Simply because her body is different than male counterparts, her rights are different. Is she not a person? Is her bodily integrity and soundness of mind important? How can someone argue to two wrongs don't make a right in regards to abortion, while this woman is being repeatedly violated by first a rapist then the State? When does the sanctity of her life come into play? Why is it she has less rights simply because of her physical body? Is she not a person too?

Sorry to get on my soap box. I'm not ranting to you either or bashing you

this is ridiculous. regardless of personal feelings of religious beliefs, if a woman is impregnated by rape, or her life is at risk there is no reason to deny them an abortion. Afterall they didn't have control over what happened to them, or if a pregnancy turns bad.

i'm pro-choice. but even people against abortion i've talked to say it is justified in the case of rape or life-endangerment. so what the hell North Dakota?

While I do support abortions only to protect the life of the mother, being pro-choice is honestly no different to me than supporting genocide. If you believe life starts at conception, Which I do, then abortion is the worst mass murder in the history of the world, since 1980 over 1.2 billion abortions have taken place, this is 100 times the number in the holocaust, This senseless murder of our youngest and most innocent is absolutely wrong. also, with the incredibly low birthrate among the developed nations, we really can't afford to keep killing our unborn children. also the fact that because of so many abortions (50 million in the us) is creating the aging population trend and ruining social security, also, with fewer and fewer children being born, family names and traditions are disappearing. Also, Abortions often have very negative effects on the mother, So wy do I support North Dakota, Because i want to see this genocide of unborn children ended.

FranzVonHoetzendorf:
we really can't afford to keep killing our unborn children. also the fact that because of so many abortions (50 million in the us) is creating the aging population trend and ruining social security, also, with fewer and fewer children being born, family names and traditions are disappearing.

Over-simplification there, women who have abortions at a young age are more likely to have then later.

On a personal level I think it's an idiotic law, and every women should have the right to have an abortion but in a way I understand why they would want this law, to them it's murder plain and simple and why should an innocent life die no matter the circumstances.

I completely disagree with them but I can understand their logic behind it, quite sad really.

dmase:
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.

Just out of curiosity, what is the legal standard that "viability" is based on here? I'm sure that the age at which a fetus is viable has gone down considerably since Roe v Wade, does this standard go down with it?

I've always wondered what the pro-abortion stance would be if humanity ever developed external wombs and the capacity to transplant fetuses, but that's not really here nor there.

lowhat:

dmase:
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.

Just out of curiosity, what is the legal standard that "viability" is based on here? I'm sure that the age at which a fetus is viable has gone down considerably since Roe v Wade, does this standard go down with it?

I've always wondered what the pro-abortion stance would be if humanity ever developed external wombs and the capacity to transplant fetuses, but that's not really here nor there.

Pretty much, people think Roe v Wade has never been challenged or had the opportunity to be overturned. It really has multiple times because every state went to making person hood bills I believe it was 90's and one from congress in early 2000.

http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/A-History-of-Key-Abortion-Rulings-of-the-US-Supreme-Court.aspx

The Casey cases are some of the most important because they redefine some things started by roe. Also I was wrong with my original statement the new standard is a state has the right to protect potential life as long as it doesn't put undue burden on a mother.

The accepted thought is yeah, as we develop better methods for aborting babies and probably cloning we could probably "grow" babies making a normal abortion where the child dies illegal. But I'm still not completely confident saying that because different states have different abortion laws. One might ban abortion after 22 weeks another 25 weeks, viability WAS more like a baseline to which states could make their own laws after the viability mark passed, originally. That question would probably end up going to the supreme court when a 10 week all fetus can survive in a incubator.

Shaoken:

al4674:
These are all difficult questions that the pro-life view must tackle and it took me a while to develop a consistent case, so these are my answers:

ShiningAmber:
What about in terms of rape? In your opinion, would abortion be an option to the violated mother?

Given that prolifers view the fetus as an independent human being (and if they are human beings, they are entitled equal treatment before the law), we see abortion as murder. In the case of rape, one evil deed does not justify another evil deed. The human being that is conceived bears no responsibility for the actions of his father. The conceived person, like the mother, is also a victim here. It is moral hypocrisy to condemn a man for violating the woman and treating her as an object while supporting the mother while she violates the unborn human and treats him/her as some medical ailment that needs to be removed.

Alright, let's stop there.

Define human. Define the point at which a sperm and an egg cease to be a cluster of cells and become something that is human and alive. Then prove it.

I'll save you the effort, you can't. This is one of those areas where we literally do not have the capacity to make such absolute statements by dint of our limitations.

So therefore, what moral hypocrisy is there? On one hand we have something (the raped woman) who is demonstratably human; we can percieve her and her intelligence, her sentience, her breathing, her pulse, all the charactersitics we associate with being alive. We can even see that she passes the most basic test of life; "I think, therefore I am."

Now on the other hand, we have a fetus. During the timeframe where abortion is orderarily permitted it does not have any form of intelligence or sentience, it does not breath, it does not interact with the world, it cannot survive if we remove it from the womb, in short, it can't pass the most basic test of life.

So what moral hypocrisy is there? One of these things is undisputably alive, the other is not undisputably alive, nor is there any concesses on when it becomes alive instead of merely being the potential to be alive.

Given that rape is a traumatizing experience for the woman, it is highly unlikely that she'll ever forget the experiece regardless of whether the child is born or not. A civilized society does not give the wronged party the right to kill an innocent blood-relative of the offender.

I take it you've niether been raped nor given birth, so your thoughts on what's "highly unlikey" or not is utterly irrelevant. Needless to say there are some women who have been raped and demonstratably showed signs of suffering further mental trauma at giving birth which in and of itself is a highly stressful event.

Now time for Anedotal Evidence time; I have a friend who has been raped and gotten pregnant due to it. She didn't chose to get an abortion, but the child died anyway. Despite never wishing to get an abortion herself, she doesn't fault rape victims who do chose to get abortions and is very much pro-choice. So who are you to tell her that she's wrong?

Still, since the human life was conceived without the mother's consent, she should not have the responsibility to raise the child once he/she is born. The state should take care of such cases and divert funds to build quality orphanages. The rapist should cover most of the expenses that go into the raising of the said child. Sadly, since abortion is a cheaper and a more convenient method, it is unlikely that we'll see such a switch from the government.

And what if the woman doesn't want to spend nine months pregnant because of something she didn't chose? This may suprise you, but pregnancy is not easy. The woman would have to change her entire lifestyle, she won't be able to work for the last few months, she'll be dealing with the physical side of things for months after the child has been delivered, not to mention the ever-present risk of dying in childbirth.

So you don't think she should have to raise the child, but you think she should be forced to carry it to term and completely change her life, all because of your beliefs.

This is my main bone of contention with pro-lifers; forcing other people to live by your beliefs that they don't share, for reasons you can't even prove.

Call me old fashioned,

I'll call you woefully out of touch with how humans live.

but people should have the discipline to subvert their carnal desires under their intellectual control and reserve it for marriage and when they are truly ready and willing to have children. Sex should not be some casual way of having fun and pleasure because of the sole reason that from such activity, an innocent human being with fundamental rights may arise.

ANd I say, who the fuck are you to tell people how they should live their lives? No honestly, just who the fuck are you to tell other people how they should live, who are you to dictate just waht things are for? Are you some form of subject matter expert? Are you God who created the universe and knows all it's secrets? Just what gives you the right to tell others how to live their lives but doesn't give them the right to do the same to you?

So in one post, you've managed to argue that a fetus isn't alive(something that no one with even a rudimentary understanding of the modern scientific definition of life would try and claim), that it should be acceptable to terminate people as long as they are in comas or non-REM sleep, that it should be acceptable to kill infants and severely crippled people due to their inability to survive without placing the burden of survival on another person, and that a woman's right to convenience supersedes another human's right to not have it's body violated simply because it is in an early stage of development...yeah, I think this post may take the "Extremist Post of the Week" award.

lowhat:

Shaoken:

al4674:
These are all difficult questions that the pro-life view must tackle and it took me a while to develop a consistent case, so these are my answers:

Given that prolifers view the fetus as an independent human being (and if they are human beings, they are entitled equal treatment before the law), we see abortion as murder. In the case of rape, one evil deed does not justify another evil deed. The human being that is conceived bears no responsibility for the actions of his father. The conceived person, like the mother, is also a victim here. It is moral hypocrisy to condemn a man for violating the woman and treating her as an object while supporting the mother while she violates the unborn human and treats him/her as some medical ailment that needs to be removed.

Alright, let's stop there.

Define human. Define the point at which a sperm and an egg cease to be a cluster of cells and become something that is human and alive. Then prove it.

I'll save you the effort, you can't. This is one of those areas where we literally do not have the capacity to make such absolute statements by dint of our limitations.

So therefore, what moral hypocrisy is there? On one hand we have something (the raped woman) who is demonstratably human; we can percieve her and her intelligence, her sentience, her breathing, her pulse, all the charactersitics we associate with being alive. We can even see that she passes the most basic test of life; "I think, therefore I am."

Now on the other hand, we have a fetus. During the timeframe where abortion is orderarily permitted it does not have any form of intelligence or sentience, it does not breath, it does not interact with the world, it cannot survive if we remove it from the womb, in short, it can't pass the most basic test of life.

So what moral hypocrisy is there? One of these things is undisputably alive, the other is not undisputably alive, nor is there any concesses on when it becomes alive instead of merely being the potential to be alive.

Given that rape is a traumatizing experience for the woman, it is highly unlikely that she'll ever forget the experiece regardless of whether the child is born or not. A civilized society does not give the wronged party the right to kill an innocent blood-relative of the offender.

I take it you've niether been raped nor given birth, so your thoughts on what's "highly unlikey" or not is utterly irrelevant. Needless to say there are some women who have been raped and demonstratably showed signs of suffering further mental trauma at giving birth which in and of itself is a highly stressful event.

Now time for Anedotal Evidence time; I have a friend who has been raped and gotten pregnant due to it. She didn't chose to get an abortion, but the child died anyway. Despite never wishing to get an abortion herself, she doesn't fault rape victims who do chose to get abortions and is very much pro-choice. So who are you to tell her that she's wrong?

Still, since the human life was conceived without the mother's consent, she should not have the responsibility to raise the child once he/she is born. The state should take care of such cases and divert funds to build quality orphanages. The rapist should cover most of the expenses that go into the raising of the said child. Sadly, since abortion is a cheaper and a more convenient method, it is unlikely that we'll see such a switch from the government.

And what if the woman doesn't want to spend nine months pregnant because of something she didn't chose? This may suprise you, but pregnancy is not easy. The woman would have to change her entire lifestyle, she won't be able to work for the last few months, she'll be dealing with the physical side of things for months after the child has been delivered, not to mention the ever-present risk of dying in childbirth.

So you don't think she should have to raise the child, but you think she should be forced to carry it to term and completely change her life, all because of your beliefs.

This is my main bone of contention with pro-lifers; forcing other people to live by your beliefs that they don't share, for reasons you can't even prove.

Call me old fashioned,

I'll call you woefully out of touch with how humans live.

but people should have the discipline to subvert their carnal desires under their intellectual control and reserve it for marriage and when they are truly ready and willing to have children. Sex should not be some casual way of having fun and pleasure because of the sole reason that from such activity, an innocent human being with fundamental rights may arise.

ANd I say, who the fuck are you to tell people how they should live their lives? No honestly, just who the fuck are you to tell other people how they should live, who are you to dictate just waht things are for? Are you some form of subject matter expert? Are you God who created the universe and knows all it's secrets? Just what gives you the right to tell others how to live their lives but doesn't give them the right to do the same to you?

So in one post, you've managed to argue that a fetus isn't alive(something that no one with even a rudimentary understanding of the modern scientific definition of life would try and claim), that it should be acceptable to terminate people as long as they are in comas or non-REM sleep, that it should be acceptable to kill infants and severely crippled people due to their inability to survive without placing the burden of survival on another person, and that a woman's right to convenience supersedes another human's right to not have it's body violated simply because it is in an early stage of development...yeah, I think this post may take the "Extremist Post of the Week" award.

Perhaps the response was a little extreme. I'm tempted to respond in a similar manner as well. I don't think some realize how stressful pregnancy really is, especially when a woman doesn't want it. Stressful doesn't even begin to describe it. And I feel as if you belittle the situation by saying

"a woman's right to convenience"

It's not convenience. It's her life.

I'll repeat that.

IT IS HER LIFE.

Does she not have the rights to her body? Is she not a person too? Is she less of a person by being pregnant? Does she lose rights simply because of what her gender is capable of? Being forced into pregnancy against your will?

I have to ask for the sake of argument, are you a woman? It is easy to say what you say when you're not the one being pregnant. It's easy to say what you say when you weren't possibly the one who was raped. It's easy to say what you say when you're not a woman. My god though, how would you feel if I said (in the case that you're male) you can't ever masturbate because you're killing potential children? That would be ridiculous. That would be controlling.

Why is what is going on in her body any of your business? Why can't she choose if she is going to go through NINE MONTHS OF PREGNANCY, PAIN, HORMONES, CHILD BIRTH AND MORE?

That is no CAKE WALK. YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEONE DO THAT. PREGNANCY IS NOT EASY. A FORCED PREGNANCY ON A WOMAN AGAINST HER WILL IS NO BETTER THAN RAPE.

lowhat:

Shaoken:

al4674:
These are all difficult questions that the pro-life view must tackle and it took me a while to develop a consistent case, so these are my answers:

Given that prolifers view the fetus as an independent human being (and if they are human beings, they are entitled equal treatment before the law), we see abortion as murder. In the case of rape, one evil deed does not justify another evil deed. The human being that is conceived bears no responsibility for the actions of his father. The conceived person, like the mother, is also a victim here. It is moral hypocrisy to condemn a man for violating the woman and treating her as an object while supporting the mother while she violates the unborn human and treats him/her as some medical ailment that needs to be removed.

Alright, let's stop there.

Define human. Define the point at which a sperm and an egg cease to be a cluster of cells and become something that is human and alive. Then prove it.

I'll save you the effort, you can't. This is one of those areas where we literally do not have the capacity to make such absolute statements by dint of our limitations.

So therefore, what moral hypocrisy is there? On one hand we have something (the raped woman) who is demonstratably human; we can percieve her and her intelligence, her sentience, her breathing, her pulse, all the charactersitics we associate with being alive. We can even see that she passes the most basic test of life; "I think, therefore I am."

Now on the other hand, we have a fetus. During the timeframe where abortion is orderarily permitted it does not have any form of intelligence or sentience, it does not breath, it does not interact with the world, it cannot survive if we remove it from the womb, in short, it can't pass the most basic test of life.

So what moral hypocrisy is there? One of these things is undisputably alive, the other is not undisputably alive, nor is there any concesses on when it becomes alive instead of merely being the potential to be alive.

Given that rape is a traumatizing experience for the woman, it is highly unlikely that she'll ever forget the experiece regardless of whether the child is born or not. A civilized society does not give the wronged party the right to kill an innocent blood-relative of the offender.

I take it you've niether been raped nor given birth, so your thoughts on what's "highly unlikey" or not is utterly irrelevant. Needless to say there are some women who have been raped and demonstratably showed signs of suffering further mental trauma at giving birth which in and of itself is a highly stressful event.

Now time for Anedotal Evidence time; I have a friend who has been raped and gotten pregnant due to it. She didn't chose to get an abortion, but the child died anyway. Despite never wishing to get an abortion herself, she doesn't fault rape victims who do chose to get abortions and is very much pro-choice. So who are you to tell her that she's wrong?

Still, since the human life was conceived without the mother's consent, she should not have the responsibility to raise the child once he/she is born. The state should take care of such cases and divert funds to build quality orphanages. The rapist should cover most of the expenses that go into the raising of the said child. Sadly, since abortion is a cheaper and a more convenient method, it is unlikely that we'll see such a switch from the government.

And what if the woman doesn't want to spend nine months pregnant because of something she didn't chose? This may suprise you, but pregnancy is not easy. The woman would have to change her entire lifestyle, she won't be able to work for the last few months, she'll be dealing with the physical side of things for months after the child has been delivered, not to mention the ever-present risk of dying in childbirth.

So you don't think she should have to raise the child, but you think she should be forced to carry it to term and completely change her life, all because of your beliefs.

This is my main bone of contention with pro-lifers; forcing other people to live by your beliefs that they don't share, for reasons you can't even prove.

Call me old fashioned,

I'll call you woefully out of touch with how humans live.

but people should have the discipline to subvert their carnal desires under their intellectual control and reserve it for marriage and when they are truly ready and willing to have children. Sex should not be some casual way of having fun and pleasure because of the sole reason that from such activity, an innocent human being with fundamental rights may arise.

ANd I say, who the fuck are you to tell people how they should live their lives? No honestly, just who the fuck are you to tell other people how they should live, who are you to dictate just waht things are for? Are you some form of subject matter expert? Are you God who created the universe and knows all it's secrets? Just what gives you the right to tell others how to live their lives but doesn't give them the right to do the same to you?

So in one post, you've managed to argue that a fetus isn't alive(something that no one with even a rudimentary understanding of the modern scientific definition of life would try and claim), that it should be acceptable to terminate people as long as they are in comas or non-REM sleep,

Perhaps you need to get some better reading comprehension, because I said nothing of the sort.

I am arguing that a Fetus is not a baby from conception, that there is a point where it becomes a baby but until that point it merely has the potential, not the actuality. Coma patients and those in non-REM sleep are still sentient, more than I can say for a fetus in the earliest stages of pregnancy.

that it should be acceptable to kill infants and severely crippled people due to their inability to survive without placing the burden of survival on another person,

Again, missing the point by the length of the Pacific. You know what the difference between an infant, a crippled person and a fetus? Two have actually been born.

and that a woman's right to convenience supersedes another human's right to not have it's body violated simply because it is in an early stage of development...

I am arguing that a fetus is yet to be a human, in the same way a freshly laid egg is not a chicken.

yeah, I think this post may take the "Extremist Post of the Week" award.

And I think yours will take the "missed the point by the longest of the month" award, so take your strawmen and kindly remove them from this forum, we're trying to have a grown up and mature conversation here without making up ludicirious claims about the others positions.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked